Started By
Message
Synthetic red blood cells mimic natural ones, and have new abilities
Posted on 6/5/20 at 9:19 pm
Posted on 6/5/20 at 9:19 pm
Scientists have tried to develop synthetic red blood cells that mimic the favorable properties of natural ones, such as flexibility, oxygen transport and long circulation times. Now, researchers have made synthetic red blood cells that have all of the cells' natural abilities, plus a few new ones.
Much more here.... Science Daily
( Deer antler spray, now this ? Test those Bama guys ! )

Much more here.... Science Daily
( Deer antler spray, now this ? Test those Bama guys ! )
Posted on 6/5/20 at 9:50 pm to Trumansfangs
Lance Armstrong had these 10 years ago.
Posted on 11/11/20 at 10:44 am to No Colors
This bojo guy has potential.
Posted on 11/15/20 at 8:14 pm to Trumansfangs
We’ll see
I worked on a similar project in 2000, one of many ongoing at that time and since then, trying to develop an “off the shelf” RBC or hemoglobin substitute.
None has been successful ultimately in delivering a product, but each “failed” study/project brings us closer to an eventual solution.
I worked on a similar project in 2000, one of many ongoing at that time and since then, trying to develop an “off the shelf” RBC or hemoglobin substitute.
None has been successful ultimately in delivering a product, but each “failed” study/project brings us closer to an eventual solution.
This post was edited on 11/16/20 at 8:58 am
Posted on 11/16/20 at 7:03 pm to CrimsonTideMD
quote:
None has been successful ultimately in delivering a product, but each “failed” study/project brings us closer to an eventual solution.
Absolutely ! Trial and error is the most fundamental method of problem solving. We'll get there !
Posted on 11/17/20 at 8:19 am to Trumansfangs
quote:
Absolutely ! Trial and error is the most fundamental method of problem solving. We'll get there !
More "errors" need to be published.
There is tremendous waste (time, money, hard resources) in research redundancy because "failed" projects are not published/presented (outside of drug trials).
I was working on HBOC (hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier), and our lab was one of 5 in the US working on it at the time (at least that I was aware of). There was almost zero communication among the groups.
In impromptu informal conversations at different national meetings and conferences, I'd talk to other researches at these different institutions. I say something like "we tried X, Y, and Z to try to normalize the oxygen dissociation curve, but it didn't work" and I'd get responses like "oh yeah, we tried X and Z too...no luck".
So you have 2 separate labs sinking hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in duplicated projects

Posted on 11/18/20 at 5:52 pm to CrimsonTideMD
publication bias is a bitch
I tell people all the time studies that show nothing are still very important
I tell people all the time studies that show nothing are still very important
Posted on 11/18/20 at 7:11 pm to CrimsonTideMD
So how would you procede ? Consolidation of research groups never seems to work, largely because of diverse funding.
I'm probably not alone in suspecting that some groups are coerced into reporting sussessful research results.
I'm probably not alone in suspecting that some groups are coerced into reporting sussessful research results.
Posted on 11/19/20 at 12:29 pm to Tiguar
quote:
I tell people all the time studies that show nothing are still very important
In some cases just as important. Think about how many times a failed research path was repeated because the information that "this will not work" wasn't published?
Posted on 12/1/20 at 5:22 pm to Trumansfangs
When I first became a MT, in 1981, this was big news. Didn't work. Doubt this will
Posted on 12/1/20 at 7:47 pm to jeffsdad
quote:
When I first became a MT, in 1981, this was big news. Didn't work. Doubt this will
I hope it does. Lots of technological advances in the past 40 years.
Popular
Back to top
