Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Turn Skin Into Blood

Breakthru writes "In an important breakthrough, scientists at McMaster University have discovered how to make human blood from adult human skin. The discovery, published in the prestigious science journal Nature today, could mean that in the foreseeable future people needing blood for surgery, cancer treatment or treatment of other blood conditions like anemia will be able to have blood created from a patch of their own skin to provide transfusions. Clinical trials could begin as soon as 2012."

229 comments

  1. This should make vampires happy! by WolphFang · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This should make vampires happy!

    --
    leather-dog muksihs
    Blog: @muksihs
    1. Re:This should make vampires happy! by macraig · · Score: 0

      Not really: they won't have anything to sink their teeth into.

    2. Re:This should make vampires happy! by WolphFang · · Score: 1

      Sure they would. The victim is slowly skinned, the skin being shoved into the blood converter, the output of the blood converter being input into the victim, from whence the vampire can sink his/her teeth into.

      --
      leather-dog muksihs
      Blog: @muksihs
    3. Re:This should make vampires happy! by ArundelCastle · · Score: 1

      Why?? It means that they're now in direct competition with zombies! Previously it was a solids/liquids kinda thing. Now they'll have to fight over larger portions.

    4. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 0

      While I'm no vampire, I don't really see how they would be happy to see all their meals turned into zombies with skins turned into blood.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    5. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dear Pathetic Concern Troll:

      Sorry about your butthurt.

      I suppose I should be sorry to tell you this, but America's founders were Deists, Unitarians, Atheists and Freemasons.

      Scarcely the creme of "christianity".

      Oh, also. Most Americans have no beef about using embryos for research that will help humanity. The research IS being done, despite your butthurt, in Europe and Asia, where christian lunatics have no say in the matter.

      So, here's the deal. People like you are dying out. Every generation more and more people reject your 'religion'. Your book of the collected myths, fables and superstitions of bronze age nomadic desert herders and the death cults they belonged to, is ignored and rejected.

      Sucks to be you.

      For the rest of us, not so much.

      kthnxbai!

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    6. Re:This should make vampires happy! by mug+funky · · Score: 0

      Problem - religion in general is a clever meme. An ideology that controls people's reproduction can survive quite well. especially when it believes to be persecuted and claims underdog status (thus winning more supporters... funny thing human nature). These people don't believe in birth control, but are subject to the same sexual desires as the rest of us (no surprise - we're all human). So they'll breed more than the contraception-using, abortion-supporting atheist rationalists amoung us. What should we do? i suggest we try to outbreed them. or neuter them.

    7. Re:This should make vampires happy! by x2A · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We don't really need to do anything. Our survival stems from our evolved ability to correctly attribute cause to effect, and therefore be able to control effects by controlling causes. As soon as you remove this ability (by claiming simply that the cause is "god dun it") you remove the ability to control reality, which means removing the ability of self preservation. This is why countries where religion isn't rampant are able to run themselves in a more sustained way, right across the board, you'll tend to find fewer boom/bust cycles, fewer wars, fewer enemies, more renewable energy sources. This is because you can't expect somebody to be irrational only when it comes to their religion; their ability to believe things without reason infects their entire decision making process, as does the ability to escape personal responsibility (submitting to "god's will" rather than exercising ones own will to solve problems).

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    8. Re:This should make vampires happy! by mug+funky · · Score: 0

      neutering sounds like more fun though.

      while i agree somewhat, cause -> effect is not the same as a belief system. in order to survive, we don't need to know the earth is round, and we can attribute the sun coming up every morning to either God or physics if we like - our ability to survive is not really affected, at least on a day to day level.

      it's like the difference between common sense and logic. usually they are in agreement, but often they aren't. common sense is how we survive. logic is how we understand.

    9. Re:This should make vampires happy! by bronney · · Score: 1

      this thought process also makes for an easy lay, so it isn't all that bad ;)

    10. Re:This should make vampires happy! by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You should probably be aware that not all Christians are Catholics. There are plenty of Christians who believe in birth control (including many Catholics who disagree with their church over it).

      Most of them don't believe in abortion as a convenient form of birth control, though. Contraception is much easier, safer, and cheaper for the mother than abortion, even if you do think abortion is grand.

      Personally, I'm against abortion in principle unless it's an unusually dangerous pregnancy for the mother or the result of rape or incest. However, I know that making it illegal wouldn't stop it. It'd just drive it underground and make everybody involved -- mothers, fathers, doctors and nurses performing -- worse off. I think it should be, as President Clinton said, "legal, safe, and rare".

      Now, about the difference between IVF and abortion... IVF is not abortion. The embryos from IVF used for ECS research have not been implanted then scraped out by a surgeon. They are the spare embryos that were never implanted in the uterus. These are left over from women and couples trying to get pregnant and have kids, not preventing it. It's not about birth control in the common sense of the phrase, which is preventing births.

      Your argument seems to confuse quite a few topics. You also generalize quite a few groups into one you clearly disagree with the most. In your quest to vilify people as simpletons who don't grasp the issues at hand, you have oversimplified the topics and (probably intentionally) failed to even acknowledge the issues at hand are much more complex than you mention.

    11. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which hypothetical countries are you talking about? I'm sitting here in France which is the best western equivalent of an atheist state. You can't seriously say things here are running smoothly. The major state sponsored atheist countries have been Russia under Stalin, China, and North Korea - hardly the utopia you are imagining. Greed and power corrupt both theists and athiests alike. To say one group is better than another is to miss the fundamental problem.

    12. Re:This should make vampires happy! by x2A · · Score: 1

      But our ability to survive is affected by ability to attribute cause to effect, and I already listed a few visible effects of this. You may think that not understanding the sun has no effect, that it still rises and sets every day, but that's simply not true. At the basic level, understanding long term climate effects helps to increase crop yields, which has a direct effect on the amount of life that can be supported. At the more advanced end, we have the SOHO and SDO satellites trained on the sun to learn more about it, helping us protect our electricity delivery grids and communication systems against solar storms. A group of people who do not employ the scientific method of understanding will fail in the greater world amongst others who will do. Economies will go elsewhere, they will experience brain-drains, and they will collapse to be replaced by a more modern society. You can't stay backwards forever when the rest of the world is moving forwards.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    13. Re:This should make vampires happy! by x2A · · Score: 1

      You sound like you're stuck in a bubble. Try looking outside your bubble at other countries in the world, that's the only way you can draw a comparison.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    14. Re:This should make vampires happy! by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most US Christians are either OF the religious right, or more importantly will never oppose it.

      The few on Slashdot aren't representative. The MANY who just voted the Teapublicans into power ARE representative, and just proved it yet again.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    15. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      "Personally, I'm against abortion in principle unless it's an unusually dangerous pregnancy for the mother or the result of rape or incest."

      That's more or less my stance on the issue, if you throw in a "However, I don't feel it's my right to enforce my moral view on everyone else using the force of government -- accordingly I'm pro choice if only because I feel that it's a grave moral choice that belongs to the woman and no one else. Making it illegal won't stop it, merely make it less safe."

    16. Re:This should make vampires happy! by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally, I'm against abortion in principle unless it's an unusually dangerous pregnancy for the mother or the result of rape or incest.

      How about in the case of a 15-year-old girl whose Christian parents who wouldn't talk about sex at all with her for fear that her hearing about it would encourage her to do it? So the girl doesn't know the fundamentals and trusts her new boyfriend who insists "condoms don't feel good" and "I'll pull out".

      What I'm asking is: how do you feel about unwanted and highly personally destructive pregnancies ultimately enabled by ignorance due to religion?

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    17. Re:This should make vampires happy! by imamac · · Score: 1

      However, I don't feel it's my right to enforce my moral view on everyone else using the force of government

      That's actually one of the purposes of government--to enforce a standard acceptab;e moral view represented by the voters. If you're a voter--why should your view not be represented by law? We do the same thing for murder, theft, etc--these are all deemed immoral by the public and as such we have laws against them.

    18. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These people don't believe in birth control...

      AFAIK that's an attribute of the Catholic Church, not all Christians. I was raised a Baptist (Southern Baptist, at that), and we had no such restrictions. This list talks about Catholic abhorrence to birth control, and also talks about how the Methodists (which are the closest to Baptists on the list) are all for responsible birth control. Their position is: "each couple has the right and the duty prayerfully and responsibly to control conception according to their circumstances."

    19. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I 100% agree with you.

      Funny how it was modded 5 - Insightful when there is nothing really insightful gained.

    20. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Godskitchen · · Score: 0

      FYI: Freemasonry isn't a religion.

    21. Re:This should make vampires happy! by gnesterenko · · Score: 1

      While your last paragraph may be correct with respect to the reality of the groups you are describing, that same group has picked aweful spokesmen/women who are exactly like the ones Chris Tucker has described. This is as much the pro-lifer group's fault as it is the media, who loves to focus on the extreme members of the pro-life group. Sure, some are moderate, but in the end, it doesn't really matter if the mob mentality dictates the groups voice and direction, instead of logic and reasonable argument, such as the one you yourself presented.

      Point being, while you can argue specifics and edge cases of religion, the over-arching trend has been to vilify anything to do with ESC research and use, and the masses have taken up the call. You accuse the OP of over-simplifying the argument, while the pro-life group has been doing the exact same thing - worse really because the argument wasn't just simplified, it was turned into an ultimatum of eternal damnation. And Lo and Behold, we had a president elected by the very same people who did exactly what was expected of him by the masses, not the few like yourself, and the research was severely limited.

      Your argument is valid, but such reason is unfortunately an outlier amongst the rest. If you really want a reasonable discussion on the complex topics at hand, you need to look to taking the control of the argument away from the extreme members of the pro-life movement.

      "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

    22. Re:This should make vampires happy! by gnesterenko · · Score: 1

      Umm, immoral? I don't believe thats the reason we make murder illegal. I'm pretty sure it is because it is demonstratebly detrimental to society as a whole. Same for theft. And other major crimes. No such argument can be made for ESC research, beyond personal offense taken by some based on their morals. The rights of the few shall not be infringed upon by the wants of the many.

      "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

    23. Re:This should make vampires happy! by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most of them don't believe in abortion as a convenient form of birth control, though.

      I've never met anyone who thinks abortion is a convenient form of birth control, including women who have had several of them.

      Contraception is much easier, safer, and cheaper for the mother than abortion, even if you do think abortion is grand.

      It's also far from perfect.

      Personally, I'm against abortion in principle unless it's an unusually dangerous pregnancy for the mother or the result of rape or incest.
      [...]

      Now, about the difference between IVF and abortion... IVF is not abortion.

      I am fascinated to hear how you've managed to justify that little mental disconnect to yourself. What's the moral difference between creating an embryo in a test tube and then destroying it, and creating an embryo in a uterus and then destroying it ? By what measure can destroying an embryo that was almost certainly an accident be considered a greater crime than deliberately creating dozens (if not hundreds) of them with the absolute foreknowledge they would nearly all be destroyed (ie: creating them to destroy them) ?

    24. Re:This should make vampires happy! by TimSSG · · Score: 1

      False, of the Four Christians that I know their type, two are of the Right and two of the Left. This does NOT count my family or the Members of my Church. This is in Indiana, USA normally considered on the Right side. I think people consider you to be Anti-Christian and do NOT tell you that they are Christian on the left. Tim S.

    25. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What kind of woman has several abortions without it being a (convenient) form of birth control?

    26. Re:This should make vampires happy! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'd say that's only true for religious fundamentalists and related nutballs, not all religion in general (most mainstream religions have little to no direct conflict with reality) - the US has a very high proportion of (specifically Christian) fundamentalists/nutballs in their religious population compared to say, Canada or Europe.

      Yeah some people will say "oh no they're just more vocal" but guess what, no matter how vocal you are you still only get one vote, and the US election polls show their true numbers. The Republican party was running on a platform of little more than the "Three Gs" for decades, and still relies on them to some extent. That's not a vocal micro-minority, that's a significant chunk of the population.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    27. Re:This should make vampires happy! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The plural of anecdote is not data.

      Wake me when vocal Christians act with _decisive_ power in opposition to the Religious Right. Inaction is a choice. The important churches vote Right.

      I tire of these mewling excuses from the left. The Religious Right at least have the courage of their convictions. The tiny religious left (which is a contradiction in terms) is obviously too confused to function, so it doesn't.

      Have fun, religion is whatever you'd like to imagine (as is all superstition) but don't expect observers to buy your hallucination.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    28. Re:This should make vampires happy! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2, Funny

      Incoming down-mods! You just brought Bristol Palin into this!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    29. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Umm, immoral? I don't believe thats the reason we make murder illegal. I'm pretty sure it is because it is demonstratebly detrimental to society as a whole.

      That's pretty much the working legal definition of "immoral".

      Same for theft. And other major crimes. No such argument can be made for ESC research, beyond personal offense taken by some based on their morals.

      These aren't my views, but I bring them up because you're glossing over them:

      There are a lot of people who view the coordinated death of an embryo as murder. Not "similar to murder", or "analogous to murder", but "is murder". Put yourself in their shoes. How do you compromise on that? How do say, "I find this whole murder thing distasteful, but you're right; I'm just pushing my morality off on strangers"?

      Suppose someone was proposing a law to allow adult children to kill their parents, regardless of reason. I'm not talking about painfully, slowly dying invalids in hospice care, but normally healthy adults. Of course everyone would fight that legislation! Well, many "pro lifers" see that as identical to abortion law except with babies instead of retirees, and would vehemently disagree that they're "forcing morality" on anyone.

      Again, these aren't my views on the subject. It's just that I think you're doing them (and yourself!) a disservice by dismissing the pro-life contingent as a bunch of Puritanical control freaks, when from their perspective they're genuinely anguished by what they see as state-sponsored murder.

      The rights of the few shall not be infringed upon by the wants of the many.

      A pro-lifer would agree completely, but from a different angle: "the rights of the few (to not be murdered before birth) shall not be infringed upon by the wants ot the many (not to be inconvenienced)."

      And to reiterate: these aren't my opinions. I've spent a lot of time around pro-lifers, though, and their views are a lot less cartoonish than you seem to want to make them to be.

      "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

      Are you serious? Are you required to put that after your statement of personal opinions?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    30. Re:This should make vampires happy! by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Did you actually read his post? He purposely takes a world view of the issue.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    31. Re:This should make vampires happy! by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that many liberals tend to view the Tea Party in exactly this way; by oversimplifying and misunderstanding them, and either accidentally or deliberately misstating their goals. Established members of the political machine try to denigrate those who try to think beyond the stale, entrenched, deadlocked two-party-by-default political system we are mired in, unless they think they can somehow leverage it to their advantage. The truth is that many of the liberal establishment are practising Catholics (I'm in Massachusetts, which is among the bluest of the blue states and full of Catholics), or involved with some other form of Christianity. Furthermore, many people I know who supported Tea/rightwing/alternative candidates this time around were not motivated by religion, but by the fact that they (we as a country, actually) have been screwed by those in power, and it is time to vote the crooked bastards out before much more damage is done.

      Stereotyping someone by their religion or political views is as ugly and ignorant as stereotyping them by their skin.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    32. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Obama is a Christian.

      I win.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    33. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      I've never met anyone who thinks abortion is a convenient form of birth control, including women who have had several of them.

      You've obviously never listened to a feminist rally!

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    34. Re:This should make vampires happy! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      That's Tea Party boilerplate.

      The observant will note that the Values Voters are the dominant TP presence, and that the Tea Party is REPUBLICAN, not a different party no matter how its propagandists squeak otherwise. No, your token (because no more exist than a token number) of so-called Libertarians matter. The Koch brothers buy you airtime because they are smarter than you and expect a return on their investment. They have done well so far.

      Religion IS a political view, and stereotyping someone by their adult choice of ideology (which IS conformity to a stereotype!) is logical. Religion IS politics, informed by superstition. It cannot be demonstrated to be otherwise.

      Don't dare invoke racism as an equivalent (well, DO dare, and thanks for destroying your own argument). Race is not an ideology nor is it a choice. That sort of desperate reaching is why the Teapublicans are rightly seen as the Rovian Religious Right Reloaded (and minus Rove, this time!).

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    35. Re:This should make vampires happy! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Typo, not Freudian slip, fixed below:

      "No, your token (because no more exist than a token number) of so-called Libertarians don't matter."

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    36. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of woman has several abortions without it being a (convenient) form of birth control?

      Birth Control is not foolproof, even before you factor in outside her control factors such as rape and creeps who intentionally defeat birth control (I've known idiots who brag they pull condoms off part way through the act because they want the feel and know they won't face the consequences of their actions), and factor in that many factors can make obtaining birth control difficult even if you are educated in the subject and not relying on schoolyard rumors. Then consider there are other reasons a woman might choose abortion, birth defects, health issues (cancer), etc.

