CLOSE
Original image

Celebrating Ten Years of Dolly...

Original image

This morning was the day after the tenth anniversary of Dolly's unveiling as celebrity cloned mammal, so consider this post a Bloody Mary to the grandiose hangover of Dollydom. She was sprung golem-like from the mammary gland (yes) of a Finn Dorset ewe & was yanked from the world by a lung virus...or very much would have been, if she hadn't been given The Shot. She now holds somber court at the National Museum of Scotland; not quite Dollywood but give it some time...

Before you set "Jolene" on repeat and slip into a nice, depressing bubble bath (like David, Dolly's Welsh mountain ram widower), here's what her namesake has to say about the vicissitudes of flattery & the frustration of not being recognized as the parent cell:  

Q: Is it true that the world's first cloned animal was named after you?

A: True. It was a sheep! There was a cow named Dolly once, but I lost all that weight! (laughs) So this was a sheep. They made the clones from a mammary gland and so the scientists said, 'Well, we made this from the mammary glands so we got to call it Dolly.' Yes, I was honored. I absolutely was. There's no such thing as baaaaaaa--d publicity.

Q: Is it true that you lost a Dolly Parton look alike contest?

A: Yes! On Halloween. I don't know if they knew it or not but I just went to be fun because they had all these Dollys down on Santa Monica Blvd. in L.A. I thought, 'Well, this would be a great night for me to go out because everybody's going to look like me.' And they had the contest and I just got in line and somebody else won.

Original image
iStock
arrow
science
Why DNA Is So Hard to Visualize
Original image
iStock

Picture a strand of DNA and the image you see will likely be similar to the artist’s rendering above. The iconic twisted ladder, or double-helix structure, was first revealed in a photo captured by Rosalind Franklin in the 1950s, but this popular visualization only tells part of the story of DNA. In the video below, It’s Okay to Be Smart explains a more accurate way to imagine the blueprints of life.

Even with sophisticated lab equipment, DNA isn’t easy to study. That’s because a strand of the stuff is just 2 nanometers wide, which is smaller than a wavelength of light. Researchers can use electron microscopes to observe the genetic material or x-rays like Rosalind Franklin did, but even these tools paint a flawed picture. The best method scientists have come up with to visualize DNA as it exists inside our cells is computer modeling.

By rendering a 3D image of a genome on a computer, we can see that DNA isn’t just a bunch of free-floating squiggles. Most of the time the strands sit tightly wound in a well-organized web inside the nucleus. These balls of genes are efficient, packing 2 meters of DNA into a space just 10 millionths of a meter across. So if you ever see a giant sculpture inspired by an elegant double-helix structure, imagine it folded into a space smaller than a shoe box to get closer to the truth.

[h/t It’s Okay to Be Smart]

Original image
iStock
arrow
science
Scientists Remove Disease-Causing Mutations from Human Embryos
Original image
iStock

Researchers have successfully edited the genes of viable human embryos to repair mutations that cause a dangerous heart condition. The team published their controversial research in the journal Nature.

The versatile gene-editing technique known as CRISPR-Cas9 is no stranger to headlines. Scientists have already used it to breed tiny pigs, detect disease, and even embed GIFs in bacteria. As our understanding of the process grows more advanced and sophisticated, many researchers have wondered how it could be applied to human beings.

For the new study, an international team of researchers fertilized healthy human eggs with sperm from men with a disease called hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a condition that can lead to sudden death in young people. The mutation responsible for the disease affects a gene called MYBPC3. It’s a dominant mutation, which means that an embryo only needs one bad copy of the gene to develop the disease.

Or, considered another way, this means that scientists could theoretically remove the disease by fixing that one bad copy.

Eighteen hours after fertilizing the eggs, the researchers went back in and used CRISPR-Cas9 to snip out mutated MYBPC3 genes in some of the embryos and replace them with healthy copies. Three days later, they checked back in to see how their subjects—which were, at this point, still microscopic balls of cells—had fared.

The treatment seemed successful. Compared to subjects in the control group, a significant number of edited embryos appeared mutation- and disease-free. The researchers also found no evidence that their intervention had led to any unwanted new mutations, although it is possible that the mutations were there and overlooked.

Our ability to edit human genes is improving by the day. But, many ethicists argue, just because we can do it doesn’t mean that we should. The United States currently prohibits germline editing of human embryos by government-funded researchers. But there’s no law against such experimentation in privately funded projects like this one.

The same day the new study was published, an international committee of genetics experts issued a consensus statement advising against editing any embryo intended for implantation (pregnancy and birth).

"While germline genome editing could theoretically be used to prevent a child being born with a genetic disease, its potential use also raises a multitude of scientific, ethical, and policy questions,” Derek T. Scholes of the American Society of Human Genetics said in a statement. “These questions cannot all be answered by scientists alone, but also need to be debated by society."

Ethicists and sociologists are concerned by the slippery slope of trying to build a better human. Many people with chronic illness and disability live happy, complete lives and report that they’re limited more by discrimination than by any medical issues.

Disability studies expert Lennard Davis of the University of Illinois says we can’t separate scientific decisions from our society’s history of violence against, and oppression of, disabled and sick people.

“A lot of this terrific science and technology has to take into account that the assumption of what life is like for people who are different is based on prejudice against disability,” he told Nature in 2016.

Rosemary Garland-Thomson is co-director of the Disability Studies Initiative at Emory University. Speaking to Nature, she said we are at a cultural and ethical precipice: “At our peril, we are right now trying to decide what ways of being in the world ought to be eliminated.”

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios