New Scientist has an article on research at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York on injecting human glial cells into mice, where the researchers:
...extracted immature glial cells from donated human foetuses. They injected them into mouse pups where they developed into astrocytes, a star-shaped type of glial cell.
Within a year, the mouse glial cells had been completely usurped by the human interlopers. The 300,000 human cells each mouse received multiplied until they numbered 12 million, displacing the native cells.
This gave the mice a clear intelligence boost:
In one test that measures ability to remember a sound associated with a mild electric shock, for example, the humanised mice froze for four times as long as other mice when they heard the sound, suggesting their memory was about four times better. "These were whopping effects," says Goldman. "We can say they were statistically and significantly smarter than control mice."
(Wikipedia has some background on glial cells).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 02 2014, @06:14PM
Let me get this right... They are growing mice brains, in mice, but the mice brains are made of human brain cells. And as a result the mice are more intelligent..?
This is mind-boggling. If we do this with something more intelligent than a mouse - say a dog, or a chimp - could we potentially "uplift" a non-human species to something like human intelligence?
The potential ethical ramifications are a mindfuck too. If you have a gorilla with a human-like brain, is it a gorilla or a human? Does it get human rights? The vote? What if it's less clever than an average human, but more clever than a really stupid one? How do you even measure that?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday December 02 2014, @06:34PM
My boss is prophetic. Maybe soon we'll have some real code monkeys on the team. Would dress-code apply to the non-human? It's a lot of fun to think about.
The first thing i thought of when reading your post is the dogs in Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers (the book). They could sort of speak and were paired with a human who could understand them. That must be an incredibly tight relationship.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by iwoloschin on Tuesday December 02 2014, @06:44PM
Obligatory Dilbert Comic?
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-03-31/ [dilbert.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday December 02 2014, @08:52PM
It won't end well for him. They will likely prove to be smarter than the human employeed and bury him in flung monkey poop.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 03 2014, @10:51AM
I haven't read Heinlein so I didn't know that. Here's another uplifted dog novel that's a good read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_%28novel%29 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Tuesday December 02 2014, @06:56PM
SQUIRREL!
"It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Tuesday December 02 2014, @06:59PM
Well, for one thing it shows how important astrocytes are to cognition. It is also interesting how the human astrocytes flourished in the rat brain over the native smaller (weaker?) astrocytes....Reminds me of the idea of Neural Darwinism.
The scientists considered putting these in apes but rejected the idea due to ethical issues....Uplift fears indeed? Planet of the Apes?
Also..The Journal is a good journal, but not on par with Nature, for example. In fact I like this journal more than Nature, but this kind of result seems fantastical, and would play well in those kinds of journals like Nature.
subicular junctures
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday December 02 2014, @07:30PM
I would think there would be uplift for the individuals who receive the treatment, but I doubt that would translate into a change in their reproductive genetic elements such that their offspring would acquire those traits. That seems Lamarkian ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck#L.27influence_des_circonstances:_The_adaptive_force [wikipedia.org] ) but apparently, according to that wikipedia entry, there may be some basis for soft-inheritance. My biology education ended in the late 80s so my thoughts on this are probably near valueless, but it would be interesting to see if the changes are passed on to offspring.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday December 02 2014, @09:06PM
If Lamarkian evolution works at all it would have to be epigenetic in nature, so I wouldn't imagine that this procedure where the whole cell line is replaced would have any effect.
(Score: 2) by MozeeToby on Tuesday December 02 2014, @09:45PM
I read it as the human cells were still in the replication phase when they were put in place. Basically, they looked around, saw no neighboring cells like them and decided it was time to fill up the available space. The in situ mouse cells would have been from an adult mouse, long after they had stopped replicating in large numbers.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Tuesday December 02 2014, @10:07PM
>They injected them into mouse pups
So not an adult mouse brain. The pups' brain growth may have slowed down considerably compared to the fetal cells (depending on the development stage of the fetus), but would still have been very much in an ongoing growth state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @07:56PM
What about rejection?
I'm too lazy to read the article but it seems to me these mice must be pumped full of anti-rejection drugs. That's a significant downside for anything outside of a lab.
If they can figure out how to do this without require anti-rejection drugs, that has all kinds of other medical implications.
(Score: 2, Informative) by kanweg on Tuesday December 02 2014, @09:37PM
I think there's no rejection because of the blood-brain barrier.
Bert
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @10:28PM
Why do I see all this "Is it human" shit whenever AI, aliens, or other intelligences are discussed?
No. No, it clearly wouldn't make it human.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @10:31PM
Imagine if they can create a mouse with a human brain that can replicate and lets say it gets smart enough to escape the lab and start multiplying. First of all
The mouse trap won't work anymore. Feed them poisons? They won't eat it.
They would become smart enough to start destroying our power lines. Figure out crafty ways of cutting power wires, destroying lights, popping car tires by nibbling at them or whatever, etc... If they sneak into a building they'll start turning against us when no one is in the building and breaking all of our technological equipment and cutting off power, knocking over routers, knocking over everything, and doing everything they can to make our lives miserable and claim the property for themselves. Our technology also provides much of our support structure for our survival. If they destroy it that will make it more difficult for us to survive. They'll figure out our schedule, get mice to be on the lookout for an approaching human so they can flee the scene when appropriate. After being angered at the way we keep them out of their environment they'll retaliate and coordinate their efforts much more intelligently against us.
One of the main things that gives us dominance over other species is our intelligence. If you level the playing field for them they have other advantages that we don't have (mice can climb and hide better). A little bit of extra intelligence can go a long way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @10:56PM
Forget poison, try diplomacy.
(Score: 3) by tibman on Tuesday December 02 2014, @11:40PM
Easy solution: make cats smarter as well. Solved forever.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Wednesday December 03 2014, @09:38AM
What could possibly go wrong?
(Score: 1) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday December 03 2014, @02:48AM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Wednesday December 03 2014, @08:19AM
Yeah, and this is one of the things I've been speaking out against. I'm no luddite but too many are doing things just because:
1) It can be done
2) They need to publish
3) They need $$$
But we're well into the stage where we should ask "should we really do this?" and consider the long term consequences.
I've said this a few times before on the other site: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4522905&cid=45610695 [slashdot.org]
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2032510&cid=35452088 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1991522&cid=35197704 [slashdot.org]
And also here: http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=188&cid=4151 [soylentnews.org]
tldr; if we are not ready to decide whether to give such entities (and which entities) the same rights AND responsibilities AND penalties as humans then we really shouldn't go down these paths yet. e.g. how do we decide that some entity is legally human or not?
(Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Wednesday December 03 2014, @03:16PM
The potential ethical ramifications are a mindfuck too. If you have a gorilla with a human-like brain, is it a gorilla or a human? Does it get human rights? The vote?
Telepathy?
What if it's less clever than an average human, but more clever than a really stupid one?
<racist-uncle>These days, I guess you'd put it in the White House...</racist-uncle>
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 03 2014, @05:22PM
You know I wouldn't have considered that a racist comment without the "racist" tags around it. I think by now everybody knows that intelligence is not a required trait for the Whitehouse.
(Score: 1) by canopic jug on Tuesday December 02 2014, @06:25PM
When can I order a neodog?
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Tuesday December 02 2014, @06:35PM
They will still eat their own puke. Only now they can tell you how awesome it tastes the second time around.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @06:41PM
Link to Abstract:
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/48/16153.abstract [jneurosci.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @07:06PM
Try and take over the world, Pinky.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Tuesday December 02 2014, @08:47PM
(Score: 1) by J053 on Tuesday December 02 2014, @07:11PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @07:44PM
Not so smart after all...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dx3bydt3 on Tuesday December 02 2014, @08:04PM
From the article: "Human astrocytes are 10 to 20 times the size of mouse astrocytes and carry 100 times as many tendrils. ". This difference is what the researchers think explains the boost in intelligence. This begs the question, are human astrocytes the biggest and/or do they have the most tendrils of any animal? if not, it would be interesting to see if a similar introduction of more complex astrocytes into a human brain would yield similar gains.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @08:21PM
This begs the question
No it doesn't.
Yours sincerely,
Frankie Mouse
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Tuesday December 02 2014, @10:24PM
Raises, not begs. Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning.
That's good question though. I suspect it's less the size that's the issue than the tendril/size ratio: human astrocytes will be able to form 5-10x as many interconnections in the same volume. Beyond that though I was unable to coax and any information out of google about comparative astrocyte properties. Perhaps someone else can offer us both an answer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dx3bydt3 on Tuesday December 02 2014, @11:03PM
Re. begs/raises, my use is something I've seen in print so often I've never questioned the usage. I'll have to restrain myself from using it that way in future.
I too have searched to find what I could about the astrocytes of other species. One interesting tidbit I did find was the relative number of these glial cells in cetaceans vs. humans. Apparently in the human frontal cortex we've got a ratio of 4 glial cells for every neuron while cetaceans have a 7:1 ratio. Here's where I found that info. [wordpress.com] This could simply be a function of brain size, or some other fundamental difference between human and cetacean brains.
(Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Tuesday December 02 2014, @11:27PM
Raises, not begs. Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning.
Witness, if you will, the writing of a man who believes language is dead, unchanging, and cast in concrete. Other than France, such beliefs exist only in that dark corner of the universe known as the pedants corner of the internet, in the region we otherwise call the Twilight Zone.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 03 2014, @03:49AM
Exactly. You'd better use language correctly or the monster that lives in the inter-dimensional space under the bed will eat your face. I'm just doing my civic duty to spread the word.
Seriously though, the distinction is valuable, and the fight is not yet lost. If we leave every mangling of the language free to spread unchallenged, it will only be a matter of time until all language possesses the clarity and vibrance best expressed in that most famous of soliloquy by Og: "Ook! Ooh, ooh, ook! Grr. Oook!"
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday December 03 2014, @07:51AM
So how do you determine if the fight is lost?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 03 2014, @03:47PM
I believe the usual standard is when the losing party gives up or dies. :-/
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04 2014, @09:06AM
OED - Oxford English Dictionary its word is law
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 03 2014, @08:20AM
But we know that this happens. We know language constructs change over time. When looking at old texts, we can dig back in the database of idioms and phrases, and know that in a certain period of time that phrase meant X and 100 years hence, it meant Y. Its not that complex when you understand that language, especially English, has "drift" and linguists can tell you not only when a text was written, but where, and (in general terms) by who.
Today, if you use "begs the question" according to its original meaning, 1 in 10 people might understand what you mean. So an instance upon what is rapidly becoming an archaic usage may be counterproductive. God knows we've wasted more time on it than the offhand comment of the OP warranted.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Wednesday December 03 2014, @03:25PM
1 in 10 out of the general population? Sure. But among the more literate audience of soylentils, I think the odds are better.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 03 2014, @03:59PM
Oh, absolutely. We can also make a pretty good bet that people have been fighting against it all that time.
I have no objection to language drift in general, primarily I object to the the redefinition of useful terms and phrases with limited analogues to mean the same thing as a large number of others. For example "awesome" - perverted to mean neat/cool/groovy/tubular/etc. Now what am I supposed to say to evoke that sense of "I just looked into the face of God" grandeur?
Or, as in this case, when misusing a phrase makes an apparently thoughtful person sound kind of stupid. There's enough stupid people in the world, no need to encourage the spread of nails-on-blackboard lingual annoyances within intelligent conversation. And yes, I'd say not objecting to the spread of language dilution encourages it - every time we use a phrase without getting an objection it reinforces our internal definition. It's not like we go around saying "good job, you used that phrase correctly" to anyone over the age of maybe five.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @11:01PM
It refers to a circular argument.
Using it outside the definition it has had for ages reveals a lack of learning.
Begging the question [wikipedia.org]
Phrases that express what you intended:
asks the question
poses the question
raises the question
suggests the question
puts forward the question
.
Back on topic, some works of fiction have been mentioned.
The one I thought of is an award-winning sci-fi short story.
Flowers for Algernon [wikipedia.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Wednesday December 03 2014, @12:51PM
And why stop there. Let's try and mix the best traits from earth's animals and create a new breeds of super animals/humans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @08:12PM
I, for one, welcome our new rodential Underlords.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Wednesday December 03 2014, @12:23AM
/me shakes tiny fist at the sky screaming "DAMMIT THAT WAS MY LINE!"
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1) by dltaylor on Tuesday December 02 2014, @08:25PM
Uplift is cool, if it buys you senior status in the galactic community (Brin), but when do we get the smart sharks from the movies?
(Score: 2) by MrGuy on Tuesday December 02 2014, @08:47PM
Do you know what you've done? You've taken God's oldest cheese eating machine and given it will and desire!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by FunkyLich on Tuesday December 02 2014, @09:10PM
I actually wonder how far into the future is the day when we could be able to very slightly modify the genetic information of mice so transplanting these cells will not be necessary and the mice will 'naturally' have their nervous system containing them. Just a slight variation, some insignificant looking mutation would eventually arise and be detected in any of the newborn next-gen mice. After a few generations of strict selection of individuals (breeding permit green , blue, white) they undergo slight external engineered modifications again. And again wait for a a few generations, and then again modifications. I find it plausible that these alternations would create a balance between what in theory is possible to achieve with synthetic genetics and the reality of an organism which might not like the modifications and thus resulting in a non-functioning organism. The allowed-to-breed-normally generations would dilute the defects (and probably the improvements) introduced artificially, but then that's what the once in a few generations interventions will 'fix' and retain only the improvements.
It sounds dreamy and fantastic, but I'm sure the story of Dolly the Sheep would as well, to someone living in the '50 or '60-s.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday December 02 2014, @09:50PM
Given the breeding potential of mice in the wild, I'm not sure your wonderment at the possibilities would be that wise.
It might be interesting to see if the smart mouse somehow becomes king if the breeding herd, or is content to watch mouse porn, but beyond that, there are few species on earth humans would be willing to share the planet with on an equal basis.
Maybe Dolphins, because we largely don't compete for resources and they don't have hands to assemble nuclear weapons.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday December 03 2014, @03:04AM
I'm more interested in making humans with larger than normal astrocytes with more tendrils than normal. Would they be smarter? Do smarter people have larger astrocytes with more tendrils than dumb people?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 03 2014, @06:30AM
With the spread of cheap of calories to most of the world in a short time (5,000-50,000 years), perhaps the human brain can sustain a lot more neurons/astrocytes/glial cells. Genetic engineering can fill in for what evolution is too slow to do. Increase the cell density of the human brain, daily caloric requirement goes up by 100, and an exponential increase in intelligence can be achieved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @09:05PM
Mildly entertaining movie called Monkey Shines - 1988: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095652/ [imdb.com]
Story: Mouse gets injected with human brain cells. Gets more intelligent. Psychic connection establishes between monkey and man. Monkey carries out wishes of the man.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @09:09PM
Not Mouse, Monkey gets injected with human brain cells.
I hate mice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @09:22PM
See also The Secret of NIMH [imdb.com].
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Wednesday December 03 2014, @12:33PM
So, they injected human fetuses cells into mouse pups, and they developed intro atrocities?
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Thursday December 04 2014, @04:05AM
http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/44/448e71a7b529e0b1f40e2bf155600fb82ea68d968b160b543c0cec73839783f4.jpg [quickmeme.com]
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti