Slashdot Mirror


Chemical Cocktail Turns Mice Clear

sciencehabit writes "Researchers have serendipitously discovered that a mixture of urea, glycerol, and soap makes membranes transparent. When they tried the mixture on a developing mouse fetus, they found that it removed all of the pigment from the cells, rendering the fetus completely transparent. The technique allowed scientists to see fluorescent neurons buried several millimeters in the brain."

145 comments

  1. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I already see the next requirement from TSA..

    1. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, but you will be able to by pass that requirement if you are willing to get a Body Cavity Search.
      A BCS is not as good as being transparent, but some people are crazy and think that being transparent is not 100% safe.

    2. Re:wow by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      Non-transparent suspects I mean travellers can get a waiver if they have TSA-approved life-recorder implants.

    3. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame the process is lethal. Not that it would stop them from trying.

    4. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the next application of rule #34. They'll finally be able to shoot those creampies as they happen.

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

      Fly American next time you fly out of Sky Harbor. Different terminal, metal detectors. 'Nuff said.

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

      "Enhanced screening" now means a full body-cavity search. The body scans are "standard screening". Enjoy your flight.

    7. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Ad hominem" is not Latin for "that's mean!". The passage that you quoted is not an ad hominem argument.

    8. Re:wow by cvtan · · Score: 0

      You are correct, sir!

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    9. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ad hominemshort for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it

      Well, I feel that claiming that TSA searchers are over invasive and doing their jobs like brownshirts, in whatever poltical effort that guy is pushing is pretty close.

      Besides he used that same comment early today. In reply to this comment, which I'll claim is arguably a worse use of it. I meant to point that out, but instead I hit 'post' rather than 'continue editing', opps.

    10. Re:wow by Vegeta99 · · Score: 0

      At sky harbor airport in Phoenix they simply run everyone through the scanners - you can choose the scanner, the pat down or not to enter the secure area. that's it.

      What the hell are you talking about? I have flown through Sky Harbor about ten times now, and not once did I even have to LOOK at a scanner, much less use it or get a pat down. In fact, the worst thing that happened to me was that they made me throw my hair gel out, but not before they apologized profusely and told me I could mail it. The elevated bag search took less than five minutes, and even though I looked nervous as shit, my person got no additional searching. Sky Harbor is probably the best airport I've ever used, BY FAR. Compare: PHL.

      Did you forget some people tried to bring a fake bomb aboard flying out of PHX like two weeks ago?

      (sorry for the karma burn, mods)

    11. Re:wow by Anonymus · · Score: 0

      You aren't even allowed to carry the bottle of lube everywhere you go, as it's a liquid and is generally only sold in sizes over 3 ounces. You'd have to buy the lube at the airport (assuming there are still any shops left outside the security area) and then throw it away as you enter the secure area.

    12. Re:wow by TWX · · Score: 1

      Don't worry... Try to bring too much lube through next time and the TSA will provide you with some...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    13. Re:wow by operagost · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It's more like arguing guilt by association.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  2. Discovered in a previously unknown manuscript by gstrickler · · Score: 2

    Steinbeck's "Of Invisible Mice and Men".

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    1. Re:Discovered in a previously unknown manuscript by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Tom & Jerry...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Discovered in a previously unknown manuscript by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2, Funny

      I... I don't see what you did there.

    3. Re:Discovered in a previously unknown manuscript by jamiesan · · Score: 1

      Or a Hollywood remake.... "Hollow Mouse"

  3. Looks like a creepy gummi bear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    <n/t>

    1. Re:Looks like a creepy gummi bear by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2

      Wait, that's not a baby mouse, that's a baby Predator!

  4. Hold up on your patents! by RevWaldo · · Score: 2, Funny
    1. Re:Hold up on your patents! by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Informative

      They used extremely common lab materials and seem to have told everyone the recipe: no patent was sought here. If they we going to try to sell it, they'd announce they had a secret, proprietary formula that could make your embryos turn clear. RIKEN, the institute that made the discovery, is not greedy. I've gotten DNA constructs from them before, they provided them free of charge, no contact making us promise to not share it, etc. If I could speak Japanese and if they'd hire me, I'd love to work there.

    2. Re:Hold up on your patents! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry mate, but anything involved in being clear requires a payment to your local Scientology chapter. We have effective ways of enforcing our intellectual property.

      Why do you think the music and movie industries can get politicians to accept continuous copyright extensions? That's because of the influence of Scientology. Just ask Tom Cruise.

    3. Re:Hold up on your patents! by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Ever wonder why he splashes everyone, but nothing else seemed to become invisible. I guess it only acts on cells! Good finding.

    4. Re:Hold up on your patents! by tepples · · Score: 1, Informative

      Dianetics, the auditing process by which one becomes "clear" of "engrams" (memories of past painful incidents), is just a fancy name for the PTSD treatment called abreaction therapy by psychologists. The obsession with "Psychlos" in Scientology is just Hubbard's attempt to hide this connection.

    5. Re:Hold up on your patents! by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 0

      Nihongo ga benkyoushimasu. I need job.

    6. Re:Hold up on your patents! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to speak Japanese to work at RIKEN. They have some international researcher grants available.

    7. Re:Hold up on your patents! by Zouden · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the recipe itself is behind a paywall. Any chance of posting it here?

      --
      "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    8. Re:Hold up on your patents! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, I worked there for two years, you don't need to speak Japanese, you just need relevant skills, as most of the labs are English speaking.

    9. Re:Hold up on your patents! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Japanese language is learning what?

    10. Re:Hold up on your patents! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nihongo wo benkyou simasu (I [will] study Japanese.)
      OR
      nihongo wo benkyou siteimasu (I'm studying Japanese.)

      hatarakanakuttya!

    11. Re:Hold up on your patents! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Good to know, but I did work in Japan for a month, and had about a year of Japanese. The language barrier wasn't impossible, and I would have learned, but it just wasn't for me. I was oversimplifying, language wasn't the only reason.

    12. Re:Hold up on your patents! by Niedi · · Score: 1

      Kerosene, propylene glycol, artificial sweeteners, sulphuric acid, rum, acetone, red dye no2, Scumm, axle grease, battery acid and/or pepperoni.

      No, actually it's even easier...
      4 M urea, 10% (wt/vol) glycerol and 0.1% (wt/vol) Triton X-100
      Which, seriously now, is really stuff you'll find in pretty much any biological lab.

    13. Re:Hold up on your patents! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tar

    14. Re:Hold up on your patents! by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the ingredient list to a Morton cream pie...

    15. Re:Hold up on your patents! by AkkarAnadyr · · Score: 1

      Those materials were available in the 19th century. I wonder if anyone previously discovered this?

      --

      I bought this house and you know I'm boss
      Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off

  5. Not the worst by ElrondHubbard · · Score: 2
    That's not the worst thing science has ever done to a mouse:

    http://www.milk.com/wall-o-shame/polytron.html

    --
    "The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
    1. Re:Not the worst by Hatta · · Score: 2

      You know, they do euthanize the mice before they homogenize them, right? Scientists are not wantonly cruel.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Not the worst by Stormthirst · · Score: 1

      Why would need an unaerated homogenated mouse?

    3. Re:Not the worst by Genda · · Score: 3, Informative

      When you "Blend" a mouse, you are typically doing some kind of chemical or cellular assay (depending on the level of blending you may be looking at whole cells, but more than likely you're looking at chemistry, genetic material or sub cellular organelles.) Making a Frappe' of Mr. Muscus, really makes doing other testing difficult to impossible and adding large amounts of oxygen to disrupted tissues damages delicate cellular chemistry, ultimately ruining your research. So when you make mouse soup, it should as much as possible be sans frothy head.

    4. Re:Not the worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure you're right, but even if they didn't, I'd guess that a live mouse would qualify as fully dead 1/10th of a second after that thing was turned on (That's 45 blade rotations. Maybe 10-22 accounting for acceleration. )

      Further, there wouldn't be enough brain matter connected together to register pain after about .25 seconds (at least 100 blade rotations).

      The right thing to do- for us, as humans- would be to euthanize it first. Quite frankly, though, the mouse will be utterly dead far too fast for that to be considered cruelty.

    5. Re:Not the worst by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      True, you definitely want the aeration for a proper mouse mousse.

    6. Re:Not the worst by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      That's still more humane than what my pet cat does to any mouse it manages to catch.

    7. Re:Not the worst by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      ... and that's a lot more humane than what I did to my neighbors cat after what my neighbor's cat did to my guinea pig.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    8. Re:Not the worst by operagost · · Score: 1

      Plus it tastes better with the crackers (biscuits, for our UK readers).

