Scientists Grow Blood Vessels Using Skin Cells

rubberbando writes "The new york times is running a story about how scientists have discovered a way to grow new blood vessels using skin cells. Since the blood vessels are grown using the patient's own skin cells, there isn't any chance for rejection. This looks to be quite a boon for people who have several damaged blood vessels from diseases such as diabetes. Perhaps one day they will be able to apply this technology/technique to creating other parts of the body and rid us of the whole stem cell controversy. Only time will tell."

hmm.. interesting...

[way2trivial]

there are surgeons who specialize (at least partly) in bloodless surgeries, as some folks have religious beliefs that deny them blood donated from others...

wonder how this tech gets interpreted by the religious leaders... permissible or no....

Athletes?

[quark101]

With athletes always looking for a competitive edge, what could this kind of technology do to professional sports? It seems to me, if you can increase the blood flow to your vital muscles (sport dependent), then you would gain an enormous advantage over your opponents.

Will this be the next big sports controversy? And what could be done about it, if it doesn't use drugs, and is grown from the patient itself?

Re:Hope At Last

[segment]

lynx -dump "http://tinyurl.com/bsu7d" |sed -n '106p' |sed 's/est/ its/g;s/z/s/'|awk '{print $5,$7,$4}'

Re:No controversy? Hah!

[Anonymous Coward]

There can still be a problem. People don't get blood transfusions because it's their religion.

That's not a problem. People have a right to refuse medical treatment. If they choose not to have a blood transfusion, that's their prerogative.

Now, when parents prevent their children from getting blood transfusions for religious reasons... that can pose a problem.

Re:Meat factories

[QuantumG]

Personally I would love it if protein synthesis became plausible in my lifetime. First you'd sell these factories to third world countries where defending a corporate asset is a lot easier than defending farmland. Instantly curing world hunger. Then you'd see 100% synthesised meat alternatives appearing in vegetarian food outlets - there's already some of this, Quorn [quorn.co.uk] being the most famous, but their manufacturing methods are too expensive to have an effect on the mainstream. Then we'll see synthesised meat appearing in shopping centre refrigeration cabinets. When you have the choice between $21.99/kg steak vs $1.99/kg synthesised meat you'll at least give it a go. From there, the future is our playground. We can shut down factory farms. We can reclaim land for foresting. We can build self sufficient space habitates without needing to launch millions of tonnes of topsoil for crops.

Re:Get rid of the stem cell controversy?

[ScentCone]

Let's be honest. The whole stem-cell debate is merely a veiled front for the larger fight over abortion.

I would contend that the more we know (and can demonstrate) about what's cooking, and when, in the development of a zygote, blastocyst, etc., the more we deflate some of the fuss about the abortion issue in the first place. It's important, I think, to make sure that those who assign humanity to, say, 16 cells (or to a dividing line of them derived therefrom) really have to come out and admit that it's a mystical, rather than medical position to take. It just sheds some purer light on the discussion (or, fight, as you rightly describe it).

Re:Takes out the mystery?

[wulfhound]

If 'brain death' is the accepted measure for death, surely 'brain life' should be the accepted measure for life? A blastocyst doesn't even have nerve cells, never mind a brain.

Re:Stem cells don't come from babies

[David Gould]

They come from blastocysts.

Which there are plenty of slowly expiring in vats of frozen nitrogen at fertility clinics around the world.

Hate to break it to you, but those people consider your blastocyst to be a living breathing baby. [...] Most of them don't mind harvesting 'stem cells' from any source that still results in a born baby (umbilical cords, for example).

Okay, I'm not saying you missed the point of the GP post -- I understand that you're just speaking for "those people". So would you mind answering one more argument on behalf of "them"? It's something that I've never heard an embryonic-stem-cell opponent answer, and I'm dying to hear what "they" would say. Here it is (worded in second person):

Did you miss the part about the "vats of frozen nitrogen at fertility clinics"? I mean, it's not like scientists are driving around poor neighborhoods, picking up pregnant teenaged girls, and persuading them to have abortions by offering to buy their embryos. No! Nobody would support that! These are the excess embryos created at fertility clinics in the course of in-vitro fertilization. Now, I understand that a right-to-life purist might still consider those excess embryos to be human babies, but in that case, you'd have to oppose IVF treatments every bit as vehemently as abortion.

Funny, I don't recall ever hearing of anti-abortionists picketing (or bombing) those clinics. So, is IVF okay or not? If it's not, then why aren't you opposing it to the same degree as abortion? Or if it is, then WTF is wrong with embryonic stem cells?