Scientists Use Stem Cells To Create Mice With Two Genetic Fathers

this is just wrong. that's all there is to it.

@ -my name here- and josh d

There are three reasons why I can imagine you believe this is wrong.

1. You are against chromosomal/genetic modification.
2. You are against the thought of men being together and being able to have a genetic child.
3. You think that this might be a way to phase out the need for one of the two sexes.

If you picked 1 or 2, I believe you are ignorant and stupid. 3 I can somewhat see, however I doubt that would happen even if it were possible.

This is so cool, we can finally catchup with lizards! (I'm referencing how female Komodo dragons can breed genetically different offspring without a male).
Who knows, this may come in handy if we ever make it to the point of colonizing the farthest reaches of space and there aren't enough male/female pairings to produce generation after generation of viable offspring.

(Oh and by the way, no one should call anyone 'stupid,' an opinion is an opinion and should be treated as such)

I love how it says female are still required because of their uterus and in the related article section it has an article about artificial uteri.

lol

p.s. the thought of same sex pregnancies is very disturbing.

@ Magoonski

Hitler had an opinion, was this not stupid?

I can't wait until I can have a child with my future lesbian partner without the need for men. And honestly, if men can have children without women, more power to them. We should be united in our goal for equal reproductive rights if they're within the realm of possibility.

Kudos to the scientists responsible! The future is looking brighter every day!

I hate to sound insensitive, but I'd prefer gays just to adopt. Lots of orphaned kids, don't need to add yet another section of baby-producers. I understand it may be different to have your own kid and its a lot to ask of the gay community to accept orphans as their kids but it would be a nice win for helping the WORLD, not just a group.

Also, limited resources on this planet....we don't need more people or more ways to produce them.

@ kokopure...is reproductive rights (in terms of both sexes being able to produce) really a necessary issue? In other words....think we got bigger fish to fry

While some might find this disturbing for the purposes of human reproduction, I think this could be potentially great for use with endangered species. Especially so, if artificial uteri could be used and a species were left with only one sex left in their population.

next up: Bene Tleilax and the axlotol tanks. I kid, I kid. Seriously though, an interesting development.

@ JoelS
Thats hilarious!
@ tbeech
That is an interesting way to look at this.

The most interesting aspect of this find is that this discovery makes a huge impact on the issue of ethics. Hypothetically, if 2 parents from the same sex are able to reproduce with out any need of the opposite sex, how would the Natural Law theory of ethics account for that?

Personally, I agree mostly with conquerall where we don't need more ways to reproduce.

Also, I have a feeling that children produced this way are going to have some very odd genetic disorders due to the fact that they are only getting male DNA, though I'm far from an expert in this field.

@ JcBullen

I declare GODWIN'S LAW!!!

lol

This is going to be a really awkward future. I can just picture being 60 and telling my grand children I remember a time when you needed just one male and one female to produce a kid.

This would be awesome for endangered species. Same sex couples? I don't know. I'm all for same-sex relationships and such, but I find this kind of... I don't know, disturbing, I guess. I don't think we need another group of reproducers. After all, there are thousands of orphans in need of a good home.
@jcbullen Yes, his opinion was stupid. However, this isn't Hitler's opinion, is it? If someone doesn't like this idea, so be it. We're not promoting genocide here.

www.geekness.webs.com

@quantumwarrior

nah I wasn't comparing his opinion to Hitler, I was merely trying to say that there DEFINITELY are stupid opinions. Not to say that they are necessarily wrong, because an opinion is in the eye of the beholder.

Either way, I hope everyone who says we don't need another group of reproducers and to just adopt doesn't have any genetic offspring. Otherwise you are just giant hypocrites. You could easily have adopted, and did you? We don't need to restrict who can have children. Let everyone have children, why should some be given that right and others not? You don't have any better reason to have one than they do, them not being genetically able to shouldn't have anything to do with it. Millions of people have genetic diseases, but you wouldn't say that they can't change that to be "normal like you" just because they were born that way would you? What we do need is to limit the number of children people can have. So what if that is big brotherish, it's the only chance we've got at maintaining our population with people out there who have 5, 10 or more children.

I think people are missing some of the moral/ethical issues in the steps that would be necessary to bring this method to humans. They were intentionally creating some the mice to use as parts to make other mice. Has anyone thought about how many mice were killed in order to get the successful result? How many aberrations were created and discarded before the desired result was achieved? Perhaps no one is thinking about these question because right now they are just talking about mice, but when you consider how many humans lives might be destroyed or deformed trying to perfect this for humans it's totally different. Who is going to take care of all of the deformed and defective children before the same sex couple can get the one they want?

I'm not homosexual and I've got two kids via the old fashioned way, but I'm willing to guess that anyone who has the desire to have children no matter their orientation is not willing to potentially sacrifice so many other lives in the process. Perhaps I'm wrong and the question of whether we should will be overcome by the so called right of same sex couples to procreate using whatever science will allow it. However, these and other questions may be the reason why this technology may never be developed for humans.

Do I understand this procedure correctly? The two males don't become a parent, but more of a grand-parent. Wasn't an extra "generation" of the mouse necessary before the final offspring? It doesn't sound practical for gay men to have children, but grand-children? What happens to the XO/XX chimeras offspring?

One of sciences requirements of life is procreation, or the development of future generations. That means you have to be able to do that to technically be alive.
So without science meddling in mother natures methods. Those that choose same sex do not get to continue and procreate further life. This is all part of natural selection. It is okay by me that same sexes fall in love I phases my life in no way. However the continued passing of weakened DNA that humankind has devolved to is deplorable. Should you be allowed to live your life as you see fit sure. Should you be allowed to create life? I don't know try it without a test tube. That is where my view is.

O a side note what sort of defects occur if you allow a YY combination using this process. Does it occur similarly to the XXX abnormality?

O it is called trisomy... XXX.
The effects are:
tall stature, learning disabilities, limited fertility

I have thought of a viable reason to do these experiments though. There are two portions of DNA that never change.

1)Mitochondrial
2)the y chromosome in men

What that means to you in relation to the article.
Neither of these sets are changed or exchanged since the beginning of mans arrival as a species. The mitochondrial DNA is your long dead great... grand mothers direct DNA unchanged. Same goes with the Y chromosome for men. It doesn't have any alleles to exchange with to prevent mutation. That is what brought on the popsci story long ago that suggests men may go extinct. I propose that both will under that line of thinking because of the mitochondrial DNA. Anyway this could allow for some DNA exchanges that could strengthen or possible make worse our whole species.

What are the four major requirements for life?

1. Reproduction (Fail without outside forces)
2. Response/reaction to environment
3. Metabolism
4. Growth

Look at it from a utilitarian point of view. The bottom line is, this will make more people live a better life, so it's morally justified. It will make the parents happy to have biological children, and the children happy to have biological parents. The technology can only have one pitfall - if society's too close-minded and discriminates against these children. But this can be said about any technology. If people had an irrational fear of glasses, those would be banned too.

Thats so gay

@jcbullen
I guess you're right. They do have the right to have genetic children. When this does become perfected for human use, I bet it would be pretty expensive. Not a lot of people could afford it anyways. Limiting the number of children people could have would be a good way to control the population. What would happen to those children born above the limit though?

twobrain- we ended the natural selection a long time ago. guns, weapons, building, changing weather patterns, all medicine and procejures, genetically modified food, the list goes on.

and congratulations to anyone affect by this research.

1) This process would never be viable for humans. It requires creating thousands of potential lives in order to harvest a specific defect - linked with cognitive impairment - to harvest again genetic material that a surrogate mother must raise.

This means that you are not taking Sam and Mike to create Samike - you are introducing Ike into the process, on a cellular level, and Ike is a genetic defect - likely with other issues as well.

2) Do you know why there are very few diseases that lead to sterillity? Moreover, why there are virtually none that lead to life-long from birth sterillity? Because such a disease would naturally breed itself out of existance. That process throughout history has been a boon to humanity - and we are better off for those diseases that have bred themselves out of genetic code.

Why then would you bypass such a disease eliminating process for another disease that leads to life long sterillity?

Whether infectious, developmental, or genetic, there is no doubt that it stops a natural process (reproduction), and therefore can be catagorized as a disease. It may not be PC, but homosexuality is a disease (be it of the body or the mind). Since it is not fatal, it should be up to the paitient to seek a cure, but the treatment is simple enough - since the treatment (reguardless of the cause) is behavioral.

Interesting to see how inheritance of certain genetic aliments are affected (or not for that matter). For example, let's say your family has always had a certain condition on the mother's side but not on the males side (or whatever). Would reproducing this way over multiple generations contribute to eliminating these types of genetic conditions? Earlier there was talk of Hitler in the comments - he was looking for something similar, except his labs had people rather than mice.

@Oakspar77777

You are an utter imbecile. There is literally not a single good or relevant point in your post. In fact, I'd so far go as to point out that pretty much everything you just mentioned is quite false. People who seek to copulate with other people of the same gender are breeding themselves out of existence? Really? They are? You cannot prove this by any stretch, you cannot even pretend that there is anything solid on which you base this assumption. I'll take this another step further:

Why is it that much more harmful, and much more difficult genetic disorders and diseases (since we're going with your assumption that this is what homosexuality is) aren't bred out of existence? What about the literal dozens of different genetic conditions that cause mental retardation? I don't see that going anywhere. The fact is, I haven't met a single gay man or gay woman who needs a full time nurse to care for them. Yet the gays are the ones who obviously need to be bred out of existence. Right. No you make a valid point, moron.

And why is it that if this truly was the case that people who are openly gay can continue to pass on their genetic material and have been doing so for vast stretches of time. I really hope you aren't going to try and imply that surrogates are anything new. Really, you don't want to try that one. And if you do try to say that surrogates came about as the result of gay men then what about people who simply cannot make children as the result of any number of problems? By the by if your little theory held any water at all then all gays would be sterile and barren, you bigot.

@twobrain It is impossible to create a viable human embryo without at least one X. You would not find a human with a YY genotype.

@Oakspar77777

Regarding your statement:
"Whether infectious, developmental, or genetic, there is no doubt that it stops a natural process (reproduction), and therefore can be catagorized as a disease. It may not be PC, but homosexuality is a disease (be it of the body or the mind). Since it is not fatal, it should be up to the paitient to seek a cure, but the treatment is simple enough - since the treatment (reguardless of the cause) is behavioral."

SCIENCE has proven that there is no treatment for homosexuality. Reparative therapy, as it's known, has been proven to be detrimental to mental health, often with the ultimate response to the treatment being suicide.

The fact is, it's NOT a disease, nor is it a "lifestyle" any more than heterosexuality is. Humans can reproduce asexually, and do in quite a few parts of the world; is that a disease? Furthermore, if homosexuality was a disease, how would one catch it? Certainly not by being around homosexuals, or being born from them (yes, there are homosexuals who reproduce), or blood transfusions. Unlike mental diseases, such as depression (true, chemical depression, not situational), which there is a genetic link to, there is no evidence that homosexuality, or asexuality, or heterosexuality are diseases. They are naturally tendencies occurring in humans, other mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and more.

As for those who mentioned all those lives sacrificed to get the experiment to work, where are you getting that from? No where in the article does it say that millions of (or any) mice were harvested for parts; it states that stem cells were used. Stem cells form in every living being, and are harvested from many sources - not always embryos.

Personally, I can see this research being used for both things I support and things I don't, just as with anything else. It's an interesting development.

Very cool. Yeah adoption is definitely better for the world but I can't blame people for wanting their kids to be like them.

And let me say again that this is fucking awesome!!!

and to those who say this is unnatural, you help in halting scientific and social progress that is inevitable. so please get over yourselves and realize that by complaining, you're denying people technology and equality that we all deserve..

@AmoLudare

It wasn't possible but with tweaks to this process they have created who knows. With some refinement they may be able to force it to happen.

Creation: super freak super freak...

