Slashdot Mirror
Human-Mouse Hybrids?
scientistguy writes "There is a remarkable story by Nicholas Wade in the early
morning edition of the New York Times about a discussion to create human-mouse
hybrid organisms. One of these techniques involves the introduction of genetically altered mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells (e.g. with
genes 'knocked-out' or replaced) into a developing mouse blactocyst to create progeny hybrid organisms. Typically, these progeny organisms are then bred to unaltered mice to see
if the genetic alteration has gone germline or is heritable. If heritable, mice can be bred and
animals which are homozygous for the altered gene can be phenotypically examined as long as the manipulation is not homozygous lethal or cause
sterility in a single copy state. Unless using
blastocysts from immunologically crippled mice, there would most likely be a recognition of non-self by murine immune cells not educated (which haven't seen during their development) to the human cells that would wipe them out. Nonetheless, it's amazing that it's
being contemplated due to the ethical implications of such an experiment. What if it were viable? What if there were more than just a few
human cells? Could it be sacrificed? ... or even experimented on further if part 'human'? Perhaps these
types of experiments are best relegated to little known, deserted islands far
away from the reaches of civilization (or perhaps regulation) ..."
What - like Australia ?
...and they were worried about cloning? (rolleyes)
you lost me at the mouse part
Stem Cell Mixing May Form a Human-Mouse Hybrid
By NICHOLAS WADE
A group of American and Canadian biologists is debating whether to recommend stem cell experiments that would involve creating a human-mouse hybrid.
The goal would be to test different lines of human embryonic stem cells for their quality and potential usefulness in treating specific diseases. The best way to do that, some biologists argue, is to see how the cells work in a living animal. For ethical reasons, the test cannot be performed in people.
But if the human stem cells are tested that way in mice, any animals born from the experiment would be chimeras -- organisms that are mixtures of two kinds of cells -- with human cells distributed throughout their body. Though the creatures would probably be mice with a few human cells that obey mouse rules, the outcome of such an experiment cannot be predicted. A mouse with a brain made entirely of human cells would probably discomfort many people, as would a mouse that generated human sperm or eggs.
Dr. Irving L. Weissman, an expert on stem cells at Stanford University, said that making mice with human cells could be "an enormously important experiment," but if conducted carelessly could lead to outcomes that are "too horrible to contemplate." He gave as an extreme example the possibility that a mouse making human sperm might accidentally be allowed to mate with a mouse that had made its eggs from human cells.
At least two biologists in the group that is discussing the experiment said they believed that it was premature or unethical and could stir policy makers to limit further stem cell research or ban it.
Stem cells are a kind of universal clay, so responsive to local cues that they can morph into blood, skin, bone or any other replaceable tissues. They retain the gift of self-renewal, which, to curb the risk of cancer, is withdrawn from all the body's mature cells. Stem cells, when they divide, usually produce one mature cell and one stem cell.
They hold high promise as an all-purpose material for repairing many degenerative diseases of old age like Parkinson's, cancer and heart disease.
Other scientists say such experiments would be of great value and could be conducted with human stem cells engineered so that they could not produce brain or reproductive cells. That group acknowledged that even an experiment drawn up with such precautions should first undergo scientific review and public debate.
The proposal for the experiment grew out of a meeting on Nov. 13 at the New York Academy of Sciences sponsored by the academy and Rockefeller University. It was organized by Dr. Ali H. Brivanlou, a Rockefeller biologist who studies embryology.
Dr. Brivanlou invited eight other experts and, as observers, two editors of scientific journals and Dr. James F. Battey Jr., director of the National Institute of Deafness and chairman of the stem cell task force of the National Institutes of Health. The meeting was not intended to be public, Dr. Brivanlou said, and at one point, the nine experts held a closed session at which the observers, including even Dr. Battey, were asked to step outside.
One journal editor wrote of the meeting in the current issue of Nature, reporting that Dr. Battey "criticized participants for what he regards as excessive secrecy." Dr. Battey did not return telephone calls to his office.
The purpose of the meeting, Dr. Brivanlou said yesterday in an interview, was to discuss quality standards for several new lines, or colonies, of human embryonic stem cells being developed around the world.
In one test that they discussed, human embryonic stem cells would be injected into an early mouse embryo when it was still a small ball of cells called the blastocyst. Scientists would then see whether the human stem cells showed up in all the mouse's tissues. That ability, known as pluripotentiality, is the hallmark of a true embryonic stem cell.
Injection into another mouse's blastocyst is the standard test for mouse embryonic stem cells. Those cells, like human embryonic stem cells, come from a small pool of all-purpose cells a few days after the fertilized egg has started to divide.
(Page 2 of 2)
No one knows whether human embryonic stem cells would survive in a mouse blastocyst. If they did, and they contributed to all the tissues, that would be a useful test for the many claimed human embryonic stem cell lines being developed, Dr. Brivanlou said.
One participant, Dr. Janet Rossant of Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, said that she did not consider the test necessary and that if the injected human cells made major contributions to the mouse, "I think that is something that most people would find unacceptable."
Dr. Weissman of Stanford, who was not at the meeting, said the experiment could help scientists follow the behavior of human cells with genetic diseases. Studying how the diseased human cells develop in a mouse could offer treatment insights.
Dr. Weissman said undesirable outcomes like a mouse with a brain made of human cells or a mouse that generated human sperm could be avoided by deleting certain genes from the human cells before injecting them into a mouse. He added that such procedures should be carefully reviewed by a body like the National Academy of Sciences.
"You must assure yourself and the public," he said, "that it's ethical. It's not for scientists alone to decide."
A biologist at the meeting here, Dr. Fred H. Gage of the Salk Institute, said that the question of making mice with human cells deserved further consideration and that scientists and the public "should listen to each other more" before reaching a conclusion to go ahead.
In using mice simply to test the pluripotentiality of human embryonic stem cells, it would not be necessary to let the mice grow to term, Dr. Gage said. The earlier the mice were killed the smaller would be the ethical issue, in his view.
Dr. Richard M. Doerflinger of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, who has long opposed research with human embyronic stem cells, said his primary objection remained with the first step, that of killing a human embryo to obtain embryonic stem cells. Dr. Doerflinger's initial reaction to the proposed experiment was that as a test for pluripotentiality it might not be objectionable.
"If you end up with one human cell per organ of a mouse, I don't think it raises a new problem," he said. "The amounts of human material in an animal would have to be pretty substantial to start talking about a human hybrid, and I don't think this raises that specter."
The nine participants at the conference are drafting a white paper to lay out proposed standards to test human embryonic stem cells. The mouse injection test is on the list, Dr. Brivanlou said, with the wording under discussion.
Federally financed researchers can work only with "presidential cell lines," the human cell lines established before Aug. 9, 2001, which President Bush declared as the cutoff for permissible stem cell work. The guidelines prepared by Dr. Brivanlou's group could be applied to those stem cells, as well as the nonpresidential ones.
I can just see it now, what actor should be in this movie, perhaps it's all a coverup for a movie anyway, There will be just one man who can stop this army of 100,000 half human half mice (It will start out as 2, in a week, they will have multiplied)
What?!
Another new input device.
Why not just stick my mouse to my hand with superglue?
"I used to have that really cool,funny sig
What we do every night, Pinky.
Cheers Google ...
And now once more in English please?
President Vladimir Putin agreed Tuesday to reinstate the Soviet-era red star as the Russian military's official emblem -- in the latest reincarnation of Communist symbols that has sparked fears of a return to the repressive past.
Pinky: Now what do we do Brain? Brain: What we do every week - try to take over the world!
We have seen many types of there hybrids and we actually do this stuff in our undergraduate labs. For example, we have "transplanted" a human ear on the back of a mouse by sliding in the genes for a human ear in the area where the backside of the mouse is supposed to be. WOrks every time. Slashdot needs to catch up with the times.
Lets hear it for blastocysts!!
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Not another Stuart Little, please. :(
My neighbor's
blactocyst to create progeny hybrid organisms
Good god! Don't you understand the implications though? If the digital tri-mode defrobulator gets out of sync with the anticalisthenticator, we could have some serious subdermal anamolous activity!
Open your eyes man!
(I just thought the sentence sounded funny the way it was strung together, even if I do have enough biology to know what a blastocyst is and to recognize when it's misspelled)
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Oh very freaking funny you insensitive clod!
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Rats!
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
samhain is on the same day as halloween, not christmas
He gave as an extreme example the possibility that a mouse making human sperm might accidentally be allowed to mate with a mouse that had made its eggs from human cells. He gave as an extreme example the possibility that a mouse making human sperm might accidentally be allowed to mate with a mouse that had made its eggs from human cells.
Can I bum a sig?
The next time you visit Disney World, don't pick on the guy in the costume. See what he has to endure?
This is quite different, as you may have gathered had you read the (fucking)article. Point:
"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq"
-- Paul Wolfowitz, 7/21/2003
When I read the headline I imagined someones arm tapering off into a abomination of electronics for the sole purpose of manipulation GUIs.
there trying to intergrate personality with computers? oh wait...
different mouse- ooops
If this research continues, it might only take
1000 genetically altered monkees 10 years to create
the collective works of shakespeare. You probably
wouldn't have to lock them in a room either. They'd
of course be superior and have 3 asses.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
I'll name him Mickey out of spite of Disney.
But instead of Pluto, I will give him a four-assed monkey for a pet, as an homage to South Park.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
...when can I get a catgirl? @_@
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
To understand the true impact of genetic research, look at it like this: today we still see life as hardware, something that has physical shape. We are rapidly approaching the state where we will see life as software, something to be programmed and copied infinitely cheaply.
Human-mouse hybrids? So what. Within a generation you will be able to design any lifeform you can imagine on your computer screen, and 'print' it into a virgin cell that will grow into your animal or plant.
It is an inevitable progression. DNA is a digital code, and it is just a matter of horsepower to crack and then manipulate it.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Mephisto: Look at my lastest creation.. a 5-assed Mouse!
Kids: So?
Mephisto: Those are HUMAN asses!
Kids: Ooooh!
No offense, just asking...
Don Bluth is so pround now.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Beyond the moral implications of such a hybrid there is the very real question of what happens if in the process a hybrid strain of super bacteria/virii are created? I understand the excitement and the potential here. I just hope they are taking the necassary precautions.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
This Human-Mouse hybrid sounds like a great advance in the computer interface design. At least it would remove one bottleneck. Soon we'll outquake even Dustpuppy (he uses a separate mouse).
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
This kind of research always frightens the snot out of me. Without trying to sound like a holier-than-thou type, I can't help but think that this type of science is dabbling a little beyond the realm of what we should be working on.
On the bright side, I would suspect that such organisms don't live long enough to make a whole lot of difference. Some odd hybrid creature created through such means would be bound to have some hideous problems.
Maybe there is some benefit to this type of research, where we will get better medicines, or a better understanding of how our own body is put together. That said, I disagree with the method.
Flame away.
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
Isn't that how they made Fritz Hollings? By crossing a politician with Mickey Mouse?
Sentimentality is merely the Bank Holiday of cynicism.
- Oscar Wilde
No registration required, courtesy of Google and the New York Times
Why aren't the articles just posted like this to begin with? It's something that NYT themselves set up.
I know plenty of people I'd be willing to offer to experimentation. Anyone know where I can sign them up?
I don't understand. Is there an English copy?
I shoved that into babelfish but it didn't come up with anything - no matter what language I selected...
...a monkey with 4 asses.
... nothing new to the Toucan Kid.
naah sig schmig
The same public that is currently out in their shed, drinking beer and designing their 10 foot long mouse trap.
Just compile Human Interface Device support as a module.
Signatures are for stupids.
... the "Teenage Mutand Ninja Turtles" script author was seeing into the future. This sci-fi turning into reality is getting annoying latelly.
Oh well. Time for pizza.
the power of cheese.
those commercials would be alot better with talking mice.
I say go for it, we always need more commercials.
Junior: "Not A Word."
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Why are they having ethical problems with it? It is already being done in a smaller scale all the time. If I understand it correctly, in order to create recombinant monoclonal antibody drugs like Remicade, they place human antibody genes into a bacteria and have the the bacteria pump out antibodies.
People complain and say that scientists should not make half-animal-half-man creatures and mix creatures. Just because it doesn't LOOK like some sort of chimera doesn't make it NOT a chimera.
Isn't antibody engineering and this the same thing?
"Yes. The Mouse Problem. This week 'The World Around Us' looks at the growing social phenomenon of Mice and Men. What makes a man want to be a mouse."
JPZ
'Cuz they're jealous of our freedoms! They wanna take down our flags--That's Unamerican! Jesus is pissed off!
--Typical redneck (American) posterSo we will have human pointer devices soon ? I wonder if they will be optical and/or cordless....
beauty is only a light switch away
What happens when those hideous problems make the small leap from mouse genetics to human genetics and wipe out the world? Isn't science great?
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Build a better mousetrap! Seriously, we shouldn't be dabbling in this stuff until we truly understand what's going on (as much as we can before experimenting). Are the conveniences/insights worth the risks?
I 'transplated' a crash-helmet onto my cat using a length of elastic and half a tennis ball...
This is exactly what John Steinbeck predicted in "Of Mice and Men". I, for one, welcome our cheese-loving overlords.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
...of the use of his likeness in conjunction with this sort of perversity.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Yes, it frightening; any human invention can be used for either good or bad, but 99% of the time humans proove they are unprepared for their own workings.
IMHO, we lost control of everything when commercialization of research took over as the motive.
Research should be guided (regulated?) by the public but applying this (if ever possible) seems impossible. Please don't flame about regulate, I think people should have an opinion and vote when their quality of life is at stake.
Manos
Sex - Find It
use constant PERL_IS_BROKEN => $] >= 5.006;
Remember Mighty Mouse?
http://www.toonopedia.com/mightym.htm
I think he was prosecuted by Mickey Mouse under the DMCA.
Create a real-live Mickey Mouse?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Spoken like a true slashbot. Why not go to school and learn something. Ask yourself how you could get the info to make a ear into the back area. Yes, you go to the blastocyst and you have to hit the cells before they become determined.
so... to you i say... GGAFE... (go get a f'ing education)
The real question is whether our methods are sound or unsound -- not whether we should be there or not.
There are no realms of human knowledge where we should not be working. Who can make such a determination in the first place? The ways to get there, on the other hand, should be considered carefully but on a strictly secular level.
It's unfortunate that in the zeal to categorically ban all human cloning George Bush's administration has been unable to make this distinction.
The quest for knowledge must not be hindered by emotional, baseless "forbidden realms of knowledge" kind of arguments. If we allow that, the renessaince and enlightenment have been in vain and we're back in the dark ages burning witches.
The owls are not what they seem
Nor are birds. At least according to the US government. They excluded from protection under animal welfare laws, and thus should not be worried about, eh?
The actual exclusion is set down in 9 CFR part 1, and reads as follows:
"Animal means any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or any other warmblooded animal, which is being
used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. This term excludes: Birds, rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, and horses not used for research purposes and other farm animals..."
When do you all think the Religious Right will get their hands on this story and knock it down, claiming that "it's morally wrong to toy with God's creations?"
They're lucky they got as far as they did with stem cell research. Creating hybrids, now, that's a whole other matter...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Before we accept the fact that everybody needs a sparepart human being growing in their garage, we will use geneticly modified pigs to get our spareparts, finally also spare bodies. This will lead to a situation where all the old-timers start looking more and more like pigs (or orcs or whatever). This is when esthetics take over the ethics, and an increasing amount of human genes are put into the pig. Finally, all the pig genes are replaced, and we are growing spare humans for spareparts.
The really interesting thing here is the ability to study a human stem cell in the context of an experimental organism. Working in mice offers huge advantages: the mouse genome has been sequenced, gene expression systems for every mouse gene will be available within a year, there are already a large number of inbred and engineered strains, and there is a large body of literature around mouse embryology itself.
A system like this can will allow for significant insight into human biology.
First entomology, then virology, and finally bioinformatics systems. Bugs follow me wherever I go.
One of these techniques involves the introduction of genetically altered mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells (e.g. with genes 'knocked-out' or replaced) into a developing mouse blactocyst to create progeny hybrid organisms.
Isn't that suppose to be HUMAN embryonic stem cells and not mouse?
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
For organisms with such tiny heads, spermatazoa are pretty good at what they do. They swim, and swim, and swim, and swim--until they die, or smack into an ovum. They'd probably have a better shot inside a mouse uterus than a human one, just because there's a smaller volume to traverse while hunting for an egg. (Granted, mice deliver less ejaculate than humans.)
And yes, 'really small tweezers' is actually pretty close to the technique currently used for in vitro fertilization.
~Idarubicin
Theoretically, the fetus could be incubated just fine until the size of the fetus killed the mouse or until the blood supply from the placenta was insufficient. Both of those limitations would happen pretty quickly, terminating the pregnancy. Still the thought of an aborted human fetus from a rodent mother is absolutely chilling.
Can I bum a sig?
Yeah, Brain, but where are we going to get a pair of leather pants that will fit a camel?
We took a mouse and [tech], then we [tech] while seeing if the combination was viable. If the subject survives the [tech], we then breed them and see whether they are [tech] or [more tech]. If they are not sterile, we then see if they [tech]...
Lotsa Big Woids...
Oi!
Get your damn dirty paws off of me you filthy mouse!
Scerw that. Let me know when a human-trackball hybrid is available, and I'll be there.
Mod point free since 2001
We can experiment on it (treat it as property) until it asks us to stop.
-Peter
Cool.... ...And a wheel to make browsing in shops a doddle.
So long as its one of those fancy wireless optical ones that would make you glow red when you move!
Not only that, it would make cleaning your balls a thing of the past!
I can't wait
with that whole mickey thing?
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
GLAYVIN!!!!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In the future how will these entities answer this question?
Mouse?
Man?
Moun?
Mause?
Meep?
Gator/Claria is Spyware.
somehow I'm reminded of that scene in FOTR when Gandalf goes inside that hobbit hole...
I mean the whole idea of giving blood is to give cells. Either for another human to use, or to have those cells used for sume prupose--drug making--and then deliberately killed--i.e. sterilized defore being thrown away. Nothing immoral here.
It's human life that is precious, Not my little finger or some other unviable bit of flesh.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Would this mean what we can create Mickey Mouse for real !! what about Donald and Goofy ?!
The social implications have been treated some 60 ago by Cordwainer Smith (alias Charles Linebarger). I have found, he has a web site now: http://www.cordwainer-smith.com/
After these technique is as common as taking pills there is no sharply outline border between men and animals any more... Quite a different world...
if 95% of the given comments get rated "+1 funny", or more indirect "-1 smartass", there are two possibilities:
a) the article is of comical nature and no serious discussion is expected anyway
b) the article is overly scientific in its expressions (!!!)
the computer is online
i am not at it
what a waste of ressources
I, for one, welcome our new human-mouse hybrid overlords.
Sorry, couldn't resist...
--Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
Scenes and images from "Alien 4" start floating in my mind when I read this. I think even the idea of this combo is kinda sick...
Gee..
talk about science copying science fiction.
Remember the sci-fi show DarkAngel?
She was a Human/Cat Hybrid.
I'm strongly against this.
We shouldn't play God here.
We would probably create monsters.
We are allready spicing human genes into pigs so they can grow human organs.
And these pigs show higher intellegence.
It's not right.
That post has to be the heaviest concentration of technobabble I've seen or heard in a very long time. :-)
(even if the terms relate to biotech instead of warp drives...)
There's this labyrinth near where I live and I keep getting lost: my friends laugh and think I am dull as a post! If I was only lucky enough to have some hybrid mouse DNA within me, I'd find that cheese in nothing flat!
If you had some of these cells implanted, how would you answer the question, "Are you a man or a mouse?"?
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
I particularily like how she would weild a full halberd in Ultima 6 just like a normal human!
We already have human/swine hybrids. I believe they have a tendancy to live under bridges. They are lovingly called "trolls."
I think some scientists have watched too many Tom and Jerry cartoons.
Lawyers are already human-rat hybrids!!!
Oh god, don't let the furries hear about this, they'll be jumnping at the chance to turn themselves into hybrid wolf/skunk/mouse/cat people!
.....frikkin' furries........
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
becomes "Of The Mouse Who Was Also A Man"
This ethical debate is ridiculous since we don't seem to mind killin' em after they're born.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"Island of Doctor Moreau" by H.G. Wells was a great book. Animal-human hybrids being created and experimented on. Good stuff.
While the rat boy mutants were likeable once you got to know them, it was a MOVIE. In real life, a hot chick would never make out with rat boy, and he'd just be a sad, lonely creature.
simpsons quote...
Homer: Lisa, my little princess. And who can forget dear ratboy.
Marge: Bart! Stop gnawing on the drywall.
I believe the reference in the news blurb is to "The Island Of Doctor Moreau" by HG Wells. :)
'He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.' - Douglas Adams
I will either have the ultimate satisfaction of
(1) finally being happy with wandering around my cube farm at work
or
(2) joining the other white lab mice on their team to program the Earth supercomputer
public void karmaWhore(String url){addSlashdotComment(fetchContent(url));}
Okay, so how far off are we from actually creating Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or something... Today, intelligent mice. Tomorrow, a giant turtle with nunchucks. The future's so bright, I got to wear shades.
So here is Bart, tied up in the attic.
Hugo: I went mad after they tore us apart, but I'll be sane... once I
sew us back together.
Bart: But you'll kill both of us.
Hugo: No, it's easy. Look, I've been practicing: I made a pigeon-rat.
[said pigeon-rat flies into a wall, falls back, and tries to
enter a mouse hole]
I think Logitech has the trademark on the Mouseman name. Too bad, could have been a lame superhero comic. ;)
Specifically me with Tyra Banks. YUM!
Curiosity killed the cat, but great big mutant lizard men with huge fangs and incredible cunning killed the genetics researcher.
But in even more exciting news, they've managed to crossbreed rats and humans, and in mass quantity! The initiative is called the Bush Administration.
Actually, the womb has a magnetic field which guide the spematozoids towards ``goal'' (The spermatozoid itself is like a magnetic dipole).
If the mechanism [for guiding spermatozoids] is different in mice (IMHO it isn't), maybe it won't work.
-- --
And rant about all the weenies who are afraid of scientific progress.
I hope they do this. AND cloning, AND every other scientific experiment that might be interesting.
There is no such thing as bad knowledge, there is ONLY accurate or inaccurate DATA. ALL knowldege is good, ALL information should be propagated to every last human being on the planet. Holding back from knowledge, or any potential knowldege out of "fear" Religon" "National Security" or any other such quasi Pandorian bullshit is -to me anyway- being a traitor to the whole human race. I hope that every self proclaimed "ethicist" will someday be seen as merely another inquisitor slowing the progress of humanity out of the dark ages.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Introducing mouse into mouse... so why are we talking about human cells in mice?
(RAISES HAND) "EXCUSE ME! GOT A QUESTION OVER HERE!"
I thought that the whole point of evolution was to move forward. Who are the Script Kiddies that are running with these ideas?
Silly me. And here we are taking all of this technology to make an known inferior species for mankind... something that they know is automatically inferior. Something that is made of human genes and also occupies status in our dumpsters and basements.
Great plan. Next stop? Parasites.
Please people. Freaking brilliant. I personally vote for nematode-human hybrids, that'll be "kewl."
...wondering how good this human/mouse hybrid will be in Quake?
There are a couple of islands where accidents due to escaped mice will be avoided because they'll be eaten by the dinosaurs.
Either way you look at it there are still some negative implications as well as positive possibilities to this research.
If you look at it from the spiritual view, you'll argue that you shouldn't mess with God's plan and his formula. All God fearing persons believe that the human body is a temple that shouldn't be messed with. This in their minds would be considered messing with the temple. Hence, the negativity to such an experiement. I can't think of any positive side to this spiritually. Probably because there isn't any.
As far as Mother Nature and Evolution, there is a reason why humans didn't evolve into Mice and vice versa if you believe in evolution. You believe in survival of the fittest, what happens if you start making other organisms more fit and strong, you start to unbalance the natural cycle of our earthly habitat. Pretty soon, as outlandish as it sounds, it not to far fetched to think that we'll have to include amendments in our constitution for civil rights for our pet dog Rover.
The benefits of this type of research aren't really spelled out, because they haven't been discovered yet. One could hope that a cure for cancer could come from this, but as many years as we have been doing animal testing we still haven't come with a simple cure for the common cold.
Nevertheless, scientists and religious leaders will always but heads on this subject for years to come.
reassign null to be the tape device - it's so much more economical on my time as I don't have to change tapes_BOFH
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think that most genetics is missing the point completeley. And lets hope they don't kill us all while we're at it. Firstly modern genetics is just hacking! I remember doing this exact kind of process on code, in my yonger years. You knock out some code and see what happens. Then knock out some more untill you get an idea of what the areas of code do. Then you try and see what you can do by substatusing areas of code. Only problem is that genetic scientists seems to be missing the fact that DNA is just data. The actual code that processess the data lives somewhere else. Inside the living cells. While loads is known about DNA, not much is known about the systems that process it. If you liken moding Quake3 to Genetics. Genetic science can change the maps, models and textures easy but they haven't even started playing with the server code. until they do they're just taking shots in the dark. They can make some changes but they don't really know the full effects of thier changes or why the work the way they do. And this is why modern genetics science really scares me. They are bringing products to market and they understand very little about how the whole system works. Never mind that they seem to think that they can solve problems in a few years that the very powerful genetic algorithm couldn't solve in millions of years. Humans are way to carried away with their own importance. --- All the opinions in this document are my not so humble opinion. I would really like to hear that I am wrong but I want good reasons ;)
Frequently when matters of genetic manipulation make the news the media and other entities make objections based upon immorality. Ex: When cloning was more prevalent in the news, there were many people who were saying how wrong cloning a human would be, the huge implications it would have, etc.
However, after listening to their arguments I was left still wondering what exactly their objections were, apart from appeals to their moral beliefs. So: Could someone please give any actual reasons for opposing cloning?
Not a troll, it's just that usually whenever there is a moral objection to something there is at least a modicum of reason to back it up, even if it can be perceived as being somewhat specious. In the case of cloning I personally have seen none, specious or otherwise.
I think I see what you're worried about. When people talk about hybrids, they imagine a 50/50 mix. And yes, a half mouse, half human creatue probably wouldn't survive, would be of questionable scientific value, and it's creation would be ethically questionable, to say the least!
However, that's not what they're talking about here. Or rather, that's not what the scientists are doing. The reporter doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, and garbled most of his facts. The technique described in the article will introduce a small amount of genetic material into the mouse. Some of the mouse's cells would then be able to produce the proteins coded for by those genes. You could, for example, have the mouse produce specific antibodies and see if that allowed it to fight off a disease. You would NOT be able to produce mice with human brains, or able to produce human sperm, or able to walk on their back legs, or any nonsense like that.
Are we men, or are we mice?!
Um, hold on, still thinking about that one.
I guess these would be required for compatibility with "die-hard" geeks who have never seen the opposite sex, except on their cables.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
"IMHO, we lost control of everything when commercialization of research took over as the motive"
Absolutely. I worked in science for about ten years (in a field that genomic/protein research has all but taken over) and watched in horror as the investment dollars took over research.
Scientists today are not asking themselves why am I doing this but how much can I get for doing this? Then come the spin doctors (PR, marketing, bean counters, etc.) who hype the science as the greatest thing for humanity ever. Egads.
Doomsday? Probably. It appears we are playing with matches next to a giant bale of very dry hay.
As Samuel L. Jackson said in Jurrasic Park (hated the movie), 'hang on to your butts'.
now if they only could change the mice to rats we would get Skavens and no, I havn't read the article :)
... with cease and desist letters...
They own all rights to any mouse-like creature with human traits.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
What's next? Human-Keyboard Hybrids! Geez!
Man will not eat man.
Are we not men?
-Dr. Moreau
.... they can create another Stuart Little movie.
Stuart Little: Look who's talking too ?
They're creating an army of Mouse-men to take over the world. An army of millions that will scurry out of rural corn fields and take over America.
Fortunately I am almost finished designing a giant trap that will prey on the one weakness they neglected to genetically correct, Sweet, sweet, cheese.
...what we should be working on
as a PhD-level biochemist/molecular biologist, i can tell you that seemingly pointless experiments such as these provide the necessary knowledge, or building blocks if you will, for us to understand the very complex process of growth and development. it's impossible to know to fix things if you don't know how they work and why they're broken.
you, the public, should know that any form of experimentation on any living thing with a backbone and a nervous system is *highly* regulated, as in many forms to fill out, a review committee, certification of the researcher following compulsory courses, etc.
it is unfortunate that the mainstream press *always* focus on the "freakish" aspect of science research, and not the "big picture". the bottom line is that in order for us to tackle the "big" issues in science and medicine, we need to experiment on living things. full stop, underline. of course i agree that there is an ethical aspect to certain areas of research that should not be neglected, but right now the ethical bar is being set way too low because of uninformed, negative spin on the part of the press.
we have been "genetically engineering" bacteria for over 20 years with no complaints nor public profile, and that research has directly and indirectly contributed immensely to various gene therapies and diagnostics, and to the mechanisms of viral and bacterial disease. the second that genetic engineering (improvement) of foodstuffs is mentioned, bang! alarm bells! when in fact, the bacterial and viral genetic engineering of the past 2 decades has posed a far greater risk of something going "wrong" or of some malevolent person engineering a super-ebola with a one week latency period (in which case we'd all be fucked big time). genetic engineering of food has the potential to solve or at least lessen the ongoing starvation of millions (while we continue to worry about whether we should upgrade to the latest video card...).
now take stem cell research. so what, stem cells. science operating the way it does, the vast majority of stem cells come from people who've died and/or aborted foetuses, not living creatures or "stem cell factories". i know, sounds icky, but stem cells are hugely important in terms of their scientific value and potential outcomes to mankind. and let's face it, once dead, a person's bone marrow is of no use to anyone else, right?
what society needs is some perspective. bush and gov can spin the ensuing iraq invasion in such a manner that many americans think it's kindof OK to *invade* a country and kill thousands of people for the sole reason that bush doesn't like their leader. if thousands of lives of living, breathing people can be wasted for oil, then why should we not make use of those passed away by natural causes to help the living? you.. your sister... your mother... your neighbour...
to be a scientist is to revere life and the process of living above all else. you should have more faith in us to do what is right. better yet, inform yourself about the issue or ask a friendly neighbourhood science pal and thrash out the real issues.
obviously, this is an issue close to my heart...
Here is the first test subject...
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
Dose this mean we need bigger mouse traps?
=If life was easy, i would be out of a job=
Google is some sort of partner with the NYT.h tml?ex=1039064400&en=5f94125da381b903&ei=5062&part ner=GOOGLE
If you link fo Google, no reg is needed.
E.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/27/science/27CELL.
M
I
C
K
E
Y
M
O
U
S
E
Seems kind of a stupid thing to worry about. We already have to deal with ethical concerns regarding creatures that are far closer to human than any conceivable mouse-human chimera, namely chimps and gorillas--or just about any primate, for that matter.
Tell me I'm not the only one that read this and thought of Splinter from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (granted he was half rat and not mouse).
So what's next, humans and turtles? Humans and rabbits? Just so long as I don't have talking brains trying to take over the world I think I'll be fine
I don't register with the NYT so I can't see if this is the Newman mouse.. though I belive this was being done so that it could be Pateneted and either:
A. Make the goverment/people so sick that they would change the patent laws (and presumably other laws) to prevent such things.
B. Gain a patent and use it to prevent others from ever doing such a thing.
Here's a link:
http://www2.canisius.edu/~gallaghr/humouse.html
I am a man, not a mouse!
...anyone remember the movie Ratboy?
Anyone else think that if an alien race tried this with the apes here on earth a little bit ago it would explain well, a *lot*?:/
...but I'm waiting for a monkey with five asses.
BlackBolt
Uh, wut? ;) Is there an english version posted somewhere?
-m
http://www.invisik.com
I sawan episode of thundar the barbarian, they were called the goundlings. half man-half mice
This page was generated by a barrel of Human-Mouse Hybrids for sawilson.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
"Nonetheless, it's amazing that it's being contemplated due to the ethical implications of such an experiment. What if it were viable? What if there were more than just a few human cells?..."
Blah, blah, who cares?! I'd just be excited to see a mouse able to use as many huge impressive science words as this genius scienceguy!
Morals have no place in science, the two mix like milk and lemon juice. Instead of John Q. Public learning the lessons of the plights of galelaio, socrates or the scopes trial, we have scientists afraid of the same sort of reprimand.
On the other hand without dancing around the argument, what is feared in the possibility of a human-mouse hybrid is that a mouse endowed in some small part with basic human genetic material may develop a human soul. An argument, which is basically religeous (read judeo christian) in nature. Well if religeon is to rule our science then we might as well save the time and take the argument straight to the Pope (or some other popular religeous figurehead, my vote is for Bob Dobbs).
The question of a soul in our human mouse hybrid is really a software issue, while the experiment is a hardware issue. But all of medical science is about dealing with hardware issues. The belief that we could endow a mouse with a human soul by introducing human stem cells, falls into the same category of garbage science as slicing Lenin's brain into fine sheets to see what made him such a good communist. Which is not much different than cutting your processor in half and looking at it through a microscope to try and determine what OS you're running.
The usefulness of the research is not what is in question here. A mouse with hardware genetically altered to inculde human elements would be far superior to your normal mouse in predicting the effects of drugs and diseases on humans.
Want an example of moral fear holding back useful scientific research, look no farther than child car safety. To make an effective crash test dummy a human cadaver is needed to run through a crash. By doing this the actual stresses on a human body can be determined and an effective system of sensors and calibrations can be made for the dummy. Unfortunately childern are not simply small adults when it comes to the forces involved in car crash, yet all we use today are smaller versions of adult dummys, greatly reducing car safety for childern. Why? because of the moral outrage at using actual child and infant cadavers in crash tests to build the dummies. Some german scientists tried to do just that in the late eighties and the ensuing moral outrage was so great that the experiments were discontinued and their lab eventually closed.
So I repeat, keep your morals out of my science
Doesn't Logitech lready have that trademarked?
8==8 Bones 8==8
I can't help but think that this type of science is dabbling a little beyond the realm of what we should be working on.
You've just described popular opinion about most branches of science on the verge of breaktrhough, including biology (genetics) and particle physics (splitting the atom), among others. If we stopped science when it was deemed "beyong the realm of what we should be working on", we'd be living in caves.
So, with a Human-Mouse Hybrid, does that mean I have a laser in my finger, or a trackball in my palm?
And where do I plug the "Universal Serial Bus"? Please don't tell me it's the same place I stick my "FireWire"...
Does that also mean that Deaf people can type without a keyboard?
My father is a blogger.
The guy who sent in the post asks: "What if it were viable? What if there were more than just a few human cells? Could it be sacrificed? ... or even experimented on further if part 'human'?"
These questions just emphasize how silly it is to justify experimenting on animals because "they are not human." Just because these mice will have some human cells, they do not become human, or even partially human. They are still mice. If it was okay to experiment on them before, then it is still okay. If adding human cells to mice makes it not okay to experiment on them, then it wasn't okay in the first place. (Note that by "okay," I mean morally acceptable, and by "experiment," I mean cut them open, kill them, electrocute them, and whatever else scientists think they have the right to do non-human animals that they don't think they have the right to do to humans).
I am not saying that experimenting on animals is wrong. I believe it is justified by the lives saved (we wouldn't have had a polio vaccine as quickly if we couldn't test it on animals, yadda yadda). But for people who try to justify animal experimentation by the reasoning that it's acceptable because animals aren't human, this "test" quite nicely points out the flaws in that distinction. How you say? Let's take a hypothetical human-mouse hyrbid organism. This organism has human cells (which, as the article puts it, obey mouse rules) dispersed throughout its body. Now, the presence of the human cells doesn't really change the mouse's phenotype. If the mouse can breed (and produce viable offsring) with other, "pure" mice, then it's still a mouse by species (and therefore, has the same genotype). Thus, it is only the presence of a few cells which makes this hybrid organism "human enough" that it would be unacceptable to experiment on it. Well, how many human cells make an organism "human enough?" What if some unscrupulous scientist merges mice stem cells with a human? Does this person become a "mouse," i.e., a non-human animal upon whom we can experiment? Does this person lose its status as human by being combined with mouse cells?
Turning back to our hybrid organism, remember that it's still the same species ("mouse"), which means that it still has DNA that is similar enough to the DNA of other members of its species to breed viable offsrping. But don't mice always have DNA that is about 90% the same as human DNA (I can't claim to have the right number here, but I recall that mammals in general have DNA that is around 90% the same)? If a mouse has a DNA structure which is 90% the same as a human's, even before human cells are added, why wasn't it already "human enough" (especially given that the addition of human cells didn't make it substantially more similar to humans)? I predict that careful ethical consideration of whether this mouse-human hybrid experiment should be done is going to require that scientists think about the questions I have asked above, and utimately force scientists (and everybody else, I hope) to make more careful decisions about the ethics of animal experimentation in general.
I think mousemen are a great idea! The hot, stuffy Mickey Mouse suit would not be needed anymore. They could just hire a mouseman!
Now if they would only cross-breed humans and gophers, we could have a real Goldy Gopher...
sudo eat my shorts
Then I'll worry about the ethical implications...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Pinky, you know what this means for you don't you?
No Brain, what does it mean for me?
You will no longer be the most inferior nincompoop talking mouse I have ever met.
Narf!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I love how everyone jumps up to say "Don't bombard us with your Christian morality, you insensitive clod". And then they get modded up. I'm not even gonna change my threshold to find out if anyone commenting on this article has any logical deduction ability whatsoever. So I will just say:
This is a bad idea.
I for one am tired of wondering whether I am eating pork when I have a tomato sandwich. Or maybe tomatoes when eating a pork roast, who knows? As for mice mixed with human genes that could be inherited to future generations... If you truly believe in evolution, then one should think that you believe that mice mixed with enough human genes, if made to be viable, would have souls/human consciousness and should be precluded from use in experiments.
Funny, I don't believe in evolution (a silly religion, to my mind), and yet I don't like the idea of animal testing, since I figure God gave animals souls, too. You know what the sick part is? Morality is not dicated by religion. It is dictated by your conscience. And if your secular humanist/atheistic conscience doesn't tell you this is wrong, then you have bigger problems than not believing in God/Gods/(insert head cheese figure here).
Vidar
He's a bouncy little fellow, 'cause he's got springs for legs!
The brains of a chicken, coupled with the claws of two eagles, may well hatch the eggs of our destruction.
While I find the article interesting, it is really nothing new. My brother was creating mice with blue, green, and brown eyes using human genes for eye colors. Others in his lab were removing genes for hair cells and replacing with human genes.
The most intersting one was to replace the genes that create the reproduction organs and splice in human DNA. They were doing the research to see if it would be possible to use human sperm to fertilize a mouse egg and make it viable. I found that one a really scary prospect.
I'm not so concerned about mice with human brains taking over the world, but the chance that you might have a native mouse virus evolving in a hybrid organism that would be able to attack humans. Not that this doesn't happen already, but a hybrid environment would make this type of thing a bit more common. With any luck, these hybrid populations will not become so established that their long-term existance would increase the chance of this happening.
That is all.
If we stopped short of splitting the atom then we would have never had the threat of total nuclear annihilation hanging over our heads. How could we ever do without that?
already achieved that goal with Mickey Mouse.
I find it amusing that someone who goes so far as to write out their punctuation, has such a difficult time consistently hitting the shift key
~Blake
Ok, yes I'm sure that by the time I viewed this article at least 20 other people have posted the same stupid comment about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle's mentor....
It still was the first thing I thought of though....
Digital != binary.
DNA is a base-4 digital message, similar to the tape in a Turing machine.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Gee, and I always thought it was due to experiments by wizards, not scientists. Damn that inaccurate Monster Manual. Maybe they'll fix this in the Fourth Edition. Or is it already fixed in d20 Modern? ;-)
-- Argel
Genetics aren't magic, they don't fling themselves at the nearest living creation --- a human would have to somehow aquire this disorder...and I don't see how the chimera effect could be obtained short of creating a chimera-human with a human embryo.
Tell me, do you try not to hang around parapalegics because you're afraid you might catch their deformity? Same idea here. The problems wouldn't be a problem with the mouses genetic structure, it would be a problem caused by having human cells injected into it when the embryo was forming.
It's been a long time.
An instance of "civilized" country has been recently letting the religious right decide what can and what can not be researched. Steem-cell and cloning studies are being banned because some religious texts were interpreted as saying that this sort of thing is "unholy". As it is, people who does not share this view of the Universe will eventually find ways to keep studying these subjects somewhere else. I don't regret it, because after carefull consideration I find the maddest scientist far saner than the saner right-wing fundamentalist.
Also, moving services and "dirty" plants to unregulated countries and the subsequent pressure (mostly economic but sometimes even military) to keep these countries unregulated is caused mainly by the major corporations of "civilized" Western countries, not by mad scientists or WTO eco-freaks. You should ask yourself who is served by a cheaper oil tanker (or a cheaper Nike produce by Vietnamese semi-slaves).
Well, maybe your timescales are a little short, there's a lot of protine folding required in designing a lifeform. I'd say 40-50 years before that can be done +10/20 years for the 'home' version. So I might see it before I die(or kill myself)
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Boys and girls, they are talking about sticking a human stem cell into a mouse embryo and seeing if the thing lives, breeds true and still carries the human cells.
Big whup.
A mouse with human cells in it is guess what? A MOUSE. A mouse brain made out of human cells is a MOUSE BRAIN. It is not Aunt Mabel, it will not ask to vote in the next election.
They already have a strain of mice that has human immune system markers. It was developed for the purpose of studying and hopefully curing AIDS, and it is working nicely. God forbid we should ever do that again, right?
Worst case scenario, Mouse A and B have "human" sperm and eggs, they mate, and the female DIES during the first trimester because a big 'ol human embryo is growing in there and the mouse is too small.
Bummer.
Ever hear of "late term abortion"? That's where they kill a live human baby right before it gets born. Disgusting practice that is done occasionaly in Canadian and American hospitals, thankfully rare, normally performed on deformed, non-viable babies that are going to die anyway, and die ugly. But not always.
Ever hear of test tube babies? That's an artificially fertilized egg that grows into a blastocyst before they implant a dozen of them in the mother. What do you think they do with the "extra" ones?
How about plain old normal abortion? That's where you remove a perfectly good human embryo and kill it on purpose because mummy was too stupid to use birth control, or occasionally because the ultrasound shows something unfortunate, like two arms, one leg and no head.
Spare me the "ethical considerations" of human stem cell research on mice.
These precious discussions are just so much bullshit compared to what goes on in hospitals and fertility clinics ever day. If you are going to have abortion and artificial fertilization and the rest of it, then whining about stem cells in mice is idiotic.
You wanna have a cure for cancer, AIDS and etc? Maybe cheap organ replacements for when your's screw up? New skin for burn victims? New drugs that work? This is what it takes. Suck it up.
Come on now, everybody say it...
To take care of the human-mouse hybrids, they'll need to create some catgirls!
Everyone loves nekojin. ^_^
"How would I go about making a half-man, half-monkey type creature?"
"I'm sorry, that would be playing God."
"God schmod, I want my monkey man!"
My life's goal is to get a score of +3!
"My God. We were so wrong."
Dr. Rick Havburt's lip trembles as the words come out during our exclusive interview.
Today is the fifth anniversary of the end of our freedom to go outdoors whenever we please. 2005 marked the release of thousands of genetically altered creatures into the wild. Contrary to scientists' claims that the animals would benefit the environment, hideous mutations occurred as the lab creations cross-bred with altered and natural wildlife.
Pre-2005, people used to joke that Monday's were so hard. Now every Monday is a federal GE Population Control Day (Gee-Pop). The chemicals used to eliminate the unwanted can kill a human being in a few seconds, but thus far the genetically engineered creatures have shown a remarkable ability to adapt to the deadliest chemicals.
Only time will tell if the creatures can be destroyed.
overall, you make some great points.
Now for a minor nitpick:
genetic engineering of food has the potential to solve or at least lessen the ongoing starvation of millions (while we continue to worry about whether we should upgrade to the latest video card...).
As an engineer, I'm always troubled when people think you can solve (or lessen) mass starvation by simply feeding the people who are starving. In parts of Africa and India there are more people than the local agriculture can support. As soon as you start bringing food in they start making babies like crazy and before long you've reached your equilibrium state again of too many people not enough food. The solution is fewer people, not more food. (Not much of a solution, admittedly)
The British tried to solve mass starvation (mass starvation is so uncivilized!) by throwing food at it in India back in (I think) the 1800's - it didn't turn out well.
to the term 'rugrat'.
The article talks about how these tests are so important, but don't really hit the key reason why this is the case. Using embryonic stem cells to create transgenic mice (i.e. mice with specifically modified genes) has been around since the 1970's. Thus, a fair bit is understood about mouse ES cells and they make a good model system for understanding how they develop. However, far less is known about human ES cells, since it is clearly unethical to do the same experiments in humans (i.e. make transgenic humans). This turns out to be a huge barrier to using human ES cells in actual therapies, because ideally you want to know how human ES cells develop in a human context. So, the next best thing is to track human ES cell development in some embryonic environment. That is why doing tests of mouse-human hybrids, while of debatable ethical status, would bring us one step closer to understanding the biology of human ES cells.
Now for some corrections/clarifications:
- Immunologically crippled mice are not necessary. The immune system learns that material in the fetus regardless of origin is self.
- Doeflinger's comment at the end is misleading. The proportion of cells in each organ that derives from host or donor is unpredictable. One cell per organ would not happen, nor would it be useful experimentally.
...do you left-click with one of these hybrids? Heck, are they two or three-button? PS/2 compatible, or just USB?
For that matter, do they have balls or are they purely optical?
(There go my karma points...)
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
The idea that there is a difference between animal experimentation and human is complete bunk. What gives us the right to perform whatever kinds of horrific experiments on animals in the hope that one day, it just MIGHT help us humans out.
I am a molecular biologist by training, but I have never once, in over a decade, heard a valid argument for why this is ethical. I could see, for instance, research on cats in the hopes of finding a cure for FLV (feline leukemia virus), but to make sure that this particular brand of mascara is only mildly toxic if injected?
The whole debate over cloning, etc. is the most MORALLY vacant debate that I have ever heard. How can it be moral to apply on set of standards to humans and a completely different set to animals?
As we combine more and more genetic information from ourselves into other lifeforms, we increase the risks of diseases (not genetic conditions) which can mutate themselves into diseases potentially harmful to humans.
Assuming the Aids/Green Monkey thing is accurate. Why is it so deadly to us, and not say seahorses? Because we are fundamentally different. Now if we start alering genetic structure of animals to more closely resemble humans, there is potential for such diseases as colds which may seem minor in felines or canines, but are devistating to us because we lack the immunities to deal with them. Should these diseases make the jump to the human body because we gave it just enough information to do it, I don't want to be the first guy to die of feline leukemia
And to answer your question, no I don't run away frightened from parapalegics, but I don't go sleeping with aids patients or drinking from friends cups when they have clod sores.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
I don't see anything wrong with it. They've been working on pig/human hybrids with human organs for a few years now for transplants. Yet all we need is for some superintelligent mouse to escape who forms a tribe which goes around chanting Muad'Dib and throwing lawsuits around becuase of books and movies misportraying mice kind... all while holding the judge hostage with fremen mouse tribes... Now, seriously... I'll be the first to jump in line when they make other human/animal hybrids... now where is my lovely little vixen? (yes... I have no morals, they get in the way of the real world)
a mouse making human sperm might accidentally be allowed to mate with a mouse that had made its eggs from human cells.
This is something that could accidentally happen.
But a diabolical evil scientist could take this a lot farther. Imagine for example humans who have mouse eggs, or who produce mouse sperm! If your wife gave birth to a litter of mice, would they legally be your children?
..which pays no US taxes, teach them all Java and ship them any remaining IT industry jobs! Think about it - this would be the best of all possible worlds - a treasonous tax break, a disturbing violation of human dignity, a possible environmental catastrophe /and/ a creator of economic insecurity for working people! Hell, the Republicans could run on this idea in 2004!
What are we waiting for?
Leo the Transgenic Lip
I can't speak for the other parts.
So the real question is, what do we get when we create human-mouse hybrids? Pinky or Brain?
You've obviously never worked with any REAL mad scientists, or a top-level math or physics dept. There are some real kooks out there. For some of them, their bizarreness is what makes 'em brilliant.
Just because America has an ass-backwards approach to medical biotechnology that the rest of the developed world refuses to share, don't you dare tar us with the 'Frankenstein' brush.
-Nano.
He is not having a
"difficult time consistently hitting the shift key".
From what we can see, he is consistently NOT hitting the shift key after a punctuation mark.
He's probably trying to boycott something.
... while I don't like Bush's take on stem cell research any more than you do, I don't believe he banned it. He just cut off federal funding. Private companies can still partake.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
There is a lot of discussion about making specific laws about steem-cell, cloning and someother things. These laws wouldn't regulate these matters, just ban them out of existence.
Bush haven't cut the funds across thr board, he just limited the funding to some 60 existing stem cell lines. The development and use of new lines cannot be funded by the Federal Government.
On the other hand, such state-of-art knowledge is rarely able to keep pace with the private companies need to please Wall Street. So this decision alone may delay results for years or even decades.
I think the real issue here, which no one seems to have raised, is that this kind of experimentation makes it clear that genetic engineering ethics exist on a gradient. By which I mean, there is no clear point at which it stops being "animal" g.e. and becomes "human" g.e. Most people would deplore the latter, even if they find the former acceptable.
What this does is force us to review our moral assumptions. If we accept that experimenting with a mouse's DNA is ethical, and that there is no "magical" distinction between mouse DNA and human DNA, then we are forced to conclude that experimenting with human DNA is ethical.
My view, which no doubt many will disagree with, is that there is no axiom of morality that can decide consistently on this issue. What we call morality is simply a social equilibrium state. If genetic engineering changes that equilibrium, so be it.
...that's made of you and me?
what ever happened to wolves and panthers and bears and falcons and sharks? you know, all the COOL animals? why would anyone ever want to be weremouse?
Thank god for your comment. I was hoping I wasn't the only one whose first instinct was to assume the 'mouse' in the story was talking about a computer input device.
:O
Yeah, so I'm a big dork that just likes to kick ass at FPS games.
-Bullseye
You're not by any chance one of those scientists who turned himself into a half man/half mouse after your research approval was turned down are you? Tsk. Happens all too often these days.
Stem-cells stem-cells stem-cells Thank You
So this is just an extension of the same kind of thing and people are pissy about it but the bottom line is, if you want to cure the diseases we have left (we've cracked all the easy nuts) you have to do some harder(more difficult) research. You can raise all kinds of stupid "ethical" questions, which is (as others have pointed out) driven by the religious right. "Stem cells are part of babies and those babies are sacred to Jesus so you can't fuck with them." What kind of hoo-hah is that? Do you really think that Jesus cares what you do with some dead babies, barring some ritual to diminish the glory of god? If you're religious then science is a testament to the glory of god, and the creation which he has produced. If you aren't then nothing you do is any kind of commentary on jesus anyway.
The bottom line is, we have controls on science (and by extension, scientists) because we need them. At the same time, we have scientists because we need them, too. Without research we don't get cheaper and faster hard drives, and I need more room for pr0n.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In America, you have rights simply because you are a human being; The color of your skin, or how old or young you are, or how smart or dumb you are, or whether you can walk, or who your parents are, shouldn't matter. Being born out-of-wedlock to a teenage mother doesn't (or shouldn't) doom you to a life of poverty and minimum-wage jobs, and being born to rich parents is no guarantee of being a success yourself.
We take pride in protecting the rights of the weak, and we should -- both the weak in numbers, and the weak compared to the rest of us. We have laws against discrimination of minorities, and we have laws requiring things for those with disabilities.
So why would we chose not to protect the weakest among us? Why should we be allowed to perform experiments on a human being just because he can't talk yet, or doesn't look like one yet? Why should a human being be denied a chance at living a full life, simply because her parents find her inconvenient?
It's arbitrarily dening a certain class of human beings their rights so they can be exploited by others -- completely against the principles of democracy our country is based on.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
The greatest treatment breakthroughs of the last 30 years have all been made using host cells as test beds - heck, all of the medical treatments that are based on real science have arisen from this type of research. The social implications of full-fledged hybrids certainly need to be addressed, but these new experiments are likely to prove pivotal to biomedical research.
If you're taking a stand against hybridization, then you need to take a stand against all hybridization. If you're against these techniques, then you need to be against every bit of real bio-science that has ever happened, is happening, and is about to happen. You need to personally refuse any treatment in which recombinant techniques have been used in research. If you're going to make a stand against this science (and science as a whole), you need to understand the repercussions. You need to know that you stand against the research that has yielded methods to repair paralyzing nervous system damage. You need to know that you stand against the research that saved your father when he had his heart attack.
Personally I'm grateful that we no longer use medival medical techinques and that we have a decent understanding of what it takes to keep us alive. I think if you're not eager to see people live, and live disease-free and happy, then you're the oddity.
sorry sorry sorry You are Welcome (just a little less than a spellchecker would be)
We recently saw this when an oil tanker collapsed just off the coast of Spain. The tanker was registerd in Bermuda (or somewhere around there). Thus it was sheaper taxwise, less regulated working-environment and safety wise and could therefore go to sea without being sea worthy.
Actually, that tanker - the Prestige - was flying the Bahamas flag, but was last inspected and declared seaworthy by The American Bureau of Shipping - a US organisation.
while I don't like Bush's take on stem cell research any more than you do, I don't believe he banned it. He just cut off federal funding. Private companies can still partake
That's.. sort of right, and sort of wrong.
Bush didn't ban stem cell research - he banned the creation of new lines of stem cells for research. Thus, all research must proceed from existing lines. There are only a couple dozen in existence, and worries that only a handful of those are viable.
In other words, he didn't stop stem cell research, but it certainly made it more difficult and expensive for everyone.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
I know you have all the cultural justification you want to think how you do, but you are wrong.
Scientists who do this kind of work are doing humans and the living community no favor whatsoever. Evolution produces only things that work because it has the patience and method to sift through options as numerous as all the organisms that have lived.
We are reckless, and expect to outdo this process in an infinitessimal amount of time.
If people are starving, you want to feed them. However, you should know that when a population is fed, it grows, and then you'll have to feed more.
The most compassionate thing you (scientists) can do for the human race (and all of the living kingdom, for that matter) is to stop fucking with the laws that brought you here.
You say:
to be a scientist is to revere life and the process of living above all else. you should have more faith in us to do what is right. better yet, inform yourself about the issue or ask a friendly neighbourhood science pal and thrash out the real issues.
Your friendly neighborhood science pal is operating under the cultural assumption that he is the arbiter of evolution, as are you. If you really want to use your intellect for the benefit of humanity, you should use it according to the very laws that allowed your intellect to come about in the first place.
In other words, inform yourself about the real processes going on here... and quit trying to change things you shouldn't.
Dismantle globally, renew locally.
I just plain think it is inhumane. I can't help think that in some distant future (or even distant past) that some other being was going "Hmmm, should we merge Atlantean stem cells with this monkey's bio-catalyst??" "Yeah, sure, what'll it hurt??"
Personally, I think we wouldn't even need to consider this if we just allowed human experimentation. Oh, wait, that's wrong....
~Hammy
If you want to equate "pro-Life" with "American" and you feel your fellow Americans will agree with you, it is all right with me. And I believe you know that after repeating this for some time, it will be pretty easy, by associating "American" with "Patriot", to associate "Pro-Life" with "Patriot". From there it is ridiculously easy to equate "Abortion" with "un-Patriot" or "Traitor" and you already have the laws to deal with it in place.
Just be careful to keep your problems inside your borders. Just don't send armies of missionaries around the world to inform us ignorant savages about how your God will send all abortitionists to ethernal fire. Because as much as you would like to pretend it is not a religious problem, but some sort of "human rights" problems, your rethoric can deceive just so much. Equating "American" with "Human Rights Defender" will surely get you a lot of good laughs in the civilised parts of the world - little more. (or, to be fancy, we still remember, we who dwell, in this far lands beneath the trees, the flashlight of American guns...)
So why would we chose not to protect the weakest among us? Why should we be allowed to perform experiments on a human being just because he can't talk yet, or doesn't look like one yet? Why should a human being be denied a chance at living a full life, simply because her parents find her inconvenient?
You make it sound like someone's experimenting on babies. No one's experimenting on humans who can't talk yet; they're experimenting on humans who will never talk, because they are dead. I strongly support research on the dead; without it, most freshman doctors would have to try to find your appendix from a chart. Failure rates would skyrocket.
Your secondary question is:
Why should a human being be denied a chance at living a full life, simply because her parents find her inconvenient?
The short answer is that (s)he should not be denied that chance. But there are, of course, dozens of other reasons for abortion. For example, women with reproductive problems may be faced with a terrible choice: abort the baby, or die in childbirth. Who are you to make that choice for her?
And there are dozens of grey areas - what about a woman raped by a man whose family has a history of cystic fibrosis? Are you going to tell her it's her moral duty to watch the child of her rapist grow to his teenage years, only to choke to death on his own liquefied lungs? Maybe that's the choice you'd make, but it's not a choice I can accept being imposed on someone else.
Although abortion shouldn't be used casually, as an alternate to birth control, there are situations where it is absolutely necessary. Life isn't so black-and-white as you're trying to make it out to be. And when a pregnancy is tragically required to be aborted, why waste the stem cells from that fetus? In my mind, that's a far greater waste of life than simply throwing the fetus in a container of biohazardous waste and shipping it somewhere to be incinerated.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
I can't believe no-one's posted this yet: "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberry."
Bush's extremely restrictive funding guidelines not only had the practicle effect of stopping the research in the US, but also sent a strong message to investors: the Religious Right has the power to severely restrict this technology, despite the claims of scientists that it might lead to cures for some of the biggest killers of humankind.
In such a climate, very little venture funding is being released, after all it's one thing to bet whether a new technology will work out or not, it's quite another thing to bet whether you will lose your money because Falwell decides your technology is immoral...
and Americans aren't microscopic.
Stem cells come from blastocysts, collections of generic human cells that have not even begun to differentiate. There are thousands of such balls of cells left over from the attempts of couples to have children via in vitro fertilization.
Stem cell researchers think they could use cells from these excess IVF embryos to save human beings from heart disease, paralysis, diabetes, etc.
Or we can listen to folks who claim these balls of cells should have the rights of citizens, and...dump them out?
Seems like the real way to "protect the weak" would be to protect sick and dying Americans from the fantasy that a frozen ball of generic cells is a human being.
No! We are DeVO!!!
I thought this was a joke post, but it appears with all the serious responses I was incorrect.
"you should have more faith in us to do what is right"
Are you kidding? The Nazi's said the same line.
"to be a scientist is to revere life and the process of living above all else"
What? Look, I love the process of science, but you are either stunningly naive or deliberately misleading yourself. At it's most idealistic centre, Science is about analysis and discovery, but there's nothing in it's history that indicates any reverence *or* despising of life. Scientists are *people*. Thus, they are selfish, caring, power-hungry, giving, naive, racist, stupid...you name it. Any of these and more could apply. In addition to all the obviously wonderful things it has brought us, there's also:
Nuclear weapons
Agent Orange
Thalidomide kids
Nazi experiments at the death camps
Diet pill addicts
Eugenics
All the armamants more complicated than a stick or rock
All of the above were created with "all the best intentions."
I agree with you that articles like this always make them as sensational and outrageous as possible, but to suggest that "we" are supposed to trust "you" is as arrogant as it is naive. There are a large number of scientists that strongly disagree with this type of research.
For the record, I'm an atheist, and someone that has been fascinated and in love with the scientific process since I was a child. This isn't an anti-science rant, it's a humanist response to what is a stunningly uneducated comment, IMHO. I'm not talking about education as in your degree, which you seem to feel the need to mention, but in common sense education.
Strive to rise above your ignorance. Don't be like Oppenheimer and recognize it too late.
DT
Hey! The coming out of the caves part wasn't our fault! Prometheus gave us fire all on his own, so he started it all! It's his fault! :)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
That being said, I have a few things in response: The human stem cells and clones they're doing research on are not dead (or were not dead before some other human's interference) otherwise they'd be rather useless. It's one thing to take the kidney from someone who died in an auto accident; it's another thing to shoot someone and then take his kidney ("He was dead already...").
I have nothing wrong against doing things with dead bodies, or organ donation if there's a good purpose, and if there's no chance of demand for dead bodies causing more dead bodies to show up. Paying women for aborted fetuses, for instance, could easily lead to a situation where women becoming pregnant for the express purpose of having an abortion, so they can sell the fetus.
As far as abortion-on-demand, I admit the situations you describe are tough, and I'm willing to discuss them. But how many abortions are really from situations like this? (And would doctors really use stem cells from an embryonic human that had cystic fibrosis?) The vast number of abortions are essentially an alternate (or supplement) to birth control; and the law of the land in the US, at least, is that you have absolutely no rights until you pass completely through a birth canal (natural or c-section); you're merely a hunk of flesh, at the mercy of your mother's whims. That, I hope you agree, needs to change.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Imagine the moral implication of this experiment will create... I don't want to see any mouse man frolicing about on Earth.. All I have to say is Eww! Not ANOTHER Stewart Little!!!
Please direct all bug reports to
An instance of "civilized" country has been recently letting the religious right decide what can and what can not be researched. Steem-cell and cloning studies are being banned because some religious texts were interpreted as saying that this sort of thing is "unholy".
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
So your argument is: "We have been dabbling in areas we don't understand for a long, long time. Nothing bad has happened yet, heck, most of you aren't aware of the really troubling things we're doing. Don't get caught up in this moral miasma."
/. idols. Einstein was just doing science right?? Now we have Nuclear (GWB spelling) proliferation, and the sins of Nagasaki to remember. Indeed, most "science" is put to military use long before the general populous sees the benefits.
Why do we need to engineer mice to have human cells for experimentation?? Because human life is too precious?? What about Mouse life??
I am just tired of this idiot mentality that Human life takes some sort of precedence. This is the same mentality that led to Blacks and Indians not being considered "human". As long as they weren't "human" anything was OK. I'm not stealing a Human's land, I'm taking the land from these red animals that are everywhere.
Indeed, this is only even debatable because we have now added 1,000 human cells to that mouse. Is he now human enough that we should feel bad about killing him?? Is 0.01% human too human to experiment on?? I guess not, 3/5ths of a man can still be a slave.
And finally, the idea that we should have faith in scientists to do what is right... HaHaHa.... Please.... Don't insult us. I could point out the big villans of history, Your Mengeles, Dr. Burt, etc... But instead, I would like to point to one of the
In fact, science is what leads these chicken hawks on Capitol hill to think we can go to war around the globe without hitting too hard on the home front. "Look, none of our guys get killed in this.... We have technology." Our (correct) belief that we have this huge edge in science both encourages our leaders to wage war, but conditions our population to accept it. I cannot help but wonder if we had lost 300,000 troops in Desert Storm, would we be as eager for the latest attack on Iraq?? (Note: 300,000 is the number of kurds that died in Desert Storm fighting for our side.)
Now, for the quotes:
"genetic engineering of food has the potential to solve or at least lessen the ongoing starvation of millions (while we continue to worry about whether we should upgrade to the latest video card...)." - Meanwhile, Farm Subsidies continue. We pay farmers not to grow too much food. Genetically engineered food is the answer?? No, genetic research on agricultural products has had a devastating effect on every farmer except the big corporate farms. Now, every strain of corn is copyright Monsanto, you can't plant anything without paying to a large American corporation. Read the recent stories on Golden Rice.
"to be a scientist is to revere life and the process of living above all else." - Unless that life is a mouse, rabbit, or other inferior species. I do note that in your entire post you don't mention the mice. You probably think I'm some soft-skulled liberal for even thinking of them. It would never occur to you that that mouse is as alive as you. No, you and most others are worried about the stem cells, a dead lump of human.
You want some subjects for experimentation?? Pull a Dr. Jekyl and use yourself.
~Hammy
Actually, that tanker - the Prestige - was flying the Bahamas flag, but was last inspected and declared seaworthy by The American Bureau of Shipping - a US organisation.
We should note that The American Bureau of Shipping, is a private, not a governmental, body.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
A call was immediately received from one William Gates, who was extremely interested to know if the mice would be able to program.
Actually, he only put restrictions on *fetal* stem cells, and I believe that ultimately, viable fetuses (fetii?)would effectively bought and sold, which I find to be surpassing repugnant. Other sources of stem cells, of which there are several, seem to be getting little press. Obviously a lack of controversy, nothing to see here folks, move along.
I disagree that this is a religious issue. I can tell you right now that I don't have a religious bone in my body - however, what I can tell you is that there are people out there with no scruples.
The unfortunate thing with any technology (including cloning and stem cell research) is that people will pervert and corrupt this technology, guaranteed. I can understand fear and opposition to the possibilities of a large multi-national or a doctor looking for a name for herself.
However, having said that, I know full well that anything banned completely loses government control and will still exist underground. Although I am personally very worried about the consequences of cloning, I do believe better the devil you know (think prohibition during world war II).
Lastly, even though I am not religious, I think the fact that you can't see past religion and understand that people may be concerned with change because of the dark side of human nature is disappointing. Religion like anything has good and bad, just like cloning.
End of story.
Your friendly neighbourhood AC
Sequel: The Secret of Li-Ion?
Prequels: The Secret of Lead-Acid and The Secret of NiCd?
uh, do you own a car?
Are you one of those people who have agreed that it is morally acceptable to condemn a certain percentage of the population to death or suffering because it would be inconvenient for you to take the bus or ride a bike?
You wouldn't happen to be a hypocrite, would you?
What kind of car is it, by the way -- a fuel-efficient compact, or an SUV with 20 times the probability of causing a fatality in an accident?
FWIW, I don't own a car and haven't for many years. But I believe that any woman who wants to can abort the growth growing in her belly, for whatever reason seems right to her. If there is a universal force for good, and if it is in any way logical or objective, I would imagine it would see my values and your values more or less balancing out. I think it's ok to throw away fetuses, you think it's ok to throw away grown up humans so you don't have to take the bus.
The animals are already asking us to stop, but they cannot speak human languages due to lack of appropiate vocal apparatus. Consider it a handicap and listen in their language (or provide a proper interpreter as required for any issue involving another's rights).
I'm a fairly big fan of Asimov, and hadn't heard that quote. Assuming it is correct, he just lost a good measure of that respect. This is not an example of expansive thinking, but of flippant justification for abhorrent practices.
FTR, I am not against all animal research, but I feel strongly that it should be as restricted and as humane as possible. Find alternatives and use human subjects whenver possible (we are the beneficiaries, after all).
I can't define "should" here, but I am also bothered about the potential long-term problems. (This one sounds like it's more the creation of mixed human-mouse animals than about the stabilization of animals with mixed DNA. I.e., the mixture is happening at the cell level rather than at the genetic level. So the only current problem is the easing of infectious diseases learning to move from one host to another.)
But in particular, I am bothered about organisms that are, say, 60% mouse, 40% human (figures choosen at random) which turn out to be intelligent. People have a bad history about how they treat those they call "subhuman", and this would be an entity that *might* rightfully be called that. Particularly since the design could be fine tuned until that was the actual result.
Actually, I don't think a mouse is the best starting point here. A dog would be better. They've already been bred to accept humans as dominant members of their pack. But a mouse is a better place to start (but don't miss other stories on, e.g., pig/human blends).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Someone was referring to right-wing nuts... where do you classify THIS??!? I don't even know...
Sir/Madam/Dirty Hippy, please get hit by a car.
Or if you prefer, choke on your soy.
... you, and hardly anyone else who has posted, has any idea what you're talking about. And this kind of mis-information is no better than when Microsoft spreads FUD about linux.
He's probably trying to boycott something.
;-)
yeah, capitalism.
actually, the scientists/doctors that experimented on jews during the war were under duress by hitler's government to the tune of "you will be shot unless..."
agent orange was a derivative of a class of chemicals used for pest control. a *government* decided to use it for military reasons.
the lack of proper human trials could have avoided the repercussions of thalidomide.
diet pill addicts? huh? that's a social problem of personal image and the fast-food lifestyle.
idealist perhaps... but what is wrong with idealism? the willingness of people to expouse uneducated opinion as pseudo-fact (about 90% of
these days, the engendering of public support to do anything (invade country for oil) needs an ad campaign (president bush) backed by a legion of spin doctors (mainstream US press).
not as many as you may think, and from experience, they are almost always pushing some religious agenda.
For the record, I'm an atheist, and someone that has been fascinated and in love with the scientific process since I was a child. This isn't an anti-science rant, it's a humanist response to what is a stunningly uneducated comment, IMHO. I'm not talking about education as in your degree, which you seem to feel the need to mention, but in common sense education.
you should sign up for a part-time science degree!
you didn't pick up on the liberal use of cynicism?? i know how the damn system works, and it shits me that the same level of public rigour doesn't apply to issues that are far less encumbered by layers of scientific complexity.
the problem with our cathode-ray-fed society is that most people are either stupid or lazy and don't care about anything until it affects them.
Die, leftist shit fucker!
Thanks for clearing that up.
We've got to watch those "significant liberties"...
What about Mouse life??
i agree with you... but it is society at large that decides that the lives of mice may be forfeited for the betterment of the human condition and of life in general. but i understand your sentiments and can say that a strong focus of science research these days is moving away from animal models to animal cell lines (where possible). we just aren't ready *yet* to move away entirely... i will rejoice the day that we can do detailed simulations on some beowulf cluster, though i fear that day is decades away.
i heartily agree with you that humans are far too selfish about their humanity and the divine rights that humanity seems to bestow upon itself.
i'm quite sure that humans are going to fuck up this planet, simply because we are *so* greedy and just don't know when to quit.
i know all about monsanto and their GM seed crops that don't reproduce past 1 generation. the fact they were allowed to get away with that is your *government's* fault. science conducted behind close doors for purely economic gain is where the capitalist system breaks down the worst IMHO.
all science knowledge should be public, and unpatentable, forever.
as for experimenting upon ourselves, we do! usually only for demo type purposes though... the human genome published by celera was from their CSO, craig venter.
cheers, matt
You're not by any chance one of those scientists who turned himself into a half man/half mouse after your research approval was turned down are you? Tsk.
they don't just call me "the horse" because i like being taken out and ridden hard...
Mouse life isn't precious because it isn't human. That is my opinion, and I don't mind if you disagree - just don't try to force your opinion on others.
Well, yes science did give us the atom bomb. But that same science also lead to PET scans, etc... which have saved many lives. Science is a double edge sword. It is important to work towards having government that won't abuse the fruits of science. We'd all still be grunting in caves, too scared to even start a fire (it might burn someone, the horror!) if everyone was as scared of progress as you are.
The problems with golden rice etc... are NOT science problems, but government problems. It is the government that allows patents on foods, and big business that takes advatange of this.
Anarchists never rule
If a mouse can be part human, maybe humans aren't so special after all. And then if a god can be part human, maybe I should stop there.
Wasn't this the thing mentioned on /. a while ago about some scientists attacking the patent process by using it against itself, by trying to patent an idea with was so hideous that if it got a patent, people would question why it got one. If it failed to get one, it would show that there is a limit to patents on gentic research. All in all a win-win situation.
My ex-wife, her chest size truely indicates mouse dna was applied to human dna. We are just hearing about this now?
What I find troubling is that, after centuries of civilization's great thinkers trying tirelessly to build a better mousetrap, now some damned idiots decide that it would be really cool to build a better mouse. This does not sound like a good idea to me. Maybe we should let the mice concern themselves with their own improvement, while WE keep working on those traps.
"as a PhD-level biochemist/molecular biologist,..." Hmm. Interesting post, but I found it absolutely fascinating that, with your obvious education, you only saw fit to capitalize the P, D, O, and K. Please enlighten my ignorant ass: what's up with that?
I thought the real point was, given the advances in our understanding of biology, nanotech and computer sciences, if we should build a better human (and let those concerned build better humantraps). A starting point would be deciding if we still are a part of Nature or if we have somehow risen above it. I favour the former and think that anything we do about enhancing the species is a natural part of Evolution (and if we mess up, it is also a natural part of Evolution, namely extinction). But I am well aware that some (or even most) people tend for the later, and think the humans are not (or never were) an integral part of Nature.
I believe my previous comment was too narow, and may have given the impression I am only seeing the subject as a religion against science problem. Not so. I am also concerned about the whole host of ethical problems stem cell and cloning must address. But as you, I also think that banning something is the fast way to lose any control on what you ban. It is true for drugs nowadays, for instance.
In my defense I would point that I was answering more specifically to a poster who "regreted" that the "civilized world" bans could be circunvented.
given your background, you should know about how these efforts in the 1970's initially resulted in emergency meetings in Asilomar, CA and the all famous RAC (recombinant advisory committee) to come up with regulations and guidelines before moving forward. as the ny times article indicates, a major proponent in the current to test human ES cells in a chimeric mouse is irving weissman. this guy has a company in this area of research and obviously stands to benefit by guidelines that allow them the most latitude. he's looking for cover from the national acaemy of sciences to do so. being actually closer to the process than you might realize (and a cross-country colleague of irv's ... and don't get me wrong, this guy is a terrific immunologist and stem cell researcher), i think it wise to get scientists on the panel that don't have financial entanglements in the area as well as get advisement from the public before quickly moving forward. this will most likely be the way we proceed, but as scientists our obligation is not only to pushing the curve of scientific knowledge, but ensuring we also have the public's best interest at heart. not only do we not want to alienate that public, but in general, the public has been for many years our biggest benefactors and supporters and put a great deal of trust in us. this trust is to be continually earned and not lightly dismissed. i'm sure you feel the same, but your post might be misinterpreted by others. in light of what has recently happened in the area of gene therapy (death of the kid in philly causing a re-evaluation of whether we moved to fast in permitting such a study), moving cautiously in this area with debate is a good thing. anyway, i hope we are in agreement. have a nice thanksgiving.
In my definition fetuses in early development are not humans.
I like Carl Sagan's definition, paraphrasing (most probably inexactly) form his book "Dragons of Eden" a human becomes one once the brain has developped all the anatomic parts of a fully grown individual, before that there is no posibility of human conciousness and thus the embryo should not have the same rights accorded to the rest of us.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Cloned humans would have the same rights as anybody else, they are people, not monsters or animals, the only difference would be the way they are conceived.
Of course they would have the right to vote. Tell me which law forbids cloned people to do so.
Their organs can't be harvested, or to put it more exactly, the legislation that applies to everybody today would apply to them as well. To be born a clone does not deprive you of your individuality (yes, as contradictory as this sounds)and human rights from a legal point of view.
Do we kill people deformed or, as you say, "retarded" today? No. Where is your logic to think anybody in his right mind would even try?
There are many questions, but I am afraid you are making the wrong ones.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
PhD == Doctor of Philosophy, the traditional title for high-level studies in any field.
;-)
the 'O' and the 'K'?
re: capitals... well, i guess you could say that i prefer lower-case for non-formal writing... it's easier and faster to type (no SHIFT key all the time), and IMHO looks better.
i could be a SA and say that i think capitalism is fundamentally wrong, but i wn't say that.
cheers, matt
This was reported back in May as an experiment to try to define the actual limits that patent office would establish on genetic patents. See this story:
h _s cience/3346268.htm
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/healt
Quote from the article:
Nearly 10 years ago, a friend called Stuart Newman with an intriguing challenge: Could he think up a new form of life that would be scientifically useful and possible to patent - yet so disturbing that the public would recoil?
And so Newman, a New York medical school professor, proposed a "humouse" - a part-human, part-mouse creature that could be made using existing lab techniques and would help companies test for the toxic effects of new drugs. He even typed up a fake news release claiming a trademark for the "humouse" name.
Today, Newman's proposal is far more than a whimsical exercise. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is in the final stages of deciding whether he can patent his idea. Win or lose, the result could be exactly what the humouse was designed to accomplish: prodding Congress and the courts to place new limits on manipulating and patenting human life.
For the patent office, the humouse raises awkward issues. For 22 years, it has granted patents on a wide array of living organisms and elements of life. Human genes have been patented. So have human cells. Patents have gone to animals with bits of human DNA, creatures that scientists use to study cancer and other diseases.
But the patent office has drawn a line at claims on human embryos and humans themselves, saying that Congress, which writes the patent laws, has excluded them from the range of things that can be patented. While Congress has never spoken directly on the subject, the patent office says it infers the ban on these patents from such doctrines as the 13th Amendment prohibition on slavery.
Leukemia is cancer, faulty, uncontrollable replication of bodys own cells. It's not caused by bacteria or virus, and thus obviously you can't get one from a cat.
If you had to pick up an example disease, you took one that couldn't even in theory work the way you describe? Good way to convince the plausability of the theory to others...
Some animal diseases can affect humans, yes, but that does not require any hybrid hosts for intermediate stages. Common influenza, for example sometimes hops into men from pigs or birds.
Thank goodness, someone with a brain ;) I don't know that I believe we evolved from monkey's, I don't really care what we were before (except as an excercise to map our progression and where we are going) surely few can deny how blatant our evolution is now, though it is mostly in the mind, and it's progressing at an extremely rapid rate. It's not our muscles that are changing so much, it's the power or our minds or more specifically the utilization of that power that is now inherent from birth. In modern times most of the brillant scientists of yesterday would hardly be considered any more brillant than your average tinkerer today. Or should I say teenage tinkerer. It's not just the availability of knowledge, schools are hardly better. Hell schools here are decades behind the streets outside the building. You walk in the building and see a large number of indivuals you could swear just walked out of a dobbie gillis episode. However the average 15yr old has a higher IQ level than a 15yr old did 50yrs ago. He has a higher awareness of what is going on around him, and yes he is more likely to challenge and rebell against established ideas, this too is a sign of intelligence, not low moral values (which also tend to be discarded by intelligent individuals when they cannot find a legitimate basis).
If you spent a little less time choking on the cock in your mouth you might have been able to solve some of the issues you refer to in your post. You make me sick.
I think people should have a vote, but I also think that only scientists should have a vote. And ethics should not enter the equation. Ethics are make believe. Logic should be the only factor. Will this wipe out the human race? Should it? Will the result be something that is more advanced than the human race and thus outdates it? Will it take over before we have a chance to work the bugs out. Will it work it's own bugs out better than us current humans can do so? These are the questions that should be asked, not "Sally do you think that this is bad because of some made up belief based on principles developed when fighting our instincts, or fears that stem from instincts of self preservation?"
better than a moron whacking off thinking about auto-gagging scientists. what the hell is your contribution? big smart slashdot poster but loser in every other regard. scientist wanna be? spare me your fricking degree. when all's said and done, those people inducing your gag or cum reflex will have a lot more to show and have accomplished than a whiny loser such as youself.
Uhm, feline leukemia is fairly contagious among cats. From the Cornell Vetrinary Medicine web site:
The feline leukemia virus is excreted in saliva and tears and possibly the urine and feces of infected cats. Prolonged, extensive cat-to-cat contact is required for efficient spread, because the virus is rapidly inactivated by warmth and drying.
So a virus which infects cats and only cats, was not a good choice? Sounds like you need to go take a High School Biology course.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
...the scientists/doctors that experimented on jews during the war were under duress by hitler's government to the tune of "you will be shot unless..."
Not at all true in most cases, irrelevant in others. There were many respected scientists that supported and even contributed to the research done to mental "defects", political prisoners and Jews in the concentration camps from the early 30's to the end of the war. Read your history.
agent orange was a derivative of a class of chemicals used for pest control.
Irrelevant, but *surely* you get my point? It was picked out of thin air as an example. Ever hear of Mustard Gas? "Nerve" Gas research(which currently has the most research on it being done in the US).
the lack of proper human trials could have avoided the repercussions of thalidomide
So? Does that change the overall irresponsibilities of the researchers involved?
diet pill addicts? huh? that's a social problem...
Thank you for making my point. So scientists have a love of live, huh? "That's not my table"
idealist perhaps... but what is wrong with idealism?
This is semantics. There can be *plenty* wrong with idealism. Idealism has been used by fanatics as excuses to kill people. There are obviously kind, caring people that are idealists, fine - but your suggestion that "we" are supposed to trust "you" based on this is simply uneducated.
There are a large number of scientists that strongly disagree with this type of research...
not as many as you may think, and from experience, they are almost always pushing some religious agenda.
I don't know where you live, buddy, but I know of a *lot* of scientists that oppose much of current genetic research - irrespective of religious views. Bunching anti-nuke or anti-genetic scientists in with wacko fringe movements is a typical tool of people in power trying to hold onto it.
you should sign up for a part-time science degree!
I like my current job, thank you, but that doesn't stop me from having valid opinions about scientific issues.
you didn't pick up on the liberal use of cynicism?? i know how the damn system works, and it shits me that the same level of public rigour doesn't apply to issues that are far less encumbered by layers of scientific complexity.
Not particularly surprising, given the average schmoe 300 years ago never travelled farther than the stream that ran past their village. What do you expect, everyone out there to hold degrees in every conceivable area of study, and peruse all the news, every day, in order to make a valid comment? You might want to cut those "stupid and lazy" people a little slack and understand that they're assaulted with images day in and day out, in the US mostly from bogus news orgs like CNN. I've seen my share of trailer park types that don't deserve, or get, a lot of respect, but I've also seen a lot of hard working, honest people who just need to get food on the table, and when they're told by a chemical company that their water supply will be safe, they've trusted them and suffered the results...
DT
What, you mean old age?
Researchers are working on cures for heart disease, alzheimers, and cancer using stem cell techniques, which therapeutic cloning is an important component of, yes.
you mean starvation and malnutrition, right
There is more than enough food for everyone on the planet, the problem is a political one of distribution, not a technological one of production.
And if we didn't, well, either we'd have to stop having kids or this planet is going to get VERY crowded and very dead.
There is plenty of room for trillions of people in the solar system, there is no reason to turn away from longer & healthier lives to save space.
Actually, it's a bit greyer than you imagine. One side effect of in-vitro fertilization is that there are generally a number of potentially viable embryos left over (frozen) after a successful birth. The only options are: attempt to have a HUGE family, destroy them, or keep them frozen forever. Currently in the U.S., the third option seems to be in force, though I fail to see how that can continue.
It seems that option 1 is not likely to solve the problem. We are left with destroying them. Would it be truly best to just incinerate them to the benefit of none, or to hopefully solve medical problems that have plagued mankind since before history?
I do not suggest that research should proceed without restraint. I do suggest that it would be better to have it done in the light of day where reasonable restraints can be applied. In cases where society doesn't know what to think, perhaps a bit more information (from research) would help.
I think that before condemning stem cell and cloning research, society should be required to better define what constitutes human life.
omfg mice lolmao roflmaoa12-834ua[ewrq[p4ip1[234v3'45;wefg;wg;