      But glad to hear you are ready to jump to conclusions and assume the worst about a situation you know nothing about. Even if some people behave irresponsibly, is that reason to deny all access?

    37. Re:This should make vampires happy! by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      What kind of woman has several abortions without it being a (convenient) form of birth control?

      The kind that has a lot of sex and doesn't want many - if any - children. At least one of the women I am thinking of also has 3 kids and they struggle to get by as it is.

      A condom is convenient. The pill is convenient. Even the morning-after pill is mostly convenient, depending on how badly the side affects hit.

      An abortion is not convenient. The only people who say they are, are the people who have zero right to make any judgement at all, because the closest they've knowingly even been to someone who's had one is spitting on them outside of a clinic.

    38. Re:This should make vampires happy! by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Which sociological study from which university backs up your claims? As you parrot below, the plural of anecdote is not data. Provide a citation and start using your own wit to be witty.

    39. Re:This should make vampires happy! by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Um, why would I throw that in when I already said it should be legal and safe?

      Do you read entire posts before you comment? How did you miss that? It's in the same four-sentence paragraph as what you quoted.

    40. Re:This should make vampires happy! by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      That's what is called statutory rape. The real dilemma in your scenario has less to do with whether or not the abortion would be legal, though, than the fact that the girl is the ward of her parents. They'll decide whether she can get the medical procedure unless she goes to court to win the right to her own body.

    41. Re:This should make vampires happy! by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      The problem is that most people in the US don't choose who tries to speak for them in the media. The loudest and most extreme in any direction get the airtime, and the middle ground is left to pick from the libertards on one side and the conservatards on the other, neither of which will admit to having actually thought about a complex issue.

    42. Re:This should make vampires happy! by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      An embryo that's never been in a uterus has never been a viable embryo. In fact, many people I know (of course not all, since there are absolutists all over both sides of the issue) would be just fine with aborting an embryo in the uterus, as with the day-after pill. There's a difference between an embryo and a fetus. There are several, in fact.

      There are many people who only oppose such practices as late-term abortions, when the child is actually formed and functional enough that it would be safely delivered. Others oppose it only after the embryo has implanted or after the placenta has formed. Some oppose any after-the-fact controls at all. Some people don't even believe in condoms or the pill.

      This is not a pro-life vs. pro-choice issue. Those are just labels people have applied to it as black and white fodder for the press and the two-party political system. Life is not a series of dichotomies.

    43. Re:This should make vampires happy! by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      You support statutory rape laws? Turn in your geek card. Now.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    44. Re:This should make vampires happy! by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Um, I'm over 30 and I see no need to have sex with a 16-year-old. Thanks.

      Now, if it's two sixteen-year-old kids having sex together, I'd hardly call that rape.

      I would call allowing two hormonally crazed sixteen-year-old kids who have been denied sex education to be alone together child abuse, though.

    45. Re:This should make vampires happy! by x2A · · Score: 1

      "He purposely takes a world view of the issue"

      An very incomplete one though, I don't think it can really be called "a world view".

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    46. Re:This should make vampires happy! by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I'll invoke any damn thing I want. As far as racism, you entirely miss the point, which is that your use of a stereotype is an indication of your fundamental ignorance of those you attempt to describe. A stereotype is not a logical thing to do. It is the refuge of those too intellectually lazy to question their own biases, too afraid to engage in debate with those who think differently, and too arrogant to consider that someone else's point of view might contain insight. In short, stereotypes have nothing to do with the choices (or lack thereof) of those who are stereotyped, and everything to do with the mind that actually forms (or adopts from others) the stereotype.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    47. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      "Without the Death Penalty there can be no justice."

      With no death penalty, the State cannot accidentally OR deliberately murder innocent people.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    48. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      "FYI: Freemasonry isn't a religion."

      But Freemasons HAVE to be 'religious'!

      Says so in the rules and initiations.

      There! I've run rings around you logically!

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    49. Re:This should make vampires happy! by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Current laws don't differentiate between the former and the later. Oh, and... I'd call denying sex deprived teens drugs much heavier child abuse. (Speaking as one. Before I get the usual rhetoric, I'm not ugly, nor smelly, nor shy. Everybody just want to be 'just friends'. I'm sick of it...)

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    50. Re:This should make vampires happy! by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Current laws in some states certainly do differentiate between the former and latter.

      Georgia for one considers consensual sex for two people underage to be at most a misdemeanor with no need for registration as a sex offender. The ages for sexual consent range from 16 to 18 without parental consent and from 14 to 18 with parental consent across different US states. You should check your jurisdiction more specifically than just checking that website, but the laws of your jurisdiction are probably on the web somewhere.

      In Florida, there's what is often called a "Romeo and Juliet" law. Sex with an underage person is still considered a crime, but there's wide berth for prosecutors and judges. If the "victim" is between 14 and 17 and the "perpetrator" is within four years of the "victim's" age, then a judge can bar the sex offender status even if the defendant is convicted.

      In Missouri, it is a lesser crime if the two are close in age, even if only one is a minor.

      Arkansas, Florida, and some other states have a close-in-age exception for whether or not it is even a crime to have sex with a minor at all.

      Lots of states in the US have outright exceptions or diminished crimes assigned to different age brackets. Anything not linked as a citation above and a whole lot more can be found at Wikipedia's "Ages of Consent in North America page, among other places.

    51. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Trogre · · Score: 1

      That's negligence on the part of the parents, and has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Teens need to be educated on sex and I think you'll find most actually are.

      While we're making up case studies, let's take your above case and say we discover that very thing happened, say, $YOUR_AGE_PLUS_9_MONTHS ago and the 15-year-old girl for whatever reason decided to keep the child. Is your life now somehow worth less than it would have been if you were conceived under different circumstances?

      Never forget that the feminist over-simplification of abortion is exactly that. There are always at least two factors: the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body, and the right to life of another human being in her care.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    52. Re:This should make vampires happy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, immoral? I don't believe thats the reason we make murder illegal. I'm pretty sure it is because it is demonstratebly detrimental to society as a whole.

      That's pretty much the working legal definition of "immoral".

      No, not at all. For example, various branches of Christianity consider masturbation to be immoral. Would you elaborate on how masturbation is "detrimental to society as a whole"?

      - T

  2. Sunlight? by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

    In an important breakthrough, scientists at McMaster University have discovered how to make human blood from adult human skin.

    So not only will it clot, it can tan?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Sunlight? by arnodf · · Score: 0

      scientists at McGyver University

    2. Re:Sunlight? by unwastaken · · Score: 1

      In an important breakthrough, scientists at McMaster University have discovered how to make human blood from adult human skin.

      So not only will it clot, it can tan?

      And blend!

    3. Re:Sunlight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're Canadian...tanning's never been an issue.

  3. Just one minor complication. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    That whole "walking around with no skin" situation could be a bit of a problem.

    1. Re:Just one minor complication. by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      That whole "walking around with no skin" situation could be a bit of a problem.

      So you think walking around with no blood is preferable?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Just one minor complication. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I think the idea is, you take someone _else's_ skin.

    3. Re:Just one minor complication. by Lucky75 · · Score: 5, Informative

      From what I read in other articles not posted on slashdot, something like a 12x12 cm patch of skin is enough to create enough blood for a transfusion. That's about the same amount removed during normal grafting operations.

      Link

      --
      DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
    4. Re:Just one minor complication. by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      Is that after 'growing' the skin to a larger size, like is done for burn victims or other skin graft recipients?

      Also, if they could make the IV bag out of 'growing' skin, it would never run out of blood!

    5. Re:Just one minor complication. by hahn · · Score: 1

      I know you didn't write this (it was in the article), but "create enough blood for a transfusion" is a meaningless statement. Depending on the medical situation, one could need anywhere between 1 bag of red blood cells (450 ml) to 20 bags of blood. In the Nature article that ColdWetDog linked, it states,

      Converted cells aren't without their drawbacks, though. Unlike iPS and embryonic stem cells, they cannot easily multiply in the lab, so producing the large quantities needed for applications such as screening drugs could prove tough, says Wilmut (embryologist and director of the MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine in Edinburgh, UK)

      As I suspected, differentiated cells such as skin will have limited ability to replicate. A 12 x 12 cm patch of skin doesn't have many cells compared to a standard 450 ml bag of packed RBC. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible, I don't see how this is likely to be turned into a realistic and practical solution for the blood banks.

      --
      "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
    6. Re:Just one minor complication. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Article says 12 square cm (3cm x 4cm), 12x12cm is 144 square cm.

    7. Re:Just one minor complication. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're in error. It's a 12 cm2 patch, which is 3cm x 4cm. (source: http://www.healthzone.ca/health/newsfeatures/research/article/887173--mcmaster-researchers-beat-world-in-blood-race).

      captcha: doctor (tee-hee)

    8. Re:Just one minor complication. by burningcpu · · Score: 1

      12x12 cm is not a small area when it comes to skin removal

    9. Re:Just one minor complication. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Robbie Williams didn't seem to have any trouble with it:

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

      (WARNING: Vid contains male striptease, horrible music, and oh yeah, considerable gore)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    10. Re:Just one minor complication. by Lucky75 · · Score: 1

      Again from what I've read elsewhere, it doesn't appear to be affected by things like Leukemia, so for people with rare blood types, it could very well be a realistic and practical solution.

      Not for blood banks, I agree. But in certain situations it could. Obviously there would be no point in using skin to create blood when people could just give blood at blood banks ;)

      --
      DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
    11. Re:Just one minor complication. by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      a 12x12 cm patch of skin

      What's that in American? Is it big?

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    12. Re:Just one minor complication. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not an issue. Most of the posts here presume that the skin for the transformed blood will come from you. But that would only be applicable when you know in advance that you need blood for a transfusion. More likely would be that blood banks would get some samples of O positive or O negative (whichever is universal) and grow skin cells like they would for grafts but then farm some/most of that for transforming into blood. This would be done on an industrial scale and allow for a continuous supply of fresh universal blood free from whatever nasty stuff you might find in donated blood. At least that's my layman's perspective on how this would play out.

  4. How much blood can "a patch of skin" provide? by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

    The article mentioned that it's a direct conversion from skin to blood... but I think a reasonable patch of skin wouldn't have enough volume of cells for a blood transfusion?

    1. Re:How much blood can "a patch of skin" provide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe the recipient doesn't have enough skin to provide adequate blood volume, but I am sure some unsuspecting skin donor has plenty to provide.

      Mooowhhahhhhahahahahh!

      I guess a blood bank would be easier, if less diabolical

    2. Re:How much blood can "a patch of skin" provide? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, no, no. No even wrong. However, the idiot FA is so devoid of information that yours is a reasonable assumption. A better intro.

      Useless note to Slashdot editors: Stay away from University PR Blurbs. A bigger waste of electrons than Fox News.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:How much blood can "a patch of skin" provide? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oops, sorry, a real link.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:How much blood can "a patch of skin" provide? by mdmkolbe · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is too late at night right now, but I don't see where the linked article addresses how large a skin sample has to be taken to produce enough for a blood transfusion. Could you elaborate (even if I'm "not even wrong")?

    5. Re:How much blood can "a patch of skin" provide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has enough, albeit you won't be able to sit for some time.

    6. Re:How much blood can "a patch of skin" provide? by WiFiBro · · Score: 1

      thanks CWDog,
      now I am way more inclined to believe this, 'McMaster' university sounds a bit fishy.

      For those looking for a summary:

      -----------------
      To make blood progenitor cells they infected skin fibroblasts with a virus inserting the OCT4 gene, then grew them in a soup of immune-stimulating cytokines.
      OCT4 is one of a handful of Yamanaka factors used to transform fibroblasts into iPS cells, but Bhatia's team found no evidence that the blood progenitor cells that they had made went through an embryonic state. The cells' gene-expression patterns never resembled those of embryonic stem cells. The blood progenitor cells didn't cause mice to develop tumours.
      The progenitors produce all three classes of blood cells — white blood cells, red blood cells and platelets."
      -----------------

      Mighty impressive!

    7. Re:How much blood can "a patch of skin" provide? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Well, no one is planning on grazing off huge chunks of skin to create some blood for a transfusion.... The problem is that these converted cells don't grow well in cell culture. That's not unusual at all - most random non cancerous cells don't grow in tissue culture medium well since a large part of the cell control circuitry is all about having the cell NOT grow randomly (ie, turning into a cancer cell).

      As the Nature article mentions, this is just the very beginning of the research into doing anything 'useful'. It's now more interesting to demonstrate that we have the technology to create a specialized cell line (blood forming cells) from another specialized cell line (skin cells) without going through the full blown 'stem cell' routine.

      The ability to manipulate cell lineages at will is going to be huge. As long as there are no real gotchas like triggering cancers everywhere (a distinct possibility) it will likely herald the creation of implantable organs, grafts and whatnot.

      But it's going to take a while longer. Don't burn your liver or brain out just yet.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  5. Another Nail... by sycodon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Embryonic Stem Cell Research has yet another nail pounded into its coffin.

    Of course people will still support it as some kind of political statement.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Another Nail... by WolphFang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed. Now just to get the MEDIA to stop mixing them up. :(

      --
      leather-dog muksihs
      Blog: @muksihs
    2. Re:Another Nail... by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if it is a replacement, we're still years behind where we would be if the hicks didn't insist that we throw out the unused embryos. The reality is that we've got plenty of embryonic stem cells available without creating any more. Which really ought to be where the morals come into it. As it stands we're destroying the extra stem cells from IVF instead of using them because the right won't allow scientists to use them.

    3. Re:Another Nail... by sycodon · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And here is our first political supporter.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:Another Nail... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Both sides of that argument had a lot of wrong impressions and misunderstandings. Using embryonic stem cells wan't directly about treatment, it was about research, there were properties that they wanted to understand. The biomedical community needed to learn how they work so that that knowledge can be used as a baseline to compare treatments. Interviewees on Science Friday did a pretty good job of explaining what they were looking for and why embryonic stem cells were desired for research. As for treatment though, I don't think ESC were ever going to be used in treatments except for very limited trials.

    5. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news: with the invention of the 10-pointed star wheel the circular wheel has had another nail pounded into its coffin. Yay progress!

    6. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You were the one who started to be political about this. So don't complain.

    7. Re:Another Nail... by NoSig · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension, I recommend it.

    8. Re:Another Nail... by c6gunner · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Embryonic Stem Cell Research has yet another nail pounded into its coffin.

      Of course people will still support it as some kind of political statement.

      With the advent of the high-speed train, the automobile has had yet another nail pounded into it's coffin. Of course, people will still continue to buy them as some sort of political statement.

      See how stupid you sound?

    9. Re:Another Nail... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if it is a replacement, we're still years behind where we would be if the hicks didn't insist that we throw out the unused embryos. The reality is that we've got plenty of embryonic stem cells available without creating any more. Which really ought to be where the morals come into it. As it stands we're destroying the extra stem cells from IVF instead of using them because the right won't allow scientists to use them.

      Yes, because research is only done in the USA, no one else has the will or facilities to do any experiments.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    10. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's true, but people also complain about how the US is falling behind in everything. Well, if we didn't have the idiotic moral baggage of the politically grandstanding a-blowjob-is-grounds-for-impeachment-but-lying-to-the-country-to-invade-a-sovereign-nation-that-the-UN-was-handling-just-fine of the religious right in this country, we might actually get some much-needed research done to increase the life expectancies of the entire world. So, it's either we follow the overly righteous idiots so we don't piss them off but we don't get any medical research done, or we carefully and dispassionately try to do research on the basic building blocks of the human body so we can contribute to the lives and wellbeing of our children. But, it's not like people in this country haven't wanted conflicting things before.

    11. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You are an idiot. I'm sick of the fundamentalist Christians getting their claws into the medical profession.

      Why? Because Christians can't make up their own mind, they just get "the Church" to decide what is right and wrong for them. Who, with any brain, would allow a corporation to do this for them?

      If you're not rational enough to be an atheist, you should not be allowed into medical school.

    12. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I smell a sore loser.

      Or maybe just a loser.

    13. Re:Another Nail... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Here's a conundrum for you ass-wipe. I'm an atheist, my degree is biology and I oppose embryonic stem cell research. It's not needed.

    14. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      For example, the paths of research that produced this discovery in the article are further along precisely because embryonic research has met with ethical concerns.

      Dude, imagine if we decided that skin was sacred and stopped this treatment on arbitrary ethical concerns. Then there would be OTHER areas of medical technology that would be further along! But what if we decided they were unethical too?! Think of all the cool shit that could be researched! Far out, man!

    15. Re:Another Nail... by twidarkling · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then you should probably shower more often.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    16. Re:Another Nail... by Penguinshit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your last point is incorrect. True that much of the interest was in basic research (human ESCs were first isolated in 1998), but genuine therapies using ESCs are underway and more are imminent. Due to the ridiculous controversy, progress was made to develop induced pluripotent cells from autologous sources (say from skin) but the methods used rendered them unsuitable for the clinic. Recently developed iRNA techniques make them safer and more efficient, however the iPSCs tendency to revert back to their original tissue type still makes clinical use uncertain.

      For now ESCs remain the gold standard for clinical and research use, despite the allograft challenge. I am hoping to participate in a trial myself.

    17. Re:Another Nail... by Korin43 · · Score: 1

      Seems like a decent analogy to me. Just because we discover something new, it doesn't mean it will replace everything that does anything similar.

    18. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's not true. Forcing us to use other methods of obtaining stem cells (other than from embryos) is the pressure that led to the development of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (derived from adult tissue instead of embryos) and eventually what TFA talks about - converting skin cells directly into blood cells without the in-between step of converting them into stem cells.

      IMHO 2012 is way too optimistic. Being able to characterize these transformed blood cells as completely stable and safe seems likely to take several more years.

    19. Re:Another Nail... by mr_mischief · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, this doesn't reprogram the cells to be IPS cells. It's a direct conversion, per the actual article from the actual source.

      One advantage of direct cell conversions is that unlike embryonic stem cells or IPS cells stuck itno a human body, they're pretty sure these cells wouldn't be likely to cause tumors.

    20. Re:Another Nail... by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Obviously your PhD program didn't care much about spelling and grammar.

    21. Re:Another Nail... by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      What's ethical about a vaginal discharge? Either in the petri dish or the panty liner, that eggs not ever going to become a baby.

      This issue is simply about telling people what they can and can't do with their own cells. Next you're going to tell me masturbation should be illegal.

    22. Re:Another Nail... by wisty · · Score: 2, Funny

      Next you're going to tell me masturbation should be illegal.

      Yep, that's probably next on the agenda. Especially if it's for commercial or research purposes.

    23. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a conundrum for you ass-wipe. I'm an atheist, my degree is biology and I oppose embryonic stem cell research. It's not needed.

      No conundrum, your an idiot, very simple.

    24. Re:Another Nail... by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      It may not be needed, but can it help?

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    25. Re:Another Nail... by physicsphairy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even if it is a replacement, we're still years behind where we would be if the hicks didn't insist that we throw out the unused embryos.

      First sentence: bigoted language. Sounds like we're off to a good start.

      As near as I can gather you are intending this post toward the 'life-begins-at-conception' branch of the American pro life movement. In which case you are a bit confused in saying they "insist we throw out the unused embryos" given that they fight tooth and nail specifically to prevent unused embryos from being discarded. They often oppose IVF itself precisely because excess embryos are thrown out.

      As it stands we're destroying the extra stem cells from IVF instead of using them because the right won't allow scientists to use them.

      That's quite an uninformed statement. There really is no restriction on what can or cannot be done with embryos (apart from I believe in the state of Indiana). They are thrown out largely because there is no use from them. The restrictions which have existed (until Obama overturned them) regard limiting federally funded research to certain pre-existent lines.

      The reality is that we've got plenty of embryonic stem cells available without creating any more. Which really ought to be where the morals come into it.

      Where, exactly? At the point you align morals with "doing what's convenient and what we would have done anyway" I don't think you've really addressed a moral question at all.

    26. Re:Another Nail... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm fairly sure a lot of the /. readership would like to participate in the creation of ESCs.

      [Giggedy]

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    27. Re:Another Nail... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      This is why research into controversial subjects should be moved out of the US. The outcome for human knowledge is more important than "doing it here", and US scientist might consider offering their services to more enlightened nations. There are plenty of US expats all over the world, and no reason not to add to that number. More USians being exposed to the rest of the world is healthy as well.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    28. Re:Another Nail... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Seems like a pretty good analogy.
      Just because someone manages to roll a car along on hexagons doesn't put a nail in the coffin of cars with round wheels.
      block off a road because you don't like it and someone finds another harder, longer more circituitous route that doesn't make blocking the road any more sensible or mean that taking the better route wouldn't have been a far far better idea.

    29. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a conundrum for you ass-wipe. I'm an atheist, my degree is biology and I oppose embryonic stem cell research. It's not needed.

      Then don't do embryonic stem cell research. Please let those that DO want to that type of research have that chance to do it. You don't know what's needed or not. It depends on what is or isn't discovered in the future by doing it that you can tell it was needed or not.

    30. Re:Another Nail... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Unsupported assertion is unsupported.

    31. Re:Another Nail... by tom17 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Never mind can it help... Will It Blend?

    32. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jews have no problem with using ESCs, and lots of research is taking place in Israel at the moment on this subject.

    33. Re:Another Nail... by rabtech · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm fairly sure a lot of the /. readership would like to participate in the creation of ESCs.

      I know you are being funny but your comment reminded me: research shows that the average sexually active straight woman not using birth control will shed fertilized eggs on a regular basis (entirely naturally) because they fail to implant or because her period arrives too quickly (not enough hormones build up to trigger the "I'm preggers" alarm and stop the monthly cycle). Of the ones that do implant, a significant number miscarry due to errors in the DNA, cell replication, or other developmental issues. Sometimes the woman is even unaware that she was pregnant to begin with, she may just believe her cycle was "late".

      Warning: metaphysical discussion follows...

      If life/humanity/soul/etc begins at conception, then God is the biggest mass murderer of all time. That's not an image of God I can buy, so I must conclude that the human idea that "life begins at conception" must be entirely incorrect. Ergo there can be no legitimate objection to the study of stem cells nor can there be objection to birth control or even at least some types of abortions.

      As a man of science and of faith I must believe that anytime scientific discovery and faith appear to be in conflict they are not - it is merely my misinterpretation or my preconceived ideas about God that cause the conflict. The facts are what they are and do not bend themselves to fit my worldview, something I wish more people would acknowledge.

      --
      Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
    34. Re:Another Nail... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I subscribe to the theory that Stephen Hawking eludes to; If there really is a supreme being, he only input it had into creating the universe was to create Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Weak and Strong Nuclear Force. The rest sort of took care of itself.

      Some of the worst atrocities conducted by humanity have been done in $deity's name, yet all combined they'd still number less than the total losses from the situations you described above. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't some form of irony on his part.

      Either way, this is off topic.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    35. Re:Another Nail... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'm an atheist, my degree is biology and I oppose embryonic stem cell research. It's not needed.

      "Not needed?" WTF? Well if you follow that line of thinking, has any progress beyond whipping the demons out of people been "needed"? Why is this branch of medical advancement not "needed?"

      And if you're an atheist then why would you possibly oppose ESC research? There is something quite irrational about your sense of morality if you're an atheist - I would expect it from some sort of spiritualist who thinks that destroying a stem cell is destroying a soul, or a Christian who has inherited some of the irrational (and religiously unsupported) morals concerning contraception/abortion present in some Christian cultures.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    36. Re:Another Nail... by JTsyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Umm if you follow the Bible, God was willing to personally kill everything on the earth save a handful of people and animals. I don't see why a few billion embryos would be a issue for him, since he's not actively killing them but just allowing a natural process. If you want to place blame on him for his design then I think that opens up much bigger list of issues in human design.

    37. Re:Another Nail... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      With Skin being the first line of defense from environmental challenges; wouldn't it be worthwhile to fabricate a a gene based therapy that would strengthen the skin?

    38. Re:Another Nail... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      This issue is simply about telling people what they can and can't do with their own cells. Next you're going to tell me masturbation should be illegal.

      Wait until the morality police find out that DNA differs slightly between sperm cells*...fap now while you still can!

      *(I'm pretty sure, would like someone with good bio knowledge to confirm...couldn't find any good online sources last time this issue came up)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    39. Re:Another Nail... by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      I don't know what all this talk and study of ESCs is about. It's in the upper left of every keyboard I've seen.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    40. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "alludes".

    41. Re:Another Nail... by agbinfo · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you're not rational enough to be an atheist, you should not be allowed into medical school.

      Here's a conundrum for you ass-wipe. I'm an atheist, my degree is biology and I oppose embryonic stem cell research. It's not needed.

      Let S1 = "If you're not rational enough to be an atheist, you should not be allowed into medical school."

      Let S2 = "I am an atheist."

      Let S3 = "I am smart enough to be in medical school."

      Prove that S1 and S2 doesn't imply S3.

    42. Re:Another Nail... by artao · · Score: 1

      we've been beyond 'embryonic' stem cell research for years now, where have you been?? we can now use all sorts of stuff for stem cells, yet religious types are STILL against researching this very important medical technology. Why? ignorance, I'm sure. I repeat, we no longer need embryonic stem cells to do this research.

    43. Re:Another Nail... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Some of the worst atrocities conducted by humanity have been done in $deity's name, yet all combined they'd still number less than the total losses from the situations you described above. I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't some form of irony on his part.

      Even worse atrocities have been perpetrated by absolute atheists for completely human reasons. Stalin, Mao, etc. Mankind can be a vicious, ruthless bunch. Using $deity to legitimize our greed and depravity is not a reflection on $deity, it is a reflection on us.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    44. Re:Another Nail... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Your understanding of a couple topics here is flawed. First, the UN was completely fucking up Iraq. I'm not saying that what has happened since was better, justified, fun, etc., but I AM saying that the UN program in Iraq was worse than useless. (Is there a Iraq version of Godwin's law?)

      Furthermore, on the actual topic of stem cells, all that happened was that federal money couldn't be used for the research. Fund it separately if you want to ... IIRC, California did, or tried to.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    45. Re:Another Nail... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The idea of "we'll just use the left over, we arent creating more" is roughly akin to thinking that killing animals for food is wrong, but its ok to eat this steak cause its already dead. If you create a demand for it, then you cant claim that youre morally disconnected.

      Or to be more blunt about it, do you honestly think that there being a scientific demand for embryos has no impact whatsoever on the number available? Do you seriously think that it could never be used as a justification for any process that might result in discarded embryos?

    46. Re:Another Nail... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      ridiculous controversy

      Would you define a "ridiculous controversy" as one in which you have made up your mind? Or perhaps one where you think others are wrong? You are aware that a very large portion of the country does not see this as a ridiculous argument, right?

    47. Re:Another Nail... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Ergo there can be no legitimate objection to the study of stem cells nor can there be objection to birth control

      The fact that you can take about 5 minutes (or however long) pondering something, and conclude that you must be right and therefore there is no legitimate objection, is perhaps the plainest example of arrogance I have seen in quite some time. Are you prepared to label a great many people with more qualifications than you as incapable of forming a cogent argument? Or are you declaring that noone more intelligent than you is capable of disagreeing?

    48. Re:Another Nail... by suutar · · Score: 1

      S1: !A => !M
      S2: A
      S3: M

      Asserted: S1 + S2 => S3
      S4: M => A (from S1)
      S2: A
      http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html

    49. Re:Another Nail... by Penguinshit · · Score: 1

      A very large portion of the country believes Obama is a Muslim. So what?

      The controversy is ridiculous because even a total ban on hESC research would not save a single frozen embryo. Excess embryos are discarded anyway. All a ban would do is retard medical research and prolong suffering in existing people. The only way to "save" these embryos would be to ban IVF (which ain't happening).

      Should it be illegal for parents to donate the organs of a deceased child for transplant? That is what hESC research is: Parents donating tissue from a deceased child. And the controversy is ridiculous because the people causing the fuss don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

    50. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm if you follow the Bible, God was willing to personally kill everything on the earth save a handful of people and animals.

      Are you referring to Noah? He had Noah build the ark to repopulate after hitting the "Global Reset" button. As I recall, he wiped the pious and the sinners out in the same act, Noah and the menagerie weren't being "saved" from anything but Jehovah's own wrath. Old Testament god all too willing to off us humans, wipe out cities (Sodom), etc.; he never seemed particularly interested in saving anybody until his "son" came along.

    51. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why research into controversial subjects should be moved out of the US. The outcome for human knowledge is more important than "doing it here", and US scientist might consider offering their services to more enlightened nations. There are plenty of US expats all over the world, and no reason not to add to that number. More USians being exposed to the rest of the world is healthy as well.

      Yes, why deal with the moral question when you can just go somewhere that allows anything. Think of the scientific advances we'd have if we didn't have to deal with the morality of what we were doing. Vivisection, no need to get "consent" before you experiment on people, etc. Think of the scientific advances we could have if more scientists moved to North Korea and could experiment at will on the surviving population in exchange for a few cases of booze

    52. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religious nutjob alert! Its is easy to pick, they ignore the reality of the benefits of ESC, and try to discredit reality. Adults who still believe in imaginary friends need to see a therapist.

    53. Re:Another Nail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and Dr.Mengle would be great drinking buddies.

    54. Re:Another Nail... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      A very large portion of the country believes Obama is a Muslim. So what?

      A quick 10 second google shows 11-18% of americans thinking Obama is muslim. A quick 10 second poll shows 45-55% of americans opposing ESC research. And since Obama being muslim has basically 0 important real world ramifications (a label doesnt really affect policy decisions, and we already know his political views...), while on the other hand there are big ramifications with ESC research (commoditizing death vs slowing research), I would say the comparison is a bit of a reach.

      would not save a single frozen embryo

      Im not sure thats ever been the issue. The issue would be more like if the question of whether to use gas-chamber victims for medical research in WW2 Germany. If you were to give your opinion on that, I would imagine it would have little to do with whether you could actually save someone who had died, and everything to do with how much of our humanity we are willing to sacrifice in the name of research. Some things are morally repugnant, and a good number (ie large minority if not majority) of people think ESC research is one of them.

      That is what hESC research is: Parents donating tissue from a deceased child

      Am I to understand you, that you believe the embryos to be human, yet have no problem with commoditizing them? Would you support research in an area which required the use of stillborn infants?

    55. Re:Another Nail... by Penguinshit · · Score: 1

      So science and fact is to you merely a matter of a popularity contest? If so, this isn't the forum for you. Your comparison between organ donation and a program of genocide is so much more than a bit of a reach. No Godwin points for you.

      Your repeated use of the concept of "commodity" is an attempt to insert a strawman into the discussion. There is no fact to support your mischaracterization and is therefore irrelevant. The blastocysts from which ESCs are obtained are not human yet, any more than the sperm and ovum were prior to combination. And that collection of cells is under the control of the parents in any legal sense, the same as a minor child, which is the genesis of my abstraction to organ donations. So if parents wished to donate a stillborn's tissue, such is their right. When I reached legal age and was legally competent to do so I chose to become an organ donor. The only thing morally repugnant about this issue is that people would who would remain willfully ignorant of the facts or who would mischaracterize for political gain would deny existing humans the opportunity to be released from hideous disease.

    56. Re:Another Nail... by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Yes?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  6. How much skin to make a pint of blood? by jomegat · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Just how much skin does it take to make a pint of blood? I would think a lot, but not having read the article, I wouldn't know.

    Seems to me they invented the reverse of the process that's really needed. It's a lot harder to get enough skin for grafting than it is to get blood for transfusions. Wouldn't blood-to-skin be a better conversion?

    --

    In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.

    1. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by RobVB · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just needs some reverse engineering.

      --
      I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    2. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Not really. The blood banks are pretty much always a few days from running out because blood doesn't keep very well.

    3. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by Braintrust · · Score: 1

      I believe it would take a pint of skin. Give or take.

      --
      Years later, a doctor will tell me that I have an I.Q. of 48, and am what some people call "mentally retarded".
    4. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by jomegat · · Score: 1

      True, but that still doesn't make skin easier to come by than blood.

      --

      In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they're not.

    5. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by MachDelta · · Score: 1

      I'd guess two pints. A link two threads up claims they were making red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets from the skin cells. Given that blood is 55% plasma (which itself is mostly water) it stands to reason that a 'pint' of skin makes two pints of blood - just add water! :)

    6. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by Kurofuneparry · · Score: 5, Informative

      A good question. The backwards conversion is impossible because the vast majority of blood cells are RBCs (Red Blood Cells or erythrocytes) and these have gotten rid of their nucleus, making them a cellular dead end doomed to destruction in about 120 days.

      Also, blood is mostly free water (plasma) and when RBCs are created their progenitor cells divide many times in the production process. Assuming that this process they're using is similar, you're talking about impressive volume multiplication in the conversion from skin to blood.

      Then again.... I'm an idiot .....

      --
      ...... and idiots rule the world....
    7. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by Psychotria · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mammal red blood cells lack a nucleus. This is, in general, not true for other vertebrate animals although there are a few exceptions which I cannot think of right now

    8. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      If you don't have enough skin, can't you just grow some more from the patch you have in a petri dish?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    9. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can grow skin in a lab - something you' aren't going to do with red blood cells. The "premature cellular aging" and "oh shit we used a made them cancer" also probably doesn't matter once you applied the magic to turn them into blood.

    10. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      There's less need for donor skin, however. More people require blood during medical procedures than need skin, and usually more blood than skin is needed, even within a procedure that needs both. Furthermore, there's ways to keep a person alive with portions of skin missing. No blood is a little bit harder to deal with. During that extra time, you can culture their own skin, should they have any, or wait for a donor.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    11. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More people require blood during medical procedures than need skin, and usually more blood than skin is needed, even within a procedure that needs both.

      Only if you get a doctor who is unwilling, or rather I should say, incapable, of performing a bloodless operation. There are plenty of highly skilled doctors who are fully capable of doing that using a variety of techniques (cell salvage is the one that comes to mind at the moment).

    12. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Bloodless surgery is great when it's an option. When the doctor is replacing blood already lost to trauma, there's nothing to take out, clean, and put back in to the patient. It's already gone.

    13. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Quick! Call Ben Afleck! I sense a sequel...

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    14. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      RBCs are enucleated, so no. Without that DNA material, there is LITTLE chance of that.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    15. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that they should have put more research into finding a way to turn human fat into blood. That would make liposuction the most lucrative operation. You could make money while getting skinner.

    16. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just needs some reverse engineering.

      I don't think that means what you think it means.

    17. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      First off, let me say that I work for a blood bank, and unless this new technology can churn out blood of any type for about 250$ a pint, then it really isn't going to supplant the current business model of soliciting donations and preparing them for transfusion

      That said, I think that the primary use of this tech will be to create progenitor cells with an exact genetic match to the recipient, who may need to have a bone marrow transplant for various forms of leukemia.

      One of my relatives went through this recently, it was hard to find a donor, and they will be on anti-rejection meds for quite some time. We are all ecstatic that they are alive, but it would be FAR better if they had received a donation with an EXACT genetic match. Lacking an identical twin or clone, this new tech is as good as it can get

      So, in my opinion, not going to use this for bulk blood generation in some incubator, but to create progenitor cells for transplant

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    18. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

      Were you planning on putting non-human blood, let alone putting non-mammal blood, into your bloodstream?

      Someone's been reading too many comic books.

    19. Re:How much skin to make a pint of blood? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      How else is he supposed to be come Gator Man?!

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  7. Now we just have to figure out how to make skin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aha...,

    1. Re:Now we just have to figure out how to make skin by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      Yes, going from blood->skin would be more useful. Especially for people with brittle skin who often have to go through painful skin grafts after losing areas of the skin from something as simple as bumping into a piece of furniture.

    2. Re:Now we just have to figure out how to make skin by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      No can do with red blood cells. No nucleus.

    3. Re:Now we just have to figure out how to make skin by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      No can do with red blood cells. No nucleus.

      Never say never I think. Mammal red blood cells lack a nucleus, but this is not generally true for the red blood cells of other vertebrates. Why not engineer a solution that yields mammalian red blood cells with a nucleus? Considering what has already been done I don't see this as an impossibility.

    4. Re:Now we just have to figure out how to make skin by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      Because cross-species compatability even within mammals is really low, and the effort expended solving it would likely be better served in solving host vs. graft issues with people receiving donations from people, since that would increase life expectancy of donor recipients and broaden the pool of acceptable donor parts. Basically, you're right, it's not impossible, it's just more effort than it's currently worth.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
  8. up side, has blood.. by bronney · · Score: 1

    down side, FACE OFF!!

  9. Soylent Red is made of PEOPLE by amanicdroid · · Score: 5, Funny

    So they'll be able to grind up people and use them for blood transfusions, right?

    1. Re:Soylent Red is made of PEOPLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That won't happen until they come up with a way to turn skin into petroleum products.

    2. Re:Soylent Red is made of PEOPLE by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Only the skin. We all know that bones are ground up to make bread.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  10. In Reverse? by Gryphia · · Score: 1

    As fascinating as it is scientifically, we've got blood transfusions more or less figured out. I'm curious if they'll figure out how to do the reverse, blood to skin. Right now, skin grafts are a rather painful processes, and it's hard to get enough skin for them. Going the other way seems like it would be much more useful.

    1. Re:In Reverse? by MintOreo · · Score: 1

      I'll get Ben Affleck on it right away.

  11. Quantity? by PhattyMatty · · Score: 0, Redundant

    But how much skin would it take? Transfusions are usually a couple litres, right? That's a lot of skin.

    1. Re:Quantity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, because most of that is water. Anyways, if you read the actual article in Nature, you will find out how much skin it takes. The information you want is in the supplementary information and they don't put that behind the paywall.

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nature09591-s1.pdf

    2. Re:Quantity? by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Is it so hard to give the answer? Jeeze.

      Calculation of dermal patch size required to achieve full hematopoietic reconstitution:

      7.1 skin punctures are needed equalling to 42.84 mm (7.14 x 6 mm) diameter skin patch

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
  12. A true breakthrough by JackpotMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now if we can just get the Crips to turn into bloods we may actually have something useful.

    --
    ______ Eagles may fly but monkeys don't get sucked into jet engines.
  13. Fucking PR by oldhack · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When scientist act like ad execs, can you blame the Kansans?

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  14. Big Deal by new+death+barbie · · Score: 1

    Any kid with a skateboard knows how to do that...

    Nasty mental picture, though. Good idea for a zombie movie. "A virus that turns skin... into BLOOOD! What could go wrong?"

    --

    It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    1. Re:Big Deal by JackpotMonkey · · Score: 1

      Well you saw they were going to be starting testing in 2012 right, maybe it will get put off till december....

      --
      ______ Eagles may fly but monkeys don't get sucked into jet engines.
  15. Hallowen 2011 by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    A little too late for Halloween 2010. Just imagine the party gags!

  16. Many questions still... by hahn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While this is an interesting discovery, scientific history is littered with interesting discoveries that led nowhere. The practicality is dubious until we find answers to quite a few questions. Like how much skin it takes to produce a half liter of blood. A half liter is the standard volume of one bag of packed red blood cells (RBC). To be precise - 450 ml. If you need the entire skin to produce that much, then it's not exactly practical. And if you can grow an RBC supply from just a little bit of skin, how much time will it take and how much money in resources to develop AND store an adequate quantity? And will doing so compromise the stability or functionality (O2 carrying capabilities) of the RBC's produced by such a method?

    --
    "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
    1. Re:Many questions still... by thorndt · · Score: 1

      I figure they'd just cut off a patch of skin and grow it in a petri dish. They do this now for burn victims. Then, when they've grown enough, they convert it to blood?

      --
      - The race is not [always] to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. -
    2. Re:Many questions still... by mr_mischief · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're not actually making whole blood, which is mostly water. They're making progenitor cells for blood which go on to produce red cells, white cells, and platelets. Most of the volume would come from somewhere else, but the cells they are making make the cells.

  17. conservation of mass by Odinlake · · Score: 1

    I suppose they add some things, but surely the process must roughly obey conservation of mass.. How much skin would I loose for a transfusion bag of blood? The thought gave me the chills. (yes yes, I know, between my life and my skin I would of course choose my life).

    1. Re:conservation of mass by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      I suppose they add some things, but surely the process must roughly obey conservation of mass.

      That's the nice thing, sometimes, about biology. You can grow more of it, provided appropriate conditions and nutrients. This process would indeed be totally clinically useless - though still scientifically interesting - if it relied on a one-to-one production of blood cells from skin cells.

      I see (at least) two major reasons why the scientists would choose to use skin fibroblasts as a starting material. First, skin cells are quite easy to harvest, and your body is already built to repair and replace missing skin. Second, and more important, skin fibroblasts are pretty hardy cells, and they can be grown in culture for at least a limited time. Roughly speaking, you can coax ordinary human adult skin fibroblasts to divide about thirty times in culture, corresponding to a remarkable billion-to-one expansion of their population; each division will probably take a day or two. I haven't had time to pull down the full Nature paper, so I don't know how many cell divisions they were able to carry through prior to the transformation into blood cells, or what fraction of fibroblasts were successfully transformed, but you can bet that they're getting far more than a milliliter of blood from a cubic centimeter of skin.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:conservation of mass by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Also recall that there is more water in your blood than there is in your skin.

      Even a 1:1 cell conversion would not produce a 1:1 final volume. It would probably be more like 1:3 or 1:4.

      Even better though, the conversion is apparently actually to the cells that produce blood cells, so you could conceivably see like a 1:50 or even near-unlimited conversion rate.

      That would be a very, very good thing.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  18. foreskins by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 0

    Ah, I guess the moyle's cat is out of luck!

    1. Re:foreskins by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      as foreskins are being concerned - they are turned into first blood

  19. Really? by cprocjr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cut off a patch of skin. Yeah, that'll stop the bleeding!

  20. hmm by bittles · · Score: 1

    turn it into some sort of laser or a gas filled grenade and this would make for 1 brutal video game weapon.

    1. Re:hmm by JDeane · · Score: 1

      Yeah if you could weaponize this I am sure the military would be all over it like white on rice.... Not sure if it would violate some rules of the Geneva convention though (I hope it would to be honest.)

    2. Re:hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they wouldn't. The brass in the Military are not demons. They aren't out to mass-murder everyone. But they do have to follow marching orders from the civilian leadership, and they may disagree with those orders.

      I can't believe anyone would suggest that the military would consider weaponizing something as monstrous as this. That you can conceive of it concerns me.

  21. Good news, everybody! by md65536 · · Score: 1

    Doctor: "Good news! We've managed to turn all your skin into blood! Now, there is also some slightly bad news..."

  22. Burn units by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    That was my first thought too, but I was thinking of burn units. The reverse trick of turning blood into skin would be a godsend.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  23. Oh my God! by Necrotica · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Soylent Green is people!

  24. they scooped me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The goal was/is not to make bags of liquid blood for transfusions, it's to reconstitute the entire blood hierarchy (including red blood cells and the immune system) by injecting a few stem/progenitor cells. The idea here is that if you've got mutations that predispose you to getting leukemia or such, we'll be able to take some skin cells, grow those cells in vitro and fix the mutations, then turn them into "normal" blood stem/progenitors that we can inject into you after we've irradiated/killed your (mutant/leukemic) bone marrow. In mice, we can reconstitute lethally-irradiated individuals with single hematopoietic stem cells. Humans are bigger and might need more than one cell, but ethics boards won't let us do those experiments (it's hard to be sure you're getting single cells, so limiting dilution assays end up killing half your mice).
     

  25. Meh by PPH · · Score: 1

    Its been done. Ever heard of a skateboard?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  26. this will mean more unnecessary circumcisions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is already a not in the interest of the child push to persuade parents to allow circumcisions to gather skin for burn victims and the lucrative cosmetics trade, this will only add to the pressure to gather more. Infant skin is preferred because more can be grown from a sample because of the limit on how many times a non-cancerous human cell can divide.

  27. Recursion! by vlueboy · · Score: 1

    Cut off a patch of skin. Yeah, that'll stop the bleeding!

    This is a wonderful experiment if you add cutty emos to the mix

  28. Haha by Reilaos · · Score: 1

    This certainly gives a new meaning to "no skin off my nose!"

  29. Canada!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no mention that this University is Canadian. Come on guys. Canadian power!

    1. Re:Canada!! by Reed+Solomon · · Score: 1

      well, can't have people know that a socialist utopia such as Canada with its death panels and socialized medicine can come up with important research.

      Granted, I do believe a lot of stem cell research ended up in Canada because of the American distaste for embryonic stem cells.

      Either way, yay us. Yay Science.

  30. So, who's going to be the first to make a weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On with weaponization!

  31. Raiders of the Arc by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this remind you of the scene in the Raiders movie, when the Nazi's skin turns liquid? Is this how they did that scene?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  32. I Drink Your Blood ... I Eat Your Skin by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    The scientist obviously got their inspiration from this double feature: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/I_Drink_Your_Blood_I_Eat_Your_Skin.jpg

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  33. How long? by Mirey · · Score: 1

    How long does it take? Could it be used to turn the state enemies into nothing but blood and guts(and bones) in a matter of minutes? Maybe I shouldn't give the gov this idea :S

  34. Re:So, who's going to be the first to make a weapo by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I was thinking the same thing. But, that is easy; Just a bunch of hcl will do that trick.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  35. medical breakthrough - amazes more! by ovette_pta · · Score: 1

    Everyday technological breakthroughs are like normal news, but when some medical discoveries emerge, it never fails to amaze me! I'm a technical person after all.

    But wait what would be the blood type of these things? Type 'S'? =)

    We help Americans find jobs and prosperity in Asia. Visit http://www.pathtoasia.com/jobs for details.

  36. Wasn't that a horror movie plot? by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

    If not, it ought to be!

  37. Really? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    >will be able to have blood created from a patch of their own skin
    I guess it really depends on how much you can make from a small patch of skin, as I think it is based on the piece of skin size that will determine this. As much as I might want to get some skin turned into blood to save my life, what sort of life are you going to have if you had to use up your whole backside to get your blood, and what would you replace the skin with on your backside, you would not leave it
    showing the muscle tissue underneath....

  38. sounds like a spell out of the Dark Arts by PJ6 · · Score: 1

    Is it me, or does "turn skin into blood" sound like a particularly nasty curse out of the Harry Potter series?

  39. This isn't news by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was able to turn quite a lot of skin into quite a lot of blood, with nothing more complicated than a length of aerial cable and a Peugeot Boxer van. Feed aerial cable down through the roof, slide hand between headlining and door frame to retrieve cable, and voila! Lots of blood and no skin on the back of your hand!

  40. OH NOES by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    It's fuck-space-exploration-now-make-me-live-longer AC, either one of Slashdot's most horrible posters or most elite trolls :-(

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  41. Anyone else envision... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else envisioning a ray gun that turns people's skin to blood and they collapse in a bloody mess on the ground?

  42. I've Turned Skin to Blood, Myself! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    "If I had a hammer..."

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:I've Turned Skin to Blood, Myself! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      ...I would kill everybody that confused the two things...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  43. Why? by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'm against abortion in principle unless it's an unusually dangerous pregnancy for the mother or the result of rape or incest.

    Why is a child produced through rape or incest any less deserving of life than one who was not?

    To me, THIS is what makes pro-lifers such hypocrites. "Oh yeah, we're 100% against the *murder of precious babies*, except sometimes not."

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
    1. Re:Why? by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      I didn't call myself a pro-lifer. I said I thought it should be legal, safe, and rare. I'm not trying to legislate your decisions. I'm against it personally, and I have a right to make my own personal decisions. If my wife decided to get an abortion (which she wouldn't, because she feels the same way as I), then I think your opinion about our decision is pretty much unwelcome and meaningless.

      A fetus forced upon a woman or young girl was not formed by her choice and should not be her responsibility. Even a normal pregnancy and birth has some amount of danger to it. If a woman is already a victim, why force her to undergo more victimization by forcing her to carry her attacker's child to term?

      I said I oppose abortion personally except for exceptional cases, but that I think it should be legal. You're telling me I can't make my own decision against it just like the hard-core pro-lifers are trying to tell women they can't make a decision in favor of abortion. Who is the hypocrite here? It's not me. It's you.

    2. Re:Why? by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      "Why is a child produced through rape or incest any less deserving of life than one who was not?"

      Because the mother had no say in the matter when being raped by a stranger, friend or father/other male relative.

      Ergo, that uterine parasite is just that. A parasite. Like a tapeworm or a botfly.

      Cut it out and flush it down the crapper.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  44. Doctor's dilemma by paxcoder · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the Voyager's Doctor's ethical dillema of whether to use research of murderers. The question was left sort of unanswered by the end of the episode, as the Doctor used the research to save a life, but was distressed by that fact.

    Perhaps it was inappropriate to make an analogy with fiction when talking about destructive research on human beings...

  45. Sweetness by the_hellspawn · · Score: 0

    This weapon will be awesome! Plane flies over the battlefield and drop the weapon. The weapon explodes and sprays the enemy territory. The aggressors walk in not with weapons, but mops and mop up the blood of what was people. This will make conquering the world so much easier.

    --
    "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
  46. Overhead? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    The restrictions which have existed (until Obama overturned them) regard limiting federally funded research to certain pre-existent lines.

    If "federally funded" includes "done in a facility which has built part of its infrastructure or is supporting part of its common infrastructure with federal funding", and essentially all organizations capable of doing the work and making the results available publicly (such as university medical centers) meet that definition, how is that different from a federal ban?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  47. They laughed at me by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

    They laughed at me then, but now that I have my SKIN TO BLOOD RAYGUN, we'll see who gets the last laugh!

  48. Skin into blood! by Geminii · · Score: 1

    Now available in handy raygun form!

    They said my skin banks were madness! But now I control the entire vampire economy!

    Aw shucks, I can do this already! Just gimmee a shotgun an' a box of staples...

  49. Am I the only one... by pyrestriker · · Score: 1

    who see this as a potential for a nasty weapon? If it involves some type of energy ray, or simply a chemical compound (which the article DID say that the scientists are trying to improve upon, but did not specify how it's done), then I'm sure it could be made into a weapon. Just imagine the possibilities...