Cloned Cats That Glow?

[Jahfin]

South Korean scientists say they have cloned cats whose genes have been altered so that they glow in the dark - taking advantage of a technological twist that could someday be used to make more dramatic genetic changes in all sorts of creatures.

Click here to read more:

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200....aspx?GT1=10645

[Old Scratch]

I WAS JUST READING THAT STORY ON CNN!

FREAKY COINICIDENCE!

~666

[bigstickbonzo]

[obsessedwithzeppelin]

That's kinda odd...& even seems a bit wrong............but I want a glow in the dark kitty!

[Mona]

[manderlyh]

My favorite comment on that webpage that sums up how I feel about this "making anmials glow" is this:

"How about we color code the endanger specieces this way is easy to tell which one are on the list. We can use different colors to tell how endangered they are. "

That comment clearly belongs in the sarcasm thread.

Seriously though--why are we doing this? I understand that medical advancements can be made, but do we really need to alter the DNA of animals to do this? It makes me sick!

Humans have manipulated their life spans a great deal with medicine. It would be nice to find cures for certain diseases, but I feel that when we're altering the building-block structure of how animals are put together that we're screwing with science too much. We're altering DNA of animals for human benefit! How selfish is that? The animals are being "created," in a similar way to how Dr. Frankenstein created his monster---and that is fiction, not real life.

This is animal testing. I don't like it at all.

[RoboInvisaBunny]

Thant's really creepy....yet...at the same time, kind of cool.

I don't think I suport it though. Usally when they do stuff like this, the animals develope health problems, and die at too young of an age.

Edited December 15, 2007 by RoboInvisaBunny

[allthekingshorses]

I saw it on the news about 30 min. ago.... CREEPY!

[FuzzyMerkin]

Why only make them glow? Make them shine bright and we're a step closer to solving the world's impending energy crisis.

Then go for those eco-friendly kangaroo farts and we're sorted:

Eco-friendly kangaroo farts could help global warming: scientists say

"SYDNEY (AFP) - Australian scientists are trying to give kangaroo-style stomachs to cattle and sheep in a bid to cut the emission of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, researchers say.

Thanks to special bacteria in their stomachs, kangaroo flatulence contains no methane and scientists want to transfer that bacteria to cattle and sheep who emit large quantities of the harmful gas."

The future looks bright again, folks!

Edited for faulty brain-hand coordination.

Edited December 15, 2007 by FuzzyMerkin

[tangerinedream]

My favorite comment on that webpage that sums up how I feel about this "making anmials glow" is this:

"How about we color code the endanger specieces this way is easy to tell which one are on the list. We can use different colors to tell how endangered they are. "

That comment clearly belongs in the sarcasm thread.

Seriously though--why are we doing this? I understand that medical advancements can be made, but do we really need to alter the DNA of animals to do this? It makes me sick!

Humans have manipulated their life spans a great deal with medicine. It would be nice to find cures for certain diseases, but I feel that when we're altering the building-block structure of how animals are put together that we're screwing with science too much. We're altering DNA of animals for human benefit! How selfish is that? The animals are being "created," in a similar way to how Dr. Frankenstein created his monster---and that is fiction, not real life.

This is animal testing. I don't like it at all.

I agree completely.

The South Koreans are notoriously unethical. Really notorious. Their most famous stem cell guy claimed to have cloned human cells, and published an article on it in a premier science journal, Nature I think. But it was later revealed that he falsified data, and the article was retracted. They're probably still attempting to clone human cells over there though. They'll stop at nothing.

Much like Led Zeppelin fans who want a 2008 tour.

There are good researchers there though too, I note in fairness. It was South Koreans who discovered the fraud and pushed the university to investigate Suk's data. It's just that the SK government is heavily invested in its scientists becoming internationally known, which is just dangerous for science, because it puts too much pressure on researchers to make headline-worthy breakthroughs like the one Suk claimed to make.

Edited December 15, 2007 by tangerinedream

[manderlyh]

I agree completely.

The South Koreans are notoriously unethical. Really notorious. Their most famous stem cell guy claimed to have cloned human cells, and published an article on it in a premier science journal, Nature I think. But it was later revealed that he falsified data, and the article was retracted. They're probably still attempting to clone human cells over there though. They'll stop at nothing.

Much like Led Zeppelin fans who want a 2008 tour.

There are good researchers there though too, I note in fairness. It was South Koreans who discovered the fraud and pushed the university to investigate Suk's data. It's just that the SK government is heavily invested in its scientists becoming internationally known, which is just dangerous for science, because it puts too much pressure on researchers to make headline-worthy breakthroughs like the one Suk claimed to make.

That's creepy.

I understand why we want to do stem cell research and all, but cloning is not a good idea, IMO. It's like getting pregnant for the one sole reason of trying to save an existing child's life because the baby may be a matching donor for marrow or some other tissue.

I cloning isn't that bad--but it's the mutating of DNA that is what has me sitting here with a queasy stomach. We should not be messing with biology to the point to where we are giving animals characteristics that they DO NOT HAVE in nature. I'm against "designer babies" because I think that's incredibly superficial and once eveyrone's having designer babies, other traits will eventually be killed off in a generation or two if everyone weeds out traits that "aren't hot." It will be like babies being "last fall's model."

WTF? I really think this needs to stop because now that we are altering the DNA of mammals to make them what we want, when are we going to stop? Will it be okay son to alter our children's DNA, too? We're changing the genetic makeup of an organism when we do this. We are creating something that should not be created otherwise--something that would never, ever, ever occur with natural sexual reproduction. It's very scary, IMO.

[guitarmy]

I wonder how an animal like this would survive in the wild?

Like would these traits help cats or hurt them?

Or mice for that matter.

It'd make hunting at night a lot easier than hunting in the day!

[Levee]

Why do I fear these cats are going to show up on E-bay?

[DaughterOfZeppelin]

My favorite comment on that webpage that sums up how I feel about this "making anmials glow" is this:

"How about we color code the endanger specieces this way is easy to tell which one are on the list. We can use different colors to tell how endangered they are. "

That comment clearly belongs in the sarcasm thread.

Seriously though--why are we doing this? I understand that medical advancements can be made, but do we really need to alter the DNA of animals to do this? It makes me sick!

Humans have manipulated their life spans a great deal with medicine. It would be nice to find cures for certain diseases, but I feel that when we're altering the building-block structure of how animals are put together that we're screwing with science too much. We're altering DNA of animals for human benefit! How selfish is that? The animals are being "created," in a similar way to how Dr. Frankenstein created his monster---and that is fiction, not real life.

This is animal testing. I don't like it at all.

I totally agree. Saw this on Anderson Cooper and it's just so sad.

[Stargazer]

As far as designer babies go and such I am completely against it.

And when they make cat's glow in the dark just to get some articles written about

their research is also sick and twisted.

as for animal testing, i have little problem with medical testing done on animals

as long as there is a true life saving/improving pay-off to be made down the line.

And it has to be done with some humane regulation of course.

putting mascara in the eyes of bunnies is not defendable in that respect.

And all testing in greater apes is also horrendous in my mind.

But I truly believe that we as a species will be able to put a part of our

own evolution in our control at some point.

But we should not do it now. Our knowledge and proficiency is far to low

to risk it. And the fact that it will not be available to everyone is also

very worrying.

but it is a very difficult and touchy subject, for some very good reasons.

There are great pay-offs as well as great danger to be had.

[ZoSoDragon]

I read that story in a magazine at the dentists office or something...I was just thinking that if I was out at night driving, and I saw a glowing green cat dart across the road I'd probably have an accident