Significance of Tissue Engineering

Whilst protheses are a good mechanism to improve patient quality of life and aid daily function, there remain limitations in which they may not fulfil the needs of the patient.

• They can only provide limited forms of support, meaning they are not appropriate for use with many medical issues

• Requires replacement on a timely basis

• Body often rejects them due to foreign material

Living biological materials may be better suited to meet medical needs – introducing the need for tissue engineering.

Following discussion on the limits of prosthesis, I thought about what biological materials would be structured for longevity in the body.

The Regenerative Nature of the Liver

The liver is the only organ which can regenerate damaged tissue – the organ has the ability to regrow around two thirds of the healthy cells. In line with this, reading led to me an ongoing trial which acts to use the regenerative nature of liver cells in order to help those suffering from end-stage liver disease.

Growing Mini Livers

The emerging medical experimental treatment is titled “Allogenic Hepatocyte Transplantation Into Periduodenal Lymph Nodes”

This entails the use of Hepatocytes, the cells which make up the majority of the liver, which are also allogenic cells, which are sourced from human tissue donors. Using these to try to successfully create an engraftment into the lymph nodes essentially aims to create functioning mini livers in the body!

The purpose of the trial is to help patients diagnosed with end-stage liver disease.

The main objectives of the trial are listed as:

Should we grow Mini Livers?

It is likely that participants will have to take immunosuppressants, as they would for other transplants, to help reduce chance of rejection.

I think that despite the participants potentially having to alter their lifestyle, if the trial is successful than benefits of the treatment would outweigh potential side effects. As end-stage liver disease can cause decreased life expectancy, treatment which counters this should be approached positively. I also believe the treatment would be significant because:

• There is a shortage of liver transplants so treatment may not be feasible
• Increasing liver mass through the transplantation of hepatocyte may be notably beneficial to those with end-stage liver disease

Liver disease is the only major disease in which mortality rates are rapidly increasing

Figure 1: The increase in mortality rates of major diseases

Available at: [https://www.alcoholpolicy.net/2014/10/liver-disease-profiles-highlight-alcohols-role-in-premature-deaths.html] (Accessed: 10/03/25)

I think this trial is significant due to the provision it seeks to give for a widening gap between life expectancy in comparison to other diseases. Whilst many other major diseases have shown decreases in mortality, liver disease has worsened rather than improved alongside other medical advances. I believe the implementation of new treatments is essential to address the imbalance between fatalities of liver disease in comparison to others.

Also, the idea of being able to have lots of mini livers is fascinating!

What are embryonic stem cells and what can they be used for?

An embryonic stem cell is a specialised stem cell derived from the early stages of an embryo, which is capable of differentiating into any type of body cell.  These stem cells have pluripotent properties, allowing them to develop into almost any cell type in the body, giving embryonic stem cells potential medical applications in regenerative medicine. In theory, these cells could be used to create whole new organs, potentially allowing embryonic stem cells to cure blindness, replace damaged tissue in spinal injuries and more!

The use of embryonic stem cells raises human life considerations, as their creation requires embryo destruction. This raises questions about when human life begins and its moral status, leading to the formation of the 14-day rule in response to these ethical concerns.

What is the 14 day rule ?

The rise of interest in the potential of embryonic stem cells began when Louise Brown, the first human born from in vitro fertilization (IVF), was born on July 25, 1978.

‘These spare embryos can be very useful … they can teach us things about early human life’

Robert Edwards, 1982

The UK Government established the Warnock Committee in 1982 under Dame Mary Warnock’s chairmanship to set boundaries for embryo research and medical practice. The committee took a pragmatic approach, focusing on political consensus rather than moral absolutes.

This framework led to the 14-day rule, which marks the period before primitive streak formation and the stage when twinning becomes impossible. However, this was done to bring ease to the public, rather than establish moral boundaries.

“The requirement for precision of setting a limit on embryo testing was not primarily based on scientific or philosophical reasons, but to “allay public anxiety”.

Warnock Report [11.19]

However, at the time, maintaining embryos alive in vitro beyond 14 days seemed technically impossible, making it a convenient limit for research, meaning that the rule was initially based on technical limitations rather than ethical considerations.

What are some of the modern lab techniques that have challenged the 14-day rule?

