http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/ 0,1286,68962,00.html?tw=wn_6techhead
Scientist have geneticly engenered mice to have amazing regeneration abilities, not just skin, but even vital organs such as the heart or liver!
Just think of the possibilities! Super Humans, cure for cancer maybe, living longer..
But then, this could also be used for evil...super soldiers...things...I can't even imagine it all..
I would definantly be a human test subject! :)
ID:276457
 Oct 2 2005, 3:04 pm
|
|
Why isnt this all over the news? Or at least on cnn.com?
| |
How would I know, there are alot of things that aren't on the news, and maybe becuase it isn't done testing.
| |
That may be why testing could be done to also alter peoples..ermm..foot intake, or maybe a medication that is like vitamins?
| |
I don't like the idea that regeneration causes you to have a dependance on medication, lest you starve to death.
| |
I dont think you could quickly regenerate at all. No matter how much food and stuff. I think it would take at least a year to regenerate a limb.
| |
You wouldn't just starve to death. Your food intake would only need to be increased while healing. Otherwise you would be fine.
| |
Ter13 wrote:
Wouldn't that make your metabolism go berserk? People across the globe would starve to death... If it does do that, they'll either find a way past it or they wont get any further. That's what research is all about. Although from what I read the test mice lived long enough to regenerate. Since they stumbled upon this while testing something else they wouldn't have been giving the mice any more food than a standard mouse. So it would make sense that if they need a large amount more than a massive mouse they would have starved. Although it's entirely possible they noticed the need for more food and updated their diets. And of course humans and mice are not the same thing, so the mice could have something else we don't that combined with the super regenerative powers allows them to get away without the need to eat more. | |
I'm very intrigued by the possibilities of this research, but I do have one misgiving...
No, I'm not worried about problems with metabolism or food intake, I'm worried about something worse... In order to regenerate quickly, the body's cells need to reproduce faster (obviously)... It is safe to assume that whatever gene is causing this in the mice is causing their cells to reproduce faster than normal... And to apply it to humans, you'd need to set them up the same way... Well, say the reproduction of our cells was sped up, but got out of hand... What do you have? Cancer... Does the world really need one more risk factor for cancer? Perhaps an increased cancer risk will be discovered in these mice, perhaps not... But no one can really know that it won't happen in humans if/when this sort of thing is applied to us... | |
SuperSaiyanGokuX wrote:
Well, say the reproduction of our cells was sped up, but got out of hand... What do you have? Cancer... Good insight. Let me add a little here. Cancer is not caused so much by the rapid growth of cells but by the rapid uncontrolled and unwanted growth of cells. There are chemcial pathways in the body that naturally protect you from cancer. Cells develop cancerous tendancies at an alarming rate, and were it not for your protective pathways you'd probably have cancer all over your body. Your protective pathways prevent cancer by automatically destroying cells that would otherwise grow out of control. Malignant cancer becomes a problem when these protective pathways break down, leaving you vulnerable to the unchecked reproduction of tissue. There are special mechanisms that fall into place around wounds while they heal. The cells near a wound grow faster in order to repair tissue, and yet very little or no cancer has been attributed to the body's natural healing processes. Certian chemcials form the bottleneck of our healing process, restricting the rate at which the body can heal itself as the slender neck of a bottle restricts the rate of liquid flow. It seems that a drug developed after careful research into the regenerative capabilities of these mice might relax and expand that bottleneck, allowing humans to regenerate after surgery or trauma much faster than they presently can. It's too early to tell, and only research could back such a hypothesis, but that's my speculation for what it's worth. | |
Dession wrote:
Why isnt this all over the news? Or at least on cnn.com? This is nothing new, which means it is not news. It was all over the news years ago. I saw footage of mice which had body parts grown on their backs a long time ago. Though I don't recall how long ago, I'd bet it was nearly a decade. The only difference is that this is controlled. They don't spontaneously grow new parts where they aren't needed. [edit] I need to get in the habit of finishing reading articles before replying to posts. The date in the link for the discovery is 1998. As I said, nothing new. That's why you don't see it in the news. | |
Sniper Joe wrote:
Just think of the possibilities! Super Humans, cure for cancer maybe, living longer.. Living dead! Didn't this sort of thing happen in RE? I would do testing on dead mice to make sure they don't come back to life in some zombified state. But perhaps they could even make a full recovery and return to life as a normal mouse? Science should pay attention to movies/games, for both ideas and precautions. Murphy's Law can turn that place into the next Umbrella Corp... just give it a couple years. | |
I was thinking the same thing...personally I think it would be so scarey...yes so exiting if zombies were real..the thrill of running and me being scared, while killing(again?) them...
Ahh...only a dream..for now.. | |
Scientists have already brought clinically dead dogs back to life. They replaced their blodd with saline solution, then put blood back in their system. Then they shocked them and they came back from the dead.
| |
There was a thread about this a while ago, but I can't seem to find it. Googling for "zombie dogs" will turn up a bunch of results.
Calling them "zombies" is pretty far-fetched, because they're not. All they did was preserve the dog's tissue for a period of time. As there was no damage, the dogs could be revived. Clinically they were considered "dead", but another way of looking at it is to say that they simply didn't have any visible signs of life. That doesn't mean they were dead, as such. | |
Wouldn't that make your metabolism go berserk? People across the globe would starve to death... Wait, maybe that's a good thing, killing three birds with one stone: Removing all disease, the population problem, and obesity all at once...