Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Science

Reprogrammed Skin Cells Turned Into Baby Mice 284

Posted by timothy
from the finally-tim-can-reproduce dept.
InfiniteZero writes "According to this WSJ story, 'Two teams of Chinese researchers working separately have reprogrammed mature skin cells of mice to an embryonic-like state and used the resulting cells to create live mouse offspring. The reprogramming may bring scientists one step closer to creating medically useful stem-cell lines for treating human disease without having to resort to controversial laboratory techniques. However, the advance poses fresh ethical challenges because the results could make it easier to create human clones and babies with specific genetic traits.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reprogrammed Skin Cells Turned Into Baby Mice

Comments Filter:
  • by timmarhy (659436) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:04PM (#28830499)
    one persons moral code should never prevent someone else getting medical treatment. bottom line, if you don't believe in that you don't believe in freedom. this kind of research is what will save lives in the future.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by yincrash (854885)
      the question is when is something considered a separate sentient being, (or a living human). i'm pretty sure punishing people for killing other innocent people (even to save another) is not considered shoving morals down throats.
      • by timmarhy (659436) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:22PM (#28830669)
        "i'm pretty sure punishing people for killing other innocent people (even to save another) is not considered shoving morals down throats"

        but that's got nothing to do with stem cell research - you can kill other people to harvest their organs right now. and it does happen. so that's adding nothing to the discussion.

        the point is, we should be given the freedom to get to the point where we need to answer such moral questions like "when is an cloned organ donor human?" for ourselfs, and not have that taken away by the moralist right.

        • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:26PM (#28830703)

          the point is, we should be given the freedom to get to the point where we need to answer such moral questions like "when is an cloned organ donor human?" for ourselfs, and not have that taken away by the moralist right.

          Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean its not right. Or are you ok with the "moralist right" saying that we were created because they have the right to answer it for the world? You see, the problem is, you end up possibly killing someone else if you are wrong. And really, the least you can say is that its not human even though it is A) living B) has human DNA and C) if developed would be a functioning human being. But I'm sure you also believe that each parent can choose what to do with their kid including abusing or even killing them right?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by timmarhy (659436)
            "But I'm sure you also believe that each parent can choose what to do with their kid including abusing or even killing them right?"

            your talking about a functioning child there, while i'm talking about less then a dozen cells in a test tube. i appreciate you need to muddy the waters to try discredit my point but lets atleast compare apples and apples ok?

            i guess your next argument is that those cells MIGHT become a child, but by that logic i'm a murderer everytime i jack off since every sperm MIGHT have bee

            • replying to kill accidental moderation
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            So given that they just managed to reprogram skin cells into an embryo and have it mature into viable offspring, it would be immoral for me to cut away live skin while cleaning off a wound because it could develop into a functioning human being? Please... if it isn't neurologically advanced enough to be aware it is a human being, it does not deserve to live over a person.

          • You see, the problem is, you end up possibly killing someone else if you are wrong.

            No, the identity of your "victim" doesn't change simply because some busy bodies in a church decide they know what the definition of a "human" is.
            Whether something is human or not human describes a lot about it/them, but sometimes the word is just not useful other than to say it's ambiguous.
            The actual facts you're discussing can easily be discussed in terms everyone agrees on (e.g. "cells" or even "human cells" are both conventional phrases (which in itself proves nothing BTW)). Anyone who shows up insis

            • by PRMan (959735)

              No, the identity of your "victim" doesn't change simply because some busy bodies in a church decide they know what the definition of a "human" is.

              Actually, you have it backward. It changed when a busybody outside the church decided that it was NO LONGER a human being, because they cared too much about their selfish lifestyle to care about killing another person.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          [quote]the point is, we should be given the freedom to get to the point where we need to answer such moral questions like "when is an cloned organ donor human?" for ourselfs, and not have that taken away by the moralist right.[/quote]

          So the ends justifies the means? Welcome to the scientific worldview of Nazi Germany.

          As is rather obvious, both sides of the stem cell debate tend to be rather myopic point of view. The proponents of embryonic stem cell research tend to emphasise the source of the material, a

    • But lets say for a moment that a fertilized egg is a human being. That adds a totally new dimension to the argument. Something tells me that my right to live doesn't trample the right of anyone else to live.
      • by timmarhy (659436) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:35PM (#28830805)
        "But lets say for a moment that a fertilized egg is a human being"

        this is exactly what i'm talking about - i don't agree that a couple of cells constitutes a human being, so why should someone like yourself who this has zero impact on get to deny 100,000's of people potentially life saving treatments? i'd like to see these people against stem cell research look a kid dieing from organ failure in the eye, and tell him they don't believe cloned organs are worth looking into.

        i think part of the problem is a lot of people have romanticised the idea of conception, if they were to actually go to a lab and see what they are protesting about they might alter their views.

        • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

          by Belisarivs (526071)

          Well, let's take this a step further. Hypothetically, let's say that there isn't a sanctified right to life for fully grown humans. Those who are a drag on society (the homeless and mentally ill, the generally useless) should be resources for those that are contributors. Let's say a CEO is suffering from a failing liver. If he gets a replacement, he can continue to run his company for years to come. He can generate a great deal of money for a great many people. His blood matches a homeless man who is

          • by shentino (1139071)

            The problem is that if the big CEO gets his way with the congress critters in his pocket, he COULD take the homeless guy's liver.

      • by Thiez (1281866) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:38PM (#28830831)

        I for one find it ridiculous that a single cell would enjoy the same rights as a real person with a personality, experiences, and so forth. The moment a single cell can be a legal human is the moment I'll embrace the concept of 'lesser' humans that can be slain for the convenience of 'superior' humans (where one human would be superior than another one when the cellcount of the former is at least 9 orders of magnitude larger than the cellcount of the latter.

        No wait, screw that. Why again does being a 'human being' make something special? Maybe that's worth examining.

        • Why again does being a 'human being' make something special?

          Because only human beings will attempt to answer that question ;-)

      • Why go that far? Let's say sperm is a human being.

        • by shentino (1139071)

          How paradoxical then that the very act required to procreate is itself lethal to sperm?

          Have sex? You're killing billions of sperms! Only a few make it inside. You murderer!!!!

          On the other hand, we'd have a population problem very fast if every sperm fertilized an egg. Not to mention there are hardly enough eggs to go around for every sperm.

    • I'm just really confused who this Morales person is, and why you're talking about others forcing him/her on us. That's kind of gross, and also ethically questionable. I guess in your world I don't believe in freedom. False dilemma, much? What? HOLLA!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      one persons moral code should never prevent someone else getting medical treatment. bottom line, if you don't believe in that you don't believe in freedom. this kind of research is what will save lives in the future.

      So, if Bill Gates needs a liver transplant and there is someone in a database who is a donor match for him, you have no problem with him hiring people to go out and harvest that liver from an otherwise healthy person? After all it is just some people's moral code that murder is wrong.
      Or is it that it is only moral codes that you don't agree with that you want to ignore?

      • by bill_kress (99356) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @10:31PM (#28832367)

        Do you really not see the flaw in this analogy, or are you just trying to make a point to support a belief?

        Anyway, in case you really don't see it, the larger point of the original post was that you don't have the right to force something on someone else. Murder is the most sever of the things you could force on someone else, denying medical treatment less so...

        This leads to some pretty large topics like health care and abortion--cases where people don't all agree to the terms (Is it the fetus or the mother who is having their rights violated today?), but regardless of other topics, that's what the original poster meant and your post completely missed.

    • by imamac (1083405)
      The moral line always has to be drawn somewhere. If my twin was the only hope of getting medical treatment by killing him and taking his organs, then by your definition, it should be fine and dandy. Sorry, but your logic is leaking all over the floor.
    • That is a nice altruistic view you got there. And I would agree with it. If it had anything to do with physical reality.

      Because there, the ideal, is to yourself be the one taking all resources, and be the only one to reproduce. (Where in the realm of ideas, "yourself" is the group of everyone agreeing with your world view.)

      It's the ultimate motivation. The only reason we exist. And without it, there is no evolution.

      But it's not that bad, if you think a bit further than "that is egoistic". Because in its mos

    • by Kjella (173770)

      If the nazis were experimenting on the jews and that lead to medical data/treatments is it ethical to use it? The experiments themselves were obviously unethical but that's already done, the only thing standing between doctors and taking advantage of it is a moral code. Besides, you talk as if there's only one side that has moral hangups, imagine a mother suffering a life-threatening medical condition due to her pregnancy. How far into the pregnancy can it be terminated before the Hippocratic Oath takes eff

      • by shentino (1139071)

        Simple.

        We confiscate the data regarding the treatment and the nazis don't get to patent or profit from their R&D. Instead, it gets turned around.

        The IP version of asset forfeiture. Just as we seize drug money and use it to hire cops, we should seize immoral research and turn it around for good.

  • by phantomfive (622387) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:08PM (#28830535) Journal
    I am sure I am not the only one who is tired of hearing about ethical challenges that come with every small new incremental step in stem cell/cloning research. The issues haven't changed, they are the same as when cloning was first brought to the public spotlight when dolly was cloned; and they are the same as have been discussed in science fiction circles way before that.

    Seriously, they freakin' took skin and turned it into another living creature! That is by far the coolest thing I've heard this week, and the only thing you can think of to say about it is something about ethical issues? That's like saying, "I invented artificial intelligence, but I don't know what to do about my ugly computer case, where can I get a nice one?" seriously, this is a problem that, while somewhat interesting, can be solved, is not particularly relevant, and really doesn't need to be discussed here.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      In free countries, how did the powerful become powerful? Have they done something you couldn't do?

      Often they have done something (or a series of things) that most people wouldn't do, and that many believe one shouldn't do. It is rarely or ever a simple matter of the ones with the power having been the ones who were merely more capable. Free countries still have social norms, standard ethical codes, and even laws that a few choose to ignore. That those few who choose to ignore the norms, codes, and laws some

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by maharb (1534501)

        This is just about as unethical as your parents choosing to conceive you. Why does a scientist not have the right to make a human in his lab but a man and a women do have that right? What can be argued is how that created animal is treated after it is created. If it is neglected/abused/treated badly then you can start bitching.

      • Sure, but you can become powerful too, without being unethical.
    • by timeOday (582209)
      I agree this is pretty mind-blowing. Putting aside for a moment whether to consider the issues "ethical" or something else, there are HUGE issues here either way. We are on the precipice of departing from how we as a species naturally reproduce, potentially jumping from sexual to asexual reproduction within two or three generations! Not only that, but exerting direct control over our own genetic code. It is entirely possible that within a couple hundred years people will look back on us in complete disg
    • I have yet to hear an ETHICAL reason why human cloning is wrong. There are certainly genetic issues -- the gene pool as a whole is better off if it's mixed up -- but people seem to freak utterly out at the notion of human cloning. Do they think we're gonna use them for food, or what?

      • Well, it seems to me the genetic issues you bring up could ALSO be considered an ethical dilemma, because someone is (rather arrogantly) assuming they're making the "superior choice" by creating clones of a particular human being, despite the negative ramifications the lack of diversity will ultimately cause the human race.

        Additionally, while no, I don't think most people are really concerned we'd clone humans to "use them as food", we very well *might* regard cloning as a "more acceptable" way to fight war

    • by Culture20 (968837)

      That is by far the coolest thing I've heard this week, and the only thing you can think of to say about it is something about ethical issues? That's like saying, "I invented artificial intelligence, but I don't know what to do about my ugly computer case, where can I get a nice one?"

      I'd think it's a little bit more like "I invented artificial intelligence, but now I don't know if it's ethical to turn it off or alter its thoughts."
      Cool new discoveries/creations demand ethical inspection even if ethics weren't considered from the start. Oppenheimer and crew... Did they say "Wow! That was a neat application of mass/energy conversion. Let's do more tests."? I think it was more along the lines of "Scheisse! Mein Gott!"

  • by religious freak (1005821) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:11PM (#28830557)
    What bullshit. If you support stem cell research (as I do) have the balls to call it what it is...
    • So? Guess what it -is- controversial. Some people believe that it is akin to taking your young and killing them for their organs. There is no scientific consensus on when life begins, but most would agree that the thing is a living human whenever the egg is fertilized. Just because you believe otherwise doesn't mean that other people believe the same way you do.
      • by radtea (464814) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:40PM (#28830851)

        There is no scientific consensus on when life begins, but most would agree that the thing is a living human whenever the egg is fertilized.

        It appears we are now on a slippery slope that some of us have been predicting for a long time. From the article: "All you need are somebody's skin cells to create a human baby."

        That isn't quite true yet, but it will be soon. The technique these guys are using injects reverted skin cells into an existing embryo, so you still need an embryo to start with. But that's just a temporary thing. At some point we will be able to revert skin cells to zygotes, and at that point all the crazy "life begins at conception therefore abortion is wrong" folks will go really nuts, because the completely nominal line between "ordinary somatic cell" and "living human being" will be entirely erased. Every cell in our bodies will clearly have the potential to become an independent, living human being, just like a zygote made the old fashion way.

        Every human society has practised some form of defacto infanticide, and abortion is WAY better than any alternative, and pregnant women are FAR more qualified than anyone else--both on an information-theoretic basis and a moral basis--to decide what happens to their offspring and their body. Ergo, life begins at conception, and abortion is not wrong.

        • by BitHive (578094)

          I can't wait for the new talking points. Scrubbing is murder! Toenails are people too! You know who else had his hair cut? Hitler!

        • by GlassHeart (579618) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @07:39PM (#28831363) Journal

          Whether life begins at conception depends entirely on what you mean by "life", and that's a matter for philosophy or religion, not science. Science can never change one's mind about what constitutes life, because life is life by definition.

          Whenever necessary, the people who want to believe a certain thing will refine their definitions to suit what they want to believe. Take, for example, the loophole in some laws that forgot to mention that "marriage" must be between a man and a woman that anti-gay folks are trying to close.

          While most might "agree that there is a living human at fertilization", the same most would probably not be willing to investigate every single miscarriage as an accidental death, or even potential murder case. Clearly, they're not quite fully "life", both morally and logistically.

          • While most might "agree that there is a living human at fertilization", the same most would probably not be willing to investigate every single miscarriage as an accidental death, or even potential murder case. Clearly, they're not quite fully "life", both morally and logistically.

            Come on now, be reasonable.

            Not every death is murder.

          • by Culture20 (968837)

            While most might "agree that there is a living human at fertilization",

            The arguments around abortion and fetal stem cell research are about person-hood (a legal term), not human-ness (a physiological term). Being a legal term, "person" can be whatever the government wants it to be.

            Science can never change one's mind about what constitutes life, because life is life by definition. [...] Clearly, they're not quite fully "life", both morally and logistically.

            Living cells replicating. Not quite fully life?

      • Read my post again, because apparently you didn't pick up the meaning the first time...
      • by drsmithy (35869)

        There is no scientific consensus on when life begins, but most would agree that the thing is a living human whenever the egg is fertilized.

        Evidence to support this assertion ?

      • most would agree that the thing is a living human whenever the egg is fertilized

        From everything that I've seen, most people who support abortion would disagree with you. They think that a fetus doesn't become a human being until birth.

      • by quenda (644621)

        There is no scientific consensus on when life begins,.

        If you really want the scientific viewpoint, there is no beginning, at least not in the last billion years or so. It has never been observed.
        Life is continuous from parent to gamete, zygote, blastocyst, embryo, etc.
        Whichever stage you choose to call a "new human being" has little to do with science, except in the role of rationalisation.

    • Actually, I believe they were referring to this incident:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQL_4acR6hM [youtube.com]

    • I mean, dood, like how do all these mice always manage to get researchers the world over to do their bidding. Why can't humans get them to do research on them, huh???

      The only time we hear about human research, it's like that exploding head problem in Scotland (sidebar: a bunch of male subjects heads started rapidly and painfully expanding while undergoing a non-protocol type drug experiment in Scotland, by a German pharmaceutical company, using British subjects and American researchers. Anything about th

    • If you support stem cell research (as I do) have the balls to call it what it is...

      Induction of fibroblasts to become pluripotent (IPSC) can actually be described as controversial, at least in the academic sense, not so much ethically controversial as ESC use is. The field is extremely new, it was only a few years ago that IPSC were discovered/invented. New ways of making IPSC are coming out at a pace that is faster than biological research usually moves, because the rewards are so great and so many people are working on it.

      It's inevitable that there are going to be some scientists who

  • Controversial? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dov_0 (1438253) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:18PM (#28830623)
    I really don't understand how this experiment could be seen as controversial, as the cloning effort was to prove that an adult's cells could be reprogrammed to form any type of tissue, as opposed to harvesting our own young, which is clearly a practice with ethical question marks all over it. The focus was not cloning. We can do cloning well enough now. The technology already exists. What this research does mean is a glimpse into a future with no waiting lists for donor organs, no harvesting from the dead and far fewer rejection issues for new organs, as they would be your own tissue, from your own cells. Good stuff.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Starlon (1492461)
      The problem is some spirituals, such as Christians, believe cloning is like playing God, and should be eschewed by all means.
      • Re:Controversial? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by nawcom (941663) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:36PM (#28830809) Homepage

        The problem is some spirituals, such as Christians, believe cloning is like playing God, and should be eschewed by all means.

        In that sense, we are in fact playing a role of their "God". Why don't they pray to their god and tell him to finally show himself in a physical sense and then we can discuss what his little rules are regarding this. This reminds me of that quote, "God did not create man in his own image, rather, man created God in his own image." Science is becoming God.

      • by Tony Hoyle (11698)

        So is putting someone on a life support machine. Or transplanting an organ.

        Oh and don't lump all Christians with the nutters you have in the US. Every one I've met has been very pro stem cell research because it potentially saves a lot of lives.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Belisarivs (526071)

        It's more complicated than that. There are those who believe in genetic diversification, and see genetic manipulation as a threat to that, much as they see GM crops along those lines. This is more of a niche ethical argument, but it's out there.

        Additionally, and this is the ethical argument that Charles Krauthammer, (hardly a "spiritualist" and he's pro-choice), that it becomes an ethical dilemma if we create life simply to destroy it. At that point, there is a breakdown in the fundamental moral underpin

      • I am old enough to remember when "some spirituals", such as Christians, believed that in vitro fertilization was "like playing God".

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Peter La Casse (3992)

        The problem is some spirituals, such as Christians, believe . . .

        Yes, those Christians, who all believe the same thing. And they're all bigots too.

    • Re:Controversial? (Score:4, Informative)

      by srmalloy (263556) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @07:22PM (#28831207) Homepage

      Read the article more closely; it's not about cloning at all. The reprogrammed stem cells were injected into already-developing embryos to create artificial chimeras -- mice that contained cells from the donor line, not just the parents'. The intent of the research is to achieve true cloning, but they still have to get past the hurdle of starting the embryonic development. However, using this technique to grow organs, since the organs will grow as part of the embryos' normal development, will be "harvesting our own young" -- taking normal embryos, usurping them to grow organs with another genotype, and then removing them for use as transplants. Getting organs to grow in vitro is a much more complex and daunting prospect.

    • Well, how would it make an article, and create readers, if it weren't controversial.

      Welcome to the media machine. Prepare to be extremised, and then ripped apart.

    • We can do cloning well enough now. The technology already exists.

      It can be done, but I don't recall anything that suggests that it's been made into a reliable process, and I don't recall any resolution to the bizarre or rare illnesses the clones seem to come down with.

    • I really don't understand how this experiment could be seen as controversial, as the cloning effort was

      If CLONE
        then CONTROVERSIAL = TRUE;

  • by Jugalator (259273) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:20PM (#28830639) Journal

    Soon enough, there won't be a single, simple, answer to the classic question

    how is babby formed [somethingawful.com]

    • by syousef (465911)

      Soon enough, there won't be a single, simple, answer to the classic question how is a baby formed

      Yes there is. "Ask me when you're older, son".

      "But dad, I'm 36 tomorrow" is no reason to have that conversation.

  • If I hear one more "I turned stem cells into X" story without proof - real proof! - I think we're going to need to start posting these things under "comedy".

    kulakovich
  • Getting stem cells from "safe" places is one thing that should not be controversial. Now, doing full clones is a different matter. But if is so easy, just take a few skin cells and could get my own (baby) clone what use will be done for that could lead to some controversy, or at least some redefinition on what is life, what is human (and probably what is soul for the ones that keep thinking that there is one by then), or even what are newborn rights.
  • so wait (Score:4, Funny)

    by sonciwind (970454) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:24PM (#28830687)
    Scientists now how the power to turn people in to baby chickens? Delicious!
    • More importantly, we are on the threshhold of turning chickens into eggs, thus make the chicken-egg question one of quantum superposition. The chicken can be, both chicken and egg, and many chickens and many eggs *brian explodes*
  • by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:39PM (#28830835) Homepage Journal
    The summary is trying to bring up classic fears of cloning. However just because they raised pups from skin cells does not mean they can raise offspring from those cells that have a legitimate chance of living full lives. If they are indeed starting from adult skin cells, then they are starting with essentially old material; mammalian cells (excluding gametes and their progenitor cells) generally only can divide a certain number of times before they are no longer really viable for growth.

    So before we see people start banging the drum over "ZOMG! Teh humanz r cloning!" we need to see if these mouse clones are actually viableclonesof their parents.
    • From TFA:

      Of 37 stem-cell lines created by reprogramming, three yielded 27 live offspring. One of these pups, a seven-week-old male named "Tiny," mated with a female and produced young of its own.

      Any more viable and he would have an never-ending copyright extension attached to him.

    • Yup. From the article:

      Shaorong Gao and colleagues from the National Institute of Biological Sciences in Beijing got four live births, including one mouse pup that made it to healthy adulthood. Their results were published online in the journal Cell Stem Cell.

      Also, one of the mice mated and had offspring.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @06:40PM (#28830849) Homepage

    God did it when he made Eve from the rib [cells] of Adam. This is nothing new or remarkable. But, because God did it, we shouldn't... just like flight and other technologies man has managed to understand the develop. Have I said that right? What say you "Religious Right"?

    • by Samah (729132)

      God did it when he made Eve from the rib [cells] of Adam. This is nothing new or remarkable. But, because God did it, we shouldn't... just like flight and other technologies man has managed to understand the develop. Have I said that right? What say you "Religious Right"?

      I'm not sure whether this should be modded Funny, Insightful, or Flamebait. Saying "God did something" on Slashdot is a dangerous thing.
      ;)

  • by andersen (10283) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @08:05PM (#28831497) Homepage

    Every cell is sacred! When a cell is wasted, God gets quite irate.

  • by Jiro (131519) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @08:26PM (#28831611)

    Though part of that is the fault of the original article.

    In their study published in the journal Nature, scientists led by Qi Zhou of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing described how they injected reprogrammed mouse cells into an early-stage embryo to see whether the introduced cells contributed to the tissue of the eventual fetus.

    In other words, they did not take a skin cell and turn it into a baby mouse. They took a skin cell and decided to see if an already existing mouse embryo would accept the stem cells created from it.

  • by sukotto (122876) on Sunday July 26, 2009 @10:43PM (#28832449)

    Screw the ethical concerns

    I want them to grow a clone of me and start replacing the parts of me that are wearing out.
    They can start with my teeth, eyes, and knees.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by freedom_india (780002)

      Forget that, old man.
      I would rather build a Jessica Alba or a Cindy Crawford for me.
      As history shows, ALL new technologies have been first used for pr0n: the printing press (am sure after printing the Bible, Gutenberg's 2nd book was an early edition of P1ayboy), the telephone, the cinema, BB's, internet, virtual reality, etc.
      If this stuff about creating new life out of a few cells is true, then the first few lives well be by own Alba, or heck, even Jessica Simpson.

  • Sensationalism (Score:3, Insightful)

    by julesh (229690) on Monday July 27, 2009 @04:25AM (#28834321)

    Damned popular press covering science stories...

    "All you need are somebody's skin cells to create a human baby.""

    And, you know, an embryo. Which will become a human baby all by itself anyway.

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...