Human head transplant is contemplated using tiny graphene nanoribbon scaffolds
christopherreeve.org
christopherreeve.org
I suppose it’s described from the surgeon’s POV not the patient’s POV.
It is about nerve repair but it is very unclear if it works because they only got one rat left to prove it.
But I wonder: if you cut a nerve with a scalpel it is very clear where the cut is. But is this also clear with a damaged nerve in the spinal cord? Let's say this method of nerve repair works, would we be able to locate the position of the damage in a nerve?
Related open question for everyone: Is anyone experimenting with printing cryonically preserved cells? I understand that one of the problems with 3D bioprinting at the moment is that the tissue doesn’t live long enough to survive the printing process, while one of the problems with cryonics is that only very small samples can be frozen fast enough to avoid tissue damage. As I’m no biologist, while these “feel like” they would solve each other’s problems, I don’t trust my intuition.
The article isn't really about a head transplant. It's about developments in spinal cord repair, as can be inferred from the URL.
What ever happened to data, experimentation and rigor?
What is science without subscribing to the scientific method?