- March 20, 2010 at 9:33 am #12979
Hi, I just wanted to say that more people such as scientists, researchers, anything you can think of – really do need to work on regeneration, instead of focusing too much on technology tools such as artificial legs, arms, hearing aids, whatever. This is the 21st century and we as humans have to move forward in a new and different direction. Putting a living heart into a dead machine is not going to work – you’d need to either to regrow the mechanical part of it or put the new one.
If you know what I mean.
Thanks for reading.
p.s. Yes I know I’ve heard about stem cells, but more process is needed, I believe.
- March 20, 2010 at 5:09 pm #98442
Well, you need only little money and get some company. Then you can plan, what will your scientists do.
- March 20, 2010 at 9:56 pm #98457david23Participant
you should join Aubrey De Grey and his progressive movement in trying to living forever. That guy seems to have a vision, and got a lot of promising leads coming up.
- March 20, 2010 at 10:20 pm #98459
I’m actually his fan, david – I hope that guy also believes in regeneration processes, too. I own his book. I know that it’s possible to live forever, but that might be too much though…perhaps extending the age numbers would be a lot better, haha.
I thought about creating a company but I’m kind of not ready at the moment; in fact, I’m certain that there are some already, the problem could be is that they’re not pushing hard enough or not enough funds? I don’t know, but I think it would be beneficial to get some help from government as well.
- March 21, 2010 at 4:00 am #98470
We have such a long way to go. I think we have the alphabet just about learned, and are now working on making words. But being able to make sentences, let alone a paragraph, and then a novel, is way off in the future. We have done a human genome mapping, but haven’t figured out what all the predicted genes do. And now we have a new genetic regulation of all the so-called junk DNA that is now very important noncoding RNA and chromatin modeling, and is under the topic of Epigenetics.
I am working on epimorphic regeneration, which can regenerate a limb, or anything in which we can figure out how to put the differentiation on hold, reverse back to just before differentiation (de-differentiation), produce the cells missing, and then put the development process back on to differentiation. The only thing with this kind of thinking, is that the beginning material can not have a genetic defect like cancer. You need cells that are original and not mutated in any way. The only way I can see this helping cancer patients, is first figuring out how to apoptosis the cancer cells (hopefully taking out the cause of the mutations), take the remaining original cells, and regenerate the missing tissue.
- March 21, 2010 at 5:16 pm #98489
- March 21, 2010 at 5:29 pm #98491
great, that’s brand new
- March 22, 2010 at 1:56 am #98496
I like how they say "temporarily inactivating the p21 gene" to get to regeneration of something in humans. There has to be more than just the p21 gene being mutated in those mice. It will be a combination of the mutations that allowed them to heal their holes in their ears (which again is an extremity, and epithelial (containing fibroblasts that seem to be closer to blastema cells, and actually during salamander regeneration, they are the first to be recruited to the blastema site). AP-1 (thru p53/p21) has also been implicated in liver regeneration. I only see this as a way to proliferate cells to a certain degree. But differentiation? multiple differentiation?
- March 22, 2010 at 4:14 am #98500
There are definitely some animals out there that are able to regenerate themselves, I think that looking into them might be our key. You know, it’s kind of ridiculous that we can’t regenerate most of our parts of body (well except skin cuts, etc. just minor stuff) yet animals can.
- March 22, 2010 at 12:56 pm #98512
as well we can’t produce ascorbic acid, yet many animals can. That’s just about some mutation, which probably isn’t much profitable yet not harmful.
- March 23, 2010 at 2:34 am #98558
We seem to be able to live comfortably if we are missing a limb, while an animal’s life is definitely vulnerable, and so mutation produced something and they capitalized on it. If the male can grow his limb back, after he has left most of the other males limbless in the territory, then guess who gets all the females to procreate with? And the mutation is thus carried into the genome!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.