Slashdot Mirror


Lab-Made Eggs Produce Healthy Mice

ananyo writes "Japanese researchers have coaxed mouse stem cells into becoming viable eggs that produce healthy offspring. Last year, the same team successfully used mouse stem cells to make functional sperm (other groups have produced sperm cells in vitro). The researchers used a cocktail of growth factors to transform stem cells into egg precursors. When they added these egg precursor cells to embryonic ovary tissue that did not contain sex cells, the mixture spontaneously formed ovary-like structures, which they then grafted onto natural ovaries in female mice. After four weeks, the stem-cell-derived cells had matured into oocytes. The team removed the oocytes from the ovaries, fertilized them and transplanted the embryos into foster mothers. The offspring that were produced grew up to be fertile themselves."

81 comments

  1. And we move forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Robotic spaceships that produce humans at their destination here we come!

    1. Re:And we move forward by ravenshrike · · Score: 2

      We still need the artificial uterus. And the caretaker robots that can create healthy human minds.

    2. Re:And we move forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And the caretaker robots that can create healthy human minds.

      We've already invented TV.

    3. Re:And we move forward by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      We still need Axlotl tanks in which to nurture the human larvae before they are ready to face harsh external conditions; but(mid to long term) it might well be overwhelmingly more efficient to ship a few blobs of tissue on ice and let the robots build some colonists when they've finished building a colony for them.

      (Ooh, boy, though, is Colony Gen. 1 going to have some fucked up parent-issues or what?)

    4. Re:And we move forward by Aguazul2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you remember, the Axlotl tanks turned out to be in fact surrogate mothers (check wikipedia). So embedding them in other mice is on the same kind of level as Tleilaxu technology.

    5. Re:And we move forward by dmbasso · · Score: 1

      He said "healthy"...

      Btw, the last episode of South Park was pretty good on the subject.

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    6. Re:And we move forward by niado · · Score: 1

      Hugh Howey (the Wool guy) has a novelette called Half Way Home that follows this premise. It's a great read, highly recommended.

    7. Re:And we move forward by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Damn it man, most people stopped halfway through book 4. They don't reveal most of the cool shit until book 6.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    8. Re:And we move forward by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the robots can build a colony why waste time building human colonists?

      Just have robotic colonists.

    9. Re:And we move forward by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Until they invent robotic congressmen pandering to robotic constituents, expect human spaceflight to continue to happen even in situations where machines would make more sense.

    10. Re:And we move forward by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, drop off colonists after raising them on "Jersey Shore" reruns and "Mythbusters" episodes...
      self destruction in 3, 2, 1.
      Seriously, who picks the "indoctrination and training" content? People not making the trip?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    11. Re:And we move forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And the caretaker robots that can create healthy human minds."

      We'll send Jason with them with a couple of tons of Soma.

    12. Re:And we move forward by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      TV and healthy minds don't belong in the same sentence.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    13. Re:And we move forward by bryanbrunton · · Score: 1

      Naturally, the robots would produce human colonists as sex slaves to serve their craven robotic needs.

    14. Re:And we move forward by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      you should keep quiet about those kinds of ideas, you don't want people to think you're a robosexual, now do you?

  2. Are they as nutritious as organic mice??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    inquiring Pythons want to know.

    1. Re:Are they as nutritious as organic mice??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably, but you still need the GMO label on them.

    2. Re:Are they as nutritious as organic mice??? by drpimp · · Score: 1

      Are the genes actually modified? Or are the stem cells inhibited to use already pre-coded information for developing into eggs. The details therein define a difference but I haven't looked at the research enough to actually determine if your statement has validity.

      --
      -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
  3. That's all fine and good but... by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1, Funny

    Where are my cheese eating death machines?

    --
    This signature intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:That's all fine and good but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's all fine and good but...
      Where are my cheese eating death machines?

      Silence, multicoregeneral, or I shall have to hurt you.

      NARF!

  4. I, for one, welcome our new rat overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our new rat overlords

  5. Einstein Tesla Baby by badford · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Lab Notes: August 12, 2023

    Einsla is becoming a remarkable young woman. She speaks 29 languages and has built 7 helper bots from spare parts found around the lab. She even re-engineered her iPhone 15 to send tweets telepathically. Who'd a thunk that stem cell eggs and sperm would be so friggin dope?

    Lab ntes : Octobre 54, bleh

    Einsla is all-powerful. I must obey. farble-blerp. please get out of my mind. [end of transcript]

    --
    -badford
    1. Re:Einstein Tesla Baby by multicoregeneral · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an Alice Cooper song.

      --
      This signature intentionally left blank.
    2. Re:Einstein Tesla Baby by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Just remind her what Einstein thought of spooky action at a distance, the behavior should subside.

  6. Three blind mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking mice! Where all the the fucking mice! Is nothing so natural as to fuck like mice anymore?

  7. meanwhile another team of Japanese researchers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is developing a robot cat specializing in nabbing and eating the stem cell mice.

    1. Re:meanwhile another team of Japanese researchers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is developing a robot cat specializing in nabbing and eating the stem cell mice.

      Consider the amount of money some japanese cats earn... they probably buy politicians and fund secret research projects all the time!

    2. Re:meanwhile another team of Japanese researchers by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      is developing a robot cat specializing in nabbing and eating the stem cell mice.

      Sonya the cat (sometimes pronounced Sony).

    3. Re:meanwhile another team of Japanese researchers by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      Incomplete information. The team is developing a robot cat that can be operated by a tiny genetically modified mouse pilot and that can transform into a small fighter plane or combine with 14 other robot cats to make a man-sized robot that looks from a distance like a robotic "Mario".

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
  8. Anybody know the expected relevance? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    This result is certainly cool in itself, and will probably (eventually) find application in squicking the moralists when an egg produced from a gay man's stem cells is united with sperm synthesized from a transexual woman or something(and will those fireworks ever be worth watching...); but what percentage of the more prosaic fertility-clinic cases are ultimately caused by defective eggs?

    I've heard of some cases where the mitochondrial DNA is defective, so the only way to produce a healthy child is by slapping 3rd-party mitochondria into the maternal egg cell before fertilization, and lots of cases where sperm defects end up requiring IVF, sometimes with donor sperm. Are there also a fairly large number of cases where defective eggs are the cause of infertility that just can't be addressed at present by anything other than using donor gametes?

    1. Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? by Joe+Torres · · Score: 2

      There have already been viable mice produced from the genetic information of two male mice: Generation of Viable Male and Female Mice from Two Fathers (link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043133/)

    2. Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, part of its actual application might be finally shutting up the misandrists* who cheerfully brag that men will eventually be useless when they can engineer artificial sperm, etc, etc. This serves as a neat little reminder that if that's truly the case, we don't need THEM, either.

      *: Note, NOT feminists. There is a difference. Learn it.

    3. Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are woefully ignorant.

    4. Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Well, part of its actual application might be finally shutting up the misandrists* who cheerfully brag that men will eventually be useless when they can engineer artificial sperm, etc, etc. This serves as a neat little reminder that if that's truly the case, we don't need THEM, either.

      *: Note, NOT feminists. There is a difference. Learn it.

      You'd still need some sort of artificial uterus apparatus to complete that project, otherwise you fall back to the life of brian "We're it going to gestate, in a box?" problem.

      (More broadly, though, measuring 'utility' by gamete production is a pretty weird thing to do. "Utility" doesn't even have a cogent meaning unless you define it with respect to the goals of one or more agents. There's nothing in the known universe that is more 'useful' than a screensaver on an LCD unless you make the background assumption(as people generally do) that satisfying human interests is a form of utility. At that point, the only thing you have to do to be 'useful' is satisfy your on interest in existence. Where things get ugly, naturally, is deciding who counts as an 'agent' that gets to set goals...

    5. Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      You are woefully ignorant.

      Which is why I'm asking the question, in order to obtain data:

      Of the X thousands of fertility clinic patients, what percentage would expect to see a better outcome thanks to this egg synthesis technique, if it were refined for human use?

    6. Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? by snadrus · · Score: 2

      If I read it properly, it's now possible for Women to asexually reproduce with themselves, or any pair of genders.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    7. Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose anyone could reproduce with their own self, supplying both the sperm and egg. Though, admittedly, that is a special case of two women or men being the parents of a child.

    8. Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      I've heard of some cases where the mitochondrial DNA is defective, so the only way to produce a healthy child is by slapping 3rd-party mitochondria into the maternal egg cell before fertilization, and lots of cases where sperm defects end up requiring IVF, sometimes with donor sperm. Are there also a fairly large number of cases where defective eggs are the cause of infertility that just can't be addressed at present by anything other than using donor gametes?

      What about the cases of premature menopause where the woman loses all her eggs at an young age, sometimes as early as 25? These families only option would to have a baby by donor egg, which means the child is not the mother's genetic offspring.

      Being able to make new eggs would fix that.

    9. Re:Anybody know the expected relevance? by tbird81 · · Score: 2

      Surely this means a woman without ovaries (e.g. removed because of cancer) could have her stem-cells harvested from blood (if this is possible), and use these stem cells to create ova. The ova can then be fertilised and inserted in a surrogate uterus.

  9. I'll be impressed when scientists can... by gameboyhippo · · Score: 1

    I'll be impressed when scientists can make life from nonlife.

    1. Re:I'll be impressed when scientists can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you seen Johnny Five?

    2. Re:I'll be impressed when scientists can... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If you've been following the news...you don't have long to wait. In fact, if you consider a virus alive, they did it years ago. But work progresses on synthysizing total cells. (Usually under the label of "trying to find the simplest possible cell.".)

      I will admit, however, that "not long" is a bit vague. I give it 10-15 years. 20 wouldn't really surprise me. 5 would. So would 25...unless there are drastic cuts in biology funding world-wide.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  10. Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you're not sure what practical application this research contributes to, consider this: We can now create genetic offspring of infertile people. More than that, we can now create genetic offspring of people without their knowledge or consent. All we need is a stem cell sample. Note recent research that enables skin cells to be turned into stem cells.

    It shouldn't be long before companies are advertising services like 'Have George Clooney's baby' or 'Father Christina Hendricks' child'. That's just the tip of the iceberg. The first child with two daddies -- literally -- is just around the corner.

    --
    Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    1. Re:Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      literally -- is just around the corner.

      Could you give me an address for this corner?

    2. Re:Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. by drpimp · · Score: 1

      Subsequently from that same corner you will still be able to obtain organically grown STDs from your local hooker.

      --
      -- Brought to you by Carl's JR
    3. Re:Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't what they said when the cloned the sheep? We still don't have cloned people.

    4. Re:Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Non-consentual parenthood is already possible for men - a male raped by a woman who falls pregnant can't force his rapist to have an abortion, and will in fact be forced to pay child support.

    5. Re:Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      "The first child with two daddies -- literally".

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    6. Re:Parenthood no longer needs to be consensual. by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Ah, see, I can see how people might not take the current version of having two male parents as literal, but adoption is a natural and common enough process that it didn't even occur to me to parse it that way. "Biologically" might have communicated the concept better. Still, thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding.

  11. New cloning technique. by wiredog · · Score: 2

    Make sperm and egg from the same source.. Surprised they didn't try that.

    1. Re:New cloning technique. by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That doesn't result in a clone.

    2. Re:New cloning technique. by Dekker3D · · Score: 0

      That wouldn't be a clone, I think. More like a brother or sister. The stem cell still has a full set of DNA, and both the sperm and egg cell would have their random half of said DNA.

    3. Re:New cloning technique. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's actually way worse than cloning. It's much more like a super inbreeding. You're taking 1/2 the DNA and combining it with the same DNA. All of your homogenous dominant and recessive traits become the same, but with the same as any inbreeding, any recessive gene based disease you were a "carrier" for you automatically have a 25% of introducing full on into the offspring. There is an incredibly slight chance that you do end up with a clone if you pull the correctly matched half of each chromosome from each sperm and egg and join them.

    4. Re:New cloning technique. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, for your 23 pairs of chromosomes, 1/2 of them would be essentially identical. E.g. your father's chromosome 18 duplicated twice, rather than one from your father and one from your mother. This would be really bad, as most chromosomes have defective genes (recessive traits), but when you get two from different sources they compensate for each other's defects. An identical pair wouldn't. The most likely (and best) outcome would be a non-viable offspring.

  12. Creepy... by mihai.todor85 · · Score: 1

    Let's see: stem cells -> eggs -> ovary tissue -> natural ovaries -> oocytes -> removed from ovaries -> fertilized -> transplanted into "foster mothers"... To me, that sounds like a combination between Frankenstein and Fantastic Voyage

  13. Breeding like mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because we all know, making sure the survival of mice, is of utmost paramount! Especially making sure that mice breed like... mice!

  14. Cue the debate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about whether people conceived this way have souls, in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

    1. Re:Cue the debate by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Good news: souls are fictional. No need for debate.

    2. Re:Cue the debate by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      How do you know?

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
    3. Re:Cue the debate by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      A. Never measured yet treated as commonplace and affecting the world
      B. Comes from a source that bares most of the genre defining hallmarks of folk-tales
      C. At odds with the scientific explanation of consciousness.
      D. Too good to be true, so it probably isn't, and someone can make money off you believing.

      I'm sorry if you were expecting a logical proof of non-existence, but one doesn't generally prove fiction false. These set of 4 things are more than enough to dismiss any concept they all apply to.

    4. Re:Cue the debate by gottabeme · · Score: 1

      A. Never measured yet treated as commonplace and affecting the world

      This could be interpreted three ways: a) since it is treated as commonplace and affecting the world, it is probably real; or b) just because we can't measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist; or c) it doesn't exist. Option C boils down to, "The only things that exist are those which can be measured." There are two problems with that, however: 1) We know of many things which exist which we were once unable to detect, see, or measure; 2) It is not claimed that souls may be measured. Indeed, if the claim is that such a thing cannot be measured, then the argument that it is unmeasureable is irrelevant. If it is not claimed that its existence may be proven, then your claim that it cannot be proven is irrelevant.

      B. Comes from a source that bares[sic] most of the genre defining hallmarks of folk-tales

      This is a gross generalization, unsubstantiated to the point of being meaningless. I would call it "hand-waving." However, as far as Christianity goes, it's interesting that Christianity actually differs substantially from other "myths" to the point that some consider Christianity a genre unto itself, not even in the category of myth. Basically, myths postulate a reality in which ultimately all things are one with all things, while Christianity postulates a God who exists outside of our universe and our reality, yet who has interacted with it. The two are quite opposite, and it is a mistake to lump them together.

      C. At odds with the scientific explanation of consciousness.

      What? There is no scientific explanation of consciousness--not yet, anyway. It would be very big news if there ever were. This is more hand-waving on your part--or just plain lying.

      D. Too good to be true, so it probably isn't, and someone can make money off you believing.

      More hand-waving. "Too good to be true" is simply a cliche--it proves nothing and is meaningless. As for money, money can be made from both truths and lies, so this is also meaningless in and of itself.

      I'm sorry if you were expecting a logical proof of non-existence, but one doesn't generally prove fiction false.

      Logically you can neither prove nor disprove it. The most skeptical statement you can logically make is, "I don't know."

      These set of 4 things are more than enough to dismiss any concept they all apply to.

      I have deconstructed your four criteria and shown that they do not logically invalidate belief in the existence of the human soul.

      --
      "Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
  15. Old news by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
  16. Not cloning by aNonnyMouseCowered · · Score: 2

    The practical application of this procedure is probably some way off. If perfected for humans, it could become the ultimate fertility treatment. So long as you have a body, you can have a baby. Surrogate mothers probably needed though.

    As of now, it's interesting research that won't interest vain but rich pet owners. You aren't producing a time-shifted twin of the older organism. But if the egg/sperm cells produced are healthy, you might well produce an artifical hermaphrodite where the father and mother are the same.

    Maybe in the future gay and lesbian couples can become the full biological parents of their own children without resort to a third-party donor or surrogate.

    1. Re:Not cloning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is we are one step closer to the human race not needing males?

    2. Re:Not cloning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or females.

    3. Re:Not cloning by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      eh, they need a uterus to grow.

      when they can make a uterus and replicate the hormone cascade of pregancy in a man, then things will get weird.....

  17. Heard this one before. by poison1701 · · Score: 1

    Sounds sort of like jurassic park.

  18. Mice? by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 2

    It's just a shame they were expecting parrots to hatch....

    --
    Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  19. Child Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if someone steals some skin cells turns them into an egg or sperm which is used to create a child. Is that kid mine? Am I legally responsible? Should I even care?

    1. Re:Child Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So if someone steals some skin cells turns them into an egg or sperm which is used to create a child. Is that kid mine? Am I legally responsible? Should I even care?"

      How did you think that slashdot readers reproduce?

  20. Mice hatched from eggs by wiwa · · Score: 5, Funny

    My first thought on reading the headline was that they made mice that hatched from eggs. The actual discovery is much less impressive.

    1. Re:Mice hatched from eggs by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

      I thought that was quail egg I was eating......

  21. Coverup by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Turns out, their math and verbal skills are total shit.

  22. Jersey Shore meets Mythbusters...in space by silverspell · · Score: 1

    Oh sure, drop off colonists after raising them on "Jersey Shore" reruns and "Mythbusters" episodes...

    You'll have a generation of resourceful, but unproductive colonists who spend their time doing things like:

    - testing the myth that duct tape can be used both as a substitute for heat shielding AND as a quick way to remove unwanted hairs;
    - trying to make energy drinks out of hydrazine;
    - using the interstellar medium as an in vivo paternity test to identify one's "baby daddy";
    - and figuring out whether a tan from Gliese 581 will have the appropriate carrot-orange hue, or will be more towards the reddish, dwarfy end of the spectrum (as seen in a 22-year-old viral video beamed in from Earth, natch).

  23. Cloning!? by dittbub · · Score: 1

    Are these the same Japanese scientists who are trying to clone a mammoth? Because this research seems rather pertinent towards that goal.

    1. Re:Cloning!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might be better than cloning. A recent mammoth corpse might be able to create genuine fertilized mammoth eggs, which would only require a womb.

  24. Recipe for a true clone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (1) stem cells -> sperm

    (2) stem cells -> egg precursors

    (3) egg precursors + embryonic ovary tissue -> ovary-like structure

    (4) ovary-like structure + graft onto natural ovaries in female mouse + waiting -> oocytes

    (5) remove the resulting oocytes from mouse + fertilize with sperm -> embryo

    OK, those are the steps taken in the Japanese experiment, without modification. And now the insertion of a new step, to create the clone:

    (6) replace the DNA in the embryo with the DNA of the mouse to be cloned!

    And then return to the final step in the Japanese experiment:

    (7) Put embryo in to foster mother mouse

    Voila! Clone.

    Obviously it would be really neat to obviate the need for a female mouse in step (4).

    And, of course, the holy grail is to eliminate the need for the foster mother mouse in step (7), by simulating a complete uterus, with blood supply (oxygenated, CO2 removal, nutrients), appropriate hormone signals at the proper times, and digestive bacteria, and any other temporal sequence of biological signals are needed.

    (LOL! Captcha word: "pipeline")

    1. Re:Recipe for a true clone... by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      no, the holy grail will be to first synthesize the DNA for parentless humans made-to-order. replicants.

  25. JP Hogan's Voyage From Yesteryear by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary
    "An Earth set well into the next century is going through one of its periodical crises politically, and it looks as if this time they might really press the button for the Big One. If it happens, the only chance for our species to survive would be by preserving a sliver of itself elsewhere, which in practical terms means another star, since nothing closer is readily habitable. There isn't time to organize a manned expedition of such scope from scratch. However, a robot exploratory vessel is under construction to make the first crossing to the Centauri system, and it with a crash program it would be possible to modify the designs to carry sets of human genetic data coded electronically. Additionally, a complement of incubator/nanny/tutor robots can be included, able to convert the electronic data back into chemistry and raise/educate the ensuing offspring while others prepare surface habitats and supporting infrastructure, when a habitable world is discovered. By the time we meet the "Chironians," their culture is into its fifth generation.
        In the meantime, Earth went through a dodgy period, but managed in the end to muddle through. The fun begins when a generation ship housing a population of thousands arrives to "reclaim" the colony on behalf of the repressive, authoritarian regime that emerged following the crisis period. The Mayflower II brings with it all the tried and tested apparatus for bringing a recalcitrant population to heel: authority, with its power structure and symbolism, to impress; commercial institutions with the promise of wealth and possessions, to tempt and ensnare; a religious presence, to awe and instill duty and obedience; and if all else fails, armed military force to compel. But what happens when these methods encounter a population that has never been conditioned to respond?"

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  26. Worse.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about a company that grows its own workers?

    Who's your daddy now?