Scientists in South Korea have produced cloned beagles that fluoresce red by infecting dog fibroblasts with a retrovirus that inserted the fluorescent gene from sea anemones. The fibroblast was then implanted into a dog egg that had its nucleus removed, and was subsequently implanted into a surrogate mother dog. Beyond the ethical concerns raised by such experiments, many technical challenges remain. For starters, the researchers have no way of controlling where the foreign gene is spliced into the dog’s DNA.
Ruppy, the Ruby Puppy
Why would anybody do such a thing? Researchers suggest that transgenic dogs could be used to develop disease models that would help us understand human diseases. Some of this research seems to me to be an example of the ratbot motive–we’re doing it because we can and we think it’s cool. The rationale for making remote control rats was ostensibly to find earthquake victims in rubble…what?!?
The five surviving dogs look faintly red under normal light, but definitely glow red under ultraviolet light. They are fertile, and when bred with normal beagles, they produced puppies that either carry the red gene or not according to Mendelian principles.
Personally, I think they look kind of scary, and I doubt this will catch on in the pet department. On the other hand, and I’m not sure why I feel this way, I think GloFish, which are produced through similar although simpler methods, look pretty cool. Unfortunately, GloFish are illegal in California, the only state to have such a regulation. But I liked them so much that I used a photo of them for a Chapter Opener for my Genetics and Development Chapter, as well as our cool Discovering Biological Psychology mouse pad.
GloFish Are Also Produced With Transgenic Methods
7 Comments
genevieve99 · April 29, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I am completely shocked at what they are doing. Being a dog lover myself, I can handle ‘messing around’ with fish.. but DOGS?! I would absolutely buy a Glofish because they are beautiful fish but I can’t even begin to imagine what would bring someone to do that to an animal! What is the benefit of this.. or is there even a purpose besides pure curiousity and publicity?
helenasetiawan · May 3, 2009 at 9:21 pm
They are so adorable though, although it is true, they are quite creepy at the same time. It was interesting about the ratbot motive. I think sometimes scientist really DO need just about ANY reason to go ahead with a new research. They say that the reason they want to go ahead with this GloBeagles is to understand human disease.. hmmmm. I think one of the scientist was just being creative:) Let’s see what types of new information they find out about human disease through Ruppy!
steelersfan086 · May 5, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I was so surprised when this was shown in class. I didn’t really know how to feel about it because I wasn’t sure how they were being injected. After reading about it more, I find it extremely unethical and quite shocking. I don’t quite know how this is a positive breakthrough for fighting diseases. If it is, that’s great but I still think they should stop doing this and find a different way to do it in a dish or something. (However, I will admit that I believe that look kind of cool).
Laura Freberg · May 5, 2009 at 7:37 pm
I do not pretend to be a geneticist, but it seems that the use of these dogs as a disease model is remote, and the ethics disturb me. I guess that’s why I serve on the Human Subjects IRB instead of the animal one… 🙂
Kenneth · May 6, 2009 at 9:50 pm
I am going to have to agree that doing this is unethical. It is like saying the ends justify the means. Even though this example of genetic engineering seems quite harmless ( How dangerous is making a dog glow in the dark?) it marks a step towards possibly doing this to higher organism and eventually humans. When it does reach the human level I feel it wont stop at diseases but gives us the unfortunate choice to design our kids. I feel this will lead to loss of individuality leading to everyone wanting to have the “best” genes. Maybe I am getting carried away but if I were given the choice I would want the best for my child.
shaunashea · May 11, 2009 at 4:42 pm
I am going to agree that this is unethical. Once such experiments reach a certain threshold, there is no stopping and things will inevitably grow out of hand.
True, making a dog glow in the dark may seem harmless. But where does it end? What else will we try to make “glow?” I feel that, once experiments like this begin and are deemed successful, more and more will follow suit.
ljgarcia · May 11, 2009 at 9:47 pm
i would have to agree with the comments above when they say that it is unethical. from what the article says, the “suggestions” of researchers to help disease is not enough for me to make this experiment justified. but i also see the other side too, if it could possible help someone, whether that be your child or a good friend etc… it would seen worth it. it is and will always end in ethical debates…..
Comments are closed.