Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

The Oldest Mouse Contest 386

Posted by timothy from the games-scientists-play dept.
Shipud writes "Nature reports a contest that was launched in Britain today, to produce the oldest laboratory mouse. Current record in 5 years -- 150 in human years. From the page : ``Researchers can use any technique to boost longevity, including genetic manipulation and stem-cell therapy''. Winners will receive cash for every day beyond the current record. The Methuselah Mouse contest was created in an effort to boost research into human longevity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Oldest Mouse Contest More

The Oldest Mouse Contest

Comments Filter:

  • Three words... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @05:30AM (#7032140)
    Cry Oh Genix. I Am the Immortal Mousie!

  • I Win! (Score:5, Funny)

    by akadruid ( 606405 ) * <slashdot.thedruid@co@uk> on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @05:31AM (#7032147) Homepage
    I've had my mouse for nearly 10 years!
    All they need is a little care and attention, and maybe cleaning the ball every now and again.
    Of course, many people just go rushing after new toys, like PS2 and scollwheels and second buttons...

    Well some one was gonna say it anyway I guess

    • Out of the IBM support database (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @05:44AM (#7032187)
      ESD PRODUCT SERVICE SUPPORT SUBJECT:NEW RETAIN TIP

      Record number: H031944
      Device: D/T8550
      Model: M
      Hit count: UHC00000
      Success count: USC00000
      Publication code: PC50
      Tip key: 025
      Date created: O89/02/14
      Date last altered: A89/02/15
      Owning B.U.: USA

      Abstract: MOUSE BALLS NOW AVAILABLE AS FRU (Field Replaceable Unit)

      TEXT:

      Mouse balls are now available as a FRU. If a mouse fails to operate,or should perform erratically, it may be in need of ball replacement. Because of the delicate nature of this procedure, replacement of mouse balls should be attempted by trained personnel only.

      Before ordering,determine type of mouse balls required by examining the underside of each mouse. Domestic balls will be larger and harder than foreign balls. Ball removal procedures differ,depending upon manufacturer of the mouse. Foreign balls can be replaced using the pop-off method, and domestic balls replaced using the twist-off method. Mouse balls are not usually static sensitive, however, excessive handling can result in sudden discharge. Upon completion of ball replacement, the mouse may be used immediately.

      It is recommended that each servicer have a pair of balls for maintaining optimum customer satisfaction,and that any customer missing his balls should suspect local personnel of removing these necessary functional items.

      P/N33F8462--DOMESTIC MOUSE BALLS
      P/N33F8461--FOREIGN MOUSE BALLS

    • Re:I Win! (Score:3, Funny)

      by rnd() ( 118781 )
      As I read the headline all I could think was I sure am glad I insisted that my mom not throw out my old Apple //c and peripherals...

    • Re:I Win! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )
      Not even close...look here: http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/Archive/patent /Mouse.html
    • and it died on me.

      Well if has two eyes, then I call it an "optical mouse".

  • Doesnt he hold the record?

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Max Romantschuk ( 132276 ) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @05:35AM (#7032164) Homepage
    I see the obvious scientific benefits in research like this. What I don't see is if we really would like to live much longer. I for one feel that imortality would be more of a curse than a blessing. Thoughts?

    Then again, if we get hints on dementia and other comparable illnesses I'm all for it!

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Eponymous Cowboy ( 706996 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @05:50AM (#7032209)
      The need for immortality is obvious. Given an infinite lifespan--with all of its infinite possibilities--there will finally be a non-zero probability that the average Slashdot reader will be able to lose his virginity.

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LeoDV ( 653216 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @06:05AM (#7032251) Journal
      I think we tell ourselves that immortality would be a curse to make ourselves feel better about not having it. Think about it, it takes years, maybe even a lifetime, to know just a big city, or a country. If you were to go backpacking round the world, without paying heed to the time passing (and for good reason), by the time you'd make it back to where you started, everything will have changed so much you could as well go round again.

      And if you get tired of that, it'd take at least a few centuries to read all the great literature, watch all the great movies, listen to all the great music... There is so much humanity produced and is producing, that not only is a lifetime not enough, but probably not even eternity. Entropy would take its toll on you before you'd be done with everything you had wanted to do.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Gyan ( 6853 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @07:02AM (#7032400)
        Except that the novelty would wear out.

        After I've completely known 100 cities, the 101st would be a drag, despite it being a new experience. You'll have learnt enough to see the 101st city as just another instance with different specifics. After reading 10001 books, you will start predicting plots and other elements of literature much better. There won't be much excitement of anticipation left. The root behind all this would be that since you've lived for centuries/millenia, your understanding of human behaviour would be sufficiently mature to dull the curiousity related to the fruits of human creativity.

        • Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by vvikram ( 260064 )
          hi there. very interesting point. didn't occur to me. but i did think about it after your post.

          don't you think that you should also extend exploration three-dimensionally if our age increases? in other words won't we have new planets and stars and asteroids to go around ; just not plain dull cities on the earth.

          personally i think we will always have curiosity. the argument that things become dull is akin to the famous statements that everything that has to be invented has been [by some patent office offic

        • I see it as being about options - if you're tired of it all and just want to decay away into nothingness, good on you. Have a good time. I may do the same next century, or I may not. Right now nobody has a choice - if you're lucky you get 70 or so good years of life followed by inevitable decay.

          I'd just like to be the one in charge of that issue (to the exent that random accidents allow, anyway).

        • Well, aren't we talking about Longevity not memory?

          Sounds like the key to enjoying eternity is forgetting enough to enjoy it.

        • Oh, please. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Dr. Manhattan ( 29720 ) <<sorceror171> <at> <gmail.com>> on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @09:33AM (#7033191) Homepage
          Except that the novelty would wear out.

          Tell you what. After I've stood on an airless planetoid in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud, and watched the Milky Way rise over its horizon, then you can ask me if I've seen everything worth seeing.

          The root behind all this would be that since you've lived for centuries/millenia, your understanding of human behaviour would be sufficiently mature to dull the curiousity related to the fruits of human creativity.

          So, a citizen of the Roman Empire circa 0 A.D. wouldn't be a bit surprised at the world of 2003? In any sphere; not just science, but art, politics, culture, etc.?

          Just because you can't imagine that genuinely new things will come up...

      • If you were to go backpacking round the world, without paying heed to the time passing (and for good reason), by the time you'd make it back to where you started, everything will have changed so much you could as well go round again.

        ...just think of the credit card bill you could amount!

      • I agree entirely. I assume we're talking about clinical immortality (don't be run over by a truck), not some sort of fancy mythological mortality.

        It'd be interesting as to see around what age the brain gets full. Oh wait that's 14.

      • If we were to find a way to live forever it would probably not be as 27 year olds. It would be our years of hobbling around, playing bingo, driving slow, shitting our own pants, suffering two kinds of cancer, etc. etc.

        Hardly something to aspire to.

        • Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 )
          Silliness. Nobody's talking about immortality in terms of keeping old people as such alive longer; it's about slowing down, stopping, or even reversing the aging process itself. I'll take any of those, please, and despited the grumblings one always hears when this subject comes up, I suspect the vast majority of people would do the same.

          I've noticed that those who object most vehemently to the idea are usually the very young, because death isn't really real to them yet anyway, and because they're easily

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @06:22AM (#7032289)
      I for one feel that imortality would be more of a curse than a blessing. Thoughts?

      My take on this is that people who fear death are often those that don't make full use of the life they have. People that live full and rich lives don't fear death.

      There is a memorable scene in a classic old movie, The Man Who Would Be King [citizencaine.org] with Michael Caine and Sean Connery. Facing death due to an avalanche in the Himalayas, one turns to the other and says something like "we may have lived half the time of most men, but we've lived twice the life". Thus, they face death with humour and with their heads held high, without regret or worry.
      • On the other hand, one of my favorite quotes is "Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines."

    • Re:Why? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jawtheshark ( 198669 ) *
      if we get hints on dementia

      That is the whole problem. My mom works in an elderly home and she told me that most of them have signs of dementia. The problem is not that our bodies cannot live very long, the problem is that the brain usually starts malfunctioning first.
      Sad, but true....

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by SlamMan ( 221834 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @06:58AM (#7032391)
        Having a grandfather who spent 4 years in a home after a stroke and a heart attack, I know exactly what you mean. I do wonder if thats not a very good representative sample though. There are hoards of elderly people that are just fine out in the world. I wonder if being treated as an invalid as most people in a home are is more a cause of dementia than a symptom.

        • Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @09:56AM (#7033363) Homepage Journal

          if being treated as an invalid as most people in a home

          From what I understand, long term care in places of last resort is not nice. Care is generally minimal, to reduce cost.

          A financial advisor I had once suggested that I go visit some of these homes and then decide how much to save for retirement.

          In his words,

          "I wouldn't keep chickens in the conditions of some of those places."

    • Because (Score:5, Insightful)

      by varjag ( 415848 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @06:55AM (#7032384)
      What I don't see is if we really would like to live much longer. I for one feel that imortality would be more of a curse than a blessing.

      One nice thing of immortality is that you always can opt-out.

      Seriously, I don't mind living a spare century or two. YMMV, of course.

    • Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Monk[Deviant Form] ( 189543 )
      yes WHY??
      am i the only one thats wondering WHY we have to torture maim and inprison fellow beings?
      immortality?
      we do enough damage in the short lives we already have. I don't see much point in longer lives untill we have grown enough to do positive things with that time.

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Funny)

      by zerocool^ ( 112121 )
      I for one feel that imortality would be more of a curse than a blessing. ...You could fly around the galaxy and insult every creature in it, in Alphabetical order.

      ~Will

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zachary Kessin ( 1372 )
      I personally would like to live a very long time, after all who would not want that. On the other hand I understand that at some point I will need to stand down and let the next generation step up to bat. If my generation were to be able to live forever (or just a lot longer than any before), what chance would my children have?

      Someday I will have children, and I want them to be able to step out of the shadow of my generation at some point. After all every generation before ours has gotten out of the way wh
    • When you are immortal - the stakes are just too high to take a gamble on the rest of your life.

  • i predict (Score:3, Funny)

    by bongobongo ( 608275 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @05:36AM (#7032167)
    some team will back a mouse that never dies. but within 10 years every part of its body will have been replaced at one time or another....

    mousenstein.

    (you can welcome our undead mouse overlords if you want but i won't be held responsible for lost karma)

  • Really an Award for Best Ear Transplant Technique (Score:5, Funny)

    by Eponymous Cowboy ( 706996 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @05:37AM (#7032170)
    From the Methuselah Mouse FAQ [cam.ac.uk] on how they will prove the mice are as old as is claimed:
    Our approach is to use special identification tags. ... attached to the ear in such a way that they cannot be undetectably re-attached after breakage, so it is impossible to attach one to a younger mouse.
    Obviously, therefore, the way to win this contest is to develop a way to successfully transplant mouse ears without leaving a noticeable scar.
  • Bits List:

    1x Mouse
    1X Space Ship

    Insturctions:

    Insert mouse A into Space Ship B. Launch Space Ship B into orbit around the sun. Speed up space ship B to near the speed of light. Allow relitivity to do it's work. Bring space ship back to earth at desired point, and remove very old mouse A.

  • Works by maintaining/increasing telomere length (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gyan ( 6853 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @05:46AM (#7032196)
    When DNA is replicated, the transcription occurs not from the start of a strand, but a few "words" into the sequence. Since, this might cut off valuable/active genes, there are telemores "prefixed" to the start of these sequence. These are useless bits of genes that can be safely cut off during cell copying. But as the instance of DNA gets copied more and more, in each succeeding generation, the telomere gets reduced. Eventually coming to the point where during copying, active genes get clipped. The limit is around 50 cell divisions, IIRC. Someone by the age of 60 has roughly 40% of telomere length as compared to birth. There's a gene called telomerase that synthesizes these telomeres at the ends of chromosones. Mice in which telomerase has been re-activated post-infancy have lived thrice as long!!! But there are ill-effects of activating telomerase post-infancy. Cancer tumors require telomerase to work as well. So, it's a double-edged sword. Hope someone figures out a good alternative.

  • Bwaahhaha (Score:3, Insightful)

    by simpleguy ( 5686 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @05:47AM (#7032201) Homepage
    Fsck that! I have a brand new Logiteh MX .. oh wait, never mind.

  • I, for one, welcome our new Methuselah Mouse overlords.

  • This is the kind of research I like to see. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ahfoo ( 223186 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @05:52AM (#7032217) Journal
    I've long been disappointed that biotech is so damn conservative about trying to just go for it and take some chances. We're all dying after all. It's like the absurdity of cancer therapies that can't be tried on terminally patients because they might have side effects. Jesus Christ on a crutch, that's like some kind of absurd joke
    Indeed, I'm testing the waters of bionformatics myself lately so I can stop compaining and do something about it. But that's another story.
    What caught my eye was the thing about being able to use stem cells. The whole stem cell story is so amazing and yet it seems that there's this amazing potential and nobody wants to try anything amazing with it. The attitude is like, yes this is amazing but we can't use it in amazing ways because it's experimental and we don't know what might happen.
    If I had a research budget and I was in this competition, my idea would be to create embryonic stem cells of my mouse and just inject them into the thing like it was a pin cushion. Damn the torpedos.
    So what's the worse things that's going to happen? A dead lab rat? What if the thing stays young forever? Let's pick up the pace people!

    • Re:This is the kind of research I like to see. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by evrybodygonsurfin ( 360132 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @06:16AM (#7032271)
      It's like the absurdity of cancer therapies that can't be tried on terminally patients because they might have side effects.


      Insightful point indeed. Presumably you make this from the perspective of someone who has watched a loved one suffering from terminal cancer be pumped full of toxic chemicals to the very limit of their mortal capabilities and then subjected to near-fatal doses of radiation in an attempt to lengthen their existance?



      Given these circumstances, it is baffling that patients aren't queuing up to be guniea-pigs for the less `conservative' experimental therapies.

      • Re:This is the kind of research I like to see. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bundaegi ( 705619 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @06:57AM (#7032387)
        Keywords are palliative treatment [cancerlinks.com], quality of life [treatments...cancer.com].
        Need to be balanced with patient's choice (or their relatives?) but if the prognosis is bleak then maybe it's more important to spend quality time with your loved ones rather than enduring agressive treatment that's not going to be effective anyway.

        Oh yeah... trials on terminal patients. Maybe people like grandparent (and those who modded him up) don't see the ethical issues involved. Sad it came from somebody involved in bioinformatics. Don't you guys have any philosophy lectures anymore? even basic stuff?
        Simply put, what next? you are given permission to start trials on patients who are going to die after all, then what? trials on prisoners? soldiers? random population sample? Thinking about it, it's not like this hasn't been tried before...

        • If the patient is of sound mind then they should be provided enough information to make an informed decision. Then leave it up to them. If they want to just die in peace that is fine. If they want to pump themselves full of every concoction imaginable by men, that should be fine as well as long as somebody is willing to foot the bill.

          As far as testing prisoner or soldiers, etc, goes, I'm all for testing anyone provided they are given a choice.

          What starts getting interesting is when a prisoner is given
    • So what's the worse things that's going to happen? A dead lab rat? What if the thing stays young forever? Let's pick up the pace people!

      No kidding!

      If the effectiveness of longevity treatments doesn't outpace my rate of decay, I'm going to be a very unhappy customer of the universe.

    • Re:This is the kind of research I like to see. (Score:5, Funny)

      by kinnell ( 607819 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @07:18AM (#7032460)
      So what's the worse things that's going to happen?

      A giant, carniverous, mutant super mouse, bent on world domination and the enslavement of the human race to work in it's underground cheese mines.

    • So what's the worse things that's going to happen? A dead lab rat?

      They might take your budget away for showing that you didn't really have a clue about biology? They aren't a magic wand. Take stem cell treatment for hearts for example [nih.gov] - you have to have highly specific growth conditions in the laboratory culturure dishes to coax stem cells into developing as vascular cells. They're not just going to have a look round and think 'when in the heart, do as the heart cells do'.

    • Hey, I've got the same idea as you, but I can see why a lot of others are so reserved. Some people who are religious equate stem cell research with abortion. (even if a fetus is already dead) It doesn't make a whole lot of sense from our perspective, but that's why it's not our perspective.

    • This is the kind of (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jcsehak ( 559709 )
      So what's the worse things that's going to happen?

      The worst thing is that you shouldn't be fucking around with life unless you're very serious about doing it for the express purpose of helping other, better (arguably), kinds of life. I can't stand PETA as much as the next guy, but shooting a mouse full of cells just to see what happens is irresponsible, and downright mean.

  • Narrrf! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spumoni_fettuccini ( 668603 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @05:56AM (#7032227) Journal
    Errr... What are we gonna do tonight Brain? The same thing we do every night Pinky... keep up with the Jones rabbits.

    I raised mice for several years and they [small gene pool] got more and more inbred resulting in cancers and other problems. I would think to avoid tumors and short life spans [which I had problems with], one would need a large breeding stock and keep a new influx of genetic material.

    • Scientists, it turns out, are smart.

      Consequently, there are people who's job is to do just this.

      Check out Charles River Labs.

  • what about this genius? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Unominous Coward ( 651680 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @05:57AM (#7032228)
    Does it [atarimagazines.com] count?

    How about this [ntrautanen.fi] apple mouse?

  • any technique ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @06:03AM (#7032247) Journal
    Researchers can use any technique to boost longevity

    Flash freezing ? [cryonet.org]
    • Freezing the mouse is easy. Getting it to go for a walk after you've defrosted it is a little more problematical. I think they'd want to see it move before they'd give you the money.

  • here it is (Score:3, Informative)

    by ch-chuck ( 9622 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @06:15AM (#7032266) Homepage
    At lease here's Doug Engelbart's patent [about.com] on the mouse - don't know if a 1964 prototype still exists or not.

  • Human Immortality (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Famatra ( 669740 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @06:50AM (#7032369) Journal
    Human immortality sounds good, but the human population is already exploding and thats *with* people dying off. If a large number of people are going to become immortal then we need population controls in place, or at least teaching how birth control is used in school ;).

    • Re:Human Immortality (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tid242 ( 540756 ) * on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @08:38AM (#7032820) Homepage
      Human immortality sounds good, but the human population is already exploding and thats *with* people dying off. If a large number of people are going to become immortal then we need population controls in place, or at least teaching how birth control is used in school ;).

      this is the kind of rhetoric i hear all of the time, as if people who live to be 1000 years old will still think it's necessary to start having kids when they're 20 and keep having them until they die (actually, in certain religious circles they might, which is pretty damn scary for us apostates).

      the most obvious fallicy in all of this is that immortality will be available for everyone. Compare treatments for HIV with what you can probably (and rightly) assume about any hypothetical immortality-treatments - who has access to antiretroviral therapy? - allow me to name countries: USA, Japan, UK, Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, etc, etc,. Notice anything odd about said selection of countries? Perhaps that they house about 10% of the world's population, have less than 5% of the world's HIV(+) population, and oh, by the way, they also control about 90% of the world's wealth. Now think of a hypothetical anti-aging pill (about the least-likely route of administration of anti-aging therapy, if you ask me), who do you suppose will have it first? - i'd guess the US and Western Europe (who pretty much all have negative population growths as it is (excluding immigration)), guess who'll own the rights to said therapy? - i'd guess US and/or Western European companies, Guess how much it'll cost? - i'd guess probably a whole lot more than most people in the US and Western Europe can afford, let alone people dying of diarrhea in 3rd world countries. Sure the price might eventually come down to levels affordable by "everyone" but that doesn't change the fact that most people world-wide die of nothing that has much at all to do with ageing.

      Even in the US, it is questionable whether many of the biggest killers are really directly caused by ageing, cancer is really the only one that comes to mind that probably is. Heart disease, Diabetes, suicide, accidents, and almost all of the others on the top 10 (for any age group apart from cancer) can't be said to be caused by being old, they may be time-dependent processes, but it doesn't mean that the physiological changes associated with ageing causes them...

      anyway, just a thought (or two).

      -tid242

  • The Oldest Mouse Contest (Score:4, Funny)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @06:53AM (#7032379) Homepage Journal
    "On your mark... Get set.... age!"

  • 150 human years? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by plumby ( 179557 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @07:15AM (#7032446)
    This is something that's often puzzled me. Who decided how many 'human years' there are in one mouse year (or cat/dog year for that matter)?
  • "The Methuselah Mouse contest was created in an effort to boost research into human longevity"

    Yeah, that's what we need, longer living humans who already overpopulate the Earth due to a lack of natural preditors. If you ask me, what we really need is a good plague. (Captain Trips, anyone?)

  • Mouse Howard Foundation? (Score:3, Funny)

    by island_earth ( 468577 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @07:24AM (#7032477)
    The hidden party behind the experiment was clearly a wealthy mouse who found himself dying young, and started this contest as a way to extend mouse lives. Now, members of the experiment just need a way to get in touch with each other...

    "Ears are short."

    "But tails are long..."

    "Not 'while the evil D-Con comes not'"
  • ...is one determined kitten to throw another team off-track!
  • The article is slashdotted, so forgive me if this is mentioned... Do they define what "life" is for a mouse? I mean, you could probably keep all of its systems going, but it might be in a comatose state for example. Ie, maybe the drugs they pumped into it completley frag it's brain functions. I think the mouse should have a decent quality of life in addition to having a long one. :) What good would having a long life be if you were immobilized, could only eat chease and crap your cage for the rest of you

  • This is a hard problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Equuleus42 ( 723 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @08:42AM (#7032843) Homepage
    According to this article [nature.com], scientists are going to have a hard time getting their mice to live longer. Because cancer tends to "take over" as an animal's age increases, scientists have tried using cancer-preventing proteins to prevent this. The problem they found, however, was that it accelerated the aging process for mice. That's not to say that some other method may find a way around this, but scientists do still seem to be grappling with the issue.

    Besides, didn't anyone read Brave New World Revisited [amazon.com]? Overpopulation is not the answer. :^)
  • They're already starting to take over:
    http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?menu=1&id_iss ue=5659510 [interfax.ru]

  • My pet mouse lived for 2.5 years (before getting the deadly neurological/arthritis problem most mice get at that age) and I have seen others live that long easily. I thought mice were the animals that were tested with the low cal diet that made them live 3 times longer. I remember the news film having mice.

    Shouldn't it be at least 7 years if mice were in that test? Something is strange here.

  • "Squeak Squeak Squeak." Translation: "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."
  • For example, this could spawn the development of cryogenic storage. (Don't try this... it'd be cruel to the mouse.)

    Yeah, it's alive, and it's 50 years old. It just breathes very, very slowly.

    However, for my dollar, I think I prefer quality of life to quantity, which is why I take my Christianity seriously.

  • Playing God with mice and men. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fishnuts ( 414425 ) * <fishnuts@arpa.org> on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @11:15AM (#7034181) Homepage
    Most people would call me an atheist, because I don't believe in a supreme entity whom has complete power over us and our world, but I just realized something.
    We are God.
    We've already stopped our own evolution. Before we developed the ability to heal ourselves, kill off or obsolete our only natural predators and shield ourselves from any natural threat, we were HAPPY to live to a ripe age of 30-40 years. It was plenty of time to raise a family and pass on our general knowledge of our simple little world.

    200 years ago, we didn't know what cancer was. Not because we had no way to SEE it or diagnose it, but because it simply didn't happen (short of the very low rates of actual cancer manifestations.) When someone got sick from a terminal disease, it was just accepted as a fact of life, and those people became a statistic of Darwin's laws.

    Now, people with congenital diseases (or diseases inherited from parents, or combinations of parents' genes which give the child a high predisposition for a disease) are surviving longer AND reproducing, causing such diseases and predispositions to prosper. On the other side of the same coin, we're weakening our species' immunities to congestive diseases by artificially suppressing and preventing them with medicine.

    Biomedical engineering is also causing as much harm as good. Sure, we've eliminated many Really Bad Diseases. But now there are mutated versions of the same diseases (viral and bacterial) that survived our initial campaigns to eliminate them, which have proven to be much more resistant to our medicines and techniques. Virii and bacteria are still evolving, and there's nothing WE can do to stop that. It's only going to get worse.

    Don't get me wrong here. I'm happy and extremely grateful to live a longer, healthier, and safer life than my predecessors. But we're taking this whole "Live Longer!" thing to an extreme that will only be detrimental in the long run. In fact, overpopulation is one of the immediately obvious effects of this. Why are we spending billions and billions of dollars and as many man hours every year, intentionally extending the lifespan of our individuals, instead of the collective species?

    God (the one that most people in the world pray to) NEVER intended us to live this long. If God exists, I believe cancer, AIDS, SARS, and Osama bin Laden (sorry, couldn't resist :) are simply His latest attempts to curb the population problem that we've initiated.

    Creating 'super mice' might be a great novelty at first, and a boon to science, but what we learn from them certainly wont benefit our species. Just ourselves. Seems a bit selfish, ignoring the decline in quality of life many generations in the future will be faced with.

    (Yes, I'm playing the devil's advocate here, but it's a point I REALLY wish more people would consider)
    • We are God.

      Sorry, but I don't think you can tell people this. People progress through states of mind that allow more "intense" realizations to occur. A primitive tribe is extremely hesitant to outsiders because of the overwhelming amount of change they introduce. It takes an extremely open mind to allow such a transition. That needs to be broken down first, so, how?

      Questions. People need to be able to construct internal dialog or at least intelligent dialog between others. The important thing is b

  • Only Five Years? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2003 @10:59PM (#7040261) Homepage
    I had a pet wild mouse that lasted seven.

Slashdot Top Deals

Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel

Close