Is this the end of blood donation?Scientists close to unlimited supply from stem cells

A 20 year project may start to bear fruit. Unlimited cloned blood that can be fashioned for the individual and their medical problems.


There could be a new technology that is going to interrupt the billion $$$ industry of collecting and distributing blood. What will be the cost?

Blood donors may no longer be needed in the future after scientists showed it was possible to create blood from stem cells.

The 20 year project could pave the way for an unlimited number of blood and immune cells for transplants, simply by reprogramming a patient’s own skin cells.

This tech could help people with blood or immune disorders. Exciting if affordable.

www.telegraph.co.uk...
“This step opens up an opportunity to take cells from patients with genetic blood disorders, use gene editing to correct their genetic defect and make functional blood cells.”

For patients receiving treatment for cancer, blood disorders, after accidents or during surgery, or new mums who lose blood in childbirth, blood is an absolutely essential part of healthcare.

a reply to: seasonal

Curious to see what pro-life people would think of this.
Fascinating read. Thanks for sharing.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

The blood can be made using your own skin cells. So I can't see the problem with that part at least.

a reply to: seasonal

I imagine it'll just turn into a billion dollar industry making blood from stem cells.
I'll carry on donating for now. Here in the UK the NHS takes voluntary donations and donors get 'paid' tea with biscuits or cake...often provided by volunteer groups.

*edit*
It seems to work well, and I love the thought of every pint of my blood somebody else found useful.
Either way, my outlook is always my blood type...B+


*further edit*
Another bonus of giving blood in the UK is a free test for multiple diseases because they write to say they don't want any more blood if you have something.

a reply to: seasonal

My prediction for tomorrow's headlines, "Freak Lab Explosion Destroys 20 Years of Research - No Foul Play Suspected".

I'm wondering how the blood could be created in an emergency situation fast enough to save someone with massive blood loss. I'd think blood donors would still be needed in that case. Still sounds like a great thing to me.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
I'm wondering how the blood could be created in an emergency situation fast enough to save someone with massive blood loss. I'd think blood donors would still be needed in that case. Still sounds like a great thing to me.

Agreed but I can see them possibly focusing on O neg, universal donor. Just constantly produce it and you will always have a supply.

a reply to: Khaleesi

I thought that as well.
...and I always wished I was O so everyone could use my blood.

a reply to: scojak

You could be right, will the lead scientists be killed or not?

I think this may be better than getting donated blood. There are some problems with donated blood, it has to be fresh to work best yet the blood is set into rotation so all of it is a little old. What they thought was alright is not, the blood is damaged by storing it over half as long as they do. Also matching antigens with blood donations can be a problem. Everyone has different blood chemistry, not even twins are the same after years of being apart.

Receiving blood as an emergency is sometimes necessary, but I sure would not desire to be getting it without really needing it. Adding fluids in the blood is all right, I just am iffy about receiving blood or plasma unless I knew the person it comes from.

At least they can create blood from your own skin, it will match better than someone else's blood.

The question is which is more cost effective?

1) Give $10 to a homeless guy for a pint of his blood.

or

2) Use state of the art new equipment to clone a pint of blood.

Yeah, I think this one will depend upon the hospital as well as the patients.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

Correct in a profit driven system it is cheap supply-very high retail prices.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: seasonal

Curious to see what pro-life people would think of this.
Fascinating read. Thanks for sharing.

And religious groups like jehovah witness that don't allow blood transfusions.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
I'm wondering how the blood could be created in an emergency situation fast enough to save someone with massive blood loss. I'd think blood donors would still be needed in that case. Still sounds like a great thing to me.

If the tech was good enough they would just take stem cells from you as soon as you got on insurance and store your blood just in case anything happened to you.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: seasonal

Curious to see what pro-life people would think of this.
Fascinating read. Thanks for sharing.

The process that de-matures non-embryonic stem cells creates no moral issues whatsoever.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: seasonal

Curious to see what pro-life people would think of this.
Fascinating read. Thanks for sharing.

I guess I must be missing something. What would this have to do with pro-life/pro-choice/abortion? Are they grinding up babies or something to do this?

originally posted by: MteWamp

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: seasonal

Curious to see what pro-life people would think of this.
Fascinating read. Thanks for sharing.

I guess I must be missing something. What would this have to do with pro-life/pro-choice/abortion? Are they grinding up babies or something to do this?

Since human embryonic stem cells were isolated in 1998, scientists have been trying with little success to use them to make blood-forming stem cells.

In the new research, the Boston team started with embryonic stem cells and exposed them to a chemical soup which triggered their transformation into a tissue which eventually makes blood stem cells.

1983 - major, major accident. I had to have 13 units of blood during the course of trying to save my life. Which obviously they did! Then in 1985, Surgeon General Koop did a mass educational campaign about AIDS. I did get tested, and it was the longest 2 weeks of my life (they didn't have an instant result testing capability then).

If they can provide clean, disease free blood - then I'm all for it.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

So this would not change a thing for them.


This a stink does not make.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

Do people not just give blood for altruistic reasons in the US then?
Here in the UK you get a cup of tea and biscuits, or cake if you're lucky lol.
Brits give blood to save lives, not for payment.