Genetics

Penis penis penis, I made it out of clay… samanthamuffin reports that scientists have been busy replacing rabbits’ penises with new ones made from the bunnies’ own skin cells. The classic image of animal testing, to me, involves burning a rabbit’s eye out with some kind of household product like, say, Tide. It might be time for a new set of posters. The procedure, once developed, might help impotent men who quite often acquired the condition from diet and lifestyle-related diseases like diabetes and vascular disease. I don’t imagine these people care much about the widdle bunny wabbit, but if you do, when the next person asks you why you’re following a healthy diet, I triple-dog-dare you to to say it’s all about protecting rabbit nads. Link.

{ 0 comments }

Dave Noisy brings us today’s secret phrase, which, as some of you may recall, means that whenever you hear the secret phrase, you should scream real loud! Ready? Today’s secret phrase is “sexual ornaments.” Let’s practice. Sexual Ornaments (AHHH!) like a deer’s antlers and a peacock’s feathery display are growing at roughly the square of the overall growth rate for the animal. This indicates that the size of the sexual ornaments (AHHH!) are really important to attracting a mate, and the proportions proved true for virtually every one of the 284 sexual ornament (AHHH!) bearing species that were measured. The theory is that large sexual ornament (AHHH!) indicate a better ability to provide resources, since the animal is clearly able to spare some energy to growing and maintaining body parts that don’t directly contribute to survival, but I think the researchers, like myself, just wanted an excuse to publish the words “sexual ornaments” (AHHH!) as often as they can. Link.

{ 0 comments }

mpatrick sends word that scientists have combined cloning and genetic modification technologies to create pigs that produce omega-3 fatty acids. These are the “heart healthy” fats that are most commonly associated with fish oils but are also found in flax and hemp oils, among other sources. The research itself is interesting, but several researchers are getting super-horny for further modifications to animals to tweak their nutritional profiles moreso. I’m against cloning and genetic modification of animals for two main reasons: the suffering inherent in the failures that die shortly after birth, and the loss in genetic diversity already occurring in factory farming models, where we now go from a focus on the most profitable breed of animal to the most profitable (cloned) animal. In my opinion, the risks and cruelty involved far outweigh the benefits of new animal sources for omega-3 fatty acids, which brings up an interesting point – it would seem that the average omnivore is having more trouble achieving a good omega-3 to omega-6 ratio than your average vegan. Link.

{ 0 comments }

veggierebel sends in some handy counter arguments for your next discussion with the neighbourhood armchair anthropologist: humans did not, in fact, spend our early years at the top of the food chain, and it was our ability to form social groups, and not our ability to make weapons, that probably got us where we are today. That’s the word from a major US science conference that was attended by actual Ph.D.s who studied real science and who don’t know your well-meaning friend who thinks he knows everything about cave women in bikinis. Interesting snippets of knowledge include the fact that there may be biological incentives for cooperation, and our biggest defense against predators was our big ol’ brains, not our big clunky battle axes like your buddy saw in that movie. Link.

{ 0 comments }

Dagda Samildanc wrote in with a story about pigs that glow in the dark. While scientists have created partially fluorescent pigs before, these are apparently the only ones that glow from the inside out. Personally, I can only think of uses for glow in the dark organ technology in humans, specifically superhumans, and even then, that’s got to be a lame super power – what could a glow in the dark hero do besides draw gunfire? As for the animals, scientists have more imagination than I do: “…if, for instance, some of its stem cells are injected into another animal, scientists can track how they develop without the need for a biopsy or invasive test.” Yeah, now there’s no need for an invasive procedure. Other than injecting glow in the dark stem cells from another animal. That’s much better. Link.

{ 0 comments }

An anonymous source (who I shall call Wayne) notes that Time Magazine has voted the cloned dog as the top invention of 2005. This isn’t particularly interesting or inspiring, but I do take solace in the fact that one of the runners-up was a robot cat. Link

{ 0 comments }

While everyone’s concerned over the potential health and ecological ramifications of genetically modified foods, nobody seems to be concerned over what they sound like. Until now. Link.

{ 0 comments }

kunsjoi sends word that the FDA may soon allow cloned meat and milk to enter the food supply. To be clear, they haven’t really been stopping – there’s a voluntary moratorium in place that seems to have a few leaks. I’m not sure why anyone who’s reading this would be worried about the FDA’s decision that products derived from cloned animals or their offspring would be considered safe, since they’re really saying “as safe as the original” or, better still, “no safer than the original,” and we already know what a gold standard that is. What’s more of a concern is the increased suffering brought on by cloning research and the further drop in biodiversity when such a significant part of the “food” supply comes from such a small gene pool.

{ 0 comments }

Sardonicus reports that genetic giant Monsanto has discovered another organism to patent: the pig. While they’re applying for a patent on a breeding technique, they’re also trying to claim ownership of the animal that’s produced, which opens the door to all kinds of conspiracy theories that would invite designs for tin foil hats if the company involved didn’t already have a track record of controlling the food supply by suing farmers who use the products, uh, produced by their products (think seeds obtained from a Monsanto plant). While problems for pig farmers don’t normally affect people who don’t eat pigs, we’re still concerned with the idea of an animal being patented – it runs counter to our central message of animal rights, and economically speaking, it gives Monsanto even more resources that they can employ to further mess with the plant-based food supply.

{ 0 comments }