Finally, A True Blue Rose Exists

(sciencenews.org)

71 points | by bookofjoe 1 day ago

16 comments

  • kaonwarb 4 hours ago
    Source article is better, and refers to them as “violet-blue roses” https://www.suntory.com/sic/story/20260911/
  • rbanffy 1 hour ago
    I think it’s interesting they noted the flowers stopped making the new pigment in the wild after 3 years - is it a genetic treatment that requires repeated intervention to maintain the effect?

    I’m also guessing the new genes don’t propagate to the seeds as well, so that they can have a steady demand for their special flowers.

    • equinoxnemesis 37 minutes ago
      No, the trial was only conducted for three years, presumably because that's how long they budgeted. I don't think they actually stopped producing blue flowers at that point.
  • furst-blumier 2 hours ago
    Roses are red, roses are blue...
    • ozgung 1 hour ago
      Violets are not red / roses are not blue / you can call them purple / if you have a clue
  • anal_reactor 9 minutes ago
    > Finally, a true blue rose exists

    > It's actually a gradient from white to do desaturated blueish - kinda violet.

    What are they sniffing? When I hear "true blue rose", I imagine a red rose but blue, not this Frankenstein.

  • cinntaile 1 hour ago
    What I'm wondering is why researchers from a brewing company are interested in creating blue roses? How will they apply this to the brewing craft?
  • sehw 18 minutes ago
    2004?
  • rmnclmnt 3 hours ago
    « Hey Coop’! I guess Blue Roses occur in nature now! »

    « Damn good news, Gordon! »

  • mcherm 5 hours ago
    Any article on this topic is unsatisfactory if it lacks a color photo.
    • dao- 5 hours ago
      There is a color photo, but the rose isn't actually blue.
  • QuantumNomad_ 2 hours ago
    The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams, anyone? :)
  • sajithdilshan 4 hours ago
    Are the scientists color blind? The rose is purple.
    • drooopy 45 minutes ago
      It's obviously white and gold.
    • whizzter 3 hours ago
      Bad translation, see the other top-level comment with the origin link that referes to them as violet-blue.
    • replygirl 1 hour ago
      purple isn't real, there is only more blue.
  • rik314159 5 hours ago
    Not actually blue though is it? Kinda purple.
    • frederikvs 5 hours ago
      I would've called it "a sickly kind of purple"
  • lloydatkinson 2 hours ago
    Mild purple would be a better name
  • lol8675309 2 hours ago
    GOOD NEWS EVERYBODY. FINALLY ROSES ARE ALSO BLUE.

    NOW MAYBE BACK TO CANCER?

    • shagie 1 hour ago
      Not everyone has the skill set to cure cancer.

      1,000 labs spending $1M each to cure cancer would likely not progress as far as 10 labs spending $100M each.

      Perfecting the techniques around genetic manipulation will likely indirectly help cure cancer.

      Doing so on something that has public appeal (and little to no opposition) is less risky than doing it on an animal cell line.

  • jimnotgym 3 hours ago
    Finally! What we have all been waiting for. Phew.

    I mean asking us to use different flowers to get our blue colours was just too much.

    • jfengel 2 hours ago
      Weren't we the ones who breathlessly await any progress on the Riemann hypothesis? A theorem of pure number theory, with no applications.

      Breeders pursued it as a challenge. Doing it via genetic engineering probably feels like cheating to them, but the biochemists do it to learn genetic techniques.

      From the picture nobody is going to be putting these in a bouquet any time soon. But the accomplishment is neat. And even if it's not. I'm not gonna yuck their yum.

      • jimnotgym 2 hours ago
        It was more a comment on the article than the research. Especially the title