Slashdot Mirror
A Mouse With Two Mothers
jabberjaw writes "Both the BBC and Nature are reporting that scientists at Tokyo University of Agriculture have used two sets of chromosomes belonging to a female mouse to create what are essentially fatherless mice. The process by which this was accomplished (parthenogenesis) does not naturally occur in mammals. The mouse used lacked a gene known as H19 which in turn activated the Igf2 which allowed this process to occur."
All jokes aside (as I am sure many "two daddy trailerpark" jokes are immanent) but this is indeed quite an advancement in biotech, because we may see future developments arrive in the development of cloning endangered species back from the brink of extinction; now species threatened from a lack of suitable mates, could be quite possibly saved, with the proper funding. The hard part would be digging deeper gene pools, enabling a true future for endangered species (although, I guess that's next week on /., right CmdrTaco?). Also, I wonder if it's possible to grow offspring with only two male subjects.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
The phenomenon of parthenogenesis was discovered in the 18th cent. by Charles Bonnet. In 1900, Jacques Loeb accomplished the first clear case of artificial parthenogenesis when he pricked unfertilized frog eggs with a needle and found that in some cases normal embryonic development ensued
Artificial parthenogenesis has since been achieved in almost all major groups of animals, although it usually results in incomplete and abnormal development
The phenomenon is rarer among plants (where it is called parthenocarpy) than among animals
Story in The Independent is also a good read.
Well, if you believe that baby Jesus was born of a virgin, then you quite likely also believe that he is/was the son of God - divine intervention.
Divine intervention is not natural.
Hence baby Jesus is not proof that it does occur naturally.
If it did occur naturally, baby Jesus' birth would not be a miracle, which would tend to discredit the claim he is the son of God.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
But I would have thought that it also removed the possibility of men being produced by this method... I'm not a biology nerd, so I might be completely wrong, but I just can't see where the 'Y' chromasome would come from in order to be able to make a boy!
So now it's actually feasible for a purely lesbian society to exist and reproduce?
This should pose some interesting questions for the Christian right's arguments against homosexuality based on infeasiblity of universalization in nature.
May we never see th
Some called Tony Hawk doing the 900 a miracle.
But then again, Tony's 900, as spectacular as it was, didn't fit over 100 pieces of specific predictive prophecy from several hundreds of years of writing, most several hundreds of years prior to the event. And, Tony's 900 didn't quite heal hundreds or feed thousands and deliver moral teachings or resurrect after a decent Roman crucifixion.
But then again, there are those who think that the sun rising every morning is the result of an image broadcast into their brain by evil goverrnment agents while their bodies are actually asleep on the slab in the lab. They'll say that Tony's 900 will have sufficient artificial prophecy written about it in the near future to make it seem as if it was a predicted event, and they'll say that's it's just a matter of time before there's a Church of the Tony Hawk 900.
You know, some people believe some whacky things.
Windows XP SP2 told me to install third-party software that prevents viruses and protects stability... I chose Ubuntu
> Doubt it. The Y chromosome is a mutation of the X chromosome and contains much less information.
;)
Well, that's why you want to use two parents, each carries an X chromosome. I'd guess it'd involve the use of Cyst Progenitor Cells and an Artificial Womb.
> this research and my time machine seem about equally incomplete
That's what Ebay is for
---- Take the Space Quiz!
[Hey, I'm not starting an off-topic thread, I'm merely continuing it :-)]
Not only are the usual methods of getting children -- "unpleasant sex" and adoption, but this method will also be available to (at least) some homosexual couples.
The "Christian Right" (not just Christian, and not just "right") are correct in saying, it diminishes the traditional concept of marriage. However, IMHO, the concept is long diminished through other, perfectly heterosexual means. And it is not anyone's fault in particular. The economies have changed. A single parent can raise a child or two (even without government help). Having a good partner in life is not as important to survive as it used to be.
The "sanctity of marriage" is important for the Society only because it leads to more (and better) children. That's why the State affords special protections and privileges to married (as opposed to co-habitating) couples -- in inheritance, in not testifying against each other, etc.
Yet children tend to grow up better having two parents. There are no statistics that show, children in homosexual couples grow better or worse off.
Here is my proposal to the conundrum of gay marriage. Change all laws, that apply to "married couples," to apply to "any pair of people involved in raising children" (the exact formula should be phrased better, of course, it has to mention mutual devotion and loyalty -- borrow from the classic definition of marriage).
The actual acts of marriage should stop being administered by the State (both directly through mayors and through licensing). People, who wish to publicly swear their mutual love, respect, and devotion are still very welcome to do that (banning people of same sex from such expressions is directly against the 1st Amendment) in places of their choosing (including government buildings even), but it should not be the State's business.
The State's business only begins when a couple gives birth to (regardless of the conception method) or adopts a child -- that's when it qualifies for the privileges now afforded to the married only.
This way, the Society will reward exactly those it should want to, regardless of their sexual orientation, which is not, regretfully, a voluntary choice, it seems.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2003
And on artificial wombs:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/st
So in 20 years or so, neither men nor women will be required for reproduction.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
The process that inacivates one copy of X in females is, however, random, so in some cells one copy is inactive, while in other cells it's the other that gets inactivated. So, in females some cells express the maternal X chromosme, while the others express the paternal one. If they are different with respect to a hereditary trait you get interesting results. That's how you get Calico cats (always female), or how you can detect muscle enzyme variation in some asymptomatic female carriers of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.