lads i was really just going about my life today and i came into my genetics lecture and my professor put both hands on the podium and explained to our suddenly silent 200+ person lecture hall that a chinese scientist has just created the world’s first GMO babies by taking human embryos and modifying them to be resistant to HIV. there are two of them and they’re twins. apparently we don’t know yet if it’s successful but it was at a conference where a ton of GMO researchers were discussing if genetic modification of humans should be allowed and if so to what extent and apparently this dude got the microphone and said ‘ive already done it’ and showed some data (apparently not a lot though) and there’s a ton of drama happening right now because ‘what the FUCK do you MEAN you already did it????? what the FUCK dude?????’. my professor kept saying to us with complete sincerity ‘this is important, this is really, really important’ and anyway i just…….what a time to be alive, you know?
like i dont feel comfortable taking a stance on any of this without more information but i do know for certain that god, i wish i could have witnessed that room of GMO researchers when this dude got the mic and was really like ‘i have modified human embryos’
Hey! I’m a scientist who works with gene editing and can def give you more context on the gmo babies! tldr it’s unethical and Not Great, but basically there’s been an (unenforceable) international moratorium on gene editing humans since 2015. It’s maybe illegal, maybe just advised against in China. The university, hospital, and government are all denying knowledge of it tho, which makes this super shady. (1/?)
Here’s the thing: gene editing has been used in therapy in humans, but 1. patients give full consent and 2. cells are removed from the body, CHECKED, double-checked, then put back in, because gene editing can have off-target effects and we want to avoid those, and 3. only cells that can’t be inherited are edited, so that an individual is only giving consent to alter their own body, not their children and/or the general gene population. NONE OF THOSE THREE HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. (2/?)
It’s extremely unclear if the parents knew what was happening, other than that the dad was HIV+ and the research was supposed to prevent the kids from getting HIV. (There are a LOT of cheaper and more accessible ways to do this than gene editing). So far, the scientist hasn’t proven that he checked for (or prevented) off target effects – but we do know one of the kids is a mosaic, meaning only SOME of her cells were altered. This could be really bad for her health, we literally don’t know (3/?)
This guy waited until he had produced human beings to make his announcement, didn’t consult the public, other scientists, or regulatory boards, and sprung the announcement RIGHT before the human gene editing conference – which signals that he did this for his own sake, not for science. He’s set a dangerous precedent and potentially damaged the public perception of gene editing, not to mention endangering those children (the edit made them more susceptible to West Nile). So. Fuck that guy. (4/4)
……👀
this is…quite literally the wildest shit like i understand the incredible temptation to try something just to see if it could be done, every scientist understands that, but holy shit dude what the fuck?
idk this has a LOT happening and im not gonna be able to address all of it but my thoughts right off the bat: current gene editing (see: modifying someone’s existing genome. different from this case because in gene editing, the person is born and is displaying symptoms of a genetic disease, where here the embryos are being modified before birth) is pretty life changing and very safe and effective from my understanding of it and what i’ve been taught, and it makes me angrier knowing that this might set back that kind of science that’s more ethical in terms of consent. i also don’t like that the lives of these kids are gonna be inherently controversial. i also don’t like……………uh…..almost all of this, actually. like this is A Lot, holy shit.
domestication syndrome is one of the coolest findings from recent genetics
Yes!
Basically scientists have found that if you start selecting for people-friendly animals, you see a bunch of hypothetically unrelated traits start showing up in all sorts of mammal species: floppy ears, piebald/patterned coats, etc.
This is true for everything from cows to dogs to rats! One of the coolest long term studies on this has been the Russian fox experiments.
So essentially the science goes like this:
You have two copies of every genes, one from each parent.
We tend to simplify genetics, and say that for every single gene you have it is random,l coin flip which copy you pass on to you offspring. We also tend think of genes as a 1:1 ratio of genes—>traits.
But! This is not quite the case.
Genes have a specific physical location and order relative to each other on your chromosomes, and the chance of genes being inherited together goes up the closer together they are located. This means random, unrelated traits can wind up being more commonly inherited together in specific patterns just because those genes are located close together, and you don’t get that completely random reshuffling of two parent’s traits. Some of them tend to stay “stuck” together.
This is called linkage, and it’s why you often see red hair, pale skin, and freckles together, for example.
The second factor that plays into this is that a lot of times 1 gene affects several different traits (or several different genes affect 1 trait). This means that sometimes you really *can’t* untangle two traits because they have a similar cause. For example, say genes for increased aggression are responsible both for making a spider a better hunter (pro) and making a spider more likely to eat its offspring (con). Because the same gene is the cause of both things, natural selection can’t really untangle them.
Circling back to the redhead/freckles/pale skin example, these traits are affected by a number of different genes, but also one gene in particular: MCR1, a gene that changes how your body responds to hormones promoting melanin production. Again, one gene related to pigment production can affect a BUNCH of different traits. (And also skin cancer risk. Fun!)
Domestication Syndrome in mammals turns out to be due to both linkage and genes affect by multiple traits!
See, when we domestic animals we want them to be friendlier/less aggressive, which normally translates to less FEARFUL.
And it turns out that the same genes involved in adrenal responses and other stress reactions are also involved in melanin, cartilage, and bone production. So when we domesticate animals we get these recurring changes in pigmentation (white patches, piebald costs), floppy ears (cartilage), shorter muzzles and other changes in physical stature (bone growth), etc.
We also wind up selecting for a lot of neotenic genes in general— that is, retention of childhood traits into adulthood. That’s because baby animals tend to have lots of friendly/trusting/biddable/curious traits we are looking for.
And honestly, who can say no to a face like this?
ps, since it was mentioned:
the same genes involved in domestication probably help animals form social groups in general. if you need to get along with and trust strangers you need a decrease in the panic/aggression genes.
cats, for example, probably domesticated themselves when they started living close to each other and to humans to feed off of pests in grain silos.
and yeah, some some recent theories suggest humans may have ‘domesticated’ themselves:
Across North America, common ravens are regularly harassed by gangs of crows, according to a new study published Wednesday in The Auk: Ornithological Advances. In 97 percent of reported interactions between crows and ravens, scientists report, crows were the aggressors.
This grudge match goes way back. In North America, ravens are both competitors and predators of the crow. Given the chance, brazen, jet-black ravens will happily make a meal out of a crow’s clutch of eggs. And one on one, a crow doesn’t stand a chance against a raven, which can reach up to three times a crow’s size and weight.
But what crows lack in size, they make up for in numbers. Ganging up “gives crows the upper hand,” says Ben Freeman, postdoctoral fellow at University of British Columbia and lead author of the study.
“Zero is a difficult concept to understand and a mathematical skill that doesn’t come easily – it takes children a few years to learn,” Dyer said.
“We’ve long believed only humans had the intelligence to get the concept, but recent research has shown monkeys and birds have the brains for it as well.
“What we haven’t known – until now – is whether insects can also understand zero.”
it makes sense. bees have the ability to search for food sources and communicate whether they found them. ‘nothing here’ is a reasonable thing for them to need to understand and communicate.
smart little fuzzies, i love them so.
Of course they can understand 0, how else would they communicate in beenary
Seriously, it kills me when I see people hold scientists up as pinnacles of logic and reason.
Because one time the professor I was interning for got punched in the face by another professor, because mine got the funding, and told the other professor his theory was stupid.
This same professor told me to throw rocks to scare the “stupid fucking crabs” into moving so we could count them properly.
SCIENCE
thank you
this is one of the best comments this post has recieved
I have witnessed:
Two professors hiding around a corner and snickering, “Shhh, here she comes!” While a female professor approached and, when she finally found them, she proceeded to scream while pointing from one to the other, “You! I called your office but you weren’t there! So I tried to call YOUR office to figure out where HE was but YOU weren’t there!”
Two grad students standing outside a closed and locked door yelling, “Come out of the damn office. You haven’t left for days. If you didn’t have a couch in there I’d be concerned as to where you were sleeping!”
A religious studies professor apologizing for being late to class because, “security stopped me because I’m dressed like a hobbit”
Watched a professor snort the results of my experiment to determine if I had the right final compound.
Two archeology professors toss priceless fossilized teeth back and forth in an attempt to figure out who is smarter by “guessing the type of tooth and species of animal before it lands”
Multiple fully degreed individuals throw dry ice at one another in an attempt to be first to use the lab/get that piece of equipment/or change the iPod song.
A genetics professor build furniture out of stacks of paper and planks of wood because she is that far behind in grading papers/responding. One of the impromptu furniture pieces housed a fish tank.
I could go on but I think that covers the larger portion of the insanity…
Every time it comes around on my dash, it gets better.
– I have had a professor buy a huge fuckoff bottle of rum during fieldwork in Costa Rica and let the undergrads get wasted because “you’re not underage in Costa Rica and we’ll be up all night with the bats anyway!”
– Same professor hung a bat from her headlamp and wore it as a decoration for an entire night.
– A whole swarm of older women – and these are women with PhDs and world-renown bat experts, the bigwigs – all, to a woman, go to the formal charity dinner at an international research symposium in Toronto in late October dressed in skimpy Batgirl costumes. Because Halloween was that weekend, you see.
– At a different conference, a professor get blackout drunk and pass out on the side of the road.
– “Yeah, we have to say we did it properly for the grant but to be really honest, Miracle-gro works better.”
– Teaching lab: we had liquid nitrogen for a demo, and after class the professor, the other TA, and I spent a good two hours freezing and breaking things in it.
a chemistry class begins with 30 students nine months later just six of us left sitting on tables dipping paper into contaminated chemicals to see what happens when we burn it teacher making idle suggestions while he marks our work
“go to the fume hood thing, yeah now put some potassium in chlorine” can i burn the results sir? “fuck it sure whatever its tainted anyway”
The prof I’m working for just asked me if I knew how to pick a lock, and when I responded “yes” she replied, “see, this is why I hire the former delinquents instead of the suck-ups. You’re actually useful.”
I then let her into her office.
“Security stopped me because I’m dressed like a hobbit.” I would bet anything this has happened to Dr. Medievalist.
Semi-related non-academic anecdote: The concert hall security guys tried to throw out our violone player in between performances this spring because they thought he was a homeless guy. Despite the fact that he was wearing concert black… and carrying a violone. There is no more obvious instrument.
One of my English Professors admitted that sometimes “you just have to do a soliloquy” and would phone up the main office of the department on the internal phoneline to recite a Shakespearean monologue at them. No greeting, no warning, just “To be or not to be”.
every time i read this stuff i think about how upset vulcans would be to meet earth’s greatest scientific minds
At one of the leading conferences for a certain branch of mathematics, there is an annual tradition of “walrus wrestling,” where the participants kneel on the floor with their hands behind their back and try to knock each other the fuck over. This takes place at the formal dinner.
Definitely a big reason I went into ecology was on my first undergraduate research outing watching my elderly herpetology professor get drunk, jump over a picnic table, and discuss wrestling alligators.
One of Washoe’s caretakers was pregnant and missed work for many weeks after she miscarried. Roger Fouts recounts the following situation:
“People who should be there for her and aren’t are often given the cold shoulder—her way of informing them that she’s miffed at them. Washoe greeted Kat [the caretaker] in just this way when she finally returned to work with the chimps. Kat made her apologies to Washoe, then decided to tell her the truth, signing “MY BABY DIED.” Washoe stared at her, then looked down. She finally peered into Kat’s eyes again and carefully signed “CRY”, touching her cheek and drawing her finger down the path a tear would make on a human (Chimpanzees don’t shed tears). Kat later remarked that one sign told her more about Washoe and her mental capabilities than all her longer, grammatically perfect sentences.“ [23]
Washoe herself lost two children; one baby died shortly after birth of a heart defect, the other baby, Sequoyah, died of a staph infection at two months of age.
more about Washoe:
after the death of her children, researchers were determined to have Washoe raise a baby and brought in a ten month chimpanzee named Loulis. one of the caretakers went to Washoe’s enclosure and signed “i have a baby for you.” Washoe became incredibly excited, yelling and swaying from side to side, signing “baby” over and over again. then she signed “my baby.”
the caretaker came back with Loulis, and Washoe’s excitement disappeared entirely. she refused to pick Loulis up, instead signing “baby” apathetically; it was clear that the baby she thought she was getting was going to be Sequoyah. eventually Washoe did approach Loulis, and by the next day the two had bonded and from then on she was utterly devoted to him.
*information shamelessly paraphrased from When Elephants Weep by Jeffrey Masson.
Even more interestingly, after Washoe and Loulis bonded, she started teaching him American Sign Language the same way that human parents teach their children language. It only took Loulis eight days to learn his first sign from Washoe, and aside from the seven that his human handlers learned around him, he learned to speak in ASL just as fluently as Washoe and was able to communicate with humans in the same way she could.
now if y’all don’t think this is the tightest shit you can get outta my face
Yogg-Sarongurt 