Genetically engineered monkeys pass green-glowing DNA to offspring

mr d i like the stuff about the monkeys i dont know but is the best thing ever and is very interesting i love it

thank you Jan...I hope this makes it on current TV because more people should be concerned about this barberic and useless treatment of animals! The science community is out of hand and they need to learn some ethics or basic morals!

this is animal cruelty and it must stop!!

Ethical Aspects of Genetic Modification of Animals

"1.5 In our societies, besides the potential benefit we can expect from these techniques, there are concerns, for example:

- Harm to animal health and welfare;

- Impact on human health;

- Animals are being used as mere instruments for human benefit and interests;

- It is seen as an infringement of animal "integrity" or of the "intrinsic" or "inherent" value of animals;

- It is seen as "unnatural for example because it transgresses species boundaries;

- It is seen as taking environmental risks the consequences of which are difficult to calculate;

- It is seen as a slippery slope towards eugenic applications on human beings."

end of excerpt.

And as I stated in my original comment, I am not against scientific research (which is why I wish governments would rely more on scientific research regarding global warming.) However, in the case of genetic modification between species, I see it as absolutely unnecessary and unethical. Science does wonderful things but it isn't always right either. Those who think it is always right no matter what it does and that it can do no wrong are to me no different than religious zealots who believe religion can do no wrong.

This is a very slippery slope we are on regarding genetic modification and its intrusion into the natural order of nature. How soon before we are implanting genes into humans that are believed to do certain things? Would they then also be patented traits so that even the humans possessing them would be owned by a corporation? We do not even know the full ramifications of GMOs from that test tube food in our bloodstreams, but tests are already showing health effects.

Are we to assume it would be ethical to make a society of genetically altered humans or animals to exhibit only the traits we want to see? I personally believe there are just some boundaries we should never cross, and this is one of them. It not only infringes on nature, it infringes on freedom.

And I don't get how glowing green monkeys will help them find "new drugs" for Parkinson's? Sounds more like a "because we can" kind of motivation.

Horrible. What science is this? Genetic engineering is not worth the risk and scientists should leave it alone before some mutant escapes the lab and eats 35 people.

Some simply do not understand the ramifications of genetic modificaiton. No wonder Monsanto gets away with it regarding our food! It is amazing how staunchly Delia defends the arrogance of humanity.

See all these responses elevating humans' worth on Earth? They claim human life is what counts, nothing else. What makes us better than our fellow animals? Our ability to control their lives? Us atop the food chain?
If anything,... other animal lives should be valued more than ours,... I mean,... WE'RE the ones effing up this planet! And shortly after they die,... we die. What? Diseases need curing? You mean, the diseases that humans perpetuate? We can be selfish no more. Big picture.
We play God daily. And it seems like it's catching up to us. What can we expect? When we play God,... how long before Armageddon happens?

This was a "proof of principle" experiment. Proof that swapping a specific gene cannot only noticeably affect a foetus, but can also be passed on from transgenic adults to their offspring.

However, mice already share 75% of the genome with humans and have already been successfully used in researching the same causes of human conditions without the need for fluorescence.

Animalia, there is no reason to be angry and it's silly to assume that no one here has read any "real literature" on the subject. I linked you to Wikipedia simply because it has a huge list of the advances in science that can be credited to animal research as opposed to finding them all separately. You may have passionate feelings on this issue but animal testing and bioethics in general are certainly debatable; just because people don't completely agree with you is no reason to get so annoyed! While there are many bad things about the pharmaceutical industry, not all scientists in medical fields are part of some money hungry conspiracy to kill people. I thank you for your information and will check out the books recommended. In addition, here are some interesting links talking about animal testing:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815241,00.html

http://www.livescience.com/health/080212-bad-animal-testing.html

http://www.aclam.org/education/guidelines/position_animalUse.html

this is disgusting - they have no right to do this to animals.
the genetic engineering and patenting of plants and animals is wrong. it will cause more poverty by seed sterilization and animals shouldn't be treated this way - for what purpose? :(

animalia- to argue that human testing is what advanced these medical breakthroughs may be true but is incomplete without the initial animal research aspect. You also claim a money making scheme and alternatives, yet "Scientists must prove there is no alternative to receive U.S. federal funding. Approval for the right to use animals comes through an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, which exists at all U.S. research facilities using animals for federally funded research." (http://www.livescience.com/health/080212-bad-animal-testing.html)

As I stated before, it's not just animal rights groups or activists who want to lessen and eventually stop animal testing, it's everyone. The more most "accurate, ethical and less expensive" methods will survive, indeed we've seen many changes to the practice of animal testing itself due to bioethics conversations. White the alternatives you mentioned, like in vitro testing, are great and indeed are being used and further researched, we need more advances in these methods before scientists feel the need for animal testing has been eliminated.

Yep, what Delia said. Animal testing (non-human) shouldn't be the be all, end all, but it's necessary. I don't find it immoral. For if the long term consequences of regulated animal testing prove to be beneficial, as they have in the past, it should be used, if they don't however, we should not continue with it.

On that note, theoretically speaking, genetic manipulation and testing could be very beneficial. but alas, I'm quite sure the folks on this thread have their minds made up.
--------------

This Wikipedia article, which has a good amount of citations shows the medical advances produced from animal testing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_animal_testing#Medical_advances

funny how people will protest against the use of animals but its ok that they use human life...how screwed up are ya...these test are not right to be used on humans or animals

We are talking about GENETIC MODIFICATION in this case.

Yes, there are many natural cures out there, but the statement that people are not researching or pursuing them is false. Also, there have been many advances in modern medicine thanks to animal research; the Polio vaccine is a good example of medicine obtained from trails on non-human primates.

"Is it really for scientific purposes, or to assuage our own arrogance that we are superior to them?" Why would scientists spend their whole lives studying and researching something in the name of arrogance as opposed to knowledge? I think that is quite an arrogant point of view in itself unless you have something to back it up. "Well, perhaps in time all of our babies will glow. Won't that be special?" This is fear mongering and it is unnecessary; the point of this research is not to make your babies glow and that's a ridiculous conclusion.

The point of this type of research is the study of genetics- how genetics are passed down, what type of things can be passed down, how they are transferred, etc. If we are able to understand these concepts we may be able to cure and prevent conditions that have a genetic component like Parkinson's, MS, some developmental disabilities and more.

Having said that, this of course is not the end all be all of science, which is constantly changing and improving. Non-animal testing solutions are continuously being researched and as technology advances, we will most likely see a decline in it's usage.

Of course, you perceive there is no pain so it isn't immoral. Well, perhaps in time all of our babies will glow. Won't that be special?

I am not sure how much a nautral gene from an animal in the wild (jellyfish) really harm the monkeys. it seems like something that is done to the egg/sperm of the parents and the babies are born a certain way.

if they are putting the monkeys though painful experiments afterwards, that is something to fight about, but the actual act of making a monkey "glow", I don't believe, is a painful or necessarily "bad" thing...

again, I don't know, glowing monkeys seem strange and pointless but scientists might find something important with this.

NATURAL REMEDIES. You know, from NATURE? The Amazon is full of them, but we're chopping them and burning them all down. Did you know that the Yew tree's bark has been seen as a cure for cancer?There are so many remedies available to us in the natural world that we aren't pursuing (and to clarify, I am not stating that we aren't pursuing ANY, I'm stating there are so many we still AREN'T pursuing) but we can inject animals with genes from other species without caring for what they may be experiencing or what it may do down the line if it mutates? Why do we do this? Is it really for scientific purposes, or to assuage our own arrogance that we are superior to them?

You don't need to torture and kill animals to find cures. And yes, genetically altering their makeup IS torture to me as they cannot speak for themselves. I suggest you then volunteer for one of these experiments if they are so safe to you.

There is so much misinformation on this thread it's disturbing, not only about how medicine is researched but WTF are you talking about, a pet to buy? These animals are not for public pet ownership! WTF are you talking about, no chance out in the wild? These are not wild animals!

And wait a minute- because you don't understand how this can help scientists with disease prevention, it's all sickening bullshit? Most modern medicines have been achieved with the help of animal research. One of the most prominent illnesses in the United States, Diabetes, is helped with the use of animal products. Would you prefer not to have those medicines available to us today?

I'm not saying Animal research is the only way to do things, but it continues to be crucial for scientists today to test medicines and unlock the secrets of genetics. What do you propose instead?

yes, and what is sick is that they actually think this "progress."

Man has now engineered another "pet" people can buy at their local pet store, take it home, decide it's too much trouble, take it too the animal shelter, where it will be "put to sleep". (such a "nice" term for killing a perfectly healthy animal)

that is wrong in so many ways, that poor animal has no chance in the wild talk about dooming an animal to captivity or extinction I see what they are trying to accomplish but please stop fucking with mother nature

From the article:

Japanese researchers have genetically engineered monkeys whose hair roots, skin and blood glow green under a special light, and who have passed on their traits to their offspring, the first time this has been achieved in a primate.

They spliced a jellyfish gene into common marmosets, and said on Wednesday they hope to use their colony of glowing animals to study human Parkinson's disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS.

Erika Sasaki and Hideyuki Okano of the Keio University School of Medicine in Japan used a virus to carry the gene for green fluorescent protein into monkey embryos, which were implanted into a female monkey, and four out of five were born with the gene throughout their bodies.

One fathered a healthy baby that also carried the new genes, they reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

"The birth of this transgenic marmoset baby is undoubtedly a milestone," stem cell expert Dr. Gerald Schatten, of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and Shoukhrat Mitalipov, of Oregon Health and Sciences University, wrote in a commentary in Nature.

"Transgenic marmosets are potentially useful models for research into infectious diseases, immunology and neurological disorders, for example," they wrote.