Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Scientists Make Cow Producing Human-Like Milk

hackingbear writes "Scientists from China Agricultural University have produced 17 healthy cloned cattle expressing recombinant human lysozyme using somatic cell nuclear transfer. Lysozyme, a bactericidal protein that protects human infants from microbial infections, is highly expressed in human milk but is found in only trace amounts in cow milk. The cloned cows produce milk with similar nutritional benefits as human milk, and the scientists hope their results will lead to new techniques that could be further refined for production of active human lysozyme on a large scale."

127 comments

  1. Cloning legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is china regulated on cloning and stuff of the sorts as much as the us is? I see so much opposition in the US towards anything Genetically Altered that its saddening.

    1. Re:Cloning legal? by angiasaa · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong in genetically altering stuff. Nature does it all the time. The difference though, is that we don't call our tweaking "Evolution" as we ought to. :|

      --
      Geekism is your _only_ God!
    2. Re:Cloning legal? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The difference though, is that we don't call our tweaking "Evolution" as we ought to. :|

      Not even close to accurate. Evolution takes place because of natural selection. There is nothing natural or fittest in selection to what man does via most generic engineering. In fact, much of the GE man does is actually contrary to what nature is likely to create - which is exactly why man is doing it.

      While its true, some GE is simply turning on dormant genes, much of it is actively removing and splicing in new genes which have never before been part of the recipient's genetic structure. Such concepts are the exact opposite of evolution.

      That's not to say its bad, only that its not evolution and calling it as such is dishonest to say the least.

    3. Re:Cloning legal? by tomhudson · · Score: 2

      Selective breeding is also genetic engineering, just done with a different process. Certainly the crops and animals we eat today are not the result of "natural evolution." Turkeys so big that they can't even walk, cows that need to be milked, wheat, potatoes, corn that don't resemble anything found "in nature", domesticated dogs and cats, etc.

    4. Re:Cloning legal? by ZankerH · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong in genetically altering stuff. Nature does it all the time. The difference though, is that we don't call our tweaking "Evolution" as we ought to. :|

      Yeah, that'll get the congressmen and senators who don't believe in evolution to allow it.

    5. Re:Cloning legal? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2
      The difference is environmental selection vs intellectual selection.

      I love how we can discuss this rationally, yet as soon as someone mentions the FSM tweaking our DNA a few billion years ago to cultivate us out of the primordial soup of Earth, people call him a blasphemer and accuse him of that most dreadful of sins: Creationism.

      (It's ok. Flame-retardant suit is on. Let it fly.)

    6. Re:Cloning legal? by c0lo · · Score: 2

      The difference though, is that we don't call our tweaking "Evolution" as we ought to. :|

      Naaah, can't call it that. "Intelligent design" perhaps...

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    7. Re:Cloning legal? by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      Much of what you describe actually is part of their genetics. These types of things have happened in nature. Frequently, this is why we see highly specialized variants which are unable to survive when the environment changes. There are many, many parallels in nature (as in without the hand of man) where such specializations are known to exist.

      Certainly the crops and animals we eat today are not the result of "natural evolution."

      I disagree. For much of the examples you give, these examples of symbiosis which is known to exists in many forms in nature (as in, without man). The same is also true for dogs, cats, horses, mules, corn (maze), etc., etc., etc. In fact, dogs, cats, corn, and horses are all wonderful example of symbiosis. Without man, they would still be wolves, a tiger (or leopard, or whatever), maize, or a small number of smaller horses. Are you arguing dogs, cats, corn, and horses are unnatural too? Keep in mind, in each of these cases, their existing genetic composition remained unchanged (change was in natural variance rather than introduction of new), as they all share a common ancestor. The traits which make them distinct are the same traits which enhance their symbiosis with man, as it fits a specific need.

      My point being, while many of these species would simply not exist without man (based on selective breeding), due to their symbiotic relationship with man, they have evolved to become highly specialized with common ancestry. Its not like we're talking about dog-cows and elephant-cats, and banana-corn. After all, they are still very much, dogs, cats, corn, and horses.

      As for the size of some of these animals, much of that has as much to do with their genetics as it does their environment, including hormone levels and lack of predatory pressures. Environments without predatory pressures and an abundance of food are fully expected to create larger, slower animals. That's even dictated by evolution and something we can verify via recent history and even the fossil record.

    8. Re:Cloning legal? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The difference is environmental selection vs intellectual selection.

      Because of crazy hippies, people forget mankind IS part of the environment. Selective breeding, generally to enhance a symbiotic relationship is part of natural selection. Symbiotic relationships are well known to exist throughout nature, in many, many environments without man. For example, some species of groupers and eels are known to have developed a symbiotic relationship and body language which initiates a group hunt for other food sources. In this case, if the good source bolts upward, the grouper gets it. If it stays down low, the eel gets it. Without such symbiosis, the food would have likely escaped.

      Selective breeding to bias specific genes (such as to avoid birth defects, genetic diseases, or larger milk production) is not the same thing as entirely new variants created by splicing in entirely new genes; such as those used to create jellyfish-grass, etc., etc., etc...

      I love how we can discuss this rationally, yet as soon as someone mentions the FSM tweaking our DNA a few billion years ago to cultivate us out of the primordial soup of Earth, people call him a blasphemer and accuse him of that most dreadful of sins: Creationism.

      I don't guess I follow what your point was there.

    9. Re:Cloning legal? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2

      Because of crazy hippies, people forget mankind IS part of the environment. Selective breeding, generally to enhance a symbiotic relationship is part of natural selection. Symbiotic relationships are well known to exist throughout nature, in many, many environments without man. For example, some species of groupers and eels are known to have developed a symbiotic relationship and body language which initiates a group hunt for other food sources. In this case, if the good source bolts upward, the grouper gets it. If it stays down low, the eel gets it. Without such symbiosis, the food would have likely escaped.Selective breeding to bias specific genes (such as to avoid birth defects, genetic diseases, or larger milk production) is not the same thing as entirely new variants created by splicing in entirely new genes; such as those used to create jellyfish-grass, etc., etc., etc

      True - it is not the same thing. By the same token, it's hard to say that something is not part of the environment (or "natural" if we want to get hippy about it) because man created it. I suppose we're wandering into philosophical territory here, but unless man is creating something out of building blocks that don't exist in the environment, then I have a hard time seeing a case for these things not being part of the environment themselves.

      I don't guess I follow what your point was there.

      Just wandering off on a tangent. Don't mind me.

    10. Re:Cloning legal? by Kagato · · Score: 1

      But when will they come out with a Cow engineered to put the Melamine in automatically?

    11. Re:Cloning legal? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I agree this may be touching on philosophical boundaries, but I believe most agree, turning on and off genes (basically, making use of what's already there in the genome) are in a different category from splicing different genes without a common ancestor. In other words, I don't find it very easy to accept grass and jelly fish are likely to breed and create jellyfish-grass in nature. Again, the former is part of evolution, the later is not.

    12. Re:Cloning legal? by sorak · · Score: 1

      There's nothing wrong in genetically altering stuff. Nature does it all the time. The difference though, is that we don't call our tweaking "Evolution" as we ought to. :|

      Isn't this (the milk thing in the article) what Bush 43 referred to as "human-animal hybrids", and forbid by executive order?

    13. Re:Cloning legal? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Environments without predatory pressures and an abundance of food are fully expected to create larger, slower animals. That's even dictated by evolution and something we can verify via recent history and even the obese American epidemic.

      FTFY

      BTW, when the human-bred strains can no longer easily breed with their original kinds, that's proof that their genes HAVE changed sufficiently from what is found in nature.

    14. Re:Cloning legal? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Such breeding normally results in inability to impregnate the egg, sterility (as in a liger or mule), loss of pregnancy (can't go full term), etc.. That means the genetics are saying there is an incompatible combination of genes, but it does not suggest the genes have changes outside of their common ancestry (not to say there isn't a possible intersection). We also see this happen in the wild. Pandas (inability to carry full term or become impregnated) and mules (sterile) are such examples and is the single largest reason why Pandas are dying out and extremely difficult to breed in captivity (which wasn't always possible).

      Such issues are thought to be the cause of many a natural species extinction. Remember, species dying out is also part of the natural order of evolution. Sometimes a genetic divergence just doesn't prove successful in the long the run; resulting in these types of breeding problems.

    15. Re:Cloning legal? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but I don't think China much cares what an American president has forbidden.

    16. Re:Cloning legal? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Many of the new species breed true. Dogs and cats, for example. The simple fact is that humans can use genetic drift and mutations (both natural and those caused by altering the environment) to their advantage to create new species, and new traits in existing species, that would never have occurred without human intervention.

      The "it's all already encoded in nature" is both a lie and the refuge of fundies who want to deny that evolution in any form can take place.

    17. Re:Cloning legal? by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      Honestly, at this point I can't tell if we are in violent agreement, talking two sides of the same coin, or are talking around each other in disagreement. :/

      Regardless, a civil and respectful exchange is certainly an enjoyable change from most days on slashdot these days. So regardless of where we are, thanks.

    18. Re:Cloning legal? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Selective breeding is also genetic engineering, just done with a different process.

      There's a difference between modifying at the source code level and poking around in the binary.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Cloning legal? by sorak · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but I don't think China much cares what an American president has forbidden.

      That isn't what I was getting at. When he mentioned it, people were thinking about mad scientists and wondering why America should be prohibited from doing something so obviously wacky...The answer is because it may lead to pigs that can produce better insulin, cows that can produce better milk, and the only real cost is that people have to get over the "playing god" cliche.

    20. Re:Cloning legal? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Don't mind me - I'm in the process of trying to remove some of the suckage from writing java code (specifically, removing the need for coders to write all the "*Listener" junk and the associated interfaces, without having to resort to a macro preprocessor.) I just got it to work an hour or so ago for one component, now have to port it to about 50 others, then I can let people play around with it.

      After all, I'm not a fan of java, but a part of that is the over-verboseness of it, and part is the weird event handling.

    21. Re:Cloning legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "it's all already encoded in nature" is both a lie and the refuge of fundies

      Barring a random mutation, any produced variation you see in an animal or plant was, indeed, "already encoded in nature", as in the genetic variation was already present in the organism in question, and the breeding enhanced its expression. If you cannot see the difference between this and genetic engineering, you probably have to focus on that Java code, or take a break and use the time to read up on how things are done so that you get a bit of a fresh perspective.

      Fundies come in all shapes and sizes, and what you demonstrate -- ignorance and strong language -- is dangerously close to a pseudo-science fundie.

    22. Re:Cloning legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will excuse my cynic attitude, but over the years I've seen genetic engineering produce only food that tastes like shit, but strongly enhances the ability of some companies to peddle pesticides.

      I'm still waiting for the "better" taste, just as I do for the nuclear energy that is "too cheap to measure" and a ton of other things the government-backed pseudo-science PR promised in the 50s. Instead of that, we're quickly approaching a world that will, allegedly, be very uncomfortable to live in, and provide very little food, most of it unpalatable.

      On the positive side, the measure of control governments and big business will be able to exercise over most people will be unparallelled.

    23. Re:Cloning legal? by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Random mutations happen all the time. Most of them are not favourable to life, so they get eliminated. Humans, with their ability to alter the environment (keep predators away from livestock, for example), can allow mutations to persist that would be detrimental to life "au naturel".

      As for you, maybe you should stop with the cyber-stalking, and suck it up that your stupid "host files are the best defense against viruses an malware" crap isn't accepted by anyone with brains.

    24. Re:Cloning legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Random mutations happen all the time, but very, very few of those actually end up affecting reproduction or subsequent generations, detrimentally or otherwise. Accumulating genetic variation takes very long time. To keep equating random mutation with the practice of genetic engineering for profit (which is, basically, making half-educated guesses and dishing these out without understanding of the safety issues involved) only shows you have no idea what you're talking about.

      As I told you already, either go educate yourself, or STFU and go back to hack those hosts files.

    25. Re:Cloning legal? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Nuclear energy keeps the entire's world energy supply cheap. You have cheap energy exactly because there is cheap nuclear power.

      You're ignorantly forgetting ALL energy is subsidized. Anti-nuke morons only want to point out the nuclear subsidies, which largely only exist and are only required because of nuclear morons.

    26. Re:Cloning legal? by Phoghat · · Score: 1
      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    27. Re:Cloning legal? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Mutation rates are affected by heat, by light, by food source, by lack of food, chemicals, etc. It's also been proven that horizontal gene transfer (organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism) occurs in nature quite often in single-celled creatures without human intervention. Subsequent offspring inherit the "new" genes.

      As for human-guided genetic selection (selective mating) before the use of gene-splicing, it doesn't take that long. To create a new breed of dog that breeds true takes well under 100 years.

    28. Re:Cloning legal? by sorak · · Score: 1

      We haven't built a new nuclear power plant in the states in 30 years. So, it is a surprise that the promises made in the fifties never happened? They were based on the assumption that we would use the new technology, rather than clinging to coal.

  2. Mommy dearest! by angiasaa · · Score: 1

    I can see Freud clicking his heels in glee already! :-D

    --
    Geekism is your _only_ God!
    1. Re:Mommy dearest! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just wondering if anyone has seen Rosanne Barr lately...

  3. Yeah! by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Leave the breasts for the fathers!

    --
    Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    1. Re:Yeah! by Mikkeles · · Score: 2

      While it may meet the nutritional requirements, I wonder if if it has the antibodies and the like.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    2. Re:Yeah! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:Yeah! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Damn, I guess that explains the French and especially their men rather well. I don't think you can have an effective military made up of people who didn't even rate hind tit.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  4. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe one day I can see human milk cheese on the store shelves!

    1. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's "human-like", not human. It still came from a cow.

    2. Re:Finally by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      But whats the point if it is just a human-milk like substance that comes from a cow. Thats no fun to milk.

    3. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You can already get human milk ice cream in London: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/feb/25/human-milk-ice-cream-sale

    4. Re:Finally by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      But whats the point if it is just a human-milk like substance that comes from a cow. Thats no fun to milk.

      If you ever "milk" a human, you'll find that it's not much fun either.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    5. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you ever "milk" a human, you'll find that it's not much fun either.

      Except in certain parts of Nevada, where it costs extra. Oh, and Washington DC, where it doesn't.

    6. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree, and I have the chained women in my basement to prove it!

    7. Re:Finally by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

      Here's a recipe if you want to try it yourself

    8. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do your parents upstairs know about it?

    9. Re:Finally by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      You can't make cheese from pure human milk, the protein make up's wrong.

    10. Re:Finally by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Ya but, those women get really pissed when you try to brand 'em.

    11. Re:Finally by msauve · · Score: 1

      "But whats the point if it is just a human-milk like substance that comes from a cow. Thats no fun to milk."

      No, no. You misunderstand. It is "cow producing human-like milk." From a bit of this special milk, you get a cow! Just like an acorn and an oak.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    12. Re:Finally by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If you ever "milk" a human, you'll find that it's not much fun either.

      I know a guy who really enjoys it. Mind you, he's a bit weird - two feet tall, incontinent, and doesn't talk much.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. is it lactose free by yincrash · · Score: 1

    for those of us that are lactose intolerant

    1. Re:is it lactose free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Human breast milk contains lactose as well. Lactose intolerance doesnt occur until after weaning; the body stops producing lactase, as it "assumes" it is done with milk and is moving to solid food.

    2. Re:is it lactose free by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Ehm, human milk is needed for feeding infants, not for you!
      Odds are you did not have lactose intolerance when you were an infant, as "by design" humans are supposed to be able to digest milk fine for a while after birth, and then slowly lose the ability ("lactose intolerance" - could be nature's way of protecting the mother's milk from hungry adults). Interestingly, in societies where dairy products were consumed regulardly, mutations that allowed adults to produce the required lactase to process lactose were favored, so in Europe lactose intolerance is uncommon. Until I lived in the States for a while I had no idea lactose intolerance was an issue in a big part of the world.
      But in any case, this topic has nothing to do with lactose.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    3. Re:is it lactose free by wimg · · Score: 1

      Lactose intolerance isn't uncommon in Europe. Although the milk-drinking Dutch only have 1% of their population having lactose intolerance, the average in Europe is around 20%.
      I'm happy there's at least 1 brand producing lactose-free products in Europe now, but it should be a standard for everyone !

    4. Re:is it lactose free by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      in societies where dairy products were consumed regulardly, mutations that allowed adults to produce the required lactase to process lactose were favored

      Just out of curiosity, how do you envision the root of such a bias to become genetically favored? "Oh, he's so dreamy, and he doesn't fart after drinking the goat milk?", therefore that created more breeding opportunities? Perhaps I don't fully appreciate the possible severity of lactose intolerance?

      As an aside, since cheese is well know to contain little or no lactose, and is almost universally tolerated by lactose intolerant humans, wouldn't it seem more likely a culture would discover and embrace cheese rather than create a selective bias against the lactose intolerant?

      AFAIK, isn't Africa one of the few places on earth where cheese didn't become a primary food ingredient? Any idea what a map of cheese culture vs lactose intolerance would look like?

    5. Re:is it lactose free by Ecuador · · Score: 2

      Just out of curiosity, how do you envision the root of such a bias to become genetically favored?

      I imagine when you have easy access to milk and difficult access to other types of food, your survival chances are better if you can digest milk. Anyway, I guess instead of having me form hypotheses, when I am not in the field, you should best read what the researchers have to say. For example: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v39/n1/abs/ng1946.html

      But, as you say yourself, the problem is not cheese, so "cheese culture" is probably irrelevant. The example paper above, researches the correlation between the lactase genes and the history of animal domestication.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    6. Re:is it lactose free by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      But, as you say yourself, the problem is not cheese, so "cheese culture" is probably irrelevant. The example paper above, researches the correlation between the lactase genes and the history of animal domestication.

      The problem with that is cheese has been around somewhere between 10,000 and 5,000 years, which squarely fits within that study's 7,000 year window; which overlaps with animal husbandry and domestication of lactating animals. Which suggests, any such study which fails to account for cheese within such cultures, likely isn't seeing the whole picture. That really sounds like half a study.

      I did some quick checking, and lactose intolerance, at its worst, can interfere with nutritional uptake as well as hinder water absorption but it appears lactose intolerance to such a degree is fairly rare. I suppose you can argue that validates the bias (in that it may not have always been so rare), but then again, the window for such selection bias is likely to be extremely small given the adoption of cheese in so many cultures (less large expanses of Africa, again IIRC) within the same time span.

      Basically, the creation of cheese is the antithesis of lactose intolerance genetic bias. In fact, I would argue it would encourage lactose intolerance selection, or at least mask it.

    7. Re:is it lactose free by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 2

      As one who is lactose intolerant (and of European decent) I can only tell you from my personal experience:

      Nausea, heartburn like symptoms, and diarrhea are what I can expect after a glass of milk. Continued lactose has resulted in GI tract agitation to the point of bleeding.

      I don't drink a lot of milk any more but I do love me some cheese.

    8. Re:is it lactose free by __aaqvdr516 · · Score: 1

      ^descent
      words are hard.

    9. Re:is it lactose free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My level of lactose intolerance isn't as bad as yours, but I feel your pain. GI agitation and excessive gas (burns when released) is very unconformable. It also becomes quite nauseous for those around me too, if you catch my drift.

      OTOH, stick a hose up my ass, and I could power the world's energy needs.

    10. Re:is it lactose free by CommieLib · · Score: 1

      Lactose intolerance will kill you in a primitive society through anemia (blood in the GI). And it would be sufficiently unpleasant that people would figure it out quickly, and simply not consume dairy.

      Being able to consume milk products drastically increases the survival advantage of mammalian animal husbandry. Fowl have the natural ability to concentrate calories from vegetation in a form which doesn't kill the animal (eggs), but mammals (outside of milk) don't.

      So if you have a population which is LI, the only way they can reap calories in animal form is slaughter. The LT population can milk them. From milk, it's a short hop to yogurt when you store the milk and it's contaminated with the relevant bacillus. From there, it's a short hop to cheese when you cook the milk with diced up intestine (rennet).

      It's like the question "how quickly after civilization arose did man start making beer"? The answer is "about three months after he started storing grain in a vat. Also, I agree with above poster - LI is an adaptation to reserve the milk for the portion of the population below the reproductive age. Wikipedia has the LI map you asked for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance.

      Latitudinally oriented continents...paging Jared Diamond.

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    11. Re:is it lactose free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why human shouldn't drink milk afterward. Calcium and D vitamin can be had elsewhere.

  6. as long as they don't make ice-cream.. by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 1
    1. Re:as long as they don't make ice-cream.. by budgenator · · Score: 1

      We'll see, the sound of ga-ga has been associated with babies cooing for so long it may well be indefensible trademark-wise.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  7. Rune Law Breach In Progress by Grindalf · · Score: 0

    They are meddling with forces that they cannot possible control or understand!

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
    1. Re:Rune Law Breach In Progress by sorak · · Score: 2

      They are meddling with forces that they cannot possible control or understand!

      Cows?

  8. radioactive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just make sure we don't import any or we'll get babies with 4 legs.

  9. Bigger boobs ARE better by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Bigger boobs ARE better.

    Yet another Chinese proverb validated

    1. Re:Bigger boobs ARE better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Confucius say: Hooray for boobies!

  10. What about resistance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else think this could be a terrible thing for human infants by eventually spawning a new breed of Lysozyme resistant bacteria? I anticipate that this will eventually INCREASE infant mortality as a result of just such a thing. Right now breastfeeding mothers can be relied upon to pretty regularly nurse their children... but with this cowbreast milk, we'll likely see occasional sporadic use of the stuff due to tight family budgets or forgetfulness.

    Bonus question for long-time Mac users: would you call Moof's lactation dogcowbreastmilk? g=

    1. Re:What about resistance? by mibe · · Score: 2

      Lysozyme is everywhere. You secrete it on every wet surface of your body. Bacteria have had plenty of time to get acquainted with it, so it is unlikely that putting the stuff in cows will create super bugs that will kill babies. However, this "human-like" milk will still be inferior to actual human milk, lysozyme or no, because it will lack maternal immunoglobulin to protect the kids against a variety of illnesses while their immune system is still developing.

    2. Re:What about resistance? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      You do realize that it's not a magical switch... Garlic has been used for centuries and is a effective antibiotic and it has not spurned "mega BUGS" that destroy garlic heavy consumption groups... Italy should be rampant with nasty antibiotic resistant bugs....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  11. Was this how they did it? by Brad1138 · · Score: 1
    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    1. Re:Was this how they did it? by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

      I'll drink to that.

  12. Ice cream are back by enterix · · Score: 1

    Finally we can get Breast milk ice cream back in stores !!!

  13. In related news ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... Chinese babies welcome news of replacement of boobs with bottled milk.

    "We're tired of having to share a tit with a cigarette smoker", says one.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  14. Meh by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    With all the trouble needed to make this, wouldn't a human farm be cheaper?

    1. Re:Meh by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      Probably, but given the usual requirements for milk production, the emotional cost would be WAY too high... plus, you'd have to figure in quality control issues that are already solved for the cow milk industry if you were to chemically trigger milk production in humans.

    2. Re:Meh by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      The existance of wet nurses proves those requirements aren't necessary, lactation can be induced via a breast pump (or a volunteer willing to do some sucking...). Even if a baby turns out to be the simplest method it's only once per cow^Wperson.

      The main problem will be that humans don't make that much milk and one woman is only going to produce enough product for a few babies.

    3. Re:Meh by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      The main problem will be that humans don't make that much milk and one woman is only going to produce enough product for a few babies.

      While you are correct, I think this just means that we'll have to do some selective breeding just as with dairy cows. After all, it's not like pre-domesticated cows produced anything like the volumes seen on dairy farms today.

      The real problem is that cows don't have minimum wage laws, OSHA, etc. While there are probably some women, especially in the developing world, desperate enough to become professional milk-producers, the operating expenses must naturally be higher than a cow-based dairy producer. Add to that the health regulations and oversight for magnitudes higher risk of harmful pathogen transmission (human to human > cow to human).

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    4. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem is that cows don't have minimum wage laws, OSHA, etc. While there are probably some women, especially in the developing world, desperate enough to become professional milk-producers, the operating expenses must naturally be higher than a cow-based dairy producer.

      Methinks if US dares to default on their foreign debt to China, some American "cows" may be in high demand on the Chinese market and not necessarily very expensive.

    5. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheaper? I seriously doubt it.
      Safer? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
      Human milk can transmit a number of diseases (mostly viral and prions) that a cow can not (though cows DO share some diseases with us).

  15. This has to be a good thing by Tigger's+Pet · · Score: 2

    if they can get it approved and produced in large-enough quantities. It has been known for a long time that breast milk is far better than any of the 'formula' milks alternatives out there. There are, sadly, many women who cannot breast-feed for one reason or another (it may not be a high percentage, but it is still a lot of women). For them, they want to see the best done for their child and if this is a way of keeping their child healthier than the alternative then I'm sure an awful lot of them would take it as an option. I know that my wife and I would have done when she couldn't breast-feed our 2nd born due to her suffering from post-natal depression.

    1. Re:This has to be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, to hell with Darwin.

    2. Re:This has to be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, my girlfriend had to have surgery when she was in high school that has made it pretty unlikely that she will be able to breastfeed when she has children. I know she'd miss out on the bonding experience, but she would still love to make sure the baby was as healthy as possible. She'll be worried enough through her pregnancy due to the fact that she and her twin sister were both premature and her older sister had a miscarriage.

    3. Re:This has to be a good thing by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      I would love this. My first child was born a year ago, and bottle feeding turned out to be the only way my wife could regain sanity (I'd bottle feed while she caught 3 uninterrupted hours of sleep). This would have helped a lot.

    4. Re:This has to be a good thing by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Yeah, to hell with Darwin.

      I'm sure Darwin will take care of himself. But human race doesn't need to stay universally "fit" by cave-man criteria. If human race ever returns (temporarily I hope) to "cave man" environment, natural selection will quickly weed out those who become "unfit" then. Until then, anything which will increase human genetic diversity is a good thing, making it more likely that human race will survive whatever extinction-level event leading to return to stone-age.

    5. Re:This has to be a good thing by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Can I be a child? I really need that natural comfort

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    6. Re:This has to be a good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to forget how it would be 'produced in large-enough quantities'. Of course - enslaved cows. Or you just ignore the fact that they are social beings, not machines.

      If only they could have pain and suffering reception removed during the cloning... But that wouldn't pay.

  16. human-like, not human by spacefem · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is all well and good, but it would take some seriously exhaustive studies to prove that this should be given to babies. Formula manufacturers have been trying to replicate human milk for YEARS without success. Milk is more than chemicals. It's hormones, it's enzymes, it changes based on what illnesses the mother is currently making antibodies for, it even changes from morning to night. I didn't think I'd ever become a breastfeeding militant, but it's happened... breastfeeding worked out so much better for my daughter & I than anyone ever lead me to believe, yet people still look for ways out of the "inconvenience" of, say, having to see women nurse in public (gasp!).

    I love science, but if we're really smart we'd put less energy into trying to duplicate human milk, and look for more ways to support, assist, & enable nursing mothers.

    1. Re:human-like, not human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enabling nursing mothers is mostly a social issue not a technological one.

      However, allowing the child of a mother who dies in childbirth (or is otherwise unfit for nursing) some the benefits of breast milk can benefit from technology such as this.

    2. Re:human-like, not human by spacefem · · Score: 1

      Well, if you want a technological solution that really works for every case, we could at least make milk donation cheap & easy. Right now there are less than 20 HMBANA milk banks in North America, a lot of major cities are hours away from one. Private donation websites like eatsonfeets and milkshare often have more donors than people searching for milk, since private donation is under-publicized and depends on recipients screening milk themselves by reviewing medical records... I don't blame it for being unpopular.

      Cow's milk is great but I bet we're wasting a lot of precious human milk we have, because we don't appreciate it enough to screen & pasteurize it.

    3. Re:human-like, not human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously this stuff IS human milk. The entire cow/enzyme/genetic-engineering story is just to disguise the source of their human milk "substitute".

    4. Re:human-like, not human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm all for nursing mothers. I worry about the mothers who can't nurse for whatever reason, or the orphans who have no mother to nurse from.

    5. Re:human-like, not human by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more than nutrition, it's nurturing too.

  17. China Agricultural University by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that thought it was funny that they developed this at CAU? CAU is producing human-like milk!

  18. Surrogate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just hook the baby straight up to the cow? What could possibly go wrong?

  19. So.... will they engineer cows by rolfwind · · Score: 1

    that can produce melamine in the milk by themselves?

    1. Re:So.... will they engineer cows by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Darn... my joke was not identical, but close enough. You beat me to it.

      Cheers. :o)

  20. Yes, but by axx · · Score: 1

    Sure, I see the scientific prowess, I can even sort of appreciate it... But am I the only one to find it disturbing, to say the least, that we reprogram other animals to suit our needs rather than adapt our ways of life or ourselves ?

    --
    No wit here.
    1. Re:Yes, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a very narrow view. All animals have been reprogrammed to suit our needs. Pigs, dogs, horses, cows, chickens, turkeys. The domestic form of all these animals, and more, bear VERY LITTLE resemblance to their wild counterparts. Its only a knee-jerk (though understandable) reaction to us doing the reprogramming via genetic science rather than breeding science.

    2. Re:Yes, but by Tigger's+Pet · · Score: 2

      What is the difference between drinking 'normal' cow milk and 'human-modified' that makes it seem so disturbing? I don't see how this is any different to eating goats cheese, as an example. Now - if they were talking about modifying dog milk then I might just find it slightly worrying.

    3. Re:Yes, but by axx · · Score: 1

      Hmm, maybe the fact that the milk comes from a cow which is a clone that has been mutated to a express a human protein, rather than just milk coming from a “normal” cow or goat, which is then curded to make cheese (for which several methods exist).

      And for that matter, if you think about it, adult weaned human beings drinking “normal” cow-milk is sort of disturbing too.

      --
      No wit here.
    4. Re:Yes, but by axx · · Score: 1

      You seem to assume that 1/ I haven't thought about this, and 2/ that I don't find it disturbing. :)

      I understand how domestication of various other species has helped ours reach the pinnacle of development where it is now, that doesn't mean we need to keep on doing it nor does it mean we should be doing it in such drastic and, dare I say, shocking ways.

      Truth be told, Shar Peis are abominations of nature that wouldn't last a week in a natural environment, no matter how damn fuzzy fuzzy cute cute they are. (I may be exaggerating, but you see my point.)

      Fun fact though, according to Wikipedia (last time I checked), dogs and wolves are no longer considered two separate species (canis familiaris and canis lupus) but one and the same.

      --
      No wit here.
  21. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would rather get human milk from humans.

    I wish more grocery stores carried this.

    1. Re:I agree by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

      Strip clubs have the best packaging. :D

      --
      Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  22. Breastfeed? by hoggoth · · Score: 0

    Awesome, now we can genetically engineer mutant cows that express human proteins - we can build an industry of these mutant cows that supply human proteins into a global distribution network, shipping product overseas in tremendous tankers and transports and delivered by truck to retail locations across the globe...

    Or, you know, we could just breastfeed our kids.

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    1. Re:Breastfeed? by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or, you know, we could just breastfeed our kids.

      Not every woman is able to breastfeed. Whether because they are taking medication for an illness, have had surgery or some medical condition that makes breastfeeding very unlikely if not downright impossible, or some other reason. These women are already being denied a major bonding experience between themselves and their baby(and this can be very traumatic for some women), why should their babies have to suffer by being given less healthy formula when it's possible for them to get something akin to human breast milk?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Breastfeed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does producing mutant cows to solve a simple problem that affects a small group of people sound like a good idea?

  23. And Now by b4upoo · · Score: 0

    The product must come in a shape resembling half a grapefruit, be skin colored and warm and flexible to the touch. Teenage boys will love the product.
                  However there is a reality that any product that assists in reproduction or the survival of babies is the last thing this world needs. There is a population bomb and it is already killing us.

  24. i didn't rtfs by shadowrat · · Score: 0

    I didn't rtfa or even the summary. The title implies that the chinese made human-like milk which produces cows. That's the way i always want it to stay for me.

    1. Re:i didn't rtfs by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      The title implies that the chinese made human-like milk which produces cows.

      In fact the thumbnail image for the summary on the main page is a picture of these cows. They are sassy and fabulous.

  25. multimeric alpha-lactalbumin? by abushga · · Score: 1

    All milk contains the protein alpha-lactalbumin, but only human breast milk contains the multimeric form (just means the protein has more than one peptide chain).

    A decade of studies by Dr. Catharina Svanborg at Lund University in Sweden have demonstrated that human breast milk has efficacy against many forms of cancer, and that the agent responsible is multimeric alpha-lactalbumin. This unique protein selectively destroys malignant cells in two ways: by apoptosis on contact, and when morphologically transformed on contact with oleic acid in the stomach, it can migrate into the bloodstream, target cancer cells, slip in through the cell cytoplasm and destroy the malignant cell's RNA.

    Problem: mother's milk tastes awful to adults, and breast milk banks are needed for infants.

    If cloned cattle can produce milk containing multimeric alpha-lac, this would be of great interest to cancer patients.

  26. America upstaged them long ago with cow-like women by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 0

    Being fat and producing tainted milk from eating processed crap is one job that won't be going overseas.

  27. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess they won't start selling the milk until they find a way to also synthesize the melamine and have pre-tainted milk. It would save them a lot of work.

  28. drink up - you won't have choice by bityz · · Score: 1

    without regulated and mandatory GMO labeling they could introduce this milk into your corner store (certainly in Canada anyway) and you wouldn't even know about it.

  29. Cowwunism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we know what next to expect from the Chinese. This could turn that talk about whether or not men are still necessary right back around. The Chinese aren't that hot on girl babies as it is. Now, cows as surrogate mothers will allow a lot of flexibility in redesigning society, starting with lifting the burden of birthing and caring from women and allowing them to realize their ultimate potential in the intellectual workplace of the future, a task from which they are already displacing the feckless and lazy male, who in turn will be able to return to checkers and sperm donation. In the meantime, infants and children should be as happy as pigs out in the stockyards, until harvest, selection and socialization. The Communists, by way of Capitalism, will arrive, oddly, at Nirvana before their Indian neighbors do, via a social system we must call Cowwunism. (This is all in Cowrad Moo-oh's little red book.)

  30. Misleading title by or-switch · · Score: 1

    The researchers have added a human component to cow milk, but they didn't do eveything that's different in one shot. The upside is this is a naturally occuring antibiotic that would have benefits not just for babies but also for adult drinkers. Your body already produces this (for example, it's in your tears and helps a lot with preventing eye infections). It may also help with reducing the need to load cow with as much antibiotics as they do. To the poster who asked about antibodies, it won't have them. Those need to be human and specific to the mother. Antibodies are sufficiently complex that coming up with a comprehensive suite of them appropriate for mass consumption wouldn't be possible. Though maybe a small handful around common ailments/issues might be possible.

  31. Multiple Sclerosis by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    Formula manufacturers have been trying to replicate human milk for YEARS without success. Milk is more than chemicals. It's hormones, it's enzymes, it changes based on what illnesses the mother is currently making antibodies for, it even changes from morning to night. ...

    Indeed.

    Another issue with cow vs. human milk is risk of Multiple Sclerosis. Feeding cow milk to human infants drastically increases that risk.

    MS is an autoimmune reaction against the myelin sheaths of nerves. Much of the avoidance of autoimmune reactions is done soon after birth, when the differentiated immune cells take a "grand tour" and those that recognize the body's own structures commit suicide. But myelin sheaths is one of a handfull of things not present until after this period. So it avoids attack later by having a "I'm special, don't attack me." sequence coded into the protein, next to its major antigenic region.

    There's a protein in milk that has the same sequence. Unfortunately, the bovine version of the protein is slightly different in that region. So heavy exposure to cow's milk (perhaps in combination with other factors) occasionally leads to the immune system missing the signal, becoming sensitized to the myelin protein, and eventually attacking and destroying the nerve sheaths, creating one of the forms of MS.

    To prevent this, some recombinant cattle have been created that express the human, rather than the bovine, version of the protein in question. Expected result, if this were to become the norm in dairy herds: No more risk of MS from drinking cow's milk than from drinking human milk.

    At least for people. Calves might occasionally get MS as a result, unless the rest of the systems in question are also replaced with the human version.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  32. Radioactive synthetic breast milk anyone??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yuuuuummmmm!

    1. Re:Radioactive synthetic breast milk anyone??? by leftie · · Score: 1

      Coffee with just sugar sounds great, but thanks.

  33. oh noos by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    But does it contain melamine?

  34. Re:America upstaged them long ago with cow-like wo by mldi · · Score: 1

    Gotta start the Happy Meal addiction while they're young!

    --
    If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
  35. From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, from the URL:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/01/france-breast-breastfed-baby-death

    Emphasis: /2011/apr/01/

  36. Won't someone think of the calves! by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Without natural cow's milk, they'll be moooving on to greener pastures.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  37. "I don't wanna drink it. You drink it." by leftie · · Score: 1

    "...well I don't want it. You said you wanted it."
    "Not me. I don't want it. You drink it...."

  38. Why the cow? by Richard_J_N · · Score: 1

    Seriously, why can't we have a chemical process such that I empty the lawnmower in, and get milk/cheese/cream out? That would be hugely beneficial, and have major benefits for environment, food supply, and vegans.

  39. Me gusta by rouzuki · · Score: 1

    Now they just need to make humans produce cow milk. THEN we'll be in business.

  40. Read it and weep by tompccs · · Score: 1

    Frankly, I just find this a-mooo-sing.