Artificial Blood

[Noble]

Link. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/6645923.stm)

This is pretty amazing. No more blood donation, no more hunting for rare blood types, and no more soldiers dying of wounds that could have been treated had they gotten to a supply of donor blood quick enough.

As soon as I read about this though, I thought about the inevitable controversy to follow. What do you guys think? Would you have a problem with "plastic" blood flowing through your veins?

Personally, if it keeps the oxygen flowing through my body, I wouldn't care. But there are plenty of people who don't even want donor blood in their veins, let alone something artificial.

[ZimZum]

I don't see why artificial would be worse than donor, really. While it wouldn't be mine, at least it isn't someone else's entirely.

This is cool stuff. If it means lives can be saved, awesome.

[theBlind]

there are plenty of people who don't even want donor blood in their veins, let alone something artificial.
I'd call that natural selection, but they wouldn't believe in it anyway.


OT: Artificial blood for everyone? That'd be another one of the major medical breakthroughs recently. As long as it keeps me alive and won't cause damage, they can pretty much pump cheese through my veins for all I care.



Hmmm... cheese...

[Hiroshi_Tea]

probably will be tested on the battlefields first
if troops stat dying from the artificial blood
or develop psychosis
that's a good sign this isn't going to be used a lot
make the military the lab rats

i support the movement of artificial blood
i see nothing that conflicts with christianity

[Ifitmovesnukeit]

I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. We put plenty of "unnatural" things in our bodies that we trust to work. Vaccines, the chemicals that we dip contact lenses into before placing them in our eyes... then there's people with pacemakers. Hard to think anyone would have a problem with this if they accept all of the other stuff, as long as it's medically sound. All we really are, are very sophisticated fleshy machines with largely very-much-within-our-ability-to-understand mechanics. Replacing a part with a functional equivalent should do us no harm.

[Question]

As long as the blood works, sure, why not? I think only hard core religious types would have a problem with this even if they were in a do or die situation.

[UltramarineEi]

Did anyone else suddenly feel a strong connection to Galatica?

Anyway, if this gets into massproduction, this will be one of the most important inventions of this decade, if not century.

[SquidDNA]

Question, it's some of the hard core religious types that won't accept blood transfusions. Artificial blood would nicely sidestep the requirement.

However, blood, as an organ, does more than carry oxygen. It heals wounds, it fights infections, it maintains tissue water pressure, and it also carries a massive amount of CO2 by converting it to HCO3. Until artificial blood can do these things I suspect there will be a maximum administrable amount / patient / day.

[Aron_DeTomado]

I wander what the lifespan of these artificial blood cells. Real RBCs are replaced every 3 months or so, IIRC, but I wonder if perhaps the body will have any trouble breaking down these "plastic cells" (Do they really contain plastic elements, BTW, or was that just the journalist using a figure of speech?). If the lifespan of these blood cells could be prolonged beyond that of normal RBCs, and they could somehow be made to replicate the clotting effects of real blood, I wander if this could also be used to treat diseases like hemophilia.

[Woolly]

If it works good then it's genious. :) Btw I'm a beliver and I wouldn't mind having some chip in my brain if it works correctly and such.

[SquidDNA]

There are no cells (real or synthetic) in the blood.

Optimally, the synthetic hemoglobin will get broken down over the course of a few days. While you want it to have a very long shelf life, you don't want it sticking around in the body forever. Since it isn't made of protein it will be easy to get the former, but I imagine tricky to also get the latter. Perhaps they have and it was easy.

[Woolly]

You're such a pro SquidDNA. ;)

[Moe]

Would you have a problem with "plastic" blood flowing through your veins?

Hell no, why would I? People have plastic teeth, plastic eye lenses, plastic legs and god knows what else, what's the problem with blood?

[Verrin]

Well, they already make constituents of blood artificially. For example, I'm taking an artificial coagulant (Factor IX) for my Hemophilia, which I take intravenously. The downside is that it requires twice the volume in comparison to the real thing (to get the same results), but at least now I'm free of blood disease risks, and I'm no longer reliant on the blood donations of others.

Creating artificial blood just seems like the logical next step, really.

[Ifitmovesnukeit]

Hell no, why would I? People have plastic teeth, plastic eye lenses, plastic legs and god knows what else, what's the problem with blood?

I suppose it's cosmetic vs. life-dependent- we have phrases like "lifeblood" for a reason. Some people might reject the idea of using artificial means to keep themselves alive. Of course, many people even now are doing it all the time, trusting their lives to medical knowledge, as I happily would. I don't see a problem, but I guess for a lot of people, an instinct for rejecting the idea of replacing your blood with a mix of chemicals designed to mimic it is understandable.

[Nurizeko]

Question, it's some of the hard core religious types that won't accept blood transfusions. Artificial blood would nicely sidestep the requirement.

However, blood, as an organ, does more than carry oxygen. It heals wounds, it fights infections, it maintains tissue water pressure, and it also carries a massive amount of CO2 by converting it to HCO3. Until artificial blood can do these things I suspect there will be a maximum administrable amount / patient / day.

Indeed. It is my understanding the need to get rid of CO2 is more pressing then the need for oxygen, which is the say, breathing is triggered by the need to expell CO2 over the need to take in oxygen.

Likewise the molecules are probably packed up nicely in cell membrane sacks called red blood cells for a reason. Not to mention the other handy important things blood carries/does.

I doubt we'll be seeing this stuff spread across the world solving blood shortages anytime soon, and by the sounds of it its still in no way a good substitute for the real deal.


Anyway, didn't they figure out a way to like snip off the antigens from blood cells enabling them to be used in all sorts of folk?.

I would google but its late and I want to sleep.

[CommodoreKitty]

The real advantage to this is that it can be stored for a lot longer than normal blood, and is safer. No more worries about disease. It doesn't do all the things that normal blood does, but then again is not supposed to. It's job is to keep you alive after significant blood lose. If you don't want the blood in you, then you can die if that seems better for you.


Oh, and my grandfather bought a bunch of shares from the company that makes this. They did a test and found that there was a slightly higher mortality rate with the blood. The stock went down ~60% and it turned out the test was flawed, just wanted to throw that out there. :D

[Balnazzar]

I'm concerned about the body's ability to destroy these plastic molecules once they are no longer useful.

[SquidDNA]

To hell with them no longer being useful-- they can keep on going being useful for ten years, I don't care, but that's not how the body works. They're going to end up somewhere besides the blood and if they can't get broken down at that point it seems likely they're going to cause problems.

Regarding "not doing everything blood does" and "keeping you alive" I'm curious why you think there's a gap between these two.

[CommodoreKitty]

Regarding "not doing everything blood does" and "keeping you alive" I'm curious why you think there's a gap between these two.

I meant it will only transport oxygen, not clot a wound or stop an infection.

[Tails]

I'm holding my breath until they get some test results from laboratory animals.

[Noble]

Optimally, the synthetic hemoglobin will get broken down over the course of a few days. While you want it to have a very long shelf life, you don't want it sticking around in the body forever. Since it isn't made of protein it will be easy to get the former, but I imagine tricky to also get the latter. Perhaps they have and it was easy.

Could it not be used in emergency situations as a last resort to prevent brain death? Or would the lack of a capability to get rid of CO2 cause brain death anyways?

[-V-]

IIRC, there's already a form of artificial blood that is approved for use in Dogs (brand-name: Oxyglobin), and other pets. However, as of yet there have been no companies that have received FDA approval for their product. A few are in Phase 3 trials (large scale clinical), but even reaching phase 3 does not mean that they are going to get approved, as a good number of drugs that make it to phase 3 still fall flat on their face, and some that even pass it (COX2 inhibitors, anyone?) are later pulled off the market as unsafe.

If you all are really interested in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_substitutes is a good source of info on all the artificial blood developments.

Looking at the article though, this company in question hasn't even started animal trials of their product, so its really nothing to even bat an eye-lash about. If they were in Phase I, II, or III of clinical trials, thats cool and noteworthy, but as is, it has a 1 in 1,000 or worse chance of success.

-e-: http://www.northfieldlabs.com/ these guys have actually finished Phase 3 trials with their blood substitute, and are awaiting the results. The product itself is manufactured from human blood, in all previous clinical trials has shown no adverse results. If you want to get exited about artificial blood, this is the product to look at.

[Ironwatsas]

I belive that Khorne, Dracula, and Al Gore are all royally pissed right about now.

If I was in a situation where I needed blood, then I'd use it. However, I'm not as exited about artificial blood then I am about nano robots that swim in the bloodstream and can carry oxygen, destroy diseases, clear cholesterol and (bad) blood clots, make good blood clots, blow up kidney stones, and all that good stuff.

Of course artificial blood comes first, so I'm still somewhat exited.

[LoCo]

theBlind
there are plenty of people who don't even want donor blood in their veins, let alone something artificial.


I'd call that natural selection, but they wouldn't believe in it anyway.

Umm yeah, because natural selection has so much to do with not wanting synthetic blood running around in you, or not wanting someone elses blood in you.

Seriously, why do you hate people who are different from you? Just because they have different views, doesn't mean they are somehow less. They are human, it's about time you started acting like one. They have no less inteligence, wisdom, or common sense than you. They know that not having that stuff can mean that they die. They accept that. Why do you have to deride them for it?

"Live and let live". not "Live and ridicule."

I wouldn't want it, even if it could do all that blood could do. Not for any religious reason. Simply because I don't want it. I dislike the thought of things too small for me to see without aid creeping around inside me.

Must be that fucking "natural selection" you were talking about ...

[Moe]

I suppose it's cosmetic vs. life-dependent

While you can live without your lenses, you can't actually see very well, so I wouldn't call it "cosmetic".

[Balnazzar]

Umm yeah, because natural selection has so much to do with not wanting synthetic blood running around in you, or not wanting someone elses blood in you.

Seriously, why do you hate people who are different from you? Just because they have different views, doesn't mean they are somehow less. They are human, it's about time you started acting like one. They have no less inteligence, wisdom, or common sense than you. They know that not having that stuff can mean that they die. They accept that. Why do you have to deride them for it?

"Live and let live". not "Live and ridicule."

I wouldn't want it, even if it could do all that blood could do. Not for any religious reason. Simply because I don't want it. I dislike the thought of things too small for me to see without aid creeping around inside me.

Must be that fucking "natural selection" you were talking about ...

I suppose he said that because it is a biological imperative to stay alive, and to choose to die over something as minor as being uncomfortable with the idea of having tiny plastic molecules in your bloodstream seems ridiculous.

To me, it's like refusing to go to the hospital when you're dying, because you don't like the food there.

At any rate, don't underestimate survival instinct. I think even people who feel uncomfortable with this will accept it if it means they get to live, except maybe for the really religious.

[Aron_DeTomado]

Injured people who refuse transfusions tend to die, while injured people who accept them tend to live. I think that's about as naturally selective as you can get.

[SquidDNA]

LoCo, I think a lot of people who have been injured by people with these attitudes resent their world views. For them it's well past live and let live. Of course, one shade of intolerance is just as good as another, but there are often reasons for the way people feel.

I'm interested to know why you think synthetic molecules are things that anthropomorphically creep around inside of you. Do you feel the same way about medicines, or having bones held in place with pins while they heal? What about the polymer "liquid band aids" that mimic blood coagulation and scab formation? What do you see as the distinction between the functions of these inanimate objects that complement and mimic the human body's natural function? I would like to better understand your feelings.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I can understand people being uncomfortable with artificial, urm, parts.

[Ifitmovesnukeit]

While you can live without your lenses, you can't actually see very well, so I wouldn't call it "cosmetic".

Aha, but cosmetics are all about what you can see, are they not? :p

[LoCo]

I'd like to cop out here and just say "It's how I feel" and just leave it at that, but that's hardly fair no? Just remember that I myself understand it's not completely logical, but like most fears it is real and does affect my choices in life.

I've got nothing against "medicines" in general. I understand the concept that anything I digest (IE: Pain killers, etc.) is most likely to end up floating around where this type of "synthi-blood" would go. That's fine with me. That type of thing doesn't stay in my body for that long, just untill it's sorted the problem and then it's either flushed or dissolves or somesuch.

But this is too much like having another person's blood in me. I'm what you might call "personally" selfish. I don't like to share biological things. (In my youth, this has lead to quite a few ... events ... when I found myself "face to face" with females.) I've never been comfortable with that kind of thing. I don't want another person's blood in me, and I don't give blood. I won't take a heart transplant, or any other. Not from simple aversion, but because I know I would end up trying to cut it out of me.

I've been in the hospital a few times, and every time that kind of thing is spoken of as an option, I can already feel ... well, it's like an itch that I can't scratch, only it's not itchy. That's just from talk about it.

With blood, even synthi-blood, my whole body would feel like that, and survival instinct or not, I'd want to "get rid of the itch". As for bone splinters, It's almost the same, strap it outside, even if the bone sets crooked. Band-aids ... never used the gel/liquid stuff, just the regular old ones. However, just thinking about it mixing with my blood makes me uneasy.

I've had fillings in my teeth for the past twelve or so years, and my mouth hasn't felt comfortable since I got them. It's not actual discomfort, but I know they are there, and I've yet to stop feeling for them. However, I allow them because it's still on the "outside" so to speak. Like a splint for my teeth.

As I said, I know it's not logical to be fine with taking head-ache pills while not wanting something like this. I suspect I'll be in a lot of mental anguish when they finally get nano-bots running around everyone. While it is cool, I won't be able to use them.

PS: Aron_DeTomado, Natural selection would get rid of the weak (Be it strength or intelligence). Don't even try and tell me that not wanting synthetic blood in me makes me a weak. That would just be asinine.

[apaosha]

Could be useful on a temporary basis. Not permanent though. I'm with Loco on this: bit iffy.

[Black]

How the hell do you guys manage to read the article and miss how it is a temporary solution for emergencies when a wounded person is not near a source of donor blood for a transfusion? This isn't meant to be permanent or a substitute for blood, it's supposed to be a way of keeping somebody alive until they can be given a transfusion.

[No Surrender]

Maybe this will also have the side effect of curbing HIV transmission since you can't get HIV from artificial blood.

[apaosha]

Whoops. I didn't read the whole of this thread. Consider me corrected. :bonk:

[theBlind]

but like most fears it is real and does affect my choices in life.

That's a point I fully agree upon. I guess my earlier comment was not thought through - while I stand by my opinion that I think it's foolish to die because you don't want something alien inside your body, personal fears are maybe the best counter argument I'd accept.

I apologise - my comment was meant towards religious reasons to deny such a treatment, not fear or uneasiness.

[Aron_DeTomado]

LoCo, I didn't mean it as an insult, irrational fears are not something we can control, and your points kinda make me feel lucky that all I got stuck with was terror of creepy-crawly things and a slight unease over dirt. Any kind of fear is a weakness though, just like being poor at math or being a slow runner is, but a rather minute one, and not something which is cause for labeling a person as weak.

[Nanor]

Wow! This is amazing! It'll save so many lives! :D

[BmB]

LoCo: Welcome in the club. I really feel for you on the teeth, personally I think it's like having a bodypart that's inherintly weak and I can't do anything about it. Good news are that I heard they are working on some sort of more natural calcium filling or somesuch, one that sticks. (so they don't have to drill, yay!)

Hell, I have it to such an extent I only reluctantly use soap and shampoo.

[Noble]

Aron_DeTomado, Natural selection would get rid of the weak (Be it strength or intelligence). Don't even try and tell me that not wanting synthetic blood in me makes me a weak. That would just be asinine.

I'm not trying to call you weak, but if you are dying from blood loss and refuse a transfusion, and die subsequently because of that refusal, that is natural selection. You died because of a weaker trait, while your friend who had no problem with such a transfusion was able to live and reproduce. That is the very definition of natural selection.

[Black]

How the **** is it natural selection when we're considering something artificial? Come on guys, this is just silly and irrelevant to reality.

[Noble]

I just explained that to you. I don't know why you feel the need to be vulgar.

If you refuse blood transfusions (artificial or otherwise) or any other medical operation that could save your life, and you die, you participated in natural selection. Your personality traits dictated that you would not participate in such operations, so you died. You are removed from the gene pool. Meanwhile, someone who's personality dictates that they do participate in such medical operations, survives, and is allowed to pass on his/her genetic traits to future generations.

Natural Selection.

[Black]

1) Personality is not something you inherit, therefore it's not a trait subject to natural selection. If you disagree, post your scientific sources saying that they have found genes directly correlated to personality.*

2) Most people who would refuse such a transfusion would be adults, that is, they've already passed on their genes anyway so natural selection doesn't do anything.

Natural selection doesn't select people, it selects genes!

*Not even personality. Personality is how you react to things, how you interact socially, etc. This is a belief. Beliefs aren't heritable at all!

[Starfisher]

Read The Blank Slate (http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial-Nature/dp/0670031518). Behavior does have a genetic component; if it didn't, it never would have evolved in the first place. The fact that your brain spontaneously learns language, body language, and has hard coded behaviors to both simple and complex stimuli seals the deal. While individual personality quirks cannot be completely attributed to inheritance, something like what LoCo describes clearly has some mental component that goes beyond him deciding one day that he doesn't like foreign substances.

But wait a minute. This has nothing to do with the thread! So let's make a new one or stop talking about it.

[Noble]

That's a good point. It is my understanding that personality is an amalgamation of genetic traits, and life experience (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no geneticist). For instance, someone can be predisposed to addictive behavior, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will be an addict.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that this is still a case of natural selection. Irrational fear, and the fight or flight mechanism is due in large part to instinct. If a person's fight or flight mechanism decides that they are more afraid of that blood than of bleeding to death, they will die and not pass on their genetics. People who's fight or flight mechanism doesn't care about artificial blood, will live. Thus we will have more people who are not afraid of blood transfusions passing on their genetics.