Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Growing New Cartilage 124

Posted by michael from the knee-popping-good dept.
bsletten writes "Researchers at the Duke University Medical Center have successfully grown fat cells into cartilage, that they hope to use to repair/create new joints for patients. Normal cartilage does not repair itself well so this should be a boon to people with knee and hip problems." Cartilage doesn't repair at all, and there aren't any good replacements for it. I think teflon disks are the state of the art now, and they wear out eventually, which necessitates more surgery. Creating real cartilage replacements would be a major advance.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Growing New Cartilage More

Growing New Cartilage

Comments Filter:

  • Mesenchymal Stem Cells can do it to, maybe easier (Score:3)

    by golob ( 69902 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2001 @07:02PM (#396660)
    Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) can be isolated from bone marrow, are easily expanded outside of the body, and can be converted into a variety of tissues, including fat cells, muscle cells, bone cells and cartilage cells. Unlike adipocytes (fat cells), they are easier to grow, easier to isolate, less delicate and more naturally converted into cartlidge cells.

    A company, Osiris [osiristx.com] is working on developing technology around these cells.

    There is also a Science [nih.gov] paper on these cells.

    Full Disclosure: I work with these cells, and can routinely convert them into fat, bone and cartilige cells.
  • Since evolution didn't invent them, there is obviously no evolutionary advantage to vaccines, appendix surgery, dentistry, etc. Yet we don't stop doing them just for that. Humans value the individual very highly, which is something that evolution does not do. In most respects our bodies are amazingly well-designed, but in certain ways they're designed horribly (non-regeneration of cartilage among them). We're simply doing what evolution has not done for us, and I see no danger in that. It's necessary to remember that evolution is not an invisible force, nor does it have any kind of purpose or goal. It's simply the logical consequence result of mutations, possibly combined with breeding, in a hostile environment.
  • now that... reminds me why I don't eat at KFC.
    Of course, that doesn't stop me from eating at other disgusting places.

    Hey, did you know that I chopped off over 100 chicken heads in one day? Maybe a weekend. I was in 8th grade. We had chicken every godddam night of the week. You know the movie Forrest Gump where it's Shrimp Gumbo, shrimp catamaran, shrimp soup, shrimp this, shrimp that....

    Well it was the same damn thing with me, but with chicken. Took me about 4 years after I left home to get a craving for chicken again. (too bad 4 years after high school didn't mean a college degree...but hey...what's 7 or 8 years? It finally happened.)

    Rader

  • well, if you had done a little more research, you would know that our bodies create neurons throughout our whole lifetime. It was just that the manufacture of these new neurons was VERY small, and that was why we didnt really know about them. but it is proven fact that they "regenerate."
  • That is a very good point. It appears that genes will 'activate their junk DNA' in response to environmental stresses to allow for more rapid mutation and therefore enhance adaptation. Also, the human body used to turn off the gene that made the 'milk digesting' enzyme (lactase?) as part of the normal weaning process. Thirty-five percent of normal adults are lactose-intolerant for that very reason; they might be considered more normal than those who began drinking milk under environmental stress (hunger) and thereby needed to retain the lactase enzyme through their lifetime.

    Now, this brings us to an interesting point. Perhaps in a different world, long-living cartilage people would survive better and be able to chase women into their forties/fifties once their lifespans increased, in fact All such longer-lasting genes would enhance survival.

    But that is in a different world. In Our world, we supplant the role of genes by actively providing that which the gene lacks. There are therefore no longer any ordinary environmental pressures placed on the organism, so there is very little reason for a gene to change, within bounds. Medical Science is weakening the gene pool by eliminating a large part of the mechanism of natural selection.

    What does this mean? We get lazy genes, and will never improve as a species except by direct manipulation of the body. It's kind of like how corn needs a human in the fertilization process because after years of hybridization it can no longer pollinate itself. That gene has lost its function due to man's intervention.

    Could this happen to us?
  • Now I can continue to play Ultimate Disc [afda.com] without worrying that I wont be able to walk by the time I'm 35.
  • Bah. We live in a capitalist market. Applications that promises big $$$ will develop quickly (GMO food that costs less to produce and grow faster, Viagra-like drugs, ect.) Saving lives is unimportant (to the market, not my opinion.) Rationalisation is the key to all problems, and we have the best system possible, don't you know that? "There is no such thing as a society."
  • I was playing Starcraft last night and I grew several guardians from mutalisks. My biotech > *
  • "What the fuck was the point of your post, Rader? Do you think anyone here actually gives a shit about your wistful childhood memories? Look, you may get your shits and giggles from raping dead chickens, but there are those of us here who actually have human women to fuck"

    Just not you, obviously.
  • I live right smack in the middle of the good ol' US of A. I eat basically no refined white flour, little white sugar, and miniscule amounts of all the other things that health nuts are so afraid of. I eat healthily and I like to think that it shows. Although I'm 20 and I should be healthy anyway, I tend to get sick much less often and feel better most of the time than others in my age group. It's really not that difficult to eat well in an industrialized nation. It seems to me that it would be more difficult to eat well when your only options are whatever you grow, so that you're eating the same thing day after day, month after month, year after year.

    About genetic engineering: evolution didn't get anything right or wrong. Evolution is just a process, it has no goal and does not produce inherently correct results. In any varied population with heredity, those traits that enable more reproduction and more successful children will tend to become more common. That's all it is. It has no concerns or goals or desires to improve. Evolution did screw a lot of things up, in fact. Our eyesight could be a lot better, and the optic nerve is attached very strangely. Our spine is amazing, but it doesn't take the stresses of standing upright all that wonderfully. Everybody has an appendix, a bit of flesh that serves no purpose but to occasionally get infected and possibly kill its owner. There are all sorts of screwy problems with our bodies as a direct consequence of evolution taking anything that's good enough, rather than striving for perfection. So if we can go in and fix things up a little bit, why not?

  • Re:Only Average Life spans are longer (Score:3)

    by Scrymarch ( 124063 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2001 @09:20PM (#396670)
    I think you're on the right track but it needs refinement. IIRC the lifespans in hunter / gatherer societies are quite long once you get past two critical points - infancy and young adulthood.

    A lot of children died in childbirth and of diseases in the first few years of life. In young adulthood you were at risk of dying either during hunting or war if you were male or in childbirth if you were female. If you lived beyond that you quite often lived to 60-80 years, ie a modern lifespan.

    You're correct that there is no evolutionary pressure to develop repair of cartilage though, because evolution doesn't care about you much once you breed. Once you're beyond 35 there isn't a lot of breeding or fighting left in you, so you're not an evolutionary priority. Sure, maybe you serve an elder role, so there's some competitive advantage there. But you'll probably pass all that wisdom on by age 60 or so in a hunter-gatherer society anyway. More likely our survival beyond age 35 or so is just an evolutionary appendix.

  • Re:HUGE! (Score:3)

    by Mr. Frilly ( 6570 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2001 @09:24PM (#396672)
    Uh, you gotta read the article closer.

    I don't have the ORS abstract on hand (I've been out of the cartilage research business for a couple years now) but even the spoon-fed Reuters wire feed mentions that the researcher (Guilak) doesn't have a clue whether he's actually using adipose (fat) cells or other stroma cells.

    Whether they're adipose cells or stroma cells, if you separate them out of the body and put them on a culture plate, you tend to get cells which look a lot like fibroblasts. When you put fibroblasts into a three dimension matrix (the article doesn't mention which one, probably alginate or collagen-gag scaffolding) they tend to assume chondrocytic (cartilage) like properties. This is absolutely nothing new, except that Guilak's getting these fibroblasts from fat tissue rather than any other tissue in the body (fibroblasts are everywhere).

    The real question is whether the chondrocytes are producing type II collagen (i.e. what you find in articulating surfaces like your knee joint) or type I (which is most of the collagen in your body, but completely unsuited for making knee joints). I doubt his cells are making significant levels of type II collagen. Even if they were, seeding cells into a matrix and getting type II collagen expression is nothing new, this has been done for years by various different groups (Ragan/Grodzinky at MIT, Koichi Matsuda (sp?) at Chicago/Rush, etc.).

    Even if you're getting type II collagen formation, you also got to hope that the collagen is being assembled and oriented correctly so that it won't fall apart after a couple years, and I know of no current evidence that explains how this can be done outside of a developing body.

    Sorry, this isn't a huge advance. This is just someone (Guilak?) trying to make news out of nothing.

    The field of cartilage research is advancing greatly, and quite likely in another 5-10 years people will be able to recreate functional articular cartilage in an ex-vivo system. But there's still a lot more work to be done, and you're more likely to get the cells from a quick mouth swab than liposuction anyway.
  • um, not quite. Chondrocytes (at least in adults) represent a terminally differentiated cell... so if you lose the cells, you can't grow back cartilage directly.

    If the cells are still there, you can, of course, produce new cartilage, but when you damage cartilage you tend to kill the cells.

    And, as you mentioned, even if the cells are still alive, nutrient delivery is very poor in cartilage. To give you some ideas of how slow cartilage turnover/regeneration is, the half-life of collagen II in articulating cartilage is somewhere around 2 years, and the half life of the proteoglycans (what gives the cartilage it's compressive stiffness) seems to be around 20.
  • Sorry, the article has absolutely nothing to do with replenishing bones in space.... sorry.

  • Unfortunately, however, I feel there is a predisposition in the medical research industry to focus on those diseases which the aging, affluent baby boomers will contract; baldness, impotence, type II diabetes, heart problems, osteoporosis, etc.

    There's another disease that this will aid that is an issue for people of all ages and of all classes... arthritis. Why does this impact me? Because I'm 22 years old and my doctors want to give me a hip replacement well before I'm 30. Arthritis is no respector of class, age, income, or generation... nearly all people develop it as they age, and many develop it as children.

    Also, though not so much treatable, the diseases you list, IIRC, are generally preventable. Simply designing scientific cures for these diseases is not enough: half the problem of "less developed" countries is that there is no health infrastructure, and the masses have no access to the treatments. Much as hunger, disease in the third world is a side-effect of politics. If we want to combat illness in the third world, we must combat the methods by which the medicines are disseminated to the people.

    IANAD

  • Re:How far away. how close? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You know, I'll bet growing new cartilage is a whole hell of a lot easier than growing a new anything as complex as a kidney - let alone a liver, which we still don't understand.

    The easy stuff gets done first. Give it time. Baby steps and all.
  • Did anybody else read this as if it implied that the researchers at Duke ate a few too many burritos from Taco Bell?

    Taco Bell actually has some of the healthiest fast food available. I've been losing weight by eating lunch and dinner at Taco Bell. Now you can't eat just anything, the only healthy items are the bean and supreme buritos as well as pintos & cheese. Tell them to leave off the cheese for even healthier food. Compare these typical meals that satiate me:

    Taco Bell
    Beef Burito Supreme: 430 calories, 16g fat, 9g fiber
    Pintos 'n Cheese: 180 calories, 8g fat, 10g fiber
    Total: 610 calories, 24g fat, 19g fiber

    McDonalds
    Quarter Pounder w. Cheese: 530 calories, 30g fat, 2g fiber
    Medium Fries: 450 calories, 22g fat, 4g fiber
    Total: 980 calories, 52g fat, 6g fiber

    Trust me, dropping 370 calories, 28g of fat, and gaining 13g of fiber per meal makes a serious difference in your life. I've gone from 220 lbs to 185 lbs...and still going down.
  • >To put it simply: If evolution supposedly got >everything right, why do so many people have bad >backs, and wisdom teeth problems? Because that's >part of the toolset that got us here. Not what >is perfect for the job right now. We've luckily >learned how to build our own toolkit and that's >going to be the greatest advantage of all. I'm not a biologist or geneticist, but I see it a little differently. You suggest throughout time humans have always been screwed up. Most things in this world degrade and go towards chaos. UV and radiation causes mutations in our DNA all the time...though most of them are minor. Now that our technology and standard of living are up, we are now able to pass bad genes on to other generations...so that each one gets a little worse. Obviously there are factors to contradict this (such as mixing of dna from each parent). I suppose you could call all this evolution, but I firmly believe we are "fallen" - ie if you go back far enough you will not find any people with flat feet or bad backs because they probably would not have survived to pass on those bad genes. If you look at all the humans today you could find a genetic ideal...something that everyone should have. Arched feet, 20/20 or better eyesight, etc. It would seem to me that genetic engineering could "fix" us and put us back at our genetic ideal, rather than to continue evolution as it were.
  • Wow, someone on /. that actually knows something from real life experience. I'm to understand that your reclusive group is scheduled to be classified as an endangered species.

    But now that you have popped up. May I presume to ask a question? (Well, I guess I will since I already have.)

    I thought that any damage to cartilage caused it to calcify into bone after a long period of painful tenderness. I'm a wrestler, thereby being very familiar with cauliflower ear. For those who don't know, a painful condition whereby the cartilage of the ear becomes tender and inflamed after being pounded upon by a competitor (also developed from talking on the phone too much). Older wrestlers tend to have knobby, hard ear lobes.

    How do you put new cartilage in without causing damage and the corresponding calcification?

  • about a year ago I saw an experiment where they grew a human ear on the back of a rat. This is old technology. They new technology is when they incubate complex organs like a heart or a liver. Mainly a liver. Heh.
  • Every evening I have a decision to make - 10mg of Elavil if its not so bad, or 25mg if its really bugging me. Elavil mostly shields me from the chronic pain of a bulged disk in my neck but it doesn't come for free. 10mg leaves me with a dry mouth and the munchies while the 25mg knocks me flat and I feel like my brain is wrapped in some nice cushy cotton for the next eighteen hours.

    I'm sure some of our regular readers are saying "Cool, I want some" re: Elavil and I'd be happy to hand it over - I don't like feeling all stoned and stupid.

    After they get my neck done they could make a stop at the left knee and then I'd be ready to rumble :-)
  • I don't mind the insulin so much with the 29ga needles, so small I usually don't even feel them. It's the fingersticks I really hate. Its not that easy typing when all your fingers hurt. I just don't do them as much as I should. I'm hoping they can start cloning organs or at least the parts of the pancreas that make Insulin (and I won't try to spell them without a dictionary ;)
  • Damn! Here I was thinking I might get a cool new extoskeleton from all my blubber. With a kevlar scafolding, I was gonna be one bad mutha. Oh well, the diet must continue and I'm still just a weak, fat engineer.

  • Once again, you're committing the cardinal sin of implying direction in evolution. WE ARE NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE, WE ARE MERELY DIFFERENT.

    Our backs probably were fine, yes. But that was more than likely when we didn't have heads bobbing around on top of them and hips below them. We are the way we are because of our ancestry.

    This is put forward very simply in Fick's Law, which states "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny." This means, if you look at the life history of an organism, you can see a great deal of their eveolutionary ancestry reflected in their form. If you look at a week-old embryo, it had gills. If you look a bit later it looks a hell of alot like a lizard. Later, you can't tell the difference between a human and a pig. A chimp and a human, a human and a bonobo. You know how you looked at embryos when you were in High School and figured it was interesting how they all looked pretty similar? That's because older organisms are typically less specialised and have less complex structures. We came from those, and alot of our genes are similar or modified versions. So first, we look like them.

    We were not born six thousand years ago with blonde hair and blue eyes throwing the discus to please the gods. We crawled our way out of the muck and the slime! We are forever in a race with the pathogens that prey on nothing because they are mindless and soulless. And little by little, we also become them. See New Scientists' story on endogenous Retroviruses. [newscientist.com]

    There is no "better" or "worse", simply fitter, less fit, and luck.

  • Cloning has got kinda confused with Stem Cell Research lately. The point of stem cells should be that they can take any one of your cells and create a totipotent cell capable of turning into anything. The really cool part is, you don't have to do a full-organism clone to make them. You can in fact 'seed' a cartiligenous 'sculpture' of your organ with stem cells and grow a healthy new organ in it.

    It's damn good technology, but probably won't help you. You're suffering from an endogenous retroviral superantigen reflex syndrome. Ok, all the words made sense, but I made up the biggest term I could think of. Anyhow, what you're after is probably far more dependent on the Genome projects, cause you'll probably find that, with your very own new organ, your immune system would just move in and kill the Pancreatic Beta cells anyhow. Bummer.

  • They've been doing this for five years or so. It's called autologous chondracyte implantation (ACI) or Carticel. Basically they harvest a bit of cartilage and grow it in the lab. Then they harvest a piece of periosteum from your shin - this is like the black lining that you see on chicken drumsticks. Then they carve out the bad cartilage and inject the new grown cells an sew or glue in the periosteum to seal. In six months you cant' tell the difference from the old cartilage. Here is the site where they do this. I've seen this procedure live and it is very cool!! http://www.genzymebiosurgery.com/opage.asp?ogroup= 1&olevel=3&opage=47 Dave Fayer
  • They've been doing this for more than five years. It's called autologous chondracyte implantation (ACI) or Carticel. Basically they harvest a bit of cartilage and grow it in the lab. Then they harvest a piece of periosteum from your shin - this is like the black lining that you see on chicken drumsticks. Then they carve out the bad cartilage and inject the new grown cells an sew or glue in the periosteum to seal. In six months you cant' tell the difference from the old cartilage. Here is the site where they do this. I've seen this procedure live and it is very cool!! http://www.genzymebiosurgery.com/opage.asp?ogroup= 1&olevel=3&opage=47 Dave Fayer
  • Unfortunately, however, I feel there is a predisposition in the medical research industry to focus on those diseases which the aging, affluent baby boomers will contract; baldness, impotence, type II diabetes, heart problems, osteoporosis, etc.

    It's not a popular idea, but the diseases you mention are considered by some to be diseases of industrialization. Some people believe (and it's been my experience) that health is a function of the quality of food you eat. If you eat your refined white flour, white sugar, sodium benzoate, etc, expect to lose your hair, become impotent, develop adult-onset diabetes, have heart problems, become osteoporotic, etc. Yes, I'll acknowledge that the issues are a lot more complex than just what you eat, but it (food) certainly has a greater impact on health than most people give credit (especially /.'ers, who generally seem to think the HGP and Genetic Engineering is the solution to most problems).

    Genetic Engineering: Because 2 billion years of evolution obviously got it wrong.


    ---

  • HUGE! (Score:3)

    by OctaneZ ( 73357 ) <`ben-slashdot2' `at' `uma.litech.org'> on Tuesday February 27, 2001 @07:06PM (#396689) Journal
    This is a HUGE advancement! Not onlly do they have a way to "maufacture" cartilage, they are NOT doing it from embryonic stem cells! Stem cell research is much more advanced in Europe, and they actually have some cartilidge therapy based on stem cell research and injections; but the fact that this team has been able to do it with Adult Fat cells is mind breaking! This is of particular interest to me as I am one of thousands of people (probably millions) who have damaged there cartilage. I was in a car vs. rollerblade accident almost exactly a year ago and "shattered" the cartilage in both of my knees; in the US as stem cell research is so contriversial, my Drs said that there was little I could do, but hope it got better and look forward to knee replacements. (which they can only do twice btw and only last ~15-20 years; I am 20) While this is still very early in the research/test stage the idea that I may be able to run again is so exciting I don't have words for it!
    -OctaneZ

  • Don't get me wrong,
    This is a great discovery and all, but...

    Why would I want a belly made of cartilage?

  • Life spans are longer (Score:3)

    by Tiroth ( 95112 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2001 @07:10PM (#396691) Homepage
    Have you ever considered what the average life span was up until several thousand years ago? If you don't live past 30 your cartilage won't wear out...so there is no evolutionary pressure to waste resources on repair mechanisms.
  • Not only do the teflon disks wear out over a short period of time they also are very susceptible to rejection. In some cases the immune system wants to get rid of the teflon disk so bad that it makes the case worse and destroys surrounding tissue as well.
  • This seems to have taken us 1 step closer to solving the problem of dissipating bone strength and density in prolonged periods of weightlessness (one of the major problems of a manned Mars mission).

    -Vess

  • Re:Medical priorities (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Unfortunately, however, I feel there is a predisposition in the medical research industry to focus on those diseases which the aging, affluent baby boomers will contract; baldness, impotence, type II diabetes, heart problems, osteoporosis, etc.

    Yea, but as a soon-to-be-aging Generation X'er, I could not be more happy riding in their wake.

    All these miracle drugs will be going generic just as I start losing my hair, erection, blood-sugar levels, ventricles, and bones.

    (Yes, that was mostly sarcasm. You are right that our priorities are screwed up.)

    The sad truth is that we are talking about the most self-absorbed generation in American history here.

    For their whole lives, they have out-numbered and out-spent thier parents, and have dominated Western culture as a result.

    The 60's were dominated by hippie culture because the boomers were bored college kids with more time and youthful rebellion than sense.

    The 70's were the "me" generation because the boomers grew up, got jobs, and stopped pretending to give a shit.

    The 80's were the "decade of greed" because the boomers got their first corporate options packages.

    And in the 90's, with a boomer president getting his dick sucked in the White House, they finally feel like they have won, just as they are being forced to finally confront their mortality.

    But blue hair and wrinkles is the least of their worries. In 2004, for the first time, the voting age population born after 1965 will actually outnumber the 1945-1964 boomers. Turn out the lights, boomers, the party's almost over.

    I'm sure some indignant baby boomer will eventually mark this as "flamebait", leaving it unseen among the penis birds and hot grits posts, but fuck you... it had to be said.

  • Indeed it does. Welcome to the wonderful world of arthritis. The thing is that it wears away slowly enough, and there's enough of it, that it doesn't affect you until you start to get old.
  • Doesn't it rub off through everyday use of joints?
  • Mmmm... shark!

    Maybe we can get humans to start growing fins as well, so we don't have to slaughter sharks for theirs :)

  • I hope they also move their focus closer to diseases that prevent people in less developed countries from reaching the age at which many of these diseases develop.

    Who is "they"? These scientists are experts in this particular field. Why would they "move their focus" elsewhere?

    AIDS, trachoma, hepatitis, typhoid, cholera, yellow fever, malaria, and tuberculosis still rage. With climactic change and increased travel, they will continue to spread.

    Only one or two on that list haven't been cured. What you need now are people good at organizing things to completely get rid of most of those diseases, you don't need scientists and doctors anymore, with the exception of those diseases not yet cured.

    A balanced priority schedule in medical research takes these important social and ecological factors into account.

    Are you implying that all money and effort should be focused on those specific diseases? That is completely ridiculous!
  • I have had TMJ (cartiledge between skull and jaw worn out), bad knees, bad shoulders, bad everything where cartiledge is involded since I was a kid (like 8 or 9 years old) and now I am 23. By the time I am 40, I may have troubles walking and even getting up.....I sure hope this pans out or else I am SOL. - Pete
  • that's why all the exercise I've been doing isn't getting rid of these love-handles!
    DOH!

    "just connect this to..."
    BZZT.

  • I think you terrify me
  • I think that the "lazy genes" argument is a possibility, but the real question is "does this even matter?"

    In our modern 1st world society mental attributes tend to be the most important factor as far as determining quality of life. There is some basis for argument that individuals base mate selection on these mental factors, so one would expect to see some reinforcement of the genes behind them.

    However, consider the fact that most of the population growth on this planet is occurring in the 2nd and 3rd world countries, where many individuals are existing at a subsistence level. The kind of adaptations bred from such conditions are very different from those in the 1st world.

    I'd posit therefore that this is a case of "do as I say, not as I do." Although most of our selection is for non-mental traits, we would in general hope for better mental functioning (among other things) This will demand an active role in our evolution.

    Whether or not you think the preceding rambling paragraphs had any value, I think it is hard deny that self-directed "evolution" will be the greatest determining factor for our species in the next millenia. We are at the cusp of the ability to advance our "evolution" at a staggering pace, and to include many features that would never have been evolved naturally--such as unlimited life spans.

    That kind of power is difficult to wield, and there are unanswered questions about many of the "features" that would seem desirable to possess. (such as overcrowding in the previous example) Nonetheless this technology /will/ be used at some point, because the potential benefits are too large to ignore.

    (provided some man made catastrophe doesn't wipe us out before the technology exists)
  • Everyone wins.

    Except the cute sea critters that get eaten by more sharks.
  • you tell him steve!
  • "Obviously, regenerative cartilage and neurons are not an evolutionary advantage. Although we cannot perhaps see the reason for this, it is clear it must be the case. " Actually, the reason is pretty clear--degenerate brain disease and cartilage problems tend to happen late in life, typically after the time when children are conceived. (And actually, after the life expectancy of many prior to modern medicine). Thus, with these problems, evolution tends not to come into play.
  • It was just a joke, don't sweat it.

    That said, a diet of refried beans and cheddar cheese in a tortilla wrap is not the best way to eat healthy. Better than McDonald's, yes, but that's not really saying much. If you really want to be healthy, introduce yourself to your neighborhood grocery store... and try to do a light workout a few times a week.

    Congratulations on your weight loss, but if you are not getting proper nourishment (as opposed to filling your stomach with slightly less fatty junk food), your long-term chances of keeping the weight off is not so hot.

  • Yes, in fact the cover of Wired ("You Again", February 2001) predicts that a human will be cloned this year. My core beliefs about this subject tend toward Shelley's Frankenstein. It is so prescient. In it the monster articulates the horrors attendant to what the doctor has wrought: a creature without family, without hope of love, a hideous demon without a soul. To say that the power is difficult to wield is an understatement!

    I think that we will inevitably be faced with questions of God-scale proportions, as already our legal system is posed with questions it can't find justifiable or moral support for. In the field of genetics, questions such as 'who owns a gene' and 'what can the insurance company rightfully know about me?' are causing all sorts of trouble.

    How do we avoid the spectre of the monster who wants retribution for the horrors we inflicted on it while in the pursuit of our God-like powers?

    ...and who among us will take that mantle and shape it and claim it for all humankind? He is the one who will face the consequences, and there should be consequences, if what he wreaks should be terrible.
  • Obviously, regenerative cartilage and neurons are not an evolutionary advantage.

    That is poor reasoning. Just because a trait or ability hasn't developed doesn't mean that it isn't useful. It just hasn't HAPPENED. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Evolution guarantees nothing.

    There was a time before we developed intelligence, or the ability to walk upright. It would make no sense for an observer back then to look at us and say, "clearly intelligence is not useful, as these creatures have not evolved it."

    We aren't DONE evolving, either. Maybe a few zillion years from now we will have the traits you are calling useless. And then, BOY, will YOU be changing your tune! :)

  • Does this mean I could get a nip and tuck for free or at least a discount if I donate the fat to new cartilage development? That would rule! ;-)

  • The VC doesn't have an incentive to invest in a safe and useful product, only to invest in something that is marketable fast and profitable. I.E. that isn't proved to be harmful and believed to be good in the short run. The long run isn't even known to exist to capitalism. I don't want to leave my health to people like that. You think GMOs are safe? I think they could have phenomenal possibilities. But messing with DNA before even understanding how it works is suicide. And it's starting to show off: genetic pollution, weakening effect on the immune system, ect.

    And that's common good in the eyes of the gov. Which is why I am anarchist. Why are there only two alternatives to most people? Why couldn't the good of the individual and the "common good" be compatible?

    www.anarchistfaq.org [anarchistfaq.org]
  • Losing the fat isn't necessarily desirable. Fat is a perfectly healthy food, provided you're exercising enough to burn it off.

    When I'm backpacking, I need a good 4000+ calories a day. Mountaineers need 7000+ calories. I don't recall offhand what Tour de France cyclists need, but it was a godawful number.

    You can't get that kind of caloric intake eating carrots, man. You *gotta* eat fatty foods to do it.

    If you're a peasant working your ass off, a high-fat diet may be a necessity. Hence the termite. Choc-a-bloc full o' fatty goodness!


    --
  • Oh, I missed the most important part, dumb me.

    It's government interference (a la FDA) that keep research companies (the few wealthy enough to jump through all the necessary regulatory hoops) slow if not paralysed. That's a big joke. The market only waits for the gov to fall to emerge in all it's purity and suddenly act of the good of all? You need huge amounts of capital to do anything significant in terms of R&D and industrial production. The only way to achieve this by the inheritance of the exploitation of the last generations. And those who can, will make damn sure that it stays that way and that they get an even bigger slice of the cage. The only other alternative is to bypass money and gov and collaborate together. Until you realise that, you'll remain a slave and ensure that posterity will have worst and worst conditions. And at this rate it's time to ask ourselves if there will be anything left for them to survive anyway. Ah, I forgot again, it doesn't matter a tiny bit. I am NOT a native English speaker.

  • Re:yuck (Score:1)

    by Eccles ( 932 )
    Growing cartilage from fat cells is good news. It will probably make replacement parts cheaper and easier to get

    Heck, I'd be happy to donate 20+ pounds worth! Where do I go?

    Eccles the Rotund
  • Have you tried cooking your own meals? Cheaper, and more healthy - you can do a lot better than 16g fat for the small size of a Beef Burrito Supreme, that's for sure...

    --
  • Granted, this could be a great source of natural human body armor, imagine what it would do to a woman's breasts!
  • Didn't the grow an ear on a mouses back once? Isn't that cartilage? If so, then what is so new about this?
  • First, I realize I am a bit late posting to this discussion, and I'm risking no one reading this, but for once I have a great, very well thought out opinion on this one (at least I think so :) ).

    First off, I have noticed two things in particular regarding this debate.:
    1. This sort of thing has been done before with ears on mice, shark cartilage being used as 'donor' cartilage, etc., so why is this a big deal.
    2. The ever popular Creationist vs. Evolutionist argument. Maybe we shouldn't mess with this sort of bio-engineering because it was created this way vs. evolution has not caught up yet with some of our advanced medicine and/or advanced medicine is part of our 'evolution'. (I generalize these arguments, but you'll see my point later.)

    Now I have specific, real-life experience on this subject. I have had two knee surgeries involving ACL repair (one of which I am 5 weeks into recovering from right now), and some cartilage damage and repair on the other knee (which I had surgery on 2 yrs ago at the age of 22). Now, I style myself a pretty strict Biblical Creationist, but I also advocate scientific, technological, and medical research, and really love studying it, as evidenced by my daily reading of slashdot. Having had two knee surgeries, and injury to the cartilage, I think I am well qualified to comment on the two points above. First, I was thinking just yesterday about how great it would be to have my own cartilage regrown using some of the techniques described in this article. There are two sections of cartilage on either side of your knee between the two bones of your leg. On my one leg that was operated on 2 yrs ago, I damaged those two sets of cartilage, and when they repaired it, they had to completely remove one side because it was too damaged to do any good. Thus, my knee still gives me aches and pains from time to time. I would therefore really love to have them go back in and put good cartilage back in, I would think it would definitely help my joints and allow more physical activity on my part with fewer aches and pains (and hopefully less chance of arthritis later in life).

    As for the Creation vs. Evolution argument, let me say that I am all for medical research. I'm not even sure I'm totally opposed to cloning humans, but I know I wouldn't want another me running around :). Cloning my own cartilage would be great! But, some of the evolutionary arguments I saw above are rather flawed. During my physical therapy, I have seen plenty of people well under the age of 30 (including myself - 24 yrs old). A previous person mentioned that due to our 30-40 yr life spans in our 'prehistoric age', cartilage didn't need to last 70+ yrs and so evolution just hasn't 'caught up' with us yet. Well, buddy, according to the Bible, it actually details people living well over 500 yrs after the creation of man, and a cap of 120 yrs was put on man after the Biblical flood. So from a creationist standpoint, that cartilage should last MUCH longer than 30 yrs to match up with a Creationist's beliefs. It just so happens that a Creationist would say that cartilage was not designed to have significant repairative properties. I would think this would be so because if cartilage did receive a strong blood supply, areas of our body, ie. ears, nose, knees, and other high use joints, would be too prone to injury and therefore would limit us in our daily activities more than having them be non-repairative. Just my theory, but I would ask a doctor for a better explanation of why cartilage is that way.

    Another argument has been put forth stating that Creationists, religious folk, etc. are so backwards in their way of thinking that they are too stupid to realize the benefits of medicical research. I think I just showed that although I may not believe in Evolution (or special evolution, general evolution, whatever you want to argue about what to call it), that I whole-heartedly endorse science, and for purpose of this discussion, medical science. I have nothing wrong about learning about how our bodies work, and trying to make them work better, more efficiently, and longer. I see no harm in that. I also see no harm in choosing to believe in Evolution or Creation either way. Either choice is a belief. I, of course, believe that there is more evidence to support Creation. Others may believe there is more evidence to support Evolution. Please do not base your judgement of what kind of person a Creationist, or Evolutionist, religious, or atheist person is, without listening to them and really searching for facts, rather than just accepting popular belief.

  • <obfunny>Well I guess hardassed is going to have an all new meaning...</obfunny>

    (The above is an advertisement for the "Add 'Tasteless' to the Slashdot moderation system" organization)
  • I practice Aikido and I see my fellow Dojo mates and other Aikidoka as folks who would really benefit from something like this. My sensei has been practicing for 32 years and his joints know it. Currently he experiences pain in his right had from a nasty Nikkyo that was put on him years ago. The doctor says that the source of his pain and discomfort is a tiny bone in the hand that has had all of the cartilage worn off of it. I think it would be great if we could actually access and afford this stuff!
  • Well, just think for a minute. This is just one small step. It take a lot of small steps to make the advancements your thinking of. 40 years ago we would have never thought of cloning sheep and having it working. So give it some time we'll make it.

    ONEPOINT

    PS- thanks to everyone who has given me input on my site you guys/gals are the best !!!!



    spambait e-mail
    my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
    please help me make it better

  • How far away. how close? (Score:4)

    by ACK!! ( 10229 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2001 @06:46PM (#396722) Journal
    You have to wonder how far how quick are we really going in terms of bio-engineered replacement parts for humans out there with real problems. Cartillage would be really great. A new major organ like a kidney for my really cool brother-in-law would be even better.

    However, the real deal is when will the gee-whiz first break throughs eventually turn into real world results and are the projects being funded appropriately?

    Those are questions that beg to be answered for the people living the problems.

    I don't want to put down the results of the first real progress being shown in the field. I just sadly wonder how long will it take to start saving lives and is society as a whole supporting these efforts with enough resources?

  • I always thought they could just get it from pieces of KFC!

  • Medical priorities (Score:4)

    by perdida ( 251676 ) <thethreatprojectNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday February 27, 2001 @06:49PM (#396724) Homepage Journal
    This is a wonderful breakthrough, and will be useful to athletes, those with degenerative bone disease and the aged.

    Unfortunately, however, I feel there is a predisposition in the medical research industry to focus on those diseases which the aging, affluent baby boomers will contract; baldness, impotence, type II diabetes, heart problems, osteoporosis, etc.

    I hope they also move their focus closer to diseases that prevent people in less developed countries from reaching the age at which many of these diseases develop.

    AIDS, trachoma, hepatitis, typhoid, cholera, yellow fever, malaria, and tuberculosis still rage. With climactic change and increased travel, they will continue to spread.

    A balanced priority schedule in medical research takes these important social and ecological factors into account.

  • Cartilage is a real special material. To be honest, I take cartilage for granted. I take everything for granted, actually. I take my bones, veins, skin for granted. I take it all for granted. My blood? I took it for granted last year.

    I am so happy that cartilage can be manufactured. This has seriously brought me much happiness tonight. I shall tell my family.

  • Do you even realize how similar your anti-research, reactionary opinions are to those of dangerous cultish groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Falun Gong?

    Promoting opinions that might discourage people from seeking medical treatment is reckless at best and tantamount to assault or murder at worst. I hope we can expect more responsible speech from you in the future.

  • Maybe now we can stop killing sharks (Score:4)

    by Chuck Flynn ( 265247 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2001 @06:52PM (#396728)
    Because of claims [weight-fre...styles.com] that shark cartilage is an effective treatment for joint problems, millions of sharks are killed each year in order to make cartilage supplements. Despite no scientific evidence to support these claims or other claims that shark supplements treat cancer [healthwho.com], this chondroitic genocide persists.

    Maybe now we can concentrate on growing our own cartilage instead of killing other animals for theirs. Everyone wins.
  • I also had knee-surgery when I was 16-total replacement due to a drunk in a caddy.The damn thing has been there for 26 years,getting repaired every so often,as even stainless steel & titanium wears out.(the constant pain is a real bummer). This should be a first step toward fixing some major problems,if Curious George(in the White House)will not cut research money.(Check out his federal budget.IT SUCKS!!) (I'm still trying to find the grease plug for the knee.Should I use EP1,EP2 or teflon based?);-)
  • Evolution = a species improving itself over time, to better fit a changing environment

    Science/genetics = a species improving itself over time, to better fit a changing environment

    The mechanism is different, and the time period is shorter, but "survival of the fittest" doesn't exactly apply to the human race these days either.

  • I have a ruptured disk in my back. I have been hoping for years that they would invent a technology to give me new disk cartiledge before I have to have a spinal fusion in 20 years.

    Come on medical science, hurry up!


    --

  • Can cartillage replacement be done for Arthritis patients? If so Wouldn't this new technology help such people?

  • Stromal cells (not fat cells) (Score:5)

    by hmn_being ( 88203 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2001 @08:19PM (#396733)
    Okay, I've actually worked in the Vacanti Tissue Engineering laboratory, the lab that did the Ear-on-the-back-of-the-mouse experiment. I've since moved on doing other work on stem cells.
    Cartilage usually doesn't repair appreciably on its own because it is one of the least densely populated tissues in the body. Cartilage is mostly extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins like collagen with a few cells scattered here and there to put out enough protein to maintain the tissue structure. It's also very poorly fed as few blood vessels travel through the cartilage so the few cartilage cells (chondrocytes) present operate at a slow metabolic pace too.
    Cartilage has been an early and popular target of tissue engineering efforts. First of all it's a relatively homogenous, simple tissue. Secondly, alot of people have problems with damaged cartilage. What's done is that a porous 'scaffolding' of some material which will break down in the body is molded into the desired shape and then cells are 'seeded' onto the scaffolding with the intention that they will colonize it and grow. The breakdown characteristics are matched as closely as possible to the ECM buildup of proteins released by the cells. Eventually the artificial scaffolding is replaced by tissue. That's what the 'ear' on the back of the mouse is (by implanting it in a mouse, the engineered tissue gets fed in an 'in vivo' environment). Tissue engineered this way has yet to match the physical properties of normally produced cartilage, but there are approaches being investigated to improve these characteristics such as growing the tissue under a physical stress load.
    The limiting reagent in this process is the supply of cells for seeding. That's why this story is news. During development, cells take cues from their environment and long range chemical signals to decide where they are and consequently what cell type would be apporpriate to differentiate into. However, not all of the cells in the body move into a final specific cell type. Some of them remain generalized as a pool or reserve of cells. Bone marrow is the easiest example of this. That's what has been taken advantage of here. The chondrocytes in this experiment were developed from stromal cells (not fat cells like the headline states). These are a less specific cell type than either chondrocytes or fat cells (adipocytes). They were grown in a physical environment and fed chemical signals that 'convinced' the cells they needed to become chondrocytes. Figuring out these conditions and signals is a nice piece of work.
    There are quite a few pieces of research like this coming to light in the last two years. The direction of research in the stem cell field is moving towards trying to turn 'stem' cells from one particular tissue into developed cells of another tissue. Some labs are even trying to take fully differentiated and presumably committed cells and get them to turn into other cell types, sometimes referred to as 'trans-differentiation'. In that regard, this research isn't earth shattering, it's one more piece of confirmation. Also, if trans-differentiation is confirmed as a general trend, then you could conceivably get chondrocytes from many many different tissues in the body.
    As a source for engineered tissue though, this has the practical advantage of being from a readily available source. Nicely done.
  • Great. Now, instead of "Rock-Hard abs", we can have Rock-Hard flab!
  • Obviously, regenerative cartilage and neurons are not an evolutionary advantage. Although we cannot perhaps see the reason for this, it is clear it must be the case. As such, we must be extremely careful when engaging in this sort of research, least we permanently alter the human race - for the worse.

    While we're at it, we better make wheelchairs and seeing eye dogs illegal, as there must be no evolutionary advantage to either of these.

    AIDS vaccine? If there were selective pressures involved, SURELY we would have evolved to be immune to it!

    Slashdot? Better ban it ... it didn't evolve naturally, therefore it must be making the human race worse.

    Oh wait ... I fell for an obvious troll. How silly of me. Better kill me before my inhibited evolution ends humanity as we know it.

  • While I mostly agree with you and the post you are replying to is bullshit, we must be careful in categorizing and separating things too much.

    Biology, geology and cosmology are all studying different aspects of the universe we live in. There wouldn't be any biological evolution if it weren't of the planet's evolution that came before and the formation of the galaxies that came first. It is all part of the same evolution in a way.

    I think that if geologist, biologist and all would collaborate more, we'd understand a great deal of why that is. Overspecialisation is a bad thing.

  • It's A-Me, Mario! (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    See subject.

    -Mario

  • I think cartilige can repair to some degree - When I was much younger, I put a pitchfork through my right knee cap. About 2 inches in; damn near came out the other side. OOPS. The docs said the only hope I had of being able to walk normally after that is the fact that I was so young (i was like 5 or 6 at the time). Within 2 weeks, I was pretty much back to normal, except for a nasty looking sore that looked like it was going to make a messy scar. To this day, I can't find the scar, though.
    Also, my right shoulder was badly bruised up from a fall to concrete from a concert stage (stage diving.. not recommended), and I was also told that that would probably cause me joint problems all my life.. haven't had a problem since.
    Now, my back is totally fuct up but that's a different story and topic altogether.
  • While the possibility of artificially manufactured cartilaginous tissue may be of some piddling consequence to people who are in desperate need of joint reconstruction, the implications of manufactured, durable, realistic joints and appendages has implications for CERTAIN OTHER MAJOR PLAYERS [realdoll.com]

  • There's also a widespread belief in the homeopathic and naturopath communities that shark cartilidge is good for cancer, sharks never having been found to get cancer.

    I say erroneous because they can and do get cancer. We really need to stop believing that merely because something is bigger and stronger than us, that it has some kind of mystical powers. For Christ's sake, please stop chopping off tiger penises! Dam superstition has done a great deal to harm this planet.

  • There have been a number of techniques for regenerating and replacing cartilage that have progressed to clinical trials, so the process of restoring [cartilagedoc.com] or regrowing cartiledge is not entirely new.

    The one procedure that I nearly tried on my on meniscus involved using a collagen scaffolding [cartilagedoc.com]. The callagen was, I believe, sewn up with the remaining cleaned up meniscus. It acts as a scaffolding, holding the bones apart and creating a lattice into which the meniscus cartilage can regrow. Early results were good, the cartilage was regrown and was working. But the trials were stopped for a while when the FDA reclassified the procedure -- or something. I missed my chance for the procedure and had the traditional excavation/repair done on that knee. I have no idea how the folks that had this procedure are doing now.

    The big goal, at least to me, in regrowing the cartilage is to avoid arthritic old knees. Who cares about never playing ____ again. I want to be hiking into my 80's! Removing torn meniscus is pretty effective at getting the knee to work OK again. Its the long term wear and tear on the knee with trimmed meniscus that many, many of us "old knees" are facing.

  • Genetic Engineering: Because 2 billion years of evolution obviously got it wrong.

    Again, someone's misunderstanding of evolution shows through. It's a hundred-year old concept, you'd think educated people would have a clue by now.

    Evolution has no will. Evolution is non-directional and has no end goal. The thing which let us get all this way is not that we were the best evolved in any way, but that we were the most adaptive. Evolution can't get anything wrong because it can't get anything right.

    As popular as it has become for physicists and the like - scientists with no biological training - to speculate on the meaning of life. realise that it is precisely true that Evolution is not God. It is a cast die.

    Genetic engineering is precisely mimicking a process already present in nature - the transfer of genetic material by gene vectors. It's a tool of adaptation, and means that we are, again, adapting to situations without being locked into a particular skein of evolution.

    To put it simply: If evolution supposedly got everything right, why do so many people have bad backs, and wisdom teeth problems? Because that's part of the toolset that got us here. Not what is perfect for the job right now. We've luckily learned how to build our own toolkit and that's going to be the greatest advantage of all.

    Ideology is teriffic. If you know where your next meal is coming from.

  • Re:How far away. how close? (Score:3)

    by ACK!! ( 10229 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2001 @01:03AM (#396743) Journal
    Ok, I refrained from commenting on this right away. After all, what is the point because even bitter and all you are partially correct. The drug and medical companies do only care about profits; they are corporations it is all they know or ever will know. If they don't make the profits they are screwed and there is no real push from anyone for them to be both moral and profitable.

    However, saving lives can mean money and sh*tloads of it. The trick is that many people with money would love to get back full function of limbs back because of these kinds of advances. Rich people with loads of cash and other corporations with health care plans that would demand coverage for the procedure.

    If you don't live in America it still concerns you because a lot of American researchers and pharma companies come up with a lot of advances and will want money for it. The new procedures or drugs might no cost you much money but if there is no potential for profit the drugs will not get made just like you said. Yes, I understand that many pharma and medical researchers come from other places in the world so don't go there. I am just saying that many of the biggest and nastiest come from the USofA where in cash (not god) we trust.

    To bypass money is simply not the American way. My country's government is based just as much on cash as the constitution and I understand that. It is not going to change because the majority of Americans dream about making fat checks and being the next millionare, billionare type. It is the way of the world here. If we are slaves it is to our own ambitions for prosperity and decadence.

    If you think that most people (in the whole world not just America) really give a fat sh*t about all the folks in Africa dying of AIDS then you are fooling yourself. The only people that care are Africans and a few folks that have vision to realize the potential of that continent wasting in poverty. Most people in other parts of the world have more immediate concerns like keeping the roof above their head and their kids fed. It is only us rich folks in America and Europe get to be extra-special greedy and self-centered and get the luxury of wondering if they can keep a roof over their head, their kids fed and be rich at the same time.

  • That said, a diet of refried beans and cheddar cheese in a tortilla wrap is not the best way to eat healthy.

    I dunno, peasants around the world survive on the stuff. It has all the required amino acids. If you lost the cheese you probably lose half of the fat, but I'm not sure if the enjoyment decrease is worth the calorie savings. Same with the tortilla. I get 26g of protein per TB meal this way, combine with soy milk and Total raisin bran in the morning and sometimes a late snack, and I hit the RDA for everything, while staying below 2000 calories per day.

    and try to do a light workout a few times a week.

    Yes, I do that - recumbent bike allows for workout and reading Slashdot at the same time. I do weight training as well, but harder to web surf while lifting (correctly).

  • Re:Maybe now we can stop killing sharks (Score:3)

    by drsoran ( 979 ) on Wednesday February 28, 2001 @01:08AM (#396745)
    Are you crazy? Sharks eat children and pray on helpless holiday boaters. I was watching this documentary a few years ago where this guy had to throw a scuba tank of air into the mouth of this huge Great White shark that was destroying their fishing boat and then shoot it with a rifle causing it to explode. It was very exciting but it makes it clear that sharks cannot be trusted and must be hunted to extinction.
  • Genzyme has been doing this for awhile for knee cartiladge using the patients own cartilage.

    http://www.genzymebiosurgery.com/opage.asp?ogroup= 1&olevel=3&opage=47 http://www.thirteen.org/innovation/show2/html/3sb- carti.html http://www.outsidemag.com/magazine/1297/9712bodykn ee.html

    FWIW
  • That means old people, right?
    --
  • I remember seeing a woman in WA researching the genetic makup of yabbies [spelling? :)] as when they leave their shells they discard of their limbs and then grow new ones. What she is obviously hoping to do is see whether a little bit of genetic engineering on humans would enable people to grow back their own limbs in effect. Completely freaky stuff when you think about it ... hard to imagine what we can accomplish with a little noggins sometimes :)
  • >>Now, I style myself a pretty strict Biblical Creationist>although I may not believe in Evolution...I whole-heartedly endorse science You don't get to "not believe" in parts of science (a phraseology which belies a total misunderstanding of science) and then claim to be pro-science. This statement is analogous to "I don't belive that my cat is white, but I sure do think that all cats are white!" It's an internal contradiction--the most basic form of logical error.
  • This isn't entirely on topic, however, it simply poses another possible view of one of the key points that the post to which I am replying makes. One could look at the non-regeneration of cartilage as evidence that human joints were actually very well designed. The original post mentioned teflon, which has been used as a surgical replacement for natural cartilage, and does actually wear out. Under normal circumstances, human cartilage wears very little. There are many people in the "twilights of their lives," who have nothing wrong with their cartilage. Based on this point, I assert that this is not an example of a way in which the human body has been ill-"designed." Actually, I can't think of any others at the moment either. The problems that plague people commonly in modern society are mostly due to our removal from our original surroundings. For example, we weren't designed to spend large portions of our lives inside watching TV, sitting in front of a computer, etc., so we become near-sided as the lenses in our eyes never get stretched to where they would be if we were routinely focussing on something farther away than a few metres. We weren't designed to live sedentary lives, thus we become obese and develop other health problems that are related to a lack of excersize. Take this as you will, with respect to the creation vs. evolution debate. Whichever side you are a proponent of, it testifies to the effectiveness of either.
  • From this page: [desert-fairy.com]

    I have titled this "The Birth of a Monster" because Frankenstein can be read as a tale of what happens when a man tries to create a child without a woman. It can, however, also be read as an account of a woman's anxieties and insecurities about her own creative and reproductive capabilities. The story of Frankenstein is the first articulation of a woman's experience of pregnancy and related fears. Mary Shelley, in the development and education of the monster, discusses child development and education and how the nurturing of a loving parent is extremely important in the moral development of an individual. Thus, in Frankenstein, Mary Shelley examines her own fears and thoughts about pregnancy, childbirth, and child development.

    I think your interpretation is fairly subjective, as is mine. Anyway, I recommend the website as you may need to consider another opinion beside your own.

    A couple more things, and then I am done:

    1) I am not trying to troll, just typing an opinion... try not to throw those accusations into your argument, however tempting. That's called an ad hominem attack, and I shouldn't let it slide by too many times without calling it.

    2) Do you know how many 'failures' there were before Dolly the sheep was produced? I believe there were hundreds. And not all of the failures are going to be hideous mutated creatures, although some might. Some might have slight and undetectable genetic defects that won't reveal themselves for years. Question: should we allow such creatures to breed? I'm not so sure, myself.

    3) Many people, in their zeal to progress scientifically, are willing to change reality so that it suits their aims. Try not to fall into that trap. It's the same one Dr. Frankenstein fell in to.

    But thanks for a illuminating viewpoint. Please don't condescend to me again, however.
  • I remember seeing some of that "synthetic cartilage" way back when on That's Incredable (remember that show anyone?).

    They described what the problem was in some athletes whose knee cartilage would eventually wear away, with very painful results. It showed this rubber-like insert that would be put in to replace it. I thought that was pretty neat, but then, that's because it seemed like one step closer to the 6 million dollar man to me :)

    I wonder if this could be used to replicate anything else in the human body?

  • yuck (Score:3)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2001 @06:52PM (#396753)
    "Researchers at the Duke University Medical Center have successfully grown fat cells into cartilage"

    Did anybody else read this as if it implied that the researchers at Duke ate a few too many burritos from Taco Bell?

    Cartilage doesn't repair at all, and there aren't any good replacements for it

    Actually, that's not true. Everybody who gambles in "fantasy football" leagues know that you can replace cartilage with... (drum roll)... cartilage. Several NFL wide receivers have had knee cartilage replacement (using cartilage from donor corpses), and have gone right back to sprinting past cornerbacks. So the best option to date has been cartilage from people who checked that "donor" box in their driver's licenses and then failed to wear a seatbelt.

    Growing cartilage from fat cells is good news. It will probably make replacement parts cheaper and easier to get, so you won't need to be a millionaire athlete in order to afford getting your knee fixed.

  • Sorry about the accusation of trolling - /.'s been going to hell in a vomit bucket with respect to that, and too many trolls have also said what you said.

    However, if you look into Shelly's personal life, you will see she and her husband were vehement socialists.

    Do you know how many failures there are in a typical in vitro fertilization attempt? Just as many as in Dolly. Furthur, those failures result in miscarrage, just like the failures with Dolly. In point of fact, examination of "natural" miscarrages shows most of them had genetic abnormailites. And with respect to preventing geneticly defective individuals from breeding: careful, you might get the Downs' Syndrome people up in arms.

    As for condesension: re-read you post as I have re-read mine. Perhaps we both are falling into that trap.

  • This is not an entirely new method... (Score:3)

    by Dagmar d'Surreal ( 5939 ) on Tuesday February 27, 2001 @06:58PM (#396760) Journal
    This is not an entirely new approach to repairing damaged cartiledge. It appears that the only thing new about it is that they are cloning one type of tissue into a *different* type of tissue. Cartilaginous replacements are being done in other ways...

    In December I underwent knee surgery to remove a piece of bone about the size of a quarter that had broken off from one of the inner surfaces of my knee. At the same time a cartiledge biopsy was taken (i.e., a small sample of tissue) which will be cloned into a piece of replacement cartiledge which will be reimplanted in my knee if enough scar cartiledge doesn't form where they drilled a bunch of tiny holes in the end of the bone (yes, it was even more painful than it sounds for about two weeks following the surgery) to stimulate scar cartiledge growth where the chunk of bone was removed from where it had been mangling the cartiledge in my knee.

    My doctor might be irked with me for getting them Slashdotted this way, then again they might not mind the exposure, but here's a URL for the type of surgery I went through, and more specific details on the why and the how of the cloning of replacement cartiledge.

    http://www.iasm.com/ccc.html

  • Complete bullshit (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 27, 2001 @07:27PM (#396761)
    Where in the hell did you get your science education? From the back of a Cap'n Crunch box?

    "Evolution" is completely biological. It says nothing about the formation of the universe, galaxies, planets, or anything other than biological entities. Don't listen to Creationists who use the term "evolution" to refer to any piece of science that they believe contradicts their Bible. If you want to study the formation of the universe, check out cosmology. If you want to study the formation of the planet, check out geology. If you want to study the progression of life forms, check out biology (and biological evolution.)

    The "special theory of evolution" states that two similar life forms that are in inertial Galilean reference frames in rectalinear motion relative to each other will evolve in roughly similar fashions. The "general theory of evolution" takes this one step further by positing that two similar life forms in any two reference frames will evolve in a roughly similar fashion, regardless of motion, direction, or acceleration. The presence of mass and radioactivity creates a curvature in the gene pool that makes genetic mutations far more likely.

    Get your science from science books, not from Jerry Falwell. Thanks.
  • Just to point out that in fact cartilage does grow back, but very slowly due to its structure.

    Bone, cartilage, etc are very close together in the way that they form.

    In fact most of the human skeletal structure starts out as cartilage, and then resolves itself to bone in the later years(I believe 17-25 for males and females).

    The cartilaginous structures in the body normally take a long time to heal due to the nutrient and blood supply being poor in collagenous areas.

    Can't remember all the facts at the moment but bottom line is cartilage DOES grow back.

  • First, try to study what Shelly was for a bit. She was not writing about science per se, rather she was writing about the abuse of the worker. Much like the Russian story from whence we derive the word "robot" she was trying to say that the creation of artificial life would be used to create artificial slaves.

    That said, now let's look at cloning. We aren't talking about growing babies in a vat here: you still have to have a human uterus to grow the kid in, and the result is that after nine months you have a baby. This is in no substantive way different from in vitro fertilization.

    The result of a cloning experiment won't be "a creature without family, without hope of love, a hideous demon without a soul", any more than a child conceived via in vitro fertilization would be. It will be a baby, with a mommy, a brain waiting to develop, and all the legal rights anybody else has.

    I realize this person is just a moderate grade troll, but I've hear this particular non-argument slide by too many times to let it happen again.
  • thanks, man, I bet we would agree more than disagree if we were sitting over a pitcher of beer. It's an important question, and one should not blindly go 'in the pursuit of science' nor should one 'prudently do nothing'.

    the answers lie somewhere in between the extremes, condescension notwithstanding... neither one of us have it exactly right... and that's

    ...ok...

    bon mot!

Slashdot Top Deals

Two percent of zero is almost nothing.

Close