驚人實(shí)驗(yàn):同性伴侶未來(lái)也能生兒育女

         Scientists have created mice with two fathers – raising the possibility of gay couples having children who are genetically their own.

In experiments hailed as a ‘new form of mammalian reproduction’, American researchers used a complex series of steps to engineer ‘male eggs’ to be carried by female mice.

　　The creatures were then mated with normal males – leading to the creation of pups with two fathers.

　　科學(xué)家成功培育出了一只有兩個(gè)“爹”的小白鼠，這為“同志”伴侶繁衍后代的可能性給許多同志伴侶帶來(lái)了新的希望?？茖W(xué)家們通過(guò)復(fù)雜的步驟，將“雄性卵子”植入了雌性體內(nèi)，之后雌性白鼠在與正常的雄性白鼠交配產(chǎn)子，而新生的幼鼠則成為了“兩位父親”的“杰作”。

　　The geneticists behind the controversial technique said it could potentially be used to improve livestock breeds or preserve endangered species. More provocatively, they claim that if the technique can be refined, ‘someday two men could produce their own genetic sons and daughters’.But critics say such a scenario would sideline women from the creation of life – and a child’s health and wellbeing should always take precedence over an adult’s desire to be a parent, however strong.

　　科學(xué)家表示此項(xiàng)科技可用于提高畜禽品種質(zhì)量和保護(hù)瀕危滅絕物種，而更具爭(zhēng)議的是，它或許將使得“男性之間實(shí)現(xiàn)生兒育女”成為現(xiàn)實(shí)。但反對(duì)者批評(píng)這樣的情況或?qū)⑴耘懦诜毖芎蟠倪^(guò)程之外，而小孩的身心健康、生活幸福總是要比一個(gè)成年人希望為人父母的欲望要來(lái)得強(qiáng)烈的多。

　　Other stem cell experts and ethicists have questioned the need to go through such a complex process to create life. Chris Mason, professor of regenerative medicine at University College London, said: ‘One day it may be possible in people, although the technical barriers are far higher than in mice, plus there are major safety issues. ‘The real question, is why would doctors want to use the technique for people? I would be extremely surprised if this scientific discovery had any impact on clinical medicine.’

　　不過(guò)有些干細(xì)胞學(xué)者和倫理專家對(duì)于這一過(guò)程的復(fù)雜與繁復(fù)性提出了疑問(wèn)。“或許有一天這一方法將運(yùn)用于人類，不過(guò)人類‘安全壁壘’則遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高于小白鼠，而且其中存在嚴(yán)重的安全隱患。”一位來(lái)自倫敦大學(xué)的醫(yī)學(xué)教授說(shuō)到，“真正的問(wèn)題在于，醫(yī)生為何要將之技術(shù)運(yùn)用于人類，我認(rèn)為這一科學(xué)發(fā)現(xiàn)對(duì)于臨床醫(yī)學(xué)的影響有限。”

　　Josephine Quintavalle, of campaign group Comment on Reproductive Ethics, said: ‘By the scientists’ own admission it was a weird project, but apart from doing it just for the hang of it, there does not seem to be any real justification for the research.

　　'We should worry when scientists in the area of mammalian reproduction seem to be beyond self-regulation.’

　　還有學(xué)者批評(píng)，“這樣一個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)室非常不可理喻的，我們真正該擔(dān)心的是哺乳動(dòng)物生殖領(lǐng)域的某些‘專家’已經(jīng)逾越了科學(xué)家應(yīng)有的自律底線。”