The University of Southampton

Category: Assessed Item

Xenotransplantation: A medical breakthrough or an ethical dilemma?

Posted on by

During one of our lectures, our professor brought up the topic of ‘humanised pigs’ where human stem cells are injected into pig embryos to form human organs, and this piqued my interest.

The process of transplanting cells from one species to another is known as xenotransplantation, and has the potential to solve the shortage of organs for transplants. According to the NHS, currently 6963 patients are waiting for an organ transplant and 3396 patients have received one. Unfortunately, my uncle was not one of the lucky ones, and he passed away. Because of him, I felt compelled to conduct further research in the field of xenotransplantation. Could a xenotransplantation have potentially saved my uncle’s life? And if so, would he have agreed to it if given the chance?

The idea of genetically modifying animals to serve as organ donors for humans is both fascinating and controversial, and therefore I had to explore it further.

The history of xenotransplantation

Xenotransplantation timeline made using Adobe Premier Rush.

How is xenotransplantation performed?

Pigs are ideal candidates because of their size, ease of breeding, and anatomical and physiological similarities to humans.

Pig cells are genetically modified using gene knockouts or gene-editing technology like CRISPR-Cas9 in order to reduce the risk of rejection by the human immune system.

This is done by removing pig genes that will trigger immune responses when transplanted in humans and by introducing human genes to make the pig organs more compatible.

Once the genetically-engineered pigs are grown, the desired organ is removed and transplanted into the patient.

Immunosuppressive drugs are administered and the patient is monitored for the rest of their lives.

What are the ethical issues and concerns in xenotransplantation?

Is the breeding of animals for the purpose of using them as a supply of organs ethically acceptable? Is it more ethically justifiable to use animals for cosmetic and drug research (e.g. development of vaccines and cancer treatments)?

There is much debate surrounding the use of animal organs in humans, raising concerns about their exploitation:

  • It violates animal welfare; it is unethical and cruel as they are capable of suffering and feeling pain
  • Animals can not give consent; genetically modifying pigs to harvest their organs violates animal rights and we are using them for our own benefit without their explicit consent.

Some may argue about the possibility of organ rejection and the risk of cross-species infection, but if you ask me technology advances rapidly and by using CRISPR-Cas9 to genetically modify pigs, antigenicity can be reduced and viruses like PERVs- porcine endogenous retrovirus, can be inactivated, lowering the risk of transmission.

Although, it is important not to neglect other possible alternatives in addressing organ shortages like tissue engineering, lab grown organs, 3D bioprinting and stem cell research.

The way I see it, while there are significant ethical considerations, the potential benefits of using animals for human transplantations can’t be ignored. If this could possibly mean saving my uncle’s life, how could I not support it? What if you had a close relative who needed an organ transplant, would that change your perspective on xenotransplantation?

Taking into account everything I have learnt so far from my research, I believe that xenotransplantation is moving closer to becoming a viable and life- saving option for patients in need. As it progresses, it is essential to maintain a balance between the scientific advances and ethical considerations to ensure the welfare of both humans and animals. Whether we like it or not this is a medical breakthrough!

80 days circumnavigating the world, single-handed

Posted on by

“Innovation is all about delivering real-life practicality that improves people’s lives” is a quote which I strongly believe, said by the founder of Taska, Mat Jury, and which I think exactly reflects the goal of each scientist in the biomedical field.

