Question

What are your opinions on Artificial Organs?? Are you for or against the invention??

Answer 1

@jim_thompson5910 @e.cociuba @EvonHowell @Mertsj

Answer 2

there's nothing wrong with them since they help people live better and healthier lives

Answer 3

without the need of a transplant and waiting for the transplant (ie you have to wait for someone else to die or give up the organ in need)

Answer 4

Thxs:D @e.cociuba @jim_thompson5910 I agree with both of you:)

Answer 5

and you don't have to worry about rejection of the artificial organ (I think?)

with many transplants, the new organ is often attacked by the immune system because it's a foreign object, which means the immune system has to be suppressed

however, I don't think the artificial organ is attacked, but not 100% sure

Answer 6

but the cool thing about artificial organs is that they can be mass produced and distributed

on top of that, you can produce organs that are potentially better than the real thing

ex: lungs that can hold more oxygen or a heart that can pump more blood...this is debatable if we really want such things or not

Answer 7

Well, it depends. Sometimes the body wont accept it because there could be diseases or illnesses in the tissue that cause the whole procedure/organ to stop functioning. But yeah, depends on your immune system and your body. @jim_thompson5910

Answer 8

Yeah, i so agree @jim_thompson5910

Answer 9

i think in general, if the body encounters anything foreign, then the immune system will attack

but something in the back of my mind wants me to exclude artificial organs, not sure why

Answer 10

could be wrong, idk, but I think the artificial organs don't have the biological markers that the real thing does...idk

Answer 11

@Mertsj @EvonHowell What are your opinions??

Answer 12

Anyone??

Answer 13

Actually,

Answer 14

I think a part of the artificial organs are"how they should be made?"
Should we genetically modify a single individual as "donor" knowing that at some point this individual most die in order to help another?
Or should we use the fact that some cells have pluripotency (steam cells) and from their try to use biotechnology?

Answer 15

This give rise to a ethical discussion.

Answer 16

from there*

Answer 17

I support it! Why, though?
- On every cell, there's a tag called an MCH marker, which is basically used to differentiate between body and immune cells within a system. Specifically, when a cell becomes 'infected' with a virus, the expression of virus genes change the MCH marker so that it is no longer recognized as part of the body - instead, it is foreign. T cells go around the body and attack these cells, which left untreated would infect more body cells. The point is, that in organ transplants, tissues from both the donor and the receiver react if the molecules aren't really compatible. (I hope this makes sense, I tried to cut down the explanation). Anyways, this can result in failure, and this makes organ donation somewhat dangerous. Ideally, organs could be grown in the lab using nucleotides from the receiving body.
- Organ donation from the dead may not be yieldy, since organs requite very exact environments and there is limited time for organs to be transplanted. (More about this in Freakonomics)
Also, there are far more people who require organs than people willing to give them. One of my friends had to wait a year for a transplant even though she was in dire need, having a rare heart disorder. High demand.

Answer 18

i agree @Frostbite @wach

Answer 19

THXS:D @wach @Frostbite

Answer 20

But what is more interesting is to hear your thoughts about it :)

Answer 21

I respect the religious views of others, however i find it ridiculous for people's theories to determine life or death.

I believe that Artificial Organs can prolong a persons life and one day those who wait months for a transplant, will only have to wait a couple weeks or even days. Statistics and scientists have proven that Artificial organs can become the FUTURE.

I think that the invention of Artificial Organs is a great one because, even through all the cons or risks, one day it could all be worth the surgery. I couldn't live with being in pain, so if i had cardiac or lung cancer, an artificial heart or lungs could save my life and the pain I would have to endure.

@Frostbite

Answer 22

Well spoken.

Answer 23

Artificial organs are already a thing, just fyi.

Answer 24

Thank You, Sir. @Frostbite

Answer 25

Non-bioartificial ones if I remember correct? @wach

Answer 26

Yes, they are but some, like the heart and the lungs have to be mechanical powered... But some like the windpipe or the ear are not, they are 100% artificial, made from those stem cells... @wach

Answer 27

However I'm very behind the lattes articles in medical science and things go extremely fast nowadays.

Answer 28

Take a look at these: http://is.gd/30ogXh & http://is.gd/iVm00O

Answer 29

2007 is quite old in this subject...

Answer 30

Correct. Though we can already 'grow' organs and also stimulate cellular division in pre-existing cells to then use as a replacement. For example, stimulate division in skin cells and then regraft to the body. In terms of mech-based stuff, scientists recently created a prosthetic that links directly to the brain that senses its electromagnetic (I believe) patterns and 'controls' a mechanical limb that way.

Answer 31

lol its true, @Frostbite but thxs @Dean.Shyy

Answer 32

Also, adult somatic cells can be 'forced' into a stem-cell role. From what I have absorbed, a lot of research and progress in this area of biotech has been staunched because of controversey. But scientists can now turn adult somatic cells into iPs or induced pluripotent stem cells .. really cool. :)

Answer 33

That is really cool... Where did you find that information?? @wach

Answer 34

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/tech/stemcells/ips/
and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18600223
wikipedia is usually trustworthy also.

Answer 35

I have to disagree, Wikipedia is not a very great site. False information... @wach

Answer 36

Though there can be some mistakes, it's important that the site is open for editing - the world quickly changes, knowledge is fluid, and without such .. permeability, the site would soon turn stagnant. Information is beautiful in that way, no? Additionally, all information should be directly cited and thus accountable, and edits are checked within minutes if not seconds. Basically : look for citations to be safe. :)

Answer 37

Yea, that's true but how could you do your citing if you do use Wikipedia?? You couldn't site Wikipedia, because it's not their information, but the sites that they cited. So then you would have to go through the millions of citations to find what you really want to take out of the whole article. So i don't think that it's a very trustworthy site, even though, yea, it has great info, but it does not belong to that website... @wach

Answer 38

I guess what wach is saying is that wikipedia is a great starting off point to find more info

Answer 39

sure you can't directly cite wikipedia since most teachers won't like that (some fail students for citing wikipedia directly), but you can use sources found on the wikipedia article pages you probably wouldn't have found otherwise

Answer 40

However, consider this: what if a respected doctor only wrote an article on wikipedia and no place else? I guess it's kind of a remote chance, but it's possible.

Answer 41

So do you think it's worth it, to fail your class or that paper?? I personally dont...

Answer 42

no I'm saying use the sources used on the article page, just don't directly cite the wiki article itself

Answer 43

what's ironic is that in college I've heard teachers say don't use wikipedia, but I've seen many professors turn to it many times

so it depends on which professor you have really

Answer 44

I've had many incidents where what i was reading on Wikipedia and it would give false information. But whats ironic is it was info that i already knew was true, but very false on Wikipedia... Not worth my time...

Answer 45

well I'm sure it's been corrected at some point

Answer 46

Im pretty sure nobody would go through that HUGE lists of cited crap... lol @Frostbite

Answer 47

that's the beauty of peer review

Answer 48

I think Wikipedia is great as a sort of reference point, but no, I would not directly cite it as a source when writing a paper. But often Wikipedia is able to direct me to direct sources - for example, I linked NCBI earlier. NCBI has literally MILLIONS of articles and though it is an awesome, reliable, national source, I'm not going to sift through all of the related papers when I'm researching. It's more convenient to seek out sources like these through a medium.

Answer 49

Most times it's not, u would have to have an account to edit it... @jim_thompson5910

Answer 50

lol @Frostbite

Answer 51

yeah but it's free to sign up, so it's not a major hurdle

Answer 52

and I think people with expertise in their field have more weight, not sure though

Answer 53

Right, peer review is my best friend. lol

Answer 54

that's how all knowledge is discovered, developed, stored, transferred, etc is through peer review

Answer 55

no one person knows everything or holds all knowledge

Answer 56

Also, sorry if you've had a bad experience, but I can assure you that almost everything is peer-reviewed by administration on Wikipedia. More 'weight' is given to editors with well-sourced and correct information, and people who anonomously post incorrect statements have their IP addressed recorded for later use.

Answer 57

Wikipedia is good for reference; like quickly looking up details on a country, for example. Obviously, if you depend on it completely to write a paper that should have a variety of sources, you're going to get burned, but that should apply to any source.

Answer 58

I guess ill just stick with not using or citing Wiki, better for me and my assignments :D

Answer 59

So are we done here?? @jim_thompson5910 @wach @Frostbite LOL

Answer 60

yeah we're good, just don't directly cite wikipedia but you can use sources that wikipedia uses

Answer 61

don't have to, but nothing wrong with it

Answer 62

Does anyone know how to turn off tag notifications? And yes, this is tedious.

Answer 63

Then stop r u keep relying?? lol

Answer 64

Ok so now we're done?? LOl