Scientists Create Mice From 2 Fathers

An anonymous reader writes "Using stem cell technology, reproductive scientists in Texas, led by Dr. Richard R. Behringer at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, have produced male and female mice from two fathers. The study was posted Wednesday at the online site of the journal Biology of Reproduction. The achievement of two-father offspring in a species of mammal could be a step toward preserving endangered species, improving livestock breeds, and advancing human assisted reproductive technology. It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note."

Re:Is YY possible?

[sjwt]

75% of a person!

the Y is a Y because its an X missing a bit, and when creating a person the missing it on the Y just defaults to the bit on the X

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. As a religious person? I honestly don't give a fuck. All you're doing is mixing around biomaterials. Humans have been doing that on some level for thousands of years and what was done here could probably have been done decades ago if anyone cared to.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[h4rm0ny]

This isn't going to go down well with the God Squad.

They should be fine with it - lots of precedents. Eve was created from Adam's rib which was a 1 Father, 0 mother scenario. Mary had Jesus by God which was a 1 Mother, 0 Father scenario (God is generally regarded as the spiritual father. I don't think many Christians envisage actual physical sex with God as evidenced by the virginity of Mary remaining intact). Pygmalian married a statue that was brought to life which was a 0 Fathers, 0 Mothers scenario for the statue. The Bible has contained this sort of stuff long before we even knew what DNA was.

Also, a lot of religious people have objected to same-sex marriages on the grounds that they believe marriage should only be between people capable of having children together. This will resolve that road-block so they can be okay with same-sex marriage.

I'm certain that religious people will love this.

Can I be both fathers?

[funfail]

So the same method can theoretically be applied to two sperms from the same male. I can be the father and mother of my own child then.

Should he/she be considered my "child" or my "clone"?

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[tirefire]

I've heard (yes, that is my citation) that there is almost a 100% overlap between people who are against stem cell research and people who are against abortion. I've also heard (two sources now!) that anti-abortion groups are largely behind stem-cell hatred, because they claim that if stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses are used in research, the mild "gift to science" of abortion will sway more pregnant women into choosing abortion than keeping the child. Or even that "some women" who did not want children would conceive for the express purpose of having an abortion.

I thought it was crazy at first, too. Then I realized that if one or more single-issue lobbying groups were involved, it's almost stupid enough to be true.

female mitochondria DNA required

[ralphdaugherty]

I'm reading Oxygen by Nick Lane, and recreating with male mitochondria is a universal no no. Even worms while forming excrete the male mitochondria from the gametes used to form it.

The male mitochondria passed on is aged and defective, the female mitochondria an unused preserved version.

In other words, there's a reason it doesn't work the way it's being forced to work. That's why we have sexes. Thank God or evolution, your choice.

  rd

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[scubamage]

Funny enough, the most rational speaking I've ever heard from a religious person was from a church astronomer (not astrologer) who worked for the Vatican. Basically he stated that the bible stopped being written around 200AD, and modern science really didn't come to fruition until the 1700's. So the bible should have no bearing whatsoever on modern science. He also stated that people who never read the bible, and are content with whatever their religious leaders tell them are the most dangerous thing in religion today. Its interesting that the most illuminated view I've ever heard was from someone who worked for the church. Check out the movie Religulous with Bill Maher if you're interested; its a great watch.

Re:In b4 shitstorm

[AlamedaStone]

If homosexuality could somehow increase the chances of survival of the species, then it would surely become a dominant gene.

Ready to have your mind blown? Homosexuality does increase the chances of survival of the species! Yeah, I said it. Have you ever looked at the gender makeup of a human/social services university or masters program? 75-80% female, and maybe between a third to half of the men are gay. That's up to 10x the rate of (male) homosexuality in the general population! Interesting that so many more gay men are interested in working to support others, isn't it?

To put it another way, it is an advantage to the cycle of reproduction that not every adult is a parent. Additional caregivers have value to the species. Gays have been having sex and getting pregnant since before we were sapiens. It's a good thing we have their genetic diversity. In fact, it's not hard to argue that the western "nuclear family" is more detrimental to the species than the queers ever could be. We developed as communities (tribes, villages, etc) with shared parenting responsibilities. A smaller group of caregivers results in less care and supervision of the offspring.

I guess using these arguments you could try to make a case that gays reproducing with each other reduces their value to the species, but in this culture, if you don't have a family you're forever alone. I guess we'll find out soon, either way.

And by "soon" I mean in another few hundred thousand years at the earliest. We'll all be in the cloud by then anyway though, so who cares.

Simple but incorrect or incomplete

[Anonymous Coward]

If they believed that the person is alive at the moment of conception, they would FIGHT against raped women getting an abortion. After all , the person is a person at the moment of conception, be it a rape or consensual. But in practice this is not what happen, except for really a minority of pro life. Most accept that abortion is done in case of rape. And here is the cinch. From the point of view of the fecundated egg or whatever, there is NO DIFFERENCE whether it was a rape or not. if one give the CHOICE to the women to abort in case of rape, DESPITE having the fecundated egg considered a human at conception, then there is no reason from the fecundated egg side to NOT give the same choice in case the egg was fecundated in any other situation than rape. No, the only reason to make a difference , is to hinge whether the fecundation was consensual or not, ergo, the reason is not depending on the egg being fecundated, the life begin, but rather, the reason being was the sex consensual or not. In other word I would wager this is more a PUNISHMENT for having consensual sex, rather than to save a life started. In other word, the "life start at fecundation" is bullshit. If it was not, then they would loudly and clearly say that raped women should not be aborted. They should just admit that they wish to see the women punished for having sex.