Science

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 12° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

British scientists to create 'synthetic' blood

Human embryos will be used to make an unlimited supply for infection-free transfusions

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Scientists in Britain plan to become the first in the world to produce unlimited amounts of synthetic human blood from embryonic stem cells for emergency infection-free transfusions.

A major research project is to be announced this week that will culminate in three years with the first transfusions into human volunteers of "synthetic" blood made from the stem cells of spare IVF embryos. It could help to save the lives of anyone from victims of traffic accidents to soldiers on a battlefield by revolutionising the vital blood transfusion services, which have to rely on a network of human donors to provide a constant supply of fresh blood.

The multimillion-pound deal involving NHS Blood and Transplant, the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service and the Wellcome Trust, the world's biggest medical research charity, means Britain will take centre stage in the global race to develop blood made from embryonic stem cells. The researchers will test human embryos left over from IVF treatment to find those that are genetically programmed to develop into the "O-negative" blood group, which is the universal donor group whose blood can be transfused into anyone without fear of tissue rejection.

This blood group is relatively rare, applicable to about 7 per cent of the population, but it could be produced in unlimited quantities from embryonic stem cells because of their ability to multiply indefinitely in the laboratory.

The aim is to stimulate embryonic stem cells to develop into mature, oxygen-carrying red blood cells for emergency transfusions. Such blood would have the benefit of not being at risk of being infected with viruses such as HIV and hepatitis, or the human form of "mad cow" disease. The military in particular needs a constant supply of fresh, universal donor blood for battlefield situations when normal supplies from donors can quickly run out.

But developing blood made from the cells of spare IVF embryos will raise difficult ethical issues for people not happy with the idea of destroying embryos to create stem cells. It also raises the intriguing philosophical question of whether the synthetic blood will have come from someone who never existed. In theory, just one embryo could meet the nation's needs.

The Wellcome Trust is believed to have promised £3m towards the cost of the project, with further funding coming from the blood transfusion services of Scotland, and England and Wales. The Irish government is also understood to be involved. A spokesman for the Wellcome Trust said complicated legal issues were still being ironed out between all the parties involved but that an announcement is likely to be made in the coming week.

The project will be led by Professor Marc Turner, of Edinburgh University, the director of the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service. Professor Turner has been involved in studies investigating how to ensure donated blood is free of the infectious agent behind variant CJD, the human form of "mad cow" disease. Several vCJD patients are thought to have contracted the disease by blood transfusions.

Professor Turner was unavailable for comment but a spokeswoman for the National Blood Service for England and North Wales confirmed that negotiations on the joint research project were at an advanced stage and that legal, rather than scientific, issues were holding up the announcement.

The multi-centre collaboration is also understood to involve scientists at the Medical Research Council's Centre for Regenerative Medicine at the University of Edinburgh, and Roslin Cells, a spin-off company that has emerged out of the Roslin Institute, where Dolly the sheep was cloned in 1996.

Scientists in other countries, notably Sweden, France and Australia, are also known to be working on the development of synthetic blood from embryonic stem cells. And last year, a team from a US biotechnology company, Advanced Cell Technology, announced that it has been able to produce billions of functioning red blood cells from embryonic stem cells. But the US work had been held up because of funding problems dating back to the ban on embryonic stem cell work under the Bush administration. President Barack Obama has since reversed that policy.

In Britain, the project was held up because of the difficulty of finding funding for "translational" research that attempts to take scientific studies in the laboratory into the earliest stages of commercial development. This problem has now been overcome.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>
re: "synthetic blood"
[info]psycmeistr wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 01:11 am (UTC)
What a bunch of ghouls. Make a cottage industry of destroying life so others may live. Are they channelling Eichmann and Mengele?
Re: "synthetic blood"
[info]thomohawk wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 11:43 am (UTC)
'life' is a very loose definition and I would hardly call these scientists who could potentially save thousands of actual living human beings as ghouls. Such an ignorant and narrowed minded view of the work of science that is no doubt based on religious teachings, which over the centuries have so often been the thorn in science's side.
Re: "synthetic blood" - [info]epublicus - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 02:50 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: "synthetic blood" - [info]youthoftoday1 - Wednesday, 25 March 2009 at 11:44 am (UTC) Expand
Re: "synthetic blood" - [info]moralscientist - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 12:42 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: "synthetic blood" - [info]virgilstar - Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 01:07 pm (UTC) Expand
Bush policy
[info]cybear_mn wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 01:15 am (UTC)
President Bush NEVER banned embryonic stem cell research. He merely continued the Clinton policy of not allowing new lines to be developed. Existing stem cell lines were allowed to be used for federally funded research. Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that anything that can be done with embryonic stem cells can readily be accomplished by other means. Why do you ignore this? Are you a journalist or an ideologue?
Re: Bush policy
[info]rayamiles wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 07:07 am (UTC)
We are so stupid all we have to do is listen to the religious and they have all the answers, we could save years of research, (who needs scientists when you have direct line to god) and millions of pounds.....

Why are these people so keen to drag the rest of us back into the Middle Ages where their mindset still belongs?

Its a fanatastic idea, let us all hope they make swift progress with this work.
Brilliant
[info]cbarr wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 01:27 am (UTC)
One of the most innovating ideas i have ever heard and one that i hope to see implemented whole heartedly.
Brilliant
[info]cbarr wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 01:29 am (UTC)
A brilliant idea i hope it works clean never ending supplies of usable blood its just unimaginable.
obsevations
[info]wonxxtnz wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 02:42 am (UTC)
it would seem that in the next few years the plasma center by the local college & the other one down town will be obsolete before i can graduate, pay off my student loans & have enough money to invest in...Roslin Cells & Advanced Cell Technology. the ethical issues of power/money grubbing scum bothers me less than spending two hours in a chair with a gigantic needle in my arm. i'm sure soldiers in the field would agree... this reminds me isn't IVF the same thing that made the octomom mother of a football team. personally i consider conception the begining of life however considering the way humans live & behave towards each other to... there outta be some thing like they do with trees whatever tree you cut down plant two in its place just not all in the same uterus.

creepah@xxtnz.com
Synthetic Blood
[info]markindro wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 02:57 am (UTC)
Eugenics reborn!
True Blood
[info]jrmercer wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 03:26 am (UTC)
The vampires are going to love this!

Re: True Blood
[info]rjowais wrote:
Thursday, 27 August 2009 at 02:47 pm (UTC)
Yes Bro..
Its true! It will become a heaven for vampires!! :)
Medical Assistance Jobs
Disgusting!
[info]get2djnow wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 03:43 am (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't think I'll have a baby's blood put into my body, just because it was a spare.

I know, I'm such a religious troglodyte. You sick people who view these embryos as parts lying around the garage to be used any way you see fit will have to answer for the horrors you're inflicting on humanity by accelerating our devaluation.

Enjoy!
David Jacobson
Cleveland Heights, OH USA
Re: Disgusting!
[info]mhmmmmmmm123 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 06:21 pm (UTC)
"parts lying around by the garage"? Actually, these extra IVF embryos are stored in liquid nitrogen. If they are not used by science, they are thrown away. Scientists understand the importance and power of human embryos. Most will make the donors discard unused ones because they don't want it on their minds.
Re: Disgusting! - [info]jessica_jade876 - Sunday, 26 April 2009 at 01:47 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Disgusting! - [info]nonlineartime - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 11:02 pm (UTC) Expand
Adult stem cells?
[info]kendw wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 03:47 am (UTC)
Couldn't they do this with adult stem cells and avoid the ethical dilemma? Nobody ever got tumors from adult stem cell therapies either. It has only been from embryonic stem cells where these problems have occurred.
No Synthetic Blood
[info]hagion wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 03:54 am (UTC)
In San Antonio, Texas if one becomes incapacitated they are assumed to have consented to receive an experimental synthetic blood subtitute. What black-hearted , non-human monster thought up that one?

I propose a national registry of those who refuse in all cases to receive synthetic blood or synthetic blood products. An ID or wrist band or some form of ID would be required along with a membership that funds letigations as they become necessary until the registry is honored.

Interest: hagion777@gmail.com
Ethical dilemma?
[info]apdp wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 04:07 am (UTC)
Abortion destroys embryos and that's legal and accepted.
A great idea but real blood is not so simple
[info]drl2 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 04:17 am (UTC)
Standardization would be great but "universal" is misleading. Oneg blood refers to the absence of A, B or D antigens. There are many others that can cause problems such as c or e which are normally present in Oneg blood. We write this as dce. This is a good choice for transfusion but if you develope an antibody to c or e you cannot receive more of it. You would need to receive Oneg with a different antigen set, say dCE, dCe or dcE depending on which antibody you developed. This set of three antigens is inherited as a group, from each parent. So there are actually 3 pairs of antigens to consider. There are also other normal blood groups that can cause antibody production as well. I do think that multiple lines of standardized, clean blood would be a big step forward but it's just not as simple as the article presents. Blood developed from human stem cells is still human blood, not "synthetic".
A Philosophical Question
[info]robertocat wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 04:25 am (UTC)
I have a question for someone who is very much against the use of embryonic stem cells made from leftover embryos from In Vitro Fertilization cliincs.
Since these embryos are going to end up destroyed one way or another, are you equally against in vitro fertilization?
If you are, then that's your opinion and I respect it. If you aren't, may I ask what difference it makes what becomes of the embryos that would have been disposed of anyway?
Re: A Philosophical Question
[info]divinemercy123 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 06:03 pm (UTC)
Yes, I am against IVF as well. It takes away from the dignity of the child, who has the right to be conceived and grown within his/her mother's womb.
Re: A Philosophical Question - [info]adampooler - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 07:58 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: A Philosophical Question - [info]robertocat - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 08:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Then What to Do???
[info]the_world12 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 04:41 am (UTC)
the embryos are already there, so you think that we should bury them in the ground. If you are religious isn't it the soul that count and not the body. Some women didn't want the baby and now we are left with a embryo should we use it to make the world better or let countless children, soldiers, women, and men die. women are going to abort baby's anyway with or without a doctor. They used coat hangers to do it and other methods too. All am saying here is if it's going to help the human race why not,why not if the baby soul is in heaven and the mother could careless for the body, why not use the body to give people another chance. Right now as i write this there is someone out there in the world dying and his family crying and this bloody could save him. I think if everything happen by God Will than this is meant to be.
Re: Then What to Do???
[info]jonsummys wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 04:21 pm (UTC)
Many women also do not want their children. Should we harvest their organs to make the dying world a little better place?
Blood of Embryos
[info]yarply wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 04:48 am (UTC)
Sounds like just the concoction some Sorcerer would have made use of hundreds of years ago. A little this and a little that, and finally the main ingredient, the blood of a dead baby.
Vampire Heaven
[info]abeus wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 05:33 am (UTC)
With the advent of this new technology I won't have to worry about those pesky blood sucking vampires when I go on walks at night. Vampires now don't need to worry about having a damned soul anymore as they can use their immortality to do good and help other people instead of eating them. Also, they don't really need to feud anymore with us human vampire hunters or other clans. In fact, this really could be the end of suffering in the world period. We all want to live forever in peace and plenty. We could realistically accomplish this now with blood production. We simply need to get with a vampire and become immortal. Wow! This is really good news!
Trouble is ...
[info]aussiepete wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 06:03 am (UTC)
Blood transfusions are DANGEROUS. They shorten the lives of people and we really should be moving toward bloodless surgery (blood management) rather than invent new sources of blood. Conventional wisdom that blood transfusions are good for you is simply not correct. Blood transfusions are a last resort.
Re: Trouble is ...
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 12:51 pm (UTC)
Do you have any real evidence to support his nonsense?
Re: Trouble is ... - [info]aussiepete - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 11:55 pm (UTC) Expand
Synthetic blood libel
[info]rolyat136 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 06:47 am (UTC)


Billions of buckets of dead babies blood.
Sounds like another clever investment idea.
Even better than real estate!
Synthetic Blood??? For Soldiers???
[info]rosespice1 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 06:54 am (UTC)
Synthetic Blood, for Soldiers???

Synthetic stuff put into the bodies as food or medicines etc, had a tremendous body of powerful scientific research come out in January 2000 regarding the abnormally high Cancer risk.

Embryonic Stem Cells research has yet to produce ANYTHING BUT Cancer ...

Soldiers, who have given you Freedom, such as you care to preserve to yourselves...
And you want to reward them with CANCER.

How very generous of you.
Then when that is all over, you shall have the Freedom you have EARNED for yourselves.

Yes, Eichman and Mengele come to mind.

- Rose
[info]angelae8654 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 09:14 am (UTC)
If this is "synthetic blood", why does it have to be made from embryonic tissue? Am I missing something here?



Landover Baptist Church

Landover Baptist Church
[info]hanif001 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 05:13 pm (UTC)
Its not term "synthetic" - its a bit misleading.

All the massive amount of programming logic to create a complete human, placed by God, is present in the embryonic stem cells. The scientist enable the bit of programming to convert these cells into blood cells. This is instead of any of the many other types of cells (or structures) of the human body.
Use of human stem cells to save human life
[info]deanoindy wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 09:52 am (UTC)
I'm wondering when so much effort and expense will be channelled into saving the millions of other forms of life on this planet rather than extending our already long life spans and our sheer numbers which are already too much.
I smell fundies
[info]ijgtsycbtc wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 10:38 am (UTC)
What the hell is going on with all the garbage from religious fundamentalist nutcases here? Stem cells give you CANCER, transfusions = nazism, etc. What a bunch of loud-mouthed over-represented loons.
Re: I smell fundies
[info]polarlime wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 06:00 pm (UTC)
Who's more of a fundamentalist? So-called religious people who want to debate what is good and just in or our world, or people like you who could care less about anything but what you can kill-steal-take from this world just to satisfy your own self-interests?
Re: I smell fundies - [info]divinemercy123 - Monday, 23 March 2009 at 06:09 pm (UTC) Expand
Why can't we use cord blood stem cells?
[info]ellenpurton wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 10:56 am (UTC)
I think this is fantastic news -- very exciting for anyone who suffers a traumatic accident or needs major surgery, to say nothing of our brave soldiers in the field. I don't really understand why people are hysterical about it -- it's not the blood of a dead baby, it's blood generated by a cluster of cells which are not in the least bit a baby yet. However, given the unlikelihood of these people getting a grip on reality, I'd like to know if we could not use stem cells from umbilical cord blood instead? Once the baby is born it just gets thrown away, which seems a terrible waste of useful cells. I would have been delighted to have a use for my sons' cord blood.
re "synthetic blood"
[info]leokay wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 12:24 pm (UTC)
ijgtsycbtc

Were you referring to yourself? Get your brain in gear before opening your mouth - and try reading.
Adult stem cells have the points on the score board. Embryonic stem cells have so far less than zero. A woman in China grew hair in her brain following the use of embryonic stem cells.
There are reputations at stake in this sort of research. Wouldn't be a matter of Publish or Perish - would it?
Re: re "synthetic blood"
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 12:55 pm (UTC)
Got any evidence to support this nonsense. Unlike your claims scientific claims are checked for accuracy before they're published.
Re: re "synthetic blood" - [info]thx1342 - Tuesday, 24 March 2009 at 04:46 pm (UTC) Expand
Someone who never existed?
[info]tonybbb1 wrote:
Monday, 23 March 2009 at 01:02 pm (UTC)
Intriguing philosophical question of whether the synthetic blood will have come from someone who never existed?!?!?

Has the whole world gone nuts. Of course this person will have existed. Scientists just won't let said person progress beyond the embryonic stage. I hope that mushy intellectualisms like the writer's "intriguing philosophical question" don't succeed in soothing too many consciences, but that is probably hoping for too much.
Re: Someone who never existed?
[info]rakebackftw wrote:
Friday, 12 June 2009 at 07:23 am (UTC)
The whole stem cell area is becoming really controversial. People always talk about "playing God" and this is exactly where we're going with modern science. Obviously, it can be used as an extraordinary health benefit, but I feel ultimately these advances will be used for unnatural purposes, with the main purpose of extending ones life.

As an atheist I can see the benefits of this, but ultimately I think it's an unhealthy aim.

Ian

Rakeback
Page 1 of 3
<<[1] [2] [3] >>

Most popular