Are Animals Patentable?
Kent Paul Dolan
interested audience's delight]
In article <97500013@prism> a...@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 Klossner
>> (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....@relay.cs.net) [ARPA]
Russell Turpin
> 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 Sexton
>>> 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 ?
ric...@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard
R. W. F. Clark
>
>In <99...@tekecs.TEK.COM>, and...@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 Paul Dolan
>>> (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 McLoughlin
>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: ke...@chromo.UCSC.edu
UUCP: ...ucbvax!ucscc!chromo.kevin Santa Cruz, CA
Leonard Erickson
<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."
Donald Eastlake
>>>> 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: d...@CCA.CCA.COM usenet: {cbosg,decvax,linus}!cca!dee
P. O. Box N, MIT Branch P. O., Cambridge, MA 02139-0903 USA
....Jose
>>> (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....@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
cs4...@maccs.uucp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lum Johnson
<In article <99...@tekecs.TEK.COM> and...@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes:
<<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?
<
<definition ... unless the definition is such that some creatures considered
<"non-human" now will be "human" under it. Both outcomes will cause great
<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 l...@osu-20.ircc.ohio-state.edu l...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
"You got it kid -- the large print giveth and the small print taketh away."
Dave Jones
>
...
> 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 Sexton
>In article <11...@ut-sally.UUCP>, tur...@ut-sally.UUCP (Russell Turpin) says:
>>
>>In <99...@tekecs.TEK.COM>, and...@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
ric...@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard
ERCF08 Bob Gray
>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.
Darren L. Leigh
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 dll...@media-lab.mit.edu
362 Memorial Dr. mit-amt!dlleigh
Cambridge, MA 02139
Dave Jones
>
...
> 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.
Dave Jones
[ ... 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 Sexton
>In article <34...@gryphon.CTS.COM> ric...@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
ric...@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard
Barry Shein
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 Paul Dolan
Well, a hinny might have foaled, but a _mule_? That would really get some
attention all right!
The Cute Cuddle Creature
> 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: bor...@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.
Craig Werner
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)
wer...@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?"
Paul Neubauer
>In article <4...@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djo...@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.
>
>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 neub...@bsu-cs.UUCP
<backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!neubauer
Jim Vilandre
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?
l...@pedsga.uucp
<<
<<[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. *
*******************************************************************
Dave Jones
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?
Anthony M Lovell
> In article <99...@tekecs.TEK.COM> and...@frip.gwd.tek.com (Andrew Klossner) writes:
> >>> Harvard Univ. was just granted a PATENT for a new species of mice!
> >>> (genetically engineered.)
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.
--
amlo...@phoenix.princeton.edu ...since 1963.
disclaimer:
These are MY opinions. You only WISH they were yours.
St Theresa of the Net
>'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.....
te...@csd4.milw.wisc.edu 2931 N Murray 53201 (414)962-0129
Remember me. Buy my books.
Antique Ivory lace & hershey's syrup
Kent Paul Dolan
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!
Gary Benson
Leigh) writes:
>In article <4...@goofy.megatest.UUCP> djo...@megatest.UUCP (Dave Jones) writes:
>>in article <11...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, l...@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 -_-_-_-_-_...@tc.fluke.com_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Publication Services Ensign Benson, Space Cadet, Digital Circus, Sector R
John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Darren L. Leigh
>In Article 5767 of misc.legal, dll...@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 dll...@media-lab.mit.edu
362 Memorial Dr. mit-amt!dlleigh
Cambridge, MA 02139 "4 out of 5 atrocity victims agree . . ."
l...@pedsga.uucp
>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?
l...@pedsga.uucp
>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.
Bruce Edwards
> In article <29...@saturn.ucsc.edu> ke...@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
Richard S D'Ippolito
>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
A. K. Laux
> >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
>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%br...@ucsd.edu sun!brain.ucsd.edu!akkana
"I think I'll take a walk. Hmm, wonder where this wire goes?"
l...@pedsga.uucp
>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
Bill /Prune/ Wickart
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
Stan Friesen
>In article <5...@pedsga.UUCP> l...@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
>Are dogs and wolves now considered to be the same species?
used is quite subtle. It is based on failure to interbreed when the
opportunity arises *under *natural* conditions*. The dog-coyote and
dog-wolf hybrids are due to the disturbance caused by human habitation
and the ecological chaos it produces. There are quite a number of other
examples where reporductive isolation breaks down between two otherwise
well seperated species in areas of significant man-made disturbance. It
seems that cleared and altered landscapes so change the interactions of
organisms that normal isolating mechanisms fail to work.
(Actually a case could be made for including dogs in Canis lupus, since
they are apparently derived from a dwarf variety Asian Wolf)
--
Sarima Cardolandion sar...@gryphon.CTS.COM
aka Stanley Friesen rutgers!marque!gryphon!sarima
Sherman Oaks, CA
Anthony M Lovell
> committing abominations with our less evolved cousins.
Did it really use the expression "less evolved?"