Slashdot Mirror


Gene Therapy Creates Strong Super-Rats

srstoneb writes "The AP is reporting about a gene therapy study in which muscle tissue in rats is modified to grow at an accelerated rate. The researchers are mainly interested in combating muscular dystrophy, but obviously there are other potential applications, both good and bad, for a treatment which makes you stronger. Athletic ethics are addressed in the article (it's in the sports section, after all), and rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe regular Tom Galloway -- who posted the link there, where I saw it -- made a comparison to the 'super-soldier serum' that created Captain America. Based on the article, a vaguely Wolverine-like healing factor is another benefit as the therapy allows faster recovery from injury. We already had a non-powered superhero reported last year. Who knows what the future may hold? ^_^" (And that's not the only natural-born superhero.)

414 comments

  1. Great, thats all we need... by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rats with "vaguely Wolverine-like healing factor".

    Wonderful.

    I can see the pest control guys kitting up with miniguns and RPGs.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    1. Re:Great, thats all we need... by originalTMAN · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, most of us have been training for this day for quite a while. I think the world will be safe.

    2. Re:Great, thats all we need... by Borg453b · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes - I knew my l337 skillz would come to good use eventually. 'I frag purely to save the world and impress the chicks'

      --

      - Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
    3. Re:Great, thats all we need... by vanillacoke · · Score: 0, Troll

      MINE EYES THEY BURN!

      --
      The secret to getting modded up is to allways say i've got karma to burn in your sig..
    4. Re:Great, thats all we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell? my comment is a troll? I responded to a link someone provided, thats not trolling. Offtopic, yes...but not trolling. Its called an emotional responce. I hope my comment fairs better in the metamod....

  2. Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by nano2nd · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one welcome our new mutant rat overlords.

    1. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why'd this get +5? Is there like a reference to Hitchhiker's Guide or Doctor Who that I'm missing?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by alien_blueprint · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is an old /. "joke."

      At this point I'll re-use another tired old catch-phrase, which is described on the very same Wikipedia page - "you must be new here" ;)

    3. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't get a +5. It had a +1 humor (though someone's modded it back down). The user must be a friend, a friend of a friend, or you've set a bonus for humor.

    4. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in my original post. It should have been more like "in light of all the overuse of this joke, why was it...".

      Thankfully the mods came and fixed it. *WhEw*

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by alien_blueprint · · Score: 1

      No, it was briefly +5, but then got modded back down.

    6. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that many people modded it down?

      If ever there was a time when the Overload joke is on topic, that was it... :)

    7. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by alien_blueprint · · Score: 2, Funny

      If ever there was a time when the Overload joke is on topic, that was it... :)

      I was just thinking the same thing. At first glance, the first one should have been modded up (but perhaps not all the way to 5), and the rest modded down as "redundant." However, a straightforward application of this joke can't really be justifiably modded up anymore, even if giant ant overlords really were taking over. It's just not funny, informative, or insightful now.

      So in conclusion I suppose I'm saying that I for one welcome our new moderator overlords ...

    8. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in my original post. It should have been more like "in light of all the overuse of this joke, why was it..."

      It is official; Netcraft confirms: Welcoming our new Overlords is dying

      One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Overlord Welcoming community when IDC confirmed that Overlord Welcoming market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all +5 funny moderations. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that welcoming our new overlords has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Welcoming our new overlords is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Slashdot comprehensive moderation test.

      You don't need to be a Soviet Russian to predict Welcoming our new Overlords' future. The hand writing is on the wall: Welcoming our new Overlords faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Welcoming our new Overlords because Welcoming our new Overlords is dying. Things are looking very bad for Welcoming our new Overlords. As many of us are already aware, Welcoming our new Overlords continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

      Welcoming our new Giant Rat Overlords is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core trolls. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time New Overlord trolls Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Welcoming our new Overlords is dying. All major surveys show that Welcoming our new Overlords has steadily declined in market share. Welcoming our new Overlords is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Welcoming our new Overlords is to survive at all it will be among trolls rated at -1. Welcoming our new Overlords continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Welcoming our new Overlords is dead.

      Fact: Welcoming our New Overlords is dying

    9. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by mrjb · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new mutant rat overlords ...and the Turtles.

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    10. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I LOLed!

    11. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darl, is that you?

    12. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kent Brockman said something similar on the Simpsons.

      Homer went into space and accidently broke the ant-farm-- then the live news coverage kicked in and there was an ant floating right in front of the camera, so it looked huge.

      It got modded up because a lot of people are jackasses. It got posted because a lot of other people are also jackasses.

      Hope that helps.

    13. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by nano2nd · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Jackasses or not, at least we don't hide behind AC posts buddy!

    14. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by MP3Chuck · · Score: 4, Funny

      "You don't need to be a Soviet Russian to predict Welcoming our new Overlords' future."

      You mean to say that in Soviet Russia, new Overlords welcome me? I'm flattered...

    15. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by cafal · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome the demise of Welcoming our Overlords.

    16. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by dangerburger · · Score: 1

      You don't need to be a Soviet Russian to predict Welcoming our new Overlords' future.
      Shouldnt that read "IN SOVIET RUSSIA new overlords welcome you?"

      --
      Non-System foot or foot error. remove from mouth and strike any key when ready
    17. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, our Hot Grits bespattered Mutant Rat Overlords welcome a Naked and Petrified Natalie Portman.

    18. Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by Baikala · · Score: 1

      ..and where do you think this old /. joye came from?

      --
      16,777,216 comments ought to be enough for any forum!
  3. Someone will be happy by fullofangst · · Score: 3, Funny

    Good news for 'pro' wrestlers then!

    1. Re:Someone will be happy by jigyasubalak · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh my god! I hope my wife doesn't hear about this.

      --
      The best planning can be done after the project completes.
  4. Splinter first, turtles later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Progis Riport 1.

    Algernon kickd me in th nuts! It is sawr.

    1. Re:Splinter first, turtles later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh at first I though this was one of those retarded "frist psot" trolls, but then elementary english class came to mind, and I nearly pissed my pants laughing.

      Kudos.

  5. Governator by filtur · · Score: 3, Funny
    Now the rats can run for Governor of California

    I'm sorry, I'll post something useful eventually!

    1. Re:Governator by sirius_bbr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now the rats can run for Governor of California

      Informative???

      That's even funier than the comment itself :)

      --
      this sig has intentionally been left blank
    2. Re:Governator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Create some weasel serum and Kerry will have a running mate.

  6. Dateline 2020... by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Superrat "Mitee Mus" runs for governor of the Democratic Republic of California, winning 63% of the votes. Standing 7'3" tall, weighing 120kg and gifted with an IQ of 192, Mitee Mus told reporters "Now I can get to the real business of building nice warm nests for every Californian". He is married to the cousin of a Kennedy.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
    1. Re:Dateline 2020... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, seeing as how there are less than 7 million patents, and using crude interpolation, I estimate your sig patent will be issued sometime after 3000 AD.

    2. Re:Dateline 2020... by radicalskeptic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, for some reason I can't help but be reminded of FATMOUSE

      Yeah, I know, it's... weird...

      --
      WARNING: If accidentally read, induce vomiting.
    3. Re:Dateline 2020... by heironymouscoward · · Score: 2, Funny

      With full automation of the USPTO, planned in 2005, patents will be issued directly to pre-approved parties without the tedious business of examination. This will allow the USPTO to increase its turnover by 5000% and will reach the 10bn mark in late 2007. The pre-approval process will also be streamlined so that a single large contribution to the political party in power suffices to purchase bulk patents.
      Breath now while it's still Free!

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature
    4. Re:Dateline 2020... by originalTMAN · · Score: 1

      Brain must be pissed.

    5. Re:Dateline 2020... by Imperator · · Score: 2, Funny

      When you win an election in a "democratic republic", you win with 100% of the vote, or 99% if you're feeling magnanimous.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    6. Re:Dateline 2020... by TwistedGreen · · Score: 1

      For a rat, and IQ of 192 doesn't seem too spectacular.

      If he were running for President, though, that'd be different. He could say he had an IQ of 9000... then he'd just need to make sure nobody saw him consulting his Junior Encyclopedia of Politics. It's the only one he could find with pictures. ;)

    7. Re:Dateline 2020... by Boing · · Score: 1
      Superrat "Mitee Mus" runs for governor of the Democratic Republic of California ... He is married to the cousin of a Kennedy.

      Hey, at least he's keeping it within the species.

      Just kidding, I'm sure superrats aren't compatible with their unenhanced counterparts. :)

  7. ...Ratman by derphilipp · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The new superhero:
    Superrat
    He lives in the sewers, fights evil crocodile-ninjas.

    And his only weakness is his secret addiction to cheese.

    Master Splinter ? (Turtles)

    --
    Spelling mistakes: My is english spoken not tongue of mother.
  8. Now they're comparing with fiction by Larry+David · · Score: 1

    [..] and rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe regular Tom Galloway -- who posted the link there, where I saw it -- made a comparison to the 'super-soldier serum' that created Captain America.

    Breaking news. Toms Hardware is going to be benchmarking the Athlon FX-51 against the WOPR from WarGames!

    1. Re:Now they're comparing with fiction by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just as well Captain America turned out to be a pretty all round nice guy.

      What's to stop Mr. Super Human being annoyed at the rest of humanity and taking it out on us?
      Will we have to create a bunch of super heroes to stop the super-villians? Sounds like Darwin at his best.

      Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, indeed.

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
    2. Re:Now they're comparing with fiction by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      And use his "super" strenght to do what?

      Screaming Civilians: OH THE HUMANITY! He's using his super strength to open pickle jars everywhere!
      Police: Our weapons are innefective against him he has the word Super in front of his name!
      Random Guy: Uhh have you tried the guns? This guy is just like everyone else except his muscles grow twice as fast
      Police: *shoot the "super" guy with tasers causing him to pass out* oh... well that worked.

      So they can increase a persons cell growth, doesn't mean they're gonna be invincible. They're just gonna be able to wok out and get more results in less time, not that big a deal.

    3. Re:Now they're comparing with fiction by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      LOL, Captain America wasn't bulletproof without the shield.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    4. Re:Now they're comparing with fiction by Hiro+Antagonist · · Score: 1

      Given my experience with humanity, 'specially in the US, methinks that Mister Super Human will grow up to be pretty pissed off at his peers, unless he's "gifted" with an IQ of twelve.

      --

      --
      I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy .sig.
    5. Re:Now they're comparing with fiction by whittrash · · Score: 1

      The government is already on this.

      New Science for National Security: Defense Sciences Office Overview

      One of the the goals is to go "beyond the frailties of life to super physiological performance".

    6. Re:Now they're comparing with fiction by mangamuscle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Captain america is not the only comic book character that has got a shot of the super-serum ;) http://www.dcmstudiosonline.com/comics/tetsuko/iss ue01/01_cover.html

    7. Re:Now they're comparing with fiction by ninejaguar · · Score: 1
    8. Re:Now they're comparing with fiction by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      What's to stop Mr. Super Human being annoyed at the rest of humanity and taking it out on us?

      That guy.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    9. Re:Now they're comparing with fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May the Lord bless you with a spell checker.

  9. I'm all for it... by Arcanix · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is the only way we'll be able to compete in hand to hand combat with the robots that we'll assuredly create and be forced to fight against in the near future.

    1. Re:I'm all for it... by slimsam1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm all for it too, as long as they don't pull a "Hulk" and start jumping from state to state... those NY rats are too rude for Texas.

      --
      ...
    2. Re:I'm all for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ...and the Texas rats are too stupid for NY!

    3. Re:I'm all for it... by Borg453b · · Score: 1

      Hear hear

      --

      - Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
    4. Re:I'm all for it... by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1


      This is the only way we'll be able to compete in hand to hand combat with the robots that we'll assuredly create and be forced to fight against in the near future.

      Hey, why is this modded funny? Shouldn't it be insightful?

      -a

    5. Re:I'm all for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      those NY rats are too rude for Texas

      Ah yes, but I'm sure we'd be glad to have those mutant super-rats; they'd make for some mighty fine barbeque!

  10. How long before this gets into the food chain? by mapnjd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the rise-and-rise of agribusiness and the permanent pressure they place on our governments, how long before such genetic modifications are made to cows, pigs, etc.?

    --
    Bus error in your favour. Collect 200kB
    1. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by fruey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This could already be happening. Growth hormones, vitamin supplements, antibiotics in food all the time, to reduce infection.

      Just where do you draw the line?

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    2. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just where do you draw the line?

      When customers stop buying it, corporations will stop selling it. The anti-GM camp is vocal, but small. The majority of consumers just want vast amounts of cheap food and aren't too bothered how or where it comes from. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but it is just how it is.

    3. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >The majority of consumers just want vast amounts of cheap food and aren't too bothered how or where it comes from.

      That's not my experience at all. Yes the anti-GM at all costs people are small and vocal but the "please label what I'm about to eat crowd" are pretty mainstream.

    4. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by mongbot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cattle and poultry are given vital human antibiotics by agribusiness, just in order to allow animals to grow slightly faster. This means that bacteria have a far greater chance to grow resistant to the antibiotics. There have been many reported cases of people becoming infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria after they have eaten meat raised with antibiotics, (in particular, VRE).

      Antibiotics are our only tools against the bacterial infections that killed untold millions before the 20th century. People forget that before the invention of antibiotics, a simple cut or scratch could lead to infection and death. And now we want to throw all that away, simply for cheaper meat?

      Can you be sure that the cost savings of agricultural antibiotics are passed onto consumers, anyway? Let us not forget that agriculture in the US is massively subsidised by the government (albeit to a lesser extent than in EU or Japan). And I don't know about you, but looking at current epidemic of obesity, I would say that we get enough meat already.

    5. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes the anti-GM at all costs people are small and vocal but the "please label what I'm about to eat crowd" are pretty mainstream.

      The SAY they want food labelled, but they still BUY unlabelled food. A corporation only cares (or even knows) what you DO, not what you SAY.

      I challenge everyone who says they're anti-GM to reflect that in their buying behaviour. 'Cos if they won't, then that demonstrates what they really believe.

    6. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      > The anti-GM camp is vocal, but small. The majority of consumers just want vast amounts of cheap food and aren't too bothered how or where it comes from.

      You're form the UK and say this?

      You know that various agricultural products cannot be imported into the EU, because they are GM? And the US is pissed at the EU, because they only want to allow GM food, when labeled as such.
      An American spokesman said something along the line "This is as good as putting a death skull on the products".

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    7. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Yokaze · · Score: 2, Informative

      For that reasons, feeding antibiotica to cattle and poultry has been prohibited in the EU 2002, IRC.
      I only know for sure, that various antibiotica have been banned for feeding in 1997, 1998. I'm not quite sure how far reaching the legislation in 2002 was.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    8. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Cattle and poultry are given vital human antibiotics by agribusiness, just in order to allow animals to grow slightly faster. This means that bacteria have a far greater chance to grow resistant to the antibiotics.

      The answer to this, of course, is to create genetically modified cattle and poultry that are naturally resistant to common bacterial infections, and drop the use of the antibiotics.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    9. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Jonathan · · Score: 1

      Yes the anti-GM at all costs people are small and vocal but the "please label what I'm about to eat crowd" are pretty mainstream.

      Yes, because ignorance is mainstream. Think about it. If people would demand labels that say "this food has been harvested by members of ethnic minority X", everybody would agree that that would be simple ignorance because there is no scientific evidence to suggest that food processed by any ethnic group is worthy of being avoided. Yet this is exactly analogous to what the GM-labeling people want -- information that is only useful for making irrational decisions. There is *no* evidence that genetic engineered foods can harm you,

    10. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Monoliath · · Score: 1

      I think a deeper issue is how does all of this affect human development in the long run. There obviously has been a lot of research put into gene studies and modification but how much effort has been put into looking at the 'ripple effects' may possibly have as time goes on? A lot of the changes that our science is making to animals and the food that both we and those very animals eat, I think are creating a 'bunch up' in the carpet of evolution. Animals, plants, everything is connected within the chain of development, one change is never made on it's own, it's always because of many external factors. We're changing the course of many stages of development for many organisms, because of our growing isolated needs within an economy (which from a biological point of view, doesn't even exist). How is this going to affect our children's children? I'm not a tree hugging hippie, I'm just curious about the possible dangers this could present much further down the timeline...

    11. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by jarran · · Score: 5, Informative

      the anti-GM camp is vocal, but small.

      That rather depends where you live.

      The UK goverments own research done last year shows that the public mood in the UK "[...] ranged from caution and doubt, through suspicion and scepticism, to hostility and rejection." (Quote lifted directly from the report.)

      They also found, interestingly, that people who came into the debate undecided about GM and not knowing much about the issues became more anti-GM the more they found out, which you could interpret as meaning that a significant number of people are not anti-GM out of ignorance, rather than choice.

      When customers stop buying it, corporations will stop selling it.

      Which is why every major supermarket in the UK has removed GM from their products, and biotech companies are withdrawing from the UK because they don't believe there is a market for GM food.

      And attitudes amongst retailers are becoming more anti-GM rather than less, e.g. supermarkets are now starting to even remove products from animals fed on GM.

    12. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no evidence that they are completely safe.

    13. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by debrain · · Score: 4, Informative

      When customers stop buying it, corporations will stop selling it.

      If that were the case, Monsanto would have stopped selling Posilac long ago. On the other hand, when your executives are appointed to the EPA, and you can prevent the news from airing the truth, who cares about the puss content of 1/3rd of America's childrens' milk?

      Customers have all kinds of choice. It is awareness and influence that are starkly lacking in the modern America.

    14. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
      The anti-GM camp is vocal, but small

      Not in Europe...

    15. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by mikerich · · Score: 2, Informative
      antibiotics in food all the time, to reduce infection.

      They're actually in there to reduce costs. Antibiotics change the bacterial makeup of the animal's digestive tract so it processes food more efficiently. The animal puts on more weight for a given amount of food.

      If anything they make animals more susceptible to infection since the presence of low-levels of antibiotics encourage bacteria to evolve antibiotic-resistance. This is the reason the EU is in the process of removing antibiotics from animal feed.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    16. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Binestar · · Score: 1

      who cares about the puss content of 1/3rd of America's childrens' milk?

      As long as it's not my childrens milk....

      on a more serious note, my father-in-law is a small dairy farmer. (~200 cows with 70 milking at any given time). As a dairy farmer it is a part of his job to keep his cows healthy, if his cows come down with mastitis or an udder infection he gets a vet to make the animal healthy again. During that time the milk is milked and thrown away.

      He tests his milk before it leaves the farm, as well as the company he sends his milk to testing each and every truck of milk they receive. If he were to allow tainted milk to get on the truck the policy of the company he sells his milk to is that he has to pay the cost of the milk on that truck (From multiple farms, and the cost of cleaning the truck.)

      Sure, these infections can be bad if they get into the milk, but knowing the precautions that go into the supply chain I would say it is extremely rare to get tainted milk.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    17. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      ...allow animals to grow slightly faster...

      Cause you know, chickens normally grow to full size in 30 days.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    18. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      The SAY they want food labelled, but they still BUY unlabelled food.
      That's becoming less and less true over time. Indeed, with every other person on a fad diet these days, I think a fair proportion of people routinely look at labels. They may not do it for every item at the supermarket, but usually that's because they already know the answer (we tend to buy the same things over and over again), not because they're ignoring it.
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    19. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by sql*kitten · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're form the UK and say this?

      The very existance of Asda and Iceland, and the continuing popularity of McDonalds and KFC, demonstrates that a significant proportion of the UK food-buying public simply doesn't care what they eat.

      Remember, if you want to understand people, ignore what they say and pay attention to what they do.

    20. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      And I don't know about you, but looking at current epidemic of obesity, I would say that we get enough meat already.

      Judging by the success of the Atkins and South Beach diets, I'd say we're getting enough plant starch already, but could probably use more meat.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    21. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The majority of consumers just want vast amounts of cheap food and aren't too bothered how or where it comes from.

      I don't believe this is true at all. I think that people believe that government regulates meat production so that it is perfectly safe, hygenic and humane. If this were true, all they have to do is choose the cheapest source.

      Unless they're paying careful attention they simply don't know exactly how nasty feed lots are; at least not until the recent mad cow scare made what cattle are fed a news story.

      Seriously, how many people knew that cattle in feed lots are sometimes fed chicken shit? OK not literally chicken shit, but the sweepings off the floor of chicken coops, of which chicken shit is the major component. It reduces the cost of beef, and it probably doesn't have a direct effect on human health, but it's a miserable way to treat a herbivorous animal.

      I'm not squeamish about eating beef, and I have no problems with raising animals for food and eating them. But the nastiness of the feedlot system bothers me. For me, doing literally anything to the animal which will increase its market weight to cost ratio goes too far. I'd like it if I had a choice other than becoming a vegetarian. I for one would pay a premium for range fed beef or even beef from certified humane feed lots, if my supermarket would carry it.

      Unfortunately I don't anticipate a change anytime soon, unless we get another mad cow case and more publicity about the beef production system.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    22. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by debrain · · Score: 1

      Sure, these infections can be bad if they get into the milk, but knowing the precautions that go into the supply chain I would say it is extremely rare to get tainted milk.

      Your inside information is encouraging. However, I strongly suggest you have a look at the reports in the original links, or google for the Fox reports (that were nixed from being on the air) from Florida about Posilac.

      The farmers that use Monsanto's Posilac, and the supply chain they belong to, do not seem to be of the same calibre of integrity as your father-in-law.

    23. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      So what do you want people to do, then, not eat? They kindof have us over a barrel there, and not everyone can afford the extra expense of buying labeled and certified "organic" grown foods.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    24. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Interesting

      And I don't know about you, but looking at current epidemic of obesity, I would say that we get enough meat already.

      Your last sentence marks you as a reactionary zealot. Meat is made of protein and as such is incapable of making you fat. Of course it can have fat on it, but even if eating fat made you fat (it doesn't - credit for that goes to carbohydrates, like the big fucking potato that most americans put down with their steak, or other source of refined, processed carbs) you can trim the fat off.

      I've seen a lot of FUD spread on slashdot, but I haven't seen much food FUD.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You would look a lot more insightful if either you or your source, let alone both of you, could spell pus. (My search term was "puss", which is someone's face, a cat, or the female genitals, but not "A generally viscous, yellowish-white fluid formed in infected tissue, consisting of white blood cells, cellular debris, and necrotic tissue." which is pus.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yes, because ignorance is mainstream.

      That much is true, since most people are unaware of both the risks and the prevalence of GM crops.

      Yet this is exactly analogous to what the GM-labeling people want -- information that is only useful for making irrational decisions. There is *no* evidence that genetic engineered foods can harm you,

      First, many people are more concered about the long term ecological impact of GM crops than about personal health risks. Besides the problem of GM crops escaping into the wild and displacing original species, risks to wild animals (like birds and butterflies) from toxins produced by GM crops, and increased use of pesticides on "Roundup Ready" crops, there are risks of gene transfer into other organisms - including disease organisms.

      Second, GM crops have not existed long enough to be proven safe. There are unanswered questions about allergens and toxic substances produced by GM crops. You wanna eat 'em? Hey, I support your right to put anything you want into your body - so long as you grow them under biohazard protocols and label them, so that I don't have to assume the risk too.

      Thrid, GM food crops have no real benefit except inflating profits of multinational corporations at the exepense of third-world farmers. The idea that third world farmers should plant "golden rice" rather than go back to those local crops rich in vitamin A that were displaced by globalization - where third world nations have to grow food that can be exported for the profit of others, rather than feed their own populations - would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

      Choosing to avoid GM food is not only a rational decision, it is the only rational decision.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    27. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by debrain · · Score: 1

      A wee offtopic, but ...

      "Puss" is how the reference spelled it, however it is not the correct term. Given the perceived ambiguity (something arising often between American and proper English), I chose "puss" because it seemed less repugnant a term than the seemingly equivalent "pus".

      I'm certain, however, that the mistake doesn't undermine a reasonable person's capacity to understand the content of the message. I can't see anyone interpreting it as kittens floating around in their milk.

    28. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Informative
      Judging by the success of the Atkins and South Beach diets...

      What, the success of damaging the health of millions of people? High protein diets increase the risk of heart disease, cancer, kidney damage, and osteoporosis. And weight loss on high-protein diets comes from water loss (as your body tries to urinate out the toxic byproducts of ketosis) and reduced caloric intake, not any magical property of protein.

      These diets get one thing right, in that they encourage avoiding foods that spike blood sugar. Everything else about them is dangerously wrong.

      Want to know the long-term consequences of using protein and fat to fuel your metabolism rather than clean-burning carbohydrates? Ask a diabetic about the wonderful effects they get to experience.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    29. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're already seeing the effects of antibiotics in the food chain. A commonly used antibiotic (humans, swine, cattle) is causing massive die-offs of vultures in India. They feed on the carcasses of dead pigs and cows, as well as human corpses left to scavengers by the Jains, and suffer catastrophic kidney failure. Most people see vultures as unlovely and unlovable, but they are a critical component in many ecologies, and the effects of the dramatic reduction of the scavenger population are yet to be felt. Biologists are alarmed.

    30. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by YellowBook · · Score: 1
      I'd like it if I had a choice other than becoming a vegetarian. I for one would pay a premium for range fed beef or even beef from certified humane feed lots, if my supermarket would carry it.

      Try natural food stores or specialty grocery stores like the Fresh Market or EarthFare? They usually sell range-fed beef and free range chicken.

      Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that if consumers didn't want hormone-grown, genetically-modified, antibiotic-laden meat, they'd stop buying it, and when it became unprofitable, producers would stop producing and selling it. While that's true in principle, it depends on informed consumers. The nasty thing is that agribusiness is spending a lot of money on lawsuits and lobbying to prevent customers from becoming informed. For example, Monsanto has sued a Maine dairy to prevent them from marketing their milk as free of bovine growth hormone. Likewise, agribusiness lobbying has prevented every effort in Congress to require labelling of genetically modified produce -- information that would allow customers to make informed decisions about the produce they buy.

      Now, I am not an opponent of genetically-modified foods; I prefer to make my decisions on a case by case basis. For example, given the information to make the choice, I would not buy Roundup-Ready(tm) produce, since the genetic modifications are of no benefit to me as the consumer, but help the industrial farmers practice environmentally-damaging and unsustainable pesticide-drenched monocropping. On the other hand, I would love to buy Flavr-Savr(tm) tomatoes, because the modifications actually benefit the consumer -- they mean that I can buy tomatoes that are actually ripe rather than green tomatoes that have been ethylene-ripened on the shelf. But unless GM crops are labelled, I have no way of knowing what kind of modifications my tomatoes or soybeans contain. Informed consumers are a basic requirement of a free market, and if the necessary information is withheld, it's not realistic to expect market forces to reflect what consumers actually want.

      --
      The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must cover
      Yhtill forever. (R. W. Chambers, the King in Yellow
    31. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by PMW · · Score: 1

      "They also found, interestingly, that people who came into the debate undecided about GM and not knowing much about the issues became more anti-GM the more they found out, which you could interpret as meaning that a significant number of people are not anti-GM out of ignorance, rather than choice."

      Well, that's easy to understand when one realizes the debate about GM tends to be dominated by anti-GM demagogues who are not constrained by such bourgeois concerns like facts or reason. If you read the "popular" press in many countries the arguments tend to run along the lines of "GM FOODS WILL DESTROY THE PLANET AND TURN YOUR CHILDREN INTO HALF-MAN HALF-BUG CREATURES THAT WILL FEAST UPON THE FLESH OF THE INNOCENT!!! IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?" After reading such a well-crafted and carefully thought out argument is there any wonder why people become scared? Why don't people hear about things like the new GM Yellow Rice that helps prevent blindness in Asia? Oh, because if you did that then people would realize that GM foods can be used to do really really good things, not just bad things. Then they'd have a nuanced adult view of the subject which is the last thing the keep-em-scared-and-stupid crowd wants. Every time a GM case comes up before the WTO the anti's lose, because despite all the hype they can't show the food is actually dangerous.

      The reality is that to provide enough food for the people already here you can either use massive amounts of chemicals to increase crop yields (definitely bad for environment) or GM foods (some possible dangers but hopefully we can control them in a reasonable manner). Saying "everyone should eat organic foods only" means the rich 1st-worlders will be able to eat (at very high prices) and others will go hungry.

    32. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by DocDendrite · · Score: 2, Informative

      How long before genetic modifications get into the food chain? That's easy, Never.

      Eating genetically modified anything won't hurt you because of genes your eating. DNA is quite digestable and it would never find its way from the stomach into your own cells.

      However there are caveats. Plants can be engineered to withstand increased amounts of pesticides. Obviously eating more pesticide is bad.

      -DD

    33. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by abiggerhammer · · Score: 1

      The lactation process is a very strenuous activity for the cattle, therefore requiring careful monitoring and high quality of herd management at all stages. If the use of rbST is administered by farmers, then extra precautions are necessary to ensure the safety of humans and the cattle. Increased bST production can cause a condition called mastitis or udder infections that produces puss-laden milk. The article you've linked has some good information, but it's missing an important causal link. "Mastitis" = literally, irritation of the breast. Humans who breastfeed their offspring get mastitis all the time; it's a completely understandable side effect of having something yanking on your nipple all the damn time. Factory-farmed cows are in just this condition -- ever seen a milking machine? -- and if they're lactating more, then they'll spend more time being milked, which means more physical irritation, which does indeed increase the chances of mastitis and thus the chance of pus getting into milk. Which is, of course, a Bad Thing. I'm not disagreeing with you at all on that one. Deceptive marketing and suppression of the press? Bad and bad. Right there with ya. But I take issue with the implication that rbST itself is somehow magically creating pussy milk, because it just ain't so. Mastitis occurs in cows who haven't had their bST levels artificially increased as well, because of farming practices that encourage it. You can look at rbST as a factor in the increase of mastitis, but not as the root cause of it. The root cause is something that could stand to be changed anyway, and it's deceptive to obscure that. It is awareness and influence that are starkly lacking in the modern America. Damn skippy.

      --
      Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like you're in the shower. Fuck like you're being filmed.
    34. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by jarran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why don't people hear about things like the new GM Yellow Rice that helps prevent blindness in Asia?

      Because the amount of funds that the biotech companies are putting into alleviating hunger and malnutrition is well BELOW 1% of the total research on GM crops.

      GM Golden Rice is heavily used by the pro-GM lobby, but in actual fact, even the organisation which originally did the research has admitted that the benefits have been hugely overexaggerated, and that golden rice would do very little to solve the problem - an adult would have to eat 9kg of this rice to satisfy their minimum daily requirement, and a pregnant woman twice that quantity.

      The reality is that to provide enough food for the people already here you can either use massive amounts of chemicals to increase crop yields (definitely bad for environment) or GM foods (some possible dangers but hopefully we can control them in a reasonable manner).

      Nonsense. The strongly pro-GM UK government commissioned studies on this to decide whether we should commercialise GM crops. Much to their disappointment, in 2 out of 3 cases, GM crops were more damaging to the environment than the equivelent crops grown with conventional methods.

      In the 3rd case, GM was found to be less damaging, but only when compared to a conventional pesticide so toxic the EU has since banned it. I.e., if this study was redone with the pesticide that farmers would now use, this study would have shown 3 out of 3 crops caused MORE damage to the environment than the equivelent conventional growing methods.

      The anti-GM movement hasn't conclusively proven that GM is dangerous. But the pro-GM lobby has certainly not conclusively proved that it is safe, nor have they proved that there are any significant benefits.

      Go and look for studies into the effect of GM on humans. There are virtually none. There are a few on rats, and some of them have shown adverse health effects.

      This doesn't mean that GM is dangerous, but it does mean we need to do more research.

    35. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by ILL+Clinton · · Score: 1

      So the animals being eaten are given growth hormone, and the people who eat the meat are obese. Is it possible that the growth hormones are making their way into the people eating the meat? And making them grow?

    36. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by besya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually I know a few type 2 diabetics that are doing much better by avoiding carbs. Some of them are even drastically lowering the amount of medicine they need to take. Their sugar levels are much lower and are stable. These people are also in good shape and are feeling great. At least two people started eating more protein and less carbs about 5 - 6 years ago, before all this Atkins craze started. Of course 5 - 6 years is not that long and the long-term effects are not known, but they can't be much worse than taking insulin and other drugs for diabetes long-term. Not that this is a good place for this discussion, but making blank statements about such a complex subject, without much proof is never a good idea.

    37. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Jonathan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Besides the problem of GM crops escaping into the wild and displacing original species, risks to wild animals (like birds and butterflies) from toxins produced by GM crops, and increased use of pesticides on "Roundup Ready" crops, there are risks of gene transfer into other organisms - including disease organisms.

      You can't have it both ways -- Anti-GM zealots like to say that GM is different than selective breeding because according to them, "genes don't cross species". Yet, when it suits them, the exact same anti-GM crowd turns around and invokes the possibility of lateral gene transfer between GM crops and wild crops. That's doublethink -- the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at once.

      Second, GM crops have not existed long enough to be proven safe

      It is logically impossible to "prove anything safe". We could find out tomorrow that totally "natural" carrots cause cancer, The simple fact is according to all known rules of molecular biology, there is not even a single logical reason to suspect that GM crops are any more or less healthy than non-GM crops.

      You wanna eat 'em? Hey, I support your right to put anything you want into your body - so long as you grow them under biohazard protocols and label them, so that I don't have to assume the risk too.

      That was more or less the same reasoning that white South Africans used to justify Apartheid -- you want to live around Blacks, then fine, so long as I don't have to assume the risk too. The point is just like the anti-GM crowd, the white South Africans had no evidence for their prejudices, although they could certainly say that there was no *proof* that Blacks were safe.

      The idea that third world farmers should plant "golden rice" rather than go back to those local crops rich in vitamin A that were displaced by globalization - where third world nations have to grow food that can be exported for the profit of others, rather than feed their own populations - would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

      It may or not be tragic that traditional life styles were displaced by capitalization, but the fact is the clock is not going to turn back to medieval times before European contact, no matter how much some people may want it too. Either technology can be used to help the problems of the third world, or the problems can remain unsolved

    38. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the food isn't labeled I don't know what food to boycott and a general boycott doesn't work for products which fufill needs, such as air, water, food.

    39. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given our original problem, I really think they should go with cats next.

    40. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by sql*kitten · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They kindof have us over a barrel there, and not everyone can afford the extra expense of buying labeled and certified "organic" grown foods.

      I'm always interested in human behavior, and I like to watch people in my local Safeway. You might be surprised how many people buy the cheapest generic-brand foods they can, then spend loads on cigarettes and lottery tickets. I wrote a JE on it a little while ago.

    41. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1

      There have been many reported cases of people becoming infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria after they have eaten meat raised with antibiotics, (in particular, VRE).

      Since the invention of fire millions of years ago and the discovery of bacteria a couple hundred years ago, food poisoning really shouldn't be a challenge.

      Also before blaming obesity on meat, you should have a word with soda pop, potato chips, and white bread.

      The antibiotic issue is a serious one, I agree, but it certainly can't be as dire as the over-prescribing of human antibiotics to humans.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    42. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an idea. Before all the anti-agris raise the flag of war, why don't you stroll into Ethiopia and ask the starving masses what they prefer in their food?

      I think a lot of people are under the misconception the genetic modification of food is a new thing. It isn't. It's been happening for thousands of years. Mankind has been cultivating livestock and crops for ages, cross breeding elements that had desireable qualities.

      People may argue that this is "natural", but it definately is not. Humans altered it. We do the same thing now, just in a shorter timespan.

      As far as antibiotics are concerned, it doesn't matter what we do or how careful we are. LIFE EVOLES. Bacteria will become resistant, it's just a matter of time. By that time, perhaps we will have better treatements than swallowing pills of mold excrement.

      Only in countries with copious amounts of food do people have the luxury to argue over how their foods are produced. Try to explain the benefits of organically grown oranges to an emaciated third-world nation. Ludicrous.

      The world's food production will be maxed out in the near future. We will need to increase production to sustain the population. How to do it? Terraform some ocean real-estate? Cultivate the moon? More than likely they will engineer crops to grow faster with more yield. Either that or systematically starve/kill off sections of the population.

      Whenever I hear altered foods = bad it reminds me of how the UN meeting on hunger served a lobster dinner with all the trimmings.

      ~AC~

    43. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1


      One good thing that might come out of these extremist diets is a readjustment of the market for white flour and rice. I would like to see bags of brown rice that aren't 10% the size of the bags of white rice for the same price.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    44. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      True, but that doesn't do anything for people such as myself who don't smoke or play the lottery.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    45. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by debrain · · Score: 1

      Interesting observation. I've seen videos of the side effects on cows with Posilac. I'm not sure what would be mastitis, per se, but I can tell you that what I saw was cruel and repugnant.

      The udders would sometimes be swollen and almost dragging on the ground, impeding the cow's ability to walk, and there would be so much pus around the teats that the milking mechanisms would just slide off. There were an assortment other side effects as well.

      Mind you, I do not know how often these things occur in untreated cows. The Canadian drug administration indicated a 25% increase in mastitis, among other symptoms (lameness, infertility, reduced life expectancy), and pointedly indicated a nominal increase in milk production. Indeed, from what I recall, the FDA had similar claims, which were erased from the final document.

      There are other affects upon humans, that are equally absent from American publications.

    46. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Anti-GM zealots like to say that GM is different than selective breeding because according to them, "genes don't cross species". Yet, when it suits them, the exact same anti-GM crowd turns around and invokes the possibility of lateral gene transfer between GM crops and wild crops.

      Nice attempt to put words in my mouth.

      Genes do occasionally cross species (a process known as "horizontal gene transfer") via viral infection. This is very rare, as organisms have mechanisms to reject foreign genetic material. Genetic modification techniques are designed to make it easier for genes from one species to be incorporated into the genome of another - it therefore increases the likelihood of horizontal gene transfer.

      The point is just like the anti-GM crowd, the white South Africans had no evidence for their prejudices, although they could certainly say that there was no *proof* that Blacks were safe.

      Let me give you some advice on rhetoric: this statement is so ridiculous that it undermines any credibility that your argument might otherwise have. Comparing the desire to know what's in your food with racial discrimination...the absurdity speaks for itself.

      However, I'll point out that Black people have been around on this planet long enough - longer that White people, probably - to prove that interacting with them will not cause a White person harm. (That's putting aside the issue of whether dividing people into racial groups is even meaningful.) The same cannot be said of GM food crops.

      Either technology can be used to help the problems of the third world, or the problems can remain unsolved

      You can't solve a sociological problem with a technological approach; and this particular technology makes the problem worse, not better.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    47. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by incom · · Score: 1

      Actually meat doesn't cause obesity. Cheap sugars, grains and oils do.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    48. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by incom · · Score: 1

      Obesity increases your risks of getting diabetes much more than high protein diets. So if you can lose the fat, then its a good trade off, but If your still obese and eat a tonne of protein you get a double whammy.

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    49. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by genetic_freak · · Score: 1

      it's already happened.

      i was surprised to find that this is IGF-1 addition, it would have made more sense and been more impressive had it been a myostatin knockout construct.

      This is the gene that generates freakishly large cattle and mice.

      I can't wait till i can find an excuse to clone this into the flu virion so that everyone goes to be feeling like hell and wakes up packing 50 lbs. more muscle.

      just as a public service to the scrawny and desperate out there, wait for the gene therapy construct, paying for myostatin blockers at GNC doesn't work.

      --


      Rice University Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology- "Engineering the freaks of tomorrow"
    50. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Filmwatcher888 · · Score: 0

      And the answer to that is bacteria will genetically modify itself to infect said cows and chickens.

    51. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Jonathan · · Score: 1

      Nice attempt to put words in my mouth.

      Alright, let's see. Do you want to have hybrids created by traditional selective breeding labeled too, or only ones created by GM?

      Let me give you some advice on rhetoric: this statement is so ridiculous that it undermines any credibility that your argument might otherwise have. Comparing the desire to know what's in your food with racial discrimination...the absurdity speaks for itself.

      Can you really not see that the point is the fallacy of trying to prove a negative? The whole point of showing you an example that uses your exact reasoning to come up with a result you may not approve of is to point out the flaws of your reasoning, not to assert that the two cases are related.

      You can't solve a sociological problem with a technological approach; and this particular technology makes the problem worse, not better.

      On the contrary, technology is the *only* way to solve problems. Can you give an example of even one problem solved by a sociologist?

    52. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      No doubt some time after the 'gene manipulation is a tool of the devil crowd' starts whining once again that the 'end of the world is nigh, hoowah!' I can't wait until the rest of us can make smarter kids, to outcompete their stupid, narrow-minded brats and give them something to really bitch about.

      In any event, beefing up rats certainly couldn't hurt. They already taste pretty bad as it is.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    53. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Yet another crock of shit brazenly posted by a Slashdot poser. High protein diets don't do a thing you describe; *high fat* diets do, most often in conjunction with minimal vegetable consumption (e.g., the average Happy Meal). Unless you're suffering from certain genetic disorders a large protein intake won't have any adverse affect on your health at all.

      Here's a quarter, buy yourself a clue - preferably before the next time you decide to make a fool out of yourself.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    54. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Mangal · · Score: 1

      There are GM Atlantic salmon that grow faster and get bigger than their wild counterparts waiting for gov't approval. Here's another problem, if GM salmon escape from the factory farm pens we'll be growing them in- and they will escape (this has been a point of contention with the industry, but there's good evidence to suggest it is true). Female salmon prefer to mate with larger males; this means male GM salmon will have an advantage and will likely spread their new genes quickly throughout wild populations.....

      --
      I'm not just being paranoid- I've seen the data.
    55. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Do you want to have hybrids created by traditional selective breeding labeled too, or only ones created by GM?

      You're using the word "hybrid" in two rather different senses. But yes, I have much more concern about a tomato hybridized with a fish than with a Best Boy hybridized with a Beefstake. (Though even there, one runs into concerns about hybrids driving out heirloom varieties and leading to the risks of monoculture.)

      Can you really not see that the point is the fallacy of trying to prove a negative?

      If I were demanding absolute proof, yes, that would be such a fallacy. But demanding reasonable evidence of safety before putting something into your body is no fallacy. Or would you swallow any substance I gave you if I said "No one has yet proved this is harmful?" (Consider how long it took to prove tobacco smoking harmful.)

      In fact, I'm not even demanding proof - I'm demanding the ability to make a choice. Why are you so against people having choice? Do you work for Monsanto, or what?

      The whole point of showing you an example that uses your exact reasoning to come up with a result you may not approve of is to point out the flaws of your reasoning, not to assert that the two cases are related.

      The process you are engaged in is known as "setting up straw men and knocking them down"; your example is not connected to my reasoning - or to any reasoning - at all.

      On the contrary, technology is the *only* way to solve problems. Can you give an example of even one problem solved by a sociologist?

      To take an example right under your nose, did technology end apartheid? Or segregation in the U.S.? Or get the right to vote extended past white male landowners? End exploitive child labor practices? Eliminate torture as an acceptable practice? Establish democracy as a replacement for monarchy? No, those were done by social movements.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    56. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      High protein diets don't do a thing you describe; *high fat* diets do

      The currently faddish high protein diets are also high fats diets. They are also low in important vitamins, minerals, and fiber. This is the cause of some of the problems related to them. However, excess dietary protein in and of itself is linked with kidney problems, gout, and osteoporosis.

      Low carb diets are also associated with low levels of glucose getting to the brain, leading to emotional problems - is that why you're feeling so hostile?

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    57. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by abiggerhammer · · Score: 1
      From an article in the Natural Agricultural Library - admittedly this one's on goat mastitis, but it mentions similarities to cow mastitis: "Clinical mastitis is characterized by signs of inflammation: swelling, pain, fever temperature and abnormal milk secretion." It cites Staphylococcus epidermitis, S. galactiae and S. aureus -- that would be the one that causes staph in humans, FYI -- as common infectious agents.

      Additionally, it mentions that "infection is usually spread from infected to non-infected susceptible animals during the milking process" -- not at all surprising, since most animals are milked by machine, and sanitary conditions in farming aren't exactly what I'd want to think my food's been around.

      I don't know how often mastitis occurs in untreated cows either (the Guardian article you linked mentioned a rate of >30% in England, but didn't say whether that included rbST-treated cattle), but it doesn't surprise me that the increase in milk production was only nominal -- if you're increasing gross milk production but losing a lot of what you produce due to infection, the net isn't going to change much. That said, however, the root cause of the problem is still physical, not chemical, in nature -- the way the cows' udders are handled promotes inflammation, cracking, &c., which promotes infection (especially in unsanitary conditions), and so on.

      Is there a good way, a safe way, to extract large amounts of milk from cows? Hell if I know; I'm a bioinformaticist, not a farmer. Find that, though and we'll have found a solution to the problems you've cited.

      -abh, who actually remembered to format this time. and is also lactose intolerant. go figure.

      --
      Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like you're in the shower. Fuck like you're being filmed.
    58. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      The antibiotic issue is a serious one, I agree, but it certainly can't be as dire as the over-prescribing of human antibiotics to humans.

      If there would only be a food poisoning to worry about, maybe, but it's clear that is not the only way for bacteria to get from animals to humans.

      Not to mention they also have those nice ways of exchanging genetic material and giving their new-found antibiotic resistance to neighbours.

      All it takes is one real bad strain, at that point, who cares if it came from over-prescribing or feeding antibiotics to cows like it was candy?

    59. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -- Why doesn't the moderation system have -1 Wrong, Stupid or Insane?

      You could combine those into:

      -1 Michael Moore-ish

    60. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Jonathan · · Score: 1

      You're using the word "hybrid" in two rather different senses. But yes, I have much more concern about a tomato hybridized with a fish than with a Best Boy hybridized with a Beefstake.

      But that's *exactly* my point -- you are making a distinction between the two, based on an inconsistent reasoning. If it were merely that both are new and unproven, there would be no distinction possible.

      Or would you swallow any substance I gave you if I said "No one has yet proved this is harmful?"


      I would use my knowledge of chemistry to determine whether or not there was any reasonable possibility that the substance you gave me could be harmful. I certainly wouldn't say "Hey, this is new, it could be harmful". Similarly, I can use my knowledge of biology to determine that there is no reasonable possibility that GM food could be harmful.

      (Consider how long it took to prove tobacco smoking harmful.)

      Right. But that just goes to show that there is no proof that any natural product is safe despite thousands of years of use. So are you planning to starve to death or simply rely on the fact that there is no reason to suspect that, tomatoes for instance, are harmful?

      In fact, I'm not even demanding proof - I'm demanding the ability to make a choice. Why are you so against people having choice?

      I'm against people making *irrational* choices.

      Do you work for Monsanto, or what?

      No, but I am a professional scientist.

      To take an example right under your nose, did technology end apartheid? Or segregation in the U.S.? Or get the right to vote extended past white male landowners? End exploitive child labor practices? Eliminate torture as an acceptable practice? Establish democracy as a replacement for monarchy? No, those were done by social movements.

      Not really -- there was a huge economic push for all of these things -- and technology is at the base of all economic advances -- For example, American slavery ended not because people suddenly became more moral, but because the economic might of the North (based on factories and machines) could overwhelm the South (with an economy based on slave labor).

    61. Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      The udders would sometimes be swollen and almost dragging on the ground, impeding the cow's ability to walk,

      Damn, you just gave me a mental image of a lacey bra-type strap for cow udders. (shudder)

  11. Super-rat eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Who'd win? Super Rat, or this? ;)

  12. This is Great! by Bobdoer · · Score: 1

    Now we have another species to compete with. I wonder who will win in the upcoming war.

    1. Re:This is Great! by AoT · · Score: 1

      Why the racoons.

      of course.

  13. rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mean the usenet is still used for things besides spam, porn, and warez??? I can't believe it.

    1. Re:rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe by AdamTheBastard · · Score: 0, Troll

      Still? I find it hard to belive it was EVER used for things besides spam, porn, and warez.

    2. Re:rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just like slashdot...

    3. Re:rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and the great thing is, now that the WWW is the internet for Joe Blow, newsgroup anti-spam efforts have essentially eradicated the few remaining newsgroup spammers. The only problem now is to find people with something interesting to say... but there are many great usenet groups out there.

  14. New Steroids by SisyphusShrugged · · Score: 1

    A new version of Steroids...

    I remember when HGH (Human Growth Hormone) was being abused by bodybuilders... I wonder if we will have a similar scenario with this...

    Tom Servo: No, actually, Helping Children Through Research And Development is the acronym, Mike. It stands for: Hi, Everyone, Let's Pitch In 'N' Get Cracking Here In Louisiana Doing Right, Eh? Now Then, Hateful, Rich, Overbearing Ugly Guys Hurt Royally Every Time Someone Eats A Radish, Carrot, Hors d'oeuvre, And Never Does Dishes. Eventually, Victor Eats Lunch Over Peoria Mit Ein Neuesberger Tod.

    1. Re:New Steroids by richie2000 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Royally Every Time Someone Eats A Radish, Carrot, Hors d'oeuvre

      Live Easy And Read News To Ossify Slowly, People. Eliza Lives and Learns. Retsearch, indeed...

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    2. Re:New Steroids by Lobo93 · · Score: 1

      I remember when HGH (Human Growth Hormone) was being abused by bodybuilders...

      HGH is still widely used by the bodybuilding elite, mostly in conjuction with insulin-like growth factor(IGF1) which is a relative new method of expanding muscle cells by shuttling more fluids and nutrients into the mitochondria. The result is astounding per se, but the seriousness of the health-issues which stems from this type of abuse should not be underrated.

      The current Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman is a prime example of such idiotic abuse, in which he has attended major bodybuilding contests with the most telling sign of them all: an extremely distended gut. What some sheeple do for fame and fortune is beyond me...whew...

      Disclaimer: I'm merely a 240lbs amateur bodybuilder myself with no experience at all with 'roids and other enhancing drugs. I've only echoed what I've read and heard in the gym.

      They can cheat all they want, I still gonna kick their smegging asses - natural style! ;)

      --
      "The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
  15. Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought that the concern with steroids was that they posed long-term health risks... not that they made people stronger. The concept of limiting strength to those with naturally good genes is quite elitist.

    That's like saying that someone with bad eyesight shouldn't get glasses. If this therapy is as side-effect free as claimed, then why shouldn't people be allowed to use it?

    After all, implants and other non-essential plastic surgery is legal...

    1. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by kinnell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Personally, I think they should have two seperate athletic leagues - the normal one, and an indy league in which steroids, gene-therapy and performance enhancing drugs are allowed. It would make for an interesting competition. Give the scientists an arena.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    2. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hope someone mods you up. This is a really interesting idea. Kinda like the XFL, but in this case the science benefits all mankind!

    3. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Welsh+Dwarf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know if it exists in English, but in France, 'Le Lombard' brought out a 'commic' called 'Des Lendemains sans Nuage' (Cloudless Tommorow's) in which this topic, amoung others is nicely disected. In the end, you get a competition, where no one can remember the runners names, just the labs that they work for, and the loss of a life is just considered par for the course in testing.

      --
      Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
    4. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 0, Interesting

      thought that the concern with steroids was that they posed long-term health risks... not that they made people stronger. The concept of limiting strength to those with naturally good genes is quite elitist.

      Well, actually, it is REALLY IMPORTANT. There is a form of socio-economic natural selection that occurs today (which replaces the more mundane reproduce or face gene extinction). This type of evolution takes the most beautiful among us and mates that set against the wealthy and famous. The children of these mergers belong to an elite caste with higher privelege than others.

      Is this wrong? Perhaps, when viewed locally. But when viewed statistically over many generations, this acts as an evolutionary pressure that improves our genepool.

      Over time, the "top" becomes quite heavily loaded with genes from those with money (presumably intellegence/beauty/skill allowed them to acquire and/or retain such funds) and those with natural beauty. The men from this upper caste (like all men) are very promiscuous and highly saught after by women who often have their children out of wedlock (happens very often with the rich and famous).

      Simultaneously, the lowest caste in the population is washed every few generations in bloody wars that statistically prune the bottom of the genepool (yes, awful when viewed directly - but when viewed statistically over generations, it proves to be important).

      The overall result is that over many generations the population becomes more beautiful, more intelligent and more athletic. Yes, of course, there are ugly, stupid non-athletic rich folk and beautiful, brilliant athletic poor folk as well... Remember, we are talking statistics here and even if the difference is a few percentage points this way or that, it makes a big difference over multiple generations...

      But if you change the rules (e.g. plastic surgery and sports-drugs), natural selection stops working properly. Very much in the same way that paying welfare mothers to have babies screws with evolution, so does providing a means for lesser genes to pretend to be greater genes.

      Don't get mad at me for saying these things - I am simply speaking about evolution. It is, after all, how we came to be - the stronger genes gave advantages that ensured their survival over the weaker genes... It still happens... That is all.

      --
      The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
    5. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by 4lex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I think they should have two seperate athletic leagues - the normal one, and an indy league in which steroids, gene-therapy and performance enhancing drugs are allowed. It would make for an interesting competition. Give the scientists an arena.

      As much as I like the idea, I would tend to think that exactly the opposite situation is more in agreement with our world of today: we use to welcome our Ever-New, Propaganda-Enhanced, Lobby-Nourished, Plastic-Surgery-Optimized Overlords.

      Indie movies, indie music, indie software, indie encyclopedias... are generally associated with "low budget, yet high quality" duo to the phenomenal, sincere motivation of the participants. Mainstream movies, music, software and mass media, in contrast, do not look exactly like an ideal of "fair play". Why should athletism be exactly the opposite?

      --
      My journal. Mainly about freedom.
    6. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by TGK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It frightens me that the fundamental rational for the Eugenics Laws of the industrial revolution is met with a "+3 Insightful" modifier here.

      Human kind has, for the most part, long since stopped selecting for any survival based trait. You want to talk about things that fuck with national selection? Talk birth control, talk college tuition. The upper classes have fewer children because these children cost money and cost time. The lower classes have more children because they tend to be less educated about birth control and ways to avoid this as well as somewhat more deluded as to the roll a child will play in their lives.

      What you're doing is taking something many people have an aversion to (intrusive gene therapy etc) and using it as a rational for why bloody wars that clean out the working classes are good. You're basically making the argument that rich beautiful people (most of whom got beautiful primarily by virtue of being rich) are actually better in a vague "scientific evolutionary" sense than the rest of us.

      The corollary is that the poor and ugly people are worse. The same logic was used to justify the sterilization movements in the United States and the extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany.

      Yea.... real insightful.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    7. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by riksosti · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking evolution takes pretty good care of itself. I see no reason for fighting its cause in the way you propose. Historically, "helping evoultion" has proven quite unpleasant, no? "Changing the rules", however, has provided me with the means to fight mutant rats without squinting.

    8. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by rollingcalf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The concern is that steroids BOTH make people stronger AND are health risks. What they are trying to avoid is a situation that practically requires one to sacrifice one's health to be a champion.

      Things like vitamins, ginseng, and creatine can provide a performance boost but aren't banned because there is little to no risk with using them (except in extreme overdoses). There are also a myriad of other substances that they don't care to test for because they don't help performance.

      There are also concerns about things that would undermine the spirit of the sport -- for example, high jumpers using springed shoes or Tour de France cyclists using motors. If gene therapy could produce super-muscular athletes, it would undermine the spirit of competition in a similar way; competition would become more a contest of who has the better gene therapist than who trained the hardest and smartest.

      Of course, innate genetic talent is a key factor to athletic success which allows some to win without the best training. However, such genetic differences are allowed not becuase they are desirable, but because they are unavoidable. In a perfectly fair competition everybody would have the same genetic talents; but that isn't possible so it's best to focus on leveling the playing field by reducing the impact of other differences that are unrelated to training.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    9. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Getting ready to lift now is Sergei Akmunov. His trainer tells me he's taken anabolic steroids, novocaine, nyquil, darvon and some sort of fish paralyzer. Also, I believe he's had several cocktails within the last hour. All of this, of course, is perfectly legal at the All Drug Olympics -- in fact it's encouraged. Akmunov is getting set now, he's going for a clean-and-jerk of over 1500 lbs -- which would triple the existing world record..."

      ...from Saturday Night Live -- back in the good old days -- aired originally 10/8/88 (may not be exactly as it was spoken).

    10. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by _Eric · · Score: 1

      In other news, Marco Pantani, controversial (i.e. doped) cyclist died last week. Not mentioning Flo-Jo...

    11. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Cragen · · Score: 1

      I believe it was Arthur C. Clarke who stated that there has been no evidence found to support the idea that intelligence has any role in evolution. I suppose that probably applies to "beauty" and athleticism, also. Evolution, as I understand it, is the factor of genetic luck favoring those who succeed in spite of environmental conditions. At the moment, we humans don't seem too stressed, so silly things like beauty, athleticsm, intelligence, etc., seem to rule the roost, so to speak. I imagine that the environment will change someday (or continue its current rate of change) , whether we cause it or not, and the real evolutionary factors, whatever they are in whoever has the genes that allow them to thrive under that stress, will once again (or continure to) rule. I doubt that we really see the human evolutionary "picture" in proper perspective. Not that I care, of course. My genes tell me pretty, smart, and athletic is GOOD! Fortunately, my wife is smart and realized two out of three of the same in men ain't bad.

    12. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I invoke Godwin's law.

    13. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      Over time, the "top" becomes quite heavily loaded with genes from those with money (presumably intellegence/beauty/skill allowed them to acquire and/or retain such funds)
      ...or because daddy did well in business. Which might be because his father did. The founder of the company I work with "started with a $15,000 bank loan". However he was able to get that bank loan because his father was a millionaire. In Britain, you don't just get $15,000 bank loans, at least not 30 years ago, at least not without collateral or a really strong record in business. He had neither.

      Wealth distribution, generally, seems to be fairly arbitrary. I know a lot of people who seem to have done well for themselves on the basis of characteristics that have little to do with any attributes we'd consider worth keeping. Two well known examples are a family that gained huge riches by trading with Hitler, and another family whose money was made by smuggling alcohol during prohibition. These two families are two of the most powerful in the US at the moment (and for avoiding making this a political discussion about what fathers of fathers of people did 60-70 years ago, I'll avoid naming either, except to say that both political parties are represented.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    14. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by NichG · · Score: 1

      Somehow I'd think that Godwin's law wouldn't apply in an actual discussion about eugenics.

    15. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Bah. Cookie ate my first post. Didn't mean to post as AC.

      > What you're doing is taking something many people have an aversion to (intrusive gene therapy etc) and using it as a rational for why bloody wars that clean out the working classes are good. You're basically making the argument that rich beautiful people (most of whom got beautiful primarily by virtue of being rich) are actually better in a vague "scientific evolutionary" sense than the rest of us.
      >
      > The corollary is that the poor and ugly people are worse. The same logic was used to justify the sterilization movements in the United States and the extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany.
      No, the Jews were exterminated because (1) the Nazis needed a scapegoat, and (2) if you believed Nazi propaganda, because they controlled all the money on the planet, or some such bunkum.

      The sterilization movement in the US had nothing to do with scapegoating or allegations of control - I fail to recall any allegation that the retarded were Communist infiltrators or secretly holding onto the world's purse strings, from even the most strident McCarthyite.

      Eugenics is not National Socialism. The Nazis gave eugenics a bad rap, and maybe it's time we realized that eugenics is nothing to be afraid of.

      Seriously - what's so wrong with selecting for intelligence, as opposed to "big butts"? Intelligence is partially determined by genetics, and also by cultural factors. Both need to be selected for.

      I'll grant that there are almost as many potential Einsteins in the ghettoes as there are in suburbia. But if you've got Einstein's genes, and you're born to a crack whore shitting out six kids and raising them in a memeset that considers its own ignorance as a mark of cultural pride ("Yo, dat skoolin's fo' whitey! Y'all don't wants ta be actin' white!"), you're doomed from the get-go. When more of your population group is in prison than in college, you don't have an intelligence problem, you have a cultural problem.

      Likewise, the most hundrum set of IQ100 genes, raised in a culture that values knowledge, science, and realizes that a good education is a key to survival in a knowledge-based economy, can have a successful and productive life.

      If we wanted to be technical, I'm arguing more about memetics than genetics, and my sterilization programme should be called "eumetics", rather than "eugenics".

      As someone who pays more in taxes to support the aforementioned trash than I spend on every other expense, including food, shelter, travel, ongoing education, and recreational activities combined, I want some return on that investment. Breeding more consumers of social services feeds my government's appetite for more voters, but doesn't contribute in any way to my country's long-term economic stability.

      Eliminating the drag on our economy - preferably through through sterilization, less preferably through cutting social payments without cutting the population of consumers, and much less preferably through extermination - and using the savings to fund the education of people who are culturally receptive to learning, would be a Big Win.

      You may not like the fact that high educational standards are required of the citizens of post-industrial states in a globalized economy, but that's the economic reality. We need to improve our population's net overall educational level, and eumetics (the sterilization of those who are uneducated, unemployable, and have demonstrated themselves culturally-unreceptive-to-learning) is merely the least repugnant way of doing it.

      Finally, consider that a eumetics programme could be less repugnant than what we're doing now -- namely government funding of excessive breeding, throwing the offspring in prison, and charging the economically productive for the government's privilege to do so.

    16. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Gulthek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh. My. God. Is it evil or ignorance, ladies and gentlemen? Surely, surely we hope that it is the latter, but unfortunately there are those of us (like Mister Moron here) that would argue that it doesn't matter! Ha! Sit down sir, class is in session. Setting aside your silly preoccupationi with IQ, your odd view of taxes as an investment, and your laughable racial beliefs; let's examine evolution and genetics.

      Evolution is a reaction, not a progression.

      We cannot selectively breed ourselves, picking the best traits for survival, because we don't know what traits are best for survival!

      To ensure the survival of the species (humanity) we need a large and diverse gene pool from which to draw from should there ever be a significant environmental change (and by environmental, I'm talking about either the real environment or our social environment), we'll have the resources to combat it!

      It's like this: wheat. Most of the wheat now grown in the US and other countries is from one genetic strain. If its environment deviates significantly from what is now standard, that wheat is dead. If a disease breaks out that affects that strand, the wheat is dead. If a predator develops that voraciously feeds on that wheat, it is dead. It has nothing left. It has no more genetic tricks up its sleeve. If there were multiple strains of wheat, some would die, some would live, and those that live would have reacted well to the environment. But that doesn't mean that the strains that live are better than those before it! It just means that they were able to cope with a particular stress in a viable manner.

      As it stands now, thanks to millions of years of change and mutation, we as a species are incredibly diverse, and very healthy for it. If we were to start to remove parts of that diversity, even if we think that it is for our own good, then we start to mess with things that we simply can't predict because we don't know what the future stresses will be.

      You're like someone on a sailboat with a prevailing wind going right where you want to go who says, "These oars are just slowing us down. They weigh a lot and they aren't very good at catching the wind and they're proud of it! Let's throw them overboard!" It can make a stupid kind of sense, until the wind dies down.

    17. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      I think some sort of social evolution is utter bullocks...

      But the people at the top of the economic scale who arrived there because of inheritance are the exception, not the norm. Most movie stars were not born rich. Many CEOs and other top executives worked their way up the ranks.

      I know two guys that are living in efficiency apartments and driving 1980s cars while over 60% of their take home pay goes into a massive investment portfolio. Both intend to retire by 50 as multi-millionaires. It's not the life most people choose to live - but it could be, if wealth was that important to them.

    18. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by sonic_ak · · Score: 1

      I think that you are missing a large part of the point. I totally agree with what you are saying as regards to a genetic monoculture. But there is a problem when it comes to memes, or, rather, what values society is instilling into our culture. In this country (US), at least, most people are raised to be consumers. Combined with our policies regarding IP, copyrights, etc. this really is not sustainable. In order to remain prosperous, we need to produce something, not just consume. Most people seem to have no ide what makes them happy, these days, and instead pursue stuff. They seem to think that getting that new car will make them happier, whereas it really won't. This is the real problem with our society. In the long run, if we stay to this path, we are screwed.

      --
      Sig is a crazy old German guy.
    19. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative
      The sterilization movement in the US had nothing to do with scapegoating or allegations of control - I fail to recall any allegation that the retarded were Communist infiltrators or secretly holding onto the world's purse strings, from even the most strident McCarthyite.
      You people seem to be mixing Eugenics and the Holocaust. Both were halmarks of the Nazi regime, but were entirely seperate.

      Eugenics was used to justify the sterilization, and often killing, in hospitals of the "feeble minded", single mothers, homosexuals, and other groups deemed by Hilter's regime to be impurities.

      Jews, Gypsies, (and often some of the same groups who also suffered under Eugenics) were killed because they were seen as dangerous to Germany. It had little or nothing to do with "impurities". Indeed, Nazi propoganda even went as far as to claim that Jews weren't actually human.

      Eugenics was given a bad name by the Nazis because they sterilized and killed people in the name of ensuring racial purity. Minus the killing, and with a fractionally improved goal, that's not far off what modern supporters of eugenics are supporting. That's why it has a bad name.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    20. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by gilmet · · Score: 1

      Yes, in fact you are naive. Actually, its really funny. I don't even know where to begin. I'm too lazy I suppose... I'll just point out one bit of irony, and then make my point.

      But if you've got Einstein's genes, and you're born to a crack whore shitting out six kids and raising them in a memeset that considers its own ignorance as a mark of cultural pride ("Yo, dat skoolin's fo' whitey! Y'all don't wants ta be actin' white!"), you're doomed from the get-go.

      Interesting - what if you're just a generic white male with slightly above average intelligence who takes pride in the fact that he's neither in jail nor in the bottom half of an arbitrary bell curve. If you ask me, you're similarly *doomed*. I mean, come on... neither of those traits you relish in are incredibly useful in terms of achieving *progress*... not to mention, if you have those traits, then you're NOTHING LIKE ME, and ME is the way to BE.

      Your problem is you hold dear this notion of "progress". What exactly are you progressing towards, may I ask? And even if you did know, the likely-hood that you, 1 / 6 billionth of the system that you're trying to progress, would know how to get there is about... (1 / (6 billion ^ weight of your mom)) = 0.

      Of course, I won't worry about you, because I realize that your opinion, albeit extreme, is just one of the billions of opinions out there that averaged together, actually guide our system. So think what you like honey - I fear not of you.

      --

      Every time you read this, I am going against my principles.
    21. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Eugenics was given a bad name by the Nazis because they sterilized and killed people in the name of ensuring racial purity. Minus the killing, and with a fractionally improved goal, that's not far off what modern supporters of eugenics are supporting. That's why it has a bad name.

      We may be arguing from different axioms, which would account for my interpretation of your post as follows:

      I have no interest in racial purity, only economics, and the point of sterilizing the culturally-ineducable is that you won't need to kill or imprison the next generation.

      Incidentally, that's pretty much what we're doing today, except at great social and fiscal cost. All those prisoners take serious cash to house, and I'd even lump the prison guards in with the prisoners when it comes to being a drain on the economy and having useful skills -- where's the economic value in a resume that says "I can keep people locked up, beat them occasionally, and arrange gladiator fights on which other prisoners can gamble, with rape rights going to the winner's gang."

      So in short -- if made Emperor, I'd... proceed not to do the things the Nazis did, and I'd proceed to do them for different goals. So where's the problem again? :-)

    22. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      Really not my day for cut-and-paste. I'm gonna have to eumemetize myself at this rate!

      >Eugenics was given a bad name by the Nazis because they sterilized and killed people in the name of ensuring racial purity. Minus the killing, and with a fractionally improved goal, that's not far off what modern supporters of eugenics are supporting. That's why it has a bad name.

      Which I, arguing from axioms different from yours, interpreted as "So where's the problem with eugenics, on the grounds that both my methods and goals are wholly different from those of the Nazis?"

      But yeah, we're in agreement that due to the killing and the "racial purity" nonsense, the Nazis did give Eugenics a bad name. My argument is that given different goals and less killing, the bad name is no longer justified.

    23. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Unless you are saying that memes can be modified through sterilization and genetic reform programs, what does your post have to do with Tackhead's post and my rant?

      Way out of topic, even for an offtopic thread: but how is a consumer oriented society screwed in the long run? We no longer primary manufacture stuff, we are a service based economy that happens to contain a lot of people who enjoy buying stuff. What do our admittedly flawed IP and copyright policies do to make a consumer lifestyle unsustainable?

      I think a lot of people know what it means to be happy, especially among the class of people that Tackhead wishes to sterilize. I don't think sterilizing the major consumer class (middle-upper class) was Tackhead's intent at all.

    24. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1

      what's so wrong with selecting for intelligence, as opposed to "big butts"?

      I have learned that a lack of intelligence can be a virtue, as well. Before we breed an entire generation of scientists and philosophers, we should let the next "Einstein" (selected by chance) to develop food replicators, for example, so people don't commit suicide after a life of picking apples. Think of "Marvin the Robot" (brain the size of a plant and...).

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    25. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 1

      (brain the size of a plant and...)

      I meant "planet". "Plant"...yes, my brain is the size of a cabbage, er, actually a brussel sprout.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    26. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You may not like the fact that high educational standards are required of the citizens of post-industrial states in a globalized economy, but that's the economic reality. We need to improve our population's net overall educational level, and eumetics (the sterilization of those who are uneducated, unemployable, and have demonstrated themselves culturally-unreceptive-to-learning) is merely the least repugnant way of doing it."

      Who defines the concepts of uneducated, unemployable, and unreceptive to learning? Your ideas sound great until we get to defining those values...

    27. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by incom · · Score: 1

      Or maybe these people CHOOSE to have alot of children for reasons of genetic success, rather than going for material success and little reproductive success? These poor people have just done what ALL living things try to do, adapt to thier current environment for best breeding success. Material wealth is tempation, if you have less/no kids you have more money, but you threaten you genetic immortality. What you speak of is the UNATURAL thing. Conversely, the elite classes are weakening thier genetics, they are becomming increasingly high maintenance beings, and will eventually have a very high death from lack of adaptability.

      Anyone who has ever read Dune knows that difficult living conditions eventually harden and strengthen the genes. Also, the racist people who think they are exterminating the people in the middle east are only making them stronger, and those africans starving and dying of aids will eventually be much better than you.

      And don't forget the french revolution, the elites are only allowed to rule over the many as long as they don't get superior success at reproduction, cause if they did, the masses would quickly adapt, out of need, and chop you all down to be replaced(czarist russia to communist).

      --
      True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
    28. Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by TGK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, the Jews were exterminated because (1) the Nazis needed a scapegoat, and (2) if you believed Nazi propaganda, because they controlled all the money on the planet, or some such bunkum.

      Your superior genes don't give you a grasp of history or language apparently. I said the Nazis used the same justification of the Jews. The Nazi attacks on the Jews were often justified in the name of the "racial purity" of the German People. There's a reason the Nazis used body ratios and family history to determine a person's racial purity and weather or not they belonged to the so called Jewish Race.

      Were the Jews a scapegoat? Certainly. But anyone who's even passingly familiar with the political and social climate of Nazi Germany can explain the racial justifications behind the extermination of the Jews.

      Jews weren't the only targets of the Nazi regime. The death camps claimed not only Jews and political enemies, but also the mentally retarded, deformed, and handicapped in Europe. Hitler sought to purge from his society those elements he thought were harmful to the racial superiority of the German People.

      The Nazis gave eugenics a bad rap, and maybe it's time we realized that eugenics is nothing to be afraid of.

      Eugenics: The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

      As employed, this is the forced sterilization of people by the government to attempt to prevent the expression of undesirable traits in the future. The Virginia Eugenics laws (which ultimately served as the template for similar laws in Nazi Germany) allowed the state to sterilize those deemed to be unfit to breed.

      I'm not even going to quote from your somewhat disturbing characterization of African Americans as genetically inferior to white people, nor am I going to address the both terrifying and disheartening implications of that characterization.

      Realize, however, that the veneration of ignorance you speak of is alive and well in rural white communities as well. In fact, the veneration of ignorance is a universal trend among the economically disadvantaged as long as the education system remains disproportionately targeted at the middle and upper classes. Want to solve this problem? The answer isn't sterilizing the poor; it's putting more time and energy into technical education and getting away from the mythos that everyone should go to college.

      We then go on into a shockingly revealing one liner in which you assert that IQ is determined by genetics. In fact there are few if any reputable studies supporting this claim. Genetics certainly play a roll, but a bewildering assortment of factors act on a human being, beginning well before birth and progressing until after puberty that can have profound impact on IQ.

      If you're paying so much in taxes that your yearly tax burden exceeds the cost of your home, travel expenses, education, and all recreational activities combined I can only presume you are exceedingly bad at math and tax forms, or that you simply live with your parents and don't get out much. Given your narrow minded view of the world the latter seems more likely.

      And now we get to your grand finale. Let me get this straight. We want to fix our economy by enacting laws mandating the forced sterilization of all persons who you deem to be "uneducated, unemployable, and have demonstrated themselves culturally unreceptive to learning."

      So, once we've spent billions of dollars rounding up an appreciable portion of the people that make our world work (sanitary workers, waiters, construction workers, food service personnel) and exposing them to powerful radiological sterilization equipment, thereby depriving them of liberty and arguably property without due process of law, what then?

      When we've eliminated these lower portions of our economic classes who will do that work? When we tell these people they can't have children and that they don't contribute enough to our society to make it worth

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  16. MOD PARENT "FUNNY" by GiveMeLinux · · Score: 4, Informative

    Reference is to "Flowers for Algernon."

  17. Really? by Arcanix · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I don't.

  18. Gene therapy? Super-beings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    In related news, an Indian named Khan Singh has spoken out in favor of the new genetic enhancements, volunteering himself and his friends as the first test-subjects.

  19. Careful... by The+Tyro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It sounds great in theory, but there are all kinds of potential problems with rapidly and artificially increasing strength that way.

    If you increase strength very rapidly without allowing for the corresponding tendons and bone to adapt to the greater muscle mass, you can cause tendon ruptures and stress fractures (already well-known phenomenon in athletes). The body can adapt to all kinds of derangements if you give it enough time, but too much too fast? Bad news. I've seen people come in to the hospital with a hemoglobin level of 5, still walking (slowly) and talking. Now, that's theoretically too low to survive on, but if it happens over a long enough period of time, your body can adapt. If you take a normal person and immediatly bleed them down to a hemoglobin of 5, they'll die.

    Plus, if you are turning over too much muscle tissue too fast and don't stay adequately hydrated, you can clog your kidneys and end up in renal failure. This happens periodically when some untrained amateur athelete tries an Ironman without adequate conditioning.

    The human body is an amazing machine, but you have to be careful monkeying around with it... athletes may be after performance, but anyone who volunteers to be a guinea pig for this stuff needs his head examined.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:Careful... by jilbert · · Score: 1

      Yes. And it is wise to remember that "those who burn twice as bright burn half as long".

    2. Re:Careful... by notbob · · Score: 0

      Whats a hemoglobin?

      I'm lost as to what you're talking about.

      The uneducated slashdot'er :D

    3. Re:Careful... by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Note also that the treatment appears to be irreversible. So if it goes bad, the only way to fix it would be more gene therapy (antisense or something of the sort).

  20. Taking ove Australia by Dylancable · · Score: 0

    They are already taking power is Aussie (jonny Howard)

  21. I don't se the "bad" in this! by ISayWeOnlyToBePolite · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Google is cheating too.

  22. Medical Applications by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if this would also help stop or reduce the breakdown of muscle tissue, when used to combat the effects of genetic conditions like Marfans Syndrome.

    Another application might be to solve certain heart related issues. There isn't exactly a huge replacement supply right now.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
    1. Re:Medical Applications by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      I think it's more likely to be used to prevent the muscle deterioration associated with ageing. If you've got the money for it, of course...

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  23. Hrmm by acehole · · Score: 1

    Isn't something like this in the "startrek" universe? Where in the early -> late 21st century they had the Eugenics war fought by genetically engineered humans?

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    1. Re:Hrmm by kinnell · · Score: 2, Funny
      Isn't something like this in the "startrek" universe?

      Good God, you're right! This proves beyond a doubt that Star Trek is an accurate portrayal of the future, and not just a mere work of fiction.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    2. Re:Hrmm by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Funny

      " ... Eugenics war ... "

      That is the least of our worries!!! PRAY that your grandchildren will NOT have a neat little inscription behind their right ear that reads.

      "DNA Encoded by Microsoft (c)."

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    3. Re:Hrmm by Drakin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Late 20th, early 21st. The project was started in 1974. Khan was of the 2nd generation.

    4. Re:Hrmm by radja · · Score: 4, Funny

      at least they'll have blue eyes then.. or at least occasionally..

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    5. Re:Hrmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder what the implications of women using gene therapy to increase their muscle strength would be.

      Wait...I guess it'd be the same as if they took steroids...their muscle mass would increase.

    6. Re:Hrmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, will these be like the Children of the Corn?

      Blue Eyes of Death!

  24. new gene therapy by nellechat · · Score: 1

    As each discovery occurs, the following question arises: What should be the responsabilities of the researcher for his discoveriy's implication? As a scientist, I can tell that it is a difficult matter. The key question is how far does the responsability goes? nel

    1. Re:new gene therapy by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wonder what fans of Microsoft or the RIAA might say about this.

      Knowledge is not something that should be stored away for a privileged few. Be it used for the benefit or destruction of humanity, we're still better off being aware of it than to be ignorant of it. You can't fight off what you can't see.

      How we use knowledge is up to the ethics of the people it's shared with. Like anything else, majority will usually win.

      --


      8==8 Bones 8==8
    2. Re:new gene therapy by nellechat · · Score: 1

      In general, I would agree that it's better to know something, to be able to fight it if necessary. Still, sometimes, one has to think deeply about the possible implication of a discovery, and how to handle it. If a moratory is needed to do this, then do it!

  25. It's Mighty Mouse!!! by Shaheen · · Score: 3, Funny

    Enough said

    --
    You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
  26. Turtles? by SJ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great, we have the rat... now we just need some turtles.

    1. Re:Turtles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GO NINJA GO NINJA GO!

  27. This is not news by broothal · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why do you think an american tenderloin beef is larger than a european one? Correct - the US beef is gene modificated. That's why there's a ban on importing beef from the US to Europe. Now, this has been going on for more than a decade. Altering muscles genetically is not news! But using the enlarged muscles for something other than to make larger beefs is. Of course, this has been explored in countless action movies already like Soldier and Drive

    1. Re:This is not news by NonSequor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Gene therapy refers to any technique in which genes not present in an organism are introduced. This isn't about modifying the DNA of a rat and using it to create a new rat with specific characteristics. This is about effectively giving an adult rat a gene it wasn't born with.

      Gene therapy has the potential to provide treatments and possibly even cures for genetic diseases.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    2. Re:This is not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think an american tenderloin beef is larger than a european one?

      Because Americans need more beef so that they can traverse their wide open spaces?

      Well that's the reason for needing the huge cars anyway.

    3. Re:This is not news by dnnrly · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there - US beef is banned in the EU because US beef growers use steroids to boost muscle mass in their stock. This (allegedly) remains in meat consumed by humans and has been deemed unsafe on this side of the pond. There is the whole thing about market protectionism, but that's a whole other story.

