Slashdot Mirror
Fluorescent Monkeys Cast Light On Human Disease
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that a team of Japanese scientists has integrated a new gene for green fluorescent protein into the common marmoset, causing them to glow green under ultraviolet light, creating second-generation, glow-in-the-dark monkeys in what could be a powerful new tool in human disease research. Though primates modified to generate a glowing protein have been created before, these are the first to keep the change in their bloodlines. If a fluorescent protein gene can be introduced into the monkey genome and passed onto future generations, other genes could be too opening up a world of possibilities for medical research, such as the generation of specific monkey colonies containing genetic defects that mirror human diseases aiding efforts to cure such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. However many people are likely to find the routine use of monkeys in medical research far less acceptable than that of rodents, drawing action from animal rights activists. 'I'm worried that these steps are being taken without any overall public discussion about whether we want to go down that road. We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings,' says Dr David King, from the group Human Genetics Alert. '"Slippery slope" is a quite inadequate description of the process, because it doesn't happen passively. People push it forward.'"
I for one welcome our glowing primate overlords?........
I want phosphorescent monkeys, dammit.
Biologists have been making this glow for a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fluorescent_protein But the novelty is that now you can make green offspring with no extra effort! For those with journal access to nature, the source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7246/full/nature08090.html
So, how long do you think it'll be before decedents of these 'somehow' hit the exotic pet trade.
Do they taste like pickles, too?
We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings
And eradicating genetic disease and improving humanity to the peak of its potential would be bad why, again? Here's a hint: The reason why the world of Gattaca is dystopic isn't because of genetic engineering.
Rob
KHANNNNN!!!!!
Huh?
How many of you would pay extra for a child that would fluoresce?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Takin' the evil monkey to the next level!
Use the monkeys as light bulbs?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
Oh the tgHumanity!!
Take your shining paws off me, you damn dazzling ape!
However many people are likely to find the routine use of monkeys in medical research far less acceptable than that of rodents, drawing action from animal rights activists.
And once you have the attention of the animal rights activists, the harsh reality is that your research involves monkeys that fucking glow in the dark so it's not like they're easy to hide or anything.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
I submit we have already, (and even within one generation) passed that fork in the road. Unless you think these people are doing all this research because they favor monkeys?
... let alone the article. Why spoil a great headline? Heck, I just like the "Fluorescent Monkeys" part.
are called scorpions, see: Mating scorpions from Molcaxac, Puebla
But are the fluorescent monkeys beige?
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
As far as this subject goes, there's just as much, if not a lot more, bogus 'ZOMG genetic engineering is teh ebil!!!1!' FUD from the generally left wing groups than right wing groups.
I don't always buy dead monkeys, but when I do, I prefer fluorescents.
This only shows their incompetence in model scenarios, so they just modify the DNA of primates and watch what happens, that is pretty low and disgusting, terrible trial and error approach.
Why? Nature does this all the time.
Curiously, the internal numbering scheme used in this research is practically handing paranoia fuel to a certain class of anti-science forces on a silver platter.
The only viable male marmoset produced by the experiment was Code named "666". Are they trying to rouse the god squad?
Humans are a type of primate, no? If we can make glowing monkeys, can't we make glowing humans? For one, it would solve the animal right's issues if we tested the stuff on humans (we could ask animal rights activists to volunteer). And second, I think it would be cool if we could glow under fluorescent lights.
We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings
This argument is correctly labeled as a "slippery slope" argument, but what the author fails to mention is that "slippery slope" arguments are part of a group of arguments known as logical fallacy's. The error is that the Dr. David King equates changing monkeys to genetic engineering and then assumes that genetic engineering on other organisms, namely humans, is inevitable; since human genetic engineering is bad, then all genetic engineering MUST be bad. This is illogical.
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
Many asian cultures consider repeating numbers to be lucky, regardless of if the Babylonians considered them divine or not.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Um, its called learning. Think of it this way, its like a programming language that you have no clue what it does. So you see a line of code, find a variable, think Hm, thats a 1, if we make it be a 0 what happens? So you do that and compile it, suddenly the background of the program turns transparent. You figure out what that does. Its the same thing here, manipulate enough variables and you get a lot of knowledge.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
now if they could come up with a way to add transparacy and layers in different colors they would be onto something
"I'm worried that these steps are being taken without any overall public discussion about whether we want to go down that road. We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings," says Dr David King, from the group Human Genetics Alert. "'Slippery slope' is a quite inadequate description of the process, because it doesn't happen passively. People push it forward."
This research may some day influence the manipulation of the human genome, but the same reasoning would apply to the current generation of fluorescent fish and bunnies. If your concern runs that deep, you might as well ban animal husbandry.
What bugs me about messing with primate genes is that they're already so close to us genetically that turning a few genes on or off would make them anthropomorphic analogues. In other words, we're making them men, but they lack the legal capacity, rights and protections that we take for granted.
For those of you with refined literary tastes, yes. I'm thinking of that Heinlein story, "Jerry Was a Man."
Indeed, ignorance is not constrained by politics. The ignorant on the left claim it's against Nature, the ignorant on the right claim it's against God. The ignorant in the middle claim it's a bit of both.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Like every other reader on Slashdot, I have trouble getting past the first two words of the headline.
'Slippery slope' is a quite inadequate description of the process, because it doesn't happen passively. People push it forward.
I think that the saying he's after is "letting the nose of the camel into the tent". The camel's nose poking in through the tent flaps isn't a problem in and of itself, but one still discourages it because of what will inevitably follow if one does not. It's much easier to address a camel-in-the-tent problem when it's just a nose, not the whole camel. This is similar to "nip it in the bud" (which is frequently mangled into "nip it in the butt" -- the dog's approach to discouraging a postman).
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
Flashing will totally take on a whole new meaning soon...
And /. will be pleased.
There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
OK, I'm ignorant and confused about the whole thing. So - when I read it - they have injected a new gene into an embryo and that genetic code was then passed on to the embryo's offspring(?) OK, so maybe (one day) we can do that to humans as well. So there's (a) a the usual ehtical arguments about whether animal experimentation is ethically justified via it's possible benifits to humans, (b) the usual ethical arguments about whether genetic modification of humans above and beyond using your good sense in chosing a mate is a good or bad thing. I'm clear on that. But my confusion is - how does modifying offspring to produce a heritable (is that the word?) thinggy have a potential health benefit? I'm missing something obvious here I know - but I just can't get it.
Parent is not offtopic.
Why don't they just use a flashlight?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." --Mark Twain
Somehow slashdot always manages to distort science reporting. This is not a huge discovery. They managed to infect a monkey embryo w/ a virus. Rudolf Jaenisch did this with mice in 1974 but it took another 10-15 years to make a meaningful genetically modified mouse..... and it had nothing to do with viral modification.
If you want to make meaningful "monkey models" you need monkey embryonic stem cells which can be genetically modified, through homologous recombination, and reinjected into an embryo. These reinjected cells must contribute to the germline of the resulting organism. Currently, monkey embryonic stem cells don't appear to behave like their mouse counterparts, thus "knock-in" and "knock-out" monkey's will require significant advances in monkey embryonic stem cell research.
'Slippery slope' is a quite inadequate description of the process, because it doesn't happen passively. People push it forward.
What? Slippery slope doesn't depend at all on how the changes are made or who makes them. Just the changes themselves cause the slippery slope!
"Marmoset there'll be days like this
There'll be days like this, my marmoset"
Forget cancer and birth defects..... I want a glow in the dark monkey damnit!
https://www.speakservers.com/
Some people do anything to get glowing reviews..
Insert
6 years ago a glow in the dark orchid was developed. I had high hopes of owening one by now, but for some reason they never made it to the market. http://cmos.missouri.org/2003Dec14.htm
You had me at "Flourescent Monkeys".
I read most of the comments so if one of you did mention this .. redundancy eat my karma.
How many generations would it take before evolution kicks in and discards the gene because glowing in the dark does no good when hiding from natural predators?
Just a thought ...
mov ax,4c00h
int 21h
Soylent Green is monkeys!!!!!
Sig? No thanks. I don't smoke.
Genes cause physical changes and can be passed from parents to offspring? OMG, who woulda thunk?! Unfortunately, this kind of research is far more effective at generating headlines and attention than it is at curing any human disease. There sure is a lot of wasteful and abusive animal research going on.
Monkey Shines
The fight against gay marriage has nothing to do with two men or two women who want to marry.
It is all about money.
Married couples can get the retirement benefits and pensions of their spouses. This often includes some health care package. The common belief is that gay people run a higher risk for certain illnesses (think HIV). They do not want to cover that cost. The religious thing is just a cover.
Throw me a bone here.
"You can't really dust for vomit" --Nigel Tufnel
How may asses does it have?
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
You can say that again, what kind of sick bastards would curse a monkey with eyelids that make it harder to sleep when they're closed ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
...you damned glowing ape!
The same technique has already been used for Huntingtons. The monkeys with the damaged genes are glow-in-the-dark. Although admittedly slightly disturbing, the technology has already proved valuable in fighting disease.
#Computers do not appreciate sarcasm