Scientists Create Mice From 2 Fathers

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."

Comments

In b4 shitstorm

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Opportunist]

A very rational approach to it, but do you think the less rational religious types will concur?

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[tirefire]

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.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[tom17]

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?

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Monchanger]

You forget that they'd consider emulating god to be hubris.

You mean except in cases where they offer "clarification" on His words.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[AlamedaStone]

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.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Hooya]

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.

I for one

[arndawg]

welcome our new gaylords. Or gaylings. whatever.

Re:What a waste of money

[Spad]

These mice are no more gay than using a surrogate mother is adultery.

They're combining DNA, not teaching mice to appreciate musical theatre.

Oh, Great!

[RobotRunAmok]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Moraelin]

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.

You think that's bad?

[Moraelin]

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 ;)

Mr. Black and White, meet Doctor Gray

[Zero__Kelvin]

"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.