On the Huffington Post today, rat’s lungs have been successfully bio-engineered!
WASHINGTON — It’s an early step toward one day building new lungs: Yale University researchers took apart and regrew a rat’s lung, and then transplanted it and watched it breathe.
The lung stayed in place only for an hour or two, as the scientists measured it exchanging oxygen and carbon dioxide much like a regular lung – but also spotted some problems that will take more research to fix.
Read the full story here.
“Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld”
THEY DID NOT MAKE A LUNG
They started with a rat’s lung .
Who said they made a lung? Read before you react boy.
In the newspapers tomorrow scientists will be saying they
“made” a lung – you bet- and the average person will think it true. “the boy”
Feh idle speculation. Again, please read the article boy. We are wasting bandwidth on your frigging ignorance.
The next useless comment from you I’ll start deleting.
I’ll give you a hint here: if you want to question the practice of cloning, the ethics of it, heck even challenge the process as impossible given the alleged facts fine.
But all these “they’re gonna claim they made a lung” crap is a mark of someone who doesn’t read what they criticize. Shallow boy this is not what critical thinking is about!
Sorry man I just have to take issue with this. Prove me wrong and start talking intelligently please!
And don’t pull the ALL CAPS on us unless you have something relevant to say. Geez.
[…] 25, 2010 by Mark T. Market While some scientists are growing some lungs, this guy loves loves eating […]
Ironically, this the first remotely “critical” comment from you. I don’t take issue with anyone who disagrees with me. What I take issue with is waste of bandwidth on flimsy notions without addressing the issue on the post.
Had you made a sensible follow up to your first comment, we might have had a better conversation, instead of dwelling on pettiness. Too bad for me. Too bad for you.
Happy to see you go. Come back when you have something better to say.
Now I feel stiupd. That’s cleared it up for me
Mark – Like a newspaper reporter you headed up your
article – “artificial lungs” this is what the average uncritical
thinker will pick up. They supposedly made a cell a few weeks ago but they started with a yeast cell if you read the whole article. So I am a critical thinker but the headlines were “scientists have created a cell”. So this is what Joe Public believes unless you are a critical thinker like
me.
So scientists did not “Build” a rat lung – they started with the rat lung – no living organism has ever been created in all the labs by all the scientists in all the world (apologies
Bogart).
The best interviewers let everyone have their say without
threatening to delete their posts.
“Building new lungs” is what Joe Soap reads and these headlines were in the Post.
Nice to see you back. You have a point and I agree. But it may not necessarily be as big a deal as you make it appear.
What I tend to see are two motivations underpinning the scenario you just painted:
On the one hand there is the scientific establishment hungry to trumpet any success in man-made forays into biology and creating life (or proxies thereof).
On the other hand there is the camp that is quick to point out that any claim by the first camp are not authentic or actuall achievements in the truest sense–e.g. they didn’t really make a cell, it wasn’t really an artificial lung, etc. The religious camp is a notable subset of this group–who are quicker to downplay any human achievement as not comparable to what they attribute to the divine.
I think your comment falls within the latter category–but motivated seemingly by intellectual honesty (or more aptly to point out dishonesty as the case in point), and the need(?) to protect the Joes of the world.
But really, the need for honesty aside, do we really feel the need to downplay the achievements? Reportage and blog titles can be reworded, and if the Joes rightly read what they should, then the misinformation issue should be addressed right? That would leave us then with your point: how material is the description to the truth?
Fact remains: A lung was indeed created. Now unless we are questioning the claim or the process–then we may really be just debating semantics. Is that it?
On that latter note about interviewers, I respectfully disagree. The best interviewers choose the best interviewees and the choose best questions to ask. The best interviewers always reserve the right to separate the men from the boys.
The interviewers you refer to are called something else. Tabloid maybe. But definitely not the best.
The word creation does not imply “created from a rat lung”
It gives the impression that the lung was created from scratch.
This issue reminds me…
Stem Cell is the available (also in the Philippines at PGH, St. Lukes… latest upcoming in Makati Medical Center) advanced method. Very expensive. A lung cancer patient would spend around Php 4-5M to cure the cancer completely.
No moral debates about it. I guess for as long as it doesn’t shape like a whole organ.
I was told there are 2 methods. For the emergency cases, they grow the stem cells outside of the body in the lab, then pump them back in the body parts that need help, also in the marrow. This is the method found in the Manila hospitals.
There are maintenance/supplementary methods in the form of capsules, among others, to activate the formation of stem cells in the bone marrow, and by their own intelligences they go to where they are most needed in the body.
Please do check out where my friend works:
http://www.stemtech-international.com/