***must Read!***

[Catsnclay]

I thought I have heard of everything, until my husband told me of this!

I cannot believe that someone, a medical scientist, would even think to do something like this! Sick, sick, sick!!


http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10042 (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10042)



Unbelivable!!!! :( - :mad: - :mad:

[Catty1]

Yes, I heard this on CBC the other day...the 'glow' gene shows that they can put other genes into cats, and make them have the chronic illnesses that humans do, for RESEARCH! :mad:

Going to see if there is a petition anywhere yet....

ETA:
From Korea.net: "'The ability to manipulate the fluorescent protein and use this to clone cats, opens new horizons for artificially creating animals with human illnesses linked to genetic causes,' a government official said. This, he said, can speed up efforts to find treatment and drugs by allowing scientists to study animals and conduct experiments that are not possible with human patients."

EEEK!

I would be happy to set up a petition, but to whom would it go????

[Catty1]

U.S.A
Science Counsellor .
Embassy of the Republic of Korea .
2450 Massachusetts Avenue. N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20008, U.S.A.

Tel : 1-202-939-6479
Fax : 1-202-387-0402

UK

First Secretary for S&T
Embassy of the Republic of Korea
60 Buckingham Gate
London SW1E 6AJ
United Kingdom
Tel : 44-20-8715-3707
Fax : 44-20-7227-5523

Other nations - this link: http://www.korea.net/search/directory/banner.asp?menu_no=1

[Catty1]

I emailed Avaaz and Care2 to see if they could help with contact info.

Meanwhile, found this thought-provoking post on a comments section following the glow-cats article:

Craig

Ottawa

If you ask me, it is cruelty animals to create breeds of dogs and cats that have chronic health problems, which lots of breeding enthusiasts have done. There is no indication that is the case here.

Posted December 14, 2007 04:04 PM

[Medusa]

I saw this on Yahoo and on TV. It infuriated me!

[catmandu]

The Sad Thing Is That Theses Tests Have Been Done For Years And They Keep Doing These Incredibly Cruel Tests On Animals Not Because They Need The Data, But Because The Labratories Make A Lot Of Money From Government Grants And Busuries From Different Companies.
I Have Raed That Almost All Of This Can Be Done On Computers Down With Virtual Animals, Yet Every Year Thousand Of Animals Are Killed Needlessly.
I Pray These Scientists And Foundation Ceos Rot In Hell.

[Catty1]

BTW - just to clarify - these particular cats were not 'hurt'; the genetic change was made in the egg. One out of the three kittens was born dead, which can happen in non-scientific births.

Not taking sides - there are some good points made - and to see them all, use the link below.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2007/12/uv_light_makes_fluorescent_fel.html

Bruce A. Head

Let's put this in perspective: medical/genetic testing on cats is a tiny drop in the bucket of cruelty to animals in "service" to humanity.

According to the December 2007 issue of Harper's magazine ("Of Mice and Men", Greg Critser), in the U.S. alone, 80 million rats and mice -- one for every four Americans -- are used in lab testing each year (this compares to 40,000 lab monkeys per year and surely many fewer cats or dogs).

And that 80 million doesn't include the 70% of all male newborn mice that are euthanized because, unlike female mice, they are too aggressive to use for testing.

One specific breed of the most common lab mouse called the "APP" mouse (named because it has a genetically implanted human Alzheimer's gene) sells for over $236 a piece, creating a multi-billion dollar mouse industry.

Due to lobbying by pharmecutical companies, protection of mice (along with other rodents and birds) was specifically omitted from the 2002 U.S. Animal Welfare Act.

Animal rights groups including PETA are silent on this issue (they only seem to care about cuddly cats, dogs and human-like monkeys). This despite the fact that there is ample clinical evidence that mice feel pain and emotions (including empathy for other suffering mice).

Posted December 14, 2007 04:58 PM


Cody

Victoria

Being in the field of microbiology/biochemistry, using animal models for experimentation is second nature. While some may consider these acts sinister, I must remind them that these animals were created soley for the purpose of experimentation (and are patented), and they are treated with the utmost respect. Scientists realize that these animals are indeed sacrificed for the good of mankind.

While some of you question the usefulness of "glow in the dark" kittens, it is actually an excellent step forward in our understanding of genetic manipulation that one day in the future can cure a plethora of disorders. And to be quite honest, this is nothing new; we've had "glow in the dark" monkeys for a good 7 years.

What is most annoying about all this, is the negativity from non-scientific people. I am not trying to be insensitive, but those of you who have been blessed with a friend or family member that has survived cancer, for example, have this exact type of research to thank.

As someone mentioned, if you prefer to live in a world of disease, then that is your perogative, I suppose. But do not be so quick as to paint us as sinister people.

Posted December 15, 2007 03:02 AM

Standing by your morals is admirable. So, in order to adjust to differing morals equitably, I offer this simple solution. I will keep using the scientific and medical advancements I find morally acceptable.

Those whose morals differ, and those who will actually stand by their morals, will NOT avail themselves of the benefits of scientific and medical research carried out through vivisection. No therapies for cancer, AIDS, infections, blood pressure, cholesterol, and all other ailments common to humans. Eat only food that you personally grow in the ground - no animal-based food - and of course no commercial fertilizer.

This would naturally apply to and your children until the age of 18. The list goes on - right back to the dark ages.

Morals are very nice until reality sets in and you realize how empty the sanctimony really is!

[Medusa]

Thanx for bringing both sides to our attention, Candace. This goes along w/my "people first" belief, although I still find it difficult to justify such research. However, should I ever be in the position where I would need medical treatment that came about due to just this type of research, I probably would sing a different tune. I try not to allow my emotions to take over but sometimes, such as when I see a glow in the dark cat, it ain't easy. :)

[Catty1]

There were some light posts there too - like the guy who said we could save on electricity by having these glow cats around...and reading by 'cat-light'. :rolleyes:

He forgot that you need a blacklight to see this to begin with.

What struck me is that because of the money invested in this research - and you have to jump through a ton of hoops and prove your project is worth supporting, and THEN spend whatever you get on animals, which are EXPENSIVE - that is reason enough to treat the animals as well as possible, even if it is only from an investment standpoint, as well as needing healthy animals to begin with.

It's a hard line...I love my cats. I hope there is research going on that will ELIMINATE the use of animal research forever.

[smokey the elder]

*bangs head against desk* I wish people would quit making out the biologists as the bad guys. A company who wants to do animal testing has to jump through hoops. I don't want to get into another debate about it, though; we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[catmandu]

THATS A VERY GOD OINT, BUT I HAVE RAED THAT A LOT OF THESE TESTS ARE DUPLICATES OF TESTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE, AND THAT THEY ARE DONE JUST FOR THE MONEY.
AND MICE DO HAVE FEELINGS AS WELL, ITS A SHAME THAT ANY CREATURE OF GOD IS CONSIDERED EXPENDABLE AND WITHOUT WORTH.
:cool: :D :cool: :D :cool: :D :cool: :D :cool: :D

[moosmom]

I just don't understand why people f%$# with nature like that, when there are SOOOO many unwanted animals out there. Pisses me off. :mad:

[Catty1]

smokey - in that link was a comment or two by researchers - who pointed out just how HARD it is to even GET to do research. MANY hoops.

I don't like animals being used either. But they are not just dragged off the streets. Yes, I know some schools have been busted for buying pets from greedy people similar to themselves, but that is not the usual case.

In MS, the body attacks healthy cells, destroying the myelin that conducts nerve messages properly - loss of motor ability occurs. Acorda is STILL in pre-clinical stages of testing this on humans - a substance that REGROWS the myelin. AMAZING. I had hoped it would happen in time for my sister - it did not. Please look at the link below:

http://www.acorda.com/pipeline_remyelination.asp

This would be amazing. How was it discovered that myelin could be regrown? The news came from the Mayo Clinic, who had accomplished this with rats.

Awful for the rats. Incredible for the millions who have MS. Hurtful for me because it did not happen in time for my sister.

HUMAN trials take 7 - 10 years to be completed, and THEN FDA/Health Canada approval has to be applied for.

This long process - even with humans - can make it seem like it is a repeated series of tests.

Just an FYI.

Gary - I would seriously like to know where you read about the tests being repeated just for the money. Seriously. Because they would get a nasty letter from me.

On ANOTHER note - is there a base of info somewhere that has some facts about testing being done successfully WITHOUT animals?

Would like to seek a solution here...

[Emeraldgreen]

Catty1, I'm so sorry to hear about your sister's battle with MS. It's hard for me to choose sides because my mother had juvenille diabetes from the age of ten and if animal testing had not been done to create injectable insulin she would never have survived. And, on the other hand, I love animals so much and would do anything to save one that I knew of that was in distress.
I do support testing that is not inhumane to animals and that could be life saving or life changing for humans who are debilitated.
I don't know enough about the glow in the dark cats research being done but I did see the story on the news as well and what I found upsetting was the stress that the cats appeared to be under. I can only imagine how many black lights have been pointed at them with camera bulbs flashing the way they were in this news story. They looked quite miserable and at one point I saw three of them stuffed into one rather small wired cage. When the camera zoomed in on one of the cats 'glowing' in the dark it gave this pitiful scratchy meow and it broke my heart. I know they have been bred for science but not once in any of the footage did anyone show one of these cats any affection when they were so obviously spooked.
I should learn more about it because I am wondering why they would choose to add a gene that makes them glow to prove that they can add a gene. Perhaps there is another gene that they could have added that would have allowed them the same useful information, something like adding a gene that would create two different coloured eyes or pink pads instead of black.
I really wonder if the act of glowing could be uncomfortable for a cat. When they turned the lights off and turned the black lights on it appeared like the rims of their eyes were glowing and I can't imagine that it is not irritating to have the rims of their eyes glaring light back into their eyeball. And, I wonder if the eye itself has glowing properties and if their vision is affected. They might be able to do tests to check if the cats can see properly but I don't think they could know if the vision through glow in the dark eyes is irritating or not.
Anyway, I don't think they'll ever know if it is uncomfortable for a cat to glow and I'm sure it's not something they would ever do to a person so I'm sure it will remain a mystery. I just pray that it is not that bad and I hope that these cats will be treated kindly in the future.

[Catty1]

Emeraldgreen - I posted this earlier:


From Korea.net: "'The ability to manipulate the fluorescent protein and use this to clone cats, opens new horizons for artificially creating animals with human illnesses linked to genetic causes,' a government official said. This, he said, can speed up efforts to find treatment and drugs by allowing scientists to study animals and conduct experiments that are not possible with human patients."

Could we find INEXPENSIVE CURES FOR PETS while we are at it?????

[Emeraldgreen]

Okay, I went and did some reading and I realize now that my earlier suggestions ("why don't they add a gene that causes 2 different coloured eyes or pink pads instead") make no sense at all. I understand now that the glowing cells can be tagged and tracked by scientists because they can see them and it allows them to better understand the course of diseases. So, I retract my somewhat silly suggestions but I still feel that perhaps the animals of science could be treated with a gentler approach. If the glowing cats were just being held by someone on that news footage while the lights were being pointed at them and cameras flashing like crazy etc.. just something or someone to comfort them it wouldn't seem so cold. But that is just the softie in me and I suppose sometimes I need to have a more logical viewpoint. Maybe they get lots of lovin' behind closed doors. I will certainly pray that they do.
Anyway, here are a few paragraphs that I copied from a site written by someone in support of the testing in response to someone who was not:

QUOTE FROM SOMEONE ON ANOTHER SITE:
"Under normal light say from an incandescent light bulb or in normal sunlight, the animals will not be emitting radiation like a Christmas tree. The fluorescent colors are only visible (yes, how could have logic guessed it) under a fluorescent bulb. Particular genes, extracted from other animal species which are naturally fluorescent (say from the ocean) are inserted into an animal cell. That cell will produce the corresponding protein which when exposed to a fluorescent light source will have its electrons excited so that the color will appear. Typical colors used for such tagging experiments are green (green fluorescent protein-GFP; perhaps you might want to spend 30-seconds of research), red, blue or occasionally yellow.

It is done to tag cells. To understand how an organism, especially a mammalian one as complex as a cat develops cell by cell, tracing the mitotic pathway, it is an excellent tool to be able to trace what cell ends up where. In fact Nobel prizes have been won for doing exactly that in the Nematode (C. Elegans) model, tracing all the cells from its original stem source. It would take textbooks to explain all the different experiments that can be done by tagging cells"