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!

3D Printing of Human Tissue To Spark Ethics Debate

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the your-liver-is-made-to-order dept.

Biotech 234

Lucas123 writes "In a report released today, Gartner predicts that the time is drawing near when 3D-bioprinted human organs will be readily available, an advance almost certain to spark a complex debate involving a variety of political, moral and financial interests. For example, some researchers are using cells from human and non-human organs to create stronger tissue, said Pete Basiliere, a Gartner research director. 'In this example, there was human amniotic fluid, canine smooth muscle cells, and bovine cells all being used. Some may feel those constructs are of concern,' he said. While regulations in the U.S. and Europe will mean human trials of 3D printed organs will likely take up to a decade, nations with less stringent standards will plow ahead with the technology. For example, last August, the Hangzhou Dianzi University in China announced it had invented the biomaterial 3D printer Regenovo, which printed a small working kidney that lasted four months. Apart from printing tissue, 3D printing may also threaten intellectual property rights. 'IP will be ignored and it will be impossible or impractical to enforce. Everything will change when you can make anything.' said John Hornick, an IP attorney."

cancel ×

234 comments

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

IP freely (5, Insightful)

game kid (805301) | about 8 months ago | (#46103745)

Apart from printing tissue, 3D printing may also threaten intellectual property rights. 'IP will be ignored and it will be impossible or impractical to enforce. Everything will change when you can make anything.' said John Hornick, an IP attorney.

No. Stop. Quit turning natural ideas into assets to be bought, sold, lobbied-for, and speculated.

Re:IP freely (4, Insightful)

Bacon Bits (926911) | about 8 months ago | (#46103981)

But I deserve to have more wealth than any ten thousand other people on this planet combined! I mean, maybe I actually invented it and maybe I just bought it from the sucker-- er, person who did. My handful of years of work should absolutely support me and my family indefinitely. Also, I shouldn't have to pay taxes because I'm so great.

Re:IP freely (4, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46104007)

But I deserve to have more wealth than any ten thousand other people on this planet combined!

10,000?

Try 3,500,000,000. [democracynow.org]

Re:IP freely (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104071)

IP lawyers just want their cut... they see a way to latch onto a copywritable item (the digital file) and say "when you print it, it's a copy". The closest corollary is finding a recipe for a cake and baking it. The baked cake is not a new copy of the recipe.

The baker followed the instructions of the recipe. The recipe is copywritable and the cake is not subject of the copyright.

If IP lawyers try to say otherwise, we have a bigger mess than the implications to 3d printing. It means that you can't follow any how-to's on the internet without paying a royalty each time you follow the steps. It means that the people who write recipe books get a cut every time you make a meal.

 

Re:IP freely (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 8 months ago | (#46104297)

Err, recipes in and of themselves are not copyrightable [copyright.gov] .

Now collections of recipes are (e.g. cookbooks), but recipes themselves do not hold a copyright.

Re:IP freely (3, Informative)

suutar (1860506) | about 8 months ago | (#46104347)

To clarify: the list of ingredients is not copyrightable. The instructions on what to do with the ingredients may be.

Re:IP freely (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 8 months ago | (#46104075)

"No. Stop. Quit turning natural ideas into assets to be bought, sold, lobbied-for, and speculated."

It's bullshit anyway. 3D printing doesn't "threaten" copyrights or patents. It may be true that people might be able to make patented gadgets for their own home use... but that's already legal. And has been, as far as I know, for 200+ years.

There is no reason to change the laws, because manufacturing patented products for profit without permission is already illegal anyway. I don't see how enforcement of THAT would be significantly more difficult than it is now.

As usual, it's the "I have a RIGHT to suck money out of you" people who are bitching about this. Too bad. They can't stop it, and they'd better not force changes in the laws. People are pissed off enough already.

Re:IP freely (4, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46104085)

"No. Stop. Quit turning natural ideas into assets to be bought, sold, lobbied-for, and speculated."

It's bullshit anyway. 3D printing doesn't "threaten" copyrights or patents. It may be true that people might be able to make patented gadgets for their own home use... but that's already legal. And has been, as far as I know, for 200+ years.

This.

I can hand-carve Mickey Mouse figurines out of soap all day every day, and so long as I don't try to sell them, Disney can't do shit about it.

Re:IP freely (1)

suutar (1860506) | about 8 months ago | (#46104573)

(probably) true, but that's because they're trademarked and/or copyrighted, not patented.

Re:IP freely (2)

mark-t (151149) | about 8 months ago | (#46104395)

but that's already legal.

Actually, it isn't... but if it's really just for your private home use, it's unlikely that the person owning the patent would ever even know that you did it, let alone try to sue you for doing so. Still technically not legal, though.

Re:IP freely (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104535)

Depends on jurisdiction. Here (Sweden) it IS legal and, moreover, up until recently actively copying intellectual works was legal as well just so long as you didn't forge anything.

Meaning, it was legal to give away a copy of a Deep Purple album but you couldn't copy a Picasso and claim it was an original.

Re:IP freely (5, Informative)

suutar (1860506) | about 8 months ago | (#46104565)

Sadly no. Making patented gadgets for your own use is an infringement (both for making and for using). You're unlikely to get caught by the patent holder, but it's still not legal. Here's [gpo.gov] the relevant section of US code.

Re:IP freely (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 8 months ago | (#46104209)

Hornick's comments make no sense in biotech. Genes and cells are patented not organs. You can print organs with a 3D printer, not genes or cells. Cells already "print" themselves, and genes can be printed easily with a PCR machine.

Companies who engineer fluorescent proteins, for example, have patents on them. They seem to turn a profit despite the fact that there's nothing like DRM on them (DNA rights management I guess?)

I suppose people could patent the scaffolds that will be printed, but as I understand it, it's just strips of plastic in the vague shape of the organ. You patented that particular scaffold? Well, my scaffold is up and down instead of side to side, so it's different. And fuck off anyway.

It's a straw man argument he's making. Possibly just to hear himself talk. Lawyers do that I guess.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46103755)

'IP will be ignored and it will be impossible or impractical to enforce. Everything will change when you can make anything.' said John Hornick, an IP attorney."

Which is why copyright and patents are BS.

Once it becomes cheap and easy for people to manufacture their own goods why the fuck would they buy expensive crap from big names.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 8 months ago | (#46103807)

To go into Tamarian and mix references:

"Mister Pink, sitting in diner, rubbing his thumb and finger together."

It will be SUCH a HORRIBLE occurrence if the IP vultures go out of business. We will all cry.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (3, Interesting)

femtobyte (710429) | about 8 months ago | (#46104059)

Once it becomes cheap and easy for people to manufacture their own goods why the fuck would they buy expensive crap from big names.

The same question could be asked today, not in some vague future "when it becomes cheap." Why do people by Coca-Cola or Pepsi-Cola cans, when the generic brand fizzy brown stuff (that performs equally well in blind tests) costs half as much? Why do people buy designer clothes labels, made in the same overseas sweatshops to the same shoddy standards as the "budget" brands? A large portion of present-day economic spending goes to wasteful expense, paying for "big names" brands whose biggest expense is paying for more ads to convince people the "big names" brands are better. If economy and quality of goods was a major concern, today's store shelves would look very different.

Re:HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 8 months ago | (#46104505)

The big names are going to fight tooth & nail to make sure it doesn't become cheap and easy.

For once looking forward to the future (3, Insightful)

Dorianny (1847922) | about 8 months ago | (#46103757)

Everything will change when you can make anything.' said John Hornick, an IP attorney." I sure do hope so!

Re:For once looking forward to the future (1)

war4peace (1628283) | about 8 months ago | (#46103839)

Agreed. While R&D certainly plays an important role, it lately churned out a clusterfuck of unnecessary IPs. The whole industry needs a good shakedown to wake to reality.

Re:For once looking forward to the future (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 8 months ago | (#46103979)

How are IP attorneys like John Hornick supposed to earn a living when you can print anything you want in the future? This will have a devastating effect on our economy, because IP lawyers are among the most productive people in our entire society. Won't someone think of the lawyers???!!

Re:For once looking forward to the future (5, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46104025)

Won't someone think of the lawyers???!!

Way ahead of ya - that's why I built a ramp for the thresher.

Re:For once looking forward to the future (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104101)

Can you share the stl file for the ramp? I think that if we crowdsource the production of ramps, we would have enough for everyone.

Re:For once looking forward to the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104057)

Won't someone think of the lawyers???!!

Not without hurling.

Re:For once looking forward to the future (1)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 8 months ago | (#46104283)

AC commented: "Not without huling [heavy things at their heads]."

(sigh) we all know what's coming. (4, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | about 8 months ago | (#46103779)

Admit it, the first thing we're all going to print is genitalia.

Re:(sigh) we all know what's coming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46103865)

Furries will want tails.
I myself would like a nice pair of breasts with huge nipples.

Re:(sigh) we all know what's coming. (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 8 months ago | (#46103951)

Of course it has already been done (maybe NSFW) [vice.com] ...
But yes, the living version....

Re:(sigh) we all know what's coming. (4, Funny)

Doug Otto (2821601) | about 8 months ago | (#46104039)

Make sure and check the "Zoom to fill page" box....

Re:(sigh) we all know what's coming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104151)

One for business, one for pleasure. Now we really can be happier than a dog with two peters and hornier than a three-balled tomcat!

ewww... just ewwwww. and ick. (2)

Thud457 (234763) | about 8 months ago | (#46104069)

nobody tell David Cronenberg about this!

Re:(sigh) we all know what's coming. (1, Interesting)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about 8 months ago | (#46104191)

Why the sigh?

Genital regeneration [wikipedia.org] may lead to the restoration of parts lost via genital mutilation. And science looks a lot more appealing than this foreskin restoration method [wikipedia.org] . NSFW.

Re:(sigh) we all know what's coming. (1)

duckintheface (710137) | about 8 months ago | (#46104263)

Mitrial valve replacements often use pig tissue. Jessie Helms had one. :) As long as it's not in a germ line cell (inheritable) it does NOT matter.

Re:(sigh) we all know what's coming. (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 8 months ago | (#46104433)

"Admit it, the first thing we're all going to print is genitalia."

And what glorious genitalia they will be. especially if the designs are crowdsourced on 4chan.

Gartner?? (0)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 8 months ago | (#46103783)

Gartner predicts that the time is drawing near when 3D-bioprinted human organs will be readily available,

Which means it's probably 300 years off if it ever happens because Garner is rarely right about anything. If they say the sky is blue you had better change because it probably just turned to red.

Re:Gartner?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46103895)

Yes, what a joke. Don't you think they would try this out in reptiles and mammals first, before trying for humans? No, we can patent something and get money without producing anything and locking out any competition. money > people

Re:Gartner?? (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 8 months ago | (#46104129)

Yeah, they lost me at "Gartner predicts...".

Ethics Smethics (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46103785)

In this example, there was human amniotic fluid, canine smooth muscle cells, and bovine cells all being used.

Werebullwolf here we come!

Re:Ethics Smethics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104473)

Is that better or worse than manpearbig?

DRM is inevitable... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46103787)

I remember reading about one DRM system where a 3D printer will not print any files it gets unless they are signed and approved by an IP consortium. I am amazed this hasn't been put out yet, or a blacklist system similar to how copiers will shut down and phone home if they think you are copying a Euro bill.

Re:DRM is inevitable... (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 8 months ago | (#46104029)

I remember reading about one DRM system where a 3D printer will not print any files it gets unless they are signed and approved by an IP consortium. I am amazed this hasn't been put out yet

Why would 3D printer manufacturers want such a thing? Their business relies on selling as many printers as possible, and this would only hurt that effort. The only way this would happen is if governments mandate it, the way they did with copiers detecting counterfeiting. However, governments are notorious for being glacially slow to respond to technological change. They're even worse about working across national boundaries, as your IP consortium idea would require. I can see them trying to do such a thing in 5-10 years, but by then the cat will be out of the bag.

Re:DRM is inevitable... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104147)

Why would 3D printer manufacturers want such a thing?

Because you only ever need to buy one 3D printer^w^w replicator.

Re:DRM is inevitable... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 8 months ago | (#46104491)

I completely agree... But take a look at media players, and computers being sold nowadays.

Re:DRM is inevitable... (1)

nausicaa (461792) | about 8 months ago | (#46104055)

As if such a system can't be modified, fooled or outright disabled.

