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) ..."

39 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. Where...? by MrFenty · · Score: 5, Funny
    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 ?

    1. Re:Where...? by e8johan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These kind of moves are actually dangerous. If the civilized world chooses to ban something of some reason (hopefully a good one), one can just go to a poor country and be fully legal.

      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.

      We can also see this in the research of the (somewhat) mad Italian sientist, Dr. Severino Antinori. He claims to creating the first cloned human and that it is going to be born early next year. He refuses to say where the experiment has been made, but it is in a country with weaker legalization than most western contries.

      To sum things up. This type of experiments will probably have to go to some little known, desterd island, but I regret that they can.

    2. Re:Where...? by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Informative
      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).

      The nation of registry of choice for many ships is currently Liberia. Just think about it the next time you consider going on one of those delightful Disney cruises.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  2. wow by mrselfdestrukt · · Score: 3, Funny

    Another new input device.
    Why not just stick my mouse to my hand with superglue?

    --
    "I used to have that really cool,funny sig ,but it got stolen."
  3. What are we going to do tonight Brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    What we do every night, Pinky.

  4. Ehhhhhh by Uruk · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  5. Are you a man or a mouse ? by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Funny


    Oh very freaking funny you insensitive clod!

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  6. I'm horrified... by YanceyAI · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I consider myself open to scientific experimentation, but I guess I just never really considered this as a possiblitlity. I'm surprised that it never crossed my mind. This issue was bound to be raised. Even more disturbing to me is the fact that my repulsion is seems more emotional than logical--a characteristic I associate with rightwing conservative freaks. One telling comment though:

    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?
    1. Re:I'm horrified... by sawilson · · Score: 4, Funny

      I consider myself open to scientific experimentation

      That's pretty brave. I'm just an organ donor myself.

    2. Re:I'm horrified... by Kronus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't be so afraid, the reporter got almost all his facts wrong. There will be 0 (zero) human cells in the chimera. That's not the way this procedure works. The genetic material is put in the blastocyst, and is then absorbed by some of the cells there. Those cells can then (in theory) produce the proteins that the absorbed genes code for. So the mouse's brain might have some human protiens in it, but it would still be a mouses's brain.

      Also, the Bishop's comment about a few human cells per organ being acceptable: not the way it works. As I said, there will be NO human cells, and the modified cells will come in patches. As a modified cell in the blastocyte divides, all it's progeny will have the modifications, so you'll end up with an area in the adult organism that has the modifications. Is it really too much to ask that the people who are trying to make these ethical decisions put in the effort to actually learn what they're talking about before passing judgment?

    3. Re:I'm horrified... by csguy314 · · Score: 3, Funny

      One telling comment though:

      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.


      Hey baby, I'd like you to my parents, Squeeky and Whiskers.

      --
      This is left as an exercise for the reader.
  7. Have a heart by Comrade+Pikachu · · Score: 3, Funny

    The next time you visit Disney World, don't pick on the guy in the costume. See what he has to endure?

  8. So potentially, by sawilson · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  9. Hardware vs. software by ites · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  10. The Secret of NIMH by randomErr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don Bluth is so pround now.

    --
    You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
  11. Can't resist... by TeknoHog · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  12. I am sure I am not the only one bothered by this.. by GeckoFood · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  13. babelfish by nmg196 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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...

  14. Ethical Problems? They already do it. by Gary+Franczyk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Ethical Problems? They already do it. by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was thinking the same thing, but reading the article I see the submitter incorrectly described what they're doing -- they're making a chimera of human stem cells and mouse blastocysts. If not quite a half-mouse, half-human it's far closer to it than a recombinant organism with a gene or two from a different species.

    2. Re:Ethical Problems? They already do it. by G-funk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ethical problems don't exist... It's a made up thing, a simple case of "I believe this, so I will force it upon you".

      That aside, we will have a problem as the line between human and animal blurs... Should we raise all animals to the level of humans wrt the rights they have? Probably not a good idea. I think we need to ignore the preachers, the churches, the "won't somebody think of the children" pretenders pushing for their own power, and set a strict definition of what defines a living, breathing, human being, and what is a clumb of cells related to, or with the potential to someday be a human being... I believe it's right for experiments to be done on month old foetuses, but I don't think it's right to do the same thing on one that could live if born prematurely....

      perhaps I'm rambling and incoherent, I was just trying to raise a couple of points.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    3. Re:Ethical Problems? They already do it. by Suidae · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ethical problems don't exist... It's a made up thing

      So likewise, 'laws do not exist... They are a made up thing'?

