Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Child Receives Trachea Grown From Own Stem Cells

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the just-add-oxygen dept.

Medicine 103

kkleiner writes "Doctors at the Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) along with colleagues at the University College London, the Royal Free Hospital, and Careggi University Hospital in Florence have successfully transplanted a trachea into a 10 year old boy using his own stem cells. A donor trachea was taken, stripped of its cells into a collagen-like scaffold, and then infused with the boy's stem cells. The trachea was surgically placed into the boy and allowed to develop in place. Because his own cells were used, there was little to no risk of rejection. This was the first time a child had received such a stem cell augmented transplant and the first time that a complete trachea had been used."

cancel ×

103 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great Ormond Street Hospital (2, Insightful)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605358)

Oh my GOSH.

take that, sexconker (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606036)

Re:take that, sexconker (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31607170)

*Actual size.

Cancer? (0)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605372)

Little risk of rejection, but what is the risk of cancer?

Re:Cancer? (0, Offtopic)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605458)

0.054

Re:Cancer? (-1, Offtopic)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605506)

Is that in Kelvin?

Re:Cancer? (-1, Offtopic)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605892)

No, a probability is a dimensionless number between 0 and 1. 0.054 = 5.4%.

Re:Cancer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605468)

Ought not to have been too much modification done to the stem cells themselves in the culturing process (eg immortalization). But then I haven't read up on the behavior and molecular-level changes manifest in fresh harvested stem cells just based on the growth media and 2d plating methods. Somebody who works with fresh harvests should respond. Starting....now!

Re:Cancer? (1, Informative)

NEDHead (1651195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605558)

Cancer risks include death, disfigurement, and bad breath

Re:Cancer? (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605728)

There's always some people who need surgery NOW and whether they get cancer in 2-5-10-20 years or not it's still a win. I'm all for medical testing and not rushing out unsafe procedures, but the reactions I see are mostly knee-jerk "it's STEM cells, omg you can't" not based on real research. In fact, they don't want the research done in the first place. Of course it's highly experimental medically, so was heart transplants. The first guy survived two weeks, but today we average 15 years. Research can prove or disprove (ok, don't get all philosophical on me) whether it helps medically, but it won't matter because most of the resistance is due to the fanatic anti-abortion crowd which equate embryonic stem cells with unborn babies. And if it's not embryonic, they'll pretend there's no difference because only blind rage will do.

Re:Cancer? (3, Informative)

ThomConspicuous (1004135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605994)

I have my son's stem cells in a bank. He's alive and healthy at 1.5 yrs old. Still, it's good to know that we have them.
They came from his cord blood. I'm pretty sure that can be considered embryonic, but I'm not a doctor or scientist. Just a happy parent.

Re:Cancer? (2, Insightful)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606806)

Was it expensive to have it saved?

/not a parent....yet

Re:Cancer? (2, Interesting)

ThomConspicuous (1004135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31607092)

It was about $2k initially w/ 12 mths interest free plans. Not super cheap but we felt it was worth it.
We used Cord Blood Registry at www.cordblood.com
It's $125/yr renewal but there are referral incentives.

Re:Cancer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31609766)

Didn't you see the Eleventh Hour episode on this? :)

Re:Cancer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606370)

WTF?

Anti-abortion activists are some of the most prominent backers of adult stem-cell research, to the point where they are being criticized for turning adult stem-cell research into a talking point.

Tell me, where are these "fanatic anti-abortion" organizations that are opposing adult stem cell research?

Re:Cancer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606900)

Tell me, where are these "fanatic anti-abortion" organizations that are opposing adult stem cell research?

Read ANY of the focus on the family rants back when the whole thing started. You'll notice that they always mention "stem cell" and never qualify it with "embryonic", because apparently them big hard words are too hard for conservatives to understand...

...or, if you'd rather be less insulted, they never qualified it because they intended to rage against all stem cell research.

Your call.

Re:Cancer? (3, Insightful)

Will47 (1068152) | more than 4 years ago | (#31607964)

Stop this BS guy... Come on, you speak of anti-abortion activists. Right, ANTI-ABORTION activists... It is not the use of stem cells they are fighting, and if you read their papers where they speak about stem cells, there is a context for it, and you know it as well... You can disagree with them as much as you want, but here, you are just distorting the truth (sure, it is an easy way to demonize and discredit them). BTW, they are sure happy with alternative paths making embryonic (and abortionist) stem cell research unneeded or useless.... It's just one of their best weapon and their best argument with indecisive people.

Re:Cancer? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31612126)

Read ANY of the focus on the family rants back when the whole thing started. You'll notice that they always mention "stem cell" and never qualify it with "embryonic"

Ok, let’s let Google settle the matter. site:focusonthefamily.com "stem cell" yielded this in the first page of results:

As we look forward to the day when abortion-on-demand is no longer tolerated by our society, it is beneficial to consider how we got here in the first place. How much do you really know about the original Roe v. Wade decision as it was handed down in 1973, or about the closely related Doe v. Bolton ruling? I doubt whether most Americans realize just how sweeping and ominous those decisions were in terms of dismantling our nation’s embrace of the sanctity of human life, or the effect that legalized abortion has had on other life issues such as euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and even violent crime.

Whoops, I guess I must have accidentally inserted that word, “embryonic”. Since they “never qualify it”. Or maybe they did. Go find out for yourself... [focusonthefamily.com]

Re:Cancer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31610060)

but it won't matter because most of the resistance is due to the fanatic anti-abortion crowd which equate embryonic stem cells with unborn babies. And if it's not embryonic, they'll pretend there's no difference because only blind rage will do.

I was under the impression that the "anti-abortion crowd" has been trying to get out the message that cord blood and other non-embryonic sources of stem cells have been yielding the most promising results so far. Now that I know that I am blinded by rage, I'll have to go back and reconsider it all.

Re:Cancer? (1)

kronosopher (1531873) | more than 4 years ago | (#31610120)

Without getting philosophical on you, the fact is that resistance to this or any kind of research is usually perpetuated by the establishment because it's classified a conflict of interest and therefore becomes the subject of undue and debilitating scrutiny, lack of funding, FUD, etc.

Anti-abortion advocates are fanatic because factions of that same establishment enact genocide and eugenics programs against mothers and their spawn, even going so far as pushing potential mothers for late-term abortions(which is known to significantly damage the body).

The IMF and World Bank aim to reduce populations by infiltrating and bankrupting the world's economies with a draconian "free market" agenda. The other nations which the banks can't outright subjugate and enslave(those with a well-armed middle class) are also victim to an Orwellian gestapo-like police-state and institutionalized brainwashing by power-hungry psychopathic free market snake oil salesmen. Government and major political groups are almost entirely co-opted by international corporations; and by leading their own opposition to failure, the corporatocracy ensures the success its profiteering agenda.

These psychopaths are often members of the elite and let me tell you they are not interested in giving you better healthcare. This is not about anti-abortion fanatics or any other polarizing false dichotomy propagandized throughout media. The establishment wants to kill you and your family. If they can't kill you, they will directly and/or economically enslave you.

On another note.. we in the US need to get out from under this "healthcare reform" NOW giving the medical industry back to the doctors before the insurance companies co-opt it and further plunge our economy into deeper depression.

Re:Cancer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31610458)

Actually, being myself part of a fanatic anti-abortion crowd which equate embryonic stem cells with unborn babies, I'm totally OK with research on non embryonic stem cells, which can never be grown into individuals. I am not a biologist, and don't remember where I read/heard about that, so feel free to confirm or infirm that.

I read TFA and it only talks about stem cells, so I don't know if they're embryonic or not in this case. But I would assume not, because it would be a given in a scientific publication to detail whether the boy had been therapeutically cloned before the procedure or not. This is nowhere mentioned.

Re:Cancer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31610730)

...the fanatic anti-abortion crowd which equate embryonic stem cells with unborn babies

Is there type of human embryo that isn't an unborn baby?

Re:Cancer? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606592)

Probably fairly low, especially compared to the risks of a lifetime of anti-rejection meds (which carry a cancer risk of their own) and having a metal stent damage his aorta again.

tags (-1, Offtopic)

phrostie (121428) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605378)

we need a AFJ tag

Can't wait for some extra neck vertebrae (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605424)

I'll never have to leave the house! If you know what I'm saying. This is slashdot, so I know that you do.

In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (3, Insightful)

magsol (1406749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605448)

Why are we not funding this???

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (-1)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605534)

Because, somewhere, someone thinks that they had to abort the boy in order to regrow him with his own stem cells, and that is wrong.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605662)

Most of the recent advances are done using stem cells from the patient's own body... this was always legal, but too many people got caught up in fighting for embryonic stem. Maybe the restrictions against using embryonic stem cells advanced medical technology by pushing researchers and doctors to use the patient's own stem cells instead.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (1)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605940)

There's also a much higher risk of rejection if stem cells from an embryo are used. If a person's own cells are used there's no risk of rejection.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606506)

So if the parent comment is true, then we are better off due to the anti-abortion crowd. You see, if it wasn't for that there might not have been as much research into adult stem cells. Because embryonic ones are "good enough". Who cares if the patient has to take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of his life, that is just more money the pharma companies get.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (0)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31607114)

So if the parent comment is true, then we are better off due to the anti-abortion crowd.

No. There is nothing to suggest that the work on adult stem cells would not have ended with the same discoveries that we are seeing now. The work on adult cells continued unabated during the embryonic stem cell debate, because the use of a patient's own stem cells will always be given a high priority as it reduces a lot of complications.

Also consider that this research took place outside the US where stem cell research wasn't so restricted. With that in mind, it would seem that the anti-abortion crowd had no affect on this medical breakthrough.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (4, Insightful)

Princeofcups (150855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606514)

Most of the recent advances are done using stem cells from the patient's own body... this was always legal, but too many people got caught up in fighting for embryonic stem. Maybe the restrictions against using embryonic stem cells advanced medical technology by pushing researchers and doctors to use the patient's own stem cells instead.

Not at all. This was a natural evolution, especially due to the rejection issues. If anything, we would have had this technology sooner as more scientists would have gotten involved earlier, and we would be much further ahead.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (2, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31607158)

Uhm ...

His original statement is most certainly fact, more scientists where forced into doing things like this with stem cells because they couldn't use the embryonic cells they would have liked to use. This isn't something debatable, its history, its what happened.

You can say it may have happened faster some other way, but you can't say that more people would have been working on it since the rules forced that didn't want to use this method to use it. No one that wanted to use this method stopped completely to make a point because they weren't allowed to use some other method, thats only something GPL fan boys and political nut jobs do.

You can go ahead and try to push your own political agenda for other forms of stem cell research, thats cool and all, but the facts and history make it pretty obvious your statement doesn't really have any connection to reality.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31611450)

This work was done in the UK. In the UK scientists can use embryonic cells. So no, it isn't "fact" that the scientists used adult cells because they weren't allowed to use alternatives.

Breakthroughs like this are happening outside the USA because stem research is more advanced, because of the lack of debate. In fact some US scientists would have left the US to work in hospitals in other countries because their work was blocked at home.

The stem cell debate in the USA, caused a brain drain that has benefited other countries.

Those are "facts", and I say them without judgement on the rights and wrongs of embryonic research.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31611758)

All of the recent advances are done using stem cells from the patient's own body

FTFY. And yes, it’s perfectly legal. Nobody protests adult stem cell therapy.

Maybe the restrictions against using embryonic stem cells advanced medical technology by pushing researchers and doctors to use the patient's own stem cells instead.

That’s a fair theory, and it shows that you’re thinking, but if you research the matter it is actually incorrect. There are enough embryonic stem cell lines for researchers and doctors to use to find cures, etc. if they were so inclined. They have, basically of their own accord, chosen to pursue adult stem cell therapies instead, because those were what yielded results, and since they are paid for producing results that is the direction that they have been inclined to go. There are severe problems with embryonic stem cells that nobody has been able to overcome, whereas adult stem cells are used in multitudes of successful treatments. If it were not for special interests pushing the embryonic stem cell research via grants, etc., and lobbying for increased federal funding and trying to make it all more acceptable in the public eye, industry would naturally gravitate toward the adult treatments that actually yield results.

I wish I could find better sources to back up some of what I’ve been saying, but I did come across these:
Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete [usnews.com]
Adult vs. Embryonic Stem Cells [nih.gov]

Unfortunately there is so much hype generated over stem cells that it is difficult to sift through it all. As I understand it, embryonic cells can be harvested from fetuses if they were aborted at an early enough stage, and the abortion industry is putting a lot of pressure on the issue because they see this as a way to monetize their grisly waste product. As a result you have many claims of “potential” for the embryonic stem cells with no actual cures ever coming of it.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (4, Informative)

Gordo_1 (256312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605646)

Everyone's stance on stem cell research should be queried by the DMV and added to your driver's license, just like organ donation. Then when you need a medical procedure that has benefited from stem cell research, you get the version of the procedure that's in line with your beliefs.

I know... but I can dream can't I?

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (4, Insightful)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31607086)

I know... but I can dream can't I?

Dream? You can't even pay attention. No one has fought against funding for research into cures using adult stem cells. No one has fought against funding for research into cures using your own stem cells. Try to pay attention.

LK

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (4, Informative)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31608398)

correction:
Nobody who understands the difference has fought against funding for research into cures using adult stem cells.

There's a massive ignorant crowd of fundies who still consider anything and everything to do with stem cells to be bad.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31609306)

Indeed, the ignorance is yet more profound than you have realized: There's a massive ignorant crowd of slashdotters who believe that there's a massive ignorant crowd of fundies who still consider anything and everything to do with stem cells to be bad. Shocking, eh?

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31610348)

There's a massive ignorant crowd of fundies who still consider anything and everything to do with stem cells to be bad.

Is this something that you can document? I thought it was a case of pro-embryonic folks trying to keep the success of adult stem cells under wraps. What is the point of using stem cells if it can't kill babies?

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31611924)

I am what most people would probably consider an “ignorant fundie”, and I speak for many more “ignorant fundies” when I say that we most certainly are aware of the difference.

It is the pro-stem cell advocates who blur the difference or ignore it completely. The anti-embryonic stem cell advocates differentiate between embryonic and adult stem cell research and treatment, whereas the people who are pro-embryonic stem cell research will often accuse us, just like you have, of opposing all stem cell research, which in fact we do not. Furthermore, any adult stem cell breakthrough is hailed as a stem-cell research breakthrough typically with no comment on the fact that it is, in fact, an adult stem cell treatment, and then followed by scores of people claiming that it (the adult stem cell breakthrough) is proof that embryonic research is viable and should be performed more.

No sir (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31611984)

correction:
Nobody who understands the difference has fought against funding for research into cures using adult stem cells.

There's a massive ignorant crowd of fundies who still consider anything and everything to do with stem cells to be bad.

That is wrong, sir. Find me someone that opposes embryonic stem cell work on religious or ethical grounds. Then ask if they're opposed to non-embryonic stem cell work. To a man, you'll find almost no one. Go to any major religious or conservative publication.... National Review, National Catholic Reporter, etc... and find me one of them... just one... that opposes non-embryonic research. Every single one of them, and major political and religious organizations... even the most conservative of churches... support non-embryonic work. And they've made this clear from the very beginning.

Re:No sir (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31617840)

That is wrong, sir. Find me someone that opposes embryonic stem cell work on religious or ethical grounds. Then ask if they're opposed to non-embryonic stem cell work. To a man, you'll find almost no one.

Ask those same people, without preamble, if they oppose stem cell work on religious or ethical grounds.

Almost none of them will qualify their answer with a distinction of embryonic vs. non-embryonic.

The people who have truly considered in the issue in light of religion or ethics likely would make that distinction -- but I believe there are far fewer of them that have really considered or researched the issue than you might suppose.

Every single one of them, and major political and religious organizations... even the most conservative of churches... support non-embryonic work. And they've made this clear from the very beginning.

Sure they have. But that's not what most people remember. What most people remember is "stem cells are bad". Four-syllable words like "embryonic" are confusing, and thus meaningless.

I don't want to sound overly condescending towards a good portion of the public... but my personal experience in a very well-educated region leads me to believe as I do about misconceptions in re: stem cells -- though I suppose it is possible that people in less educated areas have a more reasoned opinion than those in a well-educated area, I doubt it.

Never say no one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31610470)

While I agree that most that understand the difference have no objection to adult stem cell research (I happen to be one of those that opposes embryonic stem cell research, while supporting adult, and am very pleased to see that adult stem cells are proving more effective in practice), there will always be those that oppose things just because they are "new". Likewise there are those that support things just because they are "new". My only objection to this procedure is that it may not have been tested enough, but then again maybe that doesn't matter much (if he is going to die without it in one day, as long as the side effects don't include the zombie apocalypse, give it to him), if he dies of cancer in a year, that's one year of gravy.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (1)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31610008)

Can we do the same thing for evolution please?

i.e. if you don't believe in evolution, then you won't get any treatments that are based on our understanding of how human beings and/or pathogens have evolved.

Ironically, this policy would be an excellent source of natural selection.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31611942)

Why wait for “natural” selection? Why not just shoot all the people who disagree, and expedite the matter...

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (1)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31614000)

Because shooting them wouldn't be as poetic as denying them that which they deny exists?

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31614100)

The funny part is that knowledge of the evolution of pathogens hasn’t nearly as much to do with the treatments you get as you seem to think. You appear to think that one has to be an evolutionist in order to contribute anything of value to biology, medicine, etc.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605758)

Because deluded fools think Space is where it's at. Even though we've had decades to work in space, nothing's come of it. Because, well, space is EMPTY.

However, because we live in a very conservative time, and people are basically stupid, they think it's "playing God" when we grow tissue like this.

Of course, industrialized farming, suburbs, antibiotics, giving birth in hospitals and medicine in general aren't "playing God".

The other issue is that just around the corner will be life extension technology, and that's where people's built-in deathoid prejudices really come out. Even though we live longer than ever and healthier too, somehow living even longer is bad.

Weird. As soon as I can I'd grow my own replacement organs and slap those babies in there. As a matter of fact, I'd love to keep tissue samples of my present organs on ice so I can pop those babies in a reactor, in case there's something unforeseen with stem cells.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (4, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605780)

We are--- the restrictions on stem-cell funding have always been on embryonic stem cells, not on research involving stem cells derived from post-fetus-stage living humans, as is the case here.

Funding vs. Work (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31612070)

We are--- the restrictions on stem-cell funding have always been on embryonic stem cells, not on research involving stem cells derived from post-fetus-stage living humans, as is the case here.

And you also bring up something important that gets lost here. The restriction was only on federal funding of new stem cell lines. The research itself was never banned in any way, shape, or form. Nothing was stopping private organizations or states or universities from doing their own original embryonic cell work. The federal government just wasn't going to pay for it if it came from outside of existing stem cell lines already in the research pipeline.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605788)

We are. We're not funding the type research that uses of stem cells harvested from aborted embryos.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (4, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605808)

Um, you are. Or at least, you could be. The restrictions on federal funding are on embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are interesting for their pluripotency. Adult stem cells are interesting because they don't trigger rejection. Generally, nobody has any problem with adult-stem research.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (3, Insightful)

dmuir (964412) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606214)

When people say they're against "embryonic stem cell research" everyone else just hears "stem cell research" because they're too dumb to know the difference (and that's on both sides!).

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31612132)

When people say they're against "embryonic stem cell research" everyone else just hears "stem cell research" because they're too dumb to know the difference (and that's on both sides!).

I keep hearing this, and it's not true from my experience. People I talk to... normal, guy on the street neighbors, friends, and co-workers... are aware of the difference and of what the argument is. Quit assuming that everyone around you is dumb on the issue. I know this is Slashdot, where gross generalizations are a tradition, but try actually talking to people about this, and you may be surprised.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31612216)

No, it’s mostly muddied by reports of lifesaving stem cell* cures...

* adult stem cells, but they don’t mention that

which of course show how stupid the fundies are who blindly oppose “stem cell** research”, and shows how we need more funding for embryonic stem cell research.

** embryonic stem cells, which the fundies will readily tell you but their opponents don’t mention

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606102)

We are not funding cure with one's own cells because much more profit could be made with patented lines of donor cells. 70 different cures are in use now without any infant or fetus death but there is no big money in that for big medicine. You own skin cells can provide stem cells to grow new organs, new heart tissue, new bone marrow for leukaemia cure. Without big medicine owning the donor cells, only your & the local clinic benefit.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606138)

We are... this is a form of adult stem cell use, which was not excluded by the bush ban on embryonic stem cell research. this ban was also recently overturned.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (2, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606152)

1) Who is "we" in your question? This was done by:

Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) along with colleagues at the University College London, the Royal Free Hospital, and Careggi University Hospital in Florence

2) If you meant the United States, this would be government funded had it been done in that country since it deals with adult stem cells.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (0, Troll)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31607060)

We never stopped funding it. We weren't funding research based on the stem cells from dead human embryos.

I know you weren't interested in the answer, but I wanted to point out your douchebaggery.

LK

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31607082)

Why are we not funding this Who's "we". If you are a Wal-Mart shopper, you probably are funding it.

Re:In the immortal words of Peter Griffin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31607634)

Because noone really wants to give out Darth Vader insurance. It attracts the wrong kind of attention.

"Minor" correction (2, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605474)

The headline would be correct if we can synthesize the collagen molding and do away with the need for donor organ.

Re:"Minor" correction (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605536)

The headline would be correct if we can synthesize the collagen molding and do away with the need for donor organ.

I suppose so but the donor organ in this case would seem to be something in plentiful supply, Its not like a heart which you have to keep alive between the donor and recipient.

Re:"Minor" correction (1)

John Whitley (6067) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605618)

Its not like a heart which you have to keep alive between the donor and recipient.

More to the point, it's not something which needs a stringent donor match as do current transplant techniques. With the relatively vast donor pool, there's no need to develop a synthetic collagen scaffold just to be able to apply this stem cell technique broadly.

Re:"Minor" correction (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 4 years ago | (#31610620)

You know, those new 3D solids printers that have been in the /. news lately could probably be tweaked to output collagen-based scaffolds....

Re:"Minor" correction (1)

Zorque (894011) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605658)

The donor only donated the frame upon which the cells grew, they were still the child's own cells.

let me just say (4, Insightful)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605548)

holy crap.

good job, guys.

Re:let me just say (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605592)

It just leaves you speechless, doesn't it?

Re:let me just say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31605738)

http://www.instantrimshot.com/ [instantrimshot.com]

Re:let me just say (1)

CompMD (522020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31614180)

Good job indeed. Good job at writing the prequel to the new "Repo Man" movie.

Actually... it makes the movie look pretty bad (1)

vecctor (935163) | more than 4 years ago | (#31616322)

Good job indeed. Good job at writing the prequel to the new "Repo Man" movie.

Having just seen it, I made the same connection - but I came to a different conclusion. It just makes the movie look more stupid. I mean it already looked pretty poor. The story might have worked if it was made 30-40 years ago, but with medical science where it is - the thing looks pretty anachronistic.

While I was watching it, a number of things jumped out at me as silly. One of them was the cybernetic nature of all the implants - and therefore their ability to be "repo'd" at all. "Replacement organs aren't going to be mechanical" I thought to myself, and mentioned to my friend, "they are going to be biological and derived from your own cells".

This achievement pretty much bears that out. There would be no use in taking back what is essentially a "custom" organ - like this kid's trachea. It is of no use to anyone else because it uses his cells. The best you could hope for in that sort of vein (no pun intended..) would be to take it out, restrip it, and reseed it with someone else's cells. Or transplant it the traditional way (say, if it was a kidney).

But I am betting artificial scaffolds will be developed in short order (they are already working on them), and they'll be able to just fabricate organs from scratch. This will be cheaper and easier than donors anyway. People waiting for transplants are very expensive to the system - cooking one up and getting them out of the hospital fast will appeal to even the most evil CEO.

I think the future will be a bit brighter than the movie portrayed - at least in terms of artificial human organs.

Stem Cell Hucksters Spam, Email Servers Crash (2, Funny)

WidgetGuy (1233314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31605924)

...adjusting "penis enlargement" spam filter to let emails with "stem cells" in the subject or body through...

You're never too rich, too thin or too well-hung.

All you really need to know about ESC politics (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606050)

I know, this isn't a case of using embryonic stem cells but pretty much the politics of ESC work like this. Republicans will often give reasons that should make them be for it and yet are against it. Democrats on the other hand often give reasons to be against it but are for it. (But I just mostly shake my head when I hear either side talk.)

Combo Breaker (3, Interesting)

sick_em (1603731) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606488)

Wait a second, stem cells that regenerate but will probably give you cancer, and nanoparticles that eat cancer for breakfast [slashdot.org] ...if my math works out correctly regeration + cancer - cancer = regeneration (or at least non-rejectable organ transfers). Can anyone say ultra combo?

Re:Combo Breaker (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31607168)

HEADSHOT!

Wonderful (1)

guygo (894298) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606704)

More of this will come. It's wonderful.

3-D printing + Stem Cells (3, Interesting)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 4 years ago | (#31606882)

Instead of using a donor and then stripping cells to get the collogen scaffold, next they should do 3-D printing of collogen into any shape they want. "Grown" organs in the future will not be grown, they will be built layer-by-layer.

Re:3-D printing + Stem Cells (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31607474)

Finally, an end to those spams on how to make a certain appendage larger.

Re:3-D printing + Stem Cells (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31607850)

I watched a TED talk on this very subject, and the benefit of taking an existing organ and removing the cells first is that the vast circulatory network remains intact. In the lab they can literally print some organs using an inkjet printer, but getting the level of detail necessary to approximate a naturally grown circulatory network is still impossible.

Re:3-D printing + Stem Cells (1)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 4 years ago | (#31608748)

I image that to get the circulatory system into the organ, they need to have a micro-printing process, perhaps like is used for production of microelectronics. According to wikipedia, capillaries are in the range of 5-10 micrometers. I think that is probably an achievable technology. They would have to switch to a differnt "ink" (i.e. cells for a blood vessel wall) instead of the primary "ink" for the organ cells.

Re:3-D printing + Stem Cells (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 4 years ago | (#31612410)

I'm not sure if those 5-10 micrometer features remain in the scaffolding. Seems possible that the stem cells create new ones, but I'm just guessing.

This stuff is really really cool. I need to go print myself a new meniscus.

Re:3-D printing + Stem Cells (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31619692)

Forget that, I intend to print myself a new penis twice the size of my current one, so I can wow the ladies with my new massive 4 inch member...hey, what's with all the snickering?

- T

Re:3-D printing + Stem Cells (1)

tokenshi (1633557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31608734)

Then covered in caramel, dropped into a friar and served a la mode.

mmmm... trachea.

TROLL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31606898)

Common know7edge distribution make shower Don't just Fuck The Baby

Best part of this post (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31607162)

The 'gosh' tag.

Thats pretty much exactly what I thought when I read the title. I knew we'd eventually pull this type of stuff off, but still now that its starting to happen ... thats pretty freaking cool.

Website... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31607334)

They have a website regarding this procedure... http://www.throated.com/

The near future (1)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 4 years ago | (#31607352)

Ok,so now we can grow a trachea, an esophagus and bronchi. All tubular structures. Which means intestine (duodenum, jejunum, ileum and colon) could be re-grown too.

The future is looking very bright indeed. Now we just have to work on the organs like the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas etc. And I don't think those are very far off, they've pretty much figured out how to vascularize large organs.

Re:The near future (1)

osgeek (239988) | more than 4 years ago | (#31612466)

Now we just have to work on the organs like the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas etc. And I don't think those are very far off, they've pretty much figured out how to vascularize large organs.

Umm.... you might want to look at this [youtube.com]

As immensely cool as this is... (1)

strawberryutopia (1301435) | more than 4 years ago | (#31607510)

...wake me up when they do this with a larynx. I know a significant subset of the population who'd pay good money for that.

Trachea translated (1)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | more than 4 years ago | (#31607602)

Just to spare non-specialists the google: The trachea is the windpipe.
Would've been nice to include in TFS.

Re:Trachea translated (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 4 years ago | (#31607800)

I would have thought that most literate people know what a trachea is, at least if they've done high-school 1st year biology...

Re:Trachea translated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31608362)

Native english speakers, perhaps.

In other languages there are non-latin/greek names for pretty much everything visible by the eye (eg. the finer muscle structures didn't get native names), so the medical students get to learn two naming schemes: the native one and the latin/greek.

The non-medical population generally only knows the native name (here: the equivalent to windpipe) instead of the medical one (trachea)

Re:Trachea translated (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 4 years ago | (#31610516)

I had never heard the term "windpipe" used before for that. "Trachea" is a far more common word. Anyway, surely you've watched an episode of House before?

Awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31607864)

Now if only companies weren't patenting the dna and genome of people without their knowledge to later charge them preventative costs to access this care...

Oh wait... whoops. I mean.. Aweseme. Go science!

won't someone think of the children! (1)

saiha (665337) | more than 4 years ago | (#31608044)

We need more of this to convince people that it is absolutely worth it to research and use stem cells as much as we can.

Re:won't someone think of the children! (1)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31612184)

We need more of this to convince people that it is absolutely worth it to research and use stem cells as much as we can.

What kind? This wasn't from embryonic stem cells. This was from the child's own cells. So they were literally "thinking of the children" in this case.

Irony (1)

gryf (121168) | more than 4 years ago | (#31610550)

If the kid's own embryonic stem cells had been harvested for this kind of experimental work, he would never have developed a problem with his trachea. Isn't this why we need to fully fund embryonic stem cell research with everyone's tax dollars? /irony

Re:Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31612462)

If the kid's own embryonic stem cells had been harvested for this kind of experimental work, he would never have developed a problem with his trachea. Isn't this why we need to fully fund embryonic stem cell research with everyone's tax dollars? /irony

There is really any opposition from mainstream churches or the general pro-life movement to stem cell research and procedures, like those that use cord-blood as a source, that do not involve destruction or otherwise serious harm to human embryos. There only objection is to treating individual human beings at any stage of life as a harvestable resource.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>