Who wants a "glow in the dark cat" for Christmas?

Well, there are glow-in-the-dark pigs! No really, google it. They were created in gene experiments as well. I personally have conflicting feelings on this topic. Genetic research can save and has save many human and animal lives. My daughter died 4 days after she was born due to a genetic multi-system defect. We knew she was affected before she was born and she went to surgery when she was 2 days old to repair her heart- we where proactive and prepared. Unfortunately, there were so many systems involved and she died. There are now treatments available that save these childrens lives. This is due to genetic research.

The cats and pigs were created to better understand how genes work and this experiment was a way to test gene splicing without hurting the animals, yet have proof positive that the experiment was a success. They were not created just because "it would be cool to have a glow-in-the-dark animal".

On the flip side, I beleive in natural selection and do not agree with the creation of desiner breeds, the propragation of "desired" traits, etc. I get truely angery when people intentially breed "unhealthy" animals because they like the way they look.

This is a sticky topic, like abortion. Do you disallow genetic research, there for disallowing treatments that may save peoples (including babies) lives? Do we also disallow abortion so that children who are doomed to die horribly come into this world? Ouch, tough decision if you really put yourself in the shoes of who this really affects.

For me, the pro's currently out weigh the con's, though I still feel a bit of a moral delemia. I dispise animal research, but is a necessary evil for the advancement of medicine in many areas. People often ask me why we don't use human subjects, and we actually do (we also use deceased subjects -human and animal- whenever we can). But like I tell them, would you want us to experiment on you or your baby? Mot say no, especially about their baby. Then I ask them who's baby should we use then? Thus we have to resort to animal research.

PS please excuse any typo's- my spell check is not working

You won't be complaining when you or someone you know has tumour that is made to show itself by glowing in this way, making its removal easier and safer. Contrary to what people seem to think, projects like this don't get funded because it's "fun". If it doesn't have a medical benefit, its financial backers don't get any money. And Big Pharma makes a LOT of money.

===

So the gist of it is, if it's a cute and cuddly kitten that glows in the dark, it's bad, but you'll benefit all you like from nasty ol' rats?

I mean, if you're dead set against all vivisection, and the benefits it brings, then all respect to you. But you can't really pick and choose based on the cuteness of the animal. That would be hypocrisy.

Sure, at least I wouldn't step on the cat at night, LOL? Poor Smudgie and Kuzca had it done to them sooooo many times. I do feel that this research may be beneficial though not only to cats but humans because the article is right. We do share a lot a diseases with them. Besides wouldn't lightning strike them if God didn't want it, or something.

No I do not feel it is excessive or void of ethics or morality, because they are trying to help their species and ours. You have to look at the larger view, not the shortside of things.

Merry Christmas?

Glow in the dark cat? No, don't want one.

From the article: South Korean scientists have cloned cats by manipulating a fluorescent protein gene, a procedure which could help develop treatments for human genetic diseases, officials said Wednesday.

Oh, treatments for human genetic diseases? Yes, I want that! Seems you missed that bit amidst your "dude, they GLOW" frenzy.

[[edit]] Yes, absolutely. What we're saying is that "anything goes", that the ends justify the means, and we make no distinction whatsoever on a case-by-case basis. Nevermind that we may actually feel that there IS a line and that these "glowing cat" experiments don't cross it. Nevermind that it's very convenient to draw the conclusions about us that are easiest for you to accept by getting us to say one thing and then taking our statements and applying them in a wildly, irresponsibly broad manner.

"Can we agree that just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we SHOULD do it?"

Just because we CAN take steps in researching cures for genetic diseases doesn't mean we SHOULD? Thats exactly what you're saying....

The ability to clone and experiment on clones that have similar tissues to humans (cats are a perfect example) is a major step forward... You have to start somewhere and build from that point. If making animals glow in the dark is that point... Well, meh.

There's more to this than the Yahoo story indicates. I read the original paper while it was still embargoed, later released through PNAS and the glowing is a possible future medical use for targeting tiny areas of disease or genetics. This wasn't done just for fun.

I saw this on the news.

I tend to believe this is worthwhile research. God put everything here for our use within reason. I don't think this harms the cat in any way and the benefits may prove to be enormous.

At least it's not embryonic stem-cell research. I totally disagree with that!

That's just strange and quite frankly - kinda creepy. What was the point? Just to see if they could do it? I think maybe that's going too far. I'm not so sure glow in the dark cats serve any real purpose...

It's just an experiment,one step in learning how to do things that will be much more beneficial. Plus it's pretty cool,I like it and would actually love to have one of those cats. Sort of like a Cat-O-Lantern.

Obama666