Slashdot Mirror


Re-Engineering the Immune System

destinyland notes a microbiology professor describing "Immunity on Demand" (or "Immunity 2.0") and wonders whether we could genetically engineer all the antibodies we need. "...there's a good chance this system, or something like it, will actually be in place within decades. Caltech scientists have already engineered stem cells into B cells that produce HIV-fighting antibodies — and an NIH researcher engineered T cells that recognize tumors which has already had promising clinical trials again skin cancer. Our best hope may be to cut out the middleman. Rather than merely hoping that the vaccine will indirectly lead to the antibody an individual needs, imagine if we could genetically engineer these antibodies and make them available as needed?"

4 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. autoimmunity could be a major side-effect by bzdyelnik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the exogenous antibodies end up hitting the wrong cells in some people, there could be major problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmunity Although I would expect that there would be some sort of pre-compatibility test to avoid major complications - but you can't realistically pre-test every cell type via biopsy.

  2. Re:And then when a new disease cones along ... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The immune system isn't some kind of muscle, it doesn't really have "strength" in some neatly scalar way(OK, if your T-cell count is completely in the tank, you'd have a case for saying that your immune system is "weak").

    You acquire immunity based on exposure to particular agents. If a new disease comes along, your immune system won't be properly trained no matter what you've been doing before. That is what makes it a "new" disease. Plus, the whole point of this approach would be that you could engineer antibodies on demand for the new disease, and take them before it kills you.

    The immune system will, given time, almost always come up with antibodies and mount a response; but some conditions will kill you good and hard before you have time to mount that response. This is why vaccines are useful(since they provoke the same or similar response; but are harmless, so your immune system isn't racing against the clock). If you could engineer the antibodies themselves, you could get even faster response, and have something that would work even once you are infected.

    It would, essentially, allow you to apply the technique that we currently use in Antivenom agents to diseases generally.

  3. Re:Unintended Consequences? by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll stick with a doctor who isn't an agent of the government, thanks.

    Hmm. No public schools, no govt scholarships, doesn't take medicare patients, no medical license, no business license, doesn't cooperate with the CDC, ... That leaves us with what, one master herbalist in Berkley?

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  4. I had doctors who were agents of the gov't... by sean.peters · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... for 20 years. They were called "Navy doctors". They had all the latest technology, were extremely skilled, and... free. Of course, taxpayer dollars were paying them, but 1) total costs per person in the military are a hell of a lot less than the mess we have going on in the world of private health insurance, and 2) for the cost of something like the Iraq war, we could have provided health coverage for the entire country for like 15 years. So it's not like we can't afford it.

    People who bitch about "socialized medicine" should try it some time.