0011/0711 Budny 10:00
L13
THE REALITY OF ORGAN PRINTING, BIOFABRICATION, THE FUTURE,
AND THE HUMAN RACE
Parker Rhoads (par65@pitt.edu)
THE SCENARIO
I am the owner and CEO of an engineering company
specializing in biomechanical technologies. I have recently
received a request from Research and Development for
funding to begin developing a fully functioning bio printer, a
printer that works in three dimensions capable of quickly
fabricating a variety of organs and tissues viable for transplant
into human patients [5]. This technology is still in the
experimental stages and therefore means little to no
immediate profit. The lack of immediate monetary gain has
led some of my top executives to strongly recommend
rejecting the request and instead directing the extra funds into
a more immediately profitable area of the company. I must
now decide whether funding the development of a bio printer
is ethical according to the engineering code of ethics, and if
so, whether it is worth funding at the expense of some other
more immediately profitable project.
SIGNIFIGANCE OF THIS DECISION
Research delving into the creation and application of
“artificial” organs has been progressing rapidly in recent
years. Mechanical devices such as those that filter blood
during liver failure or dialysis machines are slowly being
replaced by lab grown organs. Muscle reconstruction, skin
grafts, and other similar procedures continue to be refined. All
of this culminates in an improved quality of life for the
patients involved in these procedures. Continuing
advancements in three dimensional printing technologies
reduce the costs of production for complex structures and
materials, bringing biological engineers ever closer to
printing functional organs, muscles, and tissues. These
developments will change the face of modern medicine in
innumerable ways. Eventually, waiting times for those in
need of organ transplants will be reduced dramatically or
potentially even eliminated, saving patients from excessive
suffering, spending extended periods of time in hospitals,
saving lives, and greatly improving their overall quality of
life. The biological applications of a fully functioning three
dimensional printer would benefit amputees, patients dealing
with organ failures and cancers, those suffering from sensory
disabilities, victims of violent crimes, the list is endless.
Rather than waiting for a potentially dangerous transplant or
a long, painful recoveries, a patient could have lost or
damaged tissues, organs, and even limbs replaced readily.
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering 1
2013-09-28
CURRENT STATE OF TISSUE
ENGINEERING
Artificial organs are created by growing the organs and
tissues on scaffolds using cells taken from the patients’ own
bodies. The first laboratory-engineered organ, a bladder, was
implanted back in 1998. Since then the process has proven to
be both safe and effective, with scientists such as those at the
Wake Forest University using it to combat cases of
incomplete organ development in patients such as those with
spina bifida [8]. Growing cells in labs and placing them on
scaffolds to produce organ tissue eliminates the risk of
rejection from the body as the cells originate from the body of
the patient receiving the tissue [1]. In addition, the use of an
artificially grown organ more fully addresses and heals the
affliction of the patient in question, with far better results than
the equivalent external device might produce. This is due to
the lack of maintenance that engineered tissue requires. Once
the original operation is completed successfully there is
hardly any upkeep necessary.
Despite its advantages, growing artificial tissue is by its
very nature a time consuming process. While the replacement
tissue is being cultivated by a scientist in a lab patients have
little choice but to make do with less successful, more
temporary methods. Growing artificial organs is both an
incredibly effective and safe process, however, it is not a
quick method by any means. In a field where time constraints
have a direct correlation to a patient’s health and recovery
rate, this presents a major problem.
THREE DIMENSIONAL BIOLOGICAL
PRINTING
Three dimensional printing works by the same principle as
an inkjet printer. A three dimensional printer, however, uses
various polymers instead of ink when it prints. Furthermore,
it uses custom base materials instead of paper when it prints.
A three dimensional printer prints three dimensional objects
layer by layer, essentially stacking them on top of each other
as though the object being printed were made of very thin
slices. As of right now, the technology is in its infancy—“[it]
faces many hurdles. It may be five years or more before even
the simplest of these experimental prototypes is ready for
clinical testing. Problems range from the challenge of keeping
large tissue structures alive to the lack of computerized tools
for personalized organ design” [9].
Three dimensional printing essentially allows greater
flexibility for doctors growing tissues in labs. A three
Parker Rhoads
dimensional printer using wither stem cells or cells
specifically designated for a particular printing job can lay
down cells in far more complex structures than previous tissue
engineering methods could have achieved [3]. It will also
capable of creating said structures in a fraction of the time.
Rather than slowly being cultivated on a scaffold, cells will
be placed in their correct positions automatically and
immediately [4]. Unfortunately, at this point in time it is a
prohibitively expensive technology, but as more
programming languages and bio-ink suppliers arise, the cost
of biological three dimensional printing will go down [2].
The benefits that these advantages will make available to
patients by and large almost universally positive. Waiting
times for treatments, ranging from the commonplace to the
catastrophic, will go down dramatically—replacement
tissues, organs, joints, muscles, limbs, et cetera will become
available in great quantities and on very short notice. Rather
than waiting for a tissue sample to be collected, cultivated,
and matured in a lab, a patient will be able to provide a small
tissue sample and receive a printed part custom made for their
body relatively quickly. The quality of treatments will
increase as well. Instead of painful, risky, time wasting blood
filtering treatments, one can receive an organ transplant
without a waiting period spent suffering. Finally, the cost of
such treatments will go down in the long run. Biological three
dimensional printing is currently extremely expensive, but
advancing technology will drastically reduce its price as time
continues to pass. Once the price of three dimensional
printing goes down, it will easily be the best option in
numerous medical situations.
correctly. The same argument serves to satisfy this obligation
as well. Further development of the technologies involved in
bio printing can only serve to improve the health and welfare
of the public by making viable organ transplants more readily
available. The ethical discourse on artificial organ production
and printing breaks down to very little—increasing the speed
at which organs can be grown and increasing the quality and
odds of the body’s acceptance of said organs increases the
quality of care and has very few downsides, if any. The
Biomedical Engineering Society Code of Ethics further states
that biomedical engineers should “consider the broader
consequences of their work in regard to cost, availability, and
delivery of health care”[11]. Regarding this there is little to
no ethical argument. An increase in the research and
development the technologies involved in bio printing cannot
help but to improve the quality of the health care currently
being provided to the public.
Furthermore, as stated in Engineering, Ethics and
Professionalism, “The professional employee should have
due regard for the safety, life and health of the public and
fellow employees in all work which he/she is responsible.”
[6]. As the CEO of my company I am responsible for the
health of my employees along with the welfare of the public.
Complying with my employees’ request for more funding in
order to develop a functioning bio printer serves this purpose,
in my opinion. They are attempting to improve the welfare
and health of the public just as I am. Therefore, by granting
their request for funding I am complying with the guidelines
set down for the professional engineer in Engineering, Ethics
and Professionalism.
Engineering Ethics Beyond Engineers’ Ethics states that,
“Whenever a complex undertaking is broken into separate
parts, and the people assigned to work on these parts have a
high degree of autonomy, the responsibility for the whole
project begins to blur.” [7]. This is the case when it comes to
putting in the work to make advancements such as bio
printing possible. The entire human race is involved so
responsibility becomes very, very blurred. Many people
expect innovation to come from someone else, they expect
somebody else to make the breakthrough for them. If
everyone adopted this philosophy technological progress
would grind to a halt. This is why the research and
development of new technologies is important. This is why I
have chosen to grant the funding request for research and
development team attempting to create a functioning bio
printer.
ETHICS IN BIOLOGICAL PRINTING
The National Society of Professional Engineers has
drafted a Code of Ethics for Engineers and set it forth as a
guideline for the actions of all professional engineers. It is
generally applicable in all engineering scenarios and is
therefore the resource one of my main resources in deciding
whether or not funding the development of bio printer is in
fact ethical. The first fundamental canon of the Code of Ethics
for Engineers states that engineers are to “hold paramount the
safety, health, and welfare of the public” [10]. As I stated
earlier the current methods used in the creation of artificial
organs are effective but in many cases leave much to be
desired. Therefore, any process that will achieve the same
result while improving any part of the process, such as the
time required to produce the viable organ, can only improve
the welfare of the public. This satisfies the first canon’s
requirements.
