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!

Scientists Create Mice From 2 Fathers

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the heather-has-two-mommies dept.

Science 435

An anonymous reader writes "Using stem cell technology, reproductive scientists in Texas, led by Dr. Richard R. Behringer at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, have produced male and female mice from two fathers. The study was posted Wednesday at the online site of the journal Biology of Reproduction. The achievement of two-father offspring in a species of mammal could be a step toward preserving endangered species, improving livestock breeds, and advancing human assisted reproductive technology. It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note."

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

In b4 shitstorm (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498476)

It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.

This isn't going to go down well with the God Squad.

Re:In b4 shitstorm (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498672)

Please. As a religious person? I honestly don't give a fuck. All you're doing is mixing around biomaterials. Humans have been doing that on some level for thousands of years and what was done here could probably have been done decades ago if anyone cared to.

Re:In b4 shitstorm (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498706)

A very rational approach to it, but do you think the less rational religious types will concur?

Re:In b4 shitstorm (1)

arekusu_ou (1344373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499148)

“Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be religious people.” by Dr. Gregory House

Re:In b4 shitstorm (4, Interesting)

tirefire (724526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499230)

I've heard (yes, that is my citation) that there is almost a 100% overlap between people who are against stem cell research and people who are against abortion. I've also heard (two sources now!) that anti-abortion groups are largely behind stem-cell hatred, because they claim that if stem cells harvested from aborted fetuses are used in research, the mild "gift to science" of abortion will sway more pregnant women into choosing abortion than keeping the child. Or even that "some women" who did not want children would conceive for the express purpose of having an abortion.

I thought it was crazy at first, too. Then I realized that if one or more single-issue lobbying groups were involved, it's almost stupid enough to be true.

Re:In b4 shitstorm (1)

Redlazer (786403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498734)

Hey man! Don't go sneaking that rational shit in here - you're not allowed!

Re:In b4 shitstorm (2, Insightful)

stms (1132653) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499180)

The whole gay marriage debate is completely moronic on both sides. If homosexually is genetic then by that same merit its also a biological imperfection and should be fixed (just as pedophilia and bestiality). If it's a choice then you shouldn't tell people what to choose so long as their freedom to make that choice doesn't infringe on other peoples well-being or freedom.

You think that's bad? (5, Funny)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498920)

You think that's bad? How about, now when the boss rides your ass all afternoon, you can actually get pregnant? Man, trust science to make IT and programming jobs even shittier ;)

Re:In b4 shitstorm (5, Interesting)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498974)

This isn't going to go down well with the God Squad.

They should be fine with it - lots of precedents. Eve was created from Adam's rib which was a 1 Father, 0 mother scenario. Mary had Jesus by God which was a 1 Mother, 0 Father scenario (God is generally regarded as the spiritual father. I don't think many Christians envisage actual physical sex with God as evidenced by the virginity of Mary remaining intact). Pygmalian married a statue that was brought to life which was a 0 Fathers, 0 Mothers scenario for the statue. The Bible has contained this sort of stuff long before we even knew what DNA was.

Also, a lot of religious people have objected to same-sex marriages on the grounds that they believe marriage should only be between people capable of having children together. This will resolve that road-block so they can be okay with same-sex marriage.

I'm certain that religious people will love this.

Re:In b4 shitstorm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34499032)

They should be fine with it - lots of precedents. Eve was created from Adam's rib which was a 1 Father, 0 mother scenario.

You forget that they'd consider emulating god to be hubris.

Re:In b4 shitstorm (0)

thomst (1640045) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499208)

By any chance, were the father's names Adam and Steve?

i'm fine with that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498482)

as long as they don't force me to have sex with my father

Re:i'm fine with that (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498598)

Umm... I know this is slashdot and all, but did you read TFA??

Scientists said they were able to able to achieve this remarkable result by "forcing a mouse to have sex with his father."

And...

Human trials of the new procedure are set to begin in January 2011.

And also...

When asked if he was concerned that his son might object to being forced to participate in this study, Mr. Anonymous Coward Sr. responded "This is a life or death situation here. My son had 38 years to go out and find a real woman to procreate with - but instead he spent all his time in my down in our basement twittering with his Ham radio. He had his chance to spread his seed around and pass on our genetic legacy, but he wasted it. Now it's my turn to take over and make sure that we've got a suitable heir to the family dynasty. My son can push back as much as he wants, but as far as I'm concerned, that's only going to make my job that much easier."

Is YY possible? (1)

tonk (101504) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498504)

What happens in case they combine two Y chromosomes?

Re:Is YY possible? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498512)

colorblindness

and just about any other disorder that is linked to defective genes on the X chromosome

Re:Is YY possible? (2, Interesting)

sjwt (161428) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498520)

75% of a person!

the Y is a Y because its an X missing a bit, and when creating a person the missing it on the Y just defaults to the bit on the X

Re:Is YY possible? (3, Informative)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499182)

75% of a person!

the Y is a Y because its an X missing a bit, and when creating a person the missing it on the Y just defaults to the bit on the X

Perhaps "bit" is an understatement: the Y have roughly 80 genes, while the X has around 2000; the Y is about 4 times smaller than the X.

Re:Is YY possible? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498534)

There's quite a few necessary proteins that are coded in the 'missing' portion of the Y gene. A YY embryo wouldn't have those at all, and would probably not be viable.

Re:Is YY possible? (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498554)

"We can rebuild them -- We have the technology" ---????

Re:Is YY possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498584)

Probably? I recall that the X contains genes that determine blood type. That sounds rather important. The Y chromosome I would assume contains absolutly nothing of vital importance, because half the population does fine without one.

Re:Is YY possible? (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498616)

Well, someone has to back those trailers....

Re:Is YY possible? (2)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498570)

You're joking of course. But seriously everyone (humans in any case) needs at least one X chromosome. No Y means you're female. More than two sex chromosomes (X or Y) will result in varying degrees of physical femininity or masculinity. A man with two X chromosomes [wikipedia.org] (XXY) will look more female than a man with two Y chromosomes (XYY).

Re:Is YY possible? (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498624)

No Y means you're female.

Also, deficiencies in the SRY region, or particular disruptions to the process that determines physical sex. People exist who were phenotypically female at birth, and only discovered their "maleness" at puberty when their testes descended and they grew unexpected amounts of facial hair.

Re:Is YY possible? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498638)

Sorry, this is a little bit off-topic. But since I can't answer to your Blog, it goes here:

SSL certs work only on an IP-basis, since SSL is on top of HTTP and does not have virtual hosting. So all domains on one IP-Address must share the same cert. Another argument for IP6, if you ask me.

HTH

Life's a bitch and then you die (4, Informative)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498864)

Well, then life's a bitch and then your zygote dies.

The Y chromosome is not a variant of the X chromosome. The X chromosome is one you actually need. The Y chromosome actually has very little information, and most of it related to testosterone production and sperm production. It doesn't even encode most of the differences between a male and a female body. Those are already taken care of by other proteins and testosterone.

In programming terms the Y chromosome is a little more than just a flag, but basically at an oversimplified level you can view it as a flag. The real important information is elsewhere.

So basically it's akin to, dunno, if you took out the .exe from the world of warcraft directory, but flagged it as Cataclysm compatible twice. It ain't gonna be very useful.

Re:Life's a bitch and then you die (1)

tonk (101504) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499190)

Thanks for putting what I wanted to know in terms I could understand. :o)

HAHAHA!!! (-1, Redundant)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498518)

Personally, I find this hysterical. I mean, c'mon, the /. stereotype can only go so far. Sometimes there's just women out there that want us. And then we pretend to play their games and blah blah blah.

I, therefore, announce this day Man Day. To be celebrated by doing what ever it is you, as a total and complete geek that understands the draw of these kinds of stories, would like to do. So fuckin what if it's a Thursday. Make it a long weekend.

obligatory... (2)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498524)

Son of Kronar [oglaf.com]

(nsfw)

I for one (5, Funny)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498526)

welcome our new gaylords. Or gaylings. whatever.

Re:I for one (-1, Flamebait)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498564)

Would a gayling be gay itself? Potentially quite an interesting experiment.

Re:I for one (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498886)

Would a gayling be gay itself? Potentially quite an interesting experiment.

How do you know the parents were gay? Did you watch them having sex together?

Re:I for one (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498958)

Presumably the person/animal the OP was referring to is called a gayling because it's parents were gay. If you RTFA, you'll see that it suggests that gay couples could have offspring using a technique similar to the one performed with the mice.

I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone -- I'm just saying that such a procedure has the potential to clear up the whole nature/nurture debate in the case of homosexuality.

Re:I for one (3, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499050)

such a procedure has the potential to clear up the whole nature/nurture debate in the case of homosexuality.

Why? Gay people have normal children all the time. Doesn't that give you enough data?

Re:I for one (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499100)

Two gay people of the same sex can not currently have children that are decended from both of them, are you suggesting that they can?

If you are meaning that gay men have children with gay women, then maybe they do, but it's possible that gay men and gay women are gay through different causes.

So no, there isn't enough data. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many studies being done on the subject.

Re:I for one (1)

noTimeAtAll (1212430) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499048)

How about having four granddads and no grandmas? I'm sure men are all good with woodworking and stuff, but who would cook the soup for grandgaylings?

Re:I for one (1)

cronco (1435465) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499074)

That would, probably once and for all, settle the debate if "gayness" is genetic or a "lifestyle choice".

Re:I for one (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499124)

Seriously, how is this flamebait? Maybe 'gayling' isn't a terribly PC term for what I am talking about, but the OP coined it, not me. I'm not sure how postulating that an experiment that would answer a much studied question (i.e. the influences of nature/nurture on homosexuality) would be interesting counts as flaimebait....

Re:I for one (1)

Soul-Burn666 (574119) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499070)

You welcome robotic dogs [youtube.com] from the 60's?
They come with a bone of their own.

Re:I for one (1)

arndawg (1468629) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499128)

No I was refering to TFA.

What a waste of money (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498528)

All the world needs is bloody gay mice.

Re:What a waste of money (4, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498588)

These mice are no more gay than using a surrogate mother is adultery.

They're combining DNA, not teaching mice to appreciate musical theatre.

Re:What a waste of money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498678)

These mice are no more gay than using a surrogate mother is adultery.

You are illustrating one dubious practice with another [freepctools.com] . Many people will agree that they are no more gay than a surrogate mother is adultery, considering both to be true.

Re:What a waste of money (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499106)

amazing spambot still fails turing test... news at 11

Re:What a waste of money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498692)

Actually, if you read TFA:

Dr. Ascot says that he repeated this experiment dozens of times without success before he finally discovered the missing ingredient: teaching the mice to appreciate musical theatre. "When the curtains came down after the performance of 'Wicked', I looked into their cage and my jaw must have hit the floor... Mickey and Stuart Little were spooning! I knew right then that we had reached a watershed moment in our research.

Re:What a waste of money (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498710)

All the world needs is bloody gay mice.

Why, did the two male fathers had sex with each other?

The beginning of the end. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498568)

... It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.

When people are dying around the globe from deceases that we do not how to cure, the research money is going to give GAY couples children.

Re:The beginning of the end. (0)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498726)

As long as we still got billions to pump into a holy war against freedom (or something like that, it's kinda fuzzy), I see no harm in pumping a few thousand bucks into giving gays the ability to procreate.

I'd rather give money to fags than to wankers, given a choice.

And before you ask what war has to do with gay procreation: I'll think of an answer once you tell me what the latter has to do with "people dying around the globe from diseases".

Re:The beginning of the end. (2)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498922)

I'd rather give money to fags than to wankers, given a choice.

You'll disappoint a lot of slashdotters here.

Re:The beginning of the end. (1)

mcneely.mike (927221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498746)

dying... from deceases

I like that.... i want to dye from deceasing... oooh! ooooh! can i tie-dye from deceasing?
Craig: "That would be so cool."

Re:The beginning of the end. (1)

lacqui (1754380) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498888)

Depending on the way you decease, you could dye your surroundings blood-red, shit-brown, or any other bodily colour.

Marriage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498582)

The gay marriage future looks bright.

Oh, Great! (5, Funny)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498590)

Now instead of the mice in my house just eating my cheese, I have to worry about them reupholstering my furniture.

Close, but no cigar (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498618)

In the work reported today, the Behringer team manipulated fibroblasts from a male (XY) mouse fetus

Yeah yeah yeah. Just two fathers. That's some trick there, getting a male to generate a fetus. What an age we live in.

Cut me a break, and at least report that a female was in some way required, OK? I know it does not have the same "zing" as a story not involving females at all, but still.

Re:Close, but no cigar (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498756)

It does go on to propose that invitro fertilisation could be used, wiht a female only used for incubation. Presumably it's not outside the realms of possiblity for an incubator capable of this being created in the future, so the whole process may not need a female.

Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498620)

To me, this is one of them. Don't you agree? What about if you could make a human-animal hybrid, would you do that?

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498682)

How does one lead to the other?

All this could accomplish is that two men will be able to have biological offspring. And if you can give me one good reason why that shouldn't be, without invoking your imaginary friend up on a fluffy cloud whose opinion doesn't really mean that much to me (unless my friend Harvey's opinion starts meaning anything to you), I'd like to hear it.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (2)

Le Marteau (206396) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498942)

And if you can give me one good reason why that shouldn't be, without invoking your imaginary friend up on a fluffy cloud whose opinion doesn't really mean that much to me (unless my friend Harvey's opinion starts meaning anything to you), I'd like to hear it.

Would you like it if both your parents were male, and incubated in a surrogate womb for hire?

Would you like it if all your friends knew that? Because by the time they are teenagers, that kind of information will be freely available by doing the equivalent of a "Google".

In the future, Julian Assange style data dumps will not be limited to banks and governments, and will be orders of magnitude more common than today. And at the top of the list will be documents regarding people's true lineage.

Forever available to anyone with an internet connection.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (1)

gyaku_zuki (1778282) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499114)

Why the hell did you bring Assange into this? Lol. You are paranoid if you think the world cares that you have 2 male/female/whatever parents. I like to think that in a future where we have FUCKING ARTIFICIAL WOMBS we have got past the stage of caring who people's parents are. I'd rather have two parents who were loving enough to go to all that trouble to make me than someone who got knocked up on a drunken night out, or couldn't be bothered wearing a condom that night etc...

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499126)

...and a couple of decades later, no one will care anymore.

That's also conveniently what I see as the ultimate result of businesses checking myspace and facebook profiles -- either the majority will become much tighter about how they present themselves on the 'net, or the current older crop will die and eventually no one will care because it's not "shocking" anymore -- everyone does it and always has.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (0)

mcneely.mike (927221) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498766)

HELL YES! My wife with a Tribble so i could have non-stop sex!

Oh.... damn. Then she wouldn't need me... she could have off-spring all on her lonesome just by eating Quadrotriticale. Damn...damn...damn.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498770)

No, I don't agree. And what does it have to do with making human-animal hybrids? And what would be wrong with that, anyway? I'd do that -- well, I don't have the knowledge to be able to, but I certainly wouldn't protest if someone else did it. Surely you can see the advantage of having a human head/brain and the body of a horse?

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498808)

Is it wrong if the first thing that flashed through my mind was "porn industry would love it"?

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498946)

No, I don't agree. And what does it have to do with making human-animal hybrids? And what would be wrong with that, anyway? I'd do that -- well, I don't have the knowledge to be able to, but I certainly wouldn't protest if someone else did it. Surely you can see the advantage of having a human head/brain and the body of a horse?

Is it wrong if the first thing that flashed through my mind was "porn industry would love it"?

I think that a lot of slashdotters are thinking of the advantage of doing it the other way round to GP's suggestion , like the body of a woman and the brain of a rabbit.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (1)

elewton (1743958) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499222)

Or an entire preserve of human-body bonobo-brained animals. You could charge admission.

Re:Some scientific pursuits we should refrain from (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499036)

To me, this is one of them. Don't you agree? What about if you could make a human-animal hybrid, would you do that?

Or even cats and dogs, living together.

Same sex couples, with limitations (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498634)

It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.

As long as they're happy with only female children, or are males themselves.

Re:Same sex couples, with limitations (1)

Jappus (1177563) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498698)

It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.

As long as they're happy with only female children, or are males themselves.

You know, if they are able to get two arbitrary (male/female) sets of genetic code to combine, I imagine it's not so much of a stretch to assume that you can either:

1.) Introduce a Y chromosome from a third party or
2.) Convert the gene sequences from an X chromosome into a Y chromosome (or at least those parts that are compatible)

You know, that's the nearly unqiue property of genetic engineering, the most pressing issue is not whether something is possible at all, but whether it is morally acceptable.

Bah, puny achievement! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498646)

What about every American's four fathers?

End of an era (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498648)

Farewell to "your momma" jokes

female - female ? (1)

z-j-y (1056250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498662)

so lesbian couples will only have daughters? and the daughters are probably lesbians too? Amazons!

Re:female - female ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34499002)

not amazons... Feminists!

Damn (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498664)

Couldn't those scientists just have adopted, if they wanted them so badly? Mice prodution is already high enough - now the issue should be distribution. Think of the baby mice!

Monstrous fetuses will prevent it (0)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498686)

It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note.

Refining the process in humans would probably result in the production of numerous fetuses with congenital defects resulting in death soon after birth, similar to what's been seen in cloning of various animals. Intentionally doing such a thing would (or, at least, should) never be permitted by a civilized society, not even in the name of "equality".

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498820)

All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498834)

Why? You may belive that there is some fundamental difference between humans and other animals, but myself and many others do not. That doesn't make us uncivilised.

On the other hand, I don't think we as a species need any additional vectors for reproducing -- we seem to do well enough as it is...

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499154)

Why? You may belive that there is some fundamental difference between humans and other animals, but myself and many others do not. That doesn't make us uncivilised.

This isn't right in humans or in any animals. We don't know what the long-term effect of this would be in mice. The point the OP is making is that humans have differences in genetics that make this process even more fraught with danger than the basic stuff they've managed to accomplish so far. Allowing offspring to go through that is totally uncivilised.

On the other hand, I don't think we as a species need any additional vectors for reproducing -- we seem to do well enough as it is...

Mark my words, crazy fuckers and those promoting 'equality' for same-sex couples will be pushing for this. I have no problems with same-sex relationships but this kind of stuff is where we need to draw a very clear line.

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498862)

The same could be said about IV fertilization and other fertility treatments. In fact, the same thing WAS said about them, but it was a strawman every bit there as it is here. You don't even know what's gonna happen, yet you have no problem with conjuring the image of numerous "monstrous fetuses" that die "soon after birth", apparently in an attempt to provoke both disgust and sympathy in your audience on the same time. Who's gonna think of the monster children?

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it (1)

jellyfrog (1645619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498970)

Indeed, we're not going to be doing this anytime soon, but I don't expect never. Perhaps a few hundred years should be enough to refine our techniques to the point where we could do this without introducing any defects whatsoever. "Opens the possibility" is just the start..

Re:Monstrous fetuses will prevent it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34499078)

And technology will eventually overcome those problems. What conscientious objection will you offer then? Or, will you play the God card that trumps all?

They just killed my favorite Radio Eriwan joke! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498694)

Question for great Radio Eriwan: Can two men have baby?

Answer from great Radio Eriwan: In principle, no, but testing continues.

And now they go ahead and just do it. Way to ruin a perfectly good joke.

But on the bright side, I can see the religious fundies already throw a tantrum. So one joke got replaced with another one, I think life balances itself out.

Males from females (1)

Troll-Under-D'Bridge (1782952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498702)

I've always assumed that females are more durable than males (long life span, more resistant to diseases, etc). If there's one sex in danger of extinction, it's the males of the species. So I think it's more valuable research to try and figure out how to create male babies from the eggs or stem cells of two donor mothers. Of course, we can always resort to cloning, but that would not lead to the diversity that's the main benefit of sexual reproduction (aside from pleasures of the one-night stand that is).

Re:Males from females (2)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498778)

"I've always assumed that females are more durable than males (long life span, more resistant to diseases, etc)."

You cannot know how much of the shorter lifespan is because of gender roles. (Be macho, binge drinking etc.)

Re:Males from females (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498806)

its all good...China is taking care of this problem. because of the natality limitations families usually prefer boys over girls..i saw a study that showed that in a few years time they wont find women to marry to

Re:Males from females (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498892)

Do you realise that genetic engineering is pretty much at the stage of reshuffling a deck of cards?
The technology of producing working Y-chromosomes out of thin air is about as close as a replicator synthesizing your favourite Klingon dish out of raw sewage.

Mac users rejoice! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498714)

Congratulations. You'll now be able to pass on your genes biologically.

Stupid Science (-1)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498764)

Don't these so-called scientists have better things to do with their time? It's a parlor trick and looking at their lists of uses they're struggling to find excuses for it. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. But if their goal was to get their names in the paper which will help with their next research grant, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

At long last!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498798)

A cure for sexual reproduction!!

Twins (1)

krystofa (537840) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498830)

So the question is, did they take all the good genes from the two fathers but somehow accidentally a smaller less perfect twin was produced and.... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096320/ [imdb.com] (for those that don't get the reference, jokes are always best if they need to be explained) - Christopher

Please don't tell me... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498898)

they named the fathers Adam and Steve.

(I'm a slashdotter reader, I don't read the articles. Or, even the summaries. I figure the title of the story is sufficient enough.)

what lesbians were tlaking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498902)

IN YOUR FACE LESBIANS :D

Re:what lesbians were tlaking about? (2)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498952)

IN YOUR FACE LESBIANS :D

This conjures up a very interesting picture .... let me just think about it for a bit.

Quotation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34498924)

It also opens the provocative possibility of same-sex couples having their own genetic children, the researchers note."

Said by the XENOPHOBIC annonymous writer.

Males are the givers of life (0)

droidsURlooking4 (1543007) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498940)

Despite the stereotype, males do produce the seed which is life. Females just produce eggs. So this shouldn't be surprising.

human assisted reproductive technology (-1, Troll)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34498954)

i.e. man fucking sheep.

Can I be both fathers? (3, Interesting)

funfail (970288) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499006)

So the same method can theoretically be applied to two sperms from the same male. I can be the father and mother of my own child then.

Should he/she be considered my "child" or my "clone"?

The end of vi vs emacs? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34499084)

Children of two fathers? Now we can fix everythin! a Raymon - Stallman children would settle the differences between vi and emacs!

Mice have it all (1)

kstahmer (134975) | more than 3 years ago | (#34499138)

A while back, scientists cured obesity in mice [google.com] . Now, in addition to a mouse having a mom & dad, it can also have a dad & dad and a mom & mom. Mice have it all. Humans are still waiting. John Steinbeck would be pleased.

Provocative? Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34499156)

Gay offspring provocative? Why?
As I see it, while most people prefer a partner of the opposite sex, some prefer a same sex partner.
The only downside to such an arrangement that I can think of is that such a couple cannot have offspring.
Now, with this technique, they might! So this should be anti-provocative, if anything, removing (or at least reducing) the only real "problem" of same sex partners.

Ohhh FATHERS.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34499198)

Did anyone else read this as "Scientists Create Mice from 2 Feathers" the first time? That woulda been wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy cooler!

My Two Dads... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34499224)

In other news, NBC sues for patent infringement, claiming hit TV 80's show, "My Two Dads" was their idea.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?