Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Scientists Claim Organs Grown From Stem Cells 260

Posted by timothy from the brains-would-rock dept.
Llywelyn writes: "It appears that some scientists in the United States are claiming that they have been able to grow functional organs (kidneys) from cloned cow embryotic stem cells. They have not yet released details on how exactly they did this, nor have they yet provided evidence for their claims, but admit to being only in the `proof of concept' phase in research. I guess we'll see down the road if this is legit or the increasingly common `Science by Press Release.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Claim Organs Grown From Stem Cells More

Scientists Claim Organs Grown From Stem Cells

Comments Filter:

  • Me too Me too! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:10AM (#2925452) Homepage Journal
    I've done it, and you can't see my evidence!

    Sorry, can't consider it news until we see evidence.

    For all we know, they are raving lunatics, or just getting media attention for more grant money.

    • Plenty of reasons (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There are plenty of reasons not to release information, mostly monitary, but some less 'greedy'.

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/27/2135 21 3&mode=thread

    • Re:Me too Me too! I invented Cold Fusion Too (Score:5, Funny)

      by hillct ( 230132 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:44AM (#2925675) Homepage Journal
      But I refuse to share my results or make them available in any way for peer review, because I have chosen money over credibility within the scientific community.

      Seriously, there are good reasons the established scientific publishing system esists. Results are published and processes are defined for peer review in order to confirm findings. This is a perfectly reasonable and effective process that has worked for decades. The argument that the only ay you can make money with a scientific result is a falacy. Intellectual property laws have never been stronger. Patent law has never been stronger and many prescidents have been set with regard to patenting of gene sequences. There really is no excuse for failing to disclose findings in this day and age.

      --CTH
    • You dont trust anything unless you are given exact proof of it ? That seems to be a bit naive imho.

      There are thousands of projects going on around the world dealing with new issues raised by biotechnology, and growing organs from stemcells are just one. Why do you have such a hard time believing this ? Do you really think that cell division is such a hard thing to do ? Gene manipulation.. you dont believe that either ? (oh.. wait, the crop's are already finding their way to your local food store)

      Human organs have already been grown in external hosts before, for example in pigs. (The pigs were treated with large doses of antibiotics though). This is not really such a complex task, because nature does all the tricky parts by herself. All we have to do is to give nature a push in the right direction.

      We can clone animals (and yes... humans), why shouldnt we be able to clone organs ? Stem Cells are designed to do exactly what they are claiming in this article, to reproduce any type of cell.
      But indeed, you are correct, they dont have any proof yet, or atleast, they choose not to show then to the world, since it is obviously not ready just yet.
      The implications of these findings go far beyond medicine, they will shake foundations. Producing facts right now may very well be suicide for the companies, since government, pushed by an uneducated mob, could close them down, deeming their research unethical and ban it.

      Only time will tell, but i dont think i live in a dreamworld.
      • Regarding the other replies to your argument. They were, in my opinion, non arguments and completely missing the point. They basically ignored your insights and facts about genetic cloning and organ harvesting and either called you hoodwinked or religious nut. There's Slashdot for you.

        However . . . I do take exception to your proof of the fact that we CAN clone humans. Depends what your definition of clone is. If you believe a clone is a genetic copy of an organism, then you are accurate. if you believe that a clone is a genetic copy of an organism, able to exist under the same conditions as the original, and at the same time be as *viable* (able to survive and reproduce) Then your assumation is incorrect. The *clones* that have been produced are not *successes*. Most of the clones suffer from obeisity, malformed organs and horrible defects. Dolly, the cloned sheep, her clone is her_exact_age_. What does that mean? It means that the scientists cloned her telomeres, which determine life span of cell mitosis. Telomeres start out "long" when we are young and end up "short" when we grow old. guess what? That 2yr old sheep has the telomeres of an old one. So she has as many years left as Dolly, and is growing old at an alarming rate.

        It might be suicide for a company to produce evidence that states that infact that the research produces no acceptable alternative to what we already have, inother words, they might have produced a non-event (sort of like the engine that runs on water SUUUURE, now lets harvest water as a fuel source instead of oil- -that'll solve are energy problems!) ):0

  • So... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by _typo ( 122952 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:10AM (#2925461) Homepage
    When will we be able to eat juicy steaks without having to actually kill the cow? Anytime soon? Could be the end of the entire vegetarian scene. Major cultural shock aproaching...

    Maybe...

    • Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)

      by gandalf_grey ( 93942 )
      I'e wonder about the quality of the steak. No, not because of the source, but because meat, essentially muscle and fat, is normally used and exercised... providing much of the quality and structure. Would "test tube steaks" have that same quality/texture?

      I suppose they could be grown, and then artifically "exercised" with small electric currents. Much like that crappy infomercial with the guys pecks dancing around because of the strap on "toning" device.

      • Re:So... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by hiryuu ( 125210 )
        I'e wonder about the quality of the steak. No, not because of the source, but because meat, essentially muscle and fat, is normally used and exercised.

        To that manner of thinking, wouldn't "fake steak" be more like veal in its consistency and texture?

      • "Would "test tube steaks" have that same quality/texture?"

        Did anyone else just have a flashback to Full Metal Jacket?

    • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by eAndroid ( 71215 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:25AM (#2925564) Homepage
      Wouldn't be the end of the entire vegetarian scene. To some people meat tastes bad in the same way some people don't like vegetables. There will always be some desirable health benefits to vegetarianism. Lab-grown meat may also introduce new health issues.

      However, your idea of grown meat may have major benefit to people that already eat meat. Prices would likely drop since better cuts would be just as easy to produce and more common ones. Also the health of meat could probably improve (no more artificial hormones).
      • It's actually forbiden to use artificial hormones in cattle.

        There is actually a row going on on the WTO between the US and the EC about this - the US want to export hormone fed beef to Europe, the EC says no.

        • Re:In some places ... (Score:4, Offtopic)

          by jgerman ( 106518 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:59AM (#2925773)
          Makes sense, you know because Europeans have such a healthy beef market.
          • Grab two steaks of about the same weight, one from cattle raised with hormones and the other one from cattle raised without the hormones.

            Put both of them in a frying pan.

            In a couple of minutes, your hormone raised beef will have half the size of the other one and look like old shoe sole.

            You see, raising cattle with hormones makes it retain more water in its muscles.

            From the point of view of a consumer, this means that buying hormone raised beef is buying a lot of water at the price of beef - bad value for your money.

            Personally i'm one for freedom of choice - as long as hormone-"enhanced" beef is visibly labelled as so, then let the consumers choose.

      • Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Rogerborg ( 306625 )
        • your idea of grown meat may have major benefit to people that already eat meat. Prices would likely drop since better cuts would be just as easy to produce

        OK, let's design us a machine that can turn cheap renewable resouces (e.g. grass) into a tasty haunch fattening nutrient stream!

        First you'd want to grind the grass. Let's grow us some SimTeeth. Real cows seem to do that pretty well, so we'll just grow us up a cow head. Then we'll grow a SimThroat to take it to the multiple SimStomachs (hey, cows do that real well, let's grow some cow parts again and fill them full of cow bacteria rather than using expensive chemicals), add a SimCardiovascularSystem to carry nutrients and oxygen around, and a SimBowel to excrete the waste. Let's add some SimLegs so that it can feed and exercise itself, and a simple SimBrain to provide the electrical impulses for that. Hey, wouldn't it be neat if instead of manufacturing and repairing these, they had some sort of built in capability? Let's grow up some SimReproduction and SimImmune systems.

        Then it's just 2,000 hours of surgery to put it altogther and bingo, we've built us a SimCow! It's great because while it cost us a billion bucks, it looks, acts and tastes just like the real thing, while being completely cruelty free!

        &ltsarcasm> aside, if you can come up with a cheaper, more efficient way of turning grass into SimHaunch than a real cow, let's hear it.

        • Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by GunFodder ( 208805 )
          Unfortunately cows are not particularly efficient calorie-producing machines. It takes about 100 times less water and nutrients to produce edible grains than it does to feed those grains to a cow and then eat the cow.

          If the cow is eating grass or other other plants that we cannot eat, and the land used is incapable of supporting crops then this waste is acceptable. But meat animals are being fed soybeans and corn.

          If there was a more efficient method to feed animal cells directly then it would actually be cheaper to grow the meat in a tube.

          • Re:So... (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Happy go Lucky ( 127957 )
            Unfortunately cows are not particularly efficient calorie-producing machines. It takes about 100 times less water and nutrients to produce edible grains than it does to feed those grains to a cow and then eat the cow.

            And you don't get the same nutrition from eating the rabbit food.

            1) Humans need about 20-30% of their calories from fat. It's hard to do that on a strict vegetarian diet. Otherwise they lose a dense energy source AND something necessary for proper hormonal function.

            2) Plants are a questionable source of protein for humans. Soybeans, for instance, are incomplete.

            3) There's at least one B-vitamin which are flatly not available from plant sources.

            4) Who the hell else is going to eat those soybeans? Some of us don't LIKE TVP.

          • Cows can get 100% of their nutritional requirements from grass or hay.

            Humans cannot digest grass or hay.
          • If the cow is eating grass or other other plants that we cannot eat, and the land used is incapable of supporting crops then this waste is acceptable. But meat animals are being fed soybeans and corn.

            What's the problem with that when we're producing more of that stuff than we can use? Even after feeding cattle, hogs, etc. with this stuff, we still end up growing more of it than we can use.

            Vegetables are what food eats. :-)

            • Right now the US does grow a lot more food than it needs. But the population of the world is growing faster than the total amount of arable land. We will have to take a second look at the effiency of food production.

              FYI I am not looking forward to this since I like steak as much as anyone. Test-tube meat may be a good solution to this looming issue.

      • Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 )
        what we need to do is genetically engineer cattle that will go and Off themselves for you... that way you can go to a resturant and meet the meat.

        it's more humane and tasteful that way.

        Ok, so It's a bad joke from the Hitch-hikers trilogy...I'll stop now so you all can stop throwing those rocks.
    • Some of use vegetarians don't eat meat for non-wussie
      reasons. Personally, I don't believe in eating meat that I don't kill. Why ? I feel that today's society
      consideres death-by-proxy to be fine. All part of the desensitization people have to violence.

      To me, growing meat in a vat is just sick. If you want
      to eat meat, kill something. If that idea disgusts you,
      why eat what someone else killed ?

      • I agree with you, Valen.

        The replies on this thread which bang on about having three cars or society meaning that we couldn't all live like that because it would require a planet the size of Jupiter are missing two essential points:
        a) get too far removed from homo sapiens' animal roots, and the ape-folk start dying of stress, poor diet, poor lifestyle, low self-esteem etc. Yes, folks, this means you. Patrons of modern so-called "Western society" are not dying of stress and its associated blights because their lives are so tough. They're dying of stress because nothing in their lives prepares them for fight-or-flight, and nothing in their lives permits them to exercise that instinct. Think about it. Better still, go out and kill something, and take the trouble to understand what that means. THEN think about it.
        b) fear of violence is one of the greatest destroyers of modern society.
        c) The evolutionary process is interrupted: the subtle but continuing method which refines homo sapiens is halted, at that species' own expense. This is both the benefit and the curse of modern society.

        It's not about moralising at all. This is about what, ultimately, is going to help human beings survive intact, and what, ultimately, is going to do them very great harm as a species, by gradually eroding their strengths.

        H.

      • When will we be able to eat juicy steaks without having to actually kill the cow? Anytime soon? Could be the end of the entire vegetarian scene. Major cultural shock aproaching

      Nice point. Let's follow that thinking through. Where does that leave the taboo about cannibalism, especially if it's auto-cannibalism? What's the difference between eating a vat grown Haunch-O-U and eating your own placenta [bestfed.com] for medical reasons (or just for kicks)

    • I have no problems slaughtering an animal and I don't waste meat. I grew up seeing animals being slaughtered, so the whole idea of eating a synthetic steak sounds bizzare. Vegans don't eat meat for a variety of reasons. Some even go as far as to only eat raw foods, like only veggies.

      As bhudda would say, it is balance. Doing things in extreme is the problem. People really should clean a fish and slaughter an animal once in their life. The next time they think about wasting food, they'll remember a creature died for it. What I find disturbing about the meat industry is the sanitary appearance. People should be reminded creatures die for meat every time they go shopping. In other cultures, the idea of santinized meats is considered wrong and offensive.

    • A breast bed!

      Just imagine it, so warm and wobbly, and nipples! So many nipples!
    • and i got the perfect name for said steak: soylent green! oh... wait.
      .

  • My guess (Score:4, Informative)

    by Em Emalb ( 452530 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <blameme>> on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:12AM (#2925470) Homepage Journal
    "I guess we'll see down the road if this is legit or the increasingly common `Science by Press Release."

    After consulting the magic 8 ball, I have to say the latter is probably true.

    I would guess that money got a little tight and this is a good way to get more cash for research...

    Or, could be I am tired of hearing about companies that make claims with no proof.

    • We're not helping (Score:3, Insightful)

      by devphil ( 51341 )
      After consulting the magic 8 ball, I have to say the latter is probably true.

      ...the fact that /. jumps on any nifty-sounding press release and presents it as science doesn't help.

      We need a new category, "Unconfirmed Rumors," for these sorts of news reports.

  • hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@ g m a i l . com> on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:12AM (#2925471) Homepage
    This company is the same one that claimed to have cloned human embryos, so we're already aware of their preference of press releases to peer-reviewed journals.

    • Re:hmm (Score:2, Informative)

      by dachshund ( 300733 )
      This company is the same one that claimed to have cloned human embryos, so we're already aware of their preference of press releases to peer-reviewed journals.

      Actually, they released their original results for that claim in peer-reviewed scientific journals, right about the same time as it hit the major news outlets. Few people actually bothered to look at the details.

      I wouldn't be surprised if this is true. People have been working on growing organs on scaffolds for a while now. They've been working up from simple parts like ears to more complex things. At the same time, there've been demonstrations of stem cells "beating" like heart tissue. How functional these kidneys are is what we should all be asking.

  • ...that you'll have to obtain new Windows/Office XP licenses if you clone more than one organ within some window of time.

  • I've got a bunch of those (Score:5, Funny)

    by Shotgun ( 30919 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:18AM (#2925509)
    all of my organs were grown from stem cells.

    My mom didn't even need a petri dish.

  • Spam Respawned? (Score:5, Funny)

    by suss ( 158993 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:20AM (#2925519)
    It appears that some scientists in the United States are claiming that they have been able to grow functional organs (kidneys) from cloned cow embryotic stem cells.

    Hmm i can see it now.... a can of spam that refills itself after you've eaten it...

  • Invest in me (Score:5, Funny)

    by scott1853 ( 194884 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:20AM (#2925522)
    I've found a way to transfer a googol of data in one second. I'm not ready to release a product yet, or hold public or private demos. But I can tell you that we've done some preliminary experiments involving filling a semi with CDRs and transporting the data for several feet. All we need to do is to refine the process so it doesn't require a 18 wheeler and trillions of CDRs and we'll have a revolutionary product. At out current rate we should have something by Q1 2003.

    You can become a part of this exciting development by sending $100,000,000.00 to PayPal account #235224975645.
    • Assuming the unit is bits, a trillion CD' s only hold about 10^12 * 6.0*10^9 = less than 10^21 bits. A trillion wouldn't even get you started. You'd need at least 10^79 trillion.

      Still, the PATENT should be worth something. File it and then you can collect royalties every time someone sends a diskette via UPS.

  • So I guess... (Score:5, Funny)

    by lumpenprole ( 114780 ) <lumpenproleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:21AM (#2925526) Homepage Journal

    I should start answering those emails that promise me a brand new organ? I always thought it was a sex thing.

  • Vaporwetware...or is that Wetvaporware....or is that what my son leaves in his diaper?

  • ATC (Score:5, Informative)

    by Vireo ( 190514 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:25AM (#2925561)
    The news come from ATC, the same company that pretended having cloned a human [sciam.com] in november. However, these claims were probably premature [sciam.com]. We should be skeptical about this kidney thing... publishing fist in New Scientist is not exactly standard for serious scientific results.

  • Press Release == Politics (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:25AM (#2925567) Homepage Journal
    My take on this "science by press release" is that they are doing it for political reasons. Stem cell research is controversial, and they want to campaign in favor of it by showing the public that it can have huge benefits. Imagine if everyone that had kidney trouble was able to get a transplant! Now doesn't that make you want to support stem cell research?
    • Not at all.

      Until they show something vaguely resembling "proof", the press release isn't even worth the paper it's printed on.
    • However, this is a dangerous gambit they're playing: they could potentially raise expectations to unrealistic levels, creating a potential backlash when these claims are not met.

      A NY Times article last fall talked about how a lot of key stem cell researchers in the scientific community were flooded by calls from people pleading for nonexistant stem-cell based therapies and cures. The scientists had to explain to these people that a lot of the things hyped up by the press simply didn't exist yet; the technology, let alone the infrastructure to develop these cures, simply didn't exist. At best, a lot of the claims wouldn't be realised for at least a decade, if not longer.

      Assuming for a moment that ACT's claims are valid, my guess is that they're still years of from being able to produce custom organs for individuals. Potentially, it could take them years to develop this technique.

      And in the meantime, the public will likely grow more and more annoyed as the results don't come in, fueling a potential backlash against aggressive stem-cell research. While this won't stop research all together, it may lead to a dramatic reduction in funding that could set back the field even further.
  • ... do you still think stem cell research is a bad thing?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Did you miss the part where they talk about "cloned cow embryos" (emphasis mine)?
      President Bush said he would not support further human stem cell research. I don't believe there is any such restriction on cow, pig, etc stem cells.
      So yes, I would think that President Bush would still not support stem cell research on new human stem cell lines.
  • oh yeah! It was "Hey guys we have finally achieved cold fusion.

    Like previously stated, I will believe it when I see it in the journals.
  • I can just see it now...

    "Increase your penis size with a GENETICALLY IDENTIAL yet LARGER replacement! Easy out-patient surgery! Guaranteed 100% genetically compatible!! grow-a-schong@geneticpenis.com"

    Ugh...

  • They have not yet released details on how exactly they did this, nor have they yet provided evidence for their claims

    What are the bets they're waiting to make sure the the DMCA won't jump on them for circumventing nature's genetic code?
  • Sell that extra kidney you have till it's still worth something.

  • Doesn't matter, yet, if it isn't complete. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Score0, Overrated ( 550447 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:32AM (#2925610) Homepage
    British kidney experts are sceptical about the possibility that ACT has re-created the kidney in its entirety. ... It is possible that the company had made a simpler structure that could still produce urine, he said.

    Even a incomplete organ would be better than nothing if it results in better treatment than dialysis [fda.gov] every few days.

  • a bit early (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:38AM (#2925643) Journal
    There was this earlier article about an "ultimate" stem cell being discovered [newscientist.com].

    although this announcement seems a bit early on the research curve for me right now. I suppose an organ like a kidney would be slightly easier than a section of intestine, or something like that.

  • State of Science (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chon ( 554905 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:38AM (#2925644)
    That the scientists are keeping their data and techniques close to their chest is no great surprise. I do the same thing with my research data when it is an incomplete state, because you can't risk someone with better resources stealing your idea and taking the credit. It is a sorry state of affairs, and really just an indication of how all science will eventually end up. More and more PhD students are having to sign secrecy agreements with the people that fund them. Information flows (of useful data) will end up less than they are now in the future because of this. Information Superhighway, BAH!
  • for a clone of Brittney Spears early so as to avoid the rush.

  • all that work... (Score:3, Funny)

    by new death barbie ( 240326 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:46AM (#2925691)
    just to produce urine?

    what, like there's a urine shortage?
  • This is an unfortunate new trend in the research world. Companies are releasing these press papers just as a way of attracting investors and getting public exposure.

  • Cool....I can get that Hammond B3 I've been after now!
  • I seem to recall hearing once that the kidney has certain regenerative abilities that no other organ has. I remember hearign that with only a few cell that scientist were able to grow many more kidney cells like 50 years ago. this was not a working kidney just a bunch of cells. Could someone verify this?
    • That would be the liver, not the kidney. That's why they can often take a part of a living donor's liver and transplant it, and the portion (usually one of the three lobes of the liver) grows back in the donor, and a funtional liver develops in the recipient.

      The part of their release that the cloned organ produces urine, but no other functions have been tested is important because the kidney has a whole slew of funtions besides being a filter for the blood. The kidney metabolizes toxins, much like the liver but at a lower rate, as well as hormonally regulates the heart. I'm betting that this 'cloned kidney' does little to nothing of those functions.

  • Yeah, but (Score:2, Funny)

    by wiredog ( 43288 )
    Can they grow pianos?

  • At least there's one good thing... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anixamander ( 448308 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @11:58AM (#2925764) Journal
    It is possible that the company had made a simpler structure that could still produce urine, he said.

    At least now we can reduce our dependency on foreign urine.
  • I know these are a waste of time, just be glad that they also don't release phantom press releases for each individual thought they have!

    Item: GlobalCorp Underling Dave Withelm claims that he is favoring chinese food for dinner, and announces that he may or may not release his reasoning in a future press release.
  • Even if they did't do it persay, I'm sure they did something... otherwise a claim like this is just plain stupid. I have a feeling what they probably did is take the cow stem-cells and create kidney cells out of them... not a full kidney. Of course reporting that to the media really isn't all that big of a deal considering that the whole point of stem-cells is the ability to create new cells from them (which has already been done). So they just say hey we made a kidney (which they didn't) but we're still in the testing phase so we can't show it. In actuality they made kidney cells which theoretically can be made into a new kidney. I could be wrong... but it seems likely, usually scientific claims like this turn out to be greatly exagerated. Now for some moral issues about stem cell. I suppose I just don't see what the big deal is. Think about it in the terms of life and death. The best stem cells come from feti, hence abortion. Now those babies are already dead once aborted. If those cells can be used to save the life of a living person instead of sitting in a landfill then I believe there is an obligation to save those lives. I think the whole govt problem with saying stem cells are legal is that if stem cell research from embriotic tissue is legalized then they are affectivly saying that abortion is legal which politically isn't exactly a wise thing to do. IMHO of course but... seems possible.

  • Scientific Method always wins out (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) <jhummel&johnhummel,net> on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @12:07PM (#2925811) Homepage
    Back in the day, people believed in the 4 elements of earth, air, fire, and water. Why? Well, because somebody said so.

    They believed that frogs came from mud, that life just arrived, that the sun went around the earth, and many other things.

    Then the Scientific Method came along, and it was a simple idea:

    1. Conduct an experiment with two groups, and only change 1 thing in each group.
    2. Compare the results. If the majority of the groups with the different variable are truly different, you can possibly attribute that result to your variable.
    3. Publish your results and show the world exactly what steps you took.
    4. Other people recreate your experiment. If they get the same conclusions, then your theory may be correct.
    5. If others find a different way to prove/disprove your theory, then eventually the Truth can be decided.

    In the end, that's what science and the scientific method are all about. The search for the Truth. Is it the only method? Probably not - there are many truths in the universe we can't prove under the microscope.

    But is it the best way that fallible humans can use to attain Truth? So far, yup. And as long as the real scientists don't forget that, we don't have to worry about "science by press release".

  • Hey the 21st century is coming at you (Score:4, Insightful)

    by maggard ( 5579 ) <michael@michaelmaggard.com> on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @12:32PM (#2925922) Homepage Journal
    Oh fer goodness sakes folks wake up to the realities of the modern biotech industry!

    ACT is not the friendly non-profit down the street supported by charity and gov't grants and staffed with university-affiliated researchers. The charities don't have this money and the US gov't is trying to decide if it should tolerate or squash these folks and in the meantime is such a slow & conflicted funding mess they're not worth the bother. And academia - they've either lost many of their best and brightest to these shops or are desperately trying to form "partnerships" in order to keep in the loop and when it rains gravy to catch a few drops.*

    Rather there's lots of hungry investors with deep pockets willing to invest and get these folks the best equipment and shield them from committees and reviews and university politics and such until they're ready to ship. All these folks have to do is get cracking and produce some encouraging results regularly which in ACTs case is what they are doing.

    Were their previous results controversial? Yes - possibly overstated. Is this one - possibly again. They've grown *something*, possibly successfully, possibly not. Nobody knows exactly what yet but that's not ACTs point, theirs is that they've even gotten this far. When they find out if it works then they'll announce that too but they're just announcing all of their milestones as they go along.

    So why are they doing this? PR. Not just the we-need-funds PR that so many folks are used to seeing (ACT seems fine that way) but also the Hey-the-21st-century-is-coming-at-you way so when ACT does have something to sell the market is ready to buy. Those nice comfortable theoretical debates are becoming much realer much faster then anyone imagined and it's in ACTs interest to have they and the market mature when a product is availiable.

    Finally - why aren't the procedures and details being released? Because this is leading-edge privately funded research worth billions. If the public wants access to it then it can darn well pay for it. No money for uneasy biotech and too bizarre a regulatory climate and it'll happen anyway just without public participation and without sharing.

    The Genie is out of the bottle kids. Either work with it to shape it to needs and values at its rate of growth or fail to keep up and lose all control.

    -- Michael

    * For the computer-centric folks this is the same as happened to CS departments in the 80's & 90's. All of the action moved out to industry along with the silly money. If you wanted in on the action you had to get off campus. Nobody has ethical concerns if Cisco announces a routing breakthrough unlike biotech announcing a grown organ but it's really the same business model applied to a different field.

    • * For the computer-centric folks... Nobody has ethical concerns if Cisco announces a routing breakthrough unlike biotech announcing a grown organ but it's really the same business model applied to a different field.

      Well - no it isn't. Excluding the aspect of the manufacturing and reclamation processes which admittedly need much work to be enviro-friendly, in the core business of an I.T company like Cisco there is not a single negative *biological* ramification. Companies like this ACT and even worse Monsanto are effectively playing god with the potential to destroy the entire human race and our ecosystem along with it.

      Do I think there are positive aspects to this research - damn straight. However - how immoral is it to do these kinds of scientific experiments and then lock the results and process details aways from those of us that will suffer is something does go wrong; all in the name of profit...? It may not have been a great movie, and may have been alarmist at best but - Jonny Mnemonic, anyone?

      And to top it all off, timothy's comment
      I guess we'll see down the road if this is legit or the increasingly common `Science by Press Release.'" seems a whole lotta hypocrisy. What exactly is slashdot doing by posting about this, if not given some credence to the whole "press release" thing.. If we are trying to avoid "credence by press release" we should have waited until some evidence or research or SOMETHING was presented before we even had this conversation, sheesh..
      • Companies like this ACT and even worse Monsanto are effectively playing god with the potential to destroy the entire human race and our ecosystem along with it.

        Riiiggghht - those ACT organs are gonna leap out of the dish and come for us, likely on a dark and stormy night.

        Y'know, so much of the debate becomes like yours: Silly over-generalizing by folks who can't be bothered to tell one issue from the next. I'm not a rahrah person but is an honest, realistic discussion too much to ask for?

        By the way - look out the window: That look like a "natural" environment to you? If you're in NA seem many Chestnet groves? How about tallgrass praries? Old growth trees? Thought not.

        • Y'know, so much of the debate becomes like yours: Silly over-generalizing by folks who can't be bothered to tell one issue from the next.

          Or, maybe the real problem are the asses who always call other people's concerns "silly" and "over-generalizing" while failing to address the root issue(s) spawning the concerns. The parent to this thread compares building a router to bioengineering. My response was very specific and addressed *why* some of us are uncomfortable almost to paranoia with ACT "et al".

          I'm not a rahrah person but is an honest, realistic discussion too much to ask for?

          While I'm not by profession a biologist, having a family background in agro likely makes me at least AS capable of understanding the differences between these issues as anyone. The problem is that realistic discussion is not possible without facts and truth, things that seem in very short supply thanks to profiteers and corporatist agendas.

          I'd love to have an open usefull dialogue on this, but to take these folks on their word when profit is the only incentive.. I think not.

      • Damn right we're playing god. We have to play God,
        because God is too dead or lazy to be bothered
        about human suffering.

  • I'm optimistic (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @12:50PM (#2926020) Homepage
    The article is rather pessimistic, stating that it's unlikely for the scientist to have duplicated the complex design of a kidney, and that they might've generated something that would produce urine but wouldn't be practical.

    I'm more optimistic. A kidney consists of nephrons arranged with one end attached to a capillary, able to access the blood stream, and the other to a duct eventually leading to the ureter. While it would be difficult, using current technology, to grow an exact replacement of a kidney, growing a sheet or row of nephrons would be much simpler and would still be effective.

    Assuming this announcement isn't a complete hoax, I believe we're closer to culturing kidneys than the article indicates.
  • Soon, the day will come when people will live about 300 years. Every time something breaks down in your body, they'll just push a button and grow you a new one. Cut off your arm in a bandsaw? No problem! A new one will be ready in 30 minutes. In fact, you won't even have to wait that long after something goes wrong. Every person will simply have spare parts in their garage refrigerator, kind of like keeping extra sparkplugs around. Just call the paramedics and they'll cruise on over and install your new organs on site. So, if all this becomes possible, why will you only live 300 years? Because eventually, your brain will start going haywire, and if they install a new one, it won't contain your data, so it would be like a newborn baby in a 300 year old body. Of course, they'll be working on that problem, but it'll be a while before they got it all figured out.

  • This is not new (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sam_handelman ( 519767 ) <samuel DOT handelman AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @12:59PM (#2926072) Journal
    Colleagues have already succeeded in cloning cells, causing them to differentiate into cartilege, and then, using an ear shaped scaffold, making an artificial ear [discovery.com]; but only an artificial outer ear! It is basically a plastic surgery technique, the inner ear is too complicated to be made by this method.

    coaxed the stem cells into becoming kidney cells, and then "grew" them on a kidney-shaped scaffold.

    What he is saying is that he made a kidney-shaped lump of meat out of kidney cells. This is NOT the same as a kidney, even if it squirts out "urine".

    Some of these kidney cells have a directional orientation which you cannot duplicate with a scaffold - without getting too technical, these cells are adjacent to two tubes, one tube which carries proto-urine and one tube which carries blood. The cell has to know which is which.

    Even if the cells don't know which is which, and if the tubes are there, they might still produce something that looks kinda like urine, just because they allowed the contents of the artificial proto-urine tube to become isotonic (equal in content of water and salt) with the blood. I will say - if what these kidneys made was "good" urine, the people at Advanced Cell Technology would release it's contents in a second. There is no way that anyone could steal whatever trade secrets they have based on the quality of the urine their artificial kidneys produce.

    Kudos again to the New Scientist for raising these concerns.

  • Relax, you guys.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by thermowax ( 179226 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @01:06PM (#2926099)
    According to The Washington Post coverage:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/articles/A58 26 4-2002Jan29.html

    They aren't disclosing exact methodology because they believe it will hurt their chances of journal publication- which, although it may not be the entire truth, is in fact a valid reason. Also, the Post article contains quite a bit more detail than the one from The New Scientist; it's worth checking out.

    (And dammit, Slashcode keeps putting a space in the URL, I don't know why, it shouldn't be there)

    Thermowax

  • ABOUT TIME , about 4 years too late (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CDWert ( 450988 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @01:17PM (#2926148) Homepage
    Its about goddam time, My sone , who is now 5 had a liver transplant at 9 months old. He had a disease called billiary atresia. There is no singular known cause, and no treatment except liver transplant, which does resolve the problem, as it is confined to the liver.

    We HAD a Living related donor TX for genetic matching reasons amongst others, my wife was actually genetically closer, so they whacked the left latteral lobe from her.

    He has suffered NO rejection to date (98% of ALL liver TX have rejection to some degree in the first 14 days) he didnt even have that. NOW Liver rejection is much different from kidney or heart rejection, hyper-acute rejection (all of a sudden really bad) rarley happens then only early post TX. Livers can be in rejection for months and the patient not even know. Damage will be done if it isnt caught, but Liver regection is nearly ALWAYS controllable from and anti rejection standpoint.

    NOW, wehn he was diagnosed I asked WHY in gods name wasnt there a cure, the answer very simple, from the then Head of UNOS (all organs are allocated from here) and the #2 ranked transplan surgeon in the world .....THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT FOR THE DRUG COMPAINES !, THE SAME WENT FOR ALTERNATIVE TX OPTIONS. This is horeshit.

    The DRUGS to sustain liver TX arent cheap, kidneys and hearts are multitudes worse and the only ones worth a crap are pateneted. old crap like cyclosporin is fine if every 3 years you want to have your gums cut back (it makes em grow) and dont mind having ONE HUGE eyebrow(no shit) The pharm companies arent going to like this at all, I can see them lobbying hard against this forno other reason to save their profit centers.

    Things happen , my sons chances and survival rate is exellent this far out from TX with no roblems (liver related) but if there is ever an injury he is much more succepible to liver necrosis, because he was given a liver half from a living person they could only take 1/2 the blood vessels, if he EVER has to be Re-TX I hope he could have his own genes in it and rejection would be a non issuse

  • press release vs. peer-reviewed publication (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There seems to be some confusion regarding press releases and actual scientific publication. As a scientist, I feel a slight obligation to try to clear this up a little for those that don't work in science. Press releases are made quickly and don't really require anything backing them up. Publishing in a scientific journal requires something to back up your claims, and it takes months, sometimes over a year, from the time the experiments are finished to the time anyone reads it. These people with the kidney are announcing their work to the press, but no one in the scientific community will take them seriously if they don't publish it somewhere real or somehow demonstrate their claims in a rigorous manner. There are reasons that a lab would choose to release their work to the press, such as wanting to stake their claim as the first group to get it working, maybe to hype their real results with investors, etc. But to say this is some big growing trend that's ruining science by replacing peer-reviewed publication with news releases is simple bullshit.

  • Did I miss something? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Aetrix ( 258562 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @01:55PM (#2926335) Homepage

    Last thing I heard from developmental biology/biochemistry, they hadn't yet euclidated all of the sub-steps involving thousands of hormones/enzymes/genetic control mechanisms required to turn a tissue into an organ. Sure, we can take some stem cells, hit them with some chemicals and have them start to make kidney cells or neurons or endothelial cells. Convincing these kidney cells to form an organ, however, is a HUGE leap which requires stem cells becoming vascular tissue ( +3 types of cells) and protective sheathing ( +2 types of cells) and accessory nervous/vacular connections ( +2 types of cells). Has anyone made these types of cells? Not that I know about.

    Good news is - this type of human-controlled development is possible in C. elegans, a worm. We have sequenced it's entire genome http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Projects/C_elegans/ [sanger.ac.uk] and more importantly, we know where every single cell in the adult originated from - starting with a 4-cell zygote. PubMed Abstract Link [nih.gov]

    Maybe in 20 or more years we will have this knowledge for some "higher" animal - Maybe even a vertebrate! Then we can start to understand human organ development.

  • I think the key that a lot of people are missing is that this experiment did not use embyronic stem cells. The Washington Post says:

    Scientists have not gained that kind of power over cow stem cells yet. So in the latest experiments the team grew the cloned embryos to an early fetal stage, at which point they were able to identify immature cells starting to turn into kidney cells.

    I think that most researchers would consider this highly unethical to do in humans. Anti-abortion people, even those who are cool with embryonic stems cells, would consider this murder for organ-harvesting. I'm on the fence, I'd lean towards this a being OK, but we would all be happier to do with from embryonic stem cells and not from fetal proto-kidney cells.
  • I'm wondering if such a technique could also be used in meat-production?
    If it becomes cheaper, perhaps this could be used to grow the ultimate steak in some sort of meat factory without the need of suffering of real animals. Imagine: even some vegetarians would have an excuse to eat meat again (some really like to eat some meat sometimes).

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close