E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
AP/Sam Ogden via The Whitehead Institute
This photo shows a mouse composed, in part, of cells that were reprogrammed to a stem cell-like state. New research has used these type of cells to create offspring from two fathers.
Reproductive scientists have used stem cell technology to create mice from two dads. The breakthrough could be a boon to efforts to save endangered species -- and the procedure could make it possible for same-sex couples to have their own genetic children.
The scientists, led by Richard Berhringer at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, describe the process in a study posted Wednesday in the journal Biology of Reproduction. Here's how it works:
Cells from a male mouse fetus were manipulated to produce an induced pluripotent stem cell line. These iPS cells are ordinary cells that have been reprogrammed to take on a state similar to that of an embryonic stem cell, which can develop into virtually any kind of tissue in the body.
About 1 percent of the iPS cell colonies spontaneously lost their Y chromosome, turning them into "XO" cells. These cells were injected into embryos from donor female mice, and transplanted into surrogate mothers.
The mommy mice gave birth to babies carrying one X chromosome from the original male mouse. Once these mice matured, the females were mated with normal male mice. Some of their offspring had genetic contributions from both fathers.
The study authors say their technique could be applied to animal breeding efforts, so that two males with desirable traits could be crossed without mixing in traits from females. "It is also possible that one male could produce both oocytes (eggs) and sperm for self-fertilization to generate male and female progeny," the team writes. This could help save an endangered species that no longer had females to mate with, for example.
In the future, scientists may be able to create human eggs from male iPS cells in vitro, allowing them to eliminate the need for the intermediate offspring, though a surrogate mother would still be needed to carry the two-father pregnancy to term.
With a variation of the technique, "it may also be possible to generate sperm from a female donor and produce viable male and female progeny with two mothers," the researchers write.
The research joins a long list of stem cell breakthroughs with mouse models. Check out the stories below to learn what else researchers have done with mice.
- Whole mice created from skin cells
- Stem cells reverse defects in mice embryos
- Sex differences found in stem cells
- Mice born without a dad's DNA
- Paralyzed mice given stem cells walk again
John Roach is a contributing writer for msnbc.com. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by hitting the "like" button on the Cosmic Log Facebook page or following msnbc.com's science editor, Alan Boyle, on Twitter (@b0yle).
Leave a Comment:
I'm concerned about this mouse. He'll never fit in. His daddy's people won't associate with him and his daddy's people won't either. He will be a mouse without a hole.
hahahaha
Darwin just rolled in his grave. All his work down the toilet. Thanks a lot.
Where is Christine O'Donnell???She must be having an "O-ey" right now.
That mouse looks so gay.
This honestly sounds like a split DNA clone. Is cloning legal now? Where can I get mine. I want one like Stewie and Brian had on Family Guy...only more stable.
lol That mouse better not try to hit on me! I want a clone to go to work for me and hang out with my family while I relax and play Xbox
If our government is funding this I want my tax dollars put elsewhere. I'd rather live with robots then gay couples with children. Are we looking at a future where humans lose the ability to reproduce? I know it sounds far-fetched, but everything starts somewhere. As for saving species..... what's the point? The world as we know it is changing quickly and may not be able to supports US for the next 500 years. Why add the burden of another species? If there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is it any wonder why they stay away? I think it would be better funding to develop techniques that involve modifying whatever DNA is responsible for homosexuality and get humanity back on track. Save the whales, not the gays.
This doesn't have implications just for gay couples. Heterosexual couples struggling with infertility could also benefit. Right now, options for women who experience premature ovarian failure are limited to obtaining eggs from a donor and using her husband's sperm to fertilize, or adopting a pre-conceived embryo having no biological connection to either parent. If this technique could be used so that the genetic material from both an infertile woman and her fertile husband to create an embryo, this is HUGE. There are millions of couples - gay AND straight - struggling with infertility who could benefit from this technique. Why SHOULDN'T people who want children who are biologically theirs have them? Because your prejudice and ignorance thinks there's something wrong with it?
Umm Dan, you do realize there is a prevalence of homosexuality in nature, and there are some animal species that are single gender, or would that bit of scientific information be too much for your religious values?
You make only one point in your comment and that point isnthat you have a primative snd small mind!
Dan-1388573 wrote "If our government is funding this I want my tax dollars put elsewhere."
Would you be willing to pay some money for male reproductive options to avoid the cost and personal destruction of divorce? Women are learning that a short marriage is enough to provide the extra income from a father, as reflected by the six year average duration of marriage and 70% of divorces filed by women. And 40% of US births are out of wedlock, indicating that women will still use the System to file for two decades of child support, which is also alimony in disguise for those leaving only slightly wealthy men.
Men need a male birth control pill and an artificial womb. The good company of women will be just that: good.
I have an open mind, and wont jump to scripture... however... did anyone ever take the time to think... oh i donno, that maybe things aren't suppose survive, or reproduce for the good of the species itself, or even the planet? I know its a little hard to grasp, and I'm in no way condoning death or suffering, nor persecuting homosexuals, but if your born not able to have kids, cough, same sex couples, cough, barren women, you do realize that you are then passing those genes on to your children and theirs and thus making a weaker genetic link? Now I mean everyone is given the natural human right to live forever, have all the babies they want with no strain on the planet and economy, eat ice cream for breakfast, and live in their candy mansions, but I kind of think that maaaaybe we should let nature be nature? In other words, STOP F***ING with the natural order of things! And yes if the government is funding this with tax dollars... then I was my money back also!
This reverts women back to there rightful position.
A ridiculous piece of flesh.
No more child support for you.
Go get a job.
Dan779427, I'm thinking more along the lines of developing a virus that only attacks and sterilizes ignorant, intolerant, holier then though members of the Human Race like your self. If we can clear the gene pool of country cousins like yourself we just might make it as a species!
I like when people see science they disagree with they immediately assume it's their tax dollars.
Even if it was, you do realize you've probably contributed less than 1 penny to this.
So your welcome to have it back.
It takes THREE generations with only a chance of having a child with characteristics from two males. You get the same results when cousins marry. It's just stupid to think it could be viable for humans.
@JeffP-14
My parents always taught me that a penny saved is a penny earned. Granted, this sounds like important research, however, I agree with other posters that we maybe shouldn't be messing with nature like this and yes, I would love to have my penny back!
Jenn
I'd rather have sharks with laser beams than robots.
No, but I kinda wish your parents had had that problem.....
Eric wrote -
"there is a prevalence of homosexuality in nature"
What kind of nature are you looking at?? It must be a very biased nature.
Prevalence: widespread; of wide extent or occurrence.
That is SO NOT in nature!!! You're kidding, right?! I'll tell you what is PREVALENT in nature.... males with females. I could name species twice as fast as you, when it comes to males and females vs. same sex mating. The only way same sex reproduction is even working is with interference from human beings and their "science." It's not natural. Leave nature alone.
You know this article is about something scientific, not the debate about gay people, do you?
And also, n2clogn, there seriously is a prevalence of gay animals in nature. After all, a recent study suggests mercury can make birds more likely to try and mate with others of the same sex.
Please, think before you type it.
So, dirtybleach, your mother was/is a ridiculous piece of flesh? What about your Grandmother?
@Dan, in one breath you say we don't need to save species because the world can't support "us"... and then you say we need to "modify" homosexuals sooooo.... that we can create more breeding couples that the world can't support? Think, man, think before you type.
If you're concerned about population control then you should be HAPPY about gay couples.
@E Rizzle, you make the point that by helping "barren" people breed we are weakening the genetic pool.
If you truly believe this then I can only assume you do not and plan not to have children if: you wear glasses, are diabetic, are obese, require long-term medication, have a family history of cancer/heart-disease, have any mental disability, or any of the other ailments that affect 99.9% of the population.
You, sir or ma'am, are more than probably weakening our gene pool.
Looks like the human race can keep destroying everything now that two males(maybe females also. before long with yourself) can procreate. Lets mow down more rainforrest for credit card junk mail and drill ANWR for black gold.
Second in nature two males don't reproduce. Just because your male dog got mounted by another male dog doesnt mean their gay or trying to reproduce. Cows do it all the time. Its more of a show of dominance.
You do know that asexuality already occurs in nature dont you? Certain lizards, hammerhead and blacktip sharks, and turkey even sometimes reproduce with no male. They evolved the ability to do this. And if you dont beleive in evolution then god made them that way...
KSte,
Sooooo... you're cool with gays as long as it's only for dominance?
JustCurt... Let me apologize for making the wrong impression, I am very open to this type of thinking, and you are correct that these ailments do indeed also weaken the gene pool and the same type of research has helped these ailments, however, there has to be a defining line between helpful and rediculous. But come on, same sex pregnancies? With all the homo hating or loving taken out, dumbing it down, remove all the emotion from the issue here... and i'm not attacking you in any way, I just want to understand this a little better, you are saying that a species, that was not designed by evolution, god, a dream from an alien, or whatever type of theory we believe in, that it is fine to mess with our natural bodies in this way. Are you telling me here that our human bodies are just like a computer, that we can upgrade, change peices, switch things around?
Tired
I said two males don't reproduce. Many dinosaurs were A sexual also. Things became that way from nature not because man interfeared.
JustCurt
What people do is their own choice or problem.
@E Rizzle,
I'm not attacking you either, and I hope it hasn't come across that way. I wear glasses and have a family history of cancer and so if I breed, I will be weakening the gene pool too.
If you remove evolution/God/aliens/the Matrix from the mix like you said, then I see no reason why, with supervision and an eye toward ethics, we shouldn't be allowed to "upgrade". It certainly brings up the question "Who decides what is ethical?" but that's been a factor throughout all of medical history.
@KSte, Glad to hear you say that.
Because at some point there needs to be some sort of foundation, like without all that crap clouding peoples minds, doing this would be taking all meaning out of human life, and its awe, and deminishing it. We need to have a little more respect for nature, after all it knows best
Seriously, these gay mice have to be stopped (by voting of course), they are going to take over the world... what next? body scanners in air ports?
Nothing like a closed-minded @!$%# to bring up some comment about not wanting gay couples to have families. Do they hurt you? No. Stop hating on people in love.
Too late, Dan. My partner and I are a gay couple with children. The end is near.
You know what else is part of "the natural order"? Nasty diseases like smallpox, polio, plague, diptheria, tetanus, rubella, menengitis, etc. You can suffer horrible diseases if you want, but personally, I'd rather have "un-natural" Vaccines and Cures.
Well, there are many hermaphrodite species, having both male and female parts in one, they always "mate with the same sex" as they don't have an "opposite sex". Also, most social species, including most mammals and birds and even some reptiles, have sex a lot more frequently than would be required for reproduction, as sex also has a social relation function. The more sociable the species, the more non-reproductive sex they have, and that includes same sex activities. No better way to assure harmony in the herd than for the bulls to get together for a little fun!
Sorry, gay sex IS natural for a social species like Humans, so its the homophobes that should learn to "leave nature alone".
@E Rizzle, I still fail to see how it in any way removes meaning from or diminishes human life. Like anything else it's a tool, and the outcome is in the hands of the user. Consider that dynamite can be used to help sculpt Mount Rushmore, or it can be used to commit a terrorist act.
As for awe, that is directly in the eye of the beholder. Me personally, I am awed by the reach of mankind. We can now delve into our very building blocks. There's MORE awe for me, not less.
If you look at this and all you see is some distopian Gattaca-esque future then thats your perspective, and while it's possible, it's only one perspective, only one possibility. If you fear that then try to be one of the people shaping it's responsible use because you won't stop it. History has shown us that you can't stop progress.
wow Dan lots of hate in your ill-informed, hypocritical rant.
He used the word 'gay'. That a slur. He's a racist I guess. He should have said monosexually oriented people instead.
Another thing. No one has ever found intelligent life on this planet. What makes him think there's any on another planet? And if there were what if they were monosexually oriented aliens and they took away all the mommies? We'd still have a way to save our species.
Uh oh...no one tell westboro baptist church about this. They will start picketing mouse traps with signs that say, "Thank god for another dead mouse".
WIN!
LOL.
I think that we need to return to how God created us to be. And quit wasting money on things that don't really matter. I believe on finding ways to heal people but not at the expense of other people or babies. Lord, Please help us.
Is this how you feel about other fake procedures such as elective Cesarean sections, circumcision, abortion, invitro-fertilization, sperm donors via a clinic, etc.?
Good one Vincent!
Which God were you referring to? If it is the Christian God I hate to break it to you but there are many religions that predate Christianity and judism.
Please keep in mind that not everyone believes in a supernatural being. Also you do not need religion to have morals and a sense of right and wrong.
Yes lets also go back to endorsing slavery and stoning people...
God would be ashamed if he saw your comment.
So, you think we should return to being naked and helpless? That's how I was "created", but I grew up and changed. As for "wasting money", I can think of lots of things we waste time and money on that "don't really matter", but basic scientific research isn't one of them, especially not medically related research that might lead to breakthrough treatments, such as growng replacement organs modified with genes from someone else replacing defective genes.
But I'm very baffled as to how this could possibly be "at the expense of other people and babies". It's not like we're killing off people to do this, you know. If anything, it might lead to saving "people and babies" with genetic defects.
I'd like to ask a scientific, non-hate-filled question....
How does this work with maternal/paternal gene imprinting? Why does this mouse not have Prader-Willi or Angelman syndrome?
From the article it sounds like the xo genotype would imprint like maternal lines, while the one without the chromosome knockout would still be functionally paternal. So all necessary (and unnecessary) imprinting would take place. Also the cells are placed in embryonic cells so they still would obtain mitochondrial DNA from the surrogate 'mother.' As far as Prader-Willi and Angelman syndrome, the mice are not missing other bits of chromosomes, just the extra y from one of the fathers, so no deletion disorders are present..
I'd assume that somewhere in the process of inducing cells to become "pluripotent stem cells", then becoming Oocytes (or spermatocytes), that the proper imprinting would take place. Probably in the process of formation of "opposite sex like" reproductive cells.
@ Dan-779427. If scientists had the knowledge or ability to "modify whatever DNA is responsible for homosexuality" then those scientists better be instead modifying oncogenes for cancer, insulin related genes for diabetes, and other such major disease related to genetic problems. You do not seem concerned about the advancement of Science for the good of humanity but rather for your hatred of certain humans. Additionally, if such a "gay gene" or genes truly existed then that means you must have those genes inside every cell in your body (all cells have complete copies of all genes; homosexuals are born from non-homosexuals and vice-versa). So even if we have the ability to modify such hypothetical genes then scientist's would have the ability to literally turn you gay.
The hatred for homosexuality has a very practical basis : parents invest in a child that has a very, very low chance of reproducing due only to behavior. If scientists are able to identify or control genes that govern the development of sexual identity, you can believe that the deletion of a human embryo or the suppression of its homosexual tendencies will be more popular that circumcision, which BTW, has fallen to a rate of 33%.
Hatred for homosexuality is fueled by conservative Christians. Homosexuals have been around for the entirety of recorded human history, other civilizations just didn't give a damn about it or endorsed it.
@blather:
Hatred of Homosexuality is not just fueled by conservative christians. It will get you killed in just about any middle eastern country. If that isn't hatred I don't know what is. Your hatred of Christianity is causing you to be closed minded.
There have been civilzations that have been tolerant of it in history, but few if any have outright endorsed it. It is counterproductive for them in several key ways. That would be like your government endorsing moving to another country. Not going to happen.
Let's vote:
Who wants to turn Dan 779247 Gay?
He might mellow out a bit - I'm for it
I hope Vincent doesn't have any children.
This is some sick stuff and the people coming up with such ideas have to be sick also. Our Lord must surely look as this country and curse it more than likely for all the evil found in it for such works. Another Sodom and Gomorrha living in sin (lust of the flesh), eh. Still nonetheless he will spare some of us the agony I pray. Let us turn from our sins good ole USA. Sick dungworks I say. It is said in the word that if we believe not in Him as our Father (Savior) then we are bastards for not believing. We all have free will................
Thankfully your bigoted, bronze-age imaginary friend is irrelevant. And the FSM forgives your blasphemy.
tit for tat !
bigotry is a two way street it seems ! i am on neither side it doesn't matter to me if a person is gay or religious !!! they are equal winners in the biggot game !
maybe we should focus on accepting people for how they are and not how we think they should be !if you don't like gay people ... fine that is your perogative ... but don't shove your ideas down the throats of others ! if you don't believe in god ... fine that is your perogative ... but again don't shove your opinions down the throats of others !
wonder when seeking knowledge became evil? The big difference between science and religion is that in science you ask questions and formulate answers based on evidence and testing. The answers can change, be modified ect as the knowledge in the subject area increase.
Now with religion if you ask questions and try to analize all the holes in contradictions in the bible you get told you need to have faith, that you are not being christian. That you are sinning by questioning God and the Bible.
Please tell me why this is? Why are those in religions so afraid to ask questions? Is it that the foundation of their faith is built on sand?
Skrekk .. All hail to hail to his noodly appendage.
Science is fact. The bible is fiction. Ta-da! Say it people. It's so easy...even a caveman can do it :)
Yes. That and the delusions of millions of fearful people who for some reason believe that an imaginary telepathic relationship with an invisible zombie will save them from burning in a lake of fire while being poked in the butt with a pitchfork by a red skinned horny guy with a forked tail.
Or as Dr. Freud would say, it's all due to sublimated homophobic paranoia.
Most laughable thing of all? Their supposed zombie savior was most likely gay. It's no wonder the Church on the large scale is so heavily invested in declaring homosexuality to be "an abomination". It doen't take a genius to figure out what's going on with 12 guys and their teacher camping out in the forest talking about loving one another and not a one of 'em is interested in sleeping with the town prostitute.
I'll betcha one thing though, their robes and sandals must've been faaabulous!
That sounds NOTHING like free will to me Dom! Sounds more to me like some over bearing father telling his kid to eat his vegetables or he's going to whip his ass! That's the type of father figure I'd worship...NOT!
"Free Will" allows me to ignore all the thousands of different squabbling religions that claim to speak for "God" but can't agree on the basics. If there is any omnipotent Supreme Being out there that wanted me to worship "Him", then "He" can talk directly to me, and the Omniscient One would know just what to say. Since that isn't happening, I can only assume that either God doesn't want me to worship "Him", or there is no Omnipotence to be worshipped.
BTW, how do you know God is "He"? An Omnipotent One could just as easily be hermaphrodite, hung like a whale with mammaries bigger than a cow. Or, for that matter, equip itself suitably for whomever or whatever It wanted to date.
When I've been in a "discussion" with believers and had them backed into a logical corner, they usually respond with "We shouldn't question God", to which I reply "I'm not questioning God, I'm questioning those who claim to speak for God".
amazing...we are playing w/things we shouldnt...we have such a god complex that we are mocking the creator of the univeres
I don't believe we are mocking the creator-- on the contrary, I believe he (I use the term generally, I don't believe God has a specific gender) gets a kick out of our creativity and capacity for innovation and mischief. I mean, God totally has a sense of humor. He made the Platypus for chrissakes-- and he had the tongue-in-cheek notion to give that silly, awkward half-mammal-half-bird poison barbs. Cute? Yeah, but not cuddly.
Your god gave us a brain for a reason. If he hadn't meant for us to use it, he would have made it much smaller, mounted it around our tail bone, and left our cranial cavities to collect rain water.
God made cancer, mosquitoes and weeds - should we treat cancer, swat mosquitoes and poison weeds?
god didnt make cancer...we did...wow...lol
"God Complex"? Hardly. We're nowhere close to making even a small planet, let alone a Universe. We're just fiddling around with what we've been given here.
That argument is similar to the ones given against putting lightning rods on buildings, once considered heresy for "averting Gods wrath", or for that matter use of vaccines to prevent diseases that were once considered "punishment from an angry God".
But surely, if Omnipotent God somehow finds this offensive, then God can deal with the offenders directly, and need not punish the innocent, nor require Holy Henchmen to do Gods dirty work for It.
All these people blasting this work due to religious views must really hate people who are less fortunate than themselves. If you don't approve, thats fine. Don't use the science or technology you don't approve of, but don't press your religious views on others. Do what you want to do as long as it does not hurt others, but don't shove your BS ideas down my throat and don't impede progress because your preacher tells you to.
WHY do bone heads allways say that "dont shove your views dow my throat" WHEN DID I EVER SAY..hey u belive in god? i could care less if u beleive or not buddie....and lets make for the idiots who are only looking at the research point of veiw...u just mess around w/DNA or anything that fragile...u will be creating things that u shouldnt....ever saw "iam lengend" it is true from a certain point...u start messing w/certains things those things will go out of control. we are not god. and i guess progress in your eyes is that men making kids w.other men....thats progress? lol
Yes, movies are a good source of scientific fact. You must also be a scientist if you know that messing around with DNA or anything that fragile will "create things u shouldn't". You have done research to back this up? Besides pointing to a movie (Jurassic Park would have been a good one to use also), what proof do you have to back this up? I don't know of any genetically altered monsters running around. We have all eaten GM foods (genetically modified) and no one is growing wings or turning into zombies. That all being said, I believe everyone has a right to an opinion and I feel people should be able to voice their opinions. Just back up your opinion with intelligent reasons. Progress is understanding our enviroment around us and how things work. Progress is being able to use the scientific knowledge these people and others like them have discovered and use it for good (breeding nearly extinct species for example). Just my opinion...
no prob keith...lol ok here is one for u..u are right we have have eaten GM..AND THATS THE REASON WHY WE HAVE out of control cancer rates.diabetes...girls reaching puberty in their 9,10 yrs of age...and he is another tid bit...there is a water source in the country where theyare dumping chemicals to make women more like men...and men more docile...reverse T and estrogen roles i guess for the lack of a better term. i seen "conspiracy theories" w/ jesse venture...i know lame but that episode really made me notice....so the point is...we keep playing around w/things like this, we are gonna open a can of worms someday that we will not be able to undue.
ROFL, yea shows hosted by former wrestling superstar, turned movie extra, turned 1-term governor really lends credibility to your argument.
me, myself and I, you sound like my mother, she eats up those conspiracy theory stuff like its candy. All I can say is watch those shows without taking them as hard facts 90% of it is all about fear and ratings to keep people tuned in by the "OH MY GOD" factor, as for out of control cancer, diabetes ect, please. Use some sense here.
Just look at our environment and all the toxins, waste and other things we throw into our environment, if anything cancer is a product of industrial companies, the govt, normal citizens and the wastes they throw into our rivers and air and landfills. Plus the products that we use daily, the cars we drive, the pollution we breath in each day from our cars. It all adds up
Dont you think that the fact that the majority of our population is obeseis the main reason for diabetes, and many people just sit on thier fat butts eating Mcdonalds, that healty eating is out the window when kids can get crap junk food and sweets in schools at lunch. You make it sound like people are victims and dont have any control of themselves so they cannot stop the result of an obviously controlable situation.
You want to know what is dangerous for this country well it is fear. Learning to manipulate our DNA and that of other species both animal and plant can do nothing but benefit mankind.
We will learn how to end some diseases, control birth defects such as autism, retardation and an endless list of human diseases and ailments. Fear should never stop humanities growth. I dont doubt that they will be errors and things done that shouldnt have but seriously. You dont really think a kid could grow up without making mistakes? The same is true with science. But progress cannot be stopped by fear.
yea i know..like i s aid LAME, BUT he did back it up w/credible sources and on site visual facts...is it best to stick your head in the sand and pretend things like this is not plausible? or at least give it some cred? what about this..gulf war syndrome?!!! for yrs the gov was telling people it was not a fact then they finally came out and admitted they used our own soldiers as Genni pigs, the testing of the atomic bomb where u see soldiers out in the desert looking at the flash....and then years later they all get cancer...and it turned out the gov used them as experiments...and so on an so on....i love how people THINK that this country is not cabale of using its own citizens as lab rats. in crest wood ,ill the towns people been drinking water that was toxic for years..but the town gov said it was not true till the majority of people were being diagnose w/cancer and someone finally took them to court. sorry...if u want to keep your head in sand so be it..it must be nice to live in a sugar coated world where everyone is holding hands and singing "we are the world"
Wow, I was going to say, "How neat!" Really, this is some seriously cool science.
I didn't imagine I'd scroll down to such hate and vitriol. That's a little ridiculous. These breakthroughs can lead us to more than just gay & lesbian couples--someday, far far away--to be able to create embryos from their own DNA. Did you read the parts about endangered species? This has so many implications; we don't have to apply religion to science. They're not trying to create a Frankenstein, they're just trying to find out how cells work and what we can get them to do to improve our world.
improve our world... is that all? seems like there's more to it than just improving our world... and.. if science was to run without any checks from religion and philosophy..... then just think how many ways we'd be screwed...... you cannot allow science to just do........ you have to only allow it to do what it should..
Science does not need checks from religion and philosophy. Morality should be the tempering element to scientific progress. Assuming there is a god and you believe in him, the only people on the planet who can claim to know "his" will are the religious zealots who claim to be his voice or have his ear. So who are you folks to claim this is against god's wishes? Show me a burning bush that appears in the middle of a laboratory with a thunderous voice shouting "STOP!" then I might side with you.
Who defines "morality" for us? Where did it begin?
Religion has no role in dictating what scientists should or shouldn't do. As long as their conducting experiments in an ethical way, I want them to push boundaries and push them far.
Yes Blather, but unfortunately many of these infantile fools are so wedded to the concept of their ancient beliefs as the sole foundation for morality, and by extension all ethics, they don't understand that it is possible, even preferable to behave ethically wihout recourse to supernatural reward and punishment as the motivation for doing the right thing.
 Wow I wish this much energy could be put into helping people with chronic disease grow new organs.
ie, diabetes, arthritis, lupus, heart problems etc.....
Actually, this type of research could potentially help regenerate tissue. At the very least, it furthers understanding of the workings of genetics, genes, and cells, which is still important.
this f,uking planet makes me sick let me off!!
Set yourself free.
Theres plenty of ways to remedy this, or just shut your mouth and let our knowledge of science flourish, they don't need or want your approval.
I don't rightly care about endangered species, yeh we are the cause for their endangerment but we are animals to. No different than a new kind of predator evolving in an ecosystems and causing the destruction of another.
We're the Dominate species on this planet, and those that have died out, simply failed in natural selection. So why bring them back to a environment they will be unable to thrive in?
Also about the same-sex couples, I am against it because of my religious views, however I am not without logical reasoning. We were given free will for a reason, and if a same-sex couple can raise a kid right and with love, nothing against it. Yes it is natural for a male and a female to create the child, but if this tech ended up allowing same-sex couples to have kids, then God would have allowed it to happen.
So quit the childish flaming and stick to legitimate discussion for God's sake.
Justin,
that's a refreshingly openminded point of view. To paraphrase slightly, if omniscient and omnipotent God indirectly creates everything, then God created this technology. Brilliant!
This world can't get crazier than this...Why would scientist want to mess with genetics in this form?...Use ur time wisely SCIENTIST...We still haven't found a cure for CANCER and AIDS...
Oh, it can-- and it will. The fun is just beginning.
That's because there's no money in finding cures. Someone has to pay for this research, and no corporation wants to invest in science that doesn't produce high-value long-use medicine. The top 5 pharmaceutical companies stopped funding production of antibiotics... why? You use them for a week then stop. They all make drugs for erectile disfunction though... why? Money money money moooooneeeey.......*high-pitched* MOOOONEY.
Also, why did you capitalize SCIENTIST?
Because without the initial investment you can't expect to make a PROPHET!
Sweet, Don't they know they are just asking for a Zombie Apocalypse with stuff like this? Sheesh. A freakin mouse zombie apocalypse.
Wouldn't be much left after a 12-gauge... The mouse uprising would be short-lived. ;-p
Gee, kind of sounds like you could scr*w yourself! Who knew?!!!
its actually our government at work, proding our scientist to move forward to create a souless humanoid
that they can create by the millions and then send them to war and all their fricking games for world domin-
ace. If you don't believe this, it is in Revelations , so just grab a seat and watch this perverce world go down
the tubes with a bang. On another note--- this could be actually guidance from extraterrestials that are helping us with techologies behond our comprehensions for their own causes like Captain Kirk screwing all those aliens women and not caring about the coinciquences? I hope to hell I spelled my words correctly because my mother is going to take my condoms away!
Whoa whoa whoa, slow down and take off your tin hat there buddy.
Nowhere in Revelation does it say that this type of tech would be used to mass produce a population to fight wars. The4 wars will take place, but not by these means.
And referring to the "free will" comment. Yes, God gave us all the opportunity to exercise free will. Each person will do what they will, and we all have a moral compass, so if we choose to do what we know burns in our hearts as attractive, but wrong, they we will each have to answer for our own (in)actions.
Of course, I am not for this, so all I'd have to do is refuse to be a surrogate. People who choose to engage in it will inherit any pitfalls. In the end, I don't have to answer for them, and they don't have to answer for me either.
Last week, I had a discussion with coworkers about similar issues. Although I leaned towards strict regulations, I have to now say they were somewhat right: LET EACH PERSON ACT ON THEIR OWN MORALS, AND LET THEM BEAR THEIR OWN CONSEQUENCES.
It's funny, because of my belief in Jesus Christ I see this as a huge breakthrough. People we are still a few thousand (maybe million) years from coming close to the greatness of God. These scientific abilities are a small step in the evolution of our species. For all you so called "Christians" I bet God is in heaven giggling. I wish the people that are so caught up with sex and classic reproduction would realize that things are better for children now than they ever were in history. If someone told you different, they lied to you! People thought we were playing God when we learned to fly, when we started hearts beating again and when we started reproduction in a test tube. It's like I tell people all the time, God created science, and we are only beginning to discover the beauty of this gift.
really? families are broken up..fathers are kept from thier kids cause of BIAS family courts...prisons are filled everyday w/adults cause of the destrution of the family unit when they were kids and its better for kids nowadays? dont think so.
You,yourself and You,
How old are you, and who has been telling you lies about the past. In Vietnam many blue eyed Vietnamese kids were left to fend for themselves. When GIs came after WWII the orphanages exploded with babies fathered by "Jody" that could not be claimed by the mothers. American history is rife with child laborers white and black. Or we can go back to when female babies were killed because Mom and Dad wanted a boy. Don't let people fool you with opinions study the facts. as bad as it seems now it is much better than it was in the past. Don't think, know!
LOL...are u sure?
Marvelous scientific advances must always honor the human rights of CHILDREN. To deny a child the fundamental right of being born to a mommy and daddy is child abuse.
If an adult wants children, then he or she must be willing to beget and raise that child with a person of the opposite sex. A child's right to begin life with a mother and father must take precedence over the adult's idiosyncrasies, and anyone who cannot agree with that ordering of priorities should not be allowed to surrogately beget children.
Mark Adams Brown
San Angelo, Texas
December 9, 2010
Markie Mark,
Your stupid remarks were eloquently stated. There has never been a fundamental right of being born to a mommy and daddy. God has taken away daddies and even mommies before the birth of babies. This isn't child abuse, it's god's will. Your next statement is equally off base. The majority of American children today are happily, and successfully raised by one parent, that also is God's will. Finally I am glad that here in America we prefer allowing loving parents (one or two) to order thier own priorities instead of giving in to your childish idiosyncrasies. GROW UP MARK!
Oh brother.
Nice thought 'very old' did your nurse help you with that.
There is no legitimate statistical evidence that shows gay parents are worse for their children than hetero parents. What I mean by legitimate is that outside of the horribly and in my opinion criminally skewed and misinterpreted "truthiness" on many religious organizations' websites, there are no studies I'm aware of or have read that conclude that gay parents are in any way worse for children than hetero parents. I dare anyone to find a legitimate, actual study and post it here. Not a religious interpretation of one, but the actual study. What is bad is the fact that the divorce rate among all married couples is above 50% (hetero couples making up the vast majority). That is what messes kids up; not two people that love their children and each other. If you must blame a group of people for societies problems, blame the loser parents that ditch their children.
how about this...... males and females have the parts to make a baby.... that's how children come to be.... so, logically, we should assume that a child was meant, biologically, to have those members who created the child, raise him/her.
but then... given the other path of logic.... I guess peter wasn't wrong in trying to breast feed stewie.. on family guy... I mean... if 2 men were natural.. to raise a child.. to cater to that child's 1st natural instinct of sucking on a nipple for milk.. men should be able to do that for them....
so, I wonder if we could find the statistics showing how well men (vs women) can breast feed their babies....?
Actually, with some added extra female hormones, some men have been known to develop breasts that lactate...but that is beside your point. Your point, correct me if I'm wrong, is that there are some things that women can do that men can't, which is why gay people (men specifically) don't make good parents. Well, you got me on one thing; most normal males can't breast feed, which is an essential part of the optimal health of a newborn. But, wait, how many actually breast feed nowadays anyway? Well, according to an article on medicinenet.com, a surprising number of women in the US don't even breastfeed at all or stop shortly after the baby is born. And according to your argument, maybe women should just not work either so they can breastfeed their babies more since working women are less likely to breastfeed their children. I mean, since it is so important.
oh, this is just great for society's gene pool.... maybe if you look at it from an angle of overpopulation.... why not take the genes from 2 obviously flawed male's genes, to make a new baby... (obviously flawed genes is based on the notion that homosexuality is or could be genetically caused.. and "flawed" is based on the notion that sex is actually the means by which animals, including humans, reproduce.. and since homosexuals (if caused by genetics) don't use sex (which is necessary, naturally, to reproduce) for anything but pleasure are flawed in their natural sexual activity) that is just a wonderful idea!
I think women are threat-end by the fact that men don't need them.
Dan779427, I'm thinking more along the lines of developing a virus that only attacks and sterilizes ignorant, intolerant, holier then though members of the Human Race like your self. If we can clear the gene pool of country cousins like yourself we just might make it as a species!
Anybody else surprised this research happened in Texas? I would have thought they'd have laws against this. But seriously, for those who think we shouldn't go down these paths, you're being naive. I agree that we need to be careful, but to stick our heads in the sand would be stupid.
Many think we should never have gone down the nuclear road back in the 40's, but we weren't the only ones doing it. Had the US not gone down that road, the world would be a different place today as our enemies weren't all that far behind us. If anyone thinks other countries aren't doing similar research, you're fooling yourself. It's research like this that will likely lead to potential life saving breakthroughs. The worst thing we could do is suppress knowledge for "religious reasons". There have been times in the history of mankind that we have tried to suppress knowledge and it simply doesn't work. No doubt some will find this kind of research troubling and feel it will lead to a dangerous future. Unfortunately though, we can't freeze time and in reality that would be dangerous too. I can only suggest that there is merit in having this knowledge so that we are not handicapped in some future time when others will posses the knowledge anyway. Actually, I'd rather the technologies developed were funded by the government such that the technology belongs to all of us and not just private interest who would only look for profit from it.
The Texas prohibitions against gay mice were overturned by the 2003 Mickey v. Texas ruling.
hahaha nice