Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Biotech Medicine

NHS To Give Volunteers "Synthetic Blood" Made In a Laboratory Within Two Years 57

Posted by samzenpus from the true-blood dept.
schwit1 writes: The NHS plans to test artificial blood made from human stem cells in patients and hopes to start transfusing people with artificial blood by 2017. The trials will take place in Cambridge and If successful could lead to the mass production of artificial blood. The Independent reports: "A long-awaited clinical trial of artificial red blood cells will occur before 2017, NHS scientists said. The blood is made from stem cells extracted from either the umbilical cord blood of newborn babies or the blood of adult donors. The trial, thought to be a world first, will involve small transfusions of a few teaspoons of synthetic blood to test for any adverse reactions. It will allow scientists to study the time the manufactured red blood cells can survive within human recipients. Eventually, it is hoped that the NHS will be able to make unlimited quantities of red blood cells for emergency transfusions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NHS To Give Volunteers "Synthetic Blood" Made In a Laboratory Within Two Years More

NHS To Give Volunteers "Synthetic Blood" Made In a Laboratory Within Two Years

Comments Filter:
  • If this is successful, it's nobel prize type stuff. This will save many lives.

  • Shades of Methuselah's Children (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @06:32AM (#49984093)

    Shame it won't work the way it did in that story.

    Still, a major step, especially for the rarer bloodtypes. Be nice to not have to depend so much on donors, especially since donors are way more likely to have loathsome diseases transmitted via blood than any lab-grown blood....

    • Re:Shades of Methuselah's Children (Score:5, Informative)

      by andrewbaldwin ( 442273 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @06:48AM (#49984141)

      especially since donors are way more likely to have loathsome diseases transmitted via blood

      This is not so much of a concern in the UK (it is the NHS in the article)

      Two points:

      1) All blood used in the UK is extensively screened before use

      2) In the UK people are not paid for blood - it's a donation. Thus the case of desperate people selling blood for ready cash doesn't arise. There is also a long questionnaire to be filled in every time you donate (whether it's your 1st or 40th time) which is used to screen out people who have visited countries at risk, engaged in risky sexual behaviour, had injections recently, are on medication .....

      • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Paul Frederiksen ( 4160961 )

        1) All blood used in the UK is extensively screened before use

        Until something comes along that isn't screened for. HIV comes to mind.

        • HIV is explicitly screened for. http://www.blood.co.uk/resourc... [blood.co.uk]
          • That's not my point. It wasn't screened for until it was known about, which means many people contracted HIV through blood transfusions. The same thing can happen with another new disease that they don't know about, which in turn means they aren't screening for.

            • That's not my point. It wasn't screened for until it was known about, which means many people contracted HIV through blood transfusions. The same thing can happen with another new disease that they don't know about, which in turn means they aren't screening for.

              Yeah fuck it, let's just go back to leeches.

            • The same thing can happen with another new disease that they don't know about, which in turn means they aren't screening for.

              That's why most places (at least around here) also screen for behaviours which could end with blood borne disease spreading.

              i.e.: You can't immediately donate blood after having a tattoo done.
              Even if you are HIV negative, there might be another unknown disease that could have spread from improperly cleaned tools.
              Need to way some time (1 year) before starting giving blood again.
              By that time you'll have started showing symptoms and/or news of a new blood borne disease will have been heard.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by KGIII ( 973947 )

                In general:

                Wait at least 8 weeks between whole blood (standard) donations.
                Wait at least 7 days between platelet (pheresis) donations.
                Wait at least 16 weeks between double red cell (automated) donations.

                Tattoos:

                Wait 12 months after a tattoo if the tattoo was applied in a state that does not regulate tattoo facilities. Currently, the only states that DO NOT regulate tattoo facilities are: District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah and Wyoming. This requirement is related to concerns about hepatitis. Learn more about hepatitis and blood donation.

                A tattoo is acceptable if the tattoo was applied by a state-regulated entity using sterile needles and ink that is not reused. Cosmetic tattoos applied in a licensed establishment in a regulated state using sterile needles and ink that is not reused is acceptable. You should discuss your particular situation with the health historian at the time of donation.

                Source:

                http://www.redcrossblood.org/d... [redcrossblood.org]

                Give blood - it is important. It will likely still be important for a long time. Jehovah's Witnesses can donate money and take plasma. This may have an interesting effect on them, something about an accounting for the blood which they take literally, so it will have to go in front of the elders if this becomes a thing. I once let a couple of elderly Witnesses into my home as they had gone through so much effort I felt that I should reward them. I in

          • You missed the OP's point. Yes, HIV is screened for now. When the AIDS epidemic started, it wasn't screened for because nobody knew it existed. What pathogen that isn't tested for because nobody knows it exists could be in blood supply now?

      • One of the biggest issues in the UK is prion disease, and the US, Canada, New Zealand, Poland, etc... restrict blood donations from people who have spent a significant amount of time in the UK or France
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Blood donations that have expired in the US are frequently shipped to the UK for use since they are in dire need of blood that is guaranteed to be prion disease free

      • "2) In the UK people are not paid for blood - it's a donation."

        I'm sure you people believe that poor Americans are required by their slave overseers to trade their blood for the Krispy Kreme donuts they can't do without, but that's not how it works. It was recognized that paying for blood would attract the wrong kind of donor, so we set up a system called "blood banking": middle-class people, the kind who have to pay dearly for their healthcare, donated blood in exchange for credit against future need for b

    • There is also some hope that we'll be able to come up with a synthetic that is easier to store. In a proper hospital, or near one, that's a problem we've solved more or less well enough(given that demand is fairly constant and not too 'peaky', longer stockpile times would be nice; but inventory turns over fairly quickly); but if somebody can come up with a mylar pouch filled with a liquid perfluorocarbon and some specially crafted macromolecules that is an acceptable substitute for a modest percentage of yo

  • A monumental day (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 25, 2015 @06:47AM (#49984135)

    If this actually works, it will completely change the world.
    Blood shortages are a huge issue in the medical world. And considerably more so for rarer blood types.
    If this works, it will lead the way to making blood no more of an issue than giving someone a standard saline drip.
    Eventually it might even pave the way to universal synth blood, or smart blood that targets the host and erodes the unneeded targets for other blood types.

    Of course, let's face it, something will go wrong.
    Either it will be toxic or zombies. Or super cancer. Even though it can't cause cancer. But nature finds a way to screw us.

    Good luck to the researches and vic--- patients.

  • Aid overpopulation (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    We as a global community are unable to manage our species own reckless destruction of global biodiverisity. It's true this will ease suffering, but it will have costs in other areas. The more humans are less held back by their own mortality, the more freedom they have to further destroy nature - as history has told us already.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Yes but... once the proletariat accepts the idea of manufactured blood, think what can be done with that blood!

      - built in obsolescence - when the patient reaches 80, or if the patient gets dementia, the engineered blood can take 'em down.

      The possibilities are endless!

  • Fiction becomes reality (Score:5, Funny)

    by Totenglocke ( 1291680 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @07:34AM (#49984363)
    So, you're saying that they've invented True Blood? Then we should expect to see vampires "coming out of the coffin" in a few years.... I can't wait!

    • "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson

      But synthetic blood is so much more convenient.

  • Teaspoons (Score:5, Funny)

    by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @07:52AM (#49984479) Homepage

    The trial, thought to be a world first, will involve small transfusions of a few teaspoons of synthetic blood

    I know it's England, tradition and all that, but wouldn't syringes make the job easier?

  • Which is it, artificial or synthetic? (Score:3)

    by Muad'Dave ( 255648 ) on Thursday June 25, 2015 @08:13AM (#49984635) Homepage

    The article calls the cells 'artificial' and the blood 'synthetic' - I would argue that the cells are not artificial but merely exogenous since they arise from the same stem cells 'normal' blood comes from and are simply grown external to the body (and are indistinguishable from 'real' RBCs, presumably). An artificial cell would be: 1) a cell-like nano-machine manufactured to carry O2, or 2) a living cell derived from other types of cells that has been coaxed into carrying O2 but was not grown from RBC-producing stem cells.

    If the non-RBC components of the blood are not similarly derived or do not come from actual fractionated whole blood or plasma, then I agree that the blood is synthetic.

  • Cool and all, but... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Why is the National Honor Society concerned with putting synthetic blood in people?

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close