Rudimentary Liver Grown In a Dish

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rudimentary Liver Grown In a Dish

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday June 20, 2012 @05:21AM from the tastes-like-chicken dept.

ananyo writes "Japanese scientists have coaxed stem cells into forming a 5-millimeter-long, three-dimensional tissue that the researchers labelled a liver bud — an early stage of liver development. The bud lacks bile ducts but has blood vessels, and when transplanted into a mouse, was able to metabolize some drugs that human livers metabolize but mouse livers normally cannot. The work is 'the first report demonstrating the creation of a human functional organ with vascular networks from pluripotent stem cells,' the team claims."

80 of 129 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

How does it taste? by Hatta · 2012-06-20 05:23 · Score: 3, Funny

Perhaps with a side of fava beans?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
1. Re:How does it taste? by 517714 · 2012-06-20 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  And a nice chianti.
  
  --
  The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Burn in Hell! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 05:24 · Score: 5, Funny

Burn in hell you cursed worshipers of Satan! This is solely the work of the Devil himself. This is evil at its darkest (until I need a liver transplant, at which time I will be more than happy to accept one).
1. Re:Burn in Hell! by Baloroth · 2012-06-20 06:01 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I know you are making a joke, but these stems cells were iPS (induced pluripotent), i.e. taken from adults, not embryos, and therefore not controversial by any stretch of the imagination or in any viewpoint I'm aware of. On the contrary, they show that you don't need embryonic stem cells to produce medical advances.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
2. Re:Burn in Hell! by geoffrobinson · 2012-06-20 06:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "Those turbo-religious types that have issues with this research aren't just against it because of embryonic destruction. I tend to hear from them about things that aren't natural and that their Lord Almighty Savior of Mighty Omniscient Omnipotence (that they sometimes refer to as God) will choose when someone should die and this research interferes with His will."
  As an evangelical, I can assure you that you aren't listening or you are listening to a distinct teeny, tiny minority. And by "teeny, tiny" I mean completely insignificant.
  
  --
  Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
3. Re:Burn in Hell! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  I get that, but what makes you think that some of these people will care about the details? Its like arguing with a brick wall sometimes. Evolution in schools? Brick wall. Politics? Brick wall.
4. Re:Burn in Hell! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 06:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes. But remember that we only found out how to do this with adult cells by working with the embryonic ones, while in production adult cells may be easer resech on embryonic stem cells is still needed to improve our ability to make them reliably and with reduced cancer risk.
5. Re:Burn in Hell! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  and therefore not controversial by any stretch of the imagination or in any viewpoint
  
  Heathen. Playing God is controversial in any context!
6. Re:Burn in Hell! by jimbolauski · 2012-06-20 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Who has claimed Obama is a terrorist? Even people that claim Obama is muslim think this is far fetched.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
7. Re:Burn in Hell! by geoffrobinson · 2012-06-20 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Look in the mirror regarding brick walls.
  
  --
  Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
8. Re:Burn in Hell! by Dishevel · 2012-06-20 06:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  What God wants and does not want are things that can be up for discussion.
  If God does in fact exist though I can most assuredly tell you that nothing can interfere with his will.
  If something human can interfere with Gods will it would not be much of a God.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
9. Re:Burn in Hell! by CubicleZombie · 2012-06-20 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  I am a crazy right wing fox news reading religious lunatic, and I don't see why my Lord Almighty Savior of Mighty Omniscient Omnipotence would have any problem with a human liver grown in a lab. Anybody who thinks research can interfere with God's will believes in a pretty small God.
  
  --
  :wq
10. Re:Burn in Hell! by Hatta · 2012-06-20 06:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  On the contrary, they show that you don't need embryonic stem cells to produce medical advances.
  No one ever argued that you need embryonic stem cells to produce medical advances. What people argue is that we don't really know the properties of embryonic stem cells, and there may be medical advances we can make with those that we cannot make adult stem cells. That a medical advance has been made with adult stem cells says nothing about what we could do with embryonic stem cells.
  The set of medical advances we can make with adult stem cells may be identical to the medical advances we can make with embryonic stem cells. On the other hand, they may just overlap. The only way we can know that we are not leaving major medical advances undiscovered is to do research on embryonic stem cells.
  Besides, all those embryonic stem cells are just going to the incinerator. It takes one sick, evil piece of shit to prefer incineration to the advancement science.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
11. Re:Burn in Hell! by Grayhand · 2012-06-20 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  I know you are making a joke, but these stems cells were iPS (induced pluripotent), i.e. taken from adults, not embryos, and therefore not controversial by any stretch of the imagination or in any viewpoint I'm aware of. On the contrary, they show that you don't need embryonic stem cells to produce medical advances.
  Not so quick! Can a liver bud one day grow up to be a full grown liver? Sacrificing baby livers in the name of science is offensive. One day they could grow up to be President of the United States!
12. Re:Burn in Hell! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 06:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And by "teeny, tiny" I mean completely insignificant.
  And by insignificant you mean fucking loud.
13. Re:Burn in Hell! by SomePgmr · 2012-06-20 06:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  As a distantly former, semi-active "turbo-religious type" (Baptist), from a major metropolitan area that's not in Alabama, I'll second his observations.
  There was nothing terribly rare (and certainly not insignificant) about viewing cutting-edge medical science as a meddling denial of God's will. The talking points would probably be a bit more... flowery... and go something along the lines of them being, "desperate attempts to cheat your mortality, to foolishly tell ourselves that we're our own masters, to deny our place as God's children, and that only Jesus' sacrifice can truly save us from suffering." You'd have to talk to a professional preacher to get the exact form of wackiness... I'm a little rusty.
  So in this case, if I revisited my old religious groups today I wouldn't be at-all surprised if growing new organs for transplant, however they're presently derived, is considered the fruit of an evil science pioneered in infanticide.
  We need to be honest about the underlying issue here... there's no real regard for reason in an institution that depends entirely on a lack thereof. Pretending otherwise (when you're out in public, anyway) is little more than a PR strategy.
14. Re:Burn in Hell! by bluefoxlucid · 2012-06-20 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  No one ever argued that you need embryonic stem cells to produce medical advances. What people argue is that we don't really know the properties of embryonic stem cells, and there may be medical advances we can make with those that we cannot make adult stem cells.
  Cute, but you're wrong.
  What people argue is "Stem cells." The difference is ignored so that huge raging political battles can be held over it, allowing politicians to slander each other with stupidity and create non-existent problems or overstate the terrible actions of their opponents. That helps keep us fighting by giving us one more difference (democrat vs republican, works even better than highlighting racial differences and the like through diversity education and legislation) so that the poor and the middle class can remain at each others' throats while the rich run away with all the fucking money.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
15. Re:Burn in Hell! by sed+quid+in+infernos · 2012-06-20 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  One of the primary arguments made by those opposing embryonic stem-cell research is that the benefits can be obtained by induced pluripotent stem cells. This is especially common in discussions regarding government funding of stem-cell research. The argument is that resources should be redirected from embryonic stem-cell research to induced pluripotent stem-cell research. So, yes, they very much care about the details.
16. Re:Burn in Hell! by Baloroth · 2012-06-20 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, all those embryonic stem cells are just going to the incinerator. It takes one sick, evil piece of shit to prefer incineration to the advancement science.
  The problem never really was with the cells that already existed (not the main problem, anyways). The problem was that if a discovery was made with them, there would be an incentive to create embryo "farms" to produce more. It's similar to how most people have no problem performing an autopsy, but will get somewhat annoyed if you start creating dead bodies to do so, and research that required embryonic stem cells would lead to that (the argument hinging on whether you believe that human embryos are human beings or not.)
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
17. Re:Burn in Hell! by Hatta · 2012-06-20 07:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem was that if a discovery was made with them, there would be an incentive to create embryo "farms" to produce more.
  So, prohibit the non-incidental production of embryonic stem cells. Banning the research is nothing more than deliberate ignorance.
  It's similar to how most people have no problem performing an autopsy, but will get somewhat annoyed if you start creating dead bodies to do so
  Which is why we have laws prohibiting people from doing anatomy on cadavers. Oh wait, we don't.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
18. Re:Burn in Hell! by Jeng · 2012-06-20 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  It's similar to how most people have no problem performing an autopsy, but will get somewhat annoyed if you start creating dead bodies to do so
  
