The University of Southampton

Author: Chloe Sanders

DermaGro: It has to Derma-Go!

Posted on by

Look younger, look natural, look flawless. In modern society, the pressure to reach an ever-more-unattainable level of youth and beauty as one ages is constant. There is a nonstop barrage of anti-ageing creams and pills advertised on TV and treatments and therapies available by estheticians and plastic surgeons. It all sends a clear message: ageing is offensive and ugly, and something to be prevented by all means possible, not embraced. 

Another treatment joining the legion of other anti-ageing therapies is DermaGro—a ‘miracle’ stem cell technology that has been claimed to treat wounds and burns, relieve eczema, and reverse the visible signs of ageing. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve likely encountered the buzz around DermaGro. Its aggressive social media marketing and the heated debates about its efficacy and ethics have been hard to miss. Here’s a quick rundown on how DermaGro is purported to work: 

Images from DermaGro’s website.

You sign up for their services online (and pay a hefty fee for the privilege), and soon after go to one of their clinics to have stem cell samples taken for culture. Once these are screened, selected, converted to selectively mutated and cultured, they are sent to you along with your starter kit (for yet another fee), followed by repeating deliveries of stem cells as and when you need them on a subscription basis (which if you haven’t guessed yet, comes with more fees and hidden charges!). You then keep your stem cells in the freezer until you need to apply them, which is done by loading them into the ‘gun’ and applying them to the wound. Easy enough right? They’re your own stem cells in your own home; how can there be any issues?

But there are issues aplenty… even if we ignore the ridiculous fees (you’re coming up to £3000 for just a month of treatment), there are still logistical issues. It is well known throughout stem cell research and bioscience in general that stem cells must be cryogenically preserved at -80 to below -150 degrees Celsius for them to be properly preserved and remain viable. However, DermaGro claims it is perfectly fine to store samples in a regular household freezer which only reaches temperatures of about -18 degrees Celcius, far too high for proper storage of stem cells.

Additionally, DermaGro claims to offer a ‘donor service’ where another person’s allogenic stem cells are used as a replacement for the customer whose stem cells cannot be used. However, no one fully knows where these stem cells come from. Not even DermaGro’s CEO will answer the question when asked (I directly contacted DermaGro, the CEO’s personal email and asked via their Instagram stories to no avail). Although DermaGro implies otherwise, some people have theorised that they are excess cells taken non-consensually from other patient’s samples. This raises massive ethical issues as patients do not consent to their cells being used for other people’s treatments when they sign up, and they receive no compensation for assisting other people’s treatments. Another more theatrical theory is that, much like the Hwang affair, researchers within DermaGro labs and clinicians within their donation centres are being pressured to donate their tissue to increase the supply of allogeneic stem cells, although the proof for this is still yet to come to the surface.

Although rather lengthy, this video and its sequel give a good explanation of the Hwang scandal and, thus, the implications of the DermaGro allegations.

Finally, and most damningly, there have been reports that some early DermaGro trial patients were given a cocktail of drugs to support their treatments, and upon the initial signs of the stem cells being rejected, immunosuppressants were added to the mix. This is absolutely absurd. It displays a deeply horrifying and frightening lack of medical duty and basic ethics by DermaGro. In what world is looking younger or healing a wound faster worth risking cancer? Ultimately, DermaGro is a scam—an expensive, immoral and dangerous scam at that and one which targets the superficial insecurities of ageing women. I certainly won’t let these predatory frauds ‘get under [my] skin’, but I hope this article will get under theirs. We’re now left with only one question: How long until someone dies from DermaGro?

Please note that this blog post is not for marking, and rather is a part of the group project assignment.

From Prognosis to Zoonosis: the Ethics of Chimera-Grown Organs for Transplant

Posted on by

An Organ Crisis

As someone passionate about donating my organs when I die (since what better use is there for the loss of my life than to preserve the life of another), I was shocked to learn that despite 4025 organ transplants being carried out in the UK in 2016-17, 457 patients died on the transplant waiting list due to the shortage of transplantable organs, and that BAME patients are less likely to find a suitable donor than white patients. Increasing the supply of organs is imperative to saving lives.

Where Else Can We Source Organs From?

Initially, researchers looked into xenotransplantation, the transplant of animal organs into humans, and these procedures have had some limited success. Researching xenotransplantation introduced me to a new potential source of organs driven by advancements in stem cell technology: researchers are attempting to grow human replacement organs in animal ‘carriers’ by creating chimeras. The ability of early animal embryos to grow specific organs is genetically removed, and stem cells from the patient are inserted into the embryo in an effort to induce the stem cells to grow into these organs. In one experiment, some pig embryos successfully grew early kidneys with majority human cells. By using induced pluripotent stem cells, adult stem cells from the patient which have been ‘reprogrammed’ to revert to a pluripotent state, the risk of rejection and ethical implications associated with organ donation and stem cell use are avoided.

Imaging of the chimera embryos reveals the human cell growth (red).

Ethical Concerns: Animal and Human Welfare

Not all ethical concerns are avoided. As a vegetarian who cares deeply about animal wellbeing, I am concerned about the welfare of the animals producing these organs. While I believe it is ethically correct to choose a person’s life over an animal’s life (it brings about the most ‘good’, as philosopher Jeremy Bentham would argue), millions of animals die yearly for the progression of medicine. Thousands more would do so for the growth of organs.

Some are worried about the potential of the stem cells forming sex cells, potentially resulting in chimera producing offspring with human genes, or brain cells giving the chimera a human ‘consciousness’, thus blurring the line between ‘human’ and ‘animal’. If a pig with human brain cells is produced, do we consider them human enough to be required ethically to do the most ‘good’ for them? Or are they still animal enough to be sacrificed for human health? These issues are summarised in this video by AJ+:

Another concern I have is disease transmission between the animal donor and human recipient: zoonosis. Although this is much less of a concern with this procedure than with xenotransplantation, individuals receiving these transplants will be significantly immunocompromised and, thus, more vulnerable to potential zoonoses from the transplanted tissue if the disease crosses the species barrier within the carrier animal so must be considered. I think we need to contemplate the mental well-being of the patient—the fear of disease compounded with the fear of rejection and stress of recovery may drive patients away from accepting animal-derived organs, as well as religious reasons if they are of a faith which prohibits the consumption of specific or all animals. I would struggle to make this decision due to my beliefs.

Due to the various ethical issues involved in organ growth in chimeras, I think many approaches should be considered for increasing the supply of replacement organs, emphasising a balance of animal welfare, ethics, and patient preferences. This is a good case study; what is the balance of ethics and progress that we consider acceptable?

The Aesthetics of Prosthetics

Posted on by

When designing prosthetics, it is evident that the most important consideration is their function. After all, what use is a prosthetic leg if it cannot be walked on? Other considerations, such as comfort, lifespan, and the impact of use on the rest of the body, are also included, but one factor is often left out of the conversation: visual appeal. It goes without saying that a primitive peg leg lacks the full range of function and motion of the human leg, and thus, over the past several hundred years, the function of the prosthetic leg has been developed to not only work more like the lost limb but in many ways look like the lost limb. However, some people note that more recently increasing the functionality has lessened the visual relationship of prosthetics and the human body. In some ways this feels like a regression in progress: historians and prosthetis specialists are unsure if archaeologically recovered early prosthetics, such as the Egyptian Toe, were primarily designed for function or appearance.

Image of prosthetics from the past 100 years from Caulfield Hospital in Melbourne.

When a person loses a limb, not only their physical health is altered, but a patient’s mental health undeniably takes a toll. Feelings of depression, anxiety and low self-esteem in regards to body image are often experienced by amputees, and these are feelings that can be exacerbated with time; in a study of 207 lower-limb amputation patients, patients who had been amputated 4-6 years ago had the lowest body satisfaction. There are distinct feelings of loss of independence and bodily autonomy, as well as the aforementioned poor body image, which contribute to this. Feeling ‘other’ is common among those with physical disabilities as a result of self-sourced insecurity and insecurity due to social exclusion and discrimination. Many efforts are made in the post-operation treatment of patients to rehabilitate them both physically and mentally by psychologists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists, but often these negative self-perceptions persist.

These negative self-perceptions may go beyond the general physical insecurities and contribute to fashion insecurities. Social pressure to fit in is worse than ever with the dissection of fashion trend cycles into microtrends and the rise of social media. Trying to conform a part of you that does not fit society’s idea of ‘perfect’ into trends that demand perfection can feel demoralising and therefore trying to adapt your prosthetic to your own journey of experimentation with fashion can be a frustrating experience. These sentiments were echoed by Chinese fashion model Xiao Yang, who has worn a prosthetic leg for over 25 years and is one of several in the fashion and art industries who have ventured to add individuality and personality to prosthetics by using accessories such as patterned leg covers or shaped knee caps, developed in collaboration with jewellery brand YVMIN.

Xiao Yang wearing a prosthetic cover from her collaboration with YVMIN.

Though Yang’s collaboration with the YVMIN was temporary and specifically for Yang, another company, Alleles Design, had a similar concept and continues to provide custom-manufactured prosthetic covers with thousands of possible designs with the aim of ‘giving the power of self-expression back to [prosthetic wearers]’. You can even design your own using their design tool.

Demonstration video from Alleles Design LTD

With companies aiming to fill this gap in the market, personalised prosthetics are likely to become more common as knowledge of these accessories grows and the costs decrease. Personalised prosthetics have the potential to reduce body image and self-esteem issues amongst limb-prosthetic users and are a step towards prosthetics that feel more like man than machine.