UK scientists plan a major research project to see if synthetic human blood can be made from embryonic stem cells.
Led by the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, the three year trial could provide an unlimited supply of blood for emergency transfusions.
The blood should be free of infections like the human form of mad cow disease.
Teams will test human embryos left over from IVF treatment to find those destined to develop into the universal "O-negative" blood donor group.
O-negative blood can be transfused into anyone without fear of tissue rejection and is the only safe option when a patient's blood group is unknown or not immediately available.
This precious blood is in limited supply because only 7% of the population belongs to this blood group.
The Wellcome Trust is understood to have promised £3m towards the cost of the multimillion-pound project, with further funding coming from the blood transfusion services of Scotland, and England and Wales.
The Irish government is also believed to be involved.
The project will be led by Professor Marc Turner of Edinburgh University who is the director of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service.
He said the work would begin in the next few weeks after final approval had been gained from the relevant research bodies.
Stem cells are the body's master cells, with the ability to transform into any type of tissue.
Scientists have already shown it is possible to take a single stem cell from an early human embryo and encourage it to develop into mature blood cells in the laboratory.
And a US firm called Advanced Cell Technology has managed to produce billions of red blood cells from embryonic blood cells in this way.
The challenge now is to scale up the production and move the science from the lab to the bedside, which will take years.
Professor Turner said: "We should have proof of principle in the next few years, but a realistic treatment is probably five to 10 years away.
"In principle, we could provide an unlimited supply of blood in this way."
However, many groups object to the use of embryonic stem cells on the grounds that it is unethical to destroy embryos in the name of science.
FROM THE BBC WORLD SERVICE
More from BBC World Service
Josephine Quintavalle of the public interest group Comment on Reproductive Ethics said: "Like so many of the claims associated with embryonic stem cells, this is first steps research rather than a cure around the corner, and just as hypothetical as the rest of the claims which try to justify destroying the human embryo for the benefit of mankind.
"Associating this controversial research with a National Blood Transfusion service may even end up contaminating the feel-good image of blood banks.
"Those who donate blood but who defend the right to life of the human embryo may be reluctant to continue giving their blood."
If this works, removing the need for blood donations can only be a good thing. Though I do have one question: Would the groups with religious objections to blood transfusions accept transfusions of this synthetic blood ?
If they still object, will they object due to it using stem cells, or object because it's a blood transfusion ?
bilateralrope wrote:
If this works, removing the need for blood donations can only be a good thing. Though I do have one question: Would the groups with religious objections to blood transfusions accept transfusions of this synthetic blood ?
If they still object, will they object due to it using stem cells, or object because it's a blood transfusion ?
Either, or. It's a religious nut job routine. They pick the reason as they feel like it.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.
It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
I think that the proportion of religious types objecting to transfusions is much smaller than the proportion objecting to embryonic stem cell utilization.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
Considering the source would be embryonic stem cells I'd say the chances of them accepting that blood would be zero.
Anyway, it doesn't speak of the process and how much it would cost. Blood donation may end up being cheaper or easier if the factory isn't near enough to the source.
But it's all five-to-ten years aways for treatments, even, so blood donations aren't going anywhere.
"To make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe."
— Carl Sagan
When I read the thread title, I was hoping that this process would be in place by next week, so I could avoid my bimonthly donation. Sadly, as this is not the case, I'll be rolling up my sleeve and taking another one for the team.
I have to say, though, that if this works out (and is cost effective) it could free up quite a few resources in the blood collection business. That means that those nurses could get back to doing nursing again, which in Canada, at least, would be good for the hospitals (and, therefore, the patients).
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.
Vampires rejoice! Free yourself from hunger with all you can drink Synthetic blood. Next up, arguments on how much more healthy for your unlife free-range blood is verses from concentrate.
That said we need more information. They can produce billions of cells? Fine every human being is filled with tens of billions of cells in our blood. Millions of cells die each day. How long can this synthetic blood last? What is the production amount? If ten thousand steam cells how many galleons of red blood cells can I produce? Or is it just ounces?
Technically if you can get a nice feed-back loop you can feed the stem cells back into producing more of themselves, them produce more and more and more, then slice off some and convert the rest to red blood cells. But what is the ratio?
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
Ender wrote:I'm more surprised they haven't tried to culture the marrow in artificial environments to produce it en mass yet
They do culture the bone marrow for treatment of leukaemia and cancers, so they can test for/blitz out the bad stuff and funnel the good blood back into the person. Trouble is, it's pretty expensive, certainly more expensive than donation.
EBC|Fucking Metal|Artist|Androgynous Sexfiend|Gozer Kvltist|
Listen to my music! http://www.soundclick.com/nihilanth "America is, now, the most powerful and economically prosperous nation in the country." - Master of Ossus
Also before we rejoice at the lack of future blood donations, I would point out that this research will, if I'm reading it right, only eliminate the need for red cell donations. Blood plasma donations - which is not from O but AB people due to how the antigens work - will still be needed.
"Hey, gang, we're all part of the spleen!"
-PZ Meyers
Eris wrote:Also before we rejoice at the lack of future blood donations, I would point out that this research will, if I'm reading it right, only eliminate the need for red cell donations. Blood plasma donations - which is not from O but AB people due to how the antigens work - will still be needed.
True, but that's a terribly small cloud for a great deal of silver lining. Healthy people of almost any size can donate over a liter of plasma per week while blood can only be donated every ~6 weeks.
On the one hand, this is really great news, given the near-perpetual blood supply shortage.
On the other hand, donating blood is one of the easiest ways to save lives...so if this replaces blood donations, that's one easy good-karma source gone.
On the other other hand, it means I won't have to deal with needles.
On the other(^2) hand, if blood plasma donations are still needed, then that's all right...and maybe I'll still be able to get cookies.
On the other...er, wait. I seem to have run out of hands...twice over.
It certainly sounds promising. I've given blood twice in my life and each time afterwards I came down with a cold that ended up lingering on for weeks. This caused me to be quite reluctant to try a donation again, though I do feel a bit guilty considering the need and general lack of donations. I have resolved, having never needed any blood, in the case that I ever do need a transfusion, once recovered I will pay back with interest any blood that I did use.
Thanks to all those that do give blood regularly, you definitely do end up saving lives on a regular basis!
