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 ?
Cheers Google ...
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?
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.
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.
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!
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...
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?
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..."
We can experiment on it (treat it as property) until it asks us to stop.
-Peter
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...
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.
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).