Your branching off into a discussion that's teeming with ethical concerns. In fact we have the ability right now to make "human" mice, or in other words mice with human organs and genes. These mice don't exist (in wide use) right now because of the ethical concerns.
You might find it silly, but there are people that don't even want mice with human organs because of the ethical and moral (read religious) concerns of creating such an organism.
Actually, one of the scientists who completed sequencing the human genome, is busy gathering biological species in the oceans of the world, and using their biological instruction sets to create new life, and sequencing their DNA. He's British.
I'm the least of your worries. Luckily for you, this is one of the research universities known for teaching ethics as it relates to medical genetics and other genetics.
But I was answering a question. The question was "Why do you use mice". The answer is what it is. A lot of choices you make have ethical implications, such as your lifestyle, what energy you consume, and so on.
Even though I would say use patent trolls as the new mice, how do you try out potentially lethal compounds in humans with good conscience (that is humans who are not patent trolls?)
/quote The concern lies with proper identification of patent trolls. First, we start with lawyers.
A lot of the cheap part is they are small. If there was a variant of human that didn't have intelligence and was small and had a short life span we'd probably use that, if we're looking at medical drug experiments.
Exactly. I've worked with some labs that got original biological and biochemical papers published in both Science and Nature, and it's very hard to get in those. Even with new biochemistry or new biology.
Try publishing a paper on methodology of statistical inference. That's not easy at all.
Don't let Big Squeek hear you saying they've got no lobby!
Well, there are providers of mice, and I presume they have some kind of lobby organization, but when I used to work on cancer research, I don't remember it affected purchasing much. However, I refer more to the non-scientist non-corporate lobbying. Animal and human medical research varies greatly depending on which country, state, or county one is in.
Face it, most people aren't pro-mouse, and identify more with dogs, cats, monkeys, and pigs - all of which are eaten by humans at various places around the world. The lifespan has a lot more to do with why mice are chosen.
Unless you really want us to test medical dosage levels and new drugs on humans before we test them on animals? Be a lot more dead people that way, of course. One problem is dosage levels are frequently based on volunteers who are veterans, and until recently this was a mostly male category, so data for women and children was not always available, leading to questionable dosage level decisions based on study populations that were too small.
Testing is how we find that a drug that clears out plaque in brain cells might be too effective for some patients, causing their brain cells to leak. Are you sure you want to start with humans first? Then, after testing, you look for drug interactions, dosage levels, and adjust.
That's how research works. And it takes DECADES to complete in humans.
So, any word on how we managed to get from 'researchers identify class of conditions for which mice are an unexpectedly lousy model' to 'drug testing in mice may be a waste of time'?
I blame the cat and dog lobbies. They never liked mice.
3. You freak out every time we use chimps or human analogues in the simian world.
4. Mice are easier to squish between plates to measure changes, especially when we use flourescent tags on the meds or target we're looking at, so we don't have to cut them up to find out what's going on.
(yes, my point 4 is really what happens - we used to cut them up before we figured out how to make them glow with jellyfish gene tags - and once you cut open the brain, it's game over)
I find that most programmers I work with don't understand English, but a few understand American English. Can't tell you how many times someone uses "color" instead of the correct English word "colour".
Mind you, I work with statisticians and medical doctors, for the most part, and many are from France, Canada, S Korea, Vietnam, places like that.
As a former Army Sergeant in the Canadian Army, I just want to point out that trying to do this violates my Constitutional rights as a Citizen of Canada.
The US is the signer of a data treaty with both Canada and the EU that this violates.
As the holder of multiple copyrights in Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand, I do not accept this Six Strikes violation of my International Treaty rights, which are superior to any DCMA legislation in the US.
Period.
Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you. Or are you one of the 1% to which regular laws don't apply?
Again, you seem to misunderstand. International Treaties have a force of law below the US Constitution and above ordinary Federal Laws. It's described in the US Constitution, which you might want to read.
Technically, I may be a millionaire, but that's my house and retirement accounts and my car and computers.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously it needs a high power laser and a targeting circle, which uses Apple Maps and the AppleID of the target to precisely hit the wrong building.
That or a scrolling stock ticker with a built in Angry Birds game that is voice controlled.
derez is what I typed but deres is what spell Czech turned it into. Filthy software.
I wasn't born in Cyberspace, even if I remember using 110 baud modems on ARPANET.
But I was born in Texas.
The main question is: Did the Internet exist before we turned it on?
The concept that Cyberspace "exists" is just as silly as the concept (pardon, I mean "legal fiction") that Corporations are People.
If you deres us, do we not bleed photons?
Now, excuse me, I have to translate stored bits into screen displays so that people can understand what the genetic data "means".
I propose we use lawyers. The only problem is they have longer lifespans than mice do.
Does that meet your ethical concerns?
Your branching off into a discussion that's teeming with ethical concerns. In fact we have the ability right now to make "human" mice, or in other words mice with human organs and genes. These mice don't exist (in wide use) right now because of the ethical concerns.
You might find it silly, but there are people that don't even want mice with human organs because of the ethical and moral (read religious) concerns of creating such an organism.
Actually, one of the scientists who completed sequencing the human genome, is busy gathering biological species in the oceans of the world, and using their biological instruction sets to create new life, and sequencing their DNA. He's British.
I'm the least of your worries. Luckily for you, this is one of the research universities known for teaching ethics as it relates to medical genetics and other genetics.
But I was answering a question. The question was "Why do you use mice". The answer is what it is. A lot of choices you make have ethical implications, such as your lifestyle, what energy you consume, and so on.
That, plus you need to have some sexy pictures. Not sure why, but it helps increase acceptance.
OK, you might not think a picture of beta sheets is sexy, but they do.
See that is the part I don't understand... Why must it be mice?.
Because mice have short life spans, are cheap, are easy to squish between plates to test, and people don't go wonky on you researching on mice.
That's "why".
Even though I would say use patent trolls as the new mice, how do you try out potentially lethal compounds in humans with good conscience (that is humans who are not patent trolls?)
/quote
The concern lies with proper identification of patent trolls. First, we start with lawyers.
Wait, never mind, that's good enough.
A lot of the cheap part is they are small. If there was a variant of human that didn't have intelligence and was small and had a short life span we'd probably use that, if we're looking at medical drug experiments.
Exactly. I've worked with some labs that got original biological and biochemical papers published in both Science and Nature, and it's very hard to get in those. Even with new biochemistry or new biology.
Try publishing a paper on methodology of statistical inference. That's not easy at all.
A mouse can't even roll a joint, much less handle a lighter.
This is why mice use vaporizers.
Don't let Big Squeek hear you saying they've got no lobby!
Well, there are providers of mice, and I presume they have some kind of lobby organization, but when I used to work on cancer research, I don't remember it affected purchasing much. However, I refer more to the non-scientist non-corporate lobbying. Animal and human medical research varies greatly depending on which country, state, or county one is in.
Face it, most people aren't pro-mouse, and identify more with dogs, cats, monkeys, and pigs - all of which are eaten by humans at various places around the world. The lifespan has a lot more to do with why mice are chosen.
Unless you really want us to test medical dosage levels and new drugs on humans before we test them on animals? Be a lot more dead people that way, of course. One problem is dosage levels are frequently based on volunteers who are veterans, and until recently this was a mostly male category, so data for women and children was not always available, leading to questionable dosage level decisions based on study populations that were too small.
Testing is how we find that a drug that clears out plaque in brain cells might be too effective for some patients, causing their brain cells to leak. Are you sure you want to start with humans first? Then, after testing, you look for drug interactions, dosage levels, and adjust.
That's how research works. And it takes DECADES to complete in humans.
Medical research or research to justify social policy is meaningless. The outcome is determined before the experiments begin.
You just mixed together medical research, which is why lots of things don't kill you anymore, with a fake category.
So, any word on how we managed to get from 'researchers identify class of conditions for which mice are an unexpectedly lousy model' to 'drug testing in mice may be a waste of time'?
I blame the cat and dog lobbies. They never liked mice.
1. Mice have no lobby.
2. Mice have shorter lifespans.
3. You freak out every time we use chimps or human analogues in the simian world.
4. Mice are easier to squish between plates to measure changes, especially when we use flourescent tags on the meds or target we're looking at, so we don't have to cut them up to find out what's going on.
(yes, my point 4 is really what happens - we used to cut them up before we figured out how to make them glow with jellyfish gene tags - and once you cut open the brain, it's game over)
Even your kids school records were visible on the internet back a few years ago, as well as all property and marriage/divorce transactions.
But you can obfuscate things and edit some of them.
You'll still be there, and any decent investigator could find it, but not the average person doing a google search.
Besides, they're all on the Wayback Machine.
I find that most programmers I work with don't understand English, but a few understand American English. Can't tell you how many times someone uses "color" instead of the correct English word "colour".
Mind you, I work with statisticians and medical doctors, for the most part, and many are from France, Canada, S Korea, Vietnam, places like that.
What I find most interesting is that the whole space marine thing was ripped off from SF authors.
Or at least that's how I remember it back when I was writing in SF and gaming magazines in the 1980s.
But it doesn't work on vampires.
There is always guillotines. Those work.
Also I have electrical tape over my laptop's camera.
You should use duct tape. It keeps your tear ducts from welling up and splashing on the laptop camera lens.
I'd rather by spied on by the chinese than corporations in the united states
I see you missed CBC last night. Where the Chinese Ambassador said something about this. At least on 22 Minutes they gave the translation.
As a former Army Sergeant in the Canadian Army, I just want to point out that trying to do this violates my Constitutional rights as a Citizen of Canada.
This is very un-Canadian.
The US is the signer of a data treaty with both Canada and the EU that this violates.
As the holder of multiple copyrights in Canada, the US, Australia, and New Zealand, I do not accept this Six Strikes violation of my International Treaty rights, which are superior to any DCMA legislation in the US.
Period.
Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you. Or are you one of the 1% to which regular laws don't apply?
Again, you seem to misunderstand. International Treaties have a force of law below the US Constitution and above ordinary Federal Laws. It's described in the US Constitution, which you might want to read.
Technically, I may be a millionaire, but that's my house and retirement accounts and my car and computers.
But the government is permitting my Copyright and Privacy rights being violated by the DCMA.
Which by international treaties affirmed by the US Senate and signed by the President, they are not allowed to do.