blike Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Scientists in Nebraska have successully grafted a pig's heart to a sheep by manipulating the immune systems of both animals. To accomplish this feat, researches first took bone marrow cells from a sheep and transferred them to a fetal pig. After the pig was born, they transferred white blood cells from the pig back to the sheep so that the cells would contain genetic material for both animals. Of 13 pigs with new hearts, only 1 rejected the heart. In the control group, who did not receive bone marrow and white blood cell transplants, 12 sheep rejected the heart. The article is available from yahoo.com here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 That is a great, but SADDDDD picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Why sad? I'm sure that sheep is happy to have a massive foreign organ sagging from its neck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Yea, the other sheep think it's cool. Soon MTV will be sporting pig hearts. YUP YUP!! And it's leaning against the wall. ahahaha, it looks drunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Haha, I'm sure its loaded with all kinds of drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fafalone Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Yeah it looks stoned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dethfire Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 poor sheep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visceral Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 That's ****ing horrid, no one has the right to do that to an animal. Why can't they use this technique on people who receive organ transplants? It would save them taking immunosuppressants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 17, 2009 Share Posted March 17, 2009 Wow... a bump more than five years old -- that'll certainly make you popular with the community. Wanna talk about whether Iraq might have WMDs? (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 That's ****ing horrid, no one has the right to do that to an animal. How many people were saved by what we learned with this? How many burgers and pork chops have you eaten in the 5 years since this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visceral Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 I'm a vegetarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 That's all well and good, but what gives you the right to make that decision for other people? That's what opposition to animal testing is: you don't like something, so you want to forbid *anyone* from making their own choice and getting benefits from it. It's antithetical to the very concept of personal freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 That's ****ing horrid, no one has the right to do that to an animal. Why can't they use this technique on people who receive organ transplants? It would save them taking immunosuppressants. That's the idea I think, so they need to test it. If you don't want animal testing, then you don't want them to push frontiers like this one. Unless China starts getting into the business and tests prisoners and other undesirables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visceral Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 That's all well and good, but what gives you the right to make that decision for other people? That's what opposition to animal testing is: you don't like something, so you want to forbid *anyone* from making their own choice and getting benefits from it. It's antithetical to the very concept of personal freedom. How is it limiting anyone's personal freedom?? Animals don't owe us anything. The argument that a few should suffer for the good of all doesn't cut ice with me, either. If someone feels that so strongly they should volunteer to be the guinea pig themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Do we owe something to animals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visceral Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Do we owe something to animals? No we don't. I didn't say we owed them something. I merely said THEY don't owe US anything. Look at it this way, is it ok to grab a random person off the street and do some experiments on them? Nope, thought not. So why another mammal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 So... we don't owe it to them to leave them alone, and not eat them or run experiments on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 So why another mammal? The closer the animal is to a human, the more relavent the test. So, your choice 1) Test procedures on a mouse, dog, chimp, etc. 2) Do not try new procedures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 How is it limiting anyone's personal freedom?? If you prevented animal testing, you would limit my access to medicines and technologys without my consent, depriving me of the ability to make my own moral decision on the subject. The argument that a few should suffer for the good of all doesn't cut ice with me, either. Why not? If you had only two options, to kill 10 people or kill 1000, you would kill 1000? Make no mistake, there is no 'zero death' option. Either you kill mice, or you kill humans. There is no middle ground, no third choice. You have to pick which are more important, humans or mice. Look at it this way, is it ok to grab a random person off the street and do some experiments on them? Nope, thought not. So why another mammal? Because, in the case of mice, they have a brain the size of a pea, and can barely manage to do anything beyond screwing and eating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Because, in the case of mice, they have a brain the size of a pea, and can barely manage to do anything beyond screwing and eating. Damn, add beer and mice live in a fraternity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visceral Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 If you prevented animal testing, you would limit my access to medicines and technologys without my consent, depriving me of the ability to make my own moral decision on the subject. Why not? If you had only two options, to kill 10 people or kill 1000, you would kill 1000? Make no mistake, there is no 'zero death' option. Either you kill mice, or you kill humans. There is no middle ground, no third choice. You have to pick which are more important, humans or mice. Because, in the case of mice, they have a brain the size of a pea, and can barely manage to do anything beyond screwing and eating. Sure, I would kill only 10. What I take issue with is the assumption that the few who die should be animals. They owe us nothing. So what if mice have a small brain and don't do much outside of basic behaviours? They're still sentient beings. If a race existed who were massively superior to normal humans, would it be ok for them to experiment in humans because we are 'lower'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Mice are sentient beings? Are you sure that's what you meant to say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visceral Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Yes. Sentient, as in conscious, something that can think or feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 Ah yes, the modern, socio-political interpretation of the word as subjugated and promulgated by the animal rights movement. As opposed to the original and more traditional definition of the word, focusing more on intelligence. Pardon me, I should have recognized where you were going with that two posts ago. Well hey, I can understand the sentiment. Unfortunately having subjugated that word for political purposes, it can no longer be used as a scientific basis for a rational, objective decision on the subject. So we're back to square one there. But I certainly respect your opinion on it. Mine just differs, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Sure, I would kill only 10. What I take issue with is the assumption that the few who die should be animals. They owe us nothing. So who would you rather kill: 100 lab mice, or 100 humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now