tech

Scientists make see-through mice

16 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2014 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

16 Comments
Login to comment

Second picture made short work of my breakfast... THANKS A WHOLE BUNCH JT!!!!!!!!

And on a serious note... why? Why do we really need transparent mice?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The trap sees all! Invisible or not, they all want cheese!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Nasty little boys pulling the legs off daddy-long-legs to see what happens get a good sharp slap up the back of the head and told to behave, while 'researchers' killing and mutilating animals en masse for the same reason, get ... funding?

Why do we really need transparent mice?

Why do we need transparent dead mice?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Yeah! I mean what has research really achieved anyway, who needs medicine! Ah the good old days of the Inquisition, that is what we need to get back to!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Great, now I feel like a mouse, my wife can see strait through me.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Using a method that almost completely removes colour from tissue—and kills the mouse in the process

Seriously? I hope no tax dollars were wasted on this

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It preserves the organs in-situ, something which usually requires vivisection.

Not a fan myself but it must have future medical applications or we can go back to blood-letting , leeches and other mediaeval practices.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I second the notion of XInef... Who needs medicine and medical treatment.... we should defend the life of those laboratory bread rats, no matter how many other living creatures could be saved with the knowledge this could lead to.... it is barbaric.

In fact, lets go to burn hospitals and barber shops too.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

jackass have made better inventions on their tv show. give them a reseach grant.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Why do we need transparent dead mice?

beats vivisection

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

So they are only transparent when dead? And drained of fluid. And skinned. And processed...

A bit misleading...

There are some fish and eels that are truly transparent, when alive and swimming in the sea!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Next step, invisible Ninjas!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Takes a cold heart of a person to do this kind of thing to something that feels pain.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I mean what has research really achieved anyway

Valid research has achieved a lot. Bogus research, which most if not all animal research is, has done a lot to hold back meaningful research and to muddy the waters. All that time, money, effort - and lives - spent on 'animal models' and as soon as the 'researchers' think they've found something, they point out that what works on animals doesn't necessarily work on humans (which is true; 92% of drugs that pass animal testing fail in humans; many of the conditions they try to find cures for don't even exist in the animals they inflict so much suffering on and cannot be reproduced in them. Drugs do not have the same effect in animals and humans; if animal experiments had been relied on, aspirin digitalis, insulin, penicillin and many other essential drugs would never have been approved for human use) and they need a whole new trough of grant money so that they can do the same thing again on human subjects. And the vast majority of treatments supposedly effective/successful in animals (that don't suffer from human ailments) fail in the first human trials they are subjected to.

It preserves the organs in-situ, something which usually requires vivisection.

It preserves the organs in situ in a dead animal. Looking at a dead animal does not require vivisection, though your assumption that vivisection is necessary is noted (and rejected).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The last three paragraphs mention why such research could be important. If it could help lead to ways of better treating or even curing cancer, it's worth it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If it could help lead to ways of better treating or even curing cancer, it's worth it

Animal experimenters would have us believe that if they stopped inflicting their sick barbarity on incarcerated animals, sick children, accident victims and most of the adult working population would drop dead in their thousands or tens of thousands. After all, the human lifespan has virtually doubled in the hundred years we've been torturing lab rats, isn't that proof that animal experiments are beneficial?

No, it isn't. Longer lives have been achieved through better hygiene, better pre-natal, neonatal and post-natal care, better nutrition and better awareness of safety measures.

Mice have been being used in cancer 'research' for well over a hundred years - and there is still no cure for cancer. The results of animal experiments are rarely replicated in humans. The way to a cure for cancer lies in studying cancer in humans, not cancer in small furry rodents.

True, it's not easy to get a human subject to submit himself to the same kind of inhumanity that is routinely inflicted on lab animals, and human tests are more expensive and time-consuming; get it wrong, and you face a law-suit. Lab animals don't sue. Another reason why animal experiments tend to be slipshod, ineffective, meaningless and gratuitous; after all, it's only a mouse. Get it wrong, and you can just try again with another.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites