Xenotransplantation
Nuketheplace
Join Date: 2002-09-02 Member: 1266Members
Join Date: 2002-09-02 Member: 1266Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">and its ethical implications</div> I was wondering what everyone here thought about xenotransplantation and its pros and cons. On the one hand it could save thousands of lives a year, on the other it could introduce a new virus into the world. Two very different sides. Do you all think we should go ahead with human tests, or stop testing it all together?
For those of you who don't know here is a <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotransplantation' target='_blank'>wikipedia link</a> to get you started. Its basically taking the organ of one creature and putting it into another. The most suggested type is pigs to humans.
For those of you who don't know here is a <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotransplantation' target='_blank'>wikipedia link</a> to get you started. Its basically taking the organ of one creature and putting it into another. The most suggested type is pigs to humans.
Comments
Not exactly true, because there has already been some work done on genetically engineering organs from animals so they become more 'human' like for transplantation purposes.
For example, pig organs have been made that lack the cell surface sugar alpha-1,3-galactosyltransferase because this rapidly turns on the immune system (leading to hyperacute rejection). Normally the rejection is in hours, but now we can extend that onto days (which is an achievement). Further work has focussed on making organs that are harder to reject because they do not transmit danger signals (From accompanied pig retroviruses) and have modified MHC molecules that are more 'human like' but that aren't able to activate immune response.
Think about it: If we are part of nature (and I dare you to claim otherwise without having VERY compelling arguments), then whatever we do or create is also a part of nature. I.e. a nuclear power plant is natural. Otherwise, any kind of artificial construct, like an ant hill, would be unnatural as well. And I don't see anything wrong with an ant hill, personally.
So in short: If you're going to call it unnatural, think long and hard about your definition of unnatural and how you are going to defend it, and specifically about why something being unnatural actually matters.
and about the workless % OH NO
The real poposition would be those that look at it as unnatural.
Personaly?
If it works do it.
If there is a threat of outbreaks of things like PERV, then we definatly have to legallize it. Why?
If we make it illegal then people will simply go to other countries, and we will have no documentation, no way to watch over these people.
If we do it in-country then we can keep tabs on these people, force them to take the regular blood tests etc etc
Now, in regards to Xenotransplantation, in my opinion, if it works, go with it. If humanity is exposed to new diseases through it, we are simply faced with new hurdles to overcome, and Im pretty confident that we could make it through the worst case scenario.
*Puppy-dog eyes*
I need a "big, strong, and handsome man" to come and save me. *wink wink*
That's a damn good indication our body is giving us that we shouldn't be doing this...if your body rejects something, generally it means something isn't right. "Suppressing" the immune system won't make that "something" right.
That's a damn good indication our body is giving us that we shouldn't be doing this...if your body rejects something, generally it means something isn't right. "Suppressing" the immune system won't make that "something" right. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then again, look at allergies, sometimes our bodies dont know what is really best. What we need, in this situation, is to reach a point where the immune system actively accepts the new organ, rather than having to suppress a reaction.
Not true. Without <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunosuppression' target='_blank'>immunosuppression</a> (medical suppression of the immune system), rejection of a transplanted organ would be fairly common, leading not only to the death of the transplanted organ, but also to the death of the patient due to infection caused by the decay of the necrotic organ. Yet the general agreement is that a kidney transplant is preferrable to hour-long dialysis therapy three days a week.
The human body is an incredible organism, but it is in no way intelligent. The intelligent part of our body, the brain, has very little say in the autonomous functions of our body. We can't control our production of red blood cells, for example. We can't tell our white blood cells to not attack the HIV virus (which would be pretty smart I think). We can't tell them to leave that kidney alone because, you know, it may not be part of my original body, but it'll work just like my original kidneys, and if you kill it, I die as well.
No, sometimes our body does things that are very much counter-productive, and we need to nudge it in the right direction or suppress the part of it that's screwing up.
Edit: Heck, take <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune_disease' target='_blank'>autoimmune diseases,</a> where the immune system decides to attack healthy parts of the body for no apparent reason, and without any outside stimuli. No, the body certainly doesn't always know what's best for us.
In any case, if this works well enough to save lives (permanently) then I'm all for it, at least until they can simply grow the organs in a vat using the patient's DNA.
~ DarkATi
In any case, if this works well enough to save lives (permanently) then I'm all for it, at least until they can simply grow the organs in a vat using the patient's DNA.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which stem cell research would make tremendously easier (or maybe just at all possible). But stem cell research is evil m'kay? After all, that stem cell you're holding there could cure cancer. And who the **** cares that it could do it right now if it could grow up to be a brilliant scientist and do it in fifty years instead?
In any case, if this works well enough to save lives (permanently) then I'm all for it, at least until they can simply grow the organs in a vat using the patient's DNA.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which stem cell research would make tremendously easier (or maybe just at all possible). But stem cell research is evil m'kay? After all, that stem cell you're holding there could cure cancer. And who the **** cares that it could do it right now if it could grow up to be a brilliant scientist and do it in fifty years instead? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rofl... QFT. :-)
No offense. I pretty much agree.