Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Artificial Chromosome Inheritance 74

Posted by Hemos from the passing-it-down-the-lhe-line dept.
Socramon writes "There's been a lot of discussion (and flaming) lately about genetic experimentation. For those who aren't sick of hearing about it already, there's an article on New Scientist about a Canadian company, Chromos, which has created an artificial chromosome that has (so far) been passed down through three generations of mice. The company's homepage, www.chromos.com is, unfortunately, "Under Construction"."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Artificial Chromosome Inheiritance More

Artificial Chromosome Inheiritance

Comments Filter:
  • Hmmmm, and I was just wondering who I would put on my list of people to ignore on slashdot.

    Next time you try to make a memorable slashdot personality, why don't you try something more like the Unknown Comedian...
  • Would be multiple inheritance allowed, as in C++, or inhibited, as in Java? Can I do virtual inheritance? What with abstract properties, that I'd want to implement in my children?

    Oh, where is that UML book again?
  • The Culture was exactly what I was thinking about when I added the last line... :))
  • This is the first time someone has produced a genetic modification in the germ line (i.e. the germ cells - egg and sperm, get the modification also).

    This has some rather serious repercussions. If you screw up a genetic modification to a group of cells in the body (say the heart muscle), no big deal, that modification dies with that body. Now we have potential screwups that can be passed on from generation to generation. Not all that much different than inbreeding :)

    -josh

  • Your mention of machine consciousness and the current chromosome discussion makes me wish I was living in the Culture [phlebas.com] where all the hard stuff would have been taken care of already. :)
  • For me the real question with something like this is when will corporate interests try to "monetize" something like this, and how? Right now the research being done is nominally medical; that is, it's focused on curing disease or improving health. But at some point, there are going to be some bad--but profitable--ideas on the table. Will Coke pay a town millions to have a "prefers Coke to Pepsi" gene given to residents? Sure it sounds crazy now, but how different is this from getting a school to spell out [fadetoblack.com] the word Coke with its students?

    --

  • REAL genetic algorythms.

    sorry. couldn't resist

  • IANAG, but what's the deal with genetic "junk"? I've read quite a few stories about unused junk in our genes. Doesn't anyone find this hard to believe?

    I mean, does it seem odd that there would be so much "filler". How much is really understood about exactly what processes take place inside living cells? Could this just be subtle? Something that we don't yet understand, maybe? I mean, I wouldn't want to throw away some of my parents genes just because I don't understand it yet, and then add... what? Something to add more human-produced chemicals into my body?

    Maybe I'm just a little to stoned to figure this out. If someone could shoot me a few links to more information on the inner workings of DNA, I think that would be very "informative" (in slashdotese)

    Seer Snively
    "The Dude Abides"

  • Imagine it's 1950. Someone comes up to you and says "I created a device that holds a pattern of magnetic charges! It's the world's first hard drive!" Yeah, great...and what are you going to put on it?

    Creating a chromosome is small potatos. What we need to know is how to create a GENE that means something. Create a gene for blue hair or limb regeneration or something cool. Don't just shove more junk in my overcrowded cells.
    --
  • like you even have an ass.

    Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
  • While not a biologist, I AM a lab tech - please explain what effect breeding will have on this new chromosome - particularly once a mouse who has all these new chromosomes homogenously breeds with a mouse who has NONE of them - ensureing a mouse with hetrogenous artificial/normal chromosome hybrids. Do we have ANY idea at all what effect this will have on offspring?

    Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
  • nt.

    Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
  • It's not like splicing is anything new - hell we've been making corn that poisons butterflys for a while now - it's not new. Why is this news? What is the nature of the chromosome, is that what makes it so special? What does it do? Anything?

    Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
  • And think about what THAT could do! WHAT IF? Would the recombined artificial Chromosomes still have benificial effects? Yowch!

    Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
  • ... the nightmares! The thing that REALLY scares me about this is what they were doing when I left the service: They were taking oral swabs on everyone to get genetic code, ostensibly for identification purposes. Now what's to say they don't track who's a good/better soldier/sailor/marine/airman/pond hopper or what have you, and just say clone a bunch of them? With artificial stuff, maybe we can make the existing one's BETTER! Right?

    Fawking Trolls! [slashdot.org]
  • I'm totally in favor of genetic engineering of humans. There are issues which will have to be dealt with of course, but the potential for good is too great not to do it.

    I think that most people are afraid that we'll do something stupid. This seems strange to me since the number one thing that anyone would try to design a person to be is intelligent. In other words it is a self-correcting problem. Also there are superstitious^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hreligious types who are still smarting from creationism being disproven.

    I think the sooner we get started the better. Figure out which genes control, or at least influence, intelligence and use that understanding to make some really bright people. Imagine if the kinds of geniuses which only come around once in a generation, someone like einstein, were as abundant as mensa members. Imagine if the average IQ were somewhere around 150. In other words, the average person would be as bright as the average slashdotter. Wouldn't that be cool??

    Lee

  • Although it's great that we are getting into the position where we can't augment newborns abilities, we have to look at the morals of the issue, and in certain cases determine what they are. I've been raised under the notion that cloning is wrong without ever really being explained why, and at this time I'm still leaning towards that belief, however I've never been able to come up with a reason. Being a computer nerd I usually go by logic which would tell me that if I can't come up with any reasons not to do it, it should be done; however I and many people I know still have the nagging feeling that theres something wrong with it. And I'm favoring going with my gut instinct in this case. Just wondering what other people's opinions on the morality of things like this are?

    BTW, why can't any companys with new products come up with websites until six months after i hear about it on /.?
  • Wasn't this the reason that all the species in star trek are humanoid? Bunch of artificial chromosomes that influenced evolution, and stored a star map?
  • This is truly an extraordinary breathrough. Creating potentially helpful persistant, synthetic chromosomes will likely revolutionize the treatment of disease. We could be on the edge of a tremendous step in evolution.
  • And here I was worried that Gattaca might be as bad as it could get. Boy, was I naive.


    ---

  • This actually is adding a additional chromosome. Basically they made a copy of a normal chromosome, gutted it, added in multiple copies of their own specified gene and inserted it into the mouse.

    Right, sorry. Re-read the article. Guess I missed that part: extra chromosomes. They should have mentioned it at the end, not the beginning ;)

    Down's syndrome is a very specific disorder caused by anomalies with the 21st chromosome pair. It is not a general result of having more than the normal number of chromosomes (for example having XXY sex chromosomes).

    I guess I shouldn't have named a specific example like that. I meant to leave it in more general terms but forgot to preview it (actually, I was going to mention Klinefelter's syndrome as another example . . .).

    --

  • How you tell a human now? chromosome count will be useless.

    From article:
    "The researchers started with a natural chromosome gutted of all its functional genes but retaining other key elements "

    There are still the same number of chromosomes, they simply changed one (from what I gather). Therefore, the chromosome count is still the same and won't result in Down's syndrome. Of course, plants have been genetically engineered to have more chromosomes for a long time now, resulting in larger and seedless fruits, not to mention those that are resistant to famine and pests. Of course, the effects on humans is questionable . . .

    --

  • The is the first small step to a situation that as bizzarre as it may seem is in the near future be quite plausibile. Instead of getting the latest fashion wear from clavin klien, you could get the latest genetic fad. You could end up with a genetic implant that will change your eye color and it would not have to be permanet. A implant that could heighten sensory response to touch, sound ,taste or anything else for that matter, Have you ever had sex on acid or X. Now you can have it done with a genetic dirvative. The possibilities of what are coming is mindblowing and we can do that to with a small modification of chromosome #7.
  • Then someone really is going to have to build a better mousetrap (and he'll probably get rich, too!) =->
  • Great! Now the government can issue me an artificial chromosome ID and then track all of my offspring. And I was worried that new and innovative ways of "protecting" my privacy wouldn't happen until after I was long gone.

  • Actually, if I remember from our Human Genetics class a couple of terms back, what they did was to add a centromere and proper replication sequences to the chromosome such that when a new cell is formed with one copy of each of the 23 normal chromosomes, plus this one, it duplicates a second copy of all 24.. ensuring that the genes on C24 are carried down along the germ line. That's the essence of their new development, previously you could inject a new chromosome into a cell, but only one of it's progeny would contain the inserted DNA, and usually it would be degraded by the cell (avoiding this is a slightly older innovation). Don't quote me on any of this, it was a while ago, but HTH.
  • I sure am glad all this information age computerized crap is leaving the spotlight.. moving into the genetics age is going to be way more fun.. i was getting tired of all this typing and junk

    ----------------------------
  • Don't about mutations in the data-storing chromosomes. If just a couple genes are changed, whoever recovers the data might not notice.
  • Hey, how do you know that it hasn't already happened? Haven't you heard about the Rats of NIMH? They're here ...
  • Isn't it true that Orangatans (sp?) have genes that are 98% simpilar to humans? Couldn't this technique be used to turn them into humans? Just a thought...
  • This isn't gene splicing in the traditional sense, it is gene _creation._ Instead of mix 'n match genetic engineering, we will now be able to custom-design out own improved genes and add them on a whim.
  • Why do you think the genome mapping companies have been so protective of their data? If the secrets of the universe, placed by some Lovecraftian elder race, start showing up, they want to be sure as hell that they're the ones with the patent on the Mental Translation Protocol (TM).
  • Being a computer nerd I usually go by logic which would tell me that if I can't come up with any reasons not to do it, it should be done; however I and many people I know still have the nagging feeling that theres something wrong with it. And I'm favoring going with my gut instinct in this case. Just wondering what other people's opinions on the morality of things like this are?
    One of the first things I learned as a computer nerd was to ignore those nagging feelings unless I could justify them. Every time I used an undocumented interrupt, I felt bad. I knew that the thing I was building into my software could possibly cause a crash (or worse, a subtle incompatibility bug)... but I did it anyway, and it caused me very little grief, now that I think about it. My programs were still supported because DOS still had to support my interrupt, or else some of the Big Guys' software would stop working.

    Regardless of what's right to do, someone (or some random corporation) will do it, somewhere, if it's possible. If it fucks up, they won't tell anybody. It follows that the way to minimize the fuck-ups (which, in this case, will cause genuine pain to human beings) is for as many people as is possible to try to do it, thus ensuring that technology that can genuinely fuck something up will be well-known as such, and dealt with properly.

    Not for credit: Which is better in a world in which nuclear weapons are possible: Public knowledge of the nuke capabilities of each country, and common information about the basis, effects, and ramifications of this technology, or secrecy? Will laws protecting the secrecy of nuke technology keep it secret forever, for a while, or not at all? What about information concerning the effects of nuke technology? Will such laws cause great, acceptable, or slight harm to people who are actively curious or concerned about nuke technology? How effective will these laws be in preventing misuse of the technology by (respectively) citizens, corporations, and countries? Discuss.

  • picture storing data in mice, just feed them and keep them warm

    Oh, dear GOD. Suddenly, music stores begin selling mice genetically encoded with the latest Billboard hits. Christ, you want to talk about the ASPCA getting in your case... If I find a mouse with Backstreet Boys chromosomes, I'd want to bring the ones responsible to justice. That's not to mention the computer-related implications. You get a new computer, complete with 19" monitor, CDRW, and a 100GB mouse with Linux pre-installed (you could even color his fur to be like a little penguin. Hell, you're storing your MP3s on the guy, what's one more step?)

    (that is unless they recombine, in which case all of your documents or whatever are worthless....)

    Ooooh, here it comes... You wanna talk about file-sharing, this is the way to go! I, for one, long for the day when kids can come to school with the excuse "I don't have my homework, my hard-drive had babies and died last night". Ahh, wondrous technology, will the marvels ever cease?

    /* TNW */
  • picture storing data in mice There was a science fiction story about exactly this. The alien race who created life on earth left messages in our genetic code. The scientists who recognized and decoded them found all sorts of interesting stuff, like antigravity, faster-than-light travel, etc. Unfortunately, they also found some super-weapons like a beamer that could slice through the plant like a ripe tomato. Humans being what they are, naturally someone decided to give it a try ... poof, race extinct. It was a built-in test to see if we were too dangerous to let loose on the galaxy. So, how many GB will your average mouse chromosome hold, anyway? Can the data be copyrighted? If so, can I copyright my own genes and sue anyone attempting to give me a blood test under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act? Would cloning a copyrighted mouse be infringement? Would examining my genes for hereditary disease be considered reverse engineering?
  • I think the reason many people (including myself) are wary of experimentation like this is the "oh fuck" factor. Genetics is like the nuclear bomb of medicine. There's a line that, at some point, someone's gonna cross and what next?....."OH FUCK!"

    Unfortunately, if something can be done, it will be done. The developers of the atomic bomb thought that there was a possibility (admittedly remote) that the bomb might ignite a Nitrogen Cycle and burn up the earth's atmosphere. They detonated the thing anyway. There's always going to be someone who's going to be willing 'take that risk' for you.
  • Don'tcha get it? The creative powers that be commented their code ;)

    Also, since the compiler was optimizing for speed rather than size, many loops were unrolled, and data segments were inserted all over the place because far pointers in DNA are very cycle expensive.

  • One interesting view of what a biotech-based future might look like can be found in Masamune Shirow's manga story "Appleseed" [geocities.com]. There are a lot of human/techno. themes woven into the complex plot but a central one is the idea that complex high-tech societies might need to be augmented with a bioengineered subpopulation (bioroids) in order to remain cohesive; and what that might mean for the nature of humanity.

    The idea is that the genetic-based behavioural traits that made humans so successfull in the earlier phase of their evolution (agression, greed, tribalism etc.) might prove too disruptive for it to be possible to sustain complex societies with a very high degree of interdependance. In this model the very drives that led us to create the modern world eventually lead us to destroy it because we can't damp them down when they've no longer appropriate.

    Overall it's a well drawn and well plotted story from a master of the genre. The anime (animated cartoon) version sucks rocks, however.

    It also has some very cool mecha and other high tech toys and Masamune is also very good at drawing female charecters, which don't hurt the eyes. :)

  • My first reaction was that the potential for abuse of these things could be pretty high but on reflection it sems to me that, at least for the forseeable future, artifical chromosomes are probably going to fall into the catagory of (expensive) elective medical procedures. That would make them much less useful as a vector for sneaking debilitating stuff into a population's genome than a doctored virus or bacterium would be. If that's so then we might for once be looking at a significant advance that has more of an upside than a downside.

  • There really is something worse than inbreeding.

    Granted it's not going to happen for awhile, but if a kid is ever made completely with artifical DNA, he's going to have more issues than National Geographic.

    Kids seperated from their parents at birth, let alone kids who don't have any, can turn out a little mental.

  • Hmmm... all this talk about aliens leaving information on earth makes me think of a certain science fiction series...

    David Duchovny...droooolll

    --
  • Turning orangutans into humans... Great. That's that many more of those apes I spent all of high school avoiding.

    --
  • X and Y are counted separately, not as a chromosome pair.

    --

  • The problem with humanism in this case is it seems to presume that the human body as it stands (if you'll excuse the pun) is some kind of "divine form." (And I don't mean any kind of religious implications from this, merely using religion as a metaphor.)

    The simple fact is that the human body is a pretty crap desing on the whole. We use all kinds of stuff to compensate - clothes to keep us warm, glasses to improve eyesight, books/computers to improve memory, cars to make us go faster - that's just what we do.

    Just because we've worked out how to change the instruction code that makes us a crap design doesn't make it a priori a better or worse thing than those external modifications. Knowledge in and of itself is neither good nor evil.

    So if we can make ourselves and our lives better, why not? Sure there will be risks, but then again, we didn't get where we are by saying: "That climbing down from the trees lark looks a bit risky. Those sabre-toothed tigers could get me.

  • The developers of the atomic bomb thought that there was a possibility (admittedly remote) that the bomb might ignite a Nitrogen Cycle and burn up the earth's atmosphere. They detonated the thing anyway. There's always going to be someone who's going to be willing 'take that risk' for you.

    It would be nit-picking if I pointed out that a "Nitrogen Cycle" is the natural process by which nitrogen gets from the air to plants to animals and back again, so I won't.

    However, I probably should point out that the story is actually that the scientists were betting on whether or not the bomb would set the atmosphere on fire and destroy human life.

    Given the difficulty in collecting upon winning that bet, I somehow doubt they though it was a serious risk.

  • So they artifically created an entire chromosome and placed it in the mice? Hey, at this rate, we really can grow people on trees...mess around with the plant cell chromosomes and vola, fertilized egg, and before you know it, people hanging by their head from the branch of an apple tree...

    who needs sex? Better yet, asexual reproduction...the endless posibilities...
  • Yeah, more baggage than a chick in an asylum possibly a psychotic killer... maybe a government controlled zombie mixing ms hardware and software with a futaba controller..
  • Well, this is a nice little piece of KARMA WHORING... you figure if you get 15th post you don't have to read the fucking article at all!

    The article in question IS all about a fucking CORPORATION.. that is doing this for MONEY.. not for the benefit of humanity or because it gives them a fucking stiffy. Read:

    Because the company is about to sell shares on the Canadian stock market, it is barred from talking to the media. But in a prospectus available to the public, Chromos says it plans to insert the chromosomes into cells which will be grown in fermenters to produce beneficial proteins and to genetically engineer animals so that they produce valuable proteins in their milk.

    So there it is, in a fucking nutshell. Why the fuck does "money" equate to "evil" with you??! Why the fuck is the first thing you think of "Coke paying a town to force its residents to take a gene that makes them drink coke"?? WHY must dipshit fuckers like you spread FUD indiscriminately??!

    Why not try posting something about the REAL implications instead of dumb-ass doomsday scenarios? Think about it - obviously these companies are going to start competing to make better genes to one-up the previous company. Also, try considering economic demand - what are the first genes people are going to want after the disease ones?? You got it--bulging biceps and enormous cocks.

    So, for you, this might not be such a bad thing after all.
  • Hi Vlad. I cross-referenced you post, hope this helps!
    It's [tripod.com] not [wired.com] like [cimedia.net]splicing [leidenuniv.nl] is anything [pixelscapes.com] new [newscientist.com] - [olsentwins.com] hell [examiner.com] we've [amiright.com] been [onelist.com] making [usatoday.com] corn [jewishworldreview.com] that poisons [msn.com] butterflys [209.238.251.86] for a while [aclu.org] now [pcworld.com] - [pcworld.com] it's [tripod.com] not [wired.com] new. [newscientist.com] Why is this news? [internet.com] What is the nature [nature.com] of the chromosome, [aol.com] is that what makes [safetyalerts.com] it so [so-net.ne.jp] special? [winmag.com] What does [phonespell.org] it do? [washington.edu] Anything? [pixelscapes.com]
  • Hello miracles. Here's some more information:
    disks, [nwfusion.com] tape, [booksontape.com] cds... [u-strasbg.fr] they [nashville.net] all [savvysearch.com] have [linuxgames.com] a relatively [the-seeker.com] short [bnl.com] lifespan. [lifespan.org] picture [nasa.gov] storing [si.edu] data [census.gov] in mice, [stupidonline.com] just [justgo.com] feed [feedmag.com] them [wired.com] and [the] keep [apk.net] them [wired.com] warm. [warmglass.com] ev en [cnnsi.com] if [avenuea.com] th e [avenuea.com] parents [freezone.com] die [www.welt.de] the [www.welt.de] children [ftc.gov] will have [linuxgames.com] the [linuxgames.com] artificial [mit.edu] chromosomes... [aol.com] (that is unless [hrw.org] they [nashville.net] recombine, [washington.edu] in which [networkcomputing.com] case [cwru.edu] all [savvysearch.com] of your [fansonly.com] documents [chronicle.com] or [the] whatever [duke2000.com] are worthless....) [aol.com]
  • but the facts are both disturbing, and exciting. Not one of us caould possibly be truly prepared for the speed at which technology is evolving. What was science fiction 30 years ago became science research frontiers 20 years ago became science fundamentals 10, and now becomes reality. Every day seems to bring some advance, not always "revolutionary, but then we have a pretty good idea where we are going. It really doesn't matter if nanotechnology, or computational biology, or even quantum computing gets there first. Any of them holds the keys to the others, and combined they hold the keys to the universe. If a human mind had control of mature, developed technologies like those, he/she could literally create entire worlds, and more. Talk about your 'God Sim'. Even time itself would have to bow before the energies and technologies brought to heel by humble homo sapiens. Watching Discovery channel a while back, some bright-eyed young scientist eagerly telling Alan Alda about a method she discovered of extending the lifespan of flatworms. And rats. He gets a real somber face, and says... What about humans? She kinda smiles and says, Oh yeah....we could do that, too, easy. She had been tripling the lifespan of these worms, and rats. What would you do with 210 years? Or the ability to modify your appearance, radically? New techniques could offer ways to enhance your mind, and your body. I am for the future. It really gives me a thrill to live in the world I read about 20 years ago as a kid. But, as an adult, I realize now that there are many reasons why some people should not have dangerous toys. And for that justification, the powers-that-be may very well decide who gets to have these new and amazing technologies. But in the case of almost all of these technologies, research can be done anywhere, especially computational biology. That means that Saddam Hussein can do cutting edge research, using $499 desktop DNA machines. Is that the guy you want making new and exciting DNA changes? An effort must be made to discuss and consider the ethics and responsibilities that are going to go with the future we are creating . http://helix.nature.com/nsu/000706/000706-2.html
  • Not sure of the details of the story, but maybe the women were so masculine (miniscule breasts, enormous muscle development, facial hair) because of training and possibly hormone treatment, that they didn't resemble women anymore. Or... maybe they thought they had some transsexuals entering competition. :)
  • <i>most slashdotters comments miss very basic understanding. Kinda like reading a bunch of microsoft fans discussing linux. </i>
    <p>
    I hope that wasn't aimed at me - I did do a Biochemistry degree. As in molecular biology. It's just that back then (mid 1980's) although of course we knew how much the X and Y differed the human chromosomal complement was still <i>always</i> routinely described as "23 pairs". From the three replies I got it sounds as if this might have changed, but it seems like hair splitting to me. The X and Y are indeed a pair, not just because of the homologous region - watch what happens during meiosis if you don't believe me! 23 pairs it is.

    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction
  • From the article:

    IT TOOK more than a decade for the Human Genome Project to sequence the 24 different human chromosomes...

    24?? Last I looked there were 23 pairs in humans. Looks like the author accumulated an extra pair of chromosomes somewhere along the line

    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction

  • During the last Olympic Games, the IOC got its fingers burned by initially disqualifying some women competitors, alleging they were men (!). Eventually, genetic tests proved the girls were really girls.

    I just have to ask, why wasn't a physical examination sufficient to determine the sex of the athletes? Excluding weird genetic defects, you either have testicles or ovaries.

  • So there it is, in a fucking nutshell. Why the fuck does "money" equate to "evil" with you??! Why the fuck is the first thing you think of "Coke paying a town to force its residents to take a gene that makes them drink coke"?? WHY must dipshit fuckers like you spread FUD indiscriminately??!

    Because dipshit motherfuckers do very horrible, horrible things all the time to make money. They poison people, they indocrinate them to consumption-based philosophies, they influence politicians to shift the tax burden away from corporations--anything to make a dollar. Of course this kind of technology is scary and of course we should be worried about what people are doing with it. It isn't FUD to say that people are likely to use new technology to do bad things for money; it's common sense!

    And my comment (like most of the others posted so far) has more to do with the implications of the technological possibilties of implanting chromosomes than the specific applications this company is doing. So sue me; I thought that was the kind of thing Slashdot was for.

    --

  • > ...mice that are smarter than we are...

    Hey! Mice are *already* much smarter than we are.
    After all, this planet was created to their specifications.

  • No there are 24 distinct chromosomes, but we each only (normally) have 23 pairs, the X and Y sex chromosomes are counted differently. we either get an XX or XY combo, not XX and YY (in which case we would have 24 pairs). At least that's how I remember it from high school bio many moons ago. Anyone better informed in genetics than I am want to verify this?

  • Don't people see where all this is leading! For christ's sake! Sure, first it's the criminal mice and sterilization experiments. Then it's the diseased and insane mice. Then it's mice who have "unfavorable" political views. Then the old or retarded mice. Soon every mouse which does not fit the ideal are told they are being evacuated, put on cattle cars, lined up at the camp, told they'll see the rest of their family after "clean up" (Oh sure!). Father mice will have to make up a story to their kids that this is all a game and in the end they will win a tank! Oh boy!

    Haven't we learned ANYTHING from history? If you do nothing when they come for everybody else, who will help you when they come for you? PLEASE, stop the madness!
  • I was just thinking how tedious it must be to actually have to do manual, biological experiments, waiting for the subjects to mature and reproduce over and over before being able to obtain any results. Then I was thinking, could we not do the same in a computer simulation. I mean, we do know *what* the cells do, even if we don't know *why* yet, right? Couldn't we "create" a subject in a simulation and just let it grow from there? Yes, that would probably take tons of CPU.

    Following that, I was just thinking, well, if we had a simulated organism, what's preventing us from given it some inputs and seeing how it reacts? We'd have an artificial organic intelligence :)

    (This has been a test of the Aaron-is-thinking-aloud system. You will now return to your regularly scheduled programming.)
  • Biologists have been making bacterial artificial chromosomes, or BACs, for years. BACs were a key component of the Human Genome project. They're conceptually quite simple; you take any ordinary chromosome and yank out the regions that actually code for stuff.

    The new thing here is putting one in and having it stick around between generations. I suspect, although they don't say for sure, that this was done by breeding modified mice to modified mice, so that every newborn had two copies of the artificial chromosome. I say this because otherwise, with every cell division only one of the daughter cells would have the added chromosome. This means that in each mating, only three-fourths of the kids would have a copy; if you mate these offspring two more times, you're going to lose a significant number of your artificial chromosomes.

    The idea that one can insert genes into a "safe" spot instead of having them integrate into the main genome is a good one. However, I'd be a bit worried about just inserting a gene without any promoter/represser elements and then amplifying that gene's function simply by adding more copies. The nucleus is not going to like having a large number of extra chromosomes floating around.
    IMHO, if you really want to do gene therapy to affect the descendants, you want to cut out the existing gene copy and put the new gene in exactly the same place. (Yes, if you wanted to add a totally new gene, these chromosomes would be a good place for it. Personally, I would not accept a new gene anytime soon, because I don't have faith in humanity's ability to get any technology right on the first pass.)
  • From the linked article:

    "Once modified, the artificial chromosome can be duplicated hundreds of thousands of times. The company says that the amount of protein produced rises in step with the number of gene copies..."

    I intially read this as them doing chromosome amplification within a single cell. (Such a thing is not unheard of; it happens in certain cancers, although it's usually not a whole chromosome being amplified.) On reparse, I think you're right; it's more a matter of them inserting extra copies. IMHO, that's not the right solution; you can't regulate that very well. I'd say it'd be a better idea to insert strong promoter elements along with the new genes if you wanted them to be hyperproductive. (That way, if the gene temporarily needs to be turned down, you can administer a compound which inhibits the activator protein (although that may have issues depending on what other genes share that promoter).)

  • disks, tape, cds... they all have a relatively short lifespan.
    picture storing data in mice, just feed them and keep them warm. even if the parents die the children will have the artificial chromosomes... (that is unless they recombine, in which case all of your documents or whatever are worthless....)
  • This actually is adding a additional chromosome. Basically they made a copy of a normal chromosome, gutted it, added in multiple copies of their own specified gene and inserted it into the mouse.

    Down's syndrome is a very specific disorder caused by anomalies with the 21st chromosome pair. It is not a general result of having more than the normal number of chromosomes (for example having XXY sex chromosomes).

  • For people not sure what this means, here is a little background:

    Biologists have been using artificial chromosomes for years now, except that they have only been able to engineer them for less complex organisms such as bacteria and yeast. Artificial chromosomes are useful carriers for genes that produce proteins that are medically and academically useful without disrupting natural chromosomal function. Also, when cells reproduce they replicate the articifial chromosome along with all the natural chromosomes, so that it is transfered from generation to generation (of cells, or if the chromosome is inserted into the germline, then organism to organism).

    However, the major problem with using bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs) and yeast artificial chromosomes (YACs) is that there are some proteins that bacteria and yeast can't successfully produce (since they are simpler organisms, they lack the proper cellular machinery to manufacture and correctly fold larger proteins). So basically, these researchers have just extended a usefull technique to mice. Now it is possible to manufacture a greater range of useful proteins. Getting the protein from the mouse is a little messier than getting is from bacteria or yeast, however :(

    The main reason this is cool is that the machinery to replicate a mouse chromosome is (obviously) more complicated (and the chromosome itself is bigger) than a bacteria or yeast, so constructing a chromosome that has only the necessary scaffolding to ensure that it is replicated is pretty difficult. Unfortunately for the average non-biologist lay person, this New Scientist article was a bit vague (and exagerated) in describing the potential of this technique. At the end, they mention using mouse artificial chromosomes that contain a protein that can help ease the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, and that if the system works in rats trials will could begin in people. However, the human trials they are talking about have to do with testing the manufactured protein in people, not injecting humans with artificial chromosomes. That will be a long time coming (however, the Human Genome Project will certainly speed the development of human artificial chromosomes).

  • as far as "humanism" as defined in my post - i do want to point out that i didn't mean leaving the human form in-tact. Obviously the "design" is flawed if people need glasses and such, but then again, evolution is an infinite process, so at some point, humans would probably just wean themselves off the eyesight problem.

    The "humanism" i'm talking about is something a little bit more philosophical, more on the lines of "what makes a person a person" - what makes a human distinguishable from, say, and intelligent computer. - *that* is what i'm afraid we're going to lose. (read: brave new world). Plus, when you get into it - you open up a pandora's box answers to questions that philosophers have been asking for aeons.

    oh well - if you take my view though, nothing really means anything, and all in all humans (and all life on earth for that matter) is nothing more than a blip on the cosmic radar. Who cares if we kill ourselves or make ourselves better - in the end, everything's fucked anyway.


    FluX
    After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
  • There's been a lot of discussion (and flaming) lately about genetic experimentation

    I think the reason many people (including myself) are wary of experimentation like this is the "oh fuck" factor. Genetics is like the nuclear bomb of medicine. There's a line that, at some point, someone's gonna cross and what next?....."OH FUCK!"

    The primary reason i advocate caution in this area of research is factors like genetic discrimination, and more philosophically, humanism. Sure - we can all be these 10 foot tall wonder machines with a bunch of genetic manipulation...but with each step anyone takes towards genetic perfection, the lose a piece of themselves. besides, it would be pretty wack it these mice got to a point where they could beat the shit out of the scientists.


    FluX
    After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
  • I've been raised under the notion that cloning is wrong without ever really being explained why, and at this time I'm still leaning towards that belief, however I've never been able to come up with a reason. Being a computer nerd I usually go by logic which would tell me that if I can't come up with any reasons not to do it, it should be done; however I and many people I know still have the nagging feeling that theres something wrong with it. And I'm favoring going with my gut instinct in this case. Just wondering what other people's opinions on the morality of things like this are?

    It could be argued that people's ethical ideas usually boil down to their gut feeling; "Reason is, and should be, the slave of the passions," as Hume said. But it would be more useful to examine your gut feelings to determine a basis of your morality, and deduce from there. For instance, do you believe that the consequences determine the morality of an action, or are actions categorically right or wrong? How do you define, "good" and "bad"? Without making such evaluations, your ideas about particular issues will be ill-founded.

    In any case, since I don't understand where you're coming from, I suspect my presenting arguments might not do you much good. "I've been raised under the notion" suggests, perhaps, a religious upbringing... religions tend not to replace the answers to basic philosophical questions, but rather to give them interesting twists.

    Anyway, as regards cloning in particular: do you think identical twins are wrong? If so, what should be done about the scoundrels? If not, is it because they were unintentional, or is there another reason? Or are you simply worried about the effects of widespread cloning?

    For my part, I say, "cool beans", and look forward to raising myself just as soon as it becomes affordable. Whether cloning is a good practice for society at large I would evaluate based on the effects it turns out to have upon society and the gene pool. It should certainly be legal, IMHO, but then I'm a libertarian looney, and not wholly to be trusted. :-)

  • During the last Olimpic Games, the IOC got its fingers burned by innitially disqualifying some women competitors, allegging they were men (!). Eventually, genetic tests proved the girls were really girls.

    Now, jump 50 years into the future. Everybody has "artificial" genes, most of these made specially for your family or your church or your country (funny perspective, is't, it?).

    How you tell a human now? chromosome count will be useless. Appearence? Are you kidding? We are talking chromosome implant here. A single chromosome can carry incountable genes, each one responsible for changes far beyond imaginable.

    Which trait, which fundamental fact will make one be considered a human being and another a new kind of ocean beast?

    The main candidate will probably be the culture, the inherited and learned memes that make us part of a common history.

    And I have not even touched the problem of machine consciouness... :)

  • Problems with genetic inheritance... (Score:3)

    by Shoeboy ( 16224 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @03:49PM (#950034) Homepage
    Ok, whoever designed this genetic inheritance crap was a moron. It's not a clean object oriented syntax. Suppose we want to inherit eyeColor() from a parent. Both parents are of Class Mamallia. Unfortunately, there's no clear way to tell if Class Mamallia defines the eyeColor() function or if it's been overridden in one of the many subclasses. I think you can see the problems right now:
    1. There's no information in the DNA source explaining what the object is. You have to look at the entire object and possibly compile the source to determine what class it belongs to.
    2. There are too many levels in the class hierarchy. Not only do we have classes, we have kingdoms, phylums, orders, families and genuses. This is unneccesary and makes inheritance from base objects hard to trace. Additionally, the distinction beetween class and order is ill defined and an optional tool rather than a core part of the language.
    3. It's impossible to tell which implementation of eyeColor() will be used when creating a new object.

    Can we make God code in Java? Sure it's less powerful than DNA, but it's also much harder to code bugs (or arachnids for that matter) in Java.

    --Shoeboy

  • Re:Data Lifespan... (Score:3)

    by spiral ( 42436 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @03:51PM (#950035)
    > I would propose putting this technology into cochroaches and other insects

    It's bad enough that code has bugs, do we really need bugs that have code?

  • Re:Data Lifespan... (Score:3)

    by Kwikymart ( 90332 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @03:19PM (#950036)
    If we humans could harness DNA to put vast amounts of information in a chromosome our legacy would last literly till the world blows up. I would propose putting this technology into cochroaches and other insects because they are almost impossible to kill off. Insects also dont have much genentic diversity throughout generations. If a meteorite hit the earth and all human life came to an end, chances are that somewhere there will be a cockroach still alive and it holds the map to our race. Roaches have the best chance of carying on our information, short of sending a probe into space, than any other means today. Something tells me putting the complete human genome will not fit on a roach, though, but we might be able to tarball it!

  • Oh, god... the mice again! (Score:4)

    by Skald ( 140034 ) on Friday July 07, 2000 @03:12PM (#950037)
    More ubermouse conspiracy stuff. Soon we'll be up to our knees in 10-year-old oversized glowing green mice that are smarter than we are. We're going to need a "mouse eugenics" category here.

Slashdot Top Deals

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming

Close