kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) (04/15/88)
[Follow ups directed firmly to talk.bizarre; cross-posted for a wider interested audience's delight] In article <97500013@prism> atj@prism.TMC.COM writes: > >Harvard Univ. was just granted a PATENT for a new species of mice! >(genetically engineered.) > >Every single descendant of the original mouse is OWNED by Harvard. Oh boy! The perfect precedent! Let's clear up, say, Down's syndrome in a family line with gene therapy. We can bring back slavery. Legally! The patent office says so! Fools. Kent, the man from xanth.
andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) (04/19/88)
>> Harvard Univ. was just granted a PATENT for a new species of mice! >> (genetically engineered.) >> Every single descendant of the original mouse is OWNED by Harvard. > Oh boy! The perfect precedent! Let's clear up, say, Down's syndrome > in a family line with gene therapy. We can bring back slavery. > Legally! The patent office says so! The patent office specifically stated that they will not accept patents for new specifies of humans because of the thirteenth amendment to the constitution. You know, the one prohibiting slavery. The question now has to do with the gray area. That mouse has a human gene, so we've established that an animal with at least one human gene is patentable. And we know that an animal with 100% human genes is not. Where will the line be drawn? -=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP] (andrew%tekecs.tek.com@relay.cs.net) [ARPA]
turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) (04/19/88)
In article <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM>, andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: > The question now has to do with the gray area. That mouse has a human > gene, so we've established that an animal with at least one human gene > is patentable. And we know that an animal with 100% human genes is > not. Where will the line be drawn? The problem with the above question is that genes do not come with labels "human", "mouse", etc. We and chimpanzees share 99% of our genes in common. Are these "human" genes or "chimp" genes? As you note, the ability to mix and match only lessens any hope of a genetic determination of what is human. If any legal thinkers or other philosophers are still hoping that biologists will be able to solve the problem of what a person is, at this point it is a most futile hope. Russell
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (04/20/88)
In article <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM> andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: >>> Harvard Univ. was just granted a PATENT for a new species of mice! >>> (genetically engineered.) >>> Every single descendant of the original mouse is OWNED by Harvard. > >> Oh boy! The perfect precedent! Let's clear up, say, Down's syndrome >> in a family line with gene therapy. We can bring back slavery. >> Legally! The patent office says so! > >The patent office specifically stated that they will not accept patents >for new specifies of humans And you believe them ? what is a specifies anyway ? they said you couldnt patent plant strains about 15 years ago either and now you can they said you could never never never patent animals >The question now has to do with the gray area. That mouse has a human >gene, so we've established that an animal with at least one human gene >is patentable. And we know that an animal with 100% human genes is >not. Where will the line be drawn? ok, lets start a contest ? how many years before they develop an animal that is mostly human, but does a great job of washing dishes, fixing cars, making b movies with chimps................. "... and as a gin scented tear trickled down his cheek, he had come to realize that he loved big brother. THE END" or something like that -- Five tacos, one taco burger. Do you know where the American Dream is ? richard@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard
COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. F. Clark) (04/20/88)
In article <11299@ut-sally.UUCP>, turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) says: > >In <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM>, andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: tes: [A question: "Where do we draw the line?"] > >The problem with the above question is that genes do not come >with labels "human", "mouse", etc. We and chimpanzees share 99% >of our genes in common. Are these "human" genes or "chimp" genes? >As you note, the ability to mix and match only lessens any hope >of a genetic determination of what is human. If any legal >thinkers or other philosophers are still hoping that biologists >will be able to solve the problem of what a person is, at this >point it is a most futile hope. > Human genes really suck. I myself would rather have ocelot genes. 'samatterafact, I'd quite like to take my genetic structure, and then stir in some ocelot genes, some axolotl genes, some wildebeeste genes, and some _psilocybe cubensis_ genes. Then I'd be a human/feline/neotenous amphibian/fungus hybrid. Then I'd copyright myself and patent my children and sell them to: A) People who like cats; B) People who like axolotls; C) People who want a wildebeeste but can't afford a real one; D) Hippies; E) Midgets; and F) Anyone with noses longer than their hair. That way I'd solve both the moral dilemma and the financial one. I recommend that all of you do the same, using _your_ favorite flora and fauna. ------- UUCP: terrapin!vomit!eppyvax!kzhatti!nessus!psusponge!cok "Well I've opened up my veins too many times Who sang it, and the poison's in my heart and in my mind." what song?
kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) (04/21/88)
In article <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM> andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: >>> Harvard Univ. was just granted a PATENT for a new species of mice! >>> (genetically engineered.) >>> Every single descendant of the original mouse is OWNED by Harvard. > >> Oh boy! The perfect precedent! Let's clear up, say, Down's syndrome >> in a family line with gene therapy. We can bring back slavery. >> Legally! The patent office says so! > >The patent office specifically stated that they will not accept patents >for new specifies of humans because of the thirteenth amendment to the >constitution. You know, the one prohibiting slavery. > >The question now has to do with the gray area. That mouse has a human >gene, so we've established that an animal with at least one human gene >is patentable. And we know that an animal with 100% human genes is >not. Where will the line be drawn? > Great thinking! We can use the precedent they used in the south, when they decided that someone 15/16ths caucasian and 1/16th black was subject to the Jim Crow legislation; you could probably make a pretty good imitation of a human with 15/16ths human genes and 1/16th mouse genes; so their noses twitch a lot and they're a little furry; just goes to show - definitely have all the rights of lab animals! Kent, the man from xanth. (And if anybody thinks I'm serious about this, we're going to have to bring back the smiley face to talk.bizarre)
kevin@chromo.ucsc.edu (Kevin McLoughlin) (04/21/88)
In article <3447@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >ok, lets start a contest ? how many years before they develop an animal >that is mostly human, but does a great job of washing dishes, >fixing cars, making b movies with chimps................. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ I can't fix cars, and I find this remark a slander against the intelligence of people with the ability to do so. Let's not be intellectual snobs here. And there's no need to get melodramatic a' la Jeremy Rifkin. Such an animal probably exists now. It's called a chimpanzee. In fact, an even more perfect such creature could easily exist without any fancy genetic manipulation at all. As someone above mentioned, humans share 99% of our genetic material with chimps--we're closer than sheep and goats, closer than horses and donkeys--and you know what happens when you mate a horse with a donkey. A mule is sterile, but it IS a real creature, and it's neither clearly a horse nor clearly a donkey; it has characteristics of both. I don't know that much genetics, but my hunch is that the genetically-based differences between humans and chimps have a lot to do with regulatory genes (which, of course, include those that affect the physically obvious differences between us: degree of neotony has a lot to do with these visible differences). ----------- Susan Nordmark Internet: kevin@chromo.UCSC.edu UUCP: ...ucbvax!ucscc!chromo.kevin Santa Cruz, CA
leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (04/21/88)
In article <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM> andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes:
<The patent office specifically stated that they will not accept patents
<for new specifies of humans because of the thirteenth amendment to the
<constitution. You know, the one prohibiting slavery.
<
<The question now has to do with the gray area. That mouse has a human
<gene, so we've established that an animal with at least one human gene
<is patentable. And we know that an animal with 100% human genes is
<not. Where will the line be drawn?
Let me know when you find someone with "100% human" genes. We share a *lot*
of genes with other animals. Remember, molecular bioligists suspect
that a human-chimp cross is possible.
Even when they get a complete map of the human genome, the question will
be incredibly muddy. We'll have to decide on a definition of "human".
And just think of the fun when it is discovered (as it inevitably will)
that there are some "humans" who don't fit the definition. If there is
a definition of "human" that's going to happen unless the definition is
such that some creatures considered "non-human" now will be "human"
under it.
Both outcomes will cause great outcry. So it is going to be a pain
coming up with an acceptable decision.
(Note that in regards to the above, I'd be surprised if it happened in
5 years, and even more surprised if it *didn't* happen in 25!)
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203] ...!tektronix!reed!qiclab!leonard
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."cs4l3az@maccs.UUCP (....Jose) (04/22/88)
In article <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM> andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: >>> Harvard Univ. was just granted a PATENT for a new species of mice! >>> (genetically engineered.) >is patentable. And we know that an animal with 100% human genes is >not. Where will the line be drawn? > > -=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP] > (andrew%tekecs.tek.com@relay.cs.net) [ARPA] What exactly is so special about these mice? ...Jose ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "Fighting for Truth, Justice ....Jose Hachezero and anything else that might Department of Biochemistry seem like fun at the time.." McMaster University cs4l3az@maccs.uucp ------------------------------------------------------------------------
dee@cca.CCA.COM (Donald Eastlake) (04/22/88)
In article <3447@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >In article <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM> andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: >>>> Harvard Univ. was just granted a PATENT for a new species of mice! >>>> (genetically engineered.) >>>> Every single descendant of the original mouse is OWNED by Harvard. I don't think this is true in the usual sense of "owned". In fact, if you purchased such a mouse I would think that, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, you could assume that you were licensed to breed it. Even if you do have something that is in violation of a patent, I would think that the worst that could happen is that you could be ordered to destroy it or not use it in such a way as to gain the benefit of the patented invention. Something does not "belong" to the patent holder just because it violates their patent. (The profits from exploiting it might ... ) >>> Oh boy! The perfect precedent! Let's clear up, say, Down's syndrome >>> in a family line with gene therapy. We can bring back slavery. >>> Legally! The patent office says so! >>The patent office specifically stated that they will not accept patents >>for new specifies of humans >they said you couldnt patent plant strains about 15 years ago either >and now you can; they said you could never never never patent animals As I recall, the patent office initially reject applications to patent animals. Eventually a suit was brought in reference to a singe celled "animal" produced by genetic engineering. I think it got up to the Supreme Court that ruled that under the current patent law, animals could be patented, but not people. So don't blame the patent office. They didn't want this. -- +1 617-969-9570 Donald E. Eastlake, III ARPA: dee@CCA.CCA.COM usenet: {cbosg,decvax,linus}!cca!dee P. O. Box N, MIT Branch P. O., Cambridge, MA 02139-0903 USA
lum@brachiosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson) (04/22/88)
In article <1205@qiclab.UUCP> leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: <In article <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM> andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: <<The patent office ... will not accept patents for new [species] of humans <<because of the thirteenth amendment.... ... [W]e've established that an <<animal with at least one human gene is patentable. And we know that an <<animal with 100% human genes is not. Where will the line be drawn? < <[It will be found] that there are some "humans" who don't fit the <definition ... unless the definition is such that some creatures considered <"non-human" now will be "human" under it. Both outcomes will cause great <outcry. ... (... I'd be surprised if it happened in 5 years, and even <more surprised if it *didn't* happen in 25!) I would be surprised if humans can make such a decision without yet another major war. The civilized thing would be to accept that any organism which can demand (in any appropriate manner) its civil rights should be granted them, but I doubt that we as a species could be considered civilized. Corrupt would be closer to the truth. But, no one ever said that we would be able to play god with impunity. I suggest that those who didn't take Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_ seriously reconsider the lesson hidden under the story. -=- Lum Johnson lum@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu lum@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu "You got it kid -- the large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (04/22/88)
in article <11285@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, lum@brachiosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson) says: > ... > I suggest that those who didn't take Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_ > seriously reconsider the lesson hidden under the story. > Ditto for _Bladerunner_. Get the movie on video tape. Great flick.
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (04/22/88)
In article <39732COK@PSUVMA> COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. F. Clark) writes: >In article <11299@ut-sally.UUCP>, turpin@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) says: >> >>In <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM>, andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: tes: > >[A question: "Where do we draw the line?"] > [ A answer: "Fai Lau ?"] -- Nominee for oficial California State Vegetable richard@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard
bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) (04/22/88)
In article <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM> andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: >The question now has to do with the gray area. That mouse has a human >gene, so we've established that an animal with at least one human gene >is patentable. And we know that an animal with 100% human genes is >not. Where will the line be drawn? The line at present is somewhere between 99% and 100%. It is perfectly legal to own a chimpanzee, although various licenses are often required. Bob.
dlleigh@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Darren L. Leigh) (04/23/88)
In article <473@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >in article <11285@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, lum@brachiosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson) says: >> I suggest that those who didn't take Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_ >> seriously reconsider the lesson hidden under the story. >> >Ditto for _Bladerunner_. Get the movie on video tape. Great flick. No, Bladerunner doesn't cut it unless you see it in 70mm. It loses so much on video. Well, if you're going to see it for the plot and not the special effects, the video might be OK, but that's probably a waste of time. I say, patent the mouse and don't get ulcers until our friends the genetic engineers can actually *do* something scary. Let's burn that bridge when we come to it. ============================================================================= Darren Leigh dlleigh@media-lab.mit.edu 362 Memorial Dr. mit-amt!dlleigh Cambridge, MA 02139
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (04/23/88)
in article <2924@saturn.ucsc.edu>, kevin@chromo.ucsc.edu (Kevin McLoughlin) says: > ... > you know what happens when you mate a horse with a donkey. > A mule is sterile, but it IS a real creature, and it's neither clearly > a horse nor clearly a donkey; it has characteristics of both. ... Recently a mule somewhere in the midwest -- sorry I can't remember where -- foaled for the second time. Apparently it's not a hoax. Such an event had been recorded only once previously. Needless to say, lot's of people are VERY interested in this particluar animal. The offspring is a funny looking fuzzy thing that looks something like a Shetland.
djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (04/23/88)
in article <2354@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, dlleigh@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Darren L. Leigh) says: [ ... talk about genetic engineering, Frankenstien, and Bladerunner... ] > > No, Bladerunner doesn't cut it unless you see it in 70mm. It loses > so much on video. Well, if you're going to see it for the plot and ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^^ > not the special effects, the video might be OK, but that's probably ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ > a waste of time. ... > Egad. Well... yeah. That was the idea. Or part of it anyway. Besides the plot, there's the acting, and the moods, and -- yes -- the visuals (even on the small screen). But mostly I was recommending it because of its philosophical implications. It can be a very thought-provoking experience. I turned a friend on to it (on video) a while back, and he was awestruck. You may never get another chance to see it in 70 mm, but if you do, I don't think having seen it once on video will spoil anything. I can enjoying seeing it repeatedly. Dave J. P.S. Can anybody post the poem that is read at the end? I would love to know it. Maybe I'll bet the video again and write them down this time.
richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (04/23/88)
In article <2924@saturn.ucsc.edu> kevin@chromo.UUCP (Kevin McLoughlin) writes: >In article <3447@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>ok, lets start a contest ? how many years before they develop an animal >>that is mostly human, but does a great job of washing dishes, >>fixing cars, making b movies with chimps................. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >I can't fix cars, and I find this remark a slander against the >intelligence of people with the ability to do so. Oh. Sorry sport. Since I can fix cars i have obviously slandered myself. I will get on the phone right now and complain about myself to my sys_admin and have myself kicked off the net. >Let's not be intellectual snobs here. Oops. Sorry. Could you please tell us then, where we CAN be intellectual snobs ? Time to drag out old JWL again: *I refuse to litter every one of my postings with dozens of those fucking *":-)"'s just to appease people whose parody detectors are out of commission. * *Trust me, when I mean to insult you, you'll KNOW. * - James Wilbur Lewis -- "They spent all night staring down at the lights of L.A." heh richard@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (04/23/88)
I remember a serious research article hanging on a bulletin board at the Vet school at Cornell. Basically a researcher had taught a bunch of chimps to do some sort of assembly line work in trade for "chimp money", tokens they could use in a "chimp store" to trade for bananas or whatever. They understood the abstraction and worked hard for the tokens. After a while he noticed a marked drop in the productivity of the female chimps. Further investigation revealed that many of them were obtaining chimp money in exchange for sexual favors back at the chimp dorm at night. I can't vouch for its accuracy or even come up with the reference (tho it might be findable in the SCI without too much work, early 70's.) Fascinating, however. A similar thought was a proposal to use prosthetic technology which consisted of implanting electrodes in limbs to allow paralyzed people to walk or use their arms by stimulating the muscles. The proposal was to simply use that on assembly-line workers turning them into cheap robots, they could chat or watch TV while their limbs uncontrollably did the work needed under direction of a machine. No robots currently proposed can turn McDonald's hamburgers into assembled toasters as well as these could. To quote Blue Velvet, "we live in a strange world". -Barry Shein, Boston University
kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) (04/24/88)
In article <475@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >in article <2924@saturn.ucsc.edu>, kevin@chromo.ucsc.edu (Kevin McLoughlin) says: >> >... > >> you know what happens when you mate a horse with a donkey. >> A mule is sterile, but it IS a real creature, and it's neither clearly >> a horse nor clearly a donkey; it has characteristics of both. > >... > >Recently a mule somewhere in the midwest -- sorry I can't remember >where -- foaled for the second time. Apparently it's not a hoax. >Such an event had been recorded only once previously. Needless to say, >lot's of people are VERY interested in this particluar animal. The >offspring is a funny looking fuzzy thing that looks something like a Shetland. Well, a hinny might have foaled, but a _mule_? That would really get some attention all right! Kent, the man from xanth.
boreas@bucsb.UUCP (The Cute Cuddle Creature) (04/25/88)
In article <1146@maccs.UUCP> cs4l3az@maccs.UUCP (....Jose) writes: > What exactly is so special about these mice? The mice automagically develop breast cancer. Major use is supposed to be for cancer research. I've kinda wondered, though -- how do They know that drugs tested on these rodents are working? I mean, if the mice just turn around and develop cancer again, seems they'd never be cured. Layman's curiosity; does anyone know? >"Fighting for [...] Justice ....Jose Hachezero Humpfh. I've always been able to take care of my own fights. :-) "Run away! Run away!" -- Michael Justice. -- BITNet: ccmaj@bostonu \ Michael Justice, the Cute Cuddle Creature @ The Zoo ARPA: boreas@bucsb.bu.edu \ I should not talk so much about myself if there CSNET: boreas%bucsb@bu-cs \ were anybody else whom I knew as well.--Thoreau UUCP:...!husc6!bu-cs!bucsb!boreas \ Space: the final front. -- R. Reagan.
werner@aecom.YU.EDU (Craig Werner) (04/25/88)
All issues aside, the answer to the subject is "Yes," since the patent
office issued the patent.
Of course, whether the patentcan stand up to challenges is an ongoing
debate....
--
Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 3.5 years down, 3.5 to go)
werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine
(1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517)
"I tell you I'm a thief and you call me a liar?"neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul Neubauer) (04/25/88)
In article <5018@xanth.cs.odu.edu> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >In article <475@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >> >>Recently a mule somewhere in the midwest -- sorry I can't remember >>where -- foaled for the second time. Apparently it's not a hoax. > >Well, a hinny might have foaled, but a _mule_? That would really get some >attention all right! Actually, the difference between a mule and a hinny has to do with the sexes and species of its _parents_, not with its own sex. A mule (male or female) has a mare (female horse) for a mother and a jack (male donkey) for a father. A hinny (male or female) has a stallion for a father and a female donkey for a mother. Sorry, Kent, it would actually be a lot more unusual for a hinny to have foaled because there are a lot fewer hinnies (they are smaller, so less econmically valuable). -- Paul Neubauer neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!neubauer
pyr203@psc90.UUCP (Jim Vilandre) (04/26/88)
Don't let CJ hear about the possibility of a human-chimp
crossover. Then again, she probably knows. Hey BoB, Kent,
whoever, does she have any monkeys in her clothes hamper?
Oh, DAMN! I'll bet she sees this...
Who am I? What is my purpose here?
What is the meaning of Life, the Universe, and
Everything?lae@pedsga.UUCP (04/26/88)
<In article <1205@qiclab.UUCP> leonard@qiclab.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:
<<
<<[It will be found] that there are some "humans" who don't fit the
<<definition ... unless the definition is such that some creatures considered
<<"non-human" now will be "human" under it. Both outcomes will cause great
<<outcry. ... (... I'd be surprised if it happened in 5 years, and even
<<more surprised if it *didn't* happen in 25!)
<
I believe that the answer is to treat all animals as humans and to
provide vocational rehab for those who have trouble functioning
in human society.
Leslie
--
*******************************************************************
* Kent for President. The Stars are our Birthright! *
* Join us at USEnet:news.talk.bizarre. *
*******************************************************************djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) (04/26/88)
in article <5018@xanth.cs.odu.edu>, kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) says: > > In article <475@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >>in article <2924@saturn.ucsc.edu>, kevin@chromo.ucsc.edu (Kevin McLoughlin) says: >>> >>... >> >>> you know what happens when you mate a horse with a donkey. >>> A mule is sterile, but it IS a real creature, and it's neither clearly >>> a horse nor clearly a donkey; it has characteristics of both. >> >>... >> >>Recently a mule somewhere in the midwest -- sorry I can't remember >>where -- foaled for the second time. Apparently it's not a hoax. >>Such an event had been recorded only once previously. Needless to say, >>lot's of people are VERY interested in this particluar animal. The >>offspring is a funny looking fuzzy thing that looks something like a Shetland. > > > Well, a hinny might have foaled, but a _mule_? That would really get some > attention all right! > > Kent, the man from xanth. The article definitely said, "mule". What's wrong with that? I'm willing to be educated on this one. My dictionary says of "mule" "a hybrid between a horse and an ass." and of "hinny" "a hybrid between a stallion and a she-ass -- compare MULE." From this it would seem that a hinny _is_ a mule. But I can't draw any conclusion about the sex of the offspring. Who can enlighten the city slicker?
amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) (04/26/88)
In article <1146@maccs.UUCP>, cs4l3az@maccs.UUCP (....Jose) writes: > In article <9915@tekecs.TEK.COM> andrew@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes: > >>> Harvard Univ. was just granted a PATENT for a new species of mice! > >>> (genetically engineered.) > What exactly is so special about these mice? The new mice are not really good as far as general purpose rodents go... If you're looking for a mouse who will nip at the cheese and give the cat an occasional run for its money, stick to the good ol' public domain variety and save yourself the royalties. The patented critters are especially made for cancer studies and offer this exciting advantage over regular mice -> about half of them will develop cancer due to their genetic composition. This saves the labs the cost of making them drink vast oceans of Tab or sending them on a week's cruise aboard a Soviet submarine. In all - the mice are just not really healthy. -- amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu ...since 1963. disclaimer: These are MY opinions. You only WISH they were yours.
terri@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (St Theresa of the Net) (04/26/88)
In article <39732COK@PSUVMA> COK@PSUVMA.BITNET (R. W. F. Clark) writes: >Human genes really suck. I myself would rather have ocelot genes. >'samatterafact, I'd quite like to take my genetic structure, and >then stir in some ocelot genes, some axolotl genes, some >wildebeeste genes, and some _psilocybe cubensis_ genes. Then >I'd be a human/feline/neotenous amphibian/fungus hybrid. I think it would certainly make you a more *universal* GOD, but i think you ought to submit this item for Trish's approval....or else..... terri@csd4.milw.wisc.edu 2931 N Murray 53201 (414)962-0129 Remember me. Buy my books. Antique Ivory lace & hershey's syrup
kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) (04/28/88)
In article <2728@bsu-cs.UUCP> neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP (Paul Neubauer) writes: >In article <5018@xanth.cs.odu.edu> kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >>In article <475@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >>> >>>Recently a mule somewhere in the midwest -- sorry I can't remember >>>where -- foaled for the second time. Apparently it's not a hoax. >> >>Well, a hinny might have foaled, but a _mule_? That would really get some >>attention all right! > >Actually, the difference between a mule and a hinny has to do with the sexes >and species of its _parents_, not with its own sex. A mule (male or female) >has a mare (female horse) for a mother and a jack (male donkey) for a >father. A hinny (male or female) has a stallion for a father and a female >donkey for a mother. Sorry, Kent, it would actually be a lot more unusual >for a hinny to have foaled because there are a lot fewer hinnies (they are >smaller, so less econmically valuable). > >-- >Paul Neubauer neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP > <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!neubauer I am so embarrassed! I should have kept up on my scorecard of who was doing what and to whom out there in the field; or, I could have picked up this convenient to hand copy of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Second Edition: hinny: A hybred between a stallion and a she ass. Cf. MULE. mule: A hybred between the horse and the ass; esp., the offspring of a male ass and a mare. Cf. HINNEY. I feel about two inches tall, lifts included. Well, let me try to make amends by agreeing with the posting which I ridiculed in my ignorance. It would be a very valuable thing commercially if a non-sterile line of mules could be developed, because the mule is twice as fuel efficient as the horse, and more tolerant to heat and thirst, and, I think I remember too, stronger per body weight. The necessity of keeping breeding stocks of both donkeys and horses to provide for breeding to obtain mules, especially the female donkeys and the stallions, who must be fed although they make only an indirect contribution to the production of mules, is all that keeps the mule from being the dominant draft animal of temperate climates. The development of breeding mules would still to this day be a boon to many third world countries where mechanized agriculture is unaffordable. Gad! Kent, the man from xanth.
inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) (04/29/88)
In Article 5767 of misc.legal, dlleigh@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Darren L. Leigh) writes: >In article <473@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes: >>in article <11285@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, lum@brachiosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lum Johnson) says: >>> I suggest that those who didn't take Mary Shelley's _Frankenstein_ >>> seriously reconsider the lesson hidden under the story. >>> >>Ditto for _Bladerunner_. Get the movie on video tape. Great flick. >No, Bladerunner doesn't cut it unless you see it in 70mm. It loses >so much on video. Well, if you're going to see it for the plot and >not the special effects, the video might be OK, but that's probably >a waste of time. >I say, patent the mouse and don't get ulcers until our friends >the genetic engineers can actually *do* something scary. >Let's burn that bridge when we come to it. Darren, that reaction is just plain irresponsible and short-sighted. We are confronted today by the toughest moral issues in history as the result of the miracles of science, and you say we should wait to think about them until the bio-engineers actually *do* something? Look at what is happening, man! Every day we read about children being fought over by two "mothers" who both seem to have valid claims. But what about the child's welfare? The issues surrounding euthanasia and abortion are becoming incredibly complex. Now this mouse patenting thing may seem minor to you, but it is the beginning of what I think will be the ultimate test of humanity's ability to solve problems! If you think about it, we now must define human life, and in my opinion your posting is flippant and adds nothing to the discussion. Perhaps our lives today would be a bit more secure and peaceful if the scientists who developed the first nuclear weapons had been asking some of these questions. Once Pandora's box is opened, it is very tough to get it closed again. Wait until they *do* something? Get real. They *have* done something, and we had better start thinking ahead about *what* they have done, and what direction it is taking us. You know, the long view. -- Gary Benson -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-inc@tc.fluke.com_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Publication Services Ensign Benson, Space Cadet, Digital Circus, Sector R John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
dlleigh@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Darren L. Leigh) (04/29/88)
In article <3585@fluke.COM> inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) writes: >In Article 5767 of misc.legal, dlleigh@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU I write: >>I say, patent the mouse and don't get ulcers until our friends >>the genetic engineers can actually *do* something scary. >>Let's burn that bridge when we come to it. >Darren, that reaction is just plain irresponsible and short-sighted. We are >confronted today by the toughest moral issues in history as the result of >the miracles of science, and you say we should wait to think about them >until the bio-engineers actually *do* something? Look at what is happening, Look, if you're spoiling for a fight, I'm not interested. Just please don't misquote me. I did not say that we should wait until bioengineers *do* something. I said we should wait until the bio-engineers *can* do something. There is a huge difference. Nobody sees anything wrong with patenting that little mouse itself; what people are flaming about is "what will we do when they try to patent fake humans, blah, blah, blah . . .". Look, we aren't even close to being able to do anything like that. If we wait until the technology is closer we'll be able to make a better decision. >in my opinion your posting is flippant and adds nothing to the discussion. Well, sorry. Now go crawl back into your hole and take your ulcer medicine. ============================================================================= Darren Leigh dlleigh@media-lab.mit.edu 362 Memorial Dr. mit-amt!dlleigh Cambridge, MA 02139 "4 out of 5 atrocity victims agree . . ."
lae@pedsga.UUCP (04/30/88)
In article <2924@saturn.ucsc.edu> kevin@chromo.UUCP writes: >I can't fix cars, and I find this remark a slander against the >intelligence of people with the ability to do so. That doesn't mean you're not capable of learning how! And then again, What if the animals simply AREN'T INTERESTED in learning to do such things? >And there's no need to get melodramatic a' la Jeremy Rifkin. >Such an animal probably exists now. It's called a chimpanzee. >In fact, an even more perfect such creature could easily exist >without any fancy genetic manipulation at all. As someone above mentioned, >humans share 99% of our genetic material with chimps--we're >closer than sheep and goats, closer than horses and donkeys--and >you know what happens when you mate a horse with a donkey. >A mule is sterile, but it IS a real creature, and it's neither clearly >a horse nor clearly a donkey; it has characteristics of both. >Susan Nordmark Someone correct if I'm wrong, but I believe that humans have 46 chromosomes, vs. 48 in the chimpanzee. This may provide insurmountable problems as far as interbreeding, though some die-hards may continue to try. :-P I seem to recall from my Physical Anthropology course that speciation is defined as occuring when the parts of a population that become physically isolated from each other either: 1) Can no longer breed successfully, or 2) Produce sterile offspring. This means that the horse and donkey are separate species since the offspring (except that one in Wyoming or somewhere that someone mentioned in an earlier article) are sterile. Different breeds of dogs are, however, still the same species. The same with different races of humans, no matter what the <Put the name of your favorite White Supremist group here> says. I also read somewhere that the only known species on the planet sharing the human characteristic of having 46 chromosomes is... the privet hedge. Kind of makes sense, doesn't it? Leslie -- ******************************************************************* * Kent for President. The Stars are our Birthright! * * Join us at USEnet:news.talk.bizarre. * *******************************************************************
lae@pedsga.UUCP (04/30/88)
In article <479@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP writes: >I'm willing to be educated on this one. My dictionary says of "mule" > "a hybrid between a horse and an ass." >and of "hinny" > "a hybrid between a stallion and a she-ass -- compare MULE." >From this it would seem that a hinny _is_ a mule. But I can't draw any >conclusion about the sex of the offspring. >Who can enlighten the city slicker? When I lived on a ranch in Arizona we called the male mules "mules" and the female mules "jennies." Never heard of a hinny, though. Thanks for enlightening ME. Leslie -- ******************************************************************* * Kent for President. The Stars are our Birthright! * * Join us at USEnet:news.talk.bizarre. * *******************************************************************
edwards@bgsuvax.UUCP (Bruce Edwards) (05/08/88)
In article <564@pedsga.UUCP>, lae@pedsga.UUCP writes: > In article <2924@saturn.ucsc.edu> kevin@chromo.UUCP writes: > > Someone correct if I'm wrong, but I believe that humans have > 46 chromosomes, vs. 48 in the chimpanzee. This may provide > insurmountable problems as far as interbreeding, though some > die-hards may continue to try. :-P And why aren't more people trying. It seems to me if you are consistent with an evolutionary model it might be the most compassionate thing to do for our 'little cousins'. It could help bring their whole species along to the exalted position man had to attain to by 'chance and time'. Here we are trying deparately to produce fruit flies with 4 wings and we could be givin' these poor little guys the chance to enjoy Mozart tisk, tisk. Consider the following from The Dragon's of Eden by Carl Sagan; [he recounts a visit to a large research facility] "I was powerfully reminded of those American motion pictures of the 1930' and 40's, set in some vast and dehumanizing state or federal penitentiary [I don't know why he has to go back that far KJ] in which the prisoners banged their eating utensils against the bars at the appearance of the tyrannical warden......But chimpanzees can abstract. Like other animals they are capable of strong emotions....Why, exactly, all over the civilized world, in virtually every major city, are apes in prison? For we all know, occasional viable crosses between humans and chimpanzees are possible. The natural experiment must have been tried very infrequently, at least recently. If such offspring are ever produced, what will their legal status be?" The Dragons of Eden, by Carl Sagan Ballantine Books : New York 1977 p127,128 The Scripture prohibits beastiality [Lev. 20:15,16, also 18:23, Exo. 22:19, Deu. 27:21]. Let me suggest however that the prohibition is not related to the sexual aspect primarily, nor are the prohibitions against incest. Most people find beastiality repulsive because of health reasons (although it seems to me that could be remedied) or because they have been 'in- doctrinated' with these Judeo-Christians prohibitions (in which case if you disgard these as 'unsophisticated' or whatever, the second barrier is effectively removed and they way is open to do some real evolutionary 'good' for our backward relatives). Now you might say this is ridiculous no one's going to go out and 'get it on with chimps' we could just do some gene tinkering, testtube fertilization, and DNA 'monkey business' (forgive me ;-). To that I say don't forget Carl's concern about the chimp's emotional needs. At what point, saying the gene tinkering works, would the chimps be sufficiently 'human' to allow for meaningful sex (assuming you accept the concept). The reason I believe Biblical prohibition against beastiality is related not to sex primarily but to the crime of violating God's design ('kind-ness' from GEN. 1). In other words had the techniques been available in O.T. times to do genetic 'monkey business' I think there would have been mention of it in Biblical law as well. Would it have prohibited the hybridization of corn too? This is a good question? My opinion is ,no (although you may wish to challenge me on my consistency at this point). The 'violation of divine design' is also an important aspect of the prohibition against homosexuality and the anti-Gay stance of Christians. You may say, "some Christians think homosexuality is acceptable." My response would be 'some Jews don't believe in God', my challenge is 'support the position'. > I also read somewhere that the only known species on the planet > sharing the human characteristic of having 46 chromosomes is... > the privet hedge. Kind of makes sense, doesn't it? Above applies to privet hedges too. ;-) > Leslie Save the whales, Free the chimps! Disclaimer: I am participating as a guest of Bruce Edwards. My name is Ken Jenkins. Bruce is generally amused with my ramblings but does not necessarily agree with them. 'These are only the shadowlands.' C.S. Lewis ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Jenkins as guest of edwards@bgsu CSNET: edwards@bgsu ARPANET: edwards%bgsu@csnet-relay UUCP: cbosgd!osu-cis!bgsuvax!edwards
rsd@sei.cmu.edu (Richard S D'Ippolito) (05/09/88)
In article <2087@bgsuvax.UUCP> Ken Jenkins writes: >Consider the following from The Dragon's of Eden by Carl Sagan; > > For we all know, occasional viable crosses between humans and >chimpanzees are possible. The natural experiment must have been >tried very infrequently, at least recently. If such offspring >are ever produced, what will their legal status be?" Hell, that's too easy: Same as Astronomers and SF writers! Rich
akl@hjuxa.UUCP (A. K. Laux) (05/10/88)
In article <565@pedsga.UUCP>, lae@pedsga.UUCP writes: > In article <479@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djones@megatest.UUCP writes: > >I'm willing to be educated on this one. My dictionary says of "mule" > > "a hybrid between a horse and an ass." > >and of "hinny" > > "a hybrid between a stallion and a she-ass -- compare MULE." > >From this it would seem that a hinny _is_ a mule. But I can't draw any > >conclusion about the sex of the offspring. > >Who can enlighten the city slicker? > > When I lived on a ranch in Arizona we called the male mules "mules" and > the female mules "jennies." > Never heard of a hinny, though. Thanks for enlightening ME. > > Leslie Although I have never lived on a farm myself, both of my parents and both sets of grandparents did. It was from them that I learned about the difference between mules and hinnies. The mule is the result from breeding a female horse with a male ass. The hinny is the result from breeding a male horse with a female ass. This is a lot more difficult to produce, since the female mule is small, and her hinny offspring is often too large for normal, unaided birth. I believe that both mules and hinnies are sterile, although I could be wrong. . . . . . . . -- Anita K. Laux Digital Equipment Corp. ...!{clyde,decvax,ihnp4}!hjuxa!akl Manalapan, NJ 07726
akkana@brain.ucsd.edu (Akkana) (05/12/88)
In article <564@pedsga.UUCP> lae@pedsga.UUCP (Leslie Ann Ellis) writes: >I seem to recall from my Physical Anthropology course that speciation >is defined as occuring when the parts of a population that become >physically isolated from each other either: >1) Can no longer breed successfully, >or >2) Produce sterile offspring. I've heard that, but it doesn't seem consistent with current taxonomy. What about dogs (Canis familiaris) and wolves (C. lupus) and coyotes (C. latrans or something like that)? Dogs interbreed with both wolves and coyotes, and I've met several canines whose owners claimed them to be 3/4 wolf, or 3/8 wolf, or whatever, which suggests that the offspring of a dog/wolf cross is fertile. Are dogs and wolves now considered to be the same species? (I was thinking that there were several other examples of this, but I can't seem to think of any. And I've never heard of a wolf-coyote cross, though that may also happen. Maybe C. familiaris is just a special case?) .. ...Akkana LaboratoryForBiologicalDynamicsAndTheoreticalMedicine, UCSD akkana%brain@ucsd.edu sun!brain.ucsd.edu!akkana "I think I'll take a walk. Hmm, wonder where this wire goes?"
lae@pedsga.UUCP (05/13/88)
In article <2087@bgsuvax.UUCP> edwards@bgsuvax.UUCP writes: >Most people find beastiality repulsive because of health reasons Hmmm, I would expect to have a better chance of catching diseases suited to my chemistry from members of my own species. > or because they have been 'in- >doctrinated' with these Judeo-Christians prohibitions This is the most likely reason. The bible is full of warnings against committing abominations with our less evolved cousins. >Now you might say this is ridiculous no one's going to go out and 'get >it on with chimps' I wouldn't make such a sweeping generalization; I can only speak for myself. > To that I >say don't forget Carl's concern about the chimp's emotional needs. Bravo, Bravo! Spoken as a true animal lover! >At what point, saying the gene tinkering works, would the chimps be >sufficiently 'human' to allow for meaningful sex (assuming you accept >the concept). The prime requisite for meaningful sex is to have similar mating rituals, meaning that the individuals involved are capable of recognizing that the other is, indeed, attracted to them. >Save the whales, Free the chimps! > > Ken Jenkins as guest of edwards@bgsu Leslie -- ******************************************************************* * Kent for President. The Stars are our Birthright! * * Join us at USEnet:news.talk.bizarre. * *******************************************************************
prune@inteloc.intel.com (Bill /Prune/ Wickart) (05/13/88)
STUPID JOKE WARNING Of cource animals are patentable! Where do you think patent leather comes from? Also, don't forget patent medicines made from snake oil. STUPID JOKE ALERT ENDED. ARTICLE FOLLOWS. >>I'm willing to be educated on this one. My dictionary says of "mule" >> "a hybrid between a horse and an ass." >>and of "hinny" >> "a hybrid between a stallion and a she-ass -- compare MULE." >>From this it would seem that a hinny _is_ a mule. But I can't draw any >>conclusion about the sex of the offspring. >>Who can enlighten the city slicker? > >When I lived on a ranch in Arizona we called the male mules "mules" and >the female mules "jennies." >Never heard of a hinny, though. Thanks for enlightening ME. The foal of a mare and a jack-ass is a mule. The foal of a stallion and a jenny (female ass) is a hinny. There are several overt sex-lined characteristics; the two are sufficiently different to be given separate names. They are both "mules" in that they are congenitally unable to reproduce. T.F.Prune {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|cornell|tektronix} !ogcvax!inteloa!prune -- "Use it once, you're a wit; use it twice, you're a half-wit." -- "Geometric progression?" -- "Worse, I think." Robert A. Heinlein, 1907-1988, now one of the Old Ones
amlovell@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Anthony M Lovell) (05/16/88)
In article <580@pedsga.UUCP>, lae@pedsga.UUCP writes: > The bible is full of warnings against > committing abominations with our less evolved cousins. Did it really use the expression "less evolved?" -- amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu ...since 1963. disclaimer: These are MY opinions. You only WISH they were yours.