3-D Printing your next Organ

[MrFun]

I want to know why God created Adam and Eve with sexual reproductive organs.

[Donegeal]

Ben is pretty much a useless waste of space.

While I am not a fan of his, he will, on occasion, have very good and relevant comments; however, these happen on such rare occasions that they are probably just accidents. You know, the whole 'even a broken clock is right twice a day' thing. I think I'll keep him around.

Back on-topic here...

How long until they can actually reproduce organs?

[PLATO]

How long until they can actually reproduce organs?

Good question. This seems to me to be more of a "first step" along that path...although the technology seems to be moving at a very rapid pace.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nothing to do with human use of stem cells for research. Everything to do with the systemic spread of leprosy through the body by leprosy bacterium. The direct genetic interaction of a pathogen with infected organism for the specific purpose of spreading itself. Fascinating stuff, but not even close to what you claim it is.

The malleability of stem cells is the mechanism by which Leprosy works. If leprosy can modify these stem cells (which are adult cells) for it's own purposes than so can people.

There are two conclusions here: One possibility is you're so ignorant and/or desperate to "prove" your belief system that you simply don't understand the science and you google adult stem cells and seize on anything with the words without the slightest understanding of the scope and meaning.

I might ask of you the same. Why, if adult stem cells could do the job without having to worry about rejection, would you choose to use embryonic cells?

You can play all the word games you want. There is no "you" "me" "anyone" in an early embryo,

But there is one in a late embryo? Where do you draw the line, MtG? It makes no sense to me to draw the line at 6 weeks as opposed to say 5 weeks. The line at conception does make sense, especially if you look at genetics.

without your mythical construct of a "soul" or some other fantasy.

You could at least be honest. I've said zero about a soul.

There is no functioning forebrain. No memory, thought, anything other than reflexive response that is the same as any vertebrate and many invertebrate embryos

We can tell that the embryo is a human embryo.

If you think "personhood" is nothing more than DNA

I think DNA is a marker that it provides a way for us to identify people.

you're a sad, shriveled little being

I fail to see what bearing this has to do with personhood at conception. Even if I am a sad shriveled person, I can still be right.

not much more advanced at that point than an amoeba is a "person."

That's what we have science for. Science can distinguish between these. Superstition says that unless they look the same, they aren't the same. You find the same argument used against the personhood of black people and of disabled people. They don't look the same, ergo, they are not the same.

[N35t0r]

He has to be doing it on purpose.

[MichaeltheGreat]

A few of these are at least borderline legitmate

The malleability of stem cells is the mechanism by which Leprosy works. If leprosy can modify these stem cells (which are adult cells) for it's own purposes than so can people.

Possibly, but not necessarily. Some biochemical processes likely can't be dupicated at all, or in a consistent way. Many biochemical processes probably can be, but we haven't figured out how yet. Others, we have figured out how. In this particular study, the fact that a single specific pathogenic microorganism within a host organism has developed a narrow capability for a specific type of self-propagation and transmission doesn't come close to getting you to humans being able to generally manipulate these cells to do a wide variety of things. Pathogens operate by different "rules" (i.e. their evolutionary success). Kill the host too fast before you spread, it's really not good for you. Kill a bunch of host cells, but manipulate a few so you can spread systemically, then that's not a bad result. We have more complex goals, more of them (different disease processes to act against and different mechanisms for cure) and a higher standard of accuracy (we'd actually like to keep patients alive, pathogens don't "give a ****" in a biological sense if they succeed in moving to enough other hosts often enough. So when (and I do think it's a question of when, not if) we develop the ability to perform repeatable, controlled manipulation of adult stem cells, it will be through completely different mechanisms than that discussed in the paper you cited.

What you have in this paper is roughly analogous to how a virus propagates, but in a much more complex and sophisticated way. It's pretty scary/impressive, but it's not getting you to controlled benevolent human manipulation. It is advancing understanding of leprosy treatment and prevention.

[q]
I might ask of you the same. Why, if adult stem cells could do the job without having to worry about rejection, would you choose to use embryonic cells?
[q/]

That's the ultimate goal. Being able to reprogram and manipulate a patient's own cells. However, it's much easier at this point to do it with embryonic stem cells, and research in the one may well lead to breakthroughs in the other.

But there is one in a late embryo? Where do you draw the line, MtG? It makes no sense to me to draw the line at 6 weeks as opposed to say 5 weeks. The line at conception does make sense, especially if you look at genetics.

I don't go for the whole ensoulment thing. However, I think you can make a biologically compelling case by looking at brain function, especially since we can do fetal EEGs. I'm not talking intellect, disability, what have you - but fundamental structural development and activity. There is a point of structural development of the brain (earlier than viability), where fetal brain activity is indistiguishable from the brain activity in a sleeping or unconscious newborn. (sleep and unconsciousness are two different states neurologically) There's no evidence of fetal consciousness, (which is apparently a function of the fetal environment in utero), but there is abundant evidence that the brain's functions are essentially identical to the neonate infant. Whether it's a Downs or FAS or whatever fetus, or a Downs or FAS or whatever neonate, makes no difference.

You could at least be honest. I've said zero about a soul.

Note the "or some other fantasy" as in "soul or some other fantasy" as in "either this thing, or something else.

That's what we have science for. Science can distinguish between these. Superstition says that unless they look the same, they aren't the same. You find the same argument used against the personhood of black people and of disabled people. They don't look the same, ergo, they are not the same.

Let's take you, me, Stephen Hawking and OJ Simpson, kill us all in a consistent way that doesn't do too much physiological damage, and do a full autopsy. Pull the skin back, remove and examine all the organs, etc. The substantial anatomical differences are non-existent. OJ may have a bigger ******* as a result of his prison time, but we've all got one. Doesn't matter if someone's an amputee or thalidomide baby - there may be parts deformed or missing, but some of the essential structures (e.g. trunk nerves, blood vessels) will still be there at least at their point of origination, to serve the limb or structure that was deformed or surgically removed. Looks are irrelevant, when essential structure is fundamentally the same. With blastocyst -> embryo -> fetus -> neonate, it ain't "looks" that are different.

[MichaeltheGreat]

While I am not a fan of his, he will, on occasion, have very good and relevant comments; however, these happen on such rare occasions that they are probably just accidents. You know, the whole 'even a broken clock is right twice a day' thing. I think I'll keep him around.

Back on-topic here...

How long until they can actually reproduce organs?

Probably still a few decades, at least to produce a complete organ - there is a lot of internal structure and tissue differentiation that has to happen in the right way. Regenerating whole organs is pretty much the holy grail of medicine, but long before that we could do a lot of useful things by regenerating specific types of cells or less complex structures - i.e. repairing retinal damage, inner ear structures, coronary or other arteries, etc