Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Human-Mouse Hybrids? 433

Posted by michael from the strange-cravings-for-cheese dept.
scientistguy writes "There is a remarkable story by Nicholas Wade in the early morning edition of the New York Times about a discussion to create human-mouse hybrid organisms. One of these techniques involves the introduction of genetically altered mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells (e.g. with genes 'knocked-out' or replaced) into a developing mouse blactocyst to create progeny hybrid organisms. Typically, these progeny organisms are then bred to unaltered mice to see if the genetic alteration has gone germline or is heritable. If heritable, mice can be bred and animals which are homozygous for the altered gene can be phenotypically examined as long as the manipulation is not homozygous lethal or cause sterility in a single copy state. Unless using blastocysts from immunologically crippled mice, there would most likely be a recognition of non-self by murine immune cells not educated (which haven't seen during their development) to the human cells that would wipe them out. Nonetheless, it's amazing that it's being contemplated due to the ethical implications of such an experiment. What if it were viable? What if there were more than just a few human cells? Could it be sacrificed? ... or even experimented on further if part 'human'? Perhaps these types of experiments are best relegated to little known, deserted islands far away from the reaches of civilization (or perhaps regulation) ..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Human-Mouse Hybrids? More

Human-Mouse Hybrids?

Comments Filter:

  • Where...? (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrFenty ( 579353 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:13AM (#4766418)
    Perhaps these types of experiments are best relegated to little known, deserted islands far away from the reaches of civilization (or perhaps regulation)

    What - like Australia ?

    • Re:Where...? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by e8johan ( 605347 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:30AM (#4766526) Homepage Journal

      These kind of moves are actually dangerous. If the civilized world chooses to ban something of some reason (hopefully a good one), one can just go to a poor country and be fully legal.

      We recently saw this when an oil tanker collapsed just off the coast of Spain. The tanker was registerd in Bermuda (or somewhere around there). Thus it was sheaper taxwise, less regulated working-environment and safety wise and could therefore go to sea without being sea worthy.

      We can also see this in the research of the (somewhat) mad Italian sientist, Dr. Severino Antinori. He claims to creating the first cloned human and that it is going to be born early next year. He refuses to say where the experiment has been made, but it is in a country with weaker legalization than most western contries.

      To sum things up. This type of experiments will probably have to go to some little known, desterd island, but I regret that they can.

      • Re:Where...? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Idarubicin ( 579475 )
        We recently saw this when an oil tanker collapsed just off the coast of Spain. The tanker was registerd in Bermuda (or somewhere around there).

        The nation of registry of choice for many ships is currently Liberia. Just think about it the next time you consider going on one of those delightful Disney cruises.

      • Re:Where...? (Score:2, Informative)

        by scientistguy ( 627346 )
        this was a ref to the island of dr. moreau. irv weissman could reprise the role that brando more recently played. it wasn't meant seriously.

      • Some reason (hopefully a good one) (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Pac ( 9516 ) <paulo...candido@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @12:52PM (#4768104)
        An instance of "civilized" country has been recently letting the religious right decide what can and what can not be researched. Steem-cell and cloning studies are being banned because some religious texts were interpreted as saying that this sort of thing is "unholy". As it is, people who does not share this view of the Universe will eventually find ways to keep studying these subjects somewhere else. I don't regret it, because after carefull consideration I find the maddest scientist far saner than the saner right-wing fundamentalist.

        Also, moving services and "dirty" plants to unregulated countries and the subsequent pressure (mostly economic but sometimes even military) to keep these countries unregulated is caused mainly by the major corporations of "civilized" Western countries, not by mad scientists or WTO eco-freaks. You should ask yourself who is served by a cheaper oil tanker (or a cheaper Nike produce by Vietnamese semi-slaves).

        • Two points... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by gillbates ( 106458 )

          An instance of "civilized" country has been recently letting the religious right decide what can and what can not be researched. Steem-cell and cloning studies are being banned because some religious texts were interpreted as saying that this sort of thing is "unholy".

