- Geoff Watts, freelance journalist
- 1London
- geoff{at}scileg.freeserve.co.uk
With a clutch of new university departments, a growing number of small biotechnology companies, a dedicated journal and regular outbursts of press hoopla, regenerative medicine is on a roll. From diabetes to Parkinson’s disease, from ailing hearts to failing knees, enthusiasts foresee new remedies for many of the common failures of flesh and bone.
The ambition of regenerative medicine—the reversal of age related, disease induced, and other bodily impairments—is hardly new. Varieties of “live cell therapy” dating back to the 1930s once lured the rich and famous to exclusive Swiss clinics to pay for expensive injections of heaven knows what. Such optimistic, if not foolhardy, leaps in the dark are a world away from current hopes and claims: the product of hard won insights into the biology of stem cells, and the genetic basis of their unique properties. And then there was the recent transplant of a bioengineered bronchus by a Spanish team of surgeons working with a European team of scientists (BMJ 2008;337:a2676, doi:10.1136/bmj.a2676).
Defining regenerative medicine
Precise definitions of this or that branch of medicine are seldom useful and even less often interesting. But an attempt by Chris Mason, a senior lecturer in biochemical engineering, and Pete Dunnill, a professor of biochemical engineering at University College, London to define regenerative medicine1 is illuminating about its roots and its nature. In reaching their own succinct definition (“Regenerative medicine replaces or regenerates human cells, tissues or organs to restore or establish normal function”) they emphasise that the field has grown out of several pre-existing technologies: surgery and surgical implants such as artificial hips; procedures such as bone marrow transplantation; and the use of biomaterials as scaffolds on which cells …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012