An article was published in the interdisciplinary journal Langmuir titled, “Patterning of Antibodies Using Flexographic Printing,” which read like a chapter out of a science fiction novel:
Antibodies were patterned onto flexible plastic films using the flexographic printing process…Printing antibody features such as dots, squares, text, and fine lines were reproduced effectively. Furthermore, this process could be easily adapted for printing of other biological materials, including, but not limited to, enzymes, DNA, proteins, aptamers, and cells.
This concept – and now reality – of creating plastic antibodies and associated (pseudo)biological components, to be used for “medicinal purposes” within the human organism, is technically a form of cybernetics; that is, the combining of artificial technologies and biological systems to create human-machine hybrids (i.e. cyborgs) with enhanced abilities. While the trans-humanistic ethos which subtends this sort of cybernetic technology is, for lack of a better word, creepy, the successes of synthetic antibodies have recently been lauded in both the experimental literature and mainstream media, alike.
A 2010 study published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society titled, “Recognition, neutralization, and clearance of target peptides in the bloodstream of living mice by molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles: a plastic antibody,” reported on the ability of plastic antibodies to effectively neutralize a toxic peptide in the bloodstream of mice:
We report that simple, synthetic organic polymer nanoparticles (NPs) can capture and clear a target peptide toxin in the bloodstream of living mice. The protein-sized polymer nanoparticles, with a binding affinity and selectivity comparable to those of natural antibodies, were prepared by combining a functional monomer optimization strategy with molecular-imprinting nanoparticle synthesis. As a result of binding and removal of melittin by NPs in vivo, the mortality and peripheral toxic symptoms due to melittin [bee venom compound] were significantly diminished. In vivo imaging of the polymer nanoparticles (or”plastic antibodies”) established that the NPs accelerate clearance of the peptide from blood and accumulate in the liver. Coupled with their biocompatibility and nontoxic characteristics, plastic antibodies offer the potential for neutralizing a wide range of biomacromolecules in vivo.
The unintended, adverse effects of injecting plastic antibodies into animals or humans in order to improve on, optimize or replace natural immune processes, are likely beyond our present ability to comprehend, but nonetheless immense. Plastic, after all, is a derivative of crude oil, and despite these exuberent researchers’ claim to the contrary lacks biocompatibility with most living systems (being xenobiotic), excluding rare forms of bacteria and fungi. Nevertheless, it is likely that if we continue to see positive reports such as this in the animal model, it will only be a matter of time until human clinical trials begin, and FDA approval becomes a very real possibility.
With the anticipated future adoption of artificial body parts and cellular components into mainstream medicine, we will also begin to see widespread implementation of organ printing. The technology uses modified inkjet printers, capable of rendering 3-dimensional living biological structures.
In 2011, a review published in the journal Current Opinion and Biotechnology titled, “Organic printing: from bioprinter to organ biofabrication line,” discussed the Frankenstein-like technology already in the developmental pipeline:
Organ printing, or the layer by layer additive robotic biofabrication of functional three-dimensional tissue and organ constructs using self-assembling tissue spheroid building blocks, is a rapidly emerging technology that promises to transform tissue engineering into a commercially successful biomedical industry. It is increasingly obvious that similar well-established industries implement automated robotic systems on the path to commercial translation and economic success. The use of robotic bioprinters alone however is not sufficient for the development of large industrial scale organ biofabrication. The design and development of a fully integrated organ biofabrication line is imperative for the commercial translation of organ printing technology. This paper presents recent progress and challenges in the development of the essential components of an organ biofabrication line.
Organ biofabrication is only one aspect of the increasingly God-like power the biotechnology industry is assuming for itself. We have already seen this industry unleash upon a good portion of the arable surface of the earth the irrevocable juggernaut of genetically modified organisms. Things did not seem like they could get much worse, until in 2010, the journal Science reported on the “Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome“:
We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08-mega-base pair Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a M. capricolum recipient cell to create new M. mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including “watermark” sequences and other designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication.
If cells themselves are now being created through the insertion of synthetic genomes, and these cells are capable of self-replication, and can be manipulated into forming tissue intended to be implanted into human beings, there is little doubt remaining that the myth of Frankenstein has found living and breathing expression in the form of today’s no less horrific incipient technologies. At what point do we call technology which intends to blend plastic and human systems together into a more perfect union by its proper name: trans-human, or dare we say, post-human?
The reality is that there are a wide array of natural methods to stimulate bodily regeneration, which are foods, spices and nutrients [view our recent article on the topic: 6 Bodily Tissues That Can Be Regenerated Through Nutrition] but which do not lend themselves to proprietary commodification within a medical system governed by economic forces and motives far more powerful than intellectual or moral ones.
 Recognition, neutralization, and clearance of target peptides in the bloodstream of living mice by molecularly imprinted polymer nanoparticles: a plastic antibody. J Am Chem Soc. 2010 May 19 ;132(19):6644-5. PMID: 20420394
Article Contributed by Sayer Ji, Founder of GreenMedInfo.com.
Sayer Ji is an author, researcher, lecturer, and advisory board member of the National Health Federation. He founded Greenmedinfo.com in 2008 in order to provide the world an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. It is internationally recognized as the largest and most widely referenced health resource of its kind.