          1. Actually, it's not just the religious right - the Catholic church (associated with the "religious left", if there is such a group...) opposes cloning as well.
          2. Many people fear human cloning for reasons which have nothing to do with religion. If we clone human beings, what rights do they have? Do they have the right to vote? Can their organs be legally harvested for the healthy? If the cloning operation is only partially successful (for instance, if a person is born deformed or retarded), can a cloned person be killed without committing murder? These are not easy questions, and as such, it is much safer politically just to ban the practice than deal with the potential political fallout from allowing cloned humans.

    • The reference... (Score:2, Informative)

      by nherc ( 530930 )
      I believe the reference in the news blurb is to "The Island Of Doctor Moreau" by HG Wells [literature.org]. :)

  • Jeez (Score:2, Interesting)

    by DebianDog ( 472284 )
    ...and they were worried about cloning? (rolleyes)
  • I can just see it now, what actor should be in this movie, perhaps it's all a coverup for a movie anyway, There will be just one man who can stop this army of 100,000 half human half mice (It will start out as 2, in a week, they will have multiplied)

  • wow (Score:3, Funny)

    by mrselfdestrukt ( 149193 ) <nollie_A7_firstcounsel_com> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:14AM (#4766430) Homepage Journal
    Another new input device.
    Why not just stick my mouse to my hand with superglue?

  • What are we going to do tonight Brain? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:14AM (#4766432)
    What we do every night, Pinky.
    • Please get the quote right:

      Pinky: Wot are we going to do tonigh, Brain?
      Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky: TRY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD


      (and that is, of course, Brain's problem. Had he listened to another animated short fellow with a big head, he would know: "Do. Or Do Not. There Is No Try.")

  • Woo Hoo! (Score:2, Funny)

    by LordYUK ( 552359 )
    Lets hear it for blastocysts!!

  • Ehhhhhh (Score:5, Funny)

    by Uruk ( 4907 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:19AM (#4766458)
    blactocyst to create progeny hybrid organisms

    Good god! Don't you understand the implications though? If the digital tri-mode defrobulator gets out of sync with the anticalisthenticator, we could have some serious subdermal anamolous activity!

    Open your eyes man!

    (I just thought the sentence sounded funny the way it was strung together, even if I do have enough biology to know what a blastocyst is and to recognize when it's misspelled)

  • Are you a man or a mouse ? (Score:5, Funny)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:20AM (#4766465) Homepage

    Oh very freaking funny you insensitive clod!

  • I'm horrified... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by YanceyAI ( 192279 ) <IAMYANCEY@yahoo.com> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:22AM (#4766474)
    I consider myself open to scientific experimentation, but I guess I just never really considered this as a possiblitlity. I'm surprised that it never crossed my mind. This issue was bound to be raised. Even more disturbing to me is the fact that my repulsion is seems more emotional than logical--a characteristic I associate with rightwing conservative freaks. One telling comment though:

    He gave as an extreme example the possibility that a mouse making human sperm might accidentally be allowed to mate with a mouse that had made its eggs from human cells. He gave as an extreme example the possibility that a mouse making human sperm might accidentally be allowed to mate with a mouse that had made its eggs from human cells.

    • He gave as an extreme example the possibility that a mouse making human sperm might accidentally be allowed to mate with a mouse that had made its eggs from human cells.

      Na na na na na na MOUSE MAN! MOUSE MAN! MOUSE MAN!

      Quickly Sparrow, to the Mouse Cave!

    • Re:I'm horrified... (Score:4, Funny)

      by sawilson ( 317999 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:41AM (#4766598) Homepage
      I consider myself open to scientific experimentation

      That's pretty brave. I'm just an organ donor myself.
    • OH! and one more before I forget it...

      I consider myself open to scientific experimentation

      So, you must eat at taco bell.

    • Re:I'm horrified... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kronus ( 513720 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @10:01AM (#4766716)
      Don't be so afraid, the reporter got almost all his facts wrong. There will be 0 (zero) human cells in the chimera. That's not the way this procedure works. The genetic material is put in the blastocyst, and is then absorbed by some of the cells there. Those cells can then (in theory) produce the proteins that the absorbed genes code for. So the mouse's brain might have some human protiens in it, but it would still be a mouses's brain.

      Also, the Bishop's comment about a few human cells per organ being acceptable: not the way it works. As I said, there will be NO human cells, and the modified cells will come in patches. As a modified cell in the blastocyte divides, all it's progeny will have the modifications, so you'll end up with an area in the adult organism that has the modifications. Is it really too much to ask that the people who are trying to make these ethical decisions put in the effort to actually learn what they're talking about before passing judgment?
      • Nice analysis but it still doesn't apease my concern for the potential mishaps, like the (granted extreme) example I cited. That wasn't the reporter speaking. It was the scientist.

        • Re:I'm horrified... (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Kronus ( 513720 )
          Actually, that was the reporter paraphrasing what the Doctor said. Given the mistakes that were made in the rest of the article I would have to assume that the reporter garbled this as well. There is simply no way a mouse can produce human sperm or egg cells. The mouse's immune system would recognize the human cells as foreign and attack them.

          I do understand and, to a certain degree, share your concerns. This is a whole new realm of investigation, and scientific enthusiasm must be tempered by ethical considerations. But for those considerations to be relevant, they must be based on facts. The reporter had most of his facts wrong, and the Bishop's grasp of what the scientists were doing was even worse. The techniques the scientists are using are on fairly firm ethical ground, it's just the very poor reporting job in the article that makes them sound scary.
    • One telling comment though:

      He gave as an extreme example the possibility that a mouse making human sperm might accidentally be allowed to mate with a mouse that had made its eggs from human cells.

      Hey baby, I'd like you to my parents, Squeeky and Whiskers.

  • Have a heart (Score:3, Funny)

    by Comrade Pikachu ( 467844 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:22AM (#4766475) Homepage
    The next time you visit Disney World, don't pick on the guy in the costume. See what he has to endure?
  • When I read the headline I imagined someones arm tapering off into a abomination of electronics for the sole purpose of manipulation GUIs.

  • So potentially, (Score:5, Funny)

    by sawilson ( 317999 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:23AM (#4766481) Homepage
    If this research continues, it might only take
    1000 genetically altered monkees 10 years to create
    the collective works of shakespeare. You probably
    wouldn't have to lock them in a room either. They'd
    of course be superior and have 3 asses.
  • I want one!

    I'll name him Mickey out of spite of Disney.

    But instead of Pluto, I will give him a four-assed monkey for a pet, as an homage to South Park.

  • Hardware vs. software (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ites ( 600337 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:24AM (#4766487) Journal
    To understand the true impact of genetic research, look at it like this: today we still see life as hardware, something that has physical shape. We are rapidly approaching the state where we will see life as software, something to be programmed and copied infinitely cheaply.
    Human-mouse hybrids? So what. Within a generation you will be able to design any lifeform you can imagine on your computer screen, and 'print' it into a virgin cell that will grow into your animal or plant.
    It is an inevitable progression. DNA is a digital code, and it is just a matter of horsepower to crack and then manipulate it.
    • While interesting what about the impact on morality and sprituality? There are many people that have or will have problems with this 'software' approach to life. There must be a chance for discourse and education to occur alongside brute horsepower or it will never occur.

  • Behold! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Eidolon909 ( 589869 )
    Mephisto: Look at my lastest creation.. a 5-assed Mouse!

    Kids: So?

    Mephisto: Those are HUMAN asses!

    Kids: Ooooh!

  • The Secret of NIMH (Score:3, Funny)

    by randomErr ( 172078 ) <ervin,kosch&gmail,com> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:26AM (#4766496) Journal
    Don Bluth [imdb.com] is so pround now.

  • Can't resist... (Score:5, Funny)

    by TeknoHog ( 164938 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:26AM (#4766498) Homepage Journal
    This Human-Mouse hybrid sounds like a great advance in the computer interface design. At least it would remove one bottleneck. Soon we'll outquake even Dustpuppy (he uses a separate mouse).

  • This kind of research always frightens the snot out of me. Without trying to sound like a holier-than-thou type, I can't help but think that this type of science is dabbling a little beyond the realm of what we should be working on.

    On the bright side, I would suspect that such organisms don't live long enough to make a whole lot of difference. Some odd hybrid creature created through such means would be bound to have some hideous problems.

    Maybe there is some benefit to this type of research, where we will get better medicines, or a better understanding of how our own body is put together. That said, I disagree with the method.

    Flame away.

    • It's the means (Score:2, Insightful)

      by October_30th ( 531777 )
      is dabbling a little beyond the realm of what we should be working on.

      The real question is whether our methods are sound or unsound -- not whether we should be there or not.

      There are no realms of human knowledge where we should not be working. Who can make such a determination in the first place? The ways to get there, on the other hand, should be considered carefully but on a strictly secular level.

      It's unfortunate that in the zeal to categorically ban all human cloning George Bush's administration has been unable to make this distinction.

      The quest for knowledge must not be hindered by emotional, baseless "forbidden realms of knowledge" kind of arguments. If we allow that, the renessaince and enlightenment have been in vain and we're back in the dark ages burning witches.

    • Re:I am sure I am not the only one bothered by thi (Score:5, Interesting)

      by d_i_r_t_y ( 156112 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @11:28AM (#4767394) Homepage Journal
      ...what we should be working on

      as a PhD-level biochemist/molecular biologist, i can tell you that seemingly pointless experiments such as these provide the necessary knowledge, or building blocks if you will, for us to understand the very complex process of growth and development. it's impossible to know to fix things if you don't know how they work and why they're broken.

      you, the public, should know that any form of experimentation on any living thing with a backbone and a nervous system is *highly* regulated, as in many forms to fill out, a review committee, certification of the researcher following compulsory courses, etc.

      it is unfortunate that the mainstream press *always* focus on the "freakish" aspect of science research, and not the "big picture". the bottom line is that in order for us to tackle the "big" issues in science and medicine, we need to experiment on living things. full stop, underline. of course i agree that there is an ethical aspect to certain areas of research that should not be neglected, but right now the ethical bar is being set way too low because of uninformed, negative spin on the part of the press.

      we have been "genetically engineering" bacteria for over 20 years with no complaints nor public profile, and that research has directly and indirectly contributed immensely to various gene therapies and diagnostics, and to the mechanisms of viral and bacterial disease. the second that genetic engineering (improvement) of foodstuffs is mentioned, bang! alarm bells! when in fact, the bacterial and viral genetic engineering of the past 2 decades has posed a far greater risk of something going "wrong" or of some malevolent person engineering a super-ebola with a one week latency period (in which case we'd all be fucked big time). genetic engineering of food has the potential to solve or at least lessen the ongoing starvation of millions (while we continue to worry about whether we should upgrade to the latest video card...).

      now take stem cell research. so what, stem cells. science operating the way it does, the vast majority of stem cells come from people who've died and/or aborted foetuses, not living creatures or "stem cell factories". i know, sounds icky, but stem cells are hugely important in terms of their scientific value and potential outcomes to mankind. and let's face it, once dead, a person's bone marrow is of no use to anyone else, right?

      what society needs is some perspective. bush and gov can spin the ensuing iraq invasion in such a manner that many americans think it's kindof OK to *invade* a country and kill thousands of people for the sole reason that bush doesn't like their leader. if thousands of lives of living, breathing people can be wasted for oil, then why should we not make use of those passed away by natural causes to help the living? you.. your sister... your mother... your neighbour...

      to be a scientist is to revere life and the process of living above all else. you should have more faith in us to do what is right. better yet, inform yourself about the issue or ask a friendly neighbourhood science pal and thrash out the real issues.

      obviously, this is an issue close to my heart...
    • I can't help but think that this type of science is dabbling a little beyond the realm of what we should be working on.