  In the early days of modern medicine medical schools paid grave robbers to deliver them corpses and it was done illegally because it was against the law at the time, but they didn't go and kill people.
  
  there would be an incentive to create embryo "farms" to produce more
  
  How exactly would you farm embryos? Sounds like something that would be done with petri dishes. Doesn't sound all that sinister to me.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
19. Re:Burn in Hell! by wierd_w · 2012-06-20 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  While that would certainly be expedient, I can't see that ever happening outside of an untouchable govt program.
  Further complicating the issue for the bible bumbers, is that embyonic cells can be harvested without blast destruction. It is commonly used to test blast health prior to implantation in IVF.
  Regulations mandating nondestructive harvest only would solve both problems neatly.
  But they cling so deperately to "embryonic == murder!" That they can't see anything else, and see hobgoblins and the devil behind ever proceedure and paper.
20. Re:Burn in Hell! by james_van · 2012-06-20 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  i could not possibly agree with you more. if i had mod points, you would receive them post-haste!
21. Re:Burn in Hell! by wierd_w · 2012-06-20 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  This is not true.
  There were several notorious victorian murderers who specialized in killing prostitutes to provide corpses for universities and med schools.
  Nasty business.
  These days though, enough people leave their bodies to science thanks to a rise in secularism.
22. Re:Burn in Hell! by LordLimecat · 2012-06-20 10:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Can you link to an example of such complaints? Because Im also not seeing this.
  This looks, more than anything, like a classic slashdot strawman.
23. Re:Burn in Hell! by LordLimecat · 2012-06-20 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Im a baptist in a major metropolitan area and I have not heard anything like this, that I can recall.
  In fact it is common to pray that a surgeon be given skill and competence when performing a procedure on a member (or whomever we happen to be praying for).
  Further, it seems kind of odd to imply that we could somehow deny God's will (in the decretive sense); I had thought evangelicals generally agreed that if God wills something, its GOING to happen. There wouldnt be much point to being a Christian if you could thwart God, now would there?
24. Re:Burn in Hell! by LordLimecat · 2012-06-20 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  I think if you cared to do any research, you would find that "these people" tend to be much better informed about this sort of thing than the wider public.
25. Re:Burn in Hell! by LordLimecat · 2012-06-20 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, all those embryonic stem cells are just going to the incinerator. It takes one sick, evil piece of shit to prefer incineration to the advancement science.
  Just a thought experiment to demonstrate how wrongheaded that is:
  If someone has instructed in their last will and testament that they wish to be cremated, do you think a scientist would be justified in stealing the body for experimentation? I mean, its destined for the incinerator anyways!
  You can argue about the ways in which that differs from the current point of discussion, but the point is that "scientific advancement" is not sufficient justification in all instances.
26. Re:Burn in Hell! by EdIII · 2012-06-20 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  there's no real regard for reason in an institution that depends entirely on a lack thereof
  Wow. That is an amazingly worded statement about faith. As good as anything I have heard quoted.
  Well done.
27. Re:Burn in Hell! by LordLimecat · 2012-06-20 14:37 · Score: 1
  
  Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell publicly denounced the use of all modern medicine to save lives? Or is it that they have specific objections to specific technology (which is what my point was, and why the GP's position was such a strawman)?
  Again, your post demands a big, fat, [citation needed].
  Also, "people who identify as christian" is absolutely worthless as a category. Check some of the polling stats to see how incredibly diverse that "category" is, from protestants to mormons to unitarians to people who went to church once back in '94. I think one poll had 75% identifying as christian, but only some 50% identifying Christ as the son of God, and even fewer believing in a personal God. I have no doubt that you can find self-identified christians who are in favor of just about anything you could think of.
  
  Through my lifetime I have seen plenty of professed Christians loudly representing that many actions, not limited to stem cell research, should be disallowed simply based on interpretations of the Bible and nothing more
  What do you know, Im one of them, because I dont think you can be a christian and have a subjective morality; it must be based on SOMETHING. That doesnt mean I deny the use of any modern medicine.
28. Re:Burn in Hell! by EdIII · 2012-06-20 15:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell publicly denounced the use of all modern medicine to save lives? Or is it that they have specific objections to specific technology (which is what my point was, and why the GP's position was such a strawman)?
  Again, your post demands a big, fat, [citation needed].
  The GP was not attempting to refute the statement that there were moderate Christians, and not refuting anything actually. The GP attempted to add the characterization of loud to what that poster was claiming was an "insignificant" group.
  Without refutation, you cannot have a strawman. Now, I will admit it was terse and probably acerbic, but it is nonetheless accurate and insightful. It does not matter that the group of Christians is claimed to be small and not representative of the majority viewpoint if they are so "loud" that they seemingly represent a majority viewpoint in the media, and a significant representation in legislation and policy.
  As for citations,
  News story about Pat Robertson's organization
  Interview by Pat Robertson of a Doctors book on bioethics in which he aligns himself with viewpoints supporting my characterization of him being against stem cell research
  Jerry Falwell obit summarizing position against stem cell research
  Another news story that expands upon the position in the obit
  I could go on... but their position on stem cell research and bioethics is well known and based only the Bible. Although, Mr. Falwell was specific about a 3-part test including ethics, morality, and the Bible. Ethics is meaningless since it is just a lump of flesh freely given and whatever considerations for right and wrong are not derived from any inherent universal truth or logic. Morals in this instance are derived from the Bible and not from any distinct philosophy or culture. So really it just a Biblical test.
  
  Also, "people who identify as christian" is absolutely worthless as a category. Check some of the polling stats to see how incredibly diverse that "category" is, from protestants to mormons to unitarians to people who went to church once back in '94. I think one poll had 75% identifying as christian, but only some 50% identifying Christ as the son of God, and even fewer believing in a personal God. I have no doubt that you can find self-identified christians who are in favor of just about anything you could think of.
  That's kind of the whole point. The GP was stating that those Christians who opposed stem cell research were just a minority. Well, just about anybody can identify as Christian and sell their morality as the so-called correct derivation of Biblical truth. Heck, even the majority of KKK members claim to be Christian and can derive their racism from Biblical truth.
  It is those who do so the loudest that are at issue here.
  
  What do you know, Im one of them, because I dont think you can be a christian and have a subjective morality; it must be based on SOMETHING. That doesnt mean I deny the use of any modern medicine.
  That sounds contradictory.
  Without trying to offend you, I believe that all morality derived from the Bible is more or less subjective. By that, I mean that other than some universal truths in the Bible, most of the morals derived from it seem pretty damned arbitrary to me and mostly just related to the culture at that time.
  The fact you mention subjective morality indicates to me that you are a thoughtful Christian and your faith is constructed by carefully reasoned interpretations of the Bible. Much better than some idiot just parrotin
29. Re:Burn in Hell! by SomePgmr · 2012-06-20 19:09 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose that leads down a long (and no-doubt unresolved) theological rabbit hole about free will, God's grace, omnipotence and omniscience*, and the final criteria for judgement.
  Just remember, nothing about any of it makes good, rational sense to me.
  I guess they would say you must be able to actively defy God as a function of free will, even if that free will is a gift, namely by rejecting the sacrifice as your one-and-only path to salvation, and further illustrated in your consequent behavior. After all, not all human behavior is consistent with the will of a just and loving God. I can appreciate how this conflicts with notions of an all powerful God... and more specifically, God's plan.
  But yeah, I'm the wrong guy to ask. Maybe someone gave me a more formidable answer in a previous life and I've forgotten it. But either way, I don't have any answers about this that would satisfy me, much less someone that takes it all quite seriously.
  * A fun little Sunday school paradox for the kids.
30. Re:Burn in Hell! by SomePgmr · 2012-06-20 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Ha! Thanks. ...and here everyone told me I'd never contribute anything of value. :)
31. Re:Burn in Hell! by Dishevel · 2012-06-21 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  First. I am not debating the existence of God.
  Second. Never said that God interfered with everything.
  Third. Again. If there is a God. His will. When exerted can not be thwarted by man. If it could he would not be God.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
32. Re:Burn in Hell! by LienRag · 2012-06-28 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, all those embryonic stem cells are just going to the incinerator. It takes one sick, evil piece of shit to prefer incineration to the advancement science.
  Actually, that could be a point made by Dr Mengele...
  On the opposite, Levi-Strauss stated that he'd rather grant humanity to a stone rather than risking denying it to a human.
  So are embryos closer to stones or to humans? I wouldn't daresay...
Jackpot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 05:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Now I can start drinking again.
1. Re:Jackpot by Grayhand · 2012-06-20 06:44 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Now I can start drinking again.
  "Japanese scientists have coaxed stem cells into forming a 5-millimeter-long, three-dimensional tissue that the researchers labelled a liver bud "
  Very small drinks.
2. Re:Jackpot by dintech · 2012-06-20 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  I just informed my Japanese wife, "Wow, Japanese scientists have grown a tiny liver in a lab!"
  She said, "Is it tasty?"
3. Re:Jackpot by CubicleZombie · 2012-06-20 06:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Coors light.
  
  --
  :wq
4. Re:Jackpot by compro01 · 2012-06-20 07:36 · Score: 2
  
  No, has to be Bud Light.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
5. Re:Jackpot by Nethead · 2012-06-20 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  You sir, are a lucky man.
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
6. Re:Jackpot by TheEffigy · 2012-06-20 11:00 · Score: 2
  
  Very small drinks.
  Shots it is!
W.C. Fields by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-06-20 05:29 · Score: 5, Funny

And now chronic drunks rejoice -- this bud's for you!

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1. Re:W.C. Fields by CastrTroy · 2012-06-20 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  First, I didn't see any comments, alluding to the fact that all people with liver problems are drunks. What I did read, is that a lot of people with drinking problems happen to have liver problems, and they will be very happy about this discovery. Also, there's a lot of ways to combat anxiety without any drugs at all. it may not work for people who are really far gone, but for many people, who have a moderate amount of anxiety, there are a few things you can do without spending any money.
  
  #1, cut out the aritificial stimulants, coffee does nothing good for anxiety
  
  #2. Get a good night's sleep. Ok some people can't sleep well, but (and I admit this might cost money) but sleep aid drugs are easily available (Nytol), and if not abused, can be beneficial.
  
  #3. Get some exercise. I know, it sounds crazy, but exercise can really help to relieve some anxiety. And it also helps with the sleep. It's easy to fall asleep when your body is physically drained.
  
  #4. Talk it out. Find a friend or family member and just talk it out. Talking about stuff with somebody supportive can go a lot way to getting you to stop worrying about stuff. Sometimes just saying stuff out loud is enough for you to figure stuff out for yourself.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
2. Re:W.C. Fields by reub2000 · 2012-06-20 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Tell me of an over the counter anti-anxiety drug - other than alcohol. Tell me.
  Anti-histamines are somewhat effective.
3. Re:W.C. Fields by theshowmecanuck · 2012-06-20 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Get some exercise. I know, it sounds crazy, but exercise can really help to relieve some anxiety.
  No, it doesn't sound crazy. Here is an article on the subject from Time Magazine. Also look for the study done at Duke University in 1999 where they compared exercise to Zoloft.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
4. Re:W.C. Fields by dkleinsc · 2012-06-20 08:15 · Score: 2
  
  I've got the body of a Greek God.
  I did too, once, but when the police came by ...
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Save the moose by unixhero · 2012-06-20 05:34 · Score: 1

Tell me Are they using moose in experiments on live animals? I don't know if I should laugh of cry over this.
1. Re:Save the moose by unixhero · 2012-06-20 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  hahaha time to go home from the lab now, my eyes doesn't work anymore. moose != mouse science can wait till tomorrow
2. Re:Save the moose by mcmonkey · 2012-06-20 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  A moose once bit my sister.
I'll drink to that! by Mannfred · 2012-06-20 05:35 · Score: 1

So much for worrying about liver failure in old age.
1. Re:I'll drink to that! by jo_ham · 2012-06-20 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  I think that's the way the human race will eventually go - once we can grow replacement organs from stem cells, we can just sub them in as we age as we all start living longer and longer. I think the only sticking point will be the brain, unless we work out how to rejuvenate it.
2. Re:I'll drink to that! by smooth+wombat · 2012-06-20 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  we can just sub them in as we age as we all start living longer and longer.
  
