Geneticists create Chimeras - I'm effing serious.

[Torm]

Maybe I'm wierd, but I have no problem with that idea so long as there was never a CNS developed beyond a brainstem to keep it all plugging along till harvest time.

You really aren't helping your "trust us, we're ethical scientists" argument at all, ya know that?

 

[Shemeska]

You really aren't helping your "trust us, we're ethical scientists" argument at all, ya know that?

And on that note I rapidly edit out a paragraph in my last post on a monkey head swapping experiment...

And hey that line usually works better than 'trust me, I'm a yugoloth'.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Anyone else thinking we might some day have sentient sheep that are bred with the desire to eaten by humans?
Like that pig in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy that was at the restraunt at the end of the universe (I think thats where it was at).
That'd be pretty sweet.

 

[Raging Epistaxis]

(But if there is nothing above the brainstem, then it's incapable of sentience, self awareness or thought of any sort...)

Dang. Failed my Will save - I wasn't going to respond to some of these...

I shudder to think what the genes from the poison arrow frogs will be used for.

Umm, not much - (except giving engineered neo-dinosaurs the ability to change gender?!) since IIRC most poison arrow frogs merely pass on the toxins they get from the bugs they eat which in turn get the toxins from the plants they eat... alkaloids can be some nasty compounds.

Goats have been giving spidersilk protien milk for years, and that is what "they" were willling to tell us about.

Goats giving spidersilk protein milk? I have to admit to my ignorance on this particular one. Why on earth would 'they' bother to do that? Do I get an INT roll to guess at that one? EDIT:nevermind. found it. Looks pretty cool to me.

Overall, I have to agree with Shemeska's earlier post about evil scientists on this one. With one addendum: scientists/geneticists/researchers/whatever all suffer from the same alignments as the rest of us. Sure there are a few _E ones out there, but I cannot imagine that they work in complete isolation so that no one of Neutral or _G has any idea what they are doing.

when i first started taking insulin it was a pork product.

Meaning it was chemically extracted from the pancreas of slaughtered pigs who may or may not have been raised solely for that purpose. Now bacteria produce it relatively cheaply in test tubes as a by-product of their metabolism. [/simplification] A change for the better, no?

I was about to mention Josef Mengele,...

Probably the best example of an inhuman human 'researcher'. Backed by (arguably) the most inhuman regime of modern times. But, did you know that some of his findings were groundbreaking in those fields? Not that I am in any way intending to diminish the horror of the atrocities committed either by his hands or at his behest.
My intent is to show that even in the worst case, some good may come of it. Does the few discoveries he made that can be for the good outweigh the crimes committed? Did the ends justify the means? I say not by a long, long shot.
But, even in the case of an honest, ethical researcher/technological advance, is there room for human stupidity/greed/shortsightedness to take over and cause danger? Yes, and there always will be.

I see the best solution to the balance between danger and benefit to be transparency and oversight. Let people not directly involved with the technology/research decide. [/idealism]

[devils advocate]But, how do you do that when you have a relatively scientifically illiterate public? No offense intended to anyone reading, but I don't want those type of decisions made by those who believe urban legends and other conspiracy theories without doing any 'homework' to verify what they read on the internet...
[sblock]Whenever I hear a GM food debate I just want to alternatively cringe or smack the folk who say things like "I don't want no Genes in my food..." Just about everything but water has genes(DNA) in it, duma$$! ARRRGGGHHH! <deep breath> Ok, I know they mean MODIFIED genes, and the technology does have some abuse potential in addition to the tremendous potential benefits, but still the inaccuracy of that statement just really grates on me[/sblock][/soapbox]
The other and by far biggest problem with any oversight system is that the benefits or dangers of a discovery/line of research may not become apparent for a very long time.[/devils advocate]

So, where was I going with all this? Hmm...

Oh yeah.

• Chimeras growing human organs. IANAI (I Am Not An Immunologist) but: I would think that theoretically there is some danger of biologic agents adapting to the non-host cells and becoming possibly infective for the non-host species. If the host immune system totally ignores them. Other, external factors like the foolishness of humans (like the designer pet example that Torm gave earlier) do serve to increase the possibility of adverse outcomes. Believe me, I could tell of some atrocities to pets committed here in the good ol' bible belt - some due to malice, many due to ignorance, most due to apathy.
  Fortunately the chimeras in question would be nothing like a D&D Chimera. Or unfortunately, depending on how you see it. Hmm. Maybe a pet dragon chimera would teach folks a thing or two about responsibility for another's life. Then again, it might turn out like that Rottweiler yard ornament chained to a post that no one can get near, only with more flames... but I digress again.
  
• It seems to me that knee-jerk reactions (like outright bans) to things that are already happening are kinda like taking your hands off the wheel of the speeding bicycle to cover your eyes. Are you more or less likely to have some control of the outcome?
  

• Your scientists were so busy trying to figure out how to do this they never stopped to ask 'should we be doing this?'

  Oversight. Transparency.
  

• Show me a sheep that can grasp the nature of subjectivity, or a cow that can moo of freedom, and we'll talk.

  Prove they can't. I think it's kind of like trying to 'think like a mind flayer' or other abberration - assuming that the species of animal in question is intelligent (which for the species you mention is certainly subject to debate...), would not the thought processes of an herbivore prey species be *entirely* foreign to an omnivore/predator species like humans? Not to belittle your point, because it is very valid with a somewhat narrow definition of intelligence/sentience. Having said that, I personally value my position at the top of the food chain
  

ye gads, I've developed diarrhea of the post... gotta learn to relax before bed...

R E

 

[Shemeska]

[sblock]Whenever I hear a GM food debate I just want to alternatively cringe or smack the folk who say things like "I don't want no Genes in my food..." Just about everything but water has genes(DNA) in it, duma$$! ARRRGGGHHH! <deep breath> Ok, I know they mean MODIFIED genes, and the technology does have some abuse potential in addition to the tremendous potential benefits, but still the inaccuracy of that statement just really grates on me[/sblock][/soapbox]

21st century luddites who deserve to be exiled to the moon. That topic, and those people, more than most anything else makes me see red over the ignorance it dredges up that we've already seen slowing research in some nations.

• Chimeras growing human organs. IANAI (I Am Not An Immunologist) but: I would think that theoretically there is some danger of biologic agents adapting to the non-host cells and becoming possibly infective for the non-host species. If the host immune system totally ignores them.

• 
  
  It's one of the major concerns with such ideas, similar to the concerns over using pig tissue for human heart valve replacements.
  
  I'm actually against xenotransplantation into humans, largely for that idea. I don't treasure the idea of porcine etc specific viruses mutating and crossing the species barrier to potentially become another HIV running amuck in our population. On this issue at least I'm wary about the actual use in humans, though chimeric animals by themselves are beautifully useful for other things totally unrelated to xenotransplants.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Would you know?

They say that an adult dog in most breeds has the intelligence of a three year old human child. I've never had a dog I didn't think was at least that smart.

And everyone knows that after thousands of years of domestication, cows have developed a social order in which they are actually proud of their offspring when they are well-suited to serve our needs. "Moo of freedom." Bah! Blasphemy!

(a) The ability for humans to personify things without proof that such things are people is HUGE. I'm a student of religion. People think the weather is at least as smart as a wise old elder, and have thought that since the dawn of the ability to say "I wonder why it rains?" So should we have the same reaction about hitting a dog on the road as we have about hitting someone's toddler? I'd think that the cultures that eat dogs would tend to not agree.

(b) How do you measure pride, exactly? Is there a formula? Can I run this test on my dad?

 

[Del]

I'm reasonably excited about this historical development because it actually meets my timeline for my 2030's biopunk tactical game line. And on that note ...

"Mama Ba'a'aa Shep why did we kick the humans' asses?"

"There there dear, you see our first job with the humans really sucked. Why your great uncle was Chosen ..."

 

[Torm]

21st century luddites who deserve to be exiled to the moon. That topic, and those people, more than most anything else makes me see red over the ignorance it dredges up that we've already seen slowing research in some nations.

You post regularly on Slashdot, don't you?

It's okay, you can admit it.

 

[Staffan]

Whenever I hear a GM food debate I just want to alternatively cringe or smack the folk who say things like "I don't want no Genes in my food..." Just about everything but water has genes(DNA) in it, duma$$! ARRRGGGHHH! <deep breath> Ok, I know they mean MODIFIED genes, and the technology does have some abuse potential in addition to the tremendous potential benefits, but still the inaccuracy of that statement just really grates on me

As far as I am concerned, the danger with GM food isn't with its capabilities as actual food. The dangers are more from a social and ecologic perspective - social as in corporations selling farmers seeds whose plants won't generate new seeds on their own (thereby making the farmers dependent on the corps rather than having self-sustaining agriculture), and ecologic as in creating monocultures that can be wiped out wholesale by certain diseases. But I don't have any problems with eating GM food.

 

[Raging Epistaxis]

So should we have the same reaction about hitting a dog on the road as we have about hitting someone's toddler?

No. I think nature in general has the tendency for creatures of a species to recognize and in some way treat as special members of the same species. At least the social species, anyway.
But at the same time, is it wrong to not avoid hitting an animal if it is safe to do so or to even purposely swerve to hit the disliked neighbor's dog? Seen it happen. Couldn't get the plate #.

(a) The ability for humans to personify things without proof that such things are people is HUGE.

I agree completely. But is not the reverse also possible? That with a human-centric viewpoint non-humans may be de-personified beyond accuracy because they are different? Heck we (humans) are good at de-personifying people who are different than we are or of a different culture...

I'd think that the cultures that eat dogs would tend to not agree.

Not my cup of tea, admittedly, but there are major cultures that would be mortified at my enjoyment of a hamburger. To each their own. If the dogs are treated humanely up to the point of harvesting then I have no major beef (pardon the pun) with caninovores. I can't look at my dogs and see them as food, but that's just me.

Shemeska, are you my father-in-law? We've had almost identical conversations in the past...

As far as I am concerned, the danger with GM food ... But I don't have any problems with eating GM food.

Sounds very similar to my overall view. I saw a documentary recently regarding GM foods featuring some very outspoken advocates and opponents of the technology. I consider myself favorable to the technology itself, but I find the seed companies handling of the issue very morally questionable in some situations.

But on the other hand, as a business owner, I understand a company wanting to protect and get some return on an investment in the billions of dollars, I just think there must be some other way to go about it.

As to the monocultures, we basically have that already in any commercial farm. One of the whole points of most GM varieties is disease resistance.

R E