Genetically Modified Cats coming in 2007

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Margaret Fine - 27 Oct 2004 15:41 GMT

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/27/biotechnology.cats/index.html

Signature

Margaret Fine
mefine@mindspring.com

Reply to this Message

Kreisleriana - 27 Oct 2004 15:46 GMT

>http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/27/biotechnology.cats/index.html

There were a couple of cloned Bengali kittens at the last cat show. I
question the wisdom or ethics of this, since there is such a huge
overpopulation of homeless kitties.

BTW, the kittens were- <sigh>-- adorable.

Theresa
Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh
My Blog: http://www.humanitas.blogspot.com

Reply to this Message

Margaret Fine - 27 Oct 2004 16:15 GMT

>>http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/27/biotechnology.cats/index.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh
> My Blog: http://www.humanitas.blogspot.com

I have mixed feelings. I really don't understand why one would clone an
animal. Even tho I have loved all of mine dearly I'd be doing a
disservice to the new animal by constantly comparing them, I think.

On the modified cats I can see it a little more. My poor husband is
very allergic to most cats. For some strange reason he isn't allergic
to Oliver. We'd get another one in a second if we could know in advance
that the allergies wouldn't be a problem but can't risk getting a kitten
from the shelter and having Steve have to walk thru life with his eyes
swollen shut. He was willing to risk it because we fell in love with
Oliver and we were just darn lucky. I also think of my poor 13 year old
niece who is such an animal lover but can't have a dog or cat because of
asthma.

If only people would just be smart and spay and neuter!

Signature

Margaret Fine
mefine@mindspring.com

Reply to this Message

O J - 27 Oct 2004 22:27 GMT

>Theresa wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>animal. Even tho I have loved all of mine dearly I'd be doing a
>disservice to the new animal by constantly comparing them, I think.

I'd give a lot to hold my dear Misty (RB) again, but I don't think I'd
want to have a cloned kitten. I know it's a 'brave new world', but
that would feel vaguely creepy to me. I think it would prove to be a
constant reminder that the original was gone.

Another thing I don't think I'd care for, although I have nothing
against anyone else doing it, is to have a deceased pet freeze-dried
in a sleeping pose so one's pet can be seen lying in its accustomed
spot on a couch or chair. That strikes me as a little bit unhealthy in
the mental sense, but it takes all kinds. Go figure!

Regards and Purrs,
O J

Reply to this Message

jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 27 Oct 2004 23:38 GMT

> Another thing I don't think I'd care for, although I have nothing
> against anyone else doing it, is to have a deceased pet freeze-dried
> in a sleeping pose so one's pet can be seen lying in its accustomed
> spot on a couch or chair. That strikes me as a little bit unhealthy in
> the mental sense, but it takes all kinds. Go figure!

Seems a bit weird to me, but then, keeping a loved one's ashes in an
urn on the mantle might seem weird to some people, too, while I don't
think that's odd at all. I agree with you - I wouldn't do it myself,
but it doesn't harm anyone or anything so I have no problem with it.

I don't like the idea of creating a clone of a deceased animal, because
the scientific community really doesn't know what the long-term effects
of cloning is on the cloned animal. The technology hasn't been around
long enough to see what happens over the lifespan of the animal. But many
clones have died prematurely - their cells aged much more quickly than in
regular animals. I don't think we're at the point of understanding in the
development of this process to start marketing animal clones.

Cloning a dead child, on the other hand, seems really unhealthy to
me. It would put constant pressure on the "replacement" child to *be*
the dead child for his/her parents. The child wouldn't be allowed to
be him/herself, but would be expected to fill the parents' need to
quell their grief, by giving them their deceased child all over again.
Some parents might even expect this deliberately, but even if they
don't mean to, the very fact that they have had the clone done in the
first place means that they want a replacement, and that will be
unconciously communicated to the child.

I think that if a parent actually went ahead and did this, it would
show that they see their children as a means for fullfilling their own
emotional needs, rather than the other way around, as it should be. And
that can't be a healthy environment for a child!

Happily, this technology isn't too close to being available.

Joyce

Reply to this Message

Steve Touchstone - 28 Oct 2004 02:51 GMT

>>http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/27/biotechnology.cats/index.html
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>BTW, the kittens were- <sigh>-- adorable.

Yes, that's always my reaction - why clone when there are so many who
need foreverhomes. Maybe if there were some way to incorporate the
memories of a beloved pet, but really all you're getting is a
look-alike who reminds you of the old pet, and may have a totally
personality.

Signature

Steve Touchstone,
faithful servant of Sammy, Little Bit and Rocky (RB)

stouchst@JUNKsirinet.net [remove Junk for email]
Home Page: http://www.sirinet.net/~stouchst/index.html
Cat Pix: http://www.sirinet.net/~stouchst/animals.html

Reply to this Message

Charles Barilleaux - 27 Oct 2004 20:12 GMT

> http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/27/biotechnology.cats/index.html

One thing this article claimed was that cats cause allergies, asthma,
etc.. My wife and I have been looking into it, and most research
points to the opposite. Babies who, during their first year, are
exposed to two or more cats or dogs, are 75% less likely to develop
those maladies.

Charles, with a cat and a kitten.

Reply to this Message

Cheryl Perkins - 27 Oct 2004 23:27 GMT

>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/27/biotechnology.cats/index.html

> One thing this article claimed was that cats cause allergies, asthma,
> etc.. My wife and I have been looking into it, and most research
> points to the opposite. Babies who, during their first year, are
> exposed to two or more cats or dogs, are 75% less likely to develop
> those maladies.

> Charles, with a cat and a kitten.

It's a matter of semantics, surely? I think there is some research to show
that exposure to potential allergens in childhood (like cat dander, but
also dust, pollen, etc.) gives the immune system a boost and reduces the
incidence of allergic response. I'm not qualified to say how good that
research is, even if I'd read the original papers instead of someone's
report on it.

But although a cat may not *cause* an individual to develop allergies,
some people simply are or become allergic to cats. OK, the cat didn't
cause the allergy, but it sure provoked the allergic response in the
susceptible individual. One of my sisters loves cats, and has to resort to
medication if she spends any time near one, so that she can breathe. I
guess I'm lucky; I must have gotten a slightly different mix of genes,
because we surely had very similar lack of exposure to cats as
children, so that's not the cause of the allergy in our case.

Signature

Cheryl

Reply to this Message

jXwXeXrXmXoXnXt@sonic.net - 27 Oct 2004 22:47 GMT

> http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/27/biotechnology.cats/index.html

> Using "gene silencing" technology, Allerca is able to suppress the
> production of the protein.

Well, that's nice for people who are allergic... but what about the cat?
What if the cat *needs* that protein? Since cats evolved to produce it,
one might expect that it might need it.

> Brodie said the cats would be spayed and neutered to prevent breeding
> with naturally born animals.

Why, how altruistic and responsible of them. (NOT!) I'm sure they'll be
neutered so that people can't make their own hypoallergenic kitties,
depriving Allerca Co of its future profits. Same reasons many companies
have bred plants that produce sterile seeds - so the farmers have to keep
buying new seeds every year.

Stories like this horrify me. Not because I think bioengineering is
bad categorically (I know it has also done a lot of good), but because
I'm sure the companies that create this type of stuff aren't thinking
about all the implications and impact on the environment. Nature has
a delicate balance, and these companies think nothing of jumping in and
messing with it, without researching the long-range effects. They make
pesticide-resistant insects, and then release them, thinking that those
bugs will control other bugs that eat crops - but what happens when the
resistant insects become a problem? No way to get rid of them! There is
almost no regulation in this industry because the technology is advancing
much faster than the legal process could ever keep up with. I find it
creepy. Sad, too. How do we know how a fish, that was never meant to be
fluorescent, feels about unnaturally glowing in the dark? Maybe it causes
constant anxiety in the fish. But who cares, as long as people keep buying
the "cool" fish for their kids?

People's priorities are so screwed up. You hear all this outcry against
the use of cloning technology to grow human organs, on supposed "moral"
grounds - yet people think nothing of creating a live, sentient animal
deprived of a potentially essential function (or with a foreign trait),
for the comfort or amusement of consumers and, most importantly, the
profits of corporations.

My objection to all this is that companies are going ahead and doing all
this without any understanding of how it will affect the animal or the
environment. <<shiver>>

Joyce

Reply to this Message