Damien Seguin, born and raised in France, is 43 years old and was the first disabled navigator to finish in the top 10 in the VendĂŠe Globe. It is a non-stop and unassisted solo regatta around the world, thanks to which Damien has launched an important message: disability is not a limit, it resides only in the eyes of the beholder, but not in the heart of those who fight against it.
Damien was born with a pathology that prevented the physiological development of his left hand. He has always lived with his handicap, but he has been denied participation in sporting events several times until he was not able to found a team willing to support him in his greatest dream.The boats taking part in the Vendeè globe are IMOCA 60s, 60 feet long and extremely avant-garde. they are built specifically for solo racing and to be able to face the ocean without ever having to call for help from land. Despite his handicap, Damien hasn’t made any particular modifications to his boat “Group Apicil” except for having adapted the so-called “coffee grinder”, the winch column with which the sails are hoisted, retrieved and adjusted: he has a sleeve for hand prosthesis so that the left arm can also be used, but otherwise has the same equipment as the other skippers.

coffee grinder prosthesis

The sleeve was made of carbon, a high-performance material widely used in the nautical industry due to its extreme strength and lightness.
Thanks to Damien’s story, we can appreciate how, through advanced biomedical engineering, it is possible to tear apart the architectural barriers in sports and regain one’s own autonomy and strength. Sport is everyone’s right and that is why research and innovation must be supported and financed.
Prostheses in the sports field vary from the most rudimentary and least expensive like Damien’s to the most complex which can cost up to 60,000 pounds.
But what are the most recent advances in the field of sports prosthesis, and how much innovation has played a significant role in the performance of disabled athletes? In fact, each activity necessitates precise motions, a particular weight balance, and the usage of distinct muscles. As a result, unique prostheses for each activity have been researched in order to favor the athlete’s movements and enhance the comfort.
In the case of water sports such as sailing but also swimming, canoeing, fishing and many others, there is a need to have a support that is waterproof. TASK company is the first in the world to have developed a robust and waterproof hand. Highly technological, all fingers and the tip of the thumb are capacitive and can be used on any common touch screen. In the case of a sailor like Damien, it can be used to use all the on-board technological equipment mainly composed of screens for routing and weather.

This prosthesis can also be used outside sport, for all daily actions, but I believe that in the case of an athlete it can guarantee precision especially in gripping movements which must be quick and stable.
Certainly great strides have been made in the field of prostheses but in my opinion, in the future it will be necessary to achieve a level of comfort and accessibility such as to feel the prosthesis as an integral part of one’s body.

“the world’s first water-resistant prosthetic hand”

Bionic Athletes

Posted on by

A few years ago, I completed some work experience alongside an orthopaedic surgeon, where I got to see a total hip replacement surgery take place. Before taking part in this experience, I had the mindset that it was only older patients needing these sorts of surgeries. But to my surprise, it was a female in her mid 30s that came into the theatre.

The presentation given by MatOrtho sparked my interest once again in this area of bioengineering. They mentioned that Andy Murray, a top 10 tennis player, had received one of their hip resurfacing implants. As a keen sportsperson myself I was intrigued to hear that top athletes can receive such implants and return to the same level of sports performance.

From the presentation they explained that osteoarthritis of the hip is the most common reason for needing a hip implant. Osteoarthritis of the hip causes: severe pain, swelling, and stiffness which causes reduced motility. The image to the right highlights what an X-Ray of an osteoarthritic hip looks like.

I also learnt some of the major differences between total hip replacements and hip resurfacing implants.

The Pros of Hip Resurfacing

I found these two images which I think show the physical differences of the two types of implants quite well. The example of the hip resurfacing implant is the model developed by MatOrtho know as ADEPT. This model has a patient satisfaction of over 95%.

MatOrtho’s website also provided a good list of the benefits that come with the hip resurfacing implant. This included that, hip resurfacing patients can return to a wider variety of sporting activities without restriction, hip resurfacing significantly reduces the risk of dislocation and has a lower risk of postoperative infection than the total hip replacement.

https://www.matortho.com/products/adept-hip-resurfacing-system#:~:text=Hip%20resurfacing%20significantly%20reduces%20the,of%20mortality%20compared%20to%20THR.

So from reading further about the hip resurfacing it seems that the main selling point is that younger patients who receive this type of implant can return to a fully active lifestyle…

The research that has been done has shown that the hip resurfacing has majorly increased the majority of the patient’s ability to take part in sport after the hip replacement. And not only take part, but excel in sport performance.

