Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Idle Science

South Korean Scientists Create Glowing Dog 139

Posted by samzenpus
from the how-much-is-that-glowing-dog-in-the-window dept.
cultiv8 writes "A research team from Seoul National University (SNU) said the genetically modified female beagle has been found to glow fluorescent green under ultraviolet light if given a doxycycline antibiotic. The researchers, who completed a two-year test, said the ability to glow can be turned on or off by adding a drug to the dog's food. 'The creation of Tegon opens new horizons since the gene injected to make the dog glow can be substituted with genes that trigger fatal human diseases,' the news agency quoted lead researcher Lee Byeong-chun as saying. He said the dog was created using the somatic cell nuclear transfer technology that the university team used to make the world's first cloned dog, Snuppy, in 2005."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

South Korean Scientists Create Glowing Dog

Comments Filter:
  • by bareman (60518) on Thursday July 28, 2011 @08:27AM (#36906604) Homepage Journal

    Meanwhile people whose child or spouse is spared from death by this same research feel quite differently about it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28, 2011 @08:34AM (#36906656)

    So...are you saying you'd prefer they should stop all animal experimentation, or only those animals that are pets to someone out there? Which is quite a broad range of animals.

    Or perhaps you prefer animals to be natural and not be messed about with humans? Which means that a significant number of dog breeds would be considered monstrous by you.

    Or maybe you just mean genetic experiments? Or drug based? Or do you also consider experiments in changing their diet? Psychological experimentation? Environmental manipulation? Etc, etc.

    They are trying to use non-human animals in place of humans since we have major gripes about human experimentation. As you consider all dogs to be at the "level" of humans, this would, of course, cause you discomfort. However, not everyone sees it like that. For some people, they seem to think that animals, dogs, cats, mice, naked mole rats, alpacas, baboons, slugs, roaches, cockatoos, parrots, etc are all more preferable to experiment on than human beings. Usually with an insane amount of oversight now (at least in the US of A), but they still trudge on to get this shit done.

    Are they assholes? Who knows. If you talk to PETA, they're probably Satan himself, assfucking Hitler with Osama in the back (TOOT TOOT MAN TRAIN). If you talk to people that benefit from treatments pioneered and verified through animal testing, polio/heart surgery/leprosy/etc, would probably say they're decent people. If you talk to the people themselves, you'll probably find some of them just want to help people and damn the animals while others are bleeding hearts who'll drop out of animal experimentation after one too many puppies dying on them.

    Do I think animal experimentation is good? Yes. Do I wish there were alternatives so we wouldn't have to do it? Hell yes. Would I prefer if we could use people who step forward and sell their bodies to science to get experimented on? Oh fuck yes. None of that ethical shit about "animals don't want to do it" or "it's cruel to them" if people stood up and said "YES, EXPERIMENT ON ME FOR A MILLION DOLLARS." Like that cow in Hitchhikers that wanted to be eaten.

    Anyway, scientists aren't douchebags unless they're douchebags and experimenting on animals means very little as an indicator of their douchebaggery. It just means that you probably love animals a shitton more than these scientists, the people supporting these scientists, the people running oversight on these scientists, and the people raking money on the successes of these scientists.

If at first you don't succeed, you are running about average.

Working...