Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gene Therapy Successfully Regenerates An Old Organ!

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Well we just opened a big can of giant awesome worms!
So...Care to put all your organs back to a nice youthful state? Feel like turning the clock back to being a 20 year old?

Source ExtremeTech

In a landmark study sure to provoke interest, researchers from the University of Edinburgh have regenerated an aged organ — in vivo, inside a living animal — to its youthful state though noninvasive manipulation of genes. It’s a breakthrough that not only brings hope for a wide variety of age-related ailments, but which fundamentally challenges our idea of what aging is.


ok, so obviously this is at its beginning stages, and I have hope in this science maturing to where my initial statements is a simple choice verses a dream...this seems very promising though.
Go read the article and tell me what you think.


That’s a long way out, however. In the extreme long term, patchwork replacement of organs and body parts is even prophesied to allow immortality, and this study shows that we might be able to supplement grown organs with regenerated ones. There’s no telling how many tissues might be usefully regenerated with such a simple molecular switch


Such interesting and potentially awesome species redefining times we live in...lets see where it leads us.

(queue the cynics
)




posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Well, if regeneration becomes common then there will have to be a cutoff period to life. Shall we say 150 years and then you get euthanised and sent to the Soylent factory.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I expect when this becomes available it will only be offered to the likes of the elite. Is this such a good idea given their love of megalomania. It means that people could be dictated and enslaved to old gits who are hundreds of years old and are likely to never die, unless done away with by their own younger generations.

Any preconceptions that this world is run in a way that cares for its populations has long gone when one lives to a certain age and hjas the experience of seeing the way things are today and the role of the rich and their puppet politicians and law makers.

Decent souls will see the true benefits of being able to regenerate damaged and malfunctioning organs, especially in children and the young, but for the masses - dream on.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Oh no, only the elite will have it oh no.

Calm down, skeptics. Open sourced technology, and yes, even medicine will be your saving grace. The future is bright, and I have my shades.


Honestly, I've been inspired in the last few weeks by the massive amounts of scientific breakthroughs that I've seen in the fields of medicine and robotics. I'm literally in awe of how amazing the future can be at this point. I'm not worried or even concerned about societal collapse or war at this point. Though, I am concerned about how legislators are going to deal with the issue of technological employment (poorly and with massive amounts of ignorance combined with blind bias). However, it won't last for long. Things will progress in a wonderful fashion for humanity. I haven't said this in a long time, but...I'm glad to be alive now. Despite how difficult the job market is, despite how horrible law school is, and despite the occasional ennui...it's a wonderful time to be young and alive.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks."

-Macbeth, Act 4, Scene 1

I guess you can color me a skeptic. I see this as something great for diabetics, people with organ disease, but my mind immediately goes to scenarios where this technology can be abused.

We are a species where knowledge has far outpaced wisdom.

Hope for the best.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I see this being good for young people who have a defect in an organ or organs, but extending the life of the rich?

Maybe a rich old geezer could get a new heart but think of the trauma the body goes through after open heart surgery. So he gets a new heart but bones,muscle and skin will continue to deteriorate.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by tinner07
 


Even worse, what if their brains are unable to regenerate? We'd end up with a bunch of otherwise rich, old, otherwise healthy brain dead elitists. Count me in! Not.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


You have virtually the same outlook I had 40 years ago. But and here's the but, 40 years on and the majority of the things that wrere invented or supposed to happen for the betterment of society haven't, like the thread about the car that could go miles and miles further, but the technology was not brought in etc etc etc.

The idea going around then was that we would have robotic factories and the hours for the workers would be cut dramatically to allow us all far more leisure time to enjoy life. Can you image a 12 hour week for the same money as a 40+ week?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:49 AM
link   
How long until gene therapy is mandated in the water supply, and paid for out of taxes, as a nanny state welfare component?

Are your Genes Clean Citizen



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Very interesting and it raises a good ethical question, if you could allow everyone to live for ever from 2020, and the population by then will be at say 10 billion, would it be fair for TPTB to say, well OK, you can live forever but no more breeding, this is it, we are human race from this point on. We'll make you immortal but also infertile because obviously if we could all live forever AND breed then we'd fill this rock pretty quickly ...

