Slashdot Mirror


Rudimentary Liver Grown In a Dish

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."

26 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. How does it taste? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps with a side of fava beans?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  2. Burn in Hell! by Anonymous Coward · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.

    4. Re:Burn in Hell! by Dishevel · · 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?
    5. Re:Burn in Hell! by Hatta · · 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!
    6. Re:Burn in Hell! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And by "teeny, tiny" I mean completely insignificant.

      And by insignificant you mean fucking loud.

    7. Re:Burn in Hell! by SomePgmr · · 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.

    8. Re:Burn in Hell! by Hatta · · 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!
    9. Re:Burn in Hell! by LordLimecat · · 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.

    10. Re:Burn in Hell! by EdIII · · 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

  3. Jackpot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I can start drinking again.

    1. Re:Jackpot by Grayhand · · 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 CubicleZombie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Coors light.

      --
      :wq
    3. Re:Jackpot by compro01 · · Score: 2

      No, has to be Bud Light.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    4. Re:Jackpot by TheEffigy · · Score: 2

      Very small drinks.

      Shots it is!

  4. W.C. Fields by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · 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 dkleinsc · · 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/
  5. Re:but... by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2

    Is that the wurst you can do?

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  6. Need bile ducts! by b_dover · · 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 · · 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.
  7. Onions? by igaborf · · Score: 2

    Now if they could just figure out how to grow onions. Yum! Liver and onions!

  8. Re:I'll drink to that! by jo_ham · · 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.

  9. Re:I'll drink to that! by jo_ham · · 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.

  10. Re:I'll drink to that! by jo_ham · · 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*.