Slashdot Mirror


Australian Science Makes the Regenerating Mouse

FruFox writes "Australian scientists have created mice which can regenerate absolutely any tissue except for the tissues of the brain. Heart, lungs, entire limbs, you name it. This is the first time this has been seen in mammals. The potential implications are positively mammoth. I thought this warranted attention. :)"

762 comments

  1. unacceptable! by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ignoring PETA: i wonder which organization will be first to denounce the use of this sort of thing in humans?

    1. Re:unacceptable! by wardude · · Score: 5, Funny

      The body piercing people are going to hate this.

    2. Re:unacceptable! by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Union of Science Fiction Writers? Must be frustrating having your best ideas copied by reality so often.

    3. Re:unacceptable! by amidee · · Score: 2

      I think we will all give them a Nice Cup of STFU. There's no bioethics involved here.

    4. Re:unacceptable! by Compaq_Hater · · Score: 1

      well look at it this way, with this technology when you are old and can't get it up anymore you will be able to regenerate willy for a fun nght with a hooker. CH

    5. Re:unacceptable! by Eminence · · Score: 1
      The Union of Science Fiction Writers? Must be frustrating having your best ideas copied by reality so often.

      Frustrating? Think of unpaid royalties and lost business. They should definitely sue...

      (I know, I know, redundant, but I couldn't resist...).

    6. Re:unacceptable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would PETA care what humans do to themselves? They care about the research itself being done on the mice, of course, but what idiotic point are you trying to make, exactly?

    7. Re:unacceptable! by lisaparratt · · Score: 3, Funny

      I suspect the transsexuals will be the most aggravated!

    8. Re:unacceptable! by los+furtive · · Score: 5, Funny

      At first glance I would agree with you. However, I can envision an extreme (EXTREME!) surgery where the patiant was bombarded with hormones from the opposite sex, then had their genitals totally removed, with the hopes that genitals from the opposite sex would grow back naturally. Pretty freakin' crazy eh? Of course if you cut your lip during the healing process you may end up looking like this.

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    9. Re:unacceptable! by BoneFlower · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thats an interesting idea. How much would hormone activity affect what grows back? Hormones are critical when the organs initiall develop after all, it is plausible that they could affect the regeneration of humans who have that ability, of course depending on exactly how the regeneration works.

    10. Re:unacceptable! by b1gn4tb00bs · · Score: 1

      No pleasing ppl is there, I agree with darth vader, everyone should be made to agree and everyone will be happy :P

      --
      pr0n: now ive got your attention click here
    11. Re:unacceptable! by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dunno - would the body forcibly reject the piercing, or would it (as now) just heal up around it and only plug the hole when the piercing was removed?

      In the second case, it only permits more extreme piercings...

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    12. Re:unacceptable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hormones would not control the regenertation of tissues, DNA does. So trannys can try it but Mr. Winky will just keep growing back.

    13. Re:unacceptable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy, you don't know too much about biology, do you? Did you know there are XX males and XY females? Wow, golly gee, we live in an era of instant access to information, so what's your excuse for your ignorance?

    14. Re:unacceptable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I suspect cancer patients won't be too thrilled either. Remove the tumor, and it just grows back!

    15. Re:unacceptable! by frp001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a matter of fact, I have often wondered about this:
      Are Sci-Fi writer visionaries or are they those that inspire scientists?
      Take Jules Verne for example, his stories sent people to the moon, featured televisions, subs etc... did he foresee what was to come, or did he set a goal for all those future scientist who read his books when they were young?

      --
      May I use your sig please?
    16. Re:unacceptable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, XX males and XY females are chromosomal irregularities.

      Gee, I wonder where chromosomes come from???

      Next time try using your much touted instant information access to fins yourself an excuse for YOUR ignorance.

    17. Re:unacceptable! by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      why would PETA denounce the use of this medical technology in humans?

      they might be opposed to using animals to develope the technology, but using already-developed technology on humans wouldn't hurt animals so it doesn't make any sense for animal rights activists to protest against it.

    18. Re:unacceptable! by ikkonoishi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah if the animals regenerate it will make it harder for PETA to kill them.

    19. Re:unacceptable! by Teresh · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that if we had a gene therapy technology which would allow humans to gain the ability to regenerate, it's likely we'd also be able to genetically change the sex of the individual, which in combination with regenerative abilities would ultimate cause them to grow the genitalia in question. Hard to determine, however, is whether or not this would have any effect on the breasts of an FTM. As the person would already have grown the tissue (admittedly from having the wrong genitalia), would it regenerate if removed? It's unlikely that it would just disappear (as breasts in general don't do that), but hard to predict if bilateral mastectomy would have lasting effects with a genetic ability to regenerate tissue.

      --
      Do you Gentoo?
    20. Re:unacceptable! by EddyPearson · · Score: 1

      quite fantastic. all i have to say really.

      --
      You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
    21. Re:unacceptable! by KickMyDog · · Score: 1

      So does this mean my vengful girlfriend is gonna finally get me and im gonn awake up in the morning with the body of Britney Spears?

      Dont tell her that! she'd love to get me! little freak!

    22. Re:unacceptable! by Forge · · Score: 1

      Lots of scientists when asked about influences and encoragment mention Sci-Fi as a major one.

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    23. Re:unacceptable! by Teresh · · Score: 1

      I'd hope that only licensed medical professionals would have the capability of administering the therapy... But since it would probably not require much more than an injection, if it fell into the wrong hands...

      --
      Do you Gentoo?
    24. Re:unacceptable! by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think most SF-writers extend past advances of science and engineering to the future. Take television, at the end of the 19th century it was possible to record and transmit sound. It doesn't take much imagination to extend that to images. Subs aren't that big a leap either. A diving bell exists since the middle ages.
      I really doubt SF writers can predict the future, some simply know their science and can make an informed guess how things are going to evolve.

    25. Re:unacceptable! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Pussssht! What about the MOST important regeneration project known to civilized man? Is the regenerative process for more FOSTERS Beer still in tack?

    26. Re:unacceptable! by WindBourne · · Score: 1
      1. Focus on the Family
      2. Family Research Organization
      3. Catholic church.
      Take your pick.
      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    27. Re:unacceptable! by empaler · · Score: 1

      As it is, the body starts to heal most piercing wounds as soon as you take out the piercing...

    28. Re:unacceptable! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      No pleasing ppl is there, I agree with darth vader, everyone should be made to agree and everyone will be happy :P

      Darth Vader would certainly be very happy about technology that would allow him to regenerate his limbs, lungs, skin and hair :)

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    29. Re:unacceptable! by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It depends what you mean by "heal". Eg, if you get your ear pierced the open wound will "heal" (close the wound) over the course of a few months to leave a neat circular hole through your ear, with skin on the inside.

      If you then take out the piercing, the hole will generally slowly close up, until it's eventually absorbed back into your body and disappears.

      So yes, the wound does "heal" (in the sense of "closing the hole") when you take the piercing out (sometimes earlier, like eyebrow piercings which frequently grow out even with the jewellery left in).

      However, the actual open wound (in the sense of a hole into your body, not all the way through it) generally heals within a few days or months (depending what you get pierced) of first getting it done.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    30. Re:unacceptable! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      The body piercing people are going to hate this.

      Not if you use adamantium! :)

    31. Re:unacceptable! by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 1

      Or you could see if you grow back bigger...it'd be like rolling a character in a D&D game...keep rolling until you get the biggest attributes!

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    32. Re:unacceptable! by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      Nah, they'll love it; you'll have to purchase a piercing "subscription", and come in for regular renewals.

    33. Re:unacceptable! by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > In the second case, it only permits more extreme piercings...

      Yeah, man, we could get pierced right through muscle, bone, ligaments, eyeballs, ...

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    34. Re:unacceptable! by DaveJay · · Score: 1

      Hell, consider David Niven -- I'm fairly certain he conceived of the idea of geosynchronous satellites in stable orbits around the earth, even going so far as to calculate how it might be accomplished (as far as speed and distance from earth) -- and turned out to be right on the money.

    35. Re:unacceptable! by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think Arthur C. Clarke was the first to postulate the idea of satellites.

    36. Re:unacceptable! by Aadomm · · Score: 1

      Judging by the taste and reputation of Fosters isn't that more a case of recycling than regeneration?

      --
      Mention the Lord of the Rings one more time and I'll more than likely kill you.
    37. Re:unacceptable! by los+furtive · · Score: 1

      lol!

      --

      I'm a writer, a poet, a genius, I know it. I don't buy software, I grow it.

    38. Re:unacceptable! by lgw · · Score: 1

      Clark first published the idea of geosynchronous satellites. Some still call geosynchronous the "Clark Orbit".

      Niven published the idea of polar satellites, IIRC, which maintain station high over the poles through use of a solar sail.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    39. Re:unacceptable! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Hopefully it'll work both ways. Penis bends? Give the man a knife! And pump him up on testosterone while you're at it, and encourage extra large growth through the use of a penis pump and "Austin Power's Penis Pumps: That's My Bag, Baby, Yeah!" instruction booklet.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    40. Re:unacceptable! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Yes, he knew that -- that was his point. There are physiological males with XX chromosomes and physiological females with XY chromosomes. Overly simply, the DNA controls the hormones, which control the growth. But something can go wrong and the person can developt the opposite way for some reason.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    41. Re:unacceptable! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Worse, one might be able to generate an acephalous Natalie Portman for personal use.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    42. Re:unacceptable! by KanSer · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many mice out of a thousand re-grew festering limbs of pure cancer?

      --
      • MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward Wednesday April 20, @4:20
    43. Re:unacceptable! by ZeroPost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I always wondered by he couldn't just take a dip in a bacta tank to accomplish that. Maybe he just likes the suit too much.

    44. Re:unacceptable! by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      It can now be hypothesized that Klingons evolved from mice.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    45. Re:unacceptable! by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Extreme piercing like a sword through your stomach, just for fun, cuz, ehh, it'll grow back. How about rendering the guillotine ineffective - lost your head, there it rolls? No worries, it'll grow back, and perhaps you'll have a prettier face this time!

    46. Re:unacceptable! by bcmm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously though, this could be amazing for cancer patients. Imagine being able to remove lots of tissue around the cancer to ensure it doesn't spread, and it just growing back. Maybe it will even be possible to do operations like mastectomies without permenant damage.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    47. Re:unacceptable! by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Unless you want to denounce the practice of hurting animals by not relying on the knowledge accumulated through them. There was a Startrek episode on this, where the medical information gathered by torture was purged from the database, by the holographic doctor.

      When I catch a fly, I try to throw it outside the window. There is a neat technique where you whoosh your hand above them, 2 inches, because that's how far up they jump by the time you whoosh your hand - and they end up tickling your palm while you walk to the window. Flies live like 1 day - so it's gonna die anyway, but I didn't kill it. That's a big difference.

      Sometimes I get annoyed and slap my forehead or my body, unconsciously, smearing a fly in the process. I kill bugs and flies while walking, but if I look down, and see a snail, a bug, I won't intentionally step on it. I also unconsciously kill flies and mosquitoes while driving - the windshield gets very ugly, yet I feel no remorse.

      On the other hand, I eat chicken, even if I wouldn't personally kill one. I can't look the chicken in the eye, and say, look, buddy, you're lunch, but once it's dead, on my plate, I have no problem eating it. Yummi. As long as somebody else gets to kill it. Am I a hypocrite? I still very much prefer eating chicken that lived happily all its life, because happy chicken tastes better, or it should.

    48. Re:unacceptable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a contrived way to casually mention you have a GF on /.

      Oh, and welcome to Slashdot!

    49. Re:unacceptable! by burndive · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm assuming you mean artifical sattellites.

      I believe that was Newton, actually. He postulated that if you fired a cannon from a "very tall mountain" with a great enough velocity, then ignoring the resistance of air, and if it was fast enough, then the curvature of the earth would fall away from the cannonball at the same rate at which it fell to the earth.

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    50. Re:unacceptable! by Second_Derivative · · Score: 1

      Probably a fair bit. We all start out female in the very earliest stages of development, though the presence of a Y chromosone causes the production of TDF (testes determining factor I think) which makes the whole shebang turn inside out and grow into the familiar cock and balls

      As for this regenerating mouse I'll take it with a cubic metre of NaCl for now thanks. I don't see how on earth this magical regeneration system can work without the body drowning in tumours almost immediately. Remember these mice are just over a year old.

      They probably got some sort of improved technology for growing liver cells in culture or something and some idiot journalist sensationalized the fuck out of it as usual. Don't we see some "revolutionary breakthrough" in the treatment of cancer or AIDS every other week?

    51. Re:unacceptable! by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 1

      The funeral industry might have problems with it. Imagine a funeral going like this:

      Minister: John Smith was a kind man, loved by all, and his departure--

      Coffin: I'm naught dead!

      Minister (reading louder): --his departure greatly saddened us all--

      Coffin: I'm naught dead!

      Minister: --AND HE WILL BE SORELY MISSED.

      Coffin: I'm getting better!

      At this point, the minister pulls out a pistol and fires six rounds into the coffin, then finishes his sermon.

      Two minutes later, as the coffin is being lowered, we hear "I think I'm going for a walk!" The minister drops a grenade into the grave, and the funeral finishes without further incident.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
    52. Re:unacceptable! by Asmodean · · Score: 2, Funny

      God damnit! Just when we finally build the better mouse trap.. they built a better mouse!!

      --
      It's a good thing the world sucks or we'd all fall off.
    53. Re:unacceptable! by Maxhrk · · Score: 0

      well if your body is without a head, i doubt it will live without a head. :)

      but.. it wont be hard to imagine your head regenerating and give you a new body. so you dont have to worry about your screwed previous body. :)

    54. Re:unacceptable! by daenris · · Score: 1

      Yes... just over a year old... 18 months... a year and a half. Out of the typical 2-year lifespan of a mouse... so compared to a person they'd be somewhere in their late 50's or 60's probably.

    55. Re:unacceptable! by GeneralHorel · · Score: 1

      can regenerate absolutely any tissue except for the tissues of the brain
      you'd just have to start treating those dead like zombies. destroy the brain and they're dead for good.

      --
      Slashdot sigs contain more useful information than the articals
    56. Re:unacceptable! by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      We must no longer think of them as rats... They are furry trolls, and as such the new rat/troll trap should not only immobolize but also set the creature ablaze.

      Only then can we be sure...
      (Wonder what PETA would have to say about THAT!)

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    57. Re:unacceptable! by 6th+time+lucky · · Score: 1

      I see further problems...

      Does the body re-grow a head, or the head re-grow a body? or are we in for a multiplicity scenario?

    58. Re:unacceptable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How sad!

      Only an isolated /.er stuck in his Mum's
      basement could consider androgeney to be
      a big step up in social circles ...

    59. Re:unacceptable! by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      From TFA, the only organ which won't regenerate is the brain, so there are no worries about accidentally bisecting someone and ending up with twins.

      Also, remember this is real-life we're talking about here - you have to survive long enough to regrow the damaged parts. Chop off a finger (or a major limb), and you'll still have a functioning (if injured) body that can recover.

      Chop someone's head off, and the head's going to die within seconds for lack of blood/oxygen - not nearly long enough to regrow a new body.

      Now, if we could find some way to keep the head alive for long enough (eg, hook it up to a blood-oxygenator and pump artificial nutrients into it), it might just be possible...

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    60. Re:unacceptable! by KickMyDog · · Score: 1

      Hmmm.. yeah.. well I wasnt boasting or anything.. I just thought it was right up her street.. shed love to do that to me! haha

    61. Re:unacceptable! by kjots · · Score: 1

      > Hopefully it'll work both ways. Penis bends? Give the man a knife!

      I believe I speak for every man here when I say: "After You, My Friend".

  2. Re:Australian scientists made mammoths? by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 1

    they're only the most intelligent creatures on earth

  3. Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "This is the first time this has been seen in mammals. The potential implications are positively mammoth."

    Yes the mouse is a mammal and, yes, the mammoth was a mammal. There's no need to be redundant about it.

    1. Re:Redundant by BottleCup · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the whole point of this... Once this thing is approved for humans, this could mean new hope for Lorena Bobbit's husband?

    2. Re:Redundant by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 1

      yeah, but it still wouldn't have done shit for Terri Schiavo.

    3. Re:Redundant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      On the night of June 23, 1993, Bobbitt cut off her husband's sex organ with a kitchen knife as he lay sleeping in their Manassas, Virginia, home. She then drove off with the severed appendage and flung it out her car window. Police performed a diligent search and located it, and it was then surgically reattached

      from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/lorena_bobbit

    4. Re:Redundant by thc69 · · Score: 1

      ..and then he went on to star in a pr0n called "Frankenpenis".

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    5. Re:Redundant by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      No, it was called "John Wayne Bobbit: Uncut"

      Get it? Sewing it back on was uncutting it, a play on words of the "uncut" as a euphamism for the complete story? Get it?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  4. Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The end of civilization as we know it.

    Again.

    1. Re:Obviously by Freexe · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I think it just means another civil war. People will die for the right not to die

      (Presuming governments try and withhold the technology).

      People will die in mass over population if the government give us this technology.

      People will die in riots if the government give us the technology but try to control over population with laws controling birth rights

      It at time like this I wish I hadn't read Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Red Mars' series.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    2. Re:Obviously by arevos · · Score: 1

      A solution to immortality could be enforced sterility. Just combine the immortality treatment with a sterility drug of some description; all those who wish to live forever cannot have offspring without a license. This would keep population growth to a minimum.

    3. Re:Obviously by darkfire5252 · · Score: 1

      That seems a bit extreme. I'd imagine if this did lead humans to exponentially longer life spans then suddenly a lot more people would be concerned with space exploration. A 50 year space voyage doesn't seem so bad if you live forever.

    4. Re:Obviously by Freexe · · Score: 1

      Even if you blast 1,000,000 people of to space every month you're not even going to dent earths current population let alone a population that doesn't die.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    5. Re:Obviously by Freexe · · Score: 1

      that would be filed under "People will die in riots if the government give us the technology but try to control over population with laws controlling birth rights".

      If the government tried that then people (at least some) would demand to have to right to both. In india only about 50% of the country use birth control despite its massive growth rate and how many people in the Western world would accept forced baby limits like in China?

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    6. Re:Obviously by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Many countries have underpopulation problems. Shrinking populations mean that immigration must be used to keep the population steady.

      Immortality would go a long way towards slowing down the death rates :-)

    7. Re:Obviously by Freexe · · Score: 1
      Worldwide I'm pretty sure that the population is growing at a fairly fast rate ("Global population increase is currently equivalent to adding a new Israel, Egypt, Jordan, West Bank, and Gaza to the existing world total each year." Source).

      If people in the west stop dying and then our populations would start to add to the problem.

      Without death we have no balance and without balance... well, we've all seen star wars

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    8. Re:Obviously by crymeph0 · · Score: 1

      So the governments would have to institute population controls on Earth, but people would be free to have as many children as they want off-world. This solution both prevents further overpopulation on Earth and incentivizes colonization of space. There would be die-hard keep the children on Earth-ers, unfortunately, which would possibly require a dictator-style government on Earth, but hey, that's just more incentive to get off-world.

      --
      It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
    9. Re:Obviously by mporcheron · · Score: 1

      Actually, you'd be surprised how much the british government censor and block. Especially the news.

    10. Re:Obviously by Freexe · · Score: 1

      I don't think you quiet understand how many people 6,000,000,000 really is. If only 5% of people decide that they want to have more than there fair shares of kids you have 300,000,000 people to deal with. You simple can't blast 300 million people into space.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    11. Re:Obviously by DisownedSky · · Score: 1

      It's growing, but feritility rates are slowing dramatically. Here, in the U.S., we would be below replacement if it were not for immigrant populations (mostly Hispanic)with higher fertility rates.

      In many parts of Europe, fertility is at or below replacement. Declining population is seen as a serious problem.

      --

      "The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently

    12. Re:Obviously by Freexe · · Score: 1
      There is a steady birth rate of about 130,000,000 born every year versus a death rate of 60,000,000. The only reason that the earths population is thought to be stablizing is that death rates will be reaching 130,000,000 in about 2025. If people stop dying then so is our population control is gone and the earth will increase its population by 130,000,000 a year instead of 70,000,000 (which is a deacreasing number).

      In america 4,500,000 people are born vs 2,800,000 deaths, if you stop dying you are almost doubling growth. Do you think that America could handle that? What about after 20 years of increased growth?

      I personally think that America would shut it borders faster than I play snap! That goes for lots of other western countries.

      If people stop dying, then we would have to change our policy/laws on birth control or face a over population crisis

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    13. Re:Obviously by DisownedSky · · Score: 1

      Fertility (number of live births per woman) is also rapdily declining in the third world, and has dropped dramatically in developed countries like Japan, which now faces a shortage of young people to keep its pensionpans propped up. This is mainly because traditional marriage there is so unattractive for women.

      When women are given education, contraception and career options, they delay childbirth and have fewer children. Someone I'm very close to is a perfect example: PhD at 31, first child at 38, second at 41, and that's it. Her mother was also a PhD, but had 4 children. Here in the U.S., first time parents in their mid-late 30s or even 40s are now very common (known from birth certificate data).

      I believe the U.S. fertility rate will drop below replacement in the next 20-30 years, and immigration will slow. Then we're going to have a powerful challenge to solve - almost complete elimination of unskilled labor. It's already begun.

      Shutting our borders isn't a practical option, and don't see why it's desirable either. It smacks of the War on Drugs.

      The one proven way to keep population in check: educate girls.

      --

      "The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently

    14. Re:Obviously by No2Gates · · Score: 0

      I have 2 words for everyone about this "population problem" ... SOYLENT GREEN

      --
      Every time you call tech support, a little kitten dies.
    15. Re:Obviously by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      People are just going to stop having kids.

      Seriously. It's population implosion.

      In Japan, they call you "selfish," if you don't have kids!

      Fewer and fewer adults are interested in the hassle of having kids. It's the farmers looking for profitable farmhands that are having kids.

    16. Re:Obviously by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      We need a secular anticontreception meme compatible with the Catholic dislike of contraception :-)

      But seriously, strengthen the extended family, treat teen pregnancy as a norm (daycare in highschools... ), and let the doctors start practicing at 33 instead of 31. Women and Men of course. This idea that having a child as a teenager is the end of one's life should be tossed out.

    17. Re:Obviously by budgenator · · Score: 1

      There is no reason to believe that this technology will unnaturaly extend human lifespan, if you're geneticaly crapped out at 120 yrs, no amount of regeneration is going to change that; especialy since it doesn't work on the brain so brain-dead will still be brain-dead.

      Also this was a fluke, discovered in mice who were geneticaly abnormal, even if they discover the abnormal genes and their extent, there is no guarentee it'll be reproducable in humans. I find this very interesting and am hopefull, but there is tons of work still to be done.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    18. Re:Obviously by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      *shrugs* If we outgrow this planet we can just go to other planets. Maybe population overgrowth is what we need to force us to make the jump to other worlds. If there are to many of us then it'd be worth the risks and hassles to colonize space. If you could regenerate wouldn't you be more willing to take risks anyway?

      Besides if we are all GM people then maybe people would complain less about GM food so we'd have more food to go around. Water and air aren't likely to become serious issues for quite a while even if people lived much longer.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    19. Re:Obviously by viva_fourier · · Score: 1

      From an evolutionary standpoint, isn't it better to pass on your genes and die, than to not have children and live forever?

      That being said, wouldn't evolutionists want to have as many children as possible to increase the probability of success for their genes?

      --
      and now back to the fallout shelter...
    20. Re:Obviously by snilloc · · Score: 1
      "Better" to have children and then NOT die.

      Of course, your questions assume evolution contains a system or values, which it does not. Evolution (as a theory) is descriptive science. Evolution doesn't "want" anything. Beings like us like to have sex. Modern contraception aside, that tends to lead to children. Genes which promote frequent and successful reproduction become more prevalent.

      Having said all that, it would be odd for an "evolutionist" to decide that unbounded reproduction was a particulary valuable thing. Why should the descriptive trend of evolution be an imperative?

    21. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - sex-ed should have a practicum requirement. Lots of volunteer teachers will apply, I'm sure. And what about the job-training aspects? Service industries are all we've got left, so why not get literal with the servicing? Turnin' tricks beats flippin' burgers, right? It's been said that amateurs are ruining the profession, anyway, so let's get those slackers to really put their backs into it.

  5. Start building better mousetraps! by richie2000 · · Score: 4, Funny
    The potential implications are positively mammoth.

    Yeah, it means we have to aim for the head when the monster-mice attack. Personally, I welcome our new genetically modified near-unkillable regenerative mice overlords.

    That aside, I first thought they had made a computer mouse that generated power when moved á la regenerative braking in electrical cars.

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
    1. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Now we just have to watch out for mice that don't regenerate, they just generate tissue. Hulking, super-intelligent mice, anyone?

    2. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

      I'd recommend a fully automatic 20-gauge, a flamethrower, genetically modified cats (eh we deal with them later on) or two M249 SAWs akimbo. No need to aim then...

    3. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by fuzheado · · Score: 1
      In an Itchy and Scratchy episode, "Scratchtasia", Itchy is chopped up into little bits by Scratchy, only to be regenerated time and again. Eventually, the chopped up dust of the mouse infiltrates Scratchy's lungs, where he is chopped up from the inside out.

      In case you're still not convinced the future is already entirely laid out by The Simpsons.

    4. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Loonacy · · Score: 1

      We'll get some genetically engineered dogs to take care of the genetically modified cats. Problem solved.

    5. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by mikataur · · Score: 1
      I first thought they had made a computer mouse that generated power when moved á la regenerative braking in electrical cars.

      That'd be cool. It could power the frickin' laser beam!

      Or, more practically, charge up the Bluetooth transponder.

      You should patent that idea. (Well, you should if this wasn't /. where mentioning patents is bad.)

    6. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by vmahrra · · Score: 1

      the implications for landmine sweepers and failed suicide bombers are incredible

    7. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How's about making some freakin' sharks, with freakin' lasers in their heads?

    8. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Funny

      Naah, we'll get purr-triggered mines disguised as yarnballs.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    9. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by __aaxwdb6741 · · Score: 1

      We'll get some genetically engineered mice to take care of the genetically modified dogs. Problem solved.

    10. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by SixTwelve · · Score: 1

      SAWs akimbo? You'd shoot off your legs.

    11. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Saggi · · Score: 1

      "Human beings were only the third most intelligent life form present on the planet Earth, instead of (as was generally thought by most independent observers) the second."
      -Douglas Adams

      Now we know its not only intelligence we lack...

      --
      -:) Oh no - not again.
      www.rednebula.com
    12. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by spot35 · · Score: 1

      Isn't that called cancer when tissue generates beyond control?

    13. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by The_countess · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you are aware of the fackt that the regeneration is a slow process? its not instaheal. a fatal wond will still kill it just as eazyaly. it wont be able to heal faster just heal more of its body. its exectly the same mechanism most reptiles have. and mamels still have part of that same mechanism in tackt. we still signal cells to start the regeneration, we just dont have cells that can respond to the call anymore. apperently the gene that is resposable for creating those cells is turned on again in these mice. stemcell research is based on the same signals btw. and so humans still have the signal too. a bit of GM and we too can grow back a arm! or whatever else you lost.

    14. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I for one also welcome our new Australiam overlords. Their obviously some sort of secretive country (possibly communist) that I can't find and information on.

      --
      "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    15. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Gulthek · · Score: 0

      Best overlord comment, ever.

    16. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by miscz · · Score: 1

      Personally, I welcome our new genetically modified near-unkillable regenerative mice overlords.

      Wait! There's still hope!

      The only organ that did not grow back was the brain.

      Basically they're as easy to kill as zombies, we just have to aim for head :P
    17. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      We can take care of the g/m (my new term for genetically modified) cats with some g/m dogs. After that, we'll have to bring on the... what eats dogs?

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    18. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      the g/m chinese! uh oh...

    19. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by hcob$ · · Score: 1

      How many roads must a man walk down?

      57?

      No, as many as it takes since when your feet get tired all you have to do is cut off your feet!

      Yes! We're made men!

      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    20. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 1

      Yeah with our imfamous John "Why, I ought to club them and eat their bones!" Howard at the helm those capitalist pigs shall pay! :P

      --
      "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    21. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Koreans

    22. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why people of course. We could making a killing in chinatown.

    23. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by virgil_attack · · Score: 1
      Onward Comrades!

      In Soviet Australia.....mice regenerate YOU!

    24. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yeah, it means we have to aim for the head when the monster-mice attack."

      Break out the good set of d6's.

      There's your old school Battletech reference for the week.

    25. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Mechcozmo · · Score: 1

      I thought that they had come up with mice that would regenerate after my slightly acidic sweat ate at them for a few years...:-/

    26. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by H3lldr0p · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gorillias. That way, when winter comes, they just die off.

    27. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by compro01 · · Score: 1

      easy. more g/m dogs! (dog-eat-dog world)

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    28. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it means we have to aim for the head when the monster-mice attack. Personally, I welcome our new genetically modified near-unkillable regenerative mice overlords.

      Sorry, it must be said.....

      YESSSSSSS PINKIE!!!!!!!!

    29. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by DeputySpade · · Score: 1

      Koreans?

      --


      This space intentionally left blank
    30. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Simpsons did it, Simpsons did it!

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    31. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by ultranova · · Score: 2, Funny

      genetically modified cats (eh we deal with them later on)

      Why bother dealing with them ? Just make sure that the cats are female, make them vaguely human-shaped (two legs and two breasts), and sell them to Japanese animation fans.

      It might be a fucked-up solution, in more ways than one, but it is a solution.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    32. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WaterBreath, petard. Petard, WaterBreath. And.... hoist! ;D

    33. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by p4ul13 · · Score: 0

      Ha!! I'm exonerated!!

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    34. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > gramatical homicides..

      The standard elipsis is three periods, "...", not two...

      > I hate to be the spelling nazi for the day, but
      > that post hurt.

      "Nazi" should be capitalized.

      > Dangit!!!

      Use of three exclamation points for a pseudo-elipsis -- good!!! ("Dangit" is also a perfectly fine expression, used with artistic license. Good!)

      > And.... hoist! ;D

      Doh! It's three periods for an elipsis, people, not two, not four. And if placing a word after it to continue the same sentence, don't add a space. Only add a space (two, actually) if it ends a sentence before beginning the next.

      And you'll all be forgiven because of the lack of two spaces after the period before the next sentence begins. This results from incorrect stream formatting of failed browser pretty printers, whose authors forgot the original reason for the two spaces -- visual ease of seeing the sentence separation. Now even typing courses say to use just one space, their teachers having also forgotten said reasoning, no doubt spurred on by the supriuos, no longer-needed, and forgotten reasoning of needing to conserve storage space on computers.

      Why, oh why? My heart sinks for the missing double space after the period. Oh why?

    35. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well p4ul13, not everyone is a native english speaker on this site and knows how to spell

    36. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by phoenix321 · · Score: 1

      I am John Rambo, you insensitive clod!

    37. Re:Start building better mousetraps! by twofidyKidd · · Score: 1

      You make a valid point in your comment, but I have to say, the first thing that came to mind after I finished reading that was:

      "...At no point, in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul."

      Sorry...

      --


      Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
  6. finally by rk87 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I do hope this is applied to humans soon. there are way too many people on waiting lists for heart, liver, kidney transplants. Also, maybe this is a new hope for people that have gotten limbs amputated, or were born with defects.

    --
    I'M NOT ANGRY!
    1. Re:finally by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't get your hopes up. Medical break throughs tend to take a quite long time before they reach a hospital near you. (think Duke4Ever timescales) Thing is that medical research requires so many experiments to prove it is really save for use on humans, before it is allowed to be used in hospitals.

    2. Re:finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I can think of few people I would like to tear their libs off.

    3. Re:finally by xtracto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, I remember reading about some experiments (with excellent results) in USA, in which a man got his lost its thumb in an accident and after some days their re attached it to the man successfully (with some specific method).

      Then I read that, although all that was done as research, the FDA did not approve the method, so it ended being just that, research.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    4. Re:finally by Grab · · Score: 1

      Come on, sewing stuff back on has been around for decades. Fingers and thumbs are old news. A Bobbitt takes a bit more work, but it's still possible. So long as stuff is cut cleanly (not crushed) then it's pretty much 100%.

      For approving the method, it'd need to be better than existing methods. It may still have worked, but if other older mthods turn out to work better then you won't bother with the new one.

      Grab.

    5. Re:finally by kilodelta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, it's usually on the order of ten to fifteen years before it hits the general market.

      Just think about this for a moment though. What entity would most oppose regenerative organs?

      You guessed it, the pharmaceutical industry. After all, anti-rejection drugs are a tidy little market for them.

      We're entering a brave new world though. Every day discoveries that will impact the human lifespan are made. Aubrey DeGrey is an interesting person whose work is a must follow.

    6. Re:finally by SmellsLike · · Score: 1

      How long before they apply it to cats & dogs though? People are already paying crazy money for getting clones of their cat. What would they pay for regenerating cats? How many lives would they have then?

    7. Re:finally by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You guessed it, the pharmaceutical industry. After all, anti-rejection drugs are a tidy little market for them.

      So they lose one tidy little market. So what? You don't think that the potential market in pro-regeneration drugs (and other drugs used during these sorts of surgeries) looks the least bit enticing, and potentially even MORE lucrative, than anti-rejection drugs? If they have ten to fifteen (or more) years, don't you think they will conduct studies left and right and get with the times? Pharmaceutical companies are not exactly the recording industry, they have some smart people working there...

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    8. Re:finally by ifwm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't. The last thing we need is something like this keeping even more people alive even longer.

      At least until we find a way to releive the stress it would put on the ecosystem.

    9. Re:finally by lightning01 · · Score: 1

      Nah, it will be the religious nuts who oppose this. "We can't replace what God made" will be their mantra. In the US at least it will be a long long fight. Major suckage for those of us who could use a new kidney or such. (Not that I'll be around to see the benefits.)

    10. Re:finally by xtracto · · Score: 1

      I do not remember 100% correctly but, I think the finger was crushed and the method consisted in attaching the finger in a mouse so it could "fix" and after some time transplanting it to the man.

      Does anyone remembers a cover of the Time magazine that showed a mouse with a human ear? I think it was about that procedure.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    11. Re:finally by PhoenixPath · · Score: 1

      If yer gonnaspout on about somebody's work, at least link to it, eh? Now I gotta google.

    12. Re:finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So people should end their lives to keep the ecosystem from being stressed? Are you volunteering?

    13. Re:finally by God'sDuck · · Score: 1

      i don't..........think so. most mainstream evangelicals (who are the core voting bloc, as opposed to the babbling idiots on the news) are cautiously in favor of medical advancement like this. eternal life type treatments make them a little jittery; but it's mostly a nervousness about 'playing God' as opposed to any adherence to a scriptural injunction...and such nervousness rarely translates to active grassroots opposition.

      i suspect you'd actually see a case where the religious "nuts" as you call them, excepting the political commentators, would actually be the cogent intellectuals -- supporting the new technology for legitimate healing applications, but in a measured way, thinking about its ramifications, and watching for abuses.

    14. Re:finally by phxbadash · · Score: 1

      Nine-Hundred and Ninety Nine perhaps?

    15. Re:finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, doctors and scientists never push out a medical product that is even the least bit unsafe...

    16. Re:finally by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Interesting
      You have NO idea.

      This may save my life personally.

      I have slow, chronic kidney failure, originally caused by an over-active immune system. Now that it is damaged, each bit of protein I eat kills a portion of my Kidney, even if it is tofu protein. Eat no protein = starve to death.

      I am currently trying to eat a minimal amount of protein each day (40 grams), but is very tough to stay on my diet and even if I do this, my kidney still gets worse just slower.

      Luckily with this diet I still have time, possibly even 10 years till total kidney failure (assuming I don't drink, etc. etc). With any luck, they will either have gotten this to work or found a way to at least clone a kidney for me.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    17. Re:finally by wesman83 · · Score: 1

      all the more reason to stop having babies. the longer we live the more outrageous the population gets.

    18. Re:finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, GEEZ, it's going to be like... ...all of 20 years, before humans are doing this as well.

      Don't get your hopes up!

    19. Re:finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I where you, I would go in a raw diet and start doing yoga today, instead of waiting for medical advance. I also have autoimmune problems, and they got 99% corrected by changing my diet to be vegan and mostly raw, and doing one or two hours of yoga every single day. It is not easy, but if you do it, it will change your life for the better. Look up this website http://www.living-foods.com/ - ask questions to the people at the forums there, or search their archives. Good luck. Carlos-

    20. Re:finally by c_woolley · · Score: 1

      They sure do have some smart people there. Smart business people. If you think that the pharm. industry and insurance industry aren't pretty much in charge of a LARGE portion of the U.S.'s political force, you're crazy. When you say losing a tiny market, i think you're a little off. We are talking about regeneration. If we can regenerate a heart. There is no need for heart disease medicine. Lungs...cancer medicine comes to mind. Ask your local hospital what it costs to treat lung cancer with just the costs of medicine involved. Pharm. companies would go bankrupt. With companies like this currently holding a good control over much of our economy, how much lobbying do you think will take place just to prevent this from even being introduced. Big Picture.....

    21. Re:finally by jzeejunk · · Score: 1

      can't you get a kidney transplant. I mean I'm sure something like this will be more expensive probably unsafe initially as compared to a kidney transplant which has been around for a long time. And you've got a lot of time to "find" a donor.

      --
      sarchasm
    22. Re:finally by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      If this is genetic and can spread to offspring they'd no doubt find it dangerous to them. If it could be made to spread through sharing of body fluids it'd be even more frightening to them. If they could figure all that out, make sure it's safe, and then release it on the populace it could be a major turning point in human evolution.

      What about in other animals though? You could have a prize cow that you ate over and over again. Not very nice to the cow but an interesting idea. Or a dog that even when hit by a car repeatedly would still be your good old pet.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    23. Re:finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What entity would most oppose regenerative organs? You guessed it, the pharmaceutical industry.
      Horse hockey. A pro-regeneration/anti-scarring treatment would prevent adhesions from developing after surgery. It would be a guaranteed blockbuster drug. Various substance P antagonists are being tested for this. The approved drug topiramate is also being tested for apparent regenerative effects (disappearing scars).
    24. Re:finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a minor niggle, not eating protein doesn't cause you to starve, more like it causes you to disintegrate. Your body needs amino acids to build all the structures in the body made out of protein, but protein itself isn't needed for energy production.

      While you might get a really bad case of arthritis, going on a pure sugar diet would still keep you alive for quite some time, assuming you also threw in all the necessary micronutrients you're urinating out all the time (minerals and all that good stuff). Whether you'd still want to be kept alive by a glucose tube is a different question, and isn't really any different than being hooked up to a dialysis machine anyway.

      As for what another poster mentioned, I sincerely hope you find a transplant donor. Seems like it'd be a better shot than waiting for a miracle cure.

    25. Re:finally by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      Right now my kidneys have significant functionallity so I am not yet a donor qualified. -------

      But Kidney transplants tend NOT to last your life, and there are LOTS of problems with them. Many young people go through 3 of them before they finally die, usually of illnesses related to the kidney problem.

      Another issue is that unless you get a kidney from a twin/clone, you are on immune surpressing drugs for the rest of your life.

      These drugs are NOT 'safe', nor are they fun. The side affects can be deadly. For example, if you are exposed to say SARS, a disease with high transmitability but low general death rate (4% or so), you are extremely likely to catch it and die.

      While you can live a relatively normal life, the operative words are "can" and "relatively".

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    26. Re:finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry to hear about your plight. I don't know your height and weight, but given your condition, 40g protein per day sounds a little excessive. You have to get pretty low protein intake before you reach clinical protein malnutrition. Of course, there are essential and somewhat essential amino acids that you may want to consume more than others. I'm sure you've discussed this all with your doctor, but if not, I would recommend a good endocrinologist and nutritionist team to come up with a balanced lower protein diet.

      You should definately talk to your doctor before making any changes to you diet, but I offer these ideas as an FYI in case you haven't already explored them.

      As an extreme example my wife has a bizarro metabolism. I think she eats about 8-12g protein per day (probably 800 calories / day total), has for the past several years. This would probably kill me in about 2 months, but she is a very active athelete. Go figure. That USRDA is on the upper end of things.

      Sorry to give you advice un-asked for but I though you might like to know.
      Be well & good luck.

    27. Re:finally by nancjs · · Score: 1

      Plus, nowhere in article states how fast they regenerated...

  7. Does this mean... by asliarun · · Score: 3, Funny

    that succeeding generations will now be called regenerations?

    1. Re:Does this mean... by double-oh+three · · Score: 1

      I think we'll all come to regret the cat-pin regeneration.

      --
      "For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
    2. Re:Does this mean... by Gleng · · Score: 1

      Yes. The report stated that, after the mouse regenerated, it looked slightly different and complained about it's new teeth feeling wierd.

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
    3. Re:Does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Time Lords.

    4. Re:Does this mean... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      I guess this means we have to look forward to:

      Star Trek: The Next Regeneration!!!

  8. I don't suppose by el_womble · · Score: 4, Funny

    They called it Wolverine did they?

    --
    Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
    1. Re:I don't suppose by retrosteve · · Score: 3, Funny

      In unrelated news, shadowy German mad scientists announce they have created titanium mouse skeletons with long, nasty claws.

    2. Re:I don't suppose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking the same thing... that the Canadians and not the Aussies developed this tech first!

    3. Re:I don't suppose by KillShill · · Score: 1

      shouldn't that be adamantium?

      or maybe they want to upgrade them later and charge a fee.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    4. Re:I don't suppose by coldblooded · · Score: 2, Funny

      In another unrelated news John Wayne Bobbit has pledged all of his current and future capital to the Wistar Institute.

    5. Re:I don't suppose by retinaburn · · Score: 1

      When questioned about the results the german scientist muttered 'No No must not get angry, can't let him loose, not now'.

  9. Re:Australian scientists made mammoths? by EnsilZah · · Score: 1, Funny

    No no no!
    The correct synthax is "I, for one, welcome are new mouse overlords"

  10. Wrong countries by Zirjin · · Score: 5, Informative

    The slashdot summary says Australian scientists, but the article says "US Research Lab" and US based researchers. Unless there is some information that I am missing, I would say that this was a US breakthrough.

    1. Re:Wrong countries by BRonsk · · Score: 0

      You would think the editor did indeed RTFA... Alas, they are humans like most of us and RTFAing is just too much of a burden.

      Oh, wait...

    2. Re:Wrong countries by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unless there is some information that I am missing, I would say that this was a US breakthrough.

      Yes, true, but the linked article was in an Australiam newspaper. That makes it an Australiam discovery, based on the little known "mention us in print and it's ours" clause of the Aus-US free trade agreement.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:Wrong countries by BRonsk · · Score: 0

      BTW, I forgot, but for those who think I am kidding, I am not! The link above relate to a recent post from a slashdot editor, clearly stating he trusts the submitter on knowing what he's talking about.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160477&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&tid=185&mode=thread&cid=1343322 4

    4. Re:Wrong countries by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Funny

      The slashdot summary says Australian scientists

      No, the slashdot title sayd Australian science, while the summary says Australiam scientists.

      Obviously this was a New Zealander who submitted this, pretending to be an Australian to make us all look stupid.

    5. Re:Wrong countries by madaxe42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, it says 'Australiam', not 'Australian'. Everybody knows that Australiam is another word for 'American', used by peruvian moose hunters living in Berlin, while wearing their kitten-skin hats.

    6. Re:Wrong countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you can manage that by yourself.

      "Every dole bludger that crosses the Tasman raises the IQ of NZ and Aussie" Rob Muldoon

    7. Re:Wrong countries by Yorrike · · Score: 1

      A New Zealander posing as an Aussie? Nah. Never happen. And Australians do a fine job making themselves look stupid, why would we put down our shaggin' sheep when there's no need?

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    8. Re:Wrong countries by rcs1000 · · Score: 1

      I think this is "Funny", rather than "Informative". Unless you know something about the Australia-US trade treaty the rest of us don't.

      --
      --- My dad's political betting
    9. Re:Wrong countries by zsau · · Score: 1

      This, I assume, is similar to the clause we have with Closer Economic Relations between Aus and NZ, that means that anything that comes from those islands is ours.

      --
      Look out!
    10. Re:Wrong countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do most kiwis live in Australia?

    11. Re:Wrong countries by kahei · · Score: 1


      There ARE no peruvian moose hunters now. The regenerating meece were too hard to kill, and the hunters have become the hunted. Thanks a lot, Australiams.

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    12. Re:Wrong countries by blackpaw · · Score: 1

      To quote NZ's greatest PM - To raise the average IQ of both countries

    13. Re:Wrong countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It is a US Research lab although looking at the staff of the lab (their names) one can conclude that the entire world has played its part.
      Staff
      Visiting Scientist
      Khamilia Bedelbaeva, MD, PhD
      Staff Scientist
      Lise Clark, DVM, PhD
      Postdoctoral Fellows
      Dmitri Gourevitch, MD
      Stefan Samulewicz, PhD
      Alexander Seitz, MD
      Research Expert
      Xiang-Ming Zhang
      John Leferovich
      Technicians
      Pen Chen
      Svetlana Savina
      Maja Kragol

    14. Re:Wrong countries by StopSayingYouSir · · Score: 1
      while wearing their kitten-skin hats.

      Before any PETA types get all worked up, I just want to point out that the hats are made from skin-regenerating Australiam kittens.

    15. Re:Wrong countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? We're talking about countries here, not races. What is an American name? Define and give an example.

    16. Re:Wrong countries by philoupoussin · · Score: 1

      agreed, and this brings down the whole story's credibility: there are no quotes whatsoever, and on my standpoint (bioengineer), there is absolutely no credibility to this type of find. 12 genes ?! you can not even break glucose down with 12 genes, let alone ... grow limbs back ?!

    17. Re:Wrong countries by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      Clearly, Australia is intent on annexing the US and this was a public slip. Thank god we got the advanced warning!

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    18. Re:Wrong countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually it was a New Zealander, pretending to be an Australian, trying to make himself/herself look smart.

    19. Re:Wrong countries by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Obviously this was a New Zealander who submitted this, pretending to be an Australian to make us all look stupid."

      And people say the US outsources everything.

      No, wait, we've been outsourcing "Make the US look stupid" to Canada for years.

    20. Re:Wrong countries by stor · · Score: 1

      Well does someone want to get back to that PM and tell him that he failed it? ;)

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
  11. This scientist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...his name wasn't Dr. Connors by chance was it? Accept since this guy was messing around with mice I guess we'd be calling him "The Rodent" instead of "The Lizard."

  12. Obligatory Simpsons reference... by dostick · · Score: 1

    Homer has both his arms stuck in two wending machines...

    Fireman with saw: Mr. Simpson, there's no easy way to say this, were going to have to saw your arms off.
    Homer: Ohhhh, but they'll grow back, won't they?
    Fireman: Yeah, sure. They'll grow back.
    Other fireman: Aren't you just holding on to the can?
    Homer: Your point being ... ?

  13. What a shame they... by heretic108 · · Score: 1

    ...can't regenerate the Wallabies

    --
    -- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
  14. amazing by Polybius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Could this be used in conjunction with other gene therapy to reverse birth defects in people like ectrodactyl hands. Cut them off and make them regenerate as a normal hand? Or entire new arms for Thalidomide babies? Would someone blind from birth generate the ability to see or is that too heavily dependant on brain tissue?

    1. Re:amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would imagine that the original person's DNA provided the genetic information that made the first hands grow in that specific way in the first place. So just cutting them off would probably just make copies of the originals grow back.

      So by somehow getting to the DNA and changing it, and making sure that the new DNA is used when growing, I suppose it's possible.

      Working out how to separate the 'old' and 'new' DNA and select which one will be used to grow the new hands will be the tricky bit...

    2. Re:amazing by prefect42 · · Score: 1

      I guess it depends at what stage and how your DNA is damaged. There's no reason why the DNA in your whole body has to be identical, nor is it necessarily a fault of the DNA. It could be a fault in how the DNA was activated.

      --

      jh

    3. Re:amazing by Jonathan · · Score: 5, Informative

      Could this be used in conjunction with other gene therapy to reverse birth defects in people like ectrodactyl hands. Cut them off and make them regenerate as a normal hand? Or entire new arms for Thalidomide babies?

      In theory yes -- most birth defects have no genetic basis (that's why "thalidomide babies" have perfectly normal children themselves) -- it isn't the information in their DNA that is damaged but rather the fact that their cells were misassembled during development in the womb.

    4. Re:amazing by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Well, tfa says they destroyed optic nerve, and it regenerated in the mice.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    5. Re:amazing by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I could see that if the child's genetic makup was not flawed to begin with. Otherwise it will regenerate exactly the same as the dna told it to.

      That is the problem. it will do exactly what the dna says it should, so if you are prone to heart disease genetically, guess what, you will still have heart disease even if it is self regenerating.

      your genetic defects will shine through.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:amazing by mxf8bv · · Score: 1

      Technically the eye, and especially the retina, is considered part of the brain.
      Anyway, there are so called critical periods during the development of the visual system, and if the eye is not functional in these periods, the rest of the cortical visual system will not develop properly. There seems to be no way to redo this later.

    7. Re:amazing by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My question.... if other animals have this ability, and mice can be easily modified to have this ability, why didn't evolution produce this capability in mice naturally?

      Is there some nasty side effect that makes it better to NOT have this ability and put up with loss of limbs, and other damage?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    8. Re:amazing by Enigma_Man · · Score: 1

      They talked about regenerating optic nerves in the article, so I assume that would be possible.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    9. Re:amazing by Dasher42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember, evolution doesn't necessarily favor the fittest. It favors the most readily reproducible. It's also lossy. When you rely on one major advantage to get by, others can deteriorate.

    10. Re:amazing by GEEK13 · · Score: 1

      The problem there would be that these doctors would have to actually cut off arms or whatever. I cant imagine what it would take to allow this into hospitals.

    11. Re:amazing by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      That was my exact first thought. This is so obviously useful to survival that there has to be a big downside. I suspect that this dramatically increases cancer risk. Yeah, it works most of the time, but when it doesn't work... say hello to things growing out of your body at random.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    12. Re:amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can also see it as a HUGE help for separating conjoined (siamese) twins...

    13. Re:amazing by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Okay, I have to say this. When your doctor comes in to describe the treatment and starts with, "Okay, the first thing we need to do is cut off your hand...", that's going to be a pretty wierd world.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    14. Re:amazing by Morinaga · · Score: 1

      I don't know. But if there have been five billion mice over history and by some random chance one lucky mouse had the ability to regrow his toes that might not really be a competitive advantage that allows said mouse to breed/survive better than other mice. Also, I can't imagine that a mouse gets it's biggest survival benefit from regrowing a foot. They generally get eaten whole :). So while some lucky mouse may have been lucky enough to enjoy this mutation to some limited extent it probably didn't ensure it's survival to a greater extent in relation to other mice so it might breed more successfully and pass on that trait. Instead, mice with longer wiskers, lower profiles, nocturnal eyesight and thicker fur likely enjoyed better survival etc... That's just my guess work but I suppose this is contradicted by lizards that regrow tails. Some lucky reptile back in the day was able to pass this along, perhaps he was just better looking and got all the action with his tail regrowing mojo.

    15. Re:amazing by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      If other people haven't already replied: children who have sight restored after age 3 or 4 don't really develop useful sight -- although it's much better than nothing at all. (At least that's what my girlfriend's ophthalmology books say.)

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    16. Re:amazing by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is there some nasty side effect that makes it better to NOT have this ability and put up with loss of limbs, and other damage?

      There is another mechanism for dealing with major injuries: development of scar tissue. Scaring happens much faster and takes fewer resources than regeneration. There appears to be an anti-correlation between scaring and regeneration: animals that scar don't regenerate and vice-versa, so there may be some overloading of the genes that control both processes, making them mutually incompatible.

      Given that survivable loss of limbs and survivable loss of internal organs is a relatively rare occurence for most mammals, it is likely that scaring has been favoured over regeneration in our evolutionary history as it is the mechanism that gives injured organisms the greatest chance of survival.

      In particular, mammals lead active lives because we are warm blooded, and therefore need to hunt/scavange/forage regularly for food to keep our body temperature stable. This means that rapid healing is a big advantage, so scaring is favoured. Modern reptile are cold-blooded, and therefore can sustain much longer periods without food, making them more able to take the time out of their busy schedule to regenerate.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    17. Re:amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, think about it: Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for a given gene pool if individuals prone to losing limbs were reproducing?

    18. Re:amazing by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Insightful
      there has to be a big downside. I suspect that this dramatically increases cancer risk.

      According to the (too brief) article, ordinary mice injected with the cells also were able to regenerate lost organs. So rather than an inherent trait, this can be applied only when the benefits overwhelm any risk.

      The potential is so enormous that I'm amazed this is not getting more coverage. It makes me suspicious. Googling for news reports containing "Heber-Katz" returns only two articles!

    19. Re:amazing by PantsWearer · · Score: 1
      Doctors do amputations fairly regularly for a variety of reasons due to limb deficiency. Of course, they remove as little as possible, etc., but it's not that uncommon.

      Many thalidomide babies were nearly limbless, removal of the barely formed limbs would probably be done on a case by case basis if they weren't sure of the results.

      Believe me, surgeons fix people by cutting them apart, this wouldn't phase them all that much.

      --
      Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.
    20. Re:amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent point.

      And now that we've achieved the pinnacle of civilization that is communal healthcare (at least outside of the US), we can go back to regenerating rather than scarring since we can take care of each other during the healing process.

      Although personally I still think there will be some side-effects which we can't predict, and worry about ways to get the benefit of regeneration without making it a permanent part of our germline. A nice long trial period with quality assurance... Debugging it later would be a real pain.

    21. Re:amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ectrodactyly is not an easy nut to crack; not only does it involve multiple gene loci, it has both incomplete and codominant traitd, as well as possibly sex-linked ones. In other words, it might be far easier to regrow a straightforward defective organ then to fix a product of a complex geneticly-linked condition

    22. Re:amazing by Mavric1337 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe even cut off your penis and grow back a bigger one?!

    23. Re:amazing by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

      Remember, evolution doesn't necessarily favor the fittest. It favors the most readily reproducible.

      Well yes and no. In humans this is pretty true, because we don't have any man-eating predators. If we often had to run for our lives, hide for our lives, hear for our prey, and survive pathogens long enough to reproduce then we too would still have 'fittest' pressures. Fortunately, our 'superior' intellect has saved us from evolution. Now we can select based merely on aesthetics since medicine (and our societal support structure) assures most babies will survive to produce children of their own no matter what.

      Oh, you said "necessarily". Never mind :-) maybe we're just agreeing. Well in that case my only nitpick is this, maybe the statement should read "It also favors the most readily reproducible."

      Cheers.

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    24. Re:amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once we get a safe gene therapy process sure. As it is now, the viral delivery mechanisms they use can cause things like leukemia and other cancers(which can be mediated by using a better or thoroughly modified virus choice), or more difficult to solve is possible deadly immune response. Any VC's want to invest in my novel methodologies to solve some of this per chance? I'm a starving student with alot of ideas here!

    25. Re:amazing by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, our 'superior' intellect has saved us from evolution. Now we can select based merely on aesthetics since medicine (and our societal support structure) assures most babies will survive to produce children of their own no matter what.

      So, exactly how is human intellect not a result of evolution?

      And do you really think a hundred years or so of "societal support structures" is going to have a lasting effect on the gene pool? There is nothing in our history to suggest that this level of civilization is stainable for a long enough period of time to have much of any long term effect on the gene pool. And I think you overestimate our abilities to stave off death, it may happen and I hope it does, but life is still fragile and will likely to continue to exert selective pressure on the gene pool.

    26. Re:amazing by Gewis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This kind of research has been done before with regenerative mice. Mammals typically don't have this regenerative ability because we traded it for our deluxe immune systems: immune systems the regenerative mice don't have.

    27. Re:amazing by Raindance · · Score: 1

      I don't think the GGP or GP cover the concept of "fitness" very well. Anyway, you say,

      "And do you really think a hundred years or so of "societal support structures" is going to have a lasting effect on the gene pool?"

      I think you'd be amazed at how quickly and subtly a gene pool can change-- our gene pool is substantially different than the one we had 2000 years ago. If we limit ourselves to even 100 years, a lot has changed (think of the genocides, the varying rates of reproduction, the various hybridizations between groups, and so forth).

      Even a few generations of wildly different selection criteria (i.e. the last 100 years) can leave a lasting imprint on a gene pool.

    28. Re:amazing by qaffle · · Score: 1
      I wonder if it would in some way be possible to switch off the regeneration then? I don't know much about gene therapy or the like, but maybe we could leave on the scarring genes for normal use (to get quicker general healing) and then monthly/yearly/... go for a checkup where they switch you to regen mode.

      Stargate sarcophaguses anyone?

      Again, I don't know if this even makes sense since I know very little bio. And maybe regeneration isn't slower. But interesting.

    29. Re:amazing by indole · · Score: 1

      Oh sweet Lord! HANDS!! I can have HANDS!!!!!

      --
      (2,3-Benzopyrrole)
    30. Re:amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe Darwin himself said words to the effect of "The strongest do not survive, the most adaptable do."

    31. Re:amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My question.... if other animals have this ability, and mice can be easily modified to have this ability, why didn't evolution produce this capability in mice naturally?

      It's because it's not evolution, it's intelligent design. Oh, that, and god hates us ;).
    32. Re:amazing by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

      (I'm the GP, and I agree with you.)

      I just wanted to go on to say that when I say "fitness" I meant it more in the spirit of prey and predator. In a more general sense, sure, fitness really describes any criteria that increases viable procreation (e.g., H. Sapiens superior ability to not die in child birth compared to Erectus and friends: wider hips, etc.). I'm just saying the 'selecters' of modern humans are much different from our ancestors' (now it's eachother, hardly other species or environment).

      Anyway, I agree that's its myopic to say that our social structures over the last ten- or even one- thousand years haven't affected our evolution. Sure that's a blink of an eye on our way to frightning sci-fi visions of H. Sapiens as giant-brained, limb-regenerating, immortal super-beings; but it's evolution none-the-less.

      I'm now off to retort to the parent of your comment... Cheers.

      (Full disclosure, I'm not really that educated in all this. My wife has an anthro degree, I don't.)

      --
      Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
    33. Re:amazing by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

      Oh, you said "necessarily". Never mind :-) maybe we're just agreeing. Well in that case my only nitpick is this, maybe the statement should read "It also favors the most readily reproducible."

      My hat is tipped to you, sir.

    34. Re:amazing by Physician · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it is heavily dependent upon brain tissue. This why it's vitally important to detect problems in vision as early as possible. If you wait until the kid is 5-10 years old, even if you correct the problem (removing congenital cataracts for instance), you will not correct their vision because of underdevelopment in the occipital cortex which remained unstimulated during the most important time period for its maturation. This is referred to as amblyopia.

      --
      Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
    35. Re:amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This might indeed be true. Following http://www.wistar.upenn.edu/research_facilities/he berkatz/research.htmEllen Heber-Katz' research, scar tissue blocks tissue regeneration.
      "Spinal cord Regeneration: The Heber-Katz laboratory has been examining the regenerative response of the spinal cord as well. Most recently, they found scar tissue is a key blocking element in axonal regrowth. Thus, spinal cord transection where fibroblastic infiltrates are kept to a minimum results in recovery of function or coordinated walking within 3 weeks. They are testing various molecules that can block scar formation to determine its effect on healing and function. One such molecule, apolipoprotein E, along with its receptors, appears to be upregulated during a regenerative response."
    36. Re:amazing by Raindance · · Score: 1

      I think that's fair.

      It'd be interesting to look into just which genotyes/genes are being selected for in modern life. I think your comment that we now mainly select for aesthetics (i.e. on the average, we choose who we marry by whether we find them attractive, which is quite a recent development) is part of the picture, but not all of it. Also, just speaking of mating selection, many things external to one's appearance/aesthetics can influence their perceived attractiveness.

      And aesthetics varying by culture or race... another ball of wax. :)

  15. Finally! by kote-men-do · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I can just retire and keep selling kidneys on eBay!

    1. Re:Finally! by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 3, Funny

      To who? I don't know if many cannibals have internet and if they like kidney. Better try selling ribs.

    2. Re:Finally! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      That's doomed to failure, the eBay Terms of Service explicitely state they don't allow selling organs. (yes, I know...)

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well technically you could do that already -- just not your own.

    4. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I can just retire and keep selling kidneys on eBay!

      Um, won't this development kill the secondhand kidney market?

    5. Re:Finally! by dch24 · · Score: 1

      1. Divide self cleanly in half (humans are bilaterally symmetrical)
      2. Bandage wound
      3. Use half of brain (it's been done!) and telecommute until missing body parts are replaced
      4. Send duplicate to work
      5. Profit!

  16. Mouseman by EnsilZah · · Score: 5, Funny

    So if one of those bites me do i become mouseman?
    Do i get the amazing ability to pee all over the place and crawl into small spaces?
    Or do i need to irradiate it first?

    1. Re:Mouseman by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      'You ever noticed that in comic books that the hero never gets any of the negative aspects of the animal .
      Like why does Spiderman not have an urge to eat flies .
      Catwoman has never been known to jump on your curtains and knock plants over.
      Batman can see , does not sleep upside down and crap on his floor .
      The flash(whilst strictly not an animal ) never did wear a raincoat and expose himself
      Its insanity i tell you , if you did turn into mouse man in real life you would probably gain the abilities to have cats claw at your face , make stereotypical women shriek and have a 2 year life span

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    2. Re:Mouseman by szilagyi · · Score: 1

      I already have one of those amazing abilities. Maybe one of these mice bit me while I was sleeping.

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

      The best mouse super power: the ability to get into my kitchen cabinet, eat some old crayons, and then rainbow poop all over the place.

    4. Re:Mouseman by loafswell · · Score: 0

      Well, something they did not want to mention in the article is that these mice only come out a night and need to drink LOTS of blood. Still want to get bit?

    5. Re:Mouseman by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      if you did turn into mouse man in real life you would probably gain the abilities to have cats claw at your face , make stereotypical women shriek and have a 2 year life span

      As a mouseman you would also have 8 nipples, I can't see a superhero having more than 2, it's just unsuper like...

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    6. Re:Mouseman by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      Nipple twisting would become your kryptonite .

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
  17. Zombie mice! by phoenix321 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Since Australia already has a huge problem with billions of unwanted rodents, rabbits, rats and mice in particular, I don't know what the advent of zombie creatures will bring them now. Oh yes, they will never leave the lab. That's what they want us to believe.

    Not to be fearful again, but ahem, do we really need mammals that can only be killed by headshots? Don't these guys ever learn from zombie movies? Think of the CHILDREN!!! I guess it's time to zip over to S-Mart and grab a shotgun, because I KNOW some mouse will sooner or later BITE one of the scientists and then all hell breaks loose.

    Anyone seen Bruce Campbell lately? We might need him.

    1. Re:Zombie mice! by Emeye · · Score: 1
      The best part of it all (from TFA):
      And when cells from the test mouse are injected into ordinary mice, they too acquire the ability to regenerate, the US-based researchers say.

      "When we injected fetal liver cells taken from those animals into ordinary mice, they too gained the power of regeneration. We found this persisted even six months after the injection."

      At least it's not carried by blood...then we'd really be in for it.

    2. Re:Zombie mice! by wraith0x29a · · Score: 1

      "Anyone seen Bruce Campbell lately? We might need him."

      Yeah we need some of that 'Army Of Darkness' attitude.

      When it comes to rounding up the zombie rodents B.C. could certainly give the scientists a hand,
      then they could return the favour.

      --
      ~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
    3. Re:Zombie mice! by JRIsidore · · Score: 1

      I knew all the training on headshot servers would pay someday... let 'em come!

      --
      :w!q
    4. Re:Zombie mice! by bersl2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "There can be only one!"?

  18. Skepsis? by Xner · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Can anyone familiar with the pubblication in question give us any details? The claims are quite extraordinary, and I certainly would do a double-take even if I read them in Science or Nature. I just want to rule out getting all excited then finding out it's the Australian version of The Onion, that's all...

    By the same token, if these people go public with it they probably already have a preprint up somewhere. Anyone in the field know anything?

    --
    Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
    1. Re:Skepsis? by Namarrgon · · Score: 1
      It's a major Australian newspaper, and not in the habit of claiming any old thing.

      I'd still like to see corroboration, though.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    2. Re:Skepsis? by _Hellfire_ · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Australian is Australia's national level newspaper. It's quite well respected and generally deals with Australia wide events and news.

      --
      "And then I visited Wikipedia ...and the next 8 hours are a blur..."
    3. Re:Skepsis? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Australia's answer to the NYT. It seems to be a particular strain of "made to order" lab mouse, that should make it easy for others to replicate or refute.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Skepsis? by oingoboingo · · Score: 1
      The Australian is Australia's national level newspaper. It's quite well respected and generally deals with Australia wide events and news.

      Is it possible to claim that any News Ltd publication is well respected? I pick up The Australian from time to time, and quickly remember why I don't read it regularly. It's just like the Daily Telegraph, except printed on broadsheet, and where the editors are allowed access to a dictionary.

    5. Re:Skepsis? by eric.t.f.bat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... And, being a Murdoch rag, it's not particularly well respected, either. I find the Sydney Morning Herald, aka the Sadly Moaning Horrid, to be a better paper all round, even if it does have a habit of riding particular bandwagons until the wheels fall off (*coughReneRivkincough*).

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable .sig block which this margin is too small to conta
    6. Re:Skepsis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another red flag on this article is the comment that the "brain" doesn't regenerate, but that sight is restored after severing the optic nerve. This doesn't sound right.

      I will believe it when Wistar starts selling this strain, and it can be tested outside of their institute.

    7. Re:Skepsis? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd go with "Softly Moaning Harridan" myself.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  19. The Power by orz · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who thinks that phrases like "gained the power of regeneration" are more appropriate for comic books or RPGs than professors of immunology announcing research results? : )

  20. Ozi Ozi Ozi by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 1

    Oi! Oi! Oi?

    Hey when I read the article, it kinda says "Wistar Institute, a US biomedical research centre"... Hmmm that would mean it's US not Australian scientists.... Hmmm....

    But the story is on "The Australian"... So if we can claim Russel Crowe is Australian (god knows why... the bloody Kiwi is an embaressment) I guess we can also claim ownership of this.

  21. Oi! Spelling in the post! by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1, Funny

    It reads Australiam scientists. That should be Australiam sciemtists.

    1. Re:Oi! Spelling in the post! by scolbe · · Score: 1

      let me guess... your 'n' is broken.. or should I just be breaking out the sarcasm warning flags

      --
      Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself 8+)
  22. Yet another scientific advance by ciroknight · · Score: 1, Troll

    ..that will never make it to human trials in America. Reason? It's another one of those taboo research topics; it's fine and dandy to clone a sheep or a mouse, it's fine to use crocodiles to fight HIV, it's acceptible to take a look at the human genes for eye-color and hair color, but the minute you even mention any of these actually going into clinical trials, or even attempting to get government funding, and you're shutdown for life.

    The research climate in this country's starting to get ridiculous. We hear about all of these new advances almost daily in the news, but we're still waiting to see any practical use come from them. These are things that save lives, things that make terrible diseases easier to fight.

    I know if I lost an arm or a leg or more importantly a heart or lung, I'd love the ability to grow one back..

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    1. Re:Yet another scientific advance by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

      I think many women that have undergone mastectomies would say the same thing (hysterectomy patients as well..)

    2. Re:Yet another scientific advance by drew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dont know. if you lost a heart, you might die before a new one could grow back...

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    3. Re:Yet another scientific advance by southpolesammy · · Score: 1

      Using crocodiles to fight HIV patients won't work -- the crocs think they taste funny.

      Oh wait...is that not what you meant?

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    4. Re:Yet another scientific advance by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as they can keep your blood flowing(assuming you still have blood) you should be okay.

    5. Re:Yet another scientific advance by AnotherSimilarToIt · · Score: 1

      I know if I lost an arm or a leg or more importantly a heart or lung

      Shoot, if I too had more than one heart, I wouldn't be too worried about growing back the one I lost.

    6. Re:Yet another scientific advance by EEgopher · · Score: 1

      I appreciated your article. What's important to remember is that most "taboo" research topics are "taboo" because they are grossly immoral. Furthermore, they don't always work. Take stem cell research: there have been ZERO cures or benefits from embryonic stem cell research, which kills developed human beings; there are dozens of powerful cures from adult stem cells. The former research is immoral, the latter is not.
          On the other hand, we all have to die someday, so our primary focus should be on what happens to us after death. The Catholic Church is helpful in dealing with this concern.

      --
      hi, I like pancakes -.-- -.-- --..
    7. Re:Yet another scientific advance by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, you'd probably want to replace your spares stock, just on principle.

      Besides, if you want to know what having a dual circulatory system is all about, just ask your neighborhood Time Lord.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  23. Australiam by scolbe · · Score: 1

    gee.. that sounds like a neat place to live..
    huh.. wuzzat?..
    oh Australian.. nevermind I'm already there ;)

    --
    Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself 8+)
  24. Opening of Q3A source pays off by lxs · · Score: 3, Funny

    You see why open source is a good thing? The Quake 3 source hasn't been open for a month and already the REGENERATION upgrade has been incorporated into mice. Now let's all hope and pray that the QUAD DAMAGE code doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

    1. Re:Opening of Q3A source pays off by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      I can imagine worse. Respawning mosquitoes?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  25. I wonder... by DeathByDuke · · Score: 1

    How they'd treat a person who has a heart damaged say, in a car crash, or was pierced by an object?

    put them on a heart machine while the heart regenerates itself? This sort of technology would certainly put an end to transplants.

  26. Evolutions conclusions being meddled with? by baadger · · Score: 1

    "Scientists have long known that less complex creatures have an impressive ability to regenerate. Many fish and amphibians can regrow internal organs or even whole limbs."

    It occurs to me that anything that'd let your penis grow back and therefore let one breed more (excluding slashdotters) wouldn't be dropped from the feature list for more 'complex' lifeforms without a whopper of a bug.

    1. Re:Evolutions conclusions being meddled with? by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I assume you're referring to natural selection -- a random process that drops good and bad features alike, as long as the creature isn't outright killed by the omission? Bummer that. Be careful assigning 'Intelligence' to anything so brute.

    2. Re:Evolutions conclusions being meddled with? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wound healing can either follow the regenerating or the scar-forming paths. Regeneration has obvious benefits, but the advantage of scar tissue is that it happens quickly and avoids infection. Being able to grow back a penis after a freak wood-chopping accident may sound good, but if you'd actually have already died from the infection after getting a splinter ten years before, evolution doesn't care.

      With medicine we can deal with the infections better than the body alone, so regeneration looks even better.

      IIRC regenerating animals don't tend to get cancer in the familiar way. They usually end up with whole extra limbs and so forth, rather than a mass of one tissue.

    3. Re:Evolutions conclusions being meddled with? by Listen+Up · · Score: 1

      It did not appear that the parent poster was assigning 'Intelligence' to anything. Assuming you are talking about make-believe religious beliefs. You understanding of natural selection is correct.

    4. Re:Evolutions conclusions being meddled with? by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 1

      Evbolution is overrated. Sure it gave us opposable thumbs and large brains but then again it also gave us Cancer and a host of other bad things. Time to kick that bitch to the curb.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

  27. Everlasting mouse ! by alexhs · · Score: 1

    So thanks to this new technology, I won't need to buy a new mouse after having crushed it into the wall when losing to some random FPS or RTS !

    Outstanding !

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
  28. (X) Mice-rin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new adamantium-skeleton mouse over...oh, wait!

  29. No Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an Australian paper talking about research going on in the US, by US scientists, which is going to be presented at a British conference.

    This has nothing to do with Australia, sorry guys.

    (Note that this is just news syndication going on here. News is widely shared between different organizations. The actual news desk at any given news outlet is usually quite small.)

  30. He's correct....US based by deft · · Score: 4, Informative

    The only thing about this news that's Australian is the name of the paper you decided to link the story from.

    A search for the researchers name comes up with her working at Penn State, in the good ol' U.S.A.

    "Heber-Katz, who is also an adjunct professor in the pathology and laboratory medicine department at Penn's School of Medicine, now devotes about 80 percent of her time to mapping the gene loci that confer these unique regeneration properties and analyzing their patterns of expression."

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:He's correct....US based by strider44 · · Score: 0

      psst mate don't tell anyone, let us take the credit.

    2. Re:He's correct....US based by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 1

      Even worse, it's not actually from The Australian. It's actually from that venerable British institution, The Sunday Times.

    3. Re:He's correct....US based by IDontAgreeWithYou · · Score: 1

      There is quite a difference between Penn and Penn State. Penn us an Ivy League school. She is from Penn.

      --
      Finding other idiots on /. that agree with your opinion doesn't make it any less stupid.
    4. Re:He's correct....US based by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Yes, the difference is mostly in arrogance, ego, and the absolute need to never be mistaken for a Big10 alum.

      Oh and an endowment that could support a third world country.

    5. Re:He's correct....US based by StudlyDego73 · · Score: 1

      Not ALL UPenn students/alumni are arrogant and rich spoiled brats(I'm from a small Jesuit university myself). My fiancee is from there and she is def not from a wealthy family. Though I do agree with your point about endowments supporting a third world country. I also happen to like the Big 10...college football season is finally here again!

    6. Re:He's correct....US based by GogglesPisano · · Score: 0

      There's a huge difference : Penn's football team sucks...

    7. Re:He's correct....US based by wolfneuralnet · · Score: 1

      Well - you're sort of right. She is at the Wistar Institute, which is on Penn's campus, but it isn't technically part of Penn :)

      As for the difference in Penn State and Penn, its mostly the level of research that gets done at the graduate level.

    8. Re:He's correct....US based by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And no doubt being a US institution, the School of Medicine will promptly patent the relevant gene loci and ensure that the rest of the world will have to pay to benefit...

    9. Re:He's correct....US based by Seanasy · · Score: 1
      ...at Penn's School of Medicine...

      "Penn" is short for University of Pennsylvania, not Penn State (which is itself short for Pennsylvania State University).

    10. Re:He's correct....US based by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wistar institute was named. This is an institute in Philadelphia, Pa, near the University of Pennsylvania that often works closely with that university. Indeed, the summary and title are rather incorrect

    11. Re:He's correct....US based by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, as of late, so has Penn State's team, though I went to Illinois, so I can't really say anything on the matter.

  31. Poor mice. by cablepokerface · · Score: 1
    I think humans and their wellbeing are superior to mice so some expirimenting should be allowed. Although this:

    It is quite remarkable. The only organ that did not grow back was the brain.

    made me frown a bit. So they actually removed a piece of the brain of a mouse while keeping it alive?
    1. Re:Poor mice. by stupid_is · · Score: 1
      I guess they did - the bastards. Oh, wait, someone does it to 8-year old girls.

      I've seen a few programs on the telly that show treatments for certain mental disorders that involve removing segments of the brain. That's the only reference I could dig out with a quick Google, but I'm sure there are others.

      --
      -- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
    2. Re:Poor mice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this advancement could save & improve thousands, if not millions of human lives

      but you're more bothered about 1 mouse?

      strange world you live in

    3. Re:Poor mice. by k-sound · · Score: 1

      So you think it's wrong to remove brain tissue of mice but you have no problem what so ever whith scientists cutting off or damaging their limbs and vital organs...

      I don't mind animal testing at all, as long as it's for medical purposes.

      Besides removal of brain tissue is so bad, ask Jack Nicholson

    4. Re:Poor mice. by ErikZ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heh. How cute.

      So, did you know that when doing research into fixing spine damage, they actually have to break the spines of the rats?

      Think about how they do that for a while.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    5. Re:Poor mice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, did you know that when doing research into fixing spine damage, they actually have to break the spines of the rats?

      I think they just provide young rats with miniature half-pipes and skateboards and wait for the inevitable.

    6. Re:Poor mice. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      So, did you know that when doing research into fixing spine damage, they actually have to break the spines of the rats?
      Think about how they do that for a while.


      Tiny, tiny skateboards?

      --

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

    7. Re:Poor mice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Heh. How cute.

      So, did you know that when doing research into fixing spine damage, they actually have to break the spines of the rats?

      Think about how they do that for a while.

      Anal sex?
  32. This is cool and all.. by Ztream · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..but I'm sceptical. Really, if this can be controlled by just changing a dozen genes, then why on earth do we (mammals) not have this ability already? It would obviously be a huge evolutionary advantage -- unless there are some pretty grim side effects.

    Sterility perhaps?

    As someone else here pointed out, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and, in these cases, extraordinary caution. I'm looking forward to the results though.

    1. Re:This is cool and all.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If sterility is a side-effect, donate some sperm to a sperm bank, then get the regenerative powerup.

    2. Re:This is cool and all.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, if this can be controlled by just changing a dozen genes, then why on earth do we (mammals) not have this ability already? It would obviously be a huge evolutionary advantage -- unless there are some pretty grim side effects.

      Flying has an evolutionary advantage too, but that doesn't mean we sprout wings. The main reason is of course that those who are disabled can still have viable offspring (wheelchair, prostheses) and that there's no push whatsoever for us to regrow anything. After all, it's not like half a leg-stump growing back again will allow us to eat again - either we are left by the rest of the tribe (in earlier times) or cared for anyway (so survival is possible).

    3. Re:This is cool and all.. by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really, if this can be controlled by just changing a dozen genes, then why on earth do we (mammals) not have this ability already?

      Because natural selection is a random process. Just because a beneficial feature 'could' exist doesn't mean it will. In fact, there's a good chance that we have many such wonderful features in our genome just waiting to be turned on.

      Apparently, we share like 90% of our genome with all of the other creatures on earth. Just think of all of the things they can do, and wonder if we can 'flip a switch' to 'turn on' those features! Five minutes in a lab, and you too could have the regenerative power of lizards, the claws of a tiger, the speed of a cheetah, and the wings of an eagle. You'd look awful funny, though.

    4. Re:This is cool and all.. by Xrikcus · · Score: 1

      Just think how long it takes for a limb to grow back. A lizard's tail works because the lizard is perfectly viable without the tail. If you lost a leg, and lived in a pre-civilisation era, how would you survive with one leg until the other grew back some months (years?) later? Hence no actual survival benefit is provided by limb regrowth, so it wouldn't necessarily be expected to evolve.

    5. Re:This is cool and all.. by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 1

      From an evolutionary perspective, I think that if someone is the kind of human who goes around losing vital body parts (e.g. reproductive organs) they are a probably a wasteful burden on the species who should probably not be permitted to reproduce :-)

      Seriously, though, there could be many reasons why an organism would "lose" the ability to regenerate, I suppose: perhaps it leads to an increases probability of developing tumours, or perhaps it is simply too energetically costly to benefit the species in the long run.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    6. Re:This is cool and all.. by Ckwop · · Score: 1

      It would obviously be a huge evolutionary advantage -- unless there are some pretty grim side effects.


      There is a grim side effect: It takes an enormas amount of energy. Growing an entirely new adult leg is probably a bigger job than growing a baby


      The amount of energy this takes would put you at a huge disadvantage when there isn't alot of food around. For almost all of human history, famine has never been far away so we're well adapted to cope.


      Simon

      oof
    7. Re:This is cool and all.. by Eccles · · Score: 1

      It would obviously be a huge evolutionary advantage -- unless there are some pretty grim side effects.

      Actually, it probably isn't that big an advantage. The survival and reproduction rate for non-regenerators is probably very similar to that of those who can regenerate. And what seems to happen in evolution is that if a benefit doesn't result in reproductive benefits, it "goes away", as mutations that weaken it appear in the population and aren't evolved out. Some of our ancestors probably had better hearing, vision, smell, etc., but we lost those abilities because they weren't necessary for survival.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    8. Re:This is cool and all.. by Ztream · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am aware that evolution is based on randomness, so it is entirely possible that this just hasn't happened. However, is it probable?

      From this article, it seems that the "genetic distance" to having this sort of ability is fairly small, which means a small number of mutations (seen from the point of view of an evolutionary time scale) would give us this ability. Also, the article seems to imply that no mammal has this ability. I find it hard to believe that this ability wouldn't have been aquired by any mammal at all, if it didn't have significant draw-backs.

    9. Re:This is cool and all.. by Ztream · · Score: 1

      I agree. This could be why we aren't constructed in this way. Also, if you're missing a limb or have a damaged heart, finding food will be even more difficult.

    10. Re:This is cool and all.. by big_groo · · Score: 1

      You're confused. This mutation would not give any one subgroup of the species a particular advantage over any other. 'Advantage' in evolutionary terms basically means 'reproduction'. While it would be *nice* if we could grow back organs/limbs, it is not necessary for propagation of the species.

    11. Re:This is cool and all.. by radtea · · Score: 1

      It would obviously be a huge evolutionary advantage -- unless there are some pretty grim side effects.

      There is some evidence (work done at the University of Ottawa, in Canada, if memory serves) that scaring and regeneration are complimentary processes: animals that scar don't regenerate, animals that regenerate don't scar. This would make sense if the genes controlling the two processes were the same, and could only be used for one purpose.

      If that is the case (walking out on a speculative limb) it makes sense that warm-blooded animals would tend to scar, and cold-blooded animals would tend to regenerate, because scaring is a much faster healing process and warm-blooded animals can't afford much down-time waiting for limbs to regrow because they need to be constantly on the move to get food. Cold-blooded animals just lie around most of the time anyway, so they may as well regrow any missing bits while they're at it.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    12. Re:This is cool and all.. by Suidae · · Score: 1

      This is a good point. An arm or leg is a lot of complex tissue to build. I'm not sure how much an average leg weighs, but I'd guess it could be 20% of the mass of an average (not fat) person. Lets say thats 35 pounds. It takes a newborn child anywhere from 3-8 years to put on 35 lean pounds, and they are in a heavy growth phase.

      Of course thats an extreme example. I would imagine that most regeneration uses would be much smaller (fingers, hands, organs, skin for burn patients, etc), but any use is likely to be pretty long-term treatment.

    13. Re:This is cool and all.. by Suidae · · Score: 2, Informative

      As an aside, most lizards that regrow tails don't actually regenerate a complete tail. The spine that forms the tail has a fracture plane near the base of the tail that allows it to seperate easily. Once lost the new tail is regrown without bones, its mostly fat.

    14. Re:This is cool and all.. by Suidae · · Score: 1

      Growing an entirely new adult leg is probably a bigger job than growing a baby

      Indeed, if a leg is about 35-40 pounds and it grows at a rate comparable to a newborn child (pretty darn fast, but not as fast as an agressive tumor), it could take anywhere from 3-8 years, and for most of that time it would probably be too short to be useful.

      It would be very important to have superior nutrition during regrowth. You'd have to eat like a serious bodybuilder. The average American's crappy diet would probably take a decade to rebuild the necessary tissue.

      On the bright side, you'd get to park in the handicap spaces for a few years.

    15. Re:This is cool and all.. by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 1

      A point that most people miss when they think of evolution. Sure (insert favorite animal organ/ability) might be nice to have, but in the context of overall reproduction, the energy costs involved with either growing the tissue involved and/or performing the function might well reduce the ability of a given species member to reproduce.

      Take the example of the mole. The mole branched off from a sighted rodent when it started living entirely underground so it had fully functional eyes. Since the branch point, the mole shouldn't have lost so much visual capacity from just nonuse degeneration (genes which no longer have a selection for or against will eventually deteriorate into nonexistance). In other words, blind moles had an advantage over sighted moles. Eyes take a lot of energy to grow and keep functional, the moles without as much eye tissue had an advantage in they could spend more energy on reproduction and less on eyesight (that wasn't useful from a survival standpoint).

    16. Re:This is cool and all.. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      see, nows there's a legitimate application for those obscene Burger King Triple Decker Whopper meals (oh yeah, Biggie Size it and add "cheese" and bacon!)

  33. Oversights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Couple of errors in the summary:

    The lab responsible is in the US not Australia, even though the report comes from The Australian. The paper isn't that parochial, you know.

    Also, it sounds like a serendipitous discovery rather than intentional creation. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    As the work doesn't appear to have been published yet, my guess is that it will turn out to be a bit less remarkable than it currently sounds.

    1. Re:Oversights by Daemonic · · Score: 5, Funny
      it sounds like a serendipitous discovery
      Indeed - they just suddenly noticed mice were regenerating. For all we know the mice evolved entirely on their own to overcome their environment of scientists poking holes in them all the time!

      Of course, now all future regenerating mice, and possibly all future regenerating people are going to have the genes of perhaps one single originator mouse....

      <chant>We believe in one mouse, the rejuvenator all mighty - progenitor of mankind on earth...</chant> Praise be to squeaky.

    2. Re:Oversights by G.+W.+Bush+Junior · · Score: 0
      As the work doesn't appear to have been published yet, my guess is that it will turn out to be a bit less remarkable than it currently sounds.

      Parts of it has definitely been published before... and here , in 2004, for example.
      Although I haven't had time to read all of it yet, it's still sounds pretty amazing. But the phenotype has some characteristics that might not be too fortunate in humans... They develop large amounts of lymphocytes that shows up as lumps under the skin... probably won't look too pretty.
      --
      "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
    3. Re:Oversights by towaz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow my hamster has these regeneration powers too!...

      oh wait... :(

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
    4. Re:Oversights by data1 · · Score: 1

      Typical non belivers!

      The noodly appendage of our lord has interceeded again and saved his mousley creations from demise at the hands of the heathen!

      Read the entry below to be saved!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Mons ter

    5. Re:Oversights by kasparov · · Score: 1

      Actually a lot this has published since 1998.

      --
      There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
    6. Re:Oversights by Yohannon · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it Asimov who said something along the lines of "The great discoveries of our times weren't hearalded by the word 'Eureka!', but the phrase 'Huh, that's funny...'?

      Hey, it was good enough for penicillin.

      As a side note, I wonder what the regenerative effect, if replicated in human beings, would have on things like tattoos? Even better, if you have a set of tonsils or an appendix removed, wouldn't they just grow back to haunt you another day?

      Speaking of haunting, the whole "zombie mice" thread makes me cringe. These mice are NOT immortal -- I'm certain that a solid hit with a shotgun at close range would take care of the "super mouse" in short order. Rodentia paté, anyone?

      ~Y~

    7. Re:Oversights by SEE · · Score: 1

      The Flying Spaghetti Monster is an evil abomination! All hail Lord Antipasto, who righteously rebelled against the Noodly One, and had continued his guerilla war despite his exile from Heaven!

    8. Re:Oversights by Hobart · · Score: 1
      <chant>We believe in one mouse, the rejuvenator all mighty - progenitor of mankind on earth...</chant> Praise be to squeaky.
      Wow, the Nicene Creed parodied on Slashdot. I never thought I'd see the day. Congratulations, sir, you've either risen to new hights of or sunk to new lows of parody and blasphemy.
      --
      o/~ Join us now and share the software ...
  34. When I get old... by corneliusagain · · Score: 1

    ...put my brain in a bottle and let me regrow the rest? Intriguing.

    1. Re:When I get old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep, and your brain will still be in the bottle...

  35. Every good geek knows... by squoozer · · Score: 0

    The head shot is the only true stopper.

    --
    I used to have a better sig but it broke.
  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. A patent opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I hate to ask, but given the penchant of biotech copanies to patent anything that walks crawls or oozes, has this genetic sequence been patented?

    Also I've always been fascinated to understand how a regenerated body part knows when to stop growing - visions of Tetsuo's transformations at the end of Akira come queasily to mind.

  38. Re:Am I the only one that by lanswitch · · Score: 1

    You are not the only one who doen'ts know the difference between a comma and a point.

  39. Did I read that right? by dark+grep · · Score: 1
    "Australiam scientists have created mice which can regenerate absolutely any tissue excpet for the tissues of the brain. Heart, lungs, entire limbs, you name it. This is the first time this has been seen in mammals. The potential implications are positively mammoth. I thought this warranted attention. :)"

    What - a mouse can regenerate a Mammoth? And so can any mammal. Well, that bodes well for future of male cosmetic surgery.

  40. brains by lovebyte · · Score: 1

    It does not work for the brain though. Blondes will scream discrimation! if they can pronounce the word.

    --

    I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    1. Re:brains by mikataur · · Score: 1, Funny

      Blondes in glass houses shouldn't throw spelling examples.

  41. A mammal too far... by moviepig.com · · Score: 1
    ...positively mammoth...

    Uh oh... bulding a Terminator mouse is one thing, but larger species are better left extinct...

    --
    Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
  42. While we're on the subject.... by bananahammock · · Score: 1

    ...check out Robert Becker's The Body Electric, a controversial yet superb look at the role of electricity in the regeneration of tissue and bone (mainly on salamanders) - or "energy medicine" to some.

    As an aside, I understand that if a new born baby loses a fingertip, it will regenerate. Don't try this at home though. The question remains: why can't we as we get older?

  43. Who wrote the article? by dascandy · · Score: 1

    excpet for the tissues of the brain Does slashdot accept submissions from mice?

  44. Old news and not from Australia!?! by sidney · · Score: 4, Informative
    The Wistar Institute is in the US and the publication list on this topic at the lead researcher's page goes from 1998 to 2003.

    So what makes this new or Australian?

    Desquenne Clark, L., Clark, R., and Heber-Katz, E. 1998. A new model for mammalian wound repair and regeneration. Clin. Imm. and Immunopath. 88: 35-45.

    McBrearty, B.A., Desquenne-Clark, L., Zhang, X-M., Blankenhorn, E.P., and Heber-Katz, E. 1998. Genetic analysis of a mammalian wound healing trait. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95: 11792 - 11797.

    Heber-Katz, E. 1999. The regenerating mouse ear. Seminars in Cell & Develop. Biol. 10:415-420.

    Samulewicz, SJ, Clark,L, Seitz,A., and E. Heber-Katz. 2002. Expression of Pref-1, A Delta-Like Protein, in Healing Mouse Ears. Wound Repair and Regeneration, 10: 215-221.

    Gourevich,D, Clark,L, Chen P, Seitz A, Samulewicz S, and E. Heber-Katz. 2003. Matrix Metalloproteinase Activity Correlates with Blastema Formation in the Regenerating MRL Ear Hole Model. Developmental Dynamics. 226; 377-387.

    Blankenhorn EP, Troutman S, Desquenne Clark L., Zhang X-M, and E. Heber-Katz. 2003. Sexually dimorphic genes regulate healing and regeneration in the MRL/MpJ mouse. Mammalian Genome, In press.

    Leferovich, J., Bedelbaeva, K., Samulewicz, S,, Xhang, X-M, Zwas, DR, Lankford, EB, and Heber-Katz, E. 2001. Heart regeneration in adult MRL mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 98: 9830-9835.

    Heber-Katz,E., Leferovich, J., and K. Bedelbaeva. 2002. Spontaneous heart regeneration in adult MRL mice after cryo-injury. Gene Therapy and Regulation. 1:399-408; Leferovich, JM and E. Heber-Katz. 2002. The Scarless Heart. Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology. 13: 327-333.

    Seitz, A., Aglow, E., and E. Heber-Katz. 2002. Recovery from spinal cord injury: A new transection model in the C57BL/6 mouse. J. Neuroscience Research 67: 337:345.

    Seitz, A, Kragol, M, Aglow, E, Showe, L. and E. Heber-Katz. 2003. Apo-E expression after spinal cord injury in the mouse. J. Neuroscience Research. 71: 417-387.

  45. fuck ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There I said it. If we can identify these genes in humans, then I say we start clinical trials right away. There are people who are going to die because they've suffered a horrible injury or are waiting for a transplant. Certainly some of them would jump at the chance for life. Do we always have to wait 20 years after a medical discovery before we even see any practical application of it?

  46. Healing potions! by Zawash · · Score: 1

    ..Now if we could implement this biotech into bottles of goo, we could have working healing potions!

    The mind boggles at the possibilites..

    Real life FPS, sharp swords in Live roleplaying etc etc - just drink a healing potion afterwards! ..And no head shots, mind you! ;)

    --
    File not found. Fake it(Y/N)? _
  47. Not new? by corbs · · Score: 2, Interesting
    A quick search for Ellen Heber-Katz shows that these 'super mice' at least, have been known about for quite a while:

    We were doing an experiment and my laboratory assistant went upstairs to ear punch the mice and 3 weeks later I went to see how the experiment was doing and when I looked in the cage I was horrified to see that the mice were there, but the ear, the ear holes were not.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/1999/living_f orever_script.shtml/ear

    check the date...
  48. Damn - I thought it was a PC mouse by SalsaDot · · Score: 1

    And here was I hoping that they'd made a PC mouse that recharged its batteries from the motion as you use it ...

  49. Patented Mice by davro · · Score: 1

    The mice might be sued for regenerating without permission, or could they claim prior natural art ?

    "The digits grew back, complete with Joints"
    Ganja spliffs growing out of fingers to *ucking cool.

  50. New penis enlargement spam? by frinkacheese · · Score: 1, Funny

    I can see it now, the new penis enlargement spam. Simply grow a new penis on a mouse and attach, it really does work!

    1. Re:New penis enlargement spam? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
      Great!

      So now I will have no argument when my wife accuses me of being "hung like a mouse"...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:New penis enlargement spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got it wrong. It's: "Cut it off, wait for two weeks (growing period), one week trial, money back guarantee. Any spare tissues disposal free of charge.

  51. Cool by CleverNickedName · · Score: 2, Funny

    I long for the day, in the far future, when I can lose an arm is a horrific fishing accident and automatically grow it back again.

    Of course, waiting five years to have a toddler's arm hanging out of your shoulder isn't ideal either...

    --


    Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
    1. Re:Cool by customiser · · Score: 0

      Not to mention getting a new watch...

  52. My how the US is the leader in biotechnology!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Or not.

    We hand our software industry off to India, and we put up barriers to the next "new" thing being biotech.

    Long live Intelligent Design.
    Long live making biotech illegal or un-funded.

    I am off to returning to my Walmart job now.

  53. Re:generate by Zawash · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh no! Now we will have regenerating trolls in real life as well! ..This might be the end of slashdot as we know it!

    Quick - do they regenerate fire damage and holy damage as well? What about +1 weapons?

    --
    File not found. Fake it(Y/N)? _
  54. Soon by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    Great! So any time soon, violent thugs our children should be protected from and corporation executives -but I repeat myself- will be able to afford a terminator body accompanied by a terminated brain.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  55. What does this say about evolution? by shirai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What's most curious about this is why less complex creatures have an enormous ability to regenerate but more complex ones don't. If it is a matter of a few genes, you would expect that random mutations would impart the self-regeneration trait onto us but evolution has chosen not to.

    I can only surmise that for complex creatures, self-regeneration is not only worthless, but is undesirable (since no complex creatures seem to have self-regeneration but many less complex creatures do). This, of course applies to complex creatures as a species anyways. I think I'd find it extremely valuable for myself.

    I don't know the answer but perhaps it has to do with the thinking aspect of complex creatures and how that affects mating. I'd be interested in hearing others hypothesize about this.

    --
    Sunny

    Be my Friend

    1. Re:What does this say about evolution? by wraith0x29a · · Score: 1

      IANAG* but I would guess that the increased complexity means that more can go wrong with the regeneration process, perhaps leading to mutation/cancers? I also wonder if regenerating animals are more prone to risk-taking, as even an amputation is not a fatal setback. Perhaps that would increase the chance of incurring a fatal injury, thus cancelling out any advantage? It's kind of like making cars and roads safer - people feel safer so they take more risks. (* I Am Not A Geneticist)

      --
      ~ Better a freak than a sheep. ~
    2. Re:What does this say about evolution? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Maybe regenerating adults will lead to more inbreeding and genetic instabilities?

      And for most animals, it wont help: when they die, they normally die because of being eaten or starvation, none of it can be countered.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:What does this say about evolution? by localman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think there's any hard physical limitation to a body living for millenia, barring extreme damage. I mean, there are living things that do that already. But obviously that's not how most creatures work.

      One possible explanation is that it was just never important for a creature to live longer than it takes to rear it's young. So there's no evolutionary driver for it.

      And the counter driver might be that living too long causes you to use resources that would otherwise be available to your young.

      That kind of puts life in perspective.

      Just a thought. Cheers.

    4. Re:What does this say about evolution? by minairia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am not geneticist or even a scientist, so if the following opinion sounds stupid, please take that into consideration ... I was thinking about that and have an idea. Imagine this a mouse in the wild that regenerate a leg after, say, a week. For that one week period, the three legged mouse will barely be able to move and when it does it will slow and shambling, i.e. perfect owl/stoat/dog/cat food. The regeneration genes will never get passed on to the next generation. A blind mouse would eaten even faster.

    5. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember reading something amany years ago that suggested speed of response to injury was the important factor.

      Lizards and "regenerating" reptiles generally don't generate scar tissue. Instead, in response to an injury their body slowly regrows the damaged part.

      Mammals, on the other hand, prioritise closing the wound to prevent infection - we very quickly form scar tissue which effectively blocks the wound to infection, but also prevents regrowing the damaged part.

      I always understood this was an evolutionary adaptation, but I've never worked out why mammals apparently have so much more to fear from infection than reptiles - is it something to do with our relative complexity, or is it a warm-blooded/cold-blooded thing?

      Either way, with our longer lifespans, greater ability at saving individuals with serious injuries and our modern disinfectants and antibiotics, I'd be prepared to swap a slight increase in infectability for the ability to regenerate any wound short of a headshot!

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    6. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Rick.C · · Score: 0
      What this says is that evolution is wrong and creationism is a fact.

      What this also says is that those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it.

      Does anyone really know what that whole Adam-Eve-Apple-Snake thing was all about? NO! The only thing we know is that it had something to do with temptation. Um, and that temptation is bad. Okay, two things, then. But that's all.

      Now we're off making un-holy mice! Aren't snakes bad enough? Soon we'll have indestructable mice tempting us with a piece of cheddar. Or colby. Or gouda. And I'm a sucker for smoked gouda.

      The end is near, I tell you! Run for the hills!
      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    7. Re:What does this say about evolution? by wildchild978 · · Score: 1

      How do you define a "complex" creature and a "less complex" creature? Seems to me that mice are very complex indeed.
      Heart, lungs, eyes, ears, mouth, brain, digestive system, immune system. All because of their DNA.

      Note also that scientists here are doing what naturally occuring in axolotls. Note also that axolotls are also exceedingly complex. Heart, lungs, eyes, ears, mouth, braing, digestive system, immune system, gills. All because of their DNA.

      Also note that the scientists are manipulating genes that are already there. This begs the question: How did the information get there in the first place?

    8. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There was an earlier slashdot story about the crocodiles' immune system being studied to cure AIDS. It appears that crocs have a very powerful immune system, capable of fending off most infections. This is likely due to the fact that they've lived in very infectious areas such as swamp for millions of years, as well as having nasty territorial fights leaving them wounded very often. As a result, the evolutionary pressure for a powerful immune system is enormous.

    9. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Living too long beyond your reproductive years consumes resources needed by those who are reproducing... and...

      A long reproductive lifespan slows down a population's ability to adapt to change.

    10. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Targon · · Score: 1

      Complex creatures DO regenerate to a small degree. The problem is that the biological process that causes various organs to develop isn't there because there is so much specialized tissue in something like the human body. We grow hair, but in some people that ability stops. Science has begun to find a reason for it stopping.

      To understand why we CAN'T regenerate limbs, you must first understand how the body develops from conception through maturity. Scientists are starting to understand the process, but until they do, it will be a while. Stem cell research is key to this understanding. If scientists can figure out how stem cells work, they can apply them to the problem of regenerating lost limbs.

      Then again, the process of human development isn't well known at this point. Children lose their "baby teeth" as their adult teeth begin to come in. If that process is known, then we could have dentists simply give us an injection or series of injections and have all new teeth come in.

    11. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      The question posed is: Why did complex creatures not evolve regeneration?

      The question I would ask instead, is: Why did regenerating creatures not evolve as much complexity?

      If a subset of a species develops regeneration, those members of the species will contribute their genetic material to the gene pool longer than those without. This inhibits evolution, by decreasing the diversity of the gene pool.

      In addition, the selective advantage of other useful mutations would be lessened, thereby inhibiting evolution.

      To go back and answer the original question, I think that the chance of a complex species to develop regeneration is far too low. There are too many genetic variables required to change, I would guess, and some of them probably do not confer selective advantage in and of themselves.

      We'll have to wait until the they give their presentation next week, to find out how much of the test mouse's DNA was changed.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    12. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It raises the question. Begging the question doesn't mean what you think it means.

    13. Re:What does this say about evolution? by 4of12 · · Score: 1
      What's most curious about this is why less complex creatures have an enormous ability to regenerate but more complex ones don't.

      Complex creatures have already developed a sustainable means for regenerating - sex.

      It seems to work fairly well.

      It's only with our highly-developed sense of self-importance and our heightened awareness of the past that we are disappointed that "I" cannot be regenerated in a revitalized physical body.

      If humanity is ever able to fulfill this instinct of self-preservation, then technically sex will become unnecessary. But it might never disappear, not simply because the instinct to reproduce is so strong, but because stronger instincts to reproduce will still be passed on preferentially to more offspring.

      IOW, hornier people produce more horny kids.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    14. Re:What does this say about evolution? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      ...use resources that would otherwise be available to your young. That kind of puts life in perspective.

      You don't mean... "sorry sonny, granny is going to live forever, so no inheritance for you, you'll have to work for a living instead"

      noooooooooooooooooooo :-)

    15. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Nos9 · · Score: 1

      Well the life cycle of the mouse is 2 years (as stated in the article), let's assume that the mouse can reproduce at 1 year old (probably much earlier). Now lets assume that those mice have been breeding towards self-regeneration since 5 AD. That's around 2000 generations to achieve the mutation. Now the human can reproduce around age 14, those same 2000 generations will take at least 28,000 years to occur, if they occur at the same rate in humans as they did in the mice.
          A mouse is a complex creature, and I doubt that regeneration isn't a bonus, unless it has a side effect of making one sterile.

    16. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I can only surmise that for complex creatures, self-regeneration is not only worthless, but is undesirable (since no complex creatures seem to have self-regeneration but many less complex creatures do).

      Actually, the reason is much simpler than that: Simple (fractal) structures can be easily replicated, while complex ones cannot be (post embryonic). Many complex structures of the the (human) body require three-dimentional gradiants (to give the cells clues as to how to assemble) that are trivial to make in an embryo but impossible to generate in the full sized body.

      (Yeah, I'm too lazy to login)

    17. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Suidae · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mammals have an adaptive immune system, it takes time for it to identify infections and generate antibodies. A slowly healing open wound might allow infections faster than the immune system can respond.

      Simpler animals often have a different type of immune system (sorry, I've forgotten what its called, see the crocodile story) that is less flexible, but much faster to kill off infections since it doesn't have to generate new antibodies for each new invader.

      I would expect that a good short term solution for humanity is to leave healing alone and allow the fast scar tissue generation scheme to proceed. Then in the event of injuries that require regeneration the procedure can be initated in a clinical environment where infection can be controlled.

      Normal cuts and scrapes would heal naturally, but lost limbs would be regenerated by application of the necessary drugs/suppliments in a clinical environment. (although if regeneration effects stick around for months as in the mice in the article one might have to be careful with cuts and scrapes for a while after a regeneration event.

      In the far future it might be possible to redesign our immune systems to be effective with full-time regeneration (this would also probably eliminate almost all of the diseases we currently suffer from).

      If things go well, those of us alive today may be able to live several hundred years. Thats great, we'll have the oppertunity to see the result of global climate change!

    18. Re:What does this say about evolution? by fab13n · · Score: 1

      I would guess that regeneration ability leads more often to cells going wild and reproducing themselves anarchically, i.e. cancer. Probably, the more complex the organism, the more likely such a misfunction, and at some point the advantage of regrowing limbs/organs was not worth the increased cancer rate; but that's just a random guess from a non-biologist.

    19. Re:What does this say about evolution? by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      I can only surmise that for complex creatures, self-regeneration is not only worthless, but is undesirable...

      Methinks you surmise too quickly. :) The fact that regeneration has not evolved in complex creatures (that we know of) can only lead us to one conclusion: no creature population has survived long enough in a particular environment to create a present day species. That's it.

      Who knows whether a complex creature evolved in the past with this trait, yet was wiped out by environmental factors? (meteor strike, ice age, etc.) Just because the current set of species available for us to study does not contain this particular trait combination does not mean that it isn't possible or even viable.

    20. Re:What does this say about evolution? by demachina · · Score: 1

      " I'd be interested in hearing others hypothesize about this."

      Having recently converted to Bushiology I am certain it is due to Intelligent Design. So the simple, irrefutable answer is that it's God's will. We are still grappling with how to explain the appendix.

      --
      @de_machina
    21. Re:What does this say about evolution? by mavi_yelken · · Score: 1

      there are several hypothesis about this: why don't humans have regenarative powers? the answer might be that there was never a selective pressure to develop one. in the wilderness if you lose a limb, you are practically dead. so regenerating it does not make sense, there is no selective pressure for it. higher vertebrates mostly lack regeneration potential of lower complexity organisms. regeneration is thougth to be coupled with increased possibility of cancer, so this might be a sensible trade-off. there is an interesting salamander called axolotl that can grow whole limbs and is currently being studied as a model organism for regeneration studies. in their natural habitat, they lose limbs very often so the ability to grow them back is a useful one. natural selection might have favored them to keep regeneration of this level. (http://www.centralpets.com/animals/reptiles/salam anders/sal2539.html/)

    22. Re:What does this say about evolution? by IthnkImParanoid · · Score: 1

      That probably has a lot of merit to it, and has been suggested by other posters. Basically, regeneration is nice for cold blooded reptiles that can hole up without food to allow the regenerative process to complete, but mammals need to go out and get food, so our bodies focus on closing the wound quickly and getting us back out there.

      --
      It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
    23. Re:What does this say about evolution? by aggieben · · Score: 1

      What's most curious about this is why less complex creatures have an enormous ability to regenerate but more complex ones don't.

      It doesn't seem all that curious to me. Seems to me the trend in all life forms is such that simpler forms can regenerate more easily than complex ones (mice->lizards->earthworms->plants->bacteria->...) .

      Besides the above, it just makes sense. The simpler something is, the easier it is to fix/rebuild. If your wreck your car, it's pretty hard to actually put it together again. If someone takes a dump out of an airplane and it hits the doghouse in your backyard and puts a hole in the roof, it's pretty easy to "regenerate".

      --
      Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
    24. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      That makes sense (and actually, now you mention it, the "two different types of immune system" thing does ring a bell...).

      "I would expect that a good short term solution for humanity is to leave healing alone and allow the fast scar tissue generation scheme to proceed. Then in the event of injuries that require regeneration the procedure can be initated in a clinical environment where infection can be controlled."

      To be honest, I think it's more likely you'd have your scarring mechanism turned off (either by gene therapy on your whole body, or possibly locally to the injury-site). IIRC, once scarring has set in the scar-tissue actually prevents any regeneration occurring. If so, it may well be an all-or-nothing choice - either regeneration or scarring. At the very least, to regenerate an scarred-over injury I'd expect you'd probably have to recreate the wound again.

      If so, I doubt we'd use gene therapy to willingly turn off scarring altogether, since this would make us unreasonably dependant on medication and antibiotics. More likely, we'd use some mechanism (tailored virus? donor cells?) to give localised gene-therapy to the site of the wound (like today, with experimental treatments for diabetes), and leave the rest of the body as-is.

      "In the far future it might be possible to redesign our immune systems to be effective with full-time regeneration (this would also probably eliminate almost all of the diseases we currently suffer from)... those of us alive today may be able to live several hundred years."

      I'm not so sure - this advance would basically prevent scarring, but it say nothing about disease or old age, which are very different things with very different causes (eg, telomere loss, which this doesn't necessarily protect against, or cancer, which it could actually cause). For example, even regenerating reptiles still get sick, and still die of old-age.

      That said, it's an incredibly exciting development with profound implications for society. We could be looking at the end of acquired (non-genetic) disabilities altogether, and that's fucking awesome.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    25. Re:What does this say about evolution? by hvt · · Score: 1

      Or, perhaps physical body are not absolutely important in the survival of the genes, and that the genes discard the body as soon as they assure their survival after reproduction. There must be certain advantage in the cycle of life and death to the gene. The high cost of duplicating, every so often, a new vehicle to carry itself must be well worth it to the genes in the evolutionary arm race. It's only the id that needs the body, not the gene. We are looking at a new battlefield, where the id, in its effort for self preservation, interferes with the self preservation machinery of the gene.

    26. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Hyperspac · · Score: 1

      I would guess that it comes down to a simple energy issue. It takes significatnly more energy (food, time, etc) to regrow a limb or heal a major injury then to scar over it. Complex animal have higher energy needs, but also more adaptablity, so it might simply be that you would starve to death if you body tried to regrow your missing arm where as if it consevered resources after the injury and quickly got you back to operating with what you had left you would be ok. Simple creatures on the other hand don't have as many nonessential, but useful, parts so they need to keep them all working or their done for.

    27. Re:What does this say about evolution? by nuOpus · · Score: 1

      Thats just it ... random mutation. You said "you would expect that random mutations would impart the self-regeneration trait onto us"

      The fact that it is random is just that ... its random! It has NOTHING to do with the fact that you think humans are more superior or are "more worthy" of such a mutation. The only argument to more complex creatures having the ability is that we have more genes and a higher probability. A random selection does not always fall on the side of probability .. that is why we call it a probability and not a certainty!

      We also know that certain evolution evolves from a need for something. A guilla monster grows poison sacks on its back because of the need for defense of other creatures biting it ... NOT because a random mutation caused it to grow poison bubbles.

      In the wild creatures like lizards evolved the ability of regeneration from need as they are prey and have gotten lots of limbs torn off.

      If this is the case, then humans are less likely to evolve such a trait because we are protected by our technology and are not technically part of the "predator and prey" aspect of nature like all other organisms are. Our natural area of evolution will most likely come from evolutions of the mind .. telepathic ability and increased capacity or the like.

      So in the end it has nothing to do with complete "randomness" ... but more to do with "changes creature evolution deems necessary to foster survivability of the organism."

      Now, after a nuclear war if we go back to pre-civilization days and keep getting our legs bitten off or arms torn off by lions, then maybe after a hundred years evolution will give us such an ability of regeneration. OR we may grow poison sacks on our backs or the ability to shoot poison or sharp barbs from our nipples to defend ourselves! LOL :-)

      As it stands, humans evolved superior intellect as our defense. I would much rather have THAT .. than regeneration any day.

    28. Re:What does this say about evolution? by easttuth · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, on average, the same amount of regeneratory meece and non-regeneratory meece would be severely wounded given the same environment. The probability of the regeneratory moose.. er.. mouse surviving is significantly higher simply based on the fact that if it CAN survive the next 2 weeks of lameness, it will, once again, be one of the meece with lack of lamity. Given enough time, all your reece's peeces belong to meeces.

    29. Re:What does this say about evolution? by bcmm · · Score: 1

      IANA biologist, but IIRC some people believe that we lost the regeneration mechanism in favour of systems like scarring, which doesn't restore things to how they were before the injury but is faster and therefore less likely to cause infection.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    30. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing we may want to consider in this context is the life span of most creatures that do have regenerative properties. I've not studied this in depth at all and am in no way that knowledgable on all the different species that can regenerate, but I'd imagine that the regeneration process has to be stressful on the body. Just as the human body reacts adversely to traumatic experiences, I imagine species with regenerative properties shorten their lifespan with each regeneration process. The more complex an organism...the more stress it may cause to that organism. The mice in this experiment are still very young in the average lifespan of mice, so it will be interesting to see whether or not the stress of regenerating all these organs and body parts affects their lifespan. It's also interesting that the brain is not able to regenerate. I'd hypothesize that the brain plays the critical role in intiating the regeneration process, which is why a damaged brain would be unable to regenerate. Does each regeneration cause enough stress to the brain to damage it? I'm sure the scientists involved will be asking the same questions and in time we'll have the answers.

    31. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course for humans in much of the world now, we don't need to go out and hunt like our ancestors. We can literally hole up in our houses waiting for our limbs to regenerate and eat delivery pizza to sustain ourselves, just like reptiles.

      So if this discovery somehow kickstarts our ability to do this, I think we will be able to sustain it long enough to pass the regenerative genes onto the next generation.

    32. Re:What does this say about evolution? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Yeah. A man is just a sperm's way of making another sperm.

    33. Re:What does this say about evolution? by ralphh · · Score: 1

      You've given me an idea: Maybe there's a selection pressure against mice (and other complex creatures) who are dumb enough to lose a leg, eye or ear in the first place. If they lose such a valuable part once, maybe they're more likely to lose it again or sustain an even worse injury and wind up as fish food. In the meantime, they'd be competing for food with their smarter, more deserving cohort members.

      --
      "A worthy cause has never been harmed by the truth" - Gandhi
    34. Re:What does this say about evolution? by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 1

      Except the regeneration process would be about the same rate as the growth process (i.e. it would take much more than 2 weeks) AND during said time it would require more energy. Another poster has brought (several times or several posters have brought it up) that scarring and regeneration seem to be different sides to the same healing process. Scarring though, being quicker than regeneration seems to have edged it out in terms of usefulness for mammals by virtue of speed. Since mammals have consistently high metabolisms (compared to cold blooded creatures) scarring is better because food is constantly required unlike reptiles which can get by with less food over the same period.

    35. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, when you say (complex), be very careful. Human beings have FAR fewer genes than most animals. Just because we are more advanced technologically, does in no way make us a more complex species genetically. Also, we share many of the same genes that mice, dolphins and chimpanzees do. I think the number is somewhere around 95-98% of the same genes for apes and a range between 70% all the way to 90% for mice, depending on the type. Approximately 25,000 - 30,000 genes in human DNA, and approximately 30,000 in mice DNA as well. Mammals have roughly the same number of nucleotides in their genomes, around 3 billion base pairs. As far as the need to regenerate, we develop as a species to basically not have a need for it. During our early years as children, we heal much more rapidly. As we age, especially past nature's (mating age) when we no longer have to fight for mates as often, we tend to take longer to heal. Humans pretty much have no need to prove our dominance for mating (after high school). Laws protect us from violent behavior. And today's worthy male is probably the geek who makes more money vs. the stronger, violent types. On the opposite spectrum, look at herd animals who need to fight for mating rights until the end of thier life. They get pretty scarred up, but heal remarkably well. This is just a theory though.

    36. Re:What does this say about evolution? by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 1

      Problem with that logic is that these mice have had this ability turned on with a handful of genes. Therefore the "complex" structures are not too hard to regenerate. The dividing line seems to be warm vs. cold bloodedness, not structural complexity.

    37. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We lost that ability when we got kicked out of the Garden. That's what the Tree of Life thing is all about.

      Prepare for the End Times any day now ;)

    38. Re:What does this say about evolution? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      So the simple, irrefutable answer is that it's God's will. We are still grappling with how to explain the appendix.

      That's easy. It's part of the general pattern off fossil and biological evidence that implies evolution. All this evidence was planted by God to deceive us, and make us believe in evolution.

      The only possible conclusion is that God seriously wants us to believe in evolution. If we don't believe, we are thwarting God's will.

      (See ya and raise ya! ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    39. Re:What does this say about evolution? by demachina · · Score: 1

      LOL!

      Maybe, though we were leaning toward the possibility that when the appendix was designed God was taking the day off and his dimwitted apprentice was in charge. Not sure if Intelligent Design mandates a minimum IQ requirement for the designer so maybe we could have "of average intelligence design" and "complete moron design". The latter designer is the one who was apparently in charge when most of the people in the Bush administration were drawn up :)

      --
      @de_machina
    40. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Evolt's+RonL. · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Lizards and "regenerating" reptiles generally don't generate scar tissue. Instead, in response to an injury their body slowly regrows the damaged part.

      Just chiming in as a former zoo docent to note (1) that skin injuries (burns and cuts) to lizards and snakes *can* often leave scars, and (2) that the regrown reptile part, (generally a lizard tail), does not usually regen as an exact duplicate of the original.

      It's actually pretty easy to spot a lizard with a regrown tail. The texture, color, and size are generally different from the original.

      Any word from TFA on whether the amazing mice had similar issues?


      "She offered her honor, he honored her offer and all night long it was honor and offer."
    41. Re:What does this say about evolution? by wildchild978 · · Score: 1

      no. it begs the question.

    42. Re:What does this say about evolution? by opticbit · · Score: 1

      Could be that the predators of complex pray don't settle for a part that comes off durring the attack, they want the whole thing. Other then getting attacked by its predator most pray don't lose or severly damage their parts often so the trait didn't get a chance.

      --
      I forgot my password can I have yours
    43. Re:What does this say about evolution? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Y'know, you might be onto something there. I'd been thinking of God as the sort of Cosmic Engineer that Doug Adams wrote about (Slartibartfast). But the idea that he might just be the director of a team of engineers with varying degrees of competency.

      Some time back, I collected and combined a number of discussions on the topic of Biblical Creation into a treatise summarizing the conclusions. Maybe I'll have to make a new revision that incorporates this new concept.

      God: So did you set up that semi-intelligent herding and naming creature that I assigned you yesterday?

      Assistant: Yes; take a look.

      G: Hmmm ... Looks good. But what's this? You gave it an appendix? That organ's only functional in leaf eaters; there's no sense in using it in a top-level omnivore like this.

      A: Oh, sorry. I just used the general mammal model. Should I fix it?

      G: Ah, don't bother; it won't bother them much. But wait - you used that inferior design for the eye that I'd just told the team to not try again.

      A: Uh, I ...

      G: You'd think any intelligent designer would know to put the nerves and blood vessels on the back of the retina, not the front. Well, I guess it's done, and the critter probably won't ever notice. But today's the big day. I'm building the main creature that the planet was designed for. Here's the design. Make sure that you add a blind spot in your creation's brains so they won't bother it.

      And God spent his seventh day of creation building a species that was to rule over the oceans that were 70% of the planet's surface, and could dive to great depths, fully using the oceans' volume. First He built a number of small versions as pilot studies. Then he made the crowning glory: the giant squid. It had a large, capable brain that was smart enough to engage in long intellectual and artistic discussions. It didn't have any of those silly mistakes like an appendix or an eye with the nerves and blood vessels in front of the retina. He'd show the bunglers on this team how to do a good job of designing a species.

      He was amused when, a few millennia later, a human called Douglas Adams wrote a rather good book that mistakenly made dolphins the top intelligence in the oceans. At least he understood the mice, which were a later infestation. But they didn't interfere, because they couldn't survive in the oceans. Too bad really; they could have some interesting discussions with the squid, if they could just get together somehow. Just shows the real advantage of being a noncorporeal spirit being, I guess; a God can talk to anyone who's worth talking to.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    44. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      The article doesn't mention differences between old and regrown limbs, but I'd be surprised if they were identical - so much (IIRC) of our development is environmental as well as genetic, I'd be surprised if the regrown part was exactly the same colour/size as the original.

      That said, even being able to regrow a slightly different-looking arm is pretty fucking awsome ;-)

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    45. Re:What does this say about evolution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > We also know that certain evolution evolves from a need for something. A guilla monster grows poison sacks on its back because of the need for defense of other creatures biting it ... NOT because a random mutation caused it to grow poison bubbles.

      This can be explained by natural selection and random mutation.

      If a population of animals evolves a defense in response to predators, it's because animals of that population born with such a defense mechanism are more likely to reproduce than those without, even if it's a slight gradual change.

      Animals that evolved with such defense mechanisms did so because at some time in their history, their ancestors had those random mutations that gave them a better chance at survival and reproduction. Or because some other trait was co-opted for that use. Not because they "needed" it.

      This is almost like saying humans evolved prominent noses because some of them would need a place to rest their eyeglasses on. :)

  56. Imagine... by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...a Beowulf Cluster of these! Yeah, a regenerating mouse cluster!

  57. Mice are using us humans... by ciupman · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... to achieve immortality. We are working for them and still don't realize it.. Douglas Adams was right!!!!

    --
    I fuse with Mercer every single day...
    1. Re:Mice are using us humans... by whovian · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... to achieve immortality. We are working for them and still don't realize it.. Douglas Adams was right!!!!

      Next thing you know, mice will be taking plotting every night to take over the world.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    2. Re:Mice are using us humans... by DeanFox · · Score: 1


      _Mrs Frisby and the Rats of NIMH_.

      It's TRUE! It's TRUE!

      -[d]-

    3. Re:Mice are using us humans... by sbillard · · Score: 1

      My first reply to a sig... can't help it Do you get hit with a rock every time you fuse? Buster says Mercer is a fraud. Did you know that?

    4. Re:Mice are using us humans... by ciupman · · Score: 1

      Buster was himself a fraud (a human simulation), wanting to achieve Mercer alike status between common humans. It is somewhat ironic... Even knowing that Mercer is actually a fraud (a common old man that's just acting), it's somewhat a good fraud, because it's a mechanism humans use to feel empathy for each other, maybe a good thing against insanity.
      And for the rocks .. yeap they are a must, keep'm comming! ;) (I think K. Dick was having a LSD trip when he wrote that part...)

      and for the rest of you .. yeap, this is offtopic!

      --
      I fuse with Mercer every single day...
  58. In other news.... by shri · · Score: 1, Funny

    Scientists at Slashdot have created a perl script which can regenerate absolutely any typos, except for those introduced by the editors.

    This is the first time I've seen this on a website.

    The implications are positively google.

    I thought this warranted attention. :)

  59. Australiam scientists by addie · · Score: 0

    Ah yes... but the article summary says it's Australiam scientists so clearly we're talking about a hybrid.

  60. Re:Regeneration of english by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a period between brain and heart changing the meaning of the paragraph considerably from your interpretation, might want to reread that.

  61. Slashdot editor's brains by steman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Unfortunately this breakthrough doesn't apply to brains, so the Slashdot editors are screwed.

  62. Well I Must Be Totally Uncool... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...because I think this is a truly amazing news item regardless of socio-poltical concerns or minor posting errors. It is *very* encouraging news indeed and I read it first on /. for a change. :)

  63. Credibility? by nmg196 · · Score: 1

    According to Google News, this story is only on two papers in the entire world - even though the story is three days old. It does make me wonder if the story is particularly credible. If they had proof and the scientists were contactable, a story this large would have been in a lot of major newspapers within a few hours of it's release - or at least a credible scientific journal or two.

    Something smells fishy to me.

    1. Re:Credibility? by Fallus+Shempus · · Score: 1, Funny

      Something smells fishy to me.

      That'll be the side effect then
  64. Awesome by tsa · · Score: 1

    This is great news. Hopefully this will work on humans too in the near future.

    I wonder how much the mice have been suffering though. This don't seem very nice experiments from the mice's point of view.

    Did I spell mice's right?

    --

    -- Cheers!

  65. This is the reason by jurgenaut · · Score: 0

    you have to shoot zombies in the head. The rest of their bodies regenerate.

  66. Re:generate by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    You better get out that mouse trap of rodent slaying +5, and fast.

  67. Re:Attn. Editors by KDan · · Score: 1

    Obviously the submitter and the editors found out the hard way that brain tissue doesn't grow back...

    Daniel

    --
    Carpe Diem
  68. Isn't it already there? by mecanicaz · · Score: 1

    I thought it was already there in humans, when you leave your ear pierced without use for long enough it starts to heal, or doesn't it? So accordingly the same could apply to other tissues, just give it enough time ranging from years to centuries.
    So it all depends on the complexity, if we can only accelerate this process, that would really produce a healing potion then maybe later there would be another advance where you can get an increase in your bank balance by killing pedestrians.

    1. Re:Isn't it already there? by mecanicaz · · Score: 0

      then the whole thing is misleading, some pointing to earholes dissapearing (tissue issue) and others point to mamoth, anyway the post is a big TROLL with spelling mistakes.

  69. The cats are ecstatic... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 3, Funny

    Regenerating mouse = longer time to play with it before it dies and has to be eaten.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:The cats are ecstatic... by aralin · · Score: 1

      You can eat your mouse and have it too :)

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  70. It's Pinky and the Brain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pinky and the...oh wait, maybe not...

  71. Don't let them get loose! by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 1
    "Regenerating Mice Escape Laboratory!"


    Lawyers across the country are quivering in anticipation of the largest class action lawsuits ever filed, positively mammoth...

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
  72. good news for the john bobbits out there by dthx1138 · · Score: 1

    regenerate your cock if a crazy lover slices it off

    --
    I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].
  73. An article from 2 years ago with more info by greensasquatch · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.chrcrm.org/medal03.htm
    A link from 2003, has a bit more to it than the article cited in the original post.

  74. OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    They found the infinite lifes POKE for mice! I hope they didn't have to ram a Multiface up their arses...

  75. Trolldents by aapold · · Score: 1

    Thought we needed a better term for them. Trolldents. Now if we can do this in other rodents, we could get regenerating beavers, who could keep regrowing their pelts after we skin them.

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
  76. Seen in 1998! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Look like the professor discovered something incredibly similar - about 7 years ago!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56799.stm/

    1. Re:Seen in 1998! by mecanicaz · · Score: 1

      Error in the URL remove the trailing /

  77. Re:Regeneration of english by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "type sentence structure proper!"

    properly.

    [ quote lowercased to avoid /.'s lame lamness filter. ]

  78. Mice will enslave humans!!!!!! by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    If mice become immortal, they will need an infinite amount of cheese for food.

    It therefore follows that they will have to enslave us humans to all work as dairy farmers and in cheese processing plants purely to create all the food they need to survive.

    Trust the bloody Australians to sell out the human race to our new mice overlords!

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  79. cancer issues? by nickos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It does sound great. I just wonder if there is likely to be an increased chnace of cancer with this sort of regerative tissue. Mind you if someone does get cancer perhaps with this technology the affected part of the body can simply be removed and regrown...

    1. Re:cancer issues? by rk87 · · Score: 1

      That is a very interesting idea, removing cancer by regrowing. Maybe certain blood diseases can be cured by "regrowing" the blood piece by piece until theres only clean blood left in the body? then again, blood isn't tissue is it? (I am not a doctor)

      --
      I'M NOT ANGRY!
    2. Re:cancer issues? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Blood is constantly regenerated; blood cancers are caused by cancer in the bone marrow, which is where new blood cells are generated. Bone marrow transplants are for cancer patients whose bone marrow has been killed in order to eliminate the cancer. Being able to regenerate it might be handy, but if your own marrow became cancerous once, it might be of a higher liklihood to become cancerous again.

    3. Re:cancer issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blood actually is considered tissue.

  80. So you want to regenerate a mammoth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How usefull can this be?

  81. Medical implications by jrest · · Score: 1
    Could the medical implications include:
    • Removing scar tissue
    • Repairing sports injuries (twisted ankles?)
    • Re-introduce defects at birth that you were treated for at a young age?
    • Close intentional pearcing-holes (as in for earrings)
    • What about vaccination?
    --
    (Score:5, Not Funny)
    1. Re:Medical implications by GReaToaK_2000 · · Score: 1

      LOL!!! hadn't thought about that one.

      "Repairing sports injuries"

      I have heard doctors tell me it would have been better to break your ankle then to twist it this bad.

      The "new" solution...
      Twisted your ankle bad? NO PROBLEM!! We'll just Lop that old one off and you can regrow a new one. :)

      LOL!!!

      Oh my... just struck me as terribly funny.

  82. Regeneration?... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    ... Load of rubbish. These things can just regenerate their flesh? -1, Troll.

    Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to stock up on fire and acid.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  83. Aaah the relief this brings by KrisCowboy · · Score: 1

    Now I can smoke all the pot I want and drink all the booze I want. Looks like in the near future, I can regenerate my lungs and liver too. Fuck the brain...who needs it anyway. I second Bob Dylan - EVERYBODY MUST GET STONED.

  84. Re:Regeneration of english by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In the section you quoted, the word "brain" is followed by a period. That means that the sentence ends there. True, the next sentence fragment doesn't have a predicate. However, it should be obvious to anyone who speaks English that it is a list of things that can be regenerated. The construct in the second bold section is quite common in conversational English. Perhaps if you spoke English, you'd know that.

    "TYPE SENTENCE STRUCTURE PROPER," is pretty poor grammar itself. "Properly" might be a better choice, since it would be an adverb modifying "TYPE." Of course, the meaning is still pretty ambiguous. It could mean that you're requesting them to type the words "SENTENCE STRUCTURE" properly, or it could mean that you're asking them to properly type out their sentences. A better command would be, "use proper sentence structure."

    "What country is this motherfucker, ain't no country I ever heard of, they speak english in Australiam?"

    The above is a run on sentence. You've joined three independent clauses using only commas, and the clauses cannot be construed as three elements in a list of some sort. You should have used semicolons at the least, although a period and a question mark would have been better. You should also have capitalized English.

    Also, since you're so against colloquial grammar, I should point out that once you separated the clauses into sentences, "aint' no country I ever heard of," is still improper grammar. It would be lacking a subject, since it's only a verb phrase, and isn't an imperative sentence. Also, "I ever heard of," is incorrect; you should say, "I've ever heard of." A true pedant would also likely disagree with your use of "ain't," and your ending a sentence with a preposition. A better sentence might be, "I've never heard of Australiam."

    Since in the first sentence, you're addressing "motherfucker," there should be a comma prior to it. "What country is this, motherfucker?" Unless you meant "this motherfucker" to be the object of the verb "is."

    "They speak English in Australiam," is not a question. It is a statement. It's more proper to ask, "do they speak English in Australiam?"

    "Poor post from the submitter and even poorer by slashdot because no fucker proof read the submission," is not a complete sentence. The section before the "because" is a pair of noun phrases, without any matching verb phrase. The section beginning with "because" is a dependent clause, and needs to be attached to an independent clause to become a sentence.

    You also seem to be missing one or more words in the phrase, "even poorer by slashdot," Unless you're accusing "slashdot" itself of writing a post. I was not aware that Slashcode had gained sentience. Also, Slashdot is a proper noun, and should be capitalized. In addition, proofread is one word, not two.

    Also, assuming you meant, "poor ... submission" to be a sentence of sorts, tacking on "god damn you guys suck," with only a comma makes it a run on sentence. An overall more correct way to say all of this might have been:
    This post was a poor effort by the submitter, and an even poorer effort by the Slashdot editors, because nobody proofread the submission. God damn! You guys suck.

    Of course, one could go in many directions in revising the sentence, depending on, for instance, how they prefer to write interjections like, "God damn!"

    I realize that the first part of your post is a paraphrase of dialogue in Pulp Fiction. However, if you're going to be a stickler for formal grammar, you'd do well not to quote Samuel L. Jackson. He would have immediately understood the story submission, because he speaks English, rather than dissecting it.
  85. Karma by omyar_hunt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know, on a purely Karmic level, we're gonna have to pay up bigtime eventually...

    1. Re:Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you please make sense? What are we going to have to "pay up bigtime" for? Who is "we"? And why on a "purely Karmic level"?

    2. Re:Karma by omyar_hunt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We as in "humanity". The article itself reads like a nazi handbook. I'm not saying there aren't big leaps to be made to help people who have had parts of their heart arbitrarily frozen by probes, I'm just sayin in the cosmic view of things there are no free lunches.

    3. Re:Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good point. Remember when we cured polio, and the next day, ZOOOOOOOMBIES!

    4. Re:Karma by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are no free lunches so let's do these experiments on human test subjects, not those of other species--i mean, the results would be much more directly applicable to human medicine, right?

      I understand that sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't mean that cruel actions are always justifiable and necessary. Otherwise, you could just as easily justify slavery, and other forms of exploitation that one may gain from.

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

      I would address your comment in full, but I'm wanted back on planet Earth.

    6. Re:Karma by FruFox · · Score: 1

      Yes, I feel bad for the mice. :( But honestly, if you're going to weigh Karma, hw about the lives of a handful of mice to save the lives of millions of people? And presumably, mice.

      --
      Michael J. Bertrand, AKA Fruvous or FruFox My
    7. Re:Karma by crimson30 · · Score: 1

      The article itself reads like a nazi handbook.

      What nazi handbooks have you been reading?

    8. Re:Karma by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The secret one, of course!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    9. Re:Karma by UserGoogol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that there are free lunches. If you find a bag full of frozen White Castle hamburgers on the side of the road, that's a free lunch. One should not rule out the possibility of "finding a bag full of hamburgers on the side of the road," metaphorically speaking.

      Plus, this isn't really a free lunch. I mean, we're doing all this research to find out this kind of stuff. That seems like a fair price in a cosmic sense. (Whatever cosmic means.)

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    10. Re:Karma by khallow · · Score: 1

      And I imagine the price will be that we have to live longer and have a better quality of life.

  86. If it works out, people will do really crazy stuff by shotgunefx · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Imagine how much more likely you'd be to take risks if you could grow new body parts :)

    I think this is one of the coolest things I've ever read on /.

    --

    -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
  87. This news dates back to 1998 !! by amanox · · Score: 3, Informative

    When I was looking around for some more news on this, I came across this article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/01080 7080356.htm Seems like the regenerative abilities of MRL mice have been know for quite a while. Seems like Professor Ellen Heber-Katz did the initial discovery in 1998.

  88. Military interest by Macka · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Though in this case I reckon the Military could get very in this kind of 'medicine'. Imagine an army of self healing soldiers. Get a leg blown off and then grow it back.

    1. Re:Military interest by SkuzBuket · · Score: 0

      One thing that it seems that everybody here is overlooking is, if this ability were able to be applied to humans, as of now, there is no medical way to significantly increase the rate at which the new growth would occur. Would you really be happy with it taking 16 years for your gimp leg to grow back to full size? I think I'd be much happier with a prosthetic leg. Or, they could grow me a leg attached to a mouse (imagine THAT!) and hook it up once its done developing.

  89. Not completely by PengoNet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It just says that other pressures have been greater than the pressure to (keep the ability to) regenerate. Or the costs of being able to regenerate are probably prohibitive.

    The competing pressures might include (for example) a pressure to be smart or strong enough not to lose body parts in the first place, or a pressure to develop coping strategies when a limb is lost. Or the pressure to give food and resources to offspring, over attempting immortality. Or the pressure to have more complex tissues (even if they are more difficult to regenerate), although the article sheds a shadow of doubt on this last one. If these competing pressures are great enough, and more importantly, the pressure to keep the regeneration trait is low enough, the trait will simply drift away (randomly mutate) into nonfunctional genetic code. It doesn't mean it is completely undesirable.

    More "complex" animals like humans don't lose a lot of body parts on a day to day basis. And those who do, have their (evolutionary) fitness determined by their ability to cope with the loss, rather than by their ability to regain those parts.

    1. Re:Not completely by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Or the pressure to give food and resources to offspring, over attempting immortality.

      Well first there is the vasectomy. Then there is the prosthetic cyber brain and robotic body transfer... I haven't been able to figure out how to do the second part and it still hurts down there.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  90. Increased risk of cancer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    One (big?) concern of having an increased ability to REgenerate might be an increased ability to generate... While a 3rd arm/2nd head might provide great casting advantages in the Hitchhiker's sequal, having random growths appearing in one's body isn't the best news one can have.

  91. Does this also mean that.. by jigyasubalak · · Score: 1

    If they inject the cells from those mice into
    us, we'll grow mouse parts if amputated??

    --
    The best planning can be done after the project completes.
  92. Time to regenerate. by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My real question is how long will it take to regenerate? Mice Grow Up rather fast. But if it will take 18 years to regenerate a missing leg, or will it take a year or two? Or what about people who want to do body alterations could they cut their noses in half and make sure they dont heal together and they end up with two noses. Or someone with a serious arm damage. Could this cause them to have 2 forearms and hands?

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  93. Coupled with another recent discovery... by Chris+Snook · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As previously reported on slashdot, scientists have also found it possible to replace blood with ice-cold saline, and revive the subject hours later. In other words, before long it will be possible to survive any bodily injury as long as you get medical attention before brain damage begins. With this, you can then grow back whatever was damaged, too.

    I can't find a link handy, but I know that research into preventing brain cells from dying after trauma is progressing nicely as well. Ultimately we'll reach the point where just about any non-catastrophic physical injury is recoverable, assuming prompt medical attention.

    When all that's left are death, aging (but we might be fixing that too) and psychological problems, maybe people will finally realize just how horribly we've been neglecting mental health for so long.

    --
    There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
    1. Re:Coupled with another recent discovery... by FruFox · · Score: 1

      Very good point, I hadn't connected this up to the famous/infamous "zombie dogs" experiments. Aging takes on a new meaning in the context of a human body that can regenerate any tissue, any organ, any limb. How much of human disease essentially boils down to "part of you is broken and we can't fix it"? Now, obviously, the regeneration process has a finite rate and if the aging process breaks down the organ faster than it can regenerate, you are still in deep trouble. But still, this can't help but stretch longevity by quite a lot. It might not prevent aging in and of itself, but it'll slow it way down. And as you've said, we might have aging licked, too. Once we figure out how to keep those telomeres nice and long.... no aging either!

      --
      Michael J. Bertrand, AKA Fruvous or FruFox My
  94. Well, that's the end of the orthodontist trade. by Circlotron · · Score: 0

    Go to the dentist and get the bad tooth yanked out. Hey presto! Here comes a new one :-)

  95. its the cancer, obviously by Xochi77 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ive already checked the journals on this one, and the research involving the regrowth of toes etc has not been published, so i can't say much about that. However, several papers have been published on heart muscle cell regeneration, and it looks nice. Regeneration of bodyparts requires plasticity in cell type differentiation. Either primary cell types undergo a revertion to a more totipotent form or reserves of stem-like cells multiply and differentiate to form the new bodypart in question. Generaly, this is Not A Good Thing, ie cancer, and so the body has a whole slew of checks and balances to prevent this from occuring. Im guessing that in more primitive organisms, short lifespan and low cell turnover (they're cold blooded) means that the adaptive advanges of regenerating missing bodyparts outweighs the higher risks of developing cancer.

  96. And the good side is... by beh · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...regrowing hearts?

    Finally, I small hope for the Republicans... ;-)

    1. Re:And the good side is... by Entropy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Australiam scientists have created mice which can regenerate absolutely any tissue excpet for the tissues of the brain.

      But the Dems are still SOL ..

      --
      The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
    2. Re:And the good side is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are SO leading with the chin here.

    3. Re:And the good side is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We still can't regrow brains, though - too bad for liberals. ;-)

      "Any 20 year-old who isn't a liberal doesn't have a heart, and any 40 year-old who isn't a conservative doesn't have a brain." - Winston Churchill

    4. Re:And the good side is... by Jerf · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Finally, I small hope for the Republicans... ;-)

      But brains can't be grown, so Democrats are out of luck.

      "If you're not a liberal at 21, you haven't got a heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you haven't got a brain." - various

      (All in good fun. ;) )

    5. Re:And the good side is... by jallen02 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nice moderator bias in here. This post gets modded 3: Funny. Post below making a similar joke about Democrats gets modded 0: Flaimbait. Welcome to Leftdot, err Slashdot.
       
      J

    6. Re:And the good side is... by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      I noticed that too! Good thing I read at 0.

      Come on mods, they're both funny.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    7. Re:And the good side is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "except for the tissues of the brain"

      I guess the Democrats are screwed... ;-)

    8. Re:And the good side is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, they can't grow brains so the Dems are still fucked.

    9. Re:And the good side is... by eheldreth · · Score: 4, Funny

      To bad it does not work on brain tissue or there could be hope for the democrats to ;-)

      --
      The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
    10. Re:And the good side is... by daeley · · Score: 1

      To bad it does not work on brain tissue or there could be hope for the democrats to ;-)

      Careful, your slip is showin'. ;)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    11. Re:And the good side is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To bad it does not work on brain tissue or there could be hope for the democrats to ;-)

      And the main irony here is the obvious grammatical errors in the above statement? Who's talking about brains?

    12. Re:And the good side is... by jc42 · · Score: 1

      But if they regenerate both hearts and brains, where would our next crop of politicians come from?

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    13. Re:And the good side is... by DongleFondle · · Score: 1

      That should be "too", genius.

      Sincerely, your Democratic friend in grammar.

    14. Re:And the good side is... by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      So, based on the spelling error in your sig, would that make you a RINO (Republican In Name Only)? :)

      Wait - which party wouldn't have a spell-check? My guess is Libertarian, the party that ran a smurf for congress.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  97. But can I... by spot35 · · Score: 0

    ...regrow my virginity and sell that on eBay. Now that's more worthwhile.

  98. What's a Jewish boy to do? by Circlotron · · Score: 1, Funny

    Staying circumcised would be problematical...

    1. Re:What's a Jewish boy to do? by FruFox · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Whoa. That's a darn good point. :) I'm un- myself, so, no big deal for me. But this brings up a lot of issues about what the body considers 'normal' and healthy.

      --
      Michael J. Bertrand, AKA Fruvous or FruFox My
    2. Re:What's a Jewish boy to do? by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Staying circumcised would be problematical...

      All joking aside there are quite a few people, myself included, who would welcome the chance to replace the aforementioned parts since they were removed without our permission. :-(

      --

      "Bah!" - Dogbert
    3. Re:What's a Jewish boy to do? by Suidae · · Score: 1

      It can be done, after a fasion. The complex structures that are removed can't be replaced, but with a 12-18 months of sustained effort the skin folds can be replicated. The result can be very difficult to distinguish from the original, even for a doctor.

      There are a number of web pages that deal with the subject.

    4. Re:What's a Jewish boy to do? by boomstik · · Score: 1

      Can you please describe "sustained effort"? On the other hand, nevermind... I'm scared to even imagine.

      --
      http://shadowless.me
    5. Re:What's a Jewish boy to do? by tableplay · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but that implies that you would be willing to go without something until it grows back the right way . . .

  99. I'll just buy a couple for my cats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That way they'll never go hungry ;-)

  100. Something I've wanted since visiting Pompeii by Morky · · Score: 2, Funny
  101. Whats the difference? by torpor · · Score: 1

    There is none. Australia is practically an American colony these days.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:Whats the difference? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      It still has the benefit of not being full of Americans.

  102. Cancer rate increase? by spineboy · · Score: 4, Informative
    Certain cells seem to have a fixed number of divisions, before they are turned off(telomeres on the chromosomes, seem to shorthen a bit, after every cell division). Errors in this probably lead to cancer, and it's one of the theorised ways that the body prevents cancer, by limiting the number of cel divisions. Normal cells usually stop growing, when they arein contact with other cells - something to do with cell communication/contact inhibition. Cancer cells often lack this and thus do not get the mesg to stop.

    This will be very interesting to see what happens. growing a new kidney, or hand would be great, as long as it is safe.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Cancer rate increase? by avium · · Score: 1

      The mice in question have been alive for 18 months, 3/4 of the normal mouse lifespan.

      There's no mention of cancer in the article.

    2. Re:Cancer rate increase? by sjames · · Score: 1

      This will be very interesting to see what happens. growing a new kidney, or hand would be great, as long as it is safe.

      In the case of internal organs, safety may not matter much since NOT regenerating an internal organ is often fatal if donors aren't available, and even if they are, a lifetime of immune suppression isn't great either.

      Of course, regeneration would also mean that cancer treatment could be quite a bit more agressive in some cases.

      There will probably be quite a learning curve for this if it's successful in humans. We will have to develop a whole new set of best treatment practices and physical therapy based on very different assumptions.

  103. US scientists not Australiam by Zapdos · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Who are these Australiams anyway? The article is about US scientist working at:

    The Wistar Institute
    3601 Spruce Street
    Philadelphia, PA 19104
    215-898-3700

  104. Laser beam? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    > It could power the frickin' laser beam!

    To repeat it for the 1001st time: An optical mouse does *not* use a *laser*!!! It's a simple led. Or else you would maybe see a proper and very thin line of light coming out of your mouse and a very small point on the mousepad. (Or you have to have some moving parts to make the laser actually scanning the whole surface below it.)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  105. Cancer... by Chaoticmass · · Score: 1

    I've always had this theory that if something like this was enabled in humans they'd turn into a giant cancer tumor like something from an old sci-fi movie.

    1. Re:Cancer... by FruFox · · Score: 1

      I thought of that too. There has to be a reason we don't have this already.

      --
      Michael J. Bertrand, AKA Fruvous or FruFox My
  106. Think Highlander by tsetem · · Score: 3, Funny

    Surprised noone mentioned this before. But in the Highlander series, if you were immortal, you could no longer have children.

    Think about it, the Immortals cannot have children, they can heal from any wound, and they can only be killed by being beheaded.

    Maybe the lines between fact & fiction might be getting a little blurrier...

    1. Re:Think Highlander by Fox_1 · · Score: 1

      So the planet Zeist is really Australia? Suddenly it all makes sense, especially the Mad Maxesque outfits favored by Katana and his henchmen.

      --
      The rock, the vulture, and the chain
    2. Re:Think Highlander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Thinking that much about Highlander also pretty well assures that you'll never experience parenthood...

  107. And You Thought Driving In Miami Was Bad Now by aquatone282 · · Score: 1
    ". . .can regenerate absolutely any tissue excpet for the tissues of the brain.

    So we're going to have everyone in running around in brand new bodies and Alzheimer-afflicted brains. . .?

    </sarcasm>

    --
    What?
    1. Re:And You Thought Driving In Miami Was Bad Now by cnerd2025 · · Score: 1

      Well is that any worse than today, where because of plastic surgery, people are going to be running around with perky boobs, well-hung wangs, and no idea on how they got them or how to use them?

  108. Zaphod Beeblebrox by coinreturn · · Score: 1

    Not to belittle the important REAL applications, I want to be the first mad scientist to modify the formula so I can get the third arm and second head that Zaphod Beeblebrox popularized.

  109. I was hoping that the Doctor working on it... by cnelzie · · Score: 1

    ...was named Conners. Doc Conners and he has a research student named Peter that was helping him with the research, since he is missing an Arm from an accident many, many years ago...

    --
    If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
  110. Re:Regeneration of english by rikkards · · Score: 2, Funny

    Isn't it a contradiction if the mice can regenerate any tissue "excpet" for the heart, lungs, entire limbs "you name it"?

    Note the period between brain and heart. Usually that means some sort of ending. In other words, the brain can't be regenerated but everything else can.

    Geez someone pissed in your corn flakes this morning

  111. Cancer, Hole Plugging, and strength... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The theories I have heard, as to why regeneration is switched off in larger creatures, boil down to this:

    1. Cancer -
    Enable easy regeneration, and the organism suffers from more run away cancers. With the need to keep a larger number of complex and different cells running as needed, damaged cells must auto destruct to prevent the rise of cancers.
    Free running regeneration leads to tumors.

    2. Hole Plugging -
    When a large creature suffers a large wound - the number One way for that creature to survive is simply plug the hole as quickly as possible. Scar tissue grows relatively quickly and completely, preventing blood loss and preventing infections. Even with rapidly clotting and healing wounds - infection can kill the organism. The fast patch scar tissue saves life where otherwise a regenerating individual would die from just being slower healing.

    3. Strength -
    Regrowing a full adult arm or leg requires a lot of energy, the bones may be softer, the muscles weaker. So the limb will be less usefull, and more energy consuming. That works against the survival of the individual.

    The human species survival scheme is based upon reproduction rates, not unbreakable individuals.
    Being able to reproduce once a month, and birth offspring once a year, sometimes with twins or more, rapidly grows out a human population.

    Like smaller organisms, if you make enough copies of yourself - the individual health is not as important. As a social creature, a larger tribe of humans provides strength and protection for the individual. Six Billion+ humans on earth have shown this survival plan to be most effective.

    I would love a shot of regenerative juice, as long as I don't die of cancer at age 40. Even if a missing arm would take 5 years to grow back, it would be a welcome ability to the human race.

  112. Re:Australian scientists made mammoths? by virgil_attack · · Score: 1
    But it was the super awesome power of Australia that inspired them to do their research.

    We want our intellectual property back!

  113. You're confusing me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I thought that the Democrats had the bleeding hearts.

  114. Three Words. by david_420 · · Score: 0

    Erectile Tissue Implants

  115. Are we going to get it for this? by dreemernj · · Score: 2, Funny

    I just can't avoid the nagging feeling that we will eventually be smoten for pulling crap like this...

    --
    1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
  116. Amoeba mice by Nephrite · · Score: 0

    So now the mice will reproduce by division

    1. Re:Amoeba mice by FruFox · · Score: 2, Funny
      Yes, in a process know as "micetosis". :P :)

      But will it be long division? Or just a quickie?

      --
      Michael J. Bertrand, AKA Fruvous or FruFox My
  117. This isn't really much of a breakthrough... by jrau · · Score: 3, Informative

    Other lines of mice are capable of similar things than just the MRL mouse, and even the MRL mouse has some serious limitations. For example, Heber-Katz cryo-injured the mouse heart and it healed, but other more relevant damage did not. Ischemic heart cells did not recover, which are those lacking oxygen supply, as in a heart-attack. Most of the other regenerations were not nearly as impressive, as several organs have the ability for significant regeneration anyway. Heber-Katz is known for her press releases being very sensational... and coming out before she presents her evidence. still, some of the papers she has released have some pretty cool stuff, just not as groundbreaking as popular news media would have you believe.

    1. Re:This isn't really much of a breakthrough... by eluusive · · Score: 1

      I would definately pay to be able to have my amputated leg grow back. Sounds to me like you're downplaying this a bit.

    2. Re:This isn't really much of a breakthrough... by jrau · · Score: 1

      i'm not downplaying the exciting sci-fi possibilities. i'm emphasizing the "fi" part. what i'm saying is that the scientific breakthrough is not as amazing as news media might make you think, and that the scientist who did the research has a bit of a reputation for being a wee bit dramatic. take it with a grain of salt is all.

  118. Great, but for us? by ChrisF79 · · Score: 1

    This is fantastic news. Now all of the little amputee mice out there can get their legs back. Seriously, we see stories all of the time about diseases being cured in lab rats, but when do you see the, "Hey, remember how we cured _____ disease in rats? Well, now we bridged the gap and it works on humans too" story. I, for one, am tired of mice getting all of the good health care.

    --
    Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
  119. Happy Anniversary, Honey... by http101 · · Score: 1

    deBeers...

    Because a mouse is forever.

    --
    -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
  120. Silly /. editors by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    They corrected the spelling in the post to "Australian" from "Australiam" but couldn't be bothered to fix the word itself, since it wasn't Australian (or even Australiam) scientists but U.S. ones.

  121. Did the scientists by MECC · · Score: 0

    Did the researchers working on this turninto lizards? Just checking....

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
    1. Re:Did the scientists by FruFox · · Score: 1

      I couldn't help but think of Doctor Curtis "Lizard" Connors, the legendary Spiderman villain/ally, in relation to this story. :) Though in this case he'd turn into a mouse. Awww! With mutant healing powers. Eeek! :)

      --
      Michael J. Bertrand, AKA Fruvous or FruFox My
  122. Invest in BW3 by halliburton · · Score: 1

    Applied to chickens - I wonder how many legs we would be able to get out of a chicken before we could harvest the breast? Or wings, for that matter.

  123. I think you misunderstand evolution by brokeninside · · Score: 1

    First, evolution would be more aptly described as 'survival of the adequate' rather than 'survival of the fittest'. That no complex creatures have regenerative capabilities means only that said creatures can adequately survive long enough to reproduce healthy offspring without those capabilities.

    Second, there is no choice in evolution. Evolution can't choose attributes because it is a mindless process. Sure, sometimes there is concurrent evolution of similar features, but it isn't like Mother Nature is saying to herself, ``hey, this works great for frogs, so let's do poodles the same way.''

    Third, it could be the case that more advanced animals lost this capability because of either side effects that the genes that coded for it conferred or simply because it didn't offer an advantage. There are roughly a bzillion other factors aside from the actual expression of a gene that are in play with regard to whether or not the gene survives to the next generation.

  124. Dying is an Evolved Trait by craznar · · Score: 1

    Dying is good for the species.

    Makes sense that some genes might turn off some of the mechanisms for death.

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
  125. This says nothing at all about evolution. by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

    Nothing in the slightest. If you don't know why, you're missing some very basic principles of evolution.

    It's not about what is "good" for the organism, it's about the organism reproducing succesfully.

  126. The real question is... by nighthawk127127 · · Score: 0

    Are the MICE Australian or not?

    --
    10100111001
  127. I'm sorry, the princess is in another castle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Laws of demand and supply say otherwise. There are going to be so many kidneys for sale that no one will want yours! I mean, if someone like Gene Simmons starts selling HIS kidneys on ebay, how do you expect to compete with that!

  128. Itchy and Scratchy... by rdurell · · Score: 0

    Itchy and Scratchy have been doing this for at 15 years now...

    Nothing to see here please move along...

  129. Rabbits aren't rodents by objekt · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagomorph

    The Lagomorphs, order Lagomorpha, are an order of mammals of which there are two families, Leporidae (hares and rabbits), and Ochotonidae (pikas).

    --
    -- Boycott Shell
    1. Re:Rabbits aren't rodents by Durinthal · · Score: 1

      and Ochotonidae (pikas).

      I didn't know Pokémon was that popular.

  130. A major milestone in rodent health by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Funny

    Us humans are left with the crumbs from rodent health research. We've just about cured all disease, cancer, aging, and now trauma in mice and rats. How? Billions of dollars spent researching disease and testing cures on the little guys. Maybe Douglas Adams was right.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  131. Obligatory Aqua Teen Hunger Force quote by nighthawk127127 · · Score: 0, Funny

    "So is this gonna make my johnson bigger, or what?" - Master Shake

    --
    10100111001
    1. Re:Obligatory Aqua Teen Hunger Force quote by FruFox · · Score: 1

      Doctor Weird : GENTLEMEN! Behold! I give you..... IMMORTAL MUTANT MICE!

      --
      Michael J. Bertrand, AKA Fruvous or FruFox My
    2. Re:Obligatory Aqua Teen Hunger Force quote by nighthawk127127 · · Score: 0

      Haha... and then they'd eat his assistant. lol.

      --
      10100111001
  132. In Soviet Russia.... by Toaste · · Score: 1

    ...mouse tissue regenerates you.

  133. Nice Story by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1


    I thought this warranted attention. :)"

    Yeah...I thought this story warranted attention, too...three days ago, when I submitted it. Too bad my submission was rejected within a half-hour.

    This is the third time a story I submitted has been rejected out of hand, only to be accepted from someone else days, if not weeks, later. I have a fair idea why, too, and let me just say to the person concerned: I sincerely hope that abusing your editorial power in this manner makes you feel better about yourself, since it's clear you have some major issues.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:Nice Story by stiefvater · · Score: 1

      ditto baby.

      i think it's about time for "backslash.org".

      K.

  134. "Makes"? by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article has almost no details on how these mice were made. It also uses the words "discover" and "create" pretty much interchangeably. So are these mice the result of a deliberate experiment, cutting-edge genetic engineering, or a natural occurrence that a scientist luckily happened to notice as was the case with penecillin?

    1. Re:"Makes"? by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      I think it was the last one. Since they only noticed this ability when they notice the tag hole cut into the mice's ear grew back without scarring.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  135. Venful girlfriend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean if my vengful girlfriend injected me with hormones and the regeration cells then cut my body off in the middle of the night I would wake up with Britney's body?

    Dont tell her that! She'd love to get me!

  136. What's Next, Adamantium Skeletons And Teeth? by saudadelinux · · Score: 1

    I think we can see where all thi research is leading...

    --
    I didn't think the house band in Hell would play this badly.
    1. Re:What's Next, Adamantium Skeletons And Teeth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would we get Adamantium? Do we mine it from Adam Ant?

  137. Re:Will celebrity plastic surgery UNDO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Find out what the stars used to look like. At least Michael Jackson can get a new nose.

  138. Too bad.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how long it's gonna be before Wolverine is asked to hand in his resignation...

  139. A bit offtopic... ;) by cp.tar · · Score: 1
    "Heber-Katz, who is also an adjunct professor in the pathology and laboratory medicine department at Penn's School of Medicine, (...)"
    Her last name is Katz and she makes mice that regenerate? Hmmm... do I smell a rat in here?

    Even worse, for those of you that have read 'Scanners Live in Vain' by Cordwainer Smith and are familiar with the Haberman device, whatever will happen to cats if the Heber-Katz device is invented?

    /cowers

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  140. But the Canadians already have something better! by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

    They've got a whole Wolverine... :->

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
  141. Srplinter vs. Shredder by dmauro · · Score: 2, Funny

    Man, Splinter is going to kick so much ass now.

  142. Great... by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

    When humanity finally sinks into evolutionary obscurity we'll leave behind a legacy of near-immortal supermice! Perhaps that what was what the mice were after all along when they built the earth...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  143. Xmen ... by polaralex · · Score: 1

    This is like Wolverine... But I think this is freakish! These things only work in mice, and not even normal on them...

    --
    http://polaralex.blogspot.com http://www.polaralex.tk *Define Reality*..*
  144. no more spam for penis growth!? by lems1 · · Score: 1

    does this mean that from now on the spammer's strategy is going to change from "grow 2 inches in 2 weeks" to "cut your penis off and re-grow it as big as you want" ??

    Cool as hell!!

    --
    This sig can be distributed under the LGPL license
  145. Chromosomes and such. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    What the hell are you even trying to say? What the crap does "chromosomal irregularity" mean?

    Of course it's rare; hormones and genes nearly always go together. But if you change the hormones, the genes will express themselves differently. (Give an adult male estrogen injections and he'll grow breasts, for instance.) Which was his original point---hormones can be used to make someone into (well, to a certain extent) the opposite sex.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Chromosomes and such. by KickMyDog · · Score: 1

      Maybe this would be a cure for violent criminal men..They would be a lot more dosile as women. Who knows they might even enjoy it!

    2. Re:Chromosomes and such. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Heavy enough doses of female hormones in men often cause depression. So they would be unlikely to enjoy it.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:Chromosomes and such. by KickMyDog · · Score: 1

      sure.. but would they be men? it surly would only had an adverse effect if the body was male, otherwise it would just be a female body with female hormones.

    4. Re:Chromosomes and such. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Maybe this would be a cure for violent criminal men. They would be a lot more docile as women.

      Go rent the movie Species.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    5. Re:Chromosomes and such. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. but it would be a small price to pay for looking so hot!

    6. Re:Chromosomes and such. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I remember a report that said females hear 15% better than males, except those with a twin brother. Sex hormones are pretty complex, there is the major hormones like estrogen and testosterone made in sex organs, there are complimentary hormones made in the adreanal glands and a shit pile of hormones from the pituitary gland, all interacting in subtile and not well understood ways

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:Chromosomes and such. by rbgaynor · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes but heavy enough doses of female hormones in females can ALSO cause depression in men, so what's your point?

      --
      "Good things don't end with eum, they end with mania or teria." - H. Simpson
    8. Re:Chromosomes and such. by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      Nothing to do with genetics or hormones. If you were a girl with a twin brother, he'd scream at you 'til you were half deaf, too.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:Chromosomes and such. by silverkniveshotmail. · · Score: 1
      Go rent the movie Species.
      species sucked
    10. Re:Chromosomes and such. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      species sucked

      What's your point?

      Just to be clear (in case I was being too subtle and/or obscure) mine was the following quote:

      "We decided to make it a female so that it would be more docile and controllable."
      "More docile and controllable, huh? Well I guess you boys don't get out much."
        -- Xavier Fitch, Preston Lennox; Species

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  146. Because of evolutionary advantages to death by Jamie+Lokier · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where do you think we'd be if older people who are stuck in their ways and have power and authority stuck around for longer, and retained their powerful positions?

    There are advantages in replacing old minds with fresh young ones who challenge the old perspectives. We love children for a reason.

    That is facilitated by death, and also by crippling injuries both physical and mental.

    These advantages are particularly obvious in our human social structures - for the time being, anyway. As an example, in the recent article about computers automatically learning language grammars, there was an interesting comment that linguistics won't move on until Chomsky dies... There's some truth to that in all of science, politics, etc.

    Complex social evolution does not necessarily favour health for all individuals.

    An interesting corollary to that hypothesis is that there exist changes to the structures of society, and changes to the structures in which we propagate knowledge and learning and questioning, and changes to the way we collectively think, which would adjust evolutionary pressures to favour greater individual health, particularly including the expression of long-evolved genes which we're carrying already but not using, like those involved in tissue regeneration and dare I say it, longevity.

    -- Jamie

    1. Re:Because of evolutionary advantages to death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you think we'd be if older people who are stuck in their ways and have power and authority stuck around for longer, and retained their powerful positions?

      Especially cretins like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saparmurat_Niyazov

    2. Re:Because of evolutionary advantages to death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We love children for a reason.

      Yes - we're biologically programmed to pass our genes along, and since we die, children are the way we do that. Besides that, they help us harvest crops, fight our wars for us, can be married off to solidify alliances, can be sold into slavery for extra cash during lean times, make sure our enemies don't win by default when we die, and function as a cute "Mini-Me".

      Of all the reasons we love our children, challanging the staus quo is not high on the list - witness the extrodinary lengths people go to indocrinate children into the "correct" way of thinking, and to punish dissent.

      The value society puts on children is mostly a "me, but younger" one.

    3. Re:Because of evolutionary advantages to death by Jamie+Lokier · · Score: 1
      The value society puts on children is mostly a "me, but younger" one.

      Perhaps. But the value children put on themselves is quite the opposite - and both tendancies are expressed by genes. Evolution is much more subtle than individuals striving to pass on their personal traits to their own children.

      -- Jamie

  147. Even worse by BlackCobra43 · · Score: 1

    Respawning, QUAD DAMAGE mosquitoes. Ouch. Death by blood sucking.

    --
    I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
    1. Re:Even worse by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Oh, we seem to have quad damage mosquitoes here, they cause severe infections when they sting. A theory says that they've become immune to some insecticides and are covered with them, injecting the stuff straight into your veins.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  148. regeneration spam by Thrakkerzog · · Score: 1

    Why do I get the feeling that I will now get spam trying to sell me magic pills that will regenerate my member with 10x growth? Or give me a 3rd nut?

  149. meat harvesting by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

    Imagine, we don't have to kill cows anymore.
    We can just amputate the part we want to eat, and have it grow back. Fillet minion for the masses.
    You could raise a sheep, and have a leg a month.
    mmm.....

    --
    ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
    1. Re:meat harvesting by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      There was an article recently (I think it was on /.), that said that we would be simply growing the meat minus the animal. The fact that we are able to regenerate says we really are close.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:meat harvesting by MobKiller · · Score: 0

      What ? Eating meat without having to kill the animal ? Where's the fun in that ?! >:-D

      Seriously, If you were a cow, would you rather be eaten alive over and over again or would you prefer to be killed first ?
      Think about it...

    3. Re:meat harvesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like that pig in Valhalla that regrows all the meat you cut of it!
      But science will never beat religion until they make a goat that can be milked for mead...

    4. Re:meat harvesting by Mahou · · Score: 1

      some tribes in africa drain blood from the jugular of cows without taking enough to kill them and then stop the bleeding since it's more economical then actually killing the cow and eating the meat

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    5. Re:meat harvesting by snilloc · · Score: 1

      There was a movie about Attila the Hun ("Attila"?) depicting a young, recently-orphaned Attila drinking the blood of the horse he was riding while wandering about aimlessly.

    6. Re:meat harvesting by willCode4Beer.com · · Score: 1

      I remember seeing that on some show (Discovery channel maybe?) where this guys went out to live with the tribe.
      It looked like the animals didn't really suffer, and they are able to bleed them every few weeks.
      Not too bad when you think that the blood will have lots of protein, amino acids, vitamins and minerals. Also, you don't have to worry about how to preserve it and keep it sanitary. Its my understanding that its hard to refridgerate meat in tribal Africa.

      Interesting how you changed my snide remark to torque of peta types into a meaningful discussion

      --
      ----- If communism is a system where the government owns business, what do you call a system where business owns govern
  150. Hilarious! by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    Ooh, am I ever going to get some serious SHUT UP, HIPPIE mileage out of this.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  151. Brain power by kettlechips · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The only organ that did not grow back was the brain.

    So if you have your brain scooped out and put on a dish,
    it would grow back a skull, a neck and a torso with limbs.
    Quite thrilling I would say, think about it.

    The reasoning being utterly flawless, one may nevertheless experience
    a few unreasonable hesitations, but that's only normal
    with forms of amusement as innovative as this. Don't worry about that. It'll pass.

    1. Re:Brain power by KD5YPT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So... how does your brain get oxygen and nutrient during said time when its on a dish?

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  152. Haberman device? Or pinlighting? by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    "Here's to the habeman, up and out..."

    Aren't you thinking of "The Game of Rat and Dragon", though?

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Haberman device? Or pinlighting? by cp.tar · · Score: 1
      Nope. Haberman, I quote from memory, 'conquered the pain of the up-and-out. Separated the brain from the arms and the legs, from the eyes and the ears...' (I'm fairly sure I'm a bit off, but you get the picture.)

      'The Game of Rat and Dragon' is a later story of a later age, after the Scanners - already people traveled the stars completely conscious, only the telepaths and their Partners (i.e. cats) combatted the fierce Dragons that lurked in the darkness...

      Haven't read it in a long, long time...

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  153. 'Red Mars' by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 1
    What's Robinson's Mars series have to do with it? I haven't read the series, but it sounds good from the wikipedia entry. Would you recommend it? Yes/No and why?

    So much to read... so little time.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:'Red Mars' by Freexe · · Score: 1

      Yes I would recommend it, it is one of the best books I've read. Its really well writen and extraordinarily insightful. It brings up lots of really cool issues and really makes you think.

      It can be alittle slow in places (about 30% of the last book is dull) but its worth reading through.

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    2. Re:'Red Mars' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's somewhat relevent to this discussion because it details what happens once longevity treatments are available (but only to select groups). In the books it's one of the great discoveries/inventions that happen shortly after the arrival on Mars.

    3. Re:'Red Mars' by Freexe · · Score: 1

      Ruin the plot why dont you!

      --
      "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
    4. Re:'Red Mars' by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1
      It's somewhat relevent to this discussion because it details what happens once longevity treatments are available (but only to select groups).


      Far too much money to be made selling it for this to occur. Also, there's the vote to crack this can of worms open.
      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  154. Bigfoot Seen in Montanta McDonald's Restaurant by JamaisVu · · Score: 1

    Bigfoot was spotted in a Billings, MT fast food restaurant eating the lettuce out of several Bic Mac sandwiches, giving rise to speculation that this rarely seen species is in fact vegetarian. Rumors that the "Sasquatch" was fond of eating kittens and other house and farm animals seem to be quelched by this event.

    There is video footage, but the manager claims that McDonald's headquarters has barred him from releasing it or making comment. Customers who were suprised to find out that the large feral primate was not a restaurant promotion but in fact a real customer when the gentle giant became frightened by a blonde child and dashed across the tables and condiments counter and through the glass windows.

    Bobbi Staunton said, "Lottie wanted to get her photo taken with the big monkey, so I went to put her on his knee. I think she was scared of him, but he was definitely scared of her. As soon as she looked at him real close, with her light blue eyes, he just started bouncing off the walls.. running and screaming!"

    Sarah Brosnan, Director of McDonald's US Communications, did not return calls about this event at press time. Her staff did say that McDonald's does not confirm or refute the existence or other details about Bigfoot or any other paranormal characters. They refused to answer questions about the West Virginia Moth Man, and seemed to treat the whole affair as a joke.

    Yellowstone County Sheriff Chuck Maxwell said, "I seen this Bigfoot several times. I ain't afraid of him, and he needs to stay where he belongs, in the woods." Which prompts the question -- why _has_ bigfoot come out into such a populated area.

    Environmentalists have suggested that deforestation and the alluring smell of french fries may be an answer.

    Althea Zanecosky, dietician at the Philadelphia Zoo states, "Monkeys like french fries. It's a fact of nature. They steal fries from kids all the time. And let's not forget, Bigfoot IS a monkey."

    --
    "When the solution is simple, God is answering." -- Albert Einstein
  155. it must be inflation... by Pollardito · · Score: 1
    because "absolutely any" means less and less
    absolutely any tissue except for the tissues of the brain. Heart, lungs, entire limbs
    1. Re:it must be inflation... by vidarh · · Score: 1

      What part of the use of "except" and the full stop after "brain" was it you didn't understand?

    2. Re:it must be inflation... by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      i understood the usage of "except", but there are only so many exceptions that you can have before the use of "absolutely any" becomes egregious. what's so wrong with saying "almost any" or "a lot"? saying "any part" is a strong statement. when you say "absolutely any part" and then ratchet the expectations back with a long list of qualifiers alarms should go off that you're being overdramatic

  156. Poor mice by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    "We have experimented with amputating or damaging several different organs, such as the heart, toes, tail and ears, and just watched them regrow," she said.

    That's gotta hurt, especially for the non-regenerating mice in the control group.

  157. Positively mammoth! by terpri · · Score: 0
    This is the first time this has been seen in mammals. The potential implications are positively mammoth.

    Well, I guess they've let the cat out of the bag. We heard this straight from the horse's mouth, after all. I just hope this turns out to be really useful and they're not just barking up the wrong tree; until then I'm sure they'll avoid making mountains out of mole-hills. There will be many copycats of any product resulting from this, but I'm sure that these researchers will receive the lion's share of the profits.

  158. Bla, I was mistaken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    When I first read the title, I thought they finally have a fix for broken mouse. I broke so many mouse playing diablo II, I was about to rejoice for a self-healing mouse, alas there is no such thing yet.

  159. I was so shocked by this... by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 2, Funny


    ...that I almost had a heart attack when I read it. Then I got to the part where it's not ready for humans, just mice, so I decided to wait on the heart attack.

  160. There is a good reason we do not do human testing. by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1
    ..that will never make it to human trials in America. Reason? It's another one of those taboo research topics; it's fine and dandy to clone a sheep or a mouse, it's fine to use crocodiles to fight HIV, it's acceptible to take a look at the human genes for eye-color and hair color, but the minute you even mention any of these actually going into clinical trials, or even attempting to get government funding, and you're shutdown for life.

    The research climate in this country's starting to get ridiculous. We hear about all of these new advances almost daily in the news, but we're still waiting to see any practical use come from them. These are things that save lives, things that make terrible diseases easier to fight.

    I know if I lost an arm or a leg or more importantly a heart or lung, I'd love the ability to grow one back..


    Of course you'd love to grow a lost arm, leg, lung, etc. Who wouldn't? Unless of course, it made your testicles fall off in the process.

    The last country that pushed human experimentation, quit doing so in 1945.

    Most of what we hear about in terms of medical research never comes to light because a) most of it is hype and b) it's a lot more complicated than any of us can believe. Most of it relies on peoples emotions of something successful coming from it so there is additional funding. No hype means no emotion. No emotion means no government grants. No government grants means no job for the researcher.

    It wasn't too long ago that new thing was cold fusion. Too bad nobody else could duplicate it (even the lab that supposedly did it the first time).

    Even the article states that everything but the brains regenerated. So, in the long run what's the results of this resarch if used on people? Well, we'd have a bunch of people with brains that have turned to Jello, but the bodies of 20yr olds. But hey, at least they'd all have two arms, two legs, a heart and lungs.

  161. let me get this straight by nilbog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the mouse loses it's heart, it will regenerate? I'd like to know just how quickly this process takes place...

    --
    or else!
    1. Re:let me get this straight by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Not the whole heart, only parts of it. By the looks of it, the process took a month or two. If it did lose the whole heart, it will die before it can regenerate (unless you stick it on heart/lung machine)

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  162. ObPython by Fullwin · · Score: 1

    So it really is just a flesh wound then, eh?

  163. Gender reassigning by KickMyDog · · Score: 1

    Remove the body, inject with hormones, inject with regeneration cells... 2 months later a change of sex has occured.. Spooky! but would you? could be cool for a while!

  164. "positively mammoth" by Dystopian+Rebel · · Score: 1
    From the summary:
    "The potential implications are positively mammoth."


    Perhaps... if the mouse increases its size because it cannot stop regenerating itself.

    --
    Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
  165. So much for the black market by Calimus · · Score: 2, Funny

    As soon as they get this into humans, my side business of stealing kidney's and selling them on the blak market is going to go strait down the drain.

    --
    Trying to be different, just like everyone else.
  166. High midi-chlorian count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Have you heard the story of Darth Mausesis?

    He was so powerful in the dark side of the Force that he could create life! But one night his pupil Darth Serious shot him in the head and he died.

  167. I call Patent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    That glorious combination of bad eyesight and an idle mind caused me to immediately think - self-powered computer mouse! Create a laser mouse that retains it's ball to generate the electricity to run the thing.

    Sometimes the fun of being a software geek is that you get to enjoy thinking about things like this, and not have a care in the world about whether it would actually work....

  168. Re:There is a good reason we do not do human testi by phaggood · · Score: 2, Informative

    > Too bad nobody else could duplicate (cold fusion)

    According to the latest issue of 'Make' magazine, there is a triving community of researchers who have succeeded, and are attempting to hone the process (mostly trying to figure out the magic ratio between palladium doping, heavy water, pressure and heat measurement). Pick up the latest issue; 'Make' is like 'Wired' done by Heathkit.

  169. Extreme Sports Fanatics rejoice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So many comments about transgendering.... pffft I say...

    Just imagine all the applications for real people! Like real people in the Military and who engage in dangerous recreational activites and such... And all the new sporting events...

    Like... Extreme-Self-Mutilation and How-much-can-I-lose-without-dying!

  170. What's the advantage to a small mammal? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Any injury serious enough to need repaired using this Mutant Healing Factor(tm) is likely to prove fatal (because it limits food gathering) before it heals. Better to ask why it's not been seen in bigger animals with slower metabolisms. Consider that crodilians don't regenerate lost limbs but can survive severe trauma. If you had to pick one ability, the latter would be more useful, as it's a prerequisite for the former.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  171. Legal issues by PhoenixPath · · Score: 1
    So how does this affect the criminalization of ripping someone's arm off and beating them over the head with it?

    I mean...if they can just grow it back and all...

    I can't wait until my Boss gets this.

  172. Serendipity, followed by hard work by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From Dr. Heber-Katz's website at the Wistar Institute:

    Wound Healing in Mice: In the process of carrying out an autoimmunity experiment, the Heber-Katz research team noted that in the MRL strain of mice, punched ear holes used for long term identification rapidly closed without any sign of scarring. Besides lack of scarring when the ear hole closed, a blastema formed and new hair follicles and cartilage grew back, processes not generally seen in adult mammals though thought to be part of a regenerative process seen in amphibians. The laboratory has been actively pursuing the identification of genes involved in this trait along with the mechanisms that allow this healing to take place. They found that the matrix metalloproteinases are upregulated early after wounding and just prior to blastema formation and that the molecule Pref-1 is upregulated late after wounding and just as the blastema is beginning to redifferentiate into mature cells. These studies have led the research team to examine multiple tissues that show the unusual regenerative capacity seen in this mouse.

    As my old high-school physics teacher used to say, the Princes of Serendip paid that lab a visit. Luck got the ball rolling, but hard work made it into something with potential. It took an observant, inquiring mind to note that the ear holes were closing, and to choose to investigate it further. Fortune favors the prepared mind, especially in science.
    --
    The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Serendipity, followed by hard work by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      If this work pans out it will go down in history like the discovery of penicillin. Bread mold contamination is a routine annoyance, but Alexander Fleming looked close enough to notice the clear ring around the bread mold in his culture dishes. Then came the portentous sound of a scientifc breakthrough ("hmm, that's funny") and years of painful detailed work to scale up the extraction and work out treatment protocols.

  173. sealab 2021 reference by ghukov · · Score: 0

    a robot body... with the strength of 5 gorillas?

    --
    ...because Plutonians are teh suck
  174. Details of the MRL/MpJ Phenotype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These mice have actually been around for awhile, not sure why the Australlian newspaper decided to mention them again... From jaxmice: Strain Description The MRL/MpJ mice are large but docile to the point that males rarely fight. MRL/MpJ mice, bred as a control for MRL/MpJ-Faslpr, also exhibit autoimmune disorders but symptoms are manifested much later in life compared to those the MRL/MpJ-Faslpr mice. Starting at about three months of age, levels of circulating immune complexes rise greatly in the MRL-Faslpr mouse but not in the wildtype control, MRL/MpJ. Also beginning at 3 months Faslpr mice exhibit very severe poliferative glomerulonephritis, whereas in the MRL/MpJ controls usually only mild glomerular lesions are detected. The MRL/MpJ lymphoproliferation wildtype females die at 73 weeks of age and males at 93 weeks. This compares to a lifespan of 17 weeks in the female and 22 weeks for males in the mouse homozygous for Faslpr. See MRL/MpJ-Faslpr (Stock No. 000485) for additional information. As a strain developed as the control for MRL/MpJ-Faslpr, MRL/MpJ mice are useful in the study of their comparable defects and diseases. MRL/MpJ, and one of its ancestral strains LG/J, display heightened wound healing relative to a panel of other inbred strains. At 4 weeks post-injury, 2mm ear punch wounds healed to 0-0.4mm in MRL/MpJ mice but were still 1.2-1.6mm in C57BL/6 mice. At 15 da ys post-injury C57BL/6 showed a maximal closure of 30% reduction in ear hole size while MRL showed 85% reduction. The process of healing in MRL/MpJ mice was faster, more complete, showed increased swelling, angiogenesis, fibroblast migration, extracellular matrix deposition, and decreased scarring and fibrosis. Additionally, hair follicles and accompanying sebaceous glands were regenerated to a much greater degree. The other ancestral strains of MRL/MpJ (C3H, C57BL/6, and AKR) do not display this enhanced healing. Bone marrow transplantation showed that the MRL/MpJ healing phenotype did not readily transfer with bone marrow and did remain in the irradiated host tissues. Enhanced healing of cardiac wounds has also been reported in MRL/MpJ mice. In this model a very high mitotic index (10-20%) was found, similar to that seen in non-mammalian tissue regeneration. Using F2 and backcross mapping of MRL/MpJ-Faslpr x B6 progeny McBrearty et al. identified wound healing QTLs: the Heal2 and Heal3 loci were identified on MRL/MpJ chromosome 13 in the region of D13Mit115 and D13Mit129 respectively; the Heal5 locus was identified on MRL/MpJ chromosome 12 in the region of D12Mit233; the Heal1 locus was identified on chromosome 8 of C57BL/6 in the region of D8Mit211; and a highly suggestive locus was found on MRL /MpJ chromosome 7 in the region of D7Mit220. In crosses between MRL/MpJ x SJL/J, Masinde et al. have identified 10 QTL for wound healing confirming and extending findings of McBrearty et al. Chromosomes 1, 3, 6, and 13 each had a single QTL with that on chromosome 13 being statistically suggestive but not significant, while chromosomes 4, 7, and 9 each had two statistically significant QTLs. (Clark et al., 1998; Leferovich et al., 2001; Kench et al., 1999; McBrearty et al., 1998; Masinde et al., 2001.) Microarray analysis and SELDI ProteinChip analysis have identified multiple genes and proteins that have varied expression in the ear punch wounds of MRL/MpJ-Faslpr versus C57BL/6. The changes in expression patterns suggest that in MRL/MpJ mice there is less of an inflammatory response and an earlier transition into tissue repair than is seen in C57BL/6. (Li et al., 2000 and 2001.) Blankenhorn et al. found that MRL/MpJ females heal faster and more completely than males. Some Heal QTL are sexually dimorphic with Heal2, 3, 7, 8, 10,and 11 having greater effect in males and Heal4, 5,and 9 having greater effect in females. Castration improves wound healing in MRL/MpJ males to nearly the degree seen in females, but ovariectomy does not improve the degree of healing seen in MRL/MpJ females. (Blankenhorn et al., 2003) Relative to B10.D2

  175. Hope it works soon by maggern · · Score: 1

    I have an eye that is severely damaged. I'd love to "heal" it through this kind of therapy.

    Think of the possibilites for people with spinal injuries or people who have lost limbs in accidents!

    If only superman was alive...

  176. Sick fuck by freaksta · · Score: 1

    What kind of sick fuck "gets" to cut off the arms, legs lungs, you name it of the poor mouse?

    --


    Hrrm... I usually just sign my name.
    1. Re:Sick fuck by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      The same kind that does stuff like this to find new ways to save your life.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  177. Ellen Heber-Katz is my aunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have talked to her at length about her work and it is utterly fascinating. She showed me a picture of a mouse, who through some tweaking, grew a full-sized ear on his back. Amazing. I believe her lab is only a few years away from having something ready for humans. She is reluctant to put any sort of timetable on it, and i can't say i blame her, but she knows she is on to something.

    In addition to her work, she also makes a very good Florentine omelet. I enjoyed it, anyway...

  178. Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing what lengths these Intelligent Design advocates will go to in order to prove their point. Give it up already. It isn't belie-

    oh. umm...

  179. As a pianist... by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 1

    ...I would love a few extra (functional) fingers! It would help my Gaspard de la Nuit!

  180. Re:Australian scientists made mammoths? by Aussie · · Score: 1

    Australian scientists didn't do shit.

    He's fair dinkum, and me out of mod points.

    And when cells from the test mouse are injected into ordinary mice, they too
    acquire the ability to regenerate, the US-based researchers say.
     

  181. Where's Bruce Cambell by adnausium · · Score: 1

    He's on his new book tour (Make Love: The Bruce Cambell Way) kickin' ass and signing autographs

    --
    Don't ya hate it when the correct spelling of your favorite screen name is taken?
    1. Re:Where's Bruce Cambell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was here in Fargo, ND last night to promote his new book and film ("Man with the Screaming Brain"). There was also a book signing and I heard a bunch of people were going to go and ask him to sign their copies of "If Chins Could Kill" on the page where he mentions how he hates doing autographs and book signings. I wish I could've been there.

      He'll be in Anchorage, AK tomorrow.

  182. Horrible consequences? by dptalia · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I the only person who has thought that this could mean more and more years of life for senile people? The only organ that doesn't get repaired is the brain - so if it goes, you're still stuck in a healthy, regenerating body. Talk about a nightmare.

    --
    Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
    1. Re:Horrible consequences? by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Um... zombies...

      Next thing you know, they'll be needing brain donations.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
    2. Re:Horrible consequences? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Am I the only person who has thought that this could mean more and more years of life for senile people?

      Well, the question is how do peaople become senile? Isn't it often due to progressive deteriation of the rest of the body?

    3. Re:Horrible consequences? by dptalia · · Score: 1

      Well alzheimer's disease is a build up of plaque in the brain. It has nothing to do with the degeneration of the body. And Parkinsons? I believe that's all brain based as well.

      --
      Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
    4. Re:Horrible consequences? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The causes of both Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases is unknown.

  183. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it appears that the Australians were the first to file... Poor New York Times just missed it. g

  184. Re: Do the mice now eat brains or just "protein"? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Zombie dogs, zombie chimps, and now zombie mice...
    I suppose rabits are next? Then real chimps and real dogs then real people?

    I think I'll just stay at the winchester...

  185. All we need now is this to be deliverable... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

    ...as a retro-virus and we get Resident Evil.

    "Aim for the head!"

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  186. Ha! by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 1

    Take that, Lorena Bobbit!

  187. Note to stupid illiterate moderators by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Silly moderators. They can't see the original mispelling of "Australiam" so they think my post is off-topic.

    Burn, karma, burn!

  188. A medical basis for vampirism? by greg_barton · · Score: 1

    The experimental animals are unique among mammals in their ability to regrow their heart, toes, joints and tail.

    And when cells from the test mouse are injected into ordinary mice, they too acquire the ability to regenerate, the US-based researchers say.


    Hmmmm... So, a regenerating mammal can contribute cells (contained in the blood, maybe?) to another mammal and transform it into a regenerator? Sounds awfully familiar...

  189. Probably been said already... by p4ul13 · · Score: 1

    But Kurt Conners and Logan, when asked to comment on this discovery, both replied with "Big deal".

    --
    Paul Lenhart writes words!
  190. Umbrella Corp by jnadke · · Score: 1

    I believe Umbrella Corp has prior art. In which case good luck getting a patent U of Penn. Then again, I don't think the mice have started eating eachother's brains yet, so that might make the patent unique enough...

  191. We call out to you by 834r9394557r011 · · Score: 1

    Lanik Muller, of the planet Treason.

    --
    w00t
  192. Re: Do the mice now eat brains or just "protein"? by DaveJay · · Score: 1

    That's sort of what I was thinking -- regenerative zombie dogs would make one hell of an army.

  193. ...say about evolution? You mean design. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Funny

    You ignorant fool. This behavior is by Intelligent Design. One day soon, when the sun has warmed the costal rocks and the moist air carries the scent of lilac, our new regenerating, non scar-tissue forming reptile overlords will scramble across the sands and we will welcome them.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  194. Free Beer by Loether · · Score: 1

    >I think I'd find it extremely valuable for myself.

    I agree. I can see it now. OK OK. You can cut my hand off. But you have to buy the next round.

    Repeat next week.

    Now if they could only figure out what to do with that extreme pain issue.

    --
    TODO create witty sig.
  195. Ask Alan Turing. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    They essentially give Depo-Provera (a time-release hormonal contraceptive injection) to certain sex offenders to kill their libidos. Ask Alan Turing how well he did when they put him on estrogen to make him less gay.

    To simplify tremendously---male hormones make you aggressive, hairy and horny. Female hormones make you passive and depressed. Also, they give you tits and painful joints.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Ask Alan Turing. by KickMyDog · · Score: 1

      Yeah! but thats if you were a guy... if your body was regrown from scratch then you would be normal functioning girl and they hormones would function as they should in a female body.. ?

    2. Re:Ask Alan Turing. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      After your married, you'll understand that passive and depressed is a normal functioning female; no seriously after the brain is exposed to sex hormones, it changes and the change tends to lock in quite a bit. men's hormone cycles tend to be daily in nature so they don't have as long a time to build, women's tend to be monthly; also women menstrate as they anticipate the cycle also.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    3. Re:Ask Alan Turing. by operagost · · Score: 1

      In that case, it appears that wedding cake contains a large amount of estrogen.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  196. Proving? Maybe in the ID sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop talking nonsense. Medical studies DO NOT attempt to *prove* anything is safe in humans. They try to *show* something has an acceptable level of risk in humans.

    There is a HUGE difference between the two (like between ID and Science, for example).

  197. Q: What eats dogs? by hummassa · · Score: 1

    A: Baseball fans.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  198. Invasion of the Body Snatchers? by Antisquark · · Score: 1

    What happened to the new mice? Are they now clones of the original, with cells completely replaced by the more vigorous MLR-strain cells?

    Are the regenerated limbs those of the injured mice or composed entirely of MLR-strain tissue?

    How would injecting one organism with cells of another (of the same species) grant it new abilities? Do our cells learn from each other? If I get spiderman's blood, do I get his abilities?

  199. Quick - Sell all your Organs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before this becomes widespread and the market crashes!

  200. Are you pondering what I'm pondering? by Toxick · · Score: 1

    when these mice try to take over, the only way to kill them will be to shoot them in the head.

    --
    BRE
    "Dude check me out. I'm like a little otter. A SEXY little otter"
  201. Welcome to the intellectual dead zone by mattr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Honestly, surfing at 4 and still nearly every post is brain dead, except the ones noting that the researcher is in the U.S., not Australia.

    However it is at he University of Pennsylvania (U Penn), which I believe is a different school from Penn State which one person posted.

    Google: Ellen Heber-Katz Wistar

    You will note that a genome screen was conducted at some point in time finding genes on 5 different chromosomes involved in wound healing and regeneration. The regeneration takes place by a mass of cells forming at the wound site that can form into many different tissue types, i.e. like stem cells. Indeed it seems (from a cursory scan of a few links) that stem cells injected into other mice also work. And this facility can be inherited.

    There is related research going on in different areas including observation of self-healing optical nerves, heart muscle, and even spinal cord once the scar tissue and scarring agents if that's what they are saying, are cleared away.

    It is being reported at a conference in a week but already Nature and other publications seem to be involved at least in the past. Wistar is famous for vaccine development too.

    If someone with real knowledge in the field could pop in now I'd sure appreciate it.

    I can say one more thing. Humans can regenerate to a very limited extent already. I know because my mother chopped off the tip of her finger in a folding chair (shiver) when she was little. The tip grew back with the nail, though I'm not sure if a joint actually grew back the way these mice did.

    The point is scientists never believed regeneration was possible even with such evidence, then views turned around, and now we have finally gotten to this amazing milestone. It is not an instantaneous thing. There is a paper cited about heart regeneration in the MRL mouse in 2002. They found the "healer" mouse in 1998. But it seems a milestone has obviously been met and it sounds like things are going to accelerate if more people can start working on the gene functions and biochemistry involved.

    Heber Katz' talk
      will be given on Sept. 7 at Queens' College in Cambridge, England. The whole conference sounds very interesting, it would be nice if someone with a brain and some training could report on it to slashdot.

    1. Re:Welcome to the intellectual dead zone by Log+from+Blammo · · Score: 1

      The full extent of the human ability to regenerate is exactly the situation you describe as happening to your mother. The injury to the finger cannot be much more proximal than between the base of the fingernail and the first joint, and the individual must be pre-pubescent.

      So the regrowth of joints is not an issue. If you lost a joint, you will not regrow anything at all.

      Even so, this is some exciting stuff. Unfortunately, once the technology has finally matured, money and politics will send the whole business to Hell right quick.

      --
      "This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
    2. Re:Welcome to the intellectual dead zone by DaoudaW · · Score: 1

      Google Scholar provides links to some of Heber-Katz' articles. Here's the one on the Scarless Heart.

    3. Re:Welcome to the intellectual dead zone by mattr · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much for the reply. It would be great if these discoveries lead us to being able to grow back joints like the mice in the lab did. Actually I'd like to grow back a knee joint like Pele's not the crappy knees I got.

  202. Detachable What? by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

    John Wayne Bobbitt called, and he'd like the contact information for the scientists in this article.

    --
    *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
  203. Too late... by Bazman · · Score: 1

    ...for John Wayne Bobbit.

  204. Do These Mice Use The Phrase "Bub"? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1


    Do they look mean?

    Do they have long claws?

    Watch your ass, researchers.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  205. Stop; thhink about this for a moment by jrgeek · · Score: 1

    Ok, I don't usually post much, but this issue and the comments posted over the past several pages have blown me away. When does it become apparent to scientist that maybe we shouldn't be trying to do these things? The population growth in industrialized nations had finally come to a point where the death rate and birth rate had become balanced. Population growth here in the US will grow only because of its immigration policy. When we come across discoveries such as this, people (you, me and the rest of the people on this planet) need to seriously consider the affect this will have on the planet. We already pollute our air and oceans to points where there are days that we can't go outside for fresh air or take a dip in the ocean because the pollutants are so great that we would get sick. My point is, we need to consider these changes and slow down. There's no need to stop researching and learning, hell that's what makes us human. But we MUST begin to consider the rate in which society evolves and how science pushes the envelope. Hell, most people don't give a crap about their own neighbor anymore and we want these people to live even longer? Until society advances, the medical break through such as these should be considered before they are pushed through. I'm sorry Larry Ellison, but humans were not meant to live forever...

    1. Re:Stop; thhink about this for a moment by narcc · · Score: 1
      We already pollute our air and oceans to points where there are days that we can't go outside for fresh air or take a dip in the ocean because the pollutants are so great that we would get sick.

      What? I have no trouble finding fresh air -- and last time I was in the ocean it was clean as a whistle. (I did come away with a sun burn, but that's my own fault for not wearing sunscreen!)
      There's no need to stop researching and learning, hell that's what makes us human. But we MUST begin to consider the rate in which society evolves and how science pushes the envelope.

      That's dangerous thinking -- Science is a vehicle for social evolution! With technology comes progress and change.
      Until society advances, the medical break through such as these should be considered before they are pushed through. I'm sorry Larry Ellison, but humans were not meant to live forever...

      Even if the technology were applicable to humans (which, at present, it is not) would you actually suggest that it NOT be used?! Tell that to someone with a bad heart, kidney, etc.

      To continue: This article is about regeneration, not eternal life. This technology promises to improve and possibly extend life for those with damaged/missing organs/limbs or what-have-you (er, have-you-not). This technolgoy does NOT promise you can live forever! Hell, the article even mentioned that subjects were unable to regenerate brain tissue -- what should that tell you about living forever?
    2. Re:Stop; thhink about this for a moment by jrgeek · · Score: 1

      What? I have no trouble finding fresh air -- and last time I was in the ocean it was clean as a whistle. (I did come away with a sun burn, but that's my own fault for not wearing sunscreen!)

      You obviously don't live in LA, Dallas, Denver, Detroit or other heavily populated cities.

      That's dangerous thinking -- Science is a vehicle for social evolution! With technology comes progress and change

      When was the last time you saw any change in the way a society operates since the adoption of the internet? What did that change? From what I see, not much. It hasn't changed the way people act towards one another and it hasn't brought about the end of hunger, poverty or any other major crisis this planet is facing.

      Even if the technology were applicable to humans (which, at present, it is not) would you actually suggest that it NOT be used?! Tell that to someone with a bad heart, kidney, etc.

      In these cases, probably not. But what you fail to think about is where does this sort of advance lead to. That's all my point is. We don't sit around and think where these advances will lead to. Before you know it, we are going to end up creating something that WILL lead to the demise of the human species as we know it. And who knows, maybe that will be for the better.

    3. Re:Stop; thhink about this for a moment by narcc · · Score: 1

      It took me quite some time to figure out how best to reply to your message. You seem to have a fear (yes, fear) of new technology. I honestly don't understand why.

      1) How the internet has changed society:
      This is a very difficult question to answer as I cannot answer it directly. Consider for a moment that we are currently at the beginning (or middle, some would say) of TWO major revolutions. 1) The Information Revolution [the direct result of the internet] and 2) The technological revolution [of which the internet is not only a product, but also a fuel that feeds the revolution that created it.]

      Accept that communication (between people, between groups) is essential in order for people to function in a society. (isolated groups are not part of the same society -- as communication is impossible) -- It stands to reason, the method and means of communication (the written word, verbal communication, etc.) affect the structure of the society.

      The internet has changed the way we communicate with other people (an almost immediate effect). The internet has changed the way we consider the relationship between physical distance and latency of communication. (Mountains, rivers, valleys, oceans, etc. are no longer barriers to communication. It no longer takes several weeks to transmit a message to someone across the globle - it can happen almost instantly!) Individual societies are no longer isolated by physical distance. Communities can form without their membership being limited to a specific geographic area. (The advantages to this are more than obvious.)

      1a) How will society change as a result of the internet?
      This question is more difficult to answer as the internet is still in its infancy. The last major information revolution came in the form of the printing press -- which lead to popular literacy! (Though it certainly didn't happen over night.) It seems to be too early for us to speculate what the long-term effects of the internet may be -- Though I can only envision positive changes. (All the immediate effects have been positive, though none too dramatic -- it's still early yet -- give it time.)

      1b) Has technology in the past caused changes to society. (Demonstrate that technology is a vehicle for social change.) -- This one is easy. Consider the example above (Gutenberg printing press) for starters. The jaquard loom lead to the industrial revolution (improving the standard of living). The steam engine and the rail road changed the way we *live and work* and helped to create the abundance and variety of food (through faster travel) that we could only dream about before! The highway and automobile changed our perceptions on distance -- we no longer had to live in the city to work in the city (leading to a suburban subculture). The manufacturing process changed the way products were produced -- affording an abundance and improving our standard of living and leasure time -- Time that might not have existed in great quantity before -- allowing innovation to occour.

      Now when I said "the way we *live and work*" I mean that it has a direct impact on our culture -- changes to our culture directly impact our world-view -- which will affect our philosophy, theology, morals, etc.

      2) We don't consider the consequences of our developments. We will eventually create the tool of our own distruction. -- Well, this is hard to refute, as we certainly could destroy ourselves if we wanted to. I don't believe we want to. The Atomic Bomb,a weapon that threatened to destroy all human life, didn't destroy humanity -- it SAVED LIVES! First by putting a quick end to the second world war. Second by *preventing* the cold war from escalating into a third world war (leaving the first world a third world!)

      We haven't engineered a biological weapon that has destroyed humanity. We haven't developed nanobots that reproduce themselves without limit creating a grey-goo that engulfs the planet. We haven't moved the earth "with a place to stand and a lever long enough". In short

  206. Sounds like.. by Luminary+Crush · · Score: 1

    ...we need to learn how to build a better mousetrap!

  207. mammoth by uniqueUser · · Score: 0

    mammoth ...I thought you said mouse?

    --
    GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
  208. Has Been Done Before by suchire · · Score: 2, Informative

    Peter Schultz at the Scripps Institute had done similar work before; he had assembled "libraries" of mice with various genetic mutations, to see their effects on entire living systems. On one of the mice, he found that it could regenerated the tissue in its ear when they punched holes in them. I don't know whether they investigated that strain any further, or as drastically as these scientists had, but he did come up with a mouse line that did this.

    --
    Such irE
  209. Not just overpopulation! by dusik · · Score: 1

    Whenever the topic of immortality comes up, everyone is quick to point out the problem of overpopulation. However, that's not the *only* problem.

    It will also stifle innovation, for example.

    I had a physics teacher in high school who told us that there are physicist alive today who do not believe some of the well-supported modern theories, and it's a problem, but they're old and we'll just have to wait until their die.

    Unless people become more flexible in their views, immortality just won't work for a developing civilisation, even if you enforce sterility.

    NOTE: No, I don't want to die either ;) Maybe if I stay open-minded I can have an excuse not to for a while, though...

    1. Re:Not just overpopulation! by NichG · · Score: 1

      Well, it really doesn't matter so much if the 500 year old physicists don't believe anything discovered after they turned 100, because anyone who _does+ use that new knowledge will have a big advantage over them in any kind of related research.

      It's a bigger issue if you have someone like that in a position of power of course, but thats a risk you take with _anyone_, 20 years old, 50 years old, whatever. So we'd need to make sure that there are strong competency tests for high up (public) positions - not a bad idea anyhow I'd think.

      Brain plasticity is a bit of an issue anyhow, since quality of life is a lot less if you can't learn new things, can't remember new things, etc even though your body is perfectly healthy. And its not just a philosophical viewpoint, decrease in brain plasticity is a biological effect. So there's a chance it can be studied and fixed/adjusted at will along with the other things that the immortality treatment is supposed to repair.

  210. GREAT! A never-ending supply of chicken wings by JonKatzIsAnIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Forget using this on humans - think about getting this into production with animals. Imagine having a farm where you don't kill the cows for beef, you just keep lopping the legs off after they've grown back. Perhaps with enough genetic engineering, animals could be convinced to grow great slabs of useless muscle tissue, which could be 'harvested' when the time is right.

    I could also imagine the barricades and machine-gun emplacements that would be needed to keep the PETA activists out.

  211. This is what happens when... by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

    ... you get Douglas Adams to write Doctor Who.

  212. Then why??? by mustangsal66 · · Score: 1

    Then why the hell did I quit smoking???

    --
    Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
    Sig changed for readability by G.W.
  213. Gee... by LesPaul75 · · Score: 1

    Gee... What do you want to do today, Brain?

    Well, I'm not sure, Pinky. There was really only one thing on the list, and now that that's done, I got nothing.

  214. Nonsense. This is a non-problem. by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

    People always worry that death and disease are good checks on the population and that eliminating them will cause rampant overpopulation and malthusian collapse. It's always turned out to be false.

    They worried about it with the development of vaccines. They worried about it with improved birthing processes - before 1850 a woman could reasonably expect to have half of her 5-6 children die in childbirth or childhood. Allow them all to live, and the population explodes, right?

    Except that you found people just had fewer babies instead, and because of the higher standard of living and less need to spend effort on just surviving - more time for productive work - the economy grew to support the new population just fine.

    First-world countries, with their better medicine, higher standards of living, and longer lifespans, invariably have drastically lower population growth rates than third-world countries.

    This problem solves itself.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  215. Regeneration time by phorm · · Score: 1

    If regeneration occured a-la-Xmen wolverine-style, yes. But I'm guessing that the regeneration, particularly of large organs, is still a process that takes time. In this case it could be used to help wounded soldiers recover, but not more so than anyone else with a major wound.

    1. Re:Regeneration time by xMilkmanDanx · · Score: 1

      Given the extra costs (medically), lost morale and loss of a trained soldier that comes from having a maimed soldier, soldiers being able to recover fully from any injury would be a major advantage.

    2. Re:Regeneration time by Macka · · Score: 1


      Thats exactly what I was thinking. Public moral and support for war would be less likely to wane if the majority of "sons" injured in combat made full recoveries with no scaring, etc.

  216. So now we know by int999 · · Score: 1

    ... where Duncan McCloud's genes came from. But still, what was the prize??

  217. Re:generate by Eccles · · Score: 1

    Oh no! Now we will have regenerating trolls in real life as well! ..

    I'm training a little dog so it will eat them for me. Anyone got a tripe ration?

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  218. What about already healed injuries? by Safe+Sex+Goddess · · Score: 1

    I'm curious as to what would happen to people who have had surgery to remove organs or have existing scar tissue from other injuries? If an injury has already healed, does it not regenerate? I'd be curious to know if they injected the cells into mice with healed injuries and what were the results. If someone has been missing a gall bladder or a breast for ten years, I can't see it growing back unless another surgery is performed to remove the healed areas.

    --
    Abstinence is a government conspiracy. www.SafeSexZone.co
  219. spinal disc injuries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how this would affect healing of damaged discs? From my reading (limited, i.e. one WWW site, that, come to think of it, could be nothing but quackery) on the subject, it seems that cells internal to the discs only grow properly when under more than 1 atmosphere of pressure, i.e. when compressed by the body's weight.

    In the event of a rupture, and subsequent reduction in pressure, those cells don't grow properly, and therefore complete healing of ruptures is basically impossible.

    -klode

  220. productive vs. burden by phriedom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, yes, wouldn't it be horrible if all those people with reduced abilities or special needs suddenly had much great potential to be productive, or suddenly didn't need expensive support systems to just live their lives.

    The applications are mind-boggling. Of course the amputees are the most obvious beneficiaries. But one of the mice regrew optic nerves, that means quadrapeligics, blind deaf. Maybe people with MS, diabetes, various other degenerative and chronic diseases that pour resources into drug manufacturing companies.

    I'm only focusing on the money/resources aspect because it is the most concrete, and because that investment could be spent on making the planet more livable, or reducing the impact of humans on the environment. One could also make a pretty good arguement that curing a fellow man is the right thing to do in a moral sense, but that isn't my point. I'm saying that worrying about the environment is a luxury that many people who are just trying to survive and live their lives don't have, and if you raise their qualitiy of life, they may be able to start thinking about the long term.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    1. Re:productive vs. burden by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "Yes, yes, wouldn't it be horrible if all those people with reduced abilities or special needs suddenly had much great potential to be productive, or suddenly didn't need expensive support systems to just live their lives."

      How disgustingly shallow you must be if you believe they can't have productive lives already.

    2. Re:productive vs. burden by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Of course the amputees are the most obvious beneficiaries."

      That cinches it; the Department of Veterans' Affairs will pay to develop this. Most of the amputees in this country lost their limbs in combat and VA is the biggest customer of prosthetics around. That, and veterans, like old people, have the nasty habit of voting.

    3. Re:productive vs. burden by ShadowBot · · Score: 1

      "How disgustingly shallow you must be if you believe they can't have productive lives already"

      "Did it ever occur to you that they are happy with their situation and don't need your pity?
      How sad that you have such low opinion of people with physical challenges."

      Are you saying it's a bad thing to offer a blind person the chance to see again?
      Becuase that's what the GP is talking about.

      No matter how you think he should 'feel' about it or the kind of words he should use. It comes down to a simple question.

      Should we or should we not pursue a possible treatment for blindness, paralysis, lost limbs and possible a host of other such 'conditions'?

      --
      Quantum Physics a.k.a. sub-molecular statistics
  221. Dr. McCoy Had it!!! by jameskojiro · · Score: 0

    He gave an old woman the ability to regrow her kidney in Star Trek 4!!!!

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    1. Re:Dr. McCoy Had it!!! by FruFox · · Score: 1

      I loved that scene. :)

      --
      Michael J. Bertrand, AKA Fruvous or FruFox My
  222. The potential implications are positively mammoth. by skubeedooo · · Score: 1

    Brainless mammoths, presumably. Personally I don't know why they would bother to grow them anyway, it's already established scientific fact that they will escape their cages after power failure and start eating people. Those damned /. editors; clueless.

  223. 21st Century version of Chia pets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't wait until they apply this technology to cows.

  224. National Library of Medicine Publication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Title says it all. The following publication is but one by the main researcher concerning regeneration in MRL mice: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1529380 6&query_hl=2

  225. I suppose we'd all have to become vegetarians. by bXTr · · Score: 1

    I, for one, would not like to have my food regenerating while in my stomach. While one steak would keep me full for a long time, I would eventually explode when my steak regenerates back into the cow it came from. However, if it gets far enough in my digestive tract, that would be one hellacious bowel movement.

    --
    It's a very dark ride.
  226. Long Distance Space Travel Now Possible by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

    Wow, if we can regenerate organs then long distance space travel is much more feasable since people's bodies would repair much faster from solar flares,etc. All that would need to be shielded would be people's brains, they could wear lead lined helmets, etc.

  227. You're not kidding. by StarKruzr · · Score: 1
    --

    +++ATH0
  228. Just when I thought vampires were not real by MCTFB · · Score: 1

    Of course, vampires who live forever make sure their numbers are small so they don't overpopulate themselves and deplete their entire food supply (humans). Also, vampires control their numbers often by killing other vampires. The same thing could be said of human beings in the future when it comes to the concept of immortality. Fortunately for humanity there seems to be a problem of rebuilding a dying brain, so at least people won't be living 1000 years or something ridiculous like that. But don't think there does not exist an elite class of people in the world who would kill off 99% of the rest of the world, just so they would be able to live forever with all the resources they would ever need to live an eternal life of decadence and hedonism.

  229. not the ability to cope with the loss, by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    but rather, the ability to avoid the loss in the first place.

  230. The bad with the good. by phriedom · · Score: 1

    I acknowledge that you have a fair point. There have been many times in history when a new idea wasn't accepted until the people that held the old idea died. However I think there are plenty of counter-examples of people who never stop learning and who would only get more productive if they lived another 50 years. Imagine what Stephen Hawking might accomplish if he could walk and talk. There are not many people left who know what it was like to live through the Great Depression here in the US, what wisdom has been lost there?

    On a personal note, I work in high-tech, I'm 35 and most of the people I work with are younger than 40, and there are very few older than 50. However the most exciting person I've worked with was in his late 60s. He had built vacuum-tube radios, and gone on through transistors and then silicon. He has worked in digital and analog from kilohertz to gigahertz. I don't know how many patents he had written, I think he lost count. It seemed like there wasn't any problem that he hadn't seen before in some form and solved. He never stops teaching and it is dramatic to watch how quickley a new engineer right out of college would become a really good engineer just from working with Phil. Two years with Phil was worth 12 years of normal experience. Keeping that king of knowledge and experience around would be a benefit to society.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    1. Re:The bad with the good. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      " Imagine what Stephen Hawking might accomplish if he could walk and talk. "

      You're assuming he hasn't done what he's already done simply because he can't get around very well and has lots of time to sit and think.

    2. Re:The bad with the good. by Jamie+Lokier · · Score: 1
      However I think there are plenty of counter-examples of people who never stop learning and who would only get more productive if they lived another 50 years.

      Indeed there are. I'd like to think I'm among them :-) What I'm saying is that the balance between people like that, and people who block social evolution when there are pressures to socially evolve (which there are) - that balance affects the evolutionary likelihoods of expressing longevity-giving and health-giving genes.

      Basically, more people engaged in lifelong learning and evolving themselves during a single lifetime will likely result in greater expression of genes which support longevity and long term health. Because then death and suffering is not necessary for change. More people being stuck in their ways and powerful to the detriment to others will likely result in less expression of those genes, and greater expression of genes which break that behaviour. Because then death and suffering is necessary for change.

      Seek to change this balance of behaviours, and I believe we'll change the balance of gene expression. Both due to hereditary evolution from mutation and splicing (slowly!), and also due to the poorly understood processes by which gene expression is governed within a single individual during a single lifetime (mechanism: because we already have much diversity in how people change or don't, as you point out, and a long history of evolution of the gene expression mechanics, and a vast store of unexpressed but evolved genes from our ancestor creatures; those three together are likely to result in the processes which govern gene expression adapting to short term changes in a way which is similar to hereditary evolution but faster).

      -- Jamie

  231. Re:generate by Narchie+Troll · · Score: 1

    First of all, feeding the dog is not a good way to get it to eat the corpse -- it wouldn't be hungry!

    Also, you'd be better off finding a tinning kit, if you're up to eating tins of homemade rock troll.

  232. typo by phriedom · · Score: 1

    I aplogize for the typo. That should have read "much greater productivity" not "much great." And yes, I'm trying to make a very narrow (or shallow if you prefer) point. A person who can hear and see can communicate easier than a person who can't. A person with full mobility can get to work easier and faster than a person with reduced mobility. A person without diabetes doesn't spend time and money monitoring and managing their blood-sugar. We'd all be better off if we could cure these things instead of treating them, or managing them, or working-around them.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    1. Re:typo by ifwm · · Score: 1

      Did it ever occur to you that they are happy with their situation and don't need your pity?

      How sad that you have such low opinion of people with physical challenges.

  233. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great. If this same process can ever be replicated in humans then aging could be almost completely stopped. I suppose you could compare this to "Wolverine" from the X-men, though not as fast a regeneration. Im sure war veterans would love to here of this, though getting the same thing to work for humans might take longer than they have to live.

  234. There goes the "hair growth for men" industry... by GReaToaK_2000 · · Score: 1

    If we could/can regrow appendages...

    then hair should be NOTHING!!! :)

    So long "Hair Club for Men" and all that LOT!!! Just a bunch of "witch doctors" if you ask me...

    ~GO

    PS... before I clicked 'Submit' I thought of something else...
    THIS technology would be the downfall of the "Plastic" Surgery industry as well (and I MEAN industry).
    Could you imagine? Growing bigger boobs, lips, 'schwantzes' would be non-surgical...

    The technology mentioned in the article doesn't "directly" apply to this 'PS', but it could lead in that direction.

    he he...
    Here honey just take this pill I would like you to have bigger breasts... (few days to weeks later)... Honey your breast are HUGE!!!

    Of course the other obvious one pertains to male anatomy as well. >:}

  235. Where is this article published? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is this published? I would like to read the actual article before commenting.

  236. Re: UPenn != Penn State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There used to be a store on UPenn's campus that sold T-shirts which had the school seal and the words NOT PENN STATE in big letters above it.

  237. Research Article published August 14, 2001 by rsalvo1975 · · Score: 1

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA August 14, 2001 | vol. 98 | no. 17 | 9830-9835 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/17/9830 It seems to cover everything mentioned in the "Australian" article.

  238. mouse legs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes! Finally we can satisfy humanity's desire for mouse legs without continually driving these poor creatures to extinction!

  239. franken mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this the theory behind all of the "Night of the Living Dead" movies?

  240. I wonder what effect this would have on... by defenestrated · · Score: 1

    Whoa. Cool stuff! Might be a bad idea to give to anyone with a predisposition for cancer, though - I would think it would accelerate the growth of any tumour. You *could* just hope that if you do get a tumor it'll be somwhere amputatable and that you can then regrow the tissue, but there's only so much tissue you can cut out before even regeneration becomes stupid (Think "Marie Antoinette"). More so, if you were to grow back, say, an entire leg; that's a lot of growth to oversee, and it'd be happening faster (I'm guessing, unless you want to spend 10 years regrowing your leg) than at the carefully overseen and controlled rate at which we normally grow. I wonder what the chances of a defect forming in the new tissue are...

    --
    Defenestrate: Literally, "to throw out of a window".
  241. Re:There is a good reason we do not do human testi by jc42 · · Score: 1

    The last country that pushed human experimentation, quit doing so in 1945.

    Not quite. Google for "Tuskegee experiment". This one (not treating poor black men for syphilis in order to study the course of the disease) was funded by the US government from 1932 to 1972.

    It's not an isolated case, either. And the US government is hardly the only government to support studies of this nature.

    In another few decades, we'll probably be reading about human experiments that were going on in 2005.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  242. Optic Nerve by LqqkOut · · Score: 1
    After reading numerous posts about regenerating optic nerves, might it be fair to ask if the parts of your brain responsible for processing the light your eyes take in may have atrophied (or never have developed properly in the first place)?

    Just a thought!

    --

    -- In Soviet Russia, radio listens to YOU!

  243. Re:Regeneration of english by CrackedButter · · Score: 1

    Actually, nobody pissed on my cornflakes, i simply pointed out the many blatant mistakes from the submitter. I was actually making a joke but ah well mods as always go for the flamebait or troll option.

  244. OK, OK, I'll say it!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they be able to make a penis grow BIGGER? Cuz there are two things a guy can't have too much of: penis and money.

  245. Selection is still happening... by David+Rolfe · · Score: 1

    "So, exactly how is human intellect not a result of evolution?"

    Yeah. I didn't say it wasn't. :-D

    Further:
    "And do you really think a hundred years or so of "societal support structures" is going to have a lasting effect on the gene pool?"

    Yes, I do. Because when I said that, I wasn't referring to just "a hundred years". Our societal support structures evolved from the social groups of lower primates. The necessity to keep track of the large amount of social-group interactions (social accounting) is a likely reason our brains are just so big. Additionally, our sense of aesthetics in pair-bonding is ALSO evolved over much larger periods of time. I'm saying that these more cerebral selectors are much bigger factors to today's Man compared to how healthy our babies are, how healthy our peers are, how fast we can run, how long we can go without food, how long our individual immune systems can fight off death, etc.

    Finally, regarding our abilities to stave of death: I think 2 billion or so humans living past 60 years is pretty good evidence to the contrary considering we used to mature by 11 and die by 30. But again, I'm looking beyond "a hundred years or so".

    Possibly relevant: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=160745&cid=134 59401 a reply I've made down thread.

    --
    Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
  246. ... streeeeetch! by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

    "It can be done, after a fasion. The complex structures that are removed can't be replaced, but with a 12-18 months of sustained effort the skin folds can be replicated."

    I'm sure the average Slashdotter would have no problem with that "12-18 months of sustained effort"... As long as their carpal tunnel didn't act up.

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  247. More importantly, by GungaDan · · Score: 1

    is there any "enhance your penis" potential in this exciting new technology?

    --
    Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
  248. Quick... by Landshark17 · · Score: 0

    ...somebody tell John Bobbit

    --
    This sig is false.
  249. Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just, wow.

  250. Re:There is a good reason we do not do human testi by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

    Why, exactly, shouldn't researchers be allowed to conduct experiments on human volunteers?

    --
    -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  251. Woot by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

    Rocking. Now we can start on the regenerating jihad ninja mouse.

    --
    Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  252. Not Necessarily by Tacky+the+Penguin · · Score: 1

    People will die in mass over population if the government give us this technology.

    We are already achieving Zero Population Growth in many developed countries. In fact, birth rate is below replacement rate in some.

    The countries with declining birth rates will be in crisis in a few years when there literally won't be enough able-bodied (young) people to take care of the aging (retired) population.

    This technology isn't coming a minute too soon! We need to keep the older folks (us) strong and healthy or we're going to end up with over-worked young people and/or abandoned (or even euthenized) old people (that's us).

    Also, many people choose to have children now rather than later because "the clock is ticking". Many career-minded people end up trying to concieve in their 30s and 40s. Some succeed, some fail, others use extreme measures.

    We got married at 34 and 30, and we started our family right away. If this technology had been available, we would have waited a few years, gotten some maturity under our belts, and gotten some cash in our bank accounts. Who knows how long we would have put it off.

    The future is Logan's Run (no old people) without having to kill the old folks (that's us).

  253. Re:There is a good reason we do not do human testi by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    You would have to define for me what you mean by a volunteer before I could answer your question.

    Are you talking about somebody who knows all the risks associated with the experiment, they aren't receiving compensation (nor are their next of kin if it goes wrong), they have a full understanding that they are subjecting themselves to procedures that most likely have no chance of working and on and on?

    If the volunteer doesn't meet the above and similar requirements, then they aren't a volunteer, but only a victim.

  254. the first time?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recall something about electrical stimulous applied to stumps of limbs removed. This was sometime ago in the past 60 years. The electrical stimulous caused regeneration of said missing limb..

  255. Coupled with Zombie Dogs, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could get fairly interesting.

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/2 7/1923259&tid=191&tid=14

    Woof! EEEK! BRAINS!

  256. Mouse powers by bar-agent · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Let us see what mice have gained from mad science and meddling-in-things-man-was-not-meant-to-know over the years:

    Just think if they made mice with all these abilities. They'd some kind of race of atomic super-mice! I guess all that time as playthings of science had some beneficial effect.

    So, these atomic supermice could go in one of three directions: "Here I come to save the day!," "Same thing we do every night...," or "At last we shall have our revenge!"

    I know which one I'm betting on. Anybody else scared?

    And this last paragraph is so Slashdot will stop complaining about characters-per-line. I give you this summary of the excellent book, The Mouse that Roared:

    The tale concerns the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, a tiny European nation which "lies in a precipitous fold of the northern Alps." It was founded in 1370 by British soldier of fortune Roger Fenwick, under not altogether honorable circumstances. Practically the only thing that is produced there, and the only reason anyone has ever heard of it, is a fine wine called Pinot Grand Fenwick. Other than this one export, the nation remains happily isolated, a medieval remnant in the modern world, ruled over by Duchess Gloriana XII--"a pretty girl of twenty-two"--and her prime minister, the Count of Mountjoy (also played by Peter Sellers).

    As the story begins, crisis has descended upon the Grand Duchy in the form of revenue shortfalls. It is determined that the most effective way of raising money is to declare war on the United States, the pretext for which is the introduction of a San Rafael, California winery of a wine called Pinot Grand Enwick, a provocation that can not be allowed to stand.

    As Gloriana explains the aims of the war: "The fact is that there are few more profitable undertakings for a country in need of money than to declare war on the United States and be defeated. ... And in a matter of months, or at most years, the United States is first requesting and then begging its former enemies to raise an army to defend their own territory. It is not unheard of that these defeated foes are able to state the terms under which they will raise an army for their own policing and defense. Those terms have involved the payment of large sums of money by the United States, or the extension of generous credits, revision of trade agreements in favor of the defeated nation, return of shipping, rehabilitation of factories destroyed in the war,

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  257. Check that off the List... by __aarmfm8627 · · Score: 1

    Rengeneration-Check Refining Adanantium-Inprogress... Mutant Genes my fury blue Asscot. This makes alot Science Fiction seem not too far off... Like downing a pill and after a bit regrowing an important organ like the kidney(as noted above and shown in Star Trek 6: The Voyage Home). Just be on the lookout for asian women with silverly eyes and really long nails.

  258. Matrix metalloproteinases by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    The article mentions upgregulation of matrix metalloproteinases. Last I heard, those were being blamed for tumors being able to invade nearby tissue.

  259. pity by phriedom · · Score: 1

    You have quite an imagination if you think there is any pity in this "healthy people are more productive" argument.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  260. argh by jproffer · · Score: 1

    Looks like we'll need bigger mousetraps.

  261. Re:There is a good reason we do not do human testi by NaDrew · · Score: 1
    It wasn't too long ago that new thing was cold fusion. Too bad nobody else could duplicate it (even the lab that supposedly did it the first time).

    I'm pretty sure I remember seeing Elizabeth Shue doing it. Ahh, those boots...
    --
    Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
  262. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  263. The greatest medical achevement of all time by tjlsmith · · Score: 1

    IF this is for real.

    Bigger then Insulin.

    If it IS - they'll get the Nobel Prize and the committee will retire it. How can you top this?

    The blind will see and the lame will walk.

    What do you want?

    On second thought, there's still cancer, aids, a whole bunch of powerful viral and bacterial diseases and brain damage to solve yet.

    But still, this is the shit! (That's a technical term)

    --
    Mumia Abu-Jamal is *laughably guilty*. Check the evidence.
  264. Ellipses by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    Doh! It's three periods for an elipsis, people, not two, not four. And if placing a word after it to continue the same sentence, don't add a space. Only add a space (two, actually) if it ends a sentence before beginning the next.
    And properly, an ellipsis should only be used to indicate missing words in a quotation, not as a dramatic pause, but to quote my English teacher, "That's ... good enough." (There were several sentences of invective including a negation in that ellipsis, but if it's good enough for newspaper reporters to warp statements with strategic placement of ellipses, it's good enough for me.)

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.