
Same-sex mice genetically engineered to have babies - daegloe
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-45801043
======
gnulinux
Layman here, but I don't understand how the title follows from the article.
It's not that same-sex mice were able to reproduce, it's that scientists
modified their genes and cells (not even just sex cells) using "cutting-edge
science" [sic] in a way they could artificially produce alive zygotes from two
individuals of the same sex. How is this, for example, any different than
cloning? We were able to clone a sheep (Dolly), but that doesn't mean sheep
can perform asexual reproduction like starfish or hydras.

From the title I was expecting either scientists observed mice having same-sex
reproduction under extreme conditions (e.g. their population is in great
danger) or that scientists created an artificial environment in which mice
were able to have same-sex reproduction. Being mammals, mice being able to do
one of these would be groundbreaking and extremely surprising.

~~~
bigtones
It's the BBC, their quality of editorial content accuracy is terrible.

~~~
stcredzero
I remember when people would note, "It's the BBC," as a way of vouching for
accuracy of news.

~~~
tialaramex
One of the things we got the BBC to do that still stands out from many other
"news sources" today is they link their sources where applicable.

Part way down this story, for example, they link [https://www.cell.com/cell-
stem-cell/fulltext/S1934-5909(18)3...](https://www.cell.com/cell-stem-
cell/fulltext/S1934-5909\(18\)30441-7)

So, there you go, an actual journal article whose authors claim they did this.

~~~
astrodust
They try and boil it down for the lay person, but often fail. It's nice that
as you say they at least they include the sources.

------
logfromblammo
By my understanding, this research has identified a small number of
epigenetically regulated genes that affect the ability of two haploid sets to
combine into a viable zygote.

The researchers proved their effect by knocking them out, probably with a
CRISPR/Cas9-like deactivation complex. Future developments will have to
instead epigenetically de-regulate and artificially re-regulate those target
genes in order to produce a healthy adult organism.

They may eventually be able to make the haploid set from a stem cell
masquerade as either the set from an egg or the set from a sperm, as required.

------
ppeetteerr
This was already done once, if I'm not mistaken, in Japan in 2004:

[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2004/04/mouse-two-
mothers](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2004/04/mouse-two-mothers)

~~~
jhbadger
This is not exactly the same. That used the genetic information from two mouse
egg cells. The Chinese study is using haploid mouse embryonic stem cells with
genetic contribution from either an mouse egg (successful) or mouse sperm
(unsuccessful).

~~~
Old_Thrashbarg
Can you explain a difference in more lay terms? The experiment that
@ppeetteerr points out, is that not a baby mouse created? And that baby is
from the genetic information of 2 mothers?

You also mentioned the Japanese study used egg cells, while this one uses
haploid cells... aren't egg cells haploid?

~~~
jhbadger
Yes, in both cases baby mice were made. And yes, eggs and sperm are haploid.
But the difference here is that the starting cells were embryonic stem cells
-- that is, they are cells that are "pluripotent" \-- that is cells that
haven't yet been programmed to be any particular cell type. So it is a more
difficult accomplishment than just working with two eggs.

------
rgrieselhuber
Enabling female mice to reproduce without needing males involved would
significantly reduce the risks of a mouse uprising against their overlords.

------
cjhanks
What sick minded individual thought this is important to find out? So many of
these science experiments amplify the reverberations of eugenics in my mind.
Justifying the torture of animals in the pursuit of knowledge and good deed.

~~~
neolefty
This is a classic debate — but I think it's mixing two very different ethical
questions.

* Should any two people be able to reproduce using their own genes? Should a homosexual couple, or an individual with a gamete disorder have that option?

* Is it worth mouse suffering? More broadly, is any medical research worth animal suffering? It is routine. Is there a difference between animals suffering at the hands of humans vs suffering in the wild? Honestly laboratory protocols are often more humane than what happens in my backyard every day.

