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."
Leave the breasts for the fathers!
Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
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.
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.
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.
spacefem.com
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.
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.
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
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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
They are meddling with forces that they cannot possible control or understand!
Cows?
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.
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.
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