September 13, 2011
The Glow-In-The-Dark Kitty
A glowing kitty may help in the fight against AIDS (credit: Mayo Clinic)
Cat owners might find a glow-in-the-dark kitty to be fairly useful—you’ll never trip over the cat at night again—but the Mayo Clinic scientists who created this glowing cat had a bigger goal in mind: fighting AIDS.
The substance that makes the cat glow is a version of the green fluorescent protein that lights up the crystal jelly, a type of jellyfish that lives off the West Coast of the United States. Years ago scientists realized that the gene for GFP is a perfect marker when they insert another new gene into an organism. By inserting a version of GFP along with their gene of choice, they could easily see if they were successful because the organism would glow. Since the technique was first developed, researchers have made many glowing animals, including pigs, mice, dogs, even fish you can buy in the pet store.
In this latest bit of research, published in Nature Methods, the Mayo Clinic scientists inserted a version of the GFP gene along with a gene from the rhesus macaque that blocks the feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV)—the virus that causes feline AIDS—into the unfertilized eggs of a cat. After those eggs were fertilized, they produced kitties that glowed green, showing that they also had the anti-FIV gene. Even better, subsequent generations of cats also glowed and had the anti-FIV gene.
The researchers still have more work to do to determine whether the anti-FIV gene works in the cats. “We haven’t shown cats that are AIDS-proof,” study co-author Eric Poeschla told LiveScience. “We still have to do infection studies involving whole cats. That the protection gene is expressed in the cat lymphoid organs, where AIDS virus spread and cell death mostly play out, is encouraging to us, however.”
The ultimate goal of this line of research, though, is to figure out how to make humans resistant to HIV, the virus that causes human AIDS. “We want to see if we can protect the domestic cat against its AIDS virus, if we can protect any species, eventually including ours, against its own AIDS virus,” Poeschla told LiveScience.
70 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I’m aware this may be controversial, but to me it’s hopeful, to the extent that it does no harm to the cats. Compassion for all beings is imperative, but sometimes healing isn’t possible without taking creative risks.
Comment by Cavale — September 13, 2011 @ 11:26 am
I hope they don’t hurt the cats just to keep more humans on the planet. 7 Billion “miracles” is enough.
Comment by I agree — September 13, 2011 @ 5:42 pm
It sounds like they perform IVF on these cats. I just hope they do their research in a way that doesn’t harm any of these cats. I get the feeling that may be asking too much.
Comment by Kate the Owlhearted — September 14, 2011 @ 12:44 am
This scares the wits out of me. Just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should. We don’t need our cats to glow in the dark.
Comment by Cindy — September 14, 2011 @ 8:49 am
If anyone has read the Margaret Atwood Year Of the Flood series, they know to be very, very afraid of this.
Comment by Robin — September 14, 2011 @ 10:27 am
to the “don’t hurt the kitties” morons out there, read the whole article. This would protect CATS from AIDS as well. And a bit of glow in the dark doesn’t hurt them, good grief. AIDS is huge, and we need to work on fighting it. For us, for animals, we are all affected.
Comment by baldur — September 14, 2011 @ 9:05 pm
Even though this could have benefits for humans and animals. I think animal testing is VERY wrong. These cats didnt choose to be subject to testing. Considering that there is really no way for humans to communicate with animals, we have to be their voice. Imagine if we did this to a bunch of human children, im sure it would never be allowed though, because thats just how wrong it is. Yes, FIV and AIDS need to be prevented. But, if you spay/neuter your pet and make sure you dont breed any FIV positive cats you shouldnt have to worry too much. Millions of animals are on the streets and yes they spread diseases. In an ideal world there would be no homeless animals, but that is not the case. I support the cause but not the act. The things that scientists do to animals just for human advantage is cruel and unfair. Im sorry if you disagree, but this is my opinion.
Comment by Charlette — September 15, 2011 @ 12:49 am
The Cats are eventually driven crazy because due to lack of sleep. The lids of their eyes glow. I say stop performing experiments on animals for the benefit of humans. They dont have the ability to accept or decline an experiment…
Comment by David Hutto — September 15, 2011 @ 4:50 am
We could use a little more natural selection on this planet. There aren’t enough resources for the seven BILLION people already here and we are fucking up the gene pool. Death is sad, I know. I’ve had a family member die of AIDS but that’s what life is. We are organic beings who succumb to decay. Trying to become immortal by eradicating disease (while interfering with the lives of other organisms) and yet continuing to produce a multitude of offspring is very, very frightening to me.
Comment by Mare — September 15, 2011 @ 10:28 am
The only question I have is; If you hold the cats up to a light will they glow brighter? ;)
Comment by chewybaca96 — September 15, 2011 @ 1:04 pm
We can’t say this is not harmful to the cats. It is obviously too soon to form a truly scientific opinion. It makes me uneasy , as we have a long history of not putting an animals welfare on a very high platform. However, on a positive note, it would be so easy to find your cat that is quietly watching you search for him.
Comment by Jesse — September 15, 2011 @ 1:19 pm
“The Cats are eventually driven crazy because due to lack of sleep. The lids of their eyes glow. I say stop performing experiments on animals for the benefit of humans. They dont have the ability to accept or decline an experiment…”
… evidently you’ve never had a cat before – they can sleep in full sunlight plenty easy.
Comment by Chromed — September 15, 2011 @ 6:14 pm
“I think animal testing is VERY wrong. These cats didnt choose to be subject to testing.”
“But, if you spay/neuter your pet[...]”
Woah, woah, these cats never asked to be spayed or neutered. Imagine if we did this to a whole bunch of human children, I’m sure it would never be allowed though, because thats just how wrong it is.
I’m sorry if you disagree, but your opinion and argument is dumb.
Comment by NohbdysFool — September 15, 2011 @ 6:21 pm
Other researchers are using ‘deactivated’ HIV virus to develop a cure for cancer. Seems like a race…either we’re immune to HIV but stuck with cancer or we use HIV to cure cancer but might occasionally get AIDS.
Comment by Dasve — September 15, 2011 @ 7:41 pm
@David Hutto
Seriously? And where did you hear that? It’s highly doubtful that it would cause that kind of issue with the cats as they only glow like that under ultraviolet light. The only way that it would make them lose sleep would be if some idiot had a UV light and left it on all the time. But even that is pushing the bounds of intelligence quite a bit as cats don’t usually sleep at night anyway and UV lighting isn’t as visible during the day due to sunlight. Cats sleep during the day for the most part which is why a lot of people think that cats are lazy creatures. Cats are largely nocturnal animals, unlike most humans, so even if their eyelids do glow along with the rest of their skin, it doesn’t mean that it is causing them any problems with sleep. Next time, actually doing some research on the particular animal might save you a lot of “God, I feel dumb…” in the future.
Comment by Kat Aldrich — September 15, 2011 @ 9:32 pm
@ Baldur-
The “Don’t hurt the kitties” comments are entirely justified.
Those who have posted expressing this opinion are not “morons”. If you would have read the entire article yourself, you would see that within the Eric Poeschla quote, he notes that “We still have to do infection studies involving whole cats.” These whole cats would be live and these whole cats would be infected with the AIDS virus and dissected upon their death; much as Salk and Sabin performed clinical trials of the Polio vaccine using monkeys- who then died and had their spinal cords ground up to study its infectious properties.
This issue is a bit more complex than the ability to glow in the dark….it encompasses the issue of informed consent which clearly the animals are unable to make for themselves.
Comment by Bio student — September 16, 2011 @ 12:04 am
It’s a big step for science, but I think animal testing is very wrong.
Comment by Bakeca Potenza — September 16, 2011 @ 7:22 am
Are you sure the cat is in no pain or is not seeing funny?
Comment by nancy sandoval — September 16, 2011 @ 8:52 am
If you ask me there is nothing wrong with animal testing. Half of you read “glow in the dark cats” and “testing” and didn’t bother to read any of the the article. For one, this was given to the cats in-vitro so to speak, no harm there. Secondly, there is no reason this would harm the cats, as there ARE strict regulations in place in terms of animal cruelty, etc. For those of you saying it effects their “Self-image” like it would in humans, they don’t have a self-image like humans, that’s why they are cats and we are humans. For those of you saying they can’t sleep, that’s crap too, can’t sleep in the daytime, the light wouldn’t really effect that.
Overall I want to bring up the point that animals don’t think and feel the same way we do, that’s why we have technology and they don’t. Any who wishes to disagree please get back to me when your cat, presumably, as any marked features of intellectual self-aware thought, until then, your cat is nothing more than a domesticated version of a wild cat. Your cat lives its life on instinct alone, on that note, the only reason pets give a crap about humans in because we benefit them, stop feeding your cat and petting it and see if it still likes you, see if it doesn’t try to leave the house more.
Comment by Derek — September 16, 2011 @ 11:02 am
Simply because a species doesn’t have technology, absolutely does not mean it does not feel pain. Are you then suggesting, Derek, that any culture lacking in “technology” does not think or feel the way that “we” do? That borders on the suggestion that one race is superior to another, that “humans” (who are mammals, and therefore animals) are superior to what YOU define as animals? I’m fairly certain that regardless of how hard I try, I will never have the reflexes of a cat or be able to swim like a dolphin. Cultural relativity, states that one cannot look at another culture, or in this case species, in a ranking fashion.
Comment by Hannah — September 16, 2011 @ 6:36 pm
I see animal testing like this:
Well, sure, you can use the overpopulation in some countries as a testing group. I mean, they’ll probably do it for three meals a day, right?
Don’t mistake a cat’s instinct to be part of a collective and it’s attraction to living with humans because, hey, easy meals, as sentient thought. They’re not as intelligent as people make them out to be.
They’re not beating on the animals, and if they exhibit any signs of severe distress, they’re not made to suffer. What’s inhumane is some of you complaining buttholes but purebreds from a breeder, rather than adopting an unwanted animal. THAT is horrifying and inhumane.
And stop calling exterminators, killer. Since you’re worried about the rights of other living beings. (If you rent a place, part of your rent has paid for those services. You are not guilt free.)
Comment by Priss — September 17, 2011 @ 12:26 am
Just so you guys know, these beasts are not glowing in the dark like you think. By the time the media is done playing telephone with these details (details they so often fail to understand), they’ve obscured the science. You must shine a particular wavelength of light (containing blue) on the cat to make it glow in the dark. Coincidentally, UV light contains blue and will not light up a dark room because it is not visible to the eye. This gives you the false impression that they glow in the dark–much like some little toy or refridgerator magnet you might have experienced. In jelly fish, nature performs this process of glowing slightly different. In addition, another protein serves as the scientist holding the UV light and emits another acceptable wavelength (containing blue light)that excites GFP. Therefore, cats are not losing any sleep because their eyelids are glowing. It just so happens you cannot see the scientist shining the light on the cat in the pictures. Best thing you can do if a reporter starts writing science is to take it as mostly inaccurate or incomplete. It is also important for people not to use these writings to perform their own research in their own brains. Get out some resources and learn about what is actually happening. This is why scientists have such a hard time getting funding. What seems inferable from this passage, “The cats cant sleep because their eyelids are glowing”, is a brilliant remark and I commend you. But it’s just not true. Issues with stem cell research is a great example of how the media distorts science–go look up the differences between embryonic and adult stem cells. Then decide if all stem cell research harms life.
Comment by Billy — September 17, 2011 @ 11:58 am
TEHY ARE HURTIN TEH POOR KITTIEZ OMIGOD STOP THEM!!!!
Seriously, ignorance of science is not something to be proud of.
Comment by livex — September 18, 2011 @ 2:12 pm
Okay, so, everyone has their own opinion and this is mine. We are all going to die some day. I do not understand why we would need to make cats glow to further stall this process. And also, if I saw a glowing cat I would probably just pass out. That is all.
Comment by Natalie — September 19, 2011 @ 12:30 am
I like cats, that said, I would love a glow in the uv lights kitty. In addition, those of you who are saying this is wrong.. Remember they’re just soulless clones. In addition, I don’t see any of you lining up to undergo these procedures to better other peoples lives. Perhaps if people were willing to be unsung heroes for science we wouldn’t be looking to cats (which we only use because they share many common diseases with us). Think things over before you condemn people for their actions, I have a cat 18 years old love it dearly. However if someone showed me realistic evidence that my cat may cure millions of people if disease, I’d likely let go… I’d be sad sure. But not in a mindless uproar.
Comment by Tubzz — September 19, 2011 @ 2:48 am
[...] For real. Learn how here. [...]
Pingback by A Fluorescent Green Cat Could Help Combat AIDS | Camels With Hammers — September 19, 2011 @ 5:01 am
The fact of the matter is that experimental animals are treated extremely well. Scientists must go through a huge check-list of reasons why they must use a living animal and not a proxy to do their research. They must be willing to be subjected to inspections and regulations. If their research requires killing the animal, it must be done in the most humane methods.
This isn’t some scientist luring a cat into a box and cutting it apart. There are rules, regulations, and a ton of hard work and money that goes into animal experimentation.
My question for the “don’t experiment on animals” crowd is – are you going to volunteer to be a test subject or should we stop science completely?
Comment by Katherine Lorraine — September 19, 2011 @ 7:54 am
Ever had an MRI? They frequently inject you with substances that make parts of your internal organs and fluids show up as a different color and you not damaged by it at all.
Comment by Ann — September 19, 2011 @ 8:48 am
If this leads to an application to humans for the prevention of aids, will those people have to glow green!?! Think of the benefits!1! Safe sex would be much easier! Savings on night lights!!
Comment by Mike — September 19, 2011 @ 10:40 am
@ #28 Ann – I agree with you in spirit but your analogy is false. These cats glow due to a change in their genes, not because of a substance that they will be rid of someday.
@ all the people saying we are going to die someday – no duh. But have you actually ever been to a hospital? Ever taken medication for something? Do you scoff at your family members when they get cancer and want chemotherapy?
Comment by Amy — September 19, 2011 @ 2:02 pm
Yes, of course testing on animals is wrong. But the alternative is testing on humans or letting the disease take whoever it wants. Think about all the babies who didn’t get to make it past their first year bc of this disease, of the mothers who had to watch her baby deteriorate into nothing. There are a lot of cures we wouldn’t have right now if there was no animal testing, penicillin for instance. It’s sad to think about them doing this, but thousands of animals are tortured everyday on the streets and in private homes for no good reason, so at least these animals are doing something for the greater good. They are working towards saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of people to come.
Comment by shelly — September 19, 2011 @ 2:13 pm
There is much more animal testing going on for much smaller things than AIDS. Testing on animals is not wrong. It is inevitable. Taking your dog to the pound is much more wrong than testing a cat to find a cure for AIDS or Alzheimer’s or dementia, the latter two I personally researched by working with animals. There is a great amount of protection for animals in research so snap out of it and be reasonable.
Comment by Rose — September 19, 2011 @ 4:02 pm
Curing HIV is a pretty big deal. If the road to that cure requires a few kitties and Rhesus monkeys to take one for the team, then so be it.
It sounds like very exciting research. The uses to which the GFP gene has been put are nothing short of amazing!
Comment by Mark — September 19, 2011 @ 6:26 pm
talk about creepy!!!!!!!!
Comment by bob(fake name) — September 19, 2011 @ 7:56 pm
sorry its just that pic is soo creepy!!!
Comment by bob(fake name) — September 19, 2011 @ 7:57 pm
Does anyone know where I can get a cat-fur coat? It doesn’t have to be an exotic cat. I will take domestic. It would be a bonus if the cat did not have HIV and if the coat glowed in the dark.
Comment by jess — September 19, 2011 @ 9:02 pm
Hmmmm….people dying of a dreaded disease versus some flourescent kitties. I pick flourescent kitties. Go Mark. Good to see someone with common sense and intellect.
Comment by jess — September 19, 2011 @ 9:06 pm
This is not the first animal they’ve made to “glow”. They’ve done it to several species- many of them closer to humans genetically than cats. Even if animal research were at all ethical (which it is not) this is not about saving human lives, this is about scientists getting grants. Afterall, how awesome and sexy does making animal glow sound on your grant app vs how to prevent hiv epidemiology studies? There are a million things wrong with animal research even if you don’t care about animals. Genetic research to make cats born glowing, even if it did lead to making humans born without the ability to get HIV, do we really want a world where humans are engineered before they are born? And YES this WILL cause harm to the cats. They will surely be killed once the scientists are finished with them. They got the picture of the cute glowing kitty in the paper and the publication, these animals are now worthless objects to be disposed of to them. Just like the fish and monkeys in other glowing animal experiments. It’s devastating. Brute Science: Dilemmas of Animal Experimentation is a great book among many. Check it out (this goes for the author of this piece, too). Signed, someone who left a science career for many aforementioned reasons.
Comment by Corvus — September 20, 2011 @ 12:17 am
PS People I care about have HIV, I have cared for FIV+ cats, and I am queer. I know how serious aids is, which is another reason I am vehemently against animal testing, using all the grant money to pay for animal subjects and to fill scientists’ pockets, when it could be going to healthcare, prevention, current treatments, and PEOPLE with HIV.
Comment by Corvus — September 20, 2011 @ 12:29 am
I think this research is amazing. As for the animals not having a “choice”, I presume everyone who commented using that phrase is a vegetarian? Or just a hypocrite?
Comment by Carol — September 20, 2011 @ 3:28 am
[...] our favorite story of the week! Glow-in-the-dark cats as a marker for FIV resistance. The paper was published here in Nature Methods. New goal for a lab pet… Eco World Content From [...]
Pingback by Monday Extras! « — September 20, 2011 @ 11:12 am
“7 billion miracles are enough”…what an ignorant comment. Wait until it’s one of your miracles who is dying, and see how you feel then.
Comment by Julia — September 20, 2011 @ 5:28 pm
I volunteer to become a glow in the dark human!
Comment by Jason Dennis — September 20, 2011 @ 10:55 pm
This is a win- win situation. These cats are not hurt at all, and are given happy, fulfilling lives. Trust me, I work in the same building as some animal labs, and the animals are people’s #1 priority. These cats will never be wanting for attention or a loving home.
Comment by Melissa — September 21, 2011 @ 2:41 am
Melissa, what happens to the cats when the experiment is finished? Just because you work next to a lab, doesn’t mean they treat animals well. Those animals are a priority so they don’t get shut down. If the labs were so wonderful, they wouldn’t have ridiculous secrecy and walls with no windows where they keep the animals.
Comment by Corvus — September 21, 2011 @ 2:04 pm
balduar why is it so easy to label people who you do not agree with as morons? Maybe they are simply people who have a different opinion and it is not necessary to demean them or yourself?
Comment by lydia K — September 21, 2011 @ 2:49 pm
I’m nearly dead and the cat craps in my shoes. I’m signing us both up for this.
Comment by WalkingDead — September 21, 2011 @ 3:32 pm
I will agree that we do not fully know if this harms the cat in the long run or not. But we’re going to find out. I laughed out loud at the guy who thinks the cat gets a lack of sleep, he clearly shows no idea how UV rays work, or cats in general.
I’m glad there is so many people whining about someone testing on a distant relative of their pet that is going to die in 20 years or less. Would you rather scientists practice on your child? I say for every animal “rights” protester that whines about a situation like this one, we should use each of their children instead.
I’m not saying that people should abuse their pets, NO pet should be abused by any means. But for some heavenly being’s sake, they’re considering altering human genes in order to give particular phenotypes (I have no idea if they started it or not, my kid is going through the same awkward stage that I did), and it’s all done with IVF.
Whoever said spaying and neutering your cat was also technically against what the cat wants, if you really want to be technical and fair, I’m glad. All of the animal rights protesters push us to do something that maybe the animal doesn’t want to do. You’re such hypocrites! It’s not a bad idea, considering there are about 30 cats a block down the road that won’t come near a human, with no home, less cats is good. And trust me, I love cats.
Plus, what do you think is done with the cats when they’re done with the experiment? Please, if you seriously think that they execute them, turn off your computer now. You don’t deserve to use the internet today. Some are kept in labs to be observed, while most go to homes. Homes that want a pet. Homes that won’t ever notice until they have a blacklight party. Then they have a sweet RAVE CAT to go with it.
Corvus is right that this isn’t the first animal they have done it to. Ever go to Wal-mart and see the “Glo-fish”? I wish I could see someone strapped to that tank, protesting genetic alteration. So hilarious, it would make my day.
Comment by Jessicaaa — September 21, 2011 @ 3:34 pm
While I’m all for animal rights, I think it’s ridiculous when people hold animal rights above humans’. If risking a few animals can save peoples lives, then go for it. It’s much better than testing on people.
Comment by giantrobotbil — September 21, 2011 @ 8:13 pm
Newsflash, Jesicaaa, humans are tested upon no matter what. To act as if animal testing is saving humans from being tested on is very ignorant. I don’t blame you though, the pro-animal testing lobbies always say stupid things like “a monkey or your mother?” when in reality it’s both. Or rather someone else’s mother, usually a poor mother or a mother in a foreign country where most drugs are tested. Animal testing does not predict human response so testing on them before humans can make something seem safe that is very unsafe. There are countless examples of drugs that proved safe and effective in other animals only to kill or not work in humans. There are also countless examples of things that did not work in other animals or that where dangerous in other animals that worked for humans. Animal testing cannot be trusted.
If you think animal testing stops human testing from happening, you’ve bought into the hype. But remember where the hype is coming from- the people whose careers and bank accounts depend on the continuance of animal testing.
Comment by Corvus — September 22, 2011 @ 4:48 pm
Here’s one of many examples of s study making cats glow where the cats were “sacrificed”, jessica http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgm.302/full
I’m not sure where you got your information about lab animals all going to homes. If you look at the literature 99.9999% of them are killed or live out their lives being subjected to more tests in cages. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking animals get anything out of this. Scientists do and that’s it.
Comment by Corvus — September 22, 2011 @ 4:52 pm
I must agree with Corvus on every point. Moreover, I will add that cats have an unusual anatomy that does not resemble human anatomy in the least, so why use them as test subjects. No one ever asked if I wanted to be a test subject for HIV because I would most likely agree. Do not threaten a person with using their children as subjects…that makes you stupid. Animals are more intelligent than humans are, in that; they do what they must do to survive. They do not hurt people, animals, or things without good reason, as humans do. They live and let live, unlike people, who believe that those who die with the most toys wins. Everyone should simply watch the movie about “Life After People”. People will destroy the planet; animals will simply live on it.
Comment by Shoulda been a cat — September 23, 2011 @ 12:42 am
Hey, that’s a great point Corvus. In fact, let’s use published horror stories as our main basis for deciding what does and doesn’t work. So that’d be religion, food, science, politics, animals, water, sex, humans. Well damn. Looks like we’re screwed.
My mother used to do all the driving and a good amount of caring for animals that were experimented on. She would move animals back and forth. Some would be sick and would be put down, which is true. But none were tortured and the experiments they underwent were always filled with red tape. Whether they’re conducting them for what you allude to, or whether they’re just giving us better guesses about effects of different experiments, we can’t lump all scientists in one group. That’s like blaming you personally for the third reich.
Some scientists are mean people, which isn’t to say that they’re bad in the big scheme of things. Some scientists are really nice and experiment on people who’re willing to die for the cause. But long story short, don’t assume all scientific work is as horrendous as the experiences you’ve read about or experienced.
Comment by Spaceghost — September 23, 2011 @ 3:53 am
Spaceghost, the published scientific article I link to above (which took me literally one google search and one link click to find) is one of millions about animal research in which completely legal cruel methods are used to test on animals. So let’s not act like I looked for that one rare article.
I’m not saying all scientists are “mean people”. I am saying they have their own interest at heart. I have debated animal researchers who know less about their own field than I do, because as long as they keep getting money, there’s no reason for them to think about ethics of their work more than the irb requires.
And pray tell, how did those animals your mother drove around get sick? I am pretty sure it didn’t magically happen in the “care” of scientists, right? No, they made them sick.
Comment by Corvus — September 23, 2011 @ 3:23 pm
Ok guy’s here’s the deal we all love our pet’s. But how many of you actually rescue unwanted pets? how many of you have a pet with a chip in it? Did Fido want it? How many of you use flea and tick meds those were tested on animals you know. to be frank if you are really for animal rights then remove the collars and let the animals be wild likre they where suposed to because they don’t need us. we have pets because humans want them not because the animal said he let me live with you and you can feed me. this is so silly to debate this.
Comment by B — September 24, 2011 @ 1:14 am
oh and corvus any idiot knows that you find bad news easier then good. cause an article saying “animal testing claims more victims” gets more hits then one that says “animal finds good home”
Comment by B — September 24, 2011 @ 1:22 am
Hi B. check out scholar.google.com
There you will find peer reviewed scientific articles published about the studies people are doing. And for your information, I searched “feline FIV HIV ultraviolet” or “feline FIV HIV glowing” when I found that article (not story, article).
Did anyone actually read it? It sure doesn’t seem so since everyone’s talking about it as if it’s a newspaper article or a children’s book.
To answer your other questions, I rescue animals, do not eat animals, do not wear animals or use animal tested products. Some of my animal buddies are on medications owned by cruel pharmaceutical companies who did do research that harmed animals. Unfortunately, given current industry lobbying and governmental laws, no other medication is available on the market. Though, i do use holistic treatments on myself and them when feasible.
Saying people using needed medications that are tested on animals as a reason they cannot oppose that animal testing is ridiculous. It is not the ill person’s fault that the science industry and government chooses to spend the majority of science funding on cruel, inhumane, ineffective, and unnecessary animal tests. If anything, people taking these medications have more of a say than anyone in opposing animal testing because more accurate and ethical testing procedures help everyone, humans included, not just the nonhuman animals.
Comment by Corvus — September 25, 2011 @ 5:41 pm
“Even though this could have benefits for humans and animals. I think animal testing is VERY wrong. These cats didnt choose to be subject to testing. Considering that there is really no way for humans to communicate with animals, we have to be their voice. Imagine if we did this to a bunch of human children, im sure it would never be allowed though, because thats just how wrong it is. Yes, FIV and AIDS need to be prevented. But, if you spay/neuter your pet and make sure you dont breed any FIV positive cats you shouldnt have to worry too much. Millions of animals are on the streets and yes they spread diseases. In an ideal world there would be no homeless animals, but that is not the case. I support the cause but not the act. The things that scientists do to animals just for human advantage is cruel and unfair. Im sorry if you disagree, but this is my opinion.”
Are you kidding me? It is more unethical to make a cat glow (yeah, like the cat cares that it’s glowing) then to cut it’s testicles off?
Comment by Luke — October 2, 2011 @ 12:06 pm
A problem with making cats glow, is that it becomes impossible for them to hunt.
Oh but the AIDs resistance is kinda nice.
Comment by Lars — October 4, 2011 @ 2:30 pm
They are obviously using the cats for medical testing. Injecting them with the feline HIV. How else would they know if they are resistant or not?
Comment by April — October 6, 2011 @ 6:41 pm
Since you guys are obviously arguing over the exact same thing, (Animal Testing)you have all gotten lost and forgotten the big picture. The cure or immunization of HIV?AIDS. Yes of course there is the conflict of animal testing and the death of these animals. Listen to this: If any of you puttin these portestant comments had AIDS, I GUARANTEE you would be rooting for the cure father then giving a hoot about the cat.Sure cat testing or rather any kind of animal testing is wrong but would you rather your brother or sister be taken for experimetation instead. Your mother. Father. Then what in God’s name are you complaining about. It is a cure for HIV/AIDS. It has been proven to work over and over again. In fish and pigs. And there are plenty of fish in the world though many of certain species are on the verge of extinction. So instead of arguing and protesting about animal testing stop and put yourself in someone else’s shoes. (someone who has AIDS)Im not saying that you shouldnt cate about that cats just think of the 30 million people that die a year from this disease, including my little sister. And any other disease because GFP isnt the only thing it cures.
Comment by 8thGradeResearchProject — October 17, 2011 @ 1:55 pm
Wow. people fundamentally misunderstand how GFP works. that’s new….not. also, Don’t talk about our lack of ability to communicate with animals on a cognitive level. from a purely cytoarchitectural standpoint, cats (and most other animals, though there are some interesting exceptions, corvids for example) don’t have the necessary brain structures for anything approaching the level of organization that human speech and body language have. Simple fact: fundamentally good people are using animals to do fundamentally good things. Because humans value their own lives over those of their animal compatriots (and rightly so, from an evolutionary standpoint, in that the preservation of the species comes before the preservation of other species) animals will take the brunt of the more experimental treatments. Also, making the cats fluoresce is important. it shows that the gene that they are attempting to insert, for protection against FIV, is functioning properly and is fully expressed. this is more of a confirmation of a certain gene’s efficacy in fighting off the virus, rather that a “Dr. Moreau” experiment. Also, that nonsense about humans also getting used in tests? Of Course! this is all for the benefit of humans, so of course they get tested. it has to work for the species it was intended for. However, I highly doubt that Vladimir Demikhov had many human participants when he was pioneering transplant techniques in the Soviet Union. Yet without it, many many more people would not be alive today. Without animal testing, it would not exist. Chalk it up to evolution; We are using animals to preserve ourselves.
also, before you condemn me for disliking animals, I had three cats two of which died of FIV, so please don’t slander me.
Comment by Really? — November 14, 2011 @ 2:46 pm
I understand that a lot of people don’t agree with animal testing, and that is fine. If you think it should stop or are protesting it, don’t use insulin, don’t use a pacemaker, have open heart surgery, any type of organ transplant, use penicillin, or get tetanus or rabies shots. As well as many MANY other medical advancements. I support freedom of speech, just please practice what you preach. :)
Comment by Stephanie — November 15, 2011 @ 10:18 pm
@Corvus: Labs have all the security, no windows, etc. to keep the drooling anti-science freaks from destroying the work that goes on inside.
Since you’re so opposed to animal testing, you’ll be glad to not use any products derived from same, right? It’s like the peta freaks griping about using furs from animals for coats, and wearing leather shoes, or belts, or purses.
Comment by Jeff — December 9, 2011 @ 1:07 am
To those who do not like animal testing – I love cats. They my favorite animal. God gave them to us to enjoy but not to have dominion over us, but have dominion over them with respect and care.
I agree on the comments that animal do not feel the way we do intellectually, but yes they do feel pain, but the pain of not being in society, especially if they are well taken care of. All they want to is to be fed, be loved, be stimulated by their environment. If the science lab is doing all those things, then they are doing great.
We have a couple cats that were born in the big ferret cage in the garage and made a cage for them to do outside. (Can’t have them in the house because of allergies – this to satisfy my daughter who wanted cats BADLY). They fear coming out of their cages. They loved being petted and cooed at. So when the cats are brought up in that loving control environment, they don’t feel the pain like we do unless it is abusive.
Comment by cmach — January 8, 2012 @ 1:49 pm
A lot of people on here seem to be like “If it takes a few animal lives to save humans than I’m with it!”. I really hope everyone on here realizes that we are all animals. There isn’t anything that puts our lives above theirs.
There is enough of us on this planet currently and all these disease and such are a way to make sure that the weak don’t survive and that we pass on good genes. Maybe these diseases aren’t meant to be cured.
Comment by Gah! — January 11, 2012 @ 8:08 pm
Also, to people out there you can’t choose to be a test subject because to alter DNA in this fashion you have to start before something is even born. You have to most likely clone something so it has this gene. I couldn’t just go and volunteer to do this. I would if I could but I can’t so I wont.
Comment by Gah! — January 11, 2012 @ 8:21 pm
I want people to stop complaining that this “hurts” the animals and open their eyes. Any sort of genetic-whatnot done to these animals was done BEFORE any sort of fertilization took place.
To quote the above article:
“…inserted a version of the GFP gene along with a gene from the rhesus macaque that blocks the feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV)—the virus that causes feline AIDS—into the unfertilized eggs of a cat.” -
Its not like Science suddenly “made” a cat that glows in the dark, they’re born that way and they grow to live with it. No differently than someone born blind learns to live happily and healthy. The fact that these cats glows means that Science is on the right path to eliminating one of the most deadly illnesses known to man.
Genetic studies and genome mapping are the way of the future, perhaps even the ONLY way. In order for our society to survive longer that the estimated 300+ years we have (due to climate change i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS3av5x4_k4 ) we need to start furthering our knowledge in a variety of fields, from Genetics, to Alternative and Truly-Renewable Energy, to Nano-technology. Only to name the big contenders.
Science has had hurdles upon hurdles to pass due to nay-sayers, interest groups, and old world technologies and methods. I’m not saying I condone animal testing, but I will stand firmly behind genetic research because as a society, as a SPECIES, it is necessary. Society and Mankind cannot, and will not continue to stay in it’s present state, we are doomed to fail if changes don’t start happening now. How long until America is remembered in the same way as other failed “Empires” are? As an amazingly powerful and successful society, brought down by the failure to progress for the greater good, and by the ignorant choices of a few, played off as a “voice of the masses.”
Comment by Zack Avenengo — February 1, 2012 @ 2:32 pm
This, my friends, is extremely cool.
Comment by Ashley — February 5, 2012 @ 11:11 am
I love the idea of glowing cats just think how much funnier animals do the funniest things will be with glowing cats
Comment by Lawwithal — May 21, 2012 @ 9:22 am