Modern laboratory techniques have challenged the traditional 14-day rule through groundbreaking developments. Among these, Stem Cell-Derived Gametes (SCDGs) represent a significant advancement in reproductive biology, enabling scientists to create egg and sperm cells from stem cells in laboratory settings. This technology opens new possibilities for fertility treatment, potentially allowing prospective parents with infertility and same-sex couples to have genetically related children.

The development of SCDGs has become particularly significant for embryonic research, providing an alternative to traditional embryo sources and helping establish the safety and efficacy of new reproductive technologies while bypassing ethical issues.

So Should We Protect Human Life Before 14 Days?

The question of whether human life should be protected before 14 days raises fundamental moral and ethical considerations as Human embryos possess inherent dignity and moral value from conception, and their destruction at any stage constitutes a serious ethical violation.

However, the 14-day rule arbitrarily distinguishes between equally valuable human lives, highlighting the need for consistent ethical standards. Modern imaging techniques and Stem Cell-Derived Gametes (SCDGs) now allow for detailed study without destructive research. The ethical implications of reducing the limit would further devalue early human life, while current restrictions protect vulnerable human beings and maintain fundamental human rights principles.

Bibliography

1.

What are stem cells? – Craig A. Kohn [Internet]. YouTube. 2013. Available from: https://youtu.be/evH0I7Coc54

2.

Appleby JB, Bredenoord AL. Should the 14‐day rule for embryo research become the 28‐day rule? EMBO Molecular Medicine. 2018 Aug 7;10(9):e9437.

3.

Jones DA. The injustice of destroying embryonic human beings [Internet]. Mercator. 2016 [cited 2025 Mar 11]. Available from: https://www.mercatornet.com/the-injustice-of-destroying-embryonic-human-beings

4.

Staff C. Bioethicists deplore relaxation of 14-day limit on human embryo research [Internet]. Catholic News Agency. 2021 [cited 2025 Mar 11]. Available from: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/247880/bioethicists-deplore-relaxation-of-14-day-limit-on-human-embryo-research

5.

Buckley G. Embryonic Stem Cell – Definition and Uses | Biology Dictionary [Internet]. Biology Dictionary. 2019. Available from: https://biologydictionary.net/embryonic-stem-cell/

6.

Wikipedia Contributors. Louise Brown [Internet]. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation; 2019. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brown

7.

Dawson J. Stem cell research – ethics & law. 2025.

What is ECM?

All tissues and organs contain the extracellular matrix (ECM), a non-cellular substance that serves as a physical scaffold for the cellular components and initiates vital biochemical and biomechanical signals necessary for tissue morphogenesis, differentiation, and homeostasis (1).

The structures and functions of extracellular matrices (ECMs), which are multifaceted, well-organised, three-dimensional architectural networks, are crucial for tissue organisation and remodelling as well as for controlling cellular functions. Collagens, proteoglycans (PGs) and glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), elastin and elastic fibres, laminins, fibronectin, and other proteins and glycoproteins, including matricellular proteins, are the constituents of these ultrastructures (2).

The most prevalent protein in human tissue and the most important part of the extracellular matrix is collagen(3).

ECM in healing

Healing is needed for several incidences for example surgical incisions or a clean laceration, soft tissue loss such as ulcerations, severe burns, and major surgeries.  These tissues heal with the help of several ECM components; granulation tissue formation, which is followed by the production of extracellular matrix (ECM), largely because of fibroblasts. Collagen provides tensile strength but leaves a scar this is because elastin is not produced which is present in the native skin(4).  

Current techniques involve the capacity of scaffolds to imitate native extracellular matrix (ECM) at scale makes their microarchitecture relevant to tissue engineering. This is believed to promote cellular ingrowth, ECM deposition, and the development of neotissue (4).

Tissue polarity and asymmetric stem cell division are maintained by the ECM acting as a point of anchoring for the cells. Growth factors can bind to many ECM components, regulating their release and presentation to target cells.  Because it creates morphogen gradients, this is particularly significant in morphogenesis.  Numerous intracellular signalling pathways and cytoskeletal machinery are activated when the extracellular matrix (ECM) sends mechanical signals to the cells(3). 

ECM-Based Therapies

Several scaffolding techniques are used to heal peri-implant soft tissues for example Decellularized human dermis, Human amniotic membrane, Bilayer collagen matrix, Volume-stable collagen matrix and many more(5).

The use of three-dimensional (3D) cell culture, Scaffolds, Hydrogels, Decellularized tissues, Microfluidics, Extracellular matrix (ECM) for cancer research as these techniques are more cost effective as well as ethical(6).

Through the transplantation of bone tissue engineering scaffolds to the bone defect site and the subsequent bodily replacement of the scaffold materials with new bone tissues, the combination of scaffolds, seed cells, and cytokines aims to repair the bone defect. Scaffold, a transient and synthetic extracellular matrix, directly affects cell proliferation and differentiation and can stimulate the growth of new bone(7).

Conclusion

The extracellular matrix (ECM) is a dynamic and vital component of tissue regeneration, directing cellular activity and the healing process. It is much more than just a structural framework. Scientists are creating innovative treatments, such decellularized scaffolds and synthetic mimics, that have great potential for mending injured tissues and organs by comprehending and utilising the natural features of the extracellular matrix. We are getting closer to a time when regenerative medicine may fully utilise the body’s own healing mechanisms as long as research into the ECM continues to reveal its full potential. In addition to providing patients with injuries or degenerative diseases with hope, this opens the door for novel, transformative therapies. The ECM serves as a reminder that sometimes the finer aspects of our own biology hold the secret to healing.

References

1.           Frantz C, Stewart KM, Weaver VM. The extracellular matrix at a glance. J Cell Sci [Internet]. 2010 Dec 15 [cited 2025 Mar 11];123(24):4195. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2995612/

2.           Karamanos NK, Theocharis AD, Piperigkou Z, Manou D, Passi A, Skandalis SS, et al. A guide to the composition and functions of the extracellular matrix. FEBS J [Internet]. 2021 Dec 1 [cited 2025 Mar 11];288(24):6850–912. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/febs.15776

3.           Walker C, Mojares E, Del Río Hernández A. Role of Extracellular Matrix in Development and Cancer Progression. Int J Mol Sci [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2025 Mar 11];19(10). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30287763/

4.           Diller RB, Tabor AJ. The Role of the Extracellular Matrix (ECM) in Wound Healing: A Review. Biomimetics [Internet]. 2022 Sep 1 [cited 2025 Mar 11];7(3):87. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9326521/

5.           Tavelli L, McGuire MK, Zucchelli G, Rasperini G, Feinberg SE, Wang HL, et al. Extracellular matrix-based scaffolding technologies for periodontal and peri-implant soft tissue regeneration. J Periodontol [Internet]. 2020 Jan 1 [cited 2025 Mar 11];91(1):17–25. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31475361/

6.           Abuwatfa WH, Pitt WG, Husseini GA. Scaffold-based 3D cell culture models in cancer research. J Biomed Sci [Internet]. 2024 Dec 1 [cited 2025 Mar 11];31(1):7. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10789053/

7.           Su X, Wang T, Guo S. Applications of 3D printed bone tissue engineering scaffolds in the stem cell field. Regen Ther [Internet]. 2021 Mar 1 [cited 2025 Mar 11];16:63. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7868584/

What is Brain-machine interface and how does it work?

In recent years, the field of neuroprosthetics has advanced greatly. Neuroprosthetic devices use Brain-Machine Interface (BMI), devices which translate signals from the brain to prosthetic limbs. These devices allow an amputee or a patient who has suffered a spinal cord injury to have prosthetic limbs which closely mimic the action of a natural limb. ⁽¹⁾

When a patient has a missing limb, the brain still thinks that the limb is there, and still transmits signals to the missing limb. A BMI picks up these signals using sensors, either electrodes on the scalp or brain implants. Some BMIs are more advanced and can send back signals to the brain, allowing prosthetic users to feel touch, pressure, texture and even pain. The Utah array is one example of this, an implant which allows the feeling of different textures and pressures. ⁽²⁾ The Modular Limb Prosthesis (MLP) is another example. In 2018, Johnny Matheny was able to play the piano with his MLP, and users have said it almost feels like a real hand. ^(3).

There are a lot of requirements for an implanted BMI to work, such as dealing with the hostile environment of the body. It’s unsurprising that an electrical device implanted into the most complex system known to man could cause an uproar from the brain’s immune system. Implants can cause inflammation which weakens signals and decrease the accuracy of the signal. Those in the field are still exploring materials which the brain would welcome i.e. increase the biocompatibility of BMIs ⁽⁴⁾.

Do we risk losing what makes us human? The ethical side 

Aside from the bioethics involved in many areas of medicine, such as the balance of risk and benefit, user safety, and unknown effects, the area of brain-machine interface raises a whole new set of ethical considerations. ⁽⁵⁾

A big one is the issue of humanity and personhood. The interaction between brain and machine raises the question of whether the machine is part of the person, or simply a tool. Could the person be considered a cyborg? Does it change their sense of identity? There are also considerations of whether the device actually changes the way users think and how it affects neural pathways. Going down this route, we eventually reach the question of what is it that really makes us human, and does a little device change that? ⁽⁶⁾

You could say that something like a missing limb changes the patient’s identity anyway, and that because of the improvement it brings to a patient’s life, using BMIs is worth it. You could also say that many medical interventions already link us with technology, such as pacemakers, so BMI doesn’t make us any more a ‘cyborg’ than any other medical device. However, BMI advancements do mean that nervous signals can be processed by artificial intelligence before reaching the prosthetic limbs, which raises questions of privacy. Does it open the possibility of thoughts being transferred to computers? It might sound far-fetched, but without appropriate regulation, the use of BMIs could lead to an almost dystopian man-machine hybrid. The field of neuroprosthetics has great potential for improving the lives of many people, and it is an exciting task which combines neuroscience and cutting-edge engineering. However, should BMI be treated with caution? Does it have the potential to alter our humanity? ⁽⁷⁾.

Sources:

(1) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3497935/#sec2

(2) https://www.wired.com/story/this-man-set-the-record-for-wearing-a-brain-computer-interface/

(3) https://www.jhuapl.edu/news/news-releases/210318-home-study-Modular-Prosthetic-Limb-Matheny-piano-Amazing-Grace

(4)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2452199X24003724#:~:text=Some%20materials%20trigger%20tissue%20reactions,response%20is%20minimal%20%5B42%5D.

(5)https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7654969/#:~:text=Implanting%20the%20BCI%20sensor%20into,are%20referred%20to%20as%20the

(6) https://bmcmedethics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12910-017-0220-y

(7) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11091939/

Joint replacement has always been about restoration. It allows individuals to move again, to relieve pain, and live normal lives. But what if they could improve on that? What if implants did not only replace failing parts but enhance them? A knee that never degenerates. A hip that allows you to run faster. A shoulder that never tires.

For generations medicine has tried to heal the damaged, but we are moving toward a time when biomedical engineering could redefine human abilities to extend beyond biological limits. The question is no longer just how do we replace joints, but rather how much should we go in improving them? This raises profound ethical, legal, and social concerns–concerns we are possibly not yet equipped to answer.

The Science: When Repair Becomes Enhancement

Standard joint implants are mechanical prostheses–titanium, ceramic, or polyethylene devices that stimulate natural function. But new technologies are blurring the line between mechanical need and performance gain.

• Smart implants that monitor motion through sensors and real-time stress adjustments.
• Regenerative implants that include stem cells and bioactive material to merge into bone and muscle.
• Electroactive polymers that release minute electrical stimuli to stimulate healing in tissue and aid function.

If we can create a joint that is stronger, more effective, and less susceptible to damage than the natural one, is it still just a replacement? Or is it an upgrade?

The Ethics: Who Gets to Be Better

The idea of enhancement challenges traditional medical ethics. Joint replacements are typically reserved for those who need them, but if there are enhanced implants available, will healthy people start demanding them? Athletes, military personnel, and even everyday individuals in need of a competitive advantage may choose to have implants that exceed human potential. This raises serious questions about access and fairness:

• Will only the wealthy have access to bodies that have been upgraded?
• Would enhanced individuals be able to outperform others at sports, in the workplace, or even in everyday life?
• Would society begin to discriminate between the naturally gifted and the enhanced?

Medical advancements have always improved lives, but when do they begin to enhance social inequality instead? If these technologies become widespread, should legislation regulate human enhancement, or would this restrict personal freedom?

The Legal Gray Areas: Is an Enhanced Human Still Human?

