Rudimentary Liver Grown In a Dish 129
ananyo writes "Japanese scientists have coaxed stem cells into forming a 5-millimeter-long, three-dimensional tissue that the researchers labelled a liver bud — an early stage of liver development. The bud lacks bile ducts but has blood vessels, and when transplanted into a mouse, was able to metabolize some drugs that human livers metabolize but mouse livers normally cannot. The work is 'the first report demonstrating the creation of a human functional organ with vascular networks from pluripotent stem cells,' the team claims."
How does it taste? (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps with a side of fava beans?
Re: (Score:2)
Burn in Hell! (Score:5, Funny)
Burn in hell you cursed worshipers of Satan! This is solely the work of the Devil himself. This is evil at its darkest (until I need a liver transplant, at which time I will be more than happy to accept one).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Those turbo-religious types that have issues with this research aren't just against it because of embryonic destruction. I tend to hear from them about things that aren't natural and that their Lord Almighty Savior of Mighty Omniscient Omnipotence (that they sometimes refer to as God) will choose when someone should die and this research interferes with His will."
As an evangelical, I can assure you that you aren't listening or you are listening to a distinct teeny, tiny minority. And by "teeny, tiny" I mea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And by "teeny, tiny" I mean completely insignificant.
And by insignificant you mean fucking loud.
Re:Burn in Hell! (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you link to an example of such complaints? Because Im also not seeing this.
This looks, more than anything, like a classic slashdot strawman.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you seriously asking for a citation? He is spot-freakin-on.
I can believe that the majority of Christians are more moderate in terms of medical research and simply remain silent and uninvolved on most of the contentious issues. Most people I run into that will align themselves as being Christian have quite moderate views, and most even support gay marriage. Only a few are so rabidly Christian to represent Christian fundamentalism (akin to the Taliban) with considerably less tolerance for others and str
Re: (Score:2)
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell publicly denounced the use of all modern medicine to save lives? Or is it that they have specific objections to specific technology (which is what my point was, and why the GP's position was such a strawman)?
Again, your post demands a big, fat, [citation needed].
Also, "people who identify as christian" is absolutely worthless as a category. Check some of the polling stats to see how incredibly diverse that "category" is, from protestants to mormons to unitarians to people w
Re:Burn in Hell! (Score:4, Informative)
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell publicly denounced the use of all modern medicine to save lives? Or is it that they have specific objections to specific technology (which is what my point was, and why the GP's position was such a strawman)?
Again, your post demands a big, fat, [citation needed].
The GP was not attempting to refute the statement that there were moderate Christians, and not refuting anything actually. The GP attempted to add the characterization of loud to what that poster was claiming was an "insignificant" group.
Without refutation, you cannot have a strawman. Now, I will admit it was terse and probably acerbic, but it is nonetheless accurate and insightful. It does not matter that the group of Christians is claimed to be small and not representative of the majority viewpoint if they are so "loud" that they seemingly represent a majority viewpoint in the media, and a significant representation in legislation and policy.
As for citations,
News story about Pat Robertson's organization [newser.com]
Interview by Pat Robertson of a Doctors book on bioethics in which he aligns himself with viewpoints supporting my characterization of him being against stem cell research [patrobertson.com]
Jerry Falwell obit summarizing position against stem cell research [msn.com]
Another news story that expands upon the position in the obit [newsmax.com]
I could go on... but their position on stem cell research and bioethics is well known and based only the Bible. Although, Mr. Falwell was specific about a 3-part test including ethics, morality, and the Bible. Ethics is meaningless since it is just a lump of flesh freely given and whatever considerations for right and wrong are not derived from any inherent universal truth or logic. Morals in this instance are derived from the Bible and not from any distinct philosophy or culture. So really it just a Biblical test.
Also, "people who identify as christian" is absolutely worthless as a category. Check some of the polling stats to see how incredibly diverse that "category" is, from protestants to mormons to unitarians to people who went to church once back in '94. I think one poll had 75% identifying as christian, but only some 50% identifying Christ as the son of God, and even fewer believing in a personal God. I have no doubt that you can find self-identified christians who are in favor of just about anything you could think of.
That's kind of the whole point. The GP was stating that those Christians who opposed stem cell research were just a minority. Well, just about anybody can identify as Christian and sell their morality as the so-called correct derivation of Biblical truth. Heck, even the majority of KKK members claim to be Christian and can derive their racism from Biblical truth.
It is those who do so the loudest that are at issue here.
What do you know, Im one of them, because I dont think you can be a christian and have a subjective morality; it must be based on SOMETHING. That doesnt mean I deny the use of any modern medicine.
That sounds contradictory.
Without trying to offend you, I believe that all morality derived from the Bible is more or less subjective. By that, I mean that other than some universal truths in the Bible, most of the morals derived from it seem pretty damned arbitrary to me and mostly just related to the culture at that time.
The fact you mention subjective morality indicates to me that you are a thoughtful Christian and your faith is constructed by carefully reasoned interpretations of the Bible. Much better than some idiot just parrotin
Re:Burn in Hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
As a distantly former, semi-active "turbo-religious type" (Baptist), from a major metropolitan area that's not in Alabama, I'll second his observations.
There was nothing terribly rare (and certainly not insignificant) about viewing cutting-edge medical science as a meddling denial of God's will. The talking points would probably be a bit more... flowery... and go something along the lines of them being, "desperate attempts to cheat your mortality, to foolishly tell ourselves that we're our own masters, to deny our place as God's children, and that only Jesus' sacrifice can truly save us from suffering." You'd have to talk to a professional preacher to get the exact form of wackiness... I'm a little rusty.
So in this case, if I revisited my old religious groups today I wouldn't be at-all surprised if growing new organs for transplant, however they're presently derived, is considered the fruit of an evil science pioneered in infanticide.
We need to be honest about the underlying issue here... there's no real regard for reason in an institution that depends entirely on a lack thereof. Pretending otherwise (when you're out in public, anyway) is little more than a PR strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Im a baptist in a major metropolitan area and I have not heard anything like this, that I can recall.
In fact it is common to pray that a surgeon be given skill and competence when performing a procedure on a member (or whomever we happen to be praying for).
Further, it seems kind of odd to imply that we could somehow deny God's will (in the decretive sense); I had thought evangelicals generally agreed that if God wills something, its GOING to happen. There wouldnt be much point to being a Christian if you c
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose that leads down a long (and no-doubt unresolved) theological rabbit hole about free will, God's grace, omnipotence and omniscience*, and the final criteria for judgement.
Just remember, nothing about any of it makes good, rational sense to me.
I guess they would say you must be able to actively defy God as a function of free will, even if that free will is a gift, namely by rejecting the sacrifice as your one-and-only path to salvation, and further illustrated in your consequent behavior. After all
Re: (Score:2)
there's no real regard for reason in an institution that depends entirely on a lack thereof
Wow. That is an amazingly worded statement about faith. As good as anything I have heard quoted.
Well done.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! Thanks. ...and here everyone told me I'd never contribute anything of value. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Burn in Hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
What God wants and does not want are things that can be up for discussion.
If God does in fact exist though I can most assuredly tell you that nothing can interfere with his will.
If something human can interfere with Gods will it would not be much of a God.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First. I am not debating the existence of God.
Second. Never said that God interfered with everything.
Third. Again. If there is a God. His will. When exerted can not be thwarted by man. If it could he would not be God.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Burn in Hell! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Look in the mirror regarding brick walls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think if you cared to do any research, you would find that "these people" tend to be much better informed about this sort of thing than the wider public.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. But remember that we only found out how to do this with adult cells by working with the embryonic ones, while in production adult cells may be easer resech on embryonic stem cells is still needed to improve our ability to make them reliably and with reduced cancer risk.
Re: (Score:1)
and therefore not controversial by any stretch of the imagination or in any viewpoint
Heathen. Playing God is controversial in any context!
Re:Burn in Hell! (Score:4, Insightful)
On the contrary, they show that you don't need embryonic stem cells to produce medical advances.
No one ever argued that you need embryonic stem cells to produce medical advances. What people argue is that we don't really know the properties of embryonic stem cells, and there may be medical advances we can make with those that we cannot make adult stem cells. That a medical advance has been made with adult stem cells says nothing about what we could do with embryonic stem cells.
The set of medical advances we can make with adult stem cells may be identical to the medical advances we can make with embryonic stem cells. On the other hand, they may just overlap. The only way we can know that we are not leaving major medical advances undiscovered is to do research on embryonic stem cells.
Besides, all those embryonic stem cells are just going to the incinerator. It takes one sick, evil piece of shit to prefer incineration to the advancement science.
Re: (Score:2)
No one ever argued that you need embryonic stem cells to produce medical advances. What people argue is that we don't really know the properties of embryonic stem cells, and there may be medical advances we can make with those that we cannot make adult stem cells.
Cute, but you're wrong.
What people argue is "Stem cells." The difference is ignored so that huge raging political battles can be held over it, allowing politicians to slander each other with stupidity and create non-existent problems or overstate the terrible actions of their opponents. That helps keep us fighting by giving us one more difference (democrat vs republican, works even better than highlighting racial differences and the like through diversity education and legislation) so that the poor and
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, all those embryonic stem cells are just going to the incinerator. It takes one sick, evil piece of shit to prefer incineration to the advancement science.
The problem never really was with the cells that already existed (not the main problem, anyways). The problem was that if a discovery was made with them, there would be an incentive to create embryo "farms" to produce more. It's similar to how most people have no problem performing an autopsy, but will get somewhat annoyed if you start creating dead bodies to do so, and research that required embryonic stem cells would lead to that (the argument hinging on whether you believe that human embryos are human be
Re:Burn in Hell! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem was that if a discovery was made with them, there would be an incentive to create embryo "farms" to produce more.
So, prohibit the non-incidental production of embryonic stem cells. Banning the research is nothing more than deliberate ignorance.
It's similar to how most people have no problem performing an autopsy, but will get somewhat annoyed if you start creating dead bodies to do so
Which is why we have laws prohibiting people from doing anatomy on cadavers. Oh wait, we don't.
Re: (Score:2)
It's similar to how most people have no problem performing an autopsy, but will get somewhat annoyed if you start creating dead bodies to do so
In the early days of modern medicine medical schools paid grave robbers to deliver them corpses and it was done illegally because it was against the law at the time, but they didn't go and kill people.
there would be an incentive to create embryo "farms" to produce more
How exactly would you farm embryos? Sounds like something that would be done with petri dishes. Doesn't sound all that sinister to me.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not true.
There were several notorious victorian murderers who specialized in killing prostitutes to provide corpses for universities and med schools.
Nasty business.
These days though, enough people leave their bodies to science thanks to a rise in secularism.
Re: (Score:2)
While that would certainly be expedient, I can't see that ever happening outside of an untouchable govt program.
Further complicating the issue for the bible bumbers, is that embyonic cells can be harvested without blast destruction. It is commonly used to test blast health prior to implantation in IVF.
Regulations mandating nondestructive harvest only would solve both problems neatly.
But they cling so deperately to "embryonic == murder!" That they can't see anything else, and see hobgoblins and the devil beh
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, all those embryonic stem cells are just going to the incinerator. It takes one sick, evil piece of shit to prefer incineration to the advancement science.
Just a thought experiment to demonstrate how wrongheaded that is:
If someone has instructed in their last will and testament that they wish to be cremated, do you think a scientist would be justified in stealing the body for experimentation? I mean, its destined for the incinerator anyways!
You can argue about the ways in which that differs from the current point of discussion, but the point is that "scientific advancement" is not sufficient justification in all instances.
Re: (Score:1)
Besides, all those embryonic stem cells are just going to the incinerator. It takes one sick, evil piece of shit to prefer incineration to the advancement science.
Actually, that could be a point made by Dr Mengele...
On the opposite, Levi-Strauss stated that he'd rather grant humanity to a stone rather than risking denying it to a human.
So are embryos closer to stones or to humans? I wouldn't daresay...
We can remedy that! (Score:2)
Dammit! Then we'll just have to make them controversial so that God can be on our side!
Re: (Score:2)
I know you are making a joke, but these stems cells were iPS (induced pluripotent), i.e. taken from adults, not embryos, and therefore not controversial by any stretch of the imagination or in any viewpoint I'm aware of. On the contrary, they show that you don't need embryonic stem cells to produce medical advances.
Not so quick! Can a liver bud one day grow up to be a full grown liver? Sacrificing baby livers in the name of science is offensive. One day they could grow up to be President of the United States!
Rudimentaries (Score:2)
I don't have any moral objections to them making a rudimentary liver. They can use as many stem cells from rudimentaries as they want. But if they start doing this to make a human liver though, there's going to be outrage!
Jackpot (Score:5, Funny)
Now I can start drinking again.
Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Funny)
Now I can start drinking again.
"Japanese scientists have coaxed stem cells into forming a 5-millimeter-long, three-dimensional tissue that the researchers labelled a liver bud "
Very small drinks.
Re:Jackpot (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
No, has to be Bud Light.
Re: (Score:2)
Very small drinks.
Shots it is!
Re: (Score:2)
I just informed my Japanese wife, "Wow, Japanese scientists have grown a tiny liver in a lab!"
She said, "Is it tasty?"
Re: (Score:2)
You sir, are a lucky man.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that the wurst you can do?
W.C. Fields (Score:5, Funny)
And now chronic drunks rejoice -- this bud's for you!
Re: (Score:3)
I've got the body of a Greek God.
I did too, once, but when the police came by ...
Re: (Score:2)
#1, cut out th
Oh good grief! (Score:1)
You don't get it. Everyone in recovery KNOWS everything you have suggested 1- 4! They're not stupid. You can only exercise so much - even if you're an Olympic athlete.As for everything else - been their done that.
When you have a lot shit in your head, you can't sleep. Period. You wake up at 2,3,4 AM and then you practice your Buddhist Meditations - Buddhists because they are the ONLY religion who has some inkling of an answer - and try to get some rest for the morrow. YOu can work your ass off on a con
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure the NIH wont suggest that alcohol is ever the solution to "im going through a rough time."
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't sound crazy. Here is an article on the subject [time.com] from Time Magazine. Also look for the study done at Duke University in 1999 where they compared exercise to Zoloft.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me of an over the counter anti-anxiety drug - other than alcohol. Tell me.
Anti-histamines are somewhat effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Two counterpoints:
1. Versatility. There's more than one place to put it.
2. It's not the size of the boat, nor is it the motion of the ocean; it's whether the captain stays in harbour long enough for everyone to disembark.
I think there are some obligatory SMBC comics that should be linked here.
Re: (Score:2)
Save the moose (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A moose once bit my sister.
I'll drink to that! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's the way the human race will eventually go - once we can grow replacement organs from stem cells, we can just sub them in as we age as we all start living longer and longer. I think the only sticking point will be the brain, unless we work out how to rejuvenate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the whole scarring issue. As anyone who has to have knee replacements will tell you, there is a finite amount of time your knees can get replaced not because of the knee itself, but because of the scarring of the knee tissue.
Granted, if you're only going to get one liver replacement (or spleen or kidney or whatever), then scarring isn't an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
You can reduce the scarring by inhibiting the body's healing response, but that only gets you so far. You also have problems with aseptic loosening when it comes to joint replacements, due to bone reclamation by the body.
It's certainly not all figured out, but we are going to become more and more like hardware with replaceable parts as we age.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'll drink to that! (Score:4, Informative)
We're not all the USA. All other countries have socialised healthcare where this sort of thing will be "free" (paid for by national insurance contributions at a vastly lower cost than private US medical care).
The longer your population is productive, the more it benefits your economy. Reducing retirements caused by becoming sick or infirm reduces health and welfare costs and keeps your workforce healthy.
Re:I'll drink to that! (Score:5, Informative)
We're not all the USA. All other countries have socialised healthcare where this sort of thing will be "free"
Ha-ha. You think socialist healthcare will give old farts operations costing tens of thousands of dollars for free.
One of the main reasons why the NHS (for example) is cheaper than US healthcare is that it routinely refuses treatment for old farts. If I remember correctly, something like 50% of lifetime healthcare spending for the average American happens in the last couple of months of their life, when socialist healthcare would just let them die earlier.
Errr... yes?
In my own family alone, "old farts" that I know personally have had a heart transplant, an 18-hour spinal realignment, major heart surgery, a partial liver transplant... all for "free".
Of course, it's not "free" - we pay for it with national insurance contributions. The cost is vastly, vastly lower than what is spent in the US because we have a nationalised system. While there is waste and overhead, it is nowhere near what it is in the US. It's why we spend less than half our GDP per capita compared to the USA (8% vs 16%), yet have longer life expectancy and no crippling debts brought on by healthcare costs.
If you think that the NHS "routinely refuses treatment" for old farts then I suggest you stop getting your "facts" from Fox News and talk to people who *actually live here*.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, those heroic measures at the end tend to be hyper expensive (and profitable) but are as likely to shorten life as they are to lengthen it and definitely degrade the quality of life.
So, with the profit motive gone, they skip all of that because it's in the patient's best interest. Do you REALLY want your family bankrupted so you can lay in a bed, in pain, unsure of who you are or why you're there for an extra 2 weeks?
Socialist healthcare will gladly do something USEFUL that allows you to be a contr
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, those heroic measures at the end tend to be hyper expensive (and profitable) but are as likely to shorten life as they are to lengthen it and definitely degrade the quality of life.
So, with the profit motive gone, they skip all of that because it's in the patient's best interest. Do you REALLY want your family bankrupted so you can lay in a bed, in pain, unsure of who you are or why you're there for an extra 2 weeks?
Socialist healthcare will gladly do something USEFUL that allows you to be a contributing member of society for a while longer (where contribution may or may not include actual employment).
Spoken like someone who isn't involved in healthcare.
I treat critical care patients on a more or less daily basis. I can guarantee you that it is profitable for neither the hospital nor the physician for extremely sick patients to receive multiple heroic interventions at the end of life. Yes, it is "hyper expensive", for everyone involved. And the hospital / physician will likely be reimbursed at a lesser rate or not be reimbursed at all for those measures. From a financial standpoint, the most profitable
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, somehow the 'inferior' socialized medicine manages to deal with all of those issues without going to crazy heroic measures at the end of life. The Doctors and Nurses in various socialized medical systems are constrained by ethics as well.
Certainly whenever I have had health care, the hospital wasn't the slightest but shy about billing for each little thing in microscopic detail.
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem with the US system, beyond all the hyper-waste and profiteering and the salaried employees in insurance companies whose job it is to deny legitimate care where possible is that the culture has turned away from the attitude that prevention is better than cure, precisely because it costs money to go to the doctor.
Then, instead of clearing up relatively minor issues early on, people leave it and just hope they'll get better. Sometimes they do, but often they'll end up in a worse situation and
If only they could grow common sense in a lab dish (Score:1)
Of course, there would still be the problem of getting the horse to drink...
Need bile ducts! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Need bile ducts! (Score:5, Funny)
No problem, there's enough bile on /. to share with everyone. That's not even getting into the great bile reserves on fark, reddit, or even usenet.
Onions? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Which brings up a good point: Does it count as cannibalism if you eat stem cell-grown human tissue?
Fava beans and a nice chianti (Score:1)
A gift from Earth (Score:2)
Yay! (Score:2)
An endless supply of compatible liver replacements is close!
Lindsay Lohan is saved!
Alright! (Score:2)
This and better guns is why I 3 science.
Best news I've heard all year.
Great (Score:2)
imagine the progress they've made (Score:1)
We need brains! (Score:1)