Finnish Patient Gets New Jaw from His Own Stem Cells 141
An anonymous reader writes with news out of Finland, where a patient's upper jaw was replaced with bone cultivated from stem cells and grown inside the patient himself. We discussed other advances in stem cell research a few months ago. Quoting:
"In this case they identified and pulled out cells called mesenchymal stem cells -- immature cells than can give rise to bone, muscle or blood vessels. When they had enough cells to work with, they attached them to a scaffold made out of a calcium phosphate biomaterial and then put it inside the patient's abdomen to grow for nine months. The cells turned into a variety of tissues and even produced blood vessels, the researchers said."
Reminds me of Alien vs Pred (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Bill Gates v2.0 (Score:4, Informative)
And if it's not viable yet, they'll just keep cloning him until they get it right.
I know that if I had $100B, that's how I'd spend it.
Re:Bill Gates v2.0 (Score:5, Funny)
In fact, forget about blackjack.
Re: (Score:1)
In fact, forget about blackjack.
No, better not forget about it, in the average /.-er's cellar playing a good game of cards will probably the most exciting part of their visit for them.
Re: (Score:1)
the slashdot version... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New Body Parts (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you pedal-pumping type action with my feet would be overdoing it?
Re:New Body Parts (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So the sequel was a zombie movie?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
http://richandrare.wordpress.com/2007/08/22/hell-save-children-but-not-the-british-children/ [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
It'll take off when cosmetic replacement is here.. (Score:5, Interesting)
When stem cells are available to regrow teeth, it will take off. The problem is that I expect the ADA (that's the lobbying group to keep dentists expensive and rare, like the AMA is a lobbying group to reduce the supply of doctors and rape the patients' wallets) will fight it tooth and nail. They'll do it under a mask of "religion" by a group controlled by them, but it will happen.
Here, again, we see a market phenomenon that will either be over-regulated by the government so that it takes too long and is too expensive to bring to market, or we'll see a complete destruction of a huge opportunity to fix problems. I am willing to take a risk to deal with the teeth issue today, and I'm probably going to have to do it in India or China because I know that we won't get any favor here if it competes with the strong lobbying cartels, like the crooked dentists (or the doctors, or the CPAs, or any number of groups who have "associations" to harm consumers with bad legislation).
Re:It'll take off when cosmetic replacement is her (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides, everyone knows the fluoridation of water is a commie plot to impurify our precious bodily fluids.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that sugar can be directly associated with just about every common disease from which man suffers, lowering your sugar intact will absolutely result in a healthier body and mouth. Most nutritional research indicates low caloric diets result in both healthy bodies and younger looking skin and hair, and a longer
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm likely not correctly remembering the numbers but you get the idea. If y
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sidenote? You have got to be fucking kidding me.
I've been drinking fluoride-water and using fluoride-toothpaste my entire life, and I have never had a single cavity. I'm not implying that my anecdote is any less meaningless than yours, but mine doesn't come with any sidenotes that are more significant
Re:It'll take off when cosmetic replacement is her (Score:1)
No pun intended, I'm sure.
Re:It'll take off when cosmetic replacement is her (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It'll take off when cosmetic replacement is her (Score:1)
Dentists have been doing this for years (Score:5, Informative)
There is no such thing as an "upper jaw." We have various bones forming the base of the skull and associated teeth structures (aka maxilla) and a lower jaw (aka mandible).
Dentists have been using stem cells for years. In certain situations when there are not enough bone to place dental implants, dentists would place bonegrafts mixed in with blood drawn from the hip marrow. You get around 5-10 stem cells for every million blood cells but that's all it takes to convert the bonegraft into the patient's own bone (the stem cells become osteoblasts). The only difference in this study versus what we have been doing is that they place the bonegraft with stem cells into the stomach for osteoconduction versus us placing the material into place right off the bat. Typical wait times for us is only 6 months before the bone is deemed solid enough for implant placement.
Re:Dentists have been doing this for years (Score:4, Funny)
And in other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The pope just shit a brick
Why? Didn't you know that the pope endorses stem cell research? [catholicnews.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
These are not embryonic stem cells (Score:1, Informative)
The fact that you wrote a joke like this (and that it was given a moderation score of 3 by other readers) indicates confusion amongst the Slashdot populace.
The media have tossed about the word "stem cells" very irresponsibly, making it seem like the religious institutions and others (US President Bush) oppose "stem cell research". What the churches and Bush oppose is embyronic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of the embryo.
This article is talkin
Bad tag (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop overusing that tag! </rant>
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait till the plastic surgeons hear about this... (Score:1)
Re:Wait till the plastic surgeons hear about this. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Women with real breasts larger than a D-cup frequently seek breast reduction surgery, natural breast tissue isn't strong enough to support that much weight in an aesthetically appealing way. When science comes up with a way to make a 40 year old's natural breasts perky again, then plastic surgeons will have to rethink their business
Re: (Score:2)
Simply implant an elastic support mesh anchored to the ribs or breastbone - a kind of an internal bra. You could make it from a net of tendons if you want the "natural" aspect.
"Purpose of grant: to keep large breasts from sagging and remove the need for a bra." I guess that's one way to get funding for stem cell research ;)...
Re: (Score:2)
Thats fine, I didn't say E to GG, I meant instead of implants.
any pics? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hey! (Score:1)
Well, maybe it's not stem cells but... (Score:5, Funny)
She says, "Honey, how can I ever repay you?"
He says, "I get paid back every time I see your mother kiss you on the cheek."
new tag proposal (Score:1)
My father was talking about this (Score:2)
Funniest Tag Award (Score:1)
Uhh (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
+1 "Admits mistake" to Yetihehe and +1 "Courteous" to cbart387 -- both rare mods these days.
Thanks for raising the level of behaviour on the boards for a moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Good one!
Mod this one the fuck up. Everyone else replying is a liar.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Cut it out. Please, just stop it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It's nice that they used this persons own stem cells but I would have supported using embryo stem cells instead of flushing them down the toilet.
Re:Wow, they didn't even kill an unborn baby (Score:5, Insightful)
I have nothing against working multiple lines of research: one or both will pay off handsomely (or maybe another effort that's not even been thought of yet, but will likely benefit from current progress.) But the "killing babies" argument is getting old and tired, and is not relevant because nobody kills babies for the express purpose of acquiring stem cells. That's just a lie, pure and simple. They're discarded embryos that have no hope of ever being born
Nobody wants to deal with the real issue of why there are so many non-viable embryos available for research purposes in the first place. What? That's a complex psycho-socio-economic problem that has no easy answer and can't be solved by blowing up abortion clinics or passing a few laws? Huh. How about that for controversy. Perhaps we need to rethink some basic aspects of our culture and figure out where we went wrong. This so-called "controversy" over stem cell research is a symptom of some deeper issues. Issues that, I might add, aren't going to disappear just because our President doesn't understand that his moral sense is too simplistic to provide effective guidance in this area (among others.)
I get just as torqued off when people make similar irrational commentary on other equally-hot topics. So calling me a hypocrite is a bit off: I just want people to learn to think. Only then does a reasoned response that might actually improve matters become possible. Otherwise everyone is just stroking their egos and refusing to learn anything.
Look, this same technique is applied to many different issues. Take illegal immigration. As soon as anyone brings up the idea of enforcing the law as written, some asshole immediately starts crying "racism! racism!". At that point, any rational discussion becomes impossible, because anyone who believes we should enforce our own laws has now been labeled a bigot. Doesn't matter what the facts are any longer.
So, if you want to have a decent dialog about the use of discarded embryos in stem cell research, keep the "killing babies" commentary to yourself. It serves little purpose other than to polarize the participants and eliminate any possibility of rational discourse. The people who are performing this research (the ones who originally used embryonic cells) are not baby killers, not abortion doctors, they're researchers with a genuine desire to advance our scientific knowledge and help people. Such deliberate and malicious mischaracterization of others generally means that someone has a fatally flawed perspective that cannot be supported by reality
Facts? You're in need of a few. (Score:2, Interesting)
The facts simply aren't reasonably in dispute. We all know that a zygote is an immature homo sapien. We know that it doesn't have brain function until considerably later and isn't communicative until well after it's born. So the debate is whether or not that's the same sort of "human" that belongs in the term "human rights." That is, whether it is our intelligence or our humanity that makes us somehow worthy of
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Before you cast my comment aside, let me say that in many respects I agree with you.
