It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Original Source
A business unit of Warwick, R.I.-based MultiCell Technologies Inc. has been granted a U.S. patent on its Sybiol synthetic bio-liver device. The patent includes more than 40 claims to the device and methods for its use in the purification of a patient’s bodily fluids.
San Diego-based Xenogenics Corp 's synthetic bio-liver device was redesigned to use the MultiCell's immortalized human liver cell lines. The Sybiol bio-liver is a device designed to support patients who are waiting for liver transplants and are suffering from episodic liver disease caused by hepatitis, alcoholism or cancer, or from burn or toxic shock syndrome or other liver trauma.
Jerry Newmin, MultiCell's CEO, said the company intends to file additional patents covering further improvements to the Sybiol device and its application.
MultiCell provides non-tumorigenic functional hepatic (liver) cells and cell lines to pharmaceutical companies for induction studies and toxicity screening for drug discovery.
Originally posted by Schmidt1989
i wonder if theyll ever be able to create a synthetic brain, isnt it too complicated and stuff?
The lungs are another tricky organ to replicate.
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I think it's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Can anyone confirm that?
Originally posted by sardion2000
They've already made Artificial lungs too
news.bbc.co.uk...
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Originally posted by sardion2000
They've already made Artificial lungs too
news.bbc.co.uk...
Good link Sardion, but it was from 2001. The article said they were entering clinical trials, any word since then? I haven't heard anything about this, so I would surmise they either found it wasn't workable, or they haven't completed the trials. Any idea which?
Mattison
I found this link and I'm looking for others. I think my number of neurons was correct, but I'm still trying to figure out how to set up the equation, because the simple multiplication doesn't allow for complex connections. I was always under the impression that while the number of neurons was manageable, quantifiable, the number of connections was astronomical. 100 billion neurons, do we agree on that? Here's that link.
hypertextbook.com...
[edit on 1-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]
Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Mattison
I found this link and I'm looking for others. I think my number of neurons was correct, but I'm still trying to figure out how to set up the equation, because the simple multiplication doesn't allow for complex connections.
I was always under the impression that while the number of neurons was manageable, quantifiable, the number of connections was astronomical. 100 billion neurons, do we agree on that?