Slashdot Mirror


3D Printing of Human Tissue To Spark Ethics Debate

Lucas123 writes "In a report released today, Gartner predicts that the time is drawing near when 3D-bioprinted human organs will be readily available, an advance almost certain to spark a complex debate involving a variety of political, moral and financial interests. For example, some researchers are using cells from human and non-human organs to create stronger tissue, said Pete Basiliere, a Gartner research director. 'In this example, there was human amniotic fluid, canine smooth muscle cells, and bovine cells all being used. Some may feel those constructs are of concern,' he said. While regulations in the U.S. and Europe will mean human trials of 3D printed organs will likely take up to a decade, nations with less stringent standards will plow ahead with the technology. For example, last August, the Hangzhou Dianzi University in China announced it had invented the biomaterial 3D printer Regenovo, which printed a small working kidney that lasted four months. Apart from printing tissue, 3D printing may also threaten intellectual property rights. 'IP will be ignored and it will be impossible or impractical to enforce. Everything will change when you can make anything.' said John Hornick, an IP attorney."

17 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. IP freely by game+kid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apart from printing tissue, 3D printing may also threaten intellectual property rights. 'IP will be ignored and it will be impossible or impractical to enforce. Everything will change when you can make anything.' said John Hornick, an IP attorney.

    No. Stop. Quit turning natural ideas into assets to be bought, sold, lobbied-for, and speculated.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    1. Re:IP freely by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But I deserve to have more wealth than any ten thousand other people on this planet combined! I mean, maybe I actually invented it and maybe I just bought it from the sucker-- er, person who did. My handful of years of work should absolutely support me and my family indefinitely. Also, I shouldn't have to pay taxes because I'm so great.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    2. Re:IP freely by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But I deserve to have more wealth than any ten thousand other people on this planet combined!

      10,000?

      Try 3,500,000,000.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:IP freely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IP lawyers just want their cut... they see a way to latch onto a copywritable item (the digital file) and say "when you print it, it's a copy". The closest corollary is finding a recipe for a cake and baking it. The baked cake is not a new copy of the recipe.

      The baker followed the instructions of the recipe. The recipe is copywritable and the cake is not subject of the copyright.

      If IP lawyers try to say otherwise, we have a bigger mess than the implications to 3d printing. It means that you can't follow any how-to's on the internet without paying a royalty each time you follow the steps. It means that the people who write recipe books get a cut every time you make a meal.

       

    4. Re:IP freely by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "No. Stop. Quit turning natural ideas into assets to be bought, sold, lobbied-for, and speculated."

      It's bullshit anyway. 3D printing doesn't "threaten" copyrights or patents. It may be true that people might be able to make patented gadgets for their own home use... but that's already legal. And has been, as far as I know, for 200+ years.

      There is no reason to change the laws, because manufacturing patented products for profit without permission is already illegal anyway. I don't see how enforcement of THAT would be significantly more difficult than it is now.

      As usual, it's the "I have a RIGHT to suck money out of you" people who are bitching about this. Too bad. They can't stop it, and they'd better not force changes in the laws. People are pissed off enough already.

    5. Re:IP freely by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "No. Stop. Quit turning natural ideas into assets to be bought, sold, lobbied-for, and speculated."

      It's bullshit anyway. 3D printing doesn't "threaten" copyrights or patents. It may be true that people might be able to make patented gadgets for their own home use... but that's already legal. And has been, as far as I know, for 200+ years.

      This.

      I can hand-carve Mickey Mouse figurines out of soap all day every day, and so long as I don't try to sell them, Disney can't do shit about it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:IP freely by suutar · · Score: 3, Informative

      To clarify: the list of ingredients is not copyrightable. The instructions on what to do with the ingredients may be.

    7. Re:IP freely by suutar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sadly no. Making patented gadgets for your own use is an infringement (both for making and for using). You're unlikely to get caught by the patent holder, but it's still not legal. Here's the relevant section of US code.

    8. Re:IP freely by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Sadly no. Making patented gadgets for your own use is an infringement (both for making and for using)."

      I stand corrected. I looked it up myself and you are correct.

      There are however two recognized exceptions from case law. One (I don't have the citation handy) was for "determining the veracity and preciseness of the specification", and the other, from Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceutical, 733 F2d 858, 221 USPQ 937 (Fed. Cir. 1984). That one says there is an exception

      "for the sole purpose of gratifying a philosophical taste, or curiosity, or for mere amusement"

      So yes, if it is just to gratify your philosophical taste or curiosity, or for fun, it is still legal. Otherwise no, unless you are trying to compare the spec.

  2. For once looking forward to the future by Dorianny · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everything will change when you can make anything.' said John Hornick, an IP attorney." I sure do hope so!

    1. Re:For once looking forward to the future by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Funny

      Won't someone think of the lawyers???!!

      Way ahead of ya - that's why I built a ramp for the thresher.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  3. (sigh) we all know what's coming. by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Admit it, the first thing we're all going to print is genitalia.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:(sigh) we all know what's coming. by DougOtto · · Score: 4, Funny

      Make sure and check the "Zoom to fill page" box....

      --
      Solving Unix problems since 1989...
  4. Not everything... by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

    They tried 3D printing a lawyer from a combination of cockroach, dung beetle, and rat cells. The resultant being immediately filed a cease and desist order. The researchers were unable to determine if this was a success, or whether the creature had the good of the world in mind.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  5. 3D Printing is too complex. There is an easier way by scorp1us · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We've "discovered" this material that is called Extra Celluar Matrix, which forms the scaffolding for organs. We can remove the organ's cells, leaving just this scaffolding. Then we can take a culture of cells from your own organ and use it to populate the scaffolding, resulting in an organ. .

    3D printing an organ is a much more complicated process. The only advantage is it does not require a donor XCM. But here's the cool thing about XCM, it doesn't trip the immune system, and the organ's cells are yours, so there is no rejection.

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  6. Re:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA by femtobyte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Once it becomes cheap and easy for people to manufacture their own goods why the fuck would they buy expensive crap from big names.

    The same question could be asked today, not in some vague future "when it becomes cheap." Why do people by Coca-Cola or Pepsi-Cola cans, when the generic brand fizzy brown stuff (that performs equally well in blind tests) costs half as much? Why do people buy designer clothes labels, made in the same overseas sweatshops to the same shoddy standards as the "budget" brands? A large portion of present-day economic spending goes to wasteful expense, paying for "big names" brands whose biggest expense is paying for more ads to convince people the "big names" brands are better. If economy and quality of goods was a major concern, today's store shelves would look very different.

  7. Re:anything? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It will be a very long time before we "can make anything".

    If IP attorneys like John Hornick have it their way, that 'very long time' will equal 'forever.'

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese