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)
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)
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 ...
Lets hear it for blastocysts!!
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
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
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?
When I read the headline I imagined someones arm tapering off into a abomination of electronics for the sole purpose of manipulation GUIs.
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
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!
Don Bluth is so pround now.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
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...
Just compile Human Interface Device support as a module.
Signatures are for stupids.
He's saying that the flux capacitor needs a laser to
make super mice that can talk without using a throat
box computer diode space modulator.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
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
As far as I can figure, that was the long, technical way of saying that once they get past the basic genetic hurdles of creating hybrid, such as finding a genetic match that won't just break down immediately, they still have to get past the fact that the mouse's immune system will try to reject the new cells. The easiest way around that would be to pretty much destroy its immune system, but as millions of AIDS patients can attest, that's not exactly a good idea for your prolonged health.
So we will have human pointer devices soon ? I wonder if they will be optical and/or cordless....
beauty is only a light switch away
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?
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?
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..."
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
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
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.
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...
I, for one, welcome our new human-mouse hybrid overlords.
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!
Lawyers are already human-rat hybrids!!!
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.
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
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.
Specifically me with Tyra Banks. YUM!
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."
...wondering how good this human/mouse hybrid will be in Quake?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh, so you want to make superior beings that will consider you inferior and though you share some of the same genes only let you occupy status in their dumpsters and basements?
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 thought that the whole point of evolution was to move forward.
Certainly not. The point of evolution is to ensure the propagation of the system. If the only route to that end is to reduce complexity, thats what will happen.
Another way to look at it is to consider that evolution is simply the mutations that happened to survive. Life is what happens to self replicating systems that don't terminate.
"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'.
Man will not eat man.
Are we not men?
-Dr. Moreau
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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'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?
It says:
Dipliod organisms (like all mammals including both humans and mice) have two sets of chromosomes and thus two copies of chromosome 1, two copies of chromosome 2, etc. Therefore if a particular mutation or altered gene is on, for example chromosome 3, then a mouse could have two copies of a normal chromosome (called a wild-type mouse), one normal and one altered chromosome (heterozygous), or two copies of the chromosome with the mutation (homozygous). Sometimes an animal homozygous for a certain mutation cannot survive to birth -- such a mutation is called "homozygous lethal." If the mutation is not homozygous lethal, and does not cause sterility, then one could raise a colony of mice that all have this particular mutation through selective breeding. The mice can then be examined to determine the phenotype -- or physical charactersitcs -- cause by the mutation.
and now the second sentence:
Whoever does this will have to use mice with no immune system othewise the mouse's immune system will recognise the embryonic stem cells that are introduced by the scientists as being forign and attack them. This is the same mechanism used by the body to fight off disease. (Translator's Comment: I dont think that is actualy true)
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. ^_^
"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.
...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
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!
... 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.
"The solution is fewer people, not more food. (Not much of a solution, admittedly)"
You're right, its not much of a solution. The real solution is education. Knowledge is power, give them the power and get them to help the world help them.
All Your Memory Are Belong To Java
The reason africa is starving is not because they're poor, you racist twit. Its because the guys with guns (occasionally called "government") locked it up to control the people. A couple of dictators have locked down about 90 percent of American humanitarian aide as dangerous because of GM. Very rarely has there been a true famine in the world. More often its a manipulation tool of the various heavily armed groups we call leaders.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
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?
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)
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 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.
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
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 homozygous single copy murine immune mouse
Just is a way of saying that the mouse shows the results of the human gene (we generally have two copies of each gene, so only mice with two copies of the human gene (homozygous) would show the full effects of the human gene, while mice with one mouse gene and one human gene (heterozygous) may not show the effects of the human gene (this is a bit oversimplified, some genes only have one copy, esp. in males, and researchers have many ways of seeing the effects of two different versions of a gene).
not homozygous lethal or cause sterility in a single copy state
"Homozygous lethal": the effects of the gene in the homozygous state kill the developing animal. Obvioulsy, such genes won't make good study targets for this technique. Sterility is not a real problem in most cases, as you can easily generate new homozygotes from the heterozygotic parents, unless of course you are studying a gene related to fertility:-).
Unless using blastocysts from immunologically crippled mice
This gets a bit confusing:
Where he is confusing: Immune cells are trained to recognize self/non-self when they are formed: ones that recognize normal cells of the organism are killed off. So if the mouse has the human cells from birth, they should be reconized by the mouse's immune system as normal. Rejection of transplanted tissue happens when new tissue is transplanted into an adult.
Where he has a point: However, when transplanting cells between species, there can be such big differences that all of the host's (mouse) immune cells reject the doner (human) cells in a catostrophic allergic reaction (not technically part of the self/non-self recognition process). This happens with certain cell surface markers on pig cells, which is why pig organs cannot (presently) be transplanted into people.
But we have been making mice with with human immune systems since the 1980s, so this is not really the "gotcha" for this research that scientistguy imples.
Further, we already know that mice don't reject human stem cells (stem cells appear to be more or less immunologically blank).
So while there is some point to mentioning that there is such a thing as rejection of foreign tissue, this seems to more a problem with 'adult'(post-embryonic) transplants & I don't think it really has much to do with the issues raised in the article.
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.
Well, it wasn't a quote. I took pretty significant liberties . . .
I was alluding to Martin's suit for freedom in "The Bicentennial Man" where the judge says that anything that can desire freedom deserves it.
1. He didn't actually say it had to ask in English. ('course I didn't either).
2. I actually was using a reciprocal "law" that he almost certainly wouldn't have agreed with.
So dis me, not Issac.
-Peter
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.
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.
you don't really understand evolution, do you? evolution works *damn slowly*, my friend, and is random and clumsy besides. it just has the numbers and the *time*.
as for making things that work, evolution also brought you the bubonic plague, tuberculosis, cholera, malaria, smallpox, polio, ebola, i could go on... half of these no longer exist in the western world, thanks to science. not to mention the doubling of life expectancy in the past few centuries thanks to things like antibiotics and antiseptis and various other more esoteric medical marvels. you will likely live an extra 40 years than your great great great grandfather thanks to science.
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.
evolution is not a "law", it is a lottery. noone is trying to subvert evolution, it will always be operating upon us. we can however, improve the human condition and the quality of life for all.
the most compassionate thing we can do is prioritise the preservation of life and the balance of living things above such petty things as money, material wealth, and geographical and racial boundaries.
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...
I'm always troubled when people think you can solve (or lessen) mass starvation by simply feeding the people who are starving.
there are other solutions - modifying crops so that can grow in saline or polluted soil, in low water/nutrient conditions etc. that is, empowering poor countries and communities with technology.
i agree that growing more food is not necessarily the answer, though some redistribution and education would go a long way.
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
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.
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
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!
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.
Give a man a fish/teach a man to fish.
I'm all for teaching a man to fish. What you're advocating is teach him to fish, dig a lake, and modify some fish so they can live in that lake. What Monsanto adds to that is further modify the fish so only one special patented lure in the world can catch them, and it can only be used once.
How's about teach him to fish, then point him in the direction of a lake?