  Except for the whole scarring issue. As anyone who has to have knee replacements will tell you, there is a finite amount of time your knees can get replaced not because of the knee itself, but because of the scarring of the knee tissue.
  
  Granted, if you're only going to get one liver replacement (or spleen or kidney or whatever), then scarring isn't an issue.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
3. Re:I'll drink to that! by jo_ham · 2012-06-20 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  You can reduce the scarring by inhibiting the body's healing response, but that only gets you so far. You also have problems with aseptic loosening when it comes to joint replacements, due to bone reclamation by the body.
  It's certainly not all figured out, but we are going to become more and more like hardware with replaceable parts as we age.
4. Re:I'll drink to that! by jo_ham · 2012-06-20 06:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  We're not all the USA. All other countries have socialised healthcare where this sort of thing will be "free" (paid for by national insurance contributions at a vastly lower cost than private US medical care).
  The longer your population is productive, the more it benefits your economy. Reducing retirements caused by becoming sick or infirm reduces health and welfare costs and keeps your workforce healthy.
5. Re:I'll drink to that! by mhajicek · 2012-06-20 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  They'll come up with ways to reduce the scarring too. We'll have multi-hundred year old wealthy people presiding over the slaves who die at 50 and can't afford any medical treatment. Although slaves might be the wrong word; there won't be any work for them to do except to try to scratch a living from the leftovers of the wealthy, who have their needs taken care of by robots.
6. Re:I'll drink to that! by jo_ham · 2012-06-20 07:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  We're not all the USA. All other countries have socialised healthcare where this sort of thing will be "free"
  Ha-ha. You think socialist healthcare will give old farts operations costing tens of thousands of dollars for free.
  One of the main reasons why the NHS (for example) is cheaper than US healthcare is that it routinely refuses treatment for old farts. If I remember correctly, something like 50% of lifetime healthcare spending for the average American happens in the last couple of months of their life, when socialist healthcare would just let them die earlier.
  Errr... yes?
  In my own family alone, "old farts" that I know personally have had a heart transplant, an 18-hour spinal realignment, major heart surgery, a partial liver transplant... all for "free".
  Of course, it's not "free" - we pay for it with national insurance contributions. The cost is vastly, vastly lower than what is spent in the US because we have a nationalised system. While there is waste and overhead, it is nowhere near what it is in the US. It's why we spend less than half our GDP per capita compared to the USA (8% vs 16%), yet have longer life expectancy and no crippling debts brought on by healthcare costs.
  If you think that the NHS "routinely refuses treatment" for old farts then I suggest you stop getting your "facts" from Fox News and talk to people who *actually live here*.
7. Re:I'll drink to that! by sjames · 2012-06-20 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, those heroic measures at the end tend to be hyper expensive (and profitable) but are as likely to shorten life as they are to lengthen it and definitely degrade the quality of life.
  So, with the profit motive gone, they skip all of that because it's in the patient's best interest. Do you REALLY want your family bankrupted so you can lay in a bed, in pain, unsure of who you are or why you're there for an extra 2 weeks?
  Socialist healthcare will gladly do something USEFUL that allows you to be a contributing member of society for a while longer (where contribution may or may not include actual employment).
8. Re:I'll drink to that! by Stickerboy · 2012-06-20 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, those heroic measures at the end tend to be hyper expensive (and profitable) but are as likely to shorten life as they are to lengthen it and definitely degrade the quality of life.
  So, with the profit motive gone, they skip all of that because it's in the patient's best interest. Do you REALLY want your family bankrupted so you can lay in a bed, in pain, unsure of who you are or why you're there for an extra 2 weeks?
  Socialist healthcare will gladly do something USEFUL that allows you to be a contributing member of society for a while longer (where contribution may or may not include actual employment).
  Spoken like someone who isn't involved in healthcare.
  I treat critical care patients on a more or less daily basis. I can guarantee you that it is profitable for neither the hospital nor the physician for extremely sick patients to receive multiple heroic interventions at the end of life. Yes, it is "hyper expensive", for everyone involved. And the hospital / physician will likely be reimbursed at a lesser rate or not be reimbursed at all for those measures. From a financial standpoint, the most profitable hospitalized patients are those that recover sooner than expected, with as few expensive procedures and imaging as needed. The reason is that most insurance companies and the government are reimbursing based on "average" costs and hospital stays for the illnesses that are being treated in any given patient. So if patient John Doe takes $100,000 of heroic measures when the reimbursement for his illnesses from the major payers is set at $10,000, the hospital usually ends up eating most of that cost. Conversely, if you only have to incur $5,000 worth of costs to send John Doe home healthy and happy, guess what? Someone probably just made a bunch of money.
  The #1 main reason why the end of life has historically been filled with "hyper expensive" heroic measures is because here in the US, public health education (along with public education in general) is horrible. The average Joe has no clue what's going on with his body or what to expect if illness strikes. Conversations about advanced directives, end-of-life decision making, etc. that should take place before you get sick end up being hashed out over days or weeks through multiple emotionally distraught family members. If Grandma Jane goes to the hospital, her family has no reasonable expectation of what the most advanced healthcare system in the world can or can't deliver. All of this, of course, is a recipe for medical cost disaster in aggregate for the US because what should be quiet, comfortable, planned-out deaths with a minimum of fuss and expense and a maximum of comfort becomes long, drawn-out ordeals because no one, the least of all the family of Grandma Jane, knows when to say enough is enough. And the doctors and nurses are professionally obligated in the absence of effective decision making to keep prolonging the inevitable up until the point where A) the decision is made or B) the limits of medical science are exhausted. The US has the most technologically advanced and adept health care available anywhere; but no one ever can ever be bothered to figure out before hand how they want to use it.
  As far as the "future" of medicine, when the expensive, lab-grown genetically customized organ replacements hit; I expect it to be limited for decades to a select few who can either A) pay for it out of pocket or B) meet extremely limited selection criteria. Research the history of renal dialysis if you need a good example. Organ transplant surgeries today are more or less already rationed by the scarcity of organs ready to be transplanted; once that ends governments and insurance companies will start inventing other ways to ration it.
  
  --
  Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
9. Re:I'll drink to that! by sjames · 2012-06-20 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yet, somehow the 'inferior' socialized medicine manages to deal with all of those issues without going to crazy heroic measures at the end of life. The Doctors and Nurses in various socialized medical systems are constrained by ethics as well.
  Certainly whenever I have had health care, the hospital wasn't the slightest but shy about billing for each little thing in microscopic detail.
10. Re:I'll drink to that! by jo_ham · 2012-06-20 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  The main problem with the US system, beyond all the hyper-waste and profiteering and the salaried employees in insurance companies whose job it is to deny legitimate care where possible is that the culture has turned away from the attitude that prevention is better than cure, precisely because it costs money to go to the doctor.
  Then, instead of clearing up relatively minor issues early on, people leave it and just hope they'll get better. Sometimes they do, but often they'll end up in a worse situation and by the time a doctor gets involved it becomes complicated, expensive and crippling.
  There's a reason the US's life expectancy is so low, compared to the quality of care available (assuming you can afford to pay for it). A hybrid private/public system (like everyone else in the world) would do more for your economy that almost anything else bar slashing the military budget or repealing the Bush tax cuts - a productive, healthy workforce, much reduced costs on businesses and employees, more flexible working environment for employees who are no longer chained to their job for fear of losing their health insurance so are free to be able to strike out on their own or simply change careers, consumer spending power will increase since they no longer have giant medical insurance and co-pay costs...
  A nationalised system does not mean the US will turn into the USSR, it simply means the US will just accentuate all of the best parts of itself when its population are not constantly burdened by healthcare debt.
If only they could grow common sense in a lab dish by CityZen · 2012-06-20 05:37 · Score: 1

Of course, there would still be the problem of getting the horse to drink...
Re:but... by Farmer+Tim · 2012-06-20 05:37 · Score: 2

Is that the wurst you can do?

