Slashdot Mirror


Pigs with Human Genes

LGRiske writes "In a step toward creating herds of pigs that could provide organs for transplanting into humans, Italian researchers manipulated swine sperm to make an animal strain that carries human genes in the heart, liver and kidneys."

283 comments

  1. fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    fuck you

  2. Wouldn't it be easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    To genetically modify humans so we have pig organs?

    1. Re:Wouldn't it be easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I want the pig gene that gives 1/2 hour orgasms

    2. Re:Wouldn't it be easier... by PerryMason · · Score: 1

      Ummmm, that would defeat the purpose.

      The way I understand it, the whole point was to reduce the rate of organ rejection so that now a pig can safely receive a human heart. A great stride in angio-porcine research indeed!

      --
      "I'm tired of all this 'Aren't humanity great' bullshit. We're a virus with shoes" - Bill Hicks
    3. Re:Wouldn't it be easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why dont you guys just wake up already?! It's a military thing! The army wants to create a race of pigmen..
      / Kramer

    4. Re:Wouldn't it be easier... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I'd be able to run around shouting, "Iiiiiiii'mmmmmmmmm BACON!!!!!"

    5. Re:Wouldn't it be easier... by NotTheNickIWanted · · Score: 1
      To genetically modify humans so we have pig organs?

      [shrug] I dunno... On a daily basis I see pigs with such a quantity of human organs that they're often mistaken for humans by both themselves and others!

      --

      unsigned int question = 0x2B | ~(0x2B)
    6. Re:Wouldn't it be easier... by macdaddy357 · · Score: 2

      Paging Doctor Frankenstein. Doctor Frankenstein to the operating room.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    7. Re:Wouldn't it be easier... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      I think it is much better to sacrifice cops for regular people. sacrificeing humans so we have pig organs just doesn't appeal to me.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    8. Re:Wouldn't it be easier... by Brendan+Byrd · · Score: 1

      Animal Farm?

  3. Seinfeld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't Seinfeld post this already?

    1. Re:Seinfeld by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1
      Kramer was right: there is a pig-man.

      But no matter what the flaw is, there will be somebody that is attracted to it: "ooh that little tail really turns me on!"

  4. excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everything is falling into place...

  5. rejection ? by Tensor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    AFAIK rejection rates from human-human transplants are quite high, and the search for compatible donors quite hard.

    What did they do to surpass these two ? did they made them 100% compatible with everyone ? are they only compatible with the original human dna-donor for the pigs?

    Should we start saving now to have a pig with our replacement liver (for beer) and heart (fried chicken & ribs) ?

    1. Re:rejection ? by Tensor · · Score: 2

      I know the article says about overcoming rejection BUT human-human transplants already overcome all this. I mean ADDITIONAL measures

    2. Re:rejection ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      To avoid rejection, the donated organ has to be *so* similar to the original that it probably has the same flaw. Transplants are like replacing your burnt power supply by the same cheap model. The only real way out of this is to have people born with good quality organs to start with.

    3. Re:rejection ? by mythr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The only problem with your argument is that most (not all, but I'm sure a majority, especially in America) heart/liver/lung disease is not genetic. Most of it is caused by consuming things that shouldn't be consumed. (triple bacon cheeseburgers with extra lard, beer and cheap whiskey, and cigarettes, respectively)

      Also, how about people who get in car accidents and have vital organs punctured? This would certainly help them, so I wouldn't completely dismiss its validity.

    4. Re:rejection ? by quantumparadox · · Score: 5, Informative

      In general the idea is to create tailor made organs for people, you pay $xxxx and get your own half-human pig with spare organs (using your DNA). Since most organ failures can be forseen a while in advance this is a viable option as pig gestation periods are only a few months. IANA Biology expert, but this is what I have understood from other articles, feel free to correct me.

    5. Re:rejection ? by Tensor · · Score: 2

      Yeah i thought this too (made another post) ... i guess we need to start saving to buy a pig after all.

      So, first is having the genome on cd so i can xfer it to a pig and then a couple of pigs to overcome that 50% chances the article talks about. Gee ... lotta money

    6. Re:rejection ? by rosewood · · Score: 4, Funny

      When I pull the new heart (and replace my kidneys while you are in there) and the pig is no longer, can I have me bacon?

      Mmm... Bacon

    7. Re:rejection ? by lateralus_1024 · · Score: 1

      "Transplants are like replacing your burnt power supply by the same cheap model"

      A female with a *whisper switch* may be marketable.

      --
      If you think /. comments are bad, check out Digg.
    8. Re:rejection ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      1. Make woman with whisper switch
      2. ??????
      3. Profit

    9. Re:rejection ? by Anonymous+Pancake · · Score: 0

      there's no way to make pig to human transplants 100% compatible, even HUMAN TO HUMAN transplants are not 100% compatible.

    10. Re:rejection ? by pyrote · · Score: 2, Interesting

      bacon.....
      Then you'll need a new heart in a few months anyway. Better have a litter...it's gonna be a long cycle.

      --
      THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
    11. Re:rejection ? by squaretorus · · Score: 2

      The did nothing to make it less 'rejectable' than a human heart, just less rejectable than a pig heart - i.e. you might last 2 minutes instead of 2 seconds.

      But this is perfect business. Not only do you charge a fortune for the pig heart, which likely cost the same to produce as a pack of bacon, you can sell a lifetime (literaly) of anti-rejection drugs aswell. The ultimate lump-sum + ongoing revenue business model. If the customer cancels he dies!

    12. Re:rejection ? by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well, at least, if you kick the dirt there's already the main course for the funeral meal...

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    13. Re:rejection ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is "possible" to "fabricate" organs without antigens so that our body's antibodies doesn't have anything to react on, in the same way as blood transfuisons.

      If you make the organs without both antigens and antibodies they will not "attack" our body, and our immunesystem will not attack them, exactly like blood transfussion..

    14. Re:rejection ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it would help people in car accidents. Why, unless you had the foresight to know you were going to have an accident, it would take a while to get that new heart, they have to harvest your DNA splice it into the pig, wait for gestation, then wait till it matures so the organs are of a suitable size for the donors body. This would certainly take a while, maybe this is were an artificial heart would come into play, to tide you over for a few years until your piggie heart was ready.

    15. Re:rejection ? by runderwo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or, you could simply maintain a donor pig as a pet, or in the backyard. Then you'd be covered should such a situation arise. :)

    16. Re:rejection ? by mblase · · Score: 2


      Should we start saving now to have a pig with our replacement liver (for beer) and heart (fried chicken & ribs)?


      In a pig's eye!

      Wait a minute....

    17. Re:rejection ? by orasio · · Score: 1

      IANAMD, but I think rejection is not due to the organ being different to the removed one, but to the presence of some protein(?!), or some compound being harmful and its absence being innocuous.
      More similar to the blood transfusion problems, where there is a universal donor, because the problem is the presence of some RH factor or A, B antibody(!?).

      Maybe there is someone who IAMD??

    18. Re:rejection ? by falzer · · Score: 1

      Chief Wiggum: Nice work, Brenda. I'll take it from here.
      Robot: No way. This is my collar. (Wiggum switches robot off)
      Wiggum: Heh. Too bad real women don't come with these, huh?

    19. Re:rejection ? by mesocyclone · · Score: 2

      Nice myth, but not reality.

      The single most important risk factor for heart disease is genetics.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    20. Re:rejection ? by ziriyab · · Score: 2
      Not only do you charge a fortune for the pig heart, which likely cost the same to produce as a pack of bacon, you can sell a lifetime (literaly) of anti-rejection drugs as well.

      It'll probably cost a lot more to raise these pigs than regular (food) pigs. They will have to be raised in clean labs to avoid infections and screened regularly for diseases that might hop on to humans.

      As far as being on a lifetime of immunosuppressants, that's the case with human-human transplants as well. I doubt that's these researchers's motive, since they're probably not financially linked to the drug makers. But you're right; that would be pretty evil business "synergy."

    21. Re:rejection ? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2, Interesting

      they are doing cool things with bone marrow transplants...it seems that when you do a bone maroww transplant, any organ inside the body that is of other nature than that bodies is identified as part of the body.....in a sence, a bone marow transplant resets the switch that tells the body what is not part of you. only problem...if you regect the bone marow...you die.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    22. Re:rejection ? by MrFredBloggs · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "The single most important risk factor for heart disease is genetics."

      That would explain why heart disease and obesity are both increasing at a rate that suggests its something other than a fixed percentage of the population. Obesity kills via heart disease - you don't literally die of obesity. What's it running at nowadays - 3000 a day in the US? What was it 50 years ago? Still think its genetic?

    23. Re:rejection ? by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 0, Redundant

      my son has damaged kidneys becasue he was born with posteriar Urethral valves(little flaps of skin in the urethra) that caused a back up in his renal system while it was developing.

      no genetic defects, just some tissue that did not get removed during development.

      so a cloned kidney would work perfectly for him

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    24. Re:rejection ? by mesocyclone · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I didn't say it was the *only* factor, but it is the most significant.

      Furthermore, people are *not* dying of other diseases the way they did in the past. The result is most people will die of either cancer, heart disease or degenerative diseases. Hence your historical comparison is not a good way to look at things.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    25. Re:rejection ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, very few organ transplants, with the exception of kidney, are closely matched for HLA compatibility.

      The biggest worry with xenotransplant may well be the possibility of giving animal diseases a playground for adapting to human hosts.

    26. Re:rejection ? by gene_tailor · · Score: 2, Informative
      >you get your own half-human pig

      No, you are way off base. They are not trying to make pigs that genetically match individual humans. As a biology PhD, my understanding is that they are trying to engineer pigs whose organs will be less likely to be attacked as "alien" (leading to organ rejection) by human immune systems *in general*. This involves making multiple genetic changes in the pigs' DNA to make their genetic markers more compatible with humans'. This article is about a new method for making the genetic changes that may be quicker and less expensive... the technical details are in PNAS.

      --
      It also occurs to me that if one was drowning, yelling "Help! I'm drowning and I lost my bikini top" would probably be m
    27. Re:rejection ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of it is caused by consuming things that shouldn't be consumed. (triple bacon cheeseburgers with extra lard...

      Well, this bacon is good for you! ;-D

  6. yum! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mmmmmmmm, long pig.......

    tasty!

    1. Re:yum! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't waste food, Jubal.

  7. tastes like chicken???? by zejackal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    So if they've got human DNA do they taste like chicken now... or do they still taste like pork?

  8. hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now Hillary Rosen can finally rest at ease, knowing she can replace her heart with a genetically compatible version, should she ever have problems with her current fat-swaddled organ.

  9. Liver! Bleech! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't like liver when I was a kid, and making the pig wear jeans isn't going to change my mind.

    OH! Oh! Genes...never mind

  10. Orwell ... by rosewood · · Score: 5, Funny

    One step closer to animal farm...

    1. Re:Orwell ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      remember, some animals are more equal than others...

  11. A question by PacoTaco · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Would the organ recipients be required to take up careers in law enforcement?

  12. Human rights by pacc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is no medicine issue, these are the voters that will ensure Silvio Berlusconi another term as president.

  13. Can the pigs by Alien+Being · · Score: 5, Funny

    be sued for patent infringement?

  14. Kosher by D4Vr4nt · · Score: 5, Funny

    This can't be Kosher.. How about Dolly spare parts?

    --
    R4NT.com - A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
    1. Re:Kosher by will_die · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually it is Kosher, while some disagree Judaism lawers seem to be saying that it is because. 1) surgery is different then eating. 2) The Kosher laws can be suspended when necessary to save a life.

    2. Re:Kosher by guybarr · · Score: 3, Interesting


      Actually it is Kosher, while some disagree Judaism lawers seem to be saying that it is because. 1) surgery is different then eating. 2) The Kosher laws can be suspended when necessary to save

      yes, not only is this allowed by jewish law, it is a great "MITZVA" to save a human life.
      And using pigs will cancel the current moral problems with human-donor transplants (when is the donor considered dead ? i.e. when is taking his vitals is no longer considered murder ? )

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    3. Re:Kosher by denttford · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A bit OT, I think, but I wanted to correct a point made in the thread- Actually, there are some cases where things other than eating are prohibited - namely, in the case of mixing milk and meat, cooking and deriving benefit (e.g. selling) are also prohibited.

      However, since this only applies to kosher animals, while you would be forbidden to sell a cheeseburger, selling a cheese BLT would technically be ok. Counter-intuitive, but quite true.

      Anyway, back on topic - clearly the situation would be one of saving a life, in which case, it is not just permissible to use such measures - it would be a requirement (as long at it were the best option: here is the fudge factor - e.g. no one will claim rejecting an operation with a 50% mortality rate is violating anything). That is, Kashrut (Kosher laws) are not suspended for serious medicine, they simply don't apply.

      --

      Leben Sie jetzt die Fragen.
    4. Re:Kosher by darkonc · · Score: 2
      his can't be Kosher.. How about Dolly spare parts?

      It doesn't have to be Kosher. You're not eating it, you're just, uhm, putting it directly into your body...

      But you're not eating it!

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    5. Re:Kosher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there are some cases where things other than eating are prohibited - namely, in the case of mixing milk and meat, cooking and deriving benefit (e.g. selling) are also prohibited.

      So, uh, having sex with the pig is not forbidden?

  15. Errrrr by Tensor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If a living being has a human heart, a human liver, and human kidneys ... is it closer to pig or human ? i mean, when do we stop ? wouldnt it be "easier" to just have a replacement human with say, no brain (so its not "really" a clone) living assisted by machines waiting for its parts to be harvested ?

    I am having a kind of matrixy vison rite now, only its humans that own the storage facility.

    Scary

    1. Re:Errrrr by Thomas+M+Hughes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe its acceptable to harvest pigs for organs, since we already harvest them for food. Since we're willing to butcher them and eat them, there shouldn't be any ethical objection to butchering them for parts.

      On the other hand, we don't eat humans. And somehow, I don't think it would be economically viable to start breeding humans with pig organs, so we could eat them. Thus, you've run into a mental block that people will associate with the progress of growing humans for parts.

      Now if you suggested breeding pigs with human organs simply for consumption, you'd probably be forbidden by law, on the grounds that its too much like cannibalism.

      Basically, if most people would consider eating it, its acceptable to farm and butcher it for whatever purpose you like, especially if it helps humans. On the other hand, if you don't normally eat the thing, I wouldn't suggest trying to use it as a host for organs.

    2. Re:Errrrr by BoBaBrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wouldnt it be "easier" to just have a replacement human with say, no brain (so its not "really" a clone) living assisted by machines waiting for its parts to be harvested?

      That's pretty much what this is, but instead of using expensive, complicated machines to keep the organs alive we use cheap, simple pigs.

      --
      I am a Karma Library.
    3. Re:Errrrr by Dusabre · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't be easy to seperate the 'conscious' parts of the cortex from the non-conscious ones that regulate the body's functioning. Its not like stripping a kernel of instructions...

      As far as the Matrix is concerned, ever seen a battery farm? They make the Matrix look like a real heaven (BTW kind of nice of the machines to give us a dream world to live in and even manipulate instead of just putting everyone into a coma).

    4. Re:Errrrr by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 4, Funny

      On the other hand, if you don't normally eat the thing, I wouldn't suggest trying to use it as a host for organs.

      I don't normally eat pork, though.

      I can't see them harvesting a chicken or turkey for human body parts, though.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    5. Re:Errrrr by Thomas+M+Hughes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chicken and turkey's aren't mammals, which is probably part of the reason you can't see them harvesting them for human organs. Furthermore, they have size considerations that pigs do not. You probably could picture a cow being used to grow organs though, but I believe (with no substantiation) that pigs are closer to humans then cows.

      Besides, I'm a vegetarian, so I don't eat pork either. But the fact that I don't doesn't change society at large, and the fact that they eat pork.

    6. Re:Errrrr by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm a vegetarian

      Well, then I guess they're going to have to grow your organs on trees and bushes, huh?

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    7. Re:Errrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well. I for one am not willing to butcher and eat them (anymore). I might or might not take up hunting in case it were neccessary to ensure my survival, but I don't see that happen. You have a point though in that "harvesting" pigs for organs (such euphemisms) isn't _more_ gross than "harvesting" them for food. Still pretty gross, though. Oh, well. I hate my species.

    8. Re:Errrrr by alexburke · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can't see them harvesting a chicken or turkey for human body parts, though.

      Well, one could be of some use if you ever needed a replacement cock.

      (Sorry.)

    9. Re:Errrrr by BoBaBrain · · Score: 1

      (Score:5, Insightful)

      Excellent! Score one for ridiculous oversimplifications and a complete disregard for the article. :)

      --
      I am a Karma Library.
    10. Re:Errrrr by tuxedo-steve · · Score: 2
      Now if you suggested breeding pigs with human organs simply for consumption, you'd probably be forbidden by law, on the grounds that its too much like cannibalism.
      Damn you conservatives! How the hell am I going to find out if it tastes like chicken if you keep dashing all of my attempts on "moral" grounds?!
      --
      - SMJ - (It's not just a name: it's a bad aftertaste.)
    11. Re:Errrrr by g4dget · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If a living being has a human heart, a human liver, and human kidneys ... is it closer to pig or human?

      Pig. Even if you managed to have a pig brain in an otherwise human body somehow, the result would still not be human. We don't know exactly what makes us human, but we do know that most of whatever it is resides in the brain.

    12. Re:Errrrr by vinlud · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if you don't normally eat the thing, I wouldn't suggest trying to use it as a host for organs.

      I suggest to use whale organs for Norwegian and Japanese transplants! That should teach them a lesson :P

      --
      Repeat after me: We are all individuals
    13. Re:Errrrr by alexburke · · Score: 1

      Some insight if you don't get the pun.

    14. Re:Errrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pigs also have the additional advantage that you can feed your enemies to them, chopped up in pieces. Which can't be said of brain-dead zombies.

    15. Re:Errrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ths pigs grow faster. You want to wait 18 years after your car accident for a replacement liver to show up? And this is only scary to little fluffly pusswimps. ;-)

    16. Re:Errrrr by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      no, it would not be easier.....a pig reaches maturity much much faster than a human....you would not want to have to use a heart that still needed to go through puberty to transplant to an adult.

      pigs are faster and similar enough bio-chemicly that they are perfect blanks to house human organs that grow and develop inside them.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    17. Re:Errrrr by uncoveror · · Score: 2

      They can grow meat on trees and eggs on bushes, so I guess organs aren't that far off. One potential problem is that plants feel pain, but few vegetarians ever stop to consider that.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    18. Re:Errrrr by maniac1860 · · Score: 0
      wouldnt it be "easier" to just have a replacement human with say, no brain
      Yea. We already have that. They're called "women".

      Ha ha. I joke. I joke.
      (No really, I was serious. Just don't tell anyone.)
    19. Re:Errrrr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's pretty much what this is, but instead of using expensive, sanitary environments, we use cheap, filthy pigs.

  16. Yeah, sounds fascinating and all... by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 2

    but if you were living off an organ from a pig, how could you honestly ever eat bacon, pork, ribs, etc. again? And honeslty, is life really worth living without bacon and ribs?

    1. Re:Yeah, sounds fascinating and all... by mythr · · Score: 1

      And honeslty, is life really worth living without bacon and ribs?

      Yes, it is. Just substitute a steak whenever you want pork. It's better that way, believe me.

    2. Re:Yeah, sounds fascinating and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but if you were living off an organ from a pig, how could you honestly ever eat bacon, pork, ribs, etc. again?

      With a knife and fork.

  17. This begs the question. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What's better?


    (a) a Human DNA in Pigs project


    (b) Sex with a mare


    (c) Sex with a sow

  18. great, we're all doomed by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 1, Troll

    Despite my name, I am not a fan of genetically modified pigs. We are tampering with nature in ways where we do not know the long term consequences. There are several reasons I shall list of why using pigs as 'organ farms' is not a good idea.

    1) Nobody knows what might happen if these pigs somehow were released into the wild. A new species of 'super-pig' could potentionally cause wisespread damage if they escaped captivity.

    2) Pigs are dirty, they typically roll in their own feces. This is not an appropriate animal to use for 'human' organs.

    3) Using Pigs in such a fasion is inhumane. Nobody knows the pain these pigs could live with because we have set off certain gene sequences we should not have.

    4) Pigs are not kosher, and Jewish or Moslems would not be able to benefit from these advances. That's alienting 1/5 of the planet right there from being able to benefit from this.

    5) We are tampering with God's work. Pigs were created perfect the way they are, as are we. Toying with genes is tampering with God's perfect work and SHOULD not be done under any sane principals.

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    1. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous+Cowrad · · Score: 1

      You should have ordered that list differently.

      While you make some valid points, it's hard to take anything seriously after the Beware the SuperPigs! part. By "damage" you mean the ecological kind, but the first thing that I pictured was SuperPigs smashing up our skylines, godzilla style.

      You've got to admit, that would be pretty cool in some ways.

      --

      --
      pants ahoy
    2. Re:great, we're all doomed by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 1

      well obviously I did not mean super pigs in the superhero sense. I meant pigs that were genetically superior to standard pigs and could wreck havoc on the environment.

      --
      GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
    3. Re:great, we're all doomed by mythr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      4) Pigs are not kosher, and Jewish or Moslems would not be able to benefit from these advances. That's alienting 1/5 of the planet right there from being able to benefit from this.

      If they don't want to benefit, they don't have to. It's not their decision what other people do, though. We don't ban the use of antibiotics for bacterial infections just because a few people might have religious beliefs against them.

      5) We are tampering with God's work. Pigs were created perfect the way they are, as are we. Toying with genes is tampering with God's perfect work and SHOULD not be done under any sane principals.

      We are God's work as well. If He did not want us to do this, he should not have made us capable. That's assuming He exists, but we'll stay away from that argument for today. Also, I don't think you can describe a pig as perfect. They do, as you mentioned earlier, roll around in their own feces.

    4. Re:great, we're all doomed by mythr · · Score: 1

      I don't think it likely that a pig with human organs would be superior. Pigs are meant to work with pig organs. Running a pig on human organs may work for a little while, but I doubt that it's a long term or evolutionarily sound solution. One could probably compare it to overclocking.

      Just a thought.

    5. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "2) Pigs are dirty, they typically roll in their own feces. This is not an appropriate animal to use for 'human' organs."

      Who knows that a human donator have done...? And in that way is a pig more dirty than other animals?

      "4) Pigs are not kosher, and Jewish or Moslems would not be able to benefit from these advances. That's alienting 1/5 of the planet right there from being able to benefit from this."

      There loss if they follow some ancient traditions that in the world of today, with friges and freezers, don't have any substance.

      "5) We are tampering with God's work. Pigs were created perfect the way they are, as are we. Toying with genes is tampering with God's perfect work and SHOULD not be done under any sane principals."

      lol!
      And if we where perfect we would not need to transplant organs...

    6. Re:great, we're all doomed by blowhole · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Beggars can't be choosers!!! If you're on your deathbed, choose religion or choose science. Why must religion always try to impede progress?

      --
      "Ask me about Loom"
    7. Re:great, we're all doomed by pyrote · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) the book "The Island of Doctor Moreau" comes to mind

      2) I've seen people with less cleanliness than these pigs

      3) so the suffering of the human who knows that another human MUST die for them to get better.

      4) so are flu shots Kosher? they are based on egg protiens...and I doubt they are blessed.

      5) so throw away your glasses, contacts, pacemakers, heart bypass surgery, vaccinations...I don't see in the bible (or any other religious text) where it says: "Thou shalt not genetically modify pigs so you can make replacement parts for humans"

      I'm religious, and I've been taught that these animals have been put here to help mankind. even in genesis it talks about man having dominion over the animals. I'd have a problem if they said, "sorry we need to make a Mini-me of you and then kill him so you can live".

      There comes a point when you just have to get off the pulpit.

      --
      THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
    8. Re:great, we're all doomed by Guppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Pigs are not kosher, and Jewish or Moslems would not be able to benefit from these advances. That's alienting 1/5 of the planet right there from being able to benefit from this.

      IANAJ (first time I've ever used that particular acronym!), but I believe there is a doctrine which states that the importance of a human life far outweighs any of the kosher requirements -- for instance, it would be okay to eat pork if you were starving and that was the last item of food you had left. I imagine that a pig organ transplant would fall into the same classification.

      As for muslims, IANAM ;), and I don't have a clue to boot.

    9. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quote: Pigs were created perfect the way they are...

      Yeah? If you think they're so perfect, what do you have against them rolling in their own feces?

    10. Re:great, we're all doomed by Ilan+Volow · · Score: 2

      That doctrine is called Pekuach Nefesh, which states that barring idolatry, adultery, or murder, actions that are otherwise prohibited by jewish religious law are permitted when they are necessary for saving a life.

      I'm pretty sure that islam also allows for extenuating circumstances in dietary law when life is at stake.

      --
      Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
    11. Re:great, we're all doomed by StormyWeather · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dear sir, you may find that trolls such as yourself roll in their own feces when crammed in a tight pen crowded with a hundred other trolls with no other place to do number 2. Pigs do not typically wallow in their own feces unless forced to by the condition of their entrapment. They are truely no more "dirty" than any other critter in the wild, in fact many people that own them as pets will argue they are cleaner than domesticated animals. And no I'm not a vegetrendian, but I don't delude myself with your drivel either. I'm an omnivore, and that's unlikely to change. WHO DOES NUMBER 2 WORK FOR?? YOU TELL NUMBER 2 WHO'S BOSS!!

    12. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I am a Muslim, and there is a rule that says we are allowed to eat pork during certain desperate situation, to save our life, for example. However, the decision by these researchers to use pigs in the first place, was not made during during desperate times. I mean, knowing that we would have a particular problem with it, why didn't they choose e.g. apes, in the first place? And I don't buy that argument about pigs' physiology being closer to human being than other animals. I think there's a conspiracy to undermine our beliefs and make us seems like backward, unprogressive, unreasonable, fanatic etc. because we don't want to accept pig organs as transplant.

    13. Re:great, we're all doomed by DEBEDb · · Score: 3, Insightful
      5) We are tampering with God's work. Pigs were created perfect the way they are, as are we. Toying with genes is tampering with God's perfect work and SHOULD not be done under any sane principals.


      What of the breeding of dogs, cattle, etc. that humans have been doing for centuries? A poodle
      is a result of genetic engineering too.

      --

      Considered harmful.
    14. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok for your sister...!!!

    15. Re:great, we're all doomed by Guppy · · Score: 1

      "Well, I am a Muslim, and there is a rule that says we are allowed to eat pork during certain desperate situation, to save our life, for example. However, the decision by these researchers to use pigs in the first place, was not made during during desperate times."

      Well, I suppose from the viewpoint of the researchers -- but that burden should fall on the researchers alone, and not on a terminally ill patient.

      "And I don't buy that argument about pigs' physiology being closer to human being than other animals. I think there's a conspiracy to undermine our beliefs and make us seems like backward, unprogressive, unreasonable, fanatic etc. because we don't want to accept pig organs as transplant."

      Pig organs are about the right size and shape, plus they breed and mature fast. More importantly, they are one of the few domesticated farm animals that meets that criteria. A big reason it has to be a farm animal is that it blunts potential animal rights arguements, because we slaughter them for food anyway.

      I don't know, maybe there are alternatives amount the other food animals, goats or sheep might be the right size, but I just don't know enough about their physiology to say.

    16. Re:great, we're all doomed by Nazmun · · Score: 2, Informative

      We (muslims) can't eat them in normal cases... But if we are deprived of food in a certain situation and we are about to die then we can eat pig.

      Surgery shouldn't be a problem.

      --
      Hmmm... Pie...
    17. Re:great, we're all doomed by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      We are God's work as well. If He did not want us to do this, he should not have made us capable. That's assuming He exists, but we'll stay away from that argument for today. Also, I don't think you can describe a pig as perfect. They do, as you mentioned earlier, roll around in their own feces.

      But these evil thoughts have been fed into our minds by Satan, or at least that's the excuse I get everytime I make exactly the same remark to a believer...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    18. Re:great, we're all doomed by BreakWindows · · Score: 2

      We are God's work as well. If He did not want us to do this, he should not have made us capable.

      Well, that's wildly inaccurate against every major religion I've studied (though I don't practice any). Generally, we'd view this the same as nuclear bombs....God giving us the ability to do this, and hoping we're not stupid enough to actually do it. Give us the option to make a moral choice, and see if we make it. It's a lot easier to thin out the herd of people going to heaven if you let them avoid it when it's their time to go. ;)

      That's assuming He exists, but we'll stay away from that argument for today.

      Well, "god" does exist, it's just up to the individual to decide whether or not it's some guy sitting on a cloud, making a list of who's naughty or nice.

      Also, I don't think you can describe a pig as perfect. They do, as you mentioned earlier, roll around in their own feces.

      That's only something that is imperfect to humans. It isn't harmful to a pig, and actually provides benefit to them. For a pig, that is perfect.

    19. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Nobody knows what might happen if these pigs somehow were released into the wild. A new species of 'super-pig' could potentionally cause wisespread damage if they escaped captivity.

      This is a joke, right? Please tell me you are kidding. Have you been watching too many cartoons? Was Porky a "super-pig?"

      2) Pigs are dirty, they typically roll in their own feces. This is not an appropriate animal to use for 'human' organs.

      So do many Democrats, Arkansasites and other wrestling fans. What's your point? ;-)

      3) Using Pigs in such a fasion is inhumane. Nobody knows the pain these pigs could live with because we have set off certain gene sequences we should not have.

      "Set off" gene sequences? Have you been watching too much Star Trek?

      4) Pigs are not kosher, and Jewish or Moslems would not be able to benefit from these advances. That's alienting 1/5 of the planet right there from being able to benefit from this.

      All hail separation of church and state. Please keep your childish, immature fairy tales to yourself.

      5) We are tampering with God's work. Pigs were created perfect the way they are, as are we. Toying with genes is tampering with God's perfect work and SHOULD not be done under any sane principals.

      All hail separation of church and state. Please keep your childish, immature fairy tales to yourself.

    20. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A poodle is a result of genetic engineering too.

      Definitely to be listed along with the great failures of science. ;-)

    21. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what I think? You're a fundamentalist nutball. Super pigs..someone's been watching too much FOX. Which is -probably- against your regime of crazy religious practices to begin with.

    22. Re:great, we're all doomed by pctainto · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, a human heart was not what set human's apart from other animals. The fact that a pig has a human heart doesn't make him smarter. How could this make him a 'super pig.' Unless you think the heart is actually where emotions start, in which case the pig with the human heart would probably start killing other pigs...

      Pigs are dirty? Last time I checked, the fact that I am muddy doesn't make my heart muddy

      --
      I think my principles are reachin' an all time low
    23. Re:great, we're all doomed by Pxtl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While there are justafiable fears about GM pigs, you missed them all. Here are the fears that actually have some basis in reality.

      - GM pigs have both pig and human organs in them. This means that pig diseases will "learn" to infect human organs. This will result in pig diseases crossing the gap into the human world, possibly bringing new and dangerous plagues to us. I don't want hoof and mouth disease.

      - Humans carrying GM organs can do the same thing. Any human carrying a GM pig organ should not eat pig mean - from a biological perspective, it is very close to cannibalism. While cannibalism is morally wrong for a variety of good reasons, there are good biological reasons it is wrong to. Mainly, eating food of your own biology sets you at risk for every disease that is festering in that corpse - diseases that would not be able to infect you if you were eating a more alien animal (like a chicken). The fact that pigs are already close to human biology is both why the research is possible, and why pork is never served rare (or at all to some religions). Being that much closer raises the risk even higher.

    24. Re:great, we're all doomed by f97tosc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) Nobody knows what might happen if these pigs somehow were released into the wild. A new species of 'super-pig' could potentionally cause wisespread damage if they escaped captivity

      No.

      2) Pigs are dirty, they typically roll in their own feces. This is not an appropriate animal to use for 'human' organs.

      No. Having a dirty skin does not have any impact of the quality of the organ.

      3) Using Pigs in such a fasion is inhumane. Nobody knows the pain these pigs could live with because we have set off certain gene sequences we should not have

      Pigs that are used for food are treated very poorly, and go through great pains. If this really is a concern of yours, start by balking at that problem, which affects many orders of magnitude more pigs.

      4) Pigs are not kosher, and Jewish or Moslems would not be able to benefit from these advances. That's alienting 1/5 of the planet right there from being able to benefit from this.

      Is this a representative attitude of yours? If something cannot benefit everyone, then it should not be done? If such logic had been widely practiced we would still live in caves.

      5) We are tampering with God's work. Pigs were created perfect the way they are, as are we. Toying with genes is tampering with God's perfect work and SHOULD not be done under any sane principals.

      Pigs, the way they are, were created by man, through millenia of genetic manipulation (specifically, selective breeding). Sorry, the harm has already been done.

      Tor

    25. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

    26. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) Pigs are dirty, they typically roll in their own feces. This is not an appropriate animal to use for 'human' organs.

      I agree. The FDA should require that they only ever transplant fully cooked pig organs to avoid infecting people with trichinosis.

    27. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are tampering with God's work

      All technology is "tampering with God's work". Why isn't using a furnace tampering with God's seasons? If God wanted it to be warm in the winter he wouldn't have made snow, right?

      The Kosher argument has already been addressed (it's a non-issue). I don't know about the Muslim viewpoint.

    28. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same argument holds true in Judiasm.

      Both religions realize that without life, there is nothing, so preserving one's life comes first.

    29. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, God just wants to fuck with our minds, if you believe these fruit loops (the believers).

      God knows all and everything is planned by him, but somehow 'Satan' is not included in God's great plan... umm, what? Exactly what definition of 'omnipotent' are you brain dead people using?

      I mean, sure, people have a right to believe in God or the Bible (or perhaps even both), but don't try and push your views as rational.

    30. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, "god" does exist, it's just up to the individual to decide whether or not it's some guy sitting on a cloud, making a list of who's naughty or nice.

      I don't understand this comment. It's not even the slightest bit possible that there is no God, no overseer, no greater consciousness? The universe is just something that happens to exist, for no apparent reason? You say this CANNOT be POSSIBLE?

    31. Re:great, we're all doomed by swillden · · Score: 1

      God knows all and everything is planned by him, but somehow 'Satan' is not included in God's great plan... umm, what?

      Actually, Satan is an integral part of God's plan. There would be no point to the whole exercise if there were no tempter. That would be like a multiple-choice question with only one option.

      I mean, sure, people have a right to believe in God or the Bible (or perhaps even both), but don't try and push your views as rational.

      If a one's beliefs are consistent both internally and with external observations, then they are rational, whether they include God or not. In fact, believers are more rational than serious atheists, since the believers at least have some observation upon which to rest their belief, even if that observation is purely internal and not independently reproducible by a skeptic, whereas atheists assert the negative without a single shred of evidence. Arguably, agnostics are the most purely "rational" here, but they also take some hidden assumptions on faith (I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover these).

      There are plenty of believers who are very rational people -- certainly more rational than you, given your obvious tendency to dismiss out of hand notions that disagree with your own.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    32. