Slashdot Mirror


Cloning Yields Human-Rabbit Hybrid Embryo

ralphb writes "Here is the story of scientists in China who have, for the first time, used cloning techniques to create hybrid embryos that contain a mix of DNA from both humans and rabbits. Hop on over for a look!"

655 comments

  1. God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by sweeney37 · · Score: 5, Funny

    My dear god, didn't any of these "scientists" ever see Night of the Lepus?!

    We're all doomed!!

    Mike

    1. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Etherwalk · · Score: 2, Funny
      This is massively disturbing; I was about to ask the same question. There is no way that, in a sane world, two people should have the human/rabbit embryo lead naturally to "night of the lepus."

      Of course, a little rabbit never hurt anybody. It's the really huge rabbits we have to worry about.

    2. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DeForest Kelley and Rory Calhoun together at last?! Why wasn't I informed?

    3. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by kinnell · · Score: 1

      Steady now; there are much worse things than a human/rabbit hybrid.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    4. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by borgdows · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I first thought you were speaking of "Gay niggers from outer space".

    5. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by emdean091876 · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Of course, a little rabbit never hurt anybody. It's the really huge rabbits we have to worry about.

      What about the rabbit with big narly teeth that almost killed all of Sir Arthurs knights?

    6. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course! Sorry, clarification: It's the really huge rabbits we have to worry about, and the really fast rabbits. Small rabbits that are not fast at attacking armored men and killing them, merely present the same troubles as tribbles.

    7. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by diersing · · Score: 1
      Forget that ferocious beast. Can you tell me what the land speed of an African Swallow is please?

      Its funny, scientist are forced to create these hybrid concoctions to create stem cells for their research because the conservative religious front wants human stem cell research banned. I wonder how the conservative religious front feels about mixing their DNA with rodents. Can I get a Pat Buchanan Gerbil here please.

    8. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Alioth · · Score: 1
    9. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Funny

      I warned you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little bunny, isn't it? Well, it's always the same. I always tell them--

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by The+Almighty+Dave · · Score: 1
      The first thing I thought of was The Island of Doctor Moreau

      But that might be a little extreme.

    11. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      What about the 6-foot human-rabbit hybrids that whisper to us that the world is coming to an end?

      (yeah, I know -- but it was the first thing I thought of)

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    12. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by bluethundr · · Score: 1

      What about the rabbit with big narly teeth that almost killed all of Sir Arthurs knights?

      It was only because that particular rabbit had a vicious streak a mile wide. Don't fear the Lepus.

      --
      Quod scripsi, scripsi.
    13. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THERE ARE 78 DAYS REMAINING!

    14. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can I get a Pat Buchanan Gerbil here please.
      Hang on, I gotta pull it out of Bill O'Reilly's ass..

    15. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by lessgravity · · Score: 1

      or maybe the Chinese will start a new human/rabbit army. They will be able to breed faster than we can kill them. We are doomed.
      Set out the traps now!
      centrifugalforce

    16. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 1

      That is completely ridiculous.

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    17. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There will be no limits to genetic manipulation outside of the US and Europe. The final result will be the destruction of our species. One would hope for a good mile wide asteroid impact soon.

    18. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by 72beetle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Please explain to me the ethical difference in the two positions.


      Ok, I'll bite.

      It comes down to where you think human life begins - in my opinion (and no doubt, not yours), human life begins at the point where the fetus can survive on its own. Until then, it's a parasite, and the host should be able to deal with it as the host sees fit.

      Wait, you say, does that mean that someone who is dependant upon machines to live is somehow less human than someone who can survive autonomously?

      Yes. That's what I'm saying. Humans dependant upon machines to live are cyborgs.

      My karma's fat, so bring on the flames. Don't forget to warm up your bibles.

      -72

      --
      -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
    19. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Biologically, human life only began once. Also, biologically, a new human being (member of the species homo sapiens) begins at conception. Your opinions are contrary to the biological facts of the case.

      The unborn homo sapiens, is by definition, not a parasite. Biologically, it is a developing human being going through the natural biological growth process. Your opinion on the matter is contrary to the biological facts of the case.

      All you have done is reiterate my first post: That pro-abortionists claim a human being is only worthy of life when it has reached an arbitrarily defined stage of growth or development.

      The initial question stands. How is this position ethically different than Hitler maintaining that only human beings with certain genetic traits are worthy of life?

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    20. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by banzai51 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you celebrate your conception day? How about your Birthday?

    21. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by 72beetle · · Score: 1

      The unborn homo sapiens, is by definition, not a parasite.

      Au contraire, the unborn homo sapiens is indeed a parasite - it cannot exist without a host, it derives nutrients from the host to the detriment of that host. It is in fact the epitome of a parasite.

      Birth is not 'some arbitrarily defined stage of growth', it is the moment of transformation from parasite to human. That's like saying death is an arbitrary stage of growth - when in fact, it is the end of the cycle which began at birth. Does your methodology state that a decomposing body is alive? It should, since the pre-birth status of a human is just the alternate bookend of that life cycle.

      -72

      --
      -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
    22. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, if you just had added the IMDB link you would have been modded as funny. Woe is you.

    23. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      The fallacy of appeal to authority. What day a culture celebrates has nothing to do with the biological fact of human development.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    24. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Psmylie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a common misconception to call someone who is pro-choice a "pro-abortionist". Most "pro-choice" people that I know don't go around encouraging pregnant women to have abortions. None of the pro-choice women I know have ever had an abortion.

      In regards to your comment about a fertilized egg being a human being, well... I think that depends on what you mean. Is it genetically distinct from its parents? Yes. Does it contain human DNA? Yes. Is it a person? Debatable. A fertilized egg does not have a brain, a personality, or any sense of its environment. Is it possible to lack these qualities and still be considered human? That's a matter of viewpoint.

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    25. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      A parasite is a species that lives off another species. You can have exploitive and symbiotic parasitism, but it always involves a host and parasite species.

      A human embryo and a human mother are the same species. Therefore, by definition, the human embryo is NOT a parasite.

      Birth is a stage in the development of a human being when it can survive independent of the mother. It is NOT the point at which the embryo becomes human. Biologically, that point occurred at conception.

      A decomposing body is dead. Comparing them is the logical fallacy of false equivalence.

      Your positions are simply factually incorrect. I suggest you read some biology texts.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    26. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You have just reiterated my initial post. At some point, the human being WILL have all those characteristics. It is simply a matter of development. Therefore, you have determined that human beings at an arbitrary stage of development are unworthy of life. Again, I ask. How is this position different than Hitler maintaining that humans beings without certain genetic traits are unworthy of life?

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    27. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by 72beetle · · Score: 2, Informative

      A parasite is a species that lives off another species. You can have exploitive and symbiotic parasitism, but it always involves a host and parasite species.

      A human embryo and a human mother are the same species. Therefore, by definition, the human embryo is NOT a parasite.


      You've obviously never met my sister-in-law. Anyway, back to my point:

      Dictionary.com defines parasite as: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

      It says nothing about differing species, only different organisms. By the above definition, a fetus is a perfect example.

      Ultimately, the parasite argument is inconsequential. The issue at hand is still whether or not a fetus counts as a human, and the answer to that isn't scientific, it's theological - which makes it good fodder for debate, but not as a basis for advancing or hindering scientific research. Just like the RIAA's supposed 'potential income', you can't quantify 'potential humanity'.

      -72

      --
      -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
    28. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Does that then mean that we are not allowed to kill monkeys because given enough time it will develop into a human?

      Or what about the animals that the monkey developed from?

      You have to draw the line somewhere... You've drawn yours and we've drawn ours... DEAL WITH IT

    29. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by pmz · · Score: 1, Troll

      Anyone who maintains that a fertilized egg is not a human being doesn't know biology, or is lying.

      A fertilized human egg, even one that has developed into a little clump of cells, is not a human being. The cells in the early embryo are not differentated into the various tissues that make up the human body, so, at this stage of the game, squashing the little clump of cells is no different than picking your nose and baking the boogers in the microwave (obviously killing thousands of cells from your nose lining).

      After the clump of cells develops further, the issue gradually becomes less black and white. At the point where basic tissue development start occurring, the fetus is not discernible from that of most mammals, and, regardless of DNA, most mammals do not have "inalienable rights". There doesn't seem to be a significant moral problem at this stage. At least, killing the fetus is no different than hunting a deer, and spontaneous first-trimester abortions are very common among women, indicating that Mother Nature shares this philosophy.

      When the main part of the brain is developing, and the nervous system is fleshed out, then there is a clear situation of "cruel and unusual punishment" involved regarding abortion. For example, any person that has no moral problems with third-trimester abortions needs to re-think their position.

      So, your argument about humans being human from day one can only have a basis in religious faith, which is a fallacy.

    30. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by zdislaw · · Score: 1
      I'll write this and not respond again. These kind of arguements get me too friggin' mad and I have a bad heart.

      I believe that an unborn fetus is part of a woman's body and therefore lives or dies my her will and at any time during her pregnancy.

      Hitler was determining life or death to other distinct human individuals who were not part of his body.

      I understand that you do not see the same distinction that I do, but you have to accept that given my beliefs of the nature of a fetus (which I believe are supported by biology just as easily as yours can) the distinction is clear.

      That is why I won't participate any more. There is no way that we are going to agree and your point of view just makes me mad and I am not an outrage addict.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    31. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Dictionary.com defines parasite as: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing >nothing to the survival of its host.

      Well, the human embryo have half the Gens of the mother and half of the father, so to speak it is only half a parasite (the mens one -__-).

    32. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Because none of Hitlers victims were sucking their very nourishment from the blood and placenta of Hitler himself. Until said "human" is removed from it's donated life-support of it's mother, it has NO rights that it's mother doesn't give it.

      Yes, now you'll argue that government protects fetuses. Yes, but you'll notice that first the government protects the mother. By very definition no violent act (short of abortion) that harms the fetus will not also harm the mother. But that also harming the fetus *IS* harming the mother, since the fetus is nothing more than a developing collection of organs that "belongs" to said mother.

      Which goes back to my original argument (which is unwinnable, I concede, we all have way too many strong opinions on the matter), is that a fetus becomes HUMAN when it is divorced from it's mother, either by birth or c-section.

    33. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 1
      " Anyone who maintains that a fertilized egg is not a human being doesn't know biology, or is lying.

      My god! In only one short message you made years of intense debate go away. Why didn't anyone think of this argument before? I'm sure there's millions (or billions) of people who might come up with counter arguements and flaws in your reasoning, but since you called them stupid or liars, that means their arguments are worthless. It's that simple. You're amazing.

      So, can you solve the debate on capital punishment as easily?

    34. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      You're equivocating. Being a repository of genetically distinct human DNA is no better or more natural of a criteria of when a being has moral interests than is birth. To say that something is biologically human (i.e. the DNA contained within it is a variation of the human genome) is not enough to say that something is human in the legal and moral sense. My skin cells are biologically human. In fact, with just a few minor tweaks, I can create skins cells that are genetically human AND distinct from my own genome. Would you call it a new human?

      Glib reference to Hitler aside, everyone is in the position of having to decide what the best criteria is: making your comparison a silly, inflamatory attempt at a smear without any logical basis (you ALSO maintain that you know what the proper criteria are, so how are YOU any different either?)

      Tell me though: why is a zygote more worthy of life than a liver cell, or a bacteria? None of these things have any sort of nervous system or capability for any awareness at all: not even close to what even a fetus has. The mere fact that zygotes have distinct DNA is incidental: people with identical DNA are no less human because of it, so distinctness is not an enabling moral criteria. As is it's potential for becoming something else: zygotes can not only develop into multiple human beings, but unless they are put into the right environment, they won't develop at all (which happens all the time naturally).

      Do we accord moral status to a computer with a complete and unique DNA sequence stored on its hard drive? Why would putting that sequence into a cell make it morally more interesting? What we are talking about in these cases is a repository for the information for the construction of a human being as well as SOME of the necessary chemical components for beginning that construction. But the being has yet to be constructed, and hence I can't see why any reasonable person could accord it different moral concern from any other potential, hypothetical state.

      Stick to defending the rights of fetuses: at least there you have some legitimate grounds to assert a claim of moral interests, as fetuses have nervous systems, can feel pain, have a limited awareness, etc. In short, they have at least some capacity to have interests that are taken away.

    35. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by esper · · Score: 1
      it is only half a parasite (the mens one


      Oh, sure... We've gone straight from abortion rights to "men are parasites". When will the hate end? (Damn feminazis...)

    36. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Psmylie · · Score: 1

      You sure like bringing up Hitler. Hitler was probably never very concerned with genetics. He was concerned with race (as defined by racial characteristics i.e. skin tone) and ethnic background.

      And no, I did not reiterate your post. I pointed out what I considered to be two flaws in your argument. Also, saying that, at some point a fetus WILL develop a brain and a distinct personality is akin to saying that, at some point that fetus WILL die of old age. How does that apply to the argument "does a fertilised egg count as a person from the moment of conception"?
      Also, the statement, "Therefore, you have determined that human beings at an arbitrary stage of development are unworthy of life" is incorrect. I said it was debatable. I never said I agreed or disagreed. But I'll run with that just for the hell of it.
      My skin is alive. It has human DNA. But if you were able to remove some of my skin cells and keep them alive in a petri dish, I would not consider that a human being. Similarly, if a person believes that you need a functioning brain to be considered a human being, then the zygote floating around it's mother's uterus is, in essence, no different then any other group of cells. It's just tissue. The fact that it could develop these traits later (it could also fail to develop these traits and get flushed from the mother's body - this happens quite often) has nothing to do with what it is now.

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    37. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by snowsalt · · Score: 1

      I made my decision by this reasoning. You and I were in a car crash, and you were hooked up to a life support system which filtered my blood and fed it into you. Without this attachment, you will die. I wish to leave the room. I do not wish to support you. I don't like you. I think I have the right to detach myself from your life support system. I don't have an obligation to find someone else to hook up or anything like that. If your life depends on me, I have a right to refuse. Sorry sucka. Sorry fetus.

    38. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1

      I can just hear the scientests at their meetings once the "baby" is born.


      Froederick Frankenstein: Eye-Gore, what was the name on that Brain?

      Eye-Gore: Abby-something.

      Froederick Frankenstein: Abby-Something?

      Eye-Gore: Abby-Normal!

    39. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by kmac06 · · Score: 1
      It comes down to where you think human life begins - in my opinion (and no doubt, not yours), human life begins at the point where the fetus can survive on its own. Until then, it's a parasite, and the host should be able to deal with it as the host sees fit.

      A 6 week old fetus cannot survive long on its own.
      A 10 month old baby cannot survive long on its own.
      A 5 year old child would be very lucky to survive long on its own.

      I believe all three of these hypothetical humans are people, regardless of whether or not its inside someone else or not.

      Just something to think about....

      PS-I'd like to see you 'survive on your own', ie grow your own food, find your own water, speak to no one else, etc. Oh, and while your at it, stop breathing, because the trees are creating that oxygen not you.

    40. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Biologically all life began only once. There is no clear and clean disjuction all the way back to whatever the starting point was.

      Does this matter? If so why? (If not, also why?)

      Using this argument, how do you dare to cut your hair? Or brush your teeth?

      Continuity is all very well, but it doesn't imply that all parts are equal. Just that you can always find intermediate forms. (And this is wrong to. There is a finite limit to resolution.)

      So what we do instead is pick two things that are "Obviously different and separate" and look for the place where it seems to us that they have merged. And then trace back and forth looking for what appears to be the most reasonable place to put a marker and say "This is where they split!". But any choice of this nature is essentially arbitrary.

      This doesn't imply that one shouldn't place boundaries. It's difficult to think without them. But it does imply that you shouldn't believe in them as anything basic. They are artificial categories to facilitate thinking about complicated things quickly. And they usually result in oversimplification somewhere, like a lossy compression algorithm.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    41. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by quintessencesluglord · · Score: 1

      "Hitler maintained that only human beings who had certain genetic characteristics were worthy of life."

      In a sense, hasn't this always been the case. You get mutations and deformities that aren't viable to life. Still very much Homo Sapien. The only thing different is the criteria (blue eyes compared to hydrocephaly).

      And onward: depression (and the requisite suicide attempts) probably has a genetic disposition to it... I was lucky enough to born into a family that had the resources to ensure a healthy upbringing. No more worthy of life, except for the genetic characteristics I share in common with my forbearers.

      Your argument that everyone is worthy of life only works in a world of unlimited resources. Yeah, everyone is worthy, but there is only so much to go around. What is the ethical choice now? Best suited? Least cost? Smartest? Prettiest? Who will you say will die so another can live?

      I do not support eugenics, but Mother Nature has done it all the while (selective breeding to improve the strain). All stem cell research really says is that Mother Nature won't be the sole arbiter of life and death. You can't acquiesce the moral choice to some nebulous entity. We're here now. Better make the ethics work.

      "War: the alchemy of turning gold into lead."- R. Gentile

    42. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by jrl87 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess that means if you can count to 3 no more no less, we could destroy it with the holy hand grenade

    43. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      Can you stop this Godwinizing Hitler trope? It isn't fooling anyone, and it's utterly irrational. In ANY moral philosophy one has to take a position on the worthiness of various forms of life: there is no escaping it.

      Your arguments about potential are nonsense. Potential is eternal, but not actual, and if you're going to accord moral status NOW to things which are merely as-yet-unfilled potential, then you might as well like babies have the right to drive and bear arms, or throw everyone in jail for being potential murderers.

      Another example: My computer contains a copy of an entire human genome: by altering a few A and Gs, I can make it unique. That means my hard drive has the potential to create human life (it's just a matter of development in a lab). Should I be arrested for manslaughter if I crash my hard drive by playing too much Solitaire?

    44. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They define clinical human death as the absense of brainwave activity, so why don't they define clinical human life as the presence of brainwave activity?

      Oh, right, it's hard to attach emotions to a EEG.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    45. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Your argument basically boils down to: A human being is worthy of life based on where it is located in relationship to other human beings.

      This position is no different rhetorically or philosophically to Hitler's Final Solution. To maintain that it is suffers the logical fallacy of the Paradigm.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    46. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by 72beetle · · Score: 1

      I believe all three of these hypothetical humans are people, regardless of whether or not its inside someone else or not.

      I never said an organism had to survive WELL autonomously to lose its' parasitic label, just to survive. With the exception of the fetus, which cannot survive without its host, the above mentioned entities are in fact human. Neglected, they may die, but they are in fact living on their own without the assistance of external aid.

      Since you want to get all huffy and pedantic, you should know that there is a significant difference between symbiosis (like our relationship to the trees) and parasites (like tapeworms and fetuses). Trying to equate the two, as you did in your postscript, makes me question the validity of any of your other convictions. Kissy kissy.

      -72

      --
      -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
    47. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your argument basically boils down to: A human being is worthy of life based upon how it receives sustenance.

      This philosophically no different than Hilter's Final Solution. To maintain otherwise commits the logical fallacy of the Paradigm.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    48. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by rtrifts · · Score: 1

      Americans... *Yeesh*

      It is fascinating that a country founded upon religious dissent is still so consumed by it.

      Have this discussion till doom's day for all the rest of the industrialized world cares.

      - A proud Canadian

      --
      .Robert
    49. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      First, I just wanted to say that I agree with almost everything you've said. In essence, that is my view. I just wanted to comment on this statement:

      indicating that Mother Nature shares this philosophy.

      I highly doubt that Mother Nature has any philosophy what-so-ever. Lets not get carried away with our personifications :)

    50. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Racial characteristics are genetically determined. You really do need to read some biology texts.

      Your comparison of skin cells is another logical fallacy of false equivalence. Biologically, an egg is an egg. A sperm is a sperm. It is the fusion of the two that creates a new human being. Please read a good biology text on sexual reproduction.

      Your argument bascially boils down to: A human being is only worthy of life once it has reached an arbitrarily selected point in its normal biological development.

      Again, this is philosophically no different than Hitler's Final Solution. To maintain that it is commits the logical fallacy of the Paradigm.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    51. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Your argument bascially boils down to: Human beings are worthy of life only if they do not cause me any inconvenience or hardship.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    52. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Suidae · · Score: 1

      The issue at hand is still whether or not a fetus counts as a human,

      To be precise, the issue is at what point a collection of cells gains what rights.

      Children (a collection of cells) have a clearly defined set of rights that they (if they are in the USA) gain by virtue of surviving 18 years past their birth (voting, smoking, etc). Most rights are given upon birth (or perhaps before, this part is a bit hazy still).

      Embryos in a lab dish are different only in that they are less developed. If their development were to advance in the usual way, and the technology were available to allow them to reach full maturity as sentient beings, I doubt many people would suggest that they have no rights (that slippery slope leads right to slavery and organ farms).

      The genetic distinction (species membership) is used only because it has always been an easy way to tell 'us' intelligent humans from 'them' (obviously inferior) 'animals'. But as soon as we find or create animals that begin to approach our own intelligence and can communicate without the aid of sign language or symbol boards (we already have great apes that understand spoken english, can follow instructions and reason fairly well, they just can't talk, so joe sixpack sees only a dumb animal) we will loose this easy indicator.

      We like to use the word 'human' to identify sentient beings deserving of all rights, but we also call children born without hope of any cognitive function 'human', and give them all the same rights as a fully functioning person. 'Human' has too many meanings and evokes too much emotional baggage to have any place in a discussion of rights.

      Obviously if we intend to decide why particular beings deserve subsets of the full set of all rights, we would have to clearly identify all the rights we intend to be able to grant, and the criteria for a being to receive them. Of course we would also have to define exactly what we mean by 'being'. Who and what, exactly, is deserving of moral considerability?

      It seems that the legal system pretty much ignores all of this and simply patches the existing system the minimal amount requried to keep people from complaining too much. I suppose a major refactoring to take into account new relationships like these are equavelent to the creation of new governments with new laws.

    53. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Suidae · · Score: 1

      It also falls down in the case of conjoined twins. If I kill my conjoined twin, am I guilty of murder, or is it just self-mutilation?

    54. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      The parallel with Hitler is valid. The philosophical argument is that some human beings are worthy of life, others are not. Pro-abortionists maintain the same philosophy. Getting offended does not change the logical equivalence.

      Your analogy about babies being able to drive suffers from the logical fallacy of false equivalence. The human being already has all the needed potential to remain alive. It takes a wilful external act to remove the life.

      Your computer example is an even worse analogy. The proper analogy would be to compare your computer hard drive to a sperm cell.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    55. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      create hybrid embryos that contain a mix of DNA from both humans and rabbits?????

      Oh, my good, I have seen everything now!!
      What could be the next? Thats all, Folks!

    56. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dictionary.com defines parasite as: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

      It says nothing about differing species, only different organisms. By the above definition, a fetus is a perfect example.
      And how would the hosts' species survive without having any babies?
    57. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Biologically, Monkeys are not human beings. The two are different species. This argument also suffers from the fallacy of false equivalence.

      My position is based in reason, logic and fact. What is your position based in?

      Not one person on this thread has addressed the initial post. Neither have they refuted the initial premise because EVERY argument has either re-iterated the original point (human beings are only worthy of life if x), or have committed one or more logical fallacies in trying to refute the point.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    58. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by 72beetle · · Score: 1

      And how would the hosts' species survive without having any babies?


      It wouldn't. Good thing we weren't talking about the survival of the species, just the host, huh?

      -72

      --
      -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
    59. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      You have dismissed the parasite argument (which was probably your stronger position) to adopt your second position, namely, that a human being is only worthy of life once it has reached an arbitrary point in its development.

      It's not a theological debate. It is an ethical one with practical ramifications. Once the premise has been established that human beings are only worthy of life when x, then x can become anything.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    60. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Replace 'human being' with organism for a better generalization.

      Elsewise someone will just drag the issue out on the tangent of 'what is a human being'.

      And its not even an issue of 'worthy of life', its more an issue of 'at what point does an adult human become obligated to continue directly supporting the demands of that organism'. Medical technology is continually pushing the boundaries of premature birth survivability, but that just shifts the issue to another location (who pays the bills and does the work to support the organism).

      One could make the case that having voluntarily initated a reproductive cycle, the ultimate end of which is likely a being deserving of rights, it doesn't matter if the middle stages of the organism are 'human' or not, starting a reproductive cycle commits one to supporting the organism to the best of ones abilities, until such time as it is self supporting.

      That would be bad news for research.

      Of course that would be bad if we ever run into an alien species that reproduces asexually, our rules might not apply correctly to them (indicating a flaw in the rules).

    61. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by SedentaryZ · · Score: 1

      Just to clear up the parasite question...
      From the Biotech Life Sciences dictionary:
      parasitism (parasite)
      A type of symbiosis where two (or more) organisms from different species live in close proximity to one another, in which one member depends on another for its nutrients, protection, and/or other life functions. The dependent member (the parasite) benefits from the relationship while the other one (the host) is harmed by it.

      From Webster's Third New International Dictionary of The English Language, unabridged:
      Parasitism - biology:
      a relationship in which an organism of one kind lives in, on, or in intimate association with an organism of another kind at the expense of which it obtains food and usually other benefits

      I think the technical definition of parasite makes it clear that different species are involved. The nature of the fetus/mother relationship has many characteristics that are distinctly different from the biological definition of parastism.

      You are right that however the fetus is classified is largely irrelevant to the question.

    62. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Again, this is the fallacy of false equivalence. One human is in a state of deterioration. The other is in a state of growth and development.

      Once the eeg is flat in an adult human being, it will not recur. Using a flatt eeg to define death, or the end of life, was arrived at biologically. A flat eeg indicates the death of the human being. Individual components may continue on for a few hours or days, but the organism as a whole is dead .

      In a developing human being, organism will start with a flat eeg, then beging to show increasing development and complexity. The organism is already alive, and will continue to grow in complexity as time passes.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    63. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      It really is that simple. The debate continues because people do not want to accept the logical conclusion of the premise.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    64. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Biology differs with you. Read a text on sexual reproduction. When the gametes join, a new member of the species has been created. The fertilized egg IS Homo Sapiens. Your position is simply factually incorrect.

      Your argument basically boils down to: A human being is worthy of life when it has reached an arbitrarily defined stage of development.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    65. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by White+Rabbitt · · Score: 1

      And where's the significant difference between an unfertilized egg and a fertilized one? Let's see: An unfertilized egg has the chance to grow into a fully-formed human. Some embryos are already malformed and do not possess such a chance. Unfertilized eggs have the wrong number of chromosomes, but so do humans with Down's Syndrome. How dare any sick person try to deny a human egg the chance for life. Let's crusade against periods. No more maxi pads!

    66. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Once again, the logical fallacy of false equivalence (it seems to be the favorite)

      Read a biology text. Your skin cells are not a human being i.e. a member of the species Homo Sapiens. Your skin cells are a component of the organism.

      Your analogy of zygote vs. liver cell suffers the same logical fallacy for the same reason.

      Your argument also boils down to: A member of the species Homo Sapiens is worthy of life only when it has reached an arbitrarily set level of complexity and development.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    67. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Suidae · · Score: 1

      if you were able to remove some of my skin cells and keep them alive in a petri dish, I would not consider that a human being. Similarly, if a person believes that you need a functioning brain to be considered a human being, then the zygote floating around it's mother's uterus is, in essence, no different then any other group of cells.

      If the criteria for being a person is to have a 'functioning' brain (functioning at what level?), then it would be correct to say that it is not a human.

      However, to say that a living skin cell sample in a dish has the same status as a zygote is false.

      A zygote is poised to grow, of its own accord, into a functioning being (presuming nutrients continue to be available, etc). Skin cells will simply continue to be skin cells, until they run out of telomers or whatever and die.

      If you knew which genetic switches to flip in the skin cells, you might be able to get them to the same stage as a zygote, its basicly the same software after all, but without that intervention, the skin cells have next to no chance of developing into a sentient being.

      I tend to analogize it witha computer program that when started simultaniously branches into numerous paths, most of which end in loops that eventually self-terminate, but one of which leads to spawning a new instance of the program. That one path is fundamentally different from the rest.

    68. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by pmz · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt that Mother Nature has any philosophy what-so-ever. Lets not get carried away with our personifications :)

      I felt this was an appropriate personification, where Nature can be something of a mentor in our quest for moral guidance. If we wonder whether something is "wrong", such as hunting (of animals) or murder (of humans), looking at established natural events can provide answers. If the killing of animals for food were "wrong", then the food chain would not exist as we know it. There isn't significant support in nature for the murder of like-species animals to be "right", unless it is taken in the context of competition for genetic propagation. However, once "civilization" occurs, politics and economics develops, and there are non-murderous ways to advance one's genetic makeup. Civilization should make murder obselete, which is why I can claim humans really are not very civilized, yet.

    69. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by pmz · · Score: 1

      The fertilized egg IS Homo Sapiens.

      Only the DNA says this. My daily discarded bladder cells are Homo Sapiens, too, by your argument. Should I regret having flushed them?

    70. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by li99sh79 · · Score: 1

      *sigh* I'll bite.

      The difference is that Hitler advocated the extermination of several groups of people, the pro-abortion rights crowd merely opposes the criminalization of the act of abortion. They do not endorse the act nor do they suggest that it should enter into widespread use. The pro-abortion rights crowd is simply making sure that people who do choose to have an abortion can get one in as safe an environment as possible.

      Beyond that there's not much point in debating with a person who's so intractable he's cut and pasting the same reply to every post here that disagrees with him.

      -sam
      --
      I was just here, where did I go?
    71. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      I never maintained that every human being is worthy of life, though that is a reasonable presumption. There are times when I think a human being is not worthy of life, specifically, when a human is taking or takes the life of another human. That is one of the reasons I do favor abortion if the child is putting the mother's life in danger.

      The difference is, my criteria for whether or not a human deserves life depends entirely on whether the human is taking or performing a deadly action against another human, not on its development, or physical location, or requirement for nourishment, or usefulness dead to those who are already alive.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    72. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      I don't have my Child Developmental Psychology textbook with me and I can only seem to dig up breastfeeding links, but I remember reading that mothers' bodies change in a number of positive ways during pregnancy. This would indicate that the mother/child relationship during pregnancy was symbiotic, even ignoring the species component of the definition of "parasite".

      IIRC, two of these benefits were a reinforced immune system and generally better mood (brain chemical benefit).

      Anyone know?
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    73. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      ---Getting offended does not change the logical equivalence.---

      The equivalence is based on equivocation. Genetically human is not what anyone means by "human being," as I illustrated. It is neither sufficient nor complete. I'm not offended by anything other than cowardly attempt to sidestep the issue of having to defend a moral position philosophically.

      Niether of my examples (they are not analougies) suffer from the problems you mention for the simple fact that they both reproduce the key factors relevant to the distinction. What relevance is "willful act" or "potential to remains alive" to something;s inherent moral status as a being? Potentiality is not actuality, and cannot be treated as such. The baby example illustrates why that is so: it doesn't matter that babies have all the needed potential to drive, and it will take willful action to prevent that potential from being fulfilled. They are not now capable or ready to drive, and so they are not afforded that right. The hard drive example demonstrates that potentiality can come in a myriad of forms, none of which you address.

    74. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Human beings are worthy of life only if they do not cause me any inconvenience

      Thats oversimplified. The guys in front of me at the ATM are inconvenient, but I can't kill them to remove that inconvenience (well, I could if i wore a mask, but thats not the point).

      I think the GP is correct to an extent, one should not be required to support another, but to extend this unchecked to children really isn't practical.

    75. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Another example of false equivalence. An egg is a gamete. A ferilized egg is a member of the species Homo Sapiens.

      It really is not a difficult concept, and refusing to see it requires a deliberate effort at self-delusion.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    76. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Suidae · · Score: 1

      at this stage of the game, squashing the little clump of cells is no different than picking your nose and baking the boogers in the microwave

      Your proposition apepars to be 'a zygote is no different than a differientiated cell from a mature organism'. This is false.

      A zygote will continue to develop into a human organism (if required support hardware is available), differientiated cells will not (although with some fiddling in a lab they might be coerced into doing so). The zygote may have the same DNA, but just as heart and liver cells act differently, so will a zygote act differently than any already differientiated cell.

      I'm not suggesting that a zygot is deserving of the same moral considerability that we give a baby or an adult, just that your propostion is false.

    77. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      To take this nonsense at it's word: because Hitler drew distinction across categories that had no real difference, and he had no good evidence to claim that ethnic differences had any real significance. People saying that zygotes do not merit the same sort of consideration as babies or even fetuses have plenty of reason: zygotes don't even have nervous systems. They can't feel pain, or loss, or have any opinions at all about life or death. Other beings can do all these things and more. The actual capicities of a being in question are pretty darn important, and even if you, you have to admit that this is HUGE gaping difference between Hitler's distinction and the distinction you are trying to smear with a lame Godwin.

    78. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but only on the second tuesday of every week.

    79. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by White+Rabbitt · · Score: 1

      Entire seeded plants are gametophytes, but they're still members of their own species. The lines of delineation aren't quite as clear as some pretend they are. Self-delusion is your meaningless "fertilization" distinction.

    80. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      "Anyone who maintains that a fertilized egg is not a human being doesn't know biology, or is lying."

      I know biology, and I don't claim that a fertilized egg is a human being. It is a human organism. It is human tissue. But human being is a philosophical term, not a scientific term. Show me the biological textbook that has a definition for "human being".

      I have a homework assignment for you. Find pictures and biological analysis of the fetus of a gerbil at 2 weeks. Then find one for a human. If you can really tell the difference, I'll buy you a coke.

      It is human life, human tissue. It is genetically unique. So are many things. So are cancer cells. We give humans special priority in the biotic kingdom because of our minds. The human brain is where we draw the line. It has no brain.

      Yes, I can see arguments against late-term abortions - some basic cognitive process may have begun at that point. However, most late-term abortions are for lethal birth defects. Worst of all, the bans on specific forms of late term (3rd trimester) abortions (see the "partial birth" abortion dispute) are not based on any resoning but how unpleasant the procedure sounds. The inexplicable ban on partial-birth abortions, even for terminal birth-defects, leaves doctors' only alternative to be much more painful, unpleasant, and generally violent procedures. Its just rather stupid. At least the partial-birth abortion leaves the mother with something to bury.

    81. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      Heck, the skin cells could develop into a human being nowadays simply by removing their DNA and placing it the right sort of cell. I guess it's murder when I shave, all those potential human beings. The fact that the process might be a "natural" development or not is irrelevant.

    82. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Plant reproduction is vastly different in many respects than mammalian, and specifically human sexual reproduction. Again, another example of false equivalence.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    83. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      ---Racial characteristics are genetically determined. You really do need to read some biology texts.---

      You're a nasty little guy aren't you. The point wasn't that racial characteristics aren't genetic, but that they are trivial: they bear no relation to the things on which anyone bases moral consideration. And I suspect you KNEW that, but went after the straw man just so you could throw the word "biology" in there yet again.

      ---Your comparison of skin cells is another logical fallacy of false equivalence. Biologically, an egg is an egg. A sperm is a sperm. It is the fusion of the two that creates a new human being. Please read a good biology text on sexual reproduction.---

      Again, I know this, and you know I know this. The problem is that none of these facts make it a false equivalence. To prove that it is, you'd have to argue that the differences are relevant in some way that affect the moral criteria in question. Since you refuse to even state your criteria (that would make you Hitler!) you have no grounds on which to declare the differences relevant.

      ---A human being is only worthy of life once it has reached an arbitrarily selected point in its normal biological development.---

      No, my argument boils down to: a BEING's capacities are relevant to moral considerations of its interests: development is a temporal process: moral judgement is a consideration of past or present interests. A clump of cells isn't even a distinct being, no matter what it's genetic sequence codes for. It doesn't have any interests of its own, period.

      ---To maintain that it is commits the logical fallacy of the Paradigm.---

      Outside of la la land, when people accuse each other of logical fallacies, they are normally required to explain the relevant error in logic. Anyone can call out names, which is so far pretty much all you've done.

    84. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by White+Rabbitt · · Score: 1
      How are you defining "Homo sapiens?" And how do you define that? Anything that possesses 23 chromosome pairs in somatic cells? I doubt that we're the only species worldwide with that number. Human somatic cells in stages of division possess 23 chromosomes, just like unfertilized eggs.

      Maybe you mean anything that satisfies the standard definition of human: "bipedal primate having language and ability to make and use complex tools; brain 1400 cc?" Fetuses possess neither language, complex toolmaking ability, or a 1400cc brain. They're not bipedal upon fertilization. Where's your distinction?

    85. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by CharterTerminal · · Score: 1

      Hell, I still have nightmares about Frank!

    86. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "My position is based in reason, logic and fact." Logic and reason perhaps, but what facts do you have? I know of no factual information that exists to define when an embryo becomes human.

    87. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by ifwm · · Score: 1

      Wait, that's a Post Hoc, um I mean Red Herring, dammit never mind

    88. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by penginkun · · Score: 1

      Oh my god... I remember seeing that when I was but a wee lad and it scared the crap out of me. I had nightmares for weeks about giant rabbits coming to bite MY head off...

      *shudder*

      Thanks for the memories, by the way. ;)

    89. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by apt142 · · Score: 1

      A fertilized egg does not have a brain, a personality, or any sense of its environment. Is it possible to lack these qualities and still be considered human?

      I say the same thing about slashdotters.

    90. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Sgt+York · · Score: 1
      By that line of reasoning, (The fetus is gathering its nourishment from the blood of the mother, itself) an exclusively nursing child also has no rights.

      Granted, it is possible for the child to gather its nourishment elsewhere, but the same can be said for a fetus after a certain period of time in the womb. A two week embryo can't live outside the womb, but a 6 month fetus certainly can.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    91. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Sgt+York · · Score: 1
      Racial characteristics are genetically determined. You really do need to read some biology texts.

      Kind of, but not really. The traits themselves are genetically determined, but there is no significant difference at the DNA level between any of the human races. There is more variation within each race than there is between the races.

      As an historical note, Hitler was concerned with the genetics of the time. At that time, race was considered to be a direct reflection of genetics. That has since been demonstrated to be wrong.Remember, DNA was not thought to be the genetic material at the time. We only had an abstract grasp of genetics.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    92. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Dictionary.com defines parasite as: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

      And a foetus contributes to the host by passing on its DNA to a new generation - evolutionarily the greatest contribution possible. This is what EVERYTHING ELSE is for, including the host's survival.

      (And if dictionary.com limits the associated organism's contribution to survival of the host, excluding propagation of the host's DNA, the definition is in error.)

      The issue at hand is still whether or not a fetus counts as a human, and the answer to that isn't scientific, it's theological - which makes it good fodder for debate, but not as a basis for advancing or hindering scientific research. Just like the RIAA's supposed 'potential income', you can't quantify 'potential humanity'.

      Actually, it's more a matter of "definitional", though theology is one of the major factors in people's choice of definitions.

      My own take is that humanity includes a functional brain - which squares nicely with the Supreme Court's choice of the start of the third trimester as the cutoff between lump-of-tissue and human being. (Up through about the first week of the third trimester the individual cells of the brain are unconnected - a "brain kit" rather than a mind. After that they start wiring up. I can't define where in that process what I'd consider to be a human being emerges, and conception time is often a bit uncertain. So give the foetus the benefit of the doubt and the third trimester start is a good choice.

      But there are other arguments:

      The Libertarians might point out that, even if the foetus IS a human from day one, if the mother can't kick it out it's holding her in slavery. Even if the slave-slaveowner relationship is necessary to the life of the slaveowner, many ethical systems accept that the slave may free him/herself whenever the opportunity arises. Dead slaveowner? Tough luck.

      The state might express an interest in preserving the life of the foetus as one of its citizens. At that point the question becomes when is it appropriate to risk the life, freedom, and welfare of ANOTHER of its citizens for this purpose. Different states will argue for differnt points, of course. But in the US I could imagine a future in which a "compelling state interest" was invoked once the foetus is viable if extracted from the mother and the extraction is possible without major risks to the mother's health. Such a claim might be used to limit voluntary late-term pregnancy-ending procedures to those that attempt to preserve the baby's life.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    93. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by billyhoward · · Score: 1

      You didnt read the article. They said they are using rabbit eggs because getting human eggs in difficult and dangerous to the woman. The scientiscts in question are in China, and I doubt they care what Pat Buchanan says. But nice shot at the "Religous Right," if only to enforce a "Idoit Left."

    94. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Sgt+York · · Score: 1
      Another analogy:

      I have a child, an infant, born days ago. If I were to leave it alone for a day, it would surely die of hypothermia or hunger. This is a huge inconvienience to me. If I were to abandon it to its fate, that would be criminal. The question, then, becomes this: When the child is born, you are most certainly responsible for it. If you allow it to die through negligence, you have committed murder. At the instant prior to conception, it is most certainly not alive, and you can "kill" (for lack of a better word) it with a condom, nonoxynyl-9(sp?) or the rythm method, without so much as a guilty conscience.

      At some time between those two points, it becomes alive and has rights. The debate, IMO, is about where that point is. Is it birth? Conception? Implantation? Morula? Embryo? When the heart beats? When there's a detectable brainwave? I have no idea. What are the criteria?

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    95. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Dictionary.com defines parasite as: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

      It says nothing about differing species, only different organisms. By the above definition, a fetus is a perfect example.


      No, it isn't.

      Quick clue: A human fetus not only contributes to the survival of the host, it contributes to the survival of the host in the only way that ultimately matters at all. You know your DNA, which coded for the proteins that stimulated the development of tissues into the various glands that produce the hormones that make you want to shag? It's doing that on purpose, because that's the only way it will propogate itself.

      Say you have two organisms A and B. Organism A feeds off of B. Sounds parasitic, right? However, organism B depends upon organism A for successfull reproduction, which is as fundamental a survival need as there is. That's called symbiosis, and is the term usually used to describe relationships such as that between flowers and bees. That's why flowers exist, and why placentas exist -- because it is in the host's advantage to have them.

      The issue at hand is still whether or not a fetus counts as a human, and the answer to that isn't scientific, it's theological - which makes it good fodder for debate, but not as a basis for advancing or hindering scientific research. Just like the RIAA's supposed 'potential income', you can't quantify 'potential humanity'.

      I know this is /. and we're supposed to work the RIAA into every subject somehow, but that's really a ridiculous comparison, beating out even the characterization of babies as parasites. The "potential income" is sales that didn't happen, and may not have happened, and thus is actually a description of nothing. The "potential" in "potential humanity" is that the foetus we're talking about might be a human right now. It exists, and we're here debating on whether it is human or not. And that absolutely is a reason to advance or hinder scientific research, because if it is a human, then we'd basically be allowing unethical experiments on humans against their will. Comparing that to the RIAA's "you might have bought a CD!" is both silly and sad.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    96. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      -1 Offtopic, +4 Matrix reference

      At the start of The Matrix (the first one) notice the scary bunnies from 'Night of the Lepus' bounding across Mr Anderson's TV screen. Follow the white rabbit. Go on.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    97. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      WTF is "the logical fallacy of the Paradigm"? My argument boils down to whether or not said human is capable of living outside of it's mothers body. Period. If you want a 6 month premie who's mother wants it aborted, you're more than welcome to pay for the c-section and keep it alive, for at that point it becomes a human (in my mind).

      Victims of Hitlers final solution had made choices which put them at the wrong end of a gun. You forget that many who would have fallen victim to the gas chambers took heed of the warning signs, and fled when the fleeing was still a choice.

      A fetus is neither able to affect it's own situation in life, nor is it able to ignore the desire of it's mother to kill it.

      Although I can understand your argument, I cannot see how they are similar. If at some point in the future, a child spontaneously divorces itself from it's mother, crawls down it's leg, and implants itself into the nearest available foreign uterus, then I think you'd have an apples to apples comparison.

      Anyhow, Godwin's law has been met, I'll concede the last word to you, b-baggins, since you and I will never be able to see eye to eye. This is why I only discuss abortion on every second thursday of the month. ;-)

      Caio, and may the fates be kind to you.

    98. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by TheTick · · Score: 1

      It comes down to where you think human life begins - in my opinion (and no doubt, not yours), human life begins at the point where the fetus can survive on its own. Until then, it's a parasite, and the host should be able to deal with it as the host sees fit.

      So, like -- up through age 22...?

      Oh, god. Did I just say that out loud, and with HTML tags?

      --

      --
      bachiatari na torisetsu o yome!

    99. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by pmz · · Score: 1

      I'm not suggesting that a zygot is deserving of the same moral considerability that we give a baby or an adult, just that your propostion is false.

      I guess my prior argument wasn't aiming at this level of detail. The "programming" of the zygote is certainly different, but it is otherwise the same as other cells (cell membrane, stuff floating around inside, etc.).

      I think what many people get hung up on is the "potential" of a zygote, that killing a zygote is somehow murdering someone who never existed. A couple who decides to never have children accomplishes the same effect, at this level. A couple who decides to have children and then waits until the third trimester before having second thoughts are two people that have much deeper and more widespread issues to resolve than just deciding over their child's fate, IMO (their relationship itself should have been aborted, but now they are way beyond the point of no return).

    100. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Biologically, human life only began once. Also, biologically, a new human being (member of the species homo sapiens) begins at conception. Your opinions are contrary to the biological facts of the case.

      The unborn homo sapiens, is by definition, not a parasite. Biologically, it is a developing human being going through the natural biological growth process. Your opinion on the matter is contrary to the biological facts of the case.

      All you have done is reiterate my first post: That pro-abortionists claim a human being is only worthy of life when it has reached an arbitrarily defined stage of growth or development.

      The initial question stands. How is this position ethically different than Hitler maintaining that only human beings with certain genetic traits are worthy of life?

      Then last me ask you question, how do you feel about the death penalty?
      Either all life is sacred... or no life is.

    101. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      You logic, both in this post and in the children posts you have made, is so full of fallacies that i can't even begin to count them.

      How is Hitler deciding to kill several million people because of the way they look in any way similar to killing a bundle of cells that doesn't even have a brain?

      Sure, that bundle of cells will become a human in a few months (barring miscariage and such) but so what? It's not a human at the point the abortion is performed.

      If it is immoral to perform an abortion because the cells will eventually become a human, then it is immoral to use any form of contraception becuse that prevents what will form the cells that will become a human.

      And hey! As the "moral majority" loves to point out, abstinence is a form of contraception! Which makes it immoral for any girl to say no when a guy asks to have sex with her, because that prevents the conception that will form the bundle of cells that will become the human.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    102. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The baby human invades, and hijacks the adult females resources, whether she's willing or not. Just like any other parasite. The fact that we do and should attach significance to that, having been there and done that, doesn't change what it is. We also start out with flippers and a whole mess of nipples (mammals rock!). I'm sorry if you idiology gets in way of the facts. But humans simply grow through different stages of life. You might as well be saying "That's not a catterpillar being a pest devouring leaves, it's a beautiful butterfly helping flowers to grow." In a way you'd be right, but not as right. Reality preceeding idea and all.

      As to the significance of birth, I'm sorry that a few thousand years of human tradition and convention disagree with you. Ever notice how babies aren't welcomed into the world until after they're born? They might be prepared for, even talked to, but they're just not considered here until they pop out of the oven all pink and sticky. Which is pretty arbitrary, but since we've been acting that way for a few thousand years, a few more isn't going to hurt.

      But to your well we'll call it a question, but its really not. And by all rights, convention, and tradition, not only is this discussion closed, you've lost. (Godwin's law and all.)

      But what the hell.... The Nazi's believed that they were the chosen, divinely annointed, and so the only people fit to rule were people who looked, and acted like them. So complete was their delusion that even thought Americans would more or less agree with them. And as the third rome who's empire was ment to last a thousand years, or ten, they, to keep Rome safe. They needed to kill the outsiders, and those who would threaten the fatherland and their way of life. Now being pussies, they couldn't just demand a destitute and weak germany go to war with those who'd visited the inequities of the versille treaties on them. So they picked a fringe element within, not so much to end the threat, but to unite everyone in a common goal against a common percieved threat. Who better than the Jews, a lot of them but not too many, they did weird stuff, prayed to the wrong name of the same God, ate weird food, and it'd been something of a tradition (which had fallen out of practice) anyway. At it's core, the Nazi's wern't selecting traits, they were just killing everything that didn't agree with them, and sometimes stuff they just assumed didn't agree with them like russian peseants. It was just cold blooded murder on a massive scale. With nothing fancier than a little paranoia.

      Now abortion, is a choice, that the person who has the child makes. It's a choice to not risk, or give up all that's nessecary to raise a child. They don't want to spend their life that way at that time. Pretty bad method of birth control, but I submit a relatively quick painful end is better than a lifetime of growing up unwanted, resented and those after affects. Good choice, or bad choice, it's the one who's obligated to care for the baby, and risk her life for it, that gets to make it. Its only fair. If you bore all the risk and obligation, you should get to make it.

      As a pre-emptive strike. This is not an argument for infanticide. Because once the baby is here, and welcomed into the community, it is one of us, and instantly gains all of the protections we expect ourselves. The parents still have attendant obligations, but now that the risk of pregnancy has passed, and the baby has arrived, they can't kill it. However, they can transfer their obligation to another who accepts it.

    103. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Psmylie · · Score: 1

      "Racial characteristics are genetically determined."

      Physical racial characteristics, yes. But not social or religious characteristics. Hitler's program of extermination was based as much on social and religious differences as it was the minimally different racial characteristics of the Jewish people. I only mentioned that in response to this statement you made: "How is this position different than Hitler maintaining that humans beings without certain genetic traits are unworthy of life?" (emphasis mine). I was simply trying to point out that Hitler wasn't only considering genetic differences when he targeted the Jews.

      "You really do need to read some biology texts"
      And you really need to try to understand what I wrote before you post an inflammatory reply.

      "Your argument bascially boils down to: A human being is only worthy of life once it has reached an arbitrarily selected point in its normal biological development."

      Nope. My argument was "until it has a brain, it's debatable as to whether or not it even counts as a human being."

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    104. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      What a peice of flamebait.

      The reason for preserving a fetus is the same reason why you cherish the modification you made to your case, or why people think that artwork is so valuable. People would walk away in disgust if someone threw a chair through a Picasso. It's a unique peice of work, completely different from all the rest.

      The embryo/fetus is a completely unique set of human genes. For this reason alone, it is worth preserving. It is as valuable to the parents as a painting was to Picasso, unless the parents are fucked in the head. From the moment of conception, a child is special, and ought to be saved. It may have a parasitic existance for the first 9 months, but there's no reason that being parasitic is bad. I could state that you are parasitic to the Earth, unnecessary (since you're just a pile of cells), and very eligible for removal.

      Your argument lacks scope, and is rather self-centric.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    105. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is fascinating that a country founded upon religious dissent is still so consumed by it.

      Sadly, as I understand it, that's just a myth. The pilgrims left England to have free pratice of their beliefs, but they were kicked out by the Dutch after settling there because the pilgrims felt that everyone should believe as they themselves did. They settled in North America because no one wanted their pushy, obnoxious, religious behavior in their backyard. The pilgrams hated the idea that anyone could be free to worship in any way.

      - A proud Canadian

      Lucky. If I could get my girlfriend to do the same I'd be trying like mad to move there from the US.

    106. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      The parallel with Hitler is valid. The philosophical argument is that some human beings are worthy of life, others are not. Pro-abortionists maintain the same philosophy. Getting offended does not change the logical equivalence.

      No, the parallel is completly invalid.

      Hitler believed that certain kinds of people were worthy of life and others are not.

      Pro-choice people believe that there are certain developmental standards that a thing must meet before being considered human, and this standard is equally applied to all beings. Regardless of race, color, creed, sex, or anything else, a person is not a human until they've reached a certain stage, nor are they human any longer after they've passed a different stage.

      Just as there are certain customs and restrictions relating to the treatment of corpses after a person has died, so there ace certain customs and restrictions relating to the treatment of fetuses. However those customs and restrictions are not the same as for a human, nor should they be.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    107. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is absolutely amazing how we can get so caught up in the philisophical discussion that we will posit hypothetical examples like this one. Your hypothetical example, taking skin cells and taking their DNA and putting it into "the right sort of cell", is exactly what the article is about. Chinese researchers took cells from human foreskins and implanted the DNA in rabbit egg cells. It was done with apparantly no irony at all as well.

    108. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by The_dev0 · · Score: 1
      For all your pseudo-intellectual babble, it's obvious to most of us that you are going on and on and on and on like a three year old having a tantrum, stamping your feet and repeating the same rhetoric ad nauseum, but are neglecting to provide any evidence, just opinion. The debate does NOT continue because "people do not want to accept the logical conclusion of the premise" (Which I guess means they don't agree with your viewpoint), the debate continues for the exact opposite reason. You cannot accept that others may have a varying opinion. And, for all your hot air, every point you make is still an opinion, not a fact. You have stated nothing. The closest you have come to a fact has been to invoke Godwin's law, and even that was heavily spun. Anyway, I think it's time YOU tried to accept the logical conclusion of the premise, ie: ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS ARE SO HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY YOUR EMOTIONS THEY HAVE LOST ALL CREDIBILITY.

      Have a nice day, kid.

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
    109. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument also boils down to: A member of the species Homo Sapiens is worthy of life because that's what I believe.

    110. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold on, a couple of posts back, you were claiming that the moment conception occurs a human being is the result, now you are saying that birth is a stage in the development of a human being? Which is it? Either you are a human being at conception, or, there are many stages in the development of a fertilised egg into a human baby. Shit, get your argument straight first, troll-boy. Your positions are simply factually incorrect.If you were in any way objective, you would probably notice your tendency to heavily mix fact with your beliefs, but I have a feeling you can't make the distinction.

    111. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Potentiality and reality are two very very different things, bub. By your logic, every foetus SHOULD be aborted, because every one of them has the potential to grow up and become your hero, Hitler, or somebody just like him.

    112. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument basically boils down to: A human being is worthy of life based on what I wish to believe. This position is no different rhetorically or philosophically to ANY of Hitler's acts of destruction.

    113. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Wolfrider · · Score: 1
      "Laydees and gennlemuns, we now present to you..."

      (Six foot tall Rabbit/human hybrid female enters the room)
      ...
      "The first REAL Playboy bunny!"
      ...
      (crickets chirping)
      ...
      (Wild applause)

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    114. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by yerricde · · Score: 1

      With the exception of the fetus, which cannot survive without its host, the above mentioned entities are in fact human.

      The difference between a 20 week fetus and a 20 week infant is that the infant can be adopted by a different host. Do you claim to predicate humanity on adoptability?

      Neglected, they may die, but they are in fact living on their own without the assistance of external aid.

      How is the mother of the 20 week infant not providing "the assistance of an external aid" through her breast and her love? Besides, define "external". Fetal human beings breathe a fluid carried inside a mother's womb; infants breathe a fluid carried inside an atmosphere.

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    115. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're even less original than the first post trolls.

      For everybody reading this troll's post, the question was answered in the parent, who said "A fertilized egg does not have a brain, a personality, or any sense of its environment." Clearly the parent meant these features distinguish those that are worthy to live. The troll continues to post the same flamebait question, invoking Hitler for no good reason other than to stir up emotions, after the question has been answered. Please mod down b-baggins as the troll that he is.

    116. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by euxneks · · Score: 1

      Hey. That had Deforest Kelly, Bones from the original Star Trek to the uneducated-- That means it has to be good!

      Dammit Jim I'm a doctor not a veterinarian!

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    117. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Lectrik · · Score: 1
      I never maintained that every human being is worthy of life, though that is a reasonable presumption. There are times when I think a human being is not worthy of life, specifically, when a human is taking or takes the life of another human. That is one of the reasons I do favor abortion if the child is putting the mother's life in danger.


      Umm, not to incite the flame war a bit more but...
      How is killing the child to save the mother any more logically/morally (I think I've lost track by now) correct than killing the mother to save the child?
      Isn't the person performing the abortion consciously taking a deadly action against another human (that isn't aware that it is causing harm)?

      It seems, perhaps, that you are determining a Homo Sapian's worthieness to live is fixxed at some arbitrary developemental stage.

      Then again as a child who had mom's immune system fighting me the entire time, I can't realy say that I was more than a parasite for 7.6 months.
      In any case YMWV.
      I personally think humans should lay eggs, like their cousins the echidna, or platypus(sp?).
      Anyone have any tips on engineering a retrovirus to alter the correct genes?
      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    118. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Lectrik · · Score: 1
      Alright, i've seen engough people ask
      WTF is "the logical fallacy of the Paradigm"?
      And I was one of them, since it's not one we covered in the 2 phi courses I took a long time back. It's not even listed in the chapter on Logical Falacies.

      This was taken from waaay down the page if youre looking
      Paradigm: taking one's own encapsulated world view, or system of thought (paradigm), or culture, as the standard by which all other paradigms may be judged

      It's located under "Fallacies Of Explanation" as a subset of 'Untestable'
      Hopefully i didn't just commit the logical fallacy of Failure to Elucidate
      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    119. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by argemirogarcia · · Score: 1

      I realise this is just another hoax.

      Read this, posted on the internet since 2001:

      http://www.euthanasia.com/clonepage7.html
      http: //www.bjreview.com.cn/2001/200141/Forum-20014 1(B).htm

      And the Washington Post believe!

    120. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asymmetry of causality - the future is not the past, the humans already are without certain genetic traits, the embryos only have a possibility of developing those characteristics. So does my sperm - it's just a bit further in its possible future, since fertilisation is "simply a matter of development" too. I can't even do much about nocturnal emissions and such like, nor can women do much about menstruation and associated egg loss other than suppress it with antifertility drugs. A controlled abortion is far better than bringing an unwanted child into this hell of a world, and a controlled abortion is far better than a desperate woman shoving a coat hanger up herself to do the job herself. Embyros are just balls of cells.

      Most embyros don't survive, anyway.

    121. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      A flat eeg indicates the death of the human being. Individual components may continue on for a few hours or days, but the organism as a whole is dead.

      Yet a braindead 'former-human' can be kept alive with assistance if only the tiniest portion of the brainstem is functional. The entire higher brain can be flatlined, yet years could go by before organ failure might happen. The tissues are certainly alive, but we generally consider the organism, as a whole, dead.

      The organism is already alive, and will continue to grow in complexity as time passes.

      There's no lower limit to when this argument can be applied, so this is just the 'human life begins at conception' argument. The trouble with that argument is that many fertilized eggs do not survive, due to activities/foods/drugs the mother engages in, improper uterine environment, or even competition from other fertilized eggs. If human life begins at conception, the mother and/or siblings are guilty of deliberate or involuntary manslaughter, through malice or neglect, whenever a zygote fails to thrive. If we can consider a zygote something that is not yet a human, this moral problem goes away and mothers stay out of hell, but it becomes necessary to determine the tough question of when the tissues which could be a human actually become a human.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    122. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap movies.... by codemachine · · Score: 1

      Comparing Pro-Choice to Hitler is not at all fair. Sorry.

      Also, your point about "arbitrary stage of development" is very narrow as well. You migth as well start singing "every sperm is sacred!" from Monty Python. One egg and one sperm do not consititue a human being, no matter how much potential for one there may be. I don't see that being any different the moment they join.

      Now as to what point a fetus actually is a human being, well that is what is being debated I guess. Arguments that the US Supreme Court took as convincing involved brain activity, although I do realize it is very hard to pick an exact time in the cycle. It is a very grey area.

      Some try to make it easier by picking birth as the moment we are human, but how about 2 days before birth? How about c-sections? That doesn't work in reality, it is just convenient. So is picking conception, despite the fact you only have 2 joined cells sitting in a rather warm and wet body cavity. Really you're only one step away from saying that the individual sperm and egg are a human being. What you're really talking about is potential to be a human being, not humanity itself.

      I'm not going to say I know the answer or exact time that a fetus becomes human, but I'm not going to be a zealot and take the easy way out either. Sometimes these things aren't meant to be easy to decide. If it were really so morally clear, there wouldn't be so many passionate debates about it.

  2. Tasteless by ComaVN · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finally, babies with a healthy appetite for sex

    --
    Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    1. Re:Tasteless by CowsAnonymous · · Score: 1
      > Finally, babies with a healthy appetite for sex

      Now all we need are religious mandatory orgies and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World will become a reality...

      --
      CowsAnonymous: We're here to help moo.
    2. Re:Tasteless by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is this the place to make the obligitory remark about Chinese and Rabbit mating habbits?

      There are, after all, a *LOT* of Chinese...

      "I'm multiplying Doc, I'm multiplying."

    3. Re:Tasteless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucky for the world, terrorists are taking out Americans at high enough rates to keep those morons in check. "Ahh, I'm falllllllling of the world trade center... ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhh!"
      Let's roll... right into that FIELD at 600 miles per hour! Daym!

    4. Re:Tasteless by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      It sounds like someone needs a hug!

    5. Re:Tasteless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the result would be , huge furry chinese that runs really fast and increase their number at a very high rate, their teeth would be about the same i guess, acoording to old disney movies , but i suppose it will do as a weapon , so perhaps it's the first step of building a super army and then
      invade .... well any country that grows a lot of carrots..
      like ...uuhh, hmm... well there might be some flaws in this theory.. but i'am pretty sure theres an evil plot burried here some where..

  3. Hugh Hefner at work? by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    China trying to compete with Hugh and create their own Playboy Bunnies? Not to mention the potential for pleasure, knowing how rabbits multiply....

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    1. Re:Hugh Hefner at work? by lovebyte · · Score: 5, Funny

      knowing how rabbits multiply

      New Chinese policy: Only one baby rabbit per couple!

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    2. Re:Hugh Hefner at work? by cygnus · · Score: 4, Funny
      New Chinese policy: Only one baby rabbit per couple!

      Lenny's going to be pissed when he accidentally kills his...

      --
      Just raise the taxes on crack.
    3. Re:Hugh Hefner at work? by Purosesuchi-Zu · · Score: 1

      I doubt anyone here stayed awake during English class long enough to understand that reference.

    4. Re:Hugh Hefner at work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the potential for pleasure, knowing how rabbits multiply...
      Yeah, but imagine a China-sized Beowulf cluster of human-rabbit hybrids.

    5. Re:Hugh Hefner at work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To do that, they'd have to steal an embryo from a good looking race.

    6. Re:Hugh Hefner at work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points I'd give you +1, Literary Reference

      -captainktainer

    7. Re:Hugh Hefner at work? by trg83 · · Score: 1

      I did, but I now often wonder why :)

  4. I for one by prisoner · · Score: 4, Funny

    Welcome our new fuzzy over...nevermind.

    1. Re:I for one by mothrathegreat · · Score: 1
      Asshole you got there first!

      --
      Extended Warranty? How can I lose!
    2. Re:I for one by rokzy · · Score: 1

      acehole did it funnier though - and the whole thing, not a cop-out:

      here

  5. Bah... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bah, what a trivial story. Let me know when they can make a monkey with four asses. THEN, I'll be impressed!

    1. Re:Bah... by tbase · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe we should just leave nature to its simple, one-asses schematics.

      --

      666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
    2. Re:Bah... by Lord+Dimwit+Flathead · · Score: 5, Funny

      They're way ahead of you. From the article:

      The team said it retrieved foreskin tissue from two 5-year-old boys and two men, and facial tissue from a 60-year-old woman, as a source of skin cells. They fused those cells with New Zealand rabbit eggs from which the vast majority of rabbit DNA had been removed.

      If you thought rotten.com was bad, just wait until foreskinrabbitface.com goes live.

    3. Re:Bah... by Jackdaw+Rookery · · Score: 2, Funny

      WTF? You want a monkey with 4 asses? What have you got planned?! No, no, I didn't ask, I was was never here.

      *Backs away*

    4. Re:Bah... by MxTxL · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let me know when they can make a monkey with four asses.

      They already can. Actually, it's five asses. The prototype one they have developed is named Darl McBride and the asses are named Sontag, Bench, Wilson, Hunsaker and Broughton

    5. Re:Bah... by Gleng · · Score: 3, Funny

      God, Schmod. I want my monkeyman!

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    6. Re:Bah... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

      I think the question is why wouldn't you want a monkey with four asses?

      Well maybe here's a reason...

      Mephesto: It's thanks to the wonders of genetic engineering that soon there will be an end to hunger, disease, pollution, even war. I have created things that will change the world for the better. For instance, here is a monkey with four asses.
      4-Assed Monkey: [grumble].
      Kyle: How does that make the world better?
      Mephesto: And here, of course, is my four assed ostrich. And my four assed mongoose.
      Stan: Do you have anything besides just animals with four asses?
      Mephesto: Oh, uh, I suppose so uh. Oh yes, over here. Here I have rats splice with ducks, and gorillas spliced with mosquitos, and here I have rabbits spliced with fish to make little bunnyfish.
      Cartman: Heyyy, these bunny ears are tied on with little strings.
      Mephesto: And over here, swiss cheese spliced with chalk, and a beard.

    7. Re:Bah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sheer brilliance, if I were logged in and had any modpoints left, boom, you'd be rolling!

  6. Not really a mutant by lovebyte · · Score: 5, Informative

    mix of DNA from both human and rabbit

    Well, not exactly. The cell DNA was human. Only the mitochondrial DNA was from rabbit.

    --

    I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    1. Re:Not really a mutant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, not exactly. The cell DNA was human. Only the mitochondrial DNA was from rabbit.


      So what you are saying is that they combined the human cell DNA with the mitochondrial rabbit DNA?

      Sounds like a mix to me....

    2. Re:Not really a mutant by saskwach · · Score: 5, Funny

      So...It's a bunny-powered human? Does Energizer know about this?

    3. Re:Not really a mutant by lovebyte · · Score: 1

      Funniest remark I have heard on /. for ages!

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    4. Re:Not really a mutant by fenix+down · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know, what the hell's with the headlines on this story? They cloned human stem cells using rabbit cell-goo, they didn't make "rabbit-human" hybrids.

      To clone human stem cells:
      1) Find woman to let you jam a needle into her ovary
      2) Stick random human cell nucleus in egg you sucked out
      3) ???
      4) Stem Cells!!

      To clone human stem cells in China:
      1) Look for woman to let you jam a needle into her ovary
      2) Get kicked in the nads
      3) Buy rabbits
      4) Jam a needle in rabbit ovary
      5) Stick random human cell nucleus in egg you sucked out
      6) ???
      7) Stem Cells!!
      8) Claim to have created rabbit-babies
      9) Wait for science-illiterate newsmen to promote your stock symbol on TV
      10) Profit!!

      What a bunch of fuckholes. Seriously, when the best scientific information in your article's coming from the Vatican, I think you're in trouble.

    5. Re:Not really a mutant by abiogenesis · · Score: 1

      Actually mitochondria can be assumed as a different cell, like a symbiotic life form. If they made a DNA by adding some genes from human and some from rabbit, I'd call it a mix.

      --

      Donate free food to the hungry at The Hunger site.
    6. Re:Not really a mutant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Essentially, it's a rabbit cell with rabbit mitochondria (which has rabbit DNA), but instead of a rabbit nucleus, it's a human nucleus w/ human DNA

    7. Re:Not really a mutant by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      You are the funmeister. Three laughs in one comment, damn you! Now I have to clean up all this coffee off my screen...

    8. Re:Not really a mutant by KjetilK · · Score: 1

      NANAE has the C&C warning. However, I think it is your own fault when reading /. knowing full well that people try to be funny here... :-)

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    9. Re:Not really a mutant by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if, since mitochondria generate the 'power' for the cell, if this would make a human with a VERY hyper metabolism.

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    10. Re:Not really a mutant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      they didn't make "rabbit-human" hybrids.

      Yes they did. A hybrid is "2a) Something of mixed origin or composition."

      Words have more than one definition. We talk about hybrid cars without dorks saying the cars can't be hybrid because they aren't "1) The offspring of genetically dissimilar parents or stock".

      --
      me

  7. Pre-emptive post by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1

    And before all the luddites, technophobes and "every sperm is sacred" nutjobs hop in: no human/animal life was created here - the experiment experiment was with mere cells.

    1. Re:Pre-emptive post by orius_khan · · Score: 1
      And before all the luddites, technophobes and "every sperm is sacred" nutjobs hop in: no human/animal life was created here - the experiment experiment was with mere cells.


      Uhhhh yeah... "embryo cells"... you know, the ones that eventually become full humans/animals.

      Every sperm is not sacred, but if they did manage to create a half-human half-rabbit person... I think they might be among the very few deserving of the title "special"...
      --
      Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
    2. Re:Pre-emptive post by axxackall · · Score: 1

      You mean dead cells? IMHO, one cell or several - if it's alive - it's a life.

      --

      Less is more !
    3. Re:Pre-emptive post by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 0
      Uhhhh yeah... "embryo cells"... you know, the ones that eventually become full humans/animals.

      Please stop looking at mere biochemistry with such anthropocentric attitude. Embryo/stem cells are just cells. Yes, they are marvellous in their capability to transform into almost any other cell but they are still cells, biochemical machines that can and should be studied and applied to the good of the human race. The whole stemcell/gene technology discussion is really a throwback to the times when myths and religious/magical thinking ruled.

      Potential means nothing. We already exist - the creature which is potentially stored in the DNA of those cells does not.

    4. Re:Pre-emptive post by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1

      I said: human/animal life. A microscopic collection of cells does not qualify as either. Yes, cells are life but then again you and I kill them in the millions all the time we are typing these posts. I just brushed my arm, sending a stream of dead and living skin cells in the air.

    5. Re:Pre-emptive post by InsaneGeek · · Score: 1

      What do you think sperm is made out of, cardboard? You do realize that a human is basically composed completely of "mere cells"? Individually they aren't that interesting but put bunches of them together and the mere cells become you.

    6. Re:Pre-emptive post by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1
      Individually they aren't that interesting but put bunches of them together and the mere cells become you

      And the scientists in the article (you did read it, didn't you?) experimented with?

      a) Individual or a very small collection of cells.
      b) A very large collection of cells, i.e. living breathing life-form?

      Thanks for playing.

    7. Re:Pre-emptive post by orius_khan · · Score: 1
      Please stop looking at mere biochemistry with such anthropocentric attitude. Embryo/stem cells are just cells. Yes, they are marvellous in their capability to transform into almost any other cell but they are still cells, biochemical machines that can and should be studied and applied to the good of the human race. The whole stemcell/gene technology discussion is really a throwback to the times when myths and religious/magical thinking ruled.

      Potential means nothing. We already exist - the creature which is potentially stored in the DNA of those cells does not.

      Ummm excuse me?? Your arm, brain, and any other part of your body are "just cells" also. I never said that this type of research shouldn't be done. I was rebutting you statement that they were not 'creating an actual animal, just cells'.

      Show me how to create a human, or rabbit, without using any embryo cells. Then you can make arguments about about these researchers not attemting to create actual hybrid animals. There is no 'mystical' thinking involved here; if they were working with liver cells or skin cells or anything else, there would be no chance that they could create something that would develop into a whole new animal. But they're not, are they.

      Potential means nothing? You only exist because of the DNA in your cells. That creature in the cells is YOU. And these guys are working to take control over what that creature becomes.

      ("Mere biochemistry"... WTF is this guy smoking?)
      --
      Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
    8. Re:Pre-emptive post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An egg and a sperm is required to create an embryo, and those are cells, so we should consider both eggs and sperm living beings? Something had to create those egg and sperm cells too, so I guess that makes the ovaries and testes living beings too.

      I'll take mine out for a pint later then.

    9. Re:Pre-emptive post by InsaneGeek · · Score: 1

      I choose "a)" here's a question for you:

      How just many cells do you think are in a single sperm cell when it joins with a single egg cell (hint: the word cell isn't plural).

      Umm... thanks for playing, too bad you lost.

    10. Re:Pre-emptive post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats right, so if an embryo is required to create life and is life itself, and a sperm and an egg is required to create an embryo they must be life too, and the ovaries and the testes are required to create eggs and sperm, so they must be life too. Right?

      You fucking idiot. Existence is some world of magic and mystery for you, isn't it?

    11. Re:Pre-emptive post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sheesh. Give the guy a break.

      If you are so fucking smart, give us a definition of "personhood" we can agree on. That is the real underlying question here.

    12. Re:Pre-emptive post by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

      I'll take sperm, egg sausage and sperm, that hasn't got much sperm in it.

      Ok, forgive me I'll go away quietly now.

      --

      What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
    13. Re:Pre-emptive post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personhood? Awareness. Until you're aware of your surroundings you are not alive.

    14. Re:Pre-emptive post by InsaneGeek · · Score: 1

      Dude you need to put the crack pipe down a bit more often, you get spun way to easily...

      I don't believe I've mentioned "intelligent life" or anything even hinting at some form of enlightened "existence". Previous poster (probably you, now as A.C. because you realize how incorrect you were) said: "every sperm is sacred nutjobs... experiment was with mere cells". I responded with posts stating that sperm is comprised of mere cells. Poster (i.e. you) then ignorantly responded with a statement about the number of cells, I responded asking poster (you) just how many cells are in a single sperm cell.

      Do you not see the humor in the with that exchange? I can say he (you) does have a never say die attitude, even in the face of facts. Poster (you) trying to support the statement when it's so obviously knocked down by the slightest brease, made me laugh out loud...

    15. Re:Pre-emptive post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>every sperm is sacred

      I hope I don't run into one of those whackos. I've been wasting sperm for years. :)

    16. Re:Pre-emptive post by ipsuid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, I was almost down to the bottom of the page moderating, and had to back out to respond to this point.

      You have come close to hitting on the quintessential question behind all of the debate.

      What makes a human a human?

      Arguably, the most important criteria for being human is awareness... consciousness.

      Here's a rather graphic gedanken:

      Shave off all your hair... are you still human? What if you amputate your arms and legs? How about body organs? Artificial heart, kidney dialysis, iron lung, etc... Take this beyond what is possible with modern day science... brain in a vat. Quality of life has certainly decreased dramatically! However, the brain is still thinking, the software of mind is still running. What if it were possible to run the software on other hardware? Sure, cyberpunk has beat this topic to death... but I certainly don't consider my brain to be me! To quote Rene Descartes: "cogito ergo sum". Nothing else is relevant... software is everything (yeah, I'm a programmer ;-) )

      Unfortunately, science has not been able to answer the question of when during development the spark of consciousness begins.

      Can we agree that awareness requires a brain? Can we agree that this brain needs to be working... ie. the synapses are firing, neural potentials exist?

      If so, then consciousness must begin sometime between 4 and 6 months of development.

      This experiment was limited to 14 days of development. This is the point when cells begin to differentiate. Clearly this is long before a brain and the potential for consciousness arises.

      Really, this is an ideal stop-gap measure. If by mixing mitochondrial DNA of another species with human nuclear DNA you achieve a development term necessary for medicinal purposes, and at the same time insure development self-aborts prior to brain development, then you end up with a self regulating procedure that prevents the accidental creation of a human consciousness.

      --
      It appears Ockham lost his razor and grew a beard.
    17. Re:Pre-emptive post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic, anyone in a coma could be considered "not alive", not to mention most AOL users, politicians, actors, teachers, and slashdotters.

    18. Re:Pre-emptive post by Eric+Ass+Raymond · · Score: 1
      I took a break from posting because the net at my end seems to be slowly but surely grinding to a halt. I don't have any need to post as an AC.

      Now I took some time reading the entire thread and quite frankly, after this last reply, I don't see your point. Just exactly how and where was I wrong?

      My points: It's OK to experiment on cells or, as you seem to be making a song a dance about it for some reason, a single cell, but not on a living sentient being. Yes, a human being is comprised of a collection of "mere cells", but a collection "mere cells" does not imply a human being. Reseach should not be dropped just because a collection of "mere cells" has some potential to develop into a being that's capable of sentience (something an embryo is not).

      That's my argument in a nutshell.

    19. Re:Pre-emptive post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is evidence to indicate that those who are in a coma are at least nominally aware of their surroundings. Certainly the body continues to breath unasisted, urinate and regulate its temperature. At the most basic level there is awareness.

    20. Re:Pre-emptive post by Balaam's+Donkey · · Score: 1

      Think about it: if left alone, won't an embryo eventually develop into a live animal (human or otherwise)? While it would take some time for it to develop to the point where its life would be viable outside the womb, it would eventually do so.

      There are arguments justifying experimentation on human embryos. But the fact remains that you could take these same embryos, emplant them inside a womans uterus (in vitro fertilization), and they would develop into a human.

      While these arguments sound reasonable, I feel that they bely an underlying selfishness in the people who wield them. The ends justify the means. We tell ourselves that it's ok, that we can use/abort these embryos because {insert your favorite reason here}. Let's be honest. We don't care whether the embryos are really viable humans or not. They suit our purposes and can't fight back, so let's go for it.

      Hey, I'm no different. Years ago, some jerk got my sister pregnant and I gave her the money for an abortion. At the time I thought that I was doing the right thing. I thought: "why bring another unwanted child into the world". A few years later, my other sister found herself in the same situation. She decided not to abort, even though the rest of my family, including myself, wanted her to. My nephew turned twelve this year, and I can say that the world is a better place with him in it.

      We get so outraged when we feel that some corporation or politician is taking advantage of their position of power over us. We see their selfish motives behind their actions and cry out against them. This subject is really no different. We have no real way of knowing whether what we're doing to these embryos constitutes murder or not. But we're going to do it anyway, because we can. Let's just be real about it.

    21. Re:Pre-emptive post by nucal · · Score: 1
      Take this beyond what is possible with modern day science... brain in a vat.

      You mean my brain is NOT in a vat?!?! Nooooooooooooo!!!

    22. Re:Pre-emptive post by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you, the question remains; what value should we place on the potential for consciousness?

      Can I kill someone when they're asleep?

      What about when they're in a coma... but could very well wake up in a year...?

      In questionable situations, should people err on the side of not taking a potential life?

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    23. Re:Pre-emptive post by syd02 · · Score: 1

      I used to think that all humans were humans because of "awareness" or "consciousness", but then two things happened:

      1) I started studying political science.
      2) I got a dog. A smart one.

      Perhaps I'm projecting "human" attributes onto (anthropomorphizing) my dog, but I believe that we sometimes make the same mistake when we're thinking about other "humans".

      The fact that we're even thinking about this sets us apart in terms of "consciousness", but there are many among us who walk, talk, act and respond like humans, but still fail *critical* tests of "consciousness" or "awareness". I see in my adult dog what appears to be 3-4 year old human-equivalent intelligence. I've also seen 3-4 year old human-equivalent intelligence in adult humans.

      We give too many of them the benefit of the doubt when we assume that they're all capable of reasoning. Just because they look like us doesn't mean they can be trusted to (for instance) understand when they're being manipulated by propaganda. Sometimes they might as well be animals. I don't hate them. I'm an animal lover.

      Think about it the next time you're around some complete idiot, and remember that even a parrot can talk.

    24. Re:Pre-emptive post by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Can we agree that awareness requires a [working] brain?

      If so, then consciousness must begin sometime between 4 and 6 months of development.


      I submit that consciousness also requires at least short term memory, so those subsystems of the brain must be working as well.

      The consciousness level of a baby is difficult to judge, because it has not yet learned voluntary control of its output devices, so we have no way to identify the typical signs of consciousness. Most reactions (almost all related to discomfort) are hardwired, so they can't be used as indicators of conciousness.

      From my general curiousity of such matters and having raised several children, I'd say they gradually reach basic sentience over about three months after birth. There i don't think there is an exact instant in which the moment before the child is not sentiant, and the moment after he is. Likewise I feel that there are levels of sentience above that which we associate with adult humans.

      From an ethical prespective, it is for these reasons that I don't think it is valid to try to determine a beings moral considerability based on our perception of its level of awareness. We must find some other criteria on which to base our decision to grant or deny that which we consider to be 'rights'.

    25. Re:Pre-emptive post by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Also as a programmer I agree BUT I want to add that the set of programs that make a human are tightly connected to the human body. Your consciousness could not develop in a body of a rabbit. You needed your human body to develop it, thus your body defines who you are and what kinds of programs you will be able to run and how you will be able to learn. It is possible that mixing the human DNA and DNA of an animal will not result in any drastic changes to your body, but what if it does? Your brain maybe shortcircuited running in loops or it could run a set of programs from that other organism incompatible with your body version. In those cases you will not develop into a human on the first place.

      Dogs and cats for example also have consciousness but they stop in their mental development at a stage comparable to a 1-3 year old human child. They will not be able to develop any further speciffically due to their body limitations... which are necessary limitations for their species to survive.

      I do not believe that you can move a human consciousness into a rabbit body for example (you also do not believe that, I am just making an example,) there will not be nearly enough environment for your consciousness to exist.

    26. Re:Pre-emptive post by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Hey, I'm no different. Years ago, some jerk got my sister pregnant and I gave her the money for an abortion. At the time I thought that I was doing the right thing. I thought: "why bring another unwanted child into the world". A few years later, my other sister found herself in the same situation. She decided not to abort, even though the rest of my family, including myself, wanted her to. My nephew turned twelve this year, and I can say that the world is a better place with him in it.

      Turn on the anti-emotional filter for a second - and this is no offense to your nephew or sister whatsoever, just considering it purely objectively...
      While you say the world is a better place for having your nephew in it, the question is not merely one of Yes-nephew or No-nephew. Your sister spent resources (time, money, effort, etc.) for your nephew to exist, resources which could have been spent on a different nephew (or neice). Had your sister aborted him, she might have used those resources to find a less-jerk guy and had a child with him together... and that child could have had two parents growing up instead of one.

      My point is not that your nephew should have been aborted - simply that each position, abort or not, has both positives and negatives, and should be considered that way. Does the wonderfulness of your nephew mean that the first abortion was wrong? Not necessarily - what if she had not had that one? Then your current nephew might not exist, as she might have stopped there. You would have a completely different nephew or neice.

      My personal beliefs, subjectivity and emotional preferences aside, are that two-parent situations are definitely preferable for a child, as are adult-parent situations (as opposed to teenage mothers). A child starting off with a single teenage mother who hasn't graduated high school is going to have a lot tougher time, due to fewer resources - mother doesn't have time, maturity (probably), nor money (since she probably won't be able to get a high-paying job with her lack of skills). The wonderfulness and charm of the child notwithstanding, they're being prematurely condemned to a much tougher life... and were they asked if they wanted it?

      Pro-lifers often look at abortion from the perspective of "did anyone ask the fetus if they wanted to be aborted?" but no one ever seems to look at it from the perspective of "did anyone ask the fetus if they would rather pass on suffering a resource-impaired harsher life and wait for a better go-round?"

      This is really a form of "why bring another unwanted child into the world" though it's a little bit deeper - more "why bring another child, who while they will be wanted, will condemn both himself and his mother to a decreased quality of life, due to his early, unplanned conception?"

      Okay, emotional-filter off, your nephew is great.

      -T

    27. Re:Pre-emptive post by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Also as a programmer I agree BUT I want to add that the set of programs that make a human are tightly connected to the human body. Your consciousness could not develop in a body of a rabbit. You needed your human body to develop it, thus your body defines who you are and what kinds of programs you will be able to run and how you will be able to learn.

      Devil's advocate point - what if you (this is sick) amputate the arms and legs of the developing fetus, and even remove the organs and supply artificial ones. The brain would develop in what is not (arguably) a human body... would it be a human mind?

      -T

    28. Re:Pre-emptive post by Anonymous+Slacker · · Score: 1

      The body (or what's left of it) would still be human, thus providing all the removed vitals are correctly compensated for, should allow for the development of a normal human brain and argueably thus a human mind.

      If the removed vitals of the developing human are replaced with equivalent elements from a differing species, the transplanted organs would not likely be able to provide the proper environment (physically/chemically) for the full development of the brain/mind. Thereby creating a hybrid which has the odds of nature stacked against it surviving through the entire development process.
      If for some reason such a creature were able to survive to the point of being a viable individual, it would likey demonstrate obvious physical and/or mental differences from a normal human, if the brains themselves are dissected and investigated.

      Keep in mind that this is all speculation, as IANAB (I am not a Biologist)

      --
      "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!" -Rush
  8. Hrmm by acehole · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one welcome our new human-rabbit hybrid masters.

    I will remind them that I could be useful in rounding up people to toil in their underground carrot mines.

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    1. Re:Hrmm by gowen · · Score: 2, Funny
      I will remind them that I could be useful in rounding up people to toil in their underground carrot mines
      bunnies aren't just cute as everybody supposes
      They got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses
      And what's with all the carrots?
      What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?
      Bunnies, bunnies, it must be bunnies

      Lyrics by Josh Whedon, reproduced without permission because, hey, its the internet and everyone does it...
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:Hrmm by ThePlague · · Score: 0

      I think the term you are looking for is "rabbitmen", perhaps with a slightly altered version of an Elton John song.

    3. Re: Hrmm by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > I for one welcome our new human-rabbit hybrid masters.

      Yeah, them's good eatin'.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:Hrmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey buddy, you forgot to put those things, you know quote marks, when you are biting the simpsons.

      even if it's not ants.

  9. This is just the sort of thing... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is just the sort of thing that will catch the attention of do-gooder congressmen and get things like cloning research completely banned...If they do things like this, they should keep it quiet, not get it out into the mainstream of public opinion where people can jump (or maybe hop-hop-hop) to conclusions and phone their congressman.

    1. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by ReciprocityProject · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The vast majority of the DNA in the embryos is human, with a small percentage of genetic material -- called mitochondrial DNA -- contributed by the rabbit egg.

      Ok guys. I'm all in favor of stem cell research, but . . . we need to just stop and figure out a way to do it without generating shocking headlines. This kind of headline is just going to piss everyone off and hinder the progress of the research.

      It would be wrong to keep it quiet - and people would find out anyway. Just keep it below a certain shock level. I.e. no furry humans with long ears and twitchy noses showing up in the tabloids. Please?

    2. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by aug24 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Actually, I suggets that this is just the sort of thing that must be presented correctly, rather than kept quiet about. It is a useful and viable scientifc endeavour, not just a "Hey, let's put a cat in a blender and see what happens!" type of experiment.

      It should be phrased in as scientifically opaque a way as possible though, so that the tabloid journalists can't understand it ;-)

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    3. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by cybermace5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you kidding? Our politicians are only green with envy that this did not take place in America, so that they could claim credit for it.

      The whole point of this excercise was to find a way to get stem cells for research. Apparently they think this method is quite likely to work.

      Do you remember a little thing about stem cells? Wasn't there a little spat or two about it? This is a huge breakthrough which can allow both sides to be happy. Although the human-embryo stem cell proponents do lose some face, because there really was another way to get the stem cells.

      --
      ...
    4. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 1

      "This kind of headline is just going to piss everyone off and hinder the progress of the research. "

      So, you don't like the headline SlashDot used, or the research itself. In the absence of any proof of the existance of god, "playing god" is a pointless criticism. You have any sensible, intelligent objections to this research?

    5. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      It does sound exactly like the sort of thing that science students came up with after too much beer.

      "Hey, how about if we cross a human with a rabbit!"

      I'm all for research but I can't see how this benefits human kind or even advances knowledge one iota.. it's just doing stuff 'because we can'.

    6. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we need to just stop and figure out a way to do it without generating shocking headlines

      Why? Let the idiots have their shocking headlines. If they choose to be ill informed and poorly educated (Like it would take a couple of hours at a library to figure out what a stem cell is!) then let them. The rest of us will get on with the advancment of mankind, and bring the ungratful scrotes kicking and screaming with us if need be.

    7. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Snjit · · Score: 0, Troll

      The US will ban the research and the rest of the world will go on to advance science.

      Of course then the corporations will find a way to patent others' work and reap the benefits anyway without any of the political backlash of doing the research in the first place.

    8. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by pergamon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably, but perhaps this will have the opposite effect. When it is clear that a country like China, who already has a significant impact on the economy of the US, is able to make advances in the embryonic stem cell area that we aren't due to regulations, that could end up being a strong argument to relax restrictions in the US. Probably not in the short term, but when and if stem cell related treatments become mainstream and if it turns out that embryonic stem cells are the only/best/cheapest/something way to go then we'll have to see whether voters will elect officials who will make it possible for that research and treatment to be done here in the US.

      A couple big 'if's, but it could happen.

    9. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by MarkyMo · · Score: 1

      Yes, but let's not turn our noses up at "cat in a blender" science.

      If you put enough cats in enough blenders one day you'll get something.

    10. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Ramze · · Score: 3, Informative
      The thing is, the religious right will still have a field day with this and try to ban it, too. It's not so much "another way of getting stem cells" as it is the same way -- only using a donor egg from another species.

