Kidney Printer 147
smitty777 writes "Dr. Anthony Atala of the Wake Forest Institute of Regenerative Medicine demonstrated his technique for printing a new kidney. The early stage technology involves scanning the patient's current organ, and actually printing the organ directly into the patient. He refutes reported claims that it's just a kidney shaped mold, as reported by some. While still in the early stages, it does hold promise that we will be able to use this technology for actual transplants in the future."
Awesome (Score:5, Funny)
HP's ink cartridges cost a kidney, new printer can actually print kidneys.
The circle of life is complete.
Re: (Score:3)
HP's ink cartridges cost a kidney, new printer can actually print kidneys.
The circle of life is complete.
Sadly, 90% through printing of the new kidney, the "replace cartridge" light will start blinking - the house always wins...
Re: (Score:2)
I'd hate to be the first person to use a new machine, I hear that the cartridge that comes with the machine only makes it to about 50%.
Re: (Score:2)
Take it out and shake it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HP's ink cartridges cost a kidney, new printer can actually print kidneys.
The circle of life is complete.
Sadly, 90% through printing of the new kidney, the "replace cartridge" light will start blinking - the house always wins...
That's OK. You have enough ink to print 5 more full kidneys before you really run out of ink.
Re: (Score:2)
And how long (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And how long (Score:4, Funny)
The day before the end of civilization since no one will ever leave the house after that. Multipass!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
before we can print a new Milla Jovovich?
No good - "senno ecto gammat".
Re: (Score:2)
The term printer jam (Score:2)
It's this kinda shit... (Score:1)
I just caught up and bought a 3d printer, and now they come out with a kidney printer... it's a never ending cycle.
Re: (Score:3)
He would have gotten the technology a lot sooner but he didn't get much response to his add for the trial : "Scientist wants to scan your organ. Call Dr A. Atala Now. $$$ offered"
What? (Score:1)
TFA: "Wake Forest has since clarified media inaccuracies in a press release, stating Dr. Atla printed "a kidney-shaped mold", not a functioning kidney."
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
So no real kidney, just a mold.
Re: (Score:3)
"Just" a mold? I suppose penicillin is "just" a mold. You insensitive clod.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're joking, but you're referring to choice 4, number 2 of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mold [merriam-webster.com] and the person you're responding to is referring to 2.2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to be an engineer to see the obvious solution...
Instead of one big kidney, just print thousands of tiny ones. Possibly over multiple sessions....
Re: (Score:2)
...then ???Profit. Somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Beowulf clusters were the rage of the early noughties. In the late noughties, which we're coming out of now, it was about GPGPU tricks. I'm not sure what the next fetish will be/is...
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone else find this chain of comments strangely reminiscent of the Monty Python and the Holy Grail credit subtitles?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Sven and the Majestic Møøse do.
As reported by his employer (Score:1)
Wake Forest has since clarified media inaccuracies in a press release, stating Dr. Atla printed "a kidney-shaped mold", not a functioning kidney.
Where's the link for Dr. Atala contradicting Wake Forest?
Grandiose summary (Score:1)
The "kidneys" produced could not be printed into the patient, they're not functional.
How much does it cost? (Score:1)
I hear it costs an arm and a leg!
Bad Summary (Score:1)
From the summary:
He refutes reported claims that it's just a kidney shaped mold, as reported by some.
From the linked story:
Wake Forest has since clarified media inaccuracies in a press release, stating Dr. Atla printed "a kidney-shaped mold", not a functioning kidney.
Did he print an actual kidney or not. I am guessing not.
Kidney shortage (Score:1, Troll)
This shortage is contrived.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not allow people to sell their organs to help cover the expensive costs of funerals. More old folks would love to sell their internal organs so as to help their loved ones they leave behind not being burdened by having to pay for their funeral.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but at the cost of surgery and on going care is it worth it for a worn out organ that may at best have a few more years of limited use left?
Re: (Score:2)
While I understand the aversion to elderly organs, I think your perspective might change if you were actually in the market for replacement parts. Nobody wants organs from an old person, but some people out there may need them. If your liver is failing, the docs give you a month to live, and the only compatible liver available is from a 60-year-old who died of a heart attack, are you really going say no?
Re: (Score:3)
The much more obvious reason why there is a shortage of organs, and why organs are so expensive, is that it is illegal to sell one's own organs. An elderly person has no incentive to donate his organs on death, if his surviving loved ones do not profit from it.
See, someone less out of touch with reality who doesn't think capitalism solves all problems would suggest that you should have to opt-out of organ donation rather than opt in. That would solve the problem WITHOUT encouraging organ theft, desperate people selling their organs while still alive, and all sorts of other hideous abuses.
Oh, but wait, then it would be harder for anyone to make millions in organ trading... well then never mind, it's clearly socialism and that's evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you own your own body? I would imagine you would like to believe that you do. If you think that a woman owns her own body and can do what she would like with it ie. Abortion, then she and any one else with sentience would thereby have the rights to their own body to do with it as they please. This includes selling parts off of it and transferring their property after their deaths, it. posthumous selling of their own internal organs. It isn't a capitalism issue, it is a body ownership issue.
Do you own you
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the state owns your body, have fun with that philosophy as the state can now do whatever they want with you.
Well I think the problem here is that straw men have no organs, but if they did, ownership of said organs would be a very interesting issue. Maybe I'd even make a statement on who owns straw man organs. But I didn't, did I?
Re: (Score:2)
There are some problems that relate to the concept of ownership. This is not one of those problems.
We in the real world decided some time ago that there are many issues where a pragmatic approach, ignoring philosophical consistency, gets the job done and allows us to get on with making the world a nicer place to live.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your question is based on a false premise. Living bodies are not ownable.
"Your" body is the thing that does the verb that is you. Flight does not own an arrow, shining does not own the sun, a Em7 chord does not own a guitar. The action and the subject are inseparable.
Property, on the other hand, is a relationship that is separable. You do not own your body. So long as your body is being a living human being,
Re: (Score:2)
If i want to sell my internal Organs after I die, I already have the inherent right to do, it is the government who is infringing already on those rights.
Re: (Score:2)
No, people would still make millions in organ trading (and installation), just not the people who grew them.
I see nothing wrong with people selling their own organs, and I seriously doubt it would diminish what is already a minuscule pool of donors.
Anyway, most people make an explicit choice when they receive their driver's license or state ID, which could just as easily be called "out-out" as "opt-in."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An elderly person has no incentive to donate his organs on death, if his surviving loved ones do not profit from it.
The elderly person may have nothing of value to donate.
Re: (Score:3)
In the TED talk, he blames things like "we're living longer" for the shortage of organs.
Improvements in trauma medicine, vehicular safety, and workplace safety are the biggest causes for the shortage of organs.
Things like seatbelt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, and OSHA aren't helping either. Catastrophic fatal injuries (especially head trauma) are jackpots for donor organs. Crass, but true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Grand idea, except that many cultures and religions have rules against desecrating the body after death. It may be rational to harvest when the heart stops, but it's not realistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also suggest that anyone who registers against donation would be put at the back of the line for recipient organs (or taken off the list).
You do realize that communism, while good on paper most of the time, never works in reality right? There's this little thing called "human compassion" that will put your conscientious objector in a position based on his need and not your indignation.
To put it another way, communism will only work when humanity is completely replaced by autonomous machines without emotion.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you own your own body? I would imagine you would like to believe that you do. If you think that a woman owns her own body and can do what she would like with it ie. Abortion, then she and any one else with sentience would thereby have the rights to their own body to do with it as they please. This includes selling parts off of it and transferring their property after their deaths, it. posthumous selling of their own internal organs. It isn't a capitalism issue, it is a body ownership issue.
Do yo
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I think that this is a good idea. People can be pressured into all sorts of things. Selling parts of your body should not be one of those.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're being overly generous in assigning a full half-share to the father. Compared to the mother's contribution to the process, the father's part is negligible. Some minor compensation may be in order, but certainly nothing more. Moreover, regardless of the division of ownership, no one has any right to demand that someone else use their body in a certain way; that includes continuing a pregnancy. At most you can seek compensation for a broken contract, assuming you can show that one existed in the
Re: (Score:2)
An elderly person has no incentive to donate his organs on death, if his surviving loved ones do not profit from it.
Please, do continue.
