See-through frogs

[wolf4life]

i have to agree with set here...

if they are going to make it for humans to watch cancer grow...then they should test on humans

[ravaged_warrior]

i have to agree with set here...

if they are going to make it for humans to watch cancer grow...then they should test on humans

I don't see how that would be possible here. This is a specific gene in the frog DNA, and it sound like the idea isn't "let's use this on people", but rather "let's figure out how to do things with DNA and find something useful to do with it once we know how to do it". It's like with music, you don't go straight into Flight of the Bumblebee, you learn it first. This is probably learning, not application.

Also...

Sumida said it would be unrealistic to apply the same method to mammals such as mice as their skin structure is different.

[Silent Hunter]

i have to agree with set here...

if they are going to make it for humans to watch cancer grow...then they should test on humans

Why? Oh and scientists are not stupid. They would know the diffrences in differet animals.

[Set]

I'm curious as to why they think they can use this for cancer research, because unless they were deliberately going to screw with the cells of the animal and cause it themselves, they'd be doing a damn lot of waiting trying to get a frog with cancer.

I think it's interesting seeing what scientists can do. I just don't think pale frogs are useful.

[wolf4life]

i have to agree with set here...

if they are going to make it for humans to watch cancer grow...then they should test on humans

Why? Oh and scientists are not stupid. They would know the diffrences in differet animals.

just saying...

if its ment for humans....then a frogs DNA is alot different from ours


and i dont like scientists....dont ask

[Set]

and i dont like scientists....dont ask

I will, because I'm a nosy bastard. Why? (And keep in mind you've got a former lab animal here, I know very well the bad side of science. Even so I still don't understand your problem with them.)

[ravaged_warrior]

Hmmm... I seem to be getting ignored, but I'll repeat my points one more time:

1. This is not application. Pale frogs are not useful in and of themselves, but this is possibly a valuable learning experience. Those exercises you do in music classes don't seem useful at first, either.

2. This is probably not cancer research. They were just giving an example of something that can now be done with the frogs.

[Dreamer]

Well, I swear on my imortal soul, if it does exist, that I will live until post-birth gentic manipulation becomes a reality and they create a way to make real wereolves. I WANT MY FUR AND SNOUT DAMMIT . And if this helps them get closer to that, then it's no skin off my bones.

[Aki]

I don't see the point in using animals for researching human problems anyway. A frog, pig, rat, monkey, etc. ISN'T a human. Things are going to affect them differently. If you're doing research on humans...then use some damn humans!

A few reasons:
- Some things will affect both human and animal. So it's best to get this out of the way.
- Most test animals have a lot of our genes and such. Similarities. Gives good room for the "might work" factor. Considering how well modern medicines tend to work, it seems like it's worked fine.
- Humans aren't really apt to test out your mystery drug unless they can sue your pants off if it blinds them.

[Scott Gardener]

Am I the only one who thinks this is a great idea? It lays groundwork for the future. Imagine if you could decide one day as a fashion statement to look transparent. Sure, most turn-of-the-millennium people may find the idea repulsive, but maybe in the 24th century or so there might be a fad of translucency, especially among the aquatic community, with the deep sea punk look. It can give future generations some options. And, it's all without hurting the frog. God knows there's a lot of worse forms of research out there. Indeed, the inspiration is not hurting frogs, eliminating some forms of dissection.

Edit: Oh, I know... dissection is essential for true appreciation of anatomy. I understand that; I'm a doctor--I've dissected more than most people. Indeed, I've dissected people. But, they donated their bodies, and I can safely know that nobody who got dissected was killed for that purpose. And, I would think that those who've done dissections would appreciate the basic fact that we're not the only organism on the planet with a central nervous system.

[wolf4life]

and i dont like scientists....dont ask

I will, because I'm a nosy bastard. Why? (And keep in mind you've got a former lab animal here, I know very well the bad side of science. Even so I still don't understand your problem with them.)

yes you are

[JoshuaMadoc]

So you hate scientists because their excess intelligence makes them evil?

[Silent Hunter]

and i dont like scientists....dont ask

I will, because I'm a nosy bastard. Why? (And keep in mind you've got a former lab animal here, I know very well the bad side of science. Even so I still don't understand your problem with them.)

yes you are

Then how can we take your views seriously if you at least don't give us some reason?

I may have a theory about this general attertude though. Some animal lovers may dislike scientists maybe beacuse they are seen to be "torturing" with "teh evil" animal testing. This already sets them off at odds with them. Another things maybe is that they are seen to be playing with nature and trying to control it.(we do to quitee an extent) With some animal lovers who think nature should be left alone; it makes them feel uneasy.

Another thing i'd like to add is that you can't expect scientists to be focused on one thing. Science is everwhere with many different aspects. Health, Fashion, Biology etc. With that you will get things like this. Some stuff may seem trivial to you but quite useful to others.

[Scott Gardener]

Hating scientists is indeed a pretty broad statement. I should note that because of my biology degree and what I do for a living, I can count myself a scientist. A lot of my favorite heroes are or were scientists as well--Newton, Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, I could list a few hundred more.

Science isn't just food-colored liquids in boiling beakers and test tubes. If you're reading this, it's because science made the technology possible.

I suspect it's not science or scientists per se that bother you--it's who's currently running the ethical policies of contemporary science. That's always in a state of flux, because science requires a lot of open-mindedness and willingness to reconsider one's position in light of new facts. Mainstream society hates this "flip-flopping"; they want things "carved in stone" and they want us to "stand our ground" and "stay the course." But, science isn't about what we want to believe; it's about what we're finding out, and a truely ethical scientist will always reserve the right to change one's mind when a theory is proven wrong.

A lot of people in the mainstream public have a tendency to say comments to the effect of "scientists don't know what they're talking about--tomorrow they'll just find out they've got it completely wrong"--this fallicy has been applied towards everything from global warming warnings (critics point out that science in the seventies forecast a warning about global cooling and the threat of another ice age) to medical advice (you would not believe how many smokers are waiting for that magic moment when they're told it was actually safe). But, science works by accumulating evidence. The more evidence there is to support a statement, the more reliable the position is, along with its associated recommendations. From what we knew in the seventies, an ice age might have seemed like a plausible fear, but we know a lot more than we did back then, and to dismiss all the work that went into the substantial consensus that global warming is a real problem is not likely going to lead to some great exonneration later.

Animal research is a touchy subject; as much as I advocate science and scientific knowledge, I also generally oppose animal research in all its forms. But, I consider my position justified by science. Our knowledge of biology points out that the core components of human biology that make possible our emotions and conscious experience are also present in other animals. Indeed the notion that humans are seperate from other animals flies in the face of biology and squarely into the realm of religious Dominionism. I offer my position on animal research as an example of how true science is independent of philosophy and ethics. You can use science to do horrors (aside from animal research, science makes possible the development of nuclear weapons, refinements in torture techniques, and a great many other things that make me embarrassed to admit membership in the human species) as well as wonders. But, science is ultimately about logic--observing patterns, making predictions, testing those predictions, and gradually producing an increasingly refined model of how the world really works. It's ultimately the best and most reliable way I've found of understanding the world.

[wolf4life]

i just dont....

i dont even have a reason....

that i can share anyway