Topic awaiting preservation: 'Handmade' cloning cheap and easy (Page 1 of 1)

It might be time to make a trip to Radio Shack for more stuff.

---------------


'Handmade' cloning cheap and easy


19:00 14 August 02
Sylvia Pagán Westphal


Handmade cloning, a new way to create genetically identical copies of animals, is not only cheaper and simpler than existing methods, but appears to work better too.

"It's so much simpler than anything we are doing today, it's dramatic," says Michael Bishop, ex-president of Infigen, a cattle- cloning company in Wisconsin. "It's a huge step towards roboticising the whole process."


Fusing half-eggs with a cell creates an embryo
The technique could speed up the introduction of cloning in farming, where the aim is to clone the best milk or meat-producing animals. And conservationists in South Africa could soon use it to clone endangered species.

The technique was developed by Gábor Vajta at the Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences in Tjele together with Ian Lewis, programme leader for the Cooperative Research Centre for Innovative Dairy Products in Australia. Details of the method will soon be published.


Micro manipulator


At the moment, the key instrument in cloning is the "micromanipulator", an expensive machine that allows a skilled technician to grab an egg cell under the microscope, insert a very fine needle to suck out its nucleus, and then use another needle to transfer a nucleus from the animal to be cloned. An alternative is to fuse the empty egg with a cell from the animal. Either way, it is a tricky and time-consuming process.

In the new technique, egg cells are split in half under a microscope using a very thin blade (see graphic). The halves quickly seal up. A dye is used to identify the halves containing the nucleus, which are then discarded, leaving only empty "cytoplasts". To create a cloned embryo, a cell from an adult animal is fused first with one cytoplast, then another, by briefly zapping them with an electric current.

Half of the cow embryos created this way survive long enough to form balls of cells called blastocysts, ready to be implanted in the womb. That success rate is at least as good as current standards.

But the big advantage this method has over normal cloning is that it you can use relatively cheap equipment, and personnel can be trained very quickly. It should be a boon to researchers on tight budgets, Vajta says. It should also be far easier to automate. Some companies are already trying to develop chips that mass-produce cloned embryos (New Scientist print edition, 2 February 2002).


Healthy looking


A healthy-looking calf created by handmade cloning has already been born in Australia, and another is expected this week. In preliminary tests, the Danish researchers implanted seven cow blastocysts, resulting in six pregnancies. After 150 days - the threshold after which cattle pregnancies usually carry to term - three are still pregnant.

By comparison, a recent paper suggests an average of only 25 per cent of cows implanted with embryos cloned the standard way are pregnant after 30 days.

It is too early to tell whether the animals created using this new technique will be healthier than those from normal cloning, which often fail to carry to term or have birth defects. But Vajta thinks the reduced manipulation times and the use of two cytoplasts should yield better results.

In the normal method, up to a third of the egg's cytoplasm can be lost when the nucleus is removed, whereas fusion with two cytoplasts produces embryos with the same volume as the original egg.


Field test


In July, Paul Bartels and his team from the Endangered Wildlife Trust in Johannesburg tried out the method under field conditions. A Bunsen burner on a lab bench served as the sterile working area, and the most expensive piece of equipment was the electrofusion machine, still relatively cheap at $ 3500. "One can set up a lab very cheaply. You can imagine doing this in a trailer," he says.

The team fused cow cytoplasts with adult cells from endangered species such as the darted buffalo, the bontebok (a kind of antelope), the giant eland and the black impala. "We were very surprised at the health of the embryos. They looked so good," Bartels says.

The team also put five cloned cow embryos into three cows. If this results in healthy calves, they will consider cloning endangered species using closely related common species both as a source of eggs and as surrogate mothers.

Another advantage of the method is that it may bypass existing cloning patents. One worry, however, is that the method's simplicity will make it easier for maverick doctors to attempt human reproductive cloning. But there is one deterrent. They will need twice as many eggs as normal - and human eggs are in very short supply.


19:00 14 August 02

Yeehooo! Let the cloning begin. I think I'll clone myself...anyone want to donate some eggs? Anyone?

Oh well, I can always ask my girlfriend...she works in a Gynacologist lab...hehe...

Clone, clone.

But seriously, that with the 'mass-producing' chip...that's kinda scary. Brings to mind the second Star Wars film, doesn't it?

Good thing a cheap 'artificial womb' hasn't yet been developed...

This is going to be so commonplace in such a short period of time. I am both thrilled and terrified by the things we are learning to do. I appreciate you keeping us up to date on this biotech stuff, WJ.

. . : slicePuzzle

When the human race is wiped out by one of these endangered species I think we'll realize we should quit messing with this stuff. Not that I don't like seeing a variety of life but it goes against the whole survival of the fittest part of my belief. Whether we stop killing off species that are around or not, species are going to go extinct. That's how life works. We just happen to be an animal that can take anything and everything else out. Which takes us out at the same time, mind you. If the Perigren Falcon's gotta go to make room for some new bird to fill it's niche or some old bird to grow into something new, then so be it. I don't like it but I know that animals are going to find a way to cope with our world the way we've made it. Either that or they won't. In my mind if we just let things go we end up with animals that have gained the intelligence and faculties to live in a human dominated world(at least on the surface). I would like to see it happen naturally rather than forcing a species that may well be 'out of date' to exist under lock and key, as it were.


GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Nature is in a corrupted state and is *anything* but the ideal. I think we need to learn as much as possible about how to manipulate it for the benefit of all or we will become the next exstinct species. I'm thinking about asteroid collisions and new super viruses and such like. But just as Peter Parker said, "With great power comes great responsibility."

. . : slicePuzzle

Here's a short fiction story that might be right up y'all's alley ...
http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0206/oldmac.shtml

Cell Number: 494

Thanks for the link, BeeKay!

Yeah, thanks. Good read. I might have to pass it around.

Huh... Asimov has always had those kind of stories. It's why I like him so much as an author. So is the point that genetic engineering is good for humans and that's the end of it that he's trying to point out? I don't really have any issues with genetic tinkering... I just think we need WAY more time to understand it. We also need to understand the implications of it. While saving the endangered species is a wonderful idea it will eventually turn towards inproving life for humans. Feeding the teeming masses of starving people. Do you know how terrible this world will become if those teeming masses don't die? We can only grow as a planetary population as long as our food holds out. After that it comes down to physical proximity. I would rather see work done on colonization first so that we can get some of these billions off planet before saving the ones that are here. Personally I'd like to see them get smart and move to a place where they can actually GROW food but... who am I kidding. They've been getting food from other sources for how long now? The consequences for 'saving' the world's starving could well kill us all in the global war for living space that could follow. Read "Colony" by Ben Bova sometime. It talks about the world at 7.5 Billion people. Not really my kind of world.


GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

GrythusDraconis, have you ever thought that maybe that type of 'pressure' is exactly what Mankind may need to finally start colonizing space?

After all, that is one of the reasons the 'new world' was populated by Europeans...too many people...

Yes, that kind of pressure would instigate that movement rather nicely but about 3 decades to late to keep living on Earth comfortable.

Colonizing space isn't exactly like walking out your 'back door', floating the 'big pond', and building houses on the 'big rock' you find on the other side. Which is how easy it was for the colonies to get started compared to what its going to take for planetary colonization.

The biggest issue with planetary colonization is time. It takes time. Lots and lots of time. If it's going to help us at all it needs to happen now or its going to be too late. If we wait for the pressures of over-population to push us into it we'll already be crushing ourselves into oblivion. Those rich enough to live above the battles in the streets and pay their way into space will be able to watch while the rest of us strangle each other to death trying to find a little bit of fresh air or clean water, a good job or a way to make life better for our kids. They might feel sorry for us. They really might. But it will take a person full of self-sacrifice to get us out of that tailspin by then.

If we start now it won't get that bad. At least not for a while. We'll be able to spread out into the cosmos... at least onto Mars. That would give us some time. What we really need is some population control. Replacement values. Two kids per family. I'm not saying that you can't have more kids or should be punished for having more kids, BUT you won't get any extra help from having more kids. Population control will give us some more time. Time to develop new methods of traveling in space and new technologies to make coloniztion easier. Time to find new methods of terraforming planets and moons. Time to build orbiting settlements at the Le Grande point between here and the moon. Hell, time to put Seline(the most common name for a moon settlement in books) ON the moon for that matter. But we need that time first. We have to start with colonization or we'll be to late to save ourselves. At least those of us on Earth.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Uhhh...GrythusDraconis, you're not being serious, are you? Time? To colonize our nearest neighbors (The Moon, Mars), it woun't take anymore 'time' than it took the first colonizers to reach the 'new worlds' (don't forget Austrailia...not just the Americas)...one must take into consideration how long it took those 'early' colonizers to actually reach these 'new lands'...

