Slashdot Mirror


Child Receives Trachea Grown From Own Stem Cells

kkleiner writes "Doctors at the Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) along with colleagues at the University College London, the Royal Free Hospital, and Careggi University Hospital in Florence have successfully transplanted a trachea into a 10 year old boy using his own stem cells. A donor trachea was taken, stripped of its cells into a collagen-like scaffold, and then infused with the boy's stem cells. The trachea was surgically placed into the boy and allowed to develop in place. Because his own cells were used, there was little to no risk of rejection. This was the first time a child had received such a stem cell augmented transplant and the first time that a complete trachea had been used."

68 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by magsol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why are we not funding this???

    --
    "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
    1. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by Gordo_1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Everyone's stance on stem cell research should be queried by the DMV and added to your driver's license, just like organ donation. Then when you need a medical procedure that has benefited from stem cell research, you get the version of the procedure that's in line with your beliefs.

      I know... but I can dream can't I?

    2. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most of the recent advances are done using stem cells from the patient's own body... this was always legal, but too many people got caught up in fighting for embryonic stem. Maybe the restrictions against using embryonic stem cells advanced medical technology by pushing researchers and doctors to use the patient's own stem cells instead.

    3. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We are--- the restrictions on stem-cell funding have always been on embryonic stem cells, not on research involving stem cells derived from post-fetus-stage living humans, as is the case here.

    4. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, you are. Or at least, you could be. The restrictions on federal funding are on embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are interesting for their pluripotency. Adult stem cells are interesting because they don't trigger rejection. Generally, nobody has any problem with adult-stem research.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    5. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

      There's also a much higher risk of rejection if stem cells from an embryo are used. If a person's own cells are used there's no risk of rejection.

    6. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      We are... this is a form of adult stem cell use, which was not excluded by the bush ban on embryonic stem cell research. this ban was also recently overturned.

    7. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) Who is "we" in your question? This was done by:

      Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) along with colleagues at the University College London, the Royal Free Hospital, and Careggi University Hospital in Florence

      2) If you meant the United States, this would be government funded had it been done in that country since it deals with adult stem cells.

    8. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by dmuir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When people say they're against "embryonic stem cell research" everyone else just hears "stem cell research" because they're too dumb to know the difference (and that's on both sides!).

    9. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if the parent comment is true, then we are better off due to the anti-abortion crowd. You see, if it wasn't for that there might not have been as much research into adult stem cells. Because embryonic ones are "good enough". Who cares if the patient has to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of his life, that is just more money the pharma companies get.

    10. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by Princeofcups · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most of the recent advances are done using stem cells from the patient's own body... this was always legal, but too many people got caught up in fighting for embryonic stem. Maybe the restrictions against using embryonic stem cells advanced medical technology by pushing researchers and doctors to use the patient's own stem cells instead.

      Not at all. This was a natural evolution, especially due to the rejection issues. If anything, we would have had this technology sooner as more scientists would have gotten involved earlier, and we would be much further ahead.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    11. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      Why are we not funding this Who's "we". If you are a Wal-Mart shopper, you probably are funding it.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    12. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know... but I can dream can't I?

      Dream? You can't even pay attention. No one has fought against funding for research into cures using adult stem cells. No one has fought against funding for research into cures using your own stem cells. Try to pay attention.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    13. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhm ...

      His original statement is most certainly fact, more scientists where forced into doing things like this with stem cells because they couldn't use the embryonic cells they would have liked to use. This isn't something debatable, its history, its what happened.

      You can say it may have happened faster some other way, but you can't say that more people would have been working on it since the rules forced that didn't want to use this method to use it. No one that wanted to use this method stopped completely to make a point because they weren't allowed to use some other method, thats only something GPL fan boys and political nut jobs do.

      You can go ahead and try to push your own political agenda for other forms of stem cell research, thats cool and all, but the facts and history make it pretty obvious your statement doesn't really have any connection to reality.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    14. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Informative

      correction:
      Nobody who understands the difference has fought against funding for research into cures using adult stem cells.

      There's a massive ignorant crowd of fundies who still consider anything and everything to do with stem cells to be bad.

    15. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by wesborgmandvm · · Score: 1

      Embryonic stem cells are interesting for their pluripotency.

      But you can get iPS cells from a non-pluripotent adult somatic cells. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell/

    16. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      All of the recent advances are done using stem cells from the patient's own body

      FTFY. And yes, it’s perfectly legal. Nobody protests adult stem cell therapy.

      Maybe the restrictions against using embryonic stem cells advanced medical technology by pushing researchers and doctors to use the patient's own stem cells instead.

      That’s a fair theory, and it shows that you’re thinking, but if you research the matter it is actually incorrect. There are enough embryonic stem cell lines for researchers and doctors to use to find cures, etc. if they were so inclined. They have, basically of their own accord, chosen to pursue adult stem cell therapies instead, because those were what yielded results, and since they are paid for producing results that is the direction that they have been inclined to go. There are severe problems with embryonic stem cells that nobody has been able to overcome, whereas adult stem cells are used in multitudes of successful treatments. If it were not for special interests pushing the embryonic stem cell research via grants, etc., and lobbying for increased federal funding and trying to make it all more acceptable in the public eye, industry would naturally gravitate toward the adult treatments that actually yield results.

      I wish I could find better sources to back up some of what I’ve been saying, but I did come across these:
      Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete
      Adult vs. Embryonic Stem Cells

      Unfortunately there is so much hype generated over stem cells that it is difficult to sift through it all. As I understand it, embryonic cells can be harvested from fetuses if they were aborted at an early enough stage, and the abortion industry is putting a lot of pressure on the issue because they see this as a way to monetize their grisly waste product. As a result you have many claims of “potential” for the embryonic stem cells with no actual cures ever coming of it.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    17. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I am what most people would probably consider an “ignorant fundie”, and I speak for many more “ignorant fundies” when I say that we most certainly are aware of the difference.

      It is the pro-stem cell advocates who blur the difference or ignore it completely. The anti-embryonic stem cell advocates differentiate between embryonic and adult stem cell research and treatment, whereas the people who are pro-embryonic stem cell research will often accuse us, just like you have, of opposing all stem cell research, which in fact we do not. Furthermore, any adult stem cell breakthrough is hailed as a stem-cell research breakthrough typically with no comment on the fact that it is, in fact, an adult stem cell treatment, and then followed by scores of people claiming that it (the adult stem cell breakthrough) is proof that embryonic research is viable and should be performed more.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    18. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Why wait for “natural” selection? Why not just shoot all the people who disagree, and expedite the matter...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    19. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      When people say they're against "embryonic stem cell research" everyone else just hears "stem cell research" because they're too dumb to know the difference (and that's on both sides!).

      I keep hearing this, and it's not true from my experience. People I talk to... normal, guy on the street neighbors, friends, and co-workers... are aware of the difference and of what the argument is. Quit assuming that everyone around you is dumb on the issue. I know this is Slashdot, where gross generalizations are a tradition, but try actually talking to people about this, and you may be surprised.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    20. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      No, it’s mostly muddied by reports of lifesaving stem cell* cures...

      * adult stem cells, but they don’t mention that

      which of course show how stupid the fundies are who blindly oppose “stem cell** research”, and shows how we need more funding for embryonic stem cell research.

      ** embryonic stem cells, which the fundies will readily tell you but their opponents don’t mention

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    21. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      The funny part is that knowledge of the evolution of pathogens hasn’t nearly as much to do with the treatments you get as you seem to think. You appear to think that one has to be an evolutionist in order to contribute anything of value to biology, medicine, etc.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    22. Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, any adult stem cell breakthrough is hailed as a stem-cell research breakthrough typically with no comment on the fact that it is, in fact, an adult stem cell treatment, and then followed by scores of people claiming that it (the adult stem cell breakthrough) is proof that embryonic research is viable and should be performed more.

      I too have had that exact same argument. I pointed out the amount of success they've been having with adult stem cell treatments and the retort was that "experts" say that embryonic stem cells will be even more successful but the lack of funding is preventing the breakthroughs. If that's the case, why aren't rich liberals like Ted Turner, George Soros and Warren Buffet investing in it?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  2. "Minor" correction by oldhack · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The headline would be correct if we can synthesize the collagen molding and do away with the need for donor organ.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:"Minor" correction by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The headline would be correct if we can synthesize the collagen molding and do away with the need for donor organ.

      I suppose so but the donor organ in this case would seem to be something in plentiful supply, Its not like a heart which you have to keep alive between the donor and recipient.

    2. Re:"Minor" correction by John+Whitley · · Score: 1

      Its not like a heart which you have to keep alive between the donor and recipient.

      More to the point, it's not something which needs a stringent donor match as do current transplant techniques. With the relatively vast donor pool, there's no need to develop a synthetic collagen scaffold just to be able to apply this stem cell technique broadly.

    3. Re:"Minor" correction by Zorque · · Score: 1

      The donor only donated the frame upon which the cells grew, they were still the child's own cells.

    4. Re:"Minor" correction by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      You know, those new 3D solids printers that have been in the /. news lately could probably be tweaked to output collagen-based scaffolds....

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  3. let me just say by martas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    holy crap.

    good job, guys.

    1. Re:let me just say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It just leaves you speechless, doesn't it?

    2. Re:let me just say by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Good job indeed. Good job at writing the prequel to the new "Repo Man" movie.

  4. Re:Cancer? by NEDHead · · Score: 1, Informative

    Cancer risks include death, disfigurement, and bad breath

  5. Re:Cancer? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's always some people who need surgery NOW and whether they get cancer in 2-5-10-20 years or not it's still a win. I'm all for medical testing and not rushing out unsafe procedures, but the reactions I see are mostly knee-jerk "it's STEM cells, omg you can't" not based on real research. In fact, they don't want the research done in the first place. Of course it's highly experimental medically, so was heart transplants. The first guy survived two weeks, but today we average 15 years. Research can prove or disprove (ok, don't get all philosophical on me) whether it helps medically, but it won't matter because most of the resistance is due to the fanatic anti-abortion crowd which equate embryonic stem cells with unborn babies. And if it's not embryonic, they'll pretend there's no difference because only blind rage will do.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  6. Stem Cell Hucksters Spam, Email Servers Crash by WidgetGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...adjusting "penis enlargement" spam filter to let emails with "stem cells" in the subject or body through...

    You're never too rich, too thin or too well-hung.

    --
    One "Aw, Shit!" is worth 100 "Ata boys!"
  7. Re:Cancer? by ThomConspicuous · · Score: 3, Informative

    I have my son's stem cells in a bank. He's alive and healthy at 1.5 yrs old. Still, it's good to know that we have them.
    They came from his cord blood. I'm pretty sure that can be considered embryonic, but I'm not a doctor or scientist. Just a happy parent.

  8. All you really need to know about ESC politics by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    I know, this isn't a case of using embryonic stem cells but pretty much the politics of ESC work like this. Republicans will often give reasons that should make them be for it and yet are against it. Democrats on the other hand often give reasons to be against it but are for it. (But I just mostly shake my head when I hear either side talk.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  9. Combo Breaker by sick_em · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wait a second, stem cells that regenerate but will probably give you cancer, and nanoparticles that eat cancer for breakfast ...if my math works out correctly regeration + cancer - cancer = regeneration (or at least non-rejectable organ transfers). Can anyone say ultra combo?

    1. Re:Combo Breaker by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      HEADSHOT!

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  10. Re:Cancer? by sjames · · Score: 1

    Probably fairly low, especially compared to the risks of a lifetime of anti-rejection meds (which carry a cancer risk of their own) and having a metal stent damage his aorta again.

  11. Wonderful by guygo · · Score: 1

    More of this will come. It's wonderful.

  12. Re:Cancer? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Was it expensive to have it saved?

    /not a parent....yet

  13. 3-D printing + Stem Cells by HighOrbit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Instead of using a donor and then stripping cells to get the collogen scaffold, next they should do 3-D printing of collogen into any shape they want. "Grown" organs in the future will not be grown, they will be built layer-by-layer.

    1. Re:3-D printing + Stem Cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Finally, an end to those spams on how to make a certain appendage larger.

    2. Re:3-D printing + Stem Cells by tokenshi · · Score: 1

      Then covered in caramel, dropped into a friar and served a la mode.

      mmmm... trachea.

    3. Re:3-D printing + Stem Cells by HighOrbit · · Score: 1

      I image that to get the circulatory system into the organ, they need to have a micro-printing process, perhaps like is used for production of microelectronics. According to wikipedia, capillaries are in the range of 5-10 micrometers. I think that is probably an achievable technology. They would have to switch to a differnt "ink" (i.e. cells for a blood vessel wall) instead of the primary "ink" for the organ cells.

    4. Re:3-D printing + Stem Cells by osgeek · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if those 5-10 micrometer features remain in the scaffolding. Seems possible that the stem cells create new ones, but I'm just guessing.

      This stuff is really really cool. I need to go print myself a new meniscus.

  14. Re:Cancer? by ThomConspicuous · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was about $2k initially w/ 12 mths interest free plans. Not super cheap but we felt it was worth it.
    We used Cord Blood Registry at www.cordblood.com
    It's $125/yr renewal but there are referral incentives.