Although with this happening right on the verge of our space age, maybe we'll soon be sending little colonies of almost immortal humans out to colonise planets... Very interesting...

And life's meant to be short, like the life of a rose, its the fact that it's fleeting that makes it beautiful and worth holding onto in the first place so I don't know if I'd do it...

"But that's the way I like it baby,
I don't wanna live for ever"

Wee bit of motorhead for you there...



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Shiloh7
 


I see, recognize, and acknowledge a great amount of the points that you are making. However, there is a difference in what you and I have experienced. My exponential perception (perception of the exponential advancement of technology) has been a bit varied from your own. Forty years ago, giant strides were being made in computing to the extent that a lot of excitement existed about whether or not computing was going to make it into the home one day. It was, mostly, theoretical. Sure, advancements came, but there was little practical application outside of defense department tech, university processing, and high powered firm usage. Within my lifetime, the United States has changed: When I was born, computers in the home weren't common. By the time I was five, they were a luxury item. By the time I was seven, most people were warming up to the idea and incorporated them into their homes. By the time I was ten, high speed internet was common. By the time I was 12, we were using computers and Microsoft xp as an operating system in school. At that same time, we used zip drives and laughed at how silly floppies were. My professor said, "Don't be so quick to embrace this technology." She then took a small object out of her pocket and said, "Soon these items will house hundreds of gigabytes of data". My eyes went wide and I said, "No way." By the time I was 15, a slow internet connection seemed primitive and thumb drives were holding 32 GBs of data. By the time I was 18 the game changed, computing power of a single PC dwarfed everything I thought I would see before I was 30. Now, at 23, new techniques of 3d chip placement, graphene replacement of silicon, and quantum breakthroughs are set to tear Moore's law a new one. Did I say "set"...maybe I should say "are". We will hit a technological singularity within the next twenty years. The curve, I fear, may already be "broken".

That's just computing.
Medical science is a dark horse that everyone seems to brush off. There are so many breakthroughs that have happened in my lifetime that it would be silly to even begin to list how things have changed/advanced. I haven't experienced much myself, as I've been fortunate to grow into a healthy young adult, but I remember my late grandmother's condition and reading about the silverhawk artery plaque removal technique in a medical journal around the time of her series of heart complications. At the time, the silverhawk was a brand new technology and within weeks of reading about it, it was in use. Weeks. Weeks. Now, I'm hearing about the process of cooling spinal cord injury victims to ensure mobility after accidents, and it's in place. I hear of removing blood from severe trauma victims and placing them in suspended animation, and it's ready to go. I hear of robotic surgeries, it's happening now. I hear of google glass assisted surgeries, and it's in place. I thought that nano machines were a think of 2099, but I was incorrect. Let's not forget the implications. Spinal cord injury victims could be seeing a use of their legs again

I could list things that are in practice now on and on and on. This tech will only zoom forward in step with the out of control advancement of computing technologies. This is not even considering the emergence of machine intelligence.

Oh, and hell, about technological unemployment...have a documentary (I'll tell you that you should ignore the crap about the venus project at the end. I disagree with that route. However, everything else in the vid is spot on)


Oh, and let's not forget about the wearable tech that has more processing power than I utilized in PCs when I was twelve. Let's not forget about VR interfaces that are being funded in the billions. Let's not forget about entire factories being managed by drones. Let's not forget about drone delivery. Let's not forget about self driving cars. Let's not forget about every single thing that my cynical 13 year old self thought he would see by 70 but is seeing at 23.

Beezer is right. We are a species whose intelligence is outpacing its wisdom. That's a terrible thing, sure, but it happens to every gifted child/teenager as well and a lot of them turn out A-OK. Humanity will not only survive, it will thrive and evolve on its own terms. In the next 20 years, I won't be able to say this, that, or the other will happen. It will be impossible. Listen to me, it will be impossible to predict any technological trends because they will occur too quickly. Medicine will be so personalized that your own drugs and medical procedures will exist. The sky is the not the limit, the galaxy is (space is an entirely different story if we're being literal, I don't expect any significant advancements there until maybe 2400 or so). But I will say this: the 21st century will begin the golden age of humanity.

Yes, a lot of this has the potential to be abused. Yes, it will be abused. Yes, bad people will continue to do bad things. However, covert open source agents will always exist. Technology that is printable will be available to anyone who has an idea of how to torrent data. Open source will always exist, from smart drugs to advanced medical care. Oh, and don't forget the best thing about all of this hoopla. As technology progresses, it gets cheaper.

(EDIT: HOLY HORRIBLE GRAMMAR BATMAN. Please excuse me)

edit on 10-4-2014 by TheOneElectric because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


That was an excellent post, spot on



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


WRONG!



This was NOT "gene therapy" - it was "epigenetic therapy." Researchers did not do anything at all to any gene; they manipulated gene expression of the FOXN1 protein by exposing rats to tamoxifen, turning the gene "on," and thereby ramping up FOX1 production.


Prior research had already identified a protein called FOXN1 as likely linked to thymus degeneration; its expression levels in the thymus seem linked to that organ’s fate. The mice in this study were bred with a specific genetic sensitivity, however, so that when exposed to the drug tamoxifen they would begin producing fully youthful levels of FOXN1, regardless of their actual age.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by DietJoke
 



How long until gene therapy is mandated in the water supply, and paid for out of taxes, as a nanny state welfare component?

Just about forever, I should think. Nice try for a conspiracy angle, though.

edit on 10/4/14 by Astyanax because: c'mon, it *was* a nice try.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Let us hope you are right when it comes to it being forever before TPTB overtly go that far in manipulating society.

However, people already engage in gene therapy when they flush there unused medicines down into the sewers and hormones are apparently not screened by the sewage treatment plants operations and that leads to a build up of hormones and drugs etc. that are clearly going to have an impact genetically and or epi-genetically on those who drink that recycled water.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 



WRONG!


This was NOT "gene therapy" - it was "epigenetic therapy."

Greetings, O Apostle of Epigenetics.


The lack of identified genetic determinants that fully explain the heritability of complex traits, and the inability to pinpoint causative genetic effects in some complex diseases, suggest possible epigenetic explanations for this missing information. This growing interest, along with the desire to understand the “deprogramming” of differentiated cells into pluripotent/totipotent states, has led to “epigenetic” becoming shorthand for many regulatory systems involving DNA methylation, histone modification, nucleosome location, or noncoding RNA. This is to be encouraged, but the labeling of nongenetic systems as epigenetic by default has the potential to confuse.
Science, October 2010

Don't we know it.


An epigenetic system should be heritable, self-perpetuating, and reversible. Same article

Care to explain what is heritable in the above layout?

edit on 10/4/14 by Astyanax because: of a change of address.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by DietJoke
 


Er, no. None of that has anything to do with gene therapy.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Chemicals in water may mutate the actual DNA and or turn on and of any number of genes expression.

That would have long term effects on the offspring of those with mutated DNA and or gene expression.

However that unfortunate side effect seems to be tentatively 'fixed' now as stated in the OP.

I hope you can follow that ^^^ train of logic.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


...Greetings, O Apostle of Epigenetics.

Care to explain what is heritable in the above layout?


You posted your response to DietJoke but I assume you are addressing me. Again - epigenetics is about the factors that govern gene expression. I trust you know many factors turn genes off an on, and modify gene products (proteins) post-translation - not just genetic programming?


WHAT IS EPIGENETICS?

As an organism grows and develops, carefully orchestrated chemical reactions activate and deactivate parts of the genome at strategic times and in specific locations. Epigenetics is the study of these chemical reactions and the factors that influence them.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 



You posted your response to DietJoke but I assume you are addressing me.

So I did, and thank you for pointing it out. Corrected now. At ease, DietJoke.

Now: do you have an answer to my question? Or is your answer 'I am a Lamarckist'?

A Lamarckist would not recognize the distinction I am pointing out.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join