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."
Robotic spaceships that produce humans at their destination here we come!
inquiring Pythons want to know.
Where are my cheese eating death machines?
This signature intentionally left blank.
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
is developing a robot cat specializing in nabbing and eating the stem cell mice.
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?
I'll be impressed when scientists can make life from nonlife.
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.
Make sperm and egg from the same source.. Surprised they didn't try that.
Best Slashdot Co
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
See this news item: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhpqqNZMx50
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.
Good news: souls are fictional. No need for debate.
Sounds sort of like jurassic park.
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'
My first thought on reading the headline was that they made mice that hatched from eggs. The actual discovery is much less impressive.
Turns out, their math and verbal skills are total shit.
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).
Are these the same Japanese scientists who are trying to clone a mammoth? Because this research seems rather pertinent towards that goal.
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.
no, the holy grail will be to first synthesize the DNA for parentless humans made-to-order. replicants.
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."
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.
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."