Scientists Grow Human Thymus From Stem Cells

knight_23 writes: "The Herald Sun reports that Australian researchers have grown a functioning thymus from stem cells. The thymus is a small organ that is critical to the immune system. Human trials could begin within two years."

Comments

cloning and genetic engineering

[Jacer]

it's sad.... all the resrictions imposed upon advancements of science are a result of conseratives fearful of playing god, the uneducated massess control the politicians with their ideas, or lack of rather. a preist says it's wrong, they say it's wrong, politicians say it's wrong, so it is wrong, right? wrong! i'm for any medical advancement that saves the lives of people, but i guess my $0.02 is worth the same as the twits i disagree with...

Umbilical Stem Cells

[Yoda2]

It is too bad that more hospitals aren't allowing the donation of umbilical stem cells (stem cells collected from cord blood). They are largely an untapped resource and are usually considered PC even in the most conservative camps.

Re:Umbilical Stem Cells

[lobsterGun]

Even though the hospital may not support fetal stem cell donation, that does not stop you from banking the cells yourself. There are commercial services that will bank these cells for you for a resasonable fee. ViaCord and CBR are two such services.

I chose CBR for my son. I pray that he never needs the cells, but if he does, they will be there.

politcal debate

[redtoade]

Before we get 100 posts telling us that stem cell research is being held up by whacko Chrisitian right wing bible thumpers...

May I remind you that there are hundreds of Sci-Fi stories (books, TV, movies, etc...) debating the creation of an UNDERCLASS! Whether this be robots, animals, races or CLONES!!!

Space - Above and Beyond (FOX TV) "Tanks," human clones and "AIs"
Star Trek TNG: Data/Lor. And those stupid mouse looking robots that could synthesis their own tools.
Asimov I, Robot: self-explanatory
Max Headroom: body harvesters
Brave New World: alphas.

Any others? Feel free to add a few if you can think of them... I don't have time (I'm at work) to list all of the ones that I can think of, so please help out.

Anyway, I hate the idea of stem cell research. And I'm a self-proclaimed atheist. It's only a matter of time before somebody connects "test tube baby" technology with "cloning" technologies and grows their own stem cells from human fetuses.

Isn't this the creation of an underclass of humans whos purpose it is to serve the higher classes?

Re:politcal debate

[Kenja]

So because you saw on TV a show where clones where treated as slaves we shouldn't grow new livers for people who are going to die without one?

The hell?

Re:politcal debate

[SirKodiak]

Isn't this the creation of an underclass of humans whos purpose it is to serve the higher classes?

That's the issue of how the stem cells are procured. As mentioned in this comment there is a method of getting stem cells that doesn't rely on creating a brave-new-world style underclass.

Simply creating new organs in existing human beings (or mice) in no way creates an underclass.

It seems like the solution is not to outlaw stem cell research, but to ensure that procuring stem cells is done in an ethical manner. Differing opinions on what constitutes an ethical manner is what makes this such a sensitive subject.

Re:politcal debate

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Isn't this the creation of an underclass of humans whos purpose it is to serve the higher classes?

There's no reason it has to be. The beuaty of stem cell use is exactly that you can induce particular organs without having to grow the whole organism. That is, we decant a thymus from the vat instead of cloning and growing a whole new human (a la Parts: The Clonus Horror -- I shudder as much at the movie quality as the idea!).

So this is actually much less class-warfare-ish than straight cloning-and-harvesting. The real ethical hangup seems to lie in the source of stem cells... the best grade appears to be embryonic, which naturally raises red flags with a large number of people.

Re:politcal debate

[Anonymous Coward]

the creation of an underclass of humans whos purpose it is to serve the higher classes?
i have to add to this line of thought. what about plasma donation centers? does anyone else notice that they are conveniently located in poor parts of cities? also, think about the growing international black market for human organs. this isn't just an underclass of humans who "serve" higher classes; these people are being picked apart for the benefit of others.

I hate the idea of stem cell research. And I'm a self-proclaimed atheist.ditto. it's ignorant to frame this debate in terms of conservative v. liberal.

Applicable or theoretical?

[rector]

It is definitely a greate advance in the biological science. But it will take at least 5-10 years to make it practically useful. And all the claims about prospectives sound like a story about a PhD student who wanted to prove the applicability of his puerly theoretical thesis on descrete maths: -The present thesis is on descrete maths. Descrete maths is applied in synthesis of conatat element schemes. The latter are a model of relay circuits. And relays are used in various agricaltural machines, which are of a great use.

Re:Wrong focus?

[GigsVT]

holy grail of immunology

Interesting implications of that.

Moral Hazard.

I think at some point, if it isn't already happening, people will start taking larger chances with their bodies and health, because of this insurance policy.

While I think the research is great, and should continue, it should be interesting to see if people start really living longer and healthier, or after a point, people just become complacent with their health, trusting technology to fix them if something goes wrong.

Re:Suck on that, Mr. Bush...

[syntap]

How can you say that without knowing the type of stem cells they used, or even if they were embryonic where their source was? InspectorZero has InformationZero to base the comment on because the article doesn't give it.

Oh, and the sweetest day will be when you need new skin or lungs, and because US law doesn't allow the importing of exported Chinese prisonor farmed parts you won't be able to get it.

See how stupid you sound?

Cloning and genetic engineering--Good or Bad?

[quasi_steller]

I dissagree with you. I am by no means against technology (after all why would I read slashdot all of the time?) but that doesn't mean that I believe that we humans should dive into every technology that we develop.

The problem with technology and humans is that humans have a knack for doing more harm with a technology than good. To say that genetic engineering is only good is being very ignorant of humans' knack for doing harm. Don't get me wrong, not everybody is going to use these technologies for evil, but all it takes is another Hitler (who did plenty of expirements with genetics himself) to come along and figure out how to use genetic engineering to control many people.

Bill Joy (the chief computer scientist at Sun Microsystems) wrote an article in Wired Magazine that opened my eyes to the dangers of tecnology. I believe that every person who believes that genetic engineering is good (which it is in some cases, such as saving lives) should read this article. It can be found here.

Re:Wrong focus?

[tshak]

Good post. I really hope that we find a cure for AIDS and many of the cancers that we have. However, I think we spend way too much money on said research, and not enough on preventative research. For example, it is commonly known that many cancers are caused by bad diet, radioactive exposure, and toxic chemicals (many found in pesticides, plastics, cigarrettes, and other polutants). AIDS is also most commonly spread as a STD. These are all solveable problems with the right plans and cultural changes in place. Again, I really hope that we find cures for as many cancers as possible, and a cure for AIDS, but in America we focus way too little on prevention.