Fluorescent Monkeys Cast Light On Human Disease 174
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that a team of Japanese scientists has integrated a new gene for green fluorescent protein into the common marmoset, causing them to glow green under ultraviolet light, creating second-generation, glow-in-the-dark monkeys in what could be a powerful new tool in human disease research. Though primates modified to generate a glowing protein have been created before, these are the first to keep the change in their bloodlines. If a fluorescent protein gene can be introduced into the monkey genome and passed onto future generations, other genes could be too opening up a world of possibilities for medical research, such as the generation of specific monkey colonies containing genetic defects that mirror human diseases aiding efforts to cure such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. However many people are likely to find the routine use of monkeys in medical research far less acceptable than that of rodents, drawing action from animal rights activists. 'I'm worried that these steps are being taken without any overall public discussion about whether we want to go down that road. We may find ourselves gradually drifting towards the genetic engineering of human beings,' says Dr David King, from the group Human Genetics Alert. '"Slippery slope" is a quite inadequate description of the process, because it doesn't happen passively. People push it forward.'"
Glowing is cool, but the novelty is elsewhere (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's almost like they were trying to draw fire. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Slippery Slope is a Logical Fallacy (Score:2, Informative)
The slippery slope is not a logical fallacy in this instance, and in fact is not a fallacy in most instances in which it is used. The entire argument just isn't usually spelled out. Most people are able to fill in the blanks.
1) Absent effective regulation, in a free-market economy, activities which are profitable will occur.
2) Human genetic engineering is a profitable activity.
3) Technological advances lessen the barriers to profitability of any activity.
4) Humans and monkeys are genetically similar.
5) Medical research on monkeys is widely cross-applicable to humans.
Any and all of these premises may be flawed in the singular sense, but in the general sense they are all true. And this ultimately means that, absent effective regulation, genetic engineering of primates will likely help lead to genetic engineering of humans. 100% effective regulation doesn't exist.
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:3, Informative)
This is what worries me - How many things in nature have been IMPROVED through human involvement?
Well, the food is certainly better now.... the meat is better cooked than raw, and the fruits and vegetables have been bred for centuries and now they're delicious. You should have seen the semi-edible crap that people subsisted on a few millenia ago.
Re:Oh no, not human genetic engineering! (Score:5, Informative)
Are you joking? Do you know how many varieties of apple there are? Wild apples are barely half the size and aren't nearly as sweet. Think pears just happened? Uncultivated ones are gritty and sand-like. Ever notice how there's no seeds in your banana? Think wild ones are seedless? Corn? Not even naturally occurring. Wild wheat has a fraction of the yield of newer varieties. Look at all the ways humans have improved Brassica oleracea (hint: do you think broccoli, cauliflower, kale, cabbage, and brussels sprouts just happened?). Potatoes, carrots, oranges, nectarines, tomatoes, melons, barley, jeez, this post could go on and on, and that's just common food crops. To act like humans don't improve natural things is just bafflingly ignorant. People should really learn the history of their food sometime.