Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Your New Heart Could Be Made in Space One Day (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

Imagine a laboratory growing human hearts - and imagine that laboratory floating in space hundreds of miles above the surface of the Earth. That may sound like science fiction, but bizarre as it seems, it could bring new hope for transplant patients within the next decade. From a report: While about 7,600 heart transplants were carried out around the world in 2017, there's a desperate shortage of organs, with thousands of people on waiting lists dying every year. Efforts to grow human hearts in the lab are showing promise, but are hampered by the need for the organs to grow around a "scaffolding" to make sure they don't collapse during the process. Reliably removing the scaffolding once the heart is complete is proving to be a challenge.

Space tech company Techshot believes zero gravity could be the answer. The International Space Station (ISS) is in constant freefall around the planet, meaning that anything inside experiences effective weightlessness, known technically as microgravity. This means organs could be grown without the need for any scaffolding, believes Rich Boling, the firm's vice-president of corporate advancement. One day hearts could be grown commercially for transplant, Techshot believes. [...] Developed in partnership with Nasa, Techshot's BioFabrication Facility (BFF) is a microwave oven-sized device that uses 3D printing techniques to create patches for heart repairs using a patient's own stem cells.

44 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Hearts for the Wealthy by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    How much will it cost to launch the needed starter cell culture into space, presumably have someone up their manning it (even if mostly automated), return it from space...etc.

    Even Walter White probably didn't get enough meth money to buy a new heart. In the US this would mean new hearts would only be for the wealthy. Can the process be done in bulk? Or can we get the cost of launch down enough?

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Hearts for the Wealthy by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Informative

      How much will it cost to launch the needed starter cell culture into space, presumably have someone up their manning it (even if mostly automated), return it from space...etc.

      SpaceX plans to eventually get costs down to $1700 per kg with the Falcon Heavy. I could almost see the first privately (or semi-privately)owned space station being one where companies can rent research/production space and the station operator has techs up there to run the experiments/production facilities, maintain the station, etc. While it could be expensive, it probably wouldn't be prohibitively so. Especially considering you would be making (hopefully) rejection-proof, lifesaving replacement organs.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Hearts for the Wealthy by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      There's an easy solution to that. Star Trek transporters. By the time space flight becomes cheap enough, we'll probably have those.

    3. Re:Hearts for the Wealthy by sjbe · · Score: 2

      How much will it cost to launch the needed starter cell culture into space, presumably have someone up their manning it (even if mostly automated), return it from space...etc.

      Forget that. Think about how much the research costs would be. This isn't something you can test on the ground - you have to actually do your research in zero-G. And something like this will take a loooooong time to figure out so it's going to be ludicrously expensive to do the R&D. Production would probably be a modest sum by comparison presuming they can automate it to a useful degree.

    4. Re:Hearts for the Wealthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is only one of several reasons this will never happen. The radiation dose alone will probably damage the heart before it can be used.

    5. Re:Hearts for the Wealthy by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      How big is your cell culture? Grams? Tens of grams? That's still a rounding error in a typical space station supply payload.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re: Hearts for the Wealthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you think radiation is some sort of evils death magic or something? You know that there are living astronauts on the ISS right now right? And that theyâ(TM)ve done all sorts of successful experiments where the grow and culture various things?

    7. Re:Hearts for the Wealthy by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      As with most technology. At first only the ultra rich can afford it, then the normal rich, over time price will come down until it is practical for most people.

      Right now a launch into space will cost about 60 million dollars. lets say retrieval would be double that 120 million. So lets say the full process will be 200million dollars.

      With the ability to do 200 hearts at once, that would be a million dollars per heart. That would possible for the normal rich people. If the process can be expanded to 1000 hearts then that can bring the price down to $200,000 something the upper middle class can afford, or something a good insurance company may be able to pay for.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Hearts for the Wealthy by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Sure back in the olden days. Water Closets were a luxury for the rich. Running water, a place to take your output somewhere where you don't need to think about it. This was something only the Rich had. It took generations of infrastructure and improvement in processes for the average person to have running water in their houses, and their own WC.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:Hearts for the Wealthy by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I would put more bet on a Space Elevator then on a transporter. The technology and theory is still basically impossible (We teleported a Proton, not even a full atom). There will be decades or century of debate on the ethics of a Transporter. When being transported do we get killed and then a copy made of us.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:Hearts for the Wealthy by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

      My comment was a joke. Maybe I should've added a sarcasm tag. My point was basically that none of these options will be available in my lifetime, making all of them "science fiction", and thus betting on any one over the other is moot.

      If you want to talk potential ethics, I don't see how it would be any more unethical to transport cell cultures up and a finished heart back down than it would be to remove cells from a body, grow a new heart outside the body, and then surgically swap it for the old one. A bunch of human cells are going to die either way, and a human life would be saved in the process.

      I can't see any point in actually transporting a patient up/down. I mean, unless you just really wanted to see how much he/she might vomit in microgravity, and maybe then see if the video would go viral on YouTube. It's not a good idea to try that stunt on someone who needs a heart replacement though, as you may end up killing both the original and the copy. ;-)

    11. Re:Hearts for the Wealthy by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      Not really a good analogy, because once the plumbing and sewer system is built the maintenance cost is very very low compared to the initial outlay. Hooking up additional houses is also tiny compared to the initial network cost.

      But getting stuff into space (and back) is always going to be fairly expensive, unless/until we get a space elevator.

    12. Re:Hearts for the Wealthy by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      So an adult weighing 80kg will cost $136,000. That's just for the person, doesn't include the air, water, food and everything else to sustain them.

      There might be multidisciplinary humans in orbit who can take on tasks for your company, but it looks like the cost of these humans would probably be on the order of something like $10,000 per hour, once you take into account all the costs of running the habitat for them.

      So your hearts are going to need a couple of hours handling individually at most if you want this to be economically feasible for mass adoption.

  2. If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Scientists had invented some type of material that dissolves in tissue over time...

  3. Re: Not in this Trumpverse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Living organisms grown in space have shown a wide range of unwanted behaviour, lack of gravity provides zero clues to the organ or organism as to what direction is up or down and you would just end up with 7 heartpits all disconnected in a spiral arrangement that arises from circling the planet

  4. Quite a challenge by sjbe · · Score: 2

    So an organ that evolved to grow and work in a 1G environment will be grown in a 0G environment? Methinks there might be some consequences to that. If they can pull it off that would be amazing but that sounds like quite a challenge. It's not immediately clear to me how 0G removes the need for scaffolding entirely. Would it not just change the type of scaffolding needed rather than removing the need entirely? Could be an improvement of course - I'm not bashing the idea - just trying to think it through. Fluids and other chemicals behave differently in the absence of gravity and I'd be shocked if that wasn't a big technical hurdle.

    Assuming the technology is workable though the real problem will be funding the research. Researching this will require spending some pretty serious time in orbit and despite the best efforts of SpaceX and others that remains pretty darn expensive and will remain so for some time to come.

    1. Re:Quite a challenge by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Most of our organs were grown in a neutral buoyant environment, which has a lot of the same effects of being in 0g.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Quite a challenge by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Says the ignoramus.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  5. All I need is a heart. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not for me. I will continue to take my clunky metal body off to see the wizard.

  6. You can pry my old heart from my cold dead hands by sinij · · Score: 4, Funny

    You can pry my old heart from my cold dead hands!

    Oh wait.

  7. Re:Scaffolding? by radja · · Score: 1

    the foetus is the scaffolding, the woman is life support.

    --

    No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
    --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
  8. Re:Scaffolding? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "Human hearts are routinely grown in our 1G environment. The standard procedure uses a woman, "

    And it needs 9 months. This will be done by 9 female scientists in 1 month.

  9. Great! by mark_reh · · Score: 2

    One more incredible medical service that will be available to those who can afford it. Gotta take care of rich folks! Who would give the rest of us jobs?

    1. Re:Great! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      One more incredible medical service that will be available to those who can afford it. Gotta take care of rich folks! Who would give the rest of us jobs?

      Sort of like airplane travel, you mean? Or television, perhaps? Both of which were only available to the very wealthy at first....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  10. So what is the scaffolding made out of?? by Higaran · · Score: 1

    I get it that there currently needs to be some kind of base that the heart grows around, but what is it made out of? If it is just just regular plastic, why not make it out of something that is dis-solvable by some kine of water or maybe salt water solution, that way after the heart is built, it just gets washed out in the inspection process. I'm sure that smarter minds than mine have thought about this, but I know there is always an easier way.

  11. Re:yeah no by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    Dragon can currently return about two tonnes of payload from orbit in a single flight. Could easily be hundreds of hearts in a flight. Still expensive, but compared to US healthcare, not as much. Also, if it's custom-grown, then you might be actually saving money on the post-transplant healthcare, compared to a donor organ. I guess the real question whether we won't ultimately accomplish this on Earth more easily. Chances are that we will.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  12. silly science fiction by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    The first problem is that we in the U.S. can no longer put people into orbit. The second problem is no one knows whether a projected zero-G heart could stand up to the rigors of one-G life. The third problem (were the first two problems to be solved) is the incredible expense.

    Lab-grown hearts (assuming they are practical) should be done right here on terra firma. No space cowboys needed.

    The best solution is get off your lazy ass, exercise, and cut way back on the Twinkies.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
    1. Re:silly science fiction by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      The best solution is get off your lazy ass, exercise, and cut way back on the Twinkies.
      You're absolutely correct.

    2. Re:silly science fiction by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

      Please stop posting to Slashdot. You have nothing to contribute to a conversation of intelligent people.

      You're a sad, pathetic little boy. Go find your mommy and tell her you don't deserve cookies and milk before she tucks you into bed tonight.

      --
      Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  13. Re:You can pry my old heart from my cold dead hand by Graydyn+Young · · Score: 1

    *chest

  14. Re:You can pry my old heart from my cold dead hand by sinij · · Score: 2

    Wait, what?

    Someone to yell Kalima, rip my still beating heart out, and toss it into molten lava, what else?

  15. Re: Not in this Trumpverse by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    <Sarcasm>Yea, there is a chance that such an experiment may not work. So why bother trying at all. Sure the benefit can mean a way to save lives. But there are variables which are untested and we don't know 100% what the results are. So lets not try. </Sarcasm>

    For a site, that is suppose to cover science and technology news, there is a heck of a lot of posts of people just coming up with reasons out of the blue, on why it will fail miserably. While Scientific reporting is general really bad, but there are a lot of things that are worth a shot to try. Especially, if a success could be beneficial.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  16. Re: Not in this Trumpverse by chuckugly · · Score: 1

    Supercharged 7 chamber hearts will be the next thing banned from sports.

  17. Take care of the heart you were born with.. by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    ..and you won't have to worry about anyone growing you a 'replacement', nor being able to afford a 'replacement'. Cheaper and better to maintain the engine properly than it is to replace it.

  18. Re:Or... by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    Being an AC you probably won't see this, but: If you legally allow sale of human organs, you open the door to criminals taking advantage of this to sell illegally obtained human organs more openly. Author Larry Niven referred to these as 'Organleggers' and it was a big problem in his fictitious future Earth. Imagine people being snatched off the street and literally broken up for their bodyparts. Big business, big profit. Nope! Can't allow that to happen, and if you allow legal sale of human organs and other bodyparts then that's what will happen.

  19. Neutral buoynacy versus microgravity by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Most of our organs were grown in a neutral buoyant environment, which has a lot of the same effects of being in 0g.

    Some but not all. There are two very important differences. Objects in neutral buoyancy still experience the effects of gravity on their mass. This affects fluids and tissues significantly. The second is that friction and drag is still in play in neutral buoyancy due to the fluid medium. We already know that microgravity has a measurable effect on muscle growth and structure and the heart is a muscle.

    The idea of growing organs in microgravity is an interesting one but there are a lot of potential reasons why it might not work. It seems unlikely that microgravity would provide all benefits with no problems.

  20. Consider the source by tomhath · · Score: 2

    The article came from someone whose job title is "vice-president of corporate advancement", in other words, a marketing drone.

  21. Valentine's day by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    Want me to give you my heart? Better get a telescope coz its gonna be in spaaaaccceeee!

  22. Re: Not in this Trumpverse by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    For a site, that is suppose to cover science and technology news, there is a heck of a lot of posts of people just coming up with reasons out of the blue, on why it will fail miserably. While Scientific reporting is general really bad, but there are a lot of things that are worth a shot to try. Especially, if a success could be beneficial.

    I dunno if a lot of people have aged into curmudgeon-land, but I agree. These experiments are worthwhile doing. Will it fail? Quite possibly.

    But it might work, and it might end up solving the rejection issue. Some of our olde fartes declaring it a failure might just be interested in that.

    The only downside I can think of is peripheral. If we make it possible for people to have a brand new strong young heart, there are many other killers waiting in the wings. We've come a good ways in treating cancer, but having many more people surviving heart problems just to go through that long slow death of dementia is hardly an improvement.

    But hell yeah, the experiments themselves are pretty cheap - we have the space station, we have the tools, Do it.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  23. Can you even begin to fathom the cost? by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

    This is some Bezos level pricing - radiation deflection up the wazoo so the things grow ok in space, power supply, heating, servicing and what have you. Flying it up there, flying it back - astronomical... pricing. That's some seriously expensive heart.

    Considering the morality of some of the rich, wouldn't it be easier to just harvest them from some very fit, stem celled up 'donors'? I'm sure within 15 years China will have some PREEMO organs up for grabs, we're talking Syndicate (yes, that Syndicate) level upgrades here, eyes, hearts, legs, arms etc.

  24. Orrrrr by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Probably a bit cheaper and simpler to just grow them in a fluid with neutral buoyancy. Maybe thatâ(TM)s not possible, but Iâ(TM)m not going to take the word of the guy selling me space launches.

    --
    https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  25. Why not have a degradable scaffolding? by tonywong · · Score: 1

    Make it degrade when exposed to a specific enzyme or catalyst after the structure is completed...

  26. Re:Scaffolding? by Opyros · · Score: 1

    The mythical woman-month!

  27. Re: Not in this Trumpverse by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    There's zero evidence that it won't work.
    No part of the human body was designed,
    On earth, human hearts are inside the body, supported by the flesh around them. The net effect of gravity on a heart inside the body is substantially lower than a standalone heart.
    Some of the reasons that microgravity is hard on humans are known. They are irrelevant to the growth of a heart in a microgravity environment.
    It's not your money, so STFU.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate