The ignorance the writer displays in the last paragraph is ridiculous. "Anti-stem cell research campaigns" are against use of embryonic stem cells. But the writer's own article indicates that adult stem cells were used here.
That said, assuming his description of the technique is reasonably accurate (which, given the above-mentioned nonsense, is by no means certain), this sounds like an interesting and useful technique.
>The ignorance the writer displays in the last paragraph is ridiculous. "Anti-stem cell research campaigns" are against use of embryonic stem cells. But the writer's own article indicates that adult stem cells were used here.
Some opponents have argued that stem-cell research is useless as well as, in the case of embryonic stem-cell research, ethically questionable. I take it the author's point is that now we can prove the general case: stem-cell research can lead to cures, and so disprove one of the (tactical) arguments of opponents. Rush Limbaugh at one point said embryonic stem-cell research in particular is useless, so he won't be bothered by this news.
I've never heard anybody argue against adult stem-cell research, but I suppose it's possible that somebody out there is making that argument. The only time I've heard people bring up adult stem cell research is to point out that all of the actual treatments derived from stem cell research to date have come from adult stem cell research, and that it is therefore more pragmatic to focus resources on adult stem cell research rather than directing any resources into embryonic stem cell research.
Also, most of the arguments I've heard against embryonic stem-cell research acknowledge that it might in fact produce life-saving or life-changing treatments, but that it is nonetheless morally and/or ethically wrong. A literary parallel is Le Guin's "Those Who Walk Away from Omelas:" enormous good comes at the price of involuntary sacrifice on the part of a single innocent. Some conclude that the trade is morally and/or ethically acceptable because of all of the good that is obtained, which cannot be obtained by any other means; others conclude that the good obtained from the sacrifice does not justify the evil of the sacrifice.
NO ONE opposes stem-cell research using adult stem cells, which is what was used here. What the anti-stem cell research campaigns oppose is embryonic stem cell research, because it involves extracting cells from a human embryo, usually killing the embryo in the process.
And given that adult stem cell research 1) is morally unobjectionable; 2) is yielding effective treatments; and 3) contains no rejection risk ... I cannot understand why so many have pressed so hard for embryonic stem cell research. Factor #3 alone ought to be enough to give ASCR the edge.
Yet in the U.S., federal dollars have effectively been taken away from ASCR and given to ESCR.
I see no reason to believe that. Advances in adult stem cell tech doesn't seem to have helped embryonic stem cell research. Why would it work in the other direction? Apparently there are significant differences. Anyway, we have little reason to try, give that adult stem cells are working and all the ethical, ah, difficulties with embryonic stem cells.
I was flabbergasted to read that the new trachea grew in two days. Is this normal, or would they have had to put some sort of growth stimulant in the bioreactor?
If I sound ignorant, it's because I am, and I'd love for someone more knowledgeable about biotech to set me straight.
The BBC site has a more detailed article from three days ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14047670
It says that the organ was made of glass in London, and then flown to Sweden and soaked for two days in a solution of the patient's stem cells.
The linked article basically answers the question. The physical shape of the trachea, carina, and right and left mainstem bronchi was created from glass. Over the course of two days, that glass became lined with the patient's cells.
To be clear, the claim is not that the glass was replaced by human cells over the course of two days.
Those are two totally different questions. To grow a complete trachea in two days would strain credulity. To get a glass template lined with cells in two days seems quite reasonable. Not sure about the specific cells that they used, but other cell types that I have had experience with will become confluent after starting off at a modest concentration within 24-48 hours.
My only-slightly-educated guess based off what I've read on this (read a few mentions of this story over the past week) is that while the child-sized trachea wouldn't just stop working/become disconnected, most likely there would be a later adult-sized replacement.
I would like to grow myself a new body from my own stem cells without a brain, and transplant my brain into it. With any luck I might be able to squeak out another 100 years with only my brain decaying at the original rate.
Given that we seem to have reached a point that medicine can cause the body to outlive the brain's shelf-life (eg Alzheimer's and the like), I'm not sure your plan is going to work out that well for you.
From my perception of death statistics for old people; it's diseases and cancer that may be said to kill, but it's lack of blood flow to the brain that kills.
I've read some pretty disturbing examples of how some people have their bowels rot due to the blood flow in the artery (arteries?) becoming restricted or even blocked from supplying the bowels the same way arteries in the heart are but it's not as apparent as it is for the heart.
Noted, however, I'd also like to defeat Alzheimer's by growing sub components of the brain one at a time and then swapping them out one at a time every few months. So over a few years I would have a new mind as well as a new body, as long as the spark of who I am can somehow leap from the old and dying components and migrate into the newer components, who I am, that spark that makes me ME will live on, in some way.
Sure, I technically wouldn't be "me" anymore, but technically I'm not me I was 10years ago, life is in constant flux. The technology in this article is the best chance I have at immortality. People, please devote more energy to this, it's important to me. I want to be around to see the human race become a space faring civilization, I want to see how we will deal with the 2nd law of thermodynamics where the energy of the universe runs down to zero.
If nothing else, this is at least a huge step in the direction of having the mind be the body's "expiration date". And eventually that can be fixed, too, I'm sure.
The societal impacts of immortality are somewhat scary to contemplate, though.
That said, assuming his description of the technique is reasonably accurate (which, given the above-mentioned nonsense, is by no means certain), this sounds like an interesting and useful technique.