Wednesday, July 22, 2015

thank GOD its moved past what Ridley Scott could imagine back in the day - now just gotta keep Tards out the way!


thescientist |  Late last year, Steve Goldman of the University of Rochester and his colleagues reported that they had transplanted immature glial cells from donated human fetuses into the brains of immunodeficient mouse pups. These human glial cells matured into astrocytes and developed as the primary astrocyte population in the newborn mouse brain. One unexpected outcome of the team’s research, published in the Journal of Neuroscience (34:16153-61), was that these human-mouse chimeras outperformed normal mice almost fourfold in a variety of cognition tests, underscoring the importance of astrocytes in regulating synaptic plasticity and neural connectivity to enhance learning and memory. But the study also raised important ethical considerations—namely, what biological properties differentiate Homo sapiens from other organisms, and when should such “humanized” animals be afforded the rights that people currently enjoy.

Goldman is quick to state that the enhanced memory and learning performance of these human-mouse chimeras did not make the mice more human. “It’s still a mouse brain, not a human brain, but all the non-neuronal cells are human,” Goldman told New Scientist at the time of the publication. “This does not provide the animals with additional capabilities that could in any way be ascribed or perceived as specifically human. Rather, the human cells are simply improving the efficiency of the mouse’s own neural networks. It’s still a mouse.”

At the same time, the team had ethical reservations about repeating these types of experiments on monkeys, presumably following the National Academies’ guidelines that no human embryonic stem cells should be introduced into nonhuman primates at any stage of fetal or postnatal development. Is there really an ethical difference in performing these experiments on mice as opposed to monkeys? The scientists have not addressed this question, perhaps because it is a difficult one to answer.

Human intelligence, as difficult as it is to define, is often thought to be one of the most important characteristics that differentiate Homo sapiens from all other organisms. However, the capacity to humanize animals has the potential to complicate this assessment of being human. For example, should the definition of human or humanlike intelligence be psychometric, based on a constellation of cognitive processes, or should it be neurophysiologic or neurogenetic because it is inextricably linked to the brain? The question of distinguishing human and nonhuman characteristics has arisen regarding our close primate relatives. Last October, a New York Appeals Court announced that it will consider the issue of whether chimpanzees are entitled to “legal personhood.” Similarly, in December, an appeals court in Argentina recognized orangutans as having basic legal rights, stating that these primates deserve living quarters in a sanctuary and not in a zoo.

18 comments:

ken said...

Poor writing [many times I] am going to have a totally... should replace [that many times is]

CNu said...

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....., I can't wait till this game of musical chairs heats up and gets going in earnest.

Vic78 said...

http://marvel.wikia.com/Herbert_Wyndham_(Earth-616)

I'm first in line. Anyone with objections should know that their concerns are noted.

CNu said...

Don't even nod in their direction. They "object" to the point of existential conflict. Laissez le bon temps roulez!!!

BigDonOne said...

...FWIW, it *IS* more evidence that IntelligencePotential is genetically driven....
...All feti are *NOT* created equal.

CNu said...

No Festus, it's evidence that human brain cells transplanted into mouse pups will form a human-level - rather than rodent-level - connectome. This is all...,

John Kurman said...

I wonder what would happen if they did this to cephalopods? Would it be all "I'a Cthulhu, Cthulhu fthagn!"?

ken said...

"Reconstituting human glial cells or neurons in animal brains could eventually impart complex cognitive behaviors, self-awareness, and/or other humanlike personality characteristics to these chimeras. Such research highlights the need for scientists and policymakers to resolve the question of how to define humanlike intelligence regarding the genetic or chimeric alteration of animals. While there is no clear answer to these questions, I advocate that intelligence is a valid criterion when considering what is humanlike or animal-like, and that scientists must develop both psychometric and neurophysiologic criteria in the definition of humanlike intelligence. "


That's an interesting dilemma. Take glial cells from a potential human we have deemed to have no rights and then be concerned about what the rights should be of the animal we inject the rightless human genes into.

CNu said...

lol, a pitiful crippled non-viable cephalopod. Those jokers are a wholly alien and separate tangent from the anus-first vertebrates...,

CNu said...

It's only a dilemma for morons allowed to vote. Those with the capacity to do this will do it irrespective of whatever worries oxygen-thieving tards.

BigDonOne said...

"Goldman is quick to state that the enhanced memory and learning performance of these human-mouse chimeras did not make the mice more human."
What part of enhanced don't you understand...?? The genetic change in the mouse brain improved mouse "IQ".

Vic78 said...

I was having a conversation the other day and the person I was talking to wasn't aware of how good we have it right now. I was saying that we're on our way to doing things like this. I don't think people are aware of how close we are.

This could be the Hail Mary you were talking about a while back.

CNu said...

Reread the article slowly and see if your shriveled little tinfoil clad peanut can grasp the fact that human cells were transplanted into rodent pup crania - where they grew and differentiated as human cells are wont to do. No genetic changes were imposed on the rodents - it was a straightforward transplant resulting in a chimeric organism, said chimera having enhanced capabilities.

The changes so imposed did not become heritable.

CNu said...

Nah magne, just further refinements on some old=school tools with broad application http://subrealism.blogspot.com/search?q=vat+grown

Gene-doping a la the Bourne legacy is REALLY where it's at, imoho. Not to mention embryonic gene editing via CRISPR. Guaranteed my grandchildren will benefit from these technologies. Primary barrier to rapid achievement in the exploding field of biology as technology - will be pandering to tards. We don't have generations to waste on not going full-steam ahead in this domain like we wasted generations not studying psychotropic and nootropic substances.

John Kurman said...

You are forgetting the strong glia-immune system thingie. humans being some of the dirtiest carrion feeders ever would seem to count some. Don't discount the anus in the seascape.

BigDonOne said...

"...did not become heritable..."
I'd withhold judgement on a thing like that until all the facts are in.
You don't know until you breed the improved mice and see what you get. What they did is some pretty serious messing around, and it doesn't take much to change genes. That's how evolution occurs.

For example, just a change in sleep patterns can cause genetic changes in humans. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3169794/Just-ONE-night-bad-sleep-alter-genes-Pulling-nighter-damages-DNA-biological-clocks-claims-study.html

Vic78 said...

Aren't the tards in the way of all progress at this point? I can't forget their elite enablers.

Dale Asberry said...

Don, it doesn't work like that.

There's Still A Civil War Bubbling For Control Of The Israeli Government

mondoweiss |    Any Palestinian following the developments in the Israeli protest movement against “the judicial coup” will require nerves...