Hi, I had read the story, and seen a picture of Andi, who looks, in normal light, like a normal little monkey. It is only under certain light that he will eventually "glow" so it certainly won't affect his day-to-appearance or self-esteem! The insertion didn't "hurt," as "ANDi received an extra gene while he was still an unfertilized egg."

I am against things like testing cosmetics on animals, and other cruelties done for the purpose of human vanity. But some scientists hope that, for example, if the "glowy" gene could be somehow inserted in certain tissue, it might make a surgeon's task of removing a tumor, for example, easier - just turn on the blacklight and cut out the glowy bits!

This is, of course, an over-simplification. But I honestly believe that some diseases that we know can be genetically-based, like some kinds of Alzheimers, or some kinds of ALS, (Lou Gehrig's disease) could be eliminated, or at least their impact lessened. I picked those two examples because I have dealt with loved ones with both those diseases. If testing that is not needlessly cruel to the animal can be done toward eliminating these diseases, I am all for it.

I also, of course, would be ready to adopt little ANDi if he needed a home when the testing was over, but I suspect he already has had many offers from those who saw him born, and worked to create him!

Here's where I may get a bit controversial - as for creating people with certain physical characteristics, don't we already do this by procreating with people to whom we are attracted? I know one woman who, fifty years ago, decided she didn't like being short, so wouldn't even date men under 5'10 or so. Her husband is 6' 1". As a result, her sons are much taller than she, as she wished. Is this not, in effect, genetic selection?