Mighty Mice?
One of my favorite cartoons as a youth was, “Mighty Mouse,” a story about a mouse who had transformed himself into a superhero during a dire time in his town, where cats ruled and bullied his friends into submission. He spent one night in a supermarket, cleaning himself with super soap, eating super foods and drinking super drinks to bring out a statuesque mouse ready to “save the day.” Throughout the series, he fought against several enemies including his most devious foe, “Oil Can Harry,” and was often called to save one of his mouse girlfriends Pearl Pureheart.
It was while I was listening to the radio show “Wait Wait, Don’t Tell Me” on NPR the other day that I was reminded of this childhood favorite, when they described research that had been done by American scientists that have successfully genetically altered a mouse to have capabilities beyond those of an average wild mouse. The segment ended with the Might Mouse theme song, prompting me to immediately look up the story when I came home that evening.
I found an article entitled, “The mouse that shook the world,” detailing the phenomenon in the online version of “The Independent,” a news publication based in the United Kingdom, published November 2, 2007. It indicates these genetically altered mice can run up to 3.7 miles in roughly 5 hours without stopping. The scientists who conducted the study indicated this was roughly equivalent to a man cycling at high speed up an Alpine mountain without a break. The mouse’s other extraordinary characteristics include the ability to eat up to 60% more than its ordinary counterparts without weight gain, a longer life expectancy and an active sex life well into its old age. Clicking the link to the article above will also show a video of this extraordinary mouse’s running ability.
What was most astonishing for these scientists was that the changes to the subject came about as a result of a standard genetic modification to a single metabolism gene that mice share with humans. The purpose of the research was originally to better understand the PEPCK-C enzyme, primarily present in the liver and kidneys. The modification to the gene, however, put 100 times the normal concentration of the enzyme into the supermouse’s muscles, and the resulting side effects were completely unexpected. In addition to the physical changes in the mice, the scientists indicated that they appear to be more aggressive.
The research was not intended to pave the way for similar genetic manipulation in humans. The methodology used to alter the mice was started when the mouse was an embryo. Richard Hanson, biochemistry professor at Case Western Reserve University at Cleveland in Ohio and head of the research team of 15 scientists, indicated that there would be moral questions arising from the application of this specific technique in humans. He said:
We humans have exactly the same gene. But this is not something that you’d do to a human. It’s completely wrong. We do not think that this mouse model is an appropriate model for human gene therapy. It is currently not possible to introduce genes into the skeletal muscles of humans and it would not be ethical to even try. (1)
Pharmaceutical companies may be able to leverage the results of this research to develop new drugs capable of of enhancing muscle performance for certain types of patients. While Professor Hanson said that he would ideally like to see his research used to help such patients, he also understands that there would be a real possibility that these kinds of drugs could also be misused by athletes for their performance-enhancing characteristics. Whether this could become the new “steroid” would remain to be seen.
What kind of implications do you see in this kind of discovery? Do you see secret experiments funded by the US government to create super-soldiers capable of increased aggression and endurance? Does this open up a Pandora’s Box within the realm of genetic manipulation?
Before you vehemently argue completely against genetic manipulation, consider this: while I was doing my research on the subject of super-mice, another article struck me about another unique type of mouse, created by researchers at the University of Kentucky, that is resistant to all kinds of cancer, including those that are highly aggressive. They were inspired by the work of a research team at the UK College of Medicine led by a professor of radiation medicine named Vivek Rangnekar, who discovered a tumor-suppressor gene called “Par-4″ in the prostate. It’s this gene that is responsible for the mouse’s resistance to cancer, as “Par-4″ is capable of specifically targeting and killing cancer cells while leaving normal, healthy cells alone.
A further advantage that this mouse demonstrated as it was studied was that it showed no indication of increased toxicity from the treatment, an indication that what’s learned here could potentially be developed into a treatment for cancer patients that does not have the same kind of side effects associated with radiation and chemotherapy. It’s a goal very similar to the one expressed by scientists studying the use of cannabis compounds as cancer treatments, which I explored about a week ago (you can find the article by clicking here). It’s a goal that’s particularly important to Vivek Rangnekar, as he indicated at the conclusion of the article:
“I look at this research from the standpoint of how it can be developed to the benefit of the cancer patient and that’s really what keeps us focused all this time,” said Rangnekar. “If you look at the pain that cancer patients go through, not just from the disease, but also from the treatment – it’s excruciating. If you have someone in your family, like I did, who has gone through that, you know you can see that pain. If you can not only treat the cancer, but also not harm the patient, that’s a major breakthrough. That’s happening with these animals and I think that’s wonderful.” (2)
Given that there are some “accidental” discoveries that could pose some significant ethical questions, where do you see the genetic manipulation of animals headed in the future? Do you think that this kind of research as necessary in order to move us further down the evolutionary chain? Is this knowledge best left untapped? How could these discoveries possibly shake the religious foundations upon which people base their beliefs? Are we becoming too god-like in rewriting what nature originally intended?
I believe that this kind of research should continue because knowledge is powerful, but knowledge can also be dangerous. We should tread carefully as we walk into these unchartered waters, because while we could become the masters of the diseases that afflict us, one mistake and we could become the masters of our own demise.
(1) See “The mouse that shook the world,” The Independent, Steve Connor, Science Editor, November 2, 2007.
(2) See “Cancer-resistant mouse discovered,” Eurekalert.org, Amy Ratliff, November 27, 2007.
