Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Re-grow Dental Enamel

A reader at Cloning Resources writes "Dental enamel is the hardest tissue produced by the body. It cannot regenerate itself, because it is formed by a layer of cells that is lost by the time the tooth appears in the mouth. The enamel spends the remainder of its lifetime vulnerable to wear, damage, and decay. In hopes of eventually replacing teeth, scientists from Japan have developed a new method for growing dental enamel."

60 comments

  1. A long way to go by zeropointburn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Like all genetic regrowth techniques, this one has a long way to go before it could be used in humans. At present, it involves using pig cells incubated in the abdominal tissue of living rats. Fascinating, to be sure, but not quite mainstream yet.
    It is interesting that this group is using collagen sponges as scaffolding; I'm glad to hear research has continued with that technique to the point that it is functional for growing complex tissues.
    This is certainly promising; the step from here to fully-regrown teeth is not overwhelming. Still, I wouldn't bet on your Coca-Cola stocks skyrocketing just yet.

    --
    -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
    1. Re:A long way to go by jamesh · · Score: 3, Funny

      At present, it involves using pig cells incubated in the abdominal tissue of living rats

      Hmmmm... for some reason I am reminded of haggis...
    2. Re:A long way to go by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Funny

      On the other hand, haggis will probably be one of the few foods that can overpower the intrinsic taste of teeth made from piggy cells basted in rat guts.

    3. Re:A long way to go by grammar+fascist · · Score: 1

      At present, it involves using pig cells incubated in the abdominal tissue of living rats

      Hmmmm... for some reason I am reminded of haggis...
      ... self-chewing haggis...
      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    4. Re:A long way to go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is certainly promising; the step from here to fully-regrown teeth is not overwhelming.


      Like this?

      http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19325 925.100-no-more-gaps-with-homegrown-teeth.html
    5. Re:A long way to go by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      true, pig cells and rats are cheap... rats are a self-sustaining resource in research, you don't even have to feed them their whole life... just until they reach maturity or whatever stage you plan to use them at.

      This is good news... it's more than just theory now so just a few more years to a viable product we can all benefit from (it'll be available to the Japanese next year and the US in 2017 ;-)

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    6. Re:A long way to go by Lockejaw · · Score: 1

      This is certainly promising; the step from here to fully-regrown teeth is not overwhelming.
      Very true. They already have bone graft procedures for replacing teeth. Looks like this will just make it more complete.
      --
      (IANAL)
    7. Re:A long way to go by Almost-Retired · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well now, to speed up their research, lets recommend that they advertise for people like me, who had this regenerative ability to regrow teeth from the gitgo, and do research on them to find out how they did it?

      Does anyone know how to contact these people?

      Taking advantage of that in humans would seem to show a way to shortcut all this animal experimentation. I could do this for about the first 40 years of my life. The growth didn't seem to be as hard as it could have been, but broken teeth were not a problem in my earlier years.

      I once had the 2 front teeth of both upper and lower jaws removed by a wrench wielded by a jealous former husband of my first wife, and who looked a lot worse that that when I was done. A year later you couldn't tell they had ever been broken off at the gum line. Full height and worn sharp again in a year. Sweet...

      The net result was that while I did get cavities, they were often migrated up the side of the tooth and worn off the top without ever having any dental intervention other than an occasional routine cleaning. A dentist doing research on this 50 years ago tells me that the percentage of people like me runs about 2 per 100k, so he was glad to see me because it gave him a chance to do xrays (gratis to me) that recorded this phenomenon. But just like a woman going from man to man, I went from job to job and we lost geographic track of each other. Now of course I'm getting the fillings touched up at yearly intervals, and have been for 30 years. But, it damned sure was nice while it lasted!

      --
      Cheers, Gene
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
        soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
      -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
      Q: How do you keep a moron in suspense?

  2. great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thath a good thing, I thay!

  3. Takes A Swig From My 2 Liter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for my five year long attempt to kick my sugar/caffeine addiction...

    Fix that diabetes crap and I will be a programming god with an unlimited fuel source.

    1. Re:Takes A Swig From My 2 Liter by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Fix that diabetes crap and I will be a programming god with an unlimited fuel source.

      There are many good reasons to avoid excessive consumption of sugar/caffeine drinks, not least, avoiding the need for replacement teeth such as those we're discussing here. However, it's an urban legend that excessive sugar consumption causes diabetes (though of course it can lead to being overweight, which is associated with triggering type 2 diabetes)./p

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:Takes A Swig From My 2 Liter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "However, it's an urban legend that excessive sugar consumption causes diabetes"

      Not true. The most recent studies most definitely do show that people who daily have a high intake of sugar through drinks like soda have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

    3. Re:Takes A Swig From My 2 Liter by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      I'll admit I haven't followed this stuff very carefully; there are no diabetics in or immediately off of my blood line as far back as I am able to find medical information.

      However it sounds like that might be confusing correlation with causation. It's quite possible both high sugar consumption and diabetes are caused by the same root. For example, it's possible that the body is already a little out of whack on its sugar and insulin processing, which makes sugar more desirable, and hence people who will eventually develop diabetes are more likely to consume too much sugar.

      Do you know if the studies have examined, for example, multiple siblings (or better, maternal twins) whose sugar consumption was initially comparable, and where one during the course of the study has made a conscious effort to avoid excess sugar intake, while the other has indulged? Given enough such data, you could establish a causational relationship, but such a study would be incredibly hard to control and so you'd want a really large data set.

    4. Re:Takes A Swig From My 2 Liter by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The most recent studies most definitely do show that people who daily have a high intake of sugar through drinks like soda have a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

      Perhaps you'd care to cite those studies, then?

      You might care to pass them on to the American Diabetes Association and Diabetes UK, both of which seem pretty clear that we're talking about a myth here. A quick Google will also turn up several recent research papers that do not show the link you assert.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    5. Re:Takes A Swig From My 2 Liter by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Your blood sugar shouldn't really be high... but if you're forcing your body to continuously produce high levels of insulin you may become resistant. It's also known that fat has various metabolic effects that decrease insulin sensitivity. On the bright side, getting rid of the fat can help reverse those effects.

      It's not so much how much sugar you eat, but how out of whack with the rest of your lifestyle it is.

    6. Re:Takes A Swig From My 2 Liter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You do realize that the typical way to 'produce' diabetic rats is feeding them fructose, right?

      There is a rather interesting correlation between the timelines of companies replacing table sugar in the sugar water drinks with fructose and a dramatic increase in the number of diabetic people.

      You are probably right in that sugar as in sucrose doesn't cause diabetes, but that's not what is generally in sodas these days, having been replaced by cheaper fructose.

    7. Re:Takes A Swig From My 2 Liter by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      That might be true in the case of people who are not already at risk for diabetes. However, I know of two people (my grandmother and a (college-age) friend of mine) who were told by their doctors that they were at risk for diabetes and that they should therefore stick to a strict diet which would help prevent their risk from developing into full-blown diabetes. This largely (for my grandmother at least) meant a severe restriction on sugar consumption. Both ignored it, and sure enough, both are now diabetic. Were their doctors ensnared by this myth as well, or are you only referring to people who are not at risk already?

      My grandmother is/was only very slightly overweight. The young friend -- not overweight at all, rather underweight in fact. Underweight due to (like me) metabolism, not self starvation or any kind of eating disorder like that. Also, she ignored the doctors advice for two reasons: One, she didn't have a blood sugar testing machine, her insurance refused to pay for one, and neither she nor the rest of her family could afford one independently. Two, she didn't have enough money to buy the foods she was supposed to be eating, and rather ate things like a spoonful of peanut butter for dinner because that was what she could afford. Just in case you were wondering.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    8. Re:Takes A Swig From My 2 Liter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you have nailed it on the head. Sugar should not be confused with high fructose corn syrup and the like. The body can recognize sugar and release insulin in response. The fructose flies under the radar in the body and does much greater harm than the sugar. Sugar is bad, fructose is much much worse.

    9. Re:Takes A Swig From My 2 Liter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are probably right in that sugar as in sucrose doesn't cause diabetes, but that's not what is generally in sodas these days, having been replaced by cheaper fructose.

      When fructose enters your stomach, it is broken down into sucrose and glucose in equal ratios.

      The fructose molecule is a disaccharide (two-ring sugar) and is actually a sucrose molecule and a glucose molecule bonded by an oxygen atom.

      So, as far as your bloodstream and liver are concerned, there is an equivalence: fructose = glucose + sucrose.

      I'm not saying it's good for you to ingest mass quantities of high fructose corn syrup. In fact, it's usually quite awful for a person's health. BUT: it's not worse than eating sucrose and glucose instead.

  4. This is cool. by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    Aside from the article submitter copying and pasting the first paragraph of the article into the submission...

    I have tongue rings, and my enamel wore down because of them. Which makes me sad. I digress.

    Enamel fillings, instead of metal? Rock.

    TFA mentions replacing whole teeth? I can see this catching on with old people.

    Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you could grow a layer of white enamel over the yellow enamel. Then, smokers wouldn't need to go buy whitening strips anymore!

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:This is cool. by shambalagoon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Their teeth would just keep getting bigger.. and bigger..

  5. Very promising by Looce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is a godsend for those people who grit their teeth involuntarily at night, like my father. The enamel on his teeth is most likely all gone already. (And those people who are nervous before exams in school and grit their teeth, etc.)

    And, who knows, we might even be able to avoid filling teeth in the future; just apply/create some enamel in a cavity after burning the bacteria, neutralising the acid and stuff like that.

  6. On the other side of the coin... by jamesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... I was thinking as I was having my wisdom teeth removed that it would be nice if it could be possible to artificially trigger the same response that causes the 'baby' teeth to fall out, maybe by injecting something in the root to cause it to disolve. Much less blood, pain, and (potential) nerve damage.

    1. Re:On the other side of the coin... by harks · · Score: 1

      I thought I heard once that baby teeth were of different construction - they have a shallower root. Something like that.

    2. Re:On the other side of the coin... by Alicat1194 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As far as I know, baby teeth don't so much fall out, as they are pushed out by the adult teeth growing up from below (I used to work with a girl who still had some of her baby teeth, as for some reason she never grew adult teeth to replace them)

      --
      You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
    3. Re:On the other side of the coin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baby teeth.... if she gave you a blowjob, would that make you a paedophile?

  7. I need this... by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

    http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/nice_teef.jpg
    But seriously, I've lost most of the enamel at my gum line (apparently due to brushing too virorously!), I've had one root canal (== dead tooth), and several big fillings. I've been eagerly awaiting someone to figure out how to grow new teeth so that when I yawn, people aren't blinded by sunlight refelcting off all the silver in my mouth.

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  8. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 1

    In the emergent field of tooth-tissue engineering, several groups have developed their own approaches.

    IOW, there are many tries, but this one's got teeth to it?

  9. But I thought this was already being worked on? by stephencrane · · Score: 5, Interesting


    There was an article last year about someone coming up with using ultrasonic waves to trigger regrowth of teeth.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/06062 8234304.htm

    This seems much more along, and less complicated. I imagine a new use for an ultrasonic transducer is easier to get approved than transgenic tissue grafting.

    I really wish there was some central repository of active studies, with an easy way to grade their progress and potential oversight burden. I imagine being able to subscribe to studies and experiments, and receiving updates when available. The most irritating thing about 'scientific discovery' news articles is the fickle nature of the media to keep people in the loop on it. Whenever a bold claim is made, it becomes news. But the incremental progress is not sexy, so you never hear of it again. How many 'promising' cures for various cancers have we heard of, only to never heard of them again?

    1. Re:But I thought this was already being worked on? by TeknoHog · · Score: 2, Informative

      There was an article last year about someone coming up with using ultrasonic waves to trigger regrowth of teeth.

      AFAIK, it uses a rather well-known effect for stimulating bone growth, the same by which e.g. running makes your leg bones stronger. The article mentions uses related to the jaw and the roots of teeth, both of which are basically bone. On the other hand, enamel is a completely different tissue that cannot regenerate in adults because the cells are no longer around, as explained in the main article.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    2. Re:But I thought this was already being worked on? by dcapel · · Score: 1

      I imagine being able to subscribe to studies and experiments, and receiving updates when available. The most irritating thing about 'scientific discovery' news articles is the fickle nature of the media to keep people in the loop on it.


      It sounds like what you want is a real scientific journal instead of whatever bastardized version the mainstream press decides to feed you. Nature is always a good one, and perhaps something on medical technology.

      Go Primary Sources!
      --
      DYWYPI?
  10. Mod parent UP by Burz · · Score: 1

    ++ Informative

  11. Tongue/mouth piercings by quokkapox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That is the really sad thing about tongue piercings and mouth piercings that nobody tells you about before you get them.

    Unless they're properly sized, your teeth will get worn and chipped. I chipped a molar a week after I had my tongue pierced.

    Regarding the technique in the article, I think a better solution for many people is to figure out how to stimulate the growth of completely new teeth in adults, yank 'em all, and have all new ones grow in place. Especially if you can decide to omit extra molars the second time around for people with smaller mouths.

    --
    it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
    1. Re:Tongue/mouth piercings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw shucks, why didn't anybody tell me of the consequences of mutilating my own body???

      Oh yeah something did but I wasn't listening, instinct and common sense!

    2. Re:Tongue/mouth piercings by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain that even if a tongue piercing is properly sized, your teeth will be worn away. Every time you rub the barbell against your teeth, you wear away at the enamel. Some people do this as a nervous habit, some people do it in their sleep, some people do it just to make clinking noises, and sometimes it just happens accidentally. The end result is the same: the enamel gets worn down. Acrylic balls may not cause the problem because they are softer, but I don't know one way or the other for sure.

    3. Re:Tongue/mouth piercings by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      The problem with your suggestion is that, according to TFA, the enamel producing cells are nonexistant in adults.

      It seems more straightforward to the patient to simply implant teeth rather than trying to implant specialized enamel growth cells, and then stimulate them in tandem with the the tooth-growth cells. Of course, it may turn out to be easier than implanting a whole tooth, especially where the gums have already covered the implantation site, but I doubt it, given the success rate of reimplanting dislodged teeth.

    4. Re:Tongue/mouth piercings by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1
      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
  12. baby teeth resorb by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting
    As far as I know, baby teeth don't so much fall out, as they are pushed out by the adult teeth growing up from below

    Sort of. The pressure from the adult teeth cause the roots of the baby teeth to dissolve. A baby tooth falling out doesn't look like an extracted tooth - the root is almost gone by time it falls out.

    Let's see Wikipedia must have something on this.... ah, here:

    The erupting permanent teeth causes root resorption, where the permanent teeth push down on the roots of the deciduous teeth causing the roots to be dissolved and become absorbed by the forming permanent teeth.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:baby teeth resorb by acroyear · · Score: 1

      If it works. In my case, at least on my lower jaw, the roots were so strong they pushed the incoming adult teeth behind them and the baby teeth needed to be extracted. Their roots were completely undamaged.

      On the other hand, the idea of being able to reconstruct adult teeth is very useful over our current artificial forms of patch-work. The trick with enamle, of course, is to get it replaced before the rest of the tooth starts decaying. One probably couldn't put it back on a filling.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
  13. Nobody tells you? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    That is the really sad thing about tongue piercings and mouth piercings that nobody tells you about before you get them.

    What? JFGI.

    Do you mean those marketing the product didn't tell you about the risks or that you didn't do any research?

    Lesson 1: Don't believe people trying to sell you something
    Lesson 2: Cosmetic body alterations are almost never a good idea.

    These used to fall under the heading of 'common sense'.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  14. Cool but nasty by J05H · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They propagated the cell-sponge matrix inside rat's abdomens. And they want that in your mouth? Ick. Biotech has a strong gross-out factor sometimes. They put dead people's bones in living people and use cow bone for reconstruction? Are we becoming vampires in a hi-tech manner?

    Josh

    --
    gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
    1. Re:Cool but nasty by deprecated · · Score: 1

      Not vampires; ghouls. Get it straight, my zombie brother-cousin-pet.

    2. Re:Cool but nasty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They propagated the cell-sponge matrix inside rat's abdomens. And they want that in your mouth? Ick."

      How is that worse than, say, consuming cow, pig, lamb, or chicken for nutrition and enjoyment? Ick. Human beings eat brains, bugs, pack meat into intestines (some sausage still) or stomachs, even grind up abdominal tissue for slop-like food (I forget the name of the dish, I'm ashamed, since I'm from that part of Pennsylvania where it's still somewhat common, it comes in a block and you tend to fry it).

      Or are you biased against the non-bushy tailed squirrel?

      Dentures used to be made out of wood and cow teeth. We eat plant material. We wear plant material. Rat's in a lab environment are quite clean, hell, they're probably more sterile than the typical human mouth.

      "Biotech has a strong gross-out factor sometimes."

      Yeah, because it saves lives.

      It's not exclusive to biotech. They've put animals parts in people i.e. pig heart valves, aka medicine/surgery. We put blood from person to person, despite the distinct advances in artificial blood. Hell, we inject mold byproducts and analogs into our bodies to fight off infection (the antibiotic penicillan).

      Oh, sorry. I mean, ick! Ewww!

      "Are we becoming vampires in a hi-tech manner?"

      Vampires are not high tech. First, there's nothing "hi-tech" about sucking blood out of a person. You do something similiar everytime you order a slushi. Second, the biotech you are complaining about is about putting new material into a person. A vampire *removes* material from you.

      Third, these vampires, they've been around for ages, in lore and from what some think they were derived from. So they had to meet that need without the "hi-tech." Some think that maybe the vampire stories stemmed from something akin to people having extreme malnutrition/starvation couple with extreme pica, such as eating material that has little nutrional value to make up for a metabolic lacking of the body, like eating clay for making up an iron deficiency. In Nelson, Lenninger, and Cox, a now somewhat older biochemistry text, 2nd edition, there's a short statement about how such blood deficiences actually had a higher incidence rate in Transylvania (and no, I'm not making this up), but there was no citation given in that text itself (textbooks typically don't/didn't do this) that I'm aware of to see if this was a printing error, an amusing quip, or an actual observation or study.

    3. Re:Cool but nasty by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Mod parent retarded. Where do you think insulin injections came/comes from?

      Provided you sterilize the thing properly what does it matter where it grew?

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    4. Re:Cool but nasty by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

      I have news for you. Biology is icky, gross, and nasty in general. That's just the way it is.

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    5. Re:Cool but nasty by 0x0000 · · Score: 1

      Are we becoming vampires in a hi-tech manner?

      No, if we were really high tech about it, we'd just use an energy beam to suck the life forces directly out of the beasties and feed it directly into an implant that would handle all repairs to the organism... we should probably build in a "hypnotize victim and make them a helpless vampire slave" function to this device, as well, if we want to be able to claim to be really hi-tech ...

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
  15. Woohoo for the rich! by shaitand · · Score: 0

    Yet another miraculous health technology for the wealthy. I'm sure that top dental institutes will use the vast wealth of the US to hire some Jap dentists with this technique and keep us at the top of the health care ladder. For the wealthy that is; most of the population can't afford even basic dental work or health care nor insurance. For us, there is only the game of waiting for the tooth infection that kills.

    1. Re:Woohoo for the rich! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you haven't noticed that many medical advances are initially only available for the rich, then work their way down. If the research isn't done, no one will ever get it.

    2. Re:Woohoo for the rich! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, gee, Wally, how long does it take to work its way down to folks like me and Mr. Shaitand, who have NO dental care?

    3. Re:Woohoo for the rich! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not my fault that you have no dental care, nor is it the fault of the researchers. I'd say that it's most likely the fault of insurance companies and the US Congress. My complaint with Congress is that they allow businesses to write off the cost of providing health insurance for their employees, but they do not allow individuals who are not covered by an employer's plan to write off the cost of buying the insurance themselves. It is unconscionable that Congress should give this "perk" to businesses and not to individuals.

      Although I currently have health insurance that covers dental care, I have at times in the past had to pay for dental care out of my own pocket. And at those times, I was still glad that there were people doing research to improve the state of the art of dental care.

    4. Re:Woohoo for the rich! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet another miraculous health technology for the wealthy. I'm sure that top dental institutes will use the vast wealth of the US to hire some Jap dentists with this technique and keep us at the top of the health care ladder. For the wealthy that is; most of the population can't afford even basic dental work or health care nor insurance. For us, there is only the game of waiting for the tooth infection that kills.

      FWIW, corrective dental braces are more common in the US than in any other country. Just Thought You'd Like To Know.

