INSTEAD of silicone implants or tissue taken from elsewhere in the patient's body, plastic surgeons might soon be using tissue grown from patients' own stem cells.
So claims Jeremy Mao of the University of Illinois, who has tested the idea in mice. He seeded scaffolds with human bone-marrow-derived stem cells and inserted them into mice.
Four weeks later the implants still retained their size and shape. When tissue from a patient's body is used for reconstruction, the implants often deform after just a week, and can halve in volume over later years. "It seems promising and could soon be making an impact," Mao told the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Washington DC last week.
Note he used stem cells, somthing several of the posts here are against (excluding myself - I'm all for it). Keep in mind, those cells were *derived from bone marrow* and are not releated to the birthing process at all. Keep this in mind before bashing this line of research.
And in other news, anyone suddenly have the urge to take out a patent on using the same procedure on a penis?
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
There's a big difference - a fundamental difference - between stem cells and aborting babies for research material. They are not the same issue, and I have no idea why anyone would be against stem cells =p
Time makes more converts than reason. - Thomas Paine
Rekaar. wrote:There's a big difference - a fundamental difference - between stem cells and aborting babies for research material. They are not the same issue, and I have no idea why anyone would be against stem cells =p
Uh, as Lohrno said, aborting babies for the purpose of stem cell research has never been suggested. Where are you getting this idea? The primary source of embryos for embryonic stem cell research are those not used in fertility clinics. If you have a problem with something about that, you'd want to take it up with the clinics, not stem cell research.
these stem cells were from bone marrow, not fertilized eggs.
useful for some things, no doubt, but not for everything. That doesnt mean this isnt an important medical breakthrough.
It just means that this has nothing to do with the "Stem Cell Debate" outside of the fact that some people like to use examples like this to misrepresent the utility of partially differentiated tissue to be useful as pluripotent tissue.
I'm not saying this is what Akaran is trying to do by the way. Just a stickler for clarity
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
Rekaar. wrote:There's a big difference - a fundamental difference - between stem cells and aborting babies for research material. They are not the same issue, and I have no idea why anyone would be against stem cells =p
A FETUS IS NOT a baby
a baby has a BRAIN a fetus has NO BRAIN
-xzionis human mage on mannoroth
-zeltharath tauren shaman on wildhammer
Xzion I'm just curious where you went to school and if they made to take biology?
A fetus does indeed have a brain, it's not fully developed but yes it's there and by a certian point in the pregnancy it's coherent. By 5 or 6 month our babies were pushing back when we pressed on my wife's tummy, they reacted to ultrasounds, light etc...
sorry i had to post to prevent you from deleting your repost.
My goal is to live forever. So far so good.
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. - Benjamin Franklin