Crying "killing babies" is a mantra created for influencing the masses. I realize that there is a huge gray area as far as abortion goes. Sometimes it is necessitated because the mothers life is in danger, other times the fetus is dead.
Killing the fetus for the simple expedient of harvesting stem-cells makes me uncomfortable, and I would vote against it if ever given the chance.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
ScrewMaster:
Just wanted to point out that if you look around, you will likely be hard pressed to actually find someone who is pro-abortion, that is, someone who actually believes and advocates that people go out and have abortions. (I'm sure they exist, but only on the fringe). Of course, that's not what the debate is about. The actual question is should abortion be legal, which is not at all the same questio
Re:Wow, they didn't even kill an unborn baby (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, as a parallel example, some states still have anti-sodomy laws on the record. If you were to recommend "enforcing those laws as written," don't you think people would be right to decry you as anti-gay?
The laws already on the record aren't automatically morally neutral. They may very well be racist laws. You certainly don't have to try too hard to find laws that WERE explicitly racist in our nation's recent history. If you're going to argue in favor of current immigration policy, you're going to have to come up with a better argument for why the current laws are acceptable than merely that they're the current laws.
Re: (Score:2)
So excuse me, but the fact that those immigration laws are on
Re: (Score:2)
Our current immigration laws ARE unenforceable. Our economy is currently dependent upon having a ton of illegal immigrant workers. Moreover, much like those sodomy laws, they've never BEEN enforced.
>>Furthermore, I don't really understand how you can call a nation that accepts people from literally every country on the planet as
Re: (Score:2)
Or should they consider him to be a baby-killer ? After all, anti-sodomy laws forbid a sexual practice which can't possibly result in pregnancy, while most forms of contraception are not 100% certain; consequently, enforcing anti-sodomy laws would lead to an increase in the rate of unwanted pregnanci
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
This is where your argument is flawed. If it were only discarded embryos used in the process, there might not have been so much fuss. But even scientists that favor embryonic research admit that there just aren't enough discarded embryos for their research. To do it properly, they'd have to have a continuing, and large, supply. The only way to do this viably would be to
Re: (Score:2)
true, now we don't need to harvest stem cells from embryos, and for certain practices it's better to harvest from the patient's own fatty tissue. but if laws banning research on aborted fetus had existed pre-1998 there would be no stem ce
Re: (Score:2)
They are not words one uses to have an intelligent discussion with.
Re: (Score:2)
Both words have well-defined meanings. "Unborn" means something which hasn't been born yet. Not neccessarily a living thing, either; for example, if we don't figure out nuclear fusion soon, our future star empire dies unborn. And "undead", of course, refers to a formerly living thing which lacks metabolism but nevertheless retains animation; while there are no
Re: (Score:2)
"Unborn" is usually used in the poetic sense
You hit it on the spot. I would argue that the more controversial the subject, then the more accurate and less vague and emotional the language should be.
On further reflection, I realized that a better comparison with the word "unborn" would be with the word "pre-dead" (that which exists between birth and death). "Unborn" is almost always used by people on the anti-abortion (or Pro-Life) side of an abortion debate (thus prejudicing any discussion from the beginning). A more neutral term would be "fetus" or
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Really, what do you think would happen to most of the embryos being used for stem cell research? At least they're going to something useful.)
Re: (Score:1)
And they could put you on a pedestal too, after a while...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
That has already been done. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13170-stem-cell-breakthrough-leaves-embryos-unharmed.html [newscientist.com])
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How much did it cost? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll never understand why people vote with their fingers what they're not willing to vote for with their wallets.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sure researchers in the US are looking into similar techniques since so far adult stem cell research has shown real theraputic results whereas fetal stem cell researc