      You're still using human DNA -- probably the whole human nucleus in a cell that is allowed to become a fetus. The major difference between all animal embryos is the DNA of the nucleus, so essentially you have a human embryo w/ mitochondria that are unique from other humans. Mitochondrial DNA changes slowly as it is passed from mother to children & all mammals have a common ancester, so the mitochondria isn't radically different genetically from ours, nor does it change the function of the mitochondria themselves to any noticable degree.

      It's possible that embryos braught to full term could produce normal looking humans -- if the cloning process for primates even worked. There seem to be problems with human cloning that are even more complex than cloning with other animals

      The religious right will stomp their feet and shout that these living things are "human" b/c they have human DNA & that "playing God" with living things with human DNA is wrong & try to shut this down. Many Republican senators (even the president) bow to these religious wackos & would try to stop this research if they could.

      Having said that, I usually vote Republican, though I consider myself a moderate... if it weren't for the Democrat's stupid fiscal and monetary policies, I'd vote for them ;-) But, I digress.

    11. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Illserve · · Score: 1

      Your insight into the scientific process is amazing. Spend millions of dollars on multi-year research projects and then when it works *keep it quiet*. That policy is sure to reap rich rewards for the successful labs.

    12. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article, then post.

      Human eggs are difficult and risky to harvest. If you can grow adequate stem cells using a denucleated animal egg, you should.

    13. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that's possible? I mean, it's a rabbit egg. And some skin.

      It's all very confusing. I'd have thought taking the human egg out of the equation would make a big difference.

      --
      ...
    14. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 1

      As we have found out from the RIAA/MPAA episodes, idiots are the ones in charge. If they produce headlines like "Cloning Yields Human-Rabbit Hybrid Embryo"...the idiots will run with it and hear only "Cloning Yields Human-Rabbit Hybrid" and think we're about to be overrun by Rahumans or Huabbits...and the only sensible solution is LEGISLATION and CONTROL. I have no objection to the science at hand...but a little tact is in order here. Most people in the world...like most Slashdotters, don't get past the headline.

    15. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by martyros · · Score: 1
      Yeah, great idea. "We haven't thought at all about whether this is right or wrong, but if people do, they may decide that it's wrong and stop us from doing it. Let's just keep it a secret until we've got something really useful for them, so they'll be tempted to chuck their ethics for a quick cure."

      Look, murdering a human being for your own benefit is wrong -- it's a terrible atrocity. Now maybe these things are human beings with intrinsic human rights, and maybe they're just random cells, but until we have a good definition of the difference, we should hold off. Do you have a good definition?

      Killing embryos because you're "pretty sure they're not human" is morally equivalent of testing a drug on a group of humans because you're "pretty sure it's not going to kill them." If there are any doubts, you have an obligation to stay your hand.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    16. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Tungbo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "Having said that, I usually vote Republican, though I consider myself a moderate... if it weren't for the Democrat's stupid fiscal and monetary policies, I'd vote for them ;-) But, I digress."

      Do you mean that big government, big spending liberal policy which ran a huge deficit?

      Let's see. We now got a shining new BIG cabinet level Department. We got a little tax cut (for most of us) by issuing a historic high amount of federal debt ( not to mention the state/city debts ).

      Horrors.... Could George W be a L____ ?

    17. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by OneEyedApe · · Score: 1

      Well, add some ice, maybe some sugar, and you would have a "cat smoothie".

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
      --Thomas J. Kopp
    18. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, banning stem cell research in the US will only make the inovations come from overseas. Although not directly banned per se, there is a finite number of stem cell lines (around 17) that Americans can work with. Any scientist can tell you that working with a small number of samples gives you bad results. If China does use stem cell research to do what we *think* we can do with it, imagine all the people going to China to cure their cancers and autoimune diseases (and bring their money with them). Then again, maybe it's the Americans that will benefit by copyright infringing the techniques. We all know that Americans don't give squat about copyrights (Napster).

      But then again, maybe we are justified in curbing this research because it is unethical to mess with DNA. Probably as unethical as it is for blood transfusions and medical marijuana... Oops I've said too much.

    19. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the powerful PETA.

      Won't someone think of the rabits!

    20. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by SeanAhern · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your post. You'd get modded up if I had any mod points.

      If you ever want to have a reminder how far left \. leans, just post an article that mentions stem cells.

      It just gets so tiring to debate this over and over again...

    21. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Ramze · · Score: 1
      Hey, I'm with ya there.. lol. I hate the new homeland defense crap and the CIA, FBI, and NSA still aren't cooperating the way they should. Not to mention the Patriot Act and the fact that the DOJ wussed out on going after Microsoft.

      Also, I think spending money on a war that wasn't necessary was a bad plan.

      Still, I unfortunately would back a Republican because of their monetary and fiscal policies of tax cuts and privatization of government entities. I think the Dems are so at the mercy of interest groups that they want to throw money at anything and everything to make people happy instead of doing what is right. I might back a Democrat that was a "fiscal republican" lol. I'm all for clean air and the environment & switching to other power sources... and I'm all for more personal freedoms. I'm more libertarian than anything I guess. I just hate that the average taxpayer pays over 1/3 of their money back to the government which is largely used for things they don't need. I'd prefer a way to keep my money rather than having it sent off for a failed social security system as well. But, this is a discussion for another time... We'll see who makes the best case for election come election day :-)

    22. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Ramze · · Score: 1
      lol... I know, man. But, ya gotta believe these fundamentalists are always looking for targets. They have to have something to protest about or they don't get enough news coverage or support from their cult members... err.. congregations... yeahhhh.

      I don't think they'll accept any sort of tampering with any life on earth. I mentioned to a friend of mine who thinks we shouldn't play with DNA the fact that people are now selling glow-in-the-dark rabbits and fish that have a jellyfish gene in them that lets them glow... and he went into a fit about how people are playing with god's creation and all that. I just thought it was cool. lol. Genes change every day in animals... what's the harm in adding one just for fun? Sure, one day we'll play with the wrong DNA and make some sort of super-disease that'll kill half the planet, but we'll learn and move on ;-)

      I see things your way... it's tissue. It doesn't feel any pain and we can tinker with it or use it for medical or scientific purposes. They probably see it as some sinful act of destroying or mutilating god's creations that'll bring down brimstone and hellfire on us all.

    23. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by pizzaman100 · · Score: 1
      When it is clear that a country like China, who already has a significant impact on the economy of the US, is able to make advances in the embryonic stem cell area that we aren't due to regulations, that could end up being a strong argument to relax restrictions in the US.

      You could be right. However, Regardless of when life begins, there are moral implications in doing research on human embryos. Given China's human rights record, they are not a country to be emulated.

      You could also make the same argument with regards to labor law. IE, if it wasn't for our pesky workers protection laws, we could open slave labor shops in the USA, and better compete economically with China. Well that's true, but is that the kind of country you want to live in?

      In a democracy where the rights of all are respected, economics should not be the deciding factor on issues like these with moral implications.

    24. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Darby · · Score: 1

      Having said that, I usually vote Republican, though I consider myself a moderate... if it weren't for the Democrat's stupid fiscal and monetary policies, I'd vote for them ;-)

      Do you see the Republican's actual policies as being any better?
      I know they talk a good story about wanting smaller government and all of that, but when it comes down to it do you see that much of a difference between the Dems and the Repubs?

      I think both groups are essentially garbage wrapped in skin. The one thing the Dems have going for them is that they aren't catering to the sick twisted fundamentalist zealots that this country was founded for the explicit purpose of keeping from having any say in government.
      Looks like that bit got screwed somewhere along the line.

    25. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      How is this a troll? Mod parent up.

    26. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Ramze · · Score: 1
      I see the Republicans as the lesser of two evils... usually because their wacko ideas affect me less than the Dems wacko ideas.

      I hate the patriot act, the new homeland defense position (b/c really, the CIA,FBI, and NSA aren't working together any better), and the disregard for the environment... oh, and the blatant wussing out against big business like Microsoft during the antitrust trial. I'm also not real big on spending billions on a war that wasn't really necessary.. but, I do like the tax cuts and privitazation of some parts of government.

      With the Dems, I don't like thier idea of Social Security as a right -- it was an experiment during the depression that has since failed & should have an option to "opt out" if we wish to actually save our money for retirement instead of throwing it away -- It's been proven you'd earn more putting the $ in a savings account than giving it to the government to hold for you for when you are old and gray. I also don't care for their "health care for free for everyone" bit b/c someone somewhere is going to have to pay for it & I don't want the government deciding whether or not I need a new kidney, etc.

      The Democrats are all about higher taxes and free rides -- but, with a side-order of helping the environment with legalized discrimination (affermative action). They do occasionally help expand or affirm freedoms, though.

      The Republicans are all about lower taxes, more tax breaks, smaller government (usually -- apparently this president didn't get the memo on that), state rights, and unfortunately religious wackos which want to end abortion, stop genetic testing, cloning, embryo experiments with stem cells, etc. and somehow want to "bring America back to God" as if the founders were all Christians -- which they weren't. They also want to protect big business and keep the status quo which I hate b/c monopolies have wayyyy too much power & huge corporate conglomerates do as well.

      I'm for freedom above all else unless it directly harms another person -- go run naked in the streets if you like kinda thing, but don't injure anyone physically while doing it. lol. I like SMALL government b/c government doesn't really need to DO anything but make rules, protect us from criminals & terrorists, and provide essential services which we might not pay for on our own unless taxed. I think most powers that can be controlled by the states should be instead of making federal laws which mandate how things should be done -- so long as individuals rights aren't violated. Let California do things their way and South Carolina do things their way for the most part & everyone will be happy.

      I think I'm more of a libertarian than dem or republican, but I see myself as a moderate. I want more freedom, less taxes (becuase so much of that money goes to things you and I wouldn't want it going to if we had a choice about it), smaller government, tighter controls on crooked business people, and more representation of what the people actually want instead of what hollywood, microsoft, time warner, and other business that line the pockets of congressmen want.

      Maybe one day we'll get internet voting secure and reliable & will have better representation in government. I'd love it if every bill that had to pass not only had to be signed by the president, but also get more than a 50% vote from the American people... That'd tell 'em where to shove their outrageous spending ;-) Or maybe someone will come up with an even better idea. Though, I bet if we all got to vote on whether or not to pass the DMCA, it wouldn't have ever become law.

    27. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know they talk a good story about wanting smaller government and all of that, but when it comes down to it do you see that much of a difference between the Dems and the Repubs?

      I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks neither party are worth voting for. The differences betwean the two, in terms of action rather than what they say they want, seems to be so small as to make each worthless.

    28. Re:This is just the sort of thing... by pergamon · · Score: 1

      All very good points. Thanks.

      I didn't intend to imply that economics should be the deciding factor. My view is that this type of research should be done, and should be much less restricted than it currently is. My thought was that the economic factor would be something which could play a much more significant role in the argument in the future than it does right now.

  10. human DNA by invalid_argument · · Score: 3, Funny

    "I think because all the nuclear DNA is human," Doerflinger said, "we'd consider this an organism of the human species."

    Better pay attention, when you go hunting next time.

    1. Re:human DNA by Sherloqq · · Score: 1

      Better pay attention, when you go hunting next time.

      You mean that yelling "It's coming right for us!" won't save me this time?

      --
      Have EVDO, will travel.
  11. This is disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Even regular cloning causes most of the subjects to die. I can't imagine interspecies cloning not killing many many more. Most likely, this embryo will die after a few divisions, being so strange. However, even "successful" clones have more problems and a shorter lifespan. Doing this should be unethical by anyone's standards.

    1. Re:This is disgusting by Prof.Phreak · · Score: 1

      Disgusting yes... (disturbing even), but who knows if it's 'better' or 'worse'...

      remember, humans have been making 'better' animals by cross breading for centuries... (just look at dogs or mules, etc.)

      so how is it 'ok' for them to breed dogs but not humans?

      at least now we know how buggs bunny can walk upright and talk... :-)

      --

      "If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy

    2. Re:This is disgusting by aaamr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You guys are completely missing the point.... it's neither disgusting, nor disturbing. It is a viable and exciting research path that could someday lead to cures for many chronic diseases. To quote the article:

      "Most important, researchers said, the paper stops short of proving beyond a doubt that the stem cells retrieved from the hybrid embryos are truly capable of growing for long periods of time in lab dishes, and that they can turn into every known kind of cell."

      To give an example or where this kind of research could be very useful, some of the big issues with the Edmonton Protocol to treat Type I diabetes (http://www.joslin.harvard.edu/news/islet_transpla nt_july.shtml) are the requirement to use immuno-suppresive drugs to prevent rejection of the transplanted cells. Stem-cell research, and now this kind of research could go a long way towards dealing with this.

      So I have a hard time listening to the people who have a knee-jerk reaction that this kind of research is "disgusting" or "disturbing". The potential difference it could make in the lives of many millions of people is astounding.

    3. Re:This is disgusting by tmhsiao · · Score: 2, Informative

      Of course, if you read the article, you'd realize that they're not going to develop the "clone" to have any lifespan--they're trying to create a method to harvest stem cells (without the need for abortions).

      --
      "My God...It's full of ads!" -Fry, about the Internet, Futurama
    4. Re:This is disgusting by tgibbs · · Score: 1
      Most likely, this embryo will die after a few divisions, being so strange

      Probably, but that hardly matters. They aren't even attempting to grow the "embryo" (although this is probably a misleading term for something that is likely inherently nonviable) into an organism, they are merely using it as a source of embryonic stem cells to save human lives. So they are going to disaggregate the cells before it has a chance to die.

      And look what they used: human skin cells, which we routinely discard, and rabbits, which we slaughter for meat and fur. It's hard to argue that cells derived from essentially disposable components deserve protection.

      But if they do succeed in making embryonic stem cells, there is a real prospect of using them to treat human disease. While a rabbit egg is probably not set up quite right to create a complete, viable human embryo, there is no obvious reason why cells with rabbit mitochondria couldn't function perfectly normally inside a human body.

  12. Finally... by Suhas · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...we can breed like rabbits

    1. Re:Finally... by Vraylle · · Score: 1

      Oh thank God! There's not nearly enough people in the world. Double the population, and the world's problems will be solved!

      --
      Mutant Freaks of Nature: "Frighteningly Addictive"
    2. Re:Finally... by Trigun · · Score: 1

      As long as they're tasty, you're right!

  13. Gives new meaning to the phrase.. by rehabdoll · · Score: 2, Funny

    Whats up doc?

  14. I would have thought ... by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... China had enough people already, without creating humans that breed like rabbits!

    1. Re:I would have thought ... by imtheguru · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...now humans that breed like pandas... that i can understand.

      --
      Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
      A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
    2. Re:I would have thought ... by leandrod · · Score: 1
      > humans that breed like pandas

      Just make them rich! Look at Europe, filthy rich, burning its riches in subsidies, and breeding like pandas.

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  15. Those monsters! by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't they know that adding human DNA to rabbit embryos is a crime against nature? They should abort babies for those stem cells, the way God intended.

    1. Re:Those monsters! by AntonyBartlett · · Score: 1

      Do you mean God or Frith?

  16. This is neat and all, but... by I'm+a+racist. · · Score: 3, Funny

    How many asses does it have? I suspect it's less than five.

    --


    Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
    1. Re:This is neat and all, but... by MarkyMo · · Score: 1

      I went to Saudi Arabia recently. Strange country, no women; and 50% of the population were Ninjas.

  17. Hare-brained gets a new meaning! by jkrise · · Score: 1

    What if the poor creatures were as 'reproductive' as humans and as intelligent as humans??

    Wait... we can employ them at Microsoft.. and SCO as well, if they exist.

    -

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    1. Re:Hare-brained gets a new meaning! by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      What if the poor creatures were as 'reproductive' as humans and as intelligent as humans??

      Egad! That would make them.... human!

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

  18. OMG they have too much time on their hands by acegik · · Score: 1

    Well I guess its a step twords organ duplication for greater good - goooooo Rabit :)

  19. Is that very useful ? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Funny

    Scientists in China have, for the first time, used cloning techniques to create hybrid embryos that contain a mix of DNA from both humans and rabbits

    I thought China needed to control the exponential growth of their population, do they really need that? They should sell the technology to the state of Florida instead ...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Is that very useful ? by orius_khan · · Score: 1
      I thought China needed to control the exponential growth of their population, do they really need that? They should sell the technology to the state of Florida instead ...


      I don't get it... why does Florida need population growth? It's full of all the nearly dead retirees who migrate downwards from every other state. Please tell me you're not suggesting we need more breeding from that population?
      --
      Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.
    2. Re:Is that very useful ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just it. Florida's entrie population could drop dead at any moment.

    3. Re:Is that very useful ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if the rabbits are democrats and can vote next year!

    4. Re:Is that very useful ? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      I thought China needed to control the exponential growth of their population, do they really need that? They should sell the technology to the state of Florida instead ...

      Why, don't they have enough genetic anomalies in Florida already?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  20. Grant them entry visas now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I hear Six Flags has some Bugs Bunny openings.

    They can save on costume costs.

  21. The Rabbit died! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was just a pregnancy test gone awry.

  22. That explains me by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 0

    Well, now I know why I f**k like a bunny

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  23. When the first recipient of these rabbit-human... by StressGuy · · Score: 1

    hybrid stem cells awoke from surgury, his first words were:

    "ehhh, What's up Doc?"

    (Yea I know, bad joke, but we all knew it was going to be posted eventually....)

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  24. For the love of God... by mschoolbus · · Score: 1

    Hop on over for a look!

    Can we not be saying stuff like this... You will have an even worse chance of ever getting laid. As if spending your whole day on /. isn't enough... =P

  25. One more Billy by Orre · · Score: 1

    ... and the result was one more Bill Gates?

  26. We all should have seen this coming... by goldspider · · Score: 0, Interesting
    This shouldn't surprise anybody. Now without sounding trollish by bringing Chinese morality into this, I'd just like to say that this was a predictable step in the progression of cloning technology.

    Now I'm not going to be one of those so-called "every sperm is precious" nuts, and I agree that cloning research has enormous potential for the human species. But I strongly believe that boundaries should be placed on projects like this that seem to be conducted more out of morbid curiosity than any perceived benefit to mankind.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:We all should have seen this coming... by lovebyte · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should not bring Chinese morality into this, since US researchers have tried this too. from the WP article:
      Although scientists in Massachusetts had previously mixed human cells and cow eggs in a similar attempt to make hybrid embryos as a source of stem cells, those experiments were not successful.

      Secondly, this was done to produce stem cells and not out of morbid curiosity. Please, I know this is /., but RTFA!

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    2. Re:We all should have seen this coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Perhaps, then, the editors should RTFA before posting stories with misleading/sensational headlines.

      But for the record, I did RTFA, and although IANAGE (genetic engineer) it doesn't seem too far-fetched to believe they couldn't just as easily allow the embryos to grow and develop into who-knows-what.

    3. Re:We all should have seen this coming... by saskwach · · Score: 1
      Article:
      Researchers said yesterday they were hopeful that the rabbit work would lead to a new and plentiful source of embryonic stem cells for research and, eventually, for medical use.
      Seems like it's not out of morbid curiosity to me.
    4. Re:We all should have seen this coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good grief.

      The research involved they fusing human cells with rabbit cells that had been emptied of genetic material.

      The point is to 'reprogram' the human cell, to make what they call a 'derived' human stem cell. Stem cells are useful (they're undifferentiated, so can be used to make any other sort of human cell) in therapeutic cloning (i.e. making replacement cells for a particular human patient), but currently can only be obtained from embryos, which has many more ethical problems.

      Usually, this sort of work is done using human egg cells, but human eggs are in short supply. And rabbits don't have lawyers.

    5. Re:We all should have seen this coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats sensational about the headline? It was a combination of Rabbit and Human DNA in a single cell, produced using cloning techniques, which resulted in several embryos which had a hybrid Rabbit/Human DNA.

      In other words, "Cloning Yields Human-Rabbit Hybrid Embryo"

    6. Re:We all should have seen this coming... by file-exists-p · · Score: 1

      Of course the idea of the crazy communist scientist creating monsters is pleasant to many people (even here as I can see), but there may be real scientific and medical purposes in this project.

      From the article The approach could help scientists wishing to mass-produce human embryos as sources of human embryonic stem cells. I doubt china invests money in science-fictionesque freaky experiments just to piss off theologians all over the world. And I doubt crazy researchers trying to create monsters would publish in Cell Research.

    7. Re:We all should have seen this coming... by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      Did you actually read the article? The results of this experiment will have very tangible benefits to humankind, in growing stem cells for medical purposes without needing to use human embryo cells. This was certainly not done out of 'morbid curiosity.'

    8. Re:We all should have seen this coming... by The+Almighty+Dave · · Score: 1
      This project wasn't just morbid curiosity. From the article - Because human egg cells are difficult and costly to retrieve from women's ovaries -- and because human egg retrieval poses risks to the donors -- scientists have been wanting to know whether animal eggs may serve as well.

    9. Re:We all should have seen this coming... by g0_p · · Score: 1

      As someone else pointed out, you have not figured that this research is really quite useful since it could be a viable source for stem cells.

      However I am also critical about your notion of doing only research that is of "benefit to mankind". Any research good or bad only helps to increase awareness of the unknown. If the research results in something harmful to society and mankind you have identified it and can thus can keep it in check if people try to misuse it. Besides at the start of any research nobody is in a position to say if some research is potentially useful or harmful to mankind.

      A small (and not necessarily accurate) example would help drive this point. Just assume that some country does not pursue research on Nuclear science since they perceive that it can be used to make bombs that can destroy mankind. Now if some dude like Hitler secretly carries out this research and knows how to make bombs, how would this country be able to protect itself against something it knows nothing about? Also apart from making bombs nuclear science can be used to produce energy. But we wouldnt have known that if we did not research about it.. The key here is information. Whether it leads to beneit or harm it is always good to have as much information as possible so that it can be checked if it is harmful and utilized if it is useful.

      IMHO most of this inhibition is rooted at people's belief that God has to have made some rules about what we can and we cannot do and how things should be and how they should not. However there is a high possibility that there are no such rules. For centuries people believed that homosexuality is something that cannot exist because God's rulebook could not have allowed it. But the fact that millions of people in the world actually experience attraction towards the same sex is empirical proof that such a rule does not exist. Did God mean for humans to be gnetically fused with rabbits? Who knows? So then how do we decide what can be done and what cannot be done or what such rules are? Lets do it the scientific way. Lets just try to actually do it. If it succeeds then we can and if it does not then we cannot. And, all along the way while we try to achieve it, we have gained important information about the topic which will help us control and regulate it if it is indeed harmful for us. At this point I dont think we have enough information to decide whether cloning is good or bad for humanity.

    10. Re:We all should have seen this coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For centuries people believed that homosexuality is something that cannot exist because God's rulebook could not have allowed it."

      Really? Which centuries and which people? You would have to agree that homosexuality has been around probably almost as long as sex...

      God does have a rule against *being* a homosexual, but that's not saying that God's rulebook doesn't allow it. God also has rules against adultery and lying...both are easily done.

  27. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I for one welcome our new human/rabbit overlords

  28. ONOE TEH FURRAYS!!! by mcgroarty · · Score: 1

    And there was much rejoicing.

    1. Re:ONOE TEH FURRAYS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always wished I had a furry tail .... and don't think dirty!

  29. w00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Some wondered aloud what, exactly, such a creature would be if it were transferred to a womb to develop to term

    Now I can own my very own live Jar-jar binks!

    1. Re:w00t! by der_joachim · · Score: 1

      Now I can own my very own live Jar-jar binks!

      Why on earth would you want *that*? Well, at least you have a very good reason to be an anonymous coward. :-)

      der Joachim

      --
      Geek runner, motorcyclist and professional know-it-all
  30. And his experiment ... by altp · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... mixing the frog with the horse was great, until the explosion.

  31. Not go(o)d by juric · · Score: 1

    I'm very afraid of this. I hope this aint true. In the case it is, just remember:
    "Brave new World!"

    1. Re:Not go(o)d by Mantorp · · Score: 1

      I don't recall any rabbits in Brave New World?

    2. Re:Not go(o)d by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      I'm very afraid of this. I hope this aint true. In the case it is, just remember: "Brave new World!"

      Yeah, because advances in medicine, particularly in curing things like spinal injuries, organ regeneration, degenerative diseases, etc., will lead to the end of the world...

      And you're "very afraid of this" and hope it "aint true"?

      Look - RTFA. They are not making furry little people or human-sized bunnies or anything silly like that. They used these in an attempt to make human stem cells, since the religious nuts are making it difficult to get them in any other way. The fertilized cells were destroyed after only a few days of division to examine if they could become viable stem cells.

      Your fear is equivalent to the fear of a caveman seeing fire and saying "oh, no, we're all going to be consumed in fire! Put it out and let's never speak of it again!"

      -T

  32. Tastes Like.... by simetra · · Score: 0

    Chicken!

    Thanks, I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitress.

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
  33. Why? by ErisCalmsme · · Score: 1

    It amazes me that there are people in this world smart enough to splice genes and such, but instead of like...finding a cure for cancer or something, they are making bunny people? Because they can? Could someone give me some insight as to why in the world we need rabbit-human hybrids?

    --
    Chaos is Divine *
    1. Re:Why? by vidarh · · Score: 5, Insightful
      You don't need rabbit-human hybrids. However, medical researchers do need stem cells to pursue a huge number of research goals, including growing new organs, repairing damaged tissue, regrowing nerves etc. That research is being hampered by concerns from a lot of groups about harvesting stemcells from aborted embryos. Hence this research to create an alternative source of stem cells.

      In other words, this IS important research, that has the potential of providing important material for research projects that might take medical science huge leaps forwards.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps reading the article would enlighten you and satisfy your need for information?

      Moron.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll go read the article as soon as my knee stops jerking. Its making it a little hard to click on the link right now! Ow, my eye!

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The first thing you need to do is learn how to read.

      Next, go read the article.

      Finally, come back when you have something intelligent to say.

    5. Re:Why? by tmhsiao · · Score: 1

      Could someone give me some insight as to why in the world we need rabbit-human hybrids?

      I think reading the article could give you insight as to why in the world we need rabbit-human hybrids...

      --
      "My God...It's full of ads!" -Fry, about the Internet, Futurama
  34. Sorry, no Rabbit People by Penguin2212 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The vast majority of the DNA in the embryos is human, with a small percentage of genetic material -- called mitochondrial DNA -- contributed by the rabbit egg. No one knows if such an embryo could develop into a viable fetus, though some experiments with other species suggest it would not.

    The DNA that they put into the human cells is not DNA which determines physical charateristics. It's mitochondrial DNA, which is found in the cells' mitochondria. These little organelles of the cell basically burn sugar to make energy usable for the rest of the cell. There is a lot of evidence suggesting that the mitochondria found in all human cells was actually a seperate organism that became co-dependent with the cells in which they lived. Interstingly enough, mitochondiral is almost totally unaltered with a new generation, and is always passed down through the female of the species because the sperm cells typically have very few or a negligible amount of mitochondria. i.e. You have the same mitochondrial DNA as your mother and all your siblings, and she has all the same as her mother and so on down your family tree.

    1. Re:Sorry, no Rabbit People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually if you take a look at a sperm cell, it has tons of mitochondria, but they're all at the tail end for propulsion. They're discarded. Mitochondria do change somewhat over time, this has been used to trace female-line ancestry of the human species (into Ethiopia, probably).

      The relationship that mitochondria have with animal cells is similar to that cloroplasts have with plant cells. Both seem to have originally evolved as simple energy-producing specialist prokaryotes, that at some point became co-dependent on eukaroytic (or perhaps simply larger) cells for a benign environment in which to exist.

    2. Re:Sorry, no Rabbit People by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

      Plants have mitochondria too. Except that they're not quite the same as human mitochondria. Human mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) is chock full of genes. There isn't much "junk" DNA to be found. However, plant mtDNA is chock full of stuff no one knows what to do with. Why the difference? Not yet known...

      --
      Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
    3. Re:Sorry, no Rabbit People by haxor.dk · · Score: 1

      So, whats the big news here? What beneficial effects do we get fropm using Rabbit Mitochondriae? Hiogher metabolic rate (ie = eat more fast food and not get fat =) ?

    4. Re:Sorry, no Rabbit People by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The DNA that they put into the human cells...

      Hate to nitpick, but this is a really important point from an ethical standpoint. The eggs that were collected were from rabbits. The rabbit nuclear DNA was removed, and replaced with human DNA.

      It's the same end result--an egg with human nuclear DNA and rabbit mitochondrial DNA--but the original eggs were harvested from rabbits. This is potentially a very useful technique, because it represents a source of embryonic stem cells that doesn't require the collection of eggs from humans--a time-consuming, costly, and potentially dangerous process.

      Aside: There is no intention to allow these chimeric embryos to mature into some sort of science fiction half-man half-rabbit hybrid--the Chinese government limited the researchers to fourteen days growing time. The only purpose of these experiments is to develop a new source of embryonic stem cells.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    5. Re:Sorry, no Rabbit People by JavaLord · · Score: 1
      It's mitochondrial DNA


      Wow, so are scientist going to figure out how to use the force soon?
    6. Re:Sorry, no Rabbit People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do not think it means what you think it means.

      The word you're looking for is "midichlorians".

    7. Re:Sorry, no Rabbit People by JavaLord · · Score: 1
      I do not think it means what you think it means. The word you're looking for is "midichlorians".
      Next you are going to tell me the easter bunny doesn't use the force to paint those eggs.
  35. idea by phloydphreak · · Score: 2, Funny

    mix b g with a cat; he will re-design Windz such that when a blue screen appears, the computer also vomits in your shoes.
    What have we created

    --
    "this is the gloaming"
    Radiohead
    --

    --
    "this is the gloaming"
    radiohead
  36. Obj Monty Python by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Funny
    What kinds of future hybrids can we have?

    Wizard: It's a horrible beast.
    King Arthur: What, you mean behind the bunny rabbit?
    Wizard: It IS the bunny rabbit?

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Obj Monty Python by kasparov · · Score: 1

      Bah! Tim was an enchanter... not a wizard! :-)

      Umm... must stay on topic... Uh... Bunnies are cool? :-)

      --
      There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
    2. Re:Obj Monty Python by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obj Monty Python

      Uh...objectionable Monty Python? ;-)

  37. unprecedented evile cloning itself, resulting in.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whoreabully infactdead LIEforms.

    these foulcurrs are building a military/industrial complex that's guaranteed to destroy life as we know it.

    fortunately, y'all are putting the brakes on the hole fauxking greed/fear based execrable, even as we fail to discuss it.

    that's right. the absolutely free methods to improve yOUR condition include use of those time tested elements, oxygen, & water.

    hard to believe that something so simple/cost effective, could improve yOUR ability to participate in the planet/population rescue program, as well as improving your owned lot, goes unrecognized. you can add/subtract various other stuff for cause&effect, but if you overlook the basics, you/all of us, will .continue to come up on the short end of the FUDgeCycle(tm)

    once you get more oxygen on your brain, you'll begin to see the lights coming up. as most of you already know, we're all mostly water, so more of that can't hurt/helps a lot. why aren't these methods to superior health/ability widely known/promoted? can you say monIE? deception? .controll? corepirate nazis? pharmaceuticals?

    you're still hiding behind the 8bawl robbIE?

    the lights are coming up now.

    you can pretend all you want. our advise is to be as far away from the walking dead contingent as possible, when the big flash occurs. you wouldn't want to get any of that evile on you.

    as to the free unlimited energy plan, as the lights come up, more&more folks will stop being misled into sucking up more&more of the infant killing barrolls of crudeness, & learn that it's more than ok to use newclear power generated by natural (hydro, solar, etc...)methods. of course more information about not wasting anything/behaving less frivolously is bound to show up, here&there.

    cyphering how many babies it costs for a barroll of crudeness, we've decided to cut back, a lot, on wasteful things like giving monIE to felons, to help them destroy the planet/population.

    no matter. the #1 task is planet/population rescue. the lights are coming up. we're in crisis mode. you can help.

    the unlimited power (such as has never been seen before) is freely available to all, with the possible exception of the aforementioned walking dead.

    consult with/trust in yOUR creator. more breathing. vote with yOUR wallet. seek others of non-aggressive intentions/behaviours. that's the spirit, moving you.

    pay no heed/monIE to the greed/fear based walking dead.

    each harmed innocent carries with it a bad toll. it will be repaid by you/us. the Godless felons will not be available to make reparations.

    pay attention. that's definitely affordable, plus you might develop skills which could prevent you from being misled any further by phonIE ?pr? ?firm? generated misinformation.

    good work so far. there's still much to be done. see you there. tell 'em robbIE.

    the rest of the wwworld is laughing/crying at/for US in sympathy/disgust, as we fall/jump into the daze of the georgewellian corepirate nazi life0cide, whilst criticizing their ip gangsters, which are also members of the walking dead.

  38. MoreJobs to be Lost Overseas!! by ThulsaDoom · · Score: 1

    Rabbitmen. They can programs all night long and work for carrots. You thought outsourcing engineering to India was bad, wait till the HR department hears about THE ISLAND OF THE RABBITMEN!!!!! WHA HA! HA! HA! HAAAA!!!

    1. Re:MoreJobs to be Lost Overseas!! by JavaLord · · Score: 1
      Rabbitmen. They can programs all night long and work for carrots. You thought outsourcing engineering to India was bad, wait till the HR department hears about THE ISLAND OF THE RABBITMEN!!!!! WHA HA! HA! HA! HAAAA!!!
      No way, carrots are a lot more expensive than the dirt they work for in India.
  39. Stem Cells by darkstar949 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Judgeing from the artical they might have found a better way to get stem cells for research. However, now instead of having to deal with just people that are anti-cloning or anti-stem cell research, you would also have to deal with the animal rights activists because of the retrevial of the eggs, and the undertermined status of the cells after they are created.
    So in the short run it is posibly a better way to get stem cells, in the long run it will raise alot of ethical concerns, as well as the undermined nature of the cell - in short we don't know if they are "true" stem cells in their ablity to grow into any organ. Also, if they do have the potenital to become any organ, we don't know how the human body would react to the foegin DNA (the rabit mitocadria)

    1. Re:Stem Cells by anthonyrcalgary · · Score: 1

      Mitochondria don't leave their host cells. They're foreign anyway, they're basically little bacteria, even the ones that come from humans.

      --
      When someone might yell at me, it has to be OpenBSD.
  40. obligatory obscure Montty Python Reference.... by bryanthompson · · Score: 1

    "He'll bite your head clean off!" "It's a vicious rabbit with large, sharp, pointy teeth!"

    ......Run Away!

    1. Re:obligatory obscure Montty Python Reference.... by govtcheez · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What fucking planet do you live on that the Holy Grail is an obscure Monty Python movie? I mean, Jesus, you picked one of the most famous scenes in the fucking movie. You may as well have said "I'll bite your legs off!" and called it obscure.

      Faggot.

  41. rabbits? by Jedi1USA · · Score: 1

    Rabbits a re boring. Why not mix with something cool like a Gorilla?

    BEHOLD...the Man Ape!

    Oh wait... ;^)

    --
    My old sig was REALLY stoopid.
  42. why rabbits? by axxackall · · Score: 1

    Better use sharks, or hawks, or even snakes. But not rabbits. What's good in mixing human intellect with rabbit sexuality? Now imagine big spiders with human brains. That would be a certain improvement for both.

    --

    Less is more !
    1. Re:why rabbits? by paulhar · · Score: 1

      > "Now imagine big spiders with human brains. That would be a certain improvement for both."

      I guess you must like em hairy...

    2. Re:why rabbits? by miu · · Score: 1

      Why not a duck?

      --

      [Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
  43. What I really want to know is... by Warlover · · Score: 4, Funny

    When are they gonna stop fooling around and start engineering Carmen Electra clones that have a thing for network admins...

    1. Re:What I really want to know is... by isorox · · Score: 1

      LOL, they can put a man on the moon, but what you ask is pure fantasy

    2. Re:What I really want to know is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the year 2032, the next time you shower.

    3. Re:What I really want to know is... by warpath · · Score: 1

      Well, the "plan" is to do this RIGHT AFTER they make a bunch of Carmen Electra clones that have a thing for geneticists.

      Of course... it's quite unlikely that there will be any progress on ANY genetic research after that.

  44. Smoking Man at work? by beef3k · · Score: 1, Funny

    According to the article, the americans have tried this earlier with cow eggs, supposedly to create a new breed of unstoppable super soldiers with mad cow disease (source: xfiles.com).

    1. Re:Smoking Man at work? by buckeyeguy · · Score: 4, Funny
      Sit outside any Wal-Mart and observe the fact that cattle-like humans already exist...

      As for rabbits... couldn't they have picked a cooler species to intermix with? Wolves, cheetahs (fast sprinters for the Olympics!), bears... hmph. Definitely not primates though... anyone seeing 28 Days Later should put the kibosh on that one.

      --
      I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
    2. Re:Smoking Man at work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to go to School in Northern New York. We would sit outside the PriceChopper and play... "Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Inbreeding; You Decide!"

      Great game. Now we can add black market Rabbit Genes to the mix.

      Raise your hand if you knew that Rabbits have to eat their shit in order to survive. I guess it will do a lot for the German skat film industry to get that gene in the mix.

    3. Re:Smoking Man at work? by F34nor · · Score: 1

      coprophagous - ( )
      One who eats excrement

      http://www.islandnet.com/~egbird/dict/c.htm

    4. Re:Smoking Man at work? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I vote for cheetahs. I want my cat-girl, dammit.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    5. Re:Smoking Man at work? by pmz · · Score: 1

      Sit outside any Wal-Mart and observe the fact that cattle-like humans already exist...

      No matter how fat and juicy Wal-Mart customers become, I don't think I could eat one after looking at one.

    6. Re:Smoking Man at work? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Right right... so that when you're banging her, and you finally manage to get her off, instead of just leaving red marks on your back, she'll claw your innards out... yah, just what *I* want on any woman I've got writhing in the throes of orgasm, CLAWS...

    7. Re:Smoking Man at work? by StefanJ · · Score: 1

      "I want my cat-girl, dammit."

      Who'd only be In the Mood for one week a year, and who'd gnaw your face off if you stop scratching her behind the ears before she says so . . .

    8. Re:Smoking Man at work? by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      Nail clippers, my friend, nail clippers. Human fingernails can be pretty damn sharp too, which is why we keep them short and blunt. Before getting jiggy with that yiffy cheetah girl from down the street, you'd simply have to make sure she was acquainted with the grooming tools humans use regularly.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

    9. Re:Smoking Man at work? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Bah, that's no big thing. It actually sounds a lot like my ex.

      /not bitter.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    10. Re:Smoking Man at work? by falzer · · Score: 1

      > I vote for cheetahs. I want my cat-girl, dammit.

      Well go to the bar and pick up a cougar!

  45. Foreskins by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 4, Funny

    RTFA and you'll find the cells used for the DNA were a mix of rabbit skin and human foreskin. Imagine explaining that when your long-eared, buck-toothed teenager asks "Daddy, where do babies come from?"

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    1. Re:Foreskins by jankinz · · Score: 1

      when your long-eared, buck-toothed teenager asks "Daddy, where do babies come from?"

      i dont know where you grew up, but where im from we've pretty much got that figured out by age 8 or so...

    2. Re:Foreskins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...you'll find the cells used for the DNA were a mix of rabbit skin and human foreskin."

      Its a floppy-eared rabbit until you pet it...

    3. Re:Foreskins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFLMAO!!!

      Please mod parent up!

  46. if a cell = a life then... by rokzy · · Score: 4, Funny

    every time you bang your head you become a mass murderer?

    or would you say it's a multiple suicide?

    either way, I'm definitely going to hell, right?

    1. Re:if a cell = a life then... by Binestar · · Score: 1

      every time you bang your head you become a mass murderer?

      No, but perhaps guilty of assult. IMO the reason that this is different than clipping your toenails is that when you clip your toenails you are killing .00000000000001% of the total person's cells, with no serious affect on that life. Whereas if you destroy the first few cells of an embryo, you are destroying 100% of those cells and ending the life of that being.

      or would you say it's a multiple suicide?

      Only if you are schizo and lose a personality.......

      either way, I'm definitely going to hell, right?

      Join the club

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
  47. Deeper thinking required by gone.fishing · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't claim to be a DNA expert but I'll bet the people opposing these kinds of exparaments know even less about DNA than I do.

    Somewhere I've read that we share most of our DNA with all the other members of the animal kingdom and indeed we share a lot of DNA with every living thing.

    Some of these exparaments are "pure research" and others are "applied research." In pure research you do the exparament and then look to see where it took you. In applied research you have a pretty good idea of where you are going and are pretty much conducting the exparament to verify your theory. In either case, there really is a goal to the research and I'll submit that the goal is usually good for humanity.

    Without this kind of research we would miss out on opportunities to cure disease, treat birth defects and, all sorts of other good things. But, there is something even better that comes from this research. We gain a greater understanding of the world we live in. We add to humankinds knowlege base. Without doing this we will fail to advance and the next century will look like the last. When that happens there is little doubt that we will have started to slide down the road to extinction becuase we will exhaust vital resources.

    1. Re:Deeper thinking required by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dude, You have too much faith in humanity. Most people I know do research in order to:

      - get rich quick
      - get laid more often
      - become master of the universe
      - find a cheaper way to build bigger H-bombs

      Wish there were more like you though...
  48. Rabbit-tiger hybrid by Jacco+de+Leeuw · · Score: 1
    Human-rabbit hybrid? Old news.

    How about this rabbit-tiger hybrid?

    That's no ordinary rabbit! 'Tis the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!

    --
    -------
    Warning: Slashdot may contain traces of nuts.
  49. And in other news... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Stocks in Carrot Farms soared on the American exchanges on Tuesday, the day before Chinese experiments in Human-Rabbit cloning were announced to have created a successful cross-cloning.

  50. Advertiser Links by ddkilzer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did anyone notice the advertiser links at the bottom of the page for Latest Stem Cell Therapy and Dwarf Rabbit?

    Talk about keyword advertising gone awry!

    1. Re:Advertiser Links by drfishy · · Score: 1

      I got a pop-up for Carrot Ink. :)

  51. Really nothing to boast about. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 0, Redundant

    With more than a billion strong, the chinese are ALREADY human-rabbit hybrids: they breed like rabbits!!!

  52. Run away! by Get+Behind+the+Mule · · Score: 0, Redundant
    It's a vicious Chinese rabbit with large, sharp, pointy teeth!


    He'll bite your head clean off!

  53. Next step . . . by Jaywalk · · Score: 5, Funny

    So when are they going to cross ninjas with turtles?

    --
    ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
    1. Re:Next step . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It'll never happen. A real ninja wouldn't let anyone cross him with anything. He'd flip out and kill anyone who tried.

  54. Americans made the first attempt by beef3k · · Score: 1

    Now, without sounding trollish by bringing American morality into this, I'd just like to quote the article:

    "Although scientists in Massachusetts had previously mixed human cells and cow eggs in a similar attempt to make hybrid embryos as a source of stem cells, those experiments were not successful."

  55. Buffy the Vampire Slayer Refrence... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now we finally know why Anya was so afraid of rabbits... She saw their future as our masters...

    1. Re:Buffy the Vampire Slayer Refrence... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I for one welcome our new cottontail overlords.

      Hey, you can use that phrase in any slashdot story.

  56. That's one step closer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon we are going to have rael catgirls

    --
    The world needs more catgirls

  57. Hoax by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Funny
    ...made by fusing human skin cells with rabbit eggs...

    This has to be a hoax. Rabbits are mammals and give live birth.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:Hoax by Pharmboy · · Score: 0

      This has to be a hoax. Rabbits are mammals and give live birth.

      Human females have eggs, too. You obviously are not familiar with the female body, but thats the whole reason they get bitchy once a month, getting rid of an egg that didn't get fertilized.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:Hoax by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      You obviously are not familiar with sarcasm.

  58. In Soviet Russia by muirhead · · Score: 0, Troll
    In Soviet Russia rabbit human hybrids clone you.

    (I really am so very sorry.)

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia by CoolVibe · · Score: 0, Troll
      s/Soviet Russia/Communist China

      Let's keep it on topic :)

  59. (grand) Parenting nightmare by dkh2 · · Score: 1

    I really dread the time when this creature reaches puberty.

    I can see the headlines now:

    Long eared, carrot loving chearleader breeds like rabbits.

    --
    My office has been taken over by iPod people.
  60. Population Explosion... by danschwarz · · Score: 0, Redundant

    China thought they had a population problem before. Ever heard the phrase, "F like Rabbits."

    -Dan

    1. Re:Population Explosion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but I have heard the phrase "FUCK like Rabbits" Is that what you meant, you cockgobler.

  61. Think of the furries... by Randolpho · · Score: 5, Funny

    The furry crowd must be mighty yiffy over this little development. :)

    Of course... they're mostly yiffy all the time.....

    --
    "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
    -Marilyn Manson
    1. Re:Think of the furries... by WWWWolf · · Score: 1
      The furry crowd must be mighty yiffy over this little development. :)

      Depends on case. (But I'm not saying it'd not be likely. =)

      Personally, I had no such feelings; I merely wished they'd try a coyote next. Or whatever's the closest living bird that resembles a roadrunner.

      This might be Interesting and maybe even as far as Fascinating if I didn't have any coffee and it'd be past 3 in the morning.

    2. Re:Think of the furries... by BoneFlower · · Score: 2, Funny

      Too bad this came too late for TLC to ask about it in their documentary next week...

    3. Re:Think of the furries... by CrowScape · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or whatever's the closest living bird that resembles a roadrunner.

      What's wrong with using an actual roadrunner and not something that just resembles it?

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    4. Re:Think of the furries... by default+luser · · Score: 1

      Something to do with the fact that real roadrunners hardly resemble the cartoon version:

      Real Roadrunner

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    5. Re:Think of the furries... by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      So then cross a human with a roadrunner and paint it blue.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
    6. Re:Think of the furries... by WWWWolf · · Score: 1
      What's wrong with using an actual roadrunner and not something that just resembles it?

      Ah, you see, the real thing is nowhere near silly enough. You need a thing that looks the same and is just as funny.

      And that particular personality trait has to come from animal side, because human beings are simply incapable of producing actually funny works of humor. (I hear the local skeptic society is paying a large money price if anyone can prove the existence of an actually funny joke demonstrably and documentably created by a human in laboratory conditions.)

      Or something. I'm going to sleep.

    7. Re:Think of the furries... by CrowScape · · Score: 1

      Read "Jokester" by Isaac Asimov.

      As to the "real thing", if I recall, the grandparent asked for a creature that looked similar to "a roadrunner" and not "the Roadrunner". Big difference as one refers to the actual bird and the other simply a cartoon character (regardless of intent of the writer). If something that looks like "a roadrunner" was good enough, what is wrong with an actual roadrunner. If he just wanted something that looked like "the Roadrunner", I would guess an ostrich or an emu would work.

      --
      common sense: noun
      What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
  62. This was predicted by Southpark... by pastpolls · · Score: 1, Funny

    I just want to know when I can get a monkey with five asses.

    If sigs are for losers, and this is a sig, then I am a loser!

  63. Looks like it's already happened... by souter · · Score: 1

    http://carnival-in-rethymnon-crete-greece.com/Rabi t2_jp40.jpg

  64. Chinese cloning by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 0, Funny
    Those chinese are cloning everything! Next think we know, they'll be cloning DVD's!

    Oh, wait. Just move on...

    --
    Free unix account: freeshell.org
  65. DNA and criminal prosecution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree that cloning research has powerful potential. Putting the morality question aside, wouldn't it destroy the effectiveness of crime scene investigations?

  66. All this scientific research .... by JSkills · · Score: 2, Funny

    All this scientific research just to make Bugs Bunny a reality?

  67. these experiments are 15 years old by invalid_argument · · Score: 0


    These experiments are from 1988. How else could tey have made this movie?

  68. Look? Where? by permaculture · · Score: 1

    Don't bother. I hopped on over and there were no damn pictures.

    "Hop on over for a read" more like. It's all made up anyway.

    --
    Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
  69. Eeehhh... by Cytlid · · Score: 1

    ...what's up doc?

    --
    FLR
  70. Human-Management hybred by MECC · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anytime soon?

    Don't they realize they've been doing this in Kentucky for a long time?

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
  71. We all should have read the damn article by aug24 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The 'perceived benefit' you can't see is eventually to create a source of stem cells without using aborted foetuses.

    This kind of knee-jerk 'this is bad/immoral/whatever' comment, even though you clearly didn't finish (start?) reading the article is exactly the kind of piss-poor commentary that prevents science doing good.

    J.

    --
    You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    1. Re:We all should have read the damn article by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      But the foetuses are *already* aborted. There's no issue there... they're a ready supply of stem cells, which are just going to be wasted otherwise.

      This is trying to create a new damn species just to get a supply of cells, which is *far* worse.

    2. Re:We all should have read the damn article by Tyreth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whether or not this particular research was ethical or not, there should still be boundaries set up. We cannot justify the experiments Nazi's did in the name of science, merely because it's "knee-jerk" to stop it.

      There obviously needs to be boundaries - so lets work them out.

    3. Re:We all should have read the damn article by aug24 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I totally agree with you, and in fact (most? all?) foetuses used for research in the UK are the 'spare' ones from IVF, so there's even less of an issue.

      Sadly, the 'moral majority' aka Christians (and other people with imaginary friends who apparently tell them what to think), have votes too.

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    4. Re:We all should have read the damn article by aug24 · · Score: 1
      I can understand that POV (although I'm not sure that I agree with you that there should be boundaries), but people trying to define the boundaries without even bothering to understand the purpose of the experiment are just Luddites.

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    5. Re:We all should have read the damn article by goldspider · · Score: 1
      From the article:

      "Some wondered aloud what, exactly, such a creature would be if it were transferred to a womb to develop to term."

      Whether or not such a being would/could actually develop, it doesn't seem, according to the article, difficult to attempt it.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    6. Re:We all should have read the damn article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked the moral majority was made up of right wing fundamentalists; not necessarily Chrisitians either. The most conservative and religous generally come from Mormons, Muslims, and Jews.

    7. Re:We all should have read the damn article by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1
      ...Christians (and other people with imaginary friends who apparently tell them what to think)...

      Out of curiosity, who tells you what to think? Surely you've had influences, right? Parents, friends, government, history. And who's to say your influences are any more "right" than mine?

      On what basis do you make daily moral decisions? Is it simply fear of the law, or deep down do you have a certain "voice" that tells you when something is right and when it's wrong?

      Why not run the red light? Why not rape that woman? Why not kick that dog? Why pay taxes?

      This is not a troll, although your post probably should be.

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
    8. Re:We all should have read the damn article by aug24 · · Score: 1
      This is not a troll, although your post probably should be.

      Well, of course it was... and you bit ;-)

      J.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    9. Re:We all should have read the damn article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason a lot of people have trouble understanding the concept of "society", and completly miss the fact that we as Humans must live in a society to survive. Why not kick that dog, rape that women or run the red light? Because that would make you an asshole, and society does not like assholes. Do it enough and you'll be out on your own, and then you'll have to fend for yourself. It is basically a survival instinct that stops us from harming ourselves and harming the society we live in, which is just bad from a survivability standpoint.

      Thats why.

    10. Re:We all should have read the damn article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just passing by, but you might want to know that science is already very far along that path. Adult human stem cells are already a big part of research. Check out the University of Minnesota for some background info. The rabbit thing honestly does not look very productive in this regard, but the adult human stem cells certainly are.

    11. Re:We all should have read the damn article by anagama · · Score: 1

      Granparent: "..Christians (and other people with imaginary friends who apparently tell them what to think)..." Emphasis added.
      Parent: "Out of curiosity, who tells you what to think? Surely you've had influences, right? Parents, friends, government, history."

      I think the key word was "imaginary". Most parents friends etc. actually exist. Only history, which could reference "made up" history, is a potentially valied point. But not that much. I've been influenced in my thinking by works of fiction. I don't however, believe that R. Daneel actually exists.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    12. Re:We all should have read the damn article by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      "Some wondered aloud what, exactly, such a creature would be if it were transferred to a womb to develop to term."
      Whether or not such a being would/could actually develop, it doesn't seem, according to the article, difficult to attempt it.

      From two sentences later in the article:

      No one knows if such an embryo could develop into a viable fetus, though some experiments with other species suggest it would not.

      So, your argument is kinda stupid. Then again, so is theirs. I wonder aloud what, exactly, would happen if the hybrid fetus were put inside a ziploc bag and sent up into orbit for six months. You know what? Probably nothing.

      What they (and you) are doing is making a giant leap to a moral point since you have no scientific one to stand on. Won't someone think of the children? What if this human-rabbit thing grows up to become a terrorist?!

      -T

    13. Re:We all should have read the damn article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, Mormans *are* Christians, just very odd ones... Yes they have some wildly different beliefs from your average US Protestant, but so do Roman Catholics.

    14. Re:We all should have read the damn article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Why not run the red light? Why not rape that woman? Why not kick that dog? Why pay taxes?"

      This is what's so ironic (and scary) about most of today's "Christians" (in quotes because I have a feeling that if these people actually met Christ they would hate him). They actually wonder what keeps us moral if we aren't afraid of hell. It's clear that your average liberal is far more "moral" than your average conservative, because the only moral teachings that they are prepared to abide by are the ones set in stone by "God", whereas even athiests know the difference between right and wrong without a fear of eternal damnation. These conservatives wanted an answer to the "Why not..." question because they were sure that there must be some "catch".

      Conservative elites (those who think that religion is good for other people) must know that if God were proven not to exist, the Republican Party might very well change it's name to the "Nihilist Party", or they might just go around running more red lights, raping more women, kicking more dogs and congratulating themselves for never paying taxes.

  72. NEWSFLASH: HYBRID RABBIT/HUMAN EMBRYO ESCAPES! by Apostata · · Score: 0

    Fortunately, being only an embryo it can't go very far.

    --

    This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
  73. Here Come the Rippers: Tank Girl Redoux by grahamkg · · Score: 1

    New Zealand rabbit eggs is merely a short hop from Australian kangaroo eggs.

    Are you sure this is Pravda on the Potomac and not The Onion?

    --
    Graham
    Linux - Fast Pane Relief
  74. How human is human? by Mr+Coffee+Cup · · Score: 1

    "She said the experiments should force opponents of cloning research to identify more clearly than they have until now exactly where they would draw the line against human embryo cloning -- in effect: How human does an embryo have to be to have the moral standing these advocates confer on embryos?"

    Clones are people, two?

    The real question is, is really that inconvenient to extract human eggs in a technical sense, or have the church, lifers, authorities, etc. placed so much ethical/moral baggage upon stem cell research that making plausibly less than human embryos for study is the only remaining (unencumbered) avenue of progress?

  75. I have a feeling that a generation of ... by UrGeek · · Score: 1

    ...Japanese will add a whole new meaning to the name,

    Usagi!

    The password is "Moom Prism Power, Make-up!"

    And how long before Catgirls are a really? Watch those claws!

  76. Screenshots? by Kedder · · Score: 1, Funny

    WHERE ARE THE SCREENSHOTS???

  77. Guess this means by maroberts · · Score: 1

    The triple and long jump records will be broken by a large margin Real Soon Now

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  78. Can I ask a question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You did read the article didn't you? Oh what am I saying, of course you didn't. Your knee probably jerked you right out of chair!

    The DNA of the Rabbit cell was removed and replaced with DNA from five human cell sources. Note that the Rabbit and Human DNA was not fused or merged; it was Human DNA in a Rabit cell (You know how cells work; right?) Those cells were then cultivated, resulting in 400 individual cells. Out of those 400 cells, 100 of them survived to the point where they began to produce stem cells. The cluster of cells were then destroyed.

    No Rabbit/Human hybrid, no little furry baby monsters, no little baby embreyos sucking its fur covered thumb. You're safe, don't panic.

  79. That's hot. by HaloZero · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can we splice some donut DNA into something, like a duck or a moose and have donut-shaped, rolly-polly ducks and... mooses? Imagine, a duck with a big round hoop on it back.

    Hm.

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
  80. Rabbitman by papik · · Score: 1

    Finally we will have the first real superhero. But my favourite is still spiderman.

  81. I'm still waiting... by Shant3030 · · Score: 1, Funny

    for some tomacco

    --
    100% Insightful
  82. Island of Dr. Moreau Jokes? by dolbywan_kenobi · · Score: 1

    On Slashdot, who has got them?

  83. Finally.... by tgburrin · · Score: 1

    a real giant-ass easter bunny to scare the crap out of children in the mall during Easter.

  84. The Island of Doctor Moreau... by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

    ' The Island of Doctor Moreau ' goes global! Film at eleven...

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  85. Cell mass != viable organism by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    One thing to keep in mind about embryonic development is that it progresses in stages, and different genes kick in at different stages. Just because cells divide in a petri dish, or progress to some stage of development, is not an indication that it will develop into a viable organism.

    For example, if a human embryo with three of a given chromosome is formed, depending on which chromosome it forms on, the embryo may either fail to develop past the 8 cell stage, or develop into a 10 week fetus and die, or develop longer and die, but never become viable outside the womb. Down's syndrome is unique in that it and sex chromosome triploidies are the only triploidies that are compatible with life. Other triploidies result in miscarriage or failure to implant.

    Unfortunately, I had to learn about this the hard way.

    --
    It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    1. Re:Cell mass != viable organism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certain other triploidies do result in live births now and again. However, I'm not sure that any have survived to adulthood and any that do would be sterile.

    2. Re:Cell mass != viable organism by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Interesting
      ..triploidies...

      Small nitpick. You're referring to trisomy, not triploidy. Trisomy (in humans) refers to an inadvertant tripling of one chromosome; triploidy is the result of an extra (third) copy of all chromosomes. Triploidy is usually the result of two sperm fertilizing a single egg. (Oops.) Trisomy (or monosomy, where the fetus is one chromosome short) is usually the result of an uneven division of genetic material when sperm or egg was formed.

      Triploid fetuses usually spontaneously abort, though some will survive to term--in which case their life expectancy is less than a month.

      As you noted, some trisomies are survivable; most are not. More details here.

      Interesting aside: Some species (particularly plants) tolerate polyploidy quite well, having tetraploid or hexaploid genomes (four or six sets of chromosomes). Odd numbers of sets are infertile, but again are often tolerated in plants--this infertility is sometimes a desired trait, as in seedless watermelons and grapes.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    3. Re:Cell mass != viable organism by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1
      Yes, you're right of course about trisomies vs. triploidies.


      The point I was trying to make is just that because you have a bunch of cells at the initial stages of embryo formation, is no indication it will come even close to becoming a viable organism. The genetics can be pretty bad, and you can still get cell division at that stage.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
  86. China develops bunny hibrid! by leoboiko · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wow! The results are impressive!

    Chinese scientists announced that now they'll focus research in catgirls.

    --
    Prescriptive grammar:linguistics :: alchemy:chemistry. Stop being a nazi and learn some science.
    1. Re:China develops bunny hibrid! by guacamolefoo · · Score: 1

      Since she is kind of cute and in the interest of slashdotting, I submit to you the following links for your viewing pleasure:

      more rabbit girl

      more rabbit girl

      more rabbit girl

      more rabbit girl

      more rabbit girl

      more rabbit girl

      more rabbit girl

      GF.

    2. Re:China develops bunny hibrid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine the longetivity! Think Enigiser :D

      Can i pound her drums on and on and on :D

    3. Re:China develops bunny hibrid! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who needs rabbits?

  87. Tastes just like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... hicken.

  88. Not good by vandan · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I have no problem with science and progress.
    But I fear that our scientific knowledge is growing far more rapidly than our wisdom and social structures.

    This technology in these times is a recipe for disaster. Look at the last couple of years.

    Do you think the world is ready for this technology, or will we stumble into it blindly and apathetically and blame 'them' ( them: scientists, government, those pulling the strings of our government, the rest of the world who stood by and watched as we sealed our fate ) later when the shit hits the fan?

    1. Re:Not good by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      This technology in these times is a recipe for disaster. Look at the last couple of years.

      Which specific disaster are you referring to--the ability to do embryonic stem cell research without having to harvest embryos from humans?

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:Not good by vandan · · Score: 1

      Genetic engineering.
      You think that only the positive side to the technology will be developed? You know about how Hitler thought that Germans were the supreme race? You know how the Jews think they are the supreme race? There are extremists in all corners of the Earth. I'm pretty sure there are some in China. And their human rights record is down there with the worst of them. Allowing genetic engineering to develop in this direction is allowing extremists to attempt to create the next supreme race. Most likely they will fail miserably, but if the subjects survive and can reproduce, then we have a big problem. Very big.

  89. Elsewhere in the Beijing Times... by wuHoncho · · Score: 1

    Yesterday's Births:

    ...
    Xing Tao Ming - 3.2 kg - M
    Deng Fu Ling - 4.2kg - M
    Bugs Bun Nee - 10.3kg - M
    Jaz Jak Rab Bit - 10.4kg - M
    Plae Boi Bun Nee - 8.7kg - F
    ...

    --


    Just another freak in the freak kingdom.
  90. this experiment is the direct result of US law by *weasel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    if the US wasn't strictly trying to control embryonic stem cells for research, then there wouldn't be a demand to make a hybrid source for embryonic stem cells.

    america (currently) leads because we (usually) have the foresight to keep barriers out of the way of technological progress. we have slowly overcome nearly every 'religious' boundary by slowly letting people become accustomed to the way this medical technology -improves- life. each time they are accused of wanting to 'play god'. scientists grit and bear the well-intentioned but factually ignorant viewpoint until slowly the advances are accepted.

    i'm not saying that we throw our morals to the wind and race to immortality and superhuman hybrids - just that we redirect our skepticism. are we really trying to play god? or are we just trying to preserve and extend life, to ease pain and suffering, and to advance as much of our species as we can, without hurting anyone? instead of just levelling opposition to every potential breakthrough because we're 'playing god' - can't we just look for a second at what the facts are?

    embryonic stem cells are being harvested from aborted fetuses. fetuses that were legally terminated and currently, are waste. by banning science from using this unfortunate situation to the best of their ability, people are ensuring that absolutely no good comes from the situation.

    if lives can be saved by studying those who have left - then why in the world would we stand in the way of that? religious opposition in the 19th and early 20th century maintained that if we allowed study of cadavers or donation of organs that people would be killed and abducted and harvested by notorious individuals in the name of 'science'. but that did not happen. nor will people go out of their way to abort fetuses just so they can get stem cells. scientists are not growing fetuses to harvest stem cells.

    this unfortunately ignites the whole abortion debate, which i doubt will ever be resolved. but legally, if I, as next of kin, have the right to determine whether the body of a loved one is to be donated to science; why shouldn't these mothers who exercised their legal right to terminate their pregnancies, also have that same legal right to donate?

    --
    // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    1. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if lives can be saved by studying those who have left - then why in the world would we stand in the way of that

      perhaps because we are still devising new and more innovative ways of killing each other with weapons while spending more money on this than all of the other nations combined !, just imagine if that money was put to mankinds survival

      and you talk about saving lives ? how about we save ourselves from each other first

      {*_*}

    2. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      >>>if lives can be saved by studying those who have left - then why in the world would we stand in the way of that?

      Who cares about saving lives (seriously, not tounge in cheek)? This is scientific exploration. If we save more lives every year, overcrowding comes that much sooner.

      >>>religious opposition in the 19th and early 20th century maintained that if we allowed study of cadavers or donation of organs that people would be killed and abducted and harvested by notorious individuals in the name of 'science'.

      Here in the US, it doesnt seem to happen, but I assume that China is probably headed that way. Homeless, I would bet, be the first targets. Much easier to get away with.

      >>>but that did not happen. nor will people go out of their way to abort fetuses just so they can get stem cells. scientists are not growing fetuses to harvest stem cells.

      >>>this unfortunately ignites the whole abortion debate, which i doubt will ever be resolved. but legally, if I, as next of kin, have the right to determine whether the body of a loved one is to be donated to science; why shouldn't these mothers who exercised their legal right to terminate their pregnancies, also have that same legal right to donate?

      Then what you're going to get is one of these arguments (along woth possible rebuttals.

      1: Religous bla bla bla
      1R: You've already won. Prove $deity exists to me. Now prove whay I believe $deity laws.

      2: Who cares about religion, youre depriving Life/Liberty/PursuitofHappiness in babies. That's the cornerstone of our country
      2R: Tough one. Could say it isnt life (leads into #3).

      3: New life starts by the 2 parental DNA strands to create a new and unique DNA which reproduces.
      3R: You can argue about "life", but it's the commonly scientific accepted meaning of life. You could claim 'reproductive freedom'

      4: Could claim "Reproductive Freedom" where you can kill any unborn babies.
      4R: Abortions allowed. OD'ing and killing your unborn baby gets you 20. What the government is saying is it's legal to hire a "doctor" to off your unborn baby. However it's also murder when they want it to be. By substating that (upheld) sentance, they are agreeing that they allow Murder For Hire

      Simply that's the abortion issue right there. As it stands, the state can see it as accepted practice (abortion) or as muder. Their rules, their choice. Until Judges can resolve the internal conflict, this argument will happen. If it's illegalized, back to underground abortions (2x4's, nasty chemicals, drug overdoses, modified claw-vacumn).

      Still, are "Humans" sacred (religious)? Cant answer that, but it probably means sentient creature. If the species (or themselves) has the capibility to understand themselves, then they should get the Unalienable Rights granted to all humans.

      --
    3. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by wrax · · Score: 1
      careful there, your starting to tred on some shaky ground.

      I am in agreement that stem cells should be used for medical research, and that human cloning is probably a good thing (provided that it can be made to work as well as the natural way), but some people believe that if you profit (in any way) from an evil act (like some believe abortion to be) then you validate the act and the methods used.

      This reason is why Nazi research isn't used in medicine, seeing as a lot of it was carried out in the death camps on the Jews and anyone else Hitler or the SS didn't like. The medical community swear an oath to do no harm, and by using research gained by harming people or animals the case can, and has, been made that it is unethical.

      The problem with this area is that the anti-abortion people don't want to give definitions for what they are preaching. Purposefully keeping people in the dark, and misinforming the public about what is actually involved in the research. While I am sure there are many people in the anti-abortion movement who genuinely believe that fetus's have the same rights as any person living, I am sorry to say that I don't believe that the majority of people in the movement believe this and are simply paying lip service for political gain.

    4. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by kinnell · · Score: 1
      religious opposition in the 19th and early 20th century maintained that if we allowed study of cadavers or donation of organs that people would be killed and abducted and harvested by notorious individuals in the name of 'science'. but that did not happen.

      Oh Yeah?

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    5. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by pyr0 · · Score: 1

      Nothing insightful to add....just would like to say this: amen!!

    6. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >While I am sure there are many people in the anti-abortion movement who genuinely believe that fetus's have the same rights as any person living, I am sorry to say that I don't believe that the majority of people in the movement believe this and are simply paying lip service for political gain.

      Why would you think that?

      Everyone I know you is anti-abortion is that way because they feel it is wrong to kill a fetus, plain and simple.

      I think you are kidding yourself.

      If anything is political it's the pro-choice.

    7. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by mark-t · · Score: 1

      How can this experiment be the direct result of US law when it happened in China?

    8. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Example of when ODing and as a result miscarrying got a person 20 years?
      I think in any case where a sentence was imposed, the party harmed would probably have been the father.

    9. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by *weasel · · Score: 1

      US research restrictions create a demand within the US research community.

      China, ever the astute student of the free market has responded by finding a supply for the demand.

      at the very least, without the restrictions on the US research community - this would not be as big a news story, nor would it be even remotely controversial.

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    10. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by *weasel · · Score: 1

      abortion is still widely under debate.
      the horrors of the nazi concentration camps are not. while i appreciate the point you are trying to make - i think the example is extreme.

      yes, if abortion was illegal and a violation of the mother's rights - then using it for gain would also be wrong - as a society we will have deemed it wrong; and yes, we should not use stem cells from those sources. but that is not our present legal situation.

      and as for a mother's rights, really, that's the rub isn't it? is it the mother's rights, or the fetus' rights? is the organism growing inside a woman's body 'hers'?

      is it a violation of the fetus' rights to abort it, or is it a violation of the mother's rights to force her to carry it to term (even in the face of social,economic, and medical hardships for both)?

      which really is not the argument that i want to step into. (because it will not end. not until a solid legal decision is put down, and a generation has lived with the results)

      my point was simply that, abortions are currently legal. next of kin/guardians currently hold the right to donate the remains of a loved one to science to help save lives/ease suffering/further research. shouldn't these mother's be allowed their rights as well?

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
    11. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by martyros · · Score: 1
      america (currently) leads because we (usually) have the foresight to keep barriers out of the way of technological progress. we have slowly overcome nearly every 'religious' boundary by slowly letting people become accustomed to the way this medical technology -improves- life. each time they are accused of wanting to 'play god'. scientists grit and bear the well-intentioned but factually ignorant viewpoint until slowly the advances are accepted.

      OK, so you've given one example: that's an awful little from which to generalize. Couldn't the Nazi doctors, who performed experiments on humans, defend themselves the same way?

      In general, religion is not opposed to science; most of the things science does are just fine. There are a few kooks who use specious arguments from the Bible to prove this or that scientific fact wrong, but most people have more sense, and realize that the point of the Bible was to teach spiritual truths, not scientific ones.

      But this is a matter of morality, and therefore of religion. I'm sure we could advance our knowledge of psychology, physiology, and all kinds of things a great deal if we experimented on prisoners; I'm sure that among the entire population of "life without parole" prisoners, we would have an end to any shortage of suitable organs. Your argument could be used just as well to defend that practice as to defend embryonic stem cell research.

      I'm not worried about 'playing god' with DNA -- genetically engineered crops, or even cattle, might be OK as far as I'm concerned. I'm concerned about the fact that these things might possibly be human; and if so, we shouldn't be killing them and performing experiments on them.

      The thing is, I've seen a lot of these debates on slashdot, and I haven't seen a good definition of what constitutes "human" or not, just a lot of mocking and ad-hominem attacks on "closed-minded ignorant religious nuts". Why don't you give me a better definition than, "Contains 100% human DNA, and able to be grown into a fully-functional human being." Then I'll concede, and not before.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    12. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by wrax · · Score: 1
      Oh of course, i'm totally with you. If my previous post led you to believe I wasn't then I aploogize, however I can't help myself from taking the opposite position in an argument.

      You are correct that the abortion argument will not end untill a generation or 2 have passed (and perhaps not even then)

    13. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      embryonic stem cells are being harvested from aborted fetuses. fetuses that were legally terminated and currently, are waste. by banning science from using this unfortunate situation to the best of their ability, people are ensuring that absolutely no good comes from the situation.

      if lives can be saved by studying those who have left - then why in the world would we stand in the way of that?

      What about the Holocaust then?

      Skin is being harvested from terminated Jews. Jews that were legally terminated and currently, are waste. By banning industry from using this unfortunate situation to the best of its ability, people are ensuring that absolutely no good comes from the situation.

      If goods can be made by using those who have left--then why in the world would we stand in the way of that?

      You see the parallel? It was clearly monstrous to make soap and lampshades from Jews; it was clearly monstrous to harvest gold from their teeth; it was clearly monstrous to use them for medical experiments. It is clearly monstrous to murder innocents and use their corpses. Why?

      The problem is that it normalises the situation: it shows that we're really quite alright with murdering >1 million humans a year. It shows that, as a society, we approve of it. The solution is not to ban embryonic stem cell research, though: it is to prosecute murder.

    14. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      This reason is why Nazi research isn't used in medicine

      No - the reason why it isn't used is because the vast majority of it was erroneous, muddleheaded, and generally unsound scientifically.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    15. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by JavaLord · · Score: 1
      i'm not saying that we throw our morals to the wind and race to immortality and superhuman hybrids - just that we redirect our skepticism. are we really trying to play god? or are we just trying to preserve and extend life, to ease pain and suffering, and to advance as much of our species as we can, without hurting anyone? instead of just levelling opposition to every potential breakthrough because we're 'playing god' - can't we just look for a second at what the facts are?


      It's the classic case of church and state mixing when it shouldn't. I'm no commie, but people are suffering every day that stem cell research could help. If anything I would say the people stopping the research are the ones guilty of wrong doing.
    16. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Nope, it happened 4 or 5 years ago here in Indiana.

      The mother was pregenant and she was heavy into drugs. Allegedly, she was with friends at a drug party and she OD'ed into a coma for a few days. When she awoke, the baby died.

      The prosecuter could get a few drug charges with no problem (on her, in her, around her). Well, he charges successfully Murder 2 (20 years). The jury agrees.

      The reason I say this is consistency to the law. I'm against abortion, but if the majority of the public wants it, make it possible. To take money for killing your baby is legal vs. Taking drugs to (accidently) kill your baby-murder 2 is INCONSISTENT.

      We can challenge whether we think rules are wrong or right, but we need a 'platform' to stand on.

      --
    17. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pro-abortion, don't think one can charge with murder until a human consciousness forms.

      I find this interesting given how very recently there was a large furor over finding a man guilty of 2 murders (mother and fetus). The concern was of anti-abortionists attempting a precedent.

      Why would they bother if what you say is true?
      Although it is true law is inconsistent and varies from state to state.

      I'd still be interested in any article you could dig up.

    18. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by anagama · · Score: 1

      The comparison of abortion to "the final solution" makes a huge assumption. It assumes that fertilized egg is the equal of a fully formed sentient being. That is a big assumption - take it away and your analogy is useless.

      For example, on Thanksgiving day, how many people will see no difference between a fried turkey egg and a roast turkey? Plainly they are not the same.

      Are you a vegetarian? If not, explain why it is that a completely non-sentient mass of cells, should have more rights the many animals, birds, and fish we eat? Although perhaps not sentient, they clearly are able to intake information, process it, and react to situations. You certainly can't say that about an embryo.

      You say an embryo has the potential to become a fully sentient human? Well, I have the potential to become a fully convicted bank robber. Should I be locked up for the next 20 years? "Unborn babies"? I'm an undead corpse. Puting "un" in front of certain phrases like this just makes them meaningless.

      The day you prove that a tomato seed is the exact same thing as a ripe tomato, you will have a chance in this argument. Potential does not count. We are talking identical properties - 2 inches in diameter, red, plump, juicy and full of little yellow seeds.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    19. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      It assumes that fertilized egg is the equal of a fully formed sentient being.

      It's not a `fertilised egg.' By definition, once a sperm and egg unite it has become something else entirely. `Fertilised egg' is a euphemism for `human,' like `reproductive freedom' is a euphemism for slaughter on a grand scale.

      Are you a vegetarian? If not, explain why it is that a completely non-sentient mass of cells, should have more rights the many animals, birds, and fish we eat?

      They're not human beings--they're beasts. An infant is not viable: it relies entirely on others to clothe it, feed it, bathe it, protect it from the elements &c. It is barely sentient; it is much less capable than a horse or dog--and yet only the worst people claim that it is anything but human. There is no clear-cut point at which one can say, `on this side it is one thing; on that it is another,' save for conception. Everything after that is gradual. An infant becomes a toddler which becomes a child which becomes a youth which becomes a man, but the change is forever gradual, without any clear divisions. Likewise an embryo becomes a foetus becomes an infant.

      Potential has nothing to do with it. Actuality has everything: an embryo is a unique human being, seperate from his mother and father (although dependent on his mother, of course), unlike anyone else ever to exist. The sperm and egg are just cells, and I've no problem with treating them as one wishes, of course.

      The day you prove that a tomato seed is the exact same thing as a ripe tomato, you will have a chance in this argument. Potential does not count. We are talking identical properties - 2 inches in diameter, red, plump, juicy and full of little yellow seeds.

      The situations are completely different. A tomato seed is a living tomato plant--just very, very young. There's a great deal of difference between a tomato seed and a scrap of tomato leaf. Likewise, an embryo is a living human being--just very young. There's a great deal of difference between an embryo and a piece of hair, or a slice of liver.

      The logical extension of your argument is that, since infants are less capable than dogs or cattle, we should be able to treat them less well.

    20. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by tedrlord · · Score: 1

      Wow. Bringing in the Nazis on the first sentence of your response. That's probably a new record. Anyway, according to Godwin's Law, you lose.

      --
      [insert witty quote here]
    21. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Darby · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen a good definition of what constitutes "human" or not, just a lot of mocking and ad-hominem attacks on "closed-minded ignorant religious nuts". Why don't you give me a better definition than, "Contains 100% human DNA, and able to be grown into a fully-functional human being." Then I'll concede, and not before.

      That's easy by changing a couple words.
      "Contains 100% human DNA, and has grown into a fully-functional human being."

      All ambiguity gone, and clumps of cells which can't exist outside of a host are not covered in the definition.

      Happy now?

    22. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1

      Only if it doesn't apply (e.g., one can certainly mention them when discussing WWII). And in this case, the parallels are useful. So, nope.

    23. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by anagama · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that if X will eventually become Y, then X == Y even if presently, it is not identical to Y.

      The situations are completely different. A tomato seed is a living tomato plant--just very, very young. There's a great deal of difference between a tomato seed and a scrap of tomato leaf. Likewise, an embryo is a living human being--just very young. There's a great deal of difference between an embryo and a piece of hair, or a slice of liver.

      OK, my bad. Prove to me then that a tomato seed has all the properties of tomato plant heavy laden with plump ripe fruit. Obviously, nobody will argue with you that a seed or embryo has potential to become something else. The issue is simply this: until it actually becomes something else, it is not that thing.

      Here is an easy experiment. Go to the bank. Deposit 1 unit of your currency. Do some math, explain to the manager that you will have a million in X years and then ask for a million back (1 == 1m because of interest - at least it will eventually grow into a 1m). Bring ear plugs when you do this, the laughter will be deafening.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    24. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, cause the pro-lifers won't abort, so they have more kids, so there are more pro-lifers...

      So sad when politics and evolution mix.

    25. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      if the US wasn't strictly trying to control embryonic stem cells for research, then there wouldn't be a demand to make a hybrid source for embryonic stem cells.

      by banning science from using this unfortunate situation to the best of their ability, people are ensuring that absolutely no good comes from the situation.

      why shouldn't these mothers who exercised their legal right to terminate their pregnancies, also have that same legal right to donate?


      Correct me if i'm wrong, but the current laws do _NOT_ ban embryonic cell research. They merely restrict government funding to 'new cell lines'. I understand your sentiments concerninc technological advancement vs. morality, but I don't think that the effect is as severe as you portray it. There are plenty of private organisations that privatly mess with embryonic stem cells.

      --

      -Bucky
    26. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      >If not, explain why it is that a completely non-sentient mass of cells, should have more rights the many animals, birds, and fish we eat?

      Anymore wrong assumptions you can make?

      A 7-month fetus can live outside the womb. It is certainly sentient and is more more a mass of cells than you or I.

      Your argument is weak and frankly stupid.

      By your logic a new born baby should have no rights, it has no more potential to live than a fetus without help.

      The list could go on...

    27. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhhhhhh how can one be so stupid and blind......

    28. Re:this experiment is the direct result of US law by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1
      So what you are saying is that if X will eventually become Y, then X == Y even if presently, it is not identical to Y.

      No, not at all. I am saying that an embryo is the equivalent of a 24-year-old in exactly the same fashion that a 12-yr-old is the equivalent of a 72-yr-old. There's no magical moment at which one becomes human, no easy-to-define point before which there is naught and after which there is something. Except for conception: before it, there are naught but gametes; after it, there is something new. But everything else is a change in quality, not a change in kind.

      Prove to me then that a tomato seed has all the properties of tomato plant heavy laden with plump ripe fruit.

      Why? It's immaterial. An infant hasn't the properties of a four-yr-old--but we don't allow him to be slain. A four-yr-old hasn't the properties of an eight-year-old--but we don't allow him to be slain. That an embryo hasn't the properties of an infant does not necessarily mean that we should allow him to be slain.

      Obviously, nobody will argue with you that a seed or embryo has potential to become something else. The issue is simply this: until it actually becomes something else, it is not that thing.

      That's the key: an embryo is a human being, for any useful definition thereof. He's not his mother: although half his genes are hers, half are not. He's not an eggplant. He's not a fish. He's not a chunk of quartz. What is he, then? My answer is that he's human. What would you argue--that it's a...?

      Here is an easy experiment. Go to the bank. Deposit 1 unit of your currency. Do some math, explain to the manager that you will have a million in X years and then ask for a million back (1 == 1m because of interest - at least it will eventually grow into a 1m). Bring ear plugs when you do this, the laughter will be deafening.

      Once again, you don't seem to get it. I don't care about the future properties of an embryo, but about its present nature. A mental defective hasn't the same properties that a normal man has--he's certainly less than you or I. Should he be terminated? An infant hasn't the properties of a full-grown man. Should he be terminated? It's not about what something will be: it's about what it is. And an embryo is most certainly a human being.

      What's so magical about passing through the birth canal? Being squeezed through a tube over a period of hours makes one human? It's legal to kill immediately before one exits, but not immediately after?

      See Libertarians for Life for an secular, scientific argument on why conception is the only reasonable starting point for human life. If this were just a moral issue, I'd agree with you. Morality is not a fit subject of legislation. But it's not: it's most certainly a legal issue, for murder is appropriately legislated against.

  91. trix rabbit eat his cereal now? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Now that he is both a rabbit and a kid? "Trix are for kids!"

  92. Surprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm all for research but I can't see how this benefits human kind or even advances knowledge one iota..

    Another fucking idiot who didn't bother to read the article.

    STEM CELLS Now fuck off and take your ill informed objections with you.

  93. For all your Robert Jordan fans... by dspfreak · · Score: 1
    Agh, the dreaded Trolloc-rabbit!

    --
    "Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." -- G. K. Chesterton
  94. Thats Weird ... by polyp2000 · · Score: 0

    Man, its donnie darko all over !

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  95. Future pron star by IdJit · · Score: 2, Funny

    A human with the libido of a rabbit. Hmmm...

  96. "Every Sperm is Sacred" by ajs318 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've never understood where this idea comes from. When you have sex, the number of sperm released is typically in nine figures {decimal}. Out of all those sperm, most will not fuse with an egg. Perhaps one {single birth or identical twins} or rarely two {non-identical twins}, even rarer more than two. Most likely, none of them will find an egg.

    If a man has sex just once and gets his girlfriend pregnant, one sperm has done its job but there are still hundreds of millions of sperm wasted. Now if a man had sex twice a day every day for seventy years and each instance of sex conceives exactly one child, that is just over 50000 babies - and trillions of sperm. Most of which were just never going to make it. So if you had a w**k twice a day for seventy years you might have wasted trillions of sperm, but since most of them were never really going to go anywhere anyway, you have only really wasted one per shot. And there are sufficiently more sperm in a single ejaculation to make that quite insignificant by comparison.

    As they say, sperm are tiny, but it only takes one of them to fill a pram!

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    1. Re:"Every Sperm is Sacred" by sbryant · · Score: 1

      I've never understood where this idea comes from.

      It comes from the Catholic church misinterpreting a story from the Bible about a guy called Onan. Onan's brother had died, which made it Onan's job to give his brother's widow a family of her own (I think he inherited her as a wife). Onan "spilled his seed on the ground" and that made God angry. The Catholic church will tell you that "spilling seed" is the sin. The rest will say the problem was him denying his brother's wife's right to children.

      So, now you know. It's because of that that the Catholic church is against contraception.

      -- Steve

    2. Re:"Every Sperm is Sacred" by JavaLord · · Score: 1
      I think he inherited her as a wife


      Ok, then why doesn't the church take up this idea of wife inheritance also? I could use a few concubines.
    3. Re:"Every Sperm is Sacred" by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      When you have sex, the number of sperm released is typically in nine figures {decimal}.

      Hah. When I have sex, I release at least twenty-eight figures' worth!

      (binary)

      -T

    4. Re:"Every Sperm is Sacred" by bucky0 · · Score: 1

      I'm real fuzzy on that issue, but I think the idea was that if your brother dies, you have to take care of his wife. If you don't have a wife you marry her, and if you do...well, I don't remember what happens then.

      It was a system to take care of widows, not a method to get yourself some more lovin.

      --

      -Bucky
    5. Re:"Every Sperm is Sacred" by euxneks · · Score: 1

      The problem is, can you say which sperm is the one that is going to make it?

      If you look at it in this way, all the sperm have a chance of fusing with the egg, right? You can't say for certain which sperm will fertilise the egg. In this way, each of the sperm is as precious as the other. =)

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    6. Re:"Every Sperm is Sacred" by diggitzz · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course you kill your brother.

      --
      -=[You cannot consistently judge this statement to be true.]=-
    7. Re:"Every Sperm is Sacred" by JavaLord · · Score: 1
      I'm real fuzzy on that issue, but I think the idea was that if your brother dies, you have to take care of his wife. If you don't have a wife you marry her, and if you do...well, I don't remember what happens then. It was a system to take care of widows, not a method to get yourself some more lovin.
      See, this is what the church should be pushing. The good features or religion such as wife inheratance. Forget the fire and the brimstone. Give me a good backup plan on case I can't find anyone to marry.
  97. And why the hell would you do that? by Metroid72 · · Score: 1

    To create the ultimate porn star?

  98. In other news by cspenn · · Score: 1

    in other news, political scientists from California claim to have made the first genetic crossbreed between a politician and a jackass and... oh wait... never mind.

    Chris
    I pimp this product:
    www.studentplatinum.com

  99. Obligatory Warner Bros. quote by dr-suess-fan · · Score: 1

    Eeeeehhhhh.... What's up Doc ?!

  100. Bow Down! by brakk · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new Bunny-Men overlords.

    1. Re:Bow Down! by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      (obscure)

      I Echo that sentiment!

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
  101. Rabbit's Feet by syntap · · Score: 1

    Cool... I'll have a genetically created mini-Me/rabbit hybrid made in China, then I can bring him to sporting events, saying "he's my good luck charm, no really, he's got real Rabbit's Feet!"

  102. Life in Hell by Bohnanza · · Score: 1

    Matt Groening created human-rabbit hybrids years ago.

    --

    -----

    Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

  103. Frank by Channard · · Score: 1
    My dear god, didn't any of these "scientists" ever see Night of the Lepus?!

    No, but they apparently saw Donnie Darko a few times.

  104. Long term results. by praksys · · Score: 3, Funny

    Some wondered aloud what, exactly, such a creature would be if it were transferred to a womb to develop to term.

    Some actually turned out ok, others not so well.

  105. Bunnicula! by goats_in_boats · · Score: 0

    Anyone read those books back in elementary school? Protect your veggies...

  106. Human embryos die every day by Royster · · Score: 1

    Mostly from natural causes. Your disgust arises from your ignorance.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
  107. I, for one, ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 1

    welcome our new leporidae-human overlords.

  108. oops by one_who_uses_unix · · Score: 1

    that wasn't supposed to happen

    --
    KK4SFV
  109. Tenchi Muyo! by mraymer · · Score: 1

    When can I place an order for a real life Cabbit (half-cat, half-rabbit)? I mean, with one of those overly-cute things, any geek would be an instant hit with the ladies, right? ;) Woops, I'm sorry, I mean... ^_^

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    1. Re:Tenchi Muyo! by Renraku · · Score: 1

      Actually, a cat and a rabbit have been mixed before. All you get is a rabbit with autoimmune problems, severe hip displasia, and other random problems. Its not the cabbit everyone imagines it'd be.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    2. Re:Tenchi Muyo! by Theaetetus · · Score: 1
      Actually, a cat and a rabbit have been mixed before... Its not the cabbit everyone imagines it'd be.

      Nor, apparently, is it a rat. ;)

      -T

  110. Why are they doing this? by uncoveror · · Score: 1

    Because that eighties band, Echo and the Bunnymen wants to have another go, but they are all out of bunnymen.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  111. Harvey did it.... by AwesomeJT · · Score: 1

    now, if it were only invisible....
    (anyone remember the classic movie?).

    --
    SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
  112. The wonders of China by chargen · · Score: 1

    First we brought you SARS, guess what's next?

  113. Eh-hh, What's up, Doc? by JThaddeus · · Score: 1

    Is someone gonna do a duck human or will Daffy be left ever 2d best?

    --
    "Love is a familiar; Love is a devil: there is no evil angel but Love." --William Shakespeare ('Love's Labors Lost')
  114. About mitochondria... by gorzek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have not RTFA, but you touched on the nature of mitochondria...

    It is generally believed that mitochondria used to be the anaerobic bacteria present on primordial Earth. As they discharged oxygen as a waste product, they basically filled the atmosphere full of a chemical they couldn't respirate at all. As aerobic bacteria arose to take advantage of the vast amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere, the anaerobics started dying off, and it is believed that some of them managed to establish symbiotic relationships with the aerobic bacteria, eventually being absorbed into a single organism. The anaerobic bacteria, as I recall, produce energy much more efficiently than aerobic bacteria, while the aerobic bacteria can provide the chemicals necessary for the reaction to the anaerobics within.

    I Am Not A Molecular Biologist, so I may not be entirely accurate, but that is the best of my recollection.

  115. Stupid Comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The number of stupid comments on this thread just keep going and going... Cause nothing outlasts an anthropomorphic rabbit.

  116. Island of Dr. Moreau by RLW · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Or how fast comments about how fast rabbits multiply are multiplying.

    Actually this is a bit terrifying. I don't believe the world is ready for genuine human/animal mixes. Image yourself (if these abominations can survive) as one of the poor creatures from the movie. As at least part human you would be a social creature. As at least part animal (if there are any physical or at least obvious psychological manifestations of your animal self) you would be an outcast and a freak. The best one could hope for is some meager acceptance through pity. That's not much of a life. Just because because one can do something doesn't mean that one should. Hopefully this type of DNA mixing and cloning will prove to be untenable if for now one else then at least for the sake of the individuals that may be produced this way.

    How hard was it getting though Jr. High with normal sized ears and no fluffy tail ? Now at this to the mix and try to get a date for the sock hop! (NPI)

    1. Re:Island of Dr. Moreau by usotsuki · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hikaru Usada!!!

      (She's an anime character with rabbit ears.)

      -uso.

      --
      Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
    2. Re:Island of Dr. Moreau by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Informative

      No... you didn't read the article. I just can't believe it. In order for this to happen, the embryo would have to be transferred to a womb. All the samples were destroyed. They don't believe a hybrid could even survive. That's not what this research is for.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:Island of Dr. Moreau by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      After playing Chris Avellone's Planescape:Torment, the idea of a girl with a tail as well as a succubus like Fall-from-Grace kind of intrigued me, but it seems unethical to force someone into being a chimera or new species.

      A black panther + Slavic looking girl may seem like an interesting combination in fiction, but in the real world she would probably have a horrible life. Does a couple that really likes felines, have the right to produce a girl with just a hint of feline genetics?

      Perhaps, in the future, we will be able to "steal" some genetics from the other species in order to improve our abilities without altering our appearance. I don't think this is likely to happen in any of our lifetimes though.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    4. Re:Island of Dr. Moreau by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I don't watch anime, but you have to wonder whether these researchers have.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    5. Re:Island of Dr. Moreau by RLW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes I read the article.

      Perhaps I was thinking about one of the possible consequences of this line of research.

      It does pose other ethical questions just on its on. From the very bottom of the article
      _
      Richard Doerflinger, of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said he felt certain that the human-rabbit embryos were human enough to deserve protections.

      "I think because all the nuclear DNA is human," Doerflinger said, "we'd consider this an organism of the human species."
      _

      It begs one of the most basic questions of human existence: are we ghosts in the machine or are we purely material beings?

      If we are ghosts in the machine then the bodies we inhabit are a temporary form of existence that will be transcended. So the risk for the future can not be in complete jeopardy regardless of what we do to the bodies of future generations.

      From a materialist point of view I should think that this is more frightening. The very definition of self for future generations is potentially at stake. Genetic manipulation brought about the prospect of designer babies but that was generally limited to human DNA or even limited the potential to selecting which genetic traits a baby will have from it's parents (as in Gataca). But raises the specter of animal DNA getting in to the mix.

      Perhaps it is too far off for you and I specifically to worry about but they day will come when these are real concerns. Perhaps sooner than later.

    6. Re:Island of Dr. Moreau by ndogg · · Score: 1

      Sit boy! Err...girl...

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  117. mangalovers get your own cat-girl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    muhaha, i'll get myself a multipurpose cultural catgirl nuku nuku (with only one purpose:P) and she wouldn't be a cyborg inside:D (hmm putting some rabbit genes in there for the mix?)

  118. Self Pregnancy Testing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now we don't need to kill rabbits for pregnancy tests. Women can just inject themselves with their own urine and if they die they are pregnant.

    Perfect.

  119. This is not news! by nortcele · · Score: 1

    I come from the tribe of Smith. We already breed like rabbits...

  120. Jedi Bunnies? by Channard · · Score: 1

    Oh, wait, you said mitochondrial.. mistake.

  121. Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From now on we'll reproduce by creating immortal cloned rabbit-people chimeras. We might become so technically advanced that females don't even need us anymore! Oh wait, we already are.

  122. Does that mean... by grumwork · · Score: 1

    ...we are one step closer to having a real life Jessica Rabbit? Cuz I can TOTALLY get behind that plan!

  123. Ahh religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is going to offend people, but I don't care - your opinion is your opinion and my opinion is my opinion. I may be right, you might be right, we both might be right or we both might be wrong or the truth lays somewhere in the middle.

    <rant>
    Religion is holding us back. Look at how Islam is holding back the countries where it's dominant. And now look at how it's holding back our scientific research.

    Maybe for once, the Godless Commies are showing us up. Religion is of less-and-less importance and relevance to modern society... why else would church numbers be declining? Why else would churches be struggling to maintain their relevancy in peoples lives? As people become more educated they can see through the shit that is organised religion.

    Man, people think Muslims are bad when it comes to oppression and fanatacism and stuff... fundamentalist christians like in America's "bible belt" are just as bad, if not worse. Can you believe that the worlds most powerful and technologically advanced nation still argues over the legality and morality of teaching the theory of evolution vs the theory of creation? ffs!

    And what about all these faggot child abusers in the Catholic church? How dare these arseholes preach to us about what's right and wrong?

    I could rant for ages about this, but I won't. The point is, religion should not interfere with scientific progress or politics... that's what the reformation was all about fixing.
    </rant>

  124. Finally... by Atomsk · · Score: 1

    Bunnygirls a reality !!! Are catgirls next ? ;P I would've thought Japan might have tried this earlier... ... or maybe they did and ended up with godzilla instead...

  125. bah.... by RockClimbingFool · · Score: 1

    i am still waiting for the 4 ass monkey....

  126. Some wondered aloud... by drakaan · · Score: 1
    "...what, exactly, such a creature would be if it were transferred to a womb to develop to term."

    It'd be a raman, right?
    Or would it be a habit?

    --
    "Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
  127. no rabbits by juric · · Score: 1

    but cloning and breeding customized humans

  128. Why did they destroy them? by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    We need a new super hero. RabbitMan - where are you?

  129. Did they smell the human contributors? by iabervon · · Score: 3, Funny

    So the resulting cells are human cells, except that tracing the maternal line using the standard techniques would... "Your mother was a hamster!"

  130. Warner Bros is suing Chinese scientists by ExCEPTION · · Score: 1

    Warner Bros is suing Chinese scientists for the rights over bugs bunny.

  131. Bunnymen? by dirtmerchant · · Score: 1

    Intel might have a trademark infringement case. They've had bunnymen for years.

  132. Cow eggs by mrjb · · Score: 1

    > scientists in Massachusetts had previously
    > mixed human cells and cow eggs in a similar
    > attempt

    Of course they must've gotten the cow eggs by mixing Cow and Chicken.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  133. Over 1000000 Served, er, 1000010, er, 1000100... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    As Kodos-Klang might say :
    Finally, humans with tender, tasty flesh.
    (Useless fact. An explorer once asked surviving ex-cannibals what human flesh tasted like. They said it wasn't that good. But whites were particularly sour/acrid. Considering the bad rap on Neanderthals, could it be a survival adaptation to cultural excess? Just a bythought.)

    On the practical side :
    I shall now start a new garage-project, to develop and keep human-fox hybrid ovus( um, ii) (and maybe human-wolf or human-largebirdsofprey) against the forseeable and inevitable day, when the human-rabbit hybrids escape their pens (or are liberated by half animal-rights activists).
    The genie cannot be put back in the bottle, but nature needs balance. Remeber Australia + rats, rabbits, etc. (insert some quote relative to futures, resistance, futility, and so on.)

    Less than a decade ago, all the scientific news was plastering us with copious info on why marines would never be cloned because differences in "higher" orgs' (sheep, horses, (dogs?), etc.) physiology just made it impossible. Do they still think so ? What would it take to overcome US society's opposition to the idea ? Too many (US) casualties in some senseless conflict ? Naaaaahhhhh.

  134. Mix some rabbit dna with beautiful women dna by jocknerd · · Score: 1

    And what do you get? Beautiful women that fuck like rabbits!

    Count me in.

  135. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  136. Not quite true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mitochondria primarilly metabolize sugar, but also have a few other roles, such as in the production of steroid hormones. It's possible that a human with rabbit mitochondria would have some metabolism problems, or a hormone imbalance, since the rabbit mitochondria DNA is not quite the same as a human's.

  137. Chinese University by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to the Chinese National University of EVIL.

  138. Name? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    *sigh* I bet they'll name that thing Usagi Yojimbo too.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  139. Semi-obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it's that time of the post again. It's time for... THE SEMI-OBLIGATORY FURRY REFERENCE!!!

    Hey, I didn't say I would make it, I just said that it's time.

  140. This reminds me of the movie 'The Fly' by Nybble's+Byte · · Score: 1

    with Jeff Goldblum...pretty creepy!

  141. viable organism = vary, select, multiply, repeat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative


    Menghele (yeah, him!) got an overunity success cloning cattle on his ranch in Argentina, in the 50's. Peron was a guest there, once, and got the grand tour. Didi it with techniques like those employed by scientists thirty years later, when the rest of the world "caught up", and science mags started talking about it.

    He just made hundreds of copies and, on the average, 1.x survived. Net result, his ranch had a breeding productivity 1.x greater than the best of the rest.

    Concentrate on variety and number and replication, until sufficiently viable lines come along. Grunt work for the huddled juniors, assistants...

    There can be lots of more sophisticated approaches. But this bludgeon-technique still works.

  142. Pretty cool by praedor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First off, they had to remove virtually all the rabbit nuclear DNA because if you do not do this and simply fuse two cells (say a human cell and a rabbit cell) with intact DNA, almost invariably, the human DNA is lost. The cells dump extraneous DNA and it just happens that most often, it is the human chromosomes that get dumped.


    Second, this is merely a gradation of "chimera" beyond that which is commonly called a "transgenic". The later is a long-used basic tool in molecular biology/developmental research. There are innumerable extant mouse-human "chimeras" out there, just as there are Drosophila-human, yeast-human, yeast-E. coli, E. coli-yeast, etc, etc, etc, transgenic (chimeras). Normally, what is transfered in these cases are individual genes, though short chromosomal segments can be transfered as well. This article refers to a chimera in which it is merely the shell that contains the DNA (the cell) that is changed from native to alien species. You could likely get by with a viable cell with a partial mix of rabbit genes in human cells and vice versa, so long as the proteins encoded by the genes are homologous enough to share the same functions and helper proteins.


    What would be cool, in my opinion, would be to do a human-bird hybrid in which the bird cell contains only human genomic DNA but the cells retain avian mitochondria - with a little transgenic work done to replace the human mitochondrial genes in the nuclear chromosomes with their avian counterpart. Why? IF (a relatively big if) the mitochondria can properly function in concert with the rest of the human DNA, you might produce a long-lived cell line or, if you let it go to term, a longer lived human. Why? This is based on the oxidative damage/free radical theory of aging: bird mitochondria are much more efficient than human mitochondria on the level of producing energy (ATP) vs production of damaging oxygen radicals. Birds have a high metabolism and their lifespan, relative to metabolic rate (one of the supporting observations for the free radical theory of aging), is unusually long. In general, a higher metabolic rate equates to a correspondingly shorter lifespan. The predominant source of damaging radicals is mitochondria by far. So, if you replace the human mitochondria with super-efficient, low radical producing bird mitochondria, you could end up with a human with an extended lifespan (to unknown extent) if the free radical theory of aging is largely correct.


    Such a person would be no less human than anyone else, their mitochondria would simply be that of a bird rather than a human. Big deal. Mitochondria are alien themselves, afterall. They are the remnant of the fusion, hundreds of millions of years ago, between an anaerobic-type cell and a cyanobacteria-like aerobic bacteria. Once upon a time, then, a chimera was formed based on a semi-parasitic melding of two separate species. Each gains benefit from the other and ultimately, you end up with aerobic eukaryotic cells that makes humans, dogs, birds, insects, reptiles, etc.

    --
    In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    1. Re:Pretty cool by dzimmerm · · Score: 1

      I am not sure if your reasoning is sound. It is possible the load placed on the mitochondia could affect their efficiency?

      Another thought is if doing something like this would work due to differences in the control mechanism for mitochondrial reproduction. I am hypothyroid. This means my thyroid does not produce enough thyroid hormone to keep the correct amount of mitochondria in my cells. If the control mechanism is different in Avians then how would we duplicate that? Do birds have a thyroid gland or an analog to one?

      Would a hybrid human need to take a daily dose of the Avian analog to thyroid hormone to survive?

      Just some thoughts.

      dzimmerm

      --
      Jumping to correct solutions slowly is better than jumping to incorrect solutions quickly.
    2. Re:Pretty cool by praedor · · Score: 1

      I certainly wasn't trying to say it would be simple. What I meant with my big "IF" was intended to take into account possible problems with full integration of avian mitochondria with the expressed genome from a human. It is one thing to get a functional mitochondrion from a human-avian chimeric cell, per se, and quite another to get fully stable (across cell generations) and functioning chimera. Thus, if there were a progressive loss of avian mitochondria from successive chimera cell generations inspite of the mitochondria all being functional in electron transport and ATP generation, then that would indicate problems with system integration.


      As to the specific physiology and anatomy of birds...I am not certain on this point.


      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    3. Re:Pretty cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are proteins in the mitochondrial membrane that are partially encoded by mito DNA and partially encoded by the nuclear DNA. As such, I doubt that these stem cells will be able to produce more functional mitochondria as the proteins will probably not assemble correctly.

  143. Wrong Year! by Slur · · Score: 1

    I thought this was the Year of the Goat. Imagine a whole race of Chinese Human-goat hybrids. They could subsist on tin cans and head-butt the entire world into submission.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  144. 2021 by GoRK · · Score: 1

    Would you put your brain in a robot body?

  145. Not a mutant at all, very important though by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not a mutant. They inserted human chromosomes into a rabbit *egg* cell. Only the mitochondrial DNA (the one that is provided by the egg, comes from the mother, and has little to do with heredity as a whole) came from the rabbit.

    Why is this important ? Well, because the ability to make valid human stem-cells from animal egg cells would remove one of the most troubling objections to human stem cell research : right now, the only valid egg cells for human cloning are human eggs - aka ovules. These must be obtained from real women, which leads to technical and ethical problems (I know that in the US selling ovules is already common practice but in Europe things are quite different). At any rate, a woman can only produce one egg per month, so this is a poorly productive method.

    (The other solution for obtaining stem cells is to suppress the cloning phase and to directly take existing human stem cells out of embryos - there again, moral problems arise if commercial forces are ever allowed in this game).

    Making human stem cells with animal eggs suppress most of these problems. The only big problem that remains is simply that so far, it didn't work. Now these people claim that they have made "mostly human" stem cells with rabbit eggs, but will they have the same capacitie as purely human stem cells ? Could the mitochondrial (rabbit) DNA interfere with the functioning of the cell ? These are the important questions now. According to this article, the paper seems to address none of them.

    Thomas Miconi
    =============

    1. Re:Not a mutant at all, very important though by Maeve77 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe that human egg donors are given a drug that makes them produce more than one per month. This thing is dangerous because, among other things, it can cause infertility and ovarian cancer.

      An old roomie of mine once tried to make some extra money by signing up with a program that sold ova to couples having fertility trouble. In addition to sheets and sheets of questions about her criminal background, IQ, level of education, blood type, interests, etc. she had to sign all kinds of waivers. Basically, "If you get sick because of this, it's not our fault and we won't pay for it." She wouldn't listen to me when I told her how dangerous it was, but they finally wouldn't take her anyway. You see, she was adopted and didn't know much about her birth parents.

      Anyway, it's just plain difficult to get many women to take that kind of risk with their tender bits.

      --
      Beauty will lure a man into bed, but it won't bring him back a second time, unless he's awfully young or very stupid.
    2. Re:Not a mutant at all, very important though by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      Just give them a minute for a slogan and PETA will get involved over the rabbit's rights.

      Probably have one of their members change their name to Bunnyrights.com or something.

    3. Re:Not a mutant at all, very important though by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

      Hell no, let rabbits grow! Seems about as creative as they usually get. After all, there is the possiblity we're killing innocent rabbits here. It's a wonder that they never stop to think about the fact that the rabbits we'd be killing wouldn't have even existed if it weren't for this experimentation. This not to mention the same applies to all of the Cows I eat at mcdonalds, their lives aren't being cut short by the butchers, their lives are simply created for this purpose. Silly PETA rabbits are for tricks... or something like that

      --
      Speak for yourself.
    4. Re:Not a mutant at all, very important though by junkgrep · · Score: 1

      Not to mention deadly blood clots.

    5. Re:Not a mutant at all, very important though by reinard · · Score: 1

      Actually, adult females cannot "produce" ovules (ova?). The just release one or more per month (well, or zero if they are on depo or something similar). They pretty much have what they are born with (~300-400) and then start loosing them, and when they run out they go into menopause.

      --
      Reinard
    6. Re:Not a mutant at all, very important though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am familiar with the protein cytochrome c oxidase which sits in the mitochondrial membrane and is essentially responsible for the pH gradient that drives ATPase. This protein is made up of 14 subunits, some of which are encoded by nuclear DNA and some by mitochondrial DNA.

      So my question is: Don't stem cells need properly functioning mitochondria? I find it highly unlikely that subunits from rabbit DNA would be compatible with subunits from human DNA and therefore doubt that the protein would ever be able to assemble properly.

    7. Re:Not a mutant at all, very important though by ndogg · · Score: 1
      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  146. insensitive fun... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so you're telling me that with those buck teeth, chinese people weren't ALREADY hybridized with rabbits?

  147. I hate the Growing Human Parts on Rats thing... by thePancreas · · Score: 1

    I guess alot of us have seen those images that were big a few years back: You know the ones where the ear was grown on the back of a rat, or the yyeeecchh penis on the back of a rat. Damn them. I hated seeing that.

    --
    I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank
  148. Probably not viable by Sgt+York · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I hate to break in on all the jokes with a serious comment, but...

    These probably would not survive gestation. There are factors spread out in a specific manner in an egg which tell the various parts of the embryo what to become, and when. Imagine the egg as a bag of concentration gradients, going along at least three axes, several gradients per axis. As the cell divides, these become compartmentalized into individual cells. You now have scores of little bags with codes to each one, the code being the concentration of several factors (factors ABCDE having respective concentrations of 4,3,1,2,6 or 5,4,0,8,9). At certain times, these factors come together and give signals that tell that cell or group of cells to become a certain progenitor tissue type. Differentiation goes further after that, with cells "deciding" what to become based on what kind of cell is nearby.

    Many of the signals would be similar between human and rabbit, but probably not enough to make a viable human, or viable anything else for that matter. The rabbit DNA control sequences targeted by the factors that are in the egg would probably be too different from the sequences with similar function in human DNA. This would permit the embryos to survive through several divisions, and probably form simple embryos (mammals are very similar until the fetus stage....even then, it's hard to tell sometimes). But it would probably never make it through gestation. Probably.

    --

    There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    1. Re:Probably not viable by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Truely facinating, I had not yet run across that information.

      If you move the cells around at very early stages, does it screw up the construction of the body?

    2. Re:Probably not viable by Sgt+York · · Score: 1
      If it's done very early on, the embryo can recover (e.g., monozygotic twins) and develop normally. I'm not certain how this is done, and I don't think it's known. You can screw with the factors and DNA elements and get some freaky stuff, though. There have been experiments in flies giving them legs in the place of antennae, eyes all over their thorax, no abdomen, wings in odd places, etc. There have also been some experiments in frogs, but I'm not as familiar with them.

      If you want to get some more info on it, check pubmed for oocyte polarity, vegetal and animal poles, asymmetrical distribution, and determination. My post was a gross oversimplification of the concept, as you can see pretty quickly.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

  149. Doesn't China have enough problems? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Don't they have enough problems in China trying to control the *HUMAN* population?

  150. Whiteman cometh by Iowaguy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this mean in near the near future, these rabbitmen will lead to a whiteman who could jump?

    --
    "He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
  151. We might have to settle... by skyknytnowhere · · Score: 1

    For Teenage Mutant Ninja Rabbits!

    Wait, come back! It's better than it sounds! The song still works! ... damn.

    skye

    1. Re:We might have to settle... by Jaywalk · · Score: 1
      Teenage Mutant Ninja Rabbits!
      It's been done. Well, okay. Technically Usagi Yojimbo is a samarai rather than a ninja, but it's not a huge stretch.
      --
      ===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
    2. Re:We might have to settle... by skyknytnowhere · · Score: 1

      Dude, I actually remember him... Suddenly makes me remember Bucky O'hare, too.

      skye

  152. Good job, Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously are not familiar with the female body

    This IS Slashdot, you know.

  153. first words by madhippy · · Score: 1

    apparently the hybrids first words were "Whats up Doc?"

  154. "Are Ya Feelin' Lucky, Punk..." by Rick.C · · Score: 1
    "Well, are ya?"

    Rabbit-Guy: Uhmm, yeah, dude. Mostly in my left foot.

    --
    You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
    "Math in a song is good."-Linford
  155. Does the logic work for computers too? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I think because all the nuclear DNA is human," Doerflinger said, "we'd consider this an organism of the human species."

    I think because all the ROM code is extracted from a Macintosh, we'd consider a PC running this emulator a system of the Macintosh platform.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    1. Re:Does the logic work for computers too? by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

      It would, technically, work for computers as you describe, too, since in this case 'platform' is mainly relevant to 'what software will run on it'. PC hardware running a Mac emulator IS a 'Macintosh platform'...albeit probably not the most efficient one.

      ROM code doesn't result in the generation of new hardware, the way nuclear DNA guides the generation of new cells...

    2. Re:Does the logic work for computers too? by supertsaar · · Score: 1

      No no no....you can't compare it to that.
      Its Nuclear DNA vs Mitochondrial.
      The nuclear DNA builds the hardware, in this case.
      So to stay in your metaphore, this would be like getting a PC video card working in an iMac. No more, no less. Would you agree that that would still be an iMac?

      *Grabs a tight hold of his foreskin and runs off into the distance*

      --
      The Bigger The Headache The Bigger the Pill
  156. Great -- look forward to new viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With animal to human organ transplants and combining DNA between animals and humans, we can really look forward to some fascinating viruses. Hopefully some that will kill us all off.

    Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should. Do you really believe that all of the scientists working with DNA around the world are doing so in level 5 containment facilities? I don't.

    Say, where did the latest avian (chicken) flu virus come from? Knowing our luck, some halfwit working at a lab would take a human-dna combined rabbit home for rabbit stew, catch something, and kill us all.

    1. Re:Great -- look forward to new viruses by JavaLord · · Score: 1
      Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you should.


      boy, I'm glad you weren't around when man discovered fire. I could hear the conversation now:

      Caveman 1: Ooga booga, this fire stuff is great, it keeps us warm, we can cook meat, make light anywhere, etc.

      AC Slashdot user: Ooga booga, Yes, but it can burn you. We shouldn't make it because we might hurt each other. Just because we can do it, doesn't mean we should. If we do keep making it, the whole earth might catch fire!
  157. In 10 years, China will take lead in biotech by Cryofan · · Score: 2

    all because we are so stupid as to let the taboo-loving reactionaries such as Joe Sixpack and Dubya do our thinking for us.

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  158. Better places to get skin samples?? by Stone316 · · Score: 1

    "The team said it retrieved foreskin tissue from two 5-year-old boys and two men" Those two must have been hard up for cash or something because no way would I let someone approach that area with a knife!

    --
    "Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
  159. Easter Eggs? by redfenix · · Score: 1

    Silly, if rabbits give live birth, then where do easter eggs come from?

    --
    "It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
  160. This is nothing. by floydigus · · Score: 1

    You've been able to get something called 'Chinese boneless rabbit' (i.e. boneress labbit) in the UK for ages

    --

    All things in moderation; including moderation

  161. Mooses by redfenix · · Score: 1

    My sister once got bittin bi a moose. Moose bites can be pritti nasti.

    --
    "It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
    1. Re:Mooses by MoOsEb0y · · Score: 1

      I resent that. Us moose-human hybrids are quite well natured and happily bite only lily-pads. I mean come on, my antlers make great clothing racks.

  162. Rabbit by gsparrow · · Score: 1

    Does this give a new meaning to HipHop. LOL

  163. Happy conception day to yoooooou.... by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 2, Funny
    Do you celebrate your conception day?

    Jebus H Christ, man! Have you seen my parents?!? I don't want to think of my conception AT ALL! I like to think that I was unceremoniously dropped down the chimney by a big, hairy pterodactyl.

    --
    A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
    1. Re:Happy conception day to yoooooou.... by Requiem · · Score: 1

      Uh, you were, euphemistically speaking.

    2. Re:Happy conception day to yoooooou.... by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 3, Funny
      It was a Calvin & Hobbes reference.

      Actually, I was a c-section baby. Tried to strangle myself with the umbilical cord. I heard the Bee Gees and decided I wanted no part of this world.

      --
      A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
    3. Re:Happy conception day to yoooooou.... by 72beetle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I was a c-section baby.

      Hey, me too! You can't tell by looking at me, but whenever I leave the house, I have to go out the window.

      </stephenwright>

      -72

      --
      -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
    4. Re:Happy conception day to yoooooou.... by Requiem · · Score: 1

      I guess you missed the "hairy pterodactyl" and "chimney" euphemisms. ;)

      I was also a c-section baby. I decided that I'd had enough of the womb shit at about 6 months, and made the effort to get out 3 months early.

    5. Re:Happy conception day to yoooooou.... by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 1

      Didn't miss 'em, just didn't apply to me :-)

      --
      A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
    6. Re:Happy conception day to yoooooou.... by Requiem · · Score: 1

      Your dad didn't fuck your mom? ;)

    7. Re:Happy conception day to yoooooou.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why too soon? I was 11 moths birth baby, and only because my mom tell that to the doctor and the extracted me with forceps and a cesarea...

    8. Re:Happy conception day to yoooooou.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think I want to see what people imagine right now..

      --
      aaah.. make it go away..

    9. Re:Happy conception day to yoooooou.... by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 1

      Goddam you, that's the visual I'm trying to avoid :-)

      --
      A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
  164. The Amish have more rights than you by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Humans dependant upon machines to live are cyborgs.

    Are you dependent upon your automobile? How do most people eat if they do not drive to work or to the grocery? So why do cyborgs like you and I deserve fewer rights than the Amish?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:The Amish have more rights than you by 72beetle · · Score: 1

      Are you dependent upon your automobile?

      Nope. I walk to the store all the time. I work 6 blocks from where I live.

      What's your excuse?

      -72

      --
      -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
    2. Re:The Amish have more rights than you by zdislaw · · Score: 1

      Dependent on my automobile in the same way that someone is dependent on a life support system? Don't be stupid. Really.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    3. Re:The Amish have more rights than you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, cyborgs like you deserve fewer rights than people like who live in cities and can walk to the grocery store.

      Actually, you're complaining about people being cyborgs because they can't live without food. Brilliant argument there, you fool.

  165. No monsters here by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

    They transferred the mitochondrial DNA only, which means only the mitochondria are affected, and they only generate ATP out of glucose, not shape the body.

  166. Ob? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does the "ob" part of your title mean?

    Obvious?

    1. Re:Ob? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory

  167. Still a parasite after it's born by yerricde · · Score: 1

    it cannot exist without a host, it derives nutrients from the host to the detriment of that host.

    Likewise, a born child is a parasite. It can't survive without mother's milk. Then it can't survive without food purchased and prepared by mother and father. What's the difference between a fetus feeding off a placenta and an infant feeding off a nipple?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Still a parasite after it's born by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one's gross, the other gives me a boner.

    2. Re:Still a parasite after it's born by zdislaw · · Score: 1

      I've decided that there is a difference. You have decided that there is not. I won't argue about it. I just vote when it comes time to decide who will have the power to protect or eliminate a woman's right to choose.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    3. Re:Still a parasite after it's born by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Because the fetus is divorced from another organism. ANY person can take that baby and nurture it and keep it alive. Prior to birth, only the MOTHER can do that. It's a parasite living off of the gracious whims of it's host, and thank the 20th century for the technology that gives woman a (relatively) safe way of extricating said parasite.

      Flame on, dude... :-)

    4. Re:Still a parasite after it's born by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should talk to Al Bundy about switching jobs then..

    5. Re:Still a parasite after it's born by yerricde · · Score: 1

      Because the fetus is divorced from another organism. ANY person can take that baby and nurture it and keep it alive. Prior to birth, only the MOTHER can do that.

      "A mother should be allowed to kill the baby inside her because unlike the parasite outside her, the parasite inside her cannot be transplanted to another mother." Do I understand you correctly?

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    6. Re:Still a parasite after it's born by yerricde · · Score: 1

      "Woman's right to choose". To choose what? I fully support a woman's right to choose what to wear, what to eat, where to work, whom to marry, whether to conceive babies, etc.

      What's the difference between "choosing" to kill a baby after it's born and "choosing" to kill the same baby before it's born? You claim that there exists such a fundamental difference, so why do you keep its identity a trade secret?

