Two male mice have babies!!

[boatsnguitars]

TRIGGER WARNING.

https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-c ... n-12829194

Coming to humans soon!

Scientists say they have bred mice using eggs originating from male cells, in a breakthrough which could one day pave the way for human male couples to have children.

Researchers claim they successfully created the eggs by turning male XY chromosome pairs from the skin cells of male mice into female XX chromosome pairs.

This was achieved by converting the skin cells into stem cells, deleting the Y chromosomes, copying the x chromosomes and then pairing the copies with the original X chromosomes.

This allows the stem cell to be programmed to become an egg. The egg was then fertilised with sperm from another mouse.

Researchers say the technique was used to create seven mice pups, which appeared healthy and had a normal lifespan.

And they believe the technique could one day be used to allow human male couples to have children together using an egg created from their own cells.

It could also be used to treat Turner syndrome - a genetic condition that affects only females and happens when one of the X chromosome is missing or partially missing.

But Professor Katsuhiko Hayashi from Osaka University, who carried out the research and presented it at the human gene-editing summit at the Crick Institute in London on Wednesday, said it could take years before his technique is used successfully in human cells.

How do religious people feel about this?

[JoeyKnothead]

TRIGGER WARNING.

https://news.sky.com/story/scientists-c ... n-12829194

Coming to humans soon!

Scientists say they have bred mice using eggs originating from male cells, in a breakthrough which could one day pave the way for human male couples to have children.

Researchers claim they successfully created the eggs by turning male XY chromosome pairs from the skin cells of male mice into female XX chromosome pairs.

This was achieved by converting the skin cells into stem cells, deleting the Y chromosomes, copying the x chromosomes and then pairing the copies with the original X chromosomes.

This allows the stem cell to be programmed to become an egg. The egg was then fertilised with sperm from another mouse.

Researchers say the technique was used to create seven mice pups, which appeared healthy and had a normal lifespan.

And they believe the technique could one day be used to allow human male couples to have children together using an egg created from their own cells.

It could also be used to treat Turner syndrome - a genetic condition that affects only females and happens when one of the X chromosome is missing or partially missing.

But Professor Katsuhiko Hayashi from Osaka University, who carried out the research and presented it at the human gene-editing summit at the Crick Institute in London on Wednesday, said it could take years before his technique is used successfully in human cells.

How do religious people feel about this?

I swear to God, if anyone tries to put me a uterus in, they're gonna have a time of it!

I think this is pretty cool if it could be used to help folks out.

But ya gotta know there's gonna be that bunch that'll say they're making transbabies.

[Purple Knight]

Ultimately the baby of two males will either absorb both its male parents' X chromosomes (one from each, becoming female) or obtain only one, from one father, becoming male.

This baby has a smaller pool of X chromosomes to choose from, whereas the baby from a male and a female has three possible options it can obtain, two options from the mother and one from the father. The daughter of two females has even better options, having four X's to choose from.

Let's look at colourblindness, and always assume we have exactly one copy of the dysfunctional trait in the parents.

If we have two male parents, all daughters will be carriers, as well as half of sons being expressors, though the other half of sons will be clear.

If we have a male and female parent, half of the offspring will get the bad copy, a full half will be clear, and only half of those who got it will be affected (the males).

If we have two female parents, none of the offspring will be affected. Though half will be carriers.

[JoeyKnothead]

Ultimately the baby of two males will either absorb both its male parents' X chromosomes (one from each, becoming female) or obtain only one, from one father, becoming male.

This baby has a smaller pool of X chromosomes to choose from, whereas the baby from a male and a female has three possible options it can obtain, two options from the mother and one from the father. The daughter of two females has even better options, having four X's to choose from.

Let's look at colourblindness, and always assume we have exactly one copy of the dysfunctional trait in the parents.

If we have two male parents, all daughters will be carriers, as well as half of sons being expressors, though the other half of sons will be clear.

If we have a male and female parent, half of the offspring will get the bad copy, a full half will be clear, and only half of those who got it will be affected (the males).

If we have two female parents, none of the offspring will be affected. Though half will be carriers.

When the wheelbarrow brain fillers show up in the chat.

Are you saying this deal is too dangerous to the potential offspring?

[Purple Knight]

Are you saying this deal is too dangerous to the potential offspring?

No. In fact in the long run it may be better because it causes the bad genes to come out in the light and express. With the two female parents, which is the ideal case for the offspring, colourblindness will just hide in those lines unbeknownst to any of the carriers for generations.

In the short term it just means more people may be colourblind. Same for anything else that's on the X chromosome. But it depends on how they do it. If they just go for the X chromosome of the unaffected male, and double that up, then the offspring will always be clear. But with how people are I expect them to get all offended because omg genetic engineering nuuuuu you have to do it randomly ahhhhh we are going to live in the Gattaca dystopia unless you let that poor child roll the dice to be disabled!

[boatsnguitars]

Are you saying this deal is too dangerous to the potential offspring?

No. In fact in the long run it may be better because it causes the bad genes to come out in the light and express. With the two female parents, which is the ideal case for the offspring, colourblindness will just hide in those lines unbeknownst to any of the carriers for generations.

In the short term it just means more people may be colourblind. Same for anything else that's on the X chromosome. But it depends on how they do it. If they just go for the X chromosome of the unaffected male, and double that up, then the offspring will always be clear. But with how people are I expect them to get all offended because omg genetic engineering nuuuuu you have to do it randomly ahhhhh we are going to live in the Gattaca dystopia unless you let that poor child roll the dice to be disabled!

Yah, I never understand anyone who says we shouldn't tweak a fetuses dna for the better. Hell, tweak mine now! It's odd because it's often the same people who say, "God saved me from a heart attack! He made that doctor decide to go into medicine 50 years ago so he could save me!" But, apparently, that same doctor is working for Satan if he jiggles a little dna around.

[Purple Knight]

Yah, I never understand anyone who says we shouldn't tweak a fetuses dna for the better. Hell, tweak mine now! It's odd because it's often the same people who say, "God saved me from a heart attack! He made that doctor decide to go into medicine 50 years ago so he could save me!" But, apparently, that same doctor is working for Satan if he jiggles a little dna around.

The absolute best case I can give to that, is that we're supposed to have hardships, we might turn into horrible people if we don't, and genetic engineering might actually remove hardship from humanity.

So you might get, for just a single example, a person who steps on the skulls of animals because he doesn't feel fear or pain and doesn't - in fact can't - understand what he's doing.

You also might get a much less severe case of absent empathy where your genetically perfect superman looks at a cripple and concludes that the cripple is lazy, or at least, that his parents were.

My best case is a separate one that we might remove things we either don't know the purpose of, or conclude are pure negatives, when our lack of knowledge prevented us from understanding, and we might all die to a horrible disease like super cholera because we removed our cholera resistance on account of how nobody needs to be afflicted with cystic fibrosis. This still won't happen if not everyone gets the enhancement.

[boatsnguitars]

Yah, I never understand anyone who says we shouldn't tweak a fetuses dna for the better. Hell, tweak mine now! It's odd because it's often the same people who say, "God saved me from a heart attack! He made that doctor decide to go into medicine 50 years ago so he could save me!" But, apparently, that same doctor is working for Satan if he jiggles a little dna around.

The absolute best case I can give to that, is that we're supposed to have hardships, we might turn into horrible people if we don't, and genetic engineering might actually remove hardship from humanity.

So you might get, for just a single example, a person who steps on the skulls of animals because he doesn't feel fear or pain and doesn't - in fact can't - understand what he's doing.

You also might get a much less severe case of absent empathy where your genetically perfect superman looks at a cripple and concludes that the cripple is lazy, or at least, that his parents were.

My best case is a separate one that we might remove things we either don't know the purpose of, or conclude are pure negatives, when our lack of knowledge prevented us from understanding, and we might all die to a horrible disease like super cholera because we removed our cholera resistance on account of how nobody needs to be afflicted with cystic fibrosis. This still won't happen if not everyone gets the enhancement.

It's a reasonable concern, and I wouldn't advocate whole hog, guns blazing, changes to dna, but if you can remove cystic fibrosis, I'd do it. It's a horrible disease. If - and it's a big "if" - it causes some other problem, well, that's the genetic crapshoot we all take. After all, the person was going to have CF.
Also, it seems nature is doing what you fear anyhow. Nature is flipping switches in our genes all the time, most of the time it's within the bell curve, but once in a while you get some extreme results. We all know some of the really horrendous examples.

It's not without risk, but to me it's like having hospitals but never using them for fear that if you help people, it will cause greater problems for humanity.

I'm not of the mindset that suffering is a good thing. For all the stories of people overcoming suffering making them stronger, there are thousands, maybe millions, of people brought low - completely destroyed - by their suffering.