Law struggles to keep up with emerging science, and enhanced implants raise difficult legal issues:

• If a person with a smart, AI-driven knee commits a crime, could their implant data be used as evidence against them?
• If an athlete has performed-enhancing implants, should they be allowed to compete in sports?
• If a person’s identity is tied to their body, does replacing biological parts with artificial ones change their legal status?

We have seen similar debates in gene editing and cyborg technology, but joint implants are a subtler, more immediate reality–one we may soon have to legislate.

The Future: A choice Between Healing and Advancing

We are standing at a crossroad. Do we use bioengineering to simply restore what we lost, or do we allow it to take us beyond natural human limits? Some will argue that enhancement is inevitable, and that as soon as the technology exists, people will demand it. Others worry that a world of enhanced bodies will divide humanity into the “natural” and the “modified”.

One thing is clear: joint implants are no longer just about healing. Whether we embrace enhancement or restrict it, we need to have these conversations now, before science makes the choice for us.

References

prezi.com. (2023). The Ethics of Enhancement. [online] Available at: https://prezi.com/p/u-qx9kjiuf4n/the-ethics-of-enhancement/ [Accessed 11 Mar. 2025].

‌chen (2012). The Ethics of Human Enhancement – SlideServe. [online] SlideServe. Available at: https://www.slideserve.com/chen/cognitive-enhancement [Accessed 11 Mar. 2025].

Shutterstock. (2025). 1,073 Advanced Prosthetics Images, Stock Photos, 3D objects, & Vectors | Shutterstock. [online] Available at: https://www.shutterstock.com/search/advanced-prosthetics [Accessed 11 Mar. 2025].

With the advancements in scientific technology continuing to push new discoveries, the concept of designer babies has posed excitement along with controversy. The modifying of embryos to select desirable traits such as intelligence, appearance and resistance to genetic diseases have been made possible through techniques such as CRISPR. Amongst the potential this technology has to eliminate hereditary illnesses and improving the health of a population, there is a concern regarding the ethical considerations. The statements in questioning: ‘could genetic editing widen social inequality’ and ‘ should it be allowed for the parents to dictate their child’s genetic makeup’ are still being pondered. This matter is urgent now more then ever as technological advancements show designer babies being a reality in the near future.

What Are Designer Babies?

Designer Babies are Babies whose genetic make up has been selectively chosen or altered for the advantageous reasons of enhancing beauty, intelligence or for the freedom of diseases such as cardiovascular disease via removing and excluding particular genes.

How is the genetic code modified and altered?

In order for an embryo to be modified it must first be screened. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD or PGDI) is used to profile the embryo, which is useful for when one parent is a carrier for a heritable disease such as colour blindness. The selectivity of the genome is carried out by the removal of an inferior gene by nucleases where it’s then replaced by a superior gene with better adaptability. CRISPR is a common technology used where RNA guides the nucleases. It’s being investigated that this technique has the chances to help treat HIV and potentially even mitochondrial disease.

“We use a pair of molecular scissors and a molecular sat-nav that tells the scissors where to cut” Dr Perry, University of Bath based, told the BBC. This cutting allows mutations to be cut, along with insertion of new pieces of genetic code at the site of the cut. However, further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety in the long term, as it could cause other unwanted genetic modifications that are undesirable for future generations.

An ethical concern?

The designer baby process is labour intensive, requires great intelligence, advanced technology and can only be accessed by developed countries and individuals who can afford it. The ethical remarks thrown into question include the ideas of social justice and the question of individuality being taken away. From a bioethicist, if a parent is allowed to choose the biological characteristics on behalf of their offspring, does this violate the child’s right to live as an independent individual? Additionally, there are thoughts that germline modification would contribute to the widening of the social inequality gap. If these techniques are only available to the those who can afford them, how’s it fair to those suffering the burdens of genetic diseases and can’t afford the treatment creating disparity.

The benefits

PGD can be used to scan for 600 genetic diseases according to the human fertilisation and embryology authority, HFEA. This can help to reduce the risk of threating genetic alignment in unborn babies and avoid parents transferring genetic conditions to their babies. It’s said that new gene editing could correct up to 89% of genetic defects including diseases such as sickle cell anaemia.

An open conclusion

Genetic engineering holds potential benefits like eliminating hereditary diseases and improving quality of life but genetic enhancement for non medical traits such as appearance and intelligence complicates discussions further, as it deepens the social divide and ultimately challenges the fundamental values of diversity and acceptance. A balance is essential to ensure genetic engineering serves humanity in a fair and just manner, as designer babies put scientific advancements and moral responsibility against each other. This can be monitored by careful regulation and ethical oversight into societal impact.

Kidney disease is a global issue. It relates to the general damage of the kidneys. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is the most prevalent type, affecting 10% of the global population. While there is no specific cause, diabetes and high blood pressure can increase your risk of developing CKD. Kidney disease is separated into 5 stages. Stage 1 and 2 represent a risk for future kidney disease. Stage 3 represents mild to moderate CKD. Stage 4 is severe CKD, and stage 5 is full kidney failure. Approximately 2% of CKD patients reach stage 5 and require a kidney transplant or dialysis. Besides a transplant, dialysis is the current gold standard of treatment for patients with late-stage kidney disease. 90% of late-stage CKD patients undergo haemodialysis treatment. There are 2 types of dialysis:

• Haemodialysis (HD)
• Peritoneal dialysis (PD).

Dialysis is a ex vivo treatment, meaning it takes place outside the body. Haemodialysis works by taking the blood outside the body and passing it through a machine to clean it. This process typically takes 3-5 hours to complete and requires 3-4 visits to the hospital a week. This can be very mentally strenuous on the patient, taking between 9-20 hours out of the week. Peritoneal dialysis is a newer option that involves pumping solvent into the abdominal cavity and allowing the body to diffuse waste out before removing the solvent. The below video explains these principles.

Artificial Kidneys

What is an artificial kidney?

Some may consider dialysis to a be an artificial kidney. The Kidney Project’s artificial kidney is an implantable biomedical device that will work like a natural kidney and provide 24/7 treatment. While the team’s aim is to fully replicate kidney function. Promising strides have been made with current prototypes replicating kidney function on the same level as stage 3-4 CKD.

How does it work?

Artificial kidney technology has made lots of progress through the years. First attempts included the work of Willem Kolff where they design a device that weighed 3.5kg but needed to be periodically connected to 20L of fluid. More recently many devices using peritoneal dialysis as its main starting point. The Kidney Project’s artificial kidney has introduced a new element, a bioreactor. In addition to the haemofilter these two components work together to clean and process the blood. Dr Shuvo Roy, one of the collaborators in the Kidney Project said, “The hemofilter processes incoming blood. It creates “ultrafiltrate”, a solution containing dissolved toxins, sugars, and salts. The bioreactor contains kidney cells. It processes the ultrafiltrate and directs wastes and excess fluid to the bladder for removal.” The device requires no external power source or connections, it uses the blood pressure of the body to power the device and run the blood through it. “The pores are big enough to allow waste and excess fluids into the bioreactor but small enough to keep out immune cells,” Dr Roy said. “This allows the artificial to work while remaining isolated from the immune system.” A video below explains the principle of the artificial kidney.

Conclusion

Dialysis has been the gold standard for many years now but the downsides still remain. It takes away so much time from the patient such that a fulfilling life is often not a possibility. With the additional use of biotechnology, could implantable technology be the way forward?

References

• Oladimeji Ewumi (2025). Kidney Disease Burden Is Bigger Than You Think, and Growing. [online] MedCentral. Available at: https://www.medcentral.com/nephrology/kidney/kidney-disease-burden-is-bigger-than-you-think-and-growing

• Suriyong, P., Ruengorn, C., Shayakul, C., Anantachoti, P. and Kanjanarat, P. (2022). Prevalence of chronic kidney disease stages 3–5 in low- and middle-income countries in Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 17(2), p.e0264393. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264393.

• Kidney Care UK. (n.d.). Stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD). [online] Available at: https://kidneycareuk.org/kidney-disease-information/stages-of-kidney-disease/stages-of-chronic-kidney-disease-ckd/.

• Cherney, K. (2025). What Is the Mortality Rate of Renal (Kidney) Failure? [online] Healthline. Available at: https://www.healthline.com/health/kidney-disease/renal-failure-death-rate#mortality-rate

• lauren.hoskin@nihr.ac.uk (2024). Dialysis for kidney failure: evidence to improve care. [online] NIHR Evidence. Available at: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/collection/dialysis-for-kidney-failure-evidence-to-improve-care/.

• Karageorgos, F.F., Stavros Neiros, Konstantina-Eleni Karakasi, Vasileiadou, S., Katsanos, G., Antoniadis, N. and Georgios Tsoulfas (2024). Artificial kidney: Challenges and opportunities. World journal of transplantation, [online] 14(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.5500/wjt.v14.i1.89025.

• National Kidney Foundation (2024). The Future of Artificial Kidneys. [online] Kidney.org. Available at: https://www.kidney.org/news-stories/future-artificial-kidneys.

• Ucsf.edu. (2019). Home | The Kidney Project | UCSF. [online] Available at: https://pharm.ucsf.edu/kidney.

Aging is an inevitable part of life, but what if we could slow it down – or even reverse it? Scientists are exploring the potential of stem cells to unlock the secrets of aging, offering the exciting possibility of longer and healthier lives. Through lectures and discussions, I’ve come to appreciate how stem cell research pushes the boundaries of longevity. But how realistic is this, and what role do stem cells play in the pursuit of eternal youth?

Why Do We Age?

Aging happens as our cells accumulate damage over time. DNA mutations, oxidative stress (related to too many reactive oxygen species), and the shortening of telomeres (the protective caps on our chromosomes) all contribute to tissue decline. Stem cells, which can develop into different cell types, naturally diminish with age, reducing the body’s ability to repair itself.

Stem Cells as a Fountain of Youth

Scientists are investigating whether replenishing or rejuvenating stem cells could combat aging. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), found in bone marrow and fat tissue, secrete growth factors that aid tissue repair. Studies suggest they could improve skin elasticity, reduce wrinkles, and even regenerate damaged organs. MSCs are already in clinical trials for treating age-related frailty and inflammation.

Another promising option is induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), adult cells reprogrammed into a stem-like state. In mouse studies, researchers extended lifespan and reversed signs of aging by introducing rejuvenated cells. iPSCs could replace aged or damaged cells, rejuvenating tissues without the need for donors. In discussions, we debated whether pursuing cellular youth might create societal imbalances, benefiting the wealthy while leaving others behind.

Stem Cell Therapies for Aging-Related Diseases

Stem cells might not just help with wrinkles – they could tackle diseases of aging. For instance, stem cell transplants are being explored for neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. By generating healthy neurons, scientists hope to replace the lost brain cells causing these diseases.

Stem cells also show promise for cardiovascular disease. Researchers are working on generating new heart muscle cells from iPSCs, which could be transplanted into damaged hearts. Similarly, MSCs are being tested to repair cartilage in osteoarthritis patients, offering hope for those with joint pain and reduced mobility.

Rejuvenating the Skin and Immune System

One of the most visible signs of aging is skin deterioration. Stem cell-based treatments, like exosome therapies (using stem cell-derived vesicles filled with growth factors), aim to boost collagen production, improve skin texture, and enhance overall skin resilience.

Stem cell therapies may also rejuvenate the immune system. The thymus, which produces immune cells, shrinks with age, weakening immunity. Researchers are exploring whether stem cell injections could regenerate thymic tissue, restoring immune function and boosting longevity.

The Ethical and Practical Challenges

Despite the promise, stem cell therapies pose ethical and logistical challenges. While iPSCs bypass the controversy of embryonic stem cells, safety remains a concern. Unchecked cell growth could cause cancer, and immune responses to transplanted cells must be addressed. The technology is costly and primarily accessible through clinical trials, raising questions about equitable access – a point that sparked intense class discussions.

From a societal perspective, extended lifespans prompt complex questions: are we prepared for a world where people live to 120 or beyond? How might this affect resources and healthcare systems? These conversations made me reflect on whether the goal should be radical life extension or enhancing health span so people age with dignity and vitality.

A Glimpse Into the Future

While we’re not close to immortality, stem cells offer a promising path to healthier aging. As research progresses, therapies could shift from experimental to routine, helping people live longer, more vibrant lives. The idea of eternal youth may not be science fiction forever – with stem cells, it just might become reality.

Would you want to know what you’d look like at 150? The future of aging is unfolding, and stem cells are at the heart of the revolution.

Sources

1. DNA damage by oxidative stress: Measurement strategies for two genomes https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2468202017301341-gr1_lrg.jpg (accessed: 06/03/2025)
2. Stem Cells and Acellular Preparations in Bone Regeneration/Fracture Healing: Current Therapies and Future Directions https://www.mdpi.com/cells/cells-13-01045/article_deploy/html/images/cells-13-01045-g001.png (accessed 07/03/2025)
3. What is the therapeutic potential of exosomes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQeY_oIMNII&ab_channel=ScienceAnimated (accessed 07/03/2025)

For many, their only exposure to prosthetics has been from film, such as Captain Hook in Peter Pan – however, reality is far from fiction. I feel many people don’t know the truth of prosthetics and orthotics; but they’re not the mystery they seem! I myself have used an orthosis, needing a knee brace after a figure skating injury. 

With the rise of social media, it’s becoming easier than ever to share your life with others – whether that be your opinions on the latest album release, or an account of your personal experiences. One use of social media that I find fascinating is how TikTok is being used as a tool for education on prosthetics – a tool I used when wanting to learn more following the UOSM2031 lectures.

While social media can be damaging, it can also be an incredibly useful tool for education. It is great to know there are creators out there dedicated to increasing the public knowledge of prosthetics – and I’ve loved learning from them!

What’s your favourite social media platform for educational videos, and who is your favourite prosthetics content creator?

All videos are sourced from TikTok, following the sites Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. All information on case studies is sourced from the individuals own TikTok page, as well as my own opinions.

The future’s here! But who’s in control…

Imagine this: it’s 2080. Your heart isn’t just a meagre organ but a 3D printed wonder. You look down at your new, bionic arm, which is not just a replacement but an upgrade. With rapid advances in stem cell research, engineered tissues, prosthetics, and bionics, the lines between the human body and technology are increasingly blurring, arguably for the better.

But with these innovations comes a huge question… if a company builds part of your body, do you still own it?

Patents and Parts- Can Someone Own a Piece of You?

Oddly enough, body parts have been the centre of legal disputes before. In 1990, John Moore, a resident of Seattle, USA, was given treatment for hairy-celled leukaemia, where he was advised to undergo surgery to remove his spleen. He was also asked for permission to contribute to medical research, which he explicitly refused. Moore sued his doctor after discovering that his cells were being used for research without his permission, and resulted in a lucrative patent. The court ruled that he had no rights over his cells once they removed from his body: he lost. A summary of this interesting case study has been attached in a video below.

Fast forward to 2025: say a company patents your lab grown heart, or bionic arm; do they now own this technology that’s inside you? Various companies already limit repairs to medical devices such as pacemakers or implants, meaning you can’t legally fix them without their approval.

Cancel the Netflix- You Need to Subscribe to your Heart!

Here’s a concerning thought: what if your life changing, revolutionary implant came with a monthly fee? Indeed, this seems a dystopian concept, but not entirely far fetched. A range of pacemaker manufacturers already have restrictions on accessing software updates, and there are concerns that future medical technology such as smart prosthetics could adopt a subscription models.

A range of ethical questions are ultimately raised from this:

• What happens if someone cannot afford their payments? Does this simply result in a loss of function of their vital organ/limb? Will this lead to death?
• Should companies be permitted to charge for continued access to essential body parts?

A Fine Line- Treatment and Enhancement

Its almost inevitable with the pace that technology is moving, bionic limbs will eventually supersede our natural ones. Should athletes be using these in various sports? A new brain implant has the ability to boost and promote intelligence- how do we decide who has access to this… the big CEOs? Or the struggling students?

This all touches on elements of transhumanism (a video explaining this attached below), social inequalities and legal restrictions.

Conclusion: Your Body. Your Rights. But for How Long?

The idea that a company can own a part of your body might sound crazy, but we’re already heading in that direction. From patented lab-grown organs, to bionic limbs with restricted upgrades, the future of medicine is becoming entangled with corporate control, legal loopholes, and ethical issues.

And that’s an issue.

With spectacular technological advances such as bionics and prosthetics having power to transform lives we have a clear underlying risk: the commodification of our bodies. By not pushing for clear legal protections now, we’re looking at a future where vital medical technology is obstructed behind paywalls, where our own body data is exploited, and where only certain demographics such as the wealthy can partake in ‘human enhancement;’ controversial in itself.

So… who owns your body? Right now, you. But that might not be the case for much longer. Its time for society, including scientists, lawyers, and everyone in between, to ensure the future of engineered body parts is driven by human rights, not corporate profits.