• gregorum
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Hold on— they sent the blastocysts back to earth rather than let at least some be born in order to study those, too? I mean… I just seems inefficient considering that not only would they have to do that as a logical next step in the study and the cost of launching mice embryos would - from a cost-benefit analysis of how to best spend grant money - be best served by doing as much research as possible in a single launch cycle.

    But, hey, I don’t know a lot of the details. I’m not a mouse astrobiologist (or whatever). Im looking at this from a mission planning standpoint (edit: also, I am not a space mission planner). But, hey, hooray for advancements in noodle-boned space-mice grown in microgravity!

    • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      rather than let at least some be born in order to study those, too?

      They only had fertilised embryos. They couldn’t let them develop any further as they would have to implanted into a host mother to continue to develop.

      This is a first step to test if initial cell division after fertilisation works as expected in micro-gravity.

      I just seems inefficient considering that not only would they have to do that as a logical next step in the study and the cost of launching mice embryos would

      The skills required for micro-surgery in micro gravity probably do not exist yet. It is not the cost of sending a few mouse embronic cells that held them back but this.

      from a cost-benefit analysis of how to best spend grant money

      When it comes to grant money:

      “Prove the embryo develops normally before we spend the money trying to implant them.” Would be the normal process.

      • gregorum
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Ok, but the cost of launching all that into space has got to be the vast majority of the cost of money and time (by an incredible and unsustainable amount), so wouldn’t it make sense to somehow streamline that?

        Certainly there must be a way to do that without compromising the integrity of the science and data.

        • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          but the cost of launching all that into space has got to be the vast majority of the cost of money and time

          The cost of what, a few grams of embryos? The marginal cost is basically zero as there are regular resupply flights to the ISS that are already bought and paid for. The frozen embryos would ride up with them.

          The real cost is the cost of sending up the mission specialist to run the experiment and as I said the person who ran this experiment is not the person you need to run the experiment you are talking about.

          First experiment: This is a pretty simple one, place frozen samples in machine bring them up to temp, let develop for four days, refreeze and send back to earth. Some for analysis and other to implant into a host mother, grow to term on earth and see if early microgravity had any effect on development.

          If this shows good results. Move on to the next step.

          Possible next experiment: Send pregnant mouse to station, and return once the babies are born. Test for issues.