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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Yes
If it wasn't for the fact that the countries that have a shortage of blood and trouble with AIDS in transfusions are exactly those countries that cannot afford to grown stem cells. Therefore all it does is make life in the US (and europe) cheaper. This will *not* alter the living conditions in poor countries!
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!
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.
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.
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?
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!
Charity organisation doing medical work in third world countries are able to buy basic drugs. Imagine the Red Cross being able to buy cheap blood in bulk and bring it in to disaster areas. They are certainly able to use anti-biotics large quantities. Why would cheap blood be any different?
You are truly underestimating the effect of industrialisation.
Reality or nothing.
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.
What we are talking about is *not* basic drugs. For instance: antibiotics can be kept in powder at room temperature for a long time. Blood cells will have to be kept on cold, and have a short life span.
Did you not read about the AIDS medicines in Africa? If you consider those 'basic drugs' how do you explain Africa is unable to afford them? Pharmaceutical companies are no charity mate.
What we consider basic lab environments in Europe and the US is usually equipment third world countries cannot afford (a reasonable centrifuge costs about $7000, and that's probably the cheapest instrument you'll need). An uninterupted stable power supply is pretty essential too.
Your dreams are nice, but unfortunately they are dreams.
There are big differences with drugs for fighting AIDS. The treatments based on those drugs go on indefinately, so the cost is substantial also for an industrialised country. One single blood transfusion can make a big difference for a person, and could hopefully be affordable by a western world charity.
There is also not much of competition in the AIDS treatment business. As others have pointed out here, blood donations work pretty well already today, so if/when blood productions become industrialised, it must be made so efficiantly that the cost beats the blood donation system. This means price pressure in a way that we do not find on AIDS drugs.
Even if a third world country can not afford the drugs or the necessary infrastructure for same drugs, they can still benefit from charities and UN programs. I may have nice dreams on this topic, but they are not unrealistic. You have dreams too, but they are just nightmares. Progress is not benefitting from such pessimism.
Reality or nothing.