What shows the best results in the next 15 to 20 years.

[nec209]

--stem cell to repair damage organ/tissue

--stem cell to grow new organ.

--pig organ for transplant

--artificial organ

--organ grown in the lab

 

Out of the above what do you see posable in 15 to 20 years.I say stem cell to repair damage organ/tissue and may be pig organ for transplant. Well stem cell to grow new organ and organ grown in the lab is still other 50 years out.

 

Well artificial organ seem to be very very very hard to make .We have a artificial heart but it is used temporary and most people do not live more than a year on it.Has for a artificial liver and kidney not even close to a prototype it be very very long time before we have artificial organs.

 

What are people thought on this and what do you see the best results in the next 15 to 20 years.If money grow on strees out of the above what should get the most money.

[John Cuthber]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_lung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_heart

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_kidney

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_pancreas

 

Artificial organs look like a safe bet.

[Genecks]

I don't agree with the usage of an artificial heart as a forever-replacement, because it works with the nervous system to help a person achieve tasks. I'm sure the same could be said for other organs, but being able to control the heart is more important. Truth be, you'll want the heart, lung, liver, and pancreas working together... If the heart is beating faster, more than likely, the lungs are inflating and deflating more often... Artificial organs are ok if you don't plan on doing large amounts of activity or bursts of activity often.

 

If money grow on strees out of the above what should get the most money.

 

--stem cell to repair damage organ/tissue

 

I say that, because it would lead to a product much faster than the other alternative....

 

--stem cell to grow new organ.

--organ grown in the lab

 

This would help some scientists make some more discoveries about cell differentiation and development if there was enough funding and resources to feasibly accomplish this. I mention both, because perhaps the person had a genetic disorder that caused the heart to be attacked/malfunction in the first place. Thus, the stem cell would need to be genetically altered and have that defect removed.

Edited June 22, 2010 by Genecks

[John Cuthber]

"Artificial organs are ok if you don't plan on doing large amounts of activity or bursts of activity often."

For many people, artificial organs are OK if you don't want to die.

[Genecks]

The thread title is asking about "best results."

 

In my opinion, that refers to at least an average state of well-being.

People on artificial organs are not at least an average state of well-being.

They're living, and I'm sure they like that.

 

Also, sometimes the artificial parts need to be fixed or replaced.

 

I was friends with one girl who supposedly was to get one of these dialysis things put in her arm instead of going to a treatment center every other week. Or maybe it was twice a week. Either way, the story is that she wouldn't be able to lift much weight with one of her arms (she said no more than 5 lbs, really) if she had that artificial part put into her arm.

 

Problems come with the artificial parts.

[nec209]

The thread title is asking about "best results."

 

In my opinion, that refers to at least an average state of well-being.

People on artificial organs are not at least an average state of well-being.

They're living, and I'm sure they like that.

 

 

Well artificial organs are so very very hard to make it take other 50 years or more before a artificial liver or artificial kidney crude prototype is out.Yes they have a working external belt kidney but it is crude and only a working prototype .

 

Yes they have prosthetic arms and prosthetic legs but they are crude too.

 

 

I'm not up on stem cell or organs grown in labs but this looks more promising than artificial organs .I also hear that pig organ for transplant look promising .Well artificial organs are very very very hard to make .

Edited June 25, 2010 by nec209

[Xittenn]

I believe that not enough will change in the next 15 - 20 years to make happen anything more significant than the Artificial Organ. There is nothing to say that the techniques and technologies will not improve in the creation and implantation of the Artificial Organ in this period of time.

 

That said Cell Engineering will soon be making its break into medicine should it not be hindered by various other global committees who would like to see it flushed down the toilet. So assuming Cell Engineering finds its place in medicine I do believe what we will see is the electrospinning of organs using solutions that contain healthy engineered cells. These cells will replicate the function of the hosts cells and may even contain the hosts DNA in the nucleus. But this may be more like 50 years in the future!

 

Super Cells FTW \o/

Edited June 26, 2010 by buttacup

[Genecks]

I believe that not enough will change in the next 15 - 20 years to make happen anything more significant than the Artificial Organ. There is nothing to say that the techniques and technologies will not improve in the creation and implantation of the Artificial Organ in this period of time.

 

That said Cell Engineering will soon be making its break into medicine should it not be hindered by various other global committees who would like to see it flushed down the toilet. So assuming Cell Engineering finds its place in medicine I do believe what we will see is the electrospinning of organs using solutions that contain healthy engineered cells. These cells will replicate the function of the hosts cells and may even contain the hosts DNA in the nucleus. But this may be more like 50 years in the future!

 

Super Cells FTW \o/

 

Well put.

 

I like to base my ideas on what we feasibly know. Feasibly, we have a lot of good ideas as how to make an artificial organ, but I don't think we know enough be the theoretical aspects of making them work with the nervous system in order to get them working like biological organs. So, yes, artificial organs will work for now.

 

Given the money and resources, I believe biologists currently have the knowledge, testable hypotheses, and theoretical framework to develop biological organs for people: They just don't have the money nor resources to do such.

 

We can do it with biology.

 

But I think a compromise should be made here: A person in deadly circumstances is more than likely going to need to live on an artificial organ system until the biological one can be made and implanted.

[Marat]

Aritificial organs have a very poor history. The iron lung provided patients with a miserable quality of life; the artificial heart tortured poor Barney Clark so badly that the results were hidden from the public for years after the experiment; the artificial pancreas has been under continuous development since the mid-1960s and has never succeeded in imitating normal physiology; and renal dialysis yields a life expectancy of 13 years for a 40-year-old and a quality of life so poor that 25% of all dialysis patients die by voluntarily withdrawing themselves from treatment. The old debate between vitalists and mechanists in the 19th century over whether the organic and mechanical realms were irreducibly separate seems to have been won for the foreseeable future in medicine by the vitalists.

 

But what else promises significant progress over the next few decades? Since it now takes about 15 years for a new drug, medical device, or treatment to proceed from concept to clinically available therapy, you could almost say that the answer has to be that there will be no significant progress in the near future. In 2008, the FDA sent out a panic bulletin noting that for the first time in its history, the number of new drugs submitted for approval had declined, and the stagnation of medicine in many areas of cancer treatment, endocrinology, and nephrology over the last generation has been striking. I would guess that twenty years from now very little will differ in medical practice from what it is now.

[nec209]

Is it called biomedicine or biotechnology that deals with cloning ,stem cell ,cell engineering ,organ transplant ,artificial organs ,genetic engineering and nanotechnology so on.

 

If so than may be I should get some books on this that talk about it.Will I can get much better reply to my post and much more what are cutting edge technology coming out and what they are working on and what is coming out.Like artificial skin ,artificial bone ,3D printing ,artificial organs ,stem cell ,organs grown in lab,pig organ transplant ,,cell engineering so on.

 

Than biomedicine or biotechnology deal with this and I should get some books on it.

Edited July 1, 2010 by nec209

[Genecks]

I cannot make much sense of your post. If you're trying to ask a question, please use better grammar.

 

But if you're attempting to say that you will find more information in books, then that might be true... if you could find adequate books that discuss the topics. Sometimes annual review journals will give nice information. At other times, there are popular journals and magazines that educated specialists will read. So, if you can collect the right reading materials, you might get something more up-to-date than found in a conversation. But conversations act as a good starting ground.

 

And do notice that something worthwhile in the science world would be aimed toward a journal first (as scientists and engineers desire publication). Magazines and books would later adopt that knowledge to discuss it.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Genecks

[nec209]

I;m no sure if this is biomedicine or biotechnology.

 

If it is biotechnology that is good place to start.Well Scientific American and popular science may be good place to read on what they are working on and what is coming out.

 

Or go to the library get books on biomedicine or biotechnology.

 

would medical journals or publication explain in a simpler terms? I know some times Scientific American can get advance even for the pre-med students.

[Genecks]

I;m no sure if this is biomedicine or biotechnology.

 

If it is biotechnology that is good place to start.Well Scientific American and popular science may be good place to read on what they are working on and what is coming out.

 

Or go to the library get books on biomedicine or biotechnology.

 

would medical journals or publication explain in a simpler terms? I know some times Scientific American can get advance even for the pre-med students.

 

We are discussing biomedicine and biotechnology. However, I believe this would fall more under biotechnology.

 

Books often act as foundations for knowledge.

 

I understand what you mean about Scientific American being difficult to read, as I once felt the same way.

 

I think for the most part, I think the mathematics introduced in scientific articles is what will hold most people up. The next thing would be specific types of methods used, such as western blotting (a person might ask what a Western blot is). For the latter, Wikipedia could be used. But for the former, reading and working through a college statistics book will help get through some of the statistics introduced in a journal article.