Reproductive scientists create mice from 2 fathers

So now how do we argue against same sex marraige?

"Using a variation of the iPS technique, the researchers say "it may also be possible to generate sperm from a female donor and produce viable male and female progeny with two mothers."

Um, maybe I just don't get the process.... but where would the Y chromosome come from?

Quantum -- Personally, I am offended at your use of the un-natural word "Quantum" in your screen name. God doesn't roll dice, and you shouldn't be promoting such an un-natural concept by using it in such a haphazard way.

Chimera is used as a medical term.

"an organism carrying cell populations derived from two or more different zygotes of the same or different species."

I dont think quantum was really disturbed by the word itself, it's just that the word "chimera" was the easiest thing for him to pick out of an article that offended him in every way.
I assume that many religious people will feel the same type of offense from this article as Quantum did. If this article stays on physorg's front page for long, i expect a lot of arguments.

I think the authors of the original article and of this article are overstating the findings of the study a little bit. Yes technically the genetic material could be attributed to 2 fathers, but a chimeric female was involved. The genetic material passed through her germline, which and would have been reprogrammed. So this may not be any different technically than passing on the X she got from Dad anyway, except for the iPS technology.

"Using a variation of the iPS technique, the researchers say "it may also be possible to generate sperm from a female donor and produce viable male and female progeny with two mothers."

Um, maybe I just don't get the process.... but where would the Y chromosome come from?

Fair point. I thought about this too. I believe they would take the Y chromosome from a separate human male. The mothers' DNA would be mixed resulting in what is clearly their child, but they would require a male sex (Y) chromosome. The Y chromosome sees relatively little variation anyway due to lack of crossing, so they'd basically just be selecting which population from which to take a Y chromosome (the specific father would be less important, and the population from which it comes probably isn't very important either.. though that might make an interesting study). The other, more relevant, 45 chromosomes would be theirs (genetics experts feel free to nitpick/correct).

I think the authors of the original article and of this article are overstating the findings of the study a little bit. Yes technically the genetic material could be attributed to 2 fathers, but a chimeric female was involved. The genetic material passed through her germline, which and would have been reprogrammed. So this may not be any different technically than passing on the X she got from Dad anyway, except for the iPS technology.

it is not like that, this chimera dont mix the dna from the X0 and the XX organism, it is mosaic organism, it will produce oocytes from both organism and you take only these you want, the new thing here is they are able to get rid of the Y chromosome, it would be interesting if they can copy the X(from the male) and from X0 you can have XX and then to create female from male.

you realize that the quote of god does not play dice is remembered because it was proven wrong?

this thing is so misused, and abused, that its really not funny. it was declared before knowing certain things, and so later is known to be wrong.

that wrongness stemming from the uncertainty principal, quantum tunneling, supposition of states, and that matter only has a probability of being in a certain place in time since it doesnt take one path but all paths. thanks to schrodinger other funky things...

my 2 dads for real?

Wow Quantum, you really are a tool huh?

Even this process doesn't change the human genome. duh.

And, if this was an argument against gay marriage, then I guess every straight couple that has used in vitro is an argument against straight marriage..ha

And, the "natural" argument lacks merit, since homosexual behavior has been shown in a wide number of animals in, you guessed it, "nature" (as well as throughout the history of the human existence)

So, basically, you're an idiot. Hopefully for all our sakes, you won't pass your genes on.

nicely put @jojobeans!

Some things were simply not meant to be fooled around with, and the human genome is one of them.

You would be saying the same thing about human body if you would live in middle ages.

I believe that genetically engineered designer babies will be the standard way of human procreation in not so distant future. It is easy to bash the idea on an internet forum, but when there will be a way to give your children genetically perfect genome, greatly boosting their health, lenght of life and quality of life, how many of you are going to refuse?

It's un-natural

Most of modern medicine is unnatural under this definition.

Unnatural is such an odd term for me. Are we humans not from nature? Did we not come from the same materials that the rest of the animals come from. So is an ant hill unnatural? At what point did the human or the humans tech become unnatural. As far as I can tell everything falls under the natural definition. However that is not to suggest that because it is natural is it good.

No medicine is "natural" depending on who you ask. Everyone has their individual "issues" with different things.

To me, I think it's amazing and very interesting.

"but when there will be a way to give your children genetically perfect genome, greatly boosting their health, lenght of life and quality of life, how many of you are going to refuse?"

Exactly... I am not sure why people are so intent on living lives of suffering because they feel it's not "natural".

We have brains.... why not use them to better our species?

but when there will be a way to give your children genetically perfect genome, greatly boosting their health, lenght of life and quality of life, how many of you are going to refuse?

The problem you don't mention is the meaning of "perfect" and "quality of life". Because the personal definitions of these terms might differ between the "parents" and their offspring. In extreme cases parents might be killed by their offspring for having them condemned to a life they abhor.

"Using a variation of the iPS technique, the researchers say "it may also be possible to generate sperm from a female donor and produce viable male and female progeny with two mothers."

Um, maybe I just don't get the process.... but where would the Y chromosome come from?

Ask the Virgin Mary. (LOL).

It is easy to bash the idea on an internet forum, but when there will be a way to give your children genetically perfect genome, greatly boosting their health, lenght of life and quality of life, how many of you are going to refuse?

Well I'm not sure I'd want to do it. There's a lot to be said for limiting the natural alteration of the genome over time. If we were to Vanilla ourselves by making a uniform genome for health and long life, who's to say a virus or defect won't come through and wipe out the entire species?

you realize that the quote of god does not play dice is remembered because it was proven wrong?

you realize that i was being sarcastic, right? I thought i was laying it on pretty thick too...

Fair point. I thought about this too. I believe they would take the Y chromosome from a separate human male. The mothers' DNA would be mixed resulting in what is clearly their child, but they would require a male sex (Y) chromosome.

I guess that makes some sense. Although when this becomes possible (swapping out chromosomes), then designer chromosomes will also be right around the corner. I'm not sure how I feel about that one. If it's to remove a genetic disease, maybe. What if it is to strengthen tendons and grow thicker cartilage?

designer chromosomes will also be right around the corner. I'm not sure how I feel about that one.

You best get used to the idea. Me? I wonder if more people will choose to modify themselves into good looking elves or brute strong orcs. Because this kind of tech could be used to modify your own body. Genetic therapies are adding genes today to cure disease, a decade from now people will be into it for cosmetic reasons, or even for *shock* value.

I wonder if more people will choose to modify themselves into good looking elves or brute strong orcs. Because this kind of tech could be used to modify your own body.

As long as one is modifying his own body it's ok for me.
But "designing" your offspring before its birth might amount to physical and/or psychological injury and will - inevitably - lead to obligatory parental qualification tests.

They were actually produced with 2 fathers and a female, contrary to what the sensationalized title implies. The truth sounds so much less amazing sometimes.

and will - inevitably - lead to obligatory parental qualification tests.

Which would be a good thing IMHO. Licenses are required for driving a car, having a gun and myriad of other things, but anyone who just knows where to stick it can get himself a child, even if parenting is one of the most responsibility-requiring tasks I can imagine. Reproduction anarchy then leads to things like this - http://www.thesun...TTR=News

Which would be a good thing IMHO. Licenses are required for driving a car, having a gun and myriad of other things, but anyone who just knows where to stick it can get himself a child, even if parenting is one of the most responsibility-requiring tasks I can imagine.

And who's going to oversee that process? The government?

Do you recognize the inconsistency you've created for yourself with this ideology?

People can't naturally drive cars or fire bullets. These require more equipment than you're born with. I don't think you should be able to prevent reproduction in that manner. It goes directly to the base of what natural law truly is.

parenting may be the most "responsibility-requiring" task we have, but it is also the most 'responsibility-creating' task that we engage in. have a little (just a bit) of faith in humanity. For those that really cant handle it (addictions are usually to blame here), you take their kids to safety.

And who's going to oversee that process? The government?

Yes, the government.

People can't naturally drive cars or fire bullets. These require more equipment than you're born with. I don't think you should be able to prevent reproduction in that manner. It goes directly to the base of what natural law truly is.

So what is natural law? Making children that you cannot take care of is wrong. It harms both the children and the society that has to take care of them. Therefore it should be punished and prevented. There may be practical obstacles, I will grant you that, but ideologically everyone having basic inalienable right to reproduce is totaly absurd.

People dont even have basic inalienable right to live in the US and many other countries (death penalty), but god forbid punishing someone for the horrible crime of irresponsible procreation. The world should follow the example of China in this matter, where procreation is not a basic inalienable right, and it helped the country.

There may be practical obstacles, I will grant you that, but ideologically everyone having basic inalienable right to reproduce is totaly absurd.

How would you achieve your goal to prevent certain people from reproducing? By sterilizing them forcibly?
And what are the criteria? Everyone who is declared to be mentally handicapped?

How would you achieve your goal to prevent certain people from reproducing? By sterilizing them forcibly?

Some ideas: sterilization (reversible) should be used for repeated offenders only. Some combination of fines, increased taxes, public work, low amounts of jail-time or consultations with a psychologist would be enough to enforce this law. Its just this mindset of some people that they can pop out a baby whenever they want that needs to change, so even actually making it against the law, but without much enforcement could help, IMHO.

And what are the criteria? Everyone who is declared to be mentally handicapped?

Mentally handicapped or otherwise incapable of raising a child (drug addicts) and people on welfare. Just basic things that 90 % of people would have no problem to pass.

Mentally handicapped or otherwise incapable of raising a child (drug addicts) and people on welfare. Just basic things that 90 % of people would have no problem to pass.

So you're going to deal with a poverty problem by utilizing reproductive prevention? That's a tad bit disgusting if you ask me. How about you try education of women before you start telling people that they'll be jailed for having a reproductive accident. You're basically trying to apply laws to what goes on in the bedroom, that's at a minimum, morally reprehensible.

So you're going to deal with a poverty problem by utilizing reproductive prevention? That's a tad bit disgusting if you ask me.

Yeah, poverty problem would also be positively affected by this. Why exactly is it disgusting?

How about you try education of women before you start telling people that they'll be jailed for having a reproductive accident.

Of course, I am all for education of women, but why not both?

You're basically trying to apply laws to what goes on in the bedroom, that's at a minimum, morally reprehensible.

How so? I absolutely do not care about what happens in the bedroom. I care only about if there is a baby or not.

Mentally handicapped or otherwise incapable of raising a child (drug addicts) and people on welfare

The nazis sterilized only the mentally handicapped (before they killed them) but they didn't do so with the poor.

Eugenics revisited? Most of the discussion on those issues were resolved half a century ago with most people agreeing that it is unethical to take a persons breeding right from them. Genetic technologies certainly raise many new issues, especially concerning the ways a parent can'improve' their childs genome. Removing disease or disability? great! Giving them extraordinary traits to give advantage to them? Sounds good to me but other people will object. Changing their physical appearance from human norm? This is going to be highly controversial. Having a 'normal' baby with two consenting adults contributing their genetics? Whats the problem there?

So you're going to deal with a poverty problem by utilizing reproductive prevention? That's a tad bit disgusting if you ask me.

Yeah, poverty problem would also be positively affected by this.

How do you know?

Why exactly is it disgusting?

Your missing sense of justice and decency is disgusting.

Having a 'normal' baby with two consenting adults contributing their genetics? Whats the problem there?

Unless the adults are also materially and mentally ready to have a child, there is a problem.

How do you know?

Children of people recieving welfare have lower earnings and are more often unemployed themselves when they grow up (this problem is maybe more acute here in Slovakia, we have sometimes third generation of people that never worked). Also, if welfare recipient has less children, he/she can take care of them better than if he/she has more.

Interesting statistics from US:

http://mjperry.bl...ore.html

For the nation, in 2006, 10 years after passage of the Act, the birth rate for women 15 to 50 years old receiving public assistance income in the last 12 months was 155 births per 1,000 women, about three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (53 births per 1,000 women).

Obamas science czar John Holdren suggested something similar:

http://www.wnd.co...d=110768

Having a 'normal' baby with two consenting adults contributing their genetics? Whats the problem there?

Unless the adults are also materially and mentally ready to have a child, there is a problem.

Hmm...well if the two consenting adults are male, as enabled by the technology discussed in the top article, then:
1) They have money, as the technique used would be an expensive way to have a child.
2) PROBABLY they would have disscussed the matter in depth - this would NOT be an accident!

So this new technology would appear to be beneficial in the fact it would create a family from people that CAN take care of their kids well.

In the matter of poor people having kids - I think our money would be better spent figureing out how to feed and educate them rather than enforcing some kind of anti-breeding laws against them. They are NOT some kind of sub-human. Simply disadvantaged or disenfranchised by our social system.

Obamas science czar John Holdren suggested something similar:

Obama's science Czar is a loon.

You want to know why it is disgusting, because it is discriminatory. Why not just put a sign on the street that says "you must have this much money to have sex."

"you must have this much money to procreate."

Correction.

"you must have this much money to procreate."

Correction.

Accidents happen.

Interesting statistics from US:
http://mjperry.bl...ore.html

For the nation, in 2006, 10 years after passage of the Act, the birth rate for women 15 to 50 years old receiving public assistance income in the last 12 months was 155 births per 1,000 women, about three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (53 births per 1,000 women).

An interesting use of an extract of statistics instead of lies or damned lies. Superficially it just says that it is quite difficult for mothers to find a job to live on.
But seriously these pseudo-statistics are missing any breakdown into the reasons of being in need (divorced?, single?, jobloss due to pregnancy?) and any absolute numbers.

Re: Quantum_Conundrum

The fashionable ideology that "artificial" lacks the inherent goodness of "natural" is an appealing, but hopelessly simplistic notion of the intellectually chic. Artifice is the result of a deliberate intent to make. Nature also "makes" things, using a set of basic building blocks common throughout the universe. Exchanging infinite time for deliberate design, nature has ingeniously built plants, planets, galaxies and unimaginable constructs which seem to structure the universe itself. What we call "natural" is simply the result of whatever set of rules nature has followed in fashioning our observable reality. [...] Discoveries in the "nano" technologies of bio, molecular, and micro engineering will re-edit the nomenclature of "natural" versus "unnatural", blurring if not erasing the line of distinction between[...]"God-given" and "man-made".

Personally, I am a fan of Eugenics. If we were a truly intelligent species we would breed ourselves like we do our livestock and pets. We would control our population and enforce both physical and mental standards (and no I am not talking about killing people, just controlling reproductive rights).

If we had started doing this 1000 years ago our lifespans could probably have been greatly increased by now too, not to mention eliminating inherited disease. I for one would rather be an extremely handsome, more intelligent, long lived individual, and if all women were beautiful with great legs and brains I certainly wouldn't complain. (actually I already have all but one of the benefits) (So if you rate this post a one we'll know it's because you're ugly, stupid and insanity runs in your family)

Accidents happen.

Yes, I said there may be practical problems in implementation, thats why Id like to argue more from an ideological standpoint. Anyway, with morning-after pill and abortion, even accidents are not so big of an issue. Those that refuse to abort should be held responsible, tough.

Personally, I am a fan of Eugenics. If we were a truly intelligent species we would breed ourselves like we do our livestock and pets.

I dont think that will be relevant for much longer. Eugenics has a bright future, but using genetic engineering, not breeding methods.

I dont think that will be relevant for much longer. Eugenics has a bright future, but using genetic engineering, not breeding methods.

We are far far away from using genetic engineering modifing humans, people now cant accept it even for the requirement of the agriculture....
I do think eugenic is something beneficial for our species but actually I dont think there will be any point in our future that people will agree with that.
But what we have to do(no matter what religion or I dont care who or what) is to eradicate the genetic diseases we can(there are some that cant be eradicated-like down sindrome), and not only really bad diseases but everything that make your life miserable(being really fat, nasty acne(which stays after puberty) etc.)

We are far far away from using genetic engineering modifing humans, people now cant accept it even for the requirement of the agriculture....

People do not accept it for agriculture because they see almost no benefit for them, maybe just a little cheaper food. When genetic engineering for humans becomes mature to the point that we would be able to prevent those diseases you are talking about and more (and it will), I am convinced that people themselves will be demanding it for their own kids!

Yes, I said there may be practical problems in implementation, thats why Id like to argue more from an ideological standpoint. Anyway, with morning-after pill and abortion, even accidents are not so big of an issue. Those that refuse to abort should be held responsible, tough.

Ok, so now you're arguing for forced abortion, that's just as bad as outlawing abortion.

You can't tell someone what to do with their own body. You can't tell them what to eat, drink, smoke, what medical procedures to undergo, what shots to get, etc. That is totalitarian.

I dont think so, there is difference between you think there is no benefit and dont plant it, but reality- you ban it regulate it as hell despite the fact it can be harmless and it can save money, but you dont accept it just becauce it is gm.When they see a food with lable gm they feel chills, and if they know someone is gm....god I dont even want to imagine what the bigotry will make them to do(not shake his hand, dont look him in the eyes, some genes can strike you!)And you cant justify why we have to do it, we can get rid of the diseases by the in vitro metod really easy but still we dont do it.

Ok, so now you're arguing for forced abortion, that's just as bad as outlawing abortion.

Not forced abortion, the woman should be able to choose to not abort, because forced abortion could be psychically damaging for her. But then she should face the consequences of illegaly procreating.

But I agree, accidents could pose a problem in practical implementation. Thats not the point I am trying to make, tough.

You can't tell someone what to do with their own body. You can't tell them what to eat, drink, smoke, what medical procedures to undergo, what shots to get, etc. That is totalitarian.

When it also affects another person, then yes, I can.

And you cant justify why we have to do it, we can get rid of the diseases by the in vitro metod really easy but still we dont do it.

How? Except basic screening for genetic defects and choosing the best embryos to implant, human genetic engineering is in its infancy.

How? Except basic screening for genetic defects and choosing the best embryos to implant, human genetic engineering is in its infancy.

Well you pretty much has answered to that How?
Lots of genetics defects are identified in the genome, if screening is obligatory, and when a problem is detected you choose the right embrio and thats it, the next step is to identify all the genetic diseases, where is the mistace in the code, this will solve hypertonia, gout(podagra), diabitis(type 1 and 2) etc. this will solve this problems only for several generations, what elce you want to solve-to create resistancy to HIV?It will be much more easy to find pill(we are really close even now) for that than to gm humans to be resistant.

Lots of genetics defects are identified in the genome, if screening is obligatory, and when a problem is detected you choose the right embrio and thats it

But this helps very very little, you are just working with what imperfect nature provides anyway. Without actually repairing the genome or synthetising a new one not much will change.

Well the human body is a perfect machine, if you eradicate this things you can eat sweets and everything without to worry about your teeth(there are people not having cavities-naturally perfect teeth) you wont have diabetis, you wont be fat....what more you want.And when you eradicate the fwals you will repair the genome, the strong genome dont need repairing or changeing, if you want something like really fine humans, well there are allready such humans existing, why you need gm?The thing that will change is that there will be less suffering, this is not a small change....

So now how do we argue against same sex marraige?

Wait till they cross the species barrier, then you can ask: So now how do we argue against human-sheep marriage?

Reminds me of a concept I had for a novel (if I had time to write...). Technology is developed that allows the creation of eggs and/or sperm from any tissue sample. China uses it to promote men having their wives fertilized with their sperm and well known athletes, geniuses, etc. providing the other genetic material. Russia picks it up as a means of "improving the breed". The US has moral quandary about using it to keep up or be left behind. US laws have to be changed after Brad Pitt's 50th paternity suit (someone stole a cell sample). Lots of possibilities.

@nada - Are you serious? You do realize the difference between consenting same sex partners and a not capable (yet) to determine consenting sheep.

if you want something like really fine humans, well there are allready such humans existing, why you need gm?

There are fine human specimens indeed, but still we could create MUCH finer with genetic engineering. Also, your approach would basicaly mean that children will not be related to their biological parents, but to some other people with better genome. I doubt this will be acceptable on large scale for the parents. My idea is a little more sci-fi, and not realistic yet, but I am convinced that it is a matter of time before it will be practical, with much better results than choosing an embryo.

Wait till they cross the species barrier, then you can ask: So now how do we argue against human-sheep marriage?

You really have to ask this? It is obvious that inability of sheep to give consent is the reason why human-sheep marriage is illegal.

Adam and Steve?

Personally, I am a fan of Eugenics. If we were a truly intelligent species we would breed ourselves like we do our livestock and pets. We would control our population and enforce both physical and mental standards (and no I am not talking about killing people, just controlling reproductive rights).

If we had started doing this 1000 years ago our lifespans could probably have been greatly increased by now too, not to mention eliminating inherited disease. I for one would rather be an extremely handsome, more intelligent, long lived individual, and if all women were beautiful with great legs and brains I certainly wouldn't complain. (actually I already have all but one of the benefits) (So if you rate this post a one we'll know it's because you're ugly, stupid and insanity runs in your family)

Somebody here is ugly, stupid and insane, they rated my post a 1.

So now how do we argue against human-sheep marriage?

You really have to ask this? It is obvious that inability of sheep to give consent is the reason why human-sheep marriage is illegal.

David Brin (a science fiction author) writes of the responsibility of advanced species to 'uplift' other species into sapient beings. If we gave intelligence to sheep, then marriage could indeed become a debatable issue.

David Brin (a science fiction author) writes of the responsibility of advanced species to 'uplift' other species into sapient beings. If we gave intelligence to sheep, then marriage could indeed become a debatable issue.

In that case, it would not be a debatable issue, but a non-issue, such a marriage would be allowed.

So now how do we argue against human-sheep marriage?

Concisely.

David Brin (a science fiction author) writes of the responsibility of advanced species to 'uplift' other species into sapient beings. If we gave intelligence to sheep, then marriage could indeed become a debatable issue.

I'm not an expert on sheep but I'm fairly sure there would be an actual reason for prevention of this practice, like being a wholly different species.

In that case, it would not be a debatable issue, but a non-issue, such a marriage would be allowed.

I'm not an expert on sheep but I'm fairly sure there would be an actual reason for prevention of this practice, like being a wholly different species.

For what reason other than prejudice would this be prevented? We are talking about sapient beings here. Fully capable of expressing consent, and feeling love for a different person. Is this not the same as trying to prevent same sex marraige as being unnatural and disgusting? Please note that I am not talking about bestiality here, just making a case for two adult, rational beings being allowd to express their love and commitment for one another.

And what about the concept of uplift itself? Is it wrong to give intelligence to other species?

I'm not an expert on sheep but I'm fairly sure there would be an actual reason for prevention of this practice, like being a wholly different species.

There is no such reason, except prejudice. Among two rational beings, marriage should and would be allowed, irregardless of sex or species.

Y'all haven't heard about doogies twins?
http://www.huffin...841.html

-Don't know how this was done but it apparently involved some kind of manipulation and a surrogate.

-And I have to agree with shotman above. It is obvious that some people should NOT be allowed to have children. It is the only way to prevent atrocities such as this:
http://us.mobile....9?ca=rdt

-what we do in a civilized society is identify problems such as this, and then go about finding decent and equitable solutions for them. This solution will most likely not occur during our lifetimes, but eventually the science will exist and a generation with the proper mindset will see it implemented.

Only a few gens ago it was unthinkable that women would share the same freedoms as men, or that pornography would be legal. We cannot predict how people will deal with this problem, but we can look forward to a day when it will be solved. It HAS to be solved for the species to mature.
Cont

I think that eventually reproduction will be outsourced and humans will prefer to be born without the organs and hormones which cause so much wasted time and energy and damage to our bodies. In the interim there will be a period where people will be born in a sterile state, which can only be reversed after the successful completion of an intense period of education and examination.

Child-bearing and rearing is perhaps the single most important profession one can practice and yet it is the only one which requires absolutely no qualification for. All of society suffers from this. When we can begin to reduce the number of people damaged before and after birth by incompetent parents we will see crime and illness and suffering plummet.