Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Genetic engineering boosts mouse intelligence 191

Posted by Hemos from the fun-with-dna dept.
hurin wrote to us with the story about scientists raising the level of learning and memory in the subject mice. Of course, they get into the potential for human genetic manipulation as well, something which is sure to spark a conflagaration of right vs wrong genetic engineering debates.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Genetic engineering boosts mouse intelligence More

Genetic engineering boosts mouse intelligence

Comments Filter:

  • Now there's a sign of intelligence (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    One of the first clues scientists received to the super-intelligence of the mouse is that it erased Windows from a nearby computer and installed Linux.

  • Transcendance & Uncertainty (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    We don't even know what intelligence is. How can we really measure it? Without understanding it how can we cannot know what we're doing as we change it.

    A flood of protests will soon arive from those claiming to act in the name of God. Some of those will be from people who merely object to science meddling with things that a 4000 year old book says that God did. Most however will be reacting for logical reasons despite what they may claim. To say that it is risky to court the unknowable is a *vast* understatment. Even with unmodified intelligence the future is unknowable. Science fiction that doesn't include modified intelligence still portrays almost incomprehensible possibilities. And sometimes reality is stranger. Human intelligence in it's present form has been around for a long time. Although we have no clue what it's going to do next we still have some level of comfort with it -- we've seen a lot of what it's done. When we change human intelligence it will be something we're not as familiar with. People say things like "if there are no side-effects", but that's wrong because side-effects are inherent in what we're talking about. Not to say that we shouldn't do this. We have no choice. The opportunity to transcend is before us, and we must take it irregardless of risks. And this is not the only feild were transcendance is near at hand... at the current rate of improvements in semiconductor manufacturing we will be able to produce single microchips with the same complexity as the human brain by the year 2050... If we aren't smarter than our computers then why shouldn't they rule the Earth? Illuminatus! - conservatism vs. neoism Snow Crash - intelligence / perception Flowers for Algernon - increasing intelligence Neon Genesis Evangelion - enhanced evolution / technilogical heresy Babel 17 - intelligence / perception

  • oh GOD no! (some elementary neuroscience) (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    >>Normally when two nerve cells feel like joining (forming a memory, according to the news) they brush together, and one sends chemicals to the other. If an ion channel is open at the correct point a connection is made, but otherwise its not.

    Ok, so two neurons are connected if the axon from one contacts the dendrite from another. Axons are the part of the neuron that do the signaling (transmit a 1 or 0, if you want to think of it computationally, a 1 being an action potential, a 0 being inactivity). The dendrites receive this signal and are excited. When the excitation of the neuron reaches a critical value (due to the activity of many axons), that neuron will transmit its own action potential. Now the axons and dendrites don't actually contact, there is a tiny gap between them where chemicals are transmitted.

    The chemicals (neurotransmitters) come out of little things called synaptic vesicles, and are picked up on the other side by receptors, which are usually connected to ion channels. So there are a bunch of different kinds of receptors, some that respond to glucose, some to dopamine, there are a lot of different chemicals involved.

    So here's the deal with the NMDA receptors. Usually they are blocked off by a little bit of magnesium, which has a positive charge. So they are usually inactive. However, if the neuron is excited a lot, it depolarizes (gets more positive) and the magnesium floats away, allowing chemicals (probably calcium) to come into the neuron. When that happens the synapse (the connection between the two neurons) is strengthened (meaning next time round the same signal will elicit a larger response). So the NMDA receptors don't create connections, they strengthen existing connections.

    Memories are stored in large networks of neurons, with information distributed throughout it. There is no information in any neuron sitting on its own. Only in its interactions with the rest of the network does it contain any useful information.

    I've simplified a lot, but one thing I'd like to say is this. Just because the rats have enhanced NMDA receptors, doesn't mean they are smarter. Ability to solve problems and ability to remember that you've been shocked in a particular room are different things. The rats can remember things longer, but in the real world (outside the lab environment) the rats would probably be at a disadvantage. Otherwise rats would have evolved this increased set of NMDA receptors a long time ago (if it had any survival value)

    That's all I have to say.
    Sean
    smp2e@virginia.edu

    polyn.com [polyn.com] comics and such.

  • WE MUST MOVE THE HOUSE TO THE LEE SIDE OF THE STONE!!!!

  • Re:Yup. (Score:1)

    by Yarn ( 75 )
    This'd apply to other organs, as appears to have happened in kansas, namely the brain

    (ooh, wasnt that vicious)
  • The report I saw on the BBC News, said that the intelligence (ability to form memories) was increased by changing the activities of ion channels in the brain.

    Normally when two nerve cells feel like joining (forming a memory, according to the news) they brush together, and one sends chemicals to the other. If an ion channel is open at the correct point a connection is made, but otherwise its not.

    The GE'd mice have permanently open ion channels. This is supposed to improve memory formation. The quesions I ask are:

    If a memory is recorded for EVERYTHING wont you run out of neurons to interlink?

    Will the reliability of the memory suffer, like happens with some memory enhancing drugs, which increase recall, but decrease accuracy.

    How many of these mice are epileptic, would it be possible with all these ion channels open for 'wires to get crossed' or something?

    There are of course the moral and ethical arguements too :) I'll leave that to nicer people
  • I fail to see how it would be wrong to augment the intelligence of the human race as a whole.

    That's relatively easy to do. You just have to make sure everyone is well fed and gets a good education. You know, if someone grows up undernourished and with bad education, you can't expect them to end up geniuses.

    The point being, of course, that if the current productive capacity of the planet is more than sufficient to feed and educate everyone on it, we already have the capacity to "augment the intelligence of the human race as a whole", without resorting to such trickery as genetic engineering.

    Just remember: no excess of nature will make up for a lack of nurture... No gene will make up for malnourishment.

    And, just one more final point. We are nowhere near being able to "increase intelligence" of the human species by means of genetic engineering, while we do have the productive capacity for feeding and educating everyone today.

    ---

  • Also, you you forgot to mention that more sensitive senses could possibly come at a cost-- a higher caloric requirement. So actually, having senses much more acute than really needed could turn out to be maladaptive.

    Of course, the classic case is eyeless fish :-)

    ---

  • I don't think humans are evolving anymore. The Darwin evolution theory does not apply to humans in this age because we have outgrown nature. If a child is born disabled, diseased, dumb as a doorknob etc. they continue to live and have other childred and spread their poor DNA further into the genepool. This is all because of the great and wonderful world of science and medicine.

    Humans have not stopped evolving. By definition, a population evolves when there is differential reproduction, which leads to some genes increasing their frequency in the gene pool (and the diminishing of the frequency of their alleles). I don't expect you to be able to prove that there is no differential reproduction between human specimens, but rather the opposite to be true. Therefore, humans are evolving.

    If we were to abandon medicine, these "unfit" individuals would not survive long enough to reproduce.

    Your mistake is based on thinking that evolution is based on "unfit" individuals not reproducing. This is true of most species, but not a necessary thing for evolution. As I said above, evolution is just alleles changing frequency in the gene pool.

    But being such a warm hearted race, we humans nurture the weak and by doing so we break the evolutionary system.

    As regarding the survival of "unfit" human beings, I think you are looking at the whole situation in a manner that glosses over human nature. Remember humans are a social species; specifically, we are descended from hunter-gatherer bands, which practiced collective hunting of big game. The survival of one human being depends on that of his mates. It is in the genetic interest of each human to see that they survive and be as healthy aand strong as they can be (weighed against his/her personal fitness). If the overall contribution of the survival of "weaker" individual (including even those "disabled, diseased, dumb as a doorknob") to the fitness of each individual in a group is more than what each individual spends on nurturing them, then it is not surprising that such behavior could be evolutionarily enforceable.

    Do you really believe that in 200 years humans will have more intellectual ability than the humans today? I don't.

    I'm not to confident that people will be in a good shape 200 years from now. So I'll qualify my answer with a "supposing we don't blow the environment or each other to bits in the meantime".

    I don't know what you intend to be understood when you mention "intellectual ability". Your previous comments leave the impression that your are a biological determinist with regards to intelligence, so I take you believe that how intelligent people are depends on their genes; then the question becomes whether one believes people will be more "genetically intelligent" 200 years from now.

    However, how intelligent people are depends not only in their genes; in fact, you should think of genes as setting up the neurological framework in which their intelligence develops as they grow. This means as follows: how people are brought up has at least as much to do with their intelligence as genes. And I would say it is actually more important.

    Therefore, to answer your question we would have to ask: how will kids grow up 200 years from now? Wil there be a grossly unequal distribution of wealth and nourishment as now, where huge numbers of children don't get a chance to develop fully?

    I end warning you of the dangers of evolutionary reasoning. The subtlety needed for good arguments of this kind is huge-- frankly, more than you show in your post. And their conclusions can still be shaky; especially in a cultural species like ours.

    ---

  • Well, this might well be an advance of genetic engineering, but I don't really think it is as relevant to people as most slashdotters (who, time and time again, show themselves to be, despite their technical sophistication, scientifically naive) think it to be.

    I first saw this story last night, on a Yahoo headline that read "Scientists boost mouse IQ". (I'm reproducing it from memory; the important bit is "mouse IQ"). Yeah right, as if someone gave a mouse an IQ test. I am aware that one may quantify increased performance on some kind of exercises that mice do (e.g., running mazes), but to call this "IQ" and compare it to human intelligence is at best silly, and at worst ideological doublespeak.

    Simply, what we call "intelligence" both in people and in mice are qualitatively different things. And we know that human intelligence has a lot to do with upbringing; i.e., no matter what their genes are, if humans don't develop in an environment conducive to the development of their intelligence, they will turn out to be sub-optimal relative to their potential.

    When I say above that equating mice "IQ" with human IQ (which, BTW, is a dubious idea anyway) is "at worst ideological doublespeak", what I have in mind is the fact that establishment is interested in propagating a certain view of the state of science and of human intelligence, one that downplays precisely what I stated above, the decisive role of upbringing in the development of human intelligence. Understandable when millions go hungry and uneducated on a planet that produces enough to feed and educate everyone well, and only a minority gets good conditions under which to develop.

    ---

  • Otherwise rats would have evolved this increased
    set of NMDA receptors a long time ago (if it had any survival value)

    Not necessarily.

    (Cover your eyes if you're in Kansas.) The evolutionary ancestors of humans probably had better hearing, vision, strength, and sense of smell, or some combination. While all of the above can be helpful in survival, and should rarely be a hindrance, they all went away. Why? Because harmful mutations are much more common than helpful ones, and if a positive characteristic isn't that beneficial for the current evolutionary niche, mutations tend to lessen the characteristic in future generations.
  • MIGHTY MOUSE!

    Defender of truth and justice of the rodent sort...

    (not that this has anything to do with anything...)

  • The Secret of Nymph? I though this story was about increasing the mice's intelligence, not their reproduction rate! :-)

  • Well, we better figure out how to deal with it, because it's GOING to be done.

    How often do we keep hearing about atheletes who use medical technology to "get an edge"? Steroids, blood doping, how long is it going to be before somebody invents something that can't be tested for?

    People are GOING to use this, on people.

    What scares me is, kids today already know everything (ask any grown-up!). So how we gonna make them any smarter?

    But really folks, if we do create a generation of genetically smarter kids, who's going to teach them? Who are they going to want to learn from? Not their stupid progenitors. We'll have a whole generation of kids with big heads, great intellectual capacity, but they'll be just as dumb as every other generation. . .

    "The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
  • So when they tested you in school, did they apply mild electric shocks to your feet and measure your fear response a week later? Or did they throw you into a pool of water with only a hidden way out?

    Researchers who lack the creativity to come up with tests that don't involve the intentional and unnecessary application of pain and suffering are probably deficient in many other ways as well. I hope the paper won't pass peer review and these assholes won't get tenure.

    --

  • 'Nuther article in the Boston Globe -- Altered genes produce smart mice, tough questions [boston.com]

    --

  • I liked the movie even better than the book...
  • It was also made into what's arguably the greatest American animated film...

  • Nah... The book has too many bloody unlikely coincidences (an abandoned library? An abandoned tinkerer cart? Yeah right), and Mrs. Frisby is too, well, mousey, sitting around waiting to be rescued.

    The movie has got the questionable magic stuff, but Brisby kicks more ass in there than in the book.
  • Yeah. that was it. Also made into a movie called "Charly". Charly was the name of the retarded man they worked on. Algernon was the mouse.
  • Info on that move at http://us.imdb.com/Title?0062794 [imdb.com]. They say:

    A very enjoyable, heart-warming movie, brilliantly acted by Cliff Robertson. His transition from addled to super-intelligent and back again was astonishing. Probably one of the lowest-budget "science fiction" movies ever made, based on the short story "Flowers for Algernon," which is a must read. There have been many "mentally challenged to mental giant" movies since, but this was the first and best. "
  • So I guess this brings new meaning to the term "To build a better mouse trap" ...

    "Dammit, they've gotten past the laser trip wire, the floor sensing dart guns, the motion detector AND the teddy bear with the fishing wire and bell around it's neck!" .. Look out, Cheese.

    --

  • I find it strange that people are interested in trying to artificially increase our intellegence and capabilities, when we as humans are nowhere near our limit. There are so many things that keep us from achieving great things (government, institutionalised education, parents, religion, republicans). Why not work on moving forward naturally before we resort to this aspect of science?

    Case in point: If you've ever watched a martial arts master, it's really amazing. Human beings are capable of throwing a punch in less than 1/10 of a second. No genetic engineering is necessary.

    We need to focus on breaking down those institutions and barriers to our progress, and then increasing our capabilities naturally. If, at that point, we find that we have met some restrictive limiting point, then playing God might be justifiable. But I don't think we'll meet that point for a *long* time.
  • It wasn't that bad...

    Well, okay, whenever the movie delved into "plot" or "character developement" in kinda sucked, but it's hard to beat as far as "sharks ripping people apart".
  • The book Rules, end of story.



    There's nothing to see here, people. Move along. That's it. Carry on!

  • Genetic engineering will not be truly Innovative(tm) until they can figure out a way to splice Microsoft Active IntelliDNA (tm) into a lab mouse ... resulting in a mouse with a little thumbwheel in its anterior.

  • This proves it. The poor unwitting fools making those semi annual pilgrimages to Mauschwitz and Duckau have already been assimilated, as have those who raise their children on disney videos.

    I fear it's simply too late for the rest of us, even those who've (I can only assume) wasted our lives as agitprops for a Free world.

    I have seen the future. In the future we aren't all wearing Mickey Mouse ears. We're the mice. The only thing left is fear itself.

  • her I come to save the day!
  • The "Uplift" books from David Brin have an interesting perspective on the "smarter animal" idea. I encourage anyone who wants to pursue a line of speculation like this to pick them up and read them.
  • My friend swears that the Michael Jackson song "Ben" is about Flowers for Algernon. Surely it's not, is it?

    Nope. Ben was a rat. Algernon was a mouse.

    From the IMDB movie database [imdb.com]... Really bad horror flick.

    --
    A host is a host from coast to coast...

  • ... (Score:2)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 )
    Am I the only one that was thinking of Pinky and the Brain after reading this? :)

    --

  • ... (Score:3)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 ) on Thursday September 02, 1999 @06:35AM (#1709417)
    First genetic programming, and right after that, genetic engineering. Coincidence? I think not! It's a secret government conspiracy to link us all to the hive mind by using free internet access as a vehicle for world domination! Resistance is futile.. you will be assimilated.

    Okay, I think it's obvious who hasn't had their morning coffee yet... I'll leave /. alone for awhile now. :)

    --

  • Following these research findings the Council of Ministers has decided, on the advice of the vetinary subcommittee, and the subcommittee in charge of outlawing things that might scare some people, to ban mice from all EU member states.

    Dr Klaus van Hoopklinger, chairman of the investigative subcommitee for researching spurious reasons to outlaw foreign products announced "Given the possibility that some mice will undoubtedly be genetically engineered for nefarious commercial reasons by our American allies, and given that European member states are currently carrying out a 10 year extensive yet innevitably inconclusive effort on the effects of superintelligent mice on the ecosystem and dietray health of EU citizens, we see no alternative but to ban all mice".

    The decision is expected to be ratified by the European Parliament and made law by the governments of the member states with little opposition. A massive, Europe wide, mouse extermination program, using orgnically grown poisons, is expected to begin early in 2001, and customs barriers, including specially trained, selectively bred, sniffer cats, should be in place by early next year.
  • Some people seem to have such a powerful egalitarianism reflex they don't even bother to think before blurting out that tired refrain "what about the poor?" But this time that comment is entirely inappropriate.

    Folks, intelligence is not a zero-sum game. Spending more on your kid's intelligence is not like spending more on your kid's Ferrari. Intelligence has huge positive externalities. Spending money to make your kid smarter is a social good; it benefits everybody, not just your kid.

    If rich people can make their kids smarter, I want them to do it. Because we will all reap the benefits. Smart people create better bridges, more efficient automobiles, faster computers, better laws, better court judgements and better operating systems than dumb people do. Intelligence matters. Think of _any_ problem we face today whether it be political, social or technological, and if you have more smart people thinking about that problem, it'll get solved faster.

    So when and if a legitimate "smart drug" shows up on the market, we should let the early adopters - those who are highly risk-tolerant and have the bucks - try it first, and the rest of us will join in as the cost comes down and the technology acquires a decent track record. Same as with any other technology, there'll be some sort of adoption curve and that's okay.

    (Can people tell I just re-read Atlas Shrugged? :-) )

  • 3.Are there any bad side effects ??? Increased intelligence may be a wonderful thing, but in ANY system, you can't change just one thing. And if it results in, say, a higher chance of mental illness or cancer or something, chances are that it won't be used. . .

    The article I read mentioned that the protein in question is associated with an increased risk of stroke.
  • Perhaps humans already have the "smart mouse" variant of this gene.
  • Your choice -
    Like Dr. Bliss said, ha, there may be other unexpected consequences. Actually, I consider human intervention as a kind of 'semi-intelligent mutation' that has yet to be sifted out by natural selection; 'semi' in that the consequences are not completely known.

    Chuck
  • Yep, by Daniel Keyes if I remember right (and I probably don't). One of the very best short stories ever, IMHO (well, novella actually, from memory). That was the first thought that sprung to my mind too when I saw this story.

    Cheers,
    Duane.

  • ACTGTTCAATMINDPHASRWUZH3R3!!@#!AACTCTGTAAAATCGAT GUR0WN3D!@#!AATCDT


  • We as a society of _people_ are already quite sensitive to change in people. But even more so than this, we are sensitive to faults we see in ourselves.

    Do we realise the price we may have to pay for the hope of intellect? Are we prepared to pay it with full knowledge of the cost.

    I'm not talking about religious yes and no's, but quite simply, wondering whether we know where we are taking ourselves. Whether the price of failure.. and success may be too great.

    I put "Flowers For Algernon" because that is what I thought of when I saw the topic. The gift of intellect is valuable. It could mean the difference between normal living with friends.. or it could mean a life of being demeaned and being less of a person.

    There's nothing wrong with wanting more intelligence, to be smarter and better. That is what advancement is all about. Growth.

    But can we live up to that potential? And can we live with the possibility of losing it forever after having tasted it?

    I'm hoping for means to improve the intellect of people. But I'm also hoping that by the time that option is available, people are ready for that improvement. And the possible ramifications of it.


    - Wing
    - Reap the fires of the soul.
    - Harvest the passion of life.
  • I don't think humans are evolving anymore. The Darwin evolution theory does not apply to humans in this age because we have outgrown nature. If a child is born disabled, diseased, dumb as a doorknob etc. they continue to live and have other childred and spread their poor DNA further into the genepool. This is all because of the great and wonderful world of science and medicine.

    If we were to abandon medicine, these "unfit" individuals would not survive long enough to reproduce. But being such a warm hearted race, we humans nurture the weak and by doing so we break the evolutionary system.

    Do you really believe that in 200 years humans will have more intellectual ability than the humans today? I don't. How is that possible when stupid people are just as capable of surviving in this world as smart people (aka "us slashdot readers :). There's no way to weed out the garbage genes from oour society unless we do something about.

    This is why I am 100% in favour of genetic engineering.

    PS: take this reply with a chill pill

    "The voices in my head say crazy things"
  • I agree that having two disparate populations is not a desirable outcome, and would much prefer that the procedure be available to everyone. However, I also see ethical problems with denying someone access to a procedure that could improve them or their children, simply because not everyone can afford it. Should we disallow heart and liver transplants? Ban college (most people can't afford it, at least without grants and loans of some kind) and private schools?

    If we as a society decide it is unacceptable to allow only the wealthy (and I would hope we would), or (much more likely) only the middle class and wealthy, to enhance themselves genetically, then we should work toward subsidizing access to such technologies for the underpriveleged rather than simply banning the practice for everyone. Unless, of course, we want a world in which only the criminals are super intelligent.
  • Narf !!!
  • It's Danger Mouse [dangermouse.org]!
  • Some good points there.

    "[C]reating improved memory and learning ability is not the same as boosting intelligence ..."

    Nor is the same as boosting wisdom, or even common sense. It's not like there's a big shortage of intelligence, just a shortage of people who actually use it for much.

  • Let's think about that one for a sec.
    If bomb sniffing dogs were any smarter, they'd realize that they're looking for bombs. That would take out the fun and put in the fear. They would know they're at risk, and wouldn't want to do it anymore.

    Then we'd have to rely on all the soon to be out of work Y2K consultants to do the job.

    But then again, with a little gene therapy, the BOE of Kansas might actually learn a thing or two.

  • Re:Increased Intelligence - Maybe (Score:3)

    by jabber ( 13196 ) on Thursday September 02, 1999 @07:09AM (#1709432) Homepage
    But the American Dairy Council is funding the reasearch, since even though the I.Q. benefit may be small, all people who undergo the treatment will have an insatiable appetite for cheese.
  • Could Pinky and The Brain become a reality? I dunno about you, but if I see a big headed mouse walking on it's hind legs down the street, I'm gonna run.

    Well I think so Brain, but if they called them sad meals the kids wouldn't buy them.
  • You go in the cage, cage goes in the water, you go in the water. Mouse's in the water, our mouse!

    [singing]
    Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies
    Farewell and adieu you ladies of Spain.
    For we received orders for to sail back to Boston
    And soon never more will we see you again.
  • Actually, they only increased the amount of LTP by tinkering with the NMDA receptor (which btw is also responsible for neuron necrosis). The mice did not get 'smarter' but simply performed tasks better. They did not learn/recall better--these are much harder tests to do and involve testing progressively better tasks.

    The problem is that simply because you have increased LTP (long term potentiation) this does not necessarily correlate to learning.

    The results these scientists got could actually be done by giving the mice caffiene before the tests. Or any amphetine for that matter.

    Quite disappointing since I was realy rooting for pinky.

  • Actually, I found NIMH much more plausible than smart rats running around in gangs. If they are too noticible, they'll be supressed, so the smart thing to do is to hide. I'm not real impressed by the idea of hiding out in the woods, though. Not if they want to run electric gadgets. That's actually pretty noticible. Hiding in an old factory next to a grocery store sounds much more reasonable. And spread out, so you aren't all in one place.
  • Actually, I do not remember a movie, but a book.
    Did they make a movie of the book?
    Animated?
    Interesting, perhaps it is not far off then.
  • I watched that movie.
    I loved that movie.
    I purchased that movie.
    I show it to all of my friends.

    Yes it was an excellent movie.
  • Does this mean that my mouse no longer will have to use a cord? Will it do what I tell it? :)
    http://www.bombcar.com It's where it is at.
  • I heard this broadcast too, it raised an interesting question about the effect of continuing to learn at the same (accelerated) rate as a child and the access speed once memories become too numerous. One scientist stated he could duplicate the teat results with amphedimines. There was more to it than that, but that is all I can recall off the top of my head.

    "Trouble is, just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's true"

  • Or, for a darker version of the same story idea, there's a short story in Dean Koontz's Strange Highways anthology.
  • Well, they are laboratory mice, and their genes have been spliced.
  • Hmmm anyone remeber the Don Bluth movie "The secret of Nyph"??? does this sound familar??
  • You know, one of these days they have to start referring genetic engineering as genetic hacking. Essentially that is what it is. You don't know what the code snippet is doing. It's like plugging some C code at random places into a program. Most of the time animal is defective (buggy programs), sometimes the code is ignored (uncovered code). Sometimes, after a million iteration, you get something great like this, but you are still not sure what the side effects are. Reverse engineering at its best.


    Hasdi
  • Now if they developed a smarter trac ball, then I'd be impressed.
  • Well if you read any Douglas Adams, you understand that it wont matter anyway because there will only be two mice left who were once scientists and they fill get eaten by an owl.
  • > Can you imagine how a cat will react after being outsmarted time and time again by a mouse?

    Isn't this the whole premise behind Tom and Jerry?

  • Don't try this with sharks... (Score:4)

    by Evro ( 18923 ) <evandhoffman.gmail@com> on Thursday September 02, 1999 @06:37AM (#1709448) Homepage Journal
    Wasn't this the plot of some (bad) horror movie recently released -- they genetically increased the intelligence of some sharks and the sharks all became Einsteins and killed everyone?

    When will we learn.
  • Interestingly enough, I started reading the new Ender book yesterday (so far, so good!), after reading this piece of news about the mouse. One of the subjects the book tackles is the subject of ethics and genetic alteration. So-go read the book!

    -Lisa
  • > Am I the only one that was thinking of Pinky and the Brain after reading this?

    No.

  • > I think so, Brain, but I can't get the kernel to compile under WinNT....

    It'll be a shame if the mouse turns out to be smarter than the rest of your computer now.

    > [diving for cover]

    /meetoo!
  • "...which is sure to spark a conflagaration of right vs wrong genetic engineering debates."

    The only fundamental wrongness in Genetic Engineering is that manipulating things farther along than Zygote is pretty much impossible.

    Which means I must resort to self-trepanation to expand my mind further ;) And my oft wished for tar/carcinogen proof lungs will probably never arrive...

  • I think so, Brain, but I can't get the kernel to compile under WinNT....

    [diving for cover]
  • . . .increased intelligence is a worthy goal. I guess the REAL questions are:
    1. How easy is it to insert the gene ? (i.e. can you write it in with an administered retrovirus, can you distribute that retrovirus in a stable, preferably shelf-stable form, and how cheap/expensive will it be to do so ?)
    2. Does the gene work in humans, and if so, how well ??? After all, if it doesn't work in people, then it's merely spinning wheels as far as we're concerned. (Side question: what has the Human Genome Project learned about this gene ???)
    3. Are there any bad side effects ??? Increased intelligence may be a wonderful thing, but in ANY system, you can't change just one thing. And if it results in, say, a higher chance of mental illness or cancer or something, chances are that it won't be used. . .
  • I thought the work of Dr. Adams in this field long ago revealed that mice where the most intelligent beings in the universe already.
  • NIMH = National Institute of Mental Health
    But my grandest creation, as history will tell,

  • I heard about this on NPR last night. There's a 4 1/2 minute RealAudio recording at:
    http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc /19990901.atc.16.ram [npr.org]

  • Since "building a better a mouse trap" has become a cliche, now we're building better mice.

    I bet all of those mouse trap builders have been slacking off these past few years, sitting around in their R&D labs reading email, eating cheese samples, etc.

    One of them will eventually load up /., see this story, and have a nervous fit.

    Time to get back to work..
  • I think that this is a really good thing, this genetic "pre-engineering". After all, literature shows us that anything that gets us closer to clone wars is good. Most great science-fiction cultures have had clone wars, therefore it's unlikely that we will achieve greatness without one. No, this isn't cloning, strictly, but it's a critical improvement---who wouldn't want clone warriors with improved ability to learn/remember?
  • Damnit.. as I write this, someone posts a link regarding my point exactly.

    From the Boston Globe link above...

    However, specialists pointed out, creating improved memory and learning ability is not the same as boosting intelligence, the hard-to-define property that many measure with IQ tests.
  • From a psychological point of view, is learning = retention and training ability?
  • Heh.. it was a quote from southpark, a joke =)

    But more nerves doesn't mean much at all. Heck, the more money you have doesn't intrinsicly mean that you will earn more. Its how you use it.

  • From my understanding of neuron chemistry of firing, there are two steps, the bringing in of one element and the release of another. It's like a heart beat. I am not sure that the quality of the spark will matter much more than its presence.
  • I won't say it is useless, I just think that the wording is completely wrong and gives people false impressions that hey, now you'll be smarter. There are things such as reasoning that doesn't get improved upon in this case. Reasoning may seem to be improved due to recall, but that little bit, that je ne sais quoi that says "I know something and can answer correnctly" because I can actually understand is not necessarily there.
  • I hope I quoted that right.

    Anyway, how accurate are they with this gene manipulation. I would also imagine that intelligence, like skin colour isn't specific to one gene but of several genes. This would increase the possibilty for error. Its no longer a slip of the knife but now a drug which isn't as well targeted.

    Another problem I have with this experiment is that intelligence isn't rated solely on what they provided. They showed that these new super mice have better retention amd quicker ability for a trained operation to be forgotten.

    In psychological terms, the curve for training and extinction has grown taller (graph-wise). Let's wait for the cognitive psychologists to have a field day with this one.

  • Was that the name of the story? God, it has been a while since I read that. Trying to remember, didn't they use the same medicine on a retarded man after they experimented with the mouse. If I remember, the guy grew to superhuman intelligence then it all slipped away. Seem to remember the mouse dropped off first and dies before the guy had the same thing happen.

  • but can they make them smarter and THEN transplant their heads?

  • Research Proposal (Score:3)

    by DonkPunch ( 30957 ) on Thursday September 02, 1999 @06:57AM (#1709468) Homepage Journal
    GRANT PROPOSAL:

    I am requesting $4 million in grant money for the purpose of reviewing the effects of genetically-enhanced mice on the biological ecosystem.

    To put more fine a point on it (bonus for referencing old slashdot article), I wish to study what happens when mice become smarter than their feline predators.

    My research will consist of several hours of reviewing Tom and Jerry cartoons. Sylvester cartoons involving the "giant mouse" (actually a kangaroo) will also be included in the study.

    My proposal has already gained support from the Cartoon Network. Johnny Bravo himself has stated, "Well, that sounds like a fine idea you got there, mister."
  • According to the article, this gene produces a
    protein that is in effect for young mice and
    makes the mice stay 'young brained'. OK, it's
    particularly important for young animals to be
    able to pick things up quickly, but why stop
    there? Presumably there is selection pressure
    of some kind to 'lose' some of that intelligence
    as one gets older and they are defeating the
    evolutionary pressure. Maybe it's just metabolic
    effort to keep effect going, but I wonder.
  • I believe the experiment's been tried in the Appalachians too.
  • Yeah, I remember that story. It was good. :)
  • I don't think this would be a good idea for humans (even if it doesn't end up causing cancer or strokes or anything). They say that it essentially makes the adult mice have juvenile brains.

    Humans also are smarter when they are kids, if you measure intelligence in certain ways. Certainly before the age of six kids are way better at learning languages than adults are, and I suspect there are a lot of other things that kids learn more easily than adults. But I don't think that kids are actually smarter than adults. They just have different ways of learning.

    All the measures of intelligence they used were simply measures of memory. How quickly the mice could learn and remember something. In humans, intelligence is more often associated with the ability to reason than with the ability to memorize. Except in elementary school and anatomy classes, in which case the ability to memorize is equated with intelligence.

    Basically, I think this is a very interesting development, but to generalize from smart mice to smart people seems a bit silly.

  • I hope those mice are smarter than these stupid things [microsoft.com].
  • We already can enhance intelligence just as well as we can enhance strength. Of course some people are just born smarter than others just the same as some people are born stronger. It is called reading and thinking. All things being equal the person who reads more and trains themselves to think logically will be smarter.

    Also, I found nothing morally wrong with the world in Gattaca. Sure a few people are screwed, but the society as a whole was better. The average person was smarter, stronger, and had less chance of diseases. I have no problem with that.
  • even "regular" mice are smarter than those stupid things
  • As soon as they genetically engineer smarter trackballs... dude, ill be there!!!

    but seriuosly, wouldnt a smarter mouse be great? for those times when you dont want to take your hands off the keyboard, but your version of netscape wont let you scroll down without the mouse? i would love to just be able to tell the little thing to pull on that scroll bar for me. ... hmm, i have a microphone here...
    and now i have hours of code ahead of me... :)
  • The cat would probably respond like all the other cats who are outsmarted by mice on TV.
  • sporty wrote:

    "Anyway, how accurate are they with this gene manipulation. I would also imagine that intelligence, like skin colour isn't specific to one gene but of several genes. This would increase the possibilty for error. Its no longer a slip of the knife but now a drug which isn't as well targeted. "

    Whenever you do a genetic manipulation, what you have to remember is that your aim is to effect eventual protein production. And what makes this study really interesting is that Tsien was able to effect memory by altering one SUBUNIT of the NMDA receptor. And NR2B isn't even the main subunit: the NR is made up of NR1 (mandatory), and one other subunit (NR2B or other choices). So it's pretty neat that you can get a cognitive effect through this one little change.

  • Of course, a real problem arises if the procedure is not dispensed to the whole of mankind, but to some sort of ethnic or social elite. We don't need the rich to get more intelligent as a whole: the beauty of intelligence right now is that it comes up in unexpected places, and gives a real edge to anyone to change their destiny.

    On the one hand, it would probably start out too expensive for most people to afford. On the other hand, this would probably change with time.

    On the gripping hand, "Vote for me if you want a free intelligence boost" is a rather double-edged campaign slogan.
    /.

  • Sounds a lot like a bad Stephen King movie I remember...

    Another case of reality catching up to science-fiction. I love it; it makes me feel like we really are living in the Year 2000! (Well, we will be in 4 months.)

    What exactly are the ethical oppositions to this? Except from bad sci-fi warnings, I fail to see how it would be wrong to augment the intelligence of the human race as a whole. Of course, learning ability has nothing to do with social or emotional intelligence, so it might just turn all of mankind into socially-misadapted geeks.

    Of course, a real problem arises if the procedure is not dispensed to the whole of mankind, but to some sort of ethnic or social elite. We don't need the rich to get more intelligent as a whole: the beauty of intelligence right now is that it comes up in unexpected places, and gives a real edge to anyone to change their destiny.

    Other than that, I don't have a problem with intelligence augmentation. We seem to think of intelligence as a God-given gift, whereas, say, an athletic build is just a lot of work. By this I mean people think you can work up to a strong built, but you have to be "gifted" to display intelligence. I say, if we can artificially augment strength, why not augment intelligence.

    What would that imply? Less stupid lusers, more Linux-savvy... I bet Microsoft are shitting their pants. :):)

    Hey, I'd love to see the next Kasparov disqualified for unlawful IQ boosting. :)

    "There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

  • There's a condition called hypermnesia that sounds similar to this... Hypermnesiacs have a memory to put a herd of psychic elephants to shame. They can read the phonebook once, and they'll remember every phone number.

    Why is that bad, you ask? Well, because they can't turn this thing off. If you read from a book, they're assaulted with images and associations; it's like a sensory overflow. It's very unpleasant and can lead to some serious psychological troubles.

    I wonder if that's what the mice are suffering from. Remember that mice's sensory maps are much less defined than us; what I mean is, read a chapter of Moby Dick to a mouse and she'll remember some talking for 15 minutes. Read it to a human, and he'll remember the references, the tone, the depth of the voice, the placement of words, etc.

    So perhaps it's harmless on mice, but on men, I bet it could be a real pain in the brain.

    So no thanks; I don't want this. :)

    "There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

  • They're called religious objections. Something about believing man to be the "perfect" creation of a god or gods, and therefore altering this creation is a bad thing in the eyes of those god(s). Go ask a religious fundamentalist if this is a good thing, and they'll probably tell you it's not.

    I don't call this ethical objections, I call this religious hypocrisy. Getting a heart transplant is altering God's creation. Getting a prosthetics is altering God's creation. And I altered God's creation when I got a tattoo.

    So I couldn't care less about religious fundamentalists with close-minded objections.

    "There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

  • Hmm, that raises an interesting question, but I'm afraid we'll be straying into political affiliations with this.

    Does, say, heart transplants provide an unfair advantage to the rich? Perhaps it does, because it lets them live longer (and reproduce and have more children and make more money while alive, blah blah Darwin blah.) College? Yep, that's definitely an advantage too.

    Would the solution be to ban it for everyone because some people cannot afford it? Your point is, I think, very valid on this: no, of course not. We shouldn't deprive someone of something because others cannot afford it. I don't want anyone to take away my ISP access because the guys on the streets cannot access it, and I don't demand that Pentium III's be banned because my current computer can't run the next Quake. :)

    I think the moral imperative is, naturally, for the Government to help those without funds to access such things as medical care and college, but that's a liberal position and the more conservative-minded of you will disagree. The more radical ones will call me a filthy Red. :)

    In the end, augmentation of intelligence, if practical, would be considered an enhancement of the kind of plastic surgery, breast implants (I know, depressing) and laser surgery. The argument would naturally be that the ability to learn is enough to get one through life except in the most drastic cases (such as a certified idiot at less than 70 IQ.)

    So, the Government will likely sponsor idiots to get an IQ boost, and the rich will shell out tons of cash to get their learning abilities enhanced and get their otherwise moronic jock boy through Princeton with A grades.

    And while this endures, the common-day idiots, those who can tie their shoelaces but are still looking for the any key, will endure. Pretty grim, really.

    "There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."

  • Arg, I submitted this after I found it next to the comics in the paper this morning. I even tracked down a website with info. Gargle! Those super mice are already outsmarting me! IT'S A BIG CONSPIRACY!!!

    I know it is..

    Rat of Nimh, Pinky and the Brain, NAZI SUPERMEN! Think of the possibilities, people!!

    It's all a plot! They're out to get you all! Bwuahahahahahahaha!!!!

    You know they are what's *really* behind the Amiga, Transmeta, First posters, /. effect........

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close