Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

U.S. Scientists Create Zombie Dogs 1010

Alex_Ionescu writes "U.S. scientists have managed to revive dead dogs to life, by using a technique similar to cryogenation, in which the dogs' blood was drained and replaced by a cold, saline liquid. A couple of hours, their blood was replaced, and an electric shock brought them back to life with no brain damage. The technology will be tested on humans within the next year."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Scientists Create Zombie Dogs

Comments Filter:
  • well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by darthpenguin ( 206566 ) * on Monday June 27, 2005 @03:59PM (#12924086) Homepage

    The article is somewhat light on facts. From what I recall, during drowning or suffocation, brain damage occurs in humans quite soon (10 minutes?). How is it that this process negates the lack of oxygen to the brain, allowing no damage to occur? Is it the temperature of the liquid used for replacing the blood?

    Also, the article has "Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are perfectly preserved." followed immediately by "Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery." So, which is it?

    I suppose we'll have to wait for a real scientific journal to publish this before we find out much more.

    Also, another attempt at hibernation, this time in mice [washingtonpost.com], using a different method involving hydrogen sulfide gas.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:00PM (#12924100)
    on some level it really bothers me that slashdot carries some of the same stories as the drudge report. On another level it bothers me that the drudge report has these stories FIRST.

    (sigh)
  • Oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zalas ( 682627 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:01PM (#12924124) Homepage
    Oh man... I can see the flood of Resident Evil jokes now...
  • Re:Not On Me. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Suicyco ( 88284 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:02PM (#12924154) Homepage
    You would rather die?
  • Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daniil ( 775990 ) <evilbj8rn@hotmail.com> on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:04PM (#12924199) Journal
    I'm more interested in knowing who the hell is going to volunteer for this procedure...

    A mortally wounded gunshot victim?

  • Jesus Christ (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:05PM (#12924211)
    I really didn't need that bloody Cujo-esque picture to go with that article, especially when it's late at night and I'm five minutes off of going to bed.
  • Re:well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:06PM (#12924226) Homepage
    I think the line about damaged blood vessels and tissues is in regards to the reason why you wanted to freeze the dog/person in the first place -- some fatal injury. They are talking about the medical uses for this technique, and using it to save people who have lost a lot of blood, so that's where I got this impression. The technique itself isn't supposed to damage tissues, but if you resuscitate the person/animal while they still have the big gaping chest wound that would kinda defeat the purpose, so you have to fix that first.

    But yeah, definitely need a better story.
  • Re:death and taxes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ericspinder ( 146776 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:07PM (#12924240) Journal
    No, It'll be death by taxes, I'll take a chunk of money to live forever.
  • by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:16PM (#12924400) Homepage
    An "unnamed US battlefield doctor" is quoted?
    No medical journal publication?
    No details?
    Unknown "research" center?
    READY TO TEST ON HUMANS IN A YEAR? BULLSHIT. Never would happen. Not in a year, not from one dinky study.
    And cold blood would damage the tissues. And I can't imagine how the dog's mind would survive intact, but that's just me.
  • Or (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:17PM (#12924421) Homepage Journal
    they could just pay them a whole lot of money.
    A lot of people would take the risk if it meant being a multi-millionaire.

    Even more of there spuse gets them money wether or not the person survives.

    I mean, live in squalar, knowing you can't give the best to your kids, ort die but knowing your kids will be able to bebetter taken care of?
  • Re:well... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Verteiron ( 224042 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:20PM (#12924461) Homepage
    Sorry, but how exactly is this scary?
  • Re:well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kfg ( 145172 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:38PM (#12924716)
    Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, I was brought into the hospital for lifesaving surgery. . .but my condition was such that it was deemed I would die from the stress of undergoing surgery.

    This is the sort of person who will volunteer. A person who has nothing to lose if the procedure fails, but everything to gain if it succeeds.

    KFG

    P.S. I got better.
  • by BuckaBooBob ( 635108 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:39PM (#12924732)
    Just look at a list of other stories they are currently covering

    12-year-old girl gets divorce
    Goats recruited to fight bushfires
    Scientists create robot lobster
    The most dangerous day of the week
    Cookie trail leads to suspects
    Soldiers steal tank to buy vodka
    Bonking, brawls and booze
    Man gets $2600 for plaster Jesus
    New shop to turn away the rich
    Sticky stunt's disastrous end

    Drop the story and move on :)
  • by Johnboi Waltune ( 462501 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @04:58PM (#12924941)
    Funniest. Comment. EVAR.

    I suppose the serious answer to your question is that they can formulate controlled tests to observe and record the dog's behavior and response to stimuli, both before and after the experiment, and note any discrepancies. (i.e. when presented with a piece of his own shit, the dog chowed down on it before the experiment, but did not do so afterwards.)

    With all the experimentation that's already done on dogs, I don't doubt there's already a standard battery of tests to gauge their neurological function.
  • by GReaToaK_2000 ( 217386 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @05:33PM (#12925333)
    Overly dramatic title AND REALLY overly done image of dog showing fangs.

    What I would like to know is if they they took a few dogs...
    one dog knows "tricks". ( knows how to shake, rollover, sit, laydown )
    one that doesn't.

    freeze them, reannimate them...

    Then verify that the "smart" one still knows the tricks and the "dumb" one doesn't.

    In addition they should test for personality changes. Most dog owners know the ways their dogs "personality"...

    My two cents.

    Personally, I have NO intentions of being frozen, it gets cold enough up here during winter. :D
  • Re:well... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 27, 2005 @05:44PM (#12925445)
    Yeah, but if the chilled saline drains out of the wound while they are operating, they can just keep on pumping more in.

    Surigcal saline is a lot easier to mass produce that collecting blood of the same type as the paitient. I mean you can buy it in super markets if you really wanted (as people with cantact lenses will tell you). And it won't change coagulate like blood would.

    Personally I think that because of the extreme nature of the procedure, it would be hard to convince a patient, or their family to accept the procedure unless they were going to die in the very, very near future. Like if they had a gunshot wound. And I supose the army would be free to trial it on any casualties; they have some sort of waiver he soldiers sign, don't they?
  • by Wolfier ( 94144 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @05:50PM (#12925546)
    I bet they're going to redefine "clinically dead" after finding out what is still going on undetected after their "deaths".
  • by popo ( 107611 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @05:53PM (#12925591) Homepage
    This sounds very, very questionable. I call BS.

    First off: What was the name of the doctor?
    You mean to tell me this scientific breakthrough is being reported to the press, and the name of the scientist wasn't reported?

    Secondly: Brought back to life with an electric shock?
    What is this Young Frankenstein? You have to be kidding me.

    Thirdly: Its being reported where?
    Can we get some additional sources please? It did happen in the U.S. afterall. ... and the last words are "... said one battlefield doctor."

    Huh? You're a journalist reporting on a major scientific breakthrough and THAT'S YOUR ONE QUOTE!? Not even a name!? You've got to be kidding me.

    Either this is absolute hogwash, or this journalist has the reporting skills of a nine year old.

    Either way... I'll wait for better coverage before I get excited.

  • by PerspexAvenger ( 671820 ) <perspexavengerNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday June 27, 2005 @05:54PM (#12925614)
    Er.
    Okay, that vid's quite, quite fucked up.
    Granted a goldfish doesn't exactly have many braincells to bang together, but that's really rather disturbing.
  • by 0111 1110 ( 518466 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @06:21PM (#12925993)
    Isn't this a proof for the (non) existence of the soul?

    There is already no evidence for the religious concept of the 'soul'. If you are trying to convince a believer, don't bother. They do not believe based on evidence. The belief in magical, invisible, undetectable, but all-powerful entities is not based on science or anything resembling scientific, logical thinking. It is based on fairy tales usually 'learned' at an age before most humans are able to think critically. If you really want to convince a believer you will need to use a powerful emotional argument, not an evidence-based logical one. Their belief system is such that blind faith, especially in the face of contradictory evidence is considered a great virtue.
  • Re:ObNethack (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ThrobbingGristle ( 62723 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @06:23PM (#12926011) Journal
    Slashdot needs more nethack jokes. Apple fanboys need education after all!
  • Re:No brain damage (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ElizaYikes ( 790638 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @06:44PM (#12926230)
    Yeah, there's even more heartache for all of the not-so-perfectly-bred animals who die in animal shelters because people buy animals from breeders. Personally, I don't think that breeding of cats and dogs should be allowed until there are no unwanted animals in shelters.
  • by illerd ( 579494 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @07:01PM (#12926406)
    It "seems" to shock the fish back to life, except the movie fades out just seconds after that. If you put electricity through a dead body, it will move. The fish jerks a little, but it doesn't swim around like it does at the beginning of the video. There's no fucking way that fish withstood all that co2. And if it did, its little fish balls would be shrunk out of existence from all the yellow5...or is it the yellow6?

    The movie is fish snuff.

  • Re:well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WhyCause ( 179039 ) on Monday June 27, 2005 @09:14PM (#12927364)
    Along with that, I would wonder if it doesn't increse the salinity of the rest of the water in the body, and keep that water from freezing in the process.

    No can do, Boss. If the saline is not isotonic (same amount of electrolytes per volume as the cells/blood), you have worse problems than brain damage.

    If the saline is hypotonic (less electrolytes per volume than the cells), then osmosis will drive water into the cells, eventually bursting them. ALL of them.

    If the saline is hypertonic (more electrolytes per volume than the cells), then osmosis will drive water out of the cells, causing them to shrivel up and die. ALL of them.

    No win either way.

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Working...