The Latest Advancement in Regenerative Medicine Is Lab-Grown Vaginas

Medical research continues to succeed in engineering organs. But that’s not enough.

Yes, that is what the headline implies.
National Journal
Brian Resnick
April 10, 2014, 2:30 p.m.

Add nos­trils and va­gi­nas to the read­ily ex­pand­ing list of hu­man tis­sues doc­tors can now grow in labor­at­or­ies and suc­cess­fully im­plant in pa­tients.

Two long-term stud­ies just pub­lished in the in­flu­en­tial med­ic­al journ­al The Lan­cet out­line the suc­cess doc­tors have achieved in trans­plant­ing both body parts. In the first study, doc­tors at Wake Forest Uni­versity har­ves­ted cells from the gen­it­als of four teen­age girls born with a syn­drome that res­ults in un­der­developed sexu­al or­gans, coaxed those cells in­to a re­gen­er­at­ive state, grew them on a scaf­fold, and then trans­planted the res­ult­ing tis­sue.

After eight years of fol­low up, “the or­gans con­tin­ue to func­tion as if they were nat­ive tis­sue and all re­cip­i­ents are sexu­ally act­ive, re­port no pain, and are sat­is­fied with their de­sire/arous­al, lub­ric­a­tion, and or­gasm.”

In the second study, five people had their nos­trils re­con­struc­ted with their own car­til­age. That tis­sue was har­ves­ted from their own noses, and coaxed in­to ex­pand­ing in volume by a factor of 40. It was then im­planted. The re­search con­cludes that “the clin­ic­al re­con­struc­tion of the nas­al [lobe] after re­sec­tion of a non-melan­oma skin can­cer is safe and feas­ible.”

While these find­ings are cer­tainly eye­brow-rais­ing — and lend hope to those suf­fer­ing with dis­fig­ur­a­tion — the more im­port­ant as­pect of their pub­lic­a­tion can be found in an op-ed pub­lished along­side the re­search.

Drs. Mar­tin A. Birch­all, and Al­ex­an­der M. Sei­fali­an write that these find­ings can be just as frus­trat­ing as they are prom­ising. This re­search is con­sidered dis­rupt­ive medi­cine, and dis­rup­tions can take a very, very long time to make their way in­to main­stream medi­cine. And the high cost of de­vel­op­ing such tech­no­logy of­ten poses road­b­locks. Birch­all and Sei­fali­an write:

MRI scan­ners con­tin­ue to im­prove gen­er­a­tion­ally. These changes, which im­prove the pa­tient’s ex­per­i­ence and ac­cur­acy of dia­gnos­is, are sus­tain­ing in­nov­a­tions: they im­prove an ex­ist­ing sys­tem that is un­der­stood by pa­tients and that sup­ports spe­cial­ised in­dustry, doc­tors, and health-care sys­tems. By con­trast, tis­sue en­gin­eer­ing, and the vari­ous shades of re­gen­er­at­ive and cel­lu­lar ther­apies it part­ners, is a dis­rupt­ive tech­no­logy. …

Early auto­mobile tech­no­logy, al­though highly in­nov­at­ive, was the pre­serve of those who could af­ford it for many years. It was only when Henry Ford’s mass pro­duc­tion brought auto­mo­biles to every­one’s street, in num­bers yet at af­ford­able cost, that the in­dustry of the horse-drawn car­riage passed away. These two Lan­cet stud­ies show that those who prac­tise con­ven­tion­al tis­sue re­con­struc­tion and or­gan trans­plant­a­tion, and the health-care and com­mer­cial in­dus­tries which sup­port them, should fi­nally be tak­ing the quirky min­nows of tis­sue en­gin­eer­ing quite ser­i­ously. Dis­rupt­ive in­nov­a­tion might be nigh.

As I wrote in Novem­ber, it will be some time be­fore lab-grown or­gans are com­monly avail­able. Clin­ic­al tri­als for new pro­ced­ures take dec­ades. And “private in­dustry is go­ing to have to raise mil­lions and mil­lions of dol­lars not around the sci­ence, but around the prac­tic­al­ity,” Wil­li­am Wag­n­er, dir­ect­or of re­gen­er­at­ive medi­cine at the Uni­versity of Pitt­s­burgh, told me then.

Road­b­locks in­volving time and money are not ex­clus­ive to re­gen­er­at­ive medi­cine. Take an­ti­bi­ot­ic re­search. Ap­provals of new an­ti­bi­ot­ics are cur­rently at their low­est rate, at a time when threat of drug-res­ist­ant strains haven’t been high­er. Or even sun­screen. In­gredi­ents that European com­pan­ies have been us­ing for years, which work bet­ter than the ones cur­rently avail­able in the United States, are stuck in reg­u­lat­ory limbo.

That’s why Birch­all and Sei­fali­an provide a good re­mind­er: Let’s turn some of these gee-whiz stud­ies in­to real­ity.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Maher Weighs in on Bernie, Trump and Palin
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE

“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.

Source:
×