Most of you might have heard about bioprinting as it has been introduced since the 1980s, but for those of you who are still uninformed, let me enlighten you.
The Cambridge definition of bioprinting is the process of producing tissue or organs similar to natural body parts and containing living cells, using 3D printing.
This biotechnology creates not only tissues and organs but also bones. If research is fruitful, then we might just be able to terminate the problem of the dearth of heart, liver, kidney and other organ donors.
Right now, there are thousands of people on the waiting list for these live-saving donors and they'll have to wait months or years to get it.
This can increase the chances of the disease exacerbating and also affect the death rate. But again, if this technology is successful there will be no such misfortunes.
What are the effects?
Although this seems like an amazing innovation, there are, however, some socio-ethical dilemmas regarding this idea and its actual implementation in life.
Some risks involving using these 3D donors include:
- Safety issues, such as contamination and immune rejection(by the body)
- Scarcity of or malfunctioning of the implanted organ or tissue
And these reasons can lead to rejection of implants for the fear of the technology failing or the anxiety of the body's negative immune response.
So many decades have passed, why aren't there any major changes?
One of the reasons for this has been due to the lack of time. The research of bioprinting only began in the early 2000s, and then during the Covid years, the research almost plummeted back to the early 2000s.
Now it's being continued again, but still not enough time and facilities are being used for this healthcare technology.
Another challenge is that bioprinting is extortionate and costly. Although 3D printers' prices have become cheaper, they are still too high for many healthcare facilities.
Is bioprinting excessively hazardous or does it need more research facilities and funding to be proven useful?
