Slashdot Mirror
Unlimited Blood Supply From Stem Cells
Dave writes: "The ABC has a story on some interesting stem cell research going on at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Seems that during their research, they were able to create red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets that were indistinguishable from the real thing."
As is, undifferentiated, naive embryonic stem cells don't have a therapeutic use; they're too dangerous. What this story means is that we've learned how to shunt them down toward a particular cell lineage. We have here the potential to treat a wide variety of diseases; diabetes, Parkinson's, heart disease or many other disorders. This is a fantastic breakthrough; the genuine Holy Grail of medical science.
So, how long 'til someone starts using this commercially? How much do the unrefined techniques cost to make blood, versus cost of getting blood from donors and shipping them long distances? Presumably, blood manufacturing plants would be set up close to where they're needed, perhaps even in the hospitals themselves.
In fact, what do people think of the following model: a business is set up to develop manufacturing of these machines. At first, it leases blood production vats to its customers (first rich ones, then any as production becomes cheaper), using the money from leases to pay for development (including a forum for users of the system, to point out the good and the bad of various models). Over time, convert from prebuilt systems to kits, then to plans that hospitals can license so they can build their own (and with the rest of this plan announced so it's in the hospitals' self interest not to pirate). Then, once it gets cost of manufacture down to some reasonable price (say, under $1000 - in 2001 dollars - for a unit that can supply a small-city clinic for a year), it documents how to build these devices so cheaply and gradually shuts down, converting all leases to final sales. End result: technology is in the public domain, with an established tradition of end users building their own systems from commodity parts, and hopefully developed fast enough that no viable competitors can emerge to monopolize the field.
The only problem I can see with that is fees for licensing patents owned by anyone but the buisiness itself, for instance the university that discovered this process...
However, if the tech were available to rapidly cause a non-embryonic stem cell to do the same type of thing, a hospital could potentially create as much of my specific blood type etc. from my own cells as I might need, or grow new bone marrow from a healthy stem cell, or any number of things, without the current problems with rejection, etc. because the dna would presumably be an exact match to my own. Or creating a more unlimited supply of the T-cells which the HIV virus seems to mess with
Or (purely theoretical thoughts/questions here) a stem cell could be differentiated to the point of re-introducing (for example) the gene which is lacking in kids with cystic fibrosis, replacing pancreatric islet cells (which would cure juvenile diabetes, I think, etc.) again without so much danger of rejection.
What do y'all think?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I'd be more excited if they could do it from non-embryonic stem cells.
Think about stem cells this way, they're like organ donations. It's kind of sick, but the dead "person"* isn't using them anymore. We don't kill people to get kidneys, we don't kill people to get hearts, corneas, livers, or anything else. We just take the usable parts from the freshly dead.
It's probably disgusting, but it saves lives and otherwise the organs would be wasted. Stem cells are the same way, the research is going to save people who would otherwise die.
People do not have abortions or miscarriages to give science more research material. Get that? No one who would have lived is harmed. We don't kill unborn children for science. These are either cells grown expressly for that purpose or harvested from freshly dead.
* person is in quotes because dead things aren't people anymore.
So my statement about moral issues is not meant to be disingenous, just an acknowledgement that for many people -- myself included-- those considerations are there. Now before you get all worked up in responding -- I haven't made up my mind yet on this issue. And, at least at present, stem cell research outside the existing lines can and probably is taking place -- but without US federal government funding, the position taken by our current Prez.
But let's be clear here: the context in which you used the abbreviated word "fundies" presumably refers to people with a particular set of religious beliefs which you disagree with. But I find the use of the word "brain dead" to be frankly intolerant and disgustingly prejudiced, because, like a number or other posts I have seen on /., it assumes that everyone in a particular group is as irrational as the extreme fringes of the group. This is the same kind of thinking that tends to state things like "all believers in Islam are irrational supporters of terrorism", or that "all homosexuals are pedophiles", or --in perhaps the most famous study on prejudices --that "all children with X color eyes are smarter than all children with Y color eyes".
