Pigs with Human Genes 301
LGRiske writes "In a step toward creating herds of pigs that could provide organs for transplanting into humans, Italian researchers manipulated swine sperm to make an animal strain that carries human genes in the heart, liver and kidneys."
Wouldn't it be easier... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wouldn't it be easier... (Score:2, Funny)
Hannibal (TM) Brand Bacon & Ham (Score:2)
Re:Hannibal (TM) Brand Bacon & Ham (Score:2)
rejection ? (Score:5, Interesting)
What did they do to surpass these two ? did they made them 100% compatible with everyone ? are they only compatible with the original human dna-donor for the pigs?
Should we start saving now to have a pig with our replacement liver (for beer) and heart (fried chicken & ribs) ?
Re:rejection ? (Score:2)
Re:rejection ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:rejection ? (Score:2)
So, first is having the genome on cd so i can xfer it to a pig and then a couple of pigs to overcome that 50% chances the article talks about. Gee
Re:rejection ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:rejection ? (Score:4, Funny)
Mmm... Bacon
Re:rejection ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Then you'll need a new heart in a few months anyway. Better have a litter...it's gonna be a long cycle.
The big news is this GM method is EASY (Score:3, Informative)
Check this article [newscientist.com] in New Scientist [newscientist.com]. The researchers have found a way of increasing the effectiveness by a factor of 25 , and it is so easy that the technique could be done on a farm. Incredible. Smells like a revolution to me.
Re:rejection ? (Score:2)
But this is perfect business. Not only do you charge a fortune for the pig heart, which likely cost the same to produce as a pack of bacon, you can sell a lifetime (literaly) of anti-rejection drugs aswell. The ultimate lump-sum + ongoing revenue business model. If the customer cancels he dies!
pig organs could eventually be better (Score:2)
The reason is that with pigs, they can really delete, add, or replace whatever genes they like; obviously; with human donors they obviously can't.
Re:rejection ? (Score:2)
Should we start saving now to have a pig with our replacement liver (for beer) and heart (fried chicken & ribs)?
In a pig's eye!
Wait a minute....
Re:rejection ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, how about people who get in car accidents and have vital organs punctured? This would certainly help them, so I wouldn't completely dismiss its validity.
Re:rejection ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:rejection ? (Score:3, Interesting)
That would explain why heart disease and obesity are both increasing at a rate that suggests its something other than a fixed percentage of the population. Obesity kills via heart disease - you don't literally die of obesity. What's it running at nowadays - 3000 a day in the US? What was it 50 years ago? Still think its genetic?
Re:rejection ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Furthermore, people are *not* dying of other diseases the way they did in the past. The result is most people will die of either cancer, heart disease or degenerative diseases. Hence your historical comparison is not a good way to look at things.
Orwell ... (Score:5, Funny)
Human rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Can the pigs (Score:5, Funny)
Kosher (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Kosher (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Kosher (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually it is Kosher, while some disagree Judaism lawers seem to be saying that it is because. 1) surgery is different then eating. 2) The Kosher laws can be suspended when necessary to save
yes, not only is this allowed by jewish law, it is a great "MITZVA" to save a human life.
And using pigs will cancel the current moral problems with human-donor transplants (when is the donor considered dead ? i.e. when is taking his vitals is no longer considered murder ? )
Re:Kosher (Score:3, Interesting)
However, since this only applies to kosher animals, while you would be forbidden to sell a cheeseburger, selling a cheese BLT would technically be ok. Counter-intuitive, but quite true.
Anyway, back on topic - clearly the situation would be one of saving a life, in which case, it is not just permissible to use such measures - it would be a requirement (as long at it were the best option: here is the fudge factor - e.g. no one will claim rejecting an operation with a 50% mortality rate is violating anything). That is, Kashrut (Kosher laws) are not suspended for serious medicine, they simply don't apply.
Errrrr (Score:3, Interesting)
I am having a kind of matrixy vison rite now, only its humans that own the storage facility.
Scary
Re:Errrrr (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, we don't eat humans. And somehow, I don't think it would be economically viable to start breeding humans with pig organs, so we could eat them. Thus, you've run into a mental block that people will associate with the progress of growing humans for parts.
Now if you suggested breeding pigs with human organs simply for consumption, you'd probably be forbidden by law, on the grounds that its too much like cannibalism.
Basically, if most people would consider eating it, its acceptable to farm and butcher it for whatever purpose you like, especially if it helps humans. On the other hand, if you don't normally eat the thing, I wouldn't suggest trying to use it as a host for organs.
Re:Errrrr (Score:4, Funny)
I don't normally eat pork, though.
I can't see them harvesting a chicken or turkey for human body parts, though.
Re:Errrrr (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, I'm a vegetarian, so I don't eat pork either. But the fact that I don't doesn't change society at large, and the fact that they eat pork.
Re:Errrrr (Score:5, Funny)
Well, then I guess they're going to have to grow your organs on trees and bushes, huh?
Scientists create Vegetarian Organ Transplant! (Score:5, Funny)
Newsflash --
In other news today, scientists have created an artificial tofu-based organ, utilizing genetically engineered soybeans. The resulting organs are said to be whitish in color, and quote -- "rather soft and squishy, but low in fat and cholesterol free."
However, not all are pleased with the development. Vegetable rights activists have condemned the move as a violation of leguminous rights, pointing out that the modifications could inflict pain and suffering to the bushy crops, while Environmentalists and Anti-GMO protestors brought up the danger that the genetically engineered plants could spread out of control, leading to giant mutant soybeans roaming the streets, ravishing our daughters, and voting republican.
Other critics have more practical concerns. Said one scientist, "We haven't fully researched the possibility that vegitransplantation may introduce foreign viruses into the human population. My god, what would happen if the soybean leaf-spot virus were to break into the human population? What's more, the synthetic organs are bland and tasteless."
The research team countered, however, that most humans don't have leaves. "Besides, the organs will adsorb flavors from whoever they're transplanted into."
It is unknown when the organs will be suitable for use in humans. However, scientists believe they are already suitable for use in Spicy Ma-po Bean Curd and Buddha Delight Combo #6, pending approval by the FDA and Ming's Peking Imperial Inn.
--by Jesse Chang
Re:Errrrr (Score:4, Funny)
Well, one could be of some use if you ever needed a replacement cock.
(Sorry.)
Re:Errrrr (Score:2)
Re:Errrrr (Score:5, Insightful)
That's pretty much what this is, but instead of using expensive, complicated machines to keep the organs alive we use cheap, simple pigs.
hehehe (Score:2)
Re:Errrrr (Score:2)
As far as the Matrix is concerned, ever seen a battery farm? They make the Matrix look like a real heaven (BTW kind of nice of the machines to give us a dream world to live in and even manipulate instead of just putting everyone into a coma).
They're all ready doing that.... (Score:2, Insightful)
They want to do that to us all right now. You have a "donor" on your driver's license, don't you?
There is surprisingly little that keeps unscrupulous people from harvesting people like us instead of using a human without the ability to speak or gain consciousness.
Those reared in a laboratory don't have pesky families that would appear on television.
c.
Re:They're all ready doing that.... (Score:2)
be afraid - they are eating pigs! We are next!
Re:Errrrr (Score:4, Insightful)
Pig. Even if you managed to have a pig brain in an otherwise human body somehow, the result would still not be human. We don't know exactly what makes us human, but we do know that most of whatever it is resides in the brain.
human cloning for organ transplants (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably, although it wouldn't involve machines. One way this might work is as follows. A doctor would take a sample of your DNA and place it into an egg, creating a clone. That egg can be carried by a surrogate mother, or possibly implanted back into you (eggs can develop pretty much anywhere). When the organ that is needed has started to form, the embryo is removed, the developing organ is removed from the embryo, transplanted into you, and the rest of the embryo destroyed. When the transplanted organ has matured, your original defective organ is removed.
Some organs might need to develop long enough that it becomes a concern whether the developing embryo has some kind of higher brain activity. In that case, the doctor could make sure that the embryo develops without higher brain functions--it would start out ``brain dead'', roughly the same way at which we already harvest organs.
Where does one draw the line ethically? Hard to say. I find it difficult to see why human cloning should raise significant ethical problems as long as the clone does not develop higher brain functions.
Re:human cloning for organ transplants (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it doesn't. A fertilized egg will implant pretty much anywhereit can get a reasonable blood supply. The uterus is mainly there toprotect the mother. Women actually occasionally give birth via cesareansection after ectopic pregnancies, it just is pretty risky.
Even if carrying to term is very risky, if properly planned, it seems plausiblefor a man to be able to carry a cloned embryo ectopically without too muchrisk. Women, of course, can just use the more usual place to carrytheir own clones.
An artificial uterus is difficult to make pretty much because an artificialbody is difficult to make. However, it is quite conceivable that anotherresult of genetic modification in pigs or other animals will be that animalscan carry human babies, with all sorts of interesting implications for humanevolution (no constraints on human head size anymore, for example, and allsorts of complicated constraints on human female evolution removed as well).
Yeah, sounds fascinating and all... (Score:2)
Excellent ! (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm....kinda funny :) (Score:4, Funny)
Stemcells (Score:4, Insightful)
How do they address the issue that most cloned animals turn out sick, I don't want a sick organ in replacement for my allready sick organ!
Re:Stemcells (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you're a little confused here:
cloning == creating an organism with a DNA identical to a source DNA
transgenics == implanting DNA from one specie to sperm, eggs or fertilized egg from another specie.
If I read the article correctly they are doing transgenics, not cloning.
also, the article does not say anything on stem cells.
You seem to be interested, but not knowledgeable, for a very good basic biology book I recomend Keeton & Gould.
Re:Stemcells (Score:2)
Is an organ developed using transgenetics likely to be healthy? That is what I'm trying to ask!
Re:Stemcells (Score:2)
this is what's science is all about: instead of being afraid the result will be different "in some way" the researchers are actually finding out the problems and dealing with them one by one.
Is an organ developed using transgenetics likely to be healthy? That is what I'm trying to ask!
healthy compared to what ? A person needs a transplant when the original body-part has serious malfunctions. Compared to a malfunctioning liver (you'll die in 3 days) a transplant which will kill you in a year is a blessing.
BTW, human-origin transplants also raise problems (life expectancy of transplant recievers is much shorter than for normal people)
always take the ratio-nal approach.
Re:Stemcells (Score:2)
I'm open minded about this kind of research. I just don't feel ready to have one of these alpha-testing organs put into me.
healthy compared to what ?
If you know that the organ will give you, perhaps a year, then it is good. Do we know that? Do we know that the pain and struggle to recover from a transplant is worth something (a longer life, not just longer pain). I'm just trying to point out the problems with the technology. I truly hope and wish for the to succeed to make custom transplants without problems a reality. That would be a huge step forward!
As for problems with human-origin transplants, I think that I mentioned that in my original post...
Re:Stemcells (Score:2)
This kind of testing is not done on healthy people. If you get to the stage you'll acutely need a transplant, you'll probably change your mind.
If you know that the organ will give you, perhaps a year, then it is good. Do we know that?
How do you propose we find out without testing it on human being ?
I'm just trying to point out the problems with the technology
Donald Knuth, which is a much smarter man then me, and possibly you, once said in a different context: "premature optimization is the root of all evil"
pointing out potential problems in future technology is analogous: it is, IMHO, much better to try and see.
Re:Stemcells (Score:2)
As for determining how long a grown organ will last I suggest cloning and transplantations on animals to refine the DNA replacement technolgies. This has to be done until the probablility for each organ to be good (or a method to measure how good an organ is) is good enough. As we know, transplants today are risky, so we need at least that probability of success before trying. We will never reach 100% though, so there will always be a risk involved.
I don't believe in Mr.Knuth or you being more or less "smart" than I am. I suppose that Mr.Knuth knows more than any of us in this area, since that is his expertice. I believe that I know a fair amount of computer architecture and software design and implementation, but I have a grasp of general sience and I utter my opinions in areas where I don't know the whole truth. Sometimes I utter my concerns as questions to state that I want to gain knowledge, but even when I don't, I still want to learn from the discussion that arises.
I do not want you to judge me as an opposer to new technology, but rather a realist. I work as an engineer, developing new technology, and I feel that it is important to verify that a technology works before appying it to real cases. Just pointing at possible hazards is not "premature optimizations", it is discussing areas that might need attention before the technology is actually used.
Only a matter of time (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Only a matter of time (Score:3, Funny)
Not nearly as efficient... (Score:5, Funny)
Here Piggy Piggy Piggy! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now if they harvest organs from these pigs with human DNA, does that mean we can't eat the leftovers without being cannibals?
New spin on an old idea... (Score:5, Informative)
The first animal-to-human transplant was in the same year, when the French surgeon Mathieu Jaboulay implanted a pig's kidney into one woman and a goat's liver into another.
Granted, the patients who recieved the animal organs did not survive, but after all, the technique for stitching together blood vessels had only just been developed. The article also makes mention that there has been a great deal of success with baboon-human transplants.
Solyent Green (Score:4, Funny)
Primitive methods (Score:4, Informative)
The addition of human proteins is probably not something you want, unless *all* humans have the protein in question, or you are just adding to the histocompatability problem, not incrementally resolving it: a universal donor is one without potentially conflicting proteins.
I guess this would work, if you could know the recipient far enough ahead of time to grow a compatible pig to order. Most non-alcohol related liver transplants (for one example) are actually the result of toxemia induced hepatic liver failure, where the liver is killed off very suddenly and unpredictability (shell fish or other allergens/poisons, etc.); for those patients, waiting 3 years for a histocompatible pig to mature is not really an option. You would end up having to keep around a number of pigs "just in case".
-- Terry
As Homer Said... (Score:5, Funny)
Lisa: No!
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No!
Homer: Pork Chops!?
Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal!
Homer: Yeah right Lisa, a wonderful "magical" animal. Hehe.
This is hardly news... (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially, what these guys did was find a way to add a gene into a pig by messing with the sperm. This technique can't be used for removing genes, and can't replace genes. They can only add genes.
So they added DAF, because they say it helps fight rejection. Great. That is still a pig heart/liver/kidneys that you would be getting. There are lots of reasons that you can't transplant organs, including but not limited to:
1) Marker proteins. Your body won't even take organs from other people, let alone pigs. You'd have to replace pig markers with your own, which they cannot do.
2) Other surface proteins. They think they can ADD genes to do stuff to combat the sugars that pigs have on the surfaces of their cells. No removal, just throwing some gene for creating a suppressing chemical into the mix.
3) Cell morphology/DNA. Pig DNA is not human DNA. Pig cells are not human cells. Pig cells expressing "human genes" are closer, but when these cells replicate, when you get a virus, when something goes wrong.. what's gonna fix it? How do we know what will happen? Your body isn't built to have weird cells throw into it - that's why it destroys them. They have a long way to go before they even understand just membrane/cell surface reactions, and yet they wanna throw them into people.
To quote: "Lavitrano said that five to seven other pig genes will need to be silenced or replaced by human genes before useful organs could be harvested from the animals."
So tell me, how is this really news? The headline should have read "Scientists develop new but limited method for gene implantation." It's been done.
Re:This is hardly news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if you can't replace genes with this method, you may be able to do the functional equivalent. For instance, add the new gene, and then add a gene which counteracts the original (antisense, targeted ribozyme, RNA silencing, etc.). So it's entirely possible that you could knock out or replace the marker proteins and sugar-producing pathways. There are an awful lot of them, of course -- but no one ever claimed this would be easy.
"Cell morphology/DNA. Pig DNA is not human DNA. Pig cells are not human cells. Pig cells expressing "human genes" are closer, but when these cells replicate, when you get a virus, when something goes wrong.. what's gonna fix it? "
An obvious observation, of course pig!=human. As for the rest of this, you're a little fuzzy on just what exactly your concerns are. Now, "when these cells replicate", I imagine they should in the course of normal tissue repair and turnover. Are you referring to the possibility that cells will migrate out of the transplant (resulting in microchimerism)? Such a thing could cause some rejection problems, but that's really a minor case compared to the big rejection problem of the whole organ. I would be more concerned about the possibility of porcine immune cells hitching a ride with the organ -- that's a real concern (Note: There shouldn't be enough to cause any sort of GVHD, it's more of problem with increasing rejection risks). There are ways to deplete immune cells, though, I think some of them have been tried (in human organ transplants).
As for the virus, I will assume you mean the problems of introducing possible porcine viruses. For most viruses, you can raise the animals in isolation, and then screen them before/during/after. However, there is one exception -- Porcine Endogenous Retrovirus (PERV -- yes, that's the acronym). I believe it's present in the genome of just about all pigs. It's been a topic of a great deal of research, and for a time it caused an FDA ban of all xenografting trials (since lifted). Although PERV doesn't seem to be able to spread in humans, I imagine that if we could knock out a dozen other genes from the pig genome, we could probably knock out the viral sequence too.
"How do we know what will happen?"
How about finding out by the empirical method?
"So tell me, how is this really news? The headline should have read "Scientists develop new but limited method for gene implantation." It's been done."
I'll agree with you here, it's another case of an attention-grabbing sensational headline.
-Guppy
Re:This is hardly news... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is hardly news... (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't really an insidious "new" way for diseases to come about - it's the rule rather than the exception.
And while it's probably the researchers' number one concern, it's not a reason to abandon the line of research, only a reason to exercise appropriate caution. You might feel differently about this if you were awaiting a transplant.
More info at NewScientist (Score:5, Informative)
Quite an interesting article, despite the usual newscientist hyperbole: "The technique is very easy - you could do it on the farm." Umm yeah whatever.
Re:More info at NewScientist (Score:2)
how close is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
Size and quality of external organ... (Score:5, Funny)
No more need for vacuum pumps or viagra... Isn't the human race
heading for eternal happiness?
Pigs wirh human genes.... (Score:2, Funny)
Old News! (Score:3, Funny)
Dave
Other way round... (Score:2, Funny)
Martin
Quotes (Score:3, Funny)
"It's interesting to think that many quite distinguished people have bodies similar to yours. "
ah.
alien cell recognition == rejection (Score:5, Insightful)
I reseached the possibilities of pig organ usage for transplantation.. believe me, it might be possible some day, but that day is WAY ahead of us.
the alternative of growing new organs from stem cells (ie programming from the ground up) is up to now a much more promising than modifying pigs (ie patch core components of a massive _unknown_ project while porting it to another OS)
my 2 eurocents
Potential Cannibalism Concerns... (Score:3, Interesting)
So.. Anyone care to wager how long it takes for a clerical error to allow one of these pigs to interbreed with a normal one, and produce offspring that ends up in your hotdog?
Oink!
Cheers,
When Pigs Fly (Score:2)
One step closer to the KissMammal (Score:2, Funny)
Odds on this being shot down (Score:3, Insightful)
Couple that with people's attitudes towards cloning, and what kind of chance do half-human pigs have?
A Feminist Field Day! (Score:2)
Now on to my attempt at being funny:
This is also one more step to extending the argument that "men are pigs." I knew it would be said, so I wanted to be the first to say it so it would appear to be original.
My first reaction was to make some comment about being kosher, but then I don't give a rat's ass about that whole god myth and I care even less for it when it causes droves of people to violate their own religious law. (Killing for God is okay?)
Damnit... I don't feel funny at all... I think I'll go back to sleep...
Can you imagine... (Score:2)
Pigs in jeans? (Score:2)
Sorry
Yum! (Score:2)
Pete's Pig Roast is now seating Donner Party of five... er, four!
In Related News... (Score:2, Funny)
Closer to designer babies? (Score:2)
If you know that the parents have a genetic defect which will be passed to their children, it seems only logical to try and fix that genetic defect at the earliest possible stage of development.
Of course, if the technology becomes "reliable", I could see vain & shallow parents asking for specific hair/skin/eye colors, "make sure they're athletic gods", etc.
And how about the possibility of extending the telemorase cap of the fertilized cell? At some increased risk of cancer, you might be able to extend the kid's lifetime to some obscene length of time (if the telemorase length is the only cell division "counter").
So what? (Score:2)
Other concerns: viruses (Score:5, Insightful)
Pigs, like many species, have a large number of resident viruses, particularly retroviruses. They and the pigs are well-adapted for each other, and the pigs show little to no ill effect. Some of them are likely so benign to the pigs that we have no idea that they're there. (Indeed, many of these are revealed only by genetic analysis.)
But then what do we want to do? Stick a pig organ in Grandma to save her life, or at least prolong it for a while? So, we've got a person who was unhealthy to begin with, we introduce dozens of foreign viruses directly into the body, and, to top it all off, we completely suppress the immune system so that the organ isn't rejected. I'm not sure that I can even imagine a a scenario more favorable for a virus to make the species jump. And if one did, you can bet that we wouldn't have much natural resistance to it...
I'll take some of their genes, please... (Score:2, Funny)
Why not blood? (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the organs, I think this is a great step forward in being able to save peoples lives. However, my preferred method would be to grow cloned organs in vats. I think it would be cool if you could pay a company and they would take a blood sample from you and make a whole bunch of organs and put them in the deep freeze so when you need them, all the doctor has todo is make a phone call and ta-da, a copy of your existing heart shows up in 3 hours.
In a more far fetched idea...keeping with the idea that you could in the future transfer your brain to a computer, you could start cloning a copy of yourself and when the clones ready, transfer your essence into the new body! Though, how you could go the other direction really isn't clear.
Re:great, we're all doomed (Score:5, Interesting)
If they don't want to benefit, they don't have to. It's not their decision what other people do, though. We don't ban the use of antibiotics for bacterial infections just because a few people might have religious beliefs against them.
5) We are tampering with God's work. Pigs were created perfect the way they are, as are we. Toying with genes is tampering with God's perfect work and SHOULD not be done under any sane principals.
We are God's work as well. If He did not want us to do this, he should not have made us capable. That's assuming He exists, but we'll stay away from that argument for today. Also, I don't think you can describe a pig as perfect. They do, as you mentioned earlier, roll around in their own feces.
Re:great, we're all doomed (Score:2, Informative)
Surgery shouldn't be a problem.
Re:great, we're all doomed (Score:2)
Well, that's wildly inaccurate against every major religion I've studied (though I don't practice any). Generally, we'd view this the same as nuclear bombs....God giving us the ability to do this, and hoping we're not stupid enough to actually do it. Give us the option to make a moral choice, and see if we make it. It's a lot easier to thin out the herd of people going to heaven if you let them avoid it when it's their time to go.
That's assuming He exists, but we'll stay away from that argument for today.
Well, "god" does exist, it's just up to the individual to decide whether or not it's some guy sitting on a cloud, making a list of who's naughty or nice.
Also, I don't think you can describe a pig as perfect. They do, as you mentioned earlier, roll around in their own feces.
That's only something that is imperfect to humans. It isn't harmful to a pig, and actually provides benefit to them. For a pig, that is perfect.
