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
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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
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 <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. * *******************************************************************
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