Rats Breathe Air From Lungs Grown In the Lab

cremeglace writes "'For the first time, an animal has drawn a breath with lungs cultivated in the lab.' Although preliminary, the results might eventually lead to replacement lungs for patients. Researchers at Yale University have successfully applied a technique called decellularization that involves using detergent to remove all of the cells from an organ, leaving a scaffold consisting of the fibrous material between cells."

Comments

As in TFS,

[mujadaddy]

"WITH" not "FROM"

Re:As in TFS,

[hort_wort]

You ruined my helium balloon joke :(

Re:As in TFS,

[Anonymous Coward]

When they make a woman's boobies ginormous I'll pay attention.

Re:As in TFS,

[grcumb]

"WITH" not "FROM"

And here I was, ready to comment with:

That's nothing. I've breathed air from way worse places than that!

Which would have got us a whole thread of hilarious queef jokes, and more.

... Spoil-sport.

Re:As in TFS,

[mujadaddy]

It's a good comment, though. Try finishing your work earlier in the day, and you, too, can hang out with the first post kids ;)

Next Step

[Anonymous Coward]

Replicating the effectiveness of a whale's lungs in humans. Our lungs suck.

See, now you can mod this both Interesting AND funny!

Re:Next Step

[sznupi]

IIRC, it's more about their blood.

Re:Next Step

[Relic of the Future]

Yeah; if you want to see impressive lungs, look at a bird.

The impressive thing about a whale's lungs, is the percentage of air exchanged in one breath. The impressive thing about a bird's lungs is the percentage of oxygen they can take from the air.

Re:Next Step

[RsG]

IIRC, it's more about their blood.

Not just that, but also the level of myoglobin in their muscle tissue. Sperm whales have incredible oxygen storage capabilities, and actually collapse their lungs when diving deep.

Re:Next Step

[sznupi]

and actually collapse their lungs when diving deep ...plus fill them with, essentially, plasma from the blood?

Re:Next Step

[Anonymous Coward]

the lungs don't suck, the diaphragm does. So take that Mr Biology!

Re:Next Step

[TheLink]

So efficient that fumes from a overheated PTFE coated frying pan can kill many birds...

Re:Next Step

[The_mad_linguist]

Meh, humans can do that too with enough training.

No, really. Look it up.

Re:Next Step

[sznupi]

Yeah, that's probably also how I got to know about the mechanism in whales, I think.

Thing is - it's not exactly a matter of training, mostly a physiological response. One which I wouldn't be quick to consider as routine and safe in case of a human. But whales, sure.

Re:Next Step

[L4t3r4lu5]

For those who are having trouble with this concept, they're talking about the mammalian diving reflex. You'll get much better results searching for that than trying combinations of "lungs fill with fluid." In fact, once you've looked through all of the articles of punctured lungs, kidney failure, and congestive heart failure, you'll wonder why they'd think this is a benefit at all.

Re:Next Step

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I think the nuggets were already dead before you put them in the pan....

Re:Next Step

[TheLink]

What do nuggets have to do with birds?

Many of these nuggets, sausages and patties can have the disclaimer: "No animals were harmed in the making of this product, OK so the pig grunted a bit in protest but it survived mostly intact".

Re:Next Step

[The_mad_linguist]

Well, the only people who've experienced it have gotten really good at freediving, like Yasemin Dalklç, so I imagine the physiological response only starts exhibiting itself once it gets enough external stimulus.

Re:Next Step

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo.

Lucky Rats

[Lotana]

This is a wonderful age to be a mouse/rat.

Biotech is amazing!

Re:Lucky Rats

[Locke2005]

It's a great time to be a rat! Lawyers and politicians the world over rejoice!

Re:Lucky Rats

[Monkeedude1212]

No kidding.

Now Smoking can be cool again!

Re:Lucky Rats

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to reimagine TFA's title:

  Lawyers Suck Life from Living Tissue (in a lab).

Re:Lucky Rats

[theshowmecanuck]

Too bad they don't euthanize them after two hours.

Re:Lucky Rats

[hedwards]

I know you're kidding, but the lungs are hardly the only part of the body damaged by smoking. In fact it's relatively hard to find a part of the body which isn't impacted in one way or another by smoking.

Re:Lucky Rats

[Deus.1.01]

Not to mention this might be an extremely expensive operation, only afforded to the rich...which means....that i..have AN EXTRA INCENTIVE IN LIFE!

*puff puff puff* GO GO GO *puff puff puff*

Re:Lucky Rats

[noidentity]

I read the headline as simply meaning that a mother rat had baby rats whose lungs grew, and all this took place in a cage in a lab, therefore the lungs grew in the lab as stated. Didn't say anything about artificial.

Re:Lucky Rats

[Hurricane78]

Yeah, really lucky, to get your lungs torn out, replaced by some low-performance monstrously looking man-made ones, closed up, and expected to breathe trough them. Think constant shortage of breath and the resulting fast breathing an panic. Yay, amazingly wonderful. :/

Re:Lucky Rats

[Atzanteol]

You must be a hit at parties...

Re:Lucky Rats

[Anonymous Coward]

What a bunch of sick, sociopathic idiots there are, on Slashdot.

No doubt you never thought once about the hell on earth that these animals have been put through.

Perhaps you can enlighten me and explain how you CHOSE to be born a human being, rather than a rat?

Re:Lucky Rats

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the rats sounded like Darth Vader

Sheesh

[DoofusOfDeath]

Remind me to never wash with that detergent...

Up next

[yeshuawatso]

Up next, rats get erections from penises grown in the lab. Pfizer buys all patents and markets a complement drug to Viagra.

Re:Up next

[Anonymous Coward]

Up next, rats get erections from penises grown in the lab. Pfizer buys all patents and markets a complement drug to Viagra.

Silence, Pinky, or I shall have to hurt you.

Re:Up next

[DoofusOfDeath]

Up next, rats get erections from penises grown in the lab.

Uugh. You're reminding me of one of the most disturbing Southpark episodes ever.

Re:Up next

[DigiShaman]

Rats with erections - Does that involve using them as a bottle opener?

I think its safe ...

[crackerjack911]

I can finally take up smoking again!

Enter and Win!

[MarkvW]

Feeling like you're gonna die?
Feeling like you can't take another breath?
Enter the Philip Morris "WIN A LUNG" contest?

Just send in one Marlboro proof of purchase today!

Philip Morris: "Making things Better With Tobacco" (TM)

Void where prohibited by law.

Re:Enter and Win!

[cosm]

Honesty, as a dirty cigarette smoker, I would love the applications of this in the future. Seeing as smoking cigarettes is mostly consensual (granted your not encroaching on other peoples relative airspace, being tarnished with smoke on a crowded bus, or throwing your butts all over the damned place), I think this would be cool for the average person who enjoys cigarettes. The psychology of the previous statement (the enjoys portion) could obviously be argued, under the wing of the psychological / biological additions department.

But if I am smoker that participates in my habit respectful of the wishes of other, courteous in my carcinogen ingestion, would it be such a travesty if there were an abundant supply (IE, people who haven't consensually and knowingly destroyed their lungs getting first priority, and the excess up for auction / sale), giving the smoker the ability to purchase new lungs. This understandably does not counteract the hundreds of other detriments to the body smoking yields, but at least of the the major concern of many.

Of coarse any medical procedure that encourages a habit so vocally hated (yet balance book loved **tax revenue**), the average politician would have nothing of it the eyes of an irrational voter not seeing all sides of the argument for pay-per-lung adoption schemes, despite the process doling out fair opportunities to those in genuine need, I believe political rhetoric of fire-and-brimstone proportions would kill such a proposition before it even hit the table.

Re:Enter and Win!

[NotBornYesterday]

A friend's mother recently died of lung cancer, and I'd love to see lives extended by this that would otherwise be cut short. Of course, in a world with limited dollars to pay for medical care, one has to wonder if treating lung cancer or emphysema this way might sometimes come at the expense of treating someone else with a non-"consensual" condition like cystic fibrosis.

Re:Enter and Win!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if they can just make the new lung tissue require tobacco to survive ...

Re:Enter and Win!

[internettoughguy]

Assuming they're legal in your jurisdiction, why not use E-cigarettes?

Re:Enter and Win!

[cosm]

As a 5+ year smoker, they just don't cut it. With current medical technology it is vain of me to assume I can healthily continue the habit, yet I have tried a couple of the E-Cigarette brands, such as Njoy, Blu, and they are just not the same. Not only are the chemicals in actual cigarettes addicting, along with the oral fixation, but the actual burning sensation in the lungs itself can be euphoric in times of stress, and that is something the E-Cigarettes fail to convey.

Of course, doing anything that causes your lungs to burn should be a sign to quit said activity, and yet the fallibility of the will succumbs to continual puff-puff-drag, again, and again. Your results may vary.

Re:Enter and Win!

[hedwards]

The problem is that the effects of smoking go way beyond what this research can assist with. And I'm assuming that it can be made viable in the relative near future. The reality is that it's hard to find a part of the body which isn't impacted in one way or another by cigarettes. Increasingly it's looking like any contact with the chemicals in smoke whether second of third hand is unhealthy.

When you consider all the problems in the world, solving smoking in any other way that preventing it is a waste of time and energy. Fix it as best you can for those that smoke, but invest the resources in things which are actually helpful, rather than enabling bad behavior.

Re:Enter and Win!

[TheLink]

In some countries smokers put in MORE money into the system than take out. The "limited dollars" often come from them in the first place. For example in the UK, smoking related problems cost the national health care system 5 billion UK pounds a year, but the tobacco tax revenue is about 10 billion a year.

So just increase the tobacco tax in your country till it evens out or you get a net gain. Legit drug money...

I'm a nonsmoker and I'm fine if smokers want to make extra contributions to society, and die younger in countries where "aging population" is a concern. As long as there are nonsmoking places and smoking places (don't ban smoking in restaurants/pubs etc, just tax establishments that allow smoking more- then you allow choice and don't miss out on revenue).

People (especially children) should be educated on the dangers of smoking, but once they are adults smoking is not really a big problem to me. Second hand smoke might shorten my lifespan, big deal, bad drivers might shorten/ruin my life even more.

Re:Enter and Win!

[jackbird]

...Because clearly, the only people who might ever need a replacement lung are smokers.

Re:Enter and Win!

[alvinrod]

Like a lot of things (e.g. cars, televisions, etc.) it will start off as a luxury item for the rich and well to do, but eventually we'll find a way to make it cheap enough for the common person. Somebody has to pay the high initial costs while the technology is in its infancy and unless society is down with spending millions on a charity case, it's probably going to be the rich asshole who smoked five packs a day who gets the new lungs.

It's not exactly just, but then again neither is life.

Re:Enter and Win!

[harley78]

Yes; but a majority of health problems(mortal) , are, to the lungs in smokers. Lung cancer and Emphysema. Might I add that emphysema is not cancer, is mainly caused by smoking and can also be caused by poor working conditions in "unhealthy" working conditions. Ever take a look at the ACS(American Chemistry Society) obituaries? As others have said, It's a tax revenue and in countries with their heads out of their asses, smokers pay more in than take out.

Re:Enter and Win!

[LongearedBat]

You write like you're a responsible and respectful smoker. Hats off to you, seriously. Unfortunately, your kind is rare. Most smokers have no idea how disgusting and pervasive their habit is. I think it's partly because their olfactory systems are so damaged that they simply don't understand how bad it smells to others.

A tiny selection of my experiences:
- Smoker sitting right next to a non-smoking sign: "Oh, I'll just finish this one."
- In a restaurant (no longer legal, thank goodness) before I've finished eating: "Oh stop being silly. It's just a cigarette."
- Burning butts being thrown where pidgeons are foraging nearby.
etc. etc. etc.

When cigarettes are banned outright, many more people will benefit than just the smokers.

Mark this Flamebait if you like. But this is my honest opinion.

Re:Enter and Win!

[sjames]

Actually even the evidence for 2nd hand smoke is a bit on the shaky side. I'm just waiting for the more rabid faction of the antis to come out with 25th hand smoke. If you shake the hand of someone who knows someone who's across the street neighbor's uncle's etc's best friend thought about smoking once, you will surely die.

Brought to you by the same people who mysteriously DON'T want e-cigarettes to exist even though a great many people have given up actual smoking because of them.

Re:Enter and Win!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's partly because their olfactory systems are so damaged that they simply don't understand how bad it smells to others.

As an ex-smoker, let me be the first to say you've hit the nail on the head. Smokers simply don't realize just how vile they actually smell, and the deep down visceral gut wrenching reaction that non-smokers receive from smelling stale cigarette smoke. The smoke that is just coming off the cigarette isn't actually all that bad... it's what lingers around after that is the really disgusting thing. And when I say gut wrenching... I mean it. My job puts me around various types of dead and decaying animal bodies often enough that I can get an estimate of about how long something's been dead and how big the animal is and what the temperature of the area the body has been lying in just by the smell. I've forgotten to wash my hands before going to lunch right after handling a bloated, purple, maggot infested corpse. But the smell surrounding someone who is saving half a cigarette for later physically makes me literally gag. And by literally, I don't mean that in the idiotic common usage where "literally" means "figuratively."

And it wasn't that long ago that I was the one causing the smell... and didn't see what was so bad about it.

Re:Enter and Win!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a little note that may be helpful. I've been a pack a day smoker for 12 years, and have recently transitioned successfully to an eCig. I can still smoke regular cigarettes on occasion when the eCig is not convenient or as satisfying. (I have smoked approximately three packs over the last three months.) I admit that the eCig is not as satisfying, but it has been enough.

The way I transitioned was to use a nicotine patch for two weeks while smoking the eCig continually, and immediately quitting the regular cigarettes. I asked people at work if they minded that I smoked indoors at the office, and they were supportive. After the two weeks, I was able to easily continue using the eCig alone.

I do smoke the eCig almost continually, as opposed to smoking regular cigarettes once per hour, but it is casually integrated into my daily life and I don't really notice any more. I do periodically smoke regular cigarettes, (camping, drinking w/ friends, etc.) but can transition back to the eCig without any change.

It's been about three months, and I definitely enjoy the increased cleanliness of myself and surroundings, mildly increased lung capacity and lack of the need to interrupt my day for a regular cigarette. What amazed me the most was how this change didn't include any of the ill-effects I had encountered in the past trying to quit, or cut back: extreme irritability, erratic behavior and unending tests of my willpower. It was all very easy. Every once in a while I crave a regular cigarette, and it easily passes after conscious eCig usage.

Re:Enter and Win!

[cosm]

I will have to give that a shot, thanks AC. Always looking for a new way to quit. I hate the habit, but enjoy the sensation, sounds like a good approach.

Re:Enter and Win!

[Nadaka]

I have a friend that "rolls his own" eCigs. He says the trick to make it more satisfying is to up the voltage to about 4.5v to get a hotter vapor and to use a variety of high quality flavors (red bull is one of his preferred ones). IIRC it can be done for less than $10 of electronics.

Re:Enter and Win!

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the person who wants a new lung is paying for it and an arbitrary number of lungs can be produced, then it doesn't matter. I'm tired of hearing about how some people 'deserve' treatment more than others. That's like saying I 'deserve' a new sports car more than you. Fucking socialists.

Brains

[lymond01]

Have they ever taken a domesticated, trained chimpanzee's brain and put it in a wild chimp's skull to see if the training transfers? I mean, you could do it with rats, but any decent rat can find cheese in a maze.

Re:Brains

[Sir_Lewk]

What exactly would that accomplish, besides creating one very likely brain damaged and paralyzed monkey? We already know that we use brains for learning, hardly something that needs testing in such a convulted manner.

Re:Brains

[X0563511]

No. It's not possible to transplant the brain. Well, it is technically... the problem comes when you try to rewire the brainstem to the spine. Also, the chemical messages to/from the body probably won't match up and that alone would cause problems.

Re:Brains

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Brains in anything but the lowest order animals are far too complex for us to:

1. Keep alive without access to a circulatory system for the time needed to perform the transfer
2. Reconnect properly at the other end. They're riddled with blood vessels, and you need to make sure the connection to the rest of the body's nervous system is restored. Blood vessels are (relatively) easy, but hooking up each individual neuron properly? Not possible, and if they aren't hooked up immediately, the host body's heart would stop, along with hundreds of other more or less vital processes.

Beyond that, it would be completely pointless. Learned behaviors, depending on the type, are known from experimentation (and the occasional "lucky" bit of brain damage) to reside in specific lobes of the brain (e.g. most trained reflexes are controlled by the cerebellum). We'd learn nothing except that the scientists involved are immoral. Particularly since a lot of the training would be for the original body; trying to control a dissimilar body would make it nigh impossible to display the effects of any training due to the difficulty in just figuring out how to breathe, move, etc.

Re:Brains

[gandhi_2]

+1 WTF?

Re:Brains

[NeutronCowboy]

Not possible, and if they aren't hooked up immediately, the host body's heart would stop, along with hundreds of other more or less vital processes.

Not quite. Most vital processes are autonomic - i.e. not under control of the brain itself. Cut someone's head off, and the heart keeps beating until it's starved of blood and oxygen.

Keep alive without access to a circulatory system for the time needed to perform the transfer

Two words: cold storage. Medicine has made tremendous progress in its understanding of how to cool the body and the brain to minimize damage from lack of oxygen.

That said, I agree that the proposed experiment is pretty useless, as that question has already been answered: yes, it would transfer.

Re:Brains

[NotBornYesterday]

Actually, the heart is controlled by the brainstem. Decapitation should stop the human heart fairly quick.

Re:Brains

[NeutronCowboy]

Pediatrist at Emory wants to disagree:http://www.pediatrics.emory.edu/ccm/lectures/files/Brain%20Death.ppt
Warning: PPT. Heart rate is controlled by various parts of the nervous system, including certain parts of the brain, but it is still most dependent on the autonomic nervous system. What stops the heart quickest is lack of oxygen through lack of respiration, which is what gets stopped once the brain stem gets removed.

Re:Brains

[Kratisto]

Actually, the pace of the heart is set by the SA node. The brainstem and other factors can make the heart beat faster or slower in response to stress, but the heart paces itself.

Re:Brains

[Anonymous Coward]

Brains in anything but the lowest order animals are far too complex for us to:

1. Keep alive without access to a circulatory system for the time needed to perform the transfer
2. Reconnect properly at the other end.

A child could do it!

Re:Brains

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._White

Re:Brains

[harley78]

H2S

Re:Brains

[NotBornYesterday]

I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Emory.

Re:Brains

[lymond01]

This was exactly the response I was looking for. ;-)

What about kidneys?

[Daetrin]

The article mentions a similar procedure performed on the liver. Have they done any research into growing new kidneys? There are a lot of people dependent on dialysis who could really use a "quick and easy" way to get a new kidney. (At least as compared to the approximately seven year wait list for a donor transplant now. Or, you know, trying your luck in Thailand.)

Re:What about kidneys?

[Bigjeff5]

Well, the idea behind this is it's transferable to other organs. It's not like they have to nail down lungs before they begin working on the kidneys. The lung is a fairly complicated organ, so once it's perfected the kidneys will be a snap, and any other organ. The only thing they'll need to work out is the specific technique that applies to each organ.

Re:What about kidneys?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I read something about this on the BBC news pages recently. They tried to inject kidneys with stem cells aimed to regrow tissue from the inside.
The patient died from an immune-system reaction as the new stem cell material was rejected. I'm not entirely sure what the overall story was but something along those lines.

Re:What about kidneys?

[hey!]

I vote pancreas. I've lost three family members to cancer: lung, nasopharyngeal and pancreatic. If you are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer you are more than 95% likely to be dead in five years.

They've apparently been able to use this technique to create liver implants. That's cool too.

Pah.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's entirely possible. Just be sure to reconnect voice control first, so Spock can help you out.

Re:Pah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whole head transplants have been done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._White

Having seen the footage of the chimpanzee once, it makes Frankenstein seem like Willy Wonka. The footage is actually so traumatising that it was classified and has only rarely been released.

Re:Pah.

[RsG]

Right, but see previous about the inability to hook the spine back up again. You're basically creating a short lived paraplegic monkey (short lived because of tissue rejection). If we could get around this, then we'd also have the capacity to reverse paralysis arising from a severed spine.

Re:Pah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct, but this then opens up a whole new nightmare: imagine a world where your every ill (if it's not brain/head/nerve related) can be treated, so long as you can find a tissue-compatible body. But with everyone who can afford it in the same boat, then the market for bodies could become a driving force for all sorts of horrors. Immortality, so long as you're willing for someone else to pay the price.

Or perhaps I've been watching too many horror movies lately? Daybreakers is excellent! :)

Re:Pah.

[JohnRoss1968]

Thats the coolest fuckin thing Ive seen all month.......I should call my doctor.
Shrink or transplant You decide............

Utter scum

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but anyone who abuses an animal is utter scum in my books. I have nothing but contempt for them.

Re:Utter scum

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way you don't use or benefit from animal products or testing. Does that mean you are scum too?

Star Wars

[jbatista]

Next up, Lord Vader replaces his breather mask with mouse lungs. Boy, he's gonna be pissed! Or else the mouse is going to force-choke someone if he doesn't get his cheese, fast! "I assure you commander, that the Mouse Emperor will not be as lenient as I am. Perhaps you think you're being treated ... unfairly?"

Re:Star Wars

[Zorque]

Hahaha, what?

Re:Star Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an autistic nerd, by himself in his bedroom with no friends, right?

Re:Star Wars

[Jedi Alec]

"So, Lord Vader, what are we going to do tonight?"

"The same thing we do every night Pinky, try and blow up the world."

Nice

[mosb1000]

I will begin smoking immediately in preparation and celebration!

Mod Parent Down

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst Slashdot joke ever. To call it stupid and moronic would be giving it too much credit.

Turning Blue

[Master Moose]

"the results might eventually lead to replacement lungs for patients"

I won't hold my breath for it!

Re:Turning Blue

[Born2bwire]

Still, this promises to breathe new life into a gasping industry.

Re:Turning Blue

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

I hope this isn't too mean

[abbynormal brain]

... but oh well. Is the lung manufactured in such a way that it assimilates to a level that will affect its children's lungs?
The reason I ask is that maybe we can consider making the lungs function in such a way that it causes the mice to breathe slower and therefore _be_ slower and easier to catch ... cuz those sons-a-bitches move like greased lightning and I almost killed myself in my garage trying to catch one.

Re:I hope this isn't too mean

[Randle_Revar]

>assimilates to a level that will affect its children's lungs?

Lamarckism was disproven

(Well, there is epigentics, but I don't see that methylation would be an issue here)

Re:I hope this isn't too mean

[abbynormal brain]

I could have sworn I just heard a faint cheer from my garage.

tr:0ll

[Anonymous Coward]

session and join in 'superior' machine. least I wo+n't every chance I got

Good News for Rats!

[Greyfox]

Now all those rats used in the smoking studies will be able to get new lungs! Hooray!

Not quite there yet

[confused one]

The researchers allowed the animals to breathe with the lungs for up to 2 hours before euthanizing them because of blood clots.

They're not quite there yet...

Head transplant

[Burning1]

Similar experiments have been performed...

And...

[Burning1]

And here's the video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdJGlYOL0r4

Celebration!

[Anonymous Coward]

A huge victory for smoking rats everywhere!

This is very far reaching!!

[randyleepublic]

We are working on a telomerase activator. The lungs are made from stem cells that have to replicate many times before the lungs are fully grown. If they can do their replications with active telomerase, then, when they are ready to be transplanted they are equivalent to baby lungs in the youthfulness of the tissue. Otherwise they are, despite being unused, like the lungs of an old person.

I quit smoking years ago, but I could sure use a set. However this time I want a set that has been "augmented". Higher capacity, better throughput, the works! Just make a few mods to the DNA before you start growing them. Not enough cause rejection, though. This is so cool.

Take a lung, leave a lung?

[justthisdude]

Each implant still requires the skeletal remains of someone else's organ. Where do they plan to get all these organs? I love the idea that every recipient needs to leave behind their old organ to form the basis of for the next guy's

It's the ultimate in recycling!.

Re:Take a lung, leave a lung?

[ShadowRangerRIT]

There are a lot of organ donors who die, but in such a way that the organ is unsuitable for transplant (not to mention, I'm pretty sure we can't transplant lungs in any event). So all the organ donors currently "wasting" lungs will be able to provide them, as will many organ donors who die with organs they can't otherwise transplant; they may not be able to use the organ as is, but in many cases they can strip the cells and regrow an organ over the framework that remains.

Good news.

[Anonymous Coward]

My father's diagnosed with lung cancer. Never been a smoker. Lived a rather healthy life.
Provided there is no metastasis he will be under surgery on July 2nd.

This is good news. Maybe not for him.

The Beginning of the End

[pinkushun]

GeneCo provides organ transplantation for profits. In addition to financing options, GeneCo reserves the right to implement default remedies, including repossession. For those who can't keep up with their organ payments, collection is the responsibility of "organ repo men", skilled assassins contracted by GeneCo. Repo men are ordered to recover GeneCo's property by any means necessary.

Argh!

[jackd]

Rats Breathe Air From Lungs Grown In the Lab

Argh! Stop trying to cure rats. We have billions of rats, we don't need to try to heal the unhealthy ones.

ALF

[vajorie]

I for one would like to see an animal rights group to bring down some of its wisdom down on that lab.

too obvious

[Torvac]

if they could manage to grow and implant gills into rats that would rock

Re:too obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

if they could manage to grow and implant gills into rats that would rock

Great as if rats weren't difficult enough to kill already, you want to remove the option of drowning them.

They're not

[justinlee37]

The researchers are not trying to save rats. They're trying to save human lives. Unfortunately, it isn't wise to use experimental medical procedures on humans as sometimes the treatment being tested ends up doing more harm than good.

I can't tell if you're just trying to be funny or if you really don't understand this.

Re:They're not

[jackd]

The researchers are not trying to save rats. They're trying to save human lives. Unfortunately, it isn't wise to use experimental medical procedures on humans as sometimes the treatment being tested ends up doing more harm than good.

I can't tell if you're just trying to be funny or if you really don't understand this.

Thank you! I was deeply concerned there for a minute. What a waste of resources trying to create artificial rat lungs, when I can go down to my local pizza place, and find freshly dead rats, who are all great candidates for rat-to-rat transplants for example. Thanks for clearing this up. I really think they should have been more clear in the headline.

Re:They're not

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell if you're just trying to be funny or if you really don't understand this.

Really? You really couldn't tell?

Shakes head slowly...

Big step forward

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course someone still needs to give up their lung, but since the cells themselves are stripped away it could plausibly be taken from a cadaver. The tough restrictions associated with transplanting a still-living organ would not exist, or could be significantly relaxed.

Quick and easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Remembered reading this a few years back. For a bit of quick ingenuity: doctor throws together a dialysis machine, saves baby. Cheers.