Slashdot Mirror


The Mass Production of Living Tissue

An anonymous reader sends in this moderately disturbing quote from Gizmodo: "I'm touching a wet slab of protein, what feels like a paper-thin slice of bologna. It's supple, slimy, but unlike meat, if you were to slice it down the center today, tomorrow the wound would heal. It's factory-grown living tissue. The company behind the living, petri-dish-grown substance known as Apligraf hates my new name for it: meat band-aid. 'It's living,' Dr. Damien Bates, Chief Medical Officer at Organogenesis, corrects me. 'Meat isn't living.' But no one argues with me that this substance is really just a band-aid. A living, $1500 band-aid, I should say. Apligraf is a matrix of cow collagen, human fibroblasts and keratinocyte stem cells (from discarded circumcisions), that, when applied to chronic wounds (particularly nasty problems like diabetic sores), can seed healing and regeneration. But Organogenesis is not interested in creating boutique organs for proof of concept scientific advancement. They're a business in the business of mass tissue manufacturing — and the first of its kind."

32 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. Science Fiction Reality by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Many a SciFi story I've read has used this kind of thing for wounds. I wonder how soon until they have it to the point where these slices are vacuum packed and you can open it and stuff it into a wound in the field?

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Science Fiction Reality by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Informative

      Many a SciFi story I've read has used this kind of thing for wounds. I wonder how soon until they have it to the point where these slices are vacuum packed and you can open it and stuff it into a wound in the field?

      A little while.

      There are two main approaches to using non-autologous grafting approaches. One is the matrix approach, where the material grafted is not tissue per se, but rather an organic matrix that is suitable for colonization by the autologous tissues and provides an environment conducive to growth. Such matrices are already being used in fields of orthopedic surgery and surgical dentistry to cause bone growth.

      The second approach, which appears to be this company's goal, is to create graftable tissues in-vitro. Please note that this isn't really a new idea, since ex-vivo grown "skin" has been available for at least a couple of years now. While the method described in TFA is potentially both more effective and has a wider range of use, it seems to me that it would likely require careful surgical grafting in order to supply the graft with blood vessels, so it's unlikely that we'd be able to just stuff it into the wound right away.

      However, given how quickly our knowledge of the mechanisms of angiogenesis (blood vessel growth and proliferation) has expanded in the last decade due to the research into tumor progression, I can envision that in the relatively near future we would be able to embed sufficient angiogenesis-mediating factors into the ex-vivo grown tissues that under.

    2. Re:Science Fiction Reality by TheMeuge · · Score: 4, Informative

      Correction: last sentence should read:

      " ...I can envision that in the relatively near future we would be able to embed sufficient angiogenesis-mediating factors into the ex-vivo grown tissues that under the right conditions they would generate a sufficient blood supply of their own in-situ. "

    3. Re:Science Fiction Reality by aplusjimages · · Score: 5, Funny

      hopefully that time will come soon and I imagine they would call it a "health pack" and put a big red cross on the cover of the box. Putting it on walls and inside crates would be very helpful.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
  2. from discarded circumcisions by markov_chain · · Score: 4, Funny

    So when you rub your scars you induce swelling!

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    1. Re:from discarded circumcisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So when you rub your scars you induce swelling!

      I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg in regards to this technology's potential.

  3. Yes but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    how does it taste?

    1. Re:Yes but... by Zarniwoop · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pretty good with mustard, mayo and american cheese on white bread.

      --
      Still not dead.
    2. Re:Yes but... by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In vitro meat will be the confounding of dogmatic, righteous vegans everywhere.

      For the more reasonable vegans it'll be that long-lost opportunity to finally eat some goddamned bacon again. Mm... I love the piggies.

    3. Re:Yes but... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was kind of thinking that. Obviously wound treatment is the first market for this kind of thing, but it will surely be used for food production sooner or later -- basically, as soon as the cost of a pound of lab-grown beef falls below the cost of a pound grown the old-fashioned way as part of a cow. I suspect that will be a while yet, but it seems inevitable. At which point we will see food wars like nothing we've seen yet. You think people get passionate about genetically engineered plants? Heh.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Yes but... by eddy+the+lip · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I knew this post would elicit a comment like this, so much obliged. (First, a minor quibble - I think you mean "vegetarians", rather than "vegans." The latter not only don't eat meat, but any animal byproduct, eg. dairy.)

      As you implicitly acknowledge, there are a lot of different types of vegetarians and vegans, who have chosen to omit certain things from their diet for various reasons. A vegetarian who is one for health reasons won't be terribly interested in eating meat, regardless of it's origins.

      There are other arguments for vegetarianism, of course. Sustainability is one (although this would imply more that we should eat far less meat, from animals raised in ways that are environmentally friendly and don't negatively impact our ability to produce other foods.) The level of cruelty involved in factory farming, which is required to sustain our voracious appetite for meat is another, but this has the same caveats. I've known organic farmers that take better care of their animals than some do their children.