Profit for loved ones? Altruism is already the motivating factor for people who have become organ donors. The selfish aren't going to give up their organs for compensation to their heirs (who already get a hefty life insurance payout). If you want to buy organs, let people take out a reverse mortgage on their body. I suspect that would work better.
Re: (Score:2)
No one wants an 80 year old warn out liver, kidney, heart, etc. Instead they one one from the healthy 25 year old that just ran his motorcycle into the side of a bus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one wants an 80 year old warn out liver, kidney, heart, etc. Instead they one one from the healthy 25 year old that just ran his motorcycle into the side of a bus.
Ok, new pricing scheme:
Pay the young healthy people with risky lifestyles a small reverse mortgage until their age or health determines that the organ is no longer useful at which point the organ traders write off the loss. I stress a small reverse mortgage to prevent abuses of the system from both ends. For example I recall some sci-fi setting has had people buy their organs back, or part with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Repo Men [imdb.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Or the eyes from a suicide victim. My brother's eyes brought sight to two blind people, and the rest of his organs were given to research, as per his wishes. Yes, he was a scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
"Need money fast?" and "Donate a kidney" are mutually exclusive. When you donate something, you aren't compensated financially.
Organ selling, on the other hand, can be quite profitable...until you are caught.
How this works (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Prof. Brian Derby of the University of Manchester was printing bone scaffolding in 2005. He was a finalist for the Saatchi and Saatchi World Changing Ideas Award in 2008 for that work (full disclosure: I was a finalist as well, but for something else).
Here's but one link to the press coverage of that particular idea from 2005.
http://news.cnet.com/Paging%20Dr.%20Inkjet/2100-1041_3-5656823.html [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, this is slashdot... that's as far as we know. Maybe someone from the Outside can chime in on what happens when a man and woman get together??
Hopefully it's sweet like ninjas! (I love ninjas)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, this is slashdot... that's as far as we know. Maybe someone from the Outside can chime in on what happens when a man and woman get together??
Hopefully it's sweet like ninjas! (I love ninjas)
Oh, I'm pretty sure that the hard disk of your average basement dweller has a decent selection of HD-quality video material about what happens when men and women get together in various combinations...
Beavis and Butthead (Score:2)
Heh, hehe heheheh heheheheheheh....
He said 'hard disk'.
Heh, hehe heheheh heheheheheheh....
Re: (Score:2)
Inquiring minds want to know... (Score:2)
Human trials (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I attended a talk by Dr. Atala earlier this year. His background in urology, so urethras and bladders were the first applications of the technology. The problem with other organs is vascularization. Without infiltration by blood vessels, the printed tissue can only survive in a layer 5cm from blood. That's fine for hollow organs like those that have gone to trial.
Something more immediate.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had a friend on the waiting list for a kidney for many years so I certainly sympathize with your plight, but you misread the GP. Not a more immediate concern, but more immediate results. It will be years before the FDA allows you to implant a synthetic kidney, possibly decades. Before that, we need to produce a fully functional kidney, which is years to decades out as well. In the meantime, we can start producing fois gras next month, and get it approved for human consumption within a couple years (or
Re: (Score:2)
Other points would be that bio-engineered fois gras would put some cash on the table and fund the R&D towards kidney research, it will iron out the kinks in the process and pay to amortize the installation costs of the production facility too.
Re: (Score:2)
Heres the actual talk (Score:3)
http://www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_printing_a_human_kidney.html
You can watch the actual video here.
PC Load Liver (Score:5, Funny)
How it really works (Score:2, Interesting)
It gets the command to print a new kidney.
It reports that it will be ready it 48 hours.
It flies down to Mexico.
Some unsuspecting tourist wakes up in a bathtub of ice.
You get a new kidney.
five days behind twitter (Score:2)
Nice job /.
Great, new spam (Score:2)
Penis printing facilities. Price is measure in standard page sizes: A4, A3, A2, A1, US Letter size, or Foolscap.
How boring (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The same technology has already printed a chicken heart, that spontaneously started contracting and coordinated the rhythm across the whole organ within a day.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, print heads clog more often than I run out of ink. Therefore, neither of those methods is good. The right solution is to make printers that flush out their own heads with an appropriate solvent (e.g. an isopropanol tank) every time you shut them down so that the heads don't get dried ink inside them in the first place. Moving the print head to the ink tank is just shifting the problem around.
Back on topic, can you imagine this sort of printer getting clogged? Whoops. We accidentally p
Re: (Score:3)
No the correct solution is to not use ink but instead a toner based technology. Inkjets are pure garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Extremely high resolution photos can still be printed with inkjets.
Of course, if you want glossy photos, you might as well just print them online to a printer at your local walgreens, walmart, or other store. The quality will be better and the cost cheaper unless you are printing a huge number...no wait, still cheaper.
Never mind, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Show me a glossy CD/DVD label I can print with a laser. That's why I have inkjet. The matte labels are too thick and add too much weight unbalance to the disc.
Re: (Score:2)
j/k
Re: (Score:2)
Show me a glossy CD/DVD label I can print with a laser. That's why I have inkjet. The matte labels are too thick and add too much weight unbalance to the disc.
There were (and probably still are) ones that did this. The Lexmark Color 1200 was one such printer. Single pass color printing, fast speeds, and selection of normal finish to glossy finish where it would fuse the fuser oil onto/into the toner. The results were pretty impressive. Not photo-glossy, but more of inbetween photo matte and photo glossy. Looked even better on glossy laser paper (which is sold for various color lasers... I have a big stack of it here by HP for the HP printers, such as our Color 46
Re: (Score:2)
Now, as for printing a CD label (ie: for on the disk), I think those things are terrible (the labels). and avoid them at all costs. Printing directly on a CD/DVD (even if not as glossy) looks much more professional - and for a truly professional look, buying a true CD/DVD printer (not an inkjet with a CD print tray) is even better.
The matte labels look terrible, and I avoid those at all costs. The super-thin glossy ones look like they are part of the disc. If you do full-color printing, the gloss coating ensures that you don't see individual ink drops. It looks like 4-color printing directly on the disc (minus the ability to have the shiny show through).
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, inkjets were are cheap stopgap that should have only been used long enough for laser printers to come down in price. That time has come and passed. There is no longer a good reason for inkjets to exist in the consumer market.
So what, you want kidneys with frikkin' lasers? I mean, print me a frikkin' bone already!
Re: (Score:2)
Inkjets are good for printing on transparent film and non-bendable objects.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good idea. Only problem is that decent wide format color laser printers start in the neighborhood of two grand. You can burn through an awful lot of print heads before laser pays for itself unless you are content with 8.5x11 or smaller.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'll stick to Canon inkjet printers. Separate printhead and cartridges, in the "better" models even separate tanks for the colors.
Re: (Score:2)
Seconded, and I'll add Epson to that. Their six-color printers are very nice, and reman cartridges are great if you get them from a reputable dealer.
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't the printheads for Epson printers almost as expensive as a new printer, sometimes even more expensive? For Canon, they are available for a halfway reasonable price (or were when I last checked some years ago). I also prefer Canon because they are the company with the least (technical and legal) actions against refilling/remaking.
Re: (Score:2)
That works up to a certian point. It will force raw material price through the roof, while manufactuing gets cut out.
In the end economics always wins
Re: (Score:2)
There are other mitigating factors, the biggest of which, is how many people it takes to produce an adequate supply of the material to satisfy the needs of the population as a whole. If it is adequately difficult to produce in quantity that everyone basically needs to manufacture their own, then the economy doesn't change. However, if, for the sake of contrast, an adequate supply for the world can be produced by two people in an afternoon, then we run into a different problem. The new product obsoletes an e
Re: (Score:2)
the other possibility would be corporate
Re: (Score:2)
It toppled the scarcity-based economy since everything could be instantly copied for cheap
Ahh, but post scarcity economies have a big advantage over scarcity economies: plenty of stuff .
I cannot comprehend the thought process that would lead one to the conclusion that an entire population not needing to work for a living would be a problem.
Running the process & watching Star Trek (Score:2)
Designing the "molds" and running the printing process itself (managing printers, dealing with the raw material), etc would account for the manufacturing sector of this society
I admit I'm not a Star Trek expert, but I think this was the whole point of Star Trek replicators, to show these things' effect on economy (also by contrasting with latinum and the Ferengi)