So I saw this in the news. Thought it was interesting. I'm curious what other people's opinions are about genetically altering animals. Or just genetic altering in general.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
This is pretty much went through my mind at first as well. Sure I should be thinking "Wow, yay for science." Or, "I wonder what the ethical implications of this will be?"
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Not saying it isn't interesting, but it must have been a slow science news day if they want to recycle this...I haven't delved into the story too deeply but I don't know what is so different or special about this new GFP kitty as opposed to the old ones.
GFP is a pretty common reporter gene in eukaryotes that we use to make it easier to identify whether your transgene experiment worked so you don't have to run a PCR every time- you just shine a UV light on them (and with some GFP, you don't even need that much!). I think my lab has some GFP Tribolium beetles, but I don't work with them.
Obviously, I am all in favor of any sort of transgenic experiment, although the new hotness right now isn't retroviral insertion, it is RNAi.
Personally I am sad that these things don't actually light up like fireflies, although that is a more complex system, and not one I think can be easily transfected into whole new organism.
Still, I wouldn't mind seeing more transgenic animals on the consumer market- I think it could go a long way towards easing people's minds about transgenic experiments in general.
I'd totally adopt a transgenic kitten. Probably not glow in the dark, since my cats keep me up at night enough as it is, but one that was engineered to resist the various common cat problems (FIV, feline leukemia, herpes, and round worm, off the top of my head) would be nice. If they could somehow be simultaneously fluffy and not shed like mad and have waste products that smell like lilac that'd be cool, too. And racing stripes.
Environmentalists and scientists at one of the breeding farms in Siberia have created a new version of the silver fox by allowing only the friendliest animals from each generation to breed. The program was started in 1959 by Dr. Belyaev who believed that the key factor for the domestication of dogs was neither size nor reproduction but behavior. He started experiments with a population of 100 vixens and 30 male foxes from a fur farm in Estonia. Belyaev domesticated a population of foxes and put them under strong selection pressure for inherent tameness. Only 5% of the most disciplined offspring were selected for further breeding. It took 35 generations and 45,000 foxes to select this trait. To keep environmental influences to a minimum, the foxes did not receive any special training, and their contact with humans was limited to brief behavioral tests.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Like, bioluminescence, IIRC, requires actually mixing a couple different chemicals. There isn't one protein that makes lighting bugs glow. Not only do you need to make more chemicals, they need somewhere they can do their work and places where they can be stored before that.
That's a hell of a lot harder than sticking a single gene into an animal's DNA strand.
I'm kind of ambivalent about genetic alteration in general, but what actually scares me is when I read stories like Malaysia releasing genetically altered mosquitoes into the wild.
To me that stuff sounds dangerous. Of course there is a side of me however that wonders what happens when we mix something like that with something like this:
I'm kind of ambivalent about genetic alteration in general, but what actually scares me is when I read stories like Malaysia releasing genetically altered mosquitoes into the wild.
To me that stuff sounds dangerous. Of course there is a side of me however that wonders what happens when we mix something like that with something like this:
Do you eat strawberries? Genetically altered with fish proteins to resist freezing
Do you eat potatoes? Genetically altered with BT Toxin to resist pests.
It seems like every time we make something that "glows in the dark" it's usually with the caveat that it requires special lighting.*
Damnit I want animals that are actually bioluminescent!
Edit: I know there are exceptions to this statement.
This, this right here. I've tripped over more than a few I'd love any future cat of mine to actually glow in the dark at night. I really think we need to invent some sort of new word to describe this current crop of animals since it's really like when they take a blacklight into a motel room to look for all the stains that don't wash out. Very different from introducing bioluminescence into a complex living organism that had nothing like it before.
If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"
Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
Like, bioluminescence, IIRC, requires actually mixing a couple different chemicals. There isn't one protein that makes lighting bugs glow. Not only do you need to make more chemicals, they need somewhere they can do their work and places where they can be stored before that.
That's a hell of a lot harder than sticking a single gene into an animal's DNA strand.
Which is why I gave the caveat that it is a "more complex system"
Let me lay it out- I am working in insect molecular biology right now.
If anyone could make something with firefly level bioluminescence, it would be me
Unfortunately, it ain't possible, and thus we are all a bit sad
I'm kind of ambivalent about genetic alteration in general, but what actually scares me is when I read stories like Malaysia releasing genetically altered mosquitoes into the wild.
To me that stuff sounds dangerous. Of course there is a side of me however that wonders what happens when we mix something like that with something like this:
Do you eat strawberries? Genetically altered with fish proteins to resist freezing
Do you eat potatoes? Genetically altered with BT Toxin to resist pests.
This shit is really really common.
I know. That's why I'm kind of on the fence about it (just my opinion on the matter). I mean scientifically I think it's interesting. I think the goal is reasonable if you think about it helping people. The geek in me thinks it's pretty rad to wonder where it could lead. But seeing as how it's so common, and seeing as how, given mankind's nature, it will inevitably continue and grow to other areas, I find it difficult to not be a little wary. Human beings (and governments especially), don't exactly have the greatest track record when it comes to not abusing science (or anything really). Sort of the same way some people view guns: Cool, but also very dangerous. It's a complex issue, hence the post.
TheClaw on
When have power, how get skill? - Me
0
Options
L Ron HowardThe duckMinnesotaRegistered Userregular
I'm all for genetic manipulation of animals and plants.
Imagine how helpful that glow in the dark thingy would be for searching for children that are missing.
Like, bioluminescence, IIRC, requires actually mixing a couple different chemicals. There isn't one protein that makes lighting bugs glow. Not only do you need to make more chemicals, they need somewhere they can do their work and places where they can be stored before that.
That's a hell of a lot harder than sticking a single gene into an animal's DNA strand.
Which is why I gave the caveat that it is a "more complex system"
Let me lay it out- I am working in insect molecular biology right now.
If anyone could make something with firefly level bioluminescence, it would be me
Unfortunately, it ain't possible, and thus we are all a bit sad
Hmm, what about creating a modified firefly that seek out and live in tiny, tiny subdermal pockets under the skin of an animal modified to secret extra sugars (or whatever fireflies need) through their sweat?
Not saying it isn't interesting, but it must have been a slow science news day if they want to recycle this...I haven't delved into the story too deeply but I don't know what is so different or special about this new GFP kitty as opposed to the old ones.
The glow in the dark isn't the point this time, its just what people are fixated on. The point is injecting genes to help with FIV resistance...the glow in the dark genes got attached as a "Yep, the genes got delivered" visual cue.
Hmm, what about creating a modified firefly that seek out and live in tiny, tiny subdermal pockets under the skin of an animal modified to secret extra sugars (or whatever fireflies need) through their sweat?
...
Probably a good thing I'm not a geneticist.
What you are looking for is bioluminescent bacteria, which is how lots of bioluminescent animals glow, already.
Hmm, what about creating a modified firefly that seek out and live in tiny, tiny subdermal pockets under the skin of an animal modified to secret extra sugars (or whatever fireflies need) through their sweat?
...
Probably a good thing I'm not a geneticist.
What you are looking for is bioluminescent bacteria, which is how lots of bioluminescent animals glow, already.
Me too. I consider myself open-minded and would completely support the kitten's chosen lifestyle.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Wouldn't being glow in the dark completely fuck up a cats hunting skills? I'm all for genetic engineering to increase resistance to diseases etc, but I'd draw the line at changing appearances for the same reason I disagree with handbag dogs, it's just changing shit for the sake of vanity.
Wouldn't being glow in the dark completely fuck up a cats hunting skills? I'm all for genetic engineering to increase resistance to diseases etc, but I'd draw the line at changing appearances for the same reason I disagree with handbag dogs, it's just changing shit for the sake of vanity.
That isn't what is happening. Try reading the linked article.
Given that most domesticated cats hunt by jumping on their owners faces until they get fed, glowing in the dark would make them that much harder to ignore. As far as wild cats... well, sure, but I doubt that these cats are going to be released into the wild. They might interbreed with feral cats, though, which could cause problems.
Also, handbag dogs aren't made through advanced genetic tinkering, just good ol' fashioned animal husbandry, you know, what we've been doing for 10,000 years.
Wouldn't being glow in the dark completely fuck up a cats hunting skills? I'm all for genetic engineering to increase resistance to diseases etc, but I'd draw the line at changing appearances for the same reason I disagree with handbag dogs, it's just changing shit for the sake of vanity.
The maximum excitation wavelength for the eGFP protein is 488 nm, visible light for humans is 390nm to 750nm. Shine a blue (UV) light on these & use filters to block the blue light from your eyes, which will allow you to see the 'glow'. You won't see it otherwise.
Vanity? Humans have been selecting for traits in other species for thousands of years, this is simply an acceleration of that process of trait selection.
Although, granted, we've never had jellyfish mate with mammals before...
There are species of dogs that exist today (regardless of genetic engineering), that are completely reliant on humans, as they are unable to hunt as their ancestors did. They can't survive otherwise.
Posts
soon...
This is pretty much went through my mind at first as well. Sure I should be thinking "Wow, yay for science." Or, "I wonder what the ethical implications of this will be?"
Instead, I thought "You're a kitty!"
Transgenic kittens: adorable
Hey, I'm entitled to a little cognitive dissonance once in a while. It's not like I'm a perfectly rational actor regarding cats anyway.
Dog - http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/27/korean-scientists-produce-glow-in-dark-dog/
Tobbacco - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962873,00.html
Pig - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4605202.stm
My kitten is augmented
Are puppies that different?
...we made "glow in the dark cats" back in 2007.
Not saying it isn't interesting, but it must have been a slow science news day if they want to recycle this...I haven't delved into the story too deeply but I don't know what is so different or special about this new GFP kitty as opposed to the old ones.
GFP is a pretty common reporter gene in eukaryotes that we use to make it easier to identify whether your transgene experiment worked so you don't have to run a PCR every time- you just shine a UV light on them (and with some GFP, you don't even need that much!). I think my lab has some GFP Tribolium beetles, but I don't work with them.
Obviously, I am all in favor of any sort of transgenic experiment, although the new hotness right now isn't retroviral insertion, it is RNAi.
Personally I am sad that these things don't actually light up like fireflies, although that is a more complex system, and not one I think can be easily transfected into whole new organism.
Still, I wouldn't mind seeing more transgenic animals on the consumer market- I think it could go a long way towards easing people's minds about transgenic experiments in general.
Damnit I want animals that are actually bioluminescent!
Edit: I know there are exceptions to this statement.
That's a hell of a lot harder than sticking a single gene into an animal's DNA strand.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350708/Genetically-modified-mosquitoes-released-Malaysia-sparks-fears-uncontrollable-new-species.html
To me that stuff sounds dangerous. Of course there is a side of me however that wonders what happens when we mix something like that with something like this:
http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/“zombie”-ants-fall-victim-to-mind-control-fungus/
So genetic altering + mind controling fungus = ?
Welcome to the apocolypse *DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUN*
Do you eat strawberries? Genetically altered with fish proteins to resist freezing
Do you eat potatoes? Genetically altered with BT Toxin to resist pests.
This shit is really really common.
This, this right here. I've tripped over more than a few I'd love any future cat of mine to actually glow in the dark at night. I really think we need to invent some sort of new word to describe this current crop of animals since it's really like when they take a blacklight into a motel room to look for all the stains that don't wash out. Very different from introducing bioluminescence into a complex living organism that had nothing like it before.
Which is why I gave the caveat that it is a "more complex system"
Let me lay it out- I am working in insect molecular biology right now.
If anyone could make something with firefly level bioluminescence, it would be me
Unfortunately, it ain't possible, and thus we are all a bit sad
I know. That's why I'm kind of on the fence about it (just my opinion on the matter). I mean scientifically I think it's interesting. I think the goal is reasonable if you think about it helping people. The geek in me thinks it's pretty rad to wonder where it could lead. But seeing as how it's so common, and seeing as how, given mankind's nature, it will inevitably continue and grow to other areas, I find it difficult to not be a little wary. Human beings (and governments especially), don't exactly have the greatest track record when it comes to not abusing science (or anything really). Sort of the same way some people view guns: Cool, but also very dangerous. It's a complex issue, hence the post.
You cannot remove that which was never there in the first place.
So cute! You're a kitty!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBfi8OEz0rA
Lol, awesome. I need a house honey badger. I'll give it a badger house in my front yard and put a sign that says "Beware of Badger"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVxxLYmypv8
I'm all for genetic manipulation of animals and plants.
Imagine how helpful that glow in the dark thingy would be for searching for children that are missing.
Hmm, what about creating a modified firefly that seek out and live in tiny, tiny subdermal pockets under the skin of an animal modified to secret extra sugars (or whatever fireflies need) through their sweat?
...
Probably a good thing I'm not a geneticist.
The glow in the dark isn't the point this time, its just what people are fixated on. The point is injecting genes to help with FIV resistance...the glow in the dark genes got attached as a "Yep, the genes got delivered" visual cue.
What you are looking for is bioluminescent bacteria, which is how lots of bioluminescent animals glow, already.
The so-called "symbiotic" relationship
Me too. I consider myself open-minded and would completely support the kitten's chosen lifestyle.
SQUEEEEE!!!!!
That isn't what is happening. Try reading the linked article.
And, hunting skills for a household pet? What?
Also, handbag dogs aren't made through advanced genetic tinkering, just good ol' fashioned animal husbandry, you know, what we've been doing for 10,000 years.
The glow under a specific florescent light!
chameleon + cat
you will never feel safe inside your own home again
Vanity? Humans have been selecting for traits in other species for thousands of years, this is simply an acceleration of that process of trait selection.
Although, granted, we've never had jellyfish mate with mammals before...
There are species of dogs that exist today (regardless of genetic engineering), that are completely reliant on humans, as they are unable to hunt as their ancestors did. They can't survive otherwise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAyJuKq2aWA&feature=player_embedded