Slashdot Mirror
Finnish Patient Gets New Jaw from His Own Stem Cells
An anonymous reader writes with news out of Finland, where a patient's upper jaw was replaced with bone cultivated from stem cells and grown inside the patient himself. We discussed other advances in stem cell research a few months ago. Quoting:
"In this case they identified and pulled out cells called mesenchymal stem cells -- immature cells than can give rise to bone, muscle or blood vessels. When they had enough cells to work with, they attached them to a scaffold made out of a calcium phosphate biomaterial and then put it inside the patient's abdomen to grow for nine months. The cells turned into a variety of tissues and even produced blood vessels, the researchers said."
A jaw growing in his abdomen? I've seen that film before...
I have no doubt that Bill Gates has had himself cloned, or at least all his organs and tissues, for when his own parts wear out. Stashed around the world, as insurance against laws banning cloning.
And if it's not viable yet, they'll just keep cloning him until they get it right.
I know that if I had $100B, that's how I'd spend it.
--
make install -not war
Does this mean I can have a second wee-wee?
Don't click link. Page has nasty javascript and is not related to the article one bit!
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
Wow, they didn't even kill an unborn baby
Cut it out. Please, just stop it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This is just a scientific trial, and they have social healthcare in Finland, so it didnt cost him a penny.
I have a mandibular excess and a maxillary deficiency (meaning my jawbone is too big and my upper face area is too small), which leads me to grind my teeth, get some major TMJ pain, and end up with ruined and crooked teeth. I've looked at all the surgeries (major, like taking your jaw OUT of your mouth entirely), and they didn't seem worth the risk. The long term problem is I'll lose all my teeth. I was the freak with the toothbrush in school, who flossed and brushed and rinsed 3 times a day. Today I'm the root canal and filling king, because of the jaw issue.
When stem cells are available to regrow teeth, it will take off. The problem is that I expect the ADA (that's the lobbying group to keep dentists expensive and rare, like the AMA is a lobbying group to reduce the supply of doctors and rape the patients' wallets) will fight it tooth and nail. They'll do it under a mask of "religion" by a group controlled by them, but it will happen.
Here, again, we see a market phenomenon that will either be over-regulated by the government so that it takes too long and is too expensive to bring to market, or we'll see a complete destruction of a huge opportunity to fix problems. I am willing to take a risk to deal with the teeth issue today, and I'm probably going to have to do it in India or China because I know that we won't get any favor here if it competes with the strong lobbying cartels, like the crooked dentists (or the doctors, or the CPAs, or any number of groups who have "associations" to harm consumers with bad legislation).
Do you really think the ADA will be against a procedure that requires much oral surgery, and associated fees? They don't make money off people without teeth, so it is their best interest to encourage you to keep them.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
It still costs money, regardless of who pays for it.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
It's a relevant comment, Alternative stem cell technology does have the potential to intrude upon embryo stem cell research and usurp its importance in the field of medical care. Why should we stop discussing the potential of one technology to replace another, highly controversial one? And why in God's name do we scream "please, stop" at one controvery while we engage in several other equally hot topics (that are nearer and dearer to geeks than fetuses)? "Kuill an unborn baby"? I've seen equally incindiary comments than that over music copying/piracy (there we go, there's one example), etc.
You sound like a hypocrite.
Actually, it didn't cost him a cent. We have euros, you see.
There is no such thing as an "upper jaw." We have various bones forming the base of the skull and associated teeth structures (aka maxilla) and a lower jaw (aka mandible).
Dentists have been using stem cells for years. In certain situations when there are not enough bone to place dental implants, dentists would place bonegrafts mixed in with blood drawn from the hip marrow. You get around 5-10 stem cells for every million blood cells but that's all it takes to convert the bonegraft into the patient's own bone (the stem cells become osteoblasts). The only difference in this study versus what we have been doing is that they place the bonegraft with stem cells into the stomach for osteoconduction versus us placing the material into place right off the bat. Typical wait times for us is only 6 months before the bone is deemed solid enough for implant placement.
The pope just shit a brick
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
I was not screaming "STOP" at the controversy. I was screaming "STOP" at yet another repeated falsehood. I am perfectly willing to discuss the "controversy" but not with such outrageous emotional overtones.
... this is just my own opinion, but if I'd had a mother that didn't want me, had aborted me and left me for dead, I'd rather have ended up in a research program than a medical incinerator. Maybe then someone else who might otherwise have died, or suffered horribly, would have some chance at life.
... and knows it.
I have nothing against working multiple lines of research: one or both will pay off handsomely (or maybe another effort that's not even been thought of yet, but will likely benefit from current progress.) But the "killing babies" argument is getting old and tired, and is not relevant because nobody kills babies for the express purpose of acquiring stem cells. That's just a lie, pure and simple. They're discarded embryos that have no hope of ever being born
Nobody wants to deal with the real issue of why there are so many non-viable embryos available for research purposes in the first place. What? That's a complex psycho-socio-economic problem that has no easy answer and can't be solved by blowing up abortion clinics or passing a few laws? Huh. How about that for controversy. Perhaps we need to rethink some basic aspects of our culture and figure out where we went wrong. This so-called "controversy" over stem cell research is a symptom of some deeper issues. Issues that, I might add, aren't going to disappear just because our President doesn't understand that his moral sense is too simplistic to provide effective guidance in this area (among others.)
I get just as torqued off when people make similar irrational commentary on other equally-hot topics. So calling me a hypocrite is a bit off: I just want people to learn to think. Only then does a reasoned response that might actually improve matters become possible. Otherwise everyone is just stroking their egos and refusing to learn anything.
Look, this same technique is applied to many different issues. Take illegal immigration. As soon as anyone brings up the idea of enforcing the law as written, some asshole immediately starts crying "racism! racism!". At that point, any rational discussion becomes impossible, because anyone who believes we should enforce our own laws has now been labeled a bigot. Doesn't matter what the facts are any longer.
So, if you want to have a decent dialog about the use of discarded embryos in stem cell research, keep the "killing babies" commentary to yourself. It serves little purpose other than to polarize the participants and eliminate any possibility of rational discourse. The people who are performing this research (the ones who originally used embryonic cells) are not baby killers, not abortion doctors, they're researchers with a genuine desire to advance our scientific knowledge and help people. Such deliberate and malicious mischaracterization of others generally means that someone has a fatally flawed perspective that cannot be supported by reality
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
What bonehead tagged this "whatcouldpossiblygowrong"? That tag is for describing situations where some kind of decision could easily have unforeseen consequences affecting numerous people. What could possibly go wrong here is that this guy could, at worst, die. This one guy.
Stop overusing that tag! </rant>
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Well, as an American citizen who is watching his country's slow fall from being the leader in technology and scientific research to a relative backwater, I'd say it's a good thing that other nations are investing more and more in science, so that when the time comes I'll be able to fly somewhere to get state-of-the-art treatment if I should ever need it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Where on earth do you have it from that fluoride weakens teeth? I've never heard anything like that. What I learned from chemistry is that fluoride strengthens the enamel.
Besides, everyone knows the fluoridation of water is a commie plot to impurify our precious bodily fluids.
In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
Of the proto-jaw as it's taken out of the abdomen?
The debate is centered on ethics. Most of the facts aren't in dispute, they just get ignored.
The facts simply aren't reasonably in dispute. We all know that a zygote is an immature homo sapien. We know that it doesn't have brain function until considerably later and isn't communicative until well after it's born. So the debate is whether or not that's the same sort of "human" that belongs in the term "human rights." That is, whether it is our intelligence or our humanity that makes us somehow worthy of the rights we all recognize.
This is the CORE of the debate, not something that can be dispensed with as a side issue. It doesn't matter if that's why someone is destroying embryos, the people who believe it's human life oppose it because they believe it's human life. There simply isn't a way around that! You're asking them to discuss why they oppose it while leaving out the main reason! Sure, there might be some people who oppose it due to other reasons (squeamishness, fear of science, or whatever), but there aren't too many of those. Then you go on to talk about the "waste" embryos as if those who oppose destroying them aren't opposed to the processes which leave them as waste! Did you not read the story yesterday with the Pope of all people condemning those very things?
Worse, you go on to illegal immigration and you again miss the entire point of the opposition's argument! They're against the laws as written, so of course they don't want to enforce them any more than your average Slashdotter thinks the NFL ought to be able to enforce the ban on TV screens over 56 inches which is also written into law. But you've probably never been through immigration, so you don't have much of an idea how byzantine it is. Nor would you know that the agency has been almost completely defunded so that they can't process your case in a reasonable amount of time. And God help you if they screw up at any point. Hell, they've deported American citizens caught in raids, taking months to review the case even when presented with a valid US birth certificate!
So when you say that the opposition's case "isn't based on facts" I'm hearing that you don't really understand the opposition's case. Because that's what you're showing me. Believe it or not, I'm NOT ignorant of what a zygote or blastocyst is. I know the difference between pluripotent and multipotent stem cells, as well as the rationale behind the use of each. I even know a little about immigration law, despite being a US citizen who hasn't had to suffer going through it.