      You've just described popular opinion about most branches of science on the verge of breaktrhough, including biology (genetics) and particle physics (splitting the atom), among others. If we stopped science when it was deemed "beyong the realm of what we should be working on", we'd be living in caves.
  • Isn't that how they made Fritz Hollings? By crossing a politician with Mickey Mouse?
  • No registration required, courtesy of Google and the New York Times [nytimes.com]

    Why aren't the articles just posted like this to begin with? It's something that NYT themselves set up.
  • I know plenty of people I'd be willing to offer to experimentation. Anyone know where I can sign them up?

  • babelfish (Score:4, Funny)

    by nmg196 ( 184961 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:28AM (#4766517)
    I don't understand. Is there an English copy?

    I shoved that into babelfish but it didn't come up with anything - no matter what language I selected...
  • ... and already supported by Linux kernel!
    Just compile Human Interface Device support as a module.

  • Larry: "Did you understand any of that?"

    Junior: "Not A Word."

  • Ethical Problems? They already do it. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gary Franczyk ( 7387 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:34AM (#4766548)
    Why are they having ethical problems with it? It is already being done in a smaller scale all the time. If I understand it correctly, in order to create recombinant monoclonal antibody drugs like Remicade, they place human antibody genes into a bacteria and have the the bacteria pump out antibodies.

    People complain and say that scientists should not make half-animal-half-man creatures and mix creatures. Just because it doesn't LOOK like some sort of chimera doesn't make it NOT a chimera.

    Isn't antibody engineering and this the same thing?
    • I was thinking the same thing, but reading the article I see the submitter incorrectly described what they're doing -- they're making a chimera of human stem cells and mouse blastocysts. If not quite a half-mouse, half-human it's far closer to it than a recombinant organism with a gene or two from a different species.
    • Ethical problems don't exist... It's a made up thing, a simple case of "I believe this, so I will force it upon you".

      That aside, we will have a problem as the line between human and animal blurs... Should we raise all animals to the level of humans wrt the rights they have? Probably not a good idea. I think we need to ignore the preachers, the churches, the "won't somebody think of the children" pretenders pushing for their own power, and set a strict definition of what defines a living, breathing, human being, and what is a clumb of cells related to, or with the potential to someday be a human being... I believe it's right for experiments to be done on month old foetuses, but I don't think it's right to do the same thing on one that could live if born prematurely....

      perhaps I'm rambling and incoherent, I was just trying to raise a couple of points.
      • I believe it's right for experiments to be done on month old foetuses, but I don't think it's right to do the same thing on one that could live if born prematurely....

        What about doing medical experiments on your arm or groin? Neither could live if removed from your body. Neither your arm or groin are ever consulted and never have the chance to say anything about it. :-)
      • Ethical problems don't exist... It's a made up thing

        So likewise, 'laws do not exist... They are a made up thing'?

        Ethical problems do exist, but they are personal in nature. Societies choose which ethical concerns they collectively believe ought be enforced across the society. Generally such things are called laws.

        we will have a problem as the line between human and animal blurs

        There is no such line. Humans are and have always been animals. Its just that most humans believe that they are somehow 'more' than other animals (and most also believe that they are more than other humans too). The truth is that we are simply different.

        Should we raise all animals to the level of humans wrt the rights they have?

        That is precisely what many people assert. Such a move would obviously require that the entire population either go vegan or engineer and accept meat animals without even basic intelligence (I suspect this would be a great thing for food producers; all the meat and none of the behavour problems of 'real' animals).

        Many people consider that beings that suffer (and that we can reasonably identify as suffering) ought not be caused, through our actions, to suffer.

        From this point of view, early term abortion is pefectly ok, because the aborted material has not yet evolved to the point at which it is able to suffer.

        I tend to agree with this viewpoint, to an extent. I don't think that the suffering of the mice outweighs the value of the research done with them. I'd prefer that they not be harmed, but at the moment it seems necessary. I would not take this position with animals with significantly more cognative power, such as apes.
    • Nothing sacred about human cells. an abrasion, a cut (bllod cells), or even take a showere or pick your node and you lose cells. Jesus, you cant even ejacualate without losing cells, and ALL of those cells , except maybe one lucky one, die.

      I mean the whole idea of giving blood is to give cells. Either for another human to use, or to have those cells used for sume prupose--drug making--and then deliberately killed--i.e. sterilized defore being thrown away. Nothing immoral here.

      It's human life that is precious, Not my little finger or some other unviable bit of flesh.

    • First a minor nitpick - Remicade (and Enbrel and EPO etc) are actually made in mammalian cells. Chinese Hamster Ovary cells to be precise.
      Second, I would submit that an even more striking example of the principle your presenting is the "Abgenix" mouse, a mouse whose IgG genes have been replaced by human genes so that the immunoglobulins it produces are clearly human. Also, type "human mouse hybrid" into Google and learn about murine cells with entire human chromosomes used to study telomerase
      I guess the argument here is one of degree - many more human genes will be present in the hybrids described here. Also, they will be self-sustaining organisms in a way that cell lines really aren't. But on the whole I agree with you, this is just another step in a journey already begun.

    • in truth, several similar things are done, but not approaching this scale, and not anything that would have the possibility (albeit remote) of creating offspring with cells that are entirely human.

      Examples ...

      (1) hybrids between murine (or other rodent species) and human cells. these experiments are typically done to map genetic factors unique to one organism or assay the recessive of dominant phenotypic nature of a gene factor. In long term culture, these are unstable. Mouse and human cells have different numbers of chromosomes which are duplicated at different speeds and move toward productive mitosis (somatic cell division) at different rates. The human chromosomes lag behind in the divisions and are eventually lost over time.

      (2) immunologically crippled mice grafted with parts of the human immune system to study human immune function in an 'animal model'. These mice usually bearing the SCID or RAG genetic defect don't have an adaptive response/capability to recognize foreign cells as non-self. One popular model is the SCID-hu model in which mice typically are typically injected in their kidneys with human thymus, liver, and/or lymph node tissue in a capsule. There is partial immune reconstitution in these animals by the human immune system cells and they can be used in pathogen challenge or other studies. Obviously, potential progeny offspring would not genetically inherit human cells as a chimeric organism.

      (3) Human genes can be introduced into mice as transgenes or by 'knock-ins' also more properly known as gene replacements. This is done to study human gene function in an animal context often looking at the cancer causing or cancer suppressing potential of genes of interest, the developmental role of particular genes, the immunological effect of genes, and more. These changes are very often heritable and there are many genetically altered mice currently available carrying numerous different human gene products

      None of the examples above are on the scale of what is being considered in creating hybrid blastocysts between mouse and human. These are obviously most likely to be viable, but a concern I have is what happens when an enterprising individual takes it to the next level and successfully does the experiment using monkey (example was Rhesus) blastocysts ...what if human neurologic tissue is grafted into this chimeric organism? This type of research should not be taken out to an island run by a Dr. Moreau but really needs to carefully considered before our science moves faster than our ability to comprehend what we have created.


  • "Yes. The Mouse Problem [graphicszone.net]. This week 'The World Around Us' looks at the growing social phenomenon of Mice and Men. What makes a man want to be a mouse."

    JPZ

  • HPD ? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by _Spirit ( 23983 )
    So we will have human pointer devices soon ? I wonder if they will be optical and/or cordless....

  • Time to... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Omkar ( 618823 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:36AM (#4766566) Homepage Journal
    Build a better mousetrap! Seriously, we shouldn't be dabbling in this stuff until we truly understand what's going on (as much as we can before experimenting). Are the conveniences/insights worth the risks?

    • Re:Time to... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by babbage ( 61057 )
      That is completely not how science works. You don't understand anything until you can come up with an idea -- preliminary understanding, a hypothesis -- and then *come up with an experiment*. If you're lucky, the experiment will affirm your hypothesis; if you're not then results will be inconclusive (& you need to do a better experiment) or you're just proven wrong.

      In any event, the key piece is constant experimentation, not just mental noodling. That stuff has to suffice for some kinds of physics & astronomy research, where the experiments can be difficult or impossible to do, but biology is so, well, wild & woolly, that the only way forward is to constantly test your ideas by experimentation.

  • This is exactly what John Steinbeck predicted in "Of Mice and Men". I, for one, welcome our cheese-loving overlords.
  • Bladerunner...

    Unless using blastocysts from immunologically crippled mice, there would most likely be a recognition of non-self by murine immune cells not educated (which haven't seen during their development) to the human cells that would wipe them out.

    "To make an alteration in the evolvment of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established. by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship....Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries the mutation and you've got a virus again."
  • Well mice are the most important and intelligent beings. They created the earth and humans to find the question..... to the answer 42. Well that was what Hitchhikers told me... correct me if I am wrong

  • Research on human cells =! scary (Score:5, Interesting)

    by No Such Agency ( 136681 ) <abmackay@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:43AM (#4766613)
    Nonetheless, it's amazing that it's being contemplated due to the ethical implications of such an experiment. What if it were viable? What if there were more than just a few human cells? Could it be sacrificed? ... or even experimented on further if part 'human'?

    Methinks you've been spending too much time around George W. and his Department of Christian Morality. "A few cells" =! a human being. If human tissues are somehow sacred, I'd better make sure to never go for a biopsy lest my doctor and I be arrested for attempted murder!

    Anyway, You can be assured that the researchers involved in this work, as well as their associated institutional ethicists, are acutely aware of the ethical issues involved here. I'm not saying we should let them decide if it's ethical, but it's not like they're cackling evilly in a secret laboratory, kidnapping blonde virgins to extract their stem cells and put them in giant killer mice. This is important basic research which could potentially lead to unanticipated advances in medicine and developmental biology. It would be foolish to condemn it because of some irrational "oh god no, human-mouse hybrids" reaction.
    • Exactly. Remember that it wasn't much more than a century ago that doctors would have to perform autopsies in the middle of the night in secret because it was "unethical" and "disgusting" to cut up corpses for research. But if it weren't for those doctors there wouldn't be modern surgery today. Sometimes science is gross. Deal with it.
    • Once we start down this road of genetically mixing humans and other species, there is no end... no stopping place. Sure, maybe these researchers are trying to be careful to consider the ethical implications of what they are doing, but I guarantee you that there are a lot of people out there that are more than willing to throw caution to the wind. I mean, my God, we've barely scratched the surface on cloning technology, and already there are doctors in the world trying to clone humans. [yahoo.com] (Whether he actually has or hasn't is another story; but this fact remains: he would if he could, and to hell with any consideration of the implications.)

      Trust me. Once someone throws open the door on this and makes the details of their research public knowledge, somebody, somewhere in this world of 6 billion people is going to attempt the unthinkable. Is it absolutely necessary that we open EVERY Pandora's Box, just because we can?

  • Don't worry, mice aren't animals. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jonbrewer ( 11894 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @09:55AM (#4766676) Homepage
    Nor are birds. At least according to the US government. They excluded from protection under animal welfare laws, and thus should not be worried about, eh?

    The actual exclusion is set down in 9 CFR part 1, and reads as follows:

    "Animal means any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or any other warmblooded animal, which is being
    used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. This term excludes: Birds, rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, and horses not used for research purposes and other farm animals..."
  • Get your damn dirty paws off of me you filthy mouse!
  • Scerw that. Let me know when a human-trackball hybrid is available, and I'll be there.

  • Asimov already addressed this. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pete-classic ( 75983 ) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @10:08AM (#4766757) Homepage Journal
    We can experiment on it (treat it as property) until it asks us to stop.

    -Peter
  • The social implications have been treated some 60 ago by Cordwainer Smith (alias Charles Linebarger). I have found, he has a web site now: http://www.cordwainer-smith.com/
    After these technique is as common as taking pills there is no sharply outline border between men and animals any more... Quite a different world...
  • I, for one, welcome our new human-mouse hybrid overlords.
  • That post has to be the heaviest concentration of technobabble I've seen or heard in a very long time. :-)

    (even if the terms relate to biotech instead of warp drives...)
  • There's this labyrinth near where I live and I keep getting lost: my friends laugh and think I am dull as a post! If I was only lucky enough to have some hybrid mouse DNA within me, I'd find that cheese in nothing flat!
  • Lawyers are already human-rat hybrids!!!
  • This ethical debate is ridiculous since we don't seem to mind killin' em after they're born.

  • TMNT (Score:2)

    by iiioxx ( 610652 )
    Okay, so how far off are we from actually creating Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or something... Today, intelligent mice. Tomorrow, a giant turtle with nunchucks. The future's so bright, I got to wear shades.
  • Specifically me with Tyra Banks. YUM!

  • Burn a little Karma here (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tri0de ( 182282 ) <dpreynld@pacbell.net> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @10:44AM (#4766998) Journal
    And rant about all the weenies who are afraid of scientific progress.
    I hope they do this. AND cloning, AND every other scientific experiment that might be interesting.

    There is no such thing as bad knowledge, there is ONLY accurate or inaccurate DATA. ALL knowldege is good, ALL information should be propagated to every last human being on the planet. Holding back from knowledge, or any potential knowldege out of "fear" Religon" "National Security" or any other such quasi Pandorian bullshit is -to me anyway- being a traitor to the whole human race. I hope that every self proclaimed "ethicist" will someday be seen as merely another inquisitor slowing the progress of humanity out of the dark ages.
  • ...wondering how good this human/mouse hybrid will be in Quake?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Frequently when matters of genetic manipulation make the news the media and other entities make objections based upon immorality. Ex: When cloning was more prevalent in the news, there were many people who were saying how wrong cloning a human would be, the huge implications it would have, etc.

    However, after listening to their arguments I was left still wondering what exactly their objections were, apart from appeals to their moral beliefs. So: Could someone please give any actual reasons for opposing cloning?

    Not a troll, it's just that usually whenever there is a moral objection to something there is at least a modicum of reason to back it up, even if it can be perceived as being somewhat specious. In the case of cloning I personally have seen none, specious or otherwise.

  • Man will not eat man.

    Are we not men?

    -Dr. Moreau

  • You know what this means don't you? (Score:4, Funny)

    by trcooper ( 18794 ) <coop@redout . o rg> on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @11:20AM (#4767328) Homepage
    They're creating an army of Mouse-men to take over the world. An army of millions that will scurry out of rural corn fields and take over America.

    Fortunately I am almost finished designing a giant trap that will prey on the one weakness they neglected to genetically correct, Sweet, sweet, cheese.
  • Here is the first test subject [imdb.com]...
  • Seems kind of a stupid thing to worry about. We already have to deal with ethical concerns regarding creatures that are far closer to human than any conceivable mouse-human chimera, namely chimps and gorillas--or just about any primate, for that matter.
  • I don't register with the NYT so I can't see if this is the Newman mouse.. though I belive this was being done so that it could be Pateneted and either:

    A. Make the goverment/people so sick that they would change the patent laws (and presumably other laws) to prevent such things.

    B. Gain a patent and use it to prevent others from ever doing such a thing.

    Here's a link:

    http://www2.canisius.edu/~gallaghr/humouse.html

  • Coming soon.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by sawilson ( 317999 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @12:04PM (#4767697) Homepage
    This page was generated by a barrel of Human-Mouse Hybrids for sawilson.

  • So how...? (Score:3, Funny)

    by KC7GR ( 473279 ) on Wednesday November 27, 2002 @01:23PM (#4768401) Homepage Journal
    ...do you left-click with one of these hybrids? Heck, are they two or three-button? PS/2 compatible, or just USB?

    For that matter, do they have balls or are they purely optical?

    (There go my karma points...)

Slashdot Top Deals

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Close