Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Dolly the Sheep Alive Again

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the bah-bah-clone-sheep dept.

Biotech 233

SpeZek writes "Dolly the sheep has been reborn. Four clones have been made by the scientist behind the original research. The quads, which have been nicknamed 'the Dollies,' are exact genetic copies of their predecessor, who was put down seven years ago. The latest experiments were partly carried out to check if improvements to the technique cut the risk of problems in and out of the womb. Named after country and western singer Dolly Parton, Dolly was created from a cell taken from a mammary gland. The rest of the sample of tissue has lain in a freezer since, until it was defrosted to make the Dollies."

cancel ×

233 comments

Just in time for christmas .... (5, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413370)

Bahhhh, Humbug.

Pass the mint jelly :-)

GO SUCK A COCK! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413428)

cocksucker...

Re:Just in time for christmas .... (4, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413574)

...freezer... until it was defrosted...

I don't know, it is never as good after that. But still, with enough jelly...

Re:Just in time for christmas .... (1)

d6 (1944790) | more than 3 years ago | (#34414054)

Glad I'm not the only one that thought "how does it taste"? :P

Dolly of the month club (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413394)

It's the gift that keeps on giving the whole year.

Awesome. (-1, Troll)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413402)

Not because of the technology, it's nothing new. Just to piss of christians, and remind them that science is real, unlike their imaginary friend in the sky.

They said only god could create life, well, then Dolly is irrefutable prove that there is no god.

Re:Awesome. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413418)

Don't forget the Muslims!

Re:Awesome. (2)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413454)

Well, it's not as if they created her out of some sort of vacuum. They're just manipulating the machines that nature has already provided.

Re:Awesome. (2, Insightful)

Dermah (1277738) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413676)

Haha. I am an athiest, and you are an idiot.

Re:Awesome. (0, Troll)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413850)

Following your logic, there is a God.

And he's cloning sheep!

Re:Awesome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34414010)

Your spelling and grammar are atrocious, and they further betray your ignorance. Does it hurt to be so stupid? You make one hell of a logical leap to conclude that you possess absolute knowledge of the universe just because we can manipulate cells from a sheep tit.

Which takes a greater leap of faith? To believe in God, or to believe that the entire universe self-created from nothingness?

Re:Awesome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34414112)

Well, obviously, it's a greater leap of faith to believe in a god.

After all, it's much more of a leap for your god to self-create from nothingness.

Dolly Parton (2, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413404)

Okay, is my mind totally in the gutter, or is there a significance to the mammary gland / Dolly Parton link?

Re:Dolly Parton (4, Informative)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413422)

Re:Dolly Parton (5, Funny)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413450)

Glad we could keep you abreast of the situation.

Re:Dolly Parton (4, Funny)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413782)

Well this news is simply TITillating!

Re:Dolly Parton (5, Funny)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413982)

Don't be such a boob.

Re:Dolly Parton (5, Funny)

Mistlefoot (636417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413828)

Are we only going to here that nice pair of jokes or are people going to keep milking this one?

Re:Dolly Parton (5, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34414102)

Are we only going to here that nice pair of jokes

You could say this thread is a bust.

Re:Dolly Parton (1)

DynamiteNeon (623949) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413922)

Guys, this isn't Reddit.

Re:Dolly Parton (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413960)

Stay classy /.

Re:Dolly Parton (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413566)

Large mammaries maybe 30 years ago, but significant silicon since

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Dolly_Parton_have_breast_implants

Re:Dolly Parton (1)

onco_p53 (231322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413444)

No, its is exactly what you are thinking.

Re:Dolly Parton (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413568)

You can't make a clone out of plastic

Re:Dolly Parton (5, Funny)

Xeno man (1614779) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413594)

A few billion Barbie dolls would disagree.

Re:Dolly Parton (2)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413680)

Okay, is my mind totally in the gutter, or is there a significance to the mammary gland / Dolly Parton link?

Well, if it helps, the meadow where they graze is called the Valley of the Dolls....

(If you were a New Zealander, the mere mention of sheep would have been enough....)

Re:Dolly Parton (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34414066)

Nooo, here in New Zealand we had an unshorn sheep as a celebrity. They named it Shrek, made calenders, put it on the prime time news, and even FLEW IT OUT TO A FUCKING ICE BERG.

Why does nobody take us seriously? Because so many of us are FUCKING REDNECK HICKS.

Re:Dolly Parton (-1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413966)

1. Make sheep out of titties.

2. Sheep have vaginas like the vaginas of human females.

3. ???

4. PROFIT!!!

Dolly is the new teacup? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413416)

I'm curious to know if Dolly will be the new teacup (used to test rendering algorithms) or Lenna (for image processing).

Will we be cloning the same sheep over and over again as a common reference?

I wonder how the pet resurrection is going (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413430)

This makes me wonder how many people are cloning their pets and bringing them back.

I'm not sure I could do that myself. I miss some of mine, but would it be appropriate to bring them back, or should I just get another?

Don't know. But I think about it.

Re:I wonder how the pet resurrection is going (4, Insightful)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413476)

This makes me wonder how many people are cloning their pets and bringing them back.

I'm not sure I could do that myself. I miss some of mine, but would it be appropriate to bring them back, or should I just get another?

Don't know. But I think about it.

There are so many that need homes right now ... I know that I miss my first Newfie and my St. Bernard, but I also know that when my current Newfie and mutt pass on, there will always be other large dogs that need a home ...

-- Barbie

Re:I wonder how the pet resurrection is going (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413554)

What is the difference between getting a new pet and getting a new pet that shares your old pet's DNA?

(Aside from the high risk of the clone having genetic defects and dying young.)

Re:I wonder how the pet resurrection is going (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413570)

The existing emotional bond.

It may not be logical, but it is still there.

Re:I wonder how the pet resurrection is going (3, Informative)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413880)

There is no bond. Its a new individual. Its all in your head. The animal won't know or care.
One thing you can be assured of is that it will have a different personality (anamality?). You will probably be disillusioned.

Re:I wonder how the pet resurrection is going (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413934)

The person knows. The person cares. Yes it is all in their head. Where else are your emotions kept?

And whether or not a person will be disappointed is exactly the question. I don't see you having an answer, just a conclusion.

Re:I wonder how the pet resurrection is going (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413978)

You can never go home again.

Re:I wonder how the pet resurrection is going (5, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413618)

I would think after 3 or 4 incarnations you'd not feel so guilty about putting a bullet in one after it shits on the carpet

Re:I wonder how the pet resurrection is going (5, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | more than 3 years ago | (#34414086)

Too much of the development is dependent upon protein activation times and whole bunch of other stuff I know nothing about, for the cloned animal to be exactly like the original. For example, in the case of cats, the color is not directly determined by the DNA. The cat CC was the first cloned pet [wikipedia.org] , and it did not look like its genetic donor. I imagine behavior is even more finicky, as it is affected by experiences and other such nebulous factors.

REINCARNATION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! (3, Funny)

straponego (521991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413458)

GOOD NIGHT!

Re:REINCARNATION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! (1)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413558)

Duh, they'd have to be cows, not sheep.

Not alive again (3, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413462)

Stupid journalists and movie makers keep thinking cloning something makes a true copy. These are genetic progeny; Dolly's sisters, not Dolly.

Re:Not alive again (1)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413556)

I would call them Dolly's daughters, since they were cloned off of Dolly, not the original sheep. This is consistent with my understanding of the nomenclature used for species that reproduce asexually. They're each other's sisters, and the original sheep's granddaughters.

Re:Not alive again (2, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413766)

No, they are being cloned from the same sample that Dolly was cloned from. Since the DNA won't be exactly the same as the cell that was used to create Dolly I would say sisters is the most appropriate, unless they used DNA polymerase on the original cell and these are being created from that same cell's mass copied DNA in which case they are simply identical clones of the Dolly line =)

Re:Not alive again (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413784)

I think it's more accurate to call them her "twins." That's the natural way to get genetically identical individuals in a sexually reproducing species.

Should have named them (2)

initialE (758110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413468)

Duncan Idaho...

Re:Should have named them (2)

beefncheese (1663847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413688)

Looks like the beginning of the golden pa-a-a-a-a-th.

now we know the identity of (2)

QuantumBeep (748940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413504)

Now we know the identity of the Lost Cylon.

best tasting chops (1)

Mordie (1943326) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413512)

on the up side , lamp chops will never be in short supply, now we just need to clone some tasty pigs.......think of the bacon

Re:best tasting chops (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413664)

for those lamb, maybe they could be modified to produce sour cream and grow tomatoes internally, ready for slapping into a gyro

How about beef with legs like centipedes, for multiple hind quarters full of prize winning strip steaks and filet mignon.

Re:best tasting chops (1)

TheDugong (701481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413720)

The Bovine Centiped - Their Flesh Is His Fantasy.

Re:best tasting chops (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413702)

I think I'd like to hold out for Porcuswine.

Re:best tasting chops (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34414130)

Detachable ribs growing on its back? Mmm

and So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413516)

                  iDolly this will work this time.

For years (3, Insightful)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413536)

They've been doing this for years in Medicine. Just ask Henrietta Lacks.

Re:For years (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413682)

Little did she know, when she went into the hospital, that she would be going out the back door and an entire new species of pluripotent mono-cellular eukaryotes would be leaving out the front...

Re:For years (1)

the biologist (1659443) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413726)

You're implying that we biologists have been cloning walking/breathing copies of Henrietta Lacks to disect for our studies?

Cells derived from the tumor which killed her are routinely used. If you think anything more than this has been happening, you are sorely misinformed.

A major "con" of cloning falls apart (5, Interesting)

Myji Humoz (1535565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413540)

From the article, the original Dolly was put down after about 6 years due to all kinds of medical conditions (infections, arthritis, etc). However, these four sheep are 3.5 years old, and are apparently in perfect health. A major argument against the use of cloned animals in animal husbandry (either cloning particularly tasty animals or using clones to breed) is that cloned animals end up in constant agony due to their origin.

Since these cloned animals appear just as comfortable and pain free as your "run of the mill" farm animal, it seems as if cloned animals can be just as humane to farm as normal animals. In fact, since the meat yield from each animal is much higher (by definition of selective cloning as the pinnacle of selective breeding), I would argue that using more cloned animals would reduce the ecological impact of the meat industry.

Ye average American Joe might not want to eat cloned meat, but clones are already breeding like mad to produce more productive offspring. Perhaps this new longitudinal study will give more insights on the ethics and health impacts of cloned meat.

Re:A major "con" of cloning falls apart (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413610)

And by breeding hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of Dollys, you make a population that will collapse much faster when that virus or bacteria mutation comes along that has a liking for the Dolly host.

Re:A major "con" of cloning falls apart (2)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413626)

I wouldn't mind eating beef from a cloned animal if I were to be informed accordingly. Matters become rather complicated when it comes to burgers and other processed meats where I understand such meats might be made of more than 100 animals. Scary!

Re:A major "con" of cloning falls apart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413798)

If you wouldn't mind eating it, why do you care to be informed?

Re:A major "con" of cloning falls apart (2)

daemonc (145175) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413628)

I had never heard that argument, but even if it were true it would still be absurd. Compared to the horribly unsanitary conditions that exist on most factory farms, and the painful end in store for them at the slaughter house, I'd think a little arthritis would be the least of the animals' worries.

But all that aside, this is still not the "major con" to cloning. The big one that comes to mind is the susceptibility to disease due to lack of genetic diversity. All it takes is one mutation in some common disease, and not only is your herd / crop wiped out, but so is everyone's who bought the same clones.

Re:A major "con" of cloning falls apart (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413840)

The big one that comes to mind is the susceptibility to disease due to lack of genetic diversity. All it takes is one mutation in some common disease, and not only is your herd / crop wiped out, but so is everyone's who bought the same clones.

Welcome to modern farming, witness the Cavendish banana, Haas avocado, Russet potato, Heavea rubber tree, and countless other varieties that are produced well in excess of 50% of worldwide consumption in their category. It's here today with cloning.

Re:A major "con" of cloning falls apart (4, Interesting)

Myji Humoz (1535565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413886)

The article says that: "Animal welfare campaigners say that cloned animals and their surrogate mothers still suffer immensely."

The immune system argument is indeed the primary flaw of mass cloning, but our understanding of the role of genetics in forming an immune system is weak at best. However, we do know that immune systems aren't deterministic; genetic makeup X + environment Y doesn't always yield protection Z. As you said, the unsanitary conditions in factory farms induce tremendous suffering in the animals, but it also leads to a serious suppression of natural immune function. They are pretty much saturated in antibiotics from birth to slaughter to suppress infections; their natural immune system are essentially useless in those conditions. I'm purely speculating here, but what if a particular animal or animal line had an immune system that retained most of its function under terrible conditions? What if a particular animal displayed tremendous variability in initial antibody seeding?

It's tempting to think of animals as computer systems, where a single computer virus can easy take over identical systems with nearly identical ease. However, the immune system just doesn't work like that. To use a crude and somewhat misleading example, factory farms are like networks of computers running Windows XP with no service patch, no firewall, and no built in antivirus. However, every 4 hours, a godlike remote antivirus scan is run, and purges each system. If a virus or a bacterial strain is powerful enough to kill a line of Dollies, it's most likely strong enough to kill a line of sheep on the constant verge of death. Throw in antibiotic overuse, and it seems unlikely that there's a statistically significant risk increase between a factory full of Dollies and a factory full of randoms.

Re:A major "con" of cloning falls apart (1)

iSzabo (1392353) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413742)

I'd say the major danger now is lack of genetic diversity (which is already a problem to farming); as such a thing is already critically bad for banana farmers. Though I'm glad this moral objection is moot.

Re:A major "con" of cloning falls apart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413770)

A major argument against the use of cloned animals in animal husbandry (either cloning particularly tasty animals or using clones to breed) is that cloned animals end up in constant agony due to their origin.

Since when has the meat industry given two genetically-engineered shits about whether animals are suffering?

Re:A major "con" of cloning falls apart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413792)

Ye average American Joe might not want to eat cloned meat,

Joe Average may be a conservative asshole sometimes, but he looks pretty hard at the prices in the meat section, because he can't afford everything he wants.

Tasty lamb at good prices will only get more appealing as choices once common to the table vanish due to price, and to collapse as is happening with tuna and happened with cod. We're looking at a future of spams made of pulped things we didn't use to fish becoming normal. Settle the health scare, and Joe may easily adjust to seeing farm cloning as an obvious further domestication of a once wild animal, and be no more nostalgic about the immediate past than we are of hand-milking.

Re:A major "con" of cloning falls apart (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413988)

Ye average American Joe might not want to eat cloned meat, but clones are already breeding like mad to produce more productive offspring.

Clones breeding like mad??? You know something that we don't? 'cause TFA mentions "surrogate mothers".
To reach the breeding like mad level, I imagine one would need a "cloning vat" or something.

For the time being, the "economic efficiency" of cloning can't be better than by natural breeding, perhaps the "selectivity of the breeding" might have been improved – assuming that the clones really grow without other genetic troubles because of the process
TFA "The professor, who plans to publish details about the Dollies in a scientific journal, said improvements in the technology raised the odds of clones being born alive and healthy but admitted the method was still not perfect."

Perhaps this new longitudinal study will give more insights on the ethics and health impacts of cloned meat.

Apologies for coming back again with a question: what longitudinal study you speak about?

Human Cloning (0)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413542)

I can't imagine human cloning being that much more difficult biologically speaking than sheep. IANAB, but my guess is that geo-political and fundy-religio restrictions are the only things stopping this sort of activity from greater proliferation. How long until we see countries cloning mass eugenicized armies of the perfect race for warfare, class-control, workforce supply, and nationalistic tendencies? 50 years anybody?

Re:Human Cloning (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413578)

How long until we see countries cloning mass eugenicized armies of the perfect race for warfare, class-control, workforce supply, and nationalistic tendencies? 50 years anybody?

Using a particular template doesn't guarantee anything beyond superficial characteristics. You have to train your warriors, though these days I suppose its in the software more than anything else. The only practical outcome from cloning I can see is growing replacement body parts. I can definitely see that happening.

Re:Human Cloning (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413636)

but consider about one in ten people has the ability for extreme bodybuilding....I would think there are many physical characteristics that would make a much better than average warrior. Perhaps even some brain firmware is more suited for the training, we don't yet know.

hmmm, that argument could work for hot and willing women too, worth a try....

Re:Human Cloning (2)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413724)

There's a gene literally one gene in particular that determines how well your body copes with extreme long running sessions.
Those with one expression of it keep on jogging while the ones with a slightly different collapse. The ones with the first gene are also better suited to prolonged exertions of force.
The geneticists who actually breathe drink and live the human genome every day know of many genes that combined properly will give you the ultimate soldier.
It doesn't stop there, you can have faster thinking scientists, people needing less sleep the posibilities are endless. It boggles the mind why we as a society are crippling our scientific pursuits, and for what? For nothing!

Re:Human Cloning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413858)

Havnt you ever seen gattaca

Re:Human Cloning (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413914)

But to that argument, Gattaca was only bad for the kids who didn't go through the selection process. There wasn't anything remotely bad for the folks who had the I-Can't-Believe-It's-Not-Butter genes.

Gattaca showed the disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots". It didn't go so far as to say there was any disparity between the "haves" in their own little circle. One can argue that the difference between the folks in the high end jobs and the bottom end jobs right now is exactly the same thing, except we don't actually have any control over it. It simply is a game of bingo.

Re:Human Cloning (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413890)

Two major issues: Religion, and Star Trek.

Re:Human Cloning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413964)

Two major issues: Religion, and Star Trek.

so one major issue then.

Re:Human Cloning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413958)

Winners of the army ranger annual competitions are typically average height, average build. The real bulky ones can do it, just slower.

Re:Human Cloning (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413904)

Exactly, I don't think body building has much to do with being a good soldier in the modern era, being smart and trainable is infinity more important. There are obviously exceptions like being able to carry a large number of rounds for something like the SAW but those can be mostly be overcome with improved technology (see Bigdog robot pack mule).

Re:Human Cloning (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413670)

They're just the same as twins.. and no-one likes twins, they're all evil.

Re:Human Cloning (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413698)

but my guess is that geo-political and fundy-religio restrictions are the only things stopping this sort of activity from greater proliferation.

Quite wrong actually. It took over a hundred attempts before Dolly was cloned successfully. The clones that were produced had significant health problems. The genes aren't entirely methylated the way they ought to be and the telomeres are markedly shorter than they should be. To clone a human being at this point would be incredibly inhumane.

Re:Human Cloning (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413968)

but my guess is that geo-political and fundy-religio restrictions are the only things stopping this sort of activity from greater proliferation.

Quite wrong actually. It took over a hundred attempts before Dolly was cloned successfully. The clones that were produced had significant health problems. The genes aren't entirely methylated the way they ought to be and the telomeres are markedly shorter than they should be. To clone a human being at this point would be incredibly inhumane.

Couldn't they look at merging their efforts here with these efforts [slashdot.org] where they are:
Researchers bred genetically manipulated mice that lacked an enzyme called telomerase that stops telomeres getting shorter causing the mice to age prematurely and suffer ailments, including a poor sense of smell, smaller brain size, infertility and damaged intestines and spleens. When the mice were given injections to reactivate the enzyme, it repaired the damaged tissues and reversed the signs of aging raising hope among scientists that it may be possible to achieve a similar feat in humans – or at least to slow down the aging process."

Re:Human Cloning (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413814)

We've already seen it, over and over again.

Oh I'm sorry, you are talking about reality, not science fiction...? Yeah. 50 years. Sure. And you forgot using people as batteries.

I've heard of reincarnation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413572)

I've heard of reincarnation, but this is ridiculous!

Piracy (4, Interesting)

Degro (989442) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413592)

So how long until the first genetic piracy article on Slashdot?

Re:Piracy (2)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413658)

T+4years [slashdot.org]

From a quick Google search, there are probably earlier examples.

Re:Piracy (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413734)

Monsanto has sued farmers for "pirating" their genetic sequences

Re:Piracy (4, Informative)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413878)

It's been and gone. Haven't you heard of Monsanto [slashdot.org] ?

Re:Piracy (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413940)

3...2...

hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413600)

How does it relates to the country songs ? By the amount of clones ?

Re:hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413646)

I hadn't realized the origin of the name until I read the summary...

Named after country and western singer Dolly Parton, Dolly was created from a cell taken from a mammary gland.

Do a Google image search for her if you don't recall what she looks like, keeping in mind the latter part of that sentence.

Obligatory Dune Reference (3, Funny)

fl_litig8r (904972) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413638)

Dolly Idaho.

So it is written. (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413660)

Abduhl Al-Hazred, in his Necronomicon wrote:

"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."

Scotland??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413718)

Dolly made headlines around the world when she was born at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh in 1996.

For some reason I thought these were "The Sheep from Brazil".

Four sheep at once (4, Funny)

hessian (467078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413744)

Now that is a Texas-size sexual fantasy!

I am curious (1)

NEDHead (1651195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413756)

Did she mention bright lights, an unearthly presence, Or meeting my mom?

No, Dolly the sheep is not alive again! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413776)

These are not Dolly, but other sheep of the same name.

Reagan (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413848)

The GOP is hoping to clone Ronald Reagan before the 2012 election, being that they are short real candidates.

Re:Reagan (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34413902)

Someone mod this "funny because it's true". :D

(At least, true at the presidential level. We're leveling Congress, though.)

Re:Reagan (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413980)

And the Democrats will be cloning... um... gimme a minute... nope, guess they'll be stuck with Obama.

Don't tell the Texas A&M Aggies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34413920)

Four virgin sheep asses! That's alot of fucking for your typical Aggie!

Q: How do you know when you're in College Station, TX?

A: When you honk your horn, all of the livestock backs up to the fences.

Did you hear about the Texas A&M Aggie who moved to Oklahoma and improved the collective IQ of both states?

Nod to Terry Prachett (1)

Sooner Boomer (96864) | more than 3 years ago | (#34414002)

...call them Dolly Sisters.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...