You? You can't even state the opponent's case in a reasonable manner. Believe it or not, I can engage in calm and rational debate. I won't throw out my case as a prerequisite, though, nor will I agree to the stipulation that the facts "aren't" on my side simply because you disagree with my interpretation of them. But I won't yell and scream at you when I ask you to pin down exactly what makes a human "human."
I don't have to. All I have to do is extend your "logic" to its breaking points. Given your display of the ignorance of our arguments, you don't seem to understand that your blind spot is a mile wide.
First off: I am a Christian, and anti abortion.
Before you cast my comment aside, let me say that in many respects I agree with you.
Crying "killing babies" is a mantra created for influencing the masses. I realize that there is a huge gray area as far as abortion goes. Sometimes it is necessitated because the mothers life is in danger, other times the fetus is dead.
Killing the fetus for the simple expedient of harvesting stem-cells makes me uncomfortable, and I would vote against it if ever given the chance. Using unborn (through natural death - rejection in the womb for instance) fetuses for that purpose makes me less uncomfortable.
I am however all for exploring means that would make it unnecessary to use a fetus for the purpose of harvesting stem-cells, but making blanket uninformed decisions is wrong and trying to get the masses involved by preying on their fears is wrong.
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
A woman gets badly burned, and they graft skin from her husband's ass to rebuild her face. After the series of operations, she looks great.
She says, "Honey, how can I ever repay you?"
He says, "I get paid back every time I see your mother kiss you on the cheek."
What?
>>Take illegal immigration. As soon as anyone brings up the idea of enforcing the law as written, some asshole immediately starts crying "racism! racism!". At that point, any rational discussion becomes impossible, because anyone who believes we should enforce our own laws has now been labeled a bigot. Doesn't matter what the facts are any longer.
Well, as a parallel example, some states still have anti-sodomy laws on the record. If you were to recommend "enforcing those laws as written," don't you think people would be right to decry you as anti-gay?
The laws already on the record aren't automatically morally neutral. They may very well be racist laws. You certainly don't have to try too hard to find laws that WERE explicitly racist in our nation's recent history. If you're going to argue in favor of current immigration policy, you're going to have to come up with a better argument for why the current laws are acceptable than merely that they're the current laws.
Just to make you feel more comfortable, it's called embryonic, not fetal cell stem research. They call them embryos on the earliest stages of growth, generally from the moment of fertilization until the end of the 8th week of gestational age. They call them fetuses thereafter. The embryos used for harvesting human embryonic stem cells are typically four or five days old. They look like a hollow microscopic ball of cells and called the blastocyst.
Well, I'm atheist and I'm anti-abortion, mostly because I see most of them as being the result of irresponsible behavior, and a further unwillingness to take responsibility for one's actions. I would think that most people don't believe abortion is a good idea, it mostly comes down to what criteria get applied for it to be permitted. Some would say when the mother's life is at risk, some would say when a woman is impregnated after a rape, others say it's the mother's choice ... others say never, ever. As usual, there's a middle ground that has to be found and some people will just have to accept that, whether they want to or not.
Obviously, as someone who doesn't believe in a human soul I'm at best only peripherally concerned with that aspect of the abortion controversy, however I do believe that a society such as ours should maintain some self-respect, some respect for each other. The problem is complex, however, and simply outlawing abortion without honestly and openly discussing the underlying cultural and economic concerns that affect abortion rates is pointless. Failure to address those issues will only make matters worse.
Regardless, I agree with you that abortion won't be dealt with in a responsible way unless we stop with the fear-mongering and irrational arguments. That applies to a whole host of other problems that are facing our society right now, from foreign policy to illicit drugs to stem-cell research. Unfortunately, many, many people simply cannot see past their own worldview, won't compromise under any conditions, refuse to accept that the other guy might have a point. Other people are just ignorant and believe whatever they're told by the latest talking head. As a consequence, sometimes very little progress gets made.
And that's too bad.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Sidenote? You have got to be fucking kidding me.
I've been drinking fluoride-water and using fluoride-toothpaste my entire life, and I have never had a single cavity. I'm not implying that my anecdote is any less meaningless than yours, but mine doesn't come with any sidenotes that are more significant than the "main" point!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Why put embryos on a pedestal? No one gets mad when someone has liposuction. Won't somebody please think of the poor fat cells being slaughtered? What makes a cell unique enough to get this kind of attention, is it that the cell's DNA differs from that of the host? Then I suppose it's our duty to inform all those oncologists that what they're doing is wrong.
(Really, what do you think would happen to most of the embryos being used for stem cell research? At least they're going to something useful.)
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
If he was willing to give money freely to that cause, he wouldn't need to be taxed for it, would he? Of course, we'll never really know, since the tax was most likely implemented before he had any say in it, anyway.
I'll never understand why people vote with their fingers what they're not willing to vote for with their wallets.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!