I guess when we started killing people with nuclear weapons and said maybe we should explore the science further before testing its limits, we never caught the lesson there.

That will be a piece of cake for gay families to be even more assimilated into society, just have a "retard" child, when it's viable, extract the stem cells and abort it, and then, find a woman to have your love baby!!! no sweat!!! Sincerely, why do you have to raise the possibility of gay couples benefiting from this grotesque, incomplete and totally experimental technology??? I'm sure you could have presented it in some other, less inflammatory and unbiased way...

And, yes, Oakspar77777 is a moron...

Awesome this pretty cool. We really don't need women. But I love them so we will keep some of them around.

@jcbullen: I assume you were referring to me with the hypocrisy comment. I am just entering grad school and don't plan on having children until 30. As for number of children, I have made it very evident to my girlfriend that I will only have 2 children of my own and will adopt if I want more. I did mention it would be a burden on the gay community to rely on adoption when they could have genetic children but my viewpoint remains unchanged. If I was unable to have children I wouldn't go out of my way to produce genetic offspring, I would adopt.

@Oakspar77777

Your logic is flawed. If homosexuality is a disease because it stops reproduction and diseases that stop reproduction phase out via natural selection. Why is this 3000+ year old "disease" still around when all other similar diseases have been eliminated?

Because homosexuality is not a disease, it's not a lifestyle, and it's not a condition. It is a difference in chemical reactions to hormones. When exposed to estrogen a heterosexual man has a chemical reaction causing him to become aroused, whereas a homosexual man has this reaction to testosterone. I hate to condense all human emotions to chemical reactions and the electrical impulses they create, but that is the case. If you were correct you could argue that everyone who has a different chemical reaction to puppies from you is diseased.

@MeanAndMe "Humans can reproduce asexually, and do in quite a few parts of the world"

I'm going to need proof of that. And links to the location of whatever nuclear cesspool those people have been drinking from.

@milerm84 "It is a difference in chemical reactions to hormones. When exposed to estrogen a heterosexual man has a chemical reaction causing him to become aroused, whereas a homosexual man has this reaction to testosterone."

I'm going to need proof of that. So you are saying that people suck the hormones out of others which cause differing arousal? We don't receive estrogen or testosterone from someone else.

@Bibliotech Social progress has been defined many ways over the years. Look at WWII, social progress has been defined as taking over china, incinerating jews, killing all those social progress defines as unworthy of living, burning churches, killing in the name of religion, killing in the name of hating religion. ad infinatum of evils. progress isn't guaranteed to be good.

The word progress is implied to always be moving in a positive direction. That there are only two directions progress and regress. But progress comes in a million different flavors and directions. Progress to hitler, but the jews may have defined progress differently. Who do we let define our progress? Japan defined progress as taking over china, the chinese disagreed.

Mao later defined social progress as starving tens of millions of his own people and burning thousands of years of beautiful history, the dead would have defined progress differently I'm sure. Stalin too, defined progress as killing millions of his own people, ukranians more terrified of their own progress minded governement than death. growing food to be shipped out as they and their families starved to death. Progress was the river so polluted it would catch fire. Yes that was done in the name of progress. The social part only implies forcing your particular view of progress on an entire society. Which of the myriad versions of progress should we choose. yours? why? How do you know that your vision of progress will actually improve things, instead of making them worse?

Moving Beyond the Homosexual Rights Issues this "New" Discovery Enriches the Human Experience with.

The BIGGER Picture is the Evidence in GODs WORD, Where The Bible Clearly Describes the FACT That the MALE DNA came first and Out of His DNA, GOD then Created / Engineered the female.

Which is why the Possibility of female DNA Procreation in Humans is IMPOSSIBLE !

Man Is The MASTER Sex, From which all Humanity Develops. NOT FEMALE !

@LoyaL8000

Oh god. You just opened up something that you shouldn't have.

Do you come here JUST to try and spread "God's word?" I believe in God and all, but I also believe that God created this world to be explored through science. Did God personally speak to you? If so, can you give him my name? I'd like to have a conversation with him to see if he can get me in the NHL.