Glow in the Dark Dogs - Medical Research or Animal Testing?

| Print | By Jo Singer | May 8, 2009 11:09 AM

While I have often written about some of the exciting and promising research which scientists working in tandem with veterinarians are using to treat dogs and cats, many of these procedures may positively impact the treatment of humans as well. But after I read this "breaking news" in the field of animal research, I am also compelled to express my dismay and concern about some of the lengths researchers are going to in order to find "cures" for human diseases.

A group of scientists in South Korea have recently announced that they have "engineered" four beagles that "glow red" through the use of cloning techniques. These scientists hope their research will develop cures for humans.

Photo by AP Photo/ Seoul National University, HO
Ruppy two days old: the world's first transgenic female
beagle dog carrying fluorescent genes
8-glowing dog.jpg The South Korean scientists are presently working with four beagles, all of whom are named "Ruppy", a name which combines "ruby" and "puppy". The dogs appear to be "normal" beagles in daylight but they glow red using ultraviolet light. Their thin-skinned nails and abdomens appear red even to the naked eye. Professor Lee Byeong-chun, the head of the research team at Seoul National University calls them "the world's first transgenic dogs carrying fluorescent genes; an achievement that goes beyond just the glowing novelty."

Professor Lee told the Associated Press, "What's significant in this work is not the dogs expressing red colors but that we planted genes into them." The team has identified, through DNA tests, the dogs as clones of a cell donor, and announced their accomplishment on "Genesis", the Journal Website.

U.S. and Japanese scientists have already cloned fluorescent pigs and mice, but this development is a breakthrough since this is the first time modified genes have been successfully cloned in dogs, according to Professor Lee.

Skin cells extracted from a beagle by the team who inserted the fluorescent genes into the dogs, implanted them into eggs, and then inserted them into a local mixed breed surrogate female dog's womb.

While further details have not been announced so far as research is still continuing, Dr. Lee is hopeful that this procedure will lead to finding new treatments for conditions like Parkinson's, a genetic disease. Veterinary professor Kong II-keun of South Korea's Gyeongsang National University said, "We can appraise this is a step forward" toward finding cures for human diseases. What is important now is on what specific diseases (Lee's team) will focus on."

Read more: "South Korea claims to have cloned glowing dogs to help cure human diseases" by visiting http://www.nydailynews.com

While I feel strongly that research geared to find cures for both human and animal disease continues, why can't scientists use "in vitro" methods as an alternative to experimenting on live animals? Usually more accurate, in vitro is far easier to perform, is less expensive, and most of all does not require using live animals for research. With the modern techniques available to scientists today, I cannot understand the continuation of using live animals in research geared to human medicine. Perhaps I am alone in my feelings, but it really gets to me.

What are your thoughts about live animal research in the field of human medical science? Leave a comment and share.

RELATED TOPICS:



« Previous
Next »

Comments (11)

jmuhj May 8, 2009 4:17 PM

As a lifelong antivivisectionist from the moral and ethical standpoint, imagine my joy when, after extensive study, I also found that vivisection and biomedical research is bad science which will never, ever provide cures for human diseases, for myriad reasons. As to this dog story, imagine my chagrin, knowing that untold millions of healthy, lovable animals lose their lives yearly in the U.S. alone for want of loving, forever homes. And now they have glow-in-the-dark dogs. Well, sign me right up. NOT

Vicki May 8, 2009 4:20 PM

Although I am all for research for medical cures, I am not all that favorable of using animals to use in this research. As the author suggested, I would be more in favor of an "in vitro" method as an alternative. It would seem that findings used on animals would be different than findings that would be used on humans.

Diana May 8, 2009 8:55 PM

If animals cannot be used in medical research, then medical research will grind to a halt. Animals should never be mistreated and should be dealt with as humanely as possible, but they are essential for medical progress to take place. How many of you want to take back the polio vaccine? Did you not vaccinate your kids because the research for the vaccine involved animal testing? What about the bubonic plague or leprosy? Do you want to see them make a comeback? Do you want to give up artificial hips? One of my family's dogs actually got one of the first experimental artificial hips, and it enabled him to live a number of years longer. AND it furthered the research on artificial hips for humans - I am one of the recipients. It's nice to be able to walk without sounding like a box of rocks and being in constant pain.
How many of us are willing for medical testing to do done with embryonic stem cells and not willing to test on animals? That seems to be a dichotomy to me.

That said, I do not believe in animal testing for frivolous things. Cosmetics, perfume, and other such items should not be tested on animals. I'd rather not wear make-up.

Amy May 9, 2009 4:15 AM

Very disturbing news to say the least. Each person must make up their own mind and take it from there. As for me I say no to this.

Ruth May 9, 2009 6:47 AM

I think scientists are going too far ! Animals lives are cheap to these people and although vivisection is supposed to be governed and the animals subject to welfare laws, I can tell you,many are NOT,they are used and abused and tortured, over and over again, by scientists desperate to be the first with something new.Money is poured into these experiments yet places such as Dr Hadwen Trust non animal research, who are doing wonderful work, have to beg for every penny,they get no funding at all.
Scientists say 'We use animals because they don't have feelings like we do' and then in another breath'We use animals because they are so like us'
They want it both ways ! Millions of animals are tortured and most people just look away !

Margie May 11, 2009 3:25 AM

I'm not conviced this is medical research. Afraid this is just going to lead to more "designer" dogs in the long run.

Sophie June 2, 2009 1:48 PM

The reasearchers dont have the effin' right to test on these poor little puppies! Poor babies!

yo July 24, 2009 11:15 AM

i understand that u test on animal to help the people or to find a care but what the hell is a glow in dark dog ganna do for us

come on now is it ganna help me in the dark wen i cant see

charlie September 24, 2009 9:24 AM

i hate animal testin its not fair on animals espceally DOGS!!

phoebe November 4, 2009 5:20 AM

i hate animal testing because it can kill animals and they are so cute even pigs

phoebe November 4, 2009 5:22 AM

i love animals and hate animal testing because it is just rong and i have to cats and i would hate if they were tested on

add your comment

Advertisement

Petside: Get Started

Advertisement

Specials

Check out these deals picked by petside.com just for you!

Newsletter & Deals

Register now for Newsletters and Personal Tools.

Your Name: Your Email:

Your privacy is important to us.
Click here for the full policy.