Slashdot Mirror
Human Blood Cells Grown
exceed writes: "MSNBC has an interesting article on researchers that have developed the first human blood cells by growing embryonic stem cells in a culture containing mouse tissue which encouraged development of blood cells. The result, they report, was cell colonies that 'appear identical to those produced from human bone marrow cells.' Similar work has been done like this with mice, but this is the first time human blood cells have been developed from embryonic stem cells."
Evil Stem Cell Researchers Work to Stop Red Cross Blood Drives!!
...followed by a long set of statistics about how many lives blood drives have saved and about how awful it will be if they stop happening, or even become less common.
-Rob
i hope that it's remembered that all measurements are +- something
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I hope there is at least some study done on whether or not there has been any gene contamination from the mouse cells. There is concern that several of the strains of 'allowed' stem cell lines are already contaminated with mouse DNA and not viable for placement into humans...
Perhaps a Genome project again?
This is the sort of thing political pressure is going to push this straight through the FDA, FTC, etc. and it's NOT going to be a merry occasion when we find out just why the researchers involved were so particular about their word usage.
Very good work by the scientists, but this by no means mean that there is going to be help tomorrow for people with bonemarrow cancer or other problems where bloodcells are of use. The scientists face years of work before they can have a method available that would allow large scale manufacturing of bloodcells of any possible type. And that is if they are allowed to continue their work that is.
That flip-side of the coin is of course if this is just research that will lead on to something darker, more sinister. Personally I would much prefer if cloning of full beings, human or not, was prevented until it can be proven that the human race is capable of coping with all aspects of the philosophy and mindset around cloning. Unfortunately I can see this already being ruined by corporate greed and to be used as a tool by the rich to get richer and to "keep the masses at bay"...
Cynic - who, me?
Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
MSBNC? Is that some new type of proprietary cable connection?
"MSBNC has an interesting article on researchers"
Ya may wanna correct the misspelling of MSNBC...
Stem cell research is not the same as cloning. Stem cells are the cells from which every cell in the body originate. Stem cells also agree to keep dividing, as opposed of brain cells for example. The problem is to "convince" the stem cells to form a specific type of cell.
Basically this kind of research could revolutionize medicine, in the long run anyway. This particular advance could be very good news for leukemia patients, and other blood-cell disese patients.
.: Max Romantschuk
quoted from article /because stem cells have the ability to continue reproducing themselves./
I haven't seen that one before. If that is true can there really be a shortage of available lines? Or is the "shortage" simply exist because the taxpayers don't have to pony up for new ones or corporate intrest (meaning we ain't sharing)
I like the fact that this guy did not use Federal funds, because it proves to naysayers that research can continue without them, mainly because of the importance of what we may find.
You don't need government money if the research has such big payoffs at the end, and it only encourages competition to find these solutions.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You are so NOT funny!
Har Har Har
PEOPLE, DO NOT CLICK ON THE LINK IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE.
In our nation's capital this week: Blood donors, at risk of being "outsourced" protested on capital hill by slashing their wrists in an apparent attempt at a mass suicide. One of the protesters was overheard to have said "if there ain't no reason for giving, there ain't no reason for living" and "auuuugh I'm dying -- help!".
If they can have a major production of blood, the big bloodsortage in most countries could be solved AND the risk of getting AIDS by getting a transfusion will disappear.
42 + 1 = 42
If these blood cells, produced from embryonic stem cells, are identical to ones produced from human marrow, why couldn't we just culture these using human marrow? Yes, I realize the marrow extraction process might be a little painful, but it would eliminate any moral issues from the research. (Yes, yes, I know, flame away about being a reactionary conservative for even considering that there might be moral issues here and standing in the way of science. The fact remains, there are indeed some of us out here who worry about it.)
The presidents decision involved federal funding. That means using money taken from law-abiding citizens against their will under the threat of violence if they do not comply. Indeed our history and that of other countries both ancient and modern is full of cases where law abiding citizens who contribute greatly to society through service and other resources (like philanthropic donations) are jailed, gunned down and have their lives and those lives of friends, family and descendents ruined in the name of 'the people'.
The simple logic is this: if an issue is important to people so that we say we 'want it to be funded', then ask yourselves why then must those same "socially conscience" people be forced to fund that issues processes. Perhaps by putting off getting their next hard drive, CD, game, gadget, TV, DVD, beer, etc... we could contribute voluntarily? Also, what kind of a person can say they are kind, giving and open minded when they both force others to bend to their will and then refuse to look at alternatives in the case that their process is not showing favorable results?
As citizens of the US, we have tremendous opportunity to live the lives we choose, which includes supporting the issues we feel strongly about. With freedom comes responsibility and we can choose to practice that freedom and live like humans, or sit back like talking monkeys and let everything be 'taken care of' for us.
History teaches us, at the very least, not be too surprised when the same organization we empower to control our neighbors is inevitable turned on us in its ever increasing goal of control and subjugation. So basically, please remember that the media and the bureaucrats live off of the conflict and spin, but we can choose to make real progress... imagine ACTION being preferred over rhetoric.
BTW, I would advise checking with the BBB and other such groups to insure you reach ethical philanthropic organizations. I just wish this could be extended to include bureaucracies as well.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
"Researchers Create Human Blood Cells" using embryonic stem cells. -By Randolph E. Schmid -ChicagoTribune
I got the link from:
http://HavenWorks.com/health/stem-cell/
It's a webliography of stem - cell news.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Quote from SNL's Weekend Update:
"Scientists have invented a car that runs on pecans. That sounds like a good idea until you consider that pecans are like $10 a jar. I've got an idea for a car that runs on Fabrige eggs and bald eadle heads."
Today: UN Racism Conference Moved to FYAD Forum On EZBoards.com
(http://www.ridiculopathy.com/index.php?display
This article provides more information on the subject, including potential benefits of this technology: infusing a patient with blood cells from a stem cell line could improve the chances that their body would accept organ transplants from the same source.
I was getting severly annoyed by some of the attitudes expressed on this site until I realized - I'm arguing ethics with a bunch of software and sysadmin geeks.
*WHEW* and to think that one could think this is all there was...
People don't like needles. They hurt. And if you get an incompetent nurse, he or she can kill you with so much as an air bubble accidentally entering your blood. Rarely, a contaminated needle will infect a patient or a health care worker.
And of course there were thousands of deaths from AIDS infected blood in the 1980s. Who says that some other blood-transmitted disease isn't lurking that we haven't discovered yet?
I only trust the safety of our blood supply as much as I trust the lab technicians to properly test and handle it. Many of them are highly skilled at cheating their annual drug tests.
Fortunately, it would seem people are becoming wise to certain specific instances of this, such as the rise of interest in organic foods and non-hormone laden meats. Unfortunately, it would seem many only reach this point if it is pounded into their skulls, and presented with dancing clowns and the latest fad of music. Plus, it seems to me, IMHO, that while the specific lessons are learned, it is rare that true enlightenment is achieved. OK, break out the analogy police 'cause this will be bad. Imagine sticking a fork into an electric socket and living, but getting a nasty jolt. While many would argue that by learning not to stick forks into electric sockets is the sign of intelligence, I think it is wisdom that is trully important. Many other lessons can be learned, from learning not to stick ANYTHING in the socket, testing to see if it is live first or taking the appropriate precautions on through the lesson of simply being cautious of situations in which you are unsure of consequences of interacting with it/them. I might just as well learn not to stick my hand on a stove before checking its status first, or maybe even learn that appearances are deceiving.
Here, I think that it would be fantastic to eventually be able to grow replacement 'parts' for people, but I distrust anyone who takes a flippant attitude of 'we know all (or most) of what there is to know about [X]'. Its been that attitude that led to my scrapping of that person (or a victim) off the street. (Paramedic)
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
This is truly fantastic news. No matter where you are in the world, blood is a required substance which is in finite quantities, not to mention the different blood types which mean that you might be lucky and share a common group, or you might be unlucky and... well, not.
If you don't share a commond blood group (A rhesus negative ? Is that one ? Can't quite remember) then not only could you find yourself in difficulty, once you are out of hospital you will no doubt be bombarded with requests for you to give blood... and often.
Now toss into the formula the growing number of countries who won't accept blood donations from people who have been in countries around the time of the BSE crisis and you start to realise quite how needed this discovery is.
One question that does come to mind... does this mean that certain religious groups will no longer have a reason to refuse blood transfusions, blood as in synthetic blood ?
Furthermore, artificial blood would be available not only to the general population that would accept a "real blood" transfusion (iow, those who would accept blood transfusions now, if they had the need) but also to groups who would refuse a real blood transfusion.
Oh, it also doesn't face the ethical issues that have cropped up with embryonic stem cells. I can see it already, the flood of /. posters blasting conservatives--sorry, you are not scientific, or educated, as you are already behind the times with what research is and has been available for YEARS now.
Type A = Altruist
Type B = Born with it
Type O = Official laboratory
Type AB = Abortion By-product
And coming soon to a blood bank near you ...
Type M = Mouse
Type S = Sheep
Type G = Monkey
Type Yin-Yang = Various other animals of the Chinese Zodiac
Thank you.
damn... this is the kind of work i was interested in doing after college. At this rate, they'll have constructed every organelle known to man by the time i'm a junior. Time to find a new major...
The question I am about to ask may be horribly naive, but I am trying to be serious as this would have weight with me when considering the ethical implications of stem cells.
Is it possible to take stem cells, possibly subject them to some procedure, and then reinsert them into a uterus such that they will function as a new zygote?
Afterall a zygote (fertilized egg) is a type of cell, albeit a rather special one. Typically stem cells are harvested from relatively early in the embryonic development cycle, and hence are not far removed from the zygote. I know the possibility sounds like something out of Brave New World, but if I understand correctly identical twins do something similar. In the formation of identical twins, cells from the original embryo seperate at an early stage but continue developing to form another whole person, or at least that's what I've been told.
Maybe it's a bit much to hope for, but maybe one of Slashdot's readers has enough background in stem cell research to comment on the possiblity I raise.
Therefore all it does is make life in the US (and europe) cheaper. This will *not* alter the living conditions in poor countries!
I am confused by what you mean here. Do you mean that life in the US will become (less valuable) cheaper, or that the treatment and sustainance of life in the US for those who suffer bone marrow and other blood-replenishment problems will become (less expensive) cheaper?
WRT the so-called "third world" you are right, if the Western style patent system is allowed to reign supreme over the entire planet then all of these publicly funded areas of research (as well as any privately funded areas of research, of course) will be patented by universities and private corporations and any treatments developed will remain out of reach of most westerners and virtually everyone in the "third world." However, this is a direct result of the inherent flaws of widespread government monopoly entitlements granted to businesses (and in the United States that includes Universities) and the monopoly pricing that ensues. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any alleged flaws in the research itself, or any inherent costs in the methodologies developed.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
WRT the so-called "third world" you are right, if the Western style patent system is allowed to reign supreme over the entire planet then all of these publicly funded areas of research (as well as any privately funded areas of research, of course) will be patented by universities and private corporations and any treatments developed will remain out of reach of most westerners and virtually everyone in the "third world."
Two caveats:
1) Patents have a limited life span - 20 years. Maybe we should reduce that slightly, but the point is that all IT eventually becomes available to all.
2) "Third World" countries are free to do their own R&D to develop and patent new drugs, and sell them to the US.
I don't think the human race has proven to be capable of coping with all aspects of the philosophy and mindset around, say, agriculture. Or living around other people. Or any number of things we've had around for our whole history as a species.
You think we're going to do a full ethical analysis on *cloning* before getting into it? It is to laugh!
No Prob. Just a quick email to abuse and this asshole is toast. Once again you all DO NOT CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINK.....
The real issue here isn't whether one can produce blood in quantities - this is probably never going to be relevant, really. But we are on the brink of discovering how to produce organs on demand, and how to repair brain damages etc. Possibly even from a person's own stem cells - even adults contain stem cells, and apparently some of these are more flexible than previously thought.
The biggest hindrance right now appears to be 'ethical' scruples - this seems very odd to me, considering the total lack of any kind of ethics and moral that is common amongst politicians and religious leaders (yes, I actually said that). How can anyone blame, say, Jehovah's Witnesses for denying their children blood transfusions in this context?
The ethics in this is quite simple to figure out, I think. What is most important: the very real benefits that this research will give us, or the concerns about the 'human life' that is destroyed when they extract stem cells from an already aborted fetus? Hell, each time you wipe your behind you discard more human cells than what we're talking about here.
Watch out - I've been involved in stunningly huge flamewars over this very point, simply because people are so damned impatient these days.
Not to diminish the importance of this achievement, but I was wondering how far along we are with the development of mouse blood cells from human tissue?
Humans have been donating blood for years, but very few mice donate blood because they can't read. I think they'd like to, but they can never tell where the clinics are or what hours they'll be open. It seems reasonable therefore for the focus to be on creating synthetic mouse blood first.
I'm sure that if they mice out there could read this, they'd agree.
the fear was that mouse borne viruses would be transmitted to the human embryonic stem cells, not that mouse genes would migrate from mouse cell to human cell.
Our cells will not exchange DNA between themselves, or with cells of other types. Not naturally, anyway.
The concern is that mouse cell lines may be contaminated with viruses that could infect human cell lines. Just like several new strains of flu seem to come out of China every year due to pig/people interactions, this type of contamination could have serious public health implications.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Unfortunatley, some of those who will be deciding if technology like this is going to recieve funding would rather bleed to death than consent to its propagation.
"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere."
-Isaac Asimov
Will you look forward to the day when the gov't can modify your child's genes so she/he doesn't have any "tendencies to oppose the status quo" or "tendencies to favor independent thought over what gov't/business knows is 'best' for us"?
This technology CAN be abused, and that would be a VERY BAD thing. Genetics can be used for great evils - imagine if Adolf Hitler had this kind of knowlege!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Very true
2) "Third World" countries are free to do their own R&D to develop and patent new drugs, and sell them to the US.
great, so if the US withholds all donations to the third world to stop R&D, they might get more patents in the future!
you may not have thought about possible abuse enough
imagine a human body, complete in every detail but conciousness
this body is an organ factory, take what you want
does this body have any rights? can you do with it whatever you like?
for supplying some links to inform us of what's available now
it's obviously important to you
from an Anonymous Coward?
QED
You do not understand patents. a US patent is only valid in the US, not anywhere else. In africa there are no patents whatsoweve. My point is Africa does not have the facilities or the money to set up a stem cell plant
At least the introduction and some of the discussion is readable for a layman like me. People with paranoid ideas about non-ethical and safety-blind researchers would benefit reading some if this. To quote:
Reality or nothing.