--
Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
Need bile ducts! by b_dover · 2012-06-20 05:49 · Score: 5, Informative

Unfortunately, the bile ducts are an important part of what the liver does, i.e. produce bile, which we need to digest fats. Furthermore, bile is used to remove bilirubin, a was product of the liver tearing down red blood cells. An excess of bilirubin is what makes people with liver problems turn yellow. This does seem like a great step forward in growing organs however. The liver is one of the most complex organs in the body.
1. Re:Need bile ducts! by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-06-20 06:02 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No problem, there's enough bile on /. to share with everyone. That's not even getting into the great bile reserves on fark, reddit, or even usenet.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Onions? by igaborf · 2012-06-20 05:59 · Score: 2

Now if they could just figure out how to grow onions. Yum! Liver and onions!
1. Re:Onions? by steelfood · 2012-06-20 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Which brings up a good point: Does it count as cannibalism if you eat stem cell-grown human tissue?
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Bigger Penis? by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2012-06-20 06:00 · Score: 1

Two counterpoints:
1. Versatility. There's more than one place to put it.
2. It's not the size of the boat, nor is it the motion of the ocean; it's whether the captain stays in harbour long enough for everyone to disembark.
I think there are some obligatory SMBC comics that should be linked here.

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Rudimentaries by KingSkippus · 2012-06-20 06:25 · Score: 1

I don't have any moral objections to them making a rudimentary liver. They can use as many stem cells from rudimentaries as they want. But if they start doing this to make a human liver though, there's going to be outrage!
Fava beans and a nice chianti by jrmcc · 2012-06-20 06:30 · Score: 1

Hannibal Lecter won't have to kill!!
We can remedy that! by theshowmecanuck · 2012-06-20 06:49 · Score: 1

and therefore not controversial by any stretch of the imagination or in any viewpoint
Dammit! Then we'll just have to make them controversial so that God can be on our side!

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Oh good grief! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-20 07:26 · Score: 1

You don't get it. Everyone in recovery KNOWS everything you have suggested 1- 4! They're not stupid. You can only exercise so much - even if you're an Olympic athlete.As for everything else - been their done that.
When you have a lot shit in your head, you can't sleep. Period. You wake up at 2,3,4 AM and then you practice your Buddhist Meditations - Buddhists because they are the ONLY religion who has some inkling of an answer - and try to get some rest for the morrow. YOu can work your ass off on a construction site (done that) and STILL wake up at 2AM. WTF, dude?!?
It sucks.You don't get it.
Here's something to research - you're a Slashdot poster so you're not a ... you'll see for yourself .... go up to the NIH website, do research on substance abuse and just do research on child abuse. That is all.
Just put your mind to it. Your incredible mind. Please.
1. Re:Oh good grief! by LordLimecat · 2012-06-20 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty sure the NIH wont suggest that alcohol is ever the solution to "im going through a rough time."
A gift from Earth by John+Bokma · 2012-06-20 07:46 · Score: 1

Great book, read it :-).

--

Perl Programmer for hire
Yay! by PPH · 2012-06-20 10:22 · Score: 1

An endless supply of compatible liver replacements is close!
Lindsay Lohan is saved!

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Bigger Penis? by PPH · 2012-06-20 10:28 · Score: 1

3. How fast can you resupply the ship and take on the next group of passengers?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Alright! by cfalcon · 2012-06-20 13:47 · Score: 1

This and better guns is why I 3 science.
Best news I've heard all year.
Great by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-06-20 14:17 · Score: 1

Just another excuse for my boss to keep drinking.
imagine the progress they've made by kalioto · 2012-06-21 02:58 · Score: 1

in the three years that have passed since this article was published... Published online 22 April 2009
We need brains! by lightbounce · 2012-06-21 06:29 · Score: 1

If only they can grow brain cells, we'll have something to stave off the zombie apocalypse, sort of like "True Blood" for vampires.