Re:great, we're all doomed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:great, we're all doomed (Score:3, Insightful)
2) I've seen people with less cleanliness than these pigs [iastate.edu]
3) so the suffering of the human who knows that another human MUST die for them to get better.
4) so are flu shots Kosher? they are based on egg protiens...and I doubt they are blessed.
5) so throw away your glasses, contacts, pacemakers, heart bypass surgery, vaccinations...I don't see in the bible (or any other religious text) where it says: "Thou shalt not genetically modify pigs so you can make replacement parts for humans"
I'm religious, and I've been taught that these animals have been put here to help mankind. even in genesis it talks about man having dominion over the animals. I'd have a problem if they said, "sorry we need to make a Mini-me of you and then kill him so you can live".
There comes a point when you just have to get off the pulpit.
Re:great, we're all doomed (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAJ (first time I've ever used that particular acronym!), but I believe there is a doctrine which states that the importance of a human life far outweighs any of the kosher requirements -- for instance, it would be okay to eat pork if you were starving and that was the last item of food you had left. I imagine that a pig organ transplant would fall into the same classification.
As for muslims, IANAM
Re:great, we're all doomed (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that islam also allows for extenuating circumstances in dietary law when life is at stake.
Re:great, we're all doomed (Score:3, Insightful)
What of the breeding of dogs, cattle, etc. that humans have been doing for centuries? A poodle
is a result of genetic engineering too.
Re:great, we're all doomed (Score:3, Insightful)
- GM pigs have both pig and human organs in them. This means that pig diseases will "learn" to infect human organs. This will result in pig diseases crossing the gap into the human world, possibly bringing new and dangerous plagues to us. I don't want hoof and mouth disease.
- Humans carrying GM organs can do the same thing. Any human carrying a GM pig organ should not eat pig mean - from a biological perspective, it is very close to cannibalism. While cannibalism is morally wrong for a variety of good reasons, there are good biological reasons it is wrong to. Mainly, eating food of your own biology sets you at risk for every disease that is festering in that corpse - diseases that would not be able to infect you if you were eating a more alien animal (like a chicken). The fact that pigs are already close to human biology is both why the research is possible, and why pork is never served rare (or at all to some religions). Being that much closer raises the risk even higher.
Re:great, we're all doomed (Score:4, Insightful)
No.
2) Pigs are dirty, they typically roll in their own feces. This is not an appropriate animal to use for 'human' organs.
No. Having a dirty skin does not have any impact of the quality of the organ.
3) Using Pigs in such a fasion is inhumane. Nobody knows the pain these pigs could live with because we have set off certain gene sequences we should not have
Pigs that are used for food are treated very poorly, and go through great pains. If this really is a concern of yours, start by balking at that problem, which affects many orders of magnitude more pigs.
4) Pigs are not kosher, and Jewish or Moslems would not be able to benefit from these advances. That's alienting 1/5 of the planet right there from being able to benefit from this.
Is this a representative attitude of yours? If something cannot benefit everyone, then it should not be done? If such logic had been widely practiced we would still live in caves.
5) We are tampering with God's work. Pigs were created perfect the way they are, as are we. Toying with genes is tampering with God's perfect work and SHOULD not be done under any sane principals.
Pigs, the way they are, were created by man, through millenia of genetic manipulation (specifically, selective breeding). Sorry, the harm has already been done.
Tor
Re:Makes you really wonder... (Score:2)
They already can, silly!
Pigs entering atmosphere [flying-pigs.co.nz]
And in other news:
Dead pigs fly from truck, almost hit minivan [216.239.39.100]
Re:Makes you really wonder... (Score:2, Funny)
What happens when pigs fly?
Bacon goes up!
You have been warned.
Re:Edible? (Score:2)
Humans taste like Pork. In fact we taste so similar that some cannible pacific islanders word for humans was "long pig" [they had other words of course, depending on context].
Or so I've heard.