Slashdot Mirror
Growing Insulin
McLuhanesque writes "The Globe and Mail reports that a Calgary biotech firm has developed a process to turn genetically modified safflower oil into human insulin in commercial quantities. The process reduces capital costs by 70% and product cost by 40%. 'SemBioSys says it can make more than one kilogram of human insulin per acre of safflower production. That amount could treat 2,500 diabetic patients for one year and, in turn, meet the world's total projected insulin demand in 2010 with less than 16,000 acres of safflower production.'"
As a type 1, insulin dependent, diabetic, I really don't care. I want a cure. I don't want more externally produced insulin, I want to make it myself again.
on how many diabetics are *produced* from an acre of sugar cane or corn used to make corn syrup. Just so we can see if it all balances out.....
As a nurse, with a specialization in diabetic care, I am always chomping at the bit for new technology with diabetes. It is sad that so many cases go untreated, ending in loss of limbs, eyesight and so much more. In the end, taxpayers get hit with the brunt of the bill, because the majority of those who do not treat their diabetes neglect to do so out of financial inability.
For there to be a light at the end of this proverbial tunnel is amazing news. Let's hope that this continues to be researched, tried and brought to the general population with as little convolusion from outside sources as possible.
Sadly, medicine is still business first and foremost. Some drug company will make a mint from this. Let's hope that someone somewhere has a conscience that won't allow them to make this treatment as financially restrictive as most everything else is.
what they NEED to work on is the way the body builds a tollerance to the insulin. After 20 years of using it, my dosages are up sixfold. if they crack the nut that stops the body from building up a tollerance to the insulin over time, they wont need to worry about diminished stock levels!
----- Concentrate on promoting more than demoting.
As a type II, non-insulin dependent (yet) diabetic, I for one welcome our new safflower overlords.
What was once true, is no longer so
Meet the world's insulin consumption in 2010?
In other news, pharmacutical companies are beginning to persuade food companies to put MORE SUGAR into foods....
...implant the insulin-producing gene into Cannabis sativa L., there would be a product. Can I have some ice cream?
What's making them become diabetic is:
Seriously, if you start checking the ingredients in the food you buy, you'll notice that everything has sugar in it. Even things that should not. This article sums it up nicely.
Got MILF? It does a body good!
The real problem with this stuff is people that have been given it track the sun all day.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Wow that's great and all but another type 1 here...I don't care where the insulin is coming from if it's not coming from ME. This is like our gas problems, why work on getting more gas when we could be working on not needing it at all? I'd rather see work done on a cure than temporary relief.
Bring on the High-Fructose Corn Syrup. Drink more Dew. Drink more Sprite. Obey your thirst. Feed your kids drinks with less than 100% fruit juice.
Tongue in cheak of course.
Almost reminds you of the idea people have with introducing insects into non-native environments and the bug turns out to be hostile so they introduce a second bug to kill the first, but which turns out to be worse than the first.
Certainly like GM food, GM plant for medicine production is a great advancement. I just worry about these things getting into the wild, since the GM companies have had such a devil may care attitude in the past. Despite the statement of work for the public good, profits never seem to be cut in a effort to make the product safer, or the distribution widespread.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Not much technical detail at all in the article, but from previous articles on splicing human genes into animals and plants, I gather that the real advantage of this technique is that, if it's done right, the plant or animal concentrates the product in one place for you (the seeds, in this case).
Compared to a big churning vat of E. Coli, their food, and their waste products, it's easier to use something like an impeller or centrifuge to separate out bulk quantities of insulin-laced oil from a plant, and then purify it from there.
Also, those same fermenters that are growing insulin currently are also a great breeding ground for other bacteria, molds, and yeasts in the environment. I'm given to understand that keeping unwanted organisms out of the vats is part of what makes the process difficult and expensive. A single bacterium or wild yeast spore that gets into a fermenter can ruin the whole batch.
The macroscopic plants are a much more robust system - they can still get sick of course, but it's fairly easy to keep plants healthy. And even given that you can't spray these plants willy-nilly with pesticides, organic farmers get pretty good yields on most products with just natural controls.
Just wanted to point out that sugar (or too much sugar that is) is a contributing factor for the less serious Type II Diabetes, but the more serious Type 1 or Juvenile Diabetes is not caused by too much sugar, and some may take offense at the suggestion that they brought such a terrible disease upon themselves, especially when many develop the disease as young children.
For the case of Type I insulin-dependent diabetics which are the primary group this technology advance would benefit: None
There are two main types of diabetes (with a couple of oddball variants that are rare, diabetes mellitus describes the final symptom of elevated bloodsugar, there are a few possible root causes of that symptom, which determine the type). Type I is known as insulin-dependent or juvenile diabetes (because it is rarely diagnosed past the age of 20). It is caused by the immune system attacking the beta cells of the pancreas. Eventually all beta cells die and the body can no longer produce any insulin, so it must be provided from an external source. Type I is generally considered to be the "severe" form of diabetes because of this fact. Prior to the discovery of insulin, average life expectancy after diagnosis was 1-2 years, and the disease killed younger children faster than teenagers. Oh, it was a rather slow, painful, and unpleasant death too. Essentially no matter how much you ate and drank, your body would slowly dehydrate and starve.
Type II is usually referred to simply as adult-onset diabetes, because until recently, it has been unheard of for young people to develop it. (A high prevalence of childhood obesity is changing this). In Type II diabetes, the body does produce insulin, but for various reasons it is not enough, whether it is due to reduced capacity or increased demands beyond normal capacity, or a combination of both. Most of the time, once diagnosed, Type II diabetes can be managed solely with oral medication which increases the body's sensitivity to the insulin it does produce, and in many cases controlled solely with diet and exercise. (Losing weight can often cause Type II diabetes to disappear.) It is extremely rare for Type II to require external insulin rejections. Interestingly enough, while Type II is less "severe", this very fact makes it far more dangerous because it frequently goes undiagnosed for long periods of time, and the elevated bloodsugars do damage to various parts of the body.
This is definately an interesting development, but how will this company deal with patented "designer" insulins such as Lantus (from Aventis Pharmaceutical, a special "peakless" insulin used to provide a long-acting baseline insulin dose), and Novolog/Humalog, two "extremely rapid acting" insulins that actually take effect FASTER than injecting normal human insulin. FYI, "human insulin" is insulin produced by genetically engineered bacteria that is identical to human insulin, it is NOT extracted from humans, unlike pork and beef insulins which were extracted from the pancreases of pigs and cows respectively. While I'm sure their technology will work with Lantus and Humalog/Novolog, I don't know how the companies that produce the above three will react to this. Most likely they'll license the technology from this new company (if it works) or vice versa... I hope so.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
The process reduces capital costs by 70% and product cost by 40%.
And the consumer price will be increased by 20%.
Just TRY finding a soda that doesn't contain it in the US - the only ones I've found are the Italian fruit sodas at Target. And I've found only one brand of bread that's baked sans HFCS - and it's $3/loaf.
You are correct that the diabetes cases which are caused or exacerbated by HFCS are not the same insulin-dependent cases. That doesn't make me hate the corn lobby any less.
As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
as a type 1 diabetic it amazes me that there isn't a generic insulin yet. Synthetic insulin has been around for how long now? Luckily I have insurance that covers pretty much anything I need minus a small co-pay, but I know the supplies I need costs my insurance company hundreds a month. You would think insulin and test strips could be made on the cheap by now. I guess its way too profitable for that.
Check out joinleenow.org - they need $11 million (they have $9 million so far) to test a possible treatment and cure using BCG, which I think costs $11 a vial. It amazes me how little support they're getting (maby because it could cure/treat diabetes on the cheap?). So far they have reversed 90% of type 1 diabetic mice.
but lets please not mix plants and animals, it's obviously not right.
There's no such thing as a "plant gene" or an "animal gene". It's like saying that taking a spring from a car and putting it in a bicycle makes the bicycle somehow car-like. Sure, if you took an entire engine along with a transmission and fastened it onto a bike that might make the bicycle "car-like", but that's not what we're talking about here. Genes are just building blocks, and assigning plantness or animalness to them doesn't make any sense.
AccountKiller
and the genes in a plant are VASTLY VASTLY different from the genes in a human.
Some of them are, some of them aren't. We still share MANY of the same genes with plants. Just like a car is vastly different from a bicycle, both have rubber tires. In a very similar sense both cars and bicycles share a common "ancestor", just like plants and humans.
tell me how the hell you can believe a human shares genes with a plant
Evolution? You don't have to simply believe it, it's a scientifically proven fact that humans and plants share genes.
we don't share brain and heart genes with plants
I'm pretty sure there's no single gene that responsible for producing the heart or brain. Something this complex required many many genes.
AccountKiller
Well, they're in Canada in a cell. Molecules inside a cell can survive for decades unchanged (e.g. your DNA). They can certainly manage it for a few months between planting and the harvest. Inside the cell they're coddled in exactly the right environment. But bring 'em out and put them in a bottle -- expose them to oxygen, light and varying temperatures -- and they start to decay.
The "evolution" of the DNA molecule finished millions of years ago. There are only 1-2% different genes between you and a monkey. Perhaps 5% difference between me and my pet cat, and in response to your how the hell you can believe a human shares genes with a plant question, there's about 50% shared genes between me and the banana I just ate. Read that article.
I hate printers.
How could you eat a relative ??
That's just sick !
Save the bananas !