The future

This made me think what effect a hip resurfacing procedure could have on a person with a perfectly healthy hip. Although there’s no research on hip resurfacing in healthy patients, the advancements that have been made so far in going from the total hip replacement to developing the hip resurfacing implant is already major.

It is not only science and engineering that is constantly trying to break boundaries, athletes are a prime example of where records are being broken on a regular basis. Athletes are always looking for ways that they can improve their sports performance within their training and diet. Could it be possible that we could introduce these types of implants so that one day athletes could purposely get them as a way of increasing their sports performance?

I decided to get in contact with consultant orthopaedic surgeon, Paul Magill to get his opinion on whether orthopaedic implants could be introduced as a way to increase sports performance.

Interview with Paul Magill

The Alder Hey scandal

Posted on by

I have always been interested in ethical problems; after completing an ethics and philosophy A level I knew I would be interested in the subjects covered in the ethics and law lecture. My mum works for NHS organ and tissue donation, specifically working to improve the way our organ donation system works. This includes the ethical implications that come hand in hand with organ donation. Due to this, I have always been fascinated by ethical issues regarding organ donation.

As soon as I heard about the Alder Hey organ scandal it instilled a great deal of emotion in me, due to the baffling concept of organ removal, retention, and disposal without consent. Especially as a key aspect of the UK’s current organ donation system is based on consent.

What was the Alder Hey scandal?

In 1999 it surfaced that the Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool had been removing various whole organs, hearts, and brains at necropsy from children, without the consent of parents1 . After the inquiry in January 2001, a singular pathologist named Dick van Velzen was charged with committing malpractice.

As outlined in the inquiry the pathologist removed around 850 organs during or after post-mortem and left them in jars, incorrectly processed and uncared for. Many of which were not histologically examined. 

‘systematically stripped of their organs’

Royal Liverpool Children’s Inquiry. Report. London: Stationery Office; 2001. www.rlcinquiry.org.uk/ (accessed 2 February 2001) [Google Scholar]

Reflecting on this information I realised the severity of the Alder Hey scandal. It is difficult to imagine how devastating it would’ve been for parents realising they were denied the opportunity to bury their children whole. For parents processing the unexplainable grief of losing a child, I could only feel pain thinking about how much more difficult the process was made because of the Alder Hey scandal.

What happened as a result of the Alder Hey scandel?

The Alder hey scandal came off the back of the BRI cardiac scandal. Due to the nature and timing of the public release the NHS and government were under a lot of pressure to make a change. The Alder Hey scandal caused a revision of the human tissue act of 19612. The revision claimed to remove any confusion between ‘lack of objection’ and ‘informed consent’ which was where the original confusion lay when collecting organs in the Alder Hey scandal. The department of health and royal college of pathologists should instruct all pathologists that written consent is needed to retain tissue samples and organs. Consent must be gained for each organ retained.

It may never be possible to remedy the pain and suffering of the families at Alder Hey; their legacy, however, must be that activities like those at Alder Hey never occur again.

Bauchner H, Vinci R. What have we learnt from the Alder Hey affair? That monitoring physicians’ performance is necessary to ensure good practice. BMJ. 2001 Feb 10;322(7282):309-10. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7282.309. PMID: 11159638; PMCID: PMC1119560.

The revision of this act also brought to light the lack of training for physicians, when talking to and gaining consent from family members. It is not known how many organs and tissue samples collected before the Alder Hey scandal was as a result of proper consent. This showed the need for change. When looking at laws and medical practice and as our technologies and advancements change our laws and practice should change along with them.

The alder hey scandal was specifically eye-opening to me due to my mum’s background in organ donation, along with my idealistic view of our healthcare system. The Alder Hey scandal definitely shook the nation, however I am hopeful that it helped us define consent regarding organ donation. As discussed in the journal, ‘what have we learned from the alder hey affair?’, this part of history will help prevent unethical practice. Teaching us to update medical laws, as we update medical technologies.

References

  1. Royal Liverpool Children’s Inquiry. Report. London: Stationery Office; 2001. www.rlcinquiry.org.uk/ (accessed 2 February 2001) [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauchner H, Vinci R. What have we learnt from the Alder Hey affair? That monitoring physicians’ performance is necessary to ensure good practice. BMJ. 2001 Feb 10;322(7282):309-10. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7282.309. PMID: 11159638; PMCID: PMC1119560.

A guide to print your own organs

Posted on by

Although the title may seem farfetched, we aren’t as far away from this as it may seem. 3D printing is a technology which is rapidly growing, and is perhaps the answer to many problems within science and medicine.

I became fascinated with the possibilities of tissue engineering after a lecture a few weeks ago, which led me to further research some of the current advances and future possibilities in the field.

It has been 70 years since the first organ transplant, which was a kidney. Since then organ transplant has become a common procedure and has saved many lives. However, there is still some problems associated with it. According to a study by Conor Steward, as of the end of March 2022, there was 4,744 patients on the transplant list in the UK. This long list is costing lives everyday, 3D bioprinting can speed up this process and save lives every day.

So how does this work?

There are three key steps in the process:

  1. Pre-bioprinting – A Digital file is created to input into the printer, telling it what to make. This is often made using MRI and CT scans of the organ you want to print. The cells are then mixed with a bioink, and imaged to ensure they are suitable for the procedure.
  2. Bio-printing – the cell and bioink mixture is placed into the printer, along with the digital file. It is then mixed with a hydrogel as it prints, which is essential in created the structure, as it acts as a scaffold.
  3. Post-printing – to further enhance the structure, the cells are cross linked. This may be via UV light or the application of an ionic solution, depending on the structure.

But where are these cells coming from?

Something that shocked me, whilst learning about tissue engineering, was the range of different sources of cells, and the ethical problems associated with some of them.

The cells may come from a donor, which is known as allogenic cells. There is the possibility here to violate two of the most important laws in biomedical research – confidentiality and consent. In addition to this, one of the problems that strikes me is that it does not reduce the possibility for rejection.

Perhaps one of the most controversial sources is Embryonic stem cells. This involves using embryos to derive stem cells for. However it brings up one of the most pressing questions in biomedical ethics – what is the moral status of an embryo.

However, these ethical issues can be overcome by using stem cells from the patient, that is undergoing the procedure. Cells from your own body are referred to as autogenic cells.

When this comes to mind, you may think of taking stem cells from the patients bone marrow, which is widely used. However I was fascinated to hear how umbilical cord blood can be stored, in the case that a person may need stem cells for any reason in the future. Imagine the possibilities of having your own stem cells, ready for use, in case you ever need them!!

3D bioprinting beyond transplantation

Before researching the use of 3D printing, I thought the only use for these organs was transplantation, however as a scientist, I was fascinated with how they are used for research.

The possibilities of the technology are endless, with studies creating beating hearts, pancreases to cure diabetes, and even a new ear to restore hearing! But in addition to this, we can print tumours or disease models to understand the behaviour of cells!

One study that caught my attention was using 3D printing to create mini tumours, in order to create a more personalised and potent treatment for cancer patients. Scientists at the Seoul National University College of Medicine, formulated a range of bioinks from patients with glioblastomas, which the most common type of brain tumour. A range of chemotherapy and drugs where then tested on these tumours, to allow the scientists to understand how best to treat these tumours. The applications of 3D printing in terms of drug development, is something I am excited to see develop in the future.

Where can it go wrong?

Despite avoiding some the ethical dilemmas associated with xenotransplantation or clinical organ donation, 3D printing brings its own range of moral questions associated with it. In order for the techniques to be readily available, there needs to be tight regulations put in place first.

One problem that strikes me, and many others, is the accessibility of these organs and even personalised medicine. With a technique so new, it will take some time to become widely available, so who gets it first? A problem that has arose a lot within medical ethics, is the use of these products for performance enhancement. This may be particularly prevalent within sports, however it applies to everyone. If you had the money to afford these technologies, you would be able to live a longer life or enhance your quality of life. This sounds great, right? But on the other hand, there is the patient stuck in hospital waiting for an organ transplant, with a life ahead of them with a strict drug regime to avoid the risk of rejection. Is this fair?

In order for the technique to work, particularly to begin with, laws would need to be put in place that the technique should only be used for medical practice, in terms of organ transplant. However personalised treatment plans may be a different issue, as it would be highly beneficial in terms of medical practise, however still separates society.

Personally, talking a utilitarian view point, I believe that the benefits of the techniques are huge, and therefore outweigh any possible socioethical issues that may arise. However as stated above, I don’t think it should be used primarily for performance enhancement, until the technique is widely accessible to everyone, as it creates a larger divide in society than there already is.

Should Euthanasia be legal in the UK?

Posted on by

Trigger Warning – this blog discusses terminal illness and suicide.

If anyone is affected by the topics in this blog, please ring the Samaritans helpline on 116 123.

In the lecture about bioethics and law, one of the areas we focused on was the Nazi’s during WWII and their mass murder or ‘euthanasia’ of people who they deemed ‘unsuitable’.

That made me think about euthanasia and the laws surrounding it. It is legal in Switzerland, and some other European countries and UK citizens often fly there to be euthanised.

My personal opinion is that euthanasia should be legalised in this country with strict legal restrictions and multiple approvals from medical professionals needed.

One of the reasons for my view is because my sister is a nurse who works in ICU in London. She has patients who are on life support machines and have no quality of life yet are kept alive. Some of these were born with such severe conditions, that they have never left the hospital, been able to talk or move, and are also blind and deaf. Is it not crueller to keep them alive, knowing there is no hope for recovery or improvement than to let their parents/medical professionals put them to rest?

In addition, last year my family had to put down our 13-year-old golden retriever. She had cancer and went through surgery and chemotherapy. Unfortunately, the tumour continued to grow, so we stopped treatment and until she became uncomfortable and unhappy. As hard as the decision was to put her down, it was in our home and was the most peaceful and graceful way to die that I could possibly imagine.

Why do we treat our animals with such love and allow them to be euthanised, as the ‘kindest thing’, yet we don’t treat humans with that same compassion? Especially if the human is able to consent?

In 2002, Diane Pretty was diagnosed with motor neurone disease – a chronic and terminal diagnosis. She did not want herself nor her family to suffer through the final stages of the disease. She wanted to end her life peacefully at home. Unfortunately, she was not granted this wish. She went to court to appeal to change the law; however, they did not grant her the right to die. Because of her condition, she had 24-hour care and was unable to commit suicide alone. She wished her husband could assist her with this, however this is illegal in the UK.

Video about the Diane Pretty case
Sharon Johnston and Sue Lawford

How can it be that someone who is able to commit suicide alone is not breaking the law, but someone who needs assistance is unable to? Surely this is discriminatory against those who are disabled.

Last year, Sharon Johnston, who was paralysed but mentally competent, decided that she no longer wanted to live. She therefore chose to be euthanised at Dignitas in Switzerland. Unable to travel alone, a retired NHS worker, Sue Lawford, took her to carry out Sharon’s wishes. Sharon was euthanised but, when Sue got back to the UK she was arrested and questioned on suspicion of attempted murder. She was investigated for six months before being cleared of charges.

It is an incredibly difficult and sensitive topic, and inevitably there will never be a unanimous opinion regarding it. There will undoubtedly be a grey area between assisted suicide, euthanasia, and manslaughter. This potentially puts doctors in a difficult position legally, especially if the patient is unable to consent for themselves. I’m unsure what precise restrictions and requirements should be put in place, but I firmly believe that people who have terminal illnesses or are suffering from incurable conditions should be able to have the choice to end their pain and suffering.  

News article about Sue and Sharon: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63599107

My death my decision, a movement that Sue Lawford is a member of: https://www.facebook.com/MyDeathMyDecision/

Your eyes are now obsolete

Posted on by

After doing some research into interfacing electronic signals with the body, I stumbled upon bionic eyes. One device was the ARGUS II, implanted into five patients in England as part of a clinical trial. This article included praise from current ARGUS users Including a man who can now see his grandchildren running around. The articles surrounding the device was overwhelmingly positive until they got more recent then the narrative around ARGUS changed. 

The device is comprised of three modules. An electrode array, video processing unit and a camera. The brain interprets the signals as flashes and the vision created is more akin to an entirely new sense. In this video Ray describes the vision produced as arcs.

The arcs represent the most important parts of the picture. This should be moving objects and edges; the device must accurately pick out the pixels which will convey the most relevant information to the patient. The Video processing unit (VPU) is what does this. It utilizes edge detection algorithms like the matrix mechanics of convolution which I am familiar with from both computer science and quantum mechanics. 

An example of edge detection

The electrical components in the device have several purposes: data and power transfer and biological interfacing. The former is achieved by using magnetic induction. For data transfer the VPU unit encodes signals into radio waves. Which are then converted to tiny alternating currents by a receiver in the implanted region. The data can then be extracted from these currents. Power is transferred by the same physical principle tweaked for this purpose. The final challenge is at the biological interface. The ARGUS II uses micro-electrodes. These define the vision achievable by the device. Advancements in nano-tubes could really improve the quality of the vision created due to physical constraints of wider electrodes.

Despite the quality-of-life improvements seen from most recipients and the prospect of new iterations of devices the device manufacturer Second Sight collapsed and merged with Nano Precision Medical ceasing to develop its ARGUS implant line switching to other projects. The devices had never become profitable. All engineers were laid off and, unlike previously promised, support for the ARGUS models was stopped. Second Sight also failed to inform patients of the collapse. Now users are left to hope their device continues working as normal since replacement parts need to be sourced from the community and many relied upon devices have been rendered not functional by previously routinely fixed hardware issues.

In the EU manufacturers must provide spare parts for a washing machine for 10 years after the appliance has been discontinued. This law was introduced to help limit the environmental impact of E waste and protect consumers. The standard used for washing machines should be the absolute minimum used for implanted medical devices. I believe strongly in the right to repair and choose to repair my own technology, therefore qualified engineers should have access to the parts for device repair long after they have stopped being implanted. 

This is a prime example of our increasing vulnerability in the face of high-tech, smart and connected devices which are proliferating in the healthcare and biomedical sectors.

Elizabeth M Renieris, professor of technology ethics at the University of Notre Dame told the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-60416058

Many have been left with defunct devices still implanted in their body. I believe the stress and anxiety caused for these people is unforgivable and the law needs to catch up, money and company reputation must stop being placed above patients and transparency.

Healing Blindness with a 3D cornea

Posted on by
The scientists’ 3D printed cornea transplant. Photo via the Times of India.

From the lecture on tissue engineering, I found impressive the number of applications of 3D printing: I had no idea that this technology could be used to create entire human organs for transplantation!  This led me to look more into recent advances in 3D printing, where I came across this article1 that described the first 3D printed cornea developed in India. 

How was this 3D cornea developed?

In the video below (edited from this YouTube video), I explain the development and wider consequences of this 3D cornea. 

While writing the script and editing the above video, I started to wonder how regulations about consent to donate human stem cells for research purposes differ from those described in the bioethical lecture, including the Human Tissue Authority instituted in 2005 in the UK.

According to this government’s website2, guidelines for stem cell research in India have been established by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) since 2007.

Both in the UK and Indian regulations, the donor must be aware of the specific research purposes and is required to be mentally capable of giving consent. This made me realise that stem cells are worldwide considered very powerful tools for scientific advancements but their use must be tightly regulated by multiple laws and authorities to prevent unethical research.