      The one that seems to cause meat eaters the biggest problem is ethics. Is it defensible that we take life away from other sentient creatures for our own pleasure simply because our sentience is more highly evolved? I became a vegetarian for health reasons, but after dissociating myself from a meat diet and no longer needing to justify it, this question become easier to contemplate. I cannot in good conscience cause pain and take away the life from another living creature when I don't need to for my own survival. I consider us fortunate that we have this option, that we do not need to cause harm to continue to exist.

      (Douglas Hofstadter expounds on this quite eloquently:

      At some point, in any case, my compassion for other “beings” led me very naturally to finding it unacceptable to destroy other sentient beings (or other hallucinations, if you prefer), such as cows and pigs and lambs and fish and chickens, in order to consume their flesh, even if I knew that their (hallucinated) sentience wasn't quite as high as the (hallucinated) sentience of human beings.

      http://tal.forum2.org/hofstadter_interview

      )

      For myself, I am looking forward to the day when we find vat grown meat at our grocers, and fervently hope that one day this will supplant "naturally grown" meat. I believe that most vegetarians would agree, and not have a particular problem with people consuming non-sentient cell tissue.

      As an aside, I was recently at a friend's place, and we were making caesar salad, hers with bacon, mine without. In the interest of science, I tasted a piece. It was the single most revolting flavour I've ever tasted, something like carrion. You do lose your taste for meat over time, and there are many vegetarians that really don't miss the nasty things you meat eaters put into your bodies ;)

      --

      This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.

    5. Re:Yes but... by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Assuming no cows were harmed in the harvesting of the collagen, it might very well be as vegetarian as cheese or milk - vegans would still find something to complain about, though.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    6. Re:Yes but... by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A correction to your quibble, pardon me:

      A vegetarian who is one for health reasons won't be terribly interested in eating meat, regardless of it's origins.

      That's one impetus for vegetarianism, as you say. So I don't mean this kind of vegetarian. And the foundation of veganism is not anti-meat, it's anti-animal suffering, so I do mean vegan. ("[T]he word 'veganism' denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude -- as far as is possible and practical -- all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals...") And this is also why I say it'll be the confounding of dogmatic vegans. Because dogma dictates prohibition of meat and animal products, whereas the deeper and truer philosophy regards animal suffering.

      And I'm on board with the ethical stance of minimizing suffering for anything that can feel. Which is why I say that I "love" everyone. In the context of this conversation, though, it's appropriate to include a double meaning of "love" for piggies. Mm.

      Regarding Hofstadter's quote, it might be considered simplistic. It's not mere sentience we should be valuing, but sentience that's well. Positive experience. A sentience that is suffering greatly and will always suffer greatly? I would annihilate it because I care.

  4. By 2012... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...this tech will finally deliver fully realized COTS pornstar-branded vaginas. At which point the world will end.

  5. Hopefully portends more by earlymon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This sounds like incredibly great news for burn victims, given development.

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
  6. Modern Science at its best... by rapturizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This sounds highly promising for traditionally traumatic and fatal wounds, particularly burns. It will be interesting to see if this product increases the rate of survival in burn victims and other similar traumas. You have to love modern medicine.

    1. Re:Modern Science at its best... by joocemann · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where's my flying car, then?

      We're still trying to figure out how to make it run on coal.

  7. Literature much? by Orleron · · Score: 2, Informative

    I don't get why this is news. This company and this product have been around for like 20 years.

  8. New ending to that movie: by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Soylent Green is Wankers!

    1. Re:New ending to that movie: by Penguinshit · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's Moyelent Green.

  9. SOYLENT by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 3, Funny

    Band-Aid®?

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  10. they have done this before with tragid results.. by drewsup · · Score: 5, Funny

    The hospital in question was using disused foreskin to create eyelids for burn victims. Alas, they all turned out to be cock-eyed after the procedure!

  11. Re:UNlike mean?? WTF? by joocemann · · Score: 3, Informative

    but unlike meat, if you were to slice it down the center today, tomorrow the wound would heal.

    Yeah, because there never even was a animal who cut itself, and where then the wound healed...

    FAIL

    That would be called a fleshwound. A wound to its flesh or tissues. Meat is the same tissue, but terminally locked into 'deadness'.

    There is a difference.

  12. Cannibalism by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sounds really promising for those who want to be cannibals. Just grow it using samples from your tastier friends (or from yourself, for the ultimate: survivable self-cannibalism). The price might have to come down a little, of course, or it will remain an expensive delicacy.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Cannibalism by Opyros · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Auto-cannibalism is not the answer." — the Zork trilogy

  13. The story behind Apligraf by az-saguaro · · Score: 5, Informative

    I am not sure why this item was introduced as "moderately disturbing". If you will permit me, I will explain what it is, since I use it regularly. (I have no stock nor other biased affiliation with the company or product.) The product first came on the market in 1998, over 10 years ago. It has a well-established place in the treatment of chronic wounds. It is not the only product in the category of "living cell therapies" for chronic wounds. The other product is Dermagraft, similar, and likewise around for nearly 10 years. When Apligraf first came out, it was promoted as skin-graft-in-a-box. It is not. It is allogeneic material (recipients will reject it), and thus it does not "take" to the body like an autogenous skin graft. In its earliest years, when the company was promoting it as a skin graft, it got some high profile press because it was put to good use as readily available biological coverage for burn victims of the 9-11-2001 twin towers catastrophe. The company that makes it, Organogenesis, partnered with pharma giant Novartis for marketing and product management, and under them, they listened to customers who told them it was not skin grafts in a box, and they redefined its marketing for chronic wounds. The product management has been back in the hands of Organogenesis for about 3 or 4 years now.

    The material is essentially a poly-pharmaceutical packaged in a living material. The raw materials come from donated foreskins. Extensive safety testing is done. Pure extracted fibroblasts are put into cell culture, where they do their business and re-form a collagen matrix equivalent to normal dermis. After that, pure keratinocytes are cultured on top of the dermis, and an epidermis forms. The product is shipped in its petri dish, as a circle of 44 sq cm area. The Gizmodo article shows a picture of it. As a living material, its procurement and handling are a bit different than most medical devices, but it is easy to get and apply.

    The juvenile cells in the material make a broad spectrum of growth factors and other biochemicals which have a positive pro-proliferative effect on wounds. The role for this material is for chronic and pathological wounds. The company got its market approval and indications from the FDA for studies done on diabetic and venous ulcers, but the material is useful for chronic and pathological ("cap") wounds of any cause. Like anything else, it does not work for all wounds or patients, but it is fairly predictable, and its results can be rather dramatic. When a cap wound of whatever cause has been treated to the point that disease is quiet, inflammation is gone, and the wound should be healing but it is not, then that is when wound stimulatory therapies are applied. There are several available, and Apligraf has been one of the flagship products in this category for 10 years now. Many wounds which simply will not budge no matter what will take off and heal once this is applied.

    Organogenesis has its first new product coming out soon, for oral mucosa and gingiva, so perhaps that is why they are trying to stir up some attention with articles like the one quoted. However, it is not Brave New World nor Coma nor any other meat factory. It is just on the leading edge of biological therapeutics in the 21st century. And if Slashdotters want to make lots of jokes as they often do, like "put Viagra in the petri dish to grow more", well, we've already heard them all.

    (All very timely, since I just gave a presentation on this last week (and have been for 8 years). If you want to learn more, I posted a copy of the presentation on the website I use for posting talks and presentations and whatnot. This particular talk has a mix of my slides and company slides. It is NOT yet annotated with full text on each slide, so some will just be pictures and you will have to infer what you can, but text should be coming one of these days:
    http://www.arimedica.com/content/arimedica_apligraf_(partially%20annotated)_2005-1006.pdf
    Again, I have no investment nor bias here, I just use this stuff in practice because it works and it's an important product.)

    1. Re:The story behind Apligraf by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am not sure why this item was introduced as "moderately disturbing". [...] The material is essentially a poly-pharmaceutical packaged in a living material. The raw materials come from donated foreskins.

      Heh, I believe you have your answer.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  14. Re:If ever I heard an argument by Bentov · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think that circumcision had been around a few years longer then this product. So you want people to be in pain longer and possible die instead of using some tissue that is going to be discarded anyway? I never understood why people are so against circumcision. If I could meet the doctor who did mine, I would shake his hand and say "Good Job, chicks love my cock"

  15. Re:If ever I heard an argument by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I never understood why people are so against circumcision.

    I don't think many people are against circumcision per se -- if you want one, have one. What people are against is forcibly circumcising people who did not agree to be circumsized.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  16. Don't laugh... by Slur · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...it's a real growth industry.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  17. Donated? Really? by hg1954 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Engineered skin products may well be great products with many uses. But there's a serious ethical problem with using foreskins taken from, not donated by, non-consenting minors.

    So what's the big deal, boys are going to be circumcised anyway, why not profit from it?

    It's the profit motive that's the problem.

    Parents report being pressured by hospital staff to circumcise their newborn sons. In fact, the anti-circumcision organization IntactAmerica.org was originally funded by couple in response to their disgust at having been pressured to have their boy cut.

    Infant boys' foreskins may be very valuable to tissue engineering companies but they are more valuable and rightfully belong to the boys themselves.

    Infant circumcision is an unnecessary amputation that cannot be refused by the prospective amputee himself. That makes it a forced amputation, a very serious human rights violation.

    Circumcision advocates within the CDC are now pushing to get the agency to endorse circumcision as an HIV preventative. Sounds great, but if you read further there is no real claim of effectiveness. You still have to wear a condom if you want to be actually protected from infection. The circumcision-HIV experiment has already been conducted on a mass scale and the result was negative. America has the highest circumcision rate in the developed world and also the highest HIV rate. Perhaps that's why circumcision advocates are careful to say that you still need to wear a condom. Being cut is simply of no use in fighting HIV.

    So why push parents to have their baby boy cut when it's not going to protect him from anything?

    Follow the money. Amputating infant foreskins is a billion dollar business. And now someone else wants his foreskin, the tissue engineering companies.

    The mass production of living tissue would be a fine development if it didn't depend on infant foreskins. Treating non-consenting minors as a source of spare parts violates our most basic ethical standards.

  18. Re:they have done this before with tragid results. by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 2, Funny

    That's ok think of the foresight they'll have!