Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Unlimited Blood Supply From Stem Cells 31

Posted by timothy from the vampirism-could-be-treatable dept.
Dave writes: "The ABC has a story on some interesting stem cell research going on at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Seems that during their research, they were able to create red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets that were indistinguishable from the real thing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unlimited Blood Supply From Stem Cells More

Unlimited Blood Supply From Stem Cells

Comments Filter:

  • excellent news (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dbolger ( 161340 )
    As is, undifferentiated, naive embryonic stem cells don't have a therapeutic use; they're too dangerous. What this story means is that we've learned how to shunt them down toward a particular cell lineage. We have here the potential to treat a wide variety of diseases; diabetes, Parkinson's, heart disease or many other disorders. This is a fantastic breakthrough; the genuine Holy Grail of medical science.

  • Commercialization (Score:3, Funny)

    by Winged Cat ( 101773 ) <atymes@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @11:54AM (#2383923)
    So, how long 'til someone starts using this commercially? How much do the unrefined techniques cost to make blood, versus cost of getting blood from donors and shipping them long distances? Presumably, blood manufacturing plants would be set up close to where they're needed, perhaps even in the hospitals themselves.

    In fact, what do people think of the following model: a business is set up to develop manufacturing of these machines. At first, it leases blood production vats to its customers (first rich ones, then any as production becomes cheaper), using the money from leases to pay for development (including a forum for users of the system, to point out the good and the bad of various models). Over time, convert from prebuilt systems to kits, then to plans that hospitals can license so they can build their own (and with the rest of this plan announced so it's in the hospitals' self interest not to pirate). Then, once it gets cost of manufacture down to some reasonable price (say, under $1000 - in 2001 dollars - for a unit that can supply a small-city clinic for a year), it documents how to build these devices so cheaply and gradually shuts down, converting all leases to final sales. End result: technology is in the public domain, with an established tradition of end users building their own systems from commodity parts, and hopefully developed fast enough that no viable competitors can emerge to monopolize the field.

    The only problem I can see with that is fees for licensing patents owned by anyone but the buisiness itself, for instance the university that discovered this process...
  • I'd be more excited if they could do it from non-embryonic stem cells. Aside from the moral issues associated with embryonic stem cells, there are more types of problems to be solved than there are existing stem cell lines to work with.

    However, if the tech were available to rapidly cause a non-embryonic stem cell to do the same type of thing, a hospital could potentially create as much of my specific blood type etc. from my own cells as I might need, or grow new bone marrow from a healthy stem cell, or any number of things, without the current problems with rejection, etc. because the dna would presumably be an exact match to my own. Or creating a more unlimited supply of the T-cells which the HIV virus seems to mess with

    Or (purely theoretical thoughts/questions here) a stem cell could be differentiated to the point of re-introducing (for example) the gene which is lacking in kids with cystic fibrosis, replacing pancreatric islet cells (which would cure juvenile diabetes, I think, etc.) again without so much danger of rejection.

    What do y'all think?

    • "Aside from the moral issues associated with embryonic stem cells, there are more types of problems to be solved than there are existing stem cell lines to work with."

      This statement is either fatuous or disingenuous or both. The ONLY reason there aren't more cell lines to work with in the US is the ridiculous whining about so-called "moral issues" by brain-dead fundies who expect society to accord a non-conscious, non-sentient, undifferentiated cell mass the SAME rights as countless numbers of fully self-aware, sentient human beings whom they want to see condemned to _needless_suffering_.

      And don't bother to reply to that last point until you can demonstrate how something without a single neuron or pain receptor can possibly suffer.

      • My point in mentioning the moral issues then is simply an acknowledgement that they are there, followed by the more important discussion that if the science of stem cell research can be developed so that adult and placental/umbilical stem cells, I see a whole lot more potential benefits. Even some very respected medical ethicists are looking at embryonic stem cell research without having made up their minds as to "whether destroying an embryo which could otherwise develop into a normal human child" in order to do research is on a so-called "slippery slope".

        So my statement about moral issues is not meant to be disingenous, just an acknowledgement that for many people -- myself included-- those considerations are there. Now before you get all worked up in responding -- I haven't made up my mind yet on this issue. And, at least at present, stem cell research outside the existing lines can and probably is taking place -- but without US federal government funding, the position taken by our current Prez.

        But let's be clear here: the context in which you used the abbreviated word "fundies" presumably refers to people with a particular set of religious beliefs which you disagree with. But I find the use of the word "brain dead" to be frankly intolerant and disgustingly prejudiced, because, like a number or other posts I have seen on /., it assumes that everyone in a particular group is as irrational as the extreme fringes of the group. This is the same kind of thinking that tends to state things like "all believers in Islam are irrational supporters of terrorism", or that "all homosexuals are pedophiles", or --in perhaps the most famous study on prejudices --that "all children with X color eyes are smarter than all children with Y color eyes".

        Returning to topic, however, I would wager that if you andf I sat down and talked, you would probably that some - but not all of my views on things to be similar to those expounded by what you would probably call "religious fundamentalists", even though most of my reasoning in arriving at those views came from completely different intellectual basis(es) [damn--forgot how to spell the plural of that word -- not enough sleep last night--definitely a bit of brain death gloing on this morning :-)]

        But I would also wager that it would be an intelligent, rigorous conversation that would not allow you to conclude that I was *cough cough* "brain dead." If our conversation included the subject of stem cell research, I would probably learn something in the process that would take me closer to a fully defined position on the specific parts of the issue, because, as is always noted -- most of the embryos we are talking about will eventually be destroyed anyway.

        Leaving these issues aside, what I would still really like to know more about is related to the questions of tissue rejection, namely if that tissue were developed from stem-cells not original to a patient's body would have the same kinds of issues that face people receiving organ transplants, etc., which is why I see the adult stem cell research as potentially more important.

        • You raise several interesting points, CodeShark. I'd like to address them one by one if I may.

          That some lobby groups (universally based in fundamentalist religious grounds) have _claimed_ that there are moral issues, I sadly have no doubt. However, I repeat that it is ludicrous to suppose that there _should_ be "moral issues", given that the embryos under discussion are surplus to the requirements of the IVF program and would _certainly_ be destroyed in any event. There is no prospect whatsoever of these embryos "otherwise develop[ing] into a normal child". The choice is quite simply between allowing _therapeutic_ uses which could easily save uncounted lives and alleviate untold suffering, or just throwing them out, as happens now. Which is the moral choice?

          Regarding my choice of words, you are correct, I was getting myself 'worked up'. However, I feel it is understandable to be worked up over the prospect of condemning aware, sentient human beings to _preventable_ suffering and death, for no reason. (Unless you can use the word 'reason' to describe this purely-religiously motivated lobbying to prevent surplus embryos which are destined to be discarded, from making a therapeutic contribution.)

          The fact that the research is continuing elsewhere (and has already attracted some of the finest minds in the field to move out of the US to continue their work) is one I draw solace from. However, this does not allow me the luxury to shrug my shoulders. To provide another example, if the health care system wound down in the US, would you not care about that, given that there would still be functioning health care systems in other countries?

          I do not resile from my revulsion against the anti-stem-cell-research lobby, which places the rights of nonsentient bits of tissue already destined for destruction _above_ the rights of aware, sentient human beings. If you found my use of the word "fundies" "frankly intolerant and disgustingly prejudiced", what if I describe the anti-stem-cell-research lobby as "motivated and funded by fundamentalist religious interests"? If you still finid that "prejudiced", kindly provide evidence that it is untrue.

          My choice of the phrase "brain dead" was hasty. CodeShark, I am certainly willing to admit that, judging by the thoughtful tone of your posts, you sound as though you personally do not merit such a characterisation and I apologise. Instead of "brain dead", perhaps "lacking in compassion and rationality" would be a less 'worked up' way for me to describe the anti-stem-cell-research lobby.

          *grin* The plural of basis is 'bases'. Irregular plurals are a bit of a trial, I quite agree. :)

          *deep breath* Now, on to the matter of tissue rejection: from my understanding, adult stem cells, lacking the extreme plasticity of fetal ones, pose more rather than less of a risk of tissue rejection. The only way I can think of that adult cells might avoid such a risk is if they were harvested from the same patient they were to be used on. I am uncertain as to the feasibility of such a procedure, and even if it were possible, the problem with the lack of adaptability of adult stem cells would still remain.

    • Re:Cool but... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Aside from the moral issues associated with embryonic stem cells, there are more types of problems to be solved than there are existing stem cell lines to work with.

      I won't get into the moral issues of it, but the last phrase made no sense.

      You're probably forgetting that embryonic stem cell lines are just that: *lines*. This means, given an initial culture and the right conditions, they'll grow (theoretically) forever. Also, given how they grow (binary fission), they grow exponentially.

      So if you start with one cell and the right conditions, in 30 days you can get (assuming a doubling time of 24 hours) over a billion cells.

      So when you hear Scientists complain about there not being enough stem cells, they're talking about quality, not quantity.

      • Actually, my thought about "more types of problems to be solved" isn't about quantity or quality, it's about diversity.

        I don't think (and am not a researcher, so this is more of a guess than a statement of fact) that the so-called sixty or so lines of stem cells okayed by the feds would include enough different DNA sets to apply to all of the kinds of problems and peoples that can ultimately be aided by the results of such research.

        You might also look at another one of my replies regarding the issue of rejection, etc.

    • think "organ donation" instead. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by caite ( 252284 ) on Wednesday October 03, 2001 @05:15PM (#2385941) Homepage
      I'd be more excited if they could do it from non-embryonic stem cells.

      Think about stem cells this way, they're like organ donations. It's kind of sick, but the dead "person"* isn't using them anymore. We don't kill people to get kidneys, we don't kill people to get hearts, corneas, livers, or anything else. We just take the usable parts from the freshly dead.

      It's probably disgusting, but it saves lives and otherwise the organs would be wasted. Stem cells are the same way, the research is going to save people who would otherwise die.

      People do not have abortions or miscarriages to give science more research material. Get that? No one who would have lived is harmed. We don't kill unborn children for science. These are either cells grown expressly for that purpose or harvested from freshly dead.

      * person is in quotes because dead things aren't people anymore.
      • People do not have abortions or miscarriages to give science more research material.... These are either cells grown expressly for that purpose or harvested from freshly dead.

        Actually, no. Embryonic stem cells come from embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization(s) (commonly called "test tube babies"). When an in vitro fertilization is done, they pharmaceutically induce a woman's body to produce a number of mature eggs at once. These eggs are then fertilized in a solution with the father or donor's sperm, and then the most viable one (or more?) are re-introduced into the/a woman's uterus for implementation and brought to term.

        So many of the leftover fertilized embryos could become human beings if they were similarly implanted, which is where the idea that using these embryos to develop the stem cells used in research involves "terminating a life".

        The so-called "acceptable lines" of embryonic stem cells are derived from the embryos which have already been "killed", and the funding ban is essentially on doing research that would involve "killing" new embryos.

        The controversy is that many of these embryos will be discarded anyway, which means that they could feasibly have been better used in scientific research. The "slippery slope" comes into play when, for example, if a person or set of parents gave permission for the extra embryo(s)to be used in scientific research, this thing that could have become a human life is now a form of property. Taken to the extreme, think about what this means if these other embryo(s) were then brought to term in a surrogate, or cloned, etc.

        I am not arguing against embryonic stem cell research so much as affirming that there are alot of legal/moral/ethical things that need to be worked out and brought into law before carte blanche is given to the scientific community in this area.

        • 'So many of the leftover fertilized embryos could become human beings if they were similarly implanted, which is where the idea that using these embryos to develop the stem cells used in research involves "terminating a life".'

          If you make a batch of cookie dough, and decide not to put it in the oven, are you "terminating a cookie," or simply deciding not to make cookies?

          Leave the dough on the counter overnight & see if it becomes cookies by itself. No? Takes some human intervention to make that dough into a cookie. But hey, the dough's pretty good all by itself.

          Do I have a point? No, but you've got to admit, it's a great metaphor.
          • *grin* Actually, you _do_ have a point, NickFusion, and it's a cogent one. These surplus embryos do _not_ have the potential to become a human being, because no-one is going to implant them and carry them to term. No-one. They have the potential only to be discarded. Simple as that.
          • *sigh*

            It saddens me to think that people place so little value on human life.

            All human life if precious. It's a point I take as an absolute truth. What people choose to do with life, theirs and others, is cause for great concern. People often choose to throw away their lives, squander it. Unfortunately, more often they choose to take the lives of others.

            The taking of ANY human life should be avoided whenever possible. War, abortion, "capital punishment" all involves killing. I would hope that people would remember that BEFORE they terminate another life.

            There are times when it seem that the taking of another life is unavoidable. Self-defense being the primary one. If someone tried to end your life, or that of someone unable to help themselves, and there is NO OTHER WAY to save your or their life, then regrettably, you may have to take their life.

            That said, I would urge people to be especially leery of the redefinition of life. I've read many people here state that "embryo" "human life". To them I would ask, just where do humans come from? People don't just magically emerge from the womb out of nothingness. At some point a fertilized egg becomes a human being. No one seems to argue that point. The argument seems to revolve around when. The safest most morally responsible position to take would be that a human is a human from conception. That would mean that we would have to reexamine many of the things we currently do. If we agreed that human life starts from conception then can we as civilized individuals accept the fact that it is ok to kill people, as long as someone else benefits from it?

            Some one mentioned organ donation, I hope you realize that it is illegal to buy or sell organs in the US of A. Anyone know why? It is to keep a market from developing in human organs. If you could sell human organs, there would be an incentive for certain unscrupulous elements of society to murder their fellow man in order to sell off his organs. Sure, we could probably save more lives if hospitals, or other individuals could offer to pay for organs. The next of kin may be more inclined to donate a loved ones organs if they could get 10, 20, 100,000 USD for them. But we don't do it. Why? It's that slippery slope we don't want to be sliding down.

            Would it be okay to kill a severely mentally retarded individual to harvest her organs to benefit others? Why not? How about a black man, a Jewish woman, the destitute? Through out history we have defined a class of people as being sub-human, or as the property of others. For a very long time women and children were considered the property of their father/husband to do with as he wished. This lead to children being "exposed" (left outside to die from exposure) and women being beaten and raped by their husbands. Society agreed that this was okay. The ruling German powers during World War II thought nothing of performing cruel (what today we would call inhumane) experiments on people of Jewish descent. To them Jews weren't human. Besides, it could provide untold benefits for humanity. So it's ok right? No?

            In my opinion abortion is wrong. The fact that there are fertilized embryo's that are "discarded" as a consequence of invitrofertilisation is very troubling. The thought that untold people don't get a chance to live so that an otherwise infertile couple can procreate is disturbing enough. To think that people are looking to "harvest" embryos for research is chilling.

            So, yes, I find embryonic stem cell research to be morally troubling. Treating people as walking spare parts is troubling. Thinking that more embryos will be created as raw material is troubling. It is a short distance from using "discarded - embryos" to creating them especially to research with. Perhaps even a shorter distance than using donated organs from the dead, to killing people for their organs. After all they both serve the function of "saving lives". Oh I forgot, I can say no to you killing me to get my organs, an embryo can't.

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close