A Cornea Stromal Lenticule 3D printed by Indian firm Pandorum Technologies.

While reading this journal’s article3 to dig down more on how the cornea was made, I found out that the newly developed bio-ink can be used as a new treatment. It is able to save the patient’s sight by sealing the corneal perforation to prevent infection during war-related injuries or in a rural area without nearby eye care facilities. I had never thought that materials or tools created to address a specific research aim could become discoveries for a new patent themselves!

What are the advantages & disadvantages of this 3D printed cornea?

Since multiple news articles1,3,4 celebrated the development of this cornea, I was curious to know whether this technology could address all the concerns coming out of my mind: Is it safe? Is it biocompatible? Is it comfortable? Therefore, I decided to search for pros and cons using two different sources: a more subjective journal’s article3 versus a more objective scientific paper5. 

Advantages3Disadvantages5
1) Natural, biocompatible, free of animal residues, and safe
2) Printable in different diameters (from 3mm to 13mm) to meet diverse requirements
3) Each human donor stem cell can contribute for the preparation of three 3D printed corneas
4) The tissue coming from donor corneas needs to meet lower optical standards compared to those required for a transplantation		1) Uncomfortable to wear
2) Transplantation process is complex
3) Multiple surgeries and long-term topical medication is often required
4) Limited field of view
5) Unsatisfactory aesthetic appearance
6) Potential for post-operative complications such as extrusion and glaucoma
Protesters in India against animal tested products

From this insightful learning journey, I realised that a 3D printed cornea could become a concrete solution in future years to bypass the difficulties of finding a donor match and the complications associated with synthetic corneas. For instance, a good surgeon should correctly perform transplantation surgery, and the unaesthetic appearance or the limited field seems to be better than the alternative of blindness. However, the side effects of medication and post-operative complications could significantly delay a potential application in humans any time soon. 

All news articles1,3,4 emphasise that one of the most important benefits of the 3D cornea is that it is free of animal residues. I  did not know that animal products cannot be used for research purposes in India, since this is perfectly accepted in the country I live in, the UK. I learned that there are many other factors that can significantly affect scientific research, including religion or social acceptability. As a future biomedical scientist, I will keep this in mind while designing new products, tools or drugs in order to respect the target countries’ policy, religion, culture and tradition.

References

  1. 3D Printing Industry: “Scientists say India’s first 3D printed cornea can be used in humans after successful animal trial”, written by PAUL HANAPHY, on August 16, 2022. More information at this link: https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/scientists-say-indias-first-3d-printed-cornea-can-be-used-in-humans-after-successful-animal-trial-213745/
  2. Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies. More information at this link: https://www.aabb.org/regulatory-and-advocacy/regulatory-affairs/regulatory-for-cellular-therapies/international-competent-authorities/india
  3. tct magazine: “3D printed human cornea developed by team of clinicians and scientists in India”, written by OLIVER JOHNSON on August 17, 2022. More information at this link: https://www.tctmagazine.com/additive-manufacturing-3d-printing-news/latest-additive-manufacturing-3d-printing-news/3d-printed-human-cornea-developed-by-team-of-clinicians-and-scientists/
  4. The Times of India: “Hyderabad scientists develop India’s first 3D-printed cornea”, written by Syed Akbar on Aug 14, 2022. More information at this link: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/hyderabad-scientists-develop-indias-first-3d-printed-cornea/articleshow/93560273.cms
  5. Holland, GrĂĄinne & Pandit, Abhay & SĂĄnchez-Abella, Laura & Haiek, Andrea & Loinaz, Iraida & Dupin, Damien & Gonzalez, Maria & Larra, Eva & Bidaguren, Aritz & Lagali, Neil & Moloney, Elizabeth & Ritter, Thomas. (2021). Artificial Cornea: Past, Current, and Future Directions. Frontiers in Medicine. 8. 770780. 10.3389/fmed.2021.770780.