h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Found this on MSN News. Comments?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8871707/site/newsweek/

As a pet owner with allergies, I can understand the appeal of a "less allergenic" pet. But I don't know how I feel about genetically-modified pets...

Perhaps I should clarify here... I have no problem whatsoever with the genetic modification of animals if it helps *them* in some way. I do have a problem when it's done just to increase the food supply, or to make animals more "convenient" to humans.

from some of the programs I've been watching about DNA etc, wait and see what happens to the human race with genetic modification, Mr Frank E.N.Stein will come true

But...do you have a problem with the selective breeding of the species felis felis to turn it from a wild animal into a companion/ vermin exterminator for humans?

How are GM animals different to 'naturally' bred animals? Isn't it just a shortcut?

And aren't the heavily interbred Cornish Rex breed of cats (them with the curly hair) chosen by allergy sufferers because they don't shed in the same way? Is that OK?

(Just asking. Robert Winston was asking similar questions on the radio this morning re IVF. Why should we carry out checks on the suitability for parenthood of couples requesting IVF? We don't apply similar tests in obstetrics or pediatrics.)

We should debate genetic technology over on Atheist Fundamentalism some time. It's an area clouded by superstition.

>But...do you have a problem with the selective breeding of the species felis felis to turn it from a wild animal into a companion/ vermin exterminator for humans?<

Good question! And a tricky one at that: I own a cat, and I enjoy his company. But looking at the big picture as a whole, IMO it's probably wrong to breed any species of animal strictly to turn it from a wild animal to a domesticated one, be it for companionship, "vermin" control, or even for food. All of these are, IMO, very separate issues and I would address them all individually, if we wanted to break it down like that.

>How are GM animals different to 'naturally' bred animals? Isn't it just a shortcut?<

Some "naturally" bred animals are so inbred as to become almost genetically modified. I don't see much difference, if any, between the two.


>And aren't the heavily interbred Cornish Rex breed of cats (them with the curly hair) chosen by allergy sufferers because they don't shed in the same way? Is that OK?<

It's my understanding that this breed of cat is so heavily inbred *just* to prevent them shedding and make them easier for allergy sufferers to deal with. I don't think this is OK.

Incidentally, I may have pointed out that my cat is about as furry as a cat can be. I am allergic to cat dander and saliva. And it aggravates my asthma. How do *I* cope? I take allergy medications, both prescription (Claritin and Singulair) and homeopathic (a tincture administered under the tongue which contains small amounts of the allergens and is purported to increase one's tolerance for them). Should that fail, I'll just shave the cat.

I certainly wouldn't say it's ethical to breed, inbreed, or genetically modify a cat or dog *just* so that they won't bother my allergies, any more than it would be right, were I not vegetarian, to breed or genetically modify a cow so I could have a more tender steak. Am I making any sense?

>(Just asking. Robert Winston was asking similar questions on the radio this morning re IVF. Why should we carry out checks on the suitability for parenthood of couples requesting IVF? We don't apply similar tests in obstetrics or pediatrics.)<

EXCELLENT question! It's hardly fair. Some of the most horrendously unsuitable and unqualified people become parents through the traditional method. Why should it be any harder for folks to become parents via IV fertilization?

<We should debate genetic technology over on Atheist Fundamentalism some time. It's an area clouded by superstition.<

Let's do it!

Selective breeding is an entirely different process to genetic modification. For instance fish genes were introduced into tomatoes by GM, no matter how often you put fish and tomatoes togther in the natural world, they ain't gonna swop genes.

Most people who share a link with their environment find it quite easy to tell the difference and to know which is right and wrong for them. It is a shame that people now have grown so far from their natural environment that they have forgotten how to live in harmony with it.

"We should debate genetic technology over on Atheist Fundamentalism some time. It's an area clouded by superstition."

Why take scientific debate away from scientists who happen to have faith, to a atheist forum? I am amazed at the people who constantly forget I write a science news column (at rest for now) and have a science degree, and am a pagan. They assume that because I am a pagan that I have no knowledge of science and cannot discuss it.

I think Edward was asking that we bring up this same discussion over there because a number of people who are subscribed to that forum aren't subbed to my journal.

>They assume that because I am a pagan that I have no knowledge of science and cannot discuss it.<

I don't assume that, of anyone. Otherwise I'd have posted the link and asked for comments elsewhere.

the debate on god or no god, is the biggest,longest debate in history and after all these years, no one has come up with the answer. We as mankind are the ultimate at the moment, because we can reason and debate, no other species has that ability, but we also abuse it, we start wars when the belief becomes the rule of one over another


Shucks! me being seriousgoes for lie down

Hypoallergenic pets?, could be we are the same to them,Hypoallergenic humans

http://www.underwatertimes.com/crocsgators/crocsgators.php

we could be getting up their noses

I wonder if it's possible to be allergically sensitive to alligators? What part of them could trigger a reaction?

Besides their teeth.

Seriously, though... do reptiles and amphibians, excepting those which secrete or inject venom, have something about them that could trigger an autoimmune response in humans?

I saw a program a while back last year and they are finding the DNA of as many animal species and plants as possible, land and sea. Hoping to find DNA that can be added to ours, for anti aging/viruses, basicaly anything, they actualy put DNA from a glowing jellyfish into a plant and that then glowed

(Incidentally, in light of my positing on another thread... my earlier comment about testing people for parental ability prior to IVF was meant to convey that I am *very much* against testing people for adequacy as parents except for perhaps in some cases prior to adoption/foster care. I do not support testing parents prior to IVF or prior to insemination through normal channels. No pun intended )

"insemination through normal channels"-I'm that naive, I think sex is what you put coal or potato's in

>>Selective breeding is an entirely different process to genetic modification. For instance fish genes were introduced into tomatoes by GM, no matter how often you put fish and tomatoes togther in the natural world, they ain't gonna swop genes.

Hold on a gosh darned minute! As I'm sure that you, as a science column writer know, all living things share a commonality of genes. Fish *do* have tomato genes already. Similarly, humans and slime moulds have some 50% of genes in common. So all we're talking about here is introducing *different* tomato genes. Isn't it?

Now, it seems that there are a number of ways in which the issue of whether tomatofish are 'a good thing' can be debated, eg:

a) Whether they will lead to environmental disaster
b) Whether eating them will be bad for our health
c) Whether it 'just ain't natural' (and therefore is wrong)
d) (subtly different from a) Whether they will lead to environmental disaster because they throw Mother Nature off balance.
e) Whether it's not fair on the fish.

Now, I'm happy to debate these with any scientist, whether religious or not. However, c) d) and e) would inevitably draw religion iteslf into the debate. Due to Kaz's prior expression of a desire not to discuss such topics with me, I offered to take it up under Atheist Fundamentalism. All are welcome there also. However - since it's *my* thread, I'm hardly going to feel the need to constrain myself there.

And, of course, visitors to Atheist Fundamentalism would be welcome to question faith-based assertions such as:

>>It is a shame that people now have grown so far from their natural environment that they have forgotten how to live in harmony with it.

Perhaps someone could explain to me the difference between selective breeding and genetic modification, in the sense of the first being somehow more 'morally correct' than the other.

From the article it looks like GM pets wouldn't necessarily be less likely to produce allergic reactions.


az

The allergy is to a component of the cat's saliva. We can identify the gene responsible for shaping the cells that manufacture this component and chop it out. This could also be done by selectively breeding the cats producing least of the component - but over much longer timescales and with greater wastage of cats.

This is slightly different to, say, splicing a tomato gene into a cat to produce bright-red ketchup moggies. Now *that's* something I'd like to see!

I've always heard it was the cat's dander that was the most 'allergic factor' and that cats are the animal that most people seem to be allergic to.

How would you be able to genetically modify a cat so it no longer produced dander?


az

I also take issue with statements like this:

>>It is a shame that people now have grown so far from their natural environment that they have forgotten how to live in harmony with it.<<

primarily because it implies that the speaker is somehow more "in tune" or existing more "harmoniously" with his or her "natural" environment than the rest of us. Aside from being a faith-based assertion, it's also a pretty egocentric one, innit?

For instance, I was born in the city. I have never lived in the forest, nor have I any desire to. I don't even like the suburbs, for cry eye. So, my "natural" environment is an urban one, correct? And I exist pretty harmoniously with my city... like clockwork.

As for the difference between selective breeding and GM in regards to "morality", I don't think there is any. But I see a big difference between "immoral" and "amoral", if you know what I mean?

>I've always heard it was the cat's dander that was the most 'allergic factor' and that cats are the animal that most people seem to be allergic to.

How would you be able to genetically modify a cat so it no longer produced dander?<

Is it the dander itself, or the cat's saliva on the dander, that is the allergen? Or both? I have the stinking allergy myself, and I'm not sure which. I know when Herman (our cat) scratches me, I have a worse reaction than when he rubs up on me or from the furniture. Though, as I say, I do take meds to combat the allergic reaction.

This is turning out to be more interesting than I expected- thanks Ed and Az!