[MannyLopez]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070927...nbiologyanimal

pete

[Beatris]

Very interesting, indeed!

I can see high school biology teachers losing out on the fun of inflating the frog's lungs themselves, though. Tossed my cookies when my bio teacher did that, which I suspect was the reaction he was looking for.

[Kafuuil]

The transparent frogs can also reproduce, with their offspring inheriting their parents' traits, but their grandchildren die shortly after birth.

"As they have two sets of recessive genes, something wrong must kick in and kill them," Sumida said.
I am not an animal activist but I think is alarming to see the lack of compassion some scientists have for animals, specially when they pain and disease is involved. I mean "something wrong must be kicking in and killing them", wtf?, what an arsehole, these animals are alive and can feel, were is their sense of responsibility?.

Sorry about the little rant, but I've always had cats, dogs, and all sorts of rescued animals, I don't think people realize how capable of suffering animals are.

Oh, and I think we starting to cross the line with genetics, it looks to me that they are doing things just because they can, not because they need to.

[Zmniubqr]

Sad fact of life Jorge, but we need to do this to progress as a society.
I emphatise with your feeling but i think it is harder for the scientists that have to do it and what they put up with from activists (of which my wife used to be a member)

[sasquatch999]

Sad fact of life Jorge, but we need to do this to progress as a society.
I emphatise with your feeling but i think it is harder for the scientists that have to do it and what they put up with from activists (of which my wife used to be a member)

Sure man, don't get me wrong, the fact is that sometimes there is a clear cut choice between human and animal experimentation, and the choice is simple I also srongly disagree with some of the near-terrorist activities of some groups (and most of the silly greenpeace theatric antics).

Is just that some stuff goes a bit far, like breeding deformed animals for human consumption (I am not a vegetarian btw), it just feels wrong.

[QualityReachOut]

I am a vegetarian (although I started eating fish again after 10+ years recently, but that's a different story).

I also have degrees in Ecology and Taxonomy (soon to be finishing another in environmental science).

In short, I am about as much of a tree hugging hippy as you can get without being an animal rights activist nutter.

I also have zero problem with anything written in that article.... I don't think stating facts is of any relevance to how compassionate a person is or isn't. The statement about something kicking in and killing the offspring of those frogs is simply a scientist talking about a genetic effect. Has nothing to do with compassion. It's not lack of compassion when a scientist says that the earth goes around the sun. Why should genetics be different?

Mike

[cucceevevaind]

I remember when I was in school and my teacher wanted to use a rabit for dissection. of course I went against that idea and finally I won and the rabit didnt had to die (it should be dead by now anyway...).

the thing is that whats more ethically right, in one hand you have a frog for dissection in the other hand you have created a new different species (translucid frog). so whats better? kill the poor frog or invent a new animal that naturally doesnt exist??

personally I say none of it.

[FrereeDoulley]

Got to remember that this is happening in Japan. There is absolutely no ethical treatment for non-Japanese people, so you cant really expect if for animals. They eat nearly anything anyway.... they would probably even eat us foreigners if they could get away with it.

Actually...

[Corporal White]

It's not lack of compassion when a scientist says that the earth goes around the sun. Why should genetics be different?

Mike

You are much better informed than I on this but I would say that the scientist didn't set the earth in motion. My comment was more towards creating the problem (indirectly) and then making such a casual comment about it.

Maybe I am feeling a bit touchy after a few weeks of pressure in the job and got my knickers in a twist, maybe I would have reacted the same way anyway, I don't know.

This is a personal opinion, I cannot expect everyone to agree with me.

[hHwJ229h]

I agree with Bobdonny, either you test on animals or don't test at all, untill we get to the day where we can simulate natural cell reaction to whatever virus...etc we sadly don't have that much choice as far as i know that is.

[iqxdvjgmat]

the thing is that whats more ethically right, in one hand you have a frog for dissection in the other hand you have created a new different species (translucid frog). so whats better? kill the poor frog or invent a new animal that naturally doesnt exist??

personally I say none of it.

For starters it's not a new species. It's the same species just with translucent skin. If you were to use skin colour as a delimiter white and black people would be different species.

Second, the animal wasn't 'invented' it was bred, just as most of the animals people eat are bred, humans cannot 'invent' animals. Cows and sheep would not look like they do in the wild, they have been selectively bred for certain traits which humans find useful. I find it hypocritical when anyone who eats meat complains about experiments like this as they are essentially eating the product of the same process. At least these scientists aren't eating the frogs but are instead using them to gain an understanding of biology that can save lives, and doing it in a way that means they won't have to kill the frogs to do so.

Mike

[NKUDirectory]

Maybe I am feeling a bit touchy after a few weeks of pressure in the job and got my knickers in a twist, maybe I would have reacted the same way anyway, I don't know.

No its ok, it's an emotive issue. I used to feel similarly, why do you think I studied the things I did? I just learned more about the science and what is and isn't involved and eventually changed my mind.

Mike

[Amoniustauns]

No its ok, it's an emotive issue. I used to feel similarly, why do you think I studied the things I did? I just learned more about the science and what is and isn't involved and eventually changed my mind.

Mike

I guess there is something there, my brother and most of his friends are in the medical/clinical profession, they often talk about detachment and how hard it can become both for them to do and for others to understand. I can only guess this is similar for research bilogists.

My head might tell me these things, but my heart doesn't always follow if you know what I mean

[U5pz6B71]

My wife is a researcher in molecular cardiology, and as such needs to harvest heart cells from rats so she can do whichever tests or experiments she runs. She also loves animals, so she always feels trepidation when she needs to run a new experiment. If there were another, ethical, way to harvest the cells she needs, she'd do it in a heartbeat (no pun intended).

I have mixed feelings on the issue. Frogs with translucent skin is a far cry, imho, from the controversy surrounding stem cells or the like. But, I do think that genetics aren't something to go playing around with. Will it ever get to a point where we can select our children's eye and hair colour? It probably could, but I don't think I'd want to see that day.

[EarnestKS]

I am a vegetarian (although I started eating fish again after 10+ years recently, but that's a different story).

You are no longer a vegetarian, you are now a piscatorian. Congradulations!

But, I do think that genetics aren't something to go playing around with. Will it ever get to a point where we can select our children's eye and hair colour? It probably could, but I don't think I'd want to see that day.

"Soon it will be a sin for parents to have a child which carries the heavy burden of genetic disease." - Bob Edwards

[Ggskbpbz]

I'm not a fan of experimentation on Frogs...

[Tic Tac Took]

You are no longer a vegetarian, you are now a piscatorian. Congradulations!

Yup, I am. It's just simpler to say vegetarian to most people. I started eating fish again when I discovered that the cause of my annoying heartburn was the wheat in my diet, cutting out wheat made me feel much better but then there was hardly anything left I could eat. So I started eating fish again

I'm unlikely to be vegetarian for much longer, moving to a farm next summer, would be a tad hypocritical of me to help raise animals help pick which ones get slaughtered but refuse to eat them

Plus I can't find a real reason to be a vegetarian anymore, other than 10 yrs of habit.

Mike

[ViktorialHDY]

"Soon it will be a sin for parents to have a child which carries the heavy burden of genetic disease." - Bob Edwards

Point taken. I had thought about bringing that aspect up in my previous posting, but decided against it because I'm wordy enough as it is.

I do generally agree with Mr. Edwards, but I feel there is a very fine line between elimination of genetic diseases and eugenics (if I may be so bold). If that line were to be crossed, there'd be no turning back.

[QQQQQ-Trek]

I do generally agree with Mr. Edwards, but I feel there is a very fine line between elimination of genetic diseases and eugenics (if I may be so bold). If that line were to be crossed, there'd be no turning back.

Yes, is a feeling many subhumans share

Get it?

[StethyEntinic]

Yes, is a feeling many subhumans share

Get it?

Booooo.