Gene Therapy Creates Strong Super-Rats

Great, thats all we need... by myowntrueself · 2004-02-16 20:29 · 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.

Re:Great, thats all we need... by originalTMAN · 2004-02-16 20:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, most of us have been training for this day for quite a while. I think the world will be safe.
Re:Great, thats all we need... by Borg453b · 2004-02-16 20:57 · 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 -

Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by nano2nd · 2004-02-16 20:30 · Score: 4, Funny

I for one welcome our new mutant rat overlords.

--
G4 Hackintosh

Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by NanoGator · 2004-02-16 20:46 · 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."
Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by alien_blueprint · 2004-02-16 20:53 · 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" ;)
Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by NanoGator · 2004-02-16 21:09 · 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."
Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by alien_blueprint · 2004-02-16 21:27 · 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 ...
Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 23:20 · 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
Re:Almost too embarrassed to say but.... by MP3Chuck · 2004-02-17 03:12 · 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...

--
Who doesn't like free music?

Someone will be happy by fullofangst · 2004-02-16 20:30 · Score: 3, Funny

Good news for 'pro' wrestlers then!

Re:Someone will be happy by jigyasubalak · 2004-02-16 22:08 · 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.

Splinter first, turtles later by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 20:30 · Score: 4, Funny

Progis Riport 1.

Algernon kickd me in th nuts! It is sawr.

Governator by filtur · 2004-02-16 20:31 · Score: 3, Funny

Now the rats can run for Governor of California

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

Re:Governator by sirius_bbr · 2004-02-17 00:17 · 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

Dateline 2020... by heironymouscoward · 2004-02-16 20:31 · 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

Re:Dateline 2020... by radicalskeptic · 2004-02-16 20:52 · 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.
Re:Dateline 2020... by heironymouscoward · 2004-02-16 21:00 · 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
Re:Dateline 2020... by Imperator · 2004-02-16 23:03 · 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.

I'm all for it... by Arcanix · 2004-02-16 20:36 · 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.

Re:I'm all for it... by slimsam1 · 2004-02-16 20:39 · 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.

--
...
Re:I'm all for it... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-17 00:03 · 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!

How long before this gets into the food chain? by mapnjd · 2004-02-16 20:36 · 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

Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by fruey · 2004-02-16 21:13 · 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
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by sql*kitten · 2004-02-16 22:11 · 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.
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by mongbot · 2004-02-16 22:39 · 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.
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by sql*kitten · 2004-02-16 23:20 · 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.
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Yokaze · 2004-02-16 23:34 · 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"
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Curunir_wolf · 2004-02-17 00:40 · 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
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by jarran · 2004-02-17 01:08 · 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.
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by debrain · 2004-02-17 01:50 · 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.
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by mikerich · 2004-02-17 02:21 · 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.
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by sql*kitten · 2004-02-17 03:12 · 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.
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by hey! · 2004-02-17 03:17 · 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.
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Mr.+Slippery · 2004-02-17 04:58 · 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
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Mr.+Slippery · 2004-02-17 05:14 · 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
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by DocDendrite · 2004-02-17 06:04 · 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
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by jarran · 2004-02-17 06:18 · 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.
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by besya · 2004-02-17 07:12 · 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.
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Jonathan · 2004-02-17 07:16 · 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
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by sql*kitten · 2004-02-17 07:49 · 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.
Re:How long before this gets into the food chain? by Mr.+Slippery · 2004-02-17 08:27 · 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

rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 20:39 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 20:40 · 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...

Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by kinnell · 2004-02-16 21:11 · 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
Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Welsh+Dwarf · 2004-02-16 22:40 · 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)
Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by 4lex · 2004-02-16 22:55 · 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.
Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by TGK · 2004-02-17 00:07 · 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.
Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by rollingcalf · 2004-02-17 00:11 · 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.
Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Tackhead · 2004-02-17 03:46 · 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.
Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by Gulthek · 2004-02-17 04:11 · 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.
Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by squiggleslash · 2004-02-17 05:59 · 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.
Re:Why are Athletic Orginizations so concerned? by TGK · 2004-02-17 11:42 · 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.

MOD PARENT "FUNNY" by GiveMeLinux · 2004-02-16 20:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Reference is to "Flowers for Algernon."

Re:Now they're comparing with fiction by Neo-Rio-101 · 2004-02-16 20:42 · 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

Careful... by The+Tyro · 2004-02-16 20:44 · 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.

Medical Applications by Bones3D_mac · 2004-02-16 20:47 · 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

It's Mighty Mouse!!! by Shaheen · 2004-02-16 20:50 · Score: 3, Funny

Enough said

--
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.

Turtles? by SJ · 2004-02-16 20:51 · Score: 5, Funny

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

This is not news by broothal · 2004-02-16 20:53 · 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

Re:This is not news by NonSequor · 2004-02-16 21:28 · 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.
Re:This is not news by dnnrly · 2004-02-16 22:17 · 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".
Re:This is not news by Muhammar · 2004-02-16 22:53 · 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

Re:New Steroids by richie2000 · 2004-02-16 20:53 · 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

Re:new gene therapy by Bones3D_mac · 2004-02-16 20:57 · 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

Comedy Rats aside . . . by Tetsugaku-San · 2004-02-16 21:00 · 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.

--

My Portfolio

Re:Comedy Rats aside . . . by DarkSarin · 2004-02-17 01:25 · 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)

Rats with "vaguely Wolverine-like healing factor" by CAIMLAS · 2004-02-16 21:02 · 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

Bad side effects by www.sorehands.com · 2004-02-16 21:03 · 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.

--
Fight Spammers!

Re:Bad side effects by Yunalesca · 2004-02-16 21:27 · 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.

This is going to be a trip! by Sleeper · 2004-02-16 21:03 · 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

Re:This is going to be a trip! by Penguinshit · 2004-02-16 22:26 · Score: 4, Funny

Darl McBride is a Russian boxer?

--
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...

Probably not what you want by The+Tyro · 2004-02-16 21:09 · 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.

R.O.U.S.'es? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-02-16 21:19 · Score: 3, Funny

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

Re:Hrmm by kinnell · 2004-02-16 21:20 · 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

Re:Hrmm by Savage-Rabbit · 2004-02-16 21:21 · 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

Ultimate Super Hero International Team! by SoupIsGood+Food · 2004-02-16 21:23 · 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

Re:Hrmm by Drakin · 2004-02-16 21:24 · Score: 2, Informative

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

Drugs in sport by Zog+The+Undeniable · 2004-02-16 21:34 · 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.

Long-Term Low Gravity by clickety6 · 2004-02-16 21:42 · 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 -----------------------------------

Exactly... fine balance required by The+Tyro · 2004-02-16 21:46 · 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.

Re:Exactly... fine balance required by nads2k · 2004-02-16 23:31 · 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.

Gene Therapy Schmene Therapy by Symbiosis · 2004-02-16 21:54 · 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

One question not adressed by the article. by soliaus · 2004-02-16 21:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

Will it work on my penis?

--
Speaking at Defcon 12 - Credit Card Networks Revisted: Pen

Re:One question not adressed by the article. by Zog+The+Undeniable · 2004-02-16 22:56 · 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.

What are the athletes and trainers thinking ... by leoaugust · 2004-02-16 22:01 · 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 ...

Simple answer: by Burning1 · 2004-02-16 22:36 · 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.

Re:Simple answer: by DragoonAK · 2004-02-16 23:03 · 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.
Re:Simple answer: by Mr.+Piddle · 2004-02-17 08:02 · 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.
Re:Simple answer: by Burning1 · 2004-02-17 11:09 · 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.

Re:Hrmm by radja · 2004-02-16 22:42 · 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

Reminds me of an old joke... by Open_The_Box · 2004-02-16 23:06 · 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.

Steroid Psychosis by The+Tyro · 2004-02-16 23:20 · 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.

"Non Powered Super Hero"...? by CBDSteve · 2004-02-16 23:21 · 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. :-)

Douglas Adams was right by verrol · 2004-02-16 23:43 · Score: 3, Funny

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

Re:pfft.. by JaredOfEuropa · 2004-02-16 23:59 · 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...

Obligatory SNL transcript... by Cyno01 · 2004-02-17 00:33 · 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."

AGM is an ass by SubtleNuance · 2004-02-17 01:06 · 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.

Cue new series.. X-Animaniacs? by Channard · 2004-02-17 01:14 · 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!'

Level playing field, sort of by sam_handelman · 2004-02-17 02:07 · 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.

Mad Cow, supersized by SolemnDragon · 2004-02-17 02:13 · 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.

--
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.

Muscle loss vs Bone loss by Baron_Yam · 2004-02-17 02:13 · 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.

Voodoo Genetics? by theghost · 2004-02-17 02:48 · 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.

Pre-Caffiene headline.... by Dawn+Keyhotie · 2004-02-17 02:51 · 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."

Related military research by Presence1 · 2004-02-17 03:03 · 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

--

The superhero is question by ProudClod · 2004-02-17 03:05 · 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.

Natural born? by superdan2k · 2004-02-17 04:35 · 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 |

Re:Natural born? by DamnRogue · 2004-02-17 07:56 · 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.

Re:Now they're comparing with fiction by mangamuscle · 2004-02-17 06:14 · 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

Yay! Can't wait for the spam! by Kiyooka · 2004-02-17 06:43 · Score: 2, Funny

Wonder which "muscle" they'll claim to enlarge as a side effect.

Slashdot Mirror

Gene Therapy Creates Strong Super-Rats

110 of 414 comments (clear)