Re:DRM is inevitable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104145)

I remember reading about one DRM system where a 3D printer will not print any files it gets unless they are signed and approved by an IP consortium. I am amazed this hasn't been put out yet, or a blacklist system similar to how copiers will shut down and phone home if they think you are copying a Euro bill.

3-d printers aren't common enough for that to be worthwhile yet.

DRM only makes sense when you want to get payed for the use of your copyrighted printable object designs. However almost all 3-d printers are used for prototyping (no interest in licensing someone else's designs) or by hackers (who would not buy a DRM enabled model, or would bypass the DRM). So in practice there's no incentive to include DRM in a 3-d printer.

Now if there were a service that let people upload their designs and charge a fee whenever they're downloaded that service would have an interest in applying DRM to their files, and printer manufactures may want to include the ability to read that DRM-ed file format. But we aren't there yet.

Re:DRM is inevitable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104477)

DRM only makes sense when you want to get payed for the use of your copyrighted printable object designs. However almost all 3-d printers are used for prototyping (no interest in licensing someone else's designs) or by hackers (who would not buy a DRM enabled model, or would bypass the DRM). So in practice there's no incentive to include DRM in a 3-d printer.

That might change in the future when 3d printers become more widespread. The copyright industry thugs will try to force companies and laws through that violate people's rights, and they'll also try to force DRM on 3d printing companies somehow.

Re:DRM is inevitable... (1)

Celtic Ferret (1336711) | about 8 months ago | (#46104615)

Check S1E6 of "Almost Human", ("Arrhythmia")
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt33... [imdb.com]
"Kennex and Dorian respond to a suspicious death at a hospital where - before having a fatal cardiac arrest - a man claimed someone was trying to kill him, and inexplicably knew his exact time of death. As the investigation unfolds, a black market for vital organs is uncovered in which bio-mechanical hearts can be resold and remotely 'shut off.'"
--CF

As usual... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46103831)

Looks like attorneys will have the most to lose - or may the most to gain - in the arena of IP and 3D printing.

IMHO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46103853)

IP? Human body should be protected from patent trolls of IP.

Re:IMHO (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 8 months ago | (#46103877)

When you can patent part of the GENOME you're already past that.

Buzzword (1, Insightful)

gr4nf (1348501) | about 8 months ago | (#46103855)

I guess 3d printing is now a generic term that can be applied to any automated fabrication process. *sigh* Another perfectly good term made useless by the mass media.

Re:Buzzword (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 8 months ago | (#46103899)

startrek.com did a story yesterday that claimed that the Star Trek replicator wasn't far off because someone used a 3D printer to make a pizza.

The point is that people don't grok what a 3D printer is yet. If a 3D printer is creating a pizza it ISN'T creating the cheese biomatter, it's simply spraying cheese.

Re:Buzzword (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 8 months ago | (#46104019)

...ok. Perhaps not the TNG replicator but the TOS food replicator for sure. A food based 3D printer is probably not far off the TOS food replicator.

Re:Buzzword (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104413)

Naive, childish uncritical gee-whiz enthusiasm.

Re:Buzzword (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104175)

That story was just ridiculous. The amount of hype and just naive, childish uncritical gee-whiz enthusiasm was just absurd.

A pastry bag filled with Velveeta (by a human) attached to a stepper motor to put "cheese" on a piece of dough (made by a human and put there) to make some sort of "thing" that fits a legal definition of pizza so the nerds can spray space cum on each other. Stupid.

Just call it what it is: performance art.

Re:Buzzword (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104047)

Exactly. Even worse is when people call perfectly good, old techniques "3D printing" to build up even more hype. Then they think that any 3D printer they buy will then have the capabilities of every single overhyped "3D printing" story out there. I can't see this lasting more than a year before the Makerbots and other clunky toys end up gathering dust in a closet.

I mean I just had a story emailed to me about "3D printing a PCB" when the story was about a heavily manual process that involved special reagents and a very expensive machine that needs a three-phase power supply.

Just like PCBs have always been made.

I just don't get it. I guess we're in a bit of a rut lately, there really isn't much progress happening anymore in the physical sciences, people want the dream of constant progress to continue. But I just don't see it.

Maybe I need new 3D printed eyes.

Re:Buzzword (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104079)

I guess 3d printing is now a generic term that can be applied to any automated fabrication process. *sigh* Another perfectly good term made useless by the mass media.

3D printing has always been a made up buzzword. Traditional methods of mass producing 3D objects are more like printing that a Makerbot.

Re:Buzzword (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | about 8 months ago | (#46104611)

So, running a head that ejects some liquid on a surface isn't what an inkjet printer does? And running a very similar head that uses a laser to make powder adhere to a surface isn't what a laser priter does?

Anyway, now that I'm writing something, this thread is stupid. People are printing tissues in lab in machines that consist exactly of a liquid ejecting head that run over the 3 dimensions of the "printing" space. Just like a Makerbot. This tech solved some of the old problems of cells not assembling in the right patterns.

Not everything... (4, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | about 8 months ago | (#46103873)

They tried 3D printing a lawyer from a combination of cockroach, dung beetle, and rat cells. The resultant being immediately filed a cease and desist order. The researchers were unable to determine if this was a success, or whether the creature had the good of the world in mind.

Bicentenntial Man - the One with Robin Williams (2)

jwillis84 (1404829) | about 8 months ago | (#46103887)

Kinda of started this conceptual debate. Whether it is mechanical or biological, there is no reason to imagine we won't reach the point where a human mind could be uploaded into a synthetic brain. At which point, who shall be offered the option of skipping out on death, or extending their lives dramatically. And then, what would a twice removed or twice updated human being life's be worth? Will we treat them with the same respect and rights as a First born? Will their knowledge be viewed as a blessing or a curse, remembering things hundreds or thousands of years ago. Some say death gives meaning to life, or retirement makes way for new and fresh ideas, makes us more ready to adapt to new situations.. holding on to the past too far could spell apathy or depression.. to the point of just sitting down and dying in the face of adversity. Sparks a lot of ideas..

New IP slogan... (1)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | about 8 months ago | (#46103889)

You wouldn't download a kidney, would you?

~Loyal

Re:New IP slogan... (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 8 months ago | (#46103925)

well, the world of "Repo: The Genetic Opera" at least won't happen.

Re:New IP slogan... (1)

bob_super (3391281) | about 8 months ago | (#46104005)

Considering the amount of data required to print DNA, it would only take a few centuries' worth of bandwidth caps...

At last... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46103903)

That 3rd arm I've always needed.

Might as well make it a 3rd and 4th, because with a 3rd I'd be griping about needing a 4th arm...

I've Said It Once, I'll Say It A Million Times (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46103915)

Some may feel those constructs are of concern

Sigh... idiots ruin everything...

IP? That's the whole point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46103919)

'IP will be ignored and it will be impossible or impractical to enforce. Everything will change when you can make anything.'
That's the fucking point!
IP should die a quick horrible death instead of holding back inovation!

Re:IP? That's the whole point. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#46104119)

'IP will be ignored and it will be impossible or impractical to enforce. Everything will change when you can make anything.'
That's the fucking point!
IP should die a quick horrible death instead of holding back inovation!

Chiba City ....

Do you all really think that much of the rest of the world cares about US / European IP? Once other countries get the base technology down (and China, in this example, certainly has already done so) the copy part comes pretty quickly.

Everything will change when you can make anything (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46103931)

Besides the overhyping (again) of this supposed all-powerful technology, the last time I was told that "Everything will change" was in the '70s and '80s when I was told about the leisure society. Here we are working even more than back then for less. I don't think I need a lawyer's guesses about sci-fi technology that will never happen to taint the debate even more.

Re:Everything will change when you can make anythi (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104227)

Besides the overhyping (again) of this supposed all-powerful technology, the last time I was told that "Everything will change" was in the '70s and '80s when I was told about the leisure society. Here we are working even more than back then for less.

I doubt it. More likely your quality of live has improved significantly and things that were luxuries before are now considered commonplace, while thinks you didn't think would exist are now available but some of them are luxury items you can't necessarily afford.

Anyone who seriously though that technology will ever create a "classless society where everyone is rich and only has to work an hour a day" is an idiot. Your wealth relative to others will always be tied to how valuable your skills are and how much of your time you dedicate to generating wealth with them. But what technology has done and will likely continue to do is improve quality of life across the board.

3D Printing is too complex. There is an easier way (3, Interesting)

scorp1us (235526) | about 8 months ago | (#46103937)

We've "discovered" this material that is called Extra Celluar Matrix, which forms the scaffolding for organs. We can remove the organ's cells, leaving just this scaffolding. Then we can take a culture of cells from your own organ and use it to populate the scaffolding, resulting in an organ. .

3D printing an organ is a much more complicated process. The only advantage is it does not require a donor XCM. But here's the cool thing about XCM, it doesn't trip the immune system, and the organ's cells are yours, so there is no rejection.

Re:3D Printing is too complex. There is an easier (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about 8 months ago | (#46103967)

For got to mention the XCM is also not species dependent. So We could use pig organs to contribute the scaffolding.

Shitty headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46103945)

I come here expecting to hear about the ethics of transhumanisim and I get empty shit from some criminal IP shark.

Ethics, schmethics. Wake me up when someone can print me an 18 inch cock. I need a second one.

Screw the IP and the copyrights (1)

pesho (843750) | about 8 months ago | (#46103953)

I want my Klingon face now!

Re:Screw the IP and the copyrights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104265)

I want my Klingon face now!

As in before, after, or during the Klingon-Augment plague?

I hope you've gotten your Levodian flu shots.

Engineered humans (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 8 months ago | (#46103959)

They're talking about mixing human and animal tissue to capitalize on specific traits. This is engineered biological components--engineered humans. Not genetically engineered, but physically engineered, like engineered wood.

You can have your arm replaced with a majorly upgraded arm? Legs that can run so fucking fast...

Re:Engineered humans (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46104113)

They're talking about mixing human and animal tissue to capitalize on specific traits. This is engineered biological components--engineered humans. Not genetically engineered, but physically engineered, like engineered wood.

You can have your arm replaced with a majorly upgraded arm? Legs that can run so fucking fast...

Have they figured out the whole wiring issue?

I have the understanding that the reason we still use prosthetic limbs rather than cybernetic or organic replacements is because hooking up the nerves is a no-go.

Re:Engineered humans (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#46104135)

Furries!

Re:Engineered humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104241)

with tails....

anything? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#46103987)

3D printing may also threaten intellectual property rights. 'IP will be ignored and it will be impossible or impractical to enforce. Everything will change when you can make anything.' said John Hornick, an IP attorney."

Until we get devices like the Star Trek replicator [wikipedia.org] , and there are materials even it can not produce, we will be restricted by the materials available to 3d printing. Try 3d printing a working CPU. It will be a very long time before we "can make anything".

Re:anything? (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46104063)

It will be a very long time before we "can make anything".

If IP attorneys like John Hornick have it their way, that 'very long time' will equal 'forever.'

Re:anything? (1)

jklovanc (1603149) | about 8 months ago | (#46104613)

I was using the "have the ability to" as the definition of "can" where you seem to be using "am allowed to by law" as the definition. For example, I "can" steal a car but I am "not allowed to by law".

just now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104033)

Research on constructing human organs from stem cells and 3D substrates has been going on for decades. It seems a little ingenuous to say that this is only now becoming an issue for bioethicists. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that people are now only paying attention to the ongoing debates.

"The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" (2)

cant_get_a_good_nick (172131) | about 8 months ago | (#46104115)

A great book [rebeccaskloot.com] that probed the lines between cells, what makes us a human, rights to your own body, and identity. I hope they all read this.

Kidneys, now bio-free! (1)

pr0t0 (216378) | about 8 months ago | (#46104133)

So this is really more of a side-topic, but I thought I'd throw it out there. I guess I've always thought we would get closer to artificial/mechanical creatures as time and technology progressed. I'm wondering if the advent of 3D printing makes it possible for printing kidneys made of alloys that aren't rejected, and polymer membranes that filter the blood. Bio matter wears out, but functional artificial kidneys may not.

Then again, a human heart lasts an astonishingly long time (2-3 billion beats) and I don't know that the artificial versions we have created at this point last longer. Perhaps it will go the other way around and rather than humans becoming more mechanized, our machines will be come more bio-mechanical? Will bio-printed organs be the stepping stone to fully artificial organs, or will it be a step toward making our technology less distinguishable from biology? Can we improve upon nature in this regard, and is it hubris to try?

Re:Kidneys, now bio-free! (1)

femtobyte (710429) | about 8 months ago | (#46104489)

Good luck buying a dialysis machine with an 80+ year service interval between repairs. Biological systems are actually rather robust, thanks to an extensive infrastructure of self-repair mechanisms. Bio matter may not be as strong as engineered materials, but it gets continuously replaced instead of fatiguing and degrading over time.

first P0st (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104149)

luck I'll find learn what mistakes of OpenBSD versus of its core development model in eternity...eRomeo From a technicHal

Morality is for people who are not dying (2)

voss (52565) | about 8 months ago | (#46104185)

If Its my family member and that printed organ can keep them alive long enough for a donated organ to be found...hell yes.

Re:Morality is for people who are not dying (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 8 months ago | (#46104223)

If Its my family member and that printed organ can keep them alive long enough for a donated organ to be found...hell yes.

Come now. It's perfectly ethical to watch millions of people die while you argue about the ethics of using new technology to save them.

Re:Morality is for people who are not dying (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 8 months ago | (#46104335)

We need to keep pounding the ideas: Ethics + delayed printed organs = continued needless millions of deaths each year.

penis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104195)

As long as this benefits my penis, I'm all ears. Fuck you gubmint.

"Everything will change" (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 8 months ago | (#46104213)

"Everything will change"

So let me get this straight... after the singularity, we will be living in a post-singularity world?

Wow.

I do declare (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 8 months ago | (#46104229)

More important than idiot ethicists standing in the way is the "more than a decade" for approval in the west. As opposed to what? Hundreds of thousands dying each year for lack of organs?

I can conceive of no reasonable disaster from plowing ahead that doesn't net saved lives over a cautious approach (which, by the way, was born of horror cases in front of the camera.)

We need horror cases like, "Here are 100,000 gravestones. They are the people who died this year because printed kidneys are delayed."

Treat all things, including feel-good stuff like the FDA, as potential misery and disease and death vectors.

Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104245)

Fuck your ethics, if a 3D printing organ can help me live just a little longer when waiting on you cheap bastards refuse to donate your organs at death, none of your idiotic laws will change my mind about getting one.
This is yet again politic trying to get in our private lives, GET OUT.

An optimistic quote. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104253)

Apart from printing tissue, 3D printing may also threaten intellectual property rights. 'IP will be ignored and it will be impossible or impractical to enforce.

And that is exactly as it should be.

In the end, I believe that mankind's desire to innovate is greater than his greed; and that this is the one and only
thing that will save humanity in the long run.

Breaking ourselves free of the of the shackles of the IP scourge is not only a moral imperative, it's a matter of long-term survival. Greed will prevent this from happening in my lifetime, but eventually our ideas and our expressions will be freed.

Could we print "anything?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104305)

What are the possibilities for 3D printing something like a microprocessor or memory module? Could anything be that precise? If we ever get something like a $500 printer that can emulate a $1B 300mm fab, someone is NOT gonna be happy.

I an see this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104307)

Your 3DLiver has received its updates. Do you want to restart now or later?

or

Your 3DLiver license has expired. If you wish to renew your license, enter your credit card number, otherwise your 3DLiver will revert to restricted mode.

More dead babies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104449)

I'm sure the printers require baby corpses like the stem cell researchers do. I'm sure the companies will be paying crack heads to punch pregnant women in their stomachs to get the loot needed to print skin. Fear science!

Drawing 'near'? Vat-grown organs will come sooner (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104519)

The liver (not even mentioning the human brain) is an incredibly complex biomachine with a vast range of functions. Even human skin is far more than just a protective coat and has many metabolic functions. It would be far simpler to leverage that existing self-replicating data-algorithm called human cells. We will learn how to clone and vat-grow human organs as replacements long before we engineer copies of organs by printing.

Now we can make: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104527)

ManBearPig.

An open letter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46104575)

Dear IP attorney John Hornick,

Fuck you!

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>