Genetically engineered glow-in-the-dark dog

[Amazon 7]

  Quote

  Quote

Wow just think of the possibilities.... glow in the dark cocks...

You can already get those:
http://www.nightlightcondoms.com/

I wonder if the repubicans know about those...

[pirana 0]

It occurs to me that the people in this forum are, in general, slightly behind the times on the latest goodies available to the public, at least glow-in-the-dark wise.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Amazon 7]

  Quote

It occurs to me that the people in this forum are, in general, slightly behind the times on the latest goodies available to the public, at least glow-in-the-dark wise.

I would say a bunch of the guys on this forum... are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history, just like their incompetent leader for the last 8 years.

[Shotgun 1]

  Quote

It occurs to me that the people in this forum are, in general, slightly behind the times on the latest goodies available to the public, at least glow-in-the-dark wise.

Well, I'm guessing that most people don't have a big interest in glow-in-the-dark pets or cocks, so they probably don't keep up with that sort of news.

[riddler 0]

  Quote

and yet how many brain dead stereotype skydiver with the tattoos and piercings (to repeat - in order to show they are an individual .... just like everyone else) do you know that would pay good money to make themselves either irridescent just for giggles?

I'm fine with that - people can choose, animals can not. In fact, if the Korean scientists did the experiments on themselves, and tried to make themselves glow, I would be happy for them. People that treat animals with absolutely no respect get my utmost disdain.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[PLFXpert 0]

  Quote

I'm fine with that - people can choose, animals can not. In fact, if the Korean scientists did the experiments on themselves, and tried to make themselves glow, I would be happy for them. People that treat animals with absolutely no respect get my utmost disdain.

Animal testing for me is circumstantial. I am very aware of useless animal testing and subsequently make a conscious effort never to purchase products from companies who--or whose parent companies--test on animals.

W/r/t medicine, in many (most?) circumstances I would take the same position. However, I do see why in some cases it is beneficial. I was actually going to post a response very similar to billvon's >. I think in scenarios in which I deem "beneficial" the difference to me is the care and treatment of the animal being tested. I firmly believe testing on an animal and treating the animal inhumanely do not ever need to go hand-in-hand. I admit, seeing glow-in-the-dark dogs run around is not-at-all funny to me. But, as far as I know it is not doing them any harm and is potentially helping humans track what & how various things are doing. As long as the dog has a toy, a bone, is taken on walks and has play time, a comfy bed, food & water and gets a good scratchin' daily then...

Sadly, most animal testing is not this way. That is what upsets me about it.

I am all for humans volunteering for such testing, however.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Baksteen 84]

  Quote

  Quote

We already can - and it's an invaluable tool in (cancer) research.

You are saying that in standard cancer research, iridescent genes are inserted into patients' DNA so that doctors can see where the cancer is with a blacklight? I've never heard of that - maybe you can provide a link?

That's not what I meant.
Cancer is so complex a disease that there is no 'standard' research, only pieces of the puzzle.
But using genetically modified organisms to produce certain kinds of proteins which after extensive further research could be used in humans to treat cancer is definitely possible today.

example here. Search for "antibody therapy" or for "gene therapy".

In antibody therapy research, cells which produce the antibody of choice are 'immortalised' by fusing them with a cancer cell. The resulting cell is then modified to resemble a human cell so that the patient's immune system will not try to attack the cure which is harvested.

What does this have to do with glow-in-the-dark dogs? At this stage nothing, but fluorescence may very well be used to observe the effects of the drug (in test tubes).

As to the animal research, I am firmly opposed to "horror experiments" and cosmetics research but I'm afraid that some AR is simply necessary...
Suppose we came up with a possible cure for any disease you'd like to name, but only based on literature studies. Would you blindly take it when you got the disease, or would you like the scientific community to try and research any possible toxic or harmful effects?

Scientists use mice wherever possible, but no animal is exactly comparable to humans.. for each study the best alternative is sought but sometimes you simply cannot avoid using 'cuddly' animals such as rabbits or dogs - or even recognisable ones like chimps.

Cue public outrage.

But I can tell you, there may be some cruel AR scientists, but most of them care.

I briefly considered to get a certificate that would qualify me to handle animals on the basis that if it had to be done it better be done by someone who cared - but I couldn't.
I knew that as soon as I saw a sedated mouse killed - the sound of its neck breaking still haunts me sometimes..

"That formation-stuff in freefall is just fun and games but with an open parachute it's starting to sound like, you know, an extreme sport."
~mom

[Skyrad 0]

  Quote

There is no excuse for this. Korean scientists have created, and also cloned, a dog that glows under blacklight.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_on_sc/as_skorea_cloned_dogs

  Quote

SEOUL, South Korea – South Korean scientists say they have engineered four beagles that glow red using cloning techniques that could help develop cures for human diseases. The four dogs, all named "Ruppy" — a combination of the words "ruby" and "puppy" — look like typical beagles by daylight.

But they glow red under ultraviolet light, and the dogs' nails and abdomens, which have thin skins, look red even to the naked eye.

I do not believe for a second that this was done in the interest of science. Iridescent dogs cannot possibly help cure human disease. It makes much more economic sense to give them a trademark name, like "Ruppy", and sell them at Wal-Mart for $1,000 per pop (Free Blacklight with every purchase!)

And despite my disgust, all I can wonder is: does their poop also glow? Because if it did, it would be really easy to avoid it while walking in the park.

if you can geneticly induce a tumour to do the same under black light it would then be possible for surgeons to be able to see and detect and therefore remove cancerous cells that may have invaded local tissue.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

  Quote

  Quote

We already can - and it's an invaluable tool in (cancer) research.

You are saying that in standard cancer research, iridescent genes are inserted into patients' DNA so that doctors can see where the cancer is with a blacklight? I've never heard of that - maybe you can provide a link?

I recently went to a talk in Trinity College Dublin where this kind of technology was being used to study the migration of cancerous cells through blood vessles. It was very interesting.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[nerdgirl 0]

  Quote

  Quote

We already can - and it's an invaluable tool in (cancer) research.

You are saying that in standard cancer research, iridescent genes are inserted into patients' DNA so that doctors can see where the cancer is with a blacklight? I've never heard of that - maybe you can provide a link?

Here are a few links on GFP (one of the UV fluorescent proteins) cancer therapy and imaging.

Very little "standard" cancer research involves direct experiments on humans. Experiments using cancerous cells in vitro, in a petri dish or cell culture, yes. Or experiments on animal models, which often start with mice. Human patients tend to be during and at the end of clinical trials (exceptions for things like treatments for small pox or nerve agents; animal models are acceptable all the way through trials).

I'm most familiar with GFP and other flourescent tags or makers being used for imaging (determining where cancer are in the body &/or extent of spread) or in conjunction with therapy/delivery of chemotherapeutics to only target the cancerous cells and not affect the healthy cells.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

We already can - and it's an invaluable tool in (cancer) research.

You are saying that in standard cancer research, iridescent genes are inserted into patients' DNA so that doctors can see where the cancer is with a blacklight? I've never heard of that - maybe you can provide a link?

I recently went to a talk in Trinity College Dublin where this kind of technology was being used to study the migration of cancerous cells through blood vessles. It was very interesting.

Another good example (not necessarily the same research you heard but the general idea).

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[riddler 0]

  Quote

That's not what I meant.

I figured that, because what you were implying simply does not exist, so I apologize for baiting you with the question.

  Quote

What does this have to do with glow-in-the-dark dogs? At this stage nothing,

I know that too. There are better and more humane ways to accomplish this science.

To reiterate my position, I believe that genetic experimentation for the purposes of real science that benefits medicine is a good thing. I just don't believe that was the reason this "experiment" was done. I think that the Korean cancer researchers saw the profit potential of creating a dog that lights up under blacklight for the amusement of humans. Considering that one poster linked to the GloFish, which definitely resulted in direct profit for those researchers, that only confirms my suspicion.

So far, I have yet to read a post or related article on this thread that convinces me that this is "good science". One poster made a comment about how gene therapy can be applied to dogs to help with diseases such as hip dysplasia. I see that as potentially a good thing, but I don't see this particular experiment helping that branch of medicine.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[n23x 0]

  Quote

I think that the Korean cancer researchers saw the profit potential of creating a dog that lights up under blacklight for the amusement of humans. Considering that one poster linked to the GloFish, which definitely resulted in direct profit for those researchers, that only confirms my suspicion.

Out of curiosity, what is your perceived market for a "glow in the dark dog"? Next, what kind of developmental costs do you predict to produce such a dog? Finally, what kind of profit margins are you imagining?

I hear a lot of outrage directed at the research methods, without much practical consideration for the reason you're outraged about.
.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[billvon 3,070]

> I just don't believe that was the reason this "experiment" was done.

Let's put it this way -

It is likely that the primary use of this technology will be pets. However, given the current tremendous scientific utility of genetic expression of fluorescent compounds, such experimentation will likely be far more useful in the long run than the breeding of Siamese cats, dachshunds, exotic shorthairs, pugs or chihuahuas. Given that, I can't get too excited about the 'waste' inherent in breeding a new funky variety of pet.

[riddler 0]

  Quote

It is likely that the primary use of this technology will be pets. However, given the current tremendous scientific utility of genetic expression of fluorescent compounds, such experimentation will likely be far more useful in the long run than the breeding of Siamese cats, dachshunds, exotic shorthairs, pugs or chihuahuas. Given that, I can't get too excited about the 'waste' inherent in breeding a new funky variety of pet.

If that's true, then could we have accomplished the same scientific advancement, in the same amount of time, without creating the breed of pets? I'm not a scientist, but given the vast amount of the same research on other animals that has already been done, my guess is yes.

The downside of creating a new breed of pet is the heretofore unknown health problems and disease that we are creating in dogs in order to have a novelty. We've already tampered with the evolution of wolves enough to create dogs with a tremendous amount of health problems.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD