Scientists Create Mice From 2 Fathers

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Create Mice From 2 Fathers

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday December 8, 2010 @09:33PM from the heather-has-two-mommies dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Using stem cell technology, reproductive scientists in Texas, led by Dr. Richard R. Behringer at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, have produced male and female mice from two fathers. The study was posted Wednesday at the online site of the journal Biology of Reproduction. The achievement of two-father offspring in a species of mammal could be a step toward preserving endangered species, improving livestock breeds, and advancing human assisted reproductive technology. It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note."

64 of 435 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

In b4 shitstorm by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-08 21:36 · Score: 5, Funny

It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.
This isn't going to go down well with the God Squad.
1. Re:In b4 shitstorm by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-08 22:22 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Please. As a religious person? I honestly don't give a fuck. All you're doing is mixing around biomaterials. Humans have been doing that on some level for thousands of years and what was done here could probably have been done decades ago if anyone cared to.
2. Re:In b4 shitstorm by Opportunist · 2010-12-08 22:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A very rational approach to it, but do you think the less rational religious types will concur?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:In b4 shitstorm by h4rm0ny · 2010-12-08 23:31 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This isn't going to go down well with the God Squad.
  They should be fine with it - lots of precedents. Eve was created from Adam's rib which was a 1 Father, 0 mother scenario. Mary had Jesus by God which was a 1 Mother, 0 Father scenario (God is generally regarded as the spiritual father. I don't think many Christians envisage actual physical sex with God as evidenced by the virginity of Mary remaining intact). Pygmalian married a statue that was brought to life which was a 0 Fathers, 0 Mothers scenario for the statue. The Bible has contained this sort of stuff long before we even knew what DNA was.
  
  Also, a lot of religious people have objected to same-sex marriages on the grounds that they believe marriage should only be between people capable of having children together. This will resolve that road-block so they can be okay with same-sex marriage.
  
  I'm certain that religious people will love this.
  
  --
  
  Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
4. Re:In b4 shitstorm by stms · 2010-12-09 00:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The whole gay marriage debate is completely moronic on both sides. If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality). If it's a choice then you shouldn't tell people what to choose so long as their freedom to make that choice doesn't infringe on other peoples well-being or freedom.
5. Re:In b4 shitstorm by tirefire · 2010-12-09 00:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I've heard (yes, that is my citation) that there is almost a 100% overlap between people who are against stem cell research and people who are against abortion. I've also heard (two sources now!) that anti-abortion groups are largely behind stem-cell hatred, because they claim that if stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses are used in research, the mild "gift to science" of abortion will sway more pregnant women into choosing abortion than keeping the child. Or even that "some women" who did not want children would conceive for the express purpose of having an abortion.
  
  I thought it was crazy at first, too. Then I realized that if one or more single-issue lobbying groups were involved, it's almost stupid enough to be true.
6. Re:In b4 shitstorm by Opportunist · 2010-12-09 00:50 · Score: 2
  
  All these arguments are not really something that makes me say anything aside of "so?".
  Frankly, if people want to get pregnant for the purpose of selling the embryo for research, what's the problem? I care more about the life and living quality of those alive than about the life of those that might be alive some day, provided nothing goes wrong during pregnancy. And I seriously question how "compassionate" and "moral" people are who see it the other way around.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
7. Re:In b4 shitstorm by commodore64_love · 2010-12-09 01:01 · Score: 2
  
  I'm religious but I figure it's God's job to enforce his rules, not mine.
  If he disapproves of cloning or babies from same-sex couples, then He'll strike them down. If not then I guess He approves. (shrug) Not my laws; not my job to enforce them on others.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
8. Re:In b4 shitstorm by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-09 01:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I can't imagine the above isn't a troll, but just in case the abortion argument really is still in the "stone age" as it were, I'll bite:
  The way to understand the anti-abortion mindset is extremely simple, but very difficult (apparently) for many supposedly "rational" thinkers. They believe that a person is alive and has rights from the moment of conception. Potential life, in their eyes, is to be as revered as full life-- in fact in some ways more so because it has no adequate defenses or ability to survive without help*.
  Simply put, any act that ends the life of another (in this case even an abortion) must be justified-- and for many people there is even more simply no justification for the taking of another life. To get a feel for this type of mindset just replace the word "abortion" with murder, and then try to argue the typical "right to privacy", "betterment of other people" arguments.
  It's much harder to justify scientific research for the betterment of mankind when the process to procure the research material involves murdering children-- which is exactly what these believers think.
  More importantly, it is important to realize that as "silly" as this idea may seem to you, the fact that the question is far more philosophical than scientific means that you can't simply disregard this option because you don't agree. Many people hold at least some personal belief about when "life" starts-- the fact that you've chosen one point in the timeline of development and that someone else has chosen another does not discount their opinion.
  Because we are dealing with one of the most basic and agreed upon human rights-- the right to life-- the argument understandably gets heated when one side believes that the other is committing what they believe is murder in order to improve their own lives.
  *(It should be noted that this is in no way a new idea, and has existed even in ancient cultures where the murder or beating of a pregnant woman would be dealt with more severely than with one who was not-pregnant. In "ye olden days" when having a baby was even more dangerous than it is today, and the infant death rate was extremely high, the idea of "potential life" was very important to early peoples.)
9. Re:In b4 shitstorm by tom17 · 2010-12-09 01:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I was under the impression that they harvest embryonic stem cells from unused eggs when they are doing IVF? They re-implant the ones that took and discard the others (Or use them for embryonic stem cell research). This has nothing to do with abortion.
  
  Or am I mistaken here?
10. Re:In b4 shitstorm by fyngyrz · 2010-12-09 01:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality).
  No. Doesn't follow. Homosexuals alter the balance of the sexes for reproductive purposes; they often provide a different and useful set of sensibilities to the community (Alan Turing, Isaac Newton, Plato, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alan Turing, Francis Bacon, Henry David Thoreau...) If your thesis is that the only value proposition in the human race is that of reproduction, then you're just being silly. We're intelligent; we have our own uses for our fellows that go far beyond if they choose to breed or not.
  
  If it's a choice then you shouldn't tell people what to choose so long as their freedom to make that choice doesn't infringe on other peoples well-being or freedom.
  And if their "biological imperfection" doesn't infringe on other people's well being or freedom, and the "imperfect" person is well satisfied? Einstein could be viewed, using your simplistic "not the same as the rest of us" criteria as being afflicted with a "biological imperfection"... would you have "fixed" him? Or Alan Turing? I mean, really. You need to think this over a little more comprehensively.
  
  The whole gay marriage debate is completely moronic on both sides.
  Marriage, at present, is a state that alters access to health care, access to one's SO in the hospital, taxes and other issues. This is entirely aside from the warm and fuzzy feeling one might enjoy if "married" is a state one admires. Consequently, there are very practical reasons to seek (and not to seek) marriage. The obvious spit here is over the contractual and ritual components. Myself, I see no reason that marriage should provide any contractual elements at all. If you want the ritual and then choose to proclaim that the ritual means something to you, then by all means, have at it. If you want to enter into a contract with someone, you should do so. The mixing of the two is what makes marriage such a mess.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
11. Re:In b4 shitstorm by tom17 · 2010-12-09 01:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Isn't the homosexuality trend self-fixing anyway? If 2 guys or 2 girls get together, and stay loyal for ever, they aint passing those genes on. It's kinda self-policing that way. If homosexuality could somehow increase the chances of survival of the species, then it would surely become a dominant gene.
  
  That said, now that we have progressed so far with science, all bets are off. All kinds of genetic defects that would normally get weeded out pretty much straight away in nature, are now able to thrive as we 'fix' all the ailments that they create. All we have done here is fixed yet another (and in so doing we are enabling the homosexuality genes to flourish in future generations).
12. Re:In b4 shitstorm by whoop · 2010-12-09 01:58 · Score: 2
  
  You also get into the question of how to decide if some other person is worthless enough to conduct experiments, harvest organs, and whatever on. All through history we've found certain groups of people were considered worth so little it was okay to enslave, experiment, do whatever you want to them. We've gone through the processes and found it is fundamentally not right to treat people like that and moved to stop such practices. It would seem a step backwards than to look at this group and say, "Eh, they are nothing, go ahead and do whatever to them."
13. Re:In b4 shitstorm by MightyYar · 2010-12-09 02:16 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Isn't the homosexuality trend self-fixing anyway?
  I don't think we understand the causes enough to say that. For instance, if male homosexuality is caused by a gene that gives heterosexual females a reproductive advantage, then it will never go away unless we outlaw daughters. Maybe that's what they are up to in China?
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
14. Re:In b4 shitstorm by MasterC0D · 2010-12-09 02:17 · Score: 2
  
  Homosexuality is *not* a choice, it's genetic.
  Hormonal changes/fluctuations in the mother influence the development of an embryo's nervous system; specific changes in hormonal levels at a specific point during the later parts of the pregnancy will cause the baby to be born with the predisposition towards homosexuality (and/or changes in behaviour that may be perceived as homosexuality when it really isn't, but that's a different subject).
  Whether the person reacts to that disposition or not later in life may be a choice, but the attraction to the same sex that prompts that choice is definitely genetic.
15. Re:In b4 shitstorm by scubamage · 2010-12-09 02:18 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Funny enough, the most rational speaking I've ever heard from a religious person was from a church astronomer (not astrologer) who worked for the Vatican. Basically he stated that the bible stopped being written around 200AD, and modern science really didn't come to fruition until the 1700's. So the bible should have no bearing whatsoever on modern science. He also stated that people who never read the bible, and are content with whatever their religious leaders tell them are the most dangerous thing in religion today. Its interesting that the most illuminated view I've ever heard was from someone who worked for the church. Check out the movie Religulous with Bill Maher if you're interested; its a great watch.
16. Re:In b4 shitstorm by Monchanger · 2010-12-09 02:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You forget that they'd consider emulating god to be hubris.
  You mean except in cases where they offer "clarification" on His words.
17. Re:In b4 shitstorm by AlamedaStone · 2010-12-09 02:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  If homosexuality could somehow increase the chances of survival of the species, then it would surely become a dominant gene.
  Ready to have your mind blown? Homosexuality does increase the chances of survival of the species! Yeah, I said it. Have you ever looked at the gender makeup of a human/social services university or masters program? 75-80% female, and maybe between a third to half of the men are gay. That's up to 10x the rate of (male) homosexuality in the general population! Interesting that so many more gay men are interested in working to support others, isn't it?
  To put it another way, it is an advantage to the cycle of reproduction that not every adult is a parent. Additional caregivers have value to the species. Gays have been having sex and getting pregnant since before we were sapiens. It's a good thing we have their genetic diversity. In fact, it's not hard to argue that the western "nuclear family" is more detrimental to the species than the queers ever could be. We developed as communities (tribes, villages, etc) with shared parenting responsibilities. A smaller group of caregivers results in less care and supervision of the offspring.
  I guess using these arguments you could try to make a case that gays reproducing with each other reduces their value to the species, but in this culture, if you don't have a family you're forever alone. I guess we'll find out soon, either way.
  And by "soon" I mean in another few hundred thousand years at the earliest. We'll all be in the cloud by then anyway though, so who cares.
  
  --
  "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
18. Re:In b4 shitstorm by AlamedaStone · 2010-12-09 02:35 · Score: 2
  
  If you want the ritual and then choose to proclaim that the ritual means something to you, then by all means, have at it. If you want to enter into a contract with someone, you should do so. The mixing of the two is what makes marriage such a mess.
  Or, to paraphrase a great leader:
  Kang: Civil unions for all.
  [crowd boos]
  Very well, no civil unions for anyone.
  [crowd boos]
  Hmm... Civil unions for some, miniature American flags for
  others.
  [crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]
  Personally, I think "civil unions for all" is the most rational path. Marriage is between two people and their beliefs and values. A government body has no business "licensing" marriage.
  
  --
  "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
19. Re:In b4 shitstorm by mcgrew · 2010-12-09 02:43 · Score: 2
  
  A very rational approach to it, but do you think the less rational religious types will concur?
  Less rational people are, by definition, less rational, whether religious, agnostic, or athiest, and should be ignored.
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
20. Re:In b4 shitstorm by Lilith's+Heart-shape · 2010-12-09 03:16 · Score: 2
  
  Never mind the Bible Humpers, just think of how some feminists will react. If we develop artificial wombs and use this technology in humans, men won't need women in order to reproduce. Some feminists might rejoice, as it means that women will no longer have to go through pregnancy. Other feminists will get pissy, as this would mean that women can no longer decide which men get to have children.
  
  --
  I write sci-fi for metalheads
21. Re:In b4 shitstorm by IICV · 2010-12-09 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The way to understand the anti-abortion mindset is extremely simple, but very difficult (apparently) for many supposedly "rational" thinkers. They believe that a person is alive and has rights from the moment of conception. Potential life, in their eyes, is to be as revered as full life-- in fact in some ways more so because it has no adequate defenses or ability to survive without help*.
  By what logic do they stop at the moment of conception? The thing that was just conceived is almost exactly as alive as the amoebas you killed washing your hands, and yet you do it anyway. The only thing abortion does is kill the potential of a human life. At what point does it stop? Why is conception the point at which it goes from being "not a potential human life" to "a potential human life"? After all, every second you spend not having procreative sex is a second in which you are preventing the birth of a potential human life. And should we start charging women who miscarry with negligence? It was a potential human life, and there are definitely steps a woman can take to reduce the risk of miscarriage; if the woman didn't take those steps, isn't she causing the death of a potential human just like an abortion doctor would have?
  The main thing, though, is that I simply don't see the anti-abortion movement putting their money where their mouth is. Protesters are always in front of clinics saying "Don't get an abortion! Abortions are bad!" - but if they really cared about the potential baby's life, why aren't they saying "Don't get an abortion! We'll adopt the child!"?
  Keep in mind also that we're talking about first trimester abortions here; the pro-choice movement is not saying "abortions for everyone whenever they want them!", they're saying "abortions for everyone as long as it's before the fetus has developed past a certain point".
22. Re:In b4 shitstorm by Hooya · 2010-12-09 03:48 · Score: 2
  
  > Absense of proof is not proof of absense.
  Precisely!
  "Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."
  Just because there is absence of of proof doesn't mean that's proof of absence!
23. Re:In b4 shitstorm by alexborges · 2010-12-09 03:49 · Score: 2
  
  I can say Ive been around very rational religious people, akin to what you post here. The problem, however, is that they are not the ones in charge, they arent leading anyone in the catholic church and are meek: they are NOT fighting against their church's stance cause, you know, they can loose their jobs that way.
  So i just dont count them. If intelligent Catholics are not actively reforming their faith, they are worthless to it. Thank god, they are not worthless to me, or you, or people around them...
  It is a sad thing that nobody remembers that the Latin word ecclesia (church), actually means congregation or assembly: it should be the reunion of the faithful what leads the church, not old men in weird dresses.
  
  --
  NO SIG
24. Re:In b4 shitstorm by Hooya · 2010-12-09 04:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I get that. And that's respectable.
  However, IRL, the people that I've run into that are "anti-abortion" are usually pro-war, have some detectable racism tinge, have no issues with issues like child exploitation (eg. google "baccha bazi DynCorp"). To me, that's hypocrisy. They have no respect for the lives already here that need protection because they are defenseless (civilian casualties, sexually exploited children, the list goes on..)
  Yet they try to project some vague "respect for life" ethos. I wonder how much of that is a case of "every sperm is sacred" (Meaning of Life) mentality as opposed to truly valuing and respecting life.
25. Re:In b4 shitstorm by geekoid · 2010-12-09 04:02 · Score: 2
  
  Historically, the Catholic church has been a proponent of science. Not that it's been perfect. Ironically it's getting worse because there followers are becoming infected with a more evangelical view of the world.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
26. Re:In b4 shitstorm by kingramon0 · 2010-12-09 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  the fact that the question is far more philosophical than scientific means that you can't simply disregard this option
  The fact that it is more philosophical than scientific is exactly why we can disregard this option. It's superstition, nothing more, and should be treated as such.
  I think you missed the point.
  Your belief that life does not start at the moment of conception is also a matter of philosophy. Why is your philosophy more valid than that of the pro-lifers? If you can say that their philosophy can be easily disregarded, then so can yours.
27. Re:In b4 shitstorm by sexconker · 2010-12-09 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  The problem most rational people have with this is that picking the moment of conception as the beginning of life is completely arbitrary
  If where you draw that line makes no difference, why not draw the line even earlier? Why decide that 'life' starts when sperm and egg come together, and instead take the Every Sperm is Sacredmantra? A sperm cell and an egg cell on their own aren't all that different from the two cells together. People picked that point because it's an easily identifiable step in the process of procreation, but that doesn't make it particularly special.
  I'd say this is a troll, but I know there are morons out there who would actually believe this shit.
  "picking the moment of conception as the beginning of life is completely arbitrary"
  As is picking the moment of birth.
  As is picking the moment the fetus is viable - our medical technology increases all the time and the moment of viability could one day be the moment of conception.
  "A sperm cell and an egg cell on their own aren't all that different from the two cells together."
  Actually, they're vastly and fundamentally different.
  The point of conception IS particularly special, because it's the point where actual human DNA is formed, instead of two disparate half sets that can't ever do anything. Said DNA proceeds to replicate and do it's thing, making all other points simply an application of the Grow() function.
  The point of conception is indeed unique from all other points in life. Whether or not you feel it's wrong to kill a person ever, while they're a child, while they're unborn, while they're unborn and don't pose a risk to the mother's life, while they're unborn and don't pose a risk to the parents' life (financially, emotionally), while they're unborn and show defects, while they're unborn and don't look like a person, etc. if up to you and completely arbitrary. And when things are arbitrary, you're just going to have to fucking deal with people having different opinions than you. Spouting arbitrary bullshit and claiming you're being "rational" and other are stupid makes you the irrational, stupid fuck.
28. Re:In b4 shitstorm by fyngyrz · 2010-12-09 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  Isaac Newton was not a homosexual.
  Actually, it kind of looks like he was. Why... would it be terrible for you if he was? You think the apple would have fallen up instead of down?
  
  And you mentioned Turing twice.
  Yeah, and I wrote "spit" where I meant to write "split." Sometimes I edit poorly. It's not that I'm extra fond of Turing; I *am*, however, extra fond of Bacon. :)
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
29. Re:In b4 shitstorm by Opportunist · 2010-12-09 12:04 · Score: 2
  
  Of course it doesn't really help him anymore, a few centuries after his death. But you have to see it from the perspective of the church, and what that actually means to them.
  It is not easy for the Roman Catholic Church to admit that they erred. There's still that dogma about the Pope being infallible, and it took them a while to tapdance around that. IIRC the solution was that the inquisition made the mistake and not the Pope, and the inquisition may err.
  Yes, it looks ridiculous to us that this is some issue, especially since Galileo has been dead for centuries by now, who cares about him being acquitted? For the church, the soul is eternal and hence it does matter a lot. Also, this has high symbolic meaning, since it symbolizes their attempt to lose their luddite image, they actually "bowed down" to science.
  It's hard to explain just how much this gesture means to someone not familiar with the inner workings of the rom cat church. Essentially, the Pope said "sorry". And Popes rarely do that.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
30. Re:In b4 shitstorm by Creedo · 2010-12-09 18:45 · Score: 2
  
  If you are a credible witness and testify that you've experienced the FSM, it would only be reasonable for me to consider the liklihood of its existance.
  Not in a world where self-delusions, lying and hallucinations exist.
  
  Once you've had a credible religious experience, it's impossible to NOT believe in God. Once you've seen an elephant, it's impossible to NOT believe in elephants, and arguing elephants' existance is a lost cause.
  And those who are afflicted with various mental problems which generate realistic hallucinations are likewise convinced. That doesn't mean that their delusions are real, and it would be foolish to take their word without empirical evidence.
  
  --
  All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Re:Is YY possible? by sjwt · 2010-12-08 21:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

75% of a person!
the Y is a Y because its an X missing a bit, and when creating a person the missing it on the Y just defaults to the bit on the X

--
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
obligatory... by SharpFang · 2010-12-08 21:48 · Score: 2

Son of Kronar
(nsfw)

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I for one by arndawg · 2010-12-08 21:49 · Score: 5, Funny

welcome our new gaylords. Or gaylings. whatever.
1. Re:I for one by MichaelSmith · 2010-12-08 23:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  such a procedure has the potential to clear up the whole nature/nurture debate in the case of homosexuality.
  Why? Gay people have normal children all the time. Doesn't that give you enough data?
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
2. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-09 01:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I still fail to see how it would clear up the "nature vs nurture" debate any better than doing studies of straight couples to see how many produce gay children. In neither case is nurture definitively ruled out.
What a waste of money by Chrisq · 2010-12-08 21:49 · Score: 3, Funny

All the world needs is bloody gay mice.
1. Re:What a waste of money by Spad · 2010-12-08 22:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  These mice are no more gay than using a surrogate mother is adultery.
  They're combining DNA, not teaching mice to appreciate musical theatre.
2. Re:What a waste of money by mug+funky · 2010-12-09 00:04 · Score: 2
  
  amazing spambot still fails turing test... news at 11
Re:Is YY possible? by Troll-Under-D'Bridge · 2010-12-08 21:59 · Score: 2

You're joking of course. But seriously everyone (humans in any case) needs at least one X chromosome. No Y means you're female. More than two sex chromosomes (X or Y) will result in varying degrees of physical femininity or masculinity. A man with two X chromosomes (XXY) will look more female than a man with two Y chromosomes (XYY).
Oh, Great! by RobotRunAmok · 2010-12-08 22:04 · Score: 5, Funny

Now instead of the mice in my house just eating my cheese, I have to worry about them reupholstering my furniture.
Re:i'm fine with that by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-08 22:05 · Score: 5, Funny

Umm... I know this is slashdot and all, but did you read TFA??

