Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

World's first GM monkey

By 0x00 in News
Fri Jan 12, 2001 at 10:44:20 AM EST
Tags: Science (all tags)

Scientists have announced that exactly 1 year after cloning a monkey by embryo splitting, they have created the world's first genetically modified nonhuman primate.

ANDi, backwards for "inserted DNA", is a baby rhesus monkey with a difference - he has an extra gene that was inserted when he was an unfertilised egg.

The additional gene in ANDi is GFP, a marker gene used for its easy identification as it expresses a green fluorescent protein. Researchers say that the method for the gene insertion could be applied with other genes to help scientific research into specific medical conditions and their treatment.

"ANDi's birth along with last year's birth of Tetra, the first rhesus cloned by embryo splitting, is another incremental step in accelerating the discovery of innovative cures for devastating diseases. These diseases range from diabetes and Alzheimer's to breast cancer and HIV," reports researcher Gerald Schatten.

Currently, genetically altered mice and flies are used in research labs, but these make poor models for human coniditions. Researchers "hope to bridge the scientific gap between transgenic mice and humans," says Schatten, but not all are convinced that this latest marvel in genetic engineering will replace the mouse.


Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


Are you a genetically modified monkey?
o Yes 30%
o No 8%
o Ooh ooh ah ah! -eats banana- 48%
o Inoshiro 14%

Votes: 50
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Scientists
o cloning a monkey
o created
o ANDi
o Gerald Schatten.
o geneticall y altered mice
o replace the mouse
o Also by 0x00

Display: Sort:
World's first GM monkey | 11 comments (11 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
"Its about time !!!" (3.50 / 4) (#1)
by retinaburn on Fri Jan 12, 2001 at 09:36:21 AM EST

That is something you will never someone say about this. :) (Some farmer in Idaho reading the newspaper perhaps)

Although I can see this being an advantage in the testing of monkeys rather than animals that have very little similar DNA, I am getting more and more worried about the implications.

Elite living "better" lives while the masses are left without defenses against new virii.
This has been talked about ad nauseum so instead I was wondering what is next with the glowing gene ?

First potatoes, next monkeys, then the WORLD :)

All I know is that I'm not going back to those experimental labs, I don't care how much they pay me.

Can you imagine glow in the dark eyelids, OH THE HUMANITY!!!

I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho

Glowing Gene (2.00 / 1) (#7)
by jabber on Fri Jan 12, 2001 at 10:55:27 AM EST

It would make for kick-ass 'turn on at will' tattoos, don't you think?

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

I think... (2.00 / 1) (#8)
by retinaburn on Fri Jan 12, 2001 at 10:58:33 AM EST

that will never happen. Perhaps tying into something you can eat (like a trigger chemical) or feelings of intense arousal :) "Hey baby you think my tatoo's big, wait till you see ...."

I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho

[ Parent ]
Glow-in-the-dark monkey (3.25 / 4) (#2)
by job on Fri Jan 12, 2001 at 09:45:37 AM EST

Funny no one made the comment here yet: A monkey born to rave!

Just Great! (4.00 / 3) (#3)
by Refrag on Fri Jan 12, 2001 at 09:46:40 AM EST

This is just great! The next thing you know our cities will be plundered by glowing radioactive monkeys. As if flaming monkeys and Delhi monkeys weren't enough.


Kuro5hin: ...and culture, from the trenches

Hahah, I'm sorry. (2.66 / 3) (#4)
by Ranger Rick on Fri Jan 12, 2001 at 10:08:36 AM EST

This is a completely worthless post, but I have to say, when I read the topic, I thought, "Oh, really? My General Managers have pretty much all been monkeys so far..."


ethical limits (3.75 / 8) (#5)
by excalibor on Fri Jan 12, 2001 at 10:22:16 AM EST

While everybody easily sees that a physicist doing nuclear energy research is investigating a phenomenum for the sake of knowledge of the Universe, many would say that the potential of damage nuclear energy may cause in the shape of a bomb is big enough to put restrictions on what a physicist can do or not and how and where...

In things medicine, however, the situation is inverse. Everybody is looking ahead to the benefits and lives that could be saved, but really few look back and see the trail of blatant assasination and horrible experimentation with animals that conduct to a patented, expensive drug very few can really afford, where the investigator is looking for money, money, big money.

I think it is inhuman (ironic, uh?) that Humans do biological experimentation with animals for the doubtful wellbeing of his fellow Humankind.

If they were really worried, they would look for a better partition of resources in the planet population, would try to hygenicize the places where people lives in the most absolute misery.

If someone who's killed, how many? 1000? rats, says, we are looking for a cure to cancer (or any other illness/health problem)... How many people have cancer nowadays? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? even 100,000,000? We have nowadays about 3,000,000,000 people living underfed, underdeveloped... sublives instead of lives... If the wellbeing is their goal, they should follow the numbers... It's about quality of life, not about years or...

There are still billions of people that hardly know what's a refrigerator... and, anyway, everybody dies (fortunately). Try to make people's life better is good, trying to make it longer but miserable is not (specially since, usually, only the richer benefit from the solution...)

Another ethical point is this one: is it licit to take a sane animal, inoculate the illness agent into its blood stream and then try all your theoretical (or worse, behavioristically, test & error driven) posible medicine on the animal?

Why is the hypothetical, future cure of an illness for, say, 1,000,000 of humans, worth the prize of doing atrocities, tortures and horrible, induced deaths of 1,000,000,000 animals which cannot be used for feeding pursopes and that were not attacking us? Notice that feeding and self-defense are usually the only causes animals in Nature, basically all the other animals in Nature...

My point is that is horrible and the prize too high... We don't think about ourselves as animals, but we are. And doing so to our fellow animals on this the one and only biosphere we can reach, we are giving our grand-sons a soulless, dark legacy indeed.

But this is even worse!! We are creating designed animals to suffer as human as possible an illness so we can test things better (means faster, means better revenue of inversion, means money, money, money...)

When someone was breeded for a single purpose in close in inhuman conditions to do what humans didn't wanted to do, we called that *slavery*. When we used someone to test our theoretical solutions for a perfect world, without minding the means to get that goal, we called that *nazi domination* and *jew holocaust*. I better stop, this is depressing...

Different is that you have an animal with a similar illness to the one you are studying. Then you'd be testing your solution and maybe saving the animal life. Even when the solution would never be used to save the sick animals (for they are useful, which is exactly as bad as what we are doing now, but it may look different in the eyes of the majority...), at least they would have an opportunity ...

I know not everybody thinks every life is priceless, infinitely sacred and that this investigation, these lives they save with their bloody medicines (bloody in the meaning made with the blood of hundresd, thousands, millions of tortured animals) is like Judas with the roman gold...

Only that it's worse...

Thus my point is that society, we, should put limits, all bioethical, economical, political, legal and physical limits needed to ensure that all lives that are wasted and abused, raped by a supposedly benefit for Humankind, when it's for greedy causes and with little care for any lives.

Actually it should be limited because it's Bad, Evil that only causes suffering... According to Buddha's teachings, all lives are equal and unique, and thus we must protect every one of them... While we have to feed ourselves, etc, this thing is way out of what's needed...

We don't have to go this fast, or we'll end loosing the reason for why we do this investigations... In the meantime, what we really have to accept is that we will die one day.

Poor ANDi... Poor us.

Predator ethics (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by crasch on Fri Jan 12, 2001 at 01:57:48 PM EST

"... and, anyway, everybody dies (fortunately)."

Yes, I'm looking forward to muscle loss, blindess, senility, and eventual death. I feel so lucky! I'm also thrilled that all of my friends and family will enjoy the same good fortune--no one gets left out!

I also get a warm feeling whenever I read about a library burning down. Good riddance to all those stale and moldy old books--more room for all the new books!

"...I know not everybody thinks every life is priceless, infinitely sacred and that this investigation..."
Hmmm...if my life is "priceless, and infinitely sacred" then paying any price, including sacrificing the lives of many other animals, is worthwhile is it not?

I recently watched a nature film. As I recall, it depicted a pack of wolves hunting down a small deer. Once successful, they began to disembowel and consume the deer with relish. Poor deer.

It got me to thinking....if all animals enjoy the moral equivalence of other human beings, why is it that when other other predators (such as the wolves), cause pain and suffering to other thinking and feeling animals, animal rights activists don't call for the extermination of the predators?

After all, isn't the wolf torturing and murdering another human equivalent? And if one grants that it's okay for wolves to eat deer, because they need to do so in order to survive, why is it unethical for humans to cause pain and suffering to other animals so that we may survive?

[ Parent ]

not predator ethics, but egocentric ethics (none / 0) (#11)
by excalibor on Sun Jan 14, 2001 at 12:29:27 PM EST

"Hmmm...if my life is "priceless, and infinitely sacred" then paying any price, including sacrificing the lives of many other animals, is worthwhile is it not?"

Nopes, because their lifes are as important as yours, and yours is one life and theirs are many lifes... Simple arithmetics.

Regarding the predatory nature of many animals, consider we are the only solution nature has found to produce moving, active, intelligent life... All animals predate plants, which are the only ones who need not to kill in order to live... That's the price for mobility, activity and eventually intelligence...

As it's natural, it's OK. Not good nor that we could do any better, but it's the way things work... We must kill in order to live. But one thing is to solve the inmediate need of hunger and a different one is the hypothetical benefits of an investigation based upon the suffering of many, many (and I am saying "many" not just a few) animals which have nothing to do with it, for the benefit of patent holding companies, or the rich 1% which holds the 99% of the world resources in one hand and the goverments balls in the other... Vivisecting an animal, putting electrodes into its brain, injectig a virus or bacteria into its blood stream when the animal is perfectly sane, that is evil. Completely unethical.

On the other hand, I am sorry many people in this world cannot come to terms with their mortality, it's sad. Actually I am a bit concerned. But those packs of wolves usually hunt down and kill the elders or the ill deers, not the healthy ones. That's the price for evolution, evolution that permitted you to be here in the first place...

As hard as it can be to accept, your life or your loved ones' are irrelevant to the evolutive process... Once you have contributed to the genetic pool, you are disposable. Final dot. Fortunately enough, we humans are able to make more sense of our passage through life by creating culture and another task is to pass that culture to our children, to our fellow beings... That's not pointless, that's nothing to do with aging...

If we didn't die, we couldn't have children. Stalemate, who would like to live with Hitler, Stalin, Franco for the rest of the times? You are probably from a comfortable enough country, but ask someone from a war zone if they'd like to live forever in that situation? Fortunately enough, we are all mortal and we die. And things change as a result. When Franco died, Spain entered into the longest democracy we have enjoyed in our whole history. Not bad at all. And I'm sparing you many other details.

By the way, comparing life renovation with book burning is puerile, it has nothing to do and it's a very unfortunate comparison...

You may disagree with my opinions, but you don't have the right to desvirtue them in order to defend your position, that's not gentlemanly, fair nor polite.

If all lifes have a value of 1, killing and torturing 1,000,000,000,000 animals to hypothetically save 1,000,000,000 still makes the difference about 999,000,000,000 lifes killed.

And the problem is not the crude fact, but the attitude of absolute rights over their lifes, "we have the right" to try to save our pathetic excuse of a life, were routine and social indiference may even take us to beat our wives, blaming them of our own failures, rape them, and other niceties I'm going to censure... Anthropocentism... we lived better when god was a terrible being that would punish us at the slightlest slip... at least we knew how to be humble... Pride is the name of the game...

"Me entran ganas de vomitar..."

[ Parent ]
PPG (4.00 / 1) (#6)
by finial on Fri Jan 12, 2001 at 10:37:12 AM EST

Gosh, I sure hope the Powerpuff Girls aren't busy when this Mojo Jojo grows up.

OT: took a while to grasp this ain't UO... (none / 0) (#10)
by lleukkun on Fri Jan 12, 2001 at 08:50:41 PM EST

I had really hard time realizing this wasn't about somebody finally managing to get GM monkey... oh well... I was really curious as this would've meant a major change in the game and that it would've made the NEWS section here.

Obviously something's trying to tell me to go to bed.

World's first GM monkey | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!