Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Transplant Functional Eyes On the Tails of Tadpoles

New submitter physlord writes in with a story about tadpoles with eyes on their tails. "Using embryos from the African clawed frog (Xenopus), scientists at Tufts' Center for Regenerative and Developmental Biology were able to transplant eye primordia—basically, the little nubs of flesh that will eventually grow into an eye—from one tadpole's head to another's posterior, flank, or tail....Amazingly, a statistically significant portion of the transplanted one-eyes could not only detect LED changes, but they showed learning behavior when confronted with electric shock."

20 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. Well Yeah by p0p0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "they showed learning behavior when confronted with electric shock." You shock anyone's little nub's of flesh enough and they tell you anything you want to hear.

    1. Re:Well Yeah by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "they showed learning behavior when confronted with electric shock." You shock anyone's little nub's of flesh enough and they tell you anything you want to hear.

      If you (gasp!) read TFA, they used controls with no eyes, and with regular eyes. Those with the implanted eye (the two regular eyes were removed) did significantly better at avoiding the shock than the no-eye control. Though they didn't say how much better, which makes me suspect the difference was very small (albeit statistically significant).

      The more interesting thing to me was that tadpoles without eyes could still sense when an LED was turned on.

  2. Scientists did WHAT!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    To summarize:

    Scientists removed the eyes from a tadpole and attached those eyes to another tadpole's ass, then shocked it to see if it could learn to see with it's ass. Hilarity ensued.

  3. Gives rise to a new expresssion... by Starteck81 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I'm a mom, I have eyes in the back of my ass." -Ms. Tadpole

    --
    "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
  4. Functional? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    If by functional one means able to send nerve impulses to the brain then maybe. If by functional you mean sending nerve impulses to the brain that can be resolved into pictures similar to the eyes in the head has not been proven. They throw about terms like "statistically significant" yet this the measurements of performance are taken by subjective humans. Humans have a tendency to see what they want to see. This experiment has not been replicated and is therefore suspect.

    1. Re:Functional? by TheLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's already long known that a lot of the seeing is done in the brain. When someone draws something on your hand or other part of the body you can still "see it" even if you are blindfolded. The resolution is just isn't as good. Humans can learn to see with their tongues: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/1946/description/The_Seeing_Tongue

      They can also see with sound - either echolocation or pitch vs left-right volume. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLziFMF4DHA
      http://www.seeingwithsound.com/

      This transplant experiment isn't very useful in my opinion. Yeah it shows that if you grow an eye on a different spot on a tadpole it can sometimes kind of work. But how useful is that? The artificial eye experiments on humans are far more useful.

      --
  5. Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Certain humans have had interchangeable head parts and posterior parts for years now. We call them "politicians".

    1. Re:Big deal by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Certain humans have had interchangeable head parts and posterior parts for years now. We call them "politicians".

      I think they mostly talk out of their asses, though, and certainly not see out of them. They tend to even ignore crap that's right in front of their regular head-mounted eyes, so I'm not sure that gluing a set to their posteriors will change anything.

      --
      John
  6. Oh come on by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    Isn't life already tough enough for tadpoles without some "scientist" grafting eyes onto their butts and jolting them with electricity?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  7. These Kinds of Scientists ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sometimes you hear about shit that some researchers are up to, and you know that they've got that circuit in their head that causes them to gravitate toward experimental research like putting drops of acid into rabbit's eyes or raising chimpanzees in total isolation with nothing but chickenwire mother surrogates, all justifiable with perfectly reasonable arguments about how it's a shame there's no other way to do it and the insights are too valuable to pass up, but in your heart you know that the right thing to do is to stuff that researcher into a big canvas sack with a cinderblock, beat it with a baseball bat until it stops screaming, then dump it over the side.

  8. Unless you want a Nobel by witherstaff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A Doc who deliberately exposed himself to a bug for acute gastic illness earned himself a Nobel prize in physiology or medicine.

    1. Re:Unless you want a Nobel by uncqual · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes - but he was convinced that he had found the answer already. He was not, at least in his mind, using himself to test on -- he was using himself as a subject to overcome the "settled science" mentality of the entrenched medical and scientific community by showing that he had, in fact, found the answer.

      It seems to me that cases like these are quite different.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  9. Look up Waldemar Haffkine by Medievalist · · Score: 3, Informative

    Yeah, because we'd totally just try unproven experiments on ourselves without testing to see if it works and is safe. We may be that stupid, but the scientists aren't.

    Testing on yourself is a time-honored tradition in both science and medicine.

    1. Re:Look up Waldemar Haffkine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, because we'd totally just try unproven experiments on ourselves without testing to see if it works and is safe. We may be that stupid, but the scientists aren't.

      Testing on prisoners and students is a time-honored tradition in both science and medicine.

      It's a rare scientist who intentionally tests on himself.

  10. Morbid and largely pointless by Grayhand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's been known for some time that you can transplant cells for things like limbs on amphibians and they would be functional. Unfortunately it only works because they are very simple organisms. The same things don't apply to reptiles let alone mammals so it's not an advance that will lead to regrowing eyes. It's Frankenstein tinkering that leads to pointless suffering. A different standard needs to be applied to lifeforms than other sciences in that a question of "what if we did this" shouldn't be a enough to rationalize the research. There's plenty of worthy lines of research that don't involve vivisection.

    1. Re:Morbid and largely pointless by robi5 · · Score: 2

      Can you explain how amphibians are very simple organisms? Even a single cell is not simple. Are you assuming that the next levels of abstraction, tissues, organs and amphibian bodies, are somehow very simple? Or are they just different and somewhat simpler / more rudimentary relative to reptiles? Can we say that in the tree of life, we are mammals, all mammals are reptiles and all reptiles are amphibians, evolutionarily speaking?

  11. Re: Great time to be a blind tadpole by jcoy42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where the hell is the human medical technology?

    I don't know about you, but I'd just assume pass on grafting eyeballs onto my bum TYVM.

    --
    Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
  12. In the land of the blind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...the man with eyes in his ass is king.

    You say all that above but face it, you're wrong. Much of medicine has been a matter of "what if we do this?". Same for much of science in general. That is what science is; asking questions and then testing to get answers.

    Understanding how things work for one organism can lead to breakthroughs in our understanding of other organisms. You may not see that, but it is still true.

    captcha: nearby

  13. This is quite disgusting by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where's the humanity?

    Not only do the scientists blind a tadpole, but they then graft the eyes onto another tadpole and where else but onto it's arse.

    Sometimes I think that mankind deserves to become extinct.

    1. Re:This is quite disgusting by manu0601 · · Score: 2

      Sometimes I think that mankind deserves to become extinct.

      Don't worry, we are working on it