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    7. Re:Still a parasite after it's born by diersing · · Score: 1
      I've always wrestled with the liberals that kill unborn children, yet are against the death penalty for some serial rapist.

      At least the conservatives give the innocent a chance at life, course if they grow up to be a killer they'll be more then happy to provide them a delayed abortion via lethal injection.

      Woman's right to choose... why didn't they choose birth control if they didn't want to become pregnant? I don't object to abortion in cases that endanger a woman's health or in cases of incest & rape. But, for the most part, its used as birth control which is crap. Woman don't have the right to 'choose' to use herion or prosititute themselves or any number of illegal activities.

      I also think there is a difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion. I've not met anyone that is pro-choice that thinks abortions are super and hope more women have them. Their stance is usually pro-safe --> as in keep it legal so we don't have them being done in basements and garages by unqualified practioners. Which is fine, but somehow they fail to articulate it in a way that is convincing so it becomes about a womens right's. If its about 'rights', woudn't the 'rights' of the father also be taken into consideration? Course, no one cares about the rights of the child yet since they can't vote or pay taxes. I now believe we need to reform the law to say life begins at taxation... that ought to settle it.

    8. Re:Still a parasite after it's born by thynk · · Score: 1

      "Woman's right to choose". To choose what? I fully support a woman's right to choose what to wear, what to eat, where to work, whom to marry, whether to conceive babies, etc

      This isn't a popular point to bring up you know. I agree, I support a woman's choice as to if she wishes to have a child or not. However, much like you I believe the choice needs to be made in the bedroom, NOT after. It's not like we don't know where babies come from and what act causes them to be born (ok, this is /., some of you may not know first hand how this happens), it's not like free birth control isn't availble for the asking, regardless of age. So yes, the woman should have EVERY right to choose. If you don't want to run the risk of having a baby, keep your pants on. Good thing this is only /. and I'm NOT running for president in 04.

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    9. Re:Still a parasite after it's born by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

      your feeble republican brain probably has to reduce things down to that oversimplified WWE-watching Limbaugh-listening level to understand correctly, so, yes.

    10. Re:Still a parasite after it's born by yerricde · · Score: 1

      So what happens when doctors perform the first fetus transplant?

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    11. Re:Still a parasite after it's born by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Nasty nasty little quandaray there.

      Being pro-choice but pro-child (geez, how much of a cop-out is that), I have to concede that all that kicking and turning is indicative of a consciousness deserving protection. But since I'm not a woman, I really don't have a powerful anti-abortion tilt, although I'd prefer never to have to abort any child of mine.

      I'd find it reprehensible however, if the government mandated fetal transplant in abortion cases. First off, that genetic material belongs to two people (mother and father) (it's evil talking about fetuses as genetic material, isn't it?), and the situation is akin to forced donation of a kidney, IMHO.

      If a mother wants to donate her six month fetus, then so be it. She shouldn't be required to as a condition to get an abortion. However, I don't think this situation is likely to happen. I think we're getting better at building incubators and the like, and there are safer ways to give children to those who cannot have them. And let's face it, it's more of a nasty shock to the fetus being born twice.

      But it doesn't get around that little bit about the government not being allowed to force you to give up your genetic material. If a mother wants to give up her 1 month old fetus to a machine or another woman to grow it, more power to her. But if she doesn't, don't penalize her for that choice.

    12. Re:Still a parasite after it's born by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      That's it in a nutshell. But hey. Opinions are like assholes; we all got one. :-)

  168. Scientists & Playboy by Jouni · · Score: 1

    Talk about bunny girls... what would Mr. Hefner say?

    Jouni

    --
    Jouni Mannonen | Game Designer, Consultant
  169. Science:Cloning Yields Fodder For Tabloids! by flyneye · · Score: 2, Funny

    Its a Chinese Plot to undermine intellegent thought in the free world.How many people will have to stand in que,waiting to make a purchase while their minds are numbed stupid with front page stories in the Enquirer,Sun,World News,People,Time,Washington Post and other enemies of intellegent life on this planet?
    "The Amazing Rabbit Boy!"
    "Rabbit Boy Sets World Record In Sports"
    "Rabbit Boy Talks To Animals"
    "Rabbit Boy Abducted By Aliens"
    "Rabbit Boy Cures Poison Ivy With Saliva"
    "Rabbit Boy Democratic Hopeful For California"
    (its enough to make you chew your own foot off,isn't it?)

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  170. Let's look at the consequences.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A blind belief in technology is just as bad as being a luddite.

    Society needs *time* to absorb change. Give a bunch of cavemen an atomic bomb and all you'll get is a big bang, and if you're luck, some of the cavemen might survive and look forward to a life of 3rd degree burns and leukemia.

    Right now, we're dealing with the assembly language of life without really knowing much about it. Sure it's fun semi-randomly poking at different memory locations and yes trial and error is how you find out how things work, but you can severely screw up your system if you do that (I'm assuming that life isn't conveniently kind enough to have memory protection). Anyone who has been through the DDT era knows how devastating "miracle cures" can be and how long it takes to recover.

    Forget genetics, we're having trouble dealing with the macroscopic things that affect our body. For at least two generations, we've been telling women that they needed hormone replacement therapy. Now that there are a lot of women on HRT, we've finally discovered that HRT is evil and old remedies like a healthy diet, exercise, and suitable knowledge of what's going on is what we should have been doing all a long.

    So suppose we develop a successful human clone or even reproduction of two people without the use of an ovary. What are the consequences? For one thing, the "biological clock" is most women wouldn't ring and they'd choose to have children when their in their 40s. This would be especially true if we could create an artificial womb (or find some way of getting cows to be surrogate mothers for humans -- no more morning sickness or lugging around a few kilograms of water in your womb).

    If this were discovered today, chances are that 70% of the births would be from this new-birth technology within the next 20 years. (Call these new types of births the new-births, since cloning is just one of many posibilities)

    All's well and good, but what if we discover that new-births are (for reasons we can't understand) are infertile, become infertile after catching a cold, or have unviable or deformed children. Or suppose that the new-births are extremely vulnerable to some common virus that is mostly harmless to the rest of us.

    We're now faced with an even bigger problem. 70% of the population is either infertile or extremely vulnerable to a common disease.

    The tempation is to say, "we'll just use more technology to fix the problem". Maybe it'll help. Maybe it'll make things worse. But if history is any guide, scientists will discover what went wrong and fix the new-birthing process so that the other 30% could have births without the problem. The remaining 70% of the population will be SOL, because cures for anything major tend to take at least a few generations to be developed.

    Do you want to gamble with the lives of that many people?

    I haven't even gotten to the Gattica-type future that insurance companies and law enforcement would *love* to push on us.

    I'm not saying that we should stop genetic innovation. "It's a good thing"[TM]. But we have to realize that we're dealing with the fate of human beings, so we need to go slowly so that we can educate the population and understand the social and genetic implications of what we're doing.

    China may be ahead in this race. Let them be. If they want to be the guinea pigs, I'm all for it. Let's watch them and copy *them* for a change once all the bugs have been worked out.

    The Malconian Chancellor had the right idea in ST:NG's First Contact. We need to go forward, but with wisdom. Knowledge!=Wisdom.

  171. I am Gopher Boy... Pondering Reality by dtabraha · · Score: 1

    What would happen if they put it in a womb?

    Just ask Primus!

    "I am gopher boy pondering reality, I am Gopher Boy, who will buy my raspberries?"

    (Mephisto and Kevin -- Chef Aid: The South Park Album -- Primus)

  172. they should do this on a boat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say they should do this kind of research on a boat in the middle of the ocean, where there are no laws against raising species like this. they can have a whole army in the ocean! ahh

  173. This just announced... by niusj · · Score: 1

    SCO has has announced final termination of all Chinese hybrid embryo licensing. All rabbit-human hybrids must pay $699 to continue licensing their DNA code or face legal actions.

  174. The No. 1 Reason... by felis_panthera · · Score: 1
    ...that these embryos wouldn't survive to infancy even if implanted:

    The vast majority of the DNA in the embryos is human, with a small percentage of genetic material -- called mitochondrial DNA -- contributed by the rabbit egg. No one knows if such an embryo could develop into a viable fetus, though some experiments with other species suggest it would not.

    Mitochondria are the power supplies for cells, they drive the metabolisation by converting sugar into energy (I found technical details here, high school biology was a while back). If the mitochondrial DNA (ie, the building blocks of the mitochondria) are from a rabbit, then would not, theoretically, the person in question have the metabolism of a rabbit? Since the nuclear DNA is human, what you'd end up with (again, in theory, someone could let me know if I'm way off base here, IANABiologist) is a human shaped / sized organism with a metabolism designed for a rabbit sized organism. I don't think that, even eating high energy foods constantly, that such a creature would ever be able to get enough food.

    Again, theory, any flames will make me cry like a little bitch and take my ball and go home...
    --

    The chains are broken
    Loki is free
    Ragnarok is at hand...
    1. Re:The No. 1 Reason... by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not really - mitochondria, as I understand it, work at a pretty basic level, generating ATP from fairly basic biological material (fatty acids, glucose, etc.). They're sort of the 'last step' in the long and complex chain of conversions called 'metabolism'.

      Also as I understand it, mitochondria across all procaryotes (anything with cell nuclei, i.e. 'not bacteria') are all derived from the same ancestral bacterium that first formed a cooperative partnership with another cell, and are still fairly similar. The amount of energy they produce as individual cells shouldn't vary all that much - the total energy production from them will be much more influenced by how MANY there are.

      If a fetus described in the article developed to term, it'd be human. If it were male, the chances are very slim any of the rabbit DNA would be passed on to his children as well (very nearly all mitochondrial DNA comes from the mother - it used to be thought that it was literally all, but evidently there are rare exceptions). Within a generation or two all of the rabbit DNA would be diluted completely out of the gene pool again...

      Unless you believe in homeopathy, in which case the magic vibrations of the rabbit DNA molecules would be maginified thousands of times in the process of being diluted away and you'd end up with an unstoppable army of giant humanoid rabbits....

    2. Re:The No. 1 Reason... by Walkiry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the mitochondrial DNA (ie, the building blocks of the mitochondria) are from a rabbit, then would not, theoretically, the person in question have the metabolism of a rabbit?

      Most mitochondrial protein genes are actually in the nucleus. There are only a few "house keeping" genes and the DNA for tRNAs in the mitochondrion, and chances are these would probably work to some extent with the human proteins.

      is a human shaped / sized organism with a metabolism designed for a rabbit sized organism.

      At the mitochondria level the metabolism is pretty much the same (mitochondria do one thing that is important, creating ATP from NADH and FADH2 via the electron transport, which is pretty much the same in every organism, as well as most of their metabolism), it's the whole interaction of the organism (via hormones, nervous system and cell-cell interactions) what differentiates the metabolism of different organisms, and for that the genes present in the nucleus far outweight the importance of mitochondrial genes.

      --
      ---- Take the Space Quiz!
  175. Ya gotta know..... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Considering all the "Funny" mod'in that happened..... on a more serious note.

    If it can be created..... someone will do it....

    Maybe the bible about the creature of the beast is more literal...

  176. Possible answer by Walkiry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To this question from the article: Some wondered aloud what, exactly, such a creature would be if it were transferred to a womb to develop to term.

    Out of curiosity I went to the NCBI webpage to check both the rabbit and human Mitochondrial DNA. As you can see, the same genes are present in both organisms. This is not always the case, as different species have the mitochondrial genes split between the mitochondrion and the nucleus in different shares.

    If you then bother to run blastn with both sequences (or even better, tblastx) you can see the similarities between coding regions are around 75% or more.

    The more important a gene is in an organism, the less likely it will mutate over generations (and thus the less different it'll be between different species). Mitochondrial genes are quite important, so the rabbit mitochondria might work very well with a human nucleus.

    Bottom line? If those cells can actually grow to become a fetus, chances are that fetus won't really be much different from any other human fetus. It's more likely to fail its development because of how crude our clonin technology is at this point than because of the genetic differences.

    --
    ---- Take the Space Quiz!
  177. cloning has been going on for years... by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

    after reading the article i couldn't help but think this gives a new meaning to the uran legend of, "just look a government officals, living proof that there are more horses asseses, than horses." :o)

    by fusing human skin cells with rabbit eggs
    great, bunnies with male patterned baldness.

    Congress has been mulling legislation for years that would outlaw certain human cloning experiments
    ah-ha, it'll be interesting to see what congress legislates, when they discover that they'll live longer using stem cell reasearch. but then again, is having no term limits on congress a good thing?

    Richard Doerflinger, of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said he felt certain that the human-rabbit embryos were human enough to deserve protections.
    to think that all dna reasearch began one morning when 'father mendel', an austrian monk thought,"i think i'll go out back to the garden and take a 'pea'". :o)

  178. Can they? by blah1019 · · Score: 0

    Install a few of these cells in my wife to, you know, perk her up a bit? I don't need the reporductive stuff, just the part that makes her wanna go thru the motions.

  179. Five assed monkeys.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we should leave life to it's simple, one-assed schematic....

  180. Rabit x Human = ? by SadatChowdhury · · Score: 1

    Jar Jar Binks! Help!!

    1. Re:Rabit x Human = ? by ocelotbob · · Score: 1

      No, no jar jar binks. Jar Jar was obviously an amphibian of some sort. This is closer to what a rabbit/human hybrid would be ;3.

      --

      Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses

  181. Easter Bunny by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    They are trying to create the Easter Bunny!

    This is a bad thing? I like getting chocolate rabbits and candy eggs for Easter, its that plastic grass in the baskets that I cannot stand. :)

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  182. Silly PETA! Rabbits are for Tricks! by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

    Or experiments, whatever.

    --
    Speak for yourself.
  183. Brings a new meaning to Jefferson Airplane by bstadil · · Score: 1
    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  184. re: Rabbit Egg by daBum · · Score: 1

    So next Easter I should expect to see lots more of these?

    Thanks Easter Bunny....

    --
    I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
  185. You mean alt.devilbunnies is for real? by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 1

    ... you expected more than the title?

  186. That's why we call FL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God's waiting room

  187. they've already crossed a rat with a human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does anyone else get freaked out when they see Lt. Gen. Norman Schwartz, Joint Chief Of Staff Director for Operations, in the Pentagon briefings? jeezus! They're up to no good there in the corridors of power. That explains the stinginess w/ govt cheese...

  188. Human Rights by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    It's a good thing we have the Chinese with their complete disregard for human rights or we'd never get the opportunity to have such a freak show.

    Ben

    1. Re:Human Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Good thing we have /. posters with their complete ignorance or we'd never have such misinformed posts.

      RTFA. It's not going to be developed, and embryos sadly don't have any human rights.

  189. Those scientists are going to hell.. by Deal-a-Neil · · Score: 1

    .. in an Easter basket. ;-)

  190. here's the proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  191. What I want to know is... by jetsfandb · · Score: 1

    Will they be allowed to eat Trix?

    --
    It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, The hands acqui
  192. Trix are not just for kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so says Silly Rabbit

  193. Re:God, I've seen a lot of crap commericials.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally a real contender for the coveted job as spokesperson for Cadbury cream eggs.

  194. For the first time? by revividus · · Score: 1
    for the first time, scientists have...

    So, we've been attempting this human-rabbit hybrid for some time, have we?

    At last! Success!

  195. Unfortunately, it's not so simple by Walkiry · · Score: 1

    Most of the proteins found in mitochondria are actually encoded in the nucleus, the mitochondrial DNA carries a very small portion of the necessary genes for its metabolism. You have also to consider the possibility that the reason for the reduced free radicals in birds could be because of the peroxysome (the structure that is in charge of eliminating free radicals) and not the mitochondrion itself.

    --
    ---- Take the Space Quiz!
    1. Re:Unfortunately, it's not so simple by praedor · · Score: 1

      It has been demonstrated that avian mitochondria simply produce fewer oxygen radicals as a matter of course, so it isn't a secondary effect of more efficient or more numerous peroxisomes. The enzymes involved in the electron transport chain in birds is simply "better" than that of mammals (examined to date, at least).


      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    2. Re:Unfortunately, it's not so simple by Walkiry · · Score: 1

      Still, most genes that encode for the electron transport proteins are in the nucleus. I'll have to google now for those avian mitochondria if there is actually some evidence for them being less radical-prone, you woke my curiosity now :P

      --
      ---- Take the Space Quiz!
  196. Does the lead scientist look like Marlon Brando? by ksheff · · Score: 1

    Anyone else think about The Island of Dr Moreau when you first read this headline?

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  197. Concerns by spamchang · · Score: 1
    The team said it retrieved foreskin tissue from two 5-year-old boys and two men, and facial tissue from a 60-year-old woman, as a source of skin cells.

    We can't even be sure that those samples were taken from consenting subjects. Aside from ethical concerns over that half of the experiment, it's possible that such a being could have developed, but given that not enough time had passed for development of a fetus, we'll never know what effect rabbit cytokines (within the egg) would have had on the development of the organism. Remember that the animal/vegetal pole distinctions are made by initial partitioning of maternal mRNA/cytokines, which means that DNA transplantation is not enough to guarantee viability. The transcription factors coded for by the mRNA are likely mismatched to the human genome, resulting in failure of survivability.
  198. Obligatory Simpsons reference... by QEDog · · Score: 1

    Esquilax. As you will recall, an Esquilax is a legendary horse, with the head of a rabbit, and the body of a rabbit.

    --
    "There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
  199. Chinese Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    From the article:

    "R. Alta Charo, an associate dean of law and professor of bioethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, noted that the work passed muster with Chinese ethics authorities"

    Now, THAT'S comforting. I was starting to think that maybe the Chinese were going to get a reputation for being un-ethical...

    This is the country where you can kill a female baby of less than a year old and still consider it an abortion.

  200. oblig. island of dr moureau quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he who breaks the law, shall go back to the house of pain!

  201. Shut the fuck up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you stupid nigger

  202. Excuse me, Mr. Brando? by FenderGeek · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the Island of Dr. Moreau. Over here we have the rabbit-man, and we're working on a cheetah-woman in the back. Care to take a peek?

    It's never good when something written by H.G. Wells, and later adapted to a movie for Marlon Brando, comes close to reality...or is that just my thought?

    When they've got the supermodel clones ready, though, give me a call.

    --
    One only needs two tools in life: WD-40 to make things go, and duck tape to make them stop. ~G.M. Weilacher
  203. So that's how they made ... by puddles · · Score: 1

    Bionic Bunny!

  204. The question is... by 56ksucks · · Score: 0

    .. will these rabbit-human hybrids be hosting any new MTV shows like "Remember the '80's"?

    --

    ---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

  205. You know what this means... by MoeMoe · · Score: 1

    This should bring a whole new meaning to the phrase "cotton balls"

    --
    Business \Busi"ness\, n.;
    A scam in which all people involved perceive as beneficial...
  206. life sized easter bunny by lostinchicago · · Score: 1

    the year is 2010, people can go to there local mall and visit a rabbit/human that is truly life sized. intrestingly enough kids seem to be frightend by the creature and the idea has been scrapped

  207. Some Things Man Was Not Meant To... by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    They shouldn't have done that.
    Now there will be men who think of nothing but sex.

  208. Re:You mean alt.devilbunnies is for real? by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

    Yes, of course alt.devilbunnies is for real. I'm surprised you ever doubted it. After the bunnies' assassination attempt on Jimmy Carter and their much-publicized terrorist takeover of Miami Airport, I thought everyone's doubts had been answered. Devilbunnies are out there. My advice to you is to run, run for the hills. :)

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  209. Quoting Norm MacDonald... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story reminds of a bit of "the fake news" from when Norm MacDonald was the "anchor" on Saturday Night Live:

    And, in London, British scientists have created a frog embryo without a head, a breakthrough that could lead to the production of headless human clones to provide organs and tissue for transplant, as well as horrific nightmares for the rest of my life.

    For more, see here.

  210. but can they cross a ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...woman with a beaver?

  211. Sluggites Unite by fcs-error · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is only the begining! Bun-Bun is coming!

  212. What moral Dilemma? by en_0ne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The way that (real) stem cells are collected (or used to be collected) is in such a way that no moral dilemma exists anyway. When a woman goes in for artificial insemination, several eggs are removed from her body. These eggs are all impregnated a once, and then cryogenically frozen (-500 C). These eggs are defrosted one at a time and put back inside the womans uterus. This process continues until a child is born. Then all of the embryos that could have become humans are (get this) thrown away. Those embryos are the stem cells that can really become _anything_ that they are exposed to. Cells from things like placenta (and very possibly rabbits) are already biased and not truely stem cells.

    What, I ask you, moral dillema exists when given a choice between studying these embryos and throwing them away. It is not as if these embyos are going to ever become viable fetuses either way.

  213. I for one by wumpus188 · · Score: 1

    .. welcome our new hobbit masters.

  214. Hubbits by polyomninym · · Score: 1

    You want a pet that will take to your side!?
    Your want a pet that will take to the dishes!?
    Hubbits!! .. Hubbits!!!

    Sincerly,
    Hubbits!!

  215. Why does this leave me by TCaM · · Score: 1

    thinking about the movie 'Tank Girl'?

  216. Wow by Veramocor · · Score: 1

    what a thought provoking converation.

    And I was going to comment on something stupid like deforest kelly being in this movie.

    But maybe I can do both!!!

    Dammit Jim, its an embryo not a parisite.

    --
    Veramocor
  217. I invoke Godwins Law!!!!! by Veramocor · · Score: 1

    My god people this is only the first page of posts and already you are using Hitler to compare people to?

    Enough. Godwins Law is invoked stop posting.

    --
    Veramocor
  218. Next time, ask an INFORMED question. by zedmelon · · Score: 1

    Well, as much as I like^H^H^H^H hate to nitpick, did YOU read the article? I'm wondering if you're being a bit deceitful with regards to whose knee is leading whom to where.

    • "The DNA of the Rabbit cell was removed and replaced... ...the Rabbit and Human DNA was not fused or merged... ...No Rabbit/Human hybrid, no little furry baby monsters, no little baby embreyos (sic) sucking its fur covered thumb."

    I think I'm gonna have to call you on that.
    To take a quote (you DO know how copy and paste works, right?) from the article:

    • "The vast majority of the DNA in the embryos is human, with a small percentage of genetic material -- called mitochondrial DNA -- contributed by the rabbit egg."

    Since the definition of "majority" can approach yet never become totality, and since the collective definition of "small percentage" can approach yet never become zero, whether you like it or not, there is some blending of DNA. Maybe it's not the "standard, double-helically-structured" DNA. Maybe "mitochondrial" DNA doesn't affect nearly as many attributes as those governed by what we've all come to know as regular, "original flavor" DNA. And maybe DNA identified as "mitochondrial" isn't allowed into the the more affluent DNA dance clubs, but it's still DNA.

    IANABOLBS (biologist or lab bunny scientist), but I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that if they call it "DNA," then it's DNA, even if they add a descriptive adjective to it.

    --
    Mom says my .sig can beat up your .sig.
  219. Rabbit Human.. huh? by bkeating · · Score: 1

    so like... Donnie Darko?

  220. Bunny Girls, W00t! by Hecatonchires · · Score: 1

    Of course, I've watched to much anime.

    --

    Yay me!

  221. C'mon slashdotters, think! by HiggsBison · · Score: 2, Funny
    Yes we've got some new high tech monster here.

    But where are all the 21st century equivalents of pitchforks and torches? Can't we storm the castles with some kind of laser thingy or something? Wifi? RC helicopters? Man-made diamond pitchforks?

    This is supposed to be about nerd stuff. Not some 'armless little bunny-rabbit.

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
  222. Apples and Oranges by Cobralisk · · Score: 1

    Who says you can't mix em?

    --
    Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
  223. Speaking of movies... by paroneayea · · Score: 1

    Heard playing from the womb: "I'm late, I'm late, for a very important date."

    --
    http://mediagoblin.org/
  224. Wait a minute... by druhol · · Score: 1

    In the article it says "The vast majority of the DNA in the embryos is human, with a small percentage of genetic material -- called mitochondrial DNA -- contributed by the rabbit egg." Unless I'm completely lost, shouldn't that mean that the embryo would be completely human if allowed to mature? I mean, if it's only the DNA contained within the Mitochondria that's rabbit, then all of the nucleic DNA would be human.

    --
    WWD4D?
  225. not another one?! by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh great, now Bugs Bunny will also be able to run for Governor of Califorina.

  226. The logical conclusion, therefore: by pr0ntab · · Score: 1


    Rabi-en-Rose!

    Clearly the Japanese are secretly investing millions into these Chinese labs to churn out willing, cute girls to work gaming/electronics retail and trade shows.

    Makes sense to me.

    --
    Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
    1. Re:The logical conclusion, therefore: by CubeHard · · Score: 1

      nevar have I seen a funner post that that!!!1!!

      --
      \\"You go hole now"
    2. Re:The logical conclusion, therefore: by usotsuki · · Score: 1

      I think it makes more sense if you know the origin of the name...it's actually "La vie en rose" ;) (Although I don't doubt there could be a pun on "Rabbit" there. She's not the only "Usako" connected with rabbits.)

      -uso.

      --
      Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
  227. HOLY SHIT by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

    it's the rise of the real life furries!! EVERYONE RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! I'll get the shotguns. yeah.. this reminds me of that movie.. the island of dr. something something.. cant remember the damn name of the doctor.. who created animal/human hybrids.. this just shows how much free time scientists have. and how most of them need to be shot in the chest.

  228. Rabbit-Man, Rabbit-Man... by Halloween+Jack · · Score: 1

    ...does whatever a rabbit can... that would be, let's see, eating half the plants in your garden and having lots of sex.

    Sounds like the life for me!

    --
    I looked into the abyss, and the abyss looked into me--and we both winked.
  229. Or habbits ... by JoeGee · · Score: 1

    It occured to me the headline for the story could have been "Chinese Scientists Develop New Habbit".

    --

    Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
  230. Re:China develops bunny hybrid! by DarklordJonnyDigital · · Score: 1

    Do not attempt to fuck the catgirl. That is impossible. Instead, you must try to realize the truth: there are no catgirls. Then you will find that it is not the catgirl you fuck. It is only yourself.

  231. Re:Sentience by SonOfAres · · Score: 1

    I believe a human life begins, not at conception, but rather, when the "group of cells" has reached sentience. I don't have the medical research to know when this is, be it long after the baby is born, or long before (or somewhere in between), but either way, I believe that before sentience, it's just like killing a tree. Am I happy when the forest outside my house gets chopped down? No. Do I think the constructionists should be charged with murder? No. I think, legally, it isn't murder until the baby is able to think for itself. In that light, I am pro-abortion, though I still believe that the choice should be made before the mother is pregnant, not after. I still think abortion is wrong, but looking at it from a LEGAL standpoint...

  232. I imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are a lot of complex genetic barriers between where we stand scientifically and sucessfully producing a genetic hybrid. But with the exponential rate at which the biological systems are being dechipered, the faster we're nearing a time in which it'd only take a few (granted intricate) tweaks to make it work.

    I imagine then that the planet will be one big mess. Ahh well. I'll probably never live to see the day.

  233. Re:You think you have a soul eh? by martyros · · Score: 1
    "Contains 100% human DNA, and has grown into a fully-functional human being."

    All ambiguity gone, and clumps of cells which can't exist outside of a host are not covered in the definition. Happy now?

    [Sorry for the delay in response, I'm in the Detroit area, so I haven't had e-mail for a couple of days.]

    Now I have a definition, but the ambiguity isn't gone yet. What exactly constitutes a 'fully functional human being'? Is a new-born baby 'fully functional'? What about 20 minutes before it's born? It certainly can't talk, walk, or do any of the other things which we attribute to full-grown humans. Is it OK to experiment on them? What about toddlers who can't talk, or pre-teens who haven't gone through puberty yet. They can talk and walk, but they can't reproduce yet.

    And what if I become blind? What if I lose a leg? What if I don't have the mental capacity to read words bigger than 4 letters? Am I still 'fully functional', or can I be torn apart for someone else's benefit?

    And turning it around, isn't an embryo fully functional? It's alive and growing, doing exactly what it's supposed to be doing at that stage of development. There's nothing broken about it at all. How is it not 'fully functional'? If the embryo "couldn't exist outside of a host", then the embryonic stem cells would be useless. If you mean, "Will die without some sort of external interference", a newborn baby is in the exact same boat.

    So you see, you haven't done anything at all to bring clarity. Give me a consistent definition that gives all the right answers to the above questions.

    Saying, "Human organisms inside someone else's body don't have rights" or "Human organisms that have existed less than 12 weeks don't have rights" is just as arbitrary (and unjust) as saying, "Human organisms with black skin don't have rights."

    --

    TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

  234. Is that funny because... by pr0ntab · · Score: 1

    1) "La vie en rose" is a throwback to her fantasy-world vision of herself at Gamers

    or 2) "La vie en rose" is the name of a competitor to Victoria's Secret.

    Or is it both (or all 3!!!)

    I think all 3.

    It's like, why is Trinity called Trinity?

    1) Christian symbolism in movie.
    2) Name of actual hacker in real life.
    3) Name of infamous nuclear testing site has ominous ring to it.

    Finally, why is my name pr0ntab!?!?! I'll leave that one to you.

    --
    Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
  235. Jackelopes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay! One step closer to Jackelopes!

  236. great... by The+Lynxpro · · Score: 1

    ...someone did the unthinkable and cloned Pat Robertson...I guess they used that new cloning process involving mineral water from the Dead Sea that he sells on the 700 Club...

    --
    "Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
  237. Boy, are you behind the times by fm6 · · Score: 1

    Your rhetoric is so 60s. Nowadays, the only acceptable way to defend an idea is to claim that people who disagree with it are "kneejerk" or some other hot-button term.