  15. Best part of this post by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    The 'gosh' tag.

    Thats pretty much exactly what I thought when I read the title. I knew we'd eventually pull this type of stuff off, but still now that its starting to happen ... thats pretty freaking cool.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  16. The near future by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    Ok,so now we can grow a trachea, an esophagus and bronchi. All tubular structures. Which means intestine (duodenum, jejunum, ileum and colon) could be re-grown too.

    The future is looking very bright indeed. Now we just have to work on the organs like the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas etc. And I don't think those are very far off, they've pretty much figured out how to vascularize large organs.

    1. Re:The near future by osgeek · · Score: 1

      Now we just have to work on the organs like the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas etc. And I don't think those are very far off, they've pretty much figured out how to vascularize large organs.

      Umm.... you might want to look at this

  17. As immensely cool as this is... by strawberryutopia · · Score: 1

    ...wake me up when they do this with a larynx. I know a significant subset of the population who'd pay good money for that.

    --
    I'm a leaf on the wind, watch how I soar...
    -Lucy-
  18. Trachea translated by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

    Just to spare non-specialists the google: The trachea is the windpipe.
    Would've been nice to include in TFS.

    1. Re:Trachea translated by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      I would have thought that most literate people know what a trachea is, at least if they've done high-school 1st year biology...

    2. Re:Trachea translated by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      I had never heard the term "windpipe" used before for that. "Trachea" is a far more common word. Anyway, surely you've watched an episode of House before?

  19. Re:Cancer? by Will47 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stop this BS guy... Come on, you speak of anti-abortion activists. Right, ANTI-ABORTION activists... It is not the use of stem cells they are fighting, and if you read their papers where they speak about stem cells, there is a context for it, and you know it as well... You can disagree with them as much as you want, but here, you are just distorting the truth (sure, it is an easy way to demonize and discredit them). BTW, they are sure happy with alternative paths making embryonic (and abortionist) stem cell research unneeded or useless.... It's just one of their best weapon and their best argument with indecisive people.

  20. won't someone think of the children! by saiha · · Score: 1

    We need more of this to convince people that it is absolutely worth it to research and use stem cells as much as we can.

    1. Re:won't someone think of the children! by DesScorp · · Score: 1

      We need more of this to convince people that it is absolutely worth it to research and use stem cells as much as we can.

      What kind? This wasn't from embryonic stem cells. This was from the child's own cells. So they were literally "thinking of the children" in this case.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Re:Cancer? by kronosopher · · Score: 1

    Without getting philosophical on you, the fact is that resistance to this or any kind of research is usually perpetuated by the establishment because it's classified a conflict of interest and therefore becomes the subject of undue and debilitating scrutiny, lack of funding, FUD, etc.

    Anti-abortion advocates are fanatic because factions of that same establishment enact genocide and eugenics programs against mothers and their spawn, even going so far as pushing potential mothers for late-term abortions(which is known to significantly damage the body).

    The IMF and World Bank aim to reduce populations by infiltrating and bankrupting the world's economies with a draconian "free market" agenda. The other nations which the banks can't outright subjugate and enslave(those with a well-armed middle class) are also victim to an Orwellian gestapo-like police-state and institutionalized brainwashing by power-hungry psychopathic free market snake oil salesmen. Government and major political groups are almost entirely co-opted by international corporations; and by leading their own opposition to failure, the corporatocracy ensures the success its profiteering agenda.

    These psychopaths are often members of the elite and let me tell you they are not interested in giving you better healthcare. This is not about anti-abortion fanatics or any other polarizing false dichotomy propagandized throughout media. The establishment wants to kill you and your family. If they can't kill you, they will directly and/or economically enslave you.

    On another note.. we in the US need to get out from under this "healthcare reform" NOW giving the medical industry back to the doctors before the insurance companies co-opt it and further plunge our economy into deeper depression.

  23. Irony by gryf · · Score: 1

    If the kid's own embryonic stem cells had been harvested for this kind of experimental work, he would never have developed a problem with his trachea. Isn't this why we need to fully fund embryonic stem cell research with everyone's tax dollars? /irony

    --

    #-#
    Ad Astra Per Aspera
    A rough road leads to the stars
  24. No sir by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    correction:
    Nobody who understands the difference has fought against funding for research into cures using adult stem cells.

    There's a massive ignorant crowd of fundies who still consider anything and everything to do with stem cells to be bad.

