Glowing Bunny Born in Turkey
- Thread starter TMTex
- Start date
Help Support Rabbit Talk Forum:
That's crazy. I wonder how well they will glow when they are adults!
dayna
Well-known member
They developed a glow in the dark rabbit here at university of Hawaii.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/2308 ... rk-rabbits
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/2308 ... rk-rabbits
I'm in no way against science for the betterment of things, but where do we prosper from creating a glow in the dark bunnies?
PSFAngoras":10zun9ap said:
Because...glow in the dark bunnies!
makes it easier to observe them at night...
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 14,517
- Reaction score
- 23
It's a jellyfish gene that they've been inserting into all sorts of animals for years... I remember when they were doing it to make brightly colored aquarium fish.
Then they started inserting them into other animals, supposedly to study therapies for disease: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs ... dark-cats/
Then they started inserting them into other animals, supposedly to study therapies for disease: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs ... dark-cats/
DogCatMom
Well-known member
Reading the linked article in the OP's post, the phosphorescent quality is visible only under ultraviolet (UV) light. Looking at the animal (rabbit, cat, etc.) under regular light, it would be impossible to know that it's been tampered with.
These are "transgenic" animals, i.e., they've had genes from completely different forms of life inserted into their genome. In this case, jellyfish. Again, according to the linked article, certain proteins are also visible under UV light, so there's a connection between the presence of those proteins and the glowing quality of the rabbit/cat/etc.
Myself, genetic engineering like this "just because we can" opens too many cans of worms when the corresponding questions like "should we?" and "what will the ultimate fate of the animals be?" aren't answered before "Just because we can" becomes "Let's do it."
These are "transgenic" animals, i.e., they've had genes from completely different forms of life inserted into their genome. In this case, jellyfish. Again, according to the linked article, certain proteins are also visible under UV light, so there's a connection between the presence of those proteins and the glowing quality of the rabbit/cat/etc.
Myself, genetic engineering like this "just because we can" opens too many cans of worms when the corresponding questions like "should we?" and "what will the ultimate fate of the animals be?" aren't answered before "Just because we can" becomes "Let's do it."
Gene therapy technologies in humans would not be possible without this science.
The glowing gene was attached to a gene the scientists are actually interested in studying. It wasn't a question of - 'just for fun, let's see if we can make glowing animals'
This technology is called 'tagging' and is utilized so we can literally see how an inserted gene is expressed and that it took, likely the scientists attempted to splice the gene into the entire litter, but as you can see, only two actually got it inserted correctly, there would be no way of knowing without the glow tag added.
It really was a brilliant idea
The glowing gene was attached to a gene the scientists are actually interested in studying. It wasn't a question of - 'just for fun, let's see if we can make glowing animals
'This technology is called 'tagging' and is utilized so we can literally see how an inserted gene is expressed and that it took, likely the scientists attempted to splice the gene into the entire litter, but as you can see, only two actually got it inserted correctly, there would be no way of knowing without the glow tag added.
It really was a brilliant idea
ckcs
Well-known member
Stuff like this is amazing. While it may not have any usefulness on it own (other than cool) the knowledge gained will no doubt be hugely beneficial in the future. It is a wonderful stepping stone.
Cottie
Well-known member
And then there are those of us who are really disturbed by gene therapy. Science is really nothing but alchemy, and we're ignoring all the laws of it.Dood":eit3grpu said:
al·che·my
/ˈalkəmē/
Noun
1) The medieval forerunner of chemistry, based on the supposed transformation of matter, esp. that of base metals into gold.
2) A process by which paradoxical results are achieved or incompatible elements combined with no obvious rational explanation.
I don't think this is a reasonable comparison at all.
However, I agree that gene therapy is scary but that was just one example of how this technology is being used to help humanity.
"How a Jellyfish protein transformed science" - http://m.livescience.com/16752-gfp-prot ... nigms.html
Green Fluorescent Protein - Scroll down to Applications - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fl ... nt_protein
Cottie
Well-known member
I didn't for a long time, either. However, lately science has been embarking down that disturbing road of "creating life", which was strictly verboten by alchemy (and pretty much every "craft"). It seems as if 14th century alchemists have evolved into modern day chemists, and ignored all the rules their forefathers set.Dood":hsegaqsc said:
I don't see it as helpful. A friend was involved in a project to create glow in the dark "paint" from similar cells, again, to test expression. It was kind of cool, at first, but on a deeper level it's highly unsettling that we're engineering lifeforms in the name of science.
Not that I'm a "science denier" or anything of the sort - I just see us heading in a direction heavily laced with the law of unintended consequences. We're not advanced enough to know what we don't know, and leave certain things be. A glow-light bunny is pretty cool, but it's also highly unsettling.
RJSchaefer":3g6v931n said:
RJSchaefer":3g6v931n said:
You're talking in circles. At first, you say that science is alchemy and then you say that modern science is doing stuff forbidden by alchemy.
RJSchaefer":3g6v931n said:
Using a single instance of something that you deem disturbing doesn't equate science with alchemy either.
You're exploiting the results of science every day. If you cook your food, use any kind of transportation other than walking, take any medication, etc. I know you said you're not a "science denier" but you pretty much did just that.
Targeted therapy is showing great promise in the medical field. It's just targeting certain cells, such as cancer, with medicines that can attack bad cells while leaving normal cells alone. There's nothing suggesting an attempt to create a new life form here.
I think you're a bit out of the loop.
Humans have been genetically engineering life forms since the 1970's and people have been experimenting with (and ingesting) GMO bacteria, archea, protista and fungi for over 40 years.
For some reason people have a problem with science 'tweaking' the higher life forms.
Cottie
Well-known member
I used the term "lately" in a general cosmic sense. 40 years on a scale of several billion is "lately".Dood":wrasnkk7 said:
Allow me to try to phrase it this way: there are many things science cannot currently explain. Why does a carb restricted diet slow the growth of one type of cancer, accelerate the growth of another, and have no effect on a dozen others? What causes cluster heachaches? What IS chronic fatigue syndrome? How can you even begin to work on a therapy that alters the genome when you don't entirely understand how it operates?
RJSchaefer":1blgeqzr said:
I think I answered that one already. It's because...Glow In The Dark Bunnies!
