Organs can now be grown!

[Taem]

I found this article to be particularly interesting: Link

Apparently, several bladders were "grown" using the patients own DNA and successfully implanted without the negative 'side-effects' associated with organ transplants (i.e. body rejection). The article claims science will soon allow us to grow any organ in the human body. This is really wonderful news! Hundreds, if not thousands of people in the US alone die while waiting for an organ transplant and now a method has been developed to ensure everyone can have one. I don't know about anyone else, but I find this avenue of science to be very exciting and look forward to what’s to come.

[Occhidiangela]

I found this article to be particularly interesting: Link

Apparently, several bladders were "grown" using the patients own DNA and successfully implanted without the negative 'side-effects' associated with organ transplants (i.e. body rejection). The article claims science will soon allow us to grow any organ in the human body. This is really wonderful news! Hundreds, if not thousands of people in the US alone die while waiting for an organ transplant and now a method has been developed to ensure everyone can have one. I don't know about anyone else, but I find this avenue of science to be very exciting and look forward to what’s to come.
[right][snapback]106212[/snapback][/right]

Heard about this on the radio the other day. What are the long term ramifications, if any?

Skin is an organ. Does this mean skin can be regrown and transplanted, to undo the massive damage done in severe burn cases? What impact would this have on skin cancer? Can we stop using sun screen? ;) Will Hollywood beauties replace their skins rather than get yet another face lift? Interesting points to ponder.

Throughout the Western world, thousands of people die every year waiting for donor organs and thousands more never make it on to the waiting-lists; the potential benefits are enormous.

Instead of relying on organs from other bodies, doctors are investigating replacements grown by farming human tissue.

Anthony Atala, director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine, North Carolina, who led the trial, said it was a vital step forward. "We have shown regenerative medicine techniques can be used to generate functional bladders that are durable," he said.

I note that people die of considerably more mundane ailments all the time in the "non Western world."

While this is a brilliant breakthrough for medicine and health science, not to mention biology, consider the following:

The world's population is in no danger of heading into negative growth. Is this a necessity or a luxury? From an evolutionary perspective, does this not aid and abet watering down the special gene pool? If dealing with a congenital ailment, what is the good of cloning bad tissue? Of course, it can't hurt to try and reboot the bladder, as it were. :D

I imagine if it is someone in one's family, it would be seen as a necessity -- if one can afford to do this. This takes us back to the non Western World problem of not being able to afford a medical procedure, for most people. Of course, having the option beats having your kids die in front of you from a failed organ.

Save a few thousand out of a few billion: not statistically meaningful, but powerful stuff in each individual case, among the wealthy.

I note that on the front page of the link, it is suggested that some people think donkeys make better companions than wives. What organs would one clone to save one's a_s_s? :lol:

Occhi

[jahcs]

As this technology progressess:
Would it be cheaper to grow a heart or do multiple bypass surgeries?
If someone is diabetic can they get a new pancreas?

With the progress being made in gene therapy and the like I wonder if in the future they can correct some congenital defects?

What about road trips? Can folks on long trips get an extra bladder? :P

[Munkay]

As this technology progressess:
Would it be cheaper to grow a heart or do multiple bypass surgeries?
If someone is diabetic can they get a new pancreas?

What is unclear yet is the condition of the new organ grown - in the far future will it be possible to grow a heart from tissue in a 80 year old and grow a heart equivalent to when the patient was 20 year olds? Or is the new heart, albeit less clogged with cholesteral, still an 'old' heart?

Even further, can the organs be engineered to last longer and be stronger? Can they be used to extend human life much longer than naturally possible?

And as you mentioned, what is the cost of this procedure? Could this become the new 'luxury' surgery - get a new cholesterol free heart on your 50th birthday for a measely 5 figure number?

With the progress being made in gene therapy and the like I wonder if in the future they can correct some congenital defects?

Well, so far it has been used to correct one congential defect:

All the patients were born with a congenital defect, spina bifida, which is associated with poor bladders

As for this,

What about road trips?  Can folks on long trips get an extra bladder? :P

:lol:

Cheers,

Munk

[Chaerophon]

The world's population is in no danger of heading into negative growth. Is this a necessity or a luxury? From an evolutionary perspective, does this not aid and abet watering down the special gene pool? If dealing with a congenital ailment, what is the good of cloning bad tissue? Of course, it can't hurt to try and reboot the bladder, as it were.

I know you're playing devil's advocate here, but I don't think that we need to take evolution as a moral imperative... :)

Anyways, my two cents? Wonderful news! I do worry about the ramifications that Munk mentioned, re: "luxury surgery", but assuming that we don't develop a new "overclass" of immortals, I think that saving people from the ravages of cancer, disease, and defects will always be a good thing.

[pakman]

This reminds meof the movie "The Island" that I saw the other day. Interesing idea of how you start playing God and things go down the tubes all because of human curiosity.

[Taem]

This reminds meof the movie "The Island" that I saw the other day. Interesing idea of how you start playing God and things go down the tubes all because of human curiosity.
[right][snapback]106232[/snapback][/right]

Funny, that movie is the first thing my wife and I started discussing after having read the news article. Makes me wonder where they "grew" those bladders from anyways :P .

[DeeBye]

This reminds me of the movie "The Island" that I saw the other day.
[right][snapback]106232[/snapback][/right]

Watch "The Island" and "Gattaga" back-to-back and then put on your tinfoil hat. I thought both movies were excellent.


Also, I think it's absolutely hilarious that someone named "MEAT" posted a thread called "Organs can now be grown!" :lol:

[GenericKen]

Watch "The Island" and "Gattaga" back-to-back and then put on your tinfoil hat.  I thought both movies were excellent.
[right][snapback]106242[/snapback][/right]

Or better yet, read Shelly's Frankenstein and stay away from crap-tastic movies.


Haven't we been growing skin for some time now? I'll be impressed once someone manages to grow a stomach.

[eppie]

I found this article to be particularly interesting: Link

Apparently, several bladders were "grown" using the patients own DNA and successfully implanted without the negative 'side-effects' associated with organ transplants (i.e. body rejection). The article claims science will soon allow us to grow any organ in the human body. This is really wonderful news! Hundreds, if not thousands of people in the US alone die while waiting for an organ transplant and now a method has been developed to ensure everyone can have one. I don't know about anyone else, but I find this avenue of science to be very exciting and look forward to what’s to come.
[right][snapback]106212[/snapback][/right]

Well, don't be too positive now. These bladder were grown from healthy cells of the bladder of the person in question. The bladder is a very simple organ. It consists basicly of the same kind of cells in a ball shape. So they used a mould on which they dropped solution with these cells and waited untill the grew into a nice closed "shell".

When you want to "make" things like kidneys or livers (organ which "fail" much more often) it is not this simple. Those organs consist of many, many different kinds of cells, and are not hollow, but have a very complicated structure that needs to be obtained if it has to function properly.

Making kindneys or livers might for this reason (if at all) cost us another 50 years, at least.

[Occhidiangela]

Or better yet, read Shelly's Frankenstein and stay away from crap-tastic movies.
Haven't we been growing skin for some time now? I'll be impressed once someone manages to grow a stomach.[right][snapback]106248[/snapback][/right]

The latter can be achieved by drinking a lot of extra beer. :D

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

The latter can be achieved by drinking a lot of extra beer.  :D

Occhi
[right][snapback]106268[/snapback][/right]

*snort*

I have seen a few of that sort. :whistling:

[Maitre]

--snip--
The bladder is a very simple organ. It consists basicly of the same kind of cells in a ball shape.
--snip--
[right][snapback]106256[/snapback][/right]

That was going to be my point. Growing skin might be something on the horizon as it is also a relatively simple organ.

On another note, there already is a caste that has access to luxury surgery. Elective cosmetic surgery is a toy to some of the affluent. If they don;t like the effects of age, they go in one day for a procedure, then take a vacation. When they come back, all their friend marvel at the good a few weeks away did them.

On a third note, I saw an interesting show last week (Go PBS!). It showed a graph of the number of impact craters on the moon (as a proxy for the number that would be expected on the earth), and the number of species emerging on earth. The basic relationship is that a huge spike in impacts begins about 450 million years ago, which coincides with a huge jump in the number of emergent species. Basically, the question was did life result from the additional chemicals brought from space, or were these impacts the type of stress that drives natural selection. I'm not trying to answer that, but it seems to me, humanity has come to a point where evolutionary pressure on our species is practically nil, despite our ability to apply evolutionary pressure to every other species on the planet. We are indeed becomming weaker as a species, and we are preventing the weak from dying off (remember the corollary to only the strong survive is all the weak must die). Whether this is virtuous or not is an issue for smarter people than me. I'm just wondering if my ancestors did anything other than sanitize phones (2 points if you get the reference).

[ShadowHM]

I'm just wondering if my ancestors did anything other than sanitize phones (2 points if you get the reference).
[right][snapback]106313[/snapback][/right]

/hijack

It is now April; has a new Jeunemaitre emerged yet?

/more hijack

Maybe your ancestors lucked out on their working environment? Kinda like a reverse of The Chemical Workers song by Great Big Sea?

Or was it merely the luck of #42?

[Maitre]

/hijack

It is now April;  has a new Jeunemaitre emerged yet?

/more hijack

Maybe your ancestors lucked out on their working environment?  Kinda like a reverse of The Chemical Workers song by Great Big Sea?

Or was it merely the luck of #42?
[right][snapback]106316[/snapback][/right]

2 points to you then. Enough back hints to realize you got it.

2nd - I actually just answered the same question from Premezilla in another thread. I'll give you the same answer: I've been replaced. I was planning on a new thread when the photographic evidence was available, but I had to get a PI that would work in Toontown. Another few weeks if you please, then all will be revealed, although, perhaps the identities of those involved will be altered to protect their privacy. Oh, no :ph34r: I've said to-oo much. I've said enough. :goes off quietly singing to himself: thats me in the corner, that's me in the spot-light...

[Chesspiece_face]

We are indeed becomming weaker as a species, and we are preventing the weak from dying off (remember the corollary to only the strong survive is all the weak must die).  [right][snapback]106313[/snapback][/right]

Ok i've been holding off but i can't stand it any more. This concept that evolution is a process wherein a species gradually moves closer and closer to some notion of "perfection" is incorrect. That's not how evolution works. And the definition of "survival of the fittest" that people most often use in correspondence with the aforementioned falacy is also incorrect.

Evolution, at its core, is only a process to force variety with the idea that the more variety (in a genetic sense) the more chances that the species will be able to overcome environmental obstacles. there is no gaurantee that evolutionary adaptations will be helpful to a species and in many cases what was originaly an adaptation later becomes maladaptive. There is a higher number of cases of sickle cell anemia in people of african decent, this occurance has been shown to derive from a particular genetic attribute that was originaly an adaptation to resist malaria.

Survival of the fittest is not cumulative. In other words: the "fit" of one generation having offspring will not necisarily create a more "fit" second generation. At it's heart Survival of the Fittest only means that the "fit" are those that live long enough to create self reliable offspring, nothing more. Thier genetic qualities are not necissarily better or worse than any other.

The only way that Humans, or any other species, could be getting genetically weaker is if evolution stopped creating variety. This concept of "watering down the gene pool" is contrary to how evolution actually works. It is, however, a general misconception and propagated by people based on ingrained cultural xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and racism. (which isn't to say you are any of those things, just that many people misconceptions on the ways evolution works.)

[Rinnhart]

Heard about this on the radio the other day.  What are the long term ramifications, if any? 

Skin is an organ.  Does this mean skin can be regrown and transplanted, to undo the massive damage done in severe burn cases?  What impact would this have on skin cancer?  Can we stop using sun screen?  ;)  Will Hollywood beauties replace their skins rather than get yet another face lift?  Interesting points to ponder. 

Very Gibsonesque, Occhi.

I  note that people die of considerably more mundane ailments all the time in the "non Western world."

While this is a brilliant breakthrough for medicine and health science, not to mention biology, consider the following:

The world's population is in no danger of heading into negative growth.  Is this a necessity or a luxury?  From an evolutionary perspective, does this not aid and abet watering down the special gene pool?  If dealing with a congenital ailment, what is the good of cloning bad tissue?  Of course, it can't  hurt to try and reboot the bladder, as it were.  :D 

I imagine if it is someone in one's family, it would be seen as a necessity -- if one  can afford to do this.  This takes us back to the non Western World problem of not being able to afford a medical procedure, for most people.  Of course, having the option beats having your kids die in front of you from a failed organ.

Save a few thousand out of a few billion: not statistically meaningful, but powerful stuff in each individual case, among the wealthy. 

I note that on the front page of the link, it is suggested that some people think donkeys make better companions than wives.  What organs would one clone to save one's a_s_s?  :lol: 

Occhi
[right][snapback]106219[/snapback][/right]

Well, humanity's an evolutionary dead end so long as we keep the "flaws" around (and are bound to planetary life on earth)- but do we need to evolve? What do we gain by cutting and pasting what we think is desirable? What do we risk losing?

Genius is as much a fluke of genetics as schizophrenia. Do we quell one and encourage the other without understanding either? Do we really want to hand Permanent Solutions to a medical establishment that already has half the country popping pills for disorders they don't understand?

[Guest]

Ok i've been holding off but i can't stand it any more.  This concept that evolution is a process wherein a species gradually moves closer and closer to some notion of "perfection" is incorrect.  That's not how evolution works.  And the definition of "survival of the fittest" that people most often use in correspondence with the aforementioned falacy is also incorrect.

Evolution, at its core, is only a process to force variety with the idea that the more variety (in a genetic sense) the more chances that the species will be able to overcome environmental obstacles.  there is no gaurantee that evolutionary adaptations will be helpful to a species and in many cases what was originaly an adaptation later becomes maladaptive.  There is a higher number of cases of sickle cell anemia in people of african decent, this occurance has been shown to derive from a particular genetic attribute that was originaly an adaptation to resist malaria.

Survival of the fittest is not cumulative.  In other words: the "fit" of one generation having offspring will not necisarily create a more "fit" second generation.  At it's heart Survival of the Fittest only means that the "fit" are those that live long enough to create self reliable offspring, nothing more.  Thier genetic qualities are not necissarily better or worse than any other.

The only way that Humans, or any other species, could be getting genetically weaker is if evolution stopped creating variety.  This concept of "watering down the gene pool" is contrary to how evolution actually works.  It is, however, a general misconception and propagated by people based on ingrained cultural xenophobia, ethnocentrism, and racism.  (which isn't to say you are any of those things, just that many people misconceptions on the ways evolution works.)
[right][snapback]106321[/snapback][/right]

No.

It possible(I would say probable) that society has a created a mechanism which is working counter to biological fitness.

Out of decency we save people with lethaly flawed genotypes - then they reproduce. We do this frequently.
Almost everytime you see a recovered cancer or heart attack patient having kids for instance you see genes that would have natrally become less common instead staying in the pop .

I have been making this point on this forum for years BTW. Also drop the inference to racism, loser its a 2 bit insulting trick to discourage people from disagreeing with you.

[Occhidiangela]

  Oh, no :ph34r: I've said to-oo much.  I've said enough.  :goes off quietly singing to himself: thats me in the corner, that's me in the spot-light...
[right][snapback]106317[/snapback][/right]

So, you have stopped going to church?

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Evolution, at its core, is only a process to force variety with the idea that the more variety (in a genetic sense) the more chances that the species will be able to overcome environmental obstacles.  there is no gaurantee that evolutionary adaptations will be helpful to a species and in many cases what was originaly an adaptation later becomes maladaptive.  There is a higher number of cases of sickle cell anemia in people of african decent, this occurance has been shown to derive from a particular genetic attribute that was originaly an adaptation to resist malaria.

Survival of the fittest is not cumulative.  In other words: the "fit" of one generation having offspring will not necisarily create a more "fit" second generation.  At it's heart Survival of the Fittest only means that the "fit" are those that live long enough to create self reliable offspring, nothing more.  Thier genetic qualities are not necissarily better or worse than any other.

The only way that Humans, or any other species, could be getting genetically weaker is if evolution stopped creating variety. 
[right][snapback]106321[/snapback][/right]

OK, genetic diversity is a "hedging of bets" at the species level. I am with you.

While you make some very good points, we should not forget the synergistic effect of nature AND nurture. Developing an advanced brain means nothing if it isn't used. Adapting sound survival strategies can overcome any number of purely genetic obstacles. Put a different way, some of the environmental obstacles are within us. As another example of non optimal evolutionary development, the appendix, to go with your sickle cell example.

Occhi