Slashdot Mirror
Genetic Clues to Cause of Death?
An anonymous reader writes "Nature is reporting that a certain 'telltale genetic fingerprint' may help scientists to more accurately determine a cause of death. From the article: 'Now a team at Nagasaki University has shown that a person's own genes might help to reveal how they met their end. Kazuya Ikematsu and his colleagues anesthetized and then killed two small groups of mice, by either strangulation with a string, or by decapitation. They dissected skin samples from the animals' necks and compared the activity of a broad spectrum of genes inside the skin cells, by looking at the amount of RNA pumped out by those genes. The researchers found four genes that were more active in the strangled animals than those that had died suddenly.'"
It would be incredible if we discover that our mind and body records in intricate detail our last moments, and that this information can be obtained / downloaded etc. Perhaps through genetics and/or tapping into the brain in the minutes soon after death? The legal implications would be as controversial as the scientific.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Such a slaughter does not serve science, and hardly deserves being called science. No matter how 'small' the group might be.
"Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme" -- Rabelais
(Science without conscience is only ruin of the heart)
wow, i have no idea how PETA has not FLIPPED. i have killed a lot of hamsters/mice/rats in my days working in a neuroendocrinology lab and we had to go through hell applying for/making sure our protocols for killing the animals were up to snuff with federal regulation. i wonder how they got permission for the strangulation. plus, it's a rediculous study anyway. what "genes" are they talking about? i assume that they are activated in response to a lack of oxygen because thats what the article stressed. in that case, they could probably just measure lactic acid (lactic acid is the product of an alternative pathway to make ATP when oxygen is not available), degredation products of lactic acid, or ph level in the cytoplasm of the animals cells (ph drops when lactic acid is produced). also, the RNA that they saw an increased transcription of would likeley degrade before any reasonable conclusions could be made. as a last note, if the genes they saw activated were from the pressure of the strangulation, this tells the forensic scientists nothing because the original goal is to determine if "whether someone died by strangulation or suffocation, rather than by some other means," especially in cases where there are no other physical clues. strangulation pressure always leaves a mark.
check out my music biatches. www.seanduffymusic.com
But is it any more cruel than the typical use of mice as snake food where they are fed live to a snake?
Context is everything. It's cruel to the snake to let it starve to death; it is not necessarily cruel to a researcher to not let him perform an experiment.
Arguably, these are both natural behaviors for our species: eating rodents for snakes and experimenting on them for humans. However, humans have choices in the matter, can consider future consequences, other alternative and weigh them. In fact I'd argue that's what makes us human. I'm not against vivisection, but I don't condone cruelty to satisfy curiosity in the most convenient way. Again context is what matters; the value of the information obtained, the alternatives for getting that information, and the practical impact have to be considered.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This is not the innovation it seems to be. For most causes of death there are precise enzymatic and cytological evidence (apart from the obvious macroscopic evidence). Tissues include some very specific cell lines which contain a series of isoenzymes specific for that cell line. For instance a cardiac infract increases the levels of creatine-kinase MB isoenzyme, whereas an ictus would not to the same extent. Furthermore, isoenzymes have different half-lives giving furhter insight to the timing of the events that caused illness or death (in some cases detectable even after a year). This is all info we have today and use in both clincal and forensic practise. The experiment described in article (IMO quite misleading) goes a step further by determining the changes in transcription/translation (the article does not specificy) of DNA following specific lesions. In the not so far away future, I would expect an integration of the actual, biochemical and cytological techinques with the genetic investigation proposed in the article.
I think its interesting the inferred deferral of responsibility in the response to the snake feeding example.
It's only natural for the snake to eat a mouse, but the point is the human is putting the mouse in the position of being eaten, knowing precisely what the consequence of putting that situation together, but since the final stroke is not done by their hands, they are less responsible, and therefore less cruel. If they had to hypothetically kill the mouse for the snake before feeding it, some may have more problems with doing that.
Similarly, the average person eats meat, but wouldn't kill an animal and eat it because the experience seems horrific. Again, the actual burden of the act of killing is deferred, but the person benefits from and to some extent can be considered responsible for the act.
It's fascinating how for a lot of people is a larger measure of cruelty is how dirty the person's hands directly get in the act versus how responsible they are for the act.
Of course, I'm one of the people who eat meat but wouldn't kill an animal, but at least I recognize my psuedo-hypocrisy for what it is.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.