Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fluorescent Monkeys Cast Light On Human Disease

Posted by samzenpus on from the grape-ape-version-2.0 dept.

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.'"

18 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by Pluvius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by 4D6963 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But.. but.. improving humanity genetically = eugenism = nazi = evil! It's inherent, you can't even screen foetuses for genetic defects without bringing dystopian technofascism into power. If science fiction warns us against it, there must be a reason!

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    2. Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trouble is, our present "non designed" model hasn't really resulted in a utopia of loving everybody just the way they are. Rather, there is a whole lot of shoving round pegs into square holes, and vice versa. We already have (roughly) genetically defined underclasses, we already have children being subjected to high pressure parental expectation. There are, already, even phenotype fads(just look at, say, artistic depictions of ideal beauty over time).

      The design -> dehumanization argument would be a lot more compelling if we didn't already have dehumanization and disappointment. Dehumanization and success would be step up.

    3. Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was incredibly disappointed with how Gattaca handled its genetic engineering premise.

      In essence, Gattaca passes up the chance to face a really interesting question: "What would happen in a world where science has ensured that all men are very much not created equal?" and, instead, passes off a much, much flatter sci-fi racism allegory.

      Supposedly, the protagonist suffers from a number of serious genetic defects, his heart condition being the worst. His brother, and the fellow whose identity he uses, do not. This is treated as simple fact within the context of the movie, the same way the space technology is. And yet, it has virtually no effect on the characters. The protagonist completes, without undue effort, highly rigorous physical and mental training(with a single heart palpitation to add dramatic tension). His only risk is being discovered and unjustly victimized by society; simply being let down by his body isn't an issue. By contrast, the fellow he is impersonating is impulsive, depressive, and suicidal(all traits with genetic components, but he has them and the protagonist doesn't, despite being engineered). The protagonist's brother is similarly unaffected by his supposedly superior genes.

      The movie constantly downplays, in practice, the effect of genes on phenotype(and completely ignores the potential for psychology to be affected by genetics, in favor of a fuzzy "triumph of the human spirit" subplot) while making it a major plot point. It ends up simply being the story of "perfectly good guy, oppressed just because of who he is, shows what he can do through sheer pluck" rather than the much more interesting(but considerably darker and less comfortable) story of "adequate guy, whose inescapable limitations doom him to a life of frustration and inferiority" or, even, "Bold, self-absorbed, narcissist bluffs his way onto a mission where a number of other are depending on him to do what he knows he won't be able to do".

    4. Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by 4D6963 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, sure, because anyone just knows that we'll rush to make bizarre experiments on humans.

      Here's a reality check : we're not even cloning humans and we get our wads in a bunch about stem cell research on embryos.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    5. Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How many things in nature have been IMPROVED through human involvement?

      Go on, count them...I'll wait.

      Ever heard of polio?

      Know why we don't worry about it much any more?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    6. Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No ones saying we would, at least not in general. The issues to overcome would be social issues that favor or discriminate against the genetically modified/non-modified people. What do you do about perceived unfair advantage the modified might have? What about the perceived inferior non-modified people, who would more than likely be children of groups already poor? What about pockets of luddites and their children? What about the (unlikely) chance that something goes wrong with the modifications themselves? Sure, genetic engineering hasn't blown up in anyone's face yet, and much to Greenpeace's dismay, it probably never will, but modifying human populations is something that must be taken with much more prudence than crops. Its not about bizarre experiments so much as it is about potential problems, mostly social in nature. I'm not saying these problems can't be overcome, or that modifying humans is necessarily a bad thing (as I said, it could do a whole lot of good), just that I don't think we should be doing gene modifications on humans at this point in time.

    7. Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by Narpak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Genetic engineering is a tool, or method, just like everything else really. It can be researched, documented, understood, and used responsibly, or it could be used irresponsibly and have unintended side effects. In my mind what many authors and futurists warns of is unchecked or unbalanced genetic engineering run rampant.

      The thing to keep in mind is that advances within this field is coming, what is or isn't possible is still subject to a great deal of speculation; but our understanding, and our ability to change and manipulate is increasing. Forces within society might want to slow down what they see as an unhealthy development. But the problem is that whatever legislation some countries or regions might wish to implement to combat these developments is futile. Other countries will continue research either openly or covertly; and I think undoubtedly there are those already working covertly on things that might be considered a bit icky by many. If we enact reasonable laws, and allow controlled research to continue we might be able to maintain some control of the technology; at least for a few years or decades. But if the edge of this field is driven underground then I fear things could easily go out of control. However, this is also pure speculation since I can not say what will or won't be possible with genetic Engineering.

      Speculating further I would reckon that removing genetic inherited conditions and learning disabilities will one of the first benefits, and one that will drive many to embrace this field. But one could argue that if it is possible to give people perfect night vision, or similar traits, then sooner or later someone somewhere will either be born with night vision or have night vision eyes crafted straight into their skulls. Of course, as I said, speculation; but time does not stop. If it is possible with the right understanding and technology then it will be done. That is my feeling regarding the subject at least. So my argument is; lets have objective debates about genetic engineering and make sure that the legislation that is implemented isn't from fear or prejudice; but from long term thinking and reflecting about a field of research that carries the potential to make all our lives infinity better, or infinity worse, or both at the same time.

      --
      The Long Now Foundation
    8. Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's also the world of... Brave New World.

      Ah, TWO fictional stories. Well then it's pretty much a dead certainty.

      Wait a minute... terminator and matrix... my god, I need to stop typing and destroy my computer RIGHT NOW!

      By unfortunate genetic lottery, we have people suited to manual labor, manufacturing and other undesirable jobs. In addition, we dehumanize people if they're "designed." Think about the problems we have when clothing/electronics/houses go out of style. Now think about your kids. Do you want them to "go out of style?" We'll only further objectify people.

      "go out of style?" Exactly how? Because if we start designing our kids to have floral print skin, that would be one thing, but not having cystic fibrosis probably isn't going to go out of style ever, and I think people are going to tend to leave superficial features alone, focusing more on diseases. And maybe height, weight, and intelligence, but those also probably aren't going to go "out of style."

      Dehumanizing sounds convincing until you realize people already do that to ugly people.

    9. Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by JuzzFunky · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Modifying genetic code to remove known defects that will do nothing but cause a lifetime of suffering is hardly dehumanizing. If anything, having the ability to prevent this kind of suffering and choosing not to would be inhumane.

      Sure it sucks that you have a crippling disability and no quality of life and will probably die young and in pain, but at least you're unique.

      --
      Unexpect the expected!
  2. The path less traveled by NemoinSpace · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings," says Dr David King

    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?

  3. Re:Fluorescent monkeys? Bah by peektwice · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Exactly. I too, wish to nit-pick the whole "glow-in-the-dark" monkeys thing, because they don't really glow in the dark. They fluoresce. Hopefully this isn't to pedantic.

    --
    Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
  4. Re:The Island of Dr Moroe (Japan) by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Slippery Slope is a Logical Fallacy by Afforess · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Slippery Slope is a Logical Fallacy by glwtta · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

      I'm sorry, but none of that makes any sense. Manipulating the genomes of monkeys to produce specific traits is, by definition, genetic engineering. Most biological research is done with an eye for treating human disease (even if the research itself is quite far removed from the ultimate applications - they aren't just doing this to fuck with monkeys), so yes, getting this to work in humans is likely the ultimate goal.

      And finally, "human genetic engineering is bad" is a nonsensical aphorism - why exactly is it bad?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:Slippery Slope is a Logical Fallacy by The+Famous+Brett+Wat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...what the author fails to mention is that "slippery slope" arguments are part of a group of arguments known as logical fallacy's.

      It's only a logical fallacy if it's presented as a logical argument. I don't see that here: I see a concern that although the thing is not bad in and of itself, it may lead to a trend that is. That's not a logical fallacy, it's a reasonable concern which arises from taking a long-term view. One could argue whether it's a valid concern, or whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks, but to cry "logical fallacy" here is just an attempt to dismiss the objection without discussing its actual merits.

      Some "logical fallacies" are perfectly good rhetorical devices when used as such. Learn the difference. Also learn to use apostrophes, for Pete's sake.

      --
      proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
    3. Re:Slippery Slope is a Logical Fallacy by Nathrael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And would that really be a bad thing? I wouldn't even say it was a bad thing if it wasn't used for curing diseases but actually enhancing human beings beyond their natural capabilities. To fully embrace the potential of the human race, we cannot stop with modifying our surroundings - we will also have to modify ourselves.

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
  6. Huh? by electrons_are_brave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.