The part about halting pig's aging at one year stopped me in my tracks.
The whole article was incredible, but that has been my lifelong dream (for pets) Imagine a dog that stayed one year old forever. Or a giraffe.
Edit: Guys. I get this isn't an immortal dog. I just want it to stop growing at one year, like the article says. I also understand this isn't a perfect commercialized technology.
That's not what happens. They don't just stay piglets forever. Mammals aren't that simple. They stop growing but they still age. They'll die younger than normal pigs as a result
Ha, imagine that, a pig that's left to live until it's a year old. That must be a 0.01% occurrence. I bet the average slaughter age is well below 6 months.
"BGI offers a glimpse of what industrial scale could bring to the future of biology."
"If it tastes good you should sequence it," he tells me. "You should know what's in the genes of that species."
"A third category is if it looks cute - anything that looks cute: panda, polar bear, penguin, you should really sequence it - it's like digitalising all the wonderful species," he explains.
We should be cautious of making even more of our food supply dependent on cloning. Then one virus/etc can take out most of the supply. Look at what happened with cloned orange trees.
Each apple variety also comes from a single clone.
"Every McIntosh is a graft of the original tree that John McIntosh discovered on his Ontario farm in 1811, or a graft of a graft. Every Granny Smith stems from the chance seedling spotted by Maria Ann Smith in her Australian compost pile in the mid-1800s."
We've been relying on modern industrial food production for about 100 years now. 150 years ago a potatoe famine broke the back of Ireland. It was all the same cloned crop. We've crossed that rubicon.
The only way to go back is for there to be considerably less people.
or bananas. but unless you go back in time and change nature, we will continue to only have cloned bananas... unless I'm ignorant of some sexual species (no pun intended)
what they are doing is not becoming dependent of cloning (i hope) but experimenting. so what that we sequenced dna? what does pair 3531 do? they change it to know values (how that part is done intrigues me) and observe the result. ah ok, now we know that pair controls growth hormone. see, science.
it is very similar to what that monk did with flies, which is the reason today that medicine knows if you will have some genetic disease based on family history.
China is as dependent on the US as we are on it, and if you look at the data, we are actually more dependent on other economies than China.
There are a lot of people who are very bearish on China's immediate prospects and you should read their ideas to balance out the sensationalism of the media
What I find even more Gibsonesque is the prospect of China investing in eugenic technology like iterated embryo selection. They've already invested in researching the large patchwork of genes that are correlated with high IQ. Combine this with the fact that most Chinese citizens have far more positive attitudes to designer babies and we are looking at a future where the average Chinese citizen has an IQ more than a standard deviation above the average American. This would magnify their economic dominance considerably.
China is the the world as Google is to the internet.
I've said this before, but we should not forget that for 2000 years China was way ahead of other cultures both economically and scientifically. They had a 100 year blip and now they are back with their human ppulation almost completely under their control. Nothing will stand in the way of progress.
Human life is cheap. They have a billion of them and counting. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Cloning is fine; putting these animals in these small spaces is not unless they manage to breed them without any memory/brain (verifiable) at all; just meat machines then it's fine.
As a long time fan of the BBC (well all my life really) their web written content often disappoints. When it's on a topic I know it's too often wrong or misleading. They need to bring their written web content up to the level of the rest of their media product.
Would have liked some more info on how they counteract the risks of cloning. Firstly, a success rate of 70-80% is unheard of wrt cloning. Survival rate of clones is very less compared to the natural borns (I know that the pigs probably get killed for food, but a low survival rate could be indicative of unhealthiness too). Lastly, cloning is prone to complications during growth. (more on that here - http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/cloningrisks/)
Often the only way to get better at something is to do it a lot. I don't think much of the actual product of this factory, but I'm hopeful about the contributions they might make to biotechnology.
The helpful link here to the New Yorker article about other BGI projects helped establish some context for this article. The BBC and the New Yorker are both professionally managed news organizations, but I think people don't appreciate how practiced BGI is at playing two weaknesses of most news organizations: (1) the gee-whiz factor of China as a still mysterious country where most reporters can't speak the local language(s) and the government still controls the press and (2) the gee-whiz factor of genetics research as a developing science that seemingly explains everything. I have a lot of in-person and online acquaintance with genetics researchers, and so far it looks like BGI is overhyping and underdelivering in the usual manner of the science news cycle.[1]
Particularly if we are talking about new developments in animal husbandry, an important industry all over the world where people eat meat or use leather, what is economical to do in one country may not be economical to do in another country, and national barriers to free trade in animal products on dubious scientific grounds are still very much a factor in international trade (and thus domestic prices) for animal products. So maybe this is a big deal for hog producers in other countries, or maybe not. The comment already posted here that the scale described in the article kindly submitted here counts as small-scale rather than "industrial scale" in the United States is correct--some of my cousins are hog producers, and they keep track of all the latest technology in the industry.
Here on Hacker News, we have had several discussions of gee-whiz stories about predicted future developments in China that end up never happening. (How many of you remember the many stories about the prefab skyscraper that was to be built in a matter of days?) Predicting the future in China is easy these days: just predict something amazing and seemingly impossible anywhere else, and watch the journalists lap it up. But sometimes the future never comes to China. Anyone who raises hogs for a living will follow this news closely, but whether this news will change any practices in the worldwide industry as a whole remains to be seen.
AFTER EDIT: From another comment in a different subthread here,
They've already invested in researching the large patchwork of genes that are correlated with high IQ.
And that is why I think BGI is more hype than substance. So far BGI has not produced any publishable results from that research. When it has publishable results, I venture to predict, the results will show that any one gene, and any assemblages of genes that they find, will have limited effect on phenotype for IQ. The research on this subject consistently shows this, and some of the best human genetics researchers on the planet already have publications on this issue.[2][3][4]
[2] Deary, Johnson, and Penke (2010). "The neuroscience of human intelligence differences"
"At this point, it seems unlikely that single genetic loci have major effects on normal-range intelligence. For example, a modestly sized genome-wide study of the general intelligence factor derived from ten separate test scores in the cAnTAB cognitive test battery did not find any important genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms or copy number variants, and did not replicate genetic variants that had previously been associated with cognitive ability."
[3] Johnson, W. (2010). Understanding the Genetics of Intelligence: Can Height Help? Can Corn Oil?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 177-182
looks at some famous genetic experiments to show how little is explained by gene frequencies even in thoroughly studied populations defined by artificial selection.
"Together, however, the developmental natures of GCA [general cognitive ability] and height, the likely influences of gene-environment correlations and interactions on their developmental processes, and the potential for genetic background and environmental circumstances to release previously unexpressed genetic variation suggest that very different combinations of genes may produce identical IQs or heights or levels of any other psychological trait. And the same genes may produce very different IQs and heights against different genetic backgrounds and in different environmental circumstances."
[4] Chabris, C. F., Hebert, B. M., Benjamin, D. J., Beauchamp, J., Cesarini, D., van der Loos, M., ... & Laibson, D. (2012). Most reported genetic associations with general intelligence are probably false positives. Psychological science, 23(11), 1314-1323. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611435528
"At the time most of the results we attempted to replicate were obtained, candidate-gene studies of complex traits were commonplace in medical genetics research. Such studies are now rarely published in leading journals. Our results add IQ to the list of phenotypes that must be approached with great caution when considering published molecular genetic associations. In our view, excitement over the value of behavioral and molecular genetic studies in the social sciences should be tempered—as it has been in the medical sciences—by an appreciation that, for complex phenotypes, individual common genetic variants of the sort assayed by SNP microarrays are likely to have very small effects."
Kind of surprised he didn't take the name Moreau :-) It will be interesting and potentially shocking to see what comes out of these efforts. Both good and bad scenarios come to mind.
lets hope their less constrained ethics result in some good for the poor and needy.
the idea of cute mini pets with their growth hormones gimped is all well and good and i'm sure will be fantastically popular... but its not exactly a noble use of the technology.
I'm thinking more like golden rice v2 - except without being crippled by the infantile kind of controversy that it sparked in the west :)
[+] [-] awakeasleep|12 years ago|reply
The whole article was incredible, but that has been my lifelong dream (for pets) Imagine a dog that stayed one year old forever. Or a giraffe.
Edit: Guys. I get this isn't an immortal dog. I just want it to stop growing at one year, like the article says. I also understand this isn't a perfect commercialized technology.
[+] [-] geuis|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prawn|12 years ago|reply
Maybe when they discover how to maintain the playfulness of a kitten in an adult cat forever...
[+] [-] Eupolemos|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bane|12 years ago|reply
Actually there'd be a tremendous market for perpetual puppies and kittens. Even if their life span is a little on the short side.
[+] [-] quesera|12 years ago|reply
They presumably still die on time, or perhaps even earlier, that doesn't seem to be a consideration. sorry. :(
[+] [-] mhb|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Luc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gaius|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|12 years ago|reply
This is called Paedomorphism (thanks Wikipedia) through Neoteny. Humans are a very good example of it.
Or cats (though I'm not sure about this one). See how Tiger/Lion cubs behave like regular cats? Moderate aggressiveness, meowing, etc?
[+] [-] rmc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guizzy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] car|12 years ago|reply
"If it tastes good you should sequence it," he tells me. "You should know what's in the genes of that species."
"A third category is if it looks cute - anything that looks cute: panda, polar bear, penguin, you should really sequence it - it's like digitalising all the wonderful species," he explains.
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gcb0|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sampo|12 years ago|reply
"Every McIntosh is a graft of the original tree that John McIntosh discovered on his Ontario farm in 1811, or a graft of a graft. Every Granny Smith stems from the chance seedling spotted by Maria Ann Smith in her Australian compost pile in the mid-1800s."
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/heritage-appl...
[+] [-] rmc|12 years ago|reply
The only way to go back is for there to be considerably less people.
[+] [-] gcb0|12 years ago|reply
what they are doing is not becoming dependent of cloning (i hope) but experimenting. so what that we sequenced dna? what does pair 3531 do? they change it to know values (how that part is done intrigues me) and observe the result. ah ok, now we know that pair controls growth hormone. see, science.
it is very similar to what that monk did with flies, which is the reason today that medicine knows if you will have some genetic disease based on family history.
[+] [-] ck2|12 years ago|reply
It is going to be completely self-sustaining, why will it need to answer to anyone.
We've become completely reliant on it and we keep feeding it all our cash.
[+] [-] casualobs|12 years ago|reply
There are a lot of people who are very bearish on China's immediate prospects and you should read their ideas to balance out the sensationalism of the media
[+] [-] waterlesscloud|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JamesArgo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] junto|12 years ago|reply
I've said this before, but we should not forget that for 2000 years China was way ahead of other cultures both economically and scientifically. They had a 100 year blip and now they are back with their human ppulation almost completely under their control. Nothing will stand in the way of progress.
Human life is cheap. They have a billion of them and counting. Be afraid, be very afraid.
[+] [-] jalayir|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fuxy|12 years ago|reply
I just hope all the negative press wont stop them from continuing.
I have nothing against cloning it's a natural step in biology if we don't do it we won't be able to discover new things.
[+] [-] jcfrei|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tluyben2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] richardjordan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raghuHack|12 years ago|reply
I wouldn't want to eat a cloned pig. Would you?
[+] [-] 1stop|12 years ago|reply
You trust 'natural selection' more than 'attempted perfect clone'... why?
[+] [-] Symmetry|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] galaktor|12 years ago|reply
Probably because it seems contrary to the common (western?) opinion that workers might eventually be replaced by "cheaper" machines.
(fwiw I'm aware that it's not that simple, but from my experience many people think machines are always cheaper than human workers)
[+] [-] jeremywenisch|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narrator|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsaul|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walshemj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] est|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] campbellmorgan|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tokenadult|12 years ago|reply
Particularly if we are talking about new developments in animal husbandry, an important industry all over the world where people eat meat or use leather, what is economical to do in one country may not be economical to do in another country, and national barriers to free trade in animal products on dubious scientific grounds are still very much a factor in international trade (and thus domestic prices) for animal products. So maybe this is a big deal for hog producers in other countries, or maybe not. The comment already posted here that the scale described in the article kindly submitted here counts as small-scale rather than "industrial scale" in the United States is correct--some of my cousins are hog producers, and they keep track of all the latest technology in the industry.
Here on Hacker News, we have had several discussions of gee-whiz stories about predicted future developments in China that end up never happening. (How many of you remember the many stories about the prefab skyscraper that was to be built in a matter of days?) Predicting the future in China is easy these days: just predict something amazing and seemingly impossible anywhere else, and watch the journalists lap it up. But sometimes the future never comes to China. Anyone who raises hogs for a living will follow this news closely, but whether this news will change any practices in the worldwide industry as a whole remains to be seen.
[1] http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
AFTER EDIT: From another comment in a different subthread here,
They've already invested in researching the large patchwork of genes that are correlated with high IQ.
And that is why I think BGI is more hype than substance. So far BGI has not produced any publishable results from that research. When it has publishable results, I venture to predict, the results will show that any one gene, and any assemblages of genes that they find, will have limited effect on phenotype for IQ. The research on this subject consistently shows this, and some of the best human genetics researchers on the planet already have publications on this issue.[2][3][4]
[2] Deary, Johnson, and Penke (2010). "The neuroscience of human intelligence differences"
http://www.larspenke.eu/pdfs/Deary_Penke_Johnson_2010_-_Neur...
"At this point, it seems unlikely that single genetic loci have major effects on normal-range intelligence. For example, a modestly sized genome-wide study of the general intelligence factor derived from ten separate test scores in the cAnTAB cognitive test battery did not find any important genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms or copy number variants, and did not replicate genetic variants that had previously been associated with cognitive ability."
[3] Johnson, W. (2010). Understanding the Genetics of Intelligence: Can Height Help? Can Corn Oil?. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(3), 177-182
http://apsychoserver.psych.arizona.edu/JJBAReprints/PSYC621/...
looks at some famous genetic experiments to show how little is explained by gene frequencies even in thoroughly studied populations defined by artificial selection.
"Together, however, the developmental natures of GCA [general cognitive ability] and height, the likely influences of gene-environment correlations and interactions on their developmental processes, and the potential for genetic background and environmental circumstances to release previously unexpressed genetic variation suggest that very different combinations of genes may produce identical IQs or heights or levels of any other psychological trait. And the same genes may produce very different IQs and heights against different genetic backgrounds and in different environmental circumstances."
[4] Chabris, C. F., Hebert, B. M., Benjamin, D. J., Beauchamp, J., Cesarini, D., van der Loos, M., ... & Laibson, D. (2012). Most reported genetic associations with general intelligence are probably false positives. Psychological science, 23(11), 1314-1323. DOI: 10.1177/0956797611435528
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498585/
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9938142/Most_Repo...
"At the time most of the results we attempted to replicate were obtained, candidate-gene studies of complex traits were commonplace in medical genetics research. Such studies are now rarely published in leading journals. Our results add IQ to the list of phenotypes that must be approached with great caution when considering published molecular genetic associations. In our view, excitement over the value of behavioral and molecular genetic studies in the social sciences should be tempered—as it has been in the medical sciences—by an appreciation that, for complex phenotypes, individual common genetic variants of the sort assayed by SNP microarrays are likely to have very small effects."
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jheriko|12 years ago|reply
the idea of cute mini pets with their growth hormones gimped is all well and good and i'm sure will be fantastically popular... but its not exactly a noble use of the technology.
I'm thinking more like golden rice v2 - except without being crippled by the infantile kind of controversy that it sparked in the west :)
[+] [-] Gupie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malanj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ItendToDisagree|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w_t_payne|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nanzikambe|12 years ago|reply