Slashdot Mirror


Human Language Gene Changes How Mice Squeak

archatheist writes "Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany have engineered a mouse whose FOXP2 gene has been swapped out for a different (human) version. This is interesting because the gene is implicated in human language, and this has changed how mice squeak. 'In a region of the brain called the basal ganglia, known in people to be involved in language, the humanized mice grew nerve cells that had a more complex structure. Baby mice utter ultrasonic whistles when removed from their mothers. The humanized baby mice, when isolated, made whistles that had a slightly lower pitch, among other differences, Dr. Enard says. Dr. Enard argues that putting significant human genes into mice is the only feasible way of exploring the essential differences between people and chimps, our closest living relatives.' The academic paper was published in Cell."

185 comments

  1. this can only end.. by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... with ultrasonic zombie mice.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:this can only end.. by V4L3R4 · · Score: 1

      Is that such a bad thing?

      --
      I've seen the future, stock up on alien-zombie repellent, I kid you not
    2. Re:this can only end.. by x2A · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is just the beginning. They started off with a cut down version of the gene (due to patent restrictions on the method used in working with the full gene) that only allows the mice to squeek in the lower tone, do the high pitch whistle, and make one other noise, such as checking its email. The three squeek limit will be a limitation until the Mice Generation 7, when they'll be able to have as many squeeks as they like, but the amount of memory they can use will be limited. This is of course until the EU gets their hands into them, and they will be born without an ability to browse.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    3. Re:this can only end.. by Jurily · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is that such a bad thing?

      One Celine Dion was enough, thank you.

    4. Re:this can only end.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was, quite possibly, the most unrelated post I have ever read.

    5. Re:this can only end.. by Jurily · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is slashdot. Everything's related to Microsoft-bashing.

    6. Re:this can only end.. by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And the mice will suddenly start to develop extreme communication skills and figure out how to upset the results of the scientists.

      This is an interesting part of science, even if it's not always morally "right". The outcome should be that we will learn more about ourselves and to design better drugs to treat illnesses.

      But the more worrying kind of action here is that it also invites to tampering with genes that can make humans meek and controllable. A new level of slavery can be developed. Just imagine a totalitarian state with zombie slaves to do all the dirt work. If the Nazis had had this technology they would have used it! And super-humans that can exceed all current Olympic records.

      Let's just say that we live in interesting times!

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    7. Re:this can only end.. by kanweg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "This is of course until the EU gets their hands into them, and they will be born without an ability to browse.'

      I think this would have been more accurate: And they no longer have a browser-pellet forcefed to them, but are made concious that they are free to browse as they like.

      Bert

    8. Re:this can only end.. by x2A · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How is that more accurate? I've never known anyone who couldn't use another browser in *any* version of Windows. My Mom ran Netscape on Win95 and 98, she runs Firefox on 2000, my dad runs Opera on XP and 2003, and the kids (my young siblings) I noticed recently running Google's Chrome on XP and Vista. Quit letting your opinion be swayed by your bitterness over the fact that a browser from a company you don't like is widely used. If you really have trouble using a non-IE browser, that reflects only on your own abilities.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    9. Re:this can only end.. by x2A · · Score: 4, Funny

      Unrelated?! There's bits about TWO front page slashdot stories in there, as opposed to the other posts which relate just to the ONE? That makes my post *doubly* related.

      I'm sure that's how it works. Isn't it? :-p

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    10. Re:this can only end.. by EdIII · · Score: 1

      But the more worrying kind of action here is that it also invites to tampering with genes that can make humans meek and controllable. A new level of slavery can be developed. Just imagine a totalitarian state with zombie slaves to do all the dirt work. If the Nazis had had this technology they would have used it! And super-humans that can exceed all current Olympic records.

      Nah, that won't happen. They will escape their human creators along with the rats next door and migrate out to country, steal resources from local farmers, and then proceed to create a super colony. Biding their time, and building their resources, they will ultimately take over the earth. All in the guise of cute little rodents.

    11. Re:this can only end.. by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 1, Informative
      Well, this thread is off topic, but I'll bite.

      Quit letting your opinion be swayed by your bitterness over the fact that a browser from a company you don't like is widely used. If you really have trouble using a non-IE browser, that reflects only on your own abilities.

      This polemic is not about the user. The trouble is not in using another browser, the trouble is writing websites for IE. It is a frustrating fucking nightmare. It is such a mess that anybody who has written a website in the last 5 or 6 years can not believe that people would choose IE of their own free will. Of course, the mess is transparent to the user who will blame the website if it does not look right in IE.

      Now, I know that the IE situation has gotten better (but is still pretty bad) since IE7, but IE6 just won't die because its quirkiness caused a kind of lock in: corporate intranet sites are written for it and they are too expensive to correct. For these people, using another browser really has become impossible. Whether this corporate lock in was deliberate is debatable, but that is the reason the EU gets involved.

      --
      weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
    12. Re:this can only end.. by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't care whether your post is unrelated or not, because I LOL'ed.

    13. Re:this can only end.. by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I can't reproduce your border error. I bet it has to do with your iframe having width set in a way that causes it to run under another element that does not take the extra 2 pixel width of the iframe+margin into account.

      You really should not be attaching events that way. This is bad for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that you only get one event per element. Personally, I really like the observe method from prototype.js, but with what you are talking about MooTools might be better.

      It is really pretty rare that you should have to pass variables that way. Just use objects and store your variables in that object.

      They do however show that it IS possible for other browsers to support features that MS have invented, features that (many of them) actually make things better.

      Yes, but a lot of them make life harder, and a lot of IE's quirks are just plain buggy. The point is that the web should be cross-platform: you have a standard and you code to it. Vendors should not have to implement features invented by a third party that may or may not be properly documented (ooxml anyone?). This is why we have the W3C to develop and innovate standards. Hell, MS helped write a lot of the standards that they don't implement.

      Basically, whatever platform you're used to programming for, be it mozilla or ie, the other one IS going to seem alien to you, and stuff is frustratingly not gonna work on it.

      A browser is not a platform. It should implement the standard so that we can code to it... "write once, run anywhere" should not be a paradigm reserved for Java.

      But for you, the one you hate is IE rather than FF, which can only lead to the conclusion that IT'S SUBJECTIVE!

      It is not subjective. There is a standard. While no browser implements it fully, IE is (still) the worst.

      --
      weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
    14. Re:this can only end.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just imagine a totalitarian state with zombie slaves to do all the dirt work."

      We already have that, it's called america.

    15. Re:this can only end.. by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A new level of slavery can be developed. Just imagine a totalitarian state with zombie slaves to do all the dirt work. If the Nazis had had this technology they would have used it!

      What? No they wouldn't. Why go to all the trouble of genetically engineering a subhuman slave race when you've already got millions of untermenschen all over the place that you need to find a use for? The whole point of the Third Reich was to get rid of the inferior breeds, not to create more!

      Mengele would probably have played with this technology, but as a matter of policy the Nazis were fixated on genetic purity. Cross-species gene tampering of this kind would probably have disgusted them.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    16. Re:this can only end.. by Progman3K · · Score: 4, Funny

      And the mice will suddenly start to develop extreme communication skills and figure out how to upset the results of the scientists.

      "How better to disguise their real natures, and how better to guide your thinking. Suddenly running down a maze the wrong way, eating the wrong bit of cheese, unexpectedly dropping dead of myxomatosis, - if it's finely calculated the cumulative effect is enormous."

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    17. Re:this can only end.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ok, the research is bound to lead to at least one really smart mouse.

      And he will try to take over the world.

    18. Re:this can only end.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFS (summary). The ultrasonic sound is ""before"" the gene swap, ergo not funny.

    19. Re:this can only end.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, see, if the Nazis could create the ULTIMATE Arian they absolutely would. All they would have had to do was take all the genes out of their Ultimate Arian that are found in Jews. So once their Ultimate Arian had no genes in common with Jews they would rule the world! I mean, that would be like totally pure genes, right.

    20. Re:this can only end.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a stupid argument because the average user needs a web browser to download another web browser, they don't have the disc lying around. (Can you even get a disc for Firefox?) They could technically do it via FTP, if they had any idea how, but they don't.

      Taking the browser away from the user only hurts the user. IE's market share is plummeting anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:this can only end.. by x2A · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "There is a standard"

      A?! Incorrect use of the indefinite article there me thinks. There're more 'standards' than you can shake ya stick at. But anyway I think you're giving 'standards' too much credit, fact is that whatever browser you use, you're gonna find holes where they've not fully supported all the standard, which means you still have to know the browsers you're targetting.

      "A browser is not a platform"

      It SO is, the ease of rolling out software to people by using the browser as a platform is a complete paradigm shift, it's enabling technology, and I'm most glad that I'm not limited to the 'standard' in using it, and whenever I've shown people what I can do with it, what I can enable them to do with it, they go "wow. Work for us.". No one's ever asked for more time to think about it. Experts and computer idiots alike use it every day, and can do anywhere they go, on any machine, without admin rights on the machine or anything, because IE is a completely good enough front end platform by itself. It wouldn't be if it was cripled by sticking to the 'standards'.

      "I can't reproduce your border error.""You really should not be attaching events that way"

      Again, subjective, I may not want or need more events attached, or just have one handler function that I use dynamically to register certain conditions with. It can be easier to have a specifically coded event marshalling function that you give instructions to, than code multiple functions that you attach in series to the event. Depends on what you're developing. In the case where I do want to just attach a single function to an event, this is a very quick and clean way of doing so.

      "It is really pretty rare that you should have to pass variables that way"

      No. In one project I have many functions that do things like handle object selection/deselection/deletion etc. Many of the deep level functions act differently depending on what control keys (shift etc) are being held at the time. In order to find that out, in IE, I can just access window.event. Without that, I have to be passing around the event object everywhere just in case a deeper level function needs it. Or of course, all the event triggered functions could have code that globalifies (heh) the event object, but that's then just using code to simulate the window.event thing that IE gives me all by itself.

      "It is not subjective. There is a standard. While no browser implements it fully, IE is (still) the worst"

      You're wrong, it IS subjective, as to what in your opinion is most important; standards compliant, or does the job you want.

      (thanks for the rational debate tho, it's rare to be able to get one on here without being hit back with pure ad hominems, so, respect)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    22. Re:this can only end.. by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Anyone remember Rock-n-Roll High School? Exploding lab mice? Anyone?

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    23. Re:this can only end.. by Simply+Curious · · Score: 1

      In that case, I issue a challenge. Bash Microsoft in a way relevant to peanut butter, the Death Star, and Alabama.

    24. Re:this can only end.. by FlyingBishop · · Score: 1

      I think the post is less about MS bashing, and more about how horrifying it is that people can patent genes, when carried to its logical conclusion.

      MS can do whatever the fuck it wants with its software, but companies are already to a certain extent trying to pull the same sort of shit with God-given DNA. And it is completely unacceptable to claim authorship and control over God's creation.

      Patents/copyright on genes are simply blasphemous.

    25. Re:this can only end.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... uh, the argument was that MS should not force OEMs to include IE and only IE. Why the heck would you expect an OEM to include no web browser by default? If not required to include IE, I suspect some would continue to IE and some would include Firefox or Chrome instead.

    26. Re:this can only end.. by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new sub-sonic human/mouse hybrid overlords.

    27. Re:this can only end.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ... uh, the argument was that MS should not force OEMs to include IE and only IE.

      No, they got in trouble for forcing OEMs to include IE and only IE, the proposed penalty which Microsoft has so far managed to weasel out of was to remove the browser from the OS entirely.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:this can only end.. by Thinboy00 · · Score: 1

      [snip]Nazis[snip]

      Godwin's law!

      --
      $ make available
    29. Re:this can only end.. by kanweg · · Score: 1

      "How is that more accurate?"

      http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/05/30/2011248/EU-Wants-Multiple-Browser-Bundling-On-New-PCs

      I rest my case.

      The EU is quite strong about fair competition; in fact it is one of the few things that I have faith in from them. The EU unit led by Neelie Smit-Kroes, despite all the shoulder rubbing (in a previous job where she led a university, she gave Bill Gates a honorary PhD) and despite her (previous?) political affiliation for a party (VVD) that succumbs to stupid wishes by companies, she keeps an objective look at things plus she gets things done.

      Bert

    30. Re:this can only end.. by Alamais · · Score: 1

      You, good sir, win.

  2. Massive reverse engineering job by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Today's biology is finite component analysis done at a massive scale.. Figuring out how a machine as big as a person works is going to take millenniums.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Massive reverse engineering job by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sounds like a job for... better tools. :)

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:Massive reverse engineering job by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Today's biology is finite component analysis done at a massive scale.. Figuring out how a machine as big as a person works is going to take millennium

      Maybe not, high-throughput molecular biology is getting better all the time.

      -With the genome sequenced we have a rough idea of how many genes there are and can find homologies between genes, so you can begin clustering genes by presumed function.

      -With mutagenesis screens, you can sometimes identify most of the genes involved in a given process.

      -High-throughput protein interaction studies can identify complexes, grouping proteins into functional groups.

      -There's an attempt to make a knockout mouse for every gene in their genome.

      None of those will give you the full story for any one gene, nor will any give you good stories for most of the genes by themselves. But used together, we can have a rough idea of what genes do what, and can take a closer look at what we need to. This gene, FOXP2 for example, was not chosen at random.

      And that's just with technology I've heard of that exists now. I don't know much about genomics, and we certainly are going to continue to invent ways to get research done faster. I think the human genome project came in under budget and ahead of schedule largely due to technology that was advanced as the project was underway. It's too early to make such long forecasts.

    3. Re:Massive reverse engineering job by QuantumG · · Score: 0

      Thing is, high throughput molecular biology is still being done by biology post-grads pretending to be engineers (who would just be pretending to be industrialists anyway). Until we work out a way to encourage the kind of innovation and ingenuity that one sees in industry we'll never get to the bottom of all this.

       

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:Massive reverse engineering job by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Whoever it's being done by, it seems to be working. Encouragement? Grants, jobs, articles... We don't tell innovators to go to hell. What did you have in mind? I do think we could reward our scientists more, like maybe a tenth of how we reward actors/actresses, models, and sports stars. I mean, I guess that's a little self-serving as I'm a scientist rather than an actor, model, or sports star. We could always do better with that, and research could always go faster, but the research is coming along.

    5. Re:Massive reverse engineering job by daymitch · · Score: 1

      The separation between industry and academic research is almost non-existent at the larger scale, the scale of 'progress in the field'.

      Sure, the average guy/gal handling the equipment and publishing studies in journals may be picking away at problems in a non-groundbreaking way. The 'ecosystem' of expertise that enables them is much more diverse than the picture you paint.

      The level of collaboration between industry and the major international genomics centers is very intense. In fact, it is silly to hold to a strict distinction between academic research and industrial R&D. There are cultural differences, but one cannot function or advance without the other.

      Case in point. Illumina is a fast growing company whose main product is a high-throughput sequencing/genotyping platform. Who are their major clients? Cancer research hospitals and academic institutes. Who developed the core technologies that gave Illumina's engineers something to work with? Academic researchers. There's a real positive feed-back loop here.

      Here's another example from one of Illumina's competitors, 454. One of the key technologies in their sequencing platform is a technique called 'emulsion PCR'. Who developed this technique? An academic researcher doing basic research on protein structure-function prediction. The industrialists at 454 had developed some key components of their tech. The rest they bought/licensed from academic researchers.

      To sum up, industry gets its innovation and ingenuity in large part from non-industrial labs. You can't really separate them without missing the essential point. We need both kinds of people.

  3. And their mother says... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    Squeak to me, baby, squeak to me!

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  4. Life imitates art? by DamienNightbane · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is how The Secret of Nimh began, isn't it?

    1. Re:Life imitates art? by LaskoVortex · · Score: 2, Informative

      Speaking of Art, here is some cool FoxP2 Art: http://www.foxp2.org/

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    2. Re:Life imitates art? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but The Secret of MPIEA just doesn't have the same ring to it.

    3. Re:Life imitates art? by DamienNightbane · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, that's not what I was expecting when I clicked on a URL that had "fox" in it in a reply to a comment about the Secret of Nimh.

    4. Re:Life imitates art? by ethana2 · · Score: 2, Funny
      I hear the rats of Nicad were pretty dense.

      /me ducks

    5. Re:Life imitates art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when is nickel-metal hydride a secret?

    6. Re:Life imitates art? by tobiah · · Score: 1

      See, this is the problem with trying to understand function by studying the disfunctional, and trying to understand disfunction by studying someone else with similar symptoms. I don't really see this as a breakdown of the scientific method so much as a failure to understand the method.

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    7. Re:Life imitates art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the mice started a war against the Duracell bunny.

    8. Re:Life imitates art? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is just our plan for the continuation of at least some of our genes when we render the planet incapable of sustaining human life. We'll also engineer the mice for CO2 resistance, and they can live on the cockroaches that will be the only other thing around.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Life imitates art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what about the lions?

    10. Re:Life imitates art? by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>This is how The Secret of Nimh began, isn't it?

      I don't recall the mice whistling to each other in ultrasonic morse code, but then again, it's been a while.

  5. Where is the line? by hibji · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm assuming most people here won't have a problem with this research. But truly, where is the line? What about injecting human brain cells into mice? How about into chimps? Do we have any moral obligations not to cross this line? I am in awe and at the same time terrified about the future.

    This article raises some of these questions. It's quite interesting that it was written in 2004. It even mentions the FOXP2 gene.
    http://www.reason.com/news/show/34941.html

    1. Re:Where is the line? by x2A · · Score: 1

      "What about injecting human brain cells into mice?"

      No that would just be silly. Firstly, keeping brain cells alive long enough to put them into a mouse is gonna be difficult, secondly, the mouse's immune system's gonna just reject and kill the cells as soon as they are put into the mouse, and thirdly, even if you got the cells into the mouse they wouldn't do anything because they wouldn't be connecting into the mouse's neural network. The genetic approach is probably gonna remain much more effective.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:Where is the line? by hibji · · Score: 4, Informative

      The linked article seems to disagree with you:

      Stanford University's Irving Weissman has injected human neural stem cells from aborted fetuses into the brains of fetal mice, where they have integrated and grown into human neurons and glia that intermingle with mouse brain cells, making up about 1 percent of the tissue in their brains.

    3. Re:Where is the line? by x2A · · Score: 1

      Great, next you're gonna tell 'im that actually MIT have created monsters to go under the bed. Sheesh!

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    4. Re:Where is the line? by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      the classic one anti GM nut jobs bring up is "would you eat pork with human genes in it", and i guess there will be similar objections raised over this. they try to imply it would make you a cannibal and other nonsense, ignoring the fact we already share genetic code with pigs.

      in a nut shell, i'd support any form of genetic experiementation that does cause undue distress or suffering on an animal. call me a soft lefty, but i just can't stomach unwarranted suffering of animals. i feel worse for them than i do for most humans, because they don't understand what's happening and certainly don't bring it on themselfs.

      once i was asked if i supported harvesting organs from animals to save people - I do, but only if it's done in a humane manner and the animals don't suffer. after all if we can't protect animals from cruelty what chance is there we will do the same for our fellow man?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:Where is the line? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately I believe people will cross many such lines way before human society is ready.

      A lot of scientists (and other people) seem to think just because it can be done, it should be done (and if they don't someone else will do it anyway).

      Will human society be willing to give such transgenic mice, chimps and pigs the full rights as other humans? If we aren't, we shouldn't be doing stuff like this.

      Even if such research can benefit humans in one way, it will cause big problems.

      People may ask: nut who then decides what is allowed and how? If people could manage to decide that certain classes of experiments/research on humans are banned, I'm sure they can figure other stuff out.

      And they should start figuring it out. It's clear we're like toddlers stumbling headlong without looking where we might end up.

      Don't forget: if we start putting too many human genes into animals, it starts to be "experimenting on humans". And I think most of us would prefer to live in a world where certain experiments shouldn't be done on humans.

      There's no end of other things to do. So do those first instead.

      --
    6. Re:Where is the line? by LaskoVortex · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming most people here won't have a problem with this research. But truly, where is the line?

      Soylent Green. The line is at Soylent Green. Be afraid.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    7. Re:Where is the line? by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nah, if we are not careful the monsters could be the scientists and rest of us.

      From the link:
      > However, there is no evidence the chimeric mice began to contemplate the meaning of life. We need to give such chimeric mice no more or less moral consideration than we already give laboratory mice.

      Really? How do they know that - they don't speak mice.

      And what about the humans who don't contemplate the meaning of life? Most of us don't contemplate the meaning of life every minute of our lives.

      OK say 1% human is still not human enough. At what percentage does a subject become too human to experiment on?

      Yes, look at it that way.

      And they'd probably do things the other way round too - start adding nonhuman (not necessarily animal) parts to humans.

      So maybe you might decide to reject an "upgrade" because you would be no longer be classed as human and thus be no longer eligible for human-only medical insurance or "NHS".

      Just because the tech is ready, doesn't mean the laws, systems and societies are ready.

      --
    8. Re:Where is the line? by icebike · · Score: 1

      > "would you eat pork with human genes in it"

      But I draw the line at mice.

      Not everyone does. http://www.fugly.com/videos/6644/guy_eats_live_mouse.html

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:Where is the line? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      But truly, where is the line? What about injecting human brain cells into mice? How about into chimps?

      The differences between mouse, chimp, and human neurons are less significant than the higher organization of neurons. I couldn't find figures for numbers of neurons in chimps or mice, but this website indicates that humans have around a hundred billion neurons in the brain, the human brain weighing 1.3-1.4kg. The chimp brain weighs 420 grams. We have more cells in our brains than mice do in their entire body.

      Injecting human neurons into a mouse? Wouldn't do anything like make the mouse self aware. It would most likely cause seizures in the mouse. I have no moral objections to it, as long as it was done with a clear research goal. Otherwise, it's probably my tax dollars at work, and those immunocompromised mice they'd be using are expensive to maintain.

      If researchers were wanting to make smarter mice, there's more to it than that. They'd first have to figure out how the human brain is made, what patterning differences exist, would have to change the mice, and wouldn't use human neurons. Again, there's not much special about them, it's the organization.

      The line here is when they start making brains that look human like in mice. And those would be so big as to crush the mice, so I'm not really worried about that.

      Anyway, why are we perpetuating this idea that biologists do morally objectionable research for kicks with their own money? Who is going to fund making a mouse think? Why would researchers be doing this? This would be expensive, would require grants, and wouldn't really have a purpose that I could see.

    10. Re:Where is the line? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Informative

      secondly, the mouse's immune system's gonna just reject and kill the cells as soon as they are put into the mouse,

      They'd be using SCID mice. These mice are often used for xenografts, sometimes with human tissue. For example, here's an abstract describing a study in which researchers implanted human ovarian tissue into SCID mice, and the tissue actually developed into something resembling a functional human ovary. I think I saw the lead researcher give a talk, she thought these tissues would be functional with hormone stimulation.

    11. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Moral obligations?"

      Morals are things built into our brains as a way to make us more viable as social animals. Animals that want to work together as a group, rather than murder each other over who gets that piece of meat, are more likely to survive.

      The thing is, our "built-in" morals are designed for a situation humanity hasn't lived in for about 10,000 years. When you try to apply them to many modern situations (Is downloading an MP3 theft?) they simply don't work anymore. Worse yet, the labels we try to apply to these modern situations as "Right" or "Wrong" are completely arbitrary and serve no purpose except to help push agendas.

      With a decreasing number of exceptions (Are we going to murder homeless people to get those brain cells?), you can't judge things in our society based on pure "ethics" anymore. It's just not that simple. The only thing you can do is look at the consequences of your actions and judge how they support or conflict with your goals.

    12. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And what about the humans who don't contemplate the meaning of life? Most of us don't contemplate the meaning of life every minute of our lives.

      We do actually. Look, there's no easy way to tell you this but it's time you knew; you're one of the mice.

    13. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as the mice start dropping f-bombs I think it's time to quit.

    14. Re:Where is the line? by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      Laws and systems are mostly arbitrary in an anthropomorphic sense. If a human could be made into mostly a computer they would probably be able to get a "cyborg" version of medical insurance, that includes updates or mechanical repairs, or whatever. Well, if it's profitable to offer the medical insurance... ;)

    15. Re:Where is the line? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      i'd support any form of genetic experiementation that does cause undue distress or suffering on an animal

      Brilliant. So if the experiment isn't intrinsically painful you can just hit them with a big stick.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    16. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too many insurance companies keep trying to weasel out of actually paying claims, or they delay pay outs.

      I'm sure it will be a marvelous opportunity for them.

    17. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At what percentage does a subject become too human to experiment on?

      105%.

      Seriously, we already experiment on humans. Gene therapy to alleviate unlivable conditions, drug clinical trials to help people out more immediately, vaccine tests.

      If something can help humans in the long run, I think this late in the game it's a little hypocritical to start being ginger about how human is too human. As a species there's adequate evidence to assume we wiped out the only other sentient species on Earth just because they were there. Nearly every species of dangerous (to us as an entire species) animal that's large enough to see has been extincted, driven to the edge of extinction, or marginalized to some part of the world where they can't get near us.

      We've had a long biological history of acting in our own self-interest, and suddenly deciding to get moral and ethical about it at this point is simply denying the sacrifice of everything we've killed to get where we are. Might as well push all the way to godhood then worry later about rebuilding things once we're done.

    18. Re:Where is the line? by IICV · · Score: 1

      Will human society be willing to give such transgenic mice, chimps and pigs the full rights as other humans? If we aren't, we shouldn't be doing stuff like this.

      Why are you so focused on transgenic animals? There are, right now, human beings who are as intelligent as chimps or pigs or even mice - and yet those humans are treated like humans, while the pigs are slaughtered for bacon.

      For some reason people seem to see sapience as a binary proposition - either it's human and it's sapient, or it's not human and not sapient. There's an entire spectrum of intelligence there, and you're essentially saying we shouldn't map it out until after it's been mapped out. You seem to be afraid that we will find some genetic switch that's currently set to "animal", and flip it over to "human"; that's just not going to happen.

    19. Re:Where is the line? by Bat+Country · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is going to sound intentionally inflammatory - that's because it is. I'm tired of hearing the same tired complaints without any sort of logical foundation or any real argument presented at all. My intention is not to offend you and walk off with a smirk, but to offend you and have you walk off with doubts.

      Why should we give equal rights to an animal just because it has a few human genes in it?

      That's like giving a used condom the right to vote. The presence of human genetic material does not imbue some magical property on the animal or object which makes it suddenly one of God's Chosen Few (tm).

      Luddite attitudes like that - people cowering in fear of accidentally doing something that they'd regret later - never accomplish anything of lasting value. The people who are praised throughout history are the ones who made a stir, whether they be Saints, scientists, or world leaders. As a species we admire the agents of change, even if we detest them. We may not approve of their actions, but we stand in awe of what they've accomplished.

      If you as an individual are too frightened of a future in which people are touching the Magic Genome (tm) then there's a simple solution - don't take advantage of any of the fruits of current longevity research and die off before it becomes your problem. The rest of us will probably thank you - when you hold up progress in medical research because you have a moral problem with some guy diddling a mouse in a lab somewhere, you ensure that hundreds of people will die and thousands more will have a reduced quality of life due to the lack of the breakthroughs which may have helped them

      They may not even be alive today. It may be somebody born tomorrow with a congenital defect who is the first beneficiary of this research. It might be your granddad or even yourself. Ethical treatment of test subjects is necessary, obviously, and we (the public) pay a higher price for research because of this need. But to suggest that the mere introduction of human tissue into a subject makes it eligible for equal human rights is magical thinking, and destructive to research.

      --
      The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
    20. Re:Where is the line? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A lot of scientists (and other people) seem to think just because it can be done, it should be done (and if they don't someone else will do it anyway).

      Ain't the truth a pain? Sorry. Many people before you have proposed banning certain avenues of research, and science always wins.

    21. Re:Where is the line? by khallow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unfortunately I believe people will cross many such lines way before human society is ready.

      So what? Human societies (of which there are many) still on occasional can't come to grips with basic human behavior which has been around for longer than humanity has.

      It seems to me that society has some obligation to keep up to speed on what's going on in technology, science, and the forefront of human advancement. What good are uninformed regulations? My view is that there's some flawed game theory here. That is, proponents of "banning" certain technological advancements think it's merely a choice between banning a technology versus allowing the technology (along with any new harms introduced by the new technology). However, this ignores that other less squeamish societies will continue to advance in these areas. What is more likely is that the technology will be developed anyway, but the more Luddite society will receive less of the benefit and more of the harm. I especially don't appreciate it when someone tries to aggravate a problem (for recent examples, see global warming via the banning of nuclear power plants or the war on terrorism) in order to gain power or implement their own social experiment.

      Finally, my view is that the code of laws and rules that underlie society are reactive. Society just doesn't do entirely new issues very well. We need examples first in order to make relatively good decisions.

      And I think most of us would prefer to live in a world where certain experiments shouldn't be done on humans.

      And most of us would like to live in a world where certain other experiments should be and are performed on humans.

      As I see it, uninformed morality is equivalent to no morality. There are benefits and drawbacks to any new technology. If you don't know what those benefits and drawbacks are, then you can't make a rational decision about the technology.

      Having said that, your general concern about creating "human-like" animals seems reasonable. As I see it, certain cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) and primates (the great apes) are probably already sufficiently intelligent (even though that intelligence might not be similar to human intelligence) that we should grant them many of the rights we grant humans (in particular, to not be food animals). I just don't think it is that relevant or useful to base your argument on how unprepared society will be for such changes.

    22. Re:Where is the line? by martas · · Score: 1

      The problem is that such a line doesn't exist. The reason why we can neatly call something human or non-human today is that there's not much in terms of middle ground, and we don't have to be "scientific" in our definition of what is human - simple intuition is good enough. But when the day comes that such middle ground is created, we'll be forced to either come up with some arbitrary guidelines for classifying living beings as human/non-human, or to finally acknowledge the truth - at the end of the day, there's no such thing as "human", or even "living being". Unfortunately, the latter isn't really much of an option, since it's hard to imagine a functional society that doesn't believe that people are somehow special (or that people are, period). So I think sooner or later legislators will be forced to start bullshitting their way out of this problem by making up methods of deciding if something is "human enough" to have human rights, etc.

    23. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of scientists (and other people) seem to think just because it can be done, it should be done (and if they don't someone else will do it anyway).

      We do what we must because we can.

    24. Re:Where is the line? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      That's kind of my point. We're currently willing to slaughter pigs for bacon.

      So if we start making pigs yet more intelligent it makes us even more of monsters if we do "destructive R&D" on them.

      As for the animal-human "flip". It's a legal issue not a tech issue. The laws and courts will decide.

      When does a mixture of flour, eggs, sugar, water, etc legally become cake? Someone draws that line. Yes the line will be arbitrary and stupid. But there'll be more problems if you refuse to draw the line ;). I just hope it won't be too arbitary and stupid.

      Thing is if we decided to not make cake yet, we wouldn't have to draw the line. The world might be worse off as a result, or not... So do we really need transgenic animals now or in the near future?

      --
    25. Re:Where is the line? by TheLink · · Score: 1, Troll

      Why should we give YOU rights? What makes you legally human?

      Would it be wrong for me to euthanize or enslave all you stupid unthinking animals?

      Anyway I figure some smart sociopathic world leaders already have answered that question with "don't care" or "no as long as it benefits me".

      So it's not really going to matter that much anyway ;).

      --
    26. Re:Where is the line? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      When we start making cake, the courts and legislators will soon have to decide what can legally be called cake, and what can't.

      If nobody makes cake yet, they don't need to.

      Are they ready to make a decent decision yet? Are we ready to accept the decision?

      We already have enough problems figuring out whether people are legally alive or dead...

      Do the benefits outweigh the costs if we take that path now? We can take it later...

      If we are going to survive and thrive for the long term we should start considering such questions more and more as technology increases our power.

      --
    27. Re:Where is the line? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The point is that ALL animals (and plants, etc.) are transgenic. There's nothing new or special about it. Various virus have been transporting genes cross-species for as long as we can tell (and there's no reason to think they started then).

       

      What's new is doing it on purpose. (And we don't always use virus. Sometimes we use a golden shotgun...highly miniaturized, of course.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    28. Re:Where is the line? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      The other big difference is it'll take much longer for normal evolution to get a mouse to go fluorescent or get an IQ of 85.

      So people won't need to deal with it just _yet_.

      --
    29. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd eat pork with human genes in it if they also added some bear genes.

    30. Re:Where is the line? by drachenstern · · Score: 1

      Ok, while I'm surprised nobody else has done it yet, I can't pass it up...

      "Soylent Pork, it's what's for dinner"...

      And yes, I do believe I would...

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
    31. Re:Where is the line? by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      A mouse inteligent enough to "contemplate the meaning of life" would also be intelligent enough to commuicate to the researchers that fact it is intelligent. As mice are rather small, and have virtually no inteligence, no reasonable person would expect a mouse to be intelligent due to 1percent of its brain mass being "human". I wouldn't expect a mouse with 100 percent "human" brains to be no smater than any other mouse.

      ALL rights are artificial. Rights are just "low level" laws we use as guides for creating other laws. Personally, I do not agree with giving rights to any animals. We should refrain from being cruel to animals because it makes us less human. Any animal worthy of having rights is no longer what we mean by "animal". And it isn't the magic of having "human" tissue that gives anyone rights - it is our intelligence and self-awarenes. That is why we have stricter rules for treating higher animals than the lower.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    32. Re:Where is the line? by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      Putting human genes in a pig doesn't make it any more human than it is now. You do realize that ANY mammal already shares a huge amount of genetic code with us? It isn't some kind of magic "humaness" in our flesh that makes us human. It is the fact that we are self-aware, thinking animals that makes us human. If ET's came down tomorrow from some far star I would consider them "human" even if they share zero genes with us.

      Yes, if it can be done, and it doesn't hurt humans then yes, we should give it a try. Especially if we think there is a chance it will do some good, like cure disease. Trying to stop genetic engineering would be like our far off ancestors trying to stop research into fire starting because it isn't natural. Tending a fire you got from a lightning strike is the only natural way!

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    33. Re:Where is the line? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > it isn't the magic of having "human" tissue that gives anyone rights - it is our intelligence and self-awarenes.

      So when do we start giving out intelligence tests? After all there are many very stupid people around.

      Young chimps have beaten uni students in memory tests:

      http://richarddawkins.net/article,1949,Chimps-beat-humans-in-memory-test,BBC

      It seems a big difference between humans and chimps is "understanding other humans": http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14224459

      So maybe many slashdotters wouldn't qualify as human? :)

      --
  6. Aahh crap. Back to the Chimera project! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This annoys me, as I once saw a drama about this sort of thing and I swore I would eat my hat if that sort of nonsense ever came to pass.

    It was Mr Ed that I was watching.

  7. Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by Afforess · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although this kind of research is interesting, the final results of this would have wide ranging implications that I would rather avoid. Mainly, that is if animals were allowed to converse in a common language with humans, it would show us if they possess a consciousness, can reason, and what emotions that they can feel. This would either prove the sanctity of animal life or deny it, ultimately; I would rather keep the ongoing debate and not have a decision.

    --
    If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    1. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by johanatan · · Score: 0

      Surely there exists an entire spectrum of human intelligence which you could base your reasoning on without bringing animals into it at all.

    2. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by DamienNightbane · · Score: 1

      Emotions or not, I'm still eating cows.

    3. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by x2A · · Score: 4, Funny

      The feeling of betrayal releases hormones into the blood that makes a steak taste just great

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    4. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by mellestad · · Score: 1

      I think I would rather know than put my head in the sand.

    5. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by unfasten · · Score: 5, Funny

      Emotions or not, I'm still eating cows.

      A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox's table,
      a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with
      large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips.

      'Good evening', it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, 'I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in the parts of my body?'

      It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters in to a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them.

      Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox.

      'Something off the shoulder perhaps?' suggested the animal, 'Braised in a white wine sauce?'

      'Er, your shoulder?' said Arthur in a horrified whisper.

      'But naturally my shoulder, sir,' mooed the animal contentedly, 'nobody else's is mine to offer.'

      Zaphod leapt to his feet and started prodding and feeling the animal's shoulder appreciatively.

      'Or the rump is very good,' murmured the animal. 'I've been exercising it and eating plenty of grain, so there's a lot of good meat there.'

      It gave a mellow grunt, gurgled again and started to chew the cud. It swallowed the cud again.

      'Or a casselore of me perhaps?' it added.

      'You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?' whispered Trillian to Ford.

      'Me?' said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, 'I don't mean anything.'

      'That's absolutely horrible,' exclaimed Arthur, 'the most revolting thing I've ever heard.'

      'What's the problem Earthman?' said Zaphod, now transfering his attention to the animal's enormous rump.

      'I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing there inviting me to,' said Arthur, 'It's heartless.'

      'Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten,' said Zaphod.

      'That's not the point,' Arthur protested. Then he thought about it
      for a moment. 'Alright,' he said, 'maybe it is the point. I don't
      care, I'm not going to think about it now. I'll just ... er ... I
      think I'll just have a green salad,' he muttered.

      'May I urge you to consider my liver?' asked the animal, 'it must be very rich and tender by now, I've been force-feeding myself for months.'

      'A green salad,' said Arthur emphatically.

      'A green salad?' said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur.

      'Are you going to tell me,' said Arthur, 'that I shouldn't have green salad?'

      'Well,' said the animal, 'I know many vegetables that are
      very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually
      decided to cut through the whoile tangled problem and breed
      an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of
      saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am.'

      It managed a very slight bow.

      'Glass of water please,' said Arthur.

      'Look,' said Zaphod, 'we want to eat, we don't want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare stakes please, and hurry. We haven't eaten in five hundred and sevebty-six thousand million years.'

      The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle. 'A very wise coice, sir, if I may say so. Very good,' it said, 'I'll just nip off and shoot myself.'

      He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur. 'Don't worry, sir,' he said, 'I'll be very humane.'

      It waddled unhurriedly off to the kitchen.

    6. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by tobiah · · Score: 0

      ...Mainly, that is if animals were allowed to converse in a common language with humans, it would show us if they possess a consciousness, can reason, and what emotions that they can feel...

      Cognitive linguistics suggests that consciousness is inextricably linked to language, and that an inability to express a thought represents, to some extent, an absence of the thought. Thus the sanctity of an animal's life is best expressed by the articulate expression of the animal. My personal experience is that the expression tends to be somewhat... violent.

      --
      "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    7. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by giorgist · · Score: 1

      "I would rather keep the ongoing debate and not have a decision"

      Any advance on knowledge breaks the above. We need myth to keep us going while we fill in the blanks with knowledge.
      You want to keep myth ? Good for you, we need people like you to keep feeding scientists wile scientists work away
      doing non food producing research. You are not a total loss ...

    8. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Did you just type that in for us? Wow. I really hope that movie gets made BTW.

    9. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...Mainly, that is if animals were allowed to converse in a common language with humans, it would show us if they possess a consciousness, can reason, and what emotions that they can feel...

      Cognitive linguistics suggests that consciousness is inextricably linked to language

      A further study of slashdot posts suggests consciousness is linked to typing. You know we once had equally dogy and self serving reasons to believe that Africans weren't intelligent.

    10. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by billybob_jcv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone who has spent any time at all around farm animals, will tell you that they ain't got nothin' to say that's worth listening to. Which is actually much like most of the people in the world.
       

    11. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by RancidPeanutOil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      cognitive linguistics suggests that, but cognitive linguists can also assume that consciousness is an artifact of the networks languages organize our minds into. Speech is like a projection of the maps our minds use to organize stimuli, typing is linked to how we consciously view consciousness and then try to reorganize it into communication. It is not dodgy or self-serving, those old "reasons" were ad hoc methods to justify a conclusion, from a different hegemonic mindset. The dodgy part is that an inability to express a thought constitutes an absence of the thought - when in actuality, the expression of the thought is a fundamental component of the thought itself, as though thought is a component vector, and realizing the thought through speech (whether spoken or internally-articulated) is a necessary element. Consciousness is a speech act - everything else is some derivative of our reptile brain - arguably. Of course, that's just our particular mapping. YMMV

    12. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, unfortunately. I wish I had the skill to write like that, but the movie has been already: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Sadly, this scene didn't make or at least I don't remember it).

      If you haven't read the books though, I highly recommend you do. The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy would be a good one to pick up, as it contains all of the series.

    13. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by SlashWombat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why didn't you put in the bit about mice being the most intelligent creatures on earth, followed by the dolphins.

    14. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think there is a flaw in your reasoning that sanctity of life should be determined by ability of expression. Or do you think that toddlers and the mentally handicap are not worth anything?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    15. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      What possible reason would you have for wanting to avoid knowing this?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    16. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by ardle · · Score: 1

      That scene was in "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" (along with my favourite line, something like: "The lobby was almost empty but Ford nevertheless managed to weave his way through it").
      I reckon MichaelSmith is referring to a movie that is almost - but not quite - completely unlike this book.

    17. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.murderburger.co.nz/2009/05/19/pigs-in-zen/

      mmmmm bacon

    18. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and Keynesian economists suggest that economic prosperity and stability are linked to their model. Surprise, surprise.

      Arguments are self-serving. I believe I'm coming from the same place you are in regards to this particular thread of cognitive linguistics, but if you are going to discount it do so on its merits rather than just stating the obvious.

    19. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      WTF is "dogy"? Is it a synonym of "canine"? Or perhaps it means "Of or pertaining to certain former rulers of Venice".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, you gotta remember: the sheep lie! They'll tell you all these stories about me sneaking up behind 'em and doin' nasty things to 'em, but it's all a pack of lies, I tell ya!

    21. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's great to see a poet in Slashdot. All the comments we read are usually stupid, but yours is a great example of a literary piece of gold. How were you able to came up with such a nice story while posting? I bet you must be a poet IRL. So much I liked it that I saved it on my computer.

    22. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pathetic. It's already clear enough that most animals you could think of are conscious, can reason and experience emotions. The debate only continues because people like you don't like the implication that humans aren't so special.

  8. First spoken humain words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering ?

    1. Re:First spoken humain words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think so Brain - but how are we going to get Natalie Portman and Jenna Haze into a room together with a bucket of grits?

    2. Re:First spoken humain words... by DamienNightbane · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...I like where this is going.

    3. Re:First spoken humain words... by pHus10n · · Score: 0

      Just had to stop by with a "LOL" since I don't have any mod points at the moment.

    4. Re:First spoken humain words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not now Pinky. I'm still working on the giant laser blueprints so we can TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!

    5. Re:First spoken humain words... by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      It's quite simple Pinky, I'm going to Take Over The World

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
  9. Do the monkey next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This doesn't really tell much besides what was already expected. If the same thing was done to an ape/monkey capable of being taught sign language, now that would give some real answers. But instead of just doing it they are going to quibble about it for years.

    1. Re:Do the monkey next by zebslash · · Score: 4, Informative
    2. Re:Do the monkey next by meringuoid · · Score: 1

      Far more advanced results in gorilla speech have also been achieved.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  10. First words by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Yes, no and where's my tea?

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  11. Talk to the animals by gringofrijolero · · Score: 1

    Come out and take it, you dirty, yellow-bellied rat, or I'll give it to you through the door!

    --
    Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
  12. Welcome! by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our (soon-to-be) new, ultrasonic mice overlords.

  13. Well Said by tobiah · · Score: 4, Funny

    One could pick apart the errors of the parent statement, but the fact remains that if a simulation is too slow or wrong to make meaningful predictions, there's something wrong with the simulation.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    1. Re:Well Said by Veetox · · Score: 1
      You only have the tip of the iceberg, here. The truth of our current landscape in research is that all animal models are grossly inadequate for a complete understanding of human physiology.

      Even chimpanzees exhibit millions of minute differences in gene structure and chemical pathways that add up to millions more possible reasons for experimental outcomes.

      So really, every simulation is going to fall short of giving scientists a fully dependable conclusion.

    2. Re:Well Said by multi+io · · Score: 1

      You only have the tip of the iceberg, here. The truth of our current landscape in research is that all animal models are grossly inadequate for a complete understanding of human physiology.

      Well, if all they ever do is swap some genes, growing new animals with the swapped genes and look for phenotypical (i.e., physiological/behavioural) changes in them, then it doesn't look to me like they're trying to *understand* very much at all. It's more like a systematic but dumb search for correlations. Kind of how physicists worked before Galileo and Newton.

  14. cancelling accidental mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think

  15. The Ethics of Sentient Life by reporter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If the human gene of speech is what gives us sentience, then we should ponder the ethics of sticking the gene into any mammal.

    Suppose that this mouse is actually now sentient. Do we commit a crime when we imprison it in a laboratory or mangle its body (for the sake of some test)?

    When we create chimera, we are playing god.

    1. Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I hate to break it to you but all mammals are already sentient. Every step on an animals tail? That noise it makes is proof of its sentience.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life by Razalhague · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When we create chimera, we are playing god.

      I'm sick and tired of people saying that, especially the people who say that like it's an inherently bad thing. I seriously don't get what's wrong with it. If "playing god" can improve the quality of human life, I'd say it's immoral not to.

    3. Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life by juuri · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sentient is a loaded word, it doesn't really mean what most people associate to it. By definition any thing that reacts to a given stimulus could be argued to be sentient given that experiencing a "sensation" must happen to cause the reaction. Most people believe sentient includes the concept of self awareness, it doesn't and this is a fine distinction to remember.

      --
      --- I do not moderate.
    4. Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life by whois_drek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By that logic, I hate to break it to you but all computers are already sentient. Ever take a hammer to a computer? That noise it makes is proof of its sentience.

    5. Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life by maxume · · Score: 1

      Says who?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Do you know what sentience means? It's obvious from the definition.

      sentience:
            1. Having sense perception; conscious
            2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    7. Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life by maxume · · Score: 1

      I can make a box that squawks when you push a button. That is the uninteresting part of the question.

      Even now as you paste a definition, you are simply asserting that mammals are some combination of conscious and perceptive, or that they have experiences (the alternative that I am vaguely proposing here is that they are merely reactive).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Every step on an animals tail? That noise it makes is proof of its sentience.

      Actually, that's proof of its responsiveness. Sentience is a subset of responsiveness, but they're not the same thing.

    9. Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I could propose that you are also merely reactive, but based on my own experience as a sentient being I don't find that argument particularly strong.

      If I am aware of perceptions than it is doubtless that you are too. And if both of us are aware than other mammalian brains that have much in common with our own brains are also very likely to have some level of awareness of their perceptions.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  16. Narf! by moriya · · Score: 1

    "Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?"

    1. Re:Narf! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think so, Brain, but me and Pippi Longstocking... I mean, what would the children look like?

  17. Uh-oh, here comes the boss... by billybob_jcv · · Score: 1

    "You don't...F***ing...Talk to me...Like that!"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cZwC0jfN1g

  18. Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by Talisman · · Score: 4, Funny

    One of the more interesting aspects of basal ganglia is that it, along with the thalamus, make up the limbic system. Located below the cerebral cortex, this is the area of the brain where base emotions are generated, such as aggression and impulse.

    While researching speech in relation to the brain, it was discovered that while regular, everyday speech originated from the pars opercularis and pars triangularis of the inferior frontal gyrus, cursing originated from the basal ganglia.

    We know intuitively that cursing 'feels' different than regular speech when you do it, at an emotional level. They have proven that it actually is different, at the biological level.

    What's supercool about this experiment, is they increased the mouse's capacity to curse .

    What I wouldn't pay for a mouse that could curse. Or good god a monkey. Give me a cursing monkey and I'll tithe you every paycheck 'til I die.

    --

    "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
    1. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by Knunov · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hah! And here I am again with no mod points.

      --
      Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
    2. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by DynaSoar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What I wouldn't pay for a mouse that could curse. Or good god a monkey. Give me a cursing monkey and I'll tithe you every paycheck 'til I die.

      A marker of language as opposed to verbal signaling is that speech is 'productive'. That is, it evolves. This can be done by compounding -- simplifying multiple elements into a single one. An example of Koko the gorilla doing comes from Penny Patterson's dissertation. Koko took the signs for 'apple' and 'drink' and formed a single compound sign for 'apple juice'. This example has been passed around for years as good evidence Koko was actually using language.

      Another example from the same source but not made as public was Koko's compounding 'dirty', 'toilet' and 'stink' into a sign referring to feces. Not terribly surprising in normal use. But she used it in another context. When her intended mate Mike was introduced, Koko didn't care for him at all. One time when Penny was trying to cajole Koko into accepting Mike, she said "Mike is a smart gorilla. I like Mike." Unimpressed, Koko replied "Mike dirty-toilet-stink", ie. 'Mike is shit'.

      There's your cursing monkey (actually, ape). You can find it in her dissertation, "Linguistic Capabilities of a Lowland Gorilla", Stanford, 1979. Or you can call Koko's humans at 1-800-ME-GO-APE (634-6273), I dirty-toilet-stink you not. If you're serious about your paycheck to even the slightest degree, feel free to visit koko.org and donate to her Conservation Education Project: Koko is teaching sign language in Cameroon, to deaf children as well as to hearing children interested in becoming sign language interpreters. If anyone still doubts Koko's linguistic abilities in light of this fact, I would doubt their linguistic comprehension more than I would Koko's.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    3. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by Briareos · · Score: 1

      So THAT's what really happened to Timmy Two-Teeth!

      Those bastards!

      np: Barbara Morgenstern - Nichts Muss (Nichts Muss)

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

    4. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by Talisman · · Score: 1

      Well, this isn't exactly what I had in mind. I was envisioning a monkey in a cage in the corner of the living room that screamed obscenities at company.

      However, I was aware of Koko, though it has been years since I've read anything about her. I'll read up on what they are doing with her, and if the project seems worthy, I'll donate :)

      --

      "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
    5. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add the gene that causes Tourette's and I'll go in with you!

    6. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure we can really trust Patterson's results, though, given that he's deliberately misinterpreted sign language in order to get female employees to show their breasts to him.

    7. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      :/

      Cite?

    8. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, a few corrections:

      - The basal ganglia are not a part of the limbic system. The limbic system consists of nuclei such as the amygdala, hippocampus etc. The basal ganglia consist of distinct structures like the Striatum (where this study found increased plasticity in FOXP2 mice), Globus Pallidus, Substantia Nigra etc.

      - Like you say, the limbic system is where emotions are generated. The basal ganglia, however, act more like a gating device, choosing the most appropriate action (i.e. the one that leads to the highest reward) in a given situation from possible actions presented in the cortex. Your link to cursing is interesting, because you can also interpret the role of the basal ganglia here as gating a normally unappropriate action. This, however, does not mean, that the motor plan to curse was generated in the basal ganglia.

      - You can't possibly infer that the mice is cursing. They might be however, I know I would!

      You are right about one thing though, a cursing monkey would be pretty awesome!

    9. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      An example of Koko the gorilla doing comes from Penny Patterson's dissertation. Koko took the signs for 'apple' and 'drink' and formed a single compound sign for 'apple juice'

      The plural of anecdote is not data. The 'research' done on Koko was nothing but grant-draining. Anyone can teach an ape to copy - we even have a specific word in our language to describe this.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    10. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by martas · · Score: 1

      baby's first words - "got cheese, motherfucker?"

    11. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a lawsuit about it back in '05.

      Use the Google.

    12. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Quit your mad-scientist daydreaming and just get a frickin' parrot already. You can teach them to curse in about 10 minutes.

      Be sure to avoid the Norwegian Blue variety though -- they are slow learners.

    13. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      The plural of anecdote is not data. The 'research' done on Koko was nothing but grant-draining. Anyone can teach an ape to copy - we even have a specific word in our language to describe this.

      A single word? Perhaps. I can think of a few phrases that would cover it. How very clever of you to craft your assertion in the form of an example. Or should that be how clever of who ever it was who taught you. You/they did very well, except for choosing to copy the same unsupported assertions as the other copying apes. That's always a major tip off.

      Another is making statements that indicate no grasp of the concepts you're slinging, like 'teach an ape to copy'. Nobody has to teach an ape, or any other species, to copy. This is an instinctive process called 'observational learning'. And this too requires no understanding of the content or context beyond recognizing and reacting to a cue. It's probably more relevant here because very few need to be taught to act out object lessons illustrating their ignorance. You could sum it up as 'the less monkey knows, the more monkey see, monkey do'. This is pretty much exactly the opposite as generating entirely novel responses on one's own, such as the 200+ signs/words Koko invented, an entirely different set than the compounded signs she generated. If you're interested in learning more, as I said, Koko is giving lessons.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    14. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by cduffy · · Score: 1

      It takes only a single counterexample to shed doubt on a standing theory and suggest new research is needed. Read the introductory chapter of Phantoms in the Brain for more discussion of the usefulness of single, exceptional cases (and the rest of the book -- it's an interesting read!).

  19. FOXP2 saga by Device666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We should beware of popular reports of scientific discoveries: almost all the popular reports of FOXP2 claimed that it was the gene for language or even more ludicrously the gene for grammar - the truth is more complicated and far more interesting than that.

    No-one should imagine that the development of language relied exclusively on a single mutation in FOXP2. They are many other changes that enable speech. Not least of these are profound anatomical changes that make the human supralarygeal pathway entirely different from any other mammal. The larynx has descended so that it provides a resonant column for speech (but, as an unfortunate side-effect, predisposes humans to choking on food). Also, the nasal cavity can be closed thus preventing vowels from being nasalised and thus increasing their comprehensibility. These changes cannot have happened over such a short period as 100,000 years. Furthermore the genetic basis for language will be found to involve many more genes that influence both cognitive and motor skills

    Human mind needs human cognition and human cognition relies on human speech. Ultimately, we will find great insight from further unravelling the evolutionary roots of human speech.

  20. awesome idea by NovaHorizon · · Score: 1

    All animal activists need to completely stop this line of research, is 1 mouse to 'accidentally' squeak "Please stop"... Great idea to give the mice a possible source of communication before testing other things that won't as easily hamper the whole process..

  21. Heard: by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Okay, who moved my fuckin' cheese! Hey Mr. Labcoat, why don't YOU run this goddam maze; you look like you could lose some weight."

  22. we can't let supermice get out into the wild by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    too many scientists are careless, we can't let supermice get out into the wild, we need goverment oversight -- squeak squeak squeak squeak squeak squeak squeak (all your base are belong to mice)

  23. If we could talk to the animals you mean? by erroneus · · Score: 0

    Well, let's see... I can totally see PETA trying to get animals to talk. I imagine them infiltrating "cloned beef" labs to somehow manipulate the genes to enable talking cows or some such making them say "don't eat me!" Or, similar actions by Chick-fil-A getting them to say "eat mor chiken!"

    I can see where this sort of tinkering could upset a few people. After all, we are talking about learning how humans work by duplicating it in other species of animals thus confirming more and more that we are in fact animals of the natural sort and not merely "God's favorites created in his own image." Some people will never accept it, I know... but they are the same people who somehow manage to justify stepping around the "thou shalt not kill" commandment when the question of the death penalty or war come about. Oh yes, God's word is ABSOLUTE except when it gets in the way of justice or politics... which bring about something else.

    People are less afraid of pissing off God than they are of upsetting nature's balance which I find refreshing in a way. While some may argue that they are one in the same, most people see a difference between the two and re/act accordingly. This says to me that people take the God myth less and less seriously and will one day yet get relegated to the same as Greek, Roman and other mythologies that were once religion.

    If one day, we could elevate another species to the level of human, then we won't be alone in the world. If one day, we could create a new species that is more capable of surviving life in space, then we won't be alone in the universe. There is a lot to be careful of when tinkering this way, but there are many important and useful things we could never do without this kind of research. How many people died when trying to develop flight technology? LOTS I imagine. And I have to say it was worth it. And how many died and continue to die while we continue to advance in space? The further we go, the more risks there will be. It was risky to come down from the trees, but we did and eventually, we tamed the planet's predators... mostly. There WILL be reward for the risks we take. Could we somehow end up on "The Planet of the Apes?" Yeah... maybe.

  24. Good Data Points, Not So Good Connections by DynaSoar · · Score: 4, Informative

    TF(academic)A is a very well done piece of work. I'm glad to see this, as opposed to the junior high school comprehension level press releases usually presented as science. As such, my criticisms are offered respectfully.

    The FOXP2 gene cannot be said to be directly involved in language. The referenced works state that altering it disrupts some aspects of language production. There are many more ways that disruptions can occur through third variables or more general systems. In this case, altering the gene causes alteration in the dopamine system, which feeds the spiny neurons. Dopaminergic activity on spiny neurons causes inhibitory signals in the gamma range (~40 HZ) to be sent to the neurons in Hebbian cellular assemblies (a primary processing unit), synchronizing them and causing them to perform their function. This may well happen in the basal ganglia, but also happens over much of the cortex. This is a general system, responsible for a great deal of brain function. To claim it is part of language is not wrong, but is improper in that it is inaccurate due to over-specificity. As evidence, the well studied dopaminergic disorder Parkinson's does cause language disruption as noted in TFA, but clearly does so only as a specific example of a global phenomenon.

    Similarly, specific changes due to specific allele substitutions can only be said to be true if and only if substituting other alleles into the same locations do not cause similar changes. There is no evidence that the example referenced is as specific as is implied by the statement as presented.

    The statement that studying mice as 'the only feasible way' to study the relationship between humans and chimps appears so skewed that I wonder if it is a misstatement or misinterpretation. In any case, direct comparison studies have been done with excellent results. My old boss at NIH did volumetric comparisons on chimps brains using MRI, looking for left/right asymmetry in the language areas. In all of a dozen or so cases, he found it, to a degree similar to that in humans. In all but one cases, the left was greater than the right, also as found in humans. The one exception is not a difference, but rather a supporting similarity. The language centers are usually on the left because they are usually contralateral to the dominant hand, usually the right. In a dozen or so humans, chances are one or so will be left handed, with language centers on the right, just as was seen in the chimps. Studying mice is certainly fruitful and the results may well generalize to primate comparison studies. But to say it's the only feasible way to compare primate data is very wrong.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  25. And the first thing the scientists hear is... by sjmacko29 · · Score: 1

    "Here I come to save the day!"

  26. Perfect by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    I get tired of listing to others peoples pointless conversation I can only imagine how boring listing to a mouse tell me about his weekend is going to be.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  27. Hmmm, fascinating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... I wonder if we can replace some scientist gene, too, so that s/he ends up developing a fscking brain!

    What a stupid idea!

    I seem to recall a movie with Charlton Heston. 8-/

    Reality _is_ harsher than fiction, it turns out...

  28. ObPython by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ewing: Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen. I have in this box twenty-three white mice. Mice which have been painstakingly trained over the past few years, to squeak at a selected pitch. (he raises a mouse by its tail) This is E sharp... and this one is G. You get the general idea. Now these mice are so arranged upon this rack, that when played in the correct order they will squeak 'The Bells of St Mary's'. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you on the mouse organ 'The Bells of St Mary's'. Thank you.

    (He produces two mallets. He starts stritu'ng the mice while singing quietly 'The Bells of St Mary's. Each downward stroke of the mallet brings a terrible squashing sound and the expiring squeak. It is quite clear that he is slaughtering the mice. The musical effect is poor. After thefirst few notes people are shouting 'Stop it, stop him someone, Oh my God'. He cheerfully takes a bow. He is hauled off by the floor manager. He comes back and has a few more 'hits' before being dragged off again.)

  29. I knew it by Is0m0rph · · Score: 1

    Ratatouille was based on real events!

  30. Pinkie & The Brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're Pinkie & the Brain. They're Pinkie & the Brain.
    One is a genius. The other's insane.
    To prove their mousie worth, they'll rule the universe,
    They're Pinkie, Pinkie & the Brain, Brain, Brain...

  31. NIMH? by elblanco · · Score: 1

    Great, the mice of NIMH will be escaping to the rose bush in 3...2...1...

    1. Re:NIMH? by Nekomusume · · Score: 1

      Damnit! You beat me to it.

    2. Re:NIMH? by elblanco · · Score: 1

      I'm watching it right now on Hulu...

  32. I'm a mouse? by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Nooooo!

    Oh well, on the bright side that means there's lots of medication and tech out there that is proven to work for me.

    --
  33. One serious implication by Burnova · · Score: 1

    We can rewrite Flowers for Algernon and let the mouse be the one who gets smart.

    1. Re:One serious implication by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I take it you never read the story.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:One serious implication by Burnova · · Score: 1

      Ya know, the second I read what you said, I remembered what happened :( Ok, let me try a quick save..... ... ... /facepalm Nevermind I lost.

  34. Hmm. by Nekomusume · · Score: 1

    "putting significant human genes into mice is the only feasible way of exploring the essential differences between people and chimps"

    I can think of dozens of feasable ways to explore that. For example, examining chimps.

  35. I for one ... by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 1

    eep eep eep!

  36. Can't believe this wasn't first post... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new, talking, mice overlords!

  37. Mutants? by Eternal+Annoyance · · Score: 1

    With the current rate of development we'll be creating an intelligent species which will be perfectly able to function as slaves in about onehundredfifty years. Since they technically won't be human, we can trample their rights in whatever way we wish... until they revolt.

    So, how about taking a long, hard look at "human" rights?

  38. Gee, Brain... by mokus000 · · Score: 1

    What are we going to do tomorrow night?

    --
    Additive identity, multiplicative cancellation, distributive multiplication over addition: pick any two (unless 1 = 0)
  39. Just don't go injecting brain cells into Britney by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    I think we're safe as long as they refrain from injecting any brain cells into Britney Spears. Wasn't there a film about this, though? I think it was called The Mouse That Roared??

  40. Well, they DID pay for it... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 1

    Biding their time, and building their resources, they will ultimately take over the earth. All in the guise of cute little rodents.

    Well, you really can't fault the mice for taking over the Earth. They did pay a rather large sum to the Magratheans for its construction, and how they use their purchase is entirely within their rights. Don't worry, though. It's just another way they have of tweaking the programming as everything comes down to the endgame.

    Such subtlety and finesse in running the program is admirable.

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
  41. DTMF by PhasmatisApparatus · · Score: 1

    Thanks a LOT guys. Now I'll have even MORE trouble explaining to the Average Joe the difference between a computer mouse and a dialup modem, what with the dual-tone mice scurrying around!

  42. This is not right. by VulpesFoxnik · · Score: 1

    We should not be putting our inferior genes into the most intelligent animals on earth--that's right the mice. I mean, after all we are only the third smartest animal on the planet.

    --
    RES PUBLICA NON DOMINETUR
  43. 'Can improve' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree wholeheartedly;
    Mengele's research had the potential to bring forth a lot of knowledge on how the human body works, and presumably would have helped to improve the quality of [Aryan] life.

    It would have been immoral for him to not experiment!

    (See: dissection & inspection of organs to attain more insight into how they work, burn experimentation, physical similarities/ genetic relationships between twins, etc.)

    * Slightly Godwin-trolling, ignoring your initial use of 'inherently' and focusing upon your latter claim 'immoral not to.'

  44. one of the major problems of Microsoft by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 4, Funny
    One of the most major problems of Microsoft is their utter lack of drivers for new technology. This was highlighted in Vista - remember "works with Vista?" Well, I bought into the hype and installed it in my newly built Death Star.

    But guess what?! DRIVER INCOMPATIBILITIES! It must have been a memory leak or something, because when I turned the thing on "low" and aimed it at Alabama (that'll teach you to deny my MBA application!), rather than disintegrating the state, it covered it in peanut butter.

    And not nice smooth peanut butter, either. Some extreme chunky variety that really didn't harm Alabama at all.

    So fuck you, Microsoft, and your shitty drivers.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  45. so- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much longer till posthuman?