Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Science

Human Language Gene Changes How Mice Squeak 185

Posted by Soulskill
from the let's-test-the-reverse dept.
archatheist writes "Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany have engineered a mouse whose FOXP2 gene has been swapped out for a different (human) version. This is interesting because the gene is implicated in human language, and this has changed how mice squeak. 'In a region of the brain called the basal ganglia, known in people to be involved in language, the humanized mice grew nerve cells that had a more complex structure. Baby mice utter ultrasonic whistles when removed from their mothers. The humanized baby mice, when isolated, made whistles that had a slightly lower pitch, among other differences, Dr. Enard says. Dr. Enard argues that putting significant human genes into mice is the only feasible way of exploring the essential differences between people and chimps, our closest living relatives.' The academic paper was published in Cell."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Human Language Gene Changes How Mice Squeak

Comments Filter:
  • by timmarhy (659436) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @02:14AM (#28147487)
    ... with ultrasonic zombie mice.
    • by x2A (858210) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @02:45AM (#28147611)

      This is just the beginning. They started off with a cut down version of the gene (due to patent restrictions on the method used in working with the full gene) that only allows the mice to squeek in the lower tone, do the high pitch whistle, and make one other noise, such as checking its email. The three squeek limit will be a limitation until the Mice Generation 7, when they'll be able to have as many squeeks as they like, but the amount of memory they can use will be limited. This is of course until the EU gets their hands into them, and they will be born without an ability to browse.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by kanweg (771128)

        "This is of course until the EU gets their hands into them, and they will be born without an ability to browse.'

        I think this would have been more accurate: And they no longer have a browser-pellet forcefed to them, but are made concious that they are free to browse as they like.

        Bert

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by drinkypoo (153816)

          This is a stupid argument because the average user needs a web browser to download another web browser, they don't have the disc lying around. (Can you even get a disc for Firefox?) They could technically do it via FTP, if they had any idea how, but they don't.

          Taking the browser away from the user only hurts the user. IE's market share is plummeting anyway.

    • by Z00L00K (682162) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @03:46AM (#28147847) Homepage

      And the mice will suddenly start to develop extreme communication skills and figure out how to upset the results of the scientists.

      This is an interesting part of science, even if it's not always morally "right". The outcome should be that we will learn more about ourselves and to design better drugs to treat illnesses.

      But the more worrying kind of action here is that it also invites to tampering with genes that can make humans meek and controllable. A new level of slavery can be developed. Just imagine a totalitarian state with zombie slaves to do all the dirt work. If the Nazis had had this technology they would have used it! And super-humans that can exceed all current Olympic records.

      Let's just say that we live in interesting times!

      • by EdIII (1114411) *

        But the more worrying kind of action here is that it also invites to tampering with genes that can make humans meek and controllable. A new level of slavery can be developed. Just imagine a totalitarian state with zombie slaves to do all the dirt work. If the Nazis had had this technology they would have used it! And super-humans that can exceed all current Olympic records.

        Nah, that won't happen. They will escape their human creators along with the rats next door and migrate out to country, steal resources

      • by meringuoid (568297) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @08:01AM (#28148605)
        A new level of slavery can be developed. Just imagine a totalitarian state with zombie slaves to do all the dirt work. If the Nazis had had this technology they would have used it!

        What? No they wouldn't. Why go to all the trouble of genetically engineering a subhuman slave race when you've already got millions of untermenschen all over the place that you need to find a use for? The whole point of the Third Reich was to get rid of the inferior breeds, not to create more!

        Mengele would probably have played with this technology, but as a matter of policy the Nazis were fixated on genetic purity. Cross-species gene tampering of this kind would probably have disgusted them.

      • by Progman3K (515744) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @08:03AM (#28148611)

        And the mice will suddenly start to develop extreme communication skills and figure out how to upset the results of the scientists.

        "How better to disguise their real natures, and how better to guide your thinking. Suddenly running down a maze the wrong way, eating the wrong bit of cheese, unexpectedly dropping dead of myxomatosis, - if it's finely calculated the cumulative effect is enormous."

      • [snip]Nazis[snip]

        Godwin's law!

  • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Saturday May 30, 2009 @02:16AM (#28147501) Homepage Journal

    Today's biology is finite component analysis done at a massive scale.. Figuring out how a machine as big as a person works is going to take millenniums.

    • by binarylarry (1338699) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @02:42AM (#28147603)

      Sounds like a job for... better tools. :)

      • Well Said (Score:5, Funny)

        by tobiah (308208) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @02:57AM (#28147659)
        One could pick apart the errors of the parent statement, but the fact remains that if a simulation is too slow or wrong to make meaningful predictions, there's something wrong with the simulation.
    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @04:51AM (#28148053)

      Today's biology is finite component analysis done at a massive scale.. Figuring out how a machine as big as a person works is going to take millennium

      Maybe not, high-throughput molecular biology is getting better all the time.

      -With the genome sequenced we have a rough idea of how many genes there are and can find homologies between genes, so you can begin clustering genes by presumed function.

      -With mutagenesis screens, you can sometimes identify most of the genes involved in a given process.

      -High-throughput protein interaction studies can identify complexes, grouping proteins into functional groups.

      -There's an attempt to make a knockout mouse [wikipedia.org] for every gene in their genome.

      None of those will give you the full story for any one gene, nor will any give you good stories for most of the genes by themselves. But used together, we can have a rough idea of what genes do what, and can take a closer look at what we need to. This gene, FOXP2 for example, was not chosen at random.

      And that's just with technology I've heard of that exists now. I don't know much about genomics, and we certainly are going to continue to invent ways to get research done faster. I think the human genome project came in under budget and ahead of schedule largely due to technology that was advanced as the project was underway. It's too early to make such long forecasts.

  • Squeak to me, baby, squeak to me!
  • by DamienNightbane (768702) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @02:21AM (#28147525)
    This is how The Secret of Nimh began, isn't it?
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by LaskoVortex (1153471)
      Speaking of Art, here is some cool FoxP2 Art: http://www.foxp2.org/ [foxp2.org]
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        Wow, that's not what I was expecting when I clicked on a URL that had "fox" in it in a reply to a comment about the Secret of Nimh.
      • by tobiah (308208)
        See, this is the problem with trying to understand function by studying the disfunctional, and trying to understand disfunction by studying someone else with similar symptoms. I don't really see this as a breakdown of the scientific method so much as a failure to understand the method.
    • by artor3 (1344997)

      Perhaps, but The Secret of MPIEA just doesn't have the same ring to it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by ethana2 (1389887)
      I hear the rats of Nicad were pretty dense.

      /me ducks

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      This is just our plan for the continuation of at least some of our genes when we render the planet incapable of sustaining human life. We'll also engineer the mice for CO2 resistance, and they can live on the cockroaches that will be the only other thing around.

    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

      >>This is how The Secret of Nimh began, isn't it?

      I don't recall the mice whistling to each other in ultrasonic morse code, but then again, it's been a while.

  • Where is the line? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hibji (966961) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @02:27AM (#28147543)

    I'm assuming most people here won't have a problem with this research. But truly, where is the line? What about injecting human brain cells into mice? How about into chimps? Do we have any moral obligations not to cross this line? I am in awe and at the same time terrified about the future.

    This article raises some of these questions. It's quite interesting that it was written in 2004. It even mentions the FOXP2 gene.
    http://www.reason.com/news/show/34941.html [reason.com]

    • by x2A (858210)

      "What about injecting human brain cells into mice?"

      No that would just be silly. Firstly, keeping brain cells alive long enough to put them into a mouse is gonna be difficult, secondly, the mouse's immune system's gonna just reject and kill the cells as soon as they are put into the mouse, and thirdly, even if you got the cells into the mouse they wouldn't do anything because they wouldn't be connecting into the mouse's neural network. The genetic approach is probably gonna remain much more effective.

      • by hibji (966961) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @02:55AM (#28147649)

        The linked article seems to disagree with you:

        Stanford University's Irving Weissman has injected human neural stem cells from aborted fetuses into the brains of fetal mice, where they have integrated and grown into human neurons and glia that intermingle with mouse brain cells, making up about 1 percent of the tissue in their brains.

        • by x2A (858210)

          Great, next you're gonna tell 'im that actually MIT have created monsters to go under the bed. Sheesh!

          • by TheLink (130905) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @03:33AM (#28147793) Journal
            Nah, if we are not careful the monsters could be the scientists and rest of us.

            From the link:
            > However, there is no evidence the chimeric mice began to contemplate the meaning of life. We need to give such chimeric mice no more or less moral consideration than we already give laboratory mice.

            Really? How do they know that - they don't speak mice.

            And what about the humans who don't contemplate the meaning of life? Most of us don't contemplate the meaning of life every minute of our lives.

            OK say 1% human is still not human enough. At what percentage does a subject become too human to experiment on?

            Yes, look at it that way.

            And they'd probably do things the other way round too - start adding nonhuman (not necessarily animal) parts to humans.

            So maybe you might decide to reject an "upgrade" because you would be no longer be classed as human and thus be no longer eligible for human-only medical insurance or "NHS".

            Just because the tech is ready, doesn't mean the laws, systems and societies are ready.
            • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30, 2009 @05:57AM (#28148211)

              And what about the humans who don't contemplate the meaning of life? Most of us don't contemplate the meaning of life every minute of our lives.

              We do actually. Look, there's no easy way to tell you this but it's time you knew; you're one of the mice.

              • Nooooo!

                Oh well, on the bright side that means there's lots of medication and tech out there that is proven to work for me.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by interkin3tic (1469267)

        secondly, the mouse's immune system's gonna just reject and kill the cells as soon as they are put into the mouse,

        They'd be using SCID [wikipedia.org] mice. These mice are often used for xenografts, sometimes with human tissue. For example, here's an abstract [nih.gov] describing a study in which researchers implanted human ovarian tissue into SCID mice, and the tissue actually developed into something resembling a functional human ovary. I think I saw the lead researcher give a talk, she thought these tissues would be functional with hormone stimulation.

    • by timmarhy (659436) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @03:06AM (#28147683)
      the classic one anti GM nut jobs bring up is "would you eat pork with human genes in it", and i guess there will be similar objections raised over this. they try to imply it would make you a cannibal and other nonsense, ignoring the fact we already share genetic code with pigs.

      in a nut shell, i'd support any form of genetic experiementation that does cause undue distress or suffering on an animal. call me a soft lefty, but i just can't stomach unwarranted suffering of animals. i feel worse for them than i do for most humans, because they don't understand what's happening and certainly don't bring it on themselfs.

      once i was asked if i supported harvesting organs from animals to save people - I do, but only if it's done in a humane manner and the animals don't suffer. after all if we can't protect animals from cruelty what chance is there we will do the same for our fellow man?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TheLink (130905)
      Unfortunately I believe people will cross many such lines way before human society is ready.

      A lot of scientists (and other people) seem to think just because it can be done, it should be done (and if they don't someone else will do it anyway).

      Will human society be willing to give such transgenic mice, chimps and pigs the full rights as other humans? If we aren't, we shouldn't be doing stuff like this.

      Even if such research can benefit humans in one way, it will cause big problems.

      People may ask: nut who then
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Bat Country (829565)

        This is going to sound intentionally inflammatory - that's because it is. I'm tired of hearing the same tired complaints without any sort of logical foundation or any real argument presented at all. My intention is not to offend you and walk off with a smirk, but to offend you and have you walk off with doubts.

        Why should we give equal rights to an animal just because it has a few human genes in it?

        That's like giving a used condom the right to vote. The presence of human genetic material does not imbue some

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by TheLink (130905)
          Why should we give YOU rights? What makes you legally human?

          Would it be wrong for me to euthanize or enslave all you stupid unthinking animals?

          Anyway I figure some smart sociopathic world leaders already have answered that question with "don't care" or "no as long as it benefits me".

          So it's not really going to matter that much anyway ;).
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by QuoteMstr (55051)

        A lot of scientists (and other people) seem to think just because it can be done, it should be done (and if they don't someone else will do it anyway).

        Ain't the truth a pain? Sorry. Many people before you have proposed banning certain avenues of research, and science always wins.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by khallow (566160)

        Unfortunately I believe people will cross many such lines way before human society is ready.

        So what? Human societies (of which there are many) still on occasional can't come to grips with basic human behavior which has been around for longer than humanity has.

        It seems to me that society has some obligation to keep up to speed on what's going on in technology, science, and the forefront of human advancement. What good are uninformed regulations? My view is that there's some flawed game theory here. That is, proponents of "banning" certain technological advancements think it's merely a choice bet

    • But truly, where is the line? What about injecting human brain cells into mice? How about into chimps?

      The differences between mouse, chimp, and human neurons are less significant than the higher organization of neurons. I couldn't find figures for numbers of neurons in chimps or mice, but this website [washington.edu] indicates that humans have around a hundred billion neurons in the brain, the human brain weighing 1.3-1.4kg. The chimp brain weighs 420 grams. We have more cells in our brains than mice do in their entire body.

      Injecting human neurons into a mouse? Wouldn't do anything like make the mouse self aware. It w

    • I think we're safe as long as they refrain from injecting any brain cells into Britney Spears. Wasn't there a film about this, though? I think it was called The Mouse That Roared??
  • by Afforess (1310263) <afforess@gmail.com> on Saturday May 30, 2009 @02:28AM (#28147555) Journal
    Although this kind of research is interesting, the final results of this would have wide ranging implications that I would rather avoid. Mainly, that is if animals were allowed to converse in a common language with humans, it would show us if they possess a consciousness, can reason, and what emotions that they can feel. This would either prove the sanctity of animal life or deny it, ultimately; I would rather keep the ongoing debate and not have a decision.
    • If the human gene of speech is what gives us sentience, then we should ponder the ethics of sticking the gene into any mammal.

      Suppose that this mouse is actually now sentient. Do we commit a crime when we imprison it in a laboratory or mangle its body (for the sake of some test)?

      When we create chimera, we are playing god.

      • by amRadioHed (463061) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @05:54AM (#28148207)

        I hate to break it to you but all mammals are already sentient. Every step on an animals tail? That noise it makes is proof of its sentience.

        • by juuri (7678) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @10:20AM (#28149189) Homepage

          Sentient is a loaded word, it doesn't really mean what most people associate to it. By definition any thing that reacts to a given stimulus could be argued to be sentient given that experiencing a "sensation" must happen to cause the reaction. Most people believe sentient includes the concept of self awareness, it doesn't and this is a fine distinction to remember.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by whois_drek (829212)
          By that logic, I hate to break it to you but all computers are already sentient. Ever take a hammer to a computer? That noise it makes is proof of its sentience.
        • by FleaPlus (6935)

          Every step on an animals tail? That noise it makes is proof of its sentience.

          Actually, that's proof of its responsiveness. Sentience is a subset of responsiveness, but they're not the same thing.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Razalhague (1497249)

        When we create chimera, we are playing god.

        I'm sick and tired of people saying that, especially the people who say that like it's an inherently bad thing. I seriously don't get what's wrong with it. If "playing god" can improve the quality of human life, I'd say it's immoral not to.

    • by giorgist (1208992)
      "I would rather keep the ongoing debate and not have a decision"

      Any advance on knowledge breaks the above. We need myth to keep us going while we fill in the blanks with knowledge.
      You want to keep myth ? Good for you, we need people like you to keep feeding scientists wile scientists work away
      doing non food producing research. You are not a total loss ...
    • by billybob_jcv (967047) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @03:31AM (#28147783)

      Anyone who has spent any time at all around farm animals, will tell you that they ain't got nothin' to say that's worth listening to. Which is actually much like most of the people in the world.
       

    • What possible reason would you have for wanting to avoid knowing this?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30, 2009 @02:29AM (#28147563)

    Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering ?

  • Yes, no and where's my tea?
  • by Talisman (39902) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @03:41AM (#28147831) Homepage
    One of the more interesting aspects of basal ganglia is that it, along with the thalamus, make up the limbic system. Located below the cerebral cortex, this is the area of the brain where base emotions are generated, such as aggression and impulse.

    While researching speech in relation to the brain, it was discovered that while regular, everyday speech originated from the pars opercularis and pars triangularis of the inferior frontal gyrus, cursing originated from the basal ganglia.

    We know intuitively that cursing 'feels' different than regular speech when you do it, at an emotional level. They have proven that it actually is different, at the biological level.

    What's supercool about this experiment, is they increased the mouse's capacity to curse .

    What I wouldn't pay for a mouse that could curse. Or good god a monkey. Give me a cursing monkey and I'll tithe you every paycheck 'til I die.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Knunov (158076)

      Hah! And here I am again with no mod points.

    • by DynaSoar (714234) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @04:48AM (#28148047) Journal

      What I wouldn't pay for a mouse that could curse. Or good god a monkey. Give me a cursing monkey and I'll tithe you every paycheck 'til I die.

      A marker of language as opposed to verbal signaling is that speech is 'productive'. That is, it evolves. This can be done by compounding -- simplifying multiple elements into a single one. An example of Koko the gorilla doing comes from Penny Patterson's dissertation. Koko took the signs for 'apple' and 'drink' and formed a single compound sign for 'apple juice'. This example has been passed around for years as good evidence Koko was actually using language.

      Another example from the same source but not made as public was Koko's compounding 'dirty', 'toilet' and 'stink' into a sign referring to feces. Not terribly surprising in normal use. But she used it in another context. When her intended mate Mike was introduced, Koko didn't care for him at all. One time when Penny was trying to cajole Koko into accepting Mike, she said "Mike is a smart gorilla. I like Mike." Unimpressed, Koko replied "Mike dirty-toilet-stink", ie. 'Mike is shit'.

      There's your cursing monkey (actually, ape). You can find it in her dissertation, "Linguistic Capabilities of a Lowland Gorilla", Stanford, 1979. Or you can call Koko's humans at 1-800-ME-GO-APE (634-6273), I dirty-toilet-stink you not. If you're serious about your paycheck to even the slightest degree, feel free to visit koko.org and donate to her Conservation Education Project: Koko is teaching sign language in Cameroon, to deaf children as well as to hearing children interested in becoming sign language interpreters. If anyone still doubts Koko's linguistic abilities in light of this fact, I would doubt their linguistic comprehension more than I would Koko's.

      • by Talisman (39902)
        Well, this isn't exactly what I had in mind. I was envisioning a monkey in a cage in the corner of the living room that screamed obscenities at company.

        However, I was aware of Koko, though it has been years since I've read anything about her. I'll read up on what they are doing with her, and if the project seems worthy, I'll donate :)
        • by Lost Race (681080)

          Quit your mad-scientist daydreaming and just get a frickin' parrot already. You can teach them to curse in about 10 minutes.

          Be sure to avoid the Norwegian Blue variety though -- they are slow learners.

      • An example of Koko the gorilla doing comes from Penny Patterson's dissertation. Koko took the signs for 'apple' and 'drink' and formed a single compound sign for 'apple juice'

        The plural of anecdote is not data. The 'research' done on Koko was nothing but grant-draining. Anyone can teach an ape to copy - we even have a specific word in our language to describe this.

        • by DynaSoar (714234)

          The plural of anecdote is not data. The 'research' done on Koko was nothing but grant-draining. Anyone can teach an ape to copy - we even have a specific word in our language to describe this.

          A single word? Perhaps. I can think of a few phrases that would cover it. How very clever of you to craft your assertion in the form of an example. Or should that be how clever of who ever it was who taught you. You/they did very well, except for choosing to copy the same unsupported assertions as the other copying apes. That's always a major tip off.

          Another is making statements that indicate no grasp of the concepts you're slinging, like 'teach an ape to copy'. Nobody has to teach an ape, or any other spec

    • by Briareos (21163) *

      So THAT's what really happened to Timmy Two-Teeth [wikia.com]!

      Those bastards!

      np: Barbara Morgenstern - Nichts Muss (Nichts Muss)

  • FOXP2 saga (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Device666 (901563) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @04:19AM (#28147961)

    We should beware of popular reports of scientific discoveries: almost all the popular reports of FOXP2 claimed that it was the gene for language or even more ludicrously the gene for grammar - the truth is more complicated and far more interesting than that.

    No-one should imagine that the development of language relied exclusively on a single mutation in FOXP2. They are many other changes that enable speech. Not least of these are profound anatomical changes that make the human supralarygeal pathway entirely different from any other mammal. The larynx has descended so that it provides a resonant column for speech (but, as an unfortunate side-effect, predisposes humans to choking on food). Also, the nasal cavity can be closed thus preventing vowels from being nasalised and thus increasing their comprehensibility. These changes cannot have happened over such a short period as 100,000 years. Furthermore the genetic basis for language will be found to involve many more genes that influence both cognitive and motor skills

    Human mind needs human cognition and human cognition relies on human speech. Ultimately, we will find great insight from further unravelling the evolutionary roots of human speech.

  • All animal activists need to completely stop this line of research, is 1 mouse to 'accidentally' squeak "Please stop"... Great idea to give the mice a possible source of communication before testing other things that won't as easily hamper the whole process..
  • Heard: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tablizer (95088) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @04:27AM (#28147989) Homepage Journal

    "Okay, who moved my fuckin' cheese! Hey Mr. Labcoat, why don't YOU run this goddam maze; you look like you could lose some weight."

  • by DynaSoar (714234) on Saturday May 30, 2009 @05:50AM (#28148193) Journal

    TF(academic)A is a very well done piece of work. I'm glad to see this, as opposed to the junior high school comprehension level press releases usually presented as science. As such, my criticisms are offered respectfully.

    The FOXP2 gene cannot be said to be directly involved in language. The referenced works state that altering it disrupts some aspects of language production. There are many more ways that disruptions can occur through third variables or more general systems. In this case, altering the gene causes alteration in the dopamine system, which feeds the spiny neurons. Dopaminergic activity on spiny neurons causes inhibitory signals in the gamma range (~40 HZ) to be sent to the neurons in Hebbian cellular assemblies (a primary processing unit), synchronizing them and causing them to perform their function. This may well happen in the basal ganglia, but also happens over much of the cortex. This is a general system, responsible for a great deal of brain function. To claim it is part of language is not wrong, but is improper in that it is inaccurate due to over-specificity. As evidence, the well studied dopaminergic disorder Parkinson's does cause language disruption as noted in TFA, but clearly does so only as a specific example of a global phenomenon.

    Similarly, specific changes due to specific allele substitutions can only be said to be true if and only if substituting other alleles into the same locations do not cause similar changes. There is no evidence that the example referenced is as specific as is implied by the statement as presented.

    The statement that studying mice as 'the only feasible way' to study the relationship between humans and chimps appears so skewed that I wonder if it is a misstatement or misinterpretation. In any case, direct comparison studies have been done with excellent results. My old boss at NIH did volumetric comparisons on chimps brains using MRI, looking for left/right asymmetry in the language areas. In all of a dozen or so cases, he found it, to a degree similar to that in humans. In all but one cases, the left was greater than the right, also as found in humans. The one exception is not a difference, but rather a supporting similarity. The language centers are usually on the left because they are usually contralateral to the dominant hand, usually the right. In a dozen or so humans, chances are one or so will be left handed, with language centers on the right, just as was seen in the chimps. Studying mice is certainly fruitful and the results may well generalize to primate comparison studies. But to say it's the only feasible way to compare primate data is very wrong.

  • I get tired of listing to others peoples pointless conversation I can only imagine how boring listing to a mouse tell me about his weekend is going to be.

  • Ratatouille was based on real events!
  • eep eep eep!

While money can't buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.

Working...