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."

Comments

Where is the line?

[hibji]

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

Re:Where is the line?

[Bat Country]

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.

Re:Where is the line?

[QuoteMstr]

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.

Re:Massive reverse engineering job

[binarylarry]

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

The Ethics of Sentient Life

[reporter]

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.

Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results...

[MichaelSmith]

...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.

Re:this can only end..

[Z00L00K]

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!

Re:this can only end..

[kanweg]

"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

Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results...

[RancidPeanutOil]

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

Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT!

[DynaSoar]

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.