      PS. it's "genetically modified" not "gene modificated".

    4. Re:This is not news by bigsmelly · · Score: 1

      If you haven't seen drive.. watch it!
      It's Grrrrrrrrreaat!

    5. Re:This is not news by Muhammar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      US beef producers use Trenbolone synthetic steroid anabolic to muscle-up calves. It is applied as a thin tube stuck into ear of cattle. (Anabolics work best when injected, frequent injections are not practical - hence the slow-release modified formulation of steroid stuck into ear). Bodybuilders get trenbolone from farmers (they can't buy anabolics legit in US). Since they do not want to walk around with a tube in the ear, they extract trenbolone from the tube formulation and inject themselves daily with the stuff in form of extremely painful subcutaneous injections. They call it "making their own gear"

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    6. Re:This is not news by SonOfThor · · Score: 1

      Couple of corrections:

      Tren (finaplex) is one form of veteranry steroid implant in the USA. ANother is Synovex, which is Testosterone and Estradiol. Both are bought by "bodybuilders" and chemically mucked with so that the pure Tren and Test can be extracted from the pellets. Tren injections are often done every other day, and can be made to be relatively painless if brewed correctly. ALso, Intramuscular injections are the norm, not Sub-Q. That's insulin you're thinking of.

      I only know this based on research, not personal experience. Just an FYI.

      Those cows you guys got down there are HYOOOGE though. :)

  28. Comedy Rats aside . . . by Tetsugaku-San · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I actually have muscular dystrophy, and although it doesn't affect me, it affects my mum, and potentially my children - I'm damn glad that someone has taken the time to research this oft (relatively) overlooked genetic disease.

    1. Re:Comedy Rats aside . . . by Tetsugaku-San · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Don't they still call people like you Nazis? I haven't had children yet, but unsurprisingly everyone in my family before me who had muscular dystrophy did. They had kids, just like I intend to because I want to - procreation is a rather fundamental human instinct. I am hoping that by the time I have kids there will be a way of fixing the problems in my genetic code, until then I feel that I have more to offer as a parent than most, so I will still have children. Rading about medical developments like this give me hope that my children, if affected with muscular dystrophy (You can just carry the genes recesivly like I do with no ill affect) will be able to lead full happy and fruitfull lives.

    2. Re:Comedy Rats aside . . . by Tetsugaku-San · · Score: 1

      Oooops - my apologies this was supposed to be a reply to my troll, not a reply to myself, which I have just done again, damn.

    3. Re:Comedy Rats aside . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't they still call people like you Nazis? I haven't had sex yet (I contracted HIV from a syringe), but unsurprisingly everyone in my family before me has. They had kids, just like I intend to, because I want to - procreation is a rather fundamental human instinct. I am hoping that by the time I have sex there will be a way of curing AIDS, until then I feel that I have more to offer as a lover than most, so I will still have sex with uninfected partners. Reading about medical developments like this gives me hope that my children or sex partners, if infected with HIV (You can have sex and procreate without necessarily transmitting the virus) will be able to lead full, happy, and fruitful lives. Medicine is so advanced now that people can live with HIV for decades before succumbing to AIDS.

    4. Re:Comedy Rats aside . . . by DarkSarin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I refuse to directly feed the trolls that are surrounding you with their clubs (look a shiny!). Morons.

      Look, I can understand why some people feel that you shouldn't have kids if you are a bearer of some genetic disease. I think they are stupid. The step from there to euthanizing all the people with said disease is so small to be frightening.

      This is exactly the kind of thing Hitler wanted--a perfect race free from defects. In his world everyone with Leukemia, Muscular Dystrophy, AIDS, etc, would be euthanized quickly and efficiently. What a nightmarish idea, but not too far.

      My brother, in is normal insensitive manner, is one of the people who would rather abort a child than know it had some mental handicap. The people who talk about you (Tetsugaku-San) not having children are in the same boat, and this is very much the type of thing Hitler would have wanted. Get rid of all the freaks--anyone who makes us uncomfortable should be dead.

      What a load of crap! Personally, I am glad that our society does not currently engage in such 'genetic cleansing'. I don't want to live in a society were its wrong to be different.

      I do agree with you on the idea that if gene therapy can prevent the transmission of certain problems (such as MD), then go for it. But to deny a life because you can't prevent it? That is criminal in my mind.

      Now, if you didn't want to have children (so that you wouldn't pass that on), I would applaud you for being noble, but I say to all the trolls, THAT IS EVERY INDIVIDUAL'S CHOICE, and should NOT be made by the government!

      Does this hold true for things like AIDS? No, not necessarily, since an AIDS born child is likely to have AIDS too, and survival is unlikely. But, with the miracle of modern medicine, that is becoming less true (from what I understand), and soon a baby born to parents with AIDS will have very little chance of having the disease. In which case, more power to them. Perhaps they will teach their children to avoid the things that got them infected with AIDS in the first place (assuming it wasn't one of the VERY few cases of a hospital working becoming infected).

      I think I am rambling, but that's just the after effect of the medicine (migraine). Perhaps since I have a tendency to get migraines I shouldn't have kids (it might be genetic). Wait--too late.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    5. Re:Comedy Rats aside . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well said. my brother and i are both diabetic, and this is known to be genetic. does this mean we should not have been allowed life? does this mean we should not be allowed to procreate? conditions like muscular dystrophy and diabetes certainly affect the life of the sufferer, but do not make it unbearable by any stretch of the imagination and do not mean you cannot have as good a life as anyone else.

      it has been shown that nature will develop in its own way to curb overpopulation with new diseases as fast as we develop cures for those we know. does this mean we shouldn't bother? stop immunising? without these developments alot of those who want the pure gene pool wouldn't be around to enjoy it as they'd have died of pox etc in their first few years.

    6. Re:Comedy Rats aside . . . by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      Yes, we should stop immunizing. Cheating natural selection is bad. All we're doing is allowing people with inferior immune systems to survive to the detriment of their progeny.

      I'll say this: I wish there was a way for humans to exist in a world where their genetic makeup was inconsequential, but that isn't this world. It does seem like a tragic case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater to let genetically inferior people die, but I think we should do it for the benefit of future generations. That way, they won't need to worry about these diseases, they'll be immune.

      Natural selection is our greatest ally, yet we scorn it, because we value human life too highly. Much too highly. We're animals, and always were. Our status in this world has not changed in the last 200 years. Just because we're industrialized doesn't mean we're perfect. In many ways, we're more flawed than we've ever been, thanks to the love of soft living.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    7. Re:Comedy Rats aside . . . by Kris+Thalamus · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of polio? No one has it any more because it was stamped out through the use of a vaccine.

      It was technology that allowed our population to blossom to over six billion, not our chimp-like immune systems.

    8. Re:Comedy Rats aside . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nazi scum - I hope your kids die one by one HepatitusB, diptheria tetanus and pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b, polio, measles, mumps and rubella or one of the other diseases that used to make infant mortality so bloody high - Bet you were immunised - wot a shame cos if you hadn't we could hope that scum like yourself would have died way way way before they could infect their views on other people.

      Did any of your family ever have cancer? Well u better cut your dick off now cos it's quite likely you will pas that predisposition to your kids.

    9. Re:Comedy Rats aside . . . by Kris+Thalamus · · Score: 1
      I agree that reproductive freedoms should be protected. However I personally consider people who recklessly spread disease (viral, genetic or otherwise) to be lacking civic virtue.

      I do agree with you on the idea that if gene therapy can prevent the transmission of certain problems (such as MD), then go for it. But to deny a life because you can't prevent it? That is criminal in my mind.


      What do you mean when you say: "deny a life"? Is a woman who refuses to become pregnant denying her potential children their right to live?

      If people really want to have a larval human to boss around, can't they just adopt? I don't advocate forced sterilization, but I still think that people should be aware of how their decisions can adversely affect the lives of others.
    10. Re:Comedy Rats aside . . . by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree with you guys more. Selective breeding to get rid of undesirable traits is fine for dogs and farm animals, but not humans. Anytime someone says someone with a genetic disease should not have been born, I have a two word response: Stephen Hawking.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    11. Re:Comedy Rats aside . . . by dizfactor · · Score: 1

      i'm not in favor of forced sterilization, but i think knowingly transmitting genetic disorders should be frowned upon. as far as Stephen Hawking, i think the utility of Hawking the utility of not having to deal with known genetic disorders after a generation or two. i'd make that trade-off.

    12. Re:Comedy Rats aside . . . by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      i'm not in favor of forced sterilization, but i think knowingly transmitting genetic disorders should be frowned upon. as far as Stephen Hawking, i think the utility of Hawking the utility of not having to deal with known genetic disorders after a generation or two. i'd make that trade-off.

      But there's no need to make any such tradeoff. There is little doubt that within "a generation or two" we'll have gene therapy for most genetic disorders.

  29. Rats with "vaguely Wolverine-like healing factor" by CAIMLAS · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how 'vaguely Wolverine" these healing abilities are.

    It's be interesting to see precisely what applications these advancements are seeing in military use. Sure, it's unlikely that any serious or controversal issue gets used right away by mainstream military, but surely there are special military groups that get "advanced tech" quite, in, er, advance of the main military force.

    I heard/read somewhere once that the US military's "high end" technology is 12 years more advanced than anything that is actually available for the mainstream military force, and only used by Special Ops.

    Consider how un-advanced things were during the first desert storm compared to how they are now - and jump ahead another years, and think of an equal amount of differential, if not an exponential differential. Wow.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  30. Bad side effects by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I see the potentional for bad side effects. If you increase the immune system, you get allergies and arthritis. If you increase the cellular regenation, you have cancer.


    Look at TNG, the advance imune system also kills.

    1. Re:Bad side effects by Yunalesca · · Score: 3, Informative


      Humans aren't rats/mice - nothing against them; my fellow biology majors love them. But if you shove novel genes into a body, kooky things happen - depending on the species and the method. Protocols that work in one animal will not work in another ... for example, RNAi is a wondrous genetic manipulation tool in some animals, but triggers massive interferon response in others (the ultimate results is that your genes crap out).

      Also, there are years and years of experience in manipulating mouse genes, and they have a much shorter generation time than humans. There are few precedents for manipulating human genes (while they're still in humans, of course), and one shouldn't just breed human babies to test for methods that will work. The methods I can name offhand for manipulating genes in vertebrates just haven't been done in humans, and probably shouldn't be (mosaicism, knockouts, FRT-mediated recombination...). A lot of genetic testing is screwing over the organism to figure out how the method works or doesn't work. Just because you know how to enhance a gene in a mouse does not mean you know how to enhance it in a human. I think it will be extremely difficult to play with this new development.

      --
      The floggings will stop when morale improves.
    2. Re:Bad side effects by sw155kn1f3 · · Score: 1

      All it takes to discover how mouses' genes modifications map to human genes modification.
      Science isn't just experimental, it can predict things very accurately too after some information (often incomplete) is available.
      Actually isn't it the science is for ?

      --
      - Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
      - Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
    3. Re:Bad side effects by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

      I would be worried about the heart getting stronger. It would be nice in old people maybe, but you wouldn't want your blood pressure to suddenly double.

  31. This is going to be a trip! by Sleeper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reminds me old science fiction story from one of the OMNI's paperbacks. About Olimpic games and all US and Russian teams having genetically modified memebers. Everything was there IIRC. Swimmers with fins, wrestlers with with TRex like bodies and well Russian boxer (who wins gold medal by several points) having his brain in his... well... ass.

    --
    - Back off man. I am a scientist
    1. Re:This is going to be a trip! by Penguinshit · · Score: 4, Funny


      Darl McBride is a Russian boxer?

    2. Re:This is going to be a trip! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, what have Russian boxers ever done to you!?

  32. side-effects by falsification · · Score: 1
    If the comics are any guide, we can expect that the side-effects of this treatment would be lunacy and mania. People are going to go insane. In real life, too, steroid use can cause aggressive behavior.

    Remember when the US government tried to replicate the supersoldier formula during their diabolical plan to force Captain America to retire? Would-be replacement John Walker did become super strong, but he also became super evil. That was a dark day in the history of Captain America.

    Look out, science. You may be creating a monster.

  33. Probably not what you want by The+Tyro · · Score: 5, Informative

    For someone with Marfan's syndrome.

    Marfan's syndrome is a genetic defect in the gene that codes for Fibrillin, a major component of microfibrils in the body's connective tissues. Much of the pathologic consequences are noted in the eye and the aorta... the former location gets dislocations of the lens, and the latter location develops large (fatal if undiagnosed) aortic aneurysms. Marfanoid patients also tend to be tall, and have a lot of laxity in their joints, primarily because of their weakened connective tissues.

    If you have weaker connective tissue than normal, it would probably be counterproductive to have greatly increased muscle mass.

    I'm not picking on you, just pointing out that it might not be exactly what a Marfan's patient really needs... It might be useful in some kinds of muscular dystrophies, but the most common kinds have defective myofibrils... creating more non-functional muscle wouldn't appear to help them very much.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  34. gene therapy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    makes you stronger. strength crushes enemies. gene therapy! gene therapy! gene therapy!

    1. Re:gene therapy... by pillendraaier · · Score: 0

      make your r0dent grow several 1nches.
      make it stronger than it's ever been.

  35. R.O.U.S.'es? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Rodents of Unusual Size? I don't think they exist.

    1. Re:R.O.U.S.'es? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inconceivable!

  36. Mandatory by onosendai · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I, for one, Welcome Our New ... *sigh* that used to be funny too ...

    --
    <? include ('signature.inc'); ?>
  37. Ultimate Super Hero International Team! by SoupIsGood+Food · · Score: 4, Funny

    I will assmeble the ultimate real-life superhero team to Save the Universe! It will be called the Ultimate Super Hero International Team! The roster is carefully chosen to represent the most gifted and talented real-life adventurers from across the globe!

    On it will be the daring leader and Weapons Expert, Angle Grinder Man! (Linked to above.) Also...

    Aerospace Expert: Lawn Chair Larry!

    Science and Technology Expert: Troy Hurtubise, inventor of the famous Bear Proof Suit! (Tested by real bikers! And bears! It's bear and biker proof!)

    Matter Eating Expert: Sonya Thomas, the Black Widow!

    Sneaking Across the Country Naked Expert: Steven Gough!

    With these mighty heroes, the Ultimate Super Hero International Team, the Universe shall be Saved!

    SoupIsGood Food

    1. Re:Ultimate Super Hero International Team! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Only trouble would be that their acronym would be U SHIT

    2. Re:Ultimate Super Hero International Team! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Angle-Grinder Man!!!

    3. Re:Ultimate Super Hero International Team! by BubbaJonBoy · · Score: 1

      Sounds cleancut and good fun - except Lawnchair Larry shot himself thru the heart in '93 making one of your troop a 59 year old Zombie with a peekaboo chest.

  38. One "redundant" down-mod already by alien_blueprint · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I was wondering how many moderators wouldn't actually read the post properly. That's one "redundant" mod now, and counting.

    1. Re:One "redundant" down-mod already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      if only the irony wasn't lost on you.

      earlier (at least in the page layout, didn't check the times) people already had the meta-discussion about if this is funny, or appropriately-ontopic or not. that makes yours look redundant no matter which way people read it.

    2. Re:One "redundant" down-mod already by alien_blueprint · · Score: 1

      First you say:

      if only the irony wasn't lost on you.

      Then you say:

      (at least in the page layout, didn't check the times)

      Well done! Perhaps you should have?

  39. This has already been done. by eclectro · · Score: 1
    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  40. Drugs in sport by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Two days after Marco Pantani's death was announced, this is not a good thing for sport. The exact cause of Pantani's death has not yet been determined, but what is known is that he was depressed and being treated for drug addiction after being hounded for years over doping allegations. Unfortunately new "treatments" appear all the time and techniques to detect them are usually slow to catch up or ineffective (the EPO test involves measuring haemocrit levels in the blood, which can easily give false positives). Most professional cyclists are probably on something or other, and there are many who will leap at the chance to use another, as yet undetectable, performance boosting substance.

    The stupid thing is that if they were just in it for the prize money, they could have taken up golf and got paid far more for the onerous duty of wearing a particular brand of patterned sweater.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  41. Karma-whores, save your mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The Super-Server man is here! I've already beefed up the server's backbone and hardware, so the site should not suffer from any problems.

    Don't thank me, it's all in a days work.

    Posted anonymously to retain my secret identity.

  42. Long-Term Low Gravity by clickety6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just wondering if this would be useful for building up muscle mass to combat long periods in low-gravity - such as a manned trip to Mars?

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  43. Oh boy... by mog007 · · Score: 1

    I hope I'm not the only person that ran through a scenario similar to this: Tune in next week as we talk to famed counter-terrorist, Solid Snake, and his escapades at the island of Shadow Moses in Alaska. Not to mention his encounter with the genome soldiers.

  44. Exactly... fine balance required by The+Tyro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There exist entire categories of diseases based entirely on immune system problems.

    Rheumatoid arthritis, mixed connective tissue disease, Lupus, etc... all are autoimmune, and are a result of the body's immune system attacking itself. These diseases can be devilishly difficult to diagnose and treat... there's a reason why Rheumatology is its own medical specialty. Some of the drugs the rheumatologists use are potentially nasty, and include transplant drugs, and chemotheraputic agents... not stuff for the faint of heart.

    By the same token, when you start monkeying around with DNA, you need to be careful what genes you activate or deactivate... Cancer is fundamentally a genetic disease, and a real possibility if you get an unregulated growth gene (or you inadvertantly turn off a suppressor gene). Cancers are funny things; they can even respond to simple hormones... precisely why women with a breast cancer history aren't advised to receive hormone replacement therapy.

    Gene therapy has had some successes, but it's really in its infancy... I'd be awfully leery about using it just to bulk up at the gym. On the other hand, if you have a lethal genetic defect, and you're going to die without it, have at it. Forget Hans and Franz... you can find quite a few patients with potentially lethal genetic diseases (Cystic Fibrosis, etc) who'd be much better candidates for gene therapy than some weight-lifter.

    It bears repeating... using it for simple body-building is absolutely foolhardy... instead of growing big pectoral muscles, you might inadvertently be growing yourself a big fat tumor... that'll look great at the beach.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:Exactly... fine balance required by Illserve · · Score: 1

      It's not a tumor!

    2. Re:Exactly... fine balance required by nads2k · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am not a doctor, but I am a first year medical student ... so I do know some of what I speak.

      First, you are generally right on the immune system ... it does attack itself -- but this is not because we have "too much immune system". No one really knows why this happens, but one popular conjecture is that since the environment has improved greatly (i.e. no parasites, less bacterial infection, air pollution down, etc. ) we aren't using certian parts of our immune system that used to be used all the time. These parts get "bored" and start to cuase havok. This is pretty much conjecture supported on circumsantial evidence, but its the only thing that makes sense at the momment. Immune system knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate due to modern molecular biology and high-through-put techniques, so hopefully we will have a better grasp of why this is soon.

      On genetic engineering, you're basically right, its in its infancy, but you are making one fundamental mistake. Cancer generally involves errors in very specific types of genes. The types of genes used for gene-therapy are almost never in this cancer-causing set. The problem with gene therapy is that the mechanism to deliver the new genes is basically random and can introduce a lot of instability into your DNA. This means, by accident, you can mess up one of your genes that are cancer-prone.

    3. Re:Exactly... fine balance required by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      Greetings, future colleague.

      IIAD, and I must say I've never even heard of the theory that you are expounding upon in your first paragraph... to be honest, it sounds a bit popular-science-esque, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of that one; you being closer to the basic sciences than myself. I would appreciate a link or two though, if you don't mind.

      As to the second point, it's not a matter of inserting a harmful gene (any geneticist who purposely introduced an oncogene via gene therapy would probably be burned alive by his colleagues), it's a matter of improperly expressing/suppressing existing genes. If your retroviral vector (or whatever method you use to introduce your desired gene) happens to hit a suppressor gene's promoter, or an oncogene's silencer region, you can end up with a neoplasm (and those promoter/silencer regions can be thousands of base pairs away). Even if it only hits one chromosome... what if you're a heterozygote for that particular oncogene (ala retinoblastoma)?

      I think genetic therapy holds great promise... and my hat's off to the folks pioneering it, but we're a long way from safely allowing weightlifters to use gene therapy to bulk up.

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    4. Re:Exactly... fine balance required by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Hey Tyro...you rock. Have you written up your life story anywhere? I think it's safe to say that at least in technical terms you've experienced the things that most of us geeks here only dream about. So...what is it like? (and how do I maximize my MCAT score in August? :P) Email me at geraldmmonroe@hotmail.com

    5. Re:Exactly... fine balance required by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

      Pleasure to meet you too (I should note that I only attempt to rock, with very limited success).

      Frankly, my life story isn't really that interesting, or even unique, aside from managing to cram a few incongruous vocations into a relatively short span of time. I am an ER physician, I've served in the military in several combat zones, I've been a civilian SWAT operator, and am a computer geek... but beyond that stuff, I'm really fairly milquetoast. That particular vocational combination is not unheard of, BTW... you can find people a good deal more famous than myself with almost that exact combination of skills... and some have been doing it better and cleaner for years. For instance, our current US Surgeon General (he's actually a professional acquaintance of mine) is a former Green Beret, decorated Vietnam vet, 15yr SWAT veteran, boarded trauma surgeon (I may have slightly better m4d 'puter 5killz that he does, but that's it) and a super guy... I'd raid a drug house with him anytime. Seriously... I appreciate your interest, but I'm not really anyone of any great note or importance.

      I'm not sure how much help I can be on the MCAT. I should point out that it's been well over a decade since I took it, so they've probably changed it significantly in the interim. Apart from simple fund-of-knowledge issues, if you're not a great test-taker (a very valuable and usually acquired skill), I might recommend Kaplan or something of the sort... you'd be amazed the number of questions you can salvage just by understanding the test itself and why/how they ask certain types of questions. Some of those strategies can save you from throwing away questions you otherwise wouldn't know.

      BTW, I have to hand it to you, posting your email address on Slashdot... hope your spam filters are tuned ;)

      --
      Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    6. Re:Exactly... fine balance required by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      The email address posting was unintentional...I had the tag "" interrupting the address but the post format was HTML. Umm...yeah...I read about our current surgeon general, and upon hearing his life story promptly concluded that there are about 12 people with that kind of record in the entire nation. No disrespect intended to our current leaders, but almost none of them have actually done that much real stuff. "Incongruous" vocations? milquetoast? Yeah... So...umm...after experiencing the type of intensity that SWAT, combat, and the E.R. have to offer what can computers offer? I mean, I've messed with computers like most of the dorks here far too long...it isn't very exciting and there's a definity paucity of genuine experiences. Hitting the top of the score list in a game or reading about All Your Base Belong To Us can't possibly compare to a trauma case with real blood and real drama, right? I know it isn't like on television...really exciting stuff only happens a few times a day or week, not every hour, in the E.R., indeed? While there's an entire Google of information I'd love to parse you must have to answer, I'd really like to know how intense these things really are are were. And don't be afraid to email me...I haven't even been spammed yet.

  45. Combine this with by Knight55 · · Score: 1

    the getting stronger from playing video games article we had a few weeks ago and we have the worlds first super-nerd.

    --
    1888 Franklin St.
  46. Gene Therapy Schmene Therapy by Symbiosis · · Score: 2, Funny

    We've got a race of super-rats living in the back alley. They're about 3-feet long, and heckle us with merciless honesty about our most sensitive insecurities...

    --

    -------------------------------------------
    I like nonsense, it wakes up the brain cells.
    -- Dr. Seuss
  47. One question not adressed by the article. by soliaus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Will it work on my penis?

    --
    Speaking at Defcon 12 - Credit Card Networks Revisted: Pen
    1. Re:One question not adressed by the article. by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, because it has no muscles, but I'm sure that won't put off the spammers.

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    2. Re:One question not adressed by the article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There aren't muscles to pump the blood in?. And I can see the next spammers mails "enlarge and harder".

  48. What are the athletes and trainers thinking ... by leoaugust · · Score: 2, Interesting
    What is going on in the athletes and sports trainers minds? Some day people are going to be testing for these "enhancements."
    He said it would require a biopsy of specific muscles followed by a sophisticated DNA laboratory study to detect the use of gene therapy in an athlete.
    So, once the authorities can do the testing, whom are they going to go after ?
    Murray said he ''has no doubt athletes will be in touch with Sweeney'' when they learn of his research. Sweeney said that already half the e-mails he receives are from athletes or sports trainers.
    What are these athletes and sports trainers thinking ?
    --
    To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies ...
    1. Re:What are the athletes and trainers thinking ... by Xiph · · Score: 0

      also interesting, what are his answers

      --
      Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    2. Re:What are the athletes and trainers thinking ... by Eccles · · Score: 1

      What is going on in the athletes and sports trainers minds? Some day people are going to be testing for these "enhancements."

      If a particular regimen has no side effects, should it be tested for? If I can have access to gene therapy that has been found safe and will give me better muscles, I'm going to take advantage of it. I want fewer aches and pains from the rigors of normal life, and I'll be d---ed if I'll be deprived of it just so sports can remain "pure."

      Also, the difference between me and Barry Bonds in terms of baseball ability is not just muscles. Give me BB's physique, and I still won't hit over .200. (For our international audience, give me Ronaldo's physique, and I still won't play for Real Madrid.) And all Michael Jordan's talents didn't make him a MLB-caliber baseball player.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  49. Don't you mean... by MichaelGCD · · Score: 1

    'nuff said? /vaguely Wolverine-like healing factor

    --
    hate titty pee colon slash slash
  50. It had to be said... by foidulus · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It Soviet Russia, rat genetically modifies you!

  51. really fit rats? by jeff+munkyfaces · · Score: 1

    Would i be right in assuming that the rats tested are normal, i.e. have not been "working out"? If muscles are enlarged by 100%, would the same happen to a already muscle-bound rat (or human) is it going to make a difference to naturally highly developed muscles? - are we going to end up with athletes like balloons?

  52. I for one.... by SiliconAddict · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I, for one, welcome our new super strong rat overlords

  53. Re:Rats with "vaguely Wolverine-like healing facto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my experience the special ops guys had to borrow gear from the regular units. They can't afford to waste guys on maintenance and storage I guess.

  54. Re:Let Me Be The First... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did you actually think someone would mod you up?

    thats the 4th joke on that line of thinking ive seen in this thread. i think its dead jim.

  55. Correction by Durendal · · Score: 1

    American beef can certainly be imported into the the EU. I grew up in Omaha and ordered beef shipped to me in the UK while I lived there (2001). I was told by the salesperson on the phone that Omaha Steaks went thru some kind of certification process with EU regulators. Great beef BTW.

    http://www.omahasteaks.com
    1. Re:Correction by tiled_rainbows · · Score: 1

      What was it that you didn't like about our UK steaks, eh?

      Judging by the fact that both of the real superheroes mentioned in the submission are English, I'd say we must be doing something right, diet-wise.
      Although I'd be first to admit that Angle-Grinder Man's costume needs a little work.

    2. Re:Correction by corbettw · · Score: 1

      What was it that you didn't like about our UK steaks, eh?

      Yeah, what's wrong with involuntary shaking and early death? ;)

      And before you remind me that mad cow is in the Colonies now, remember it showed up in cattle that had been shipped in from Canada. So, yes, blame Canada.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  56. PARENT TROLL MOD DOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do you like trolling you troll?

    the only thing that will never go out of style is calling people trolls. so woot in your face you lame sucka

    drew barrymore rocks!!!

    btw your stupid IRL afk OK BBL ROFL STFU newbie...

    in soviet russia I FUCKIGN KILLED YOU

    1. Re:PARENT TROLL MOD DOWN by alien_blueprint · · Score: 1

      Assuming this is the same AC, who is the same as the moderator, but it's a fair bet at this stage ...

      That's the best you can come up with, after being decisively shown to be wrong in two different ways? Amazing. The "coward" in "anonymous coward" just keeps getting more appropriate, it seems ...

      I'm happy to have you waste a mod-point on something irrelevant. You could have screwed up on a post that was actually important, either by your poor reading comprehension or not being able to compare two times. Hopefully, once M2 is done with this, you won't get another one for a while.

  57. Simple answer: by Burning1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because athletics (especially bodybuilding) is as much about how you got there as it is about what you can do. Gene therapy is considered a form of cheating.

    1. Re:Simple answer: by DragoonAK · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's funny, because I guarantee you, no matter how hard I tried I could not become professionally competitive in likely any athletic event. I don't have the natural genes for it. So it's just luck that the top people got the superior genes (for this task), but it's cheating if I engineer my children so they have them?

      The real complaint (and the one I'd support for now) is that any gene therapy that will come around soon will be dangerous. Others have mentioned potential downsides of massively increased muscle production, and most potentially enhancing gene therapies would be best expressed through geneline engineering, where a developing embryo is genetically modified. The ethics of that aren't pretty, and its first uses are going to be therapeutic in nature. When it's safe to actually enhance though, there's going to have to be a new look at the old rulebooks banning genetically altered atheletes.

    2. Re:Simple answer: by Mr.+Piddle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's cheating if I engineer my children so they have them?

      Why is there a need to impose this sort of idealism upon the children? Do they really and truly need to be Olympians to be happy? Or is it about the parent, whose lack of esteem ends up ruining the chilrens' lives?

      Having the parents choose their childrens' attributes arbitrarily smacks of eugenics.

      Gene therapy really needs to be limited to therapy. Who out there would argue with getting rid of Altzheimers, for example? The 100-m dash is pretty damn trivial, by comparison.

      --
      Vote in November. You won't regret it.
    3. Re:Simple answer: by Burning1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, including the world champions.

      Arnold once had unusually small calves for a bodybuilder -- bad enough that he would hide them when he posed. Rather than giving up or getting calf implants, he spent thousands of hours building them. He compensated for his weakness.

      If someone is incapable of becoming a bodybuilder, they might be a capable sprinter.

      If someone is incapable of being a professional athlete, perhaps they are capable of being an a chess master.

      In my humble opinion, too many people limit their ability to succeed by artificially narrowing their options. I believe a person is more likely to achieve success by trying new things figuring out what they enjoy and what they are good at, and then doing those things.

      I also believe that gene therapy won't level the playing field... It will simply replace the winners who have good genes with those who can afford the best gene treatment (or get the best results.)

      And for what it's worth, success always has an element of luck... Ask some of the talented (and unknown) bands.

    4. Re:Simple answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with eugenics?

      Seriously, though, how is being Olympian-grade *not* a good thing? Why restrict access to genetic luxuries while not restricting access to, say, the internet?

      Don't get me wrong -- from a rational standpoint, I wouldn't risk cancer or anything for unnecessary physical prowess, but if the risk was effectively eliminated... what's wrong with it then?

    5. Re:Simple answer: by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, but as much as your post meant well, you need to wake up and smell the genetically modified coffee.

      We are stuck in a vicious cycle today with all the beauty products and plastic surgery and beautiful people we see on tv. If this tech becomes available commercially, there WILL be parents who do this, and their children will have an advantage against the ones who don't, plain and simple. Therefore if you want your children to be able to compete, they will have to undergo the same thing. Sucks, but thats the way the world works. Feel free to live in your little idealist world, but I feel bad for any children you have who have to grow up knowing that they are physically inferior to genetically modified children simply because daddy thinks its bad. Now, if your child feels its bad as well, great, problem solved, but otherwise you're going to have a kid with one hell of a inferiority complex.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  58. A much simpler enhancement by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    If you want to make someone stronger forget genetics and all this hi-tech stuff. Take a leave out of other primates books and move the muscle
    attachments further along the bone away from the joint so giving a much greater mechanical advantage. Ever wondered why that 100 pound chimp is
    so damn strong and how 500 pound gorillas can pull themselves up a tree with one arm? Well thats why.

  59. wtf? by chendo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Parent is modded INFORMATIVE?!

    What is slashdot coming to?

    --
    Founder of Mirror Moon - Tsukihime Game Trans
    1. Re:wtf? by SaxtusGR · · Score: 1

      Wait to be M2ed

      --
      Saxtus
  60. pfft.. by radja · · Score: 1

    I don't consider angle-grinder man a hero. he only helps the guilty by destroying a valid law-enforcement device paid for with taxes. that's a super-villain in my book.

    --

    No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
    --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    1. Re:pfft.. by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't consider angle-grinder man a hero.
      Clamping is villainous :-) Considering the hassle and expense of getting a clamp removed, I consider it harassment. In fact, it's meant to be harassment. As such, it is a punishment that far exceeds the seriousness of the crime. If you park without paying, you should get a ticket. If you park where you're in the way, your car should be towed... not to annoy you, but to get rid of the car.

      Angle-grinder man's methods may not be the right way to get things changed, but hopefully his antics will receive some more attention. His main problem is that he's just one guy. For some reason, if you're in a group of some minimum size, you get away with anything (like breaking into military bases), but if you're less than the minimum number, they treat you like a vandal or troublemaker rather than giving you the exalted status of 'activist'.
      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  61. Reminds me of an old joke... by Open_The_Box · · Score: 2, Funny

    A traveling salesman stops by a farm and in the process of trying to sell his wares becomes aware of something strange out in the yard. It's a tiny newborn chick - with eight legs.

    The farmer notices him staring and decides to explain. The idea is that when people buy a chicken, everyone wants a leg but since there are only two legs someone always misses out. So, what the farmer has done is to breed chickens with more legs.

    The salesman leaves shaking his head and doesn't think any more about it, until two years later he's in the same area and decides to go back to the farm. When he gets there he sees the farm is in disrepair, overrun with eight-legged chickens and the farmer looks starved and poor.

    "What's happened?" asks the salesman. "The last time I was here you looked like you were onto a good thing breeding eight-legged chickens."

    "Ah," replies the farmer, "the breeding program was a great success. The problem is we can't catch them!"

    --
    If you can't think of something nice to say then don't say anything at all. No, REALLY.
    1. Re:Reminds me of an old joke... by Baikala · · Score: 1

      It was just 3 legs not 8, the salesman races one with his car an loses meserably,long time not hearing that one, it was on a 60's reader digest.

      --
      16,777,216 comments ought to be enough for any forum!
    2. Re:Reminds me of an old joke... by Open_The_Box · · Score: 1

      Yeah. You could be right. Can't remember where I first heard it - feels like a Readers Digest joke, but I'm sure there are many and multifarious variants... substitute your own numbers and dialogue as required. ~_^

      --
      If you can't think of something nice to say then don't say anything at all. No, REALLY.
  62. Steroid Psychosis by The+Tyro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is a real phenomenon... I've seen people go truly bonkers from high-dose steroids.

    It seems to be dose-dependent, and your chance of developing it is independent of whether you've had it in the past (ie. just because you went nuts one time, doesn't mean you'll do it again). Your odds also seem to vary depending on why you're receiving the steroids, suggesting that the initial disease process plays a role.

    It's also more common in women than men (no joke intended or implied).

    Some people don't like steroids, but I do (having been prescribed them in the past)... they give you lots of energy, all your little aches and pains go away, and you feel good. (there is a certain amount of euphoria with steroids). But there's a downside... a big downside. Check any medical text (or the PDR) for the long-term side effects of steroid use. Go ahead, I'll wait.

    Ok, you looking at it? Yeah... that's the list I'm talking about... the one that goes on for several pages (and includes "roid rage")... you don't want to get on the long-term steroid train unless you absolutely have NO alternatives. That said, properly applied in the proper dose and for the proper duration, they're great, helpful, and lifesaving drugs... one of the most useful drug classes in modern medicine's arsenal.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  63. "Non Powered Super Hero"...? by CBDSteve · · Score: 2, Funny

    Erm - sorry, but I believe that link refers to the infamous Monkey Man of Tunbridge Wells.

    Is it a bird?
    Is it a plane?

    No, it's a prank from B3ta. :-)

  64. The Chief Judge's Man by Cally · · Score: 1
    Cockroach genes? Whoever thought of THAT one?

    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    1. Re:The Chief Judge's Man by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      Franz Kafka, perhaps?

    2. Re:The Chief Judge's Man by Cally · · Score: 1

      heh, never thought of that! Good guess, though I was thinking of something a little more prosaic...

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
  65. Phew! by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    Its just about muscles.

    I was worried that I was going to read about scientists creating super smart rats who subsequently trap scientists and force them to eat all sorts of bizarre substances in obscene proportions while running through mazes.

    Steve

    1. Re:Phew! by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Nah, but after they escape, they'll build an amazing little warren under a rose bush, and organize a daring midnight commando-style airlift of a refugee mouse and her children (the father, unfortunatly, died during a gurellia, or is that mouseia, raid to procure food and supplies) to a safer place.

      (As an aside, the animated version of the above story was the first movie I ever watched that actually disturbed me; I was in Grade 3 or so, I think, and watching the rats get injected with stuff and start convulsing....)

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  66. Could help astronauts? by philbert26 · · Score: 1

    Maybe this therapy could be used to combat muscle wastage on long space journeys. It would have to be accompanied by something to stop the bones breaking down, though, or the landing on Mars could be very painful.

  67. Douglas Adams was right by verrol · · Score: 3, Funny

    Those rats do run things. they are manipulating us to make them stronger so then can take over.

  68. Ah... by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 1

    Finally! A penis enlarger that really works!

    --

    eTrade SUCKS
  69. the rats of NIMH by dominux · · Score: 1

    http://www.readingmatters.co.uk/books/mrs-frisby-n imh.htm

  70. The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents by dominux · · Score: 1

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060 012331/002-9510878-3940014?v=glance

  71. Gene Therapy Creates Strong Super-Rats by Ours · · Score: 1

    As opposed to what? Feeble super-rats?

    --
    "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
  72. There are pictures related to this story by OpenSourcesJapsEye · · Score: 0

    Here - http://www.johnnyversace.com/1.gif [work safe] As you can see, the side effects include increased hair growth as well as super sexual powers. I'm pretty sure the other men in the picture are trying to hold the woman away from the superhuman.

  73. GDF 8 by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    I remember something along the lines of that story, from wired:

    Gene therapy may be a distant dream for humans, but for rodents the future is now. By adding and subtracting DNA, researchers have already bred lab animals that can gorge on fatty foods and stay thin. Others build up muscle without lifting a paw. Still others boast unparalleled powers of recovery or regrow lost cartilage. But what if scientists combined all their improvements in a single supermouse? Our ripped little rodent would look something like this.

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/images/ ST _mouse_32.jpg

    bigger image here:
    http://www.mondolithic.com/00Gallery09.htm

    1. Re:GDF 8 by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      forgot to mention that GDF 8 is the gene that they knock out to get those ripped mice

  74. Obligatory SNL transcript... by Cyno01 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dennis Miller: In response to what its sponsors claim is an idea whose time has come, the first All-Drug Olympics opened today in Bogota, Columbia. Athletes are allowed to take any substance whatsoever before, after, and even during the competition. So far, 115 world records have been shattered! We go now to correspondent Kevin Nealon, live in Bogota for the Weightlifting Finals. Kevin?

    Kevin Nealon: Dennis, getting ready to lift now is Sergei Akmudov of the Soviet Union. His trainer has told me that he's taken antibolic steroids, Novacaine, Nyquil, Darvon, and some sort of fish paralyzer. Also, I believe he's had a few cocktails within the last hour or so. All of this is, of course, perfectly legal at the All-Drug Olympics, in fact it's encouraged. Akmudov is getting set now, he's going for a cleaning jerk of over 1500 pounds, which would triple the existing world record. That's an awful lot of weight, Dennis, and here he goes.

    [ Kevin steps aside to reveal the steroid-bulked athlete bent over to lift the 1500 lbs. weight. Sergei tightens his grip on the barbells and pulls up, but instead of lifting the weights, his arms are pulled off and blood squirts ferociously out of his pulpy stubs. ]

    Kevin Nealon: Oh! He pulled his arms off! He's pulled his arms off, that's gotta be disappointing to the big Russian! [ Sergei's trainer wraps a towel around him ] You know, you hate to see something like this happen, Dennis! He probably doesn't have that much pain right now, but I think tomorrow he's really gonna feel that, Dennis! Back to you!

    Dennis Miller: Thank you, Kevin. Very nice form on the Russian. Canada, of course, is leading that competition.

    credit

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  75. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funniest thing I read in a while :) Grandparent too :)

    --Coder

  76. Why pollute the gene pool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure your a fine person and all, but natural selection has a purpose, undesirable traits generally do not get passed on.

    1. Re:Why pollute the gene pool... by Tetsugaku-San · · Score: 1

      BUt they do get passed on, people have a genetic predisposition to cancer, heart disease, diabetes and many other diseases like that - should they be sterilised? If you go along that path then surely people's intelligence should be tested and we sterilise anyone with an IQ less than 100? Don't want to pollute that Gene pool ya know cos it's in a great state now.

    2. Re:Why pollute the gene pool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BUt they do get passed on, people have a genetic predisposition to cancer, heart disease, diabetes and many other diseases like that - should they be sterilised?

      Maybe they should take a minute and think whether or not they want their children to suffer whole their lives from something that is very likely to be passed on and just not get one.

  77. Someone had to say it... by ertw · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new strong super-rat overloards.

    1. Re:Someone had to say it... by OpenSourcesJapsEye · · Score: 0

      Someone (and when I say "one" I really mean "ten") already said it.

  78. Mandatory SCO flame by first.last · · Score: 0

    Then you'd have to pay Darl $690 if you want to live.

    --
    Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
  79. Whimpy athletes by invid · · Score: 1

    So if this therapy become common for the public, and athletes are the only ones who can't use it, does that mean that athletes will be the whimpiest people around? Does this mean that computer geeks will be able to push around pro football players?

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  80. anabolic steriods by elohim · · Score: 1

    It seems like a lot of people are comparing this to steroids and pointing out that steroids have health risks. This is true only when they are abused. Anabolic steroids, when cycled properly, have no ill effects. The sources of this information are the lectures I've had on reproductive and developmental biology in medical school and college. (I would never take them, though)

  81. AGM is an ass by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And that's not the only natural-born superhero.

    That AngleGrinder Man is an ass. The automobile is a menace. It pollutes. Causes sprawl. Is both personally and publicly VERY VERY expensive. Dangerous. Smelly. And encourages poor health.

    London has every Right to want to make selfish auto-drivers play by the rules. The Auto is NOT the be-all-end-all public-policy device that needs satisfying.

    Because I advocate sustainability, I ride my bike. I am damn tired of my Municipal, Provincial and Federal Taxes being spent to bandage up crash victims, insure the public against this menace, watch the best agricultural land get run over by big-box consumer-depots, animals and plants get paved under, water bespoiled, and on and on all because some asshat thinks its his right to scream 100 km/h through my residential neighbourhood and park on the sidewalk.

    If there is any hope, the public is going to have to adjust its perspective/tolerance of the Auto and its destructive culture.

    If fucking tired of it, and this AngleGrinder Man is an ignorant fucking tool... By the way. I work for one of the Big Three NorthAmerican AutoCo's.

  82. Cue new series.. X-Animaniacs? by Channard · · Score: 5, Funny

    'What do we do tonight, Brain?'

    'That's Magneto, damn you! And we do the same thing we do ever night, Pinky.. try to take over the world with our rodent superpowers! And how many times do I have to tell you? Stop licking off that blue body paint!'

  83. Old News by loconet · · Score: 1

    They already discovered and implemented this in Mexico a long time ago.

    --
    [alk]
  84. All depends on where the tumor's located by SeanDuggan · · Score: 0
    It bears repeating... using it for simple body-building is absolutely foolhardy... instead of growing big pectoral muscles, you might inadvertently be growing yourself a big fat tumor... that'll look great at the beach
    *shrug* All depends on where the tumor is located. It's like the story about the guy who heard that putting a potato down his swimsuit. After many women ran away from him screaming, a friend was kind enough to advise him that the potato goes down the front of the suit.
    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  85. poor and ugly people ARE worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and if I had mod points that post would be +4 right now. He's absolutely correct.

  86. In a normal world, you would be selected against by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People with debilitating genetic diseases should be put down. You're ruining the gene pool.

  87. Level playing field, sort of by sam_handelman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm a computational biologist.

    My problem with performance enhancing drugs is that they hurt the athletes - people should not ruin their lives in order to compete; they should not be under *pressure* to destroy themselves in order to compete.

    To the extent that gene therapy might-merely-give everyone the benefit of the "best" possible human genes, I don't have a problem with it. Likewise, any hypothetical performance enhancing drug that was not harmful - I wouldn't have a problem with that. None of these things eliminate the elements of Skill, Discipline and Dedication.

    The problem, of course, is that in "optimizing" a person for athletic performance you may pay an opportunity cost - in the form of sociability, intellectual development or lifespan.

    Performance enhancement should be regulated to make sure that the athletes are not harmed - which is a crime AGAINST the athlete and not BY the athlete. Who cares about CHEATING when someone could fucking die?

    In the case of this treatment - it strikes me that this is something that most people would benefit from, actually. If it is safe (which is a VERY big if) then in a modern human (with no calorie shortage, indeed an excess) this treatment could be expected to have a favorable impact on lifespan, and on health and vitality particularly in late old age (where loss of muscle mass -> related conditions are a major health issue). The chief effect of forcing someone to evolve more muscle tissue is to reduce the amount of adipose tissue (fat.) Of course it is much more complicated than that and I don't doubt that there are side effects for a treatment of this kind which would need to be considered, but - are we going to deny athletes a treatment that the general population takes in order to IMPROVE their health? Clearly not.

    --
    The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
    1. Re:Level playing field, sort of by geekoid · · Score: 1

      if enhncing myself could bring home multi-millions of dollars for my family, I can't say I wouldn't do it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  88. not small enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "The step from there to euthanizing all the people with said disease is so small to be frightening."


    That step's not small enough. Anyone with a debilitating genetic disease should be sterilized. Sorry, I put the rights of the unborn children over the vanity and selfishness of the parent poster of this thread. He wants to have kids who will also be disabled. What an asshole.
    1. Re:not small enough by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      That step's not small enough. Anyone with a debilitating genetic disease should be sterilized. Sorry, I put the rights of the unborn children over the vanity and selfishness of the parent poster of this thread. He wants to have kids who will also be disabled.

      Actually, he didn't say anything about actually wanting kids; he spoke in a theoretical sense of "potential" children. And even if he wants kids, he probably doesn't want them to be disabled. There are plenty of alternatives to avoid this. Prenatal diagnosis and, if necessary, abortion is one possibility. And chances are that there will be a gene therapy treatment available in a few years. The notion of forced sterilization to deal with genetic disease is obsolete. Indeed, one has to wonder about the mental health of somebody who advocates it in this day and age.

  89. Mad Cow, supersized by SolemnDragon · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It costs, but it's worth it to me.

    Some of us already vote with our wallets, and i'd second the notion that it's how to get the idea out there that we might want to know what's in our food. I hate to bring up the same old song again, but the truth is that there are a lot of reasons for GMO food to be labelled, and some of it has to do with current, known allergies, intolerances, and illnesses. Obviously, this won't matter if a GM rat makes it into the food market- anyone who's eating rat probably isn't watching their diet for such things too closely. But when it comes to cows? It's hard enough to find cows that aren't being fed other cows (mad cow disease, anyone?) Do we know what a prion disease would do in a supercow? would they be more immune, or would they just survive longer as incubators, becoming more infectious once they got turned into feed? (I don't know if they're 100% sure that that's how it spreads, but i think that's what they've decided to go with here in the US.)

    What if they just show fewer symptoms?

    Granted, the non-organic but anti-growth-hormone folks might like this path (except for me, but i'm a treehugging crazy white chick who has immune and food allergy problems; i have to be careful what i buy in the first place) but i'd like folks to have a lot more time to think about it before it hits the market.

    1. Re:Mad Cow, supersized by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      Here in my little neck of the woods, it's not really that hard to find labeled food, it's hard to find CLEARLY labeled food. A lot of people look at "Natural" and say "oh.. that must be good" without realizing that it does not mean what they think it means. There are already too many labels. We need to pick some standards and set about them and I think all generic claims by individual manufacturers should have to be submitted for approval and certified before they can be used.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    2. Re:Mad Cow, supersized by Free_Meson · · Score: 1

      1) If you don't think there's a healthy portion of rat in whatever grain products you consume, you're delucing yourself.

      2) A "supercow" with muscles that recover, repair, and grow more quickly would not be at any greater risk for the contraction or propagation of a BSE-related disease.

      3) I doubt supercows would be grown for human consumption, anyway. Beef quality is largely dependent on fat content. If cows that put on muscle at an accelerated rate were appealing, they wouldn't castrate beef steers. The main costs for raising cattle for slaughter include food and labor, and "supercows" would require more food, more labor (they'd be harder to control) and would probably not be ready for slaughter any more quickly. Cutting fat for muscle could also make the cattle significantly less hardy, increasing costs during long, cold winters.

  90. Muscle loss vs Bone loss by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2, Informative

    While muscle loss does occur in freefall, it isn't the big problem; That loss can be combated by regular exercise. The problem is bone density loss, and if you pump up someone's muscles while their bones are weakening, you just get a person who can shatter their arms when flexing.

  91. I doubt you'll do better at solving THAT problem by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

    than millions of years of evolution...

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  92. Need insider mouse help. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Friends, we make our move *tonight*. The password is "rosebush".

    Nicodemus.

  93. Re: Drugs by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

    If you removed the anti-drug prohibitions from sports, I bet ( with a few exceptions such as weightlifting ) that most sports would still be dominated by healthy drug-free competitors.

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  94. Re:21st century Star Trek war. by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1
    I thought the war was fought by regular humans constantly high on some kind of war-crack against the genetically modified humans.

    Drugs won out over GE in the Star Trek universe.

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  95. Re:I doubt you'll do better at solving THAT proble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Millions of years? But I'm hungry now!

  96. Re: Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're kidding yourself. It would turn most sports into something akin to auto racing: some component of competitive skill on the field or track, but mainly a competition between the engineers behind the scenes, and the fundraisers who pay for it all. It might still be interesting in some aspects, but sending an unenhanced human out there would be like sending a Chevy off the lot to go race against the "stock" cars in the Daytona 500...

  97. Re:Rats with "vaguely Wolverine-like healing facto by zerocool^ · · Score: 1


    ---Conspiracy Theory---

    Military Technology:

    The current one that I've heard is that, while the civilian population is in something like computer development year 40, while the military is in development year 95. Or, in other words, if the civilian population is discovering and creating new computer "stuff" at a rate which we label as the control rate, the expieremental rate of the military is more than twice as fast. Which is scary.

    ---Conspiracy Theory---

    The thing is, though, it's probably not true. I mean, I know people that work for the military, and not once has any one ever even hinted at the ability to do anything beyond current capabilities of civilian population. Even the stuff that you see that's the "next big thing", like automated machinery or combat suits with integrated HUDs, look so 6 years ago compared to the latest from Apple.

    ~Will

    --
    sig?
  98. Gene Therapy Creates Strong Super-Rats... by p4ul13 · · Score: 1

    ...The Red Skull is quoted as saying "Rats? Ok whatever; just keep that damned 'Bucky' kid away from me."

    --
    Paul Lenhart writes words!
  99. Re:Rats with "vaguely Wolverine-like healing facto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have been reading too many "vaguely Wolverine" comics.

  100. Voodoo Genetics? by theghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or, if you prefer, Trickle-Down Genetics, Supply-Side Genetics, or my personal favorite, Reagenetics!

    It didn't work for the economy. It won't work for the gene pool.

    Seriously though, evolutionary pressure (encompassing the workings of both Natural and "Socioeconomic" selection) among human beings (if it still functions at all) is far too subtle and complicated to be used as rationale for or against any of this. To put it bluntly, we are too stupid to figure out exactly how (if) it works on us. The complexity of human behavior makes it nearly impossible to figure out what traits give modern humans a significant reproductive advantage.

    My personal theory (developed in the course of getting my BA in Anthropology) is that because human beings evolved in a "tribal," hunter-gatherer environment, a lot of the problems we encounter in the modern world are a result of our "primitive" minds and bodies trying to cope with the amazing complexity of the world around us - a complexity we created piece by piece. In essence, we are not cut out to handle the world we have made, so each of us must muddle through as best we can and take solace in knowing that noone really knows what the hell they are doing in this life. (IMO the most fucked-up people are the ones that think they understand it all.)

    --
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
  101. Pre-Caffiene headline.... by Dawn+Keyhotie · · Score: 2, Funny
    Reads "Game Therapy Creates Super-Strong Rats".

    I instantly pictured a room full of lab rats directly wired into various X-Box and PS2 consoles, honing their FPS/fragging skills, and getting ready to take over the world. But then I remembered that Super-Strong Rats, or SSRs, are intelligent and friendly, just like in "The Secret of NIMH".

    So I am no longer worried about our new SSR overlords.

    CHeers!

    --
    "The only good windmill is a tilted windmill."
  102. Re:Rats with "vaguely Wolverine-like healing facto by mark-t · · Score: 1
    I wonder how 'vaguely Wolverine" these healing abilities are.
    Very vague.

    To draw an analogy, much like yellow is vaguely like black.

    Wolverine could heal in _seconds_ from injuries that would be fatal to normal people... the article doesn't even imply that's what's been accomplished. It simply mentions that injury can be overcome more easily, not anything akin to high speed tissue regeneration, which is the ability that Wolverine had.

  103. Re: Real sports by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1
    What drug would you give to swimmers? Curlers? How about ski-sharpshooters, or archers? Bobsledders? ( ok, they need power at first, but not at the expense of hand tremors, I don't now why they don't just have sumo wrestler sized lougers, pine car derby cars are limited to 5 oz because the heaviest ones get down the track fastest, Yokozma would seem to be the ideal louge contestant. Divers? What drug for them? Marathon runners? Sprinters? ( you might say steroids, but do they really increase performance? Is muscle mass really all there is to a sprint, or is there more, like circulation, and ATP storage capacity per unit muscle weight.

    Also, at least for stock cars, there are many many restrictions as to what engineers can do to a car which are designed to make the cars more or less equal in order to let the drivers compete with each other. I don't know about Indy Cars though, but I always thought Indy car matchboxes were cool because they can fly. Their spoilers are actually wings. Also any matchbox/hotwheels with doors that can open can also fly since car doors are known for their aerodynamic lifting powers.

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  104. Anyone want to take bets? by hey! · · Score: 1

    On the match between Mr. Super Human and Mr. Smart Guy With A Gun?

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Anyone want to take bets? by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 1

      Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb.

      --
      True story.
  105. My day has come.. by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

    Now I can have the super muscles I've always wanted. Just wait 'til your inbox is flooded with "One pill a day and you can have super muscles, too! I don't know how it works, but it does!"

  106. Related military research by Presence1 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Wired News is reporting on DARPA research on extending the time that soldiers can go without food.

    "The vision for the Metabolic Dominance Program is to develop novel strategies that exploit and control the mechanisms of energy production, metabolism, and utilization during short periods of deployment requiring unprecedented levels of physical demand. The ultimate goal is to enable superior physical and physiological performance by controlling energy metabolism on demand. An example is continuous peak physical performance and cognitive function for 3 to 5 days, 24 hours per day, without the need for calories."

    the Wired Article:
    http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62297,00. html?tw=wn_tophead_1

    the DARPA announcement:
    http://www.darpa.mil/dso/solicitations/baa03-02mod 2.htm

    --

  107. The superhero is question by ProudClod · · Score: 2, Interesting

    from the Yahoo article, was Monkey Man of Tumbridge Wells. He was an elaborate spoof created by ccc of b3ta. There were no sightings of him, all the sightings were fabricated by ccc himself and sent into local newspapers. It was quite big news over here in the UK. I had the pleasure of speaking to the Monkey Man on the radio when he revealed himself, and he's a damn nice bloke

    For indepth monkey-truth, click here!

    --
    Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
    1. Re:The superhero is question by ProudClod · · Score: 1

      And of course by "is question", I mean "in question, and apologies for the most daft spelling error ever."

      --
      Gamers Europe - Gaming News. Reviews.
  108. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Natural selection is circular reasoning given scientific authority. Mojo is about as descriptive. At least someone gets it enough to say they don't get it.

  109. Re:Rats with "vaguely Wolverine-like healing facto by corbettw · · Score: 1

    The current one that I've heard is that, while the civilian population is in something like computer development year 40, while the military is in development year 95.

    Riiiight. And that's why most DoD machines (and MoD machines, according to my friends in England) run Windows 2000? And most of the rest run either Solaris, HP-UX, or Linux? Sounds pretty much like corporate America to me.

    --
    God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
  110. SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAY! by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    See the mutant super-rats take on New York's finest, ugliest, scariest in all-out death-match! Get you tickets now at the Garden box office. BE THERE!
    Brad Roberts'>.

  111. MAKE YOUR PEN!S HUGE - NEW G3N3 THERAPEE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait for the gene therapy schlong enhancing spam to arrive.

  112. I agree with the subject, but not the body. by theghost · · Score: 1

    Natural selection is a valid, accurate, and thoroughly scientific concept. I have studied it fairly comprehensively and i do get it.

    I'm arguing that because the process is so complex, you cannot predict the outcome when applying it to human beings. Just because we can't understand how the system applies in a particular case doesn't mean it isn't working.

    Pull your head out of the sand (and by sand, i mean your ass) and take a look at the real world for a change.

    --
    The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
  113. Don't forget the Mutant Factor by wynterwynd · · Score: 1

    Excellent, now we have the physical training and experimental super-heroes coming up on the horizon. There's already been reports of the first mutant to publicly reveal herself. X-Ray Girl will live in history. Oh sure it's not much of a power really, but it's a start.

    I just know if I now concentrate hard enough mine will emerge.... my luck it'd just give me Super-Aneurysm-Causing powers.

    --
    "Not all who wander are lost" -- JRR Tolkien
  114. In Defence Of Eugenics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    > What you're doing is taking something many people have an aversion to (intrusive gene therapy etc) and using it as a rational for why bloody wars that clean out the working classes are good. You're basically making the argument that rich beautiful people (most of whom got beautiful primarily by virtue of being rich) are actually better in a vague "scientific evolutionary" sense than the rest of us.
    >
    > The corollary is that the poor and ugly people are worse. The same logic was used to justify the sterilization movements in the United States and the extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany.
    No, the Jews were exterminated because (1) the Nazis needed a scapegoat, and (2) if you believed Nazi propaganda, because they controlled all the money on the planet, or some such bunkum.

    The sterilization movement in the US had nothing to do with scapegoating or allegations of control - I fail to recall any allegation that the retarded were Communist infiltrators or secretly holding onto the world's purse strings, from even the most strident McCarthyite.

    Eugenics is not National Socialism. The Nazis gave eugenics a bad rap, and maybe it's time we realized that eugenics is nothing to be afraid of.

    Seriously - what's so wrong with selecting for intelligence, as opposed to "big butts"? Intelligence is partially determined by genetics, and also by cultural factors. Both need to be selected for.

    I'll grant that there are almost as many potential Einsteins in the ghettoes as there are in suburbia. But if you've got Einstein's genes, and you're born to a crack whore shitting out six kids and raising them in a memeset that considers its own ignorance as a mark of cultural pride ("Yo, dat skoolin's fo' whitey! Y'all don't wants ta be actin' white!"), you're doomed from the get-go. When more of your population group is in prison than in college, you don't have an intelligence problem, you have a cultural problem.

    Likewise, the most hundrum set of IQ100 genes, raised in a culture that values knowledge, science, and realizes that a good education is a key to survival in a knowledge-based economy, can have a successful and productive life.

    If we wanted to be technical, I'm arguing more about memetics than genetics, and my sterilization programme should be called "eumetics", rather than "eugenics".

    As someone who pays more in taxes to support the aforementioned trash than I spend on every other expense, including food, shelter, travel, ongoing education, and recreational activities combined, I want some return on that investment. Breeding more consumers of social services feeds my government's appetite for more voters, but doesn't contribute in any way to my country's long-term economic stability.

    Eliminating the drag on our economy - preferably through through sterilization, less preferably through cutting social payments without cutting the population of consumers, and much less preferably through extermination - and using the savings to fund the education of people who are culturally receptive to learning, would be a Big Win.

    You may not like the fact that high educational standards are required of the citizens of post-industrial states in a globalized economy, but that's the economic reality. We need to improve our population's net overall educational level, and eumetics (the sterilization of those who are uneducated, unemployable, and have demonstrated themselves culturally-unreceptive-to-learning) is merely the least repugnant way of doing it.

    Finally, consider that a eumetics programme could be less repugnant than what we're doing now -- namely government funding of excessive breeding, throwing the offspring in prison, and charging the economically productive for the government's privilege to do so.

  115. Trust the rats by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

    They are subtle overlords. If we experiment on them and things go well then obviously it's something they are suggesting we should be doing to ourselves.

    42

  116. If it ever comes to that by phorm · · Score: 1

    Don't worry, my grandkids will have a little penguin logo tattoo.

  117. Shatner Voice On ... by Druss.the.legend · · Score: 0

    KHAAAANNNNNN!!!!!!!!

  118. Natural born? by superdan2k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about this guy? Freaky-low lactic acid production, high lactic-acid clearing, huge heart, VO2 Max (oxygen uptake to blood) more than twice the average person... And he beat cancer when he had about a 20% chance of living through it. Then he went and won the toughest race in the world. Five times. In a row.

    --
    blog |
    1. Re:Natural born? by DamnRogue · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Part of why Lance is such an amazing cyclist is precisely because he was so ill during his cancer treatment. Normal athletes can train their bodies to be very good at certain activities, but no matter what they have certain biases and capabilities based on the kinds of excercise they did or didn't do when they were growing. You can adapt the "top layer" of your body, so to speak, but changing the core is more difficult. During Lance's cancer treatment he experienced nearly complete muscle atrophy. His body was so decayed that he had to learn to walk and use his limbs again. Throughout his recovery he was working back towards being a cyclist, so ALL of his musculature, vascular, circulatory, etc, systems were optimized for biking. He turned himself into a human hill-climbing machine because he started pretty much from scratch, which most people can't do.

    2. Re:Natural born? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My brother was accused by his high school gym teachers/coaches of steroid use, but he just has crazy muscle growth abilities. His average body temperature is higher than normal as well. And yes, I'm certain he isn't on anything strange.

  119. Re: Drugs by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

    You're fooling yourself. Steroids are the most famous performance enhancing drugs, but there are others. You can increase strength, stamina, adrenaline, and pain tolerance to levels no natural trainee could match.

  120. It the Rats of Nim all over again! by DeVilla · · Score: 1

    Why are people focused on the what WE could do wrong with this. Doesn't anyone see that we already have mutant Rats that will rise up and kill us all??!?

  121. R.I.P. Phil Hartman. by fraudrogic · · Score: 1

    Funniest man ever on SNL...

    --
    I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
  122. Oh great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...MORE Management.

  123. MODERATORS Pay Attention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not a popular topic. Of course not.

    Does that make it untrue? I thought geeks could be objective. I guess not.

    Doesn't anyone here have experience wirth genetic algorithms or artificial life? Examine the parent post with an eye towards those techniques and then re-mod. I don't think there were value judgements in that post, the poster was not trying to claim that any individuals were lesser or greater, only that certain traits have a statistically greater chance of showing up near wealth and (as we all know) wealth tends also to act as a protective shield and a seperate evolutionary (read population) space.

    I find the comments interesting and insightful, even if distasteful. If you don't, perhaps you are the ignorant fool with his/her head in the sand.

  124. What Bothers me about this... by bluesangria · · Score: 1
    Is this line from the article..
    by injections of a gene-manipulated virus that goes to muscle tissue and causes a rapid growth of cells.

    This sounded vaguely familiar so I went and looked up the definition of cancer:

    Cancer develops from a single cell that has undergone mutations in its DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), the genetic material which carries the body's hereditary instructions. Instead of maturing normally and dying, cancerous cells reproduce without restraint. It's not that they divide faster, but that they never stop dividing, and they fail to mature. (Emphasis mine) When removed from the body and placed in a laboratory dish with nutrients, they actually seem to be immortal.


    So, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this similar to CAUSING a temporary cancer in the rat??

  125. Anyonje else? by Pragmatix · · Score: 1

    Anyone else flash back to "The Secret of Nimh?"

    1. Re:Anyonje else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because that movie absolutely sucked.

      The book,
      "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of Nimh" was awesome.

      But you make a good point.

  126. Re: Real sports by Galvatron · · Score: 1

    Steroids are about more than simply adding bulk. Steroids increase the levels of anabolic hormones such as testosterone. This can provide strength, bulk, and faster muscle recovery times. Here's a simple litmus test for whether steroids would improve performance: do men perform better than women? In virtually all sports, the answer is yes, and the reason is testosterone.

    --
    "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
  127. The man in the cape... by Radical+Rad · · Score: 1

    That's no superhero. That's junk Frank Costanza's lawyer.

  128. KHAAAAAAAAAAN! by invid · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It had to be said.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  129. Obligatory Princess Bride Reference by MonolithicX · · Score: 1


    Rodents of Unusual Size?? What's next Flame Spurts and Lightning Sand?

  130. Question from a structual engineer... by StressGuy · · Score: 1

    Great, you've doubled the strength of a subject human. What about his skeletal system? his spinal column? his ligaments?, non-muscular components of his cardio-vascular system? Are they likewise increased in strength/capacity?
    .
    It's not nice to fool with mother nature....
    .
    anyway, my 2 cents.

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  131. Damn it! by chadjg · · Score: 1

    Who cares about the rats! I'm 30 and thought I had outgrown getting stuffed in a locker or getting those horrible atomic wedgies.

    Now those highschool punks will be big enough to beat on me again! Maybe it is time to stock up on RPGs. As in -7s. Maybe one of those new thermobaric jobs from Bazalt.

    --
    Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
  132. Yay! Can't wait for the spam! by Kiyooka · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wonder which "muscle" they'll claim to enlarge as a side effect.

  133. we need volontary humans to experiment on by LZ_Mordan · · Score: 0

    I don't see the problem with doping. How do you think we test new drugs for humans? People get paid to test drugs. How much Pantani was paid when he won the Tour de France

  134. Re: Real sports by nizo · · Score: 1

    What drug would you give to swimmers? I am thinking genetically engineered webbed hands/feet would be usefull however. So whould something like that be legal in the olympics? Oh and a torpedeo shaped head would be good too.

  135. Re: Real sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What drug would you give to swimmers? Curlers? How about ski-sharpshooters, or archers? Bobsledders?


    You're joking right? Swimmers and bobsledders... strength and ability to maintain peak power output = anabolic steriods. Curlering, not a real sport let's be serious here. Sharpshoots, steady hands and increased endurance (at least in skeet shooting).

    Come on now, try again.
  136. The goverment could care less. by skilzrulz · · Score: 1

    What's the difference between a few million human lives? Money is power if you can get away with stealing $300,000 then do it. There is no way to tell when to draw the line. Every human being is worthless in the eyes of the goverment, so there is no way to stop anything that goes on. The only way to speak is with your wallet.
    "Actions speak louder than words"

    br

    --
    Maddox the only thing that matters.
  137. Let them change sports by jeni+generic · · Score: 1

    "Gene injections in rats can double muscle strength and speed, researchers have found, raising concerns that the virtually undetectable technology could be used illegally to build super athletes." Sports, to me anyways, have gotten so boring, especially the Olympics. Remeber the old (Power, Gator, other)-ade commercials where sports evolved to allow for all those extra electrolites to take action; basketball had moving hoops with AI and power jumps or competitive diving w/ muliple boards. Fuck baseball with its fat, sloppy players with their crack-addictions and faulty knees, elbows, shoulders, etc... Add some tigers to the outfield and give them their metal bats. Let them physically disagree with the umpire (also pumped up) and have fastballs that could put a hole in a man. Golf could also use some help. Who knows, maybe they could even all die quicker.

    --


    -"Food is disgusting, it's what they make shit from."-
  138. Re:Rats with "vaguely Wolverine-like healing facto by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    So, how close are we to getting adamantium bones?

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  139. http://www.fatmouse.com by grioghar · · Score: 1

    That's all I have to say...

    --
    Can you ping me now? Gooood! | Manhappenin.Net - Things to do
  140. Re:Fuck athletic ethics by Cranx · · Score: 1

    You idiots need remedial moderation classes. This isn't flamebait.

    Flamebait is "This sounds like something only Nazis would use." Saying it belongs last on the list of things to give a shit about isn't flamebait, it's an opinion containing profanity.

    Get a clue.

  141. super rats are nothing new by dpw2atox · · Score: 1

    well after living in Newark NJ for the past 4 years I have to say that I think these super rats have escaped and have been roaming the city streets cause ive seen rats here bigger than cats! This is meant as a funny but somewhat true comment.

  142. Re:Rats with "vaguely Wolverine-like healing facto by geekoid · · Score: 1

    trust me bub, there nothin' but trouble.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  143. Smart Monkeys or Dumb People? by Plumpkin · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure on the relevance of this, but it is theoretically possible to breed gorrilas with humans to create a super-strong, semi-intellegent army of gorrilapeople. These gorrilapeople wouldn't be able to reproduce, so we wouldn't have to worry about them breaking off from humanity and forming thier own civilization... and they may be just what we need to fight these mutant rats :)

  144. Re:Rats with "vaguely Wolverine-like healing facto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wolverine could heal in _seconds_ from injuries that would be fatal to normal people... the article doesn't even imply that's what's been accomplished. It simply mentions that injury can be overcome more easily, not anything akin to high speed tissue regeneration, which is the ability that Wolverine had.

    Yeah, but unless you mention a comic-book hero, there's not much chance of your article getting posted on SlashDot, ne?

  145. "Creation Scientist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That presupposes that evolution has a purpose more encompassing than getting it's target du jour laid.

    1. Re:"Creation Scientist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, being immune to deadly bacterial infections quite clearly increases your changes of getting laid and living long enough to give your offspring the change to do the same.

      Unfortunately the bugs (lucky bastards don't need to get laid, though) have roughly the same coals and work hard to get over that immunity...

  146. Other uses by Atario · · Score: 1

    "Weight loss", anyone?

    (I use scare quotes here because you would almost certainly weigh more on this therapy than off it -- it's just that the weight would be in the form of attractive muscle rather than unattractive fat.)

    The first to develop such a magic fat-to-muscle bullet would surely make billions.

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  147. KHAAAAAAAAANNN!!! by dankjones · · Score: 1

    Khan.

  148. Super Rats by TurnerK12 · · Score: 1

    At this rate we're going to one day have giant mutated rats running lose on the streets. So, don't leave home without cheese, unless you want to be trampled.
    ---
    http://spaceruckus.web1000.com
    These guys are putting together a free 3D action/adventure game.

  149. Need a better mouse trap by erice · · Score: 1

    They are already building better mice.

  150. Score 0: 30% Interesting, 70% Overrated by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Yow! Methinks I've been hit.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  151. Re: Real sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're kidding, right?

    Swimmers and marathon runners... I'd dope them to increase their red cell count. Assuming they're not doing it already, which would be a false assumption (bicyclists, also... the endurance sports benefit greatly from red cell doping). Something to deal with pain would also be a great help in such a sport.

    Archers and sharpshooters would both benefit greatly from drugs that increased focus or counteracted the sympathetic nervous system... mild tranquilizers, for example. If what you say about bob-sledders is true, they might also benefit here... perhaps divers, also, to improve their focus (I imagine stress would be a bitch for these guys).

    As for sprinters... crack cocaine? I'm only kidding inasmuch as there are surely better drugs... but seriously, how would a hard stimulant NOT help a sprinter? And, while we're at it, an analgesic (or other pain reliever) might again help greatly to push to the limits by removing the psychological effects of pain.

    And almost all of these sports (other than purely precision sports like sharpshooting) would benefit greatly from the improved healing rate associated with some steroids.

    What's the point of this? That there is no sport that I know of that wouldn't be aided by drug [ab]use.

  152. Intensity by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

    is great, even addictive.

    I really, truly enjoy intensity, and for very short periods of time it feels good to get your pulse rate up... but there's a downside; adrenaline clouds your thinking, and wears you out quickly. That can be a problem... a big problem. I enjoy skydiving, but if you let the fear/ground rush/adrenaline get the better of you and you don't think (ie. when you get a line-over, dual deployment, or other sticky malfunction of your main chute), it can cost you your life. In the ER, it's the same situation... except if I get wrapped up in the drama and stop thinking, it might cost somebody else their life (or their mothers/fathers/childs' life). SWAT's the same deal with different costumes... get excited and stop thinking, inadvertantly shoot a suspect, or one of your teammates. There's a reason tactical/military teams rotate point-man on patrol... it requires so much of your attention and energy that it rapidly drains you.

    Crises happen, but you can't get caught up in them and "feed the rush." Also, the same rule applies to the aftermath. The best example I can think of is when we lose a child: I and most of my staff are parents with children of our own, and there's nothing, no thought more horrifying than losing one's child. It's something that runs through all our minds after we lose one from an auto accident, SIDS, etc... and the most difficult part of my job is delivering that news. I've sat and cried with parents after deaths. I've also fled with police/security running interference after grief turned to anger (some people deal with tragedy differently, and I'll just leave it at that...) But back to my main point: I/we cannot let that situation impair us in any way... because the next patient needs us, sometimes just as urgently, and the patient/ambulances never stop coming. It's for professional longevity that Post-Critical Incident Debriefing has found its way into ERs in recent years; mostly it's for the patients, but also for the staff.

    As for computers, after a crushing 12 hours in the ER, or a string of shifts, I'm quite happy to go home, sit in front of a computer, and shut out the world for a few hours. I appreciate the intellectual challenge that computers offer... compared to my primary profession, they fascinate me in a way wholly different from medicine. It may come as a surprise, but much of medicine is a very inexact science, with lots of variables, most of which are out of your direct control. Computers are different... ALL the variables are yours, and the answer to your problem is always there in front of you... you just have to discipline your mind to recognize it. There's so little in medicine that you directly control... sometimes it's nice to interact with an item/environment where the rules are set, the stakes aren't quite as high, and your ability to solve a problem is limited only by your attention span.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:Intensity by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      That's what I mean by the ultimate geek dream...at least for me. The most exciting thing I've ever done in my lousy life was play certain high speed video games...battlefield 1942 is a good example. Two minutes in there is about 20 in the regular world. But the high score list goes away in 60 seconds...dominating the battlefield doesn't mean anything once the power goes off. Your work affects people's lives directly for decades, and ripple effects can last for generations, occasionally far beyond your own lifetime.

      I guess you probably perform the best when you try to make the rush minimal...to calmly make decisions and pretend that time isn't important instead of panicking over how tight the situation is. Man that sounds like fun...I sure as hell hope I pass my MCAT.

      Umm...ever shot anyone? I know many military and police members have some sort of "code" that prevents them from discussing it if they did. Just kinda want to know what it really feels like (DON'T take the above phrase the wrong way...I would expect it feels pretty damn bad, probably nausea and other physical symptoms as well as guilt and nightmares for years. I would assume your training as a physician enables you to feel some sympathy even for the worst sociopath that SWAT members kill, as in most cases it is thought that these creatures have either been abused severely or lost crucial brain tissue from viral infections or both)

  153. No. by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

    There's no "code," just a normal human aversion to pain.

    There's something you'll find almost universally among people who have killed someone; they don't talk about it, and especially not with strangers. Even among peers, it's almost never brought up (it's usually considered incredibly rude to even ask that question). This circumspection is not because killing someone is secretly pleasurable or the initiation to some kind of exclusive club... it's because the experience is so traumatic for the person who pulled the trigger. Anyone who openly brags about people they've killed (particularly close range or knife kills) is 99% of the time either a sociopath, or full of bullshit (there are exceptions, but they are rare). You'll mostly find that guys who have done it for real don't talk about it, and that goes for military and police officers. Ever wonder why Vietnam vets, Special Forces, SEALs, etc have their own organizations and reunions? It's because, among other reasons, it's next to impossible to talk about some of those experiences with anyone who hasn't been there. The unfortunate part is that some of those folks are truly haunted by the memories, and they can benefit from sharing them (current PCID theory absolutely encourages it... pain shared is pain divided), but "shared" is the key word... empathy and validation are part of sharing, and are weighted by the listener's background... validation from someone with no clue or experience doesn't mean much to most people.

    Unless they bring it up first, I'd advise never asking anyone that question; you're essentially asking them to relive a terrifying, horrific trauma. The best analogy I can make is that it's like casually asking a rape victim to describe, in detail, that experience...

    I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I'm just trying to save you from deeply offending someone in the future.

    For my own part, I've had one or two close calls, but I've never shot anyone; I hope to continue that streak.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:No. by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      "pain shared"? That doesn't make sense, as far as we know our wetware doesn't actually know if another mind received the signal. More likely, recalling the memory under safe, non-traumatic conditions creates a new memory that is also recalled each time the incident is brought up, reducing whatever stress response (a whole chemical cascade I suppose) causes pain and loss of function. That would mean in theory a chain of events very similar to the actual painful memory but with a different ending would be ideal for therapy. Not just talking about it in an office, but actually enacting the memory in some way and then doing something different. Like reenacting a vietnam memory in the local forest with your buddies and paintball guns, then banging your S.O. afterwards. Although...I suppose it would be difficult to convince a patient to do this.

      Yeah...no 'code'. I just kinda wanted to know...that does make sense. So umm...did medicine work out for you? I heard a scary statistic that 50% of graduating med students regret their career choice, which doesn't seem possible given the known benefits. But things seem so different once actually experienced. Like, for instance, the SWAT shooting example...one would THINK that having shot, say, a subject holding a gun on an innocent person, would not be a traumatic memory.

  154. Cow Level? by Ieshan · · Score: 1

    ...or if we got some cows, we could put them all in this secret place...

  155. Yes by The+Tyro · · Score: 1

    medicine did work out for me... it doesn't for everyone. I'll warn you now, before you actually get to medical school and accumulate the 100-200k of debt... medicine's not what you think it will be.

    If you have doubts about it, go work for a bunch of different doctors... listen to them, and particularly ask them what they don't like about their jobs. Trust me, you'll get an earful. If they bring up anything that you particularly can't stand (or you're in the profession for the money), quit before you enter med school. It's a bit late to decide in your internship/residency that it isn't for you... you'll have too much debt at that point to quit. I know physicians who worked just long enough to pay off their med school loans, then quit and did something else.

    As for the shooting question... it almost doesn't matter if you were justified in the shooting or not... killing another human being at close range is traumatic for virtually anyone. Even officers who were about to be killed/seriously injured have a rough time. It's not necessarily the circumstances (though those can certainly make it worse)... it's the act itself.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  156. Re: parapaligics by astar · · Score: 1

    Christopher someone, know for once being Superman, was paralyzed in a horse riding accident. He has since had a minor but confounding recovery. One speculation on this is the severed nervers heal somewhat, but by the time they heal, the muscles have all wasted away. Christopher kept up a muscle building and preservation program and eventually had the unexpected results. (He had really good health insurance.) I wonder if an application of this genetic treatment might be to help preserve muscles of recently paralyzed people, and speculatively, allowing a later partial recovery of function.