Slashdot Mirror
MIT Engineers World's First Schizophrenic Mice
Frosty Piss writes "MIT researchers have created a schizophrenic mouse that pinpoints a gene variation predisposing people to schizophrenia. Research with the mouse may lead to the first genetically targeted drugs for the disease, which affects 1 percent of the population worldwide. This is the first study that uses animals who demonstrate an array of symptoms observed in schizophrenic patients to identify specific genes that predispose people to the disease."
Pinky (or was it the Brain?) was the first schizophrenic mouse.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
im too lazy to go digging around the article, but diagnosing schizophrenia in a human being ... ok.
actually they dont even know how to diagnose it exactly.
"People diagnosed with schizophrenia usually experience a combination of positive (i.e. hallucinations, delusions, racing thoughts), negative (i.e. apathy, lack of emotion, poor or nonexistant social functioning), and cognitive (disorganized thoughts, difficulty concentrating and/or following instructions, difficulty completing tasks, memory problems). "
http://www.schizophrenia.com/diag.php#diagnosis
now, how do you find out if a mouse has those problems?
besides, only a psychiatrist can diagnose schizophrenia, which we learned yesterday from slashdot posters, is just another 'left wing conspiracy' major, an evil liberal arts degree, when what this country really needs is more engineers blah blah blah etc etc etc.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6923577.stm
My grandfather is a left-handed schizophrenic mouse, you insensitive clod!
I read it as "Some group of MIT Engineers are the world's first schizophrenic mice"
The actual article is interesting, but not NEARLY as interesting as it could have been.
(it is early still)
Great. Now I know why MIT engineers smell bad.
(Either that, or the mice think they're engineers.)
Agreed.
For one thing, it may be just upset that someone messed with its DNA
I'm all for animal testing and all. I'm no animal rights advocate by a long shot; but intentionally giving mice schizophrenia seems a bit wrong to me. Schizophrenia runs in my family and I want to see a cure as much as anyone else. Therein lies the conflict. I suppose the mouse gets it if the experiment can do some good.
The game.
This is nothing new. My dad worked his life (up here in Canada) as a medical physicist researcher, studying cancer treatment. It was common for them to give cancer to rats, pigs, and dogs and then try to treat them to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new and existing techniques for curing it. We purposefully overdose animals on food additives to test their safety within humans and administer large quantities of drugs to them to determine addictive potential and an approximation of human LD50.
Whether I agree with the approach or not is a different story. (Honestly, I really don't know.)
does the mouse have a secret stash of lots of old newspapers with scribbled details showing how secret messages are encoded in them? does the mouse have an invisible friend? does the mouse show a novel grasp of game theory and in fact has a nobel prize for the study of game theory? is the mouse married to jennifer connolly?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Squeak, squeak squeak!
[translation: "I'm crazy, and so am I!"]
Schizophrenia is hell, and I don't think I'm stretching that much. This is a geek audience, right? Well, let's just consider a world where you can do a scientific experiment and find a result that only you can confirm. Over and over again.
The standard narrative of schizophrenia that we've all internalized is that it's somehow a weakness of an individual. That can't be true, especially if it can be induced.
Please pay attention to article
:-).
"MIT Engineers" "World's First Schizophrenic Mice"
haah... rabid MIT engineers
Someone need to fix that headline more appropriately.
-- "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - TAE --
According to our history as a species, we have no trouble being cruel or sacrificing others when our interests, however essential or triffling, are on the line. You really think we were going to treat animals any better?
But if results from these mice lead to a treatment for even one type of schizotypia in humans, that's still a leap forward for psychiatry nonetheless.
I totally agree with you and tbh hate the fact that testing on animals occurs personally i always felt testing these things on prisoners would be far more effective and probably a benfit to society imo
While all of this is true, remember that the animals are typically sacrificed at the first sign of suffering. The initial tumours are grown and treatment is attempted (or if they are observing the effects of a gene, the tumour is measured), then the animal is sacrificed if there is noticeable discomfort.
Where are we going to find a hippo, 5 gallons of grease, and a tutu, at this time of night?
Best Slashdot Co
To be a white mouse is to be nestled in an alien environment of metal and bars, forced under threat of punishment to perform acts that have no relation to natural instincts, fed an array of processed and unnatural (to a mouse) foods, all while being watched by alien creatures that frequently whisk away your mouse friends and colleagues who, if they are returned, are often physically and psychologically damaged. Frankly, that any white mouse is considered "sane" by the researchers is a very telling commentary about the mental state of those running the laboratory.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I think the reasoning goes along the lines of "the greater good". Provided such genetic changes offer some hope for treatment of humans (even if the mouse suffers) everything is fine.
Sadly, often animal models are not appropriate for human diseases. Eg, you break the same gene as in human but the animal does not have any symptoms of the disease.
This is true. My research group is doing this right now with brain tumors. As soon as (a) we have enough data (which usually involves testing treatments on the condition) and (b) the mouse begins to manifest intractable symptoms of the tumor or resulting mass effect, the mouse is killed quickly and (hopefully) painlessly.
Unfortunately, they also kill the mice after the experiment if treatment is successful. I don't see the need for this except to free up cages, and I am a bit surprised they don't want to continue studying the health of the mice over a longer term to see whether the treatment has adverse long-term effects or the tumors recur.
In other respects, the mice are treated quite well: they are given ample room to run around, their cages are well-kept, and there are lab staff dedicated to making sure the mice are regularly fed and watered. The researchers chosen to supervise the mice are specifically chosen for their empathy to further ensure that the animals aren't being mistreated.
...Not that all this changes the fact that we are doing horrible things to innocent animals in the name of science, but at least we are trying to minimize the amount of damage we need to do to get results that may save lives in the future.
space aliens and cover their heads with tin foil hats.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I'd love to see a follow up article that discussed the practical extensions of this science that was done 4 years ago.
Hopefully it hasn't just been sitting on a shelf for all this time to only just now become "breaking" news.
Anything you say will be held against you.
It thought it was a cow.
I really, really hope that you are joking.
Although human models would certainly be more relevant, the ethics here are a total loss. Such a thing would clearly fall into the category of "cruel and unusual punishment," even if we assume that all of the people that are in prison are guilty. Throw into the mix the fact that a number of people in prison don't deserve to be there, and you have a moral nightmare.
Meanwhile, I suggest that you read more about the guidelines for how animals must be treated in laboratory experiments. I assure you (as someone who has worked in science (although never personally with animals)), that the guidelines for the care and treatment of animals is very strict and tightly controlled. Any experiment that doesn't adhere to the guidelines is very quickly stripped of funding. Hell, you can't even get funding unless you provide proof that you know and will follow the guidelines for use of lab animals.
If you really want to reduce animal suffering, look at the meat and agricultural industries. Far crueler things are done to animals every day in the interest of putting meat on your plate than are ever done in a laboratory.
Oooh, then you reeeeeally don't want to see the addiction studies with cocaine feeds going directly into monkeys' brains... Actually, you also probably don't want to see what happens in most factory farms. Aside from some memory problems, these mice probably live quite a cushy life, for a mouse, and will probably die a quick and painless death. And because of them, hopefully life will get better for millions of people.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Hmm... you know, that doesn't actually sound similar at all to me. What they said there, basically, is that they made the mice stupid. Maybe there's some other stuff at work, but not being able to learn any more looks the closest to genuine stupidity.
That's not at all similar to schizophrenia in humans. A lot of schizophrenic humans are actually highly intelligent, and perfectly able to both lean and do (more than) simple associations. Their brain does work wrong, to different degrees and with a very broad spectrum of possible symptoms (there are at least 5 fundamentally different _categories_ of schizophrenia), but not in the same way as being retarded.
The most easy to understand kind of schizophrenia, the paranoid schizophrenia kind, isn't being unable-to-learn or unable-to-associate stupid, but, according to at least one explanation, having a very fuzzy line between fantasy and reality. (In various ways and to various degrees.) They're people who otherwise are perfectly capable of logical thought and learning, but some of their input data is their own delusions, or is slightly distorted by those delusions. It can range from just slight sensory delusions, to outright seeing and hearing things that actually originated in their own minds, mixed with the real input. While you might, for example, imagine a ghost in your head or think what you'd like to tell the boss, for a really bad case of paranoid schizophrenia it might get registered as stuff that actually happened, or which _is_ currently happening, mixed with the stuff actually happening around. They might actually see that ghost in the (otherwise real) room or get the impression that that boss is communicating with him telepathically.
Of course, that's really really bad cases that end up in the loonie bin or shooting up an university dorm. Most people included in that 1% figure are a lot more slightly affected, and can function normally.
In a sense, paranoid schizophrenia is a case of "garbage in, garbage out". The mental capacity for logic and learning is there, but some of the input is corrupted. The illogical behaviour you see on the outside isn't usually stupidity, it's just the result of applying good logic on bad input data.
So basically, I'm sure they probably base their theory more on the protein similarities than on those symptoms. Because those symptoms don't sound like schizophrenia at all.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The article is a fluff piece with no real info, the findings from that study didn't yield anything as its redundant. And there is evidence in an article I read last year in GQ (of all places) that mice are the main targets of the infection that it thought to cause Schizophrenia.
also here http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=12372
Also the Wikipedia entry point out that a realistic study say that the real infection rate is 0.55% of the population. [I guess we are not as crazy a planet as first mentioned]
on the whole I would give this article a 0 for points and both a REDUNDANT and OVERRATED tag
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
That's crazy! Those MIT scientists must be insane! Totally off their rockers, they are!
I wonder what a mouse's delusions of grandeur are. All I could imagine is a mouse running around constantly, either in an invisible ball or after invisible cheese. And you have to watch out for those secret government mice that are wearing cloaking devices that only they can see through and who don't age.
Ah great.. so all those monkey's are not psychotic enough to be classed schizophrenic by any psychiatrists diagnostics standards? Oh wait sorry, I just realised, they can't verbalise their delusions!!
Translation: I have a cure for both of you, and I promise it won't hurt... much!
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
Our overcrowded prison system contains a large number of mentally ill persons who should be in mental hospitals which no longer exist. A lose lose situation - worse outcome for the mentally ill and higher economic cost to society. Even for those few with health insurance there is lack of parity between physical and mental health benefits.
Come on!!! Do you actually believe that they want to treat schizophrenia????? I just realized their plan..... a) create an army of schizophrenic mouses b) put them in big boxes c) keep them hungry for some days d) through the boxes from airplanes with parachutes over Iraq or any future target e) Sit back and watch the madness on earth!!!!! Presto!!! Genius plan....
Does schizophrenia affects 1 or 2 percent of the population worldwide?
Well, being schizophrenic isn't the same as being a sociopath, or even the more fuzzy "being a dick".
A paranoid schizophrenic for example has (at least according to one theory), a pretty fuzzy line between fantasy and reality. At any rate, stuf originating purely in their imagination or beliefs gets mixed with the reality. They might hear voices, see stuff that isn't there, or feel or smell stuff that noone else can perceive. Where you might just imagine telling someone where to shove it, a schizophrenic might actually perceive it as having happened or as in progress. They might become convinced it's telepathy, or some kind of astral projection, or whatever. That is, either that others are able to project their thoughts into their head, or that they themselves have some telepathic or clairvoyance powers. Others might see stuff that's not actually there (e.g., ghosts) or distort their perception of real stuff (e.g., seeing a piece of string on their skin as some mysterious new parasite.)
Well, that's just one of the kinds of schizophrenia, and what I've described there is more like the extreme cases that get sent to a mental institutions. Most people are a lot more mild than that, and either never get diagnosed or are considered harmless enough to just give them some medicine and let them go back home. Plus a lot are intelligent and socially aware enough to know that everyone else will think they're crazy if they go around saying that they see ghosts, and that carries a major social stigma in our society. So they do their best to hide it, and might never get diagnosed at all.
That doesn't, however, mean that they're necessarily "a dick". The cases where the voices told them to do something nasty are actually quite rare, and most might not even hear voices at all, but have some other form of sensory delusions or distortions. A schizophrenic might just as well be a very nice guy or gal, who just happens to see or hear something slightly different than you do. Just because someone sees ghosts, for example, doesn't mean they will go and tell everyone where to shove it and how deep. That ghost might as well tell them to be nice, or do some great work of charity, or reinforce whatever other belief that spawned that bit of imagination in the first place.
The cases where the voices told them that everyone is their enemy and must be elliminated, are actually quite rare. The 1% of the total population being or having at some point been schizophrenic is a _lot_. Plus, as I was saying, there are a lot which never get diagnosed at all. If they all went and did nasty stuff, you'd notice.
So, basically, chances are you've met or interacted daily with one or more people with schizophrenia without even knowing it. And chances are they weren't the obnoxious "dicks" either.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The problem is a little more complicated (and less political) than that. Even in Canada where we have free health care, the problem is much the same. Since the late 70's, to be institutionalized (i.e. treated against their will) a mental patient must be an immediate danger to themselves or others. Most don't fall into that category, and if you ask a crazy person if they want treatment, most will tell you "I'm not crazy!" Even those who agree to treatment take their drugs long enough to start feeling better, then stop taking them because they think they are cured, then get worse and refuse to take them again (and you can't force them to unless they are an immediate danger to themselves or others).
Is this situation better than the previous system of forced treatments including shock therapy, lobotomies and sterilization? Certainly. Did we create a new problem by giving freedom of choice to people without the mental faculties to use it wisely? Definitely. Can the situation be solved by throwing more money at it? I doubt it.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Heh. Here's some free clue for you: you don't need any pre-requisites to start using your head. There's a reason why you have one on your shoulders, and it's not there just so it wouldn't rain straight down your throat.
No, seriously. Einstein was just a lowly patent office clerk, when he dared think he can do better than the great Hendrik Lorentz. No, seriously, Lorentz too was a Ph.D. and a Nobel Prize laureate, and a mighty smart guy all around.
So I guess people like you would have made fun of Einstein too, for daring even try to think on his own there, right?
Now I'm not saying that I or you are of the calibre of Einstein, but nevertheless, get this: you don't need to pass any special exam to start using your brains. You have it anyway, you can start using it any time you want to. You don't need anyone's royal stamp of approval.
Plus, you know, the site's motto says "news for _nerds_". You know, the guys who like to use their _brains_, even when it's as pointless as this or as memorizing Star Trek trivia. That's the whole point of being a "nerd".
So, no offense, but if you're rather in the cathegory that would just unthinkingly believe what some great figure of authority says, and never dare imagine yourself worthy enough to question it... why are you even here? I'm sure there's some religious community outhere where you'd feel more fulfilled, without having to deal with us pesky nerds who insist on thinking and questioning.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
...who moved my cheese?
Have gnu, will travel.
I updated my synaptics driver and it works like a charm afterwards.
Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
Schizophrenics have many impairments beyond hearing voices - social withdrawal, low performance on most cognitive tests, bizarre reasoning. Drugs that work well to stop hallucinations ("positive symptoms") do not do anything about these "negative symptoms". Many schizophrenics do not have "positive symptoms" and those in fact have worse long-term prognosis.
Most of us will not start throwing our feces at people by applying good logic to whatever real or imaginary input data.
As I was saying, I described only one kind of schizophrenia, and there are 5 major categories. In fact, the original term by, you know, the guy who coined the term, was the "schizophrenias". The 5 categories being:
- paranoid type (the one I described already)
- disorganized type (where thought disorders do occur)
- catatonic type
- undifferentiated type
- residual type
Some include two further subtypes:
- post-schizophrenic depression (somewhat deceptively named, since schizophrenic symptoms are still more or less present)
- simple schizophrenia (progressive development of the negative symptoms you describe. But even then, the keyword is progressive: it doesn't flat out start by flinging feces, as you put it, but includes a very long and slow progression through states that most people would at most think eccentric or slightly bizarre, and when the person is still fairly logical and intelligent.)
So basically, you're trying to tell me that there's more than one type, right? Well, given that I've said that repeatedly by now too, I'd say we're not disagreeing much, right?
I'd also like to say that schizophrenia is one of the most controversial and mis-diagnosed illnesses even in humans, who can, you know, talk and tell you their logic. If you take two psychiatrists, they're almost as likely to disagree about a diagnostic as they are to agree.
I'd just love to know how would they diagnose that in mice. Basically, again, how do they know if the mouse is simply retarded or having a delusional or illogical train of thought? Not everyone who can't learn is schizophrenic, you know, and all they showed there in the mice's behaviour is that they're dumb as a brick. It's not a mouse who uses some bizarre logic and ends up digging in some interestingly different place than the clues point him to, it's a mouse who flat out can't take the hints at all. That's all I'm saying.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I for one welcome our new schizophrenic mice overlords, may they realize that we exist.
After all, according to this, mice are the three-dimensional manifestation of hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings.
We're doomed! DOOMED!
Have gnu, will travel.
As devil's advocate, I need to raise the question: are we sure a "cure" for schizophrenia would be a good thing? As a scienctist it is imporant to consider the potential consequences of our discoveries. The same 'gene' that predisposes people to schizophrenia might also be related to volition and genius and creativity and what fundamentaly makes people human. If curing people of schizophrenia eventually means something akin to giving at-risk fetuses a localized shot of some protein or amino acid or whatever at a strategic time in development, we might risk losing some potential brilliant minds as well. Moreover, a cure for schizophrenia could also mean a technology that allows governments to turn populations into zombies and robots. That might make the world easier to govern, but, at what cost?
My first thought was "Ah, that explains RMS!"
sounds kinda like this http://nootropics.com/genes/index.html to me.
I totally understand and what i said was rather a broad statement but i dont see how testing on humans is any more of an ethics / morality issue than it is with animals however you make some valid points regarding their treatment especially the agricultural industry.
How do you classify a rat as being schizophrenia when, even today, the /existence/ of schizophrenia has been questioned by noted psychologists Carl Jung and, more recently, the anti-psychiatry group, not to mention, the all pervasive, Phillip K Dick. Whether you read into psychotic symptoms as an emergent property of a modified perception of time (Dick's explanation), an internalization of alternative social maps that leads to a breakdown of defense mechanisms in a violent catharsis (Jung), or simply "individuality" (anti-psychiatry), we haven't yet falsified schizophrenia:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=125704 7
Now, taking all that into consideration, how many orders of magnitude in difference are human beings from rats? Even if a rat could be one-dimensionally classified as "schizophrenic" by a gene-level modification, it would be a schizophrenia stretch (pun intended), I posit, to induce that a human would be likewise affected by the same gene in a similar manner -- and this is only if we concede that "schizophrenia" exists and if so we can finally arrive at a operational definition of it (which we have yet to do):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6033013.stm
Take off your tinfoil hat, doctor. ;-)