    5. Re:Woohoo for the rich! by shaitand · · Score: 1

      'Although I currently have health insurance that covers dental care, I have at times in the past had to pay for dental care out of my own pocket. And at those times, I was still glad that there were people doing research to improve the state of the art of dental care.'

      That makes you both more wealthy and better insured than most of us. It isn't as if it is a choice between paying out of pocket and insurance. It is a choice between having insurance and some care and no care at all. Most of us can't afford and couldn't get a loan for the several thousand dollars worth of Dental work that we need.

      'I'd say that it's most likely the fault of insurance companies and the US Congress. My complaint with Congress is that they allow businesses to write off the cost of providing health insurance for their employees, but they do not allow individuals who are not covered by an employer's plan to write off the cost of buying the insurance themselves. It is unconscionable that Congress should give this "perk" to businesses and not to individuals.'

      It is certainly the fault of insurance companies and Congress. Most of those who need this care are working americans who don't make enough to pay for the insurance even if it were written off (although I also agree that it should be written off for individuals). These americans don't make enough to benefit from a tax break either. If you make enough to need a tax break then you are in the upper-middle class or better category.

      What we need is for the existing insurance programs that are applied to government workers be extended to all americans. That way there would be none of the normal government red tape added by those who oppose tax funded programs and add tape to try to minimize the payouts. That way everyone can go to their choice of quality private doctors and can be prescribed the most effective medication even it just came out yesterday. We are the wealthiest nation in the world and those with wealth have that wealth because of the sweat of the workers they exploit.

      You could even do it without a tax hike if we brought all the troops we have stationed across the globe home and cut the defense budget to the minimum needed to keep our armed forces strong domestically instead of what we need to be successful in an offensive capacity.

  16. Ceramics? by serodores · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm just missing something, but ceramics have been around for a long time. Couldn't you use ceramics instead of 'home grown' enamel for the same effect? (I'd feel more safe doing that than putting pig teeth incubated in rat guts in my mouth.)

    1. Re:Ceramics? by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      You can. The problem is that if you don't get an exact match between the mechanical properties (hardness, ductility, etc) of the tooth and the filling, one or the other will get damaged over time.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:Ceramics? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It doesn't stick on very well.

  17. The "nasty" bit is a prejudice by alienmole · · Score: 1

    Biology is amazing and cool in general. It's just that many humans haven't come to terms with the fact that they are biological creatures. Notice how the GP references artificial blood as though this would somehow be an intrinsically better solution than natural biological blood. This is just an anti-biology prejudice that comes from denying one's human and animal nature.

    1. Re:The "nasty" bit is a prejudice by juhaz · · Score: 1

      How does it come from denying your human nature and animal nature?

      I can see how someone who believes he's a mirror image of an almighty god would think he's perfect as is and can't be improved.

      But if anything, acknowledging the fact that one is merely an animal should make one more likely to regard artificial as potentially better, since "natural" is just another word for "whatever crap evolution tacked together that was barely good enough to survive". Having few actually working and "intelligently designed" parts would be refreshing.

    2. Re:The "nasty" bit is a prejudice by J05H · · Score: 1

      Thanks for all the replies-

      biology is icky, sticky, nasty, beautiful. Biology is the most interesting thing in the universe. Open heart surgery or gastroentroscopy still gross me out. Rat abdomens are indeed cleaner than the human mouth. And no, you can't sterilize living tissue, which is what the article was discussing.

      Ghouls.

      --
      gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
    3. Re:The "nasty" bit is a prejudice by alienmole · · Score: 1

      I agree that artificial can "potentially" be better. But we're a long way from realizing that potential for most things having to do with living biological entities. "Whatever crap evolution tacked together" (over billions of years, mind you) includes a lot of stuff we don't fully understand. So at the moment, the bias that artificial is better doesn't usually make sense, at least when the intelligences doing the design are us. (Now advanced *alien* artificial blood, that's good stuff! ;)

      Anyone who's assuming that the artificial stuff we can create right now is automatically better than the biological equivalents, is failing to acknowledge how little we really understand about how we work, and how sophisticated our biological systems really are. Perhaps I should have said that they're in denial about the sophistication of their biological nature.