Slashdot Mirror
Australian Scientists Produce Giant Mutant Mice
SuperCujo writes: "Scientists in Australia have done some fun things with genetics and produced some mice that are 30-40% bigger than normal. They removed a gene from their DNA that makes the body produce a growth-inhibiting protein. Imagine these giant mice in your kitchen :)" Inhibiting an inhibitor seems like a more elegant approach than adding growth hormones to mice. The researchers say the work "may lead to developing new medicines for the treatment of growth and muscle-wasting disorders."
They're just elephants painted grey with their noses rolled up. Has Timothy not seen Tom & Jerry?
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
I remember seeing Sylvester from Looney tunes trying to teach his nephew how to catch a mouse. A box fell out of a truck or train, and it had a baby kangaroo in it... and it may have been a boxing kangaroo.
Silly Aussies... they're roos not mice!
[Connection closed by foreign host]
Uhmm....Giga-mice are cool....I want one as a pet, do they come in white?
Warning: paranoia-rant follows, but somebody has to.....
Another implication is, that once the scientists gain sufficient control over the building-blocks of mice etc., it is only a matter of time before they do so over humans such as what the article says about "new treatments" for different diseases. Now, what exactly is a disease? being left-handed? being gay? being {communist|republican|democrat|facist|capitalist}? being anything but what Hitler thought of as the perfect human?
Interresting enough, with detailed control like that, when will it be possible to bread humans who do not only look alike but who (biologically determined) will think alike too??? (this, of course, under the assumption that such is mainly biologically determined rather than socially).
While I think that such research and results is most interresting, I am also a bit vary of the concequences - as I said: paranoia-rant...
-- "Life is a bitch - and she hates me..."
We seem to be laying the groundwork for a master race of mice... but why? Maybe there's more to Hitchhiker's than we thought...
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
From what I understand, you can't make genetic alterations to animals, people, etc once they're developed (those mice were born with the altered genes), ruling out the possibility of tampering with people who want to change some genetic aspect of themselves. However, there's always talk of using genetic modifications because someone decides that they'd like to be taller, or have green eyes, or something.
Is this right, or am I holding the end of the stick that has "this is the wrong end" written on it?
[Insert the obligatory one liner about now having to breed lager cats here.]
But do they need little cooling fans in their cages? (perhaps because their surface heat dissipation system is no longer enough to handle their heat generation?).
Has anyone run CPU (i.e. brain) diagnostics on them?
The movie on Neo's TV was Night of the Lepus, and they were giant rabbits. More of the White Rabbit theme.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Nonsense, thinking that we are somehow able to improve upon the Divine plan of God is hubris of the highest order. God's plan has given us the wonderful variety of life that we see today, not some "scientist" more interested than having his name on a paper than the ethical and moral implications of their work.
I know I am entering the really deep water here - peoples belifs are to be taken seriously - but I beg to offer a slightly different opinion on this. Not a flame - just a slightly different opinion...
First, one could argue that genetic engineering might be part of this "God's" plan in the first place. After all, "God" being a (the) supreme being, then everything must be in accordance with this beings schedule, no? Including the scientists work on genetic engineering?
Secondly, I am much more afraid of what people on this planet might go about doing with such a technology, than I am of what "God" might do. As other posters have pointed out, there are plenty of madmen out there, who would make super-{soldiers|workers|scientists|whatever} (no need to mention a trivial thing such as "super-sports-stars", which has been tried for years through doping etc). Ok, in accordance with my first point, actions of such madmen may just be the "punishment of God" for tampering with the genes. However I do have a hard time believing that a supreme being would include in his plan " 1) make mankind do something clever, 2) punish mankind for 1)".
Thirdly, I believe that there is more to it than that scientists are only aiming for "getting their name on a paper". Being in science myself, I know that publication is a major goal for any scientist (the only measure you are evaluated against is your publication rate, usually). I also agree, that during the process of researching, very little concirn is usually given to the ethical implications of the research. To me, personally, and probably to a lot of others, this is because...well, I am not personally qualified to evaluate such. Blinded by the "coolness" of some discovery and all the wonderfull things this discovery will do, I doubt that a scientist is much capable of taking two steps backwards and saying "hey, this may be bad, I better not publish". After all, scientists are only humans (maybe we should investigate genetically engineering better and more ethical scientists to prevent ideas such as "genetic engineering" from emerging?).
Fourthly, I believe that for some scientist to decide against publishing a discovery of some sort or should decide against researching some area based on "ethics" is just as harmfull - and unethical. Preventing the world from learning secrets of life might also be preventing the world from becomming a better place to live.
That is, not saying that all new discoveries are good. They are not. But they should not be dismissed solely on the basis of being "new" and potentially applicable for "unethical" purposes. Everything can be applied in both a good and a bad way...
-- "Life is a bitch - and she hates me..."
Here in New Zealand the general attitude is very paranoid (or cautious, depending on who you are) towards genetic engineering, and at least on paper it's quite heavily regulated.
Anyway, there was recently a government probe that found that a full 18% of the genetic engineering experiments were completely unauthorised. (Followup scientist reaction here.) I'm inclined to go with the scientists, if for no other reason because from where I am the whole public attitude seems more like an ignorant vigilante mob.
Does anyone have any ideas on how this could or should be regulated (if at all) if for no other reason, to prevent potentially dangerous results accidently (or deliberately) seeping into the environment?
===
Lets look at the facts folks:
We've made them bigger.
We've made them smarter.
We've made them glow.
We've cured their diabetes.
We've even armed them with ears on their back!
Am I saying the world is going to be taken over by hyperintelligent glowing super mice that shoot insulin from the ears on their backs?
Of course not!
I'm saying the pan-galactic beings from another dimension who run this planet are getting ready for war, and they are using the Earth as a training facility.
(If you haven't read the hitchhickers guide to the galaxy let me first say don't panic! Secondly, go read it.)
Giant mice? What's next, giant women?
..." - am I the only person who thinks that this flappant attitude is appalling?
Yep - women are the logical next step from mice. No, really, they are.
The scientists who spend their time butchering innocent mice would be better off, both scientifically and ethically, spending their time doing something which is a) of benefit to people and not mice and b) less offensive to decent Christians.
Butchering - I think you'll find that genetic manipulation is a LITTLE more refined than "butchering". Have you stoppped to think of the possible benefits we might gain from this research? Perhaps making people resistant to AIDS? Or perhaps cancer (since bigotted religeous zealots like you would naturally assume that AIDS is a disease of people of low moral quality)? Or polio, SIDS, or in fact any of the multitude of diseases and illnesses which currently afflict the innocent?
And this sentance - "Scientists in Australia have done some fun things with genetics
That'd be "sentence" and "flippant" unless I'm mistaken, but we'll leave the semantics of correct spelling, grammar and punctuation out of this, shall we? Have you perchance thought that some people actually find scientific discovery interesting, and perchance fun? Just because you've got a stick up your ass doesn't meant the rest of us do.
Tinkering with the natural order of things which God has decreed is not a "bit of fun", it is both dangerous and amoral and needs to be stopped.
Granted, there are potentially "bad" uses for this technology (at least when it matures). But we've had nuclear weapons since the end of the 2nd world war, they're proven to be VERY destructive, and yet we've managed to (albeit only just at times) avoid blowing the living shit out of the planet with them. Give human kind SOME credit, please. You'd be surprised just how moral we can be as a race when necessary.
Did you know that the majority of our technological advancements (even the good ones, that save lives) have come about due to war? A point to ponder....
Unfortunately thanks to the liberal fundamentalists who hold power over much of the Western world, these people are given free license to blaspheme and tamper with something which could kill us all even worse than the plagues God sent to punish the Egyptians.
Ah, a fire and brimstone Christian - now I'm starting to understand. Have you perchance read this wonderful part of the Bible called the "New Testament"? Incidently, I suggest that you look up the meaning of the political buzzwords you're using - because Liberal Fundamentalists are generally the very people opposing the sort of research and development of scientific knowledge that you youreself are complaining about.
Genetic "engineering" is not a bit of fun, it is the greatest threat to humanity we have ever faced.
And you have scientific proof to back up this statement? Oh, silly me - of course you don't - science is the art of witches isn't it! You wouldn't want to make a well backed up point and end up being burned at the stake now, would you?
Today it may be fat mice, but who knows what horrors tomorrow may bring?
Bigger cattle, which feed more people? Better crop averages, so that we might feed the starving? The health benefits I mentioned before? Sure, there COULD be bad things that come of this technology, but other great scientific discoveries, like electricity, can also be used for the powers of darkness. Quick, shut down your PC - it uses the Devil's own power!
i would prefer giant worms, producing more spice.
the sleeper must awake.
Two industries I can think of that might be sponsoring this research:
- Basketball teams.
- Porn flick producers.
"Where bigger can only mean better!" hehehehehe
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
I bet you feel absolutely no pain at the murder of plants you eat every day. And as a microbiologist, I have to remind you of the millions of bacteria that must die for your yogurt, and likewise the millions of yeast cells that must die for your beer, wine, and bread.
You might claim that well, plants and microbes are lower organisms and thus don't count. But all these organisms respond to stimuli, and so at some very basic level can "think" and "feel". They simply are less cute than mammals because they aren't furry, and so don't have an army of fuzzy-minded defenders. Get back to me when you can tell me how heterotrophic organisms like humans can live in any other way than by killing other life forms. Meanwhile, being consigned to living off death, I'll choose the most tasty dead things for my meals. Not to mention live, but soon to be dead in my stomach things, like draft beer.
Build a bigger mouse trap... (that you can check mail and surf the web on!) Sweeet
Nuff Respec'
DeICQLady
7D3 CPE
If bigger grain surpluses could feed the starving, the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union would have done so long ago. It's already been proved to most people's satisfaction that famines are an economic disaster, not an ecological one.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Uh... no. This is not a Linux news site... not even a computer news site. And if you want your suggestions taken seriously, log in.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
Lets not get too excited about this. The researchers are doing an EXPERIMENT. Obviously the first part was "can we make mice big by removing this gene?" But the second part is just as important "what else breaks when we remove this gene?"
Given the function (growth inhibition) of the gene in question, I'm going to bet these mice are especially susceptible to cancer.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
The researchers say the work "may lead to developing new medicines for the treatment of growth and muscle-wasting disorders."
:-)
As well as exciting new cancers when cells grow out of control without those inhibitors...
--
Just a reminder. For every scientific advancement that brings us closer to a (1984|Brave New World|Logan's Run|etc) future, there will always be a few of us freaks who will refuse to do as we're told. We'll escape, find weapons, learn to pilot harrier jets (or something similar) and come back and free everyone.
We owe it to the world to make sure that if `unlikely horrible technology driven society' comes to pass, that `unlikely rebel hero saviors' will exist. Am I right or am I right?
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
[Disclaimer: I am not religious]
After all, "God" being a (the) supreme being, then everything must be in accordance with this beings schedule, no? Including the scientists work on genetic engineering?
That's an argument I've used in the past, but it does have one fatal flaw - the concept of free will.
We have been granted free will to behave as we see fit - and that includes doing things that "God" would not approve of.
I know it's a work of fiction, but Paradise Lost discusses the concept, and "God's" reasons for giving us our free will. (And is a good read in itself, IMHO)
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
If these scientists could bring Amber Rhyser back from extinction, or modify rodent DNA to produce a modern version, THAT would be impressive. And would create a whole new chair-manufacturing industry for sitcoms.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"And this sentance - "Scientists in Australia have done some fun things with genetics ..." - am I the only person who thinks that this flappant attitude is appalling? Tinkering with the natural order of things which God has decreed is not a "bit of fun", it is both dangerous and amoral and needs to be stopped."
Wait a moment... feel free to flame Timothy, who submitted the story, but besides him, who's talking about fun here? If you'll take a look at the original Nature article, the scientists who published the article have a serious, sober attitude towards their own work.
And there's one the size of Central Park.
They're usin' telephone poles to pick their teeth.
They're evil and nasty, and they glow in the dark.
Well don't waste any more of your bullets, boys.
You know it just makes 'em mad when you shoot.
They're gonna stomp us into jelly, and conquer the world.
But you gotta admit, they're really - kinda cute now.
Attack of the Radioactive Hamsters from a planet near Mars.
A race from a distant place, they came in UFO's shaped just like Cuban cigars.
Man, oh man, you oughta hear 'em squeal.
Now the whole wide world is their exercise wheel.
Attack of the Radioactive Hamsters from a planet near Mars.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Next it'll be rats, spiders, snakes, ants and women. Then we'll all be living in a real live B movie. Actually, come to think of it, giant mutant women might be quite interesting.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Don't grin too quickly -- Edison was dead set against AC current, as he couldn't handle the math, and he was heavily invested in DC technology. His "AC Kills" campaign electrocuted a number of horses and dogs... Even smart people can be threatened by new technology.
What's next, giant women?
now there's a scientists dream - forget those messy troublesome si or whatnot implants.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The body works by balancing everything. Out bodies are constantly releasing and absorbing. When our blood sugar gets low we release one chemical, when its high we release another. Although many times we're lopsided and only using one chemical/hormone. But the balance is there to protect us from most circumstances, its our backup system, that stops us from getting into an infinite loop. Cancer is caused by cells loosing their ability to stop growing.
It's dangerous knowing that sciencetists removing a restricting gene is progress. In my mind its an ignorant move to make a headline. This breakthough is closer to cancer than anything else.
Scientists should be looking for ways to better control the balance, not pushing it until it breaks (were we don't learn anything)
until they attack Tokyo, knock down a few buildings and have a face off with Godzilla ...
It occurs to me that what has been done here is to remove, in infancy, the manufacture of a growth regulator. However, for corrective purposes I fail to see how this helps that much.
We need to ask ourselves whether growth problems are due to over production of growth inhibitor or underproduction of stimulant.
If I carry a genetic predisposition to produce less growth hormone than normal, is the answer to increase that production or reduce my ability to control my growth processes by paring down my inhibitor production to redress the imbalance?
My veiw on this is that the best way to solve the problem is liberal application of Ochams shaving device. How often have you trashed your installation because you wanted to upgrade too many components in one go? Right. Now pretend it's your unborn baby/ newborn child that needs "upgrading".
The ability to remove an inhibitor does not, in my opinion, provide the correct fix.
Chris.
They're not giant mice, they're actually kangaroos, damn it. You think people would suspect, these news coming from Australia.
Don't you people pay attention to Daffy Duck cartoons anymore?
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
- Apply this technique to turtles
- Teach them martial arts
Then, and only then, can we rid ourselves of the evil Shredder and his minions!Turtle power!
-Denor
God's plan, my ass. You don't need some damned religious argument to say that direct genetic manipulation is dangerous/bad/etc.
Mankind has been diddling genetics since we came out of the trees and started planting gardens. Selective breeding has been a rule of plant/animal husbandry (why not wifery?) forever and a day.
The difference is that our previous genetic meddlings have involved selecting traits and cross-breeding. Everything stayed within the pyhlum, if not always the species (depending on your definition of species; substitute family, I suppose).
Now, however, we're directly buggering with genes. Minced genes are being fired into cells to create mutations, with *no* idea of what those mutations might result in. This is controlled selective cross-breeding: it's mad scientist chaos.
And we're mixing phylum. You might thrust your woody through the knothole in the fence, but it wasn't gonna give you progeny...
...but now human metalothienen, a gene that is expressed in quantity in breast and testicular cancer, is being combined with plant genes. The offspring is good at sucking up toxic metals -- but no one in a position of responsibility seems to consider it a poor idea to put human cancer genes into a crop that will express those genes in its pollen, which we'll end up breathing.
...a Brazilian nut gene was spliced into soybeans, to produce a "better" soybean. Unfortunately, said product tended to kill people with nut allergies. And soybean is used in some 80% of processed foods.
...and then we have Monsanto, which has genetically engineered its seeds to be sterile in the second generation. All well and good, until the damned things cross-pollinate with the crops of those farmers who put aside seed to replant next year. We'll all be up shit creek when a third of our crops fail.
The long and the short of it is that selective breeding programs never put anyone at risk: the offspring weren't going to be dangerous mutant creatures that would savage the existing good populations, cause illness in humans or render our food supplies sterile.
We've got very smart people doing very amazing things with genetics, but refusing their moral responsibility of ensuring public safety.
It's a bloody shame, and I think that within the next twenty years, we'll be living in fear of the results. It's the nuclear scare all over again, played out with biology.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
why dont we using this technology to create giant cows, potatoes, etc?
because its a BAD idea.
do you seriously think the growth inhibitor is there for no reason? think thats all it does, inhibit growth?
A while ago, they almost started spreading a gentically engineered plant that would help take impurities out of the soil, help clean up the environment, etc. good intentions.
this plant also turned out to put something back, which would be the botanical equivelant of cancer.
so, no, this would not be cool.
It is possable to alter genes at any time. Doing it on a single cell is much easier than on many millions of cells, so pre-natal genetic modification is preffered, from that point of view.
However, there are other aspects too. If you take a fully grown man, and change his genes so that he would grow to 8 foot tall, his height isjust not goin to change. This is because he has already passed the stage where such gene would be used. It's the same for eye colour - your eye are already grown, so they won't chage, even if you change the genes.
However, altering a 5 year old childs gene to make him grow to 8 foot tall would have an effect (although possibly not the _full_ effect), as he has most of his growing still to do. This assumes that you can get the genes to the appropriate cells suitable.
This is a slightly hand-wavy explanation, but I believe it gets the point across.
In summary, gene therepay can only change how you grow, not how you have grown.
For example, in Cystic Fibrosis, the lungs produce mucus that is too sticky. Gene therapy can help, as it can tell the lungs to make mucus with the correct level of stickyness. After a shot time, the mucus in the lungs will be replaced with the corrected mucus, fixing that problem.
With Downs syndrome, however, the brain develops abnormally. Correcting the genetic fault will not fix the symtoms, because the brain is fully grown, and thus not fixable in this way (other solutions, howwever, are possable).
This would totally lower my snake feeding bills.
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
(Smash amp, burn guitar, take home the groupies)
Consult the Book of Armament, Chapter 5 versus 1 to 13
"And the lord did Sayeth..""
yeah, yeah, get on with it...
Take thy holy Hand-granade and count to three. Not two, and not four, and five is definitely right out!
Or something like that. I suggest you watch Monty Python's Holy Grail as to why you should be scared of cute furry bunnies.
Life is complete only for brief intervals in between toys or projects -- John Dalton
And you have the road map here I am assuming from your rants. I am a Christian, but I am no where near as arrogant as you. I really hope you do read this one.
Repeat after me: NO HUMAN KNOWS THE WILL OR INTENT OF GOD. PERIOD. EVER.
And you never will, so do not patronize scientists who may be in divine light with their genetic research. Perhaps that is God's plan and you are a tool of the devil. You never know because any human's futile little mind couldn't conceive of a fraction of God's plan.
moral of my post: Don't speak for God.
nerdfarm.org
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.