According to the Biomedical Engineering Society Code of
Ethics the first and foremost of the Biomedical Engineering
Professional Obligations is, “Use their knowledge, skills, and
abilities to enhance the safety, health, and welfare of the
public” [11]. This statement makes it very clear that as a
biomedical engineer, if I am not using my knowledge to
improve the quality of life of the public I am not doing my job
CONCLUSION: FINAL DECISION
After carefully reviewing the current state of artificial
organ technology, the potential benefits of a working
bioprinter, and multiple codes of ethics in regards to
engineering, I have decided that the funding of this project is
in fact the best choice. Three dimensional organ printing
shows enormous promise in the near future, reducing patient
suffering and drastically shortening waiting times for those in
2
Parker Rhoads
need of transplants. After reviewing two engineering codes of
ethics—that of the National Society of Professional Engineers
and that of the Biomedical Engineering Society—I believe I
have found it to be ethically sound as well. On this basis, I
wholeheartedly support the continued research and
development of three dimensional organ printing.
[10] Van Der Vost, Rita. "Engineering, ethics and
professionalism.." European Journal of Engineering
Education 23.2: 171. Print.
[11] Basart, Josep, and Montse Serra. "Engineering Ethics
Beyond Engineers' Ethics - Springer." Engineering Ethics
Beyond Engineers' Ethics - Springer. N.p., 1 Mar. 2013. Web.
27
Oct.
2013.
<http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-0119293-z/fulltext.html>.
REFERENCES
[1] University of Iowa (2013, March 8). 3-D printer, 'bio-ink'
to create human organs. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September
30,
2013,
from
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130308183708.htm
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
[2] Atala, Anthony. "Regenerative medicine's promising
future." CNN. Cable News Network, 10 July 2011. Web. 26
Oct.
2013.
<http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/10/atala.grow.kid
ney/index.html?iref=allsearch>.
I would like to thank my friends Dan and Dylan along with
the rest of floor two for helping me stay awake while I wrote
this paper. I would like to thank my roommate Adam Naroden
for putting up with my typing even as he valiantly tried to
sleep. I would also like to thank Spotify for providing the
soundtrack to which this paper was written.
[3] How 3-D Printing Body Parts Will Revolutionize
Medicine | Popular Science. (n.d.). Popular Science | New
Technology, Science News, The Future Now. Retrieved
September
30,
2013,
from
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/how-3-dprinting-body-parts-will-revolutionize-medicine
[4] R. Hotz (Sep 18, 2012). “Printing evolves: An inkjet for
living tissue.” Wall Street Journal.
[5] Mironov, V., Kasyanov, V., & Markwald, R. R. (2011).
Organ Printing: From Bioprinter To Organ Biofabrication
Line.Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 22(5), 667-673.
[6] Printing body parts: Making a bit of me | The Economist.
(n.d.). The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics,
Business & Finance. Retrieved September 30, 2013, from
http://www.economist.com/node/15543683
[7] Lantada, A., & Morgado, P. (2012). Rapid Prototyping for
Biomedical Engineering: Current Capabilities and
Challenges. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 14,
73-96.
Retrieved
September
29,
2013,
from
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurevbioeng-071811-150112
[8] National Society of Professional Engineers (2007). "Code
of
Ethics
for
Engineers"
(Online
document).
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
[9] Biomedical Engineering Society (Date not provided).
“Biomedical Engineering Society Code of Ethics” (Online
document).
http://www.bmes.org/aws/BMES/asset_manager/get_file/39
579/bmes_code_of_ethics.pdf?ver=1572
3