Also, with a push in this direction (read - money!), the technology would undergo a 'spurt'...wherever there is money to be made, technology follows...and of course the 'Mother necessity' rule...

The first settlements wouldn't be that big a deal but they wouldn't be able to transplant a good portion of the population either. I don't think you're looking at this very realistically. Besides that... You seem to be talking travel time whilst I'm talking about the time to get the Moon or Mars ready to live on. After we get to Mars(which seems to be an issue recently) we still need 50 years before we can start to colonize in large movements. Yeah, technology will grow faster because people will make money on it and the pressure will be there. But that still doesn't help us at the time. Even if you don't terraform it's going to take time to get the materials to the Moon to build a place to live. I'm not talking about a base of operations here and there, I'm talking about full planetary colonization. In order for that to happen on Mars it's estimated to take roughly five decades(My saying 30 years was my mistake) for the atmosphere to get to a point where it's usable by humans. Thusly, doing this when we're under the 'pressure' of the population will be five decades to late to help most of us.

Take a look Here.

This is one of many sites that go into detail on how the process works, the options we have, and the length of time it will take.

Or, if you like...

Look Here.

The last link is just Q/A from the NASA site. I take most of it with a grain of salt but it's the basic information you seem to need.

Maybe you should get some information before trying to discount someone's thoughts on a specific topic? I'm not looking for milestone achievements, I'm looking for a way to help a LOT of people before it's too late. I'm sure that we could get to the Moon or Mars and build a small colony in the next decade or so. That doesn't achieve what we're(or at least I) am talking about.


GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 08-27-2002).]

Ok, yes, I know about the NASA...I know people that work for NASA. But to the point: yes, it will take time to actually colonize Mars...if one is depending on terraforming it first. The moon is somewhat different, though. There is water on the moon, that they now know. That is essential, to any type of colonizing plans. The hard part about the water on the moon, is actually 'freeing' it up...but that is just a question of energy, really. Colonizing the moon is actually easy at this point...the technology is there. We just need a 'reason' to actually do it. Mars is different, and your point on the 'time thing' is therefore (in regards to Mars and other planets) more legitimate.

To colonize the moon, one would first need to send automated shelter equiptment, that would first build the shelters for the colonizers. The plans for this already exist. The cost is enormous, of course, esp. if one plans on sending a whole lot of people. As the plan now stands, we are talking about a small city (a couple of hundred people at first). AFter these arrive, and start getting the thing in gear, then more can arrive. This actually wouldn't take all that long...a sizeable population could be transferred within a decade. The cost would be very high, however, so there would have to be a real economic reason to do this. Maybe resource mining on the moon...who knows? Shipping raw materials back to Earth is much easier...the cost is low.

Mars...that's a whole different ballgame. Assuming one takes the terraforming path, at current levels of technology (nano, genetic), it would take a long time. However, who knows where these areas will be in ten, twenty or thirty years...so I wouldn't rule out a 'quick' solution to the terraforming part. The moving of a huge amount of people however, would be costly...even with advancements in Hibernation technology...and biology (which is going pretty well...). Probably using either the moon, or a space station as a 'stop' point would be required...it's kinda obvious that the 'seeding' ship(s) would have to be built in orbit. Though maybe with mass accelerators on the moons surface would be an alternative...who knows?

Those are reasonable ideas and hypothesis. I heard about finding water on the Moon, which I agree is essential(not that it matters if I agree or not ). I understand your point of view on needing a reason to spend the money on this. I just don't think they'll choose to let millions if not billions of people suffer while they spend money on colonization. They being whatever gov'mt(s) are in place at the time. If this is only going to happen under the pressure of the population then this probably will need to be a private venture, not a politically funded one. That way we gov'mt(s) can support the people and let the private entrepeneur pay for it to happen. Like I said, it'll take a person (or persons more likely) full of self-sacrifice to get us out of trouble if we wait until that 'pressure' is there. By that time the 'peoples' of the earth will have better things for the gov'mt(s) to spend money on. It's hard enough getting funding for space programs as it is without adding a larger need for money to go into the population's well-being. Granted, spending the money on coloniztion will be good for the population's well-being in the long run. Unfortunately the masses don't think of 'down the road' very often. They think only of today and usually only as it relates to themselves.

Link me to some info on the plans for the Moon. I know there have been some ideas thrown around but I've never seen anything very far beyond a waypoint on the way to somewhere else.



GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Not to derail the conversation or anything (sorries WebShamen and GrythusDraconis)... but BeeKay... that was such a damned good read I had to say something. Thanks much for sharing that link with the rest of us, a unique little view into the problem and/or solution we're soon coming to face... again, thank you.

Now, please, continue... *pulls up chair and bowl of popcorn*

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

You asked, and you shall get....links galore!

http://www.google.de/search?q=cache:NNJJN sntl60C:ic.arc.nasa.gov/publications/pdf/1999-0118.pdf+Moon+colonize+automate&hl=de&ie=UTF-8

http://www.spacepolicy.org/page_thh0799.html

http://www.space.com/news/moon_or_mars_020128-1.html

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSSpace9907/13_canadian.html

Konstantine Tsiolkovsky - a very interesting man. Do a Google search on him.

http://www.mtsu.edu/~dlavery/LFS/Infinite%20Presumption.htm

http://www.panspermia.org/howposs.htm

http://dmoz.org/Science/Technology/Space/Space_Colonization/

Freeman Dyson - can't say enough about this guy...Larry Niven based his ringworld on some of his stuff...do a google search, and be amazed!

http://www.omnimag.com/archives/interviews/dyson.html

http://hyper.vcsun.org/HyperNews/rrains/get/DQ11F.html

http://www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/headlines/1998/headln-010598.html

http://www.moonproperty.net/info/legal.shtml

http://www.unm.edu/~quantum/quantum_2002/journey.html

Enjoy!

(note - this post corrected due to stupidness *sigh*)

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 08-30-2002).]

Phew! I haven't read all of that yet but I will get to it. Thanx, some interesting stuff in there. I can't say I agree with all of it but... interesting all the same.

I liked that Moon or Mars article. It made some very good points. One of them was the unlikelyhood of the United States instigating the movement to the moon. In a lot of books(I know I go back to Sci-Fi for a lot of info but its funny how accuarate it can be) Its happens as a joint operation between the U.S. and Russia. During one of those periods of mutual back patting that we seem to go through.

I can see a colony happening on the Moon and also on Mars probably within my lifetime. I realized something though while reading another of those articles. If we don't continue to expand and colonize we'll just be buying ourselves more time before we over populate again. We'll need to develop incentives for people to go off-planet(Earth) and live somewhere else or it won't really help anyway. I almost said this long ago in our... discussion. I think there needs to be some sort of population control instituted. The biggest control in that respect is intelligence. It has been proven that the more educated people become the more freedom they expect, personal and otherwise, and the fewer children they have. That would be an immense help in getting us on te right track for global stability.

Isn' it Larry Niven? I have to admit that the RingWorld series appealed to me but I haven't had the time to read it. I'll have to give it a shot. Ben Bova's Kinsman Saga and Colony are wrapped around this very topic that we're debating. An interesting read at the least.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere

Well (conjecture), by the time that we start to overpopulate the solar system, then comes the 'great leap' into the galaxy...ad infinite...

'The stars are ours'

I wasn't actually referring to the solar system. I was still referring to Earth. I'm still trying to think of a way to get the indigenous population to emmigrate to these new worlds/colonies that are going to be getting built. Not only is the want to emmigrate the issue but the ability to emmigrate. New colonies/worlds wil probably try to get set up better seeing as we've made our mistakes already. At least I hope we learned something. I can't imagine that they'll take on people that can't do anything to furthur the colonies' progress.

Thusly, I'm still worried the people on Earth. It may sound tyrannical but we need to curb the growth of the population to match the capabilities of society to support itself. There are a lot of leeches in society today and that needs to change. I think it comes down to making sure that population growth doesn't increase with every advance in our resource producing capabilities. We'll just be catching up not increasing the amount of resources that are available. We need to limit population growth and increase education so that we end up raising the overall intelligence of our species. If we, as a species, understand our limitations we'll have a chance to make the necessary technological advances before exceeding our resources.

GrythusDraconis
"Be careful not to anger the Great Dragon for you are crunchy and taste good with Ketchup" T-Shirt Somewhere