Scientists said they were able to able to achieve this remarkable result by "forcing a mouse to have sex with his father."
And...

Human trials of the new procedure are set to begin in January 2011.
And also...

When asked if he was concerned that his son might object to being forced to participate in this study, Mr. Anonymous Coward Sr. responded "This is a life or death situation here. My son had 38 years to go out and find a real woman to procreate with - but instead he spent all his time in my down in our basement twittering with his Ham radio. He had his chance to spread his seed around and pass on our genetic legacy, but he wasted it. Now it's my turn to take over and make sure that we've got a suitable heir to the family dynasty. My son can push back as much as he wants, but as far as I'm concerned, that's only going to make my job that much easier."
Close, but no cigar by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-08 22:12 · Score: 4, Informative

In the work reported today, the Behringer team manipulated fibroblasts from a male (XY) mouse fetus

Yeah yeah yeah. Just two fathers. That's some trick there, getting a male to generate a fetus. What an age we live in.
Cut me a break, and at least report that a female was in some way required, OK? I know it does not have the same "zing" as a story not involving females at all, but still.
Re:Males from females by sourcerror · 2010-12-08 22:51 · Score: 2

"I've always assumed that females are more durable than males (long life span, more resistant to diseases, etc)."
You cannot know how much of the shorter lifespan is because of gender roles. (Be macho, binge drinking etc.)
Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-08 23:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

The same could be said about IV fertilization and other fertility treatments. In fact, the same thing WAS said about them, but it was a strawman every bit there as it is here. You don't even know what's gonna happen, yet you have no problem with conjuring the image of numerous "monstrous fetuses" that die "soon after birth", apparently in an attempt to provoke both disgust and sympathy in your audience on the same time. Who's gonna think of the monster children?
Life's a bitch and then you die by Moraelin · 2010-12-08 23:07 · Score: 4, Informative

Well, then life's a bitch and then your zygote dies.
The Y chromosome is not a variant of the X chromosome. The X chromosome is one you actually need. The Y chromosome actually has very little information, and most of it related to testosterone production and sperm production. It doesn't even encode most of the differences between a male and a female body. Those are already taken care of by other proteins and testosterone.
In programming terms the Y chromosome is a little more than just a flag, but basically at an oversimplified level you can view it as a flag. The real important information is elsewhere.
So basically it's akin to, dunno, if you took out the .exe from the world of warcraft directory, but flagged it as Cataclysm compatible twice. It ain't gonna be very useful.

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
You think that's bad? by Moraelin · 2010-12-08 23:20 · Score: 5, Funny

You think that's bad? How about, now when the boss rides your ass all afternoon, you can actually get pregnant? Man, trust science to make IT and programming jobs even shittier ;)

--
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Re:The beginning of the end. by Chrisq · 2010-12-08 23:21 · Score: 2

I'd rather give money to fags than to wankers, given a choice.
You'll disappoint a lot of slashdotters here.
Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from by Le+Marteau · 2010-12-08 23:24 · Score: 2

And if you can give me one good reason why that shouldn't be, without invoking your imaginary friend up on a fluffy cloud whose opinion doesn't really mean that much to me (unless my friend Harvey's opinion starts meaning anything to you), I'd like to hear it.
Would you like it if both your parents were male, and incubated in a surrogate womb for hire?
Would you like it if all your friends knew that? Because by the time they are teenagers, that kind of information will be freely available by doing the equivalent of a "Google".
In the future, Julian Assange style data dumps will not be limited to banks and governments, and will be orders of magnitude more common than today. And at the top of the list will be documents regarding people's true lineage.
Forever available to anyone with an internet connection.

--
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from by Chrisq · 2010-12-08 23:24 · Score: 3, Funny

No, I don't agree. And what does it have to do with making human-animal hybrids? And what would be wrong with that, anyway? I'd do that -- well, I don't have the knowledge to be able to, but I certainly wouldn't protest if someone else did it. Surely you can see the advantage of having a human head/brain and the body of a horse?

Is it wrong if the first thing that flashed through my mind was "porn industry would love it"?
I think that a lot of slashdotters are thinking of the advantage of doing it the other way round to GP's suggestion , like the body of a woman and the brain of a rabbit.
Re:what lesbians were tlaking about? by Chrisq · 2010-12-08 23:26 · Score: 2

IN YOUR FACE LESBIANS :D
This conjures up a very interesting picture .... let me just think about it for a bit.
Can I be both fathers? by funfail · 2010-12-08 23:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

So the same method can theoretically be applied to two sperms from the same male. I can be the father and mother of my own child then.
Should he/she be considered my "child" or my "clone"?

--
Search RapidShare and MegaUpload!
Re:Is YY possible? by elsurexiste · 2010-12-09 00:21 · Score: 3, Informative

75% of a person!
the Y is a Y because its an X missing a bit, and when creating a person the missing it on the Y just defaults to the bit on the X
Perhaps "bit" is an understatement: the Y have roughly 80 genes, while the X has around 2000; the Y is about 4 times smaller than the X.

--
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
female mitochondria DNA required by ralphdaugherty · 2010-12-09 00:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm reading Oxygen by Nick Lane, and recreating with male mitochondria is a universal no no. Even worms while forming excrete the male mitochondria from the gametes used to form it.
The male mitochondria passed on is aged and defective, the female mitochondria an unused preserved version.
In other words, there's a reason it doesn't work the way it's being forced to work. That's why we have sexes. Thank God or evolution, your choice.
rd
Mr. Black and White, meet Doctor Gray by Zero__Kelvin · 2010-12-09 00:51 · Score: 4, Funny

"The whole gay marriage debate is completely moronic on both sides. If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality)."
I'm chronically heterosexual, but I have to say that if there is a genetic imperfection that needs to be fixed, it is the genetic imperfection that produces offspring that equate homosexually with pedophilia and bestiality. The goat and the child cannot consent, but an adult male can, and if psychology is right those on that side of the debate are also often deathly afraid that they might. Furthermore, smoking crystal meth is a choice, at least the first time you do it, yet most people are perfectly OK with judging that behavior and saying it it morally wrong, even though they preach freedom of choice. Either the whole human race is moronic on every issue (and I admit an argument to that effect could be made), or these things are not as clear cut as you assert them to be.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
1. Re:Mr. Black and White, meet Doctor Gray by VortexCortex · 2010-12-09 04:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Furthermore, smoking crystal meth is a choice, at least the first time you do it, yet most people are perfectly OK with judging that behavior and saying it it morally wrong,
  Citation needed. Recreational drug use has been around since long before current social structure and laws came into being.
  By your logic, would not alcohol also be judged by "most people" as morally wrong? What about marijuana? Apparently you are ignorant of the 60's & 70's, and/or have a very skewed view of what exactly a moral is.
  Recreational drug use is recreational. We have warlords in Mexico running amok because our idiotic government won't legalize and tax the recreational drugs that give them power.
  Remember the prohibition of alcohol and the gangsters that the sell of illegal alcohol funded? Clearly, people would rather purchase their recreational drugs from a safe, clean, regulated environment such as a grocery store, liquor store or pharmacy rather than purchasing their drug from a gangster... Evidence: Gangsters are not selling illegal alcohol to the public at large now that it is legal. Tobacco Cigarettes are nearly addictive as heroin, yet they are legal and not "morally" wrong to most people; The common belief is, "If you want to smoke, fine, just don't do it around those that do not smoke."
  I would argue that most people judge moderate recreational drug use (such as drinking wine, liquor, beer) as moral. Many people I know only judge the use of other recreational drugs (such as marijuana, cocaine, crystal meth) as "wrong" because they are illegal. Many of these same people have told me that if using said drugs were not against the law then it would not be "wrong" to use these drugs in moderation. Therefore, I posit that this it is not so much a moral issue, but one of legality.
  Abuse of any drug is wrong simply because abuse inherently implies wrongdoing. Please do not confuse Abuse with Use.
Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from by Opportunist · 2010-12-09 01:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Would you like it if your mom was drunk that one night and got knocked up by a guy she didn't even know and that result is you?
No?
Gee, too bad, life ain't a request programme. You get what you're dealt.
Would I prefer if both my parents were guys who went through the hassle (legal, financial and otherwise) to have a child together and that child is me? Sure as fuck more than the alternative I gave above. Because one thing's sure: They definitely, truely and without a doubt WANTED me to be. I would've been no accident, not even a "happy coincidence", there is positively no way that I could have existed unless they really, really strongly wanted me to exist.
I honestly can't think of any better way to tell that parents WANT a child than going to impossible lengths to get one. Take in vitro. Does anyone doubt that these parents really wanted to have that child, an that this child will probably be loved more than many other kids who "just happened"?
Personally, I like the idea that my parents really wanted me.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Males from females by eyenot · 2010-12-09 01:02 · Score: 2

... I'm surprised how few people remember that just a year ago, or so, the news was that scientists finally decided to poke around with an egg plus an egg and found that it's insanely easy to fertilize an egg using the DNA extracted from another egg, no sperm required.
I mean, without keeping that in mind, this news has no context or relevance.

--
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
Re:Is YY possible? by ralfmuschall · 2010-12-09 01:35 · Score: 2

Then blood type would be essentially haploid, i.e. we'd have just genotypes A, B, 0 instead of the observed AA, A0, 00, AB, BB, B0 (where A0/AA and B0/BB are phenotypically the same). AFAIK the blood type is autosomal on chromosome 16.
Y is X missing a bit by Kim0 · 2010-12-09 02:18 · Score: 2

Wrong.
The Y chromosome is totally unlike the X.
The Y chromosome is even coded differently, with redundant duplications.
They even look very differently
http://www.ingender.com/cs/blogs/gender_selection_news/y-chromosome.jpg
Simple but incorrect or incomplete by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-09 03:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

If they believed that the person is alive at the moment of conception, they would FIGHT against raped women getting an abortion. After all , the person is a person at the moment of conception, be it a rape or consensual. But in practice this is not what happen, except for really a minority of pro life. Most accept that abortion is done in case of rape. And here is the cinch. From the point of view of the fecundated egg or whatever, there is NO DIFFERENCE whether it was a rape or not. if one give the CHOICE to the women to abort in case of rape, DESPITE having the fecundated egg considered a human at conception, then there is no reason from the fecundated egg side to NOT give the same choice in case the egg was fecundated in any other situation than rape. No, the only reason to make a difference , is to hinge whether the fecundation was consensual or not, ergo, the reason is not depending on the egg being fecundated, the life begin, but rather, the reason being was the sex consensual or not. In other word I would wager this is more a PUNISHMENT for having consensual sex, rather than to save a life started. In other word, the "life start at fecundation" is bullshit. If it was not, then they would loudly and clearly say that raped women should not be aborted. They should just admit that they wish to see the women punished for having sex.
Re:Marriage by durrr · 2010-12-09 03:43 · Score: 2

The future of parenthood specialized lawyers look bright. Imagine the hilarious cases where the mother loses the child she birthed due to not being the biological mother.
Of course, this have almost already happened due to chimerism(the ovaries being a different genotype than the blood that is used for DNA test).
Snausages; Snausages by Zero__Kelvin · 2010-12-09 03:49 · Score: 2

"Isn't the homosexuality trend self-fixing anyway? If 2 guys or 2 girls get together, and stay loyal for ever, they aint passing those genes on."
I think you not only failed to RTFA, but you also failed to read the fscking summary. The whole issue that sparked this thread is that scientist now thing it may well be possible to pass on their genes to a sibling through this new technique.

Also, your post doesn't take into consideration that, if there is in fact such a gene, it hasn't "taken care of itself" throughout the course of human history.

Before you go asserting that this fact is proof that there is no such gene, don't fail to realize that even before the technology that already exists for one of the pair to pass on the genes: Artificial Insemination, there was always the old fashioned practice of pretending you are straight and getting married and having children, and getting your snausages on the down low.

--
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You have not thought about this carefully. by emil · 2010-12-09 05:20 · Score: 2
- This population is refreshed with every generation.
- Because of this, these behaviors were obviously involved in positive selection over a long period of time.
- That positive selection must have involved reproduction.
- That reproduction implies that these relationships where not exclusive.
There could be many other factors distorting natural human behavior in modern society - much more chemical exposure (BPA, pthalates, etc.), an unnatural social order (nuclear families, lack of tribal focus), and vastly increased isolation. It's a wonder that we're functional at all.