Comments on: Scientists Clone Red Fluorescent Cats

By: Stephie

Stephie — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:05:57 +0000

Before, you read this post, know that I’m not specifically arguing with anyone here on any specific point. I just want to make that clear from the outset.
However, I do believe that genetic science is inherently wrong, and have several reasons for this.
Humans have no real comprehension of evolution. Even Darwin’s theory has holes, such as why does evolution appear to have cycles where it speeds up and slows down, etc.
Without a proper knowledge of what it can do, IN THE LONG RUN, Genetic science could possibly create many more problems than it would ever solve, and I refer specifically to the modification of micro-organisms such as bacteria and viruses. Were GM viruses ever to escape, the rapid reproduction (and hence, evolution) of these micro-organisms could have devastating effects on the natural environment (Chimera Effect). Everyone knows what happens when you introduce a foreign species into a new ecosystem, and it does particularly well. Some native creature suffers. Why do governments introduce such strict controls on foreign imports of animals, when they’re making aliens in laboratories?
Another point is the question of, just because you CAN, doesn’t necessarily mean you SHOULD. I have experienced the loss of family members and friends as many people have, and while it is one of the most distressing things that could ever happen to you, my point is this. Death is part of the natural order of things. The death of someone you love should not be the devastating event that society has made it. Our culture has turned our perception of death into the worst possible thing that could ever happen. This is not true. Death is natural. It creates space for the next generation. Medicine, if anything, PREVENTS the progress of humans as a species. There is far too much hysteria about staying alive as long as possible.
The world is already vastly overpopulated with people. Much, much moreso since the advent of medical science. The human fear of and resistance to death is eventually going to cause more deaths than it prevents. We have already seen (and to a certain extent, foreseen) what overuse and misuse of antibiotics can do to the natural world (MRSA, “superbugs”).
My point is this: Even though we CAN prevent death (for a while) and prolong life, should we? Why is it so important that each man lives as long as possible? Should we not be so selfish? The planet is overstretched for resources as it is. The hysteria over preventing death is simply that- hysteria. No one seems to be looking at the big picture.
The planet is in a fine balance, a balance that cannot compensate for the irresponsibility of man. Our own fear of death will be the end of us.

Humans in this day and age have far too much knowledge, and little or no wisdom to guide us towards the proper use of this knowledge. As a race, we can be likened to a two year old child with a power drill. No doubt that our inventions are magnificent, but we have no real idea of how to wield them.

Also, ignoring the bigger questions for a while, animal testing is cruel and selfish. Especially when the possible results are unknown. Human vanity and immaturity is responsible for so much cruelty and death of innocent animals. Even animal breeding, the most basic and primitive of all genetic sciences, is cruel. It can cause all sorts of genetic problems in the breeds it creates, such as deformed ears in Staffordshire bull terriers, and breathing difficulties in pugs and bulldogs, not to mention the horrific skin problems developed by West Highland terriers. Animal testing with such a powerful tool as Genetic Science goes beyond irresponsibility and cruelty.

To anyone who would suggest that I am a hypocrite, don’t I use make up, medicine or cosmetics tested on animals? No. I don’t. There is at least one moral organization out there who do everything they can to avoid amoral decisions. They sell handmade, fresh, fairtrade cosmetic products (soaps, shampoos, etc) which are never tested on animals and are quite frankly gorgeous in their aroma and effects. I also buy my makeup from a sister company of theirs. As to medicine; anything my body cant fight off will just have to finish me. I’m in perfect health at the moment and have never taken an antibiotic or painkiller or other unnatural substance to relieve any symptoms. Herbal remedies all the way.
If I get something fatal, I’ll die. Why fear it? Everyone dies of something, someday. Whats the point in fearing disease when I could be hit by a car tomorrow? The hysteria has got to stop.

Sorry for ranting. I didn’t actually intend to sound like a preacher. I just came to have a look, following a link from a lighthearted cat lovers website. These are just my opinions and am quite willing to listen to others, and I am not directly attacking any one previous poster. There is ignorance on both sides of the argument.

Regards,
Steph.

(icanhascheezburger.com is the best.)

By: Al

Al — Sun, 31 May 2009 09:54:32 +0000

Too true - the main problems with testing these things on people are that
a) humans have extremely long generations so that it’s very hard to monitor any changes unless you are prepared to wait decades, and
b) many of the comments on this post suggest doing things like this to criminals like rapists - the problem is this is that EVERYBODY has human rights. No matter what they’ve done, if we do terrible things to them, we’re just as bad as them, if not worse. Also, we have no idea whether people are going to be criminals until they’re mature, and with genetic alterations like this, it’s too late by then anyway.
Think about this and the previous three comments, and try to get it into your thick skulls that the research is vital, and if you really believed what all the comments before that are saying, then you wouldn’t use things like medicine, beauty products, shampoo, soaps, and perfumes. (I could go on, but I’d be here all day.)
Just think about it, and use your common sense.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:06:29 +0000

Damn some people on here are ignorant, do you use any medicines? Most would have had animal testing of some form and alot of medical breakthroughs use animals for testing. The used this gene as an indicator, if you can change a gene to create fluorescence then most likely you could change a debilitating gene into one that is fine. Until we can fully map genomes and cell interactions to create virtual reality testing on extremely powerful computers, animal testing will still exist FOR YOUR BENEFIT.

By: researcher

researcher — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:29:01 +0000

People opposed to this are too ignorant to understand that this is being done for you and your children’s future. I think you would change your mind about this if your child had a genetic disease that this gene helped to cure. Think about it.

By: toby

toby — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:30:12 +0000

Look people, I’m a biotechnology student and trust me when I say that experiments like these are vital to further our understanding of genetics and the goal of making gene therapy a viable and safe method to help human beings.
And if I have to use animals as test subjects to help human beings i have NO moral objections to it. Even if I have three cats myself.

And experiments like this have been tried on human beings(not cloning them i have no idea about that but inserting new genes into their system) and it has cured genetic diseases. The risk is that the genes are often inserted incorrectly causing cancer, or the immune system may react to the virus used in inserting the gene and trigger a fatal immune system overload that can kill a patient.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:03:40 +0000

So far science has made the following organisms glow one or all of the following colours: green/red/yellow:
Bacteria,
Yeast,
Pigs,
Mosquitos,

If any of you guys understood why scientists actually make creatures glow you may not be so hostile towards this technique. The introduction of a colour to an organism is usually a byproduct of the real sciencee. If one wishes to introduce artificial DNA into an organism how do you know that it has been introduced successfully? The answer is that in addition to your interesting piece of DNA you attach DNA that causes a colour change in your organism. So when you see the colour you can be reasonably confident that your DNA has also been added. This cuts down on labour and saves money. Its no because we want glow-in-the-dark pets or colourful pork chops.

Oh, and the reason we wnat to put DNA inside animals is so we can try and understad fundamental cellular processes and disease. How can that be bad?

By: Minkya

Minkya — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:04:19 +0000

aww! how cool! it’d be fun to take one of them trick or treating. or in the house, cuz then you couldnt trip on them in the dark! genious. if they put them on the market little kids would love them.

By: ????

???? — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:19:37 +0000

i think they should just stop cloning dogs and cats! Yea i now how it feels to lose ur cat or dog but thats the thing about life!!!! its silly to get ur cat or dog cloned…besides its not really ur real cat or dog in the first place. Just wait 2 months and clam ur self down if u were really sad and go get a new pet!!!!!!

By: me, thats who!

me, thats who! — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 03:52:12 +0000

1. to:Rose, Cameron, Amanda, so you would rather see the human race die out from some disease, and probably save a few endangered species, than accidentally harm a few cats or dogs or whatever. god, you people!!
2. to:the people who are saying:What have we/science done?: IF IT WASN’T FOR F@$KING SCIENCE YOU WOULDN’T HAVE YOU’RE F@$KING COMPUTER WITH WHICH YOU ARE WRITING YOU CONDESCENDING F@$KING COMMENTS!!!!!!! god, think before you speak!!!!!!!

By: Carlie

Carlie — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:17:37 +0000

This is not immoral, however it is suspicious.

science has to find some way to break boundaries, and i dont believe that using animals is horrible. they could use humans, but the beuracracy that would go into that wouldnt even be worth it. it’s “cruel and unusual”.

things glow all colours under ultraviolet light. how do you think bees see? everything isnt purple, it has different shades and a different spectrum.

i think if this is real, it’s a breakthrough.
and as soon as one of you nay - sayers develop cancer of the throat, you’ll LOVE this.

-Cheers.

By: Joanna

Joanna — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:15:49 +0000

Well, I can tell you this has been determined as true.

It’s the GFP (Green Fluorescent Protein) that is found in jelly fish and often used for PGLO and Bacterial transformation. (Bacterial transformation being the process by which competent bacterial cells pick up DNA from the environment and make use of the genes it carries) They mostly do this with mice.
However the cats have been found to hit a soft spot with breeders.
Pretty much they just take the GFP and using bacterial transformation place it in the plasmid of the DNA …It is mostly done in trials

You place the GFP gene into the cells to figure out who did the crime. By glowing you are able to see more blood in a crime scene also. GFP is generally just a visual evidence of successful transformation and subsequent gene expression.

personally I have seen and done this experiment
1) for bacterial transformation into E. coli
and
2) for mice.

this would never be done on humans because of the moral and ethical dilemma.
The mice are fluorescent all the way through including the organs.

It’s rather interesting.

By: David

David — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:08:46 +0000

iz it can be glow tiem now plz?

By: Kitsune_Baka

Kitsune_Baka — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 07:01:29 +0000

I WANT A GLOW-CAT!
And soon, GLOW-PEARS!
Just like that Ducktales ep.

By: JP

JP — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:40:08 +0000

This is totally cool!

I dont see any harm in what has transpired here. It seems that these are completely normal cats that have been cloned from skin cells of another cat. The fact that these cats were “altered” before they were “born” means that they did not suffer in any shape or form. It doesnt seem to me that these cats have any physical issues, they probably act like normal cats would and they probably dont even know that they glow red under ultra-violet light. So, for all you whiners out there, what is the problem with this?

Alot more good can come out of something like this. These people are learning alot about cats and maybe one day can identify, save, or cure your cat’s illness.

The problem with the world today is there are too many people that dont understand the process or purpose of an experiment. Because of thier ignorance they complain and ruin something that could potentially be the best thing that happened since the theory of relativity.

If you have a problem with it, learn more about it and backup you complaints with fact and not assumptions.

By: Meow

Meow — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:05:42 +0000

You guys can all hate me but I want a fluorescent cat really bad. I went to FluorescentCats.com because I read that they were taking reservations if these fluorescent cats become available to pet owners. Anyway their comment button was disabled when I was on their site so I didn’t get to reserve one.

I think that if a cat is in the hands of a loving, caring pet owner, then it doesn’t matter what cat it is…tabby, fluorescent, etc.

But I want one really bad and I want to name it Rave!!!