Fountain, Henry. "BODY BUILDERS; One
Day, Growing Spare Parts Inside the Body." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 23 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/health/research/using-the-body-to-incubate-replacement-organs.html?ref=health>.
This article talks about a Dr. Tracy
Grikscheit who is a surgeon at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and is known
for treating infants with damaged, dead, intestinal tissue. Premature infants
that weigh less than 3 pounds at birth, can develop this intestine destroying
disease called Necrotizing Enterocolitis. Dr. Grikscheit works diligently in
her laboratory at the Saban’s Research Insitute to create simple replacement
organs and tissues, like bladders and windpipes with the help of advances in
stem cell research. Dr. Grikschiet has been working on growing rat, mouse, and
pig intestinal tissue in laboratory animals. Dr. Griekschiet’s lab team has
been removing healthy intestine from mice, cutting it up, mixing it with
enzymes and compounds and forming cell bunches that include stem cells from the
lining of the intestine. They take these cell bundles and place them in the
omentum where blood vessels help it grow. A few weeks later the bunches are
removed and contain the parts of intestines. Rats with this intestine recovered
quicker than those without it. Dr. Griekschiet has also accomplished growing
human intestinal tissue using donor cells and is starting to study the method
for human patients.
The knowledge and experiments done by Dr.
Griekschiet are helping find successful ways to develop vital organs in the
body. Her research and work is has given hope to infants who may have not had a
chance at survival without intravenous nutrients. A young baby, Mark
Barfknecht, is a patient of Dr. Griekschiet, and had almost 75% of his
intestines damage. He was thought not to be able to survive off of intravenous
fluids. The surgery done by Dr. Griekschiet, saved the life of Mark and after
the surgery, was predicted to only be on fluids for a short while before he
would be able to eat regular foods and process them through his intestine.
Although some babies are not as lucky as Mark, studies and experiments are
being conducted to try and save the lives of many and hopefully in the future,
organs will be able to be grown inside the body.
The article was well-written but was a
little disorganized. The name of the disease mentioned in the beginning of the
article was not said until the second page of the article. Also, the baby that
was mentioned in the beginning was revisited towards the end of the article and
I feel the example should have been kept together. Also, more stories of the
success of Dr. Griekschiet could have been mentioned to show how she is able to
save the lives of many. Overall, this article
was interesting and gave an idea of a new way for future growth of organs.
-Alexis Petnuch
I thought that the reviewer did a good job of summarizing and simplifying “BODY BUILDERS; One Day, Growing Spare Parts Inside the Body.” The first aspect of the review that I liked was the way the reviewer presented the background to the story. I found the review much easier to understand because of the way the reviewer set the stage for the story, explaining the causes and applications of Dr. Grikscheit’s research. I also liked the way the reviewer organized the review, in that she progressed clearly in a logical manner from each topic of the article to the next, which made it much easier to understand the stages of Dr. Grikscheit’s research. Additionally, I liked how the reviewer presented the details of Dr. Grikscheit’s lab experiments and gave examples of the process through which she does the work she does and the impact that her work is having on infants.
ReplyDeleteOne aspect of the review that could be improved relates the grammar and spelling. There were a few errors, that while minor, took away from the well-presented nature of the review. For example at one point she says “work is has given hope to infants” and throughout the article spells the lead doctor’s name differently, alternating between “Grikscheit” and “Griekscheit.” I think the review would have been better if these errors were eliminated and the name of the doctor was made clear. Additionally, I would have appreciated a little more explanation of the scientific processes that allow for the doctor’s research to work in real life. I don’t have a great understanding of stem cell research and thus I had some trouble understanding the biology behind the doctor’s work.
I was very interested by the fact that human organs are now being built in labs by scientists. While this research is in its early stages, I am very curious to see how this new ability will affect healthcare in the future and if other bodily organs can be synthesized to help patients of different needs.
One aspect of Alexis’s review that I particularly enjoyed was that she described the article as being about Dr. Grikschiet as opposed to simply summarizing the science of the procedures. In addition, I think that she was able to summarize the procedure used in the laboratory with mice quite effectively. I also think that she was able to describe Mark’s story well by presenting his situation, how many other children are in similar situations, and what the possibilities for life could be for him both with and without Dr. Grikschiet’s help.
ReplyDeleteWhile the review did mention that the method is just beginning to be studied as a possible treatment for humans, one point it did not bring up was that testing in humans with this procedure is years away. As the article was not specific about how many years away testing with humans actually will be, I understand why the reviewer did not mention it, but it would have been a good thing to touch upon. One area where they review could have been stronger was in the description of the current surgical procedure used in humans. While the article is mainly about the future, it would have been an interesting comparison to look at how the operation is done now along with the hope for future operations, as the article hinted at.
I was surprised by how far medicine has come, even up to the present. While the same procedures used in the lab on mice are not yet widely used on humans, those that are are pretty impressive, as are their results. It is incredible that a baby like Mark has a chance of surviving despite having nearly 75% of his intestines damaged. So if that is where medicine today, it is mind-blowing to think about where medicine will be a few years down the road.
A.P. Biology Blog Commentary by Gina Elbert
ReplyDelete“One Day, Growing Spare Parts Inside the Body”
Alexis’ review contained a clear summary, with all of the important parts of the article highlighted, an interesting critique that brought out significant problems in the article, and has a variety of good vocabulary words. The summary accurately described the article and made sure to emphasize the progress of Dr. Grikscheit’s work from replacing animal organs to attempting to replace human organs. The process of taking stem cells, adding enzymes to them, and growing the new tissues is coherently explained. Also, Alexis’ critique brings up the point that more of Dr. Grikscheit’s success stories could have been brought up in the article, which I did not think of originally but definitely agree with. Finally, the use of words such as “intravenous nutrients” and “omentum”, although taken from the article, enriched the review in a way that simpler words could not.
This review could have been made better if it mentioned the baby, Mark Barkfknecht, in the summary instead of the section on the impact on humanity, as well as if it explained the connection between Mark and the growth of new organs. The baby was a central example concerning Dr. Grikscheit’s work and so, as a major part of the article, should have been discussed within the summary. Also, the relationship between the baby and tissue engineering was not made clear, so I did not understand why the two are part of the same article, besides the fact that Dr. Grikscheit is involved with both.
What really impressed me in the article was the fact that there are people who, due to intestinal diseases, must be fed through intravenous fluids their entire lives. This made me feel as if I was lucky to not be one of these patients and that I should not take my health for granted. It will be wonderful that, if and when tissue engineering succeeds, these people will be able to simple “regrow” their intestines and lead normal lives.
The reviewer did a great job of summarizing the article concisely and efficiently. She explained the procedure that helps infants born with damaged or dead intestinal tissue very well. The example of Mark added a nice feeling and also provided a sense of how this technology could be applied practically. It was nice how Alexis included how the researcher came to the level of sophistication with this technology first by starting with animal experiment.
ReplyDeleteOne part the reviewer could definitely approve upon was her use of grammar and punctuation. Although there were no glaring errors that prevented me from understanding what she was trying to say, there were a couple of mistakes. For instance, there should not be an article in front of a doctor's name. Her research and work are plural, and should not be followed by the be verb is.
I am highly impressed with the level of technology that is incorporated to make practical applications in the fields of medicine. It is so fascinating to hear that a child who had 70% damaged intestine still survived and can start eating regular food shortly. This tissue engineering process can really help people who have to take intravenous fluids their entire lives. The level of biological sophistication and technological application are very interesting, and I would certainly like to see the future of this technology.