      Ethical problems do exist, but they are personal in nature. Societies choose which ethical concerns they collectively believe ought be enforced across the society. Generally such things are called laws.

      we will have a problem as the line between human and animal blurs

      There is no such line. Humans are and have always been animals. Its just that most humans believe that they are somehow 'more' than other animals (and most also believe that they are more than other humans too). The truth is that we are simply different.

      Should we raise all animals to the level of humans wrt the rights they have?

      That is precisely what many people assert. Such a move would obviously require that the entire population either go vegan or engineer and accept meat animals without even basic intelligence (I suspect this would be a great thing for food producers; all the meat and none of the behavour problems of 'real' animals).

      Many people consider that beings that suffer (and that we can reasonably identify as suffering) ought not be caused, through our actions, to suffer.

      From this point of view, early term abortion is pefectly ok, because the aborted material has not yet evolved to the point at which it is able to suffer.

      I tend to agree with this viewpoint, to an extent. I don't think that the suffering of the mice outweighs the value of the research done with them. I'd prefer that they not be harmed, but at the moment it seems necessary. I would not take this position with animals with significantly more cognative power, such as apes.

  15. Time to... by Omkar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Time to... by babbage · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That is completely not how science works. You don't understand anything until you can come up with an idea -- preliminary understanding, a hypothesis -- and then *come up with an experiment*. If you're lucky, the experiment will affirm your hypothesis; if you're not then results will be inconclusive (& you need to do a better experiment) or you're just proven wrong.

      In any event, the key piece is constant experimentation, not just mental noodling. That stuff has to suffice for some kinds of physics & astronomy research, where the experiments can be difficult or impossible to do, but biology is so, well, wild & woolly, that the only way forward is to constantly test your ideas by experimentation.

  16. Don't worry, mice aren't animals. by jonbrewer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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..."

  17. Asimov already addressed this. by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We can experiment on it (treat it as property) until it asks us to stop.

    -Peter

    1. Re:Asimov already addressed this. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They already are, we just don't speak mouse-ese. What, you were expecting the mouse to pipe up in English and bust out with "I say old bean, could you please not stick that scalpel up my ass?"

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. Burn a little Karma here by Tri0de · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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."
  19. Re:I am sure I am not the only one bothered by thi by fredbsd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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'.

  20. You know what this means don't you? by trcooper · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  21. Re:I am sure I am not the only one bothered by thi by d_i_r_t_y · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...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...

  22. Coming soon.... by sawilson · · Score: 3, Funny

    This page was generated by a barrel of Human-Mouse Hybrids for sawilson.

  23. Re:I am sure I am not the only one bothered by thi by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  24. Re:A homozygous single copy murine immune mouse. by DzugZug · · Score: 3, Informative
    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.

    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)

  25. Some reason (hopefully a good one) by Pac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

  26. So how...? by KC7GR · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...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

  27. Which is having the effect of a ban by MichaelPenne · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Since federal funding is critical to basic research in the US & since the "78" magically moral lines turned out to be more like 5 or 6 that are actually viable.
    Private funding is nearly nonexistent - federal monies can only support research on existing stem cell lines - and obtaining the cells themselves remains exceedingly difficult even for top researchers because of political and intellectual property disputes or the poor quality of the cells themselves.

    Of the 78 stem cell colonies worldwide the Bush administration has said are eligible for federally funded research, only about a dozen are in good enough shape to experiment on. Even fewer - perhaps four lines - are being shared and sent to other researchers interested in breaking into a field already clouded with political, ethical and scientific questions.


    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...
  28. Two points... by gillbates · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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".

    1. Actually, it's not just the religious right - the Catholic church (associated with the "religious left", if there is such a group...) opposes cloning as well.
    2. Many people fear human cloning for reasons which have nothing to do with religion. If we clone human beings, what rights do they have? Do they have the right to vote? Can their organs be legally harvested for the healthy? If the cloning operation is only partially successful (for instance, if a person is born deformed or retarded), can a cloned person be killed without committing murder? These are not easy questions, and as such, it is much safer politically just to ban the practice than deal with the potential political fallout from allowing cloned humans.
    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.