Growing Insulin 251
McLuhanesque writes "The Globe and Mail reports that a Calgary biotech firm has developed a process to turn genetically modified safflower oil into human insulin in commercial quantities. The process reduces capital costs by 70% and product cost by 40%. 'SemBioSys says it can make more than one kilogram of human insulin per acre of safflower production. That amount could treat 2,500 diabetic patients for one year and, in turn, meet the world's total projected insulin demand in 2010 with less than 16,000 acres of safflower production.'"
That's great and all, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Positively fantastic news (Score:5, Insightful)
For there to be a light at the end of this proverbial tunnel is amazing news. Let's hope that this continues to be researched, tried and brought to the general population with as little convolusion from outside sources as possible.
Sadly, medicine is still business first and foremost. Some drug company will make a mint from this. Let's hope that someone somewhere has a conscience that won't allow them to make this treatment as financially restrictive as most everything else is.
Tollerance Build up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Positively fantastic news (Score:3, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
In other news, pharmacutical companies are beginning to persuade food companies to put MORE SUGAR into foods....
Re:could someone do back-of-envelope calculation (Score:2, Insightful)
What's making them become diabetic is:
Seriously, if you start checking the ingredients in the food you buy, you'll notice that everything has sugar in it. Even things that should not. This article [www.cbc.ca] sums it up nicely.
Re:That's great and all, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand that a cure is viewed as better than a treatment, but you can't just pick to find a cure, or pick to find a treatment. Reducing the costs of producing human insulin, and at the same time gaining additional scientific knowledge should be of great use. Who knows, perhaps a cure to type I diabetes is now one step closer?
Sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's great and all, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
HFCS (Score:3, Insightful)
Bring on the High-Fructose Corn Syrup [newstarget.com]. Drink more Dew. Drink more Sprite. Obey your thirst. Feed your kids drinks with less than 100% fruit juice.
Tongue in cheak of course.
Almost reminds you of the idea people have with introducing insects into non-native environments and the bug turns out to be hostile so they introduce a second bug to kill the first, but which turns out to be worse than the first.
Re:could someone do back-of-envelope calculation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:HFCS (Score:5, Insightful)
George Bush is Workin' Hard For You (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, by banning the public funding of stem cell research today, George Bush has helped you towards the cure! His great deeds are hastening the Rapture, when the good people (those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord) will be cured.
Got it?
Good.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowing the drug companies . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
And the consumer price will be increased by 20%.
Re:That's great and all, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
My out of pocket costs are probably 4x or 5x of what I used to pay '98. In fact, I'm using cheaper insulin now, because I'm not using insulin pens anymore.
After all, do you really think that the out of pockets costs will drop because the supply of insulin has gotten much cheaper?
- YAIDP (Yet Another Insulin Dependent Person).
Re:This isnt a breakthrough, it's genetic engineer (Score:3, Insightful)
but lets please not mix plants and animals, it's obviously not right.
There's no such thing as a "plant gene" or an "animal gene". It's like saying that taking a spring from a car and putting it in a bicycle makes the bicycle somehow car-like. Sure, if you took an entire engine along with a transmission and fastened it onto a bike that might make the bicycle "car-like", but that's not what we're talking about here. Genes are just building blocks, and assigning plantness or animalness to them doesn't make any sense.
Re:You are wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
and the genes in a plant are VASTLY VASTLY different from the genes in a human.
Some of them are, some of them aren't. We still share MANY of the same genes with plants. Just like a car is vastly different from a bicycle, both have rubber tires. In a very similar sense both cars and bicycles share a common "ancestor", just like plants and humans.
tell me how the hell you can believe a human shares genes with a plant
Evolution? You don't have to simply believe it, it's a scientifically proven fact that humans and plants share genes.
we don't share brain and heart genes with plants
I'm pretty sure there's no single gene that responsible for producing the heart or brain. Something this complex required many many genes.
Re:How can this work? (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Cures already available (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand that each group of researchers will have their own specialisations, and that not everyone COULD work on a cure, even if there was no need for improved/cheaper insulin (which there is). I heartily agree with the grandparent poster though; insulin is a poor substitute for a normal life, and a cure would be MUCH better, so it would be nice to see the main focus going on that. The medical fees that entire nations pay for insulin, needles, swabs, glucometers, diagnostics strips, tablets, etc. -- often four or more of most of these things per day, per patient, at £0.50 per diagnostic strip alone, must make up a pretty large profit for medical companies. I really don't mean to accuse people of being motivated by money, but I do often wonder if this doesn't sometimes subtly cloud their sense of what's really best for the sufferers.
Re:Positively fantastic news (Score:2, Insightful)
"Sadly"? I don't think so -- the profit motive has done more to advance medical science than altruism ever has. (Not to knock altruism, though. I say, let's get as much as we can out of both of 'em!)
flamebaiter is Workin' Hard For You (Score:3, Insightful)
Mods, how the hell did that rate an "insightful"? Its off topic at best, and more probably flamebait. So I'm going to flame it, especially since I have relatives that are directly affected by the research in question and the disease in the topic (Diabetes).
Stop with the political BULLSHIT! You Bush-bashers are getting as bad as the Bible thumpers that voted for him.
There has been no embrionic stem cell research that has shown hope for diabetes. Or much anything else for that matter - there have been severe complications in damn near everything done with embryonic stem cells. They simply are not panning out - indeed the most promising results ended up being a hoaxed/forged set of results over in Korea. Nothing else substantial has come of this. Thats why the Feds shoudl nto be funding it - there are better areas of stem cell research to put tax money on.
The federal government is wasing money to fund crap like the embryonic research when it should be going to the more mainstream R&D lines. And as far ast stem cells go, the best stuff I've read about or head of is coming from R&D with marrow stem cells or placental-cord cells.
But political assholes like you would rather get an issue to beat up the fundies with than to work toward the best probable set of solutions.
If somone wants to do embryonic stem cell research, thats fine by me - let them fund it themselves. Nothing stopping them at all.
But put the Fed money to work where it shows the most promise - and that most definitely is *not* embryonic stem cells. So stop using stem cells as a political football.
Bush is doing the right thing with his veto. Its questionable on the reasons he is putting forth, but good in the end results. Like a stopped clock, his hands this time are aligning with the right things. Let some time pass and I'm sure you can find somethign legitimate to beat him up over. But get your politics out of the funding questions.
Not everyone opposed to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research is an anti-abortion activist, there are good reasons to oppose the funding (but not the research if thats where people want to waste their own money).