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:Not the worst by MikeUW · · Score: 1

      In the case of lab rats, 'euthanize' is usually just a euphemism for killing them by breaking their necks (having known someone who had this job in a lab once). I don't think that's the method of choice for humans whenever someone wants to be euthanized to end their own suffering. As AC says, the blender is probably less pain for the mouse.

      I wonder though, since only the abstract of the TFA is publicly accessible, how long the embryos actually survived after being given this chemical cocktail.

    10. Re:Not the worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As in Arnold Lobel's wonderful children's book, Mouse Soup!

      http://www.amazon.com/Mouse-Soup-Arnold-Lobel/dp/0064440419/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314900000&sr=8-1

  6. HG Wells gets another one right? by kulervo · · Score: 1

    Is it me or is this the literal idea of the original HG Wells Invisible Man?

    1. Re:HG Wells gets another one right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it's from his earlier rejected manuscript, the "The Invisible Dead Man". Interesting premise but not a lot of action in that one.

    2. Re:HG Wells gets another one right? by mmmmbeer · · Score: 2

      No, it was "The Invisible Mouse" by Edmund Wells.

    3. Re:HG Wells gets another one right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, you're forgetting "The Translucent Mouse" by Orson Welles.

    4. Re:HG Wells gets another one right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks more like the mouse version of Lutefisk. Similar recipe too...

    5. Re:HG Wells gets another one right? by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      No, it was "The Invisible Mouse" by Edmund Wells.

      I thought that was by the well-known Dutch author, Charles Dickkens.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    6. Re:HG Wells gets another one right? by sevenfactorial · · Score: 1

      I agree; I just read the original recently. Of course the invisible man was an albino, so he was already pigmentless (or so the story goes) except for blood etc. These pigments he somehow replaced. A lot of the scientific explanation has to do with changing the refractive indices of his tissues to make them match those of air though. It seems the mouse still has some problems with refraction.

    7. Re:HG Wells gets another one right? by Binestar · · Score: 1

      No, he's talking about Stickwick Stapers' by Miles Pikkens with four Ms and a silent Q

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    8. Re:HG Wells gets another one right? by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Hm. I don't know that one, maybe I should try WH Smith's.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
  7. H.G. Wells had it first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is pretty much the whole plot of H.G. Wells' The Invisible Man.

    1. Re:H.G. Wells had it first by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Now if only we could develop some sort of device for changing history, we could go back and make sure he doesn't give us any ideas.

    2. Re:H.G. Wells had it first by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      More like the ghouls in Fritz Lieber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser books.

  8. Phew! by camperdave · · Score: 0

    Phew! For a moment there, when they said "Chemical Cocktail Turns Mice Clear" I thought they meant clear as in e-meter/thetan/Scientology clear.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Phew! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mice aren't dumb enough to fall for that.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:Phew! by nschubach · · Score: 1

      They don't carry any money either.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  9. Interesting, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I don't see what all the fuss is about.

  10. I wonder what it tastes like. by donotlizard · · Score: 0

    Probably exactly like a Gummi bear.

    1. Re:I wonder what it tastes like. by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Or clear chicken.

  11. Dear God by EdIII · · Score: 1

    If the squirrels get a hold of this, there will be no stopping their agents now.

    Only a matter of time.

  12. Not Usable for Living Beings by Forestwalker · · Score: 0

    Not useful on living beings. Awwe too bad.. would have made a great Halloween Costume choice.. provided it could be reversed in short order. Women want men to be transparent.. Right ? If were useful for the Living.. I wonder how this might change Medical science .. surgery , Nero Science and such ? It must be terribly Toxic.

    1. Re:Not Usable for Living Beings by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      FTA: "Scale is too strong to use on a living animal"

      Yeah, I thought the same thing. It'd be kind of cool to see a transparent mouse. (If also disturbing.)

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    2. Re:Not Usable for Living Beings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My question was more along the lines of "what's the point in seeing the neurons in a dead animal?"

    3. Re:Not Usable for Living Beings by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      FTA: "Scale is too strong to use on a living animal"

      Yeah, I thought the same thing. It'd be kind of cool to see a transparent mouse. (If also disturbing.)

      To say nothing about what would happen if the next Lady Gaga got ahold of this stuff.

      Still, it's an interesting development. Wonder if they can replicate the effect with something more conductive to living tissue. I'm thinking Transparent Eyes, or tough wooden windows that are much less likely to be broken into. Or for the truly green out there, a solid wood computer monitor.

    4. Re:Not Usable for Living Beings by operagost · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't transparent eyes be blind?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  13. WHY DIS HAPPEN :( by spazdor · · Score: 2

    I'm just gonna come out and say it.

    Science is horrible

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  14. A mixture of urea, glycerol, and soap... by TBBle · · Score: 1

    Researchers serendipitously discovered that a mixture of urea, glycerol, and soap

    I'm guessing this discovery was the result of someone taking a shower after some kind of urine-related lab prank...

    --
    Paul "TBBle" Hampson
    Paul.Hampson@Pobox.Com
  15. dubious science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adding soap will hardly make those subsequent experiments looking at neurons physiological.

    1. Re:dubious science by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes it will. Controls will be treated as well. Furthermore, this isn't a live technique. You fix the embryo with paraformadehyde first probably. This is for looking at morphology of cells or tissues, not living function. You have one mouse line with a mutation that causes blindness, one without, you cross in a fluorescent marker that makes their optic nerves glow. You get the embryos, fix them, do this thing to them, then you can clearly see how it's affecting the nerve, for example. A lot less disruptive than the alternative of cutting it into slices.

  16. But does it drive them insane? by overshoot · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall some prior art in this subject.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  17. Greatest obituary line ever... by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Eaten alive by invisible rats.

    Science is about making horrible dreams a reality.

    1. Re:Greatest obituary line ever... by gknoy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Science is about making horrible dreams a reality.

      Somewhere, someone just found a new signature. ;)

    2. Re:Greatest obituary line ever... by Sasayaki · · Score: 5, Funny

      Done and done.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    3. Re:Greatest obituary line ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eaten alive by THREE-FOOT invisible Brooklyn-dwelling rats, seeking revenge for their fellow three-foot rat who got impaled on a pitchfork. (There. Corrected it for you.)

    4. Re:Greatest obituary line ever... by jovius · · Score: 1

      It's somewhat a mystery that we have not self destructed yet. I can't say if it's because we are not reasonable enough or that we are.

    5. Re:Greatest obituary line ever... by AioKits · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to attribute source. ;)

      --
      "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
    6. Re:Greatest obituary line ever... by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Eaten alive by THREE-FOOT invisible Brooklyn-dwelling rats, seeking revenge for their fellow three-foot rat who got impaled on a pitchfork. (There. Corrected it for you.)

      This post makes me wonder what happened to the fourth foot. Was it lost because someone stepped on the foot, not being able to see it, and crushed the bones beyond healing?

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  18. Doesn't seem that difficult... by pLnCrZy · · Score: 2

    Kevin Bacon did it 11 years ago. To a gorilla. And then himself.

  19. Soylent Green by Raenex · · Score: 0

    It's people!

  20. First Stop... by lexsird · · Score: 1

    First stop, the girls' shower room for a "deposit", second stop, the bank for a "withdraw."

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
  21. I'll believe it when by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some of the researchers mysteriously disappear.

  22. Chemical Cocktails by devphaeton · · Score: 2

    I know a few chemical cocktails that can make people THINK they're invisible. And bulletproof.

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  23. Cure for Scientology! by chill · · Score: 0

    Let me get this straight. It is lethal to living beings but makes them completely "clear".

    I do believe this would solve a number of issues with Scientology. Adherents could become a "Clear" and achieve oneness with the great L. Ron all at once!

    Xenu is quaking in his boots at the though.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  24. Bear Grylls Science by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Scientist #1: We're having problems observing these neurons! Blasted plain optics!

    Scientist #2: If only there were some way to make the mouse embryo transparent!

    Bear Grylls: Soak it in piss! *gulp*

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  25. What a novelty! by Genda · · Score: 2

    Makes one wonder if there is a less toxic way to attain the same effect? Definitely an ice breaker at parties! On the flip side, adding this concoction to embalming fluid would almost certainly make for exciting funerals!!!

    1. Re:What a novelty! by DamienNightbane · · Score: 0

      On the flip side, adding this concoction to embalming fluid would almost certainly make for exciting funerals!!!

      Fund it!

  26. Big deal by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    Turning mice clear isn't really that impressive.

    All it takes is a four or five vodkas with cranberry juice to make everything unclear.

    And the cranberry juice is optional, unless you happen to suffer from a mild urinary tract infection, in which case I highly recommend it.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  27. Re:But did they figure out the most important part by hedwards · · Score: 0

    Yes, but no more so than a pro-lifer.

  28. I can't wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clear mice should seriously freak my cat out. Load her up on cat nip first and she'll think it's a really bad trip.

  29. Does this only affect ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... the three-dimensional protrusion of the pan-dimensional, hyper-intelligent race of beings that we perceive as mice?

    And what wrath have these foolhardy researchers brought upon this planet should these beings become unhappy with their new appearance?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  30. Uhmmm...this isn't exactly new... by IonOtter · · Score: 1
    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Uhmmm...this isn't exactly new... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      True. It's also done to dead mice because the process is strong enough that it would kill living mice. Plus it was only done on fetuses which are small enough that the transparency is useful.

    2. Re:Uhmmm...this isn't exactly new... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Yeah, not even close. The point here is the fetus is still alive and developing, so they can watch individual fluorescent-stained neurons grow. Pretty cool, really.

    3. Re:Uhmmm...this isn't exactly new... by IonOtter · · Score: 1

      Whoa, wait...what???

      The article says it's not being used on a living animal.

      Hmmm. Perhaps the difference here, is that the old method for clearing and staining didn't highlight the neurons, whereas this one did?

      --
      [End Of Line]
    4. Re:Uhmmm...this isn't exactly new... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Whoops, I totally missed the last sentence for some reason and read "developing mice" as still developing. My mistake!

      I think you're right, the key was that it didn't affect the fluorescent dye. Still useful, but not earthshattering.

    5. Re:Uhmmm...this isn't exactly new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbass. Do you know what trypsin does to GFP? Or any "P" for that matter?

  31. Transparetnt.... by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

    But can they do this with aluminum??

    --
    Huh?
    1. Re:Transparetnt.... by davewoods · · Score: 1

      You get the "Star Trek: The One About Whales" vague reference award.

    2. Re:Transparetnt.... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yes...but they call it 'Glass'

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  32. I can only imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How this "cocktail" came about....
    Urea...urine....check
    glycerol....personal lubricant....check
    soap.....hmmm.....check ......

  33. Jelly mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mmm.. yum yum yum

  34. Why we have melanin or pigment in skin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is the same reason why an ASIC or Microprocessor is enclosed in a black package: because light harms or interrupts both electronic logic gates and bio-neurological receptor pathways.

    Any creature born transparent if not melanistically leucistic then they would probably have all kinds of degenerative neural diseases or mental balancing issues between the left and right brain-phenomena.

    1. Re:Why we have melanin or pigment in skin... by Jager+Dave · · Score: 1

      All the more reason for the mandatory aluminum foil hat :)

    2. Re:Why we have melanin or pigment in skin... by Mindflux0 · · Score: 1

      It would also be blind and probably get cancer very easily among other things

    3. Re:Why we have melanin or pigment in skin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mental balancing issue would just mean more republican voters.

  35. Next: The Invisible Man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anybody else think this when they read the title?

    Which will we have first:

    Invisiblity cloak

    -or-

    The invisible man

  36. Invisible pr0n? by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

    Invisible pr0n is no fun... well, at least not for most people.

    --
    C|N>K
  37. do they live? by vmaldia · · Score: 0

    do the embryos live? any toxicity? do newborn mice still retain the transparency? how about if you wait till they become adults?

    1. Re:do they live? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Please take 60 seconds and read the article. Please?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  38. Are you ponderin' what I'm ponderin'? by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Funny

    - That we turn ourselves invisible and take over the world?
    - EXACTLY

    1. Re:Are you ponderin' what I'm ponderin'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been done already

    2. Re:Are you ponderin' what I'm ponderin'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're Pinky, they're Pinky and the brain brain brain brain brain... NAAARF!!

    3. Re:Are you ponderin' what I'm ponderin'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but they don't make rubber pants small enough.

  39. When Is It Cruel? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

    I understand the value of experimenting on mice and other animals. But that's the benefit, that gets weighed against the cost.

    Where is the limit to what we can do to an animal before it is unacceptably cruel? Against which no actual benefit can justify the cruelty? How does it feel to be as mutated as these transparent mice would be if they survived gestation? If they survive past the point where there are functioning nerve networks to feel how it is, how cruel is that?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:When Is It Cruel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is the limit to what we can do to an animal before it is unacceptably cruel?

      When they can ask us to stop?

    2. Re:When Is It Cruel? by Required+Snark · · Score: 0

      Are you volunteering to replace the test animals? Or are you going to give up all medical treatment because of the history of animal testing?

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    3. Re:When Is It Cruel? by daid303 · · Score: 1

      As pointed out by Tim C, almost anything we do with mice is less cruel then what a cat does do a mouse when it catches it.

    4. Re:When Is It Cruel? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

      No. Are you volunteering to never agree with anything because you don't agree with me in this specific instance? Of course not. The question is whether there is a limit of cruelty that's not worth what we get from the research that requires the cruelty.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:When Is It Cruel? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      But we're not cats.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:When Is It Cruel? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      That point is inside the limit. The limit is where we ask ourselves to stop, because our victim cannot.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:When Is It Cruel? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No.

      More appropriately: Your question make no sense and show a lack of understanding about science. How do we know the outcome of an experiment? How can we say it wasn't worth any benefit without doing the experiment?

      Any more questions?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:When Is It Cruel? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      My question makes no sense because it's your response applied to your post. So here are some less complex ones for you:

      Yes. Have you ever heard of ethics? They're an organized way to know whether an action's benefits might not be worth the cost, even without doing the action and incurring the cost.

      Also: what alternative science are you trying to use instead of the scientific method? Experiments aren't totally unpredictable invocations. There are almost always reliable expectations of the range of outcomes of the experiment.

      And: how have you avoided common sense? Both your posts in this thread show it's a stranger to you. Everyone who's at least moderately adult knows that some possible benefits are not worth some costs. Common sense also tells us that some costs, like the charge for unlimited cruelty, are the highest possible.

      Or just the simplest: is there any limit you recognize on cruelty to animals, regardless of the reasonable maximum benefit? Give an example to give some proportion to the estimated max benefit you postulate.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  40. When the animal is alive by voss · · Score: 1

    Notice they didnt do this on a living embryo.

    Also anything that sells for $1.49 each as live snake food at a pet store apparently does not rate too highly on the
    "concern about cruelty" scale. If the process caused them pain then yes it would be too cruel to use but
    simply turning them transparent is probably not the worst thing that would happen to a lab mouse.

    How does it feel to be a transparent animal? Ask a jellyfish. As long as they dont have to live
    with other regular mice I dont see they would notice the difference.

    1. Re:When the animal is alive by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It wasn't really clear to me from the article (or the abstract of the paper it reported) whether the embryo was dead before they removed the pigment, or if removing the pigment killed it. If it was alive, the feeling of having all pigments removed would probably be one of the worst feelings to happen to a living animal, though I'm sure we could always do worse.

      There's a difference between the process of not generating pigments, determined by billions of years of one's own evolved DNA, and a bleaching in a lab.

      I don't think the cheapness of cruelty is a good way to determine whether the cruelty exacts a higher price from us than the price at the store.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  41. Once again by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    everybody's copying Apple, this time with translucent mice.

    1. Re:Once again by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Next up, scientist develop transparent mouse with 1 button.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  42. Exactly as Welles said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the science at the time, Welles in The Invisible Man, had the unfortunate scientist tackle invisibility via the alteration of pigments, rather than futzing around with wavelengths.

  43. Mice, clear by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Oh, you meant see-through. Here I thought you meant that they found a way to make mice Clear (tm) without paying Scientology tens of thousands of dollars....

                  mark

  44. Full development of transparent fetus by CommieLib · · Score: 1

    We have pigment for a reason, presumably, so a fully developed animal would not survive direct sunlight?

    Of course, a baby mouse would have fur, as well. Still, probably a really messed up looking mouse.

    --
    If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
  45. Meanwhile, ... by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1


    Micro$oft says they have finally found a way to render mouse pointers visible, to be implemented in time for the release of Windows 9.

    --
    Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
  46. I was worried for a second there by RexDevious · · Score: 1

    I thought they'd figured out a way to turn mice into Scientologists. As if mice weren't annoying enough as it is.

  47. Serendipity by sudonim2 · · Score: 1

    ...a mixture of urea, glycerol, and soap...

    How did they find this formula? Did one of the researchers piss in a bottle of liquid soap?