Bald? Now there's a jab to make hair grow back

[benjt]

No, they don't, because each paper forms the basis for new research. Each paper is a piece in the puzzle (as long as the paper makes no wrong conclusions or "lies", "exaggerations" and "misinformation".

 

[TheHandsomeLurker]

No, they don't, because each paper forms the basis for new research. Each paper is a piece in the puzzle (as long as the paper makes no wrong conclusions or "lies", "exaggerations" and "misinformation".

Yeah, this is how science happens. I'm very confused by the skeptic that seems to believe hair loss can be effectively treated but doesn't believe in the scientific process.

 

[hellouser]

No, they don't, because each paper forms the basis for new research. Each paper is a piece in the puzzle (as long as the paper makes no wrong conclusions or "lies", "exaggerations" and "misinformation".

That's great and all, but all the findings are meaningless to US, the hair loss sufferers as they're still at a dead end, lol. What does another breakthrough mean to YOU? Suppose Cotsarelis comes out tomorrow and once again tries to reach for the spotlight and says 'So and so could grow hair'.... so what? Doesn't change anything for us... for them, sure.. but who knows what it really means, they're the ones sitting on all the information. Has any one of us actually benefited from any discoveries made in the last 20 years? No. There's nothing to be actually excited about... we're still screwed. I'll have a big smile on my face when I can strap myself into the operation rooms seat and get whatever treatment... THEN, I'll give researches a pat on the back and a ridiculous amount of money for their work and treatment.

I'm not discrediting them. I want less talk and more results. Make them have something to actually show for it. Just speed things up man, it's become a running joke.

 

[bushbush]

How is it they can they grow organs like the liver in a test tube and yet they can't grow hair? Why is it so difficult? And why aren't hair transplants automated except for the hair line? It's ridiculous.

Because the liver is an organ that already has well established regenerative properties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver#Regeneration_and_transplantation

"The liver is the only human internal organ capable of natural regeneration of lost tissue; as little as 25% of a liver can regenerate into a whole liver.[SUP][9][/SUP] Regeneration is very rapid. The liver will return to a normal size in 1 to 2 weeks following the removal of greater than 50% of the liver by mass."

 

[I.D WALKER]

The liver's regenerative capacity has always intrigued me. Our body's are the greatest natural resource in the universe as we know it.

 

[bushbush]

They have 3d printed a pancreas and a kidney too. Can you imagine a world where we could 3d print 25000 strands of hair for the price of a weeks shopping? Where an affordable machine would implant them at lightning speeds and that would be it? They genetically engineered a mouse to grow a human ear on it's back 20 years ago, but they can't genetically engineer a dog to grow human hair? How can it be so difficult?

It is like comparing apples to oranges. Every organ represents a number of different challenges. Both kidneys and trachea have been 3D printed. This however does not mean that the individual cells were printed --- but rather the structure or scaffolding of the organ was on which cells were grown (the pancreas example was 3D culture, not printing). Similarly the example of an ear growing on a mouses back --- this was not a fully functioning ear. As for genetically engineering dogs to grow human-like hair, your body would quickly reject any foreign tissue from another human, never mind an animal.

 

[bushbush]

So why can't the make a scaffold for hair yet?

Dermal papilla cells grown as spheroids in 3D culture conditions can produce hair (with so far, reduced gene expression).

And why couldn't you give a sample of your own dna so a dog's embryo could be modified using GM techniques to grow YOUR hair? They shave the dogs once and get all the hair they need, the dog is neutered and lives an otherwise normal life.

I think you are underestimating the technical difficulties of such a project. This kind of work is still a long time away from being practical for any organ (heart or lungs, etc), of which there are already life-threatening shortages. Genetically modifying an organism to produce a single protein (eg. insulin) is nowhere near the complexity of modifying a whole organ. It is also risky in terms of potential for animal to human transmission of disease, not to mention being surrounded by questionable ethics.

Who could afford to have their own, personal genetically modified pet dog created and kept in a laboratory just to grow their hair?

There are much more feasible avenues of research to solve the problem.

edit: Also: