Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Frozen Mice Cloned

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the science-fiction-will-be-real-in-our-lifetime dept.

Biotech 272

m0rphin3 writes "Japanese scientists have cloned mice whose bodies were frozen for as long as 16 years and said on Monday it may be possible to use the technique to resurrect mammoths and other extinct species. Could we finally see Jurassic Park become a reality, or perhaps use this for colonizing other galaxies?"

cancel ×

272 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That juicy t-bone steak (2, Funny)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644659)

I had in the last BBQ would also need cloning!

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (5, Interesting)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644915)

That's why this type of research needs to continue to push forward.

We could be eating fresh prime rib almost every day without worrying about ethical issues concerning the raising of animals in inhumane conditions, and we'd be cutting down on the methane as well as not having to pump our meat full of hormones and antibiotics. It's much easier to grow a mass of muscle cells and raise them to maturity than it would be to grow an entire animal from scratch. I'll gladly be a guinea pig as I don't care of the meat looks like a softball so long as it tastes good.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (4, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644973)

I've already seen much comment by fanatical vegans on the Internet that even meat from lab-grown cells is deplorable. Their reasoning is that even if no animal was actually killed, people have still not subdued that part of themselves that gets pleasure from eating animal flesh.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (5, Funny)

Changa_MC (827317) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645033)

I've already seen much comment by fanatical vegans on the Internet that even meat from lab-grown cells is deplorable.

But those are vegans. Us vegetarian-types would buy up lab-meat by the ton.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645185)

Many vegans have the righteous "anti-establishment" mentality while refusing to understand that humans are omnivores and have been engineered to eat meats and plants. We need plants for minerals and meats for amino acids.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (0)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645451)

I wasn't engineered to eat meat and plants. Although my specious did evolve that way.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645657)

You being a part of your species.... i fail to see your point. That aside i think alot of vegetarians still wouldn't eat meat out of habit/stubbornesss and they generally aren't too fond of the taste after a few years anyways.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

adonoman (624929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645861)

I think he's stressing the point between being engineered (i.e. created) vs. evolving.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25646181)

I wasn't engineered to eat meat and plants. Although my specious did evolve that way.

Oh there is something specious about your argument alright.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

macxcool (1370409) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645623)

The problem is that cloned cow would still have to grow into an adult cow in order for the steak to be cut out of it. You'd just have herds of cloned cattle instead of naturally born cattle. How does this make a difference (not that I have any problem with steak)?

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645703)

He's talking about growing just the meat/muscle in a vat.

There would be no "cow" just a vat of sweet, delicious cow flesh.

Mmmmmmmmm.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (0)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645961)

I can see a problem with this. If the meat is not properly cloned, it might create random prions (bits of protein) that can invade the human body through the stomach & cause brain damage.

Probably wouldn't work (1)

yabos (719499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25646255)

Muscles have to go under tension to become denser. I don't think just growing a bunch of muscle cells in a giant tub would really work out to produce the same thing as real animal flesh from a walking crapping cow.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645761)

You can clone just cells and tissues rather than whole organisms, although I think people are less likely to think of that as "cloning" in the news-worthy controversial sense. The cuts from cow muscle grown in a vat may be a little different from the cuts we know, but perhaps they'd be just as good.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

adonoman (624929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645925)

They could be way better, since you can stress the muscles to exact amounts to create the ideal fat percentages and tenderness. With real cows they have the whole issue of actually having to support the infrastructure of a 1000 lb walking/breathing/eating animal.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25646115)

Part of the flavor of the meat is from the diet of the cattle and from the marrow in the bones, though. If you give the muscle the ideal nutrient mix for fast growth and sell it in isolation, then you have to weigh the tenderness and fat content against those factors. It should be possible, though. At least a steak from a vat, if anyone ever does produce such a thing commercially, should taste better than other vat options like yeast paste.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25646231)

I think we should toss this cloned meat thing out the window and start eating free-range vegan.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645137)

In other words "youre not ALLOWED to have pleasure - its a sin!!"

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645625)

Their reasoning is that even if no animal was actually killed, people have still not subdued that part of themselves that gets pleasure from eating animal flesh.

So it's not enough that no animals would be killed?
You're actually not allowed to enjoy it?

Well shit, remember Pavalov's dogs?
We can do the exact opposite of that.

Negative reinforcement is easy as pie.
It wouldn't take much conditioning to get someone to vomit at the smell or taste of meat.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645907)

fanatical vegans... say that even if no animal was actually killed, people have still not subdued that part of themselves that gets pleasure from eating animal flesh.

Mmmm. Animal flesh. (drool). I wonder what Vegan tastes like?

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (2, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 5 years ago | (#25646183)

So it's like CGI porn for pedophiles? The atrocity is in yourself, not the act.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (3, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645191)

I think it'd be easier to kill all the hippies.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (2, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645573)

Yeah, but years of self-abuse have made their meat very tough, so why bother?

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

Cocoa Radix (983980) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645809)

We can feed them to the remaining hippies we haven't gotten around to killing yet. We'll just tell them that it's soy, and, given the terrible texture and taste, they'll have no choice but to agree.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (4, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645203)

Cruelty adds flavor.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645429)

I don't care of the meat looks like a softball so long as it tastes good.

A large contributor to flavor in beef (and I suspect many other meats) is the presence of the bone when it's cooked. Just ask your butcher.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645569)

A large contributor to flavor in beef (and I suspect many other meats) is the presence of the bone when it's cooked. Just ask your butcher.

Ok, add a second bone cloning vat next to the meat cloning vat and package them together. Problem solved.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645937)

I think parent is referring to the fat and connective tissue which binds the muscle to the bone. He's right, it's what gives many cuts of meat their rich, fatty flavor.

A lab-grown slab of pure muscle meat won't be as tasty as a dead-cow T-bone but it'll taste good enough and it'll be healthier to boot.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 5 years ago | (#25646039)

Well, presumably you'd need some kind of substrate to grow the meat on, so why not simply have the fat/connective tissues grown as well and bonded to the substrate. Solves two problems, how to attach the meat to the substrate, and lack of connective tissues effecting flavor.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (2, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645507)

I'll gladly be a guinea pig as I don't care of the meat looks like a softball so long as it tastes good.

I'm sure we'll find you to be both tasty and delicious.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

syrinx (106469) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645695)

I'll gladly be a guinea pig as I don't care of the meat looks like a softball so long as it tastes good.

I'm sure we'll find you to be both tasty and delicious.

I've got a book [wikipedia.org] that you might be interested in.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645999)

Bwawhahah. That was tongue in cheek since it kind of read that way, but once we have meat vats what's really to prevent us from having any sort of meat? Bald eagle? Tiger? People? Why not, as long as you didn't have to kill anyone to get it? Hell you could clone your own cells into a meat vat and have a nice juicy steak of yourself!

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645561)

We could be eating fresh prime rib almost every day without worrying about ethical issues concerning the raising of animals in inhumane conditions,

I've never found myself worrying about ethical issues when eating fresh prime rib. Except for the ones involving the ancestry of the cooks who don't know what the word "rare" means when ordering prime rib....

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25646201)

Rare meat is more humane as it suffers less on the grill.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645891)

It's much easier to grow a mass of muscle cells and raise them to maturity than it would be to grow an entire animal from scratch.

What makes you think so? Eukaryotic cell culture is pretty technically difficult work, and that's not even bothering with multiple types of cells like you'd find in muscle.

When you farm an animal, you benefit from millions of years of evolution designing the perfect environment to grow muscle mass. It's not going to be easy to replicate that in the lab.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

hierophanta (1345511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645971)

It's much easier to grow a mass of muscle cells and raise them to maturity than it would be to grow an entire animal from scratch.

FWIW-- i dont believe that is true. nature has been growing animals from scratch with little or no effort on our end for some time now.

Re:That juicy t-bone steak (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645715)

The comments about veganism are stupid. This is not about growing food in a vat. It's hard to know how tasty a beef will be before eating it. Cloning dead beef which tasted very good is a serious area of research.

First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25644689)

First

From the Standpoint of a Carnivore ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25644699)

Could we finally see Jurassic Park become a reality, or perhaps use this for colonizing other galaxies?

Enough with the deep philosophical implications of this, I want my woolly mammoth burger now!

The biggest question (4, Funny)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644737)

Who keeps dead mice in their freezer for 16 years? Remind me not to have the Brunswick stew at their house.

Re:The biggest question (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645603)

I was going to ask that. Either someone, 16 years ago, decided he wanted to try this, or it is sorta like the fish in the back of the freezer that you caught 20 years ago, don't want to eat, and don't want to throw away... (of course, I don't like fish in the first place)

Re:The biggest question (1)

piratesyarr (1117287) | more than 5 years ago | (#25646077)

I believe that you can buy frozen dead mice at some pet stores. They're TV dinners for snakes.

Reality vs Scifi (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25644753)

Interesting as we progress technology where it correlates with (hard boiled) science fiction and where it does not. We really are getting close to this stuff aren't we?

Or colonizing galaxies with mamoths? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25644755)

We use this technology to colonize other galaxies with giant wooly mamoths. That would be so cool.

Re:Or colonizing galaxies with mamoths? (5, Funny)

dogdick (1290032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644953)

I concur, lets confuse the shit out of other intelligent life when they start visiting our solar system.

Re:Or colonizing galaxies with mamoths? (0, Offtopic)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645179)

*lol* For that comment alone, you get a new fan. :D

(I hope your nickname does not mean that you're a troll.)

Re:Or colonizing galaxies with mamoths? (1)

Warll (1211492) | more than 5 years ago | (#25646131)

Check his comment history, he is a troll. Of course don't feel bad for laughing, it was a funny joke.

Hmmmm (2, Funny)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644785)

Now that mice ice-cream factory I was planning will work _very_ well.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645297)

You can market it as "Mice Cream".

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645799)

Yeah, and my "Mice-cream-wagon" will play Vanilla Ice's version of "Mice-mice-baby".

Re:Hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645975)

"I'm outraged! You promised me dog or higher."

Not that interesting (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25644789)

Drop some DNA or a mouse in liquid nitrogen or even a -80 freezer and it will last indefinitely. Cloning is interesting but length of storage isn't.

Re:Not that interesting (3, Informative)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645873)

The point is that they didn't do anything special to protect the cells against the damage of freezing. They took a mouse that was frozen just the way an animal would be frozen after death in the wild and worked around the damage freezing causes. The current cloning processes all use an intact healthy cell from an adult. This proves that's not necessary.

16 years is not (4, Insightful)

BigGar' (411008) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644843)

16,000 or 160,000,000 years. While this may be "just engineering" to some, it's still a big just as there's still a lot of DNA degradation that happens over the course of millennia. There's a lot of reasons this might not work for a species we've never seen develop.

Of course it may work smackingly well and we'll all have miniature pet t-rex's in my lifetime. That would be sweet, the cat may not like it though.

Re:16 years is not (5, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645109)

16,000 or 160,000,000 years. While this may be "just engineering" to some, it's still a big just as there's still a lot of DNA degradation that happens over the course of millennia. There's a lot of reasons this might not work for a species we've never seen develop.

That's why you plug the gaps with frog DNA. Nothing could possibly go wrong!

Re:16 years is not (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645693)

Your words: That's why you plug the gaps with frog DNA. Nothing could possibly go wrong!

Your Sig:
Kwisatz Haderach sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne

Now imagine: The Great Frog Emperor of Dune!

Re:16 years is not (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645895)

The frog DNA turns out to be a third fail-safe that Crichton did not mention: If the lysine dependence and all-female population fail-safes did not stop the dinosaurs, the frog DNA should guarantee their extinction from fungus, habitat loss, and [possibly] man-made climate change.

Re:16 years is not (1)

RabidMoose (746680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645821)

Thing is, you should only need to find one perfect example of a species to be able to start cloning. Or, possibly put together a DNA puzzle from multiple specimen of the same species. Franken-t-rex FTW. (IANA Genetist. Feel free to lampoon my sci-fi views of genetic science now.)

Also, it'll be convienant to have a source of self-replicating hamburger to feed my new mini-dino guardpet.

Re:16 years is not (1)

Pigeon451 (958201) | more than 5 years ago | (#25646203)

How do you know that frozen DNA degrades over time? If a large enough sample is found (intact people/animals have been found frozen in glaciers) I'm sure they can find enough good DNA to make a proper clone.

Pinky and the Brain (1)

Andr T. (1006215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644859)

Could we finally see Jurassic Park become a reality, or perhaps use this for colonizing other galaxies?

Pinky: "Gee Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"
The Brain: "The same thing we do every night, Pinky - we freeze, clone, and take over the universe."

Galaxies? (5, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644879)

or perhaps use this for colonizing other galaxies

Getting ahead of ourselves, arent we?

Why don't we check out the 400 billion stars in our own galaxy first?

Or is it you don't know what a galaxy is?

(Sorry, is that too many rhetorical questions?)

Re:Galaxies? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25644957)

(Sorry, is that too many rhetorical questions?)

I don't know, was that a rhetorical question?

Re:Galaxies? (1)

wick3t (787074) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645417)

Maybe they think they can clone a VMS Galaxy [hp.com] .

Re:Galaxies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645489)

Rhetorical, eh? Eight!

So they cloned the (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644949)

mousicle

Re:So they cloned the (1)

Ender_Stonebender (60900) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645393)

I think the term that you are looking for is "corpsicle".

Why not, we've already got reports of organlegging...let's get a whole sci-fi vernacular introduced to the world at large!

Not dinosaurs (3, Insightful)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644959)

because there's hardly any DNA left in those fossils, let alone anything that's not damaged beyond recognition.
Mammoths, saber toothed cats or other species that have gone extinct more recently on the other hand...

Re:Not dinosaurs (4, Funny)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645585)

How about the dodo.

Admit it you want to know how it tastes!

Re:Not dinosaurs (4, Funny)

RabidMoose (746680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645941)

During the sentencing of John Doe for the killing and eating of albino baby seals, the judge calls John up to the stand, and quietly asks him: "Out of sheer curiosity, what did they taste like?"
To which John replies: "Sort of like a cross between bald eagle eggs and emperor penguin."

Re:Not dinosaurs (1)

adonoman (624929) | more than 5 years ago | (#25646073)

Especially when they've been frozen instead of fossilized.

Ice Age Sequel (5, Funny)

dafz1 (604262) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644961)

Ice Age 3: Attack of the Clones

cool (1)

kingsteve612 (1241114) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644967)

a pet dinosaur would be cool. ever see that family guy where peter plays fetch with a t rex? i have.

ethics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25644971)

Isn't it around this time that the researchers should step back and ask an ethical committee to take a look at the implications of cloning dead/lost species?

I mean, I'm all for freezing polar bears and other endangered species so that we can revive them when the weather is better (kind of like that grain vault) but shouldn't it be regulated so that it isn't creating awkward scenarios?

There ought to be some problems with cloning hundreds of dead starbuck to improve the cow population even more...

Re:ethics (5, Funny)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645139)

I mean, I'm all for freezing polar bears and other endangered species so that we can revive them when the weather is better (kind of like that grain vault) but shouldn't it be regulated so that it isn't creating awkward scenarios?

Like what, a long extinct animal suddenly appearing at a dinner party, causing everybody to spit out their drinks?

Jurrasic Park (2, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#25644977)

Mammoths? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you still need a live animal in order to clone a dead one. I guess they can grow them in an elephant or another close cousin, is that the idea?

Re:Jurrasic Park (1)

kick6 (1081615) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645035)

Mammoths? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you still need a live animal in order to clone a dead one. I guess they can grow them in an elephant or another close cousin, is that the idea?

Nah, we can just grow them in the matrix.

Re:Jurrasic Park (1)

craneG19 (1156921) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645355)

No, just a giant test tube filled with a greenish liquid. Inject some stuff, it grows, attach some hoses, it grows some more. Rinse and repeat.

Re:Jurrasic Park (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645645)

Mammoths? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you still need a live animal in order to clone a dead one. I guess they can grow them in an elephant or another close cousin, is that the idea?

Yep, if the person who submitted the article actually read it, it says due to the fact that there are no known living cells from a woolly mammoth its not possible as of now, and a miniscule possibility in the future.

"However, it has been suggested that the 'resurrection' of frozen extinct species (such as the woolly mammoth) is impracticable, as no live cells are available, and the genomic material that remains is inevitably degraded," they said.

Re:Jurrasic Park (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645677)

Yes, to really revive a mammoth not only do you need an animal to carry the fetus to term, you also need an egg to have it's nuclei (the part of a cell which holds the DNA) swapped with the frozen cell.

The current research have used a live version of basically an identical animal for both the egg and uterus. It might be that an elephant could prove to be a viable substitute, but we have no idea what hurdles would be involved.

As far as I can tell, the closest we've come to that is having a horse be able to carry an offspring that is half donkey (that's how you make a mule). However, it should be noted that donkeys and horses have a different number of chromosomes, so it does suggest that raising a mammoth inside an elephant could be possible.

Alright, let's decide right now. (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645153)

We know someone is going to make a real-life Jurassic Park someday, let's decide right now where it should be.

We need a really isolated island, let the voting begin!

Reply with your choice and for which reasons.

Re:Alright, let's decide right now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645409)

My vote goes to the La Brea Tar Pits.

Re:Alright, let's decide right now. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645471)

I hear Iceland is a cheap buy atm. Also not too small. Maybe too cold, but getting some lava up should be doable.

Re:Alright, let's decide right now. (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645927)

L.A.

If something goes horribley wrong you have a hit reality show.

Re:Alright, let's decide right now. (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645947)

I'd rather have Paleolithic Park, and Greenland works for me.

Re:Alright, let's decide right now. (1)

RabidMoose (746680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645993)

Terra-formed moon!
Nothing scarier than velociraptors that can jump 6x further.

Re:Alright, let's decide right now. (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#25646133)

I vote Australia.

Bring back Mark Twain (1)

moteyalpha (1228680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645187)

I think we should clone Mark Twain and ask him what he thinks about all this stuff as he might get a +5 funny all the time on /.

Re:Bring back Mark Twain (1)

junglee_iitk (651040) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645289)

I haven't read much of Mark Twain. Could you please elaborate?

Galaxies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25645223)

colonizing other galaxies?

Uhm, it could be helpful to get to other stars inside our galaxy. It could be helpful to get to other stars inside our galactic arm. It could be helpful to get to outside our suns surrounding (Oort cloud).
But our fastest (and light) probe has traveled 30 years and still hasn't reached that (beside that it shuts down). It is unlikely that anything with our way of acceleration will ever outrun it. We haven't put people on our moon for decades. We haven't brought a person to another planet at all yet.

So may I suggest: Let's concentrate on our own galaxy for the moment?

Brilliant! (3, Funny)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645251)

Could we finally see Jurassic Park become a reality

Yea we should totally do that, because it worked out so well in the movie.

One in a million chance (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645265)

They should calculate which extinct animal has a one in a million chance of resurrection by cloning its DNA. After all, one in a million chances pop up one time out of ten.

Any bets (2)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645269)

on how long it will take PETA to get involved and start making features like The Meatrix [themeatrix.com] ?

misread the tags as "science bitch" (1)

h4x354x0r (1367733) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645555)

or biatch or something like that.

Colonization (2, Funny)

nani popoki (594111) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645655)

Yes. Pretty soon the galaxy will be full of spaceships carrying frozen telephone sanitizors.

Galactic colonization? (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 5 years ago | (#25645771)

Well, there's a bit of a gap between 16 years and the tens of thousands needed to reach even near stars.

Seems to me we'd be better off recording the genome in something with serious ECC and system redundancy so there's some reasonable chance that when it arrives it might actually be possible to produce something viable.

Michael Crichton (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25646005)

Unfortunately, Michael Crichton read the news today about the potential for a real Jurassic Park and promptly keeled over dead.

Great News for the morbidly weird (1)

Theoboley (1226542) | more than 5 years ago | (#25646187)

Ted Williams Jr. now has hope to bring his father back to life.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>