×

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!

Create Living Cells With an Inkjet Printer

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the one-printer-not-to-buy-from-the-discount-store dept.

Biotech 100

MattSparkes writes to tell us New Scientist has an article on the use of inkjet printing technology in creating biological tissue. From the article "An inkjet device that prints tiny 'bio-ink' patterns has been used to simultaneously grow two different tissues from the stem cells of adult mice. Surgeons could one day use the technology to repair various damaged tissues at the same time, the researchers say."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

100 comments

GNAA OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE (-1, Flamebait)

GNAA-OWNS-YOUR-SOUL (1038750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204378)

LINK TO ARTICLE [www.gnaa.us]

Jewish pedophiles delete GNAA article from Wikipedia
Drake - Nigeria, Weekly Gayzette

The nuts of wikipedos worldwide were ruptured with pleasure today, as the GNAA article was deleted. Due to the rampant amount of homophobic nigger-hate circulating through Wikipedo, the GNAA article was put up for yet another vote for deletion [read as very fat dick] today, its 18th nomination. However, unlike the other 17 consecutive failures, the article was deleted this time.

The articles lengthy and vastly homosexual existence was cut short today when, after being nominated for less than 24 hours, it was deleted by zionist government officials [see: wikipedia editors]. The irony in this comes in the form of the fact that it is written in a certain section of the Talmud [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_p olicy], that an article must remain up for deletion for a minimum of 5 days for discussion and debate purposes before any deletion.

The jew who commenced final delete operation was Andrew J. "Tawker" W[name deleted to protect privacy], a teenage Wikipedo residing in Shithole, Canada and attending a public college together with 16000 other unwashed Canucks.

When asked his opinion on the situation, GNAA president timecop remarked, "lol drama." Truer words have never been spoken, as much lol-inducing drama, and most likely multiple jew lynchings and anallingus seminars will come in the following days.

Want to do your part? Well then, you can either follow the Undeletion request process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Undeletion _policy.), or you can do your best to continue ruining Wikipedo, preferably the second.

Re:GNAA OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204404)

"Wikipedo"

I think I've found a candidate for the next "Word of the Year."

Sorry to interrupt your troll there, GNAADADDY.

GOOGLE IS RACIST (0, Troll)

Are you a NIGGER (850302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204482)

Anyone else getting Google ads for Kentucky Fried Chicken?

Re:GOOGLE IS RACIST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204822)

Sorry, all I'm seeing is Kentucky Fried Children.
 

Re:GOOGLE IS RACIST (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17218048)

i dont get any ads at all ps; ur nickname demonstrates stupidity.

But imagine the price of ink (5, Funny)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204394)

I'm sure i could buy a new liver from the Russian mafia for less than the Lexmark ink required to print one.

Re:But imagine the price of ink (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204656)

You'd probably get better tech support from the Mafia.

No kidding. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17212970)

That stuff costs an arm and a leg.

Works great until... (2, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204396)

You know they're going to gouge you for refills.

Re:Works great until... (5, Interesting)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204570)

...or until you find that someone else copyrighted your liver.

Re:Works great until... (1)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204614)

And if your surgeon violated the DMCA, you'll wake up in a tub of ice...

Minority Report (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#17205174)

With a pair of eyeballs acquir^W printed by a strange Japanese man? And little spidery things crawling all over the place?

What a future. I, for one, welcome our new Animated, Noise-making Cereal Box Overlords!

Overheard in an Operating Room (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204414)

PC Load Letter? What the fuck does that mean?

Re:Overheard in an Operating Room (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204856)

Shouldn't that be PC Load Liver

And I thought .... (2)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204418)

that finding printer drivers for Linux was difficult....

Where the hell do you find a printer driver for this? I'm pretty sure it won't be from the Intelligent Design Printer company LOLOL

Re:And I thought .... (3, Funny)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204554)

For Windows Vista systems, the printer relies on the new "Plug and Live" technology.

Unfortunately, the technology was released prematurely and is still in its "Plug and Die" phase of development.

Re:And I thought .... (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204846)

I'm pretty sure it won't be from the Intelligent Design Printer company LOLOL
Laughing Out Loud Out Loud?
 

Again ... (4, Insightful)

Iron Condor (964856) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204442)

If you have something to publish, publish in Nature or Science. If you have nothing to publish, publish in New Scientist...

Re:Again ... (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204714)

The last line of the article says that this appeared at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology. I don't know what kind of peer review goes into that, but it's not just science-by-press-release.

Re:Again ... (1)

silentounce (1004459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207350)

This technology isn't knew though. I heard of it a long time ago.
 
Is this [google.com] relevant enough for you? There are also several related articles.

Why is this on /. as if it's new? (3, Informative)

vsage3 (718267) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204484)

I saw a highschool-aged kid show one of these off at the Florida State Science Fair several years ago. I had heard about the concept prior as well. While it is an interesting idea, it should not be presented as brand-spanking new.

w00t! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204486)

I'm gonna make me a new girlfriend using only LaTeX and vim.

Re:w00t! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204662)

I'm gonna make me a new girlfriend using only LaTeX and vim.


Why not skip vim and the printer and stick to your current latex-only girlfriend?

Re:w00t! (1)

truckaxle (883149) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204752)

Maybe instead of "repairing various damaged tissues" you could just uhmmm... enhance various undeveloped tissues you could solve your girlfriend problem.

Re:w00t! (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204882)

you could just uhmmm... enhance various undeveloped tissues you could solve your girlfriend problem.

That would require fan-fold paper which is hard to come by it seems now.

Welcome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204488)

I, for one, welcome our new inkjet printed overlords!

BWAHAHA! Beowulf cluster (3, Funny)

vivin (671928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204528)

Now imagine if I have a Beowulf cluster of these... I could instruct them to print out THE PERFECT (NAKED) WOMAN! Bwahahaha!

People say I should go out and meet women but I think this is so much cooler!

Re:BWAHAHA! Beowulf cluster (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204586)

women are boring and too time consuming and stressing.
i have my self a coolest chick on planet which does anything for me over cam and costs less than a dinner.

Re:BWAHAHA! Beowulf cluster (2, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204592)

Heed what other people say you must. Exist the perfect woman must not.

Re:BWAHAHA! Beowulf cluster (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207064)

I hope your definition of 'perfect' includes 'dumb as a door knob', because if it doesn't, she'll instantly dump your sorry ass and print herself a 'perfect guy'.

Re:BWAHAHA! Beowulf cluster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17208418)

OMG...there has got to be much more constructive ways to use this technology than by making naked women

You guys are seriously shallow...no offense

Re:BWAHAHA! Beowulf cluster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17208598)

Shallow much? There are way more constructive ways to use this technology than using it to make naked women.

Try using this technology to make, say, prosthetic limbs. Then they'd look more like the real thing and who knows? Maybe in the future they'll develop technology to rejoin the lost limbs so they can really work again.

Or if they can create organs with this technology, why wouldn't they be able to mke a whole person, or an animal.

Use your brains guys, it doesn't take a lot of brain power to think up naked women. Be original. Come on.

Looks like someone's been hitting the egg nog... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204532)

This adds whole new dimensions to the work-day-after embarrassment of getting drunk at the office Christmas party and making photocopies of your ass.

Printshop for Organs (5, Funny)

alienuforia (1009777) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204568)

I'd really like to print out my own heart to give to my girlfriend on Valentine's Day. I think it would be bloody sweet.

Overheard at Kinkos (1)

ROMRIX (912502) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204572)

Ok, who used all the ink printing all these black market KIDNEYS?

Re:Overheard at Kinkos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17216094)

The market kidneys is going to fall with this discovey! Sell your kidneys now that you are on time!!!!

Ooo! I saw this in a movie once! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204584)

Come on! Cut to the chase! There's only one question I need answered:

Can it print me a copy of Milla Jovovich?

Let's save someone some time (5, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204628)

United States Patent Application 732980759-32754321

Protein structure for biochemical enforcement of growth factor ink expiry dates

ABSTRACT

A protein structure and associated amino acid sequence providing a set of functions for remotely enforcing expiry dates of growth factor ink.

Inventors: MillionthMonkey

Serial No.: 053243653216
Series Code: 10
Filed: December 11, 2006

Claims

1. An architecture for a system comprising: a greedy ink manufacturer, an end user, an ink expiration date, a hardware device capable of spraying growth factor protein containing inks into desired tissue growth patterns, an application program interface to support same.

2. An architecture as recited in claim 1, wherein a biochemical timer is implemented with adjustable expiry date settings that may be set at time of manufacture, via expression of a sequence of amino acids (see Attachment A) generating a protein that processes an RNA strand at a fixed rate.

3. An architecture as recited in claim 2, wherein an RNA template molecule of predetermined length is used at time of manufacture to control a timer as recited in claim 2.

4. An architecture as recited in claim 3, wherein a biochemical clock is employed to trigger denaturation of growth factor proteins as recited in claim 1.

5. An architecture as recited in claim 4, wherein the application program interface comprises: a first group of services related to discovery of an impending ink expiry event, a second group of services related to displaying numerous dialog boxes to the end user [as outlined in claim 1] asking for money, and a third group of services related to remotely extracting payment from an end user [as outlined in claim 1].

6. An application program interface as recited in claim 5, wherein the first group of services comprises: first functions that enable ink manufacturer to specify an expiry date [as recited in claim 3] and implement enforcement of the expiry date by having a biochemical timer [as recited in claim 4] trigger denaturation of growth factors used in gene expression inks.

CONCLUSION

Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described. Rather, the specific features and acts are disclosed as exemplary forms of implementing the claimed invention.

And I'm off to the patent office! Later, suckas!

Publication requirement. (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 7 years ago | (#17205356)

A patent (usually) is not just abstract and claims. Between both parts should come a sufficiently precise description about how to achieve the claims. That's the publication requirement: the patent holder only gets monopoly protection in exchange for describing his invention in such a way that any expert familiar with the state of the art can rebuild the invention using just the patent document alone.


Absence of the "body" of the patent would imply either of two things:

  • The invention is not sufficiently well described. No publication => not valid
  • It is obvious how to implement it by just reading the claims. Obvious patent => not valid

Yes, and that's also the reason why software patents should contain the full source code of a reference implementation of the claimed algorithm.


All that being said, a sufficiently corrupt patent office court would still uphold it.

Re:Publication requirement. (2, Funny)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17205402)

A patent (usually) is not just abstract and claims. Between both parts should come a sufficiently precise description about how to achieve the claims.
Oh yes. I have all this stuff in my "Appendix A".

Re:Publication requirement. (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207252)

Does that appendix use your BRM or is it just a plain old organ you stole from some prostitute in Taiwan?

Re:Publication requirement. (1)

OfficeSubmarine (1031930) | more than 7 years ago | (#17206084)

All that being said, a sufficiently corrupt patent office court would still uphold it.

The most important part of your post, sadly. While somewhat open to interpretation, personally, I'd put the US system right into that category. Or at least based on what I've seen large cooperations get away with.

Title is wrong... (5, Informative)

dtjohnson (102237) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204642)

They're not creating cells. They are 'claiming' to have allegedly created tissues by using the inkjet to spray non-differentiated stem cells on to a substrate. Doesn't sound like they're close to selling skin tissue to burn victims yet, though.

Re:Title is wrong... (1)

Malcolm Chan (15673) | more than 7 years ago | (#17220204)

Absolutely! There is quite a difference between using cells as the "ink", and assembling a cell. We're not even close to being able to do that.

Prices (0, Redundant)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204650)

Yeah, but with the prices of ink jet cartridges, who could afford it!!!

Re:Prices (1)

zaaj (678276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207030)

Actually, at the company where I work [dimatix.com], we sell a development printer and the cartridges come in two parts, the printhead, and an empty fluid container. Researchers or industrial R&D people can fill it with whatever fluid they want to experiment with. These cartridges are comparable in price to commercial inkjet cartridges. Granted, the ones we sell don't have ink in them, but when you consider that some biomedical research chemicals are well over $2,000/liter, and the printer system is in the low 5-digit price range, the cartridges are not that expensive a component of the whole setup.

And no, the custom software required to run all this doesn't run on Linux.

Disclaimer: I just work in IT, and the info above is not official, just what I've picked up by helping others at the company with their computers, and being generally interested in what they do.

so what if the toner is low? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204700)

does the poor critter come out like that badly beamed crew member in the first star trek movie?

Re:so what if the toner is low? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17204990)

does the poor critter come out like that badly beamed crew member in the first star trek movie?


I think it's more likely to come out looking like the tribble that's been exploring Uranus.

Paper jam... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204800)


Tech: When did you noticed the paper jam?

Customer: Last week.

Tech: That's too bad. Your printer died over the weekend. You need to call an undertaker since your warrantry doesn't cover disposal of the body.

Progress (3, Interesting)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204888)

Humanity will inevitably learn new technologies to cheaply and exactly replicate patterns of matter, much as we currently are able to flawlessly and freely share patterns of information. The profound economic effects modern computing has wrought on society are about to be repeated in another echo of the Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions.

First we somehow learned how to share information, person-to-person, with language. Ten thousand years ago we used that to develop agriculture; we learned how to replicate plants. Then we automated that with the help of domesticated farm animals and handmade tools. We systematized all of this, and then figured out how to globally replicate and distribute the instructions for making the tools themselves. Another cycle gets us where we are today, where we can use all of the available knowledge and tools to design the *next* generation of whatever it is we're trying to do with ourselves.

So where are we going with all this, besides "burning" a batch of Viagra, Ciprofloxacin, LSD, or flu vaccine on your desktop? Maybe we need to keep an open source perspective, so you can at least cook up some aspirin as *FREELY* as you can play an .ogg. You might have to listen to Beethoven while you wait, because Britney, Beck, and Björk are still locked down (although your grandfather might have left you an illicit DVD with the Beatles discography as ancient MP3s).

Re:Progress (3, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#17205176)

"Humanity will inevitably learn new technologies to cheaply and exactly replicate patterns of matter, much as we currently are able to flawlessly and freely share patterns of information." [My emphasis]

As someone who has spent the last two decades developing and supporting large software systems may I just say, we are doomed.

BTW: I do share your sentiments about the importance of the current digital era: "For millions of years mankind lived just like the animals, then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk." - Steven Hawking's introduction to Pink Floyd's "Keep Talking".

The *real* reason for DRM (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 7 years ago | (#17205756)

The more paranoid amongst us would speculate that this sort of capability is one of the reasons that companies are scrabbling around so much trying to perfect Treacherous Computing and DRM.

You can bet your butt that as soon as the first device capable of manufacturing all of the parts involved in its own construction from simple raw materials is produced, a "matterware hacker" is going to feel the urge to make an open-source variant. From there on it's an inevitable progression to the complete breakdown of the consumer society - why purchase products from a big company when you can download the specs and print your own? Make your own energy collectors and raw material processors and your only constraints would be time and knowledge. And the beauty of knowledge is that when people get together and hand it around for free, everyone becomes richer without impoverishing themselves.

This idea of course, terrifies those who are hooked on the hierarchical structure of power and control that looms over our world today, either because they fear destructive chaos or because they are addicted to the power. But if these technologies are pursued to their logical limits, the only possible end states are universal wealth, universal control, or global extinction. Mankind has proven time and again that if you can conceive of a technology, and it is possible, then it will be achieved. If freedom is to prevail, then the hackers are going to have to be the ones to save us all.

Ok, maybe DRM is explicable in terms of present content-industry greed. But DRM on "matterware" is a logical extension, and the stakes are far higher than whether you get to listen to the latest RIAA sponsored aural insult or watch the steam rise from the latest Hollywood heap.

SPAAAACE MEEEEAT !!!! (2, Interesting)

David Gould (4938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204940)


All this talk of organs and body parts... Screw that, I'm hungry -- can they use it to grow muscle tissue? Mmm, printed meat.

Once the technology gets established enough to be cheap, it sounds like it might actually become more energy-efficient than raising livestock. And it should be ethically acceptable for vegetarians -- wouldn't some of them at least, who aren't too spooked by the "sciencey-ness" of the whole thing, agree that since the meat didn't come from an animal, it's okay to eat?

Re:SPAAAACE MEEEEAT !!!! (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#17211088)

And it should be ethically acceptable for vegetarians -- wouldn't some of them at least, who aren't too spooked by the "sciencey-ness" of the whole thing, agree that since the meat didn't come from an animal, it's okay to eat?

Not as many as you might think.

It's not as if we're all sitting around looking for a loop-hole so we can go out and eat some "pre-embargo" meat or anything like that. Doing an end run around the ethics thing is gonna run you smack-dab into the gross factor for many of us.

If someone had some tank-grown, protein slurry which was very chemically similar to animal flesh, I'm not gonna be the first one in line to give it a taste -- and circumstances would need to be pretty dire to make me come around. I don't care if you didn't technically have to kill an actual critter, it's a foodstuff which is a chemistry experiment, and smacks of Soylent Green to me.

For the same reason that a lot of vegetarians don't want anything to do with GMOs (scary food supply issues with absolutely no broad understanding of what it's doing) -- the 'inkjet steak' idea wants to make me vomit. Not happening.

I'll stick with my actual vegetarian diet consisting of plant matter, and understanding what nutrients are actually in food -- not to mention the actual cooking of it. The whole Ronco Spray On Meat? I'll take a pass on.

For a lot of us, we believe that there are ethical issues surrounding meat, as well as recognizing that meat isn't always the healthiest thing to eat (and being afraid of the safety/security of our food supply). I can just imagine what nasty diseases are waiting to infect your non-animal meat-goo and the people eating it -- if Mad Cow happens when we feed sheep to cows, I don't even want to fscking know what nasties are going to be waiting to develop on tank-grown meat. Some big nasty bit of athelete's foot and yeast infection spreading through the protein slurry vats doesn't conjure up an appatizing image for me.

We're not afraid of science -- we're just not enthused to eat the byproducts of it, since we have no idea of what the long-term issues could possibly be. I personally, would rather eat things which are at least naturally occuring.

But, hey, when Mickey D's start selling McProtein Patties made from "100% Cellularly-Identical To Beef", you go right ahead and chow down on that sucker. I won't interfere with your right to eat it. ;-)

Cheers

Re:SPAAAACE MEEEEAT !!!! (1)

Kafka_Canada (106443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17212816)

Most vegetables were not edible by man in their natural state; it took thousands of years of genetic engineering to get to their current "natural" state.

Basically you just object to science that you find "icky," which is quite retarded. You describe "some big nasty bit of athlete's foot and yeast infection spreading through the protein slurry vats" when it would be a perfectly safe sterile process, compared to the massive petri dish in which vegetables are grown, earth (or the smaller petri dishes in which natural meat is grown, animals). You write about "Soylent Green," "Ronco Spray On Meat," "meat-goo," etc., but there's no reason why synthetic meat wouldn't look, feel and taste exactly like the real thing, only cleaner.

Your "natural" foods are the product of science, the only difference is that you've trained your brain to find negatives about the things that ideologically bother you, so your brain concocted a "grossness" for something that's far less gross, dangerous, etc., than things that are aligned with your beliefs.

And if that's wrong and you just plain don't like science, well that's even more retarded. Science provided you with vegetables and health and safety and so on. Nature has mostly inedible plants, animals that eat you, rape, murder, death. But I suspect it has more to do with your brain's self-delusion re finding "bad" science icky.

Re:SPAAAACE MEEEEAT !!!! (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#17213670)

Most vegetables were not edible by man in their natural state; it took thousands of years of genetic engineering to get to their current "natural" state.

No, the vegetables were selectively bred, that much is true. But, with selective breeding, you can only choose for pre-existing traits.

Splicing in genes from a spider to a goat to produce silk, that is genetic engineering. Very large difference.

Basically you just object to science that you find "icky," which is quite retarded. You describe "some big nasty bit of athlete's foot and yeast infection spreading through the protein slurry vats" when it would be a perfectly safe sterile process, compared to the massive petri dish in which vegetables are grown, earth (or the smaller petri dishes in which natural meat is grown, animals).

Not really. What actual experience do we have in growing such things? Plants growing in the soil, OK, well understood mechanism. We didn't need to invent it, we just fiddled with it and refined it. And, I defy you to identify a perfectly safe, sterile process that does what we're talking about.

We've never done such a thing, and we don't have any studies on it. How will we know it's perfectly safe until we've been doing it for a very long time? We can't. For the same reason that we discovered that Thalidamyde and DDT had some nasty consequences, we have no idea of how safe this is going to be.

Blindly believing we'll have magic science which comes in the first generation which solves the problems with this is retarded -- because it assumes it will just work, and there will be no side-effects. That, and no matter how good your safeguards are, something has a very good chance of going wrong -- as in the fungal infection, or a possible unplanned mutation of the food stuff, or discovering that we've managed to make something which is highly toxic.

Your "natural" foods are the product of science, the only difference is that you've trained your brain to find negatives about the things that ideologically bother you, so your brain concocted a "grossness" for something that's far less gross, dangerous, etc., than things that are aligned with your beliefs.

Natural, organic foods have more about practices than science in them -- or at least, some of the early science we figured out about how to grow plants. Ideally, they're not using chemicals, they're not based on Mon-freaking-Santo's crap which is supposed to make it resistant to pesticides, and they sure as hell don't have genes from whole different families or lifeform.

I can wrap my brain around selectively breeding tomatoes to be suited for a climate, or juicier, or taller, or whatever. Because those are traits which are already present in the species. Heck, the resurgance in the heirloom varieties of plants (you know, when a Mennonite Farmer could be doing "cutting edge science" by breeding them) demonstrates that a lot of people are looking for plants in the form they used to take before we bred them into something which stays fresher on the store shelf but has no taste left in it.

The 'space meat' in the post I was responding to has not been proven to be anything -- specifically, not safe, or not anything but gross, or even possible. It's a hypothetical which people seem to think will come into existence without issues, problems, or delay. It also pre-supposes that -- rather than trying to come up with better agricultural practices, and maybe weening ourselves off domesticated animals as a food-source -- skipping to growing meat in a lab in your perfectly sterile environment is going to be more effective, and a more efficient use of resources.

I seriously doubt it is more efficient to run machines than, oh, you know, photosynthesis.

And if that's wrong and you just plain don't like science, well that's even more retarded. Science provided you with vegetables and health and safety and so on. Nature has mostly inedible plants, animals that eat you, rape, murder, death. But I suspect it has more to do with your brain's self-delusion re finding "bad" science icky.

Well, that's now twice you've tried to bolster a weak argument by either calling me retarted, or delusional. And, this is why the quality of discourse on Slashdot has been going down hill.

You've yet to convince me that all foodstuffs would have competely failed to exist without the direct intervention of science other than selective breeding. I accept that is covered under science, but, it doesn't achieve anything which the right two plants couldn't achieve on their own. Sure, with a little bit of careful work, we can probably speciate most popular foods. But we can only do it within the context of what those plants were already capable of expressing.

Sure, Nature/life has a lot of downsides to it. And, I'm not proposing we all give up science, wear furs, and live in caves. I'm not saying I'd be in a big hurry to eat tank grown meat -- which was specifcally the OP's query, which I attempted to respond to.

I, however, view the idea of the aforementioned 'space meat' of some kind of vat-grown meat thing (which would somehow be OK for vegetarians to eat) as bad science -- not because it can't be done, but because some idiot it going to try it long before we have any of the other science we don't yet know we need to make it all safe. I think it would be literally decades before a lab-grown protein (wether it looked just like a steak or not) would become widely accepted, or proven as safe.

And, I can say that without being delusional in any way shape or form. I believe that the whole concept falls firmly into the science fiction category of things, and rejecting it has nothing to do with rejecting science. I like and accept science perfectly fine. Heck, it's science that tells me the way we process meat scares the living crap outta me (think mad cow). It's science that tells me that commercial meat farming is to blame for Spinach having E. Coli on it -- because since we have such massive amount of animal waste washing about, plants which would otherwise not come into contact with intestinal bacteria now do, and on a large enough scale to be a health hazard.

You can feel free to disagree with me, but try to do it politely, and accept the fact that because I disagree with you doesn't make me either retarted or delusional.

Cheers

Re:SPAAAACE MEEEEAT !!!! (1)

HeadlessNotAHorseman (823040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17219224)

I am also a vegetarian, and all I can say is that once it has been tested and proven safe, I would have no ethical objection to eating Squirted Meat. However, since becoming vegetarian, the thought of eating meat (even ethically acquired meat, such as that of an animal that died of natural causes) has become distasteful to me, so I would not eat the meat unless necessary.

It should be noted though that if in a situation where other food was unavailable, I would have no hesitation to eat ethically acquired meat, whether it be from a laser printer, a cow or a human. In fact, if the infrastructure is in place then I would like to donate my body to be eaten by starving people when I die. See the following link for a very interesting and insightful discussion of the benefits of ethical cannibalism: http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/web/can/cannibalism. html [uq.edu.au]

Fifth Element comes early! (1)

radiogeak (642228) | more than 7 years ago | (#17204944)

Looks like we don't have to wait for the year 1314 to print human tissue! Woot!

Re:Fifth Element comes early! (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 7 years ago | (#17205188)

1314? - Only on slashdot would I ask: What calenar system are you using?

Re:Fifth Element comes early! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17205524)

And what dictionary are you using?

Living cells? (5, Informative)

brit74 (831798) | more than 7 years ago | (#17205076)

The system isn't actually creating living cells. It's laying existing cells down into a pattern to form tissues. The title, "Create Living Cells With an Inkjet Printer" seems to imply that it's putting together molecules to form cells. (Is it "printing" the nucleotide sequences of DNA and RNA, "printing" mitochondria, "printing" amino acid sequences so that they form working 3-dimensional proteins, placing sugars and hormones inside those cells? Is it laying down a thin cell-wall with species-specific proteins embedded in that wall?) The answer is no, it's not doing any of that. We aren't capable of doing that, and even if we were, it would require a massive database of information that's much larger than the data stored in the human genome.

Re:Living cells? (1)

GeHa (144811) | more than 7 years ago | (#17212996)

Nope. You're right in saying that the title is wrong - no building cells from scratch here - but the article describes printing growth factor (differentiation factor proteins, in fact) on monolayers of stem cells. The idea here is to force the cells to differentiate into different cell types within the same culture dish, which would be required for building complex tissues from stem cells.

More misleading headlines... (1)

DrKC9N (895806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17205510)

Yet another erroneous Slashdot headline. These living cells are not "created," they are grown from existing stem cells. It's not like you put a nonliving substrate "in" the printer and get a spleen "out." The printer simply guides the cells' differentiation patterns.

On Lexmark Printers (1)

revlic (1037112) | more than 7 years ago | (#17205526)

Cost of a standard no frills lexmark printer: $19.99 Cost of a new inject cartridge: $29.99 1. Give away free razors 2. Charge, FAR OUT THE ASS for the razors. 3. ??? 4. Profit

Now I can create the Perfect Being. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17205774)

Cool! So I'll soon be able to create the Perfect Being -- the redhead from The Fifth Element (Milla Jovovich).

Re:Now I can create the Perfect Being. (1)

Tatarize (682683) | more than 7 years ago | (#17216054)

Yes, the "perfect being" is a woman who looks like Raggity Andy.

Print me out a Lucy Lu bot instead.

This is news ? (1)

davro (539320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17205996)

Sounds very similar and very old

Thursday, December 02, 2004 05:00 PM http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,118815-page,1/ar ticle.html [pcworld.com]
01 February, 2005 7:00 a.m http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_skin_ printing.html [livescience.com]
Wednesday, 19th January 2005 http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/143/ 143230_tailormade_skin_from_ink_printer.html [manchester...news.co.uk]

Come on get with it, i have already built my clone army using disposable printers thought it was common knowledge.

More Nu Scientist Crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17206000)

Yawn... these Nu "Scientist" fairy tales and bedtime stories make me sleepy. Wake me up when you have some real science and technology stories.

I can just picture the office assistant now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17206226)

'It looks like you're trying to assemble a merciless army of clones. Do you want to switch to merciless clone template design mode?'

TITLE: Misleading (2)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#17206338)

it doesn't actually create living cells as implied. It looks more like it makes a growth template for stem cells to use, as well as possibly planting them.

Still useful mind you. But creating functional cells de-novo? No. That would be extremely nice, and probably the most nobel-worthy discovery in biology since Watson & Crick's nice little discovery (even if it didn't require a printer, just doing it would be quite useful)...

Sadly, not yet.

Some of us need this tech and ASAP... (2, Insightful)

EndoCanuck (951260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17206544)

As an individual who has a serious bone defect from an accident, this is very exciting news. Honestly, try wandering around thought life with one femur 2 inches shorter than the other. There are many folks out there who could really benefit from this technology. While it's fun to crack wise or debate the morality of the issue when you don't need the help this process could offer, remember that there are a lot of people who have been praying for something like this for a long time. Check out a children's hospital some time and see how many little ones could be helped by this.

This research is OLD (1)

xtal (49134) | more than 7 years ago | (#17207138)

YAWN.

Call me when someone is using it for something productive. Otherwise, I'm filing tissue printing in the same bin as fuel cells - especially micro fuel cells - the only time you hear about it is when the research money is running low.

(yeah, I need another cup of coffee.. but still)

Pretty Cool..... (1)

IHC Navistar (967161) | more than 7 years ago | (#17211796)

What would be really cool is if they could turn this technology around and build something like the "regeneration" machine in The Fifth Element...

Instead of Nip/Tuck it would be Cut/Paste

You would have to be careful if you were to do a face lift, though. If you use a coprighted image, the person would come out with the word VOID printed across their new face... Not that the wouldn't be funny too.....

Kind of reminiscent of the Futurama episode "I Dated A Robot" where they download celebrities onto blank robots.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...