There was a story in the news the other day. A Korean scientist and his team have been doing some genetic tampering which produced a litter of glow in the dark beagle puppies. Four out of six survived. All are named Ruppy, ruby plus puppy, because under ultraviolent light they glow red.
This was accomplished by injecting fluorescent genes into embryos and implanting them into a surrogate mother, a local mutt. They say it’s significant that the puppies survived because it is the basis for more genetic research with the hope of finding ways to treat and prevent certain genetic diseases in humans.
Okay, I get all that. Well the importance of the nature of the surrogate. What they didn’t say is why they are tampering with puppies when other scientists have already done the same with cats, mice, and pigs. Seriously, it was already proven possible so why do it again? Why not invest the funds into the research they purport to be doing instead of replicating preliminary research already completed?
The report I read didn’t mention whether or not the puppies, all female, were fertile and capable of reproducing and, if so, the offspring would also glow. Isn’t that the important part here? First generation traits are great but it’s the longevity that counts. Right?
4 comments:
I saw that too, Barb. It kind of freaked me out.
You raise great questions.
I hate animal testing. I know to a point its necessary, but they do some horrible torteous things to animals in the name of science. A lot of labs don't consider them as anything more than an inanimate object.
I was impressed by one lab, it may have been at a University, put out a call for homes for their dogs they were done with. If they didn't find homes they were going to be put down. But at least they made the effort.
Yeah; makes no sense.
So... what's the aim? Glow in the dark people? Again, who's paying for this? I think the taxpayers ought to have the opportunity to vote whether or not a study is paid for with our dollars.
Post a Comment