Returning to topic, however, I would wager that if you andf I sat down and talked, you would probably that some - but not all of my views on things to be similar to those expounded by what you would probably call "religious fundamentalists", even though most of my reasoning in arriving at those views came from completely different intellectual basis(es) [damn--forgot how to spell the plural of that word -- not enough sleep last night--definitely a bit of brain death gloing on this morning :-)]
But I would also wager that it would be an intelligent, rigorous conversation that would not allow you to conclude that I was *cough cough* "brain dead." If our conversation included the subject of stem cell research, I would probably learn something in the process that would take me closer to a fully defined position on the specific parts of the issue, because, as is always noted -- most of the embryos we are talking about will eventually be destroyed anyway.
Leaving these issues aside, what I would still really like to know more about is related to the questions of tissue rejection, namely if that tissue were developed from stem-cells not original to a patient's body would have the same kinds of issues that face people receiving organ transplants, etc., which is why I see the adult stem cell research as potentially more important.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I don't think (and am not a researcher, so this is more of a guess than a statement of fact) that the so-called sixty or so lines of stem cells okayed by the feds would include enough different DNA sets to apply to all of the kinds of problems and peoples that can ultimately be aided by the results of such research.
You might also look at another one of my replies regarding the issue of rejection, etc.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
That some lobby groups (universally based in fundamentalist religious grounds) have _claimed_ that there are moral issues, I sadly have no doubt. However, I repeat that it is ludicrous to suppose that there _should_ be "moral issues", given that the embryos under discussion are surplus to the requirements of the IVF program and would _certainly_ be destroyed in any event. There is no prospect whatsoever of these embryos "otherwise develop[ing] into a normal child". The choice is quite simply between allowing _therapeutic_ uses which could easily save uncounted lives and alleviate untold suffering, or just throwing them out, as happens now. Which is the moral choice?
Regarding my choice of words, you are correct, I was getting myself 'worked up'. However, I feel it is understandable to be worked up over the prospect of condemning aware, sentient human beings to _preventable_ suffering and death, for no reason. (Unless you can use the word 'reason' to describe this purely-religiously motivated lobbying to prevent surplus embryos which are destined to be discarded, from making a therapeutic contribution.)
The fact that the research is continuing elsewhere (and has already attracted some of the finest minds in the field to move out of the US to continue their work) is one I draw solace from. However, this does not allow me the luxury to shrug my shoulders. To provide another example, if the health care system wound down in the US, would you not care about that, given that there would still be functioning health care systems in other countries?
I do not resile from my revulsion against the anti-stem-cell-research lobby, which places the rights of nonsentient bits of tissue already destined for destruction _above_ the rights of aware, sentient human beings. If you found my use of the word "fundies" "frankly intolerant and disgustingly prejudiced", what if I describe the anti-stem-cell-research lobby as "motivated and funded by fundamentalist religious interests"? If you still finid that "prejudiced", kindly provide evidence that it is untrue.
My choice of the phrase "brain dead" was hasty. CodeShark, I am certainly willing to admit that, judging by the thoughtful tone of your posts, you sound as though you personally do not merit such a characterisation and I apologise. Instead of "brain dead", perhaps "lacking in compassion and rationality" would be a less 'worked up' way for me to describe the anti-stem-cell-research lobby.
*grin* The plural of basis is 'bases'. Irregular plurals are a bit of a trial, I quite agree. :)
*deep breath* Now, on to the matter of tissue rejection: from my understanding, adult stem cells, lacking the extreme plasticity of fetal ones, pose more rather than less of a risk of tissue rejection. The only way I can think of that adult cells might avoid such a risk is if they were harvested from the same patient they were to be used on. I am uncertain as to the feasibility of such a procedure, and even if it were possible, the problem with the lack of adaptability of adult stem cells would still remain.