Marika Chrisanthopoulos
ReplyDeleteAP Biology Commentary
October 27, 2012
Commentary on Nicolette Petnuch’s Review on "BODY BUILDERS; One Day, Growing Spare Parts Inside the Body” by Henry Fountain from the New York Times
The amazing discovery detailed in this article is one that is very strange and difficult to comprehend; creating simple organs and tissues out of the findings that have come out of stem cell research for children and premature babies that are lacking in these organs and nutrients to create their own. In her review, Nicolette described the procedure in great detail, including the examples of animals Dr. Tracy Grikscheit, a surgeon at Children’s General Hospital Los Angeles, used in her experiments. One thing that Nicolette did well is that she summarized the surgeries performed by Dr. Grikscheit, including the way the cells were mixed with enzymes an compounds to form bunches that were placed in the omentum where blood vessels would help them grow, forming brand new tissues. Nicolette also related Dr. Griekschiet’s findings to the future, including how the surgeries would give hope to infants who may have not had a chance at survival without these intravenous nutrients. She describes one specific example that Dr. Griekschiet performed on a baby named Mark who had 75% of his intestines damaged. Another thing that Nicolette did well is that she critiqued the article in a way that talked about the examples used, as well as how the article was disorganized and needed to be structured better.
One thing that could have been improved in Nicolette’s review was that she could have talked more about the disease that the article was referring to, Necrotizing Enterocolitis. We don’t get much information about the disease, and even though Nicolette mentions that the article doesn’t describe it in much detail, it would have been beneficial to us if we knew more about the disease and what its causes and effects were. It would have also been better if the review talked more about the ways that this procedure will be used for humans as well as animals, since there is a huge need for the ability to transport organs. One thing that I learned from this article is that the ability to grow and create organs using prior tissues and cells from living creatures is possible and is being integrated into the modern technology and procedures in hospitals. Even though a lot of testing is still being done, the abilities of technology these days are astounding, and hopefully will continue to prosper to help sustain the lives of infants and adults everywhere.
The review of the article “One Day, Growing Spare parts Inside the Body” was a very well written review. One thing I think the reviewer did well was explain Dr. Grikschiet’s laboratory work. She explained what Dr. Grikschiet was doing in her lab and how she was experimenting on rats and even created windpipes and bladders. The reviewer also did a great job summarizing the example of the baby, Mark, who Dr. Grikschiet was operating on; explaining how the doctor would have to remove a lot of Mark’s intestine and what the side effects could be. A third and final thing I think the reviewer did well was explain the benefits of Dr. Grikschiet’s work. She explained that maybe someday this research could save the lives of a lot of children.
ReplyDeleteWhile this review was very well written there are some areas for improvement. While the reviewer said what research was going on in Dr. Grikschiet’s lab, she did really explain it very well. For example, a majority of the article talks about stem cells and how Dr. Grikschiet is using them to create these organs. But the review did not talk much about the stem cells. Another area in which the review could have been improved is the explanation about why it is damaging to have more than 75% of the intestine removed. She mentioned that the patient would be on fluids for potentially the rest of his or her life but did not mention the damaging effects this could have.
After reading this article I was very impressed. I did not realize that doctors were actually figuring out ways to grow organs that can be used in patient’s bodies. I found this very interesting and exciting to read about. I am very interested to learn more about this topic after reading the article.
This article is very interesting in itself in that Dr. Grikschiet is experimenting with creating simple organs and tissues out of stem cell reasearch. I appreciated that Nicolette challenged herself with this article as these procedures are not easy to understand and i also thought she explained the testing clearly. I also liked how Nicolette explained examples of surgeries and the steps that were being performed. It showed great understanding of this article, and not only a summary but an interest in the science that was being done. In addition to including these examples i liked how she commented her perspective on the examples used and the results.
ReplyDeleteOne major thing i think Nicolette lacked to mention was the extent to which stem cells are involved in this process and in this article. While stem cells were a major part of this artile and Dr. Grikschiet's experimenting, Nicolette vaugely mentioned stem cells. I also think Nicolette could have connected the baby and the baby's growth with this technology into her summary more as it was a central part to the article in addition to the stem cell research.
The most fascinating part of the article to me was learning about stem cells and their application. I often hear the term stem cells used with regard to cancer research and possible cures and this article was enlightening because it showed the success stem cells have had in the recreating of simple tissue and organs and how they actually function in these experiments.