    That is wrong, sir. Find me someone that opposes embryonic stem cell work on religious or ethical grounds. Then ask if they're opposed to non-embryonic stem cell work. To a man, you'll find almost no one. Go to any major religious or conservative publication.... National Review, National Catholic Reporter, etc... and find me one of them... just one... that opposes non-embryonic research. Every single one of them, and major political and religious organizations... even the most conservative of churches... support non-embryonic work. And they've made this clear from the very beginning.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:No sir by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      That is wrong, sir. Find me someone that opposes embryonic stem cell work on religious or ethical grounds. Then ask if they're opposed to non-embryonic stem cell work. To a man, you'll find almost no one.

      Ask those same people, without preamble, if they oppose stem cell work on religious or ethical grounds.

      Almost none of them will qualify their answer with a distinction of embryonic vs. non-embryonic.

      The people who have truly considered in the issue in light of religion or ethics likely would make that distinction -- but I believe there are far fewer of them that have really considered or researched the issue than you might suppose.

      Every single one of them, and major political and religious organizations... even the most conservative of churches... support non-embryonic work. And they've made this clear from the very beginning.

      Sure they have. But that's not what most people remember. What most people remember is "stem cells are bad". Four-syllable words like "embryonic" are confusing, and thus meaningless.

      I don't want to sound overly condescending towards a good portion of the public... but my personal experience in a very well-educated region leads me to believe as I do about misconceptions in re: stem cells -- though I suppose it is possible that people in less educated areas have a more reasoned opinion than those in a well-educated area, I doubt it.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:No sir by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Ask those same people, without preamble, if they oppose stem cell work on religious or ethical grounds.

      Almost none of them will qualify their answer with a distinction of embryonic vs. non-embryonic.

      That's an asinine position. The only reason why one would have ethical objections is because of the death of human embryos. Your question presupposes that you're talking about the type that is objectionable.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    3. Re:No sir by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      and you're assuming than anything more than a tiny minority care enough or are bright enough to have ever thought about it in terms of "ethics".

  25. Funding vs. Work by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    We are--- the restrictions on stem-cell funding have always been on embryonic stem cells, not on research involving stem cells derived from post-fetus-stage living humans, as is the case here.

    And you also bring up something important that gets lost here. The restriction was only on federal funding of new stem cell lines. The research itself was never banned in any way, shape, or form. Nothing was stopping private organizations or states or universities from doing their own original embryonic cell work. The federal government just wasn't going to pay for it if it came from outside of existing stem cell lines already in the research pipeline.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  26. Re:Cancer? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

    Read ANY of the focus on the family rants back when the whole thing started. You'll notice that they always mention "stem cell" and never qualify it with "embryonic"

    Ok, let’s let Google settle the matter. site:focusonthefamily.com "stem cell" yielded this in the first page of results:

    As we look forward to the day when abortion-on-demand is no longer tolerated by our society, it is beneficial to consider how we got here in the first place. How much do you really know about the original Roe v. Wade decision as it was handed down in 1973, or about the closely related Doe v. Bolton ruling? I doubt whether most Americans realize just how sweeping and ominous those decisions were in terms of dismantling our nation’s embrace of the sanctity of human life, or the effect that legalized abortion has had on other life issues such as euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and even violent crime.

    Whoops, I guess I must have accidentally inserted that word, “embryonic”. Since they “never qualify it”. Or maybe they did. Go find out for yourself...

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. Actually... it makes the movie look pretty bad by vecctor · · Score: 1

    Good job indeed. Good job at writing the prequel to the new "Repo Man" movie.

    Having just seen it, I made the same connection - but I came to a different conclusion. It just makes the movie look more stupid. I mean it already looked pretty poor. The story might have worked if it was made 30-40 years ago, but with medical science where it is - the thing looks pretty anachronistic.

    While I was watching it, a number of things jumped out at me as silly. One of them was the cybernetic nature of all the implants - and therefore their ability to be "repo'd" at all. "Replacement organs aren't going to be mechanical" I thought to myself, and mentioned to my friend, "they are going to be biological and derived from your own cells".

    This achievement pretty much bears that out. There would be no use in taking back what is essentially a "custom" organ - like this kid's trachea. It is of no use to anyone else because it uses his cells. The best you could hope for in that sort of vein (no pun intended..) would be to take it out, restrip it, and reseed it with someone else's cells. Or transplant it the traditional way (say, if it was a kidney).

    But I am betting artificial scaffolds will be developed in short order (they are already working on them), and they'll be able to just fabricate organs from scratch. This will be cheaper and easier than donors anyway. People waiting for transplants are very expensive to the system - cooking one up and getting them out of the hospital fast will appeal to even the most evil CEO.

    I think the future will be a bit brighter than the movie portrayed - at least in terms of artificial human organs.

    --
    Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.