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.'"

53 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Oblig... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one welcome our glowing primate overlords?........

    1. Re:Oblig... by nametaken · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll welcome them when they're two-assed monkeys. Those are so obviously more useful for research in human diseases.

    2. Re:Oblig... by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fluorescent Monkey Overlords would be a great name for a band.

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    3. Re:Oblig... by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      The question is, does Alzheimer's let me bang her in the ear?

      Epic penis-size FAIL

      --
      which is totally what she said
  2. Fluorescent monkeys? Bah by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    I want phosphorescent monkeys, dammit.

    1. 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.
    2. Re:Fluorescent monkeys? Bah by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well it makes all the difference in the world if you're dieting. If you were phosphorescent, you could eat a tub of ice cream and just shine the calories away. Try doing that if you're just fluorescent.

    3. Re:Fluorescent monkeys? Bah by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's the 21st Century. Where are my phosphorescent flying monkeys?

    4. Re:Fluorescent monkeys? Bah by TinBromide · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I want to do this to my future, hypothetical kids.

      --
      Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
    5. Re:Fluorescent monkeys? Bah by Jurily · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you were phosphorescent, you could eat a tub of ice cream and just shine the calories away.

      So the fat girls would glow in the club? Where do I send the check with the funding?

    6. Re:Fluorescent monkeys? Bah by Again · · Score: 2, Funny

      They can put a man on the moon but they still can't give us phosphorescent flying monkeys?!

  3. Glowing is cool, but the novelty is elsewhere by crescente · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Glowing is cool, but the novelty is elsewhere by Jurily · · Score: 5, Funny

      now you can make green offspring with no extra effort!

      Some of us like the "effort" part, you know.

    2. Re:Glowing is cool, but the novelty is elsewhere by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Funny

      "But the novelty is that now you can make green offspring with no extra effort!"

      Some of us like the "effort" part, you know.

      With monkeys??? :-P

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Glowing is cool, but the novelty is elsewhere by Jurily · · Score: 2, Funny

      With monkeys??? :-P

      If you can make offspring with monkeys, good luck. I'll be sticking to humanoids, though.

  4. Just a matter of time by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, how long do you think it'll be before decedents of these 'somehow' hit the exotic pet trade.

    1. Re:Just a matter of time by oldspewey · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's not dead, he's pining for the fjords

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    2. Re:Just a matter of time by peektwice · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's not dead

      He will be in a minute.

      --
      Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
    3. Re:Just a matter of time by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 2, Funny

      No really he's feeling better, maybe he'll go for a walk soon.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  5. 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 DreamsAreOkToo · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

      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.

      Sure, it sucks if you're ugly. But at least you're unique.

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

      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.

      I think you skipped the "Nazis riding dinosaurs" in there, but otherwise that's obviously exactly what would happen.

      --
      John
    4. 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.

    5. Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by dudpixel · · Score: 2

      This is what worries me - How many things in nature have been IMPROVED through human involvement?

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

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    6. 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".

    7. 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!
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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
    11. Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is what worries me - How many things in nature have been IMPROVED through human involvement?

      Well, the food is certainly better now.... the meat is better cooked than raw, and the fruits and vegetables have been bred for centuries and now they're delicious. You should have seen the semi-edible crap that people subsisted on a few millenia ago.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    12. 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.

    13. Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 5, Informative

      Are you joking? Do you know how many varieties of apple there are? Wild apples are barely half the size and aren't nearly as sweet. Think pears just happened? Uncultivated ones are gritty and sand-like. Ever notice how there's no seeds in your banana? Think wild ones are seedless? Corn? Not even naturally occurring. Wild wheat has a fraction of the yield of newer varieties. Look at all the ways humans have improved Brassica oleracea (hint: do you think broccoli, cauliflower, kale, cabbage, and brussels sprouts just happened?). Potatoes, carrots, oranges, nectarines, tomatoes, melons, barley, jeez, this post could go on and on, and that's just common food crops. To act like humans don't improve natural things is just bafflingly ignorant. People should really learn the history of their food sometime.

    14. 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!
    15. Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! by Inda · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I do selective breeding in my garden. The joy of using plants is that I'm already on 5th generation (sweet peas) after five years.

      Wild parsnips can be turned into 'normal' parsnips after about a dozen generations.

      It just seems like the right thing to do: find a nice plant that shows all the characteristic I'm after, collect the seeds, cool, sow, rince and repeat. Maybe one day I can get one named after me.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  6. We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards t by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 3, Funny

    KHANNNNN!!!!!

    --
    Huh?
  7. Raise your hands by MMC+Monster · · Score: 3, Funny

    How many of you would pay extra for a child that would fluoresce?

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    1. Re:Raise your hands by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does it have to be mine?

  8. Earth-Friendly Proposition? by XPeter · · Score: 2, Funny

    Use the monkeys as light bulbs?

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
  9. oblig. by owlnation · · Score: 5, Funny

    Take your shining paws off me, you damn dazzling ape!

  10. Animal rights activists by oldspewey · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?
  11. 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?

  12. I'm not even going to read the summary... by joebok · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... let alone the article. Why spoil a great headline? Heck, I just like the "Fluorescent Monkeys" part.

  13. Why would anybody buy a dead monkey? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't always buy dead monkeys, but when I do, I prefer fluorescents.

  14. 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.

  15. 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 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.
    2. Re:Slippery Slope is a Logical Fallacy by benjamindees · · Score: 2, Informative

      The slippery slope is not a logical fallacy in this instance, and in fact is not a fallacy in most instances in which it is used. The entire argument just isn't usually spelled out. Most people are able to fill in the blanks.

      1) Absent effective regulation, in a free-market economy, activities which are profitable will occur.
      2) Human genetic engineering is a profitable activity.
      3) Technological advances lessen the barriers to profitability of any activity.
      4) Humans and monkeys are genetically similar.
      5) Medical research on monkeys is widely cross-applicable to humans.

      Any and all of these premises may be flawed in the singular sense, but in the general sense they are all true. And this ultimately means that, absent effective regulation, genetic engineering of primates will likely help lead to genetic engineering of humans. 100% effective regulation doesn't exist.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    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.
  16. Re:It's almost like they were trying to draw fire. by canajin56 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
  17. Wrong "Slippery Slope" by Telephone+Sanitizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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."

  18. Flashing as the future pleasure. by Celeste+R · · Score: 2, Funny

    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/
  19. 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.