4655289
story
Comments: 174 +- Science: Fluorescent Monkeys Cast Light On Human Disease on Wednesday May 27 2009, @07:56PM
Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday May 27 2009, @07:56PM
from the grape-ape-version-2.0 dept.
from the grape-ape-version-2.0 dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicbiotech.gif); width:42px; height:65px;
biotech
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmedicine.gif); width:64px; height:80px;
medicine
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that a team of Japanese scientists has integrated a new gene for green fluorescent protein into the common marmoset, causing them to glow green under ultraviolet light, creating second-generation, glow-in-the-dark monkeys in what could be a powerful new tool in human disease research. Though primates modified to generate a glowing protein have been created before, these are the first to keep the change in their bloodlines. If a fluorescent protein gene can be introduced into the monkey genome and passed onto future generations, other genes could be too opening up a world of possibilities for medical research, such as the generation of specific monkey colonies containing genetic defects that mirror human diseases aiding efforts to cure such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. However many people are likely to find the routine use of monkeys in medical research far less acceptable than that of rodents, drawing action from animal rights activists. 'I'm worried that these steps are being taken without any overall public discussion about whether we want to go down that road. We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings,' says Dr David King, from the group Human Genetics Alert. '"Slippery slope" is a quite inadequate description of the process, because it doesn't happen passively. People push it forward.'"
Related Stories
An idle mind is worth two in the bush.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Oblig... (Score:5, Funny)
I for one welcome our glowing primate overlords?........
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'll welcome them when they're two-assed monkeys. Those are so obviously more useful for research in human diseases.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The question is, does Alzheimer's let me bang her in the ear?
Epic penis-size FAIL
Fluorescent monkeys? Bah (Score:4, Funny)
I want phosphorescent monkeys, dammit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fluorescent monkeys? Bah (Score:4, Interesting)
Well it makes all the difference in the world if you're dieting. If you were phosphorescent, you could eat a tub of ice cream and just shine the calories away. Try doing that if you're just fluorescent.
Parent
Re:Fluorescent monkeys? Bah (Score:5, Funny)
If you were phosphorescent, you could eat a tub of ice cream and just shine the calories away.
So the fat girls would glow in the club? Where do I send the check with the funding?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Glowing is cool, but the novelty is elsewhere (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Glowing is cool, but the novelty is elsewhere (Score:5, Funny)
now you can make green offspring with no extra effort!
Some of us like the "effort" part, you know.
Parent
Re:Glowing is cool, but the novelty is elsewhere (Score:4, Funny)
With monkeys??? :-P
Cheers
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
With monkeys??? :-P
If you can make offspring with monkeys, good luck. I'll be sticking to humanoids, though.
Just a matter of time (Score:4, Interesting)
So, how long do you think it'll be before decedents of these 'somehow' hit the exotic pet trade.
Re:Just a matter of time (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He will be in a minute.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No really he's feeling better, maybe he'll go for a walk soon.
Why would anybody buy a dead monkey? (Score:4, Funny)
I don't always buy dead monkeys, but when I do, I prefer fluorescents.
Parent
Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:5, Insightful)
We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings
And eradicating genetic disease and improving humanity to the peak of its potential would be bad why, again? Here's a hint: The reason why the world of Gattaca is dystopic isn't because of genetic engineering.
Rob
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:5, Funny)
But.. but.. improving humanity genetically = eugenism = nazi = evil! It's inherent, you can't even screen foetuses for genetic defects without bringing dystopian technofascism into power.
I think you skipped the "Nazis riding dinosaurs" in there, but otherwise that's obviously exactly what would happen.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing to keep in mind is that advances within this field is coming, what is or isn't possible is still subject to a great deal of speculation; but our understanding, and our ability
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, sure, because anyone just knows that we'll rush to make bizarre experiments on humans.
Here's a reality check : we're not even cloning humans and we get our wads in a bunch about stem cell research on embryos.
Parent
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:4, Insightful)
No ones saying we would, at least not in general. The issues to overcome would be social issues that favor or discriminate against the genetically modified/non-modified people. What do you do about perceived unfair advantage the modified might have? What about the perceived inferior non-modified people, who would more than likely be children of groups already poor? What about pockets of luddites and their children? What about the (unlikely) chance that something goes wrong with the modifications themselves? Sure, genetic engineering hasn't blown up in anyone's face yet, and much to Greenpeace's dismay, it probably never will, but modifying human populations is something that must be taken with much more prudence than crops. Its not about bizarre experiments so much as it is about potential problems, mostly social in nature. I'm not saying these problems can't be overcome, or that modifying humans is necessarily a bad thing (as I said, it could do a whole lot of good), just that I don't think we should be doing gene modifications on humans at this point in time.
Parent
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:5, Interesting)
There's also the world of... Brave New World.
By unfortunate genetic lottery, we have people suited to manual labor, manufacturing and other undesirable jobs. In addition, we dehumanize people if they're "designed." Think about the problems we have when clothing/electronics/houses go out of style. Now think about your kids. Do you want them to "go out of style?" We'll only further objectify people.
Sure, it sucks if you're ugly. But at least you're unique.
Parent
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:5, Insightful)
The design -> dehumanization argument would be a lot more compelling if we didn't already have dehumanization and disappointment. Dehumanization and success would be step up.
Parent
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:4, Insightful)
There's also the world of... Brave New World.
Ah, TWO fictional stories. Well then it's pretty much a dead certainty.
Wait a minute... terminator and matrix... my god, I need to stop typing and destroy my computer RIGHT NOW!
By unfortunate genetic lottery, we have people suited to manual labor, manufacturing and other undesirable jobs. In addition, we dehumanize people if they're "designed." Think about the problems we have when clothing/electronics/houses go out of style. Now think about your kids. Do you want them to "go out of style?" We'll only further objectify people.
"go out of style?" Exactly how? Because if we start designing our kids to have floral print skin, that would be one thing, but not having cystic fibrosis probably isn't going to go out of style ever, and I think people are going to tend to leave superficial features alone, focusing more on diseases. And maybe height, weight, and intelligence, but those also probably aren't going to go "out of style."
Dehumanizing sounds convincing until you realize people already do that to ugly people.
Parent
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:5, Insightful)
Modifying genetic code to remove known defects that will do nothing but cause a lifetime of suffering is hardly dehumanizing. If anything, having the ability to prevent this kind of suffering and choosing not to would be inhumane.
Sure it sucks that you have a crippling disability and no quality of life and will probably die young and in pain, but at least you're unique.
Parent
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:5, Insightful)
In essence, Gattaca passes up the chance to face a really interesting question: "What would happen in a world where science has ensured that all men are very much not created equal?" and, instead, passes off a much, much flatter sci-fi racism allegory.
Supposedly, the protagonist suffers from a number of serious genetic defects, his heart condition being the worst. His brother, and the fellow whose identity he uses, do not. This is treated as simple fact within the context of the movie, the same way the space technology is. And yet, it has virtually no effect on the characters. The protagonist completes, without undue effort, highly rigorous physical and mental training(with a single heart palpitation to add dramatic tension). His only risk is being discovered and unjustly victimized by society; simply being let down by his body isn't an issue. By contrast, the fellow he is impersonating is impulsive, depressive, and suicidal(all traits with genetic components, but he has them and the protagonist doesn't, despite being engineered). The protagonist's brother is similarly unaffected by his supposedly superior genes.
The movie constantly downplays, in practice, the effect of genes on phenotype(and completely ignores the potential for psychology to be affected by genetics, in favor of a fuzzy "triumph of the human spirit" subplot) while making it a major plot point. It ends up simply being the story of "perfectly good guy, oppressed just because of who he is, shows what he can do through sheer pluck" rather than the much more interesting(but considerably darker and less comfortable) story of "adequate guy, whose inescapable limitations doom him to a life of frustration and inferiority" or, even, "Bold, self-absorbed, narcissist bluffs his way onto a mission where a number of other are depending on him to do what he knows he won't be able to do".
Parent
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:4, Insightful)
How many things in nature have been IMPROVED through human involvement?
Go on, count them...I'll wait.
Ever heard of polio?
Know why we don't worry about it much any more?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is what worries me - How many things in nature have been IMPROVED through human involvement?
Well, the food is certainly better now.... the meat is better cooked than raw, and the fruits and vegetables have been bred for centuries and now they're delicious. You should have seen the semi-edible crap that people subsisted on a few millenia ago.
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:5, Informative)
Are you joking? Do you know how many varieties of apple there are? Wild apples are barely half the size and aren't nearly as sweet. Think pears just happened? Uncultivated ones are gritty and sand-like. Ever notice how there's no seeds in your banana? Think wild ones are seedless? Corn? Not even naturally occurring. Wild wheat has a fraction of the yield of newer varieties. Look at all the ways humans have improved Brassica oleracea (hint: do you think broccoli, cauliflower, kale, cabbage, and brussels sprouts just happened?). Potatoes, carrots, oranges, nectarines, tomatoes, melons, barley, jeez, this post could go on and on, and that's just common food crops. To act like humans don't improve natural things is just bafflingly ignorant. People should really learn the history of their food sometime.
Parent
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:5, Interesting)
Wild parsnips can be turned into 'normal' parsnips after about a dozen generations.
It just seems like the right thing to do: find a nice plant that shows all the characteristic I'm after, collect the seeds, cool, sow, rince and repeat. Maybe one day I can get one named after me.
Parent
We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards t (Score:4, Funny)
KHANNNNN!!!!!
Raise your hands (Score:4, Funny)
How many of you would pay extra for a child that would fluoresce?
Re:Raise your hands (Score:5, Funny)
Does it have to be mine?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
No but I'd definitely pay extra for a fluorescent monkey.
Earth-Friendly Proposition? (Score:2, Funny)
Use the monkeys as light bulbs?
oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
Animal rights activists (Score:4, Funny)
However many people are likely to find the routine use of monkeys in medical research far less acceptable than that of rodents, drawing action from animal rights activists.
And once you have the attention of the animal rights activists, the harsh reality is that your research involves monkeys that fucking glow in the dark so it's not like they're easy to hide or anything.
The path less traveled (Score:4, Insightful)
I submit we have already, (and even within one generation) passed that fork in the road. Unless you think these people are doing all this research because they favor monkeys?
I'm not even going to read the summary... (Score:3, Funny)
... let alone the article. Why spoil a great headline? Heck, I just like the "Fluorescent Monkeys" part.
Beige? (Score:2)
Slippery Slope is a Logical Fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)
We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings
This argument is correctly labeled as a "slippery slope" argument, but what the author fails to mention is that "slippery slope" arguments are part of a group of arguments known as logical fallacy's. [wikipedia.org] The error is that the Dr. David King equates changing monkeys to genetic engineering and then assumes that genetic engineering on other organisms, namely humans, is inevitable; since human genetic engineering is bad, then all genetic engineering MUST be bad. This is illogical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...what the author fails to mention is that "slippery slope" arguments are part of a group of arguments known as logical fallacy's. [wikipedia.org]
It's only a logical fallacy if it's presented as a logical argument. I don't see that here: I see a concern that although the thing is not bad in and of itself, it may lead to a trend that is. That's not a logical fallacy, it's a reasonable concern which arises from taking a long-term view. One could argue whether it's a valid concern, or whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks, but to cry "logical fallacy" here is just an attempt to dismiss the objection without discussing its actual m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong "Slippery Slope" (Score:3, Interesting)
"I'm worried that these steps are being taken without any overall public discussion about whether we want to go down that road. We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings," says Dr David King, from the group Human Genetics Alert. "'Slippery slope' is a quite inadequate description of the process, because it doesn't happen passively. People push it forward."
This research may some day influence the manipulation of the human genome, but the same reasoning would apply to the current generation of fluorescent fish and bunnies. If your concern runs that deep, you might as well ban animal husbandry.
What bugs me about messing with primate genes is that they're already so close to us genetically that turning a few genes on or off would make them anthropomorphic analogues. In other words, we're making them men, but they lack the legal capacity, rights and protections that we take for granted.
For those of you with refined literary tastes, yes. I'm thinking of that Heinlein story, "Jerry Was a Man."
Re:The Island of Dr Moroe (Japan) (Score:5, Insightful)
This only shows their incompetence in model scenarios, so they just modify the DNA of primates and watch what happens, that is pretty low and disgusting, terrible trial and error approach.
Why? Nature does this all the time.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)