Slashdot Mirror
Couch-Potato Gene Found In Mice
syousef writes "Good news for those of us who are prone to putting on weight sitting in front of a computer screen. The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting on research which shows that changing a single gene in mice turns them from couch potatos into super-athlete mice that don't get fat and are able to run for hours. They believe this has the potential to lead to a pill to turn similar genes on in humans. From the article: '"It is a pill that, in part, mimics exercise. It mimics the metabolic activity associated with exercise," said Ronald Evans, of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, who led the study. Writing in the journal Public Library of Science Biology, Dr Evans and colleagues said they tweaked the PPAR-delta gene to stay in a permanently "on" position and then genetically engineered mice with it. They expected to see changes in metabolism but were surprised at how extensive they were.'"
Hmm, no. The link you provide talks about a way to deprive monkeys of the "satisfaction of work done", so they keep working and working because they never "feel" their work is done. It acts on the pleasure/reward circuit in the brain.
The pill discussed in this here article, though, is about forcing the metabolical effects of exercise (developing of muscles, turning of fat into readily-usable energy, etc...) without exercising. It acts on the metabolism.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
They're not saying they're changing the genetic code, they're saying they want to activate the gene. Big difference. Changes in body chemistry activate and deactivate genes in our cells all the time, and while not a simply matter, it is quite possible to invent a pill that would turn the gene into the on position while the drug is in out body. We'd have to keep taking the pill, though, as the change wouldn't be permanent.
Just on one point: I think you are seriously misrepresenting Singer's position.
His argument is not at all based on considerations of directing evolution or eugenics, despite some strange arguments to the contrary [1]. On the contrary, it follows logically from two propositions: firstly that we should minimize suffering, all other things being equal; and secondly, that a foetus is not a person in the sense of a it being a rational self-conscious being, and so questions of its abortion do not infringe upon other ethical considerations that are restricted to that class of beings.
That abortion should be performed in order to shape the genetic profile of a population simply doesn't come in to it.
[1] One argument for example is that eugenicists predicated their arguments on a reconsideration of the sanctity of human life based on scientific and utilitarian ideas, and that Singer's stance on abortion is also predicated on such a questioning. To say that this means the two stances are the same is quite clearly fallacious.
According to this article, longer!
From the article:
" Mice with a high metabolism live longer than their low-metabolism counterparts, a finding that conflicts with a long-held theory of aging and suggests new approaches to extending lifespan."
Check out in vivo gene therapy. One approach is to use viruses to do the work, many of which already insert new DNA into our cells (HIV, chicken pox, herpes, etc). It's still in its infant stages but is very interesting.
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org