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
There are multiple cures already available, but they haven't been widely performed for numerous reasons. Pancreas transplants are considered too risky to do unless there is already a major operation (such as kidney transplant) required. Islet cell replacement required cells from aborted foetuses, last I heard.
I understand that each group of researchers will have their own specialisations, and that not everyone COULD work on a cure, even if there was no need for improved/cheaper insulin (which there is). I heartily agree with the grandparent poster though; insulin is a poor substitute for a normal life, and a cure would be MUCH better, so it would be nice to see the main focus going on that. The medical fees that entire nations pay for insulin, needles, swabs, glucometers, diagnostics strips, tablets, etc. -- often four or more of most of these things per day, per patient, at £0.50 per diagnostic strip alone, must make up a pretty large profit for medical companies. I really don't mean to accuse people of being motivated by money, but I do often wonder if this doesn't sometimes subtly cloud their sense of what's really best for the sufferers.
That's not funny. I suffer from diabetic-phototropism, you insensitive clod!
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
It's in Leviticus: "A restriction enzyme that touches a plant chromosome shall not touch an animal chromosome, lest there be an abomination." You can't argue with a commandment like that. Why do you hate G-d?
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Worldwide demand for insulin is forecast to soar to 16,000 kg by 2010, from an estimated 4,000 to 5,000 kg last year, because more people are developing the disease and are being diagnosed earlier in their lives
The increase in diabetes has been linked to obesity. It frustrates me that we put so much research and money into treating the symptoms and not the source. I admit it seems like a hard sell to convince people to become healthier, but I believe if there was a large ad campaign, discounts for healthy food, subsidized health clubs, and other incentives to live healthily more people would live healthier lives. It is almost always cheaper to spend money on prevention rather than a cure.
Hobby Robotics
And I have a carburetor that will make your car give 60 miles to the gallon, and a laundry ball that will let you use 1/10 the laundry detergent, and a program you can download to make your computer downloads 3 times faster, just click here!
The medical field is rife with a lot of crackpots claiming their miracle cure is being repressed by the drug industry, especially for long-term medical problems like diabetes. While the drug industry is cut throat, almost all of these "vitamin cures" are expensive snake oil sold to wishful people who'd give a lot for a real cure, and don't have the expertise to read the actual original research and say "what a crock". The NONI JUICE, Mangosteen, chromium piccolinate, and Akai rice miracle cures are all examples of such nonsense, and we're going to keep hearing about them from hopeful people seeking miracles and from unethical vendors trying to make a buck.
Like someone else said, diet sodas don't contain HFCS (though most create a whole different health issue by containing aspartame - exceptions that use sucralose include Diet RC, Diet Rite, Diet 7UP, and Pepsi One). Regular Coke is made with sucrose instead (not that it's much better for you). Remember New Coke? That was their attempt to switch to HFCS and it failed. Companies like to use HFCS because it's cheaper than sucrose. All non-diet Pepsi-brand sodas are made with it.
^X^S ^X^C
***"Well, by banning the public funding of stem cell research today, George Bush has helped you towards the cure! His great deeds are hastening the Rapture, when the good people (those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord) will be cured."***
Mods, how the hell did that rate an "insightful"? Its off topic at best, and more probably flamebait. So I'm going to flame it, especially since I have relatives that are directly affected by the research in question and the disease in the topic (Diabetes).
Stop with the political BULLSHIT! You Bush-bashers are getting as bad as the Bible thumpers that voted for him.
There has been no embrionic stem cell research that has shown hope for diabetes. Or much anything else for that matter - there have been severe complications in damn near everything done with embryonic stem cells. They simply are not panning out - indeed the most promising results ended up being a hoaxed/forged set of results over in Korea. Nothing else substantial has come of this. Thats why the Feds shoudl nto be funding it - there are better areas of stem cell research to put tax money on.
The federal government is wasing money to fund crap like the embryonic research when it should be going to the more mainstream R&D lines. And as far ast stem cells go, the best stuff I've read about or head of is coming from R&D with marrow stem cells or placental-cord cells.
But political assholes like you would rather get an issue to beat up the fundies with than to work toward the best probable set of solutions.
If somone wants to do embryonic stem cell research, thats fine by me - let them fund it themselves. Nothing stopping them at all.
But put the Fed money to work where it shows the most promise - and that most definitely is *not* embryonic stem cells. So stop using stem cells as a political football.
Bush is doing the right thing with his veto. Its questionable on the reasons he is putting forth, but good in the end results. Like a stopped clock, his hands this time are aligning with the right things. Let some time pass and I'm sure you can find somethign legitimate to beat him up over. But get your politics out of the funding questions.
Not everyone opposed to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is an anti-abortion activist, there are good reasons to oppose the funding (but not the research if thats where people want to waste their own money).
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO