This blog is devoted to BIOL 6988, a graduate level seminar in the biological sciences at Youngstown State University. While targeted towards graduate students, BIOL 6988 actively incorporates undergraduate participants in their scholastic endeavors in the biological sciences. This blog is intended as a educational tool not just for YSU students and faculty, but for anyone who wishes to contribute to an active-learning environment.
This week's seminar presentations are by two students: Saher Shafi and Elsea Troy. The topic of Saher's talk has not been determined as of yet, but below is the flyer for Elsea's talk.
As Saher said, there are many potential applications of bioprinted muscles, including treatment of age-related muscle degeneration, genetic musculoskeletal and/or neuromuscular disorders, as well as just overall reduced muscle degeneration seen in some individuals. As I understand it, the printer dispenses a monolayer of myocytes onto a bio-compatible solid scaffold. Saher’s presentation focused on a novel polyethylene glycol-based heterogeneously polymerized hydrogel, supplemented with sulfuric acid as an electrolytic source. The researchers indicated that this scaffold can support myocyte growth.
These are the early stages of bioprinting. One day (distantly), we may be able to print full limbs, or organs with specific HLA types. Do you think there will be ethical, or political barriers impeding progress or application of bioprinted products? Should this be a marketable technology, or should it be reserved for medical necessity (i.e. compare to modern day use of plastic surgery)?
Troy’s preliminary work focused on identifying watershed areas/first order streams that ultimately formed tributaries of the Grand River. These areas were chosen based on a meta-analysis of surnames from the county auditor, data obtained from geographic information system mapping technology, and identification of streams using elevation mapping. From this meta-analysis, two watershed areas of interest were chosen: one in a primarily Amish community, and one under a closed canopy. Marine vertebrates (fish, turtles, frogs) will be examined in order to assess the effects of closed vs. open canopy, as well conventional 21st century vs. Amish farming techniques. Troy (or anyone), if I misunderstood anything here please feel free to correct me in the reply!
If you were to predict the outcomes of Troy’s study, which would you expect to be more beneficial (or rather less detrimental) to the environment: open vs. closed canopy, and conventional vs. Amish farming techniques? Why?
I felt that both Troy and Saher gave excellent talks on their research this past Friday. Regarding Floyd’s question on ethical issues concerning bioprinting of complete organs or limbs, I think there would be quite a bit of controversy with certain individuals thinking that this technology could make an “immortal” individual. I also think if this technology eventually reaches the point where complete organs can be formed, there will also be an issue politically as to whether or not these treatments will be covered by certain medical insurances. Depending on the position of the politicians at that time, this could pose a huge issue. Personally, I think this process should be reserved for medical necessity. That in itself would help to avoid some of the ethical barriers that could impede on the progression of bioprinting. As far as predicting the outcomes of Troy’s study, I am not entirely sure. I do not have much of an ecology background, but if I had to hypothesize, I would think that Amish farming techniques would be less detrimental to the environment. I think that the more natural technique of farming leaves less of an impact as compared to more conventional methods. As far as which type of canopy is best, I would think a closed canopy would be best.
I think Saher and Troy both did a really nice job with their presentations last week. In terms of the ethics of bioprinting, I think that there is the possibility of both political and ethical barriers. Many medical advances likely face political and ethical barriers even though we don’t always hear about what is going on behind the scenes. I personally believe that it should be reserved for medical necessity to help those with musculoskeletal/neuromuscular disorders. I find the research in Dr. Walker’s lab fascinating and I hope that there is a breakthrough one day in the field where this kind of technology can help people with these disorders. John brings up an interesting point about complete organs being formed because it reminds me of the argument about self-driving cars. I read an article in which doctors are the #1 group of professionals that are upset about self-driving cars because they believe that these cars will increase the mortality rate overall. That is because with fewer accidents there will have fewer organ donors. With that being said, I think it would be great if we could 3D print complete organs, especially with technological advances in other areas occurring. For Troy’s presentation, I agree with what John said. I hypothesize that the Amish farming techniques would be less detrimental to the environment than conventional, modern-day methods. Additionally, I would think that a closed canopy would be better than an open canopy.
I thought Troy's project was amazing and believe Dr. Cooper should give him an instant A for the class. I thought it was interesting to see the ability to in the near future grow potential limps and organs. My only concern with this is the country being overcrowded now with this research and our life expectancy rising, will we be able to support that many people. This also ties in politically with the whole health insurance being free. Will the rich be the only ones that can afford the limb transplant or grown organ transplant. I'm against free healthcare, but realistically the only people the afford living longer would be the rich. It would be interesting to think about.
Saher and Troy both gave excellent presentations last week! Thinking about Floyd's question about the different ethics facing bioprinted organs and limbs, I couldn't help thinking about a horrible movie that came out years ago called "Repo! The Genetic Opera". The storyline revolved around a company that produced organs for transplant and patients were required to make payments on them. Failure to continue payment resulted in a repo-man coming to take the organ (obviously resulting in death). It was an awful musical. But it brings the idea that this type of industry has a lot of monetary potential. However the political and ethical issues it would bring up are inevitable. We can barely get people to vaccinate so it’s hard to imagine how we could get people on board with printed organs. Thinking about Troy’s presentation, I agree with most everyone else that Amish-type farming techniques would be far less detrimental than modern day farming techniques.
Tissue culture can also use donor's cells to grow them in vitro so that would overcome specific HLA problems. Troy's presentation was very informative and I do agree with Troy that he deserves an A. It was interesting to know the workings of GIS. It would interesting to find out the results of this study, the comparison between Amish farmland and modern farmland, and the effect of fertilizers seeping in nearby water.
Saher and Troy both gave excellent presentations this week.
To address the question for Saher: I definitely can see how ethical or political barriers can impede progress on bioprinting. The FDA would likely impart strict regulations on performing trials with printed muscle implanted in vivo. Clinical trials for drugs are a lot different because if the drug has ill effects, the patient will just be taken off of it. It would be a lot more difficult to remove the muscle tissue from the patient when it has already been surgically grafted in, should any problems arise. I do not think that these kinds of procedures should be reserved for medical necessity but only if a portion of the profits go toward alleviating the cost of the procedure for people with neuromuscular/musculoskeletal disorders.
For the question about Troy's research: I'm really not familiar with ecology but just doing some research I found out that closed canopies usually result in greater biodiversity because animals use the shade to hide so I'd say a closed canopy is more beneficial to the environment. I'd also say that Amish farming techniques are less detrimental than conventional methods because they use more "natural" fertilizers and rotate crops more frequently to allow nutrients to return to the ground since that is their livelihood and they depend on the health of the soil.
Both Saher and Troy gave fantastic presentations at seminar. They both were confident in their studies and it shined through in their presentations. Awesome job guys! Regarding Floyd’s first question about ethical and political barriers that bioprinting would face, I think that no doubt bioprinting would face much controversy and many issues would arise. I think that all medical advances will face ethical and political issues. Everyone always has their own opinions on such things that they must share. I do believe that it should be reserved for medical necessity. As for the predictions for Troy’s presentation, I would have to agree with everyone and say that closed canopy and Amish farming techniques will be more beneficial to the environment. Amish lifestyle shows to be living green, so I would assume their farming techniques are extremely less harmful to the environment.
These were two great presentations! I highly enjoyed both and thought Saher and Troy did a great job in delivering interesting information. Without a doubt there would definitely be some controversy in bioprinting. I think there will be many different sides to this. It could be seen as perhaps abuse of technology and advances in science. It should be reserved for medical necessity in my opinion. I agree with John mentioning how insurance companies would cover this type of procedure. So there would be both ethical and political controversy. Regarding Troy's studies, I would have to say that the closed canopy and Amish farming techniques would be better for the environment. It could prove to be more beneficial. However, this study was only looking at a certain area. Different Amish farms may not have the same farming techniques and therefore could produce different results from the ones observed. Overall I thought both presentations brought up great discussion.
Both Saher and Troy did excellent jobs in presenting their research, and their projects are both very intriguing. To answer the first question, I really think the bioprinting of myocytes for more effective growth should be used for more severe situations, such as those associated with cancer and/or surgery. However, I also think that comparatively minor conditions that could turn into more severe conditions should also be considered to determine if this bioprinting is the best option for treatment. Either way, this technique should undergo multiple trials before being used on patients. As for the other question, I predict Amish farming techniques will be less harmful to the surrounding bodies of water and the overall environment. I believe this is because of the more natural strategies of farming compared to other farms. I also predict that a closed canopy would be more beneficial for the environment versus an open canopy due to the different temperature effects.
I’m sure bioprinting will experience substantial opposition ethically and politically if it were utilized for nefarious purposes. For instance, if the military industrial complex were to use bioprinting to “build” supersoldiers with the strength of ten regular men, then I would personally oppose it. However, I agree with Marissa’s assessment. Bioprinting organs may become a necessity as technology improves traffic safety and reduces the number of organ donations. I think this is a perfectly ethical use of bioprinting.
I predict that Troy will find that fall/spring tilling will produce higher incidences of erosion, which may be the only detractor to Amish farming techniques. Otherwise, the use of natural fertilizers by Amish farmers is probably better than artificial fertilizers used in modern farming techniques because it is likely to stay on land rather than running out into the watershed. Artificial fertilizers are mobile, ending up in the watershed where eutrophication becomes a problem. Algal blooms would outcompete the rest of the microbial community and decrease biodiversity and create turbid streams (bad for the fishes). Lastly, streams with closed canopies will likely see greater biodiversity because they are cooler, especially with the threat of climate change.
Troy's and Saher's presentations were superb and revealed to me how technology is successfully shaping the current biomedical and environmental research. Saher clearly concentrated on muscle bioprinting that can be helpful in the medical field such as in diagnosis of diseases and muscles regeneration. Troy talked on the use of technology software(GIS) on mapping, to isolate and identify some specific farming areas that can help in consensus and identifying the specific people involved. However, 3D Bioprinting may be hard and expensive technique to be embraced by everyone due to belief, political influences and financial constraint. Mapping can as well be ethically and politically rejected since it will be considered as a way of ownership disclosure. Moreover, it may encourage farming hence increasing the use of pesticide, soil and water erosion. I therefore predict that; the Amish community farming is not as destructive as modern farming. Finally, the closed canopy may be more beneficial and safe because it is naturally controlled and not prone to any kind of erosion and pollution
I really enjoyed Saher and Troy’s presentations on their research last week. Saher highlighted the cutting-edge work going on with muscle bioprinting in Dr. Walker’s lab, and outlined the significance of PEG-based hydrogels for use as bio-compatible scaffolding for bioprinting. I think that his technology should be reserved as a medical necessity, especially as it advances. If openly marketed, I can foresee the production of “superior” tissues and organs, which may be taken advantage of by economic powers. I believe this technology should be used strictly to treat medical conditions, as opposed to being used for augmentation purposes. I foresee a lot of ethical and political pushback to the use of bioprinting for augmentation.
Troy outlined his meta-analysis of multiple types of geographical and occupational data in order to identify watershed areas of the Grand River for future study. I believe that Amish farming techniques will be less detrimental to the environment than conventional farming techniques. I suppose this stems from the assumption that the Amish techniques were developed with the preconceived mindset of maintaining minimal environmental impact for long-term harmony within the ecosystem. This would be opposed to conventional farming techniques that might have been developed with profit as major motivating factors.
Saher and Troy both did excellent on their presentations! Bioprinting is so interesting and can really be impactful with advancements. But as many have already stated, I think it should only be utilized for medicinal uses. Ethical issues are sure to arise as this is the nature of medicine and advancing treatments. I was shocked to find myself so intrigued with Troy's presentation because I am not very knowledgeable in the field of ecology. He broke down his research in a way that allowed me to follow along and understand easily. I noticed myself having a curiosity in his work. I agree with everyone that Amish farming techniques would most likely be beneficial to the environment. Nice job to both of you, again!
As Saher said, there are many potential applications of bioprinted muscles, including treatment of age-related muscle degeneration, genetic musculoskeletal and/or neuromuscular disorders, as well as just overall reduced muscle degeneration seen in some individuals. As I understand it, the printer dispenses a monolayer of myocytes onto a bio-compatible solid scaffold. Saher’s presentation focused on a novel polyethylene glycol-based heterogeneously polymerized hydrogel, supplemented with sulfuric acid as an electrolytic source. The researchers indicated that this scaffold can support myocyte growth.
ReplyDeleteThese are the early stages of bioprinting. One day (distantly), we may be able to print full limbs, or organs with specific HLA types. Do you think there will be ethical, or political barriers impeding progress or application of bioprinted products? Should this be a marketable technology, or should it be reserved for medical necessity (i.e. compare to modern day use of plastic surgery)?
Troy’s preliminary work focused on identifying watershed areas/first order streams that ultimately formed tributaries of the Grand River. These areas were chosen based on a meta-analysis of surnames from the county auditor, data obtained from geographic information system mapping technology, and identification of streams using elevation mapping. From this meta-analysis, two watershed areas of interest were chosen: one in a primarily Amish community, and one under a closed canopy. Marine vertebrates (fish, turtles, frogs) will be examined in order to assess the effects of closed vs. open canopy, as well conventional 21st century vs. Amish farming techniques. Troy (or anyone), if I misunderstood anything here please feel free to correct me in the reply!
If you were to predict the outcomes of Troy’s study, which would you expect to be more beneficial (or rather less detrimental) to the environment: open vs. closed canopy, and conventional vs. Amish farming techniques? Why?
I felt that both Troy and Saher gave excellent talks on their research this past Friday. Regarding Floyd’s question on ethical issues concerning bioprinting of complete organs or limbs, I think there would be quite a bit of controversy with certain individuals thinking that this technology could make an “immortal” individual. I also think if this technology eventually reaches the point where complete organs can be formed, there will also be an issue politically as to whether or not these treatments will be covered by certain medical insurances. Depending on the position of the politicians at that time, this could pose a huge issue. Personally, I think this process should be reserved for medical necessity. That in itself would help to avoid some of the ethical barriers that could impede on the progression of bioprinting.
ReplyDeleteAs far as predicting the outcomes of Troy’s study, I am not entirely sure. I do not have much of an ecology background, but if I had to hypothesize, I would think that Amish farming techniques would be less detrimental to the environment. I think that the more natural technique of farming leaves less of an impact as compared to more conventional methods. As far as which type of canopy is best, I would think a closed canopy would be best.
I think Saher and Troy both did a really nice job with their presentations last week. In terms of the ethics of bioprinting, I think that there is the possibility of both political and ethical barriers. Many medical advances likely face political and ethical barriers even though we don’t always hear about what is going on behind the scenes. I personally believe that it should be reserved for medical necessity to help those with musculoskeletal/neuromuscular disorders. I find the research in Dr. Walker’s lab fascinating and I hope that there is a breakthrough one day in the field where this kind of technology can help people with these disorders. John brings up an interesting point about complete organs being formed because it reminds me of the argument about self-driving cars. I read an article in which doctors are the #1 group of professionals that are upset about self-driving cars because they believe that these cars will increase the mortality rate overall. That is because with fewer accidents there will have fewer organ donors. With that being said, I think it would be great if we could 3D print complete organs, especially with technological advances in other areas occurring.
ReplyDeleteFor Troy’s presentation, I agree with what John said. I hypothesize that the Amish farming techniques would be less detrimental to the environment than conventional, modern-day methods. Additionally, I would think that a closed canopy would be better than an open canopy.
I thought Troy's project was amazing and believe Dr. Cooper should give him an instant A for the class. I thought it was interesting to see the ability to in the near future grow potential limps and organs. My only concern with this is the country being overcrowded now with this research and our life expectancy rising, will we be able to support that many people. This also ties in politically with the whole health insurance being free. Will the rich be the only ones that can afford the limb transplant or grown organ transplant. I'm against free healthcare, but realistically the only people the afford living longer would be the rich. It would be interesting to think about.
ReplyDeleteSaher and Troy both gave excellent presentations last week!
ReplyDeleteThinking about Floyd's question about the different ethics facing bioprinted organs and limbs, I couldn't help thinking about a horrible movie that came out years ago called "Repo! The Genetic Opera". The storyline revolved around a company that produced organs for transplant and patients were required to make payments on them. Failure to continue payment resulted in a repo-man coming to take the organ (obviously resulting in death). It was an awful musical. But it brings the idea that this type of industry has a lot of monetary potential.
However the political and ethical issues it would bring up are inevitable. We can barely get people to vaccinate so it’s hard to imagine how we could get people on board with printed organs.
Thinking about Troy’s presentation, I agree with most everyone else that Amish-type farming techniques would be far less detrimental than modern day farming techniques.
Tissue culture can also use donor's cells to grow them in vitro so that would overcome specific HLA problems.
ReplyDeleteTroy's presentation was very informative and I do agree with Troy that he deserves an A. It was interesting to know the workings of GIS. It would interesting to find out the results of this study, the comparison between Amish farmland and modern farmland, and the effect of fertilizers seeping in nearby water.
Saher and Troy both gave excellent presentations this week.
ReplyDeleteTo address the question for Saher: I definitely can see how ethical or political barriers can impede progress on bioprinting. The FDA would likely impart strict regulations on performing trials with printed muscle implanted in vivo. Clinical trials for drugs are a lot different because if the drug has ill effects, the patient will just be taken off of it. It would be a lot more difficult to remove the muscle tissue from the patient when it has already been surgically grafted in, should any problems arise. I do not think that these kinds of procedures should be reserved for medical necessity but only if a portion of the profits go toward alleviating the cost of the procedure for people with neuromuscular/musculoskeletal disorders.
For the question about Troy's research: I'm really not familiar with ecology but just doing some research I found out that closed canopies usually result in greater biodiversity because animals use the shade to hide so I'd say a closed canopy is more beneficial to the environment. I'd also say that Amish farming techniques are less detrimental than conventional methods because they use more "natural" fertilizers and rotate crops more frequently to allow nutrients to return to the ground since that is their livelihood and they depend on the health of the soil.
Both Saher and Troy gave fantastic presentations at seminar. They both were confident in their studies and it shined through in their presentations. Awesome job guys!
ReplyDeleteRegarding Floyd’s first question about ethical and political barriers that bioprinting would face, I think that no doubt bioprinting would face much controversy and many issues would arise. I think that all medical advances will face ethical and political issues. Everyone always has their own opinions on such things that they must share. I do believe that it should be reserved for medical necessity.
As for the predictions for Troy’s presentation, I would have to agree with everyone and say that closed canopy and Amish farming techniques will be more beneficial to the environment. Amish lifestyle shows to be living green, so I would assume their farming techniques are extremely less harmful to the environment.
These were two great presentations! I highly enjoyed both and thought Saher and Troy did a great job in delivering interesting information.
ReplyDeleteWithout a doubt there would definitely be some controversy in bioprinting. I think there will be many different sides to this. It could be seen as perhaps abuse of technology and advances in science. It should be reserved for medical necessity in my opinion. I agree with John mentioning how insurance companies would cover this type of procedure. So there would be both ethical and political controversy. Regarding Troy's studies, I would have to say that the closed canopy and Amish farming techniques would be better for the environment. It could prove to be more beneficial. However, this study was only looking at a certain area. Different Amish farms may not have the same farming techniques and therefore could produce different results from the ones observed. Overall I thought both presentations brought up great discussion.
Both Saher and Troy did excellent jobs in presenting their research, and their projects are both very intriguing. To answer the first question, I really think the bioprinting of myocytes for more effective growth should be used for more severe situations, such as those associated with cancer and/or surgery. However, I also think that comparatively minor conditions that could turn into more severe conditions should also be considered to determine if this bioprinting is the best option for treatment. Either way, this technique should undergo multiple trials before being used on patients. As for the other question, I predict Amish farming techniques will be less harmful to the surrounding bodies of water and the overall environment. I believe this is because of the more natural strategies of farming compared to other farms. I also predict that a closed canopy would be more beneficial for the environment versus an open canopy due to the different temperature effects.
ReplyDeleteI’m sure bioprinting will experience substantial opposition ethically and politically if it were utilized for nefarious purposes. For instance, if the military industrial complex were to use bioprinting to “build” supersoldiers with the strength of ten regular men, then I would personally oppose it. However, I agree with Marissa’s assessment. Bioprinting organs may become a necessity as technology improves traffic safety and reduces the number of organ donations. I think this is a perfectly ethical use of bioprinting.
ReplyDeleteI predict that Troy will find that fall/spring tilling will produce higher incidences of erosion, which may be the only detractor to Amish farming techniques. Otherwise, the use of natural fertilizers by Amish farmers is probably better than artificial fertilizers used in modern farming techniques because it is likely to stay on land rather than running out into the watershed. Artificial fertilizers are mobile, ending up in the watershed where eutrophication becomes a problem. Algal blooms would outcompete the rest of the microbial community and decrease biodiversity and create turbid streams (bad for the fishes). Lastly, streams with closed canopies will likely see greater biodiversity because they are cooler, especially with the threat of climate change.
Troy's and Saher's presentations were superb and revealed to me how technology is successfully shaping the current biomedical and environmental research. Saher clearly concentrated on muscle bioprinting that can be helpful in the medical field such as in diagnosis of diseases and muscles regeneration. Troy talked on the use of technology software(GIS) on mapping, to isolate and identify some specific farming areas that can help in consensus and identifying the specific people involved. However, 3D Bioprinting may be hard and expensive technique to be embraced by everyone due to belief, political influences and financial constraint. Mapping can as well be ethically and politically rejected since it will be considered as a way of ownership disclosure. Moreover, it may encourage farming hence increasing the use of pesticide, soil and water erosion. I therefore predict that; the Amish community farming is not as destructive as modern farming. Finally, the closed canopy may be more beneficial and safe because it is naturally controlled and not prone to any kind of erosion and pollution
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed Saher and Troy’s presentations on their research last week. Saher highlighted the cutting-edge work going on with muscle bioprinting in Dr. Walker’s lab, and outlined the significance of PEG-based hydrogels for use as bio-compatible scaffolding for bioprinting. I think that his technology should be reserved as a medical necessity, especially as it advances. If openly marketed, I can foresee the production of “superior” tissues and organs, which may be taken advantage of by economic powers. I believe this technology should be used strictly to treat medical conditions, as opposed to being used for augmentation purposes. I foresee a lot of ethical and political pushback to the use of bioprinting for augmentation.
ReplyDeleteTroy outlined his meta-analysis of multiple types of geographical and occupational data in order to identify watershed areas of the Grand River for future study. I believe that Amish farming techniques will be less detrimental to the environment than conventional farming techniques. I suppose this stems from the assumption that the Amish techniques were developed with the preconceived mindset of maintaining minimal environmental impact for long-term harmony within the ecosystem. This would be opposed to conventional farming techniques that might have been developed with profit as major motivating factors.
Saher and Troy both did excellent on their presentations! Bioprinting is so interesting and can really be impactful with advancements. But as many have already stated, I think it should only be utilized for medicinal uses. Ethical issues are sure to arise as this is the nature of medicine and advancing treatments.
ReplyDeleteI was shocked to find myself so intrigued with Troy's presentation because I am not very knowledgeable in the field of ecology. He broke down his research in a way that allowed me to follow along and understand easily. I noticed myself having a curiosity in his work. I agree with everyone that Amish farming techniques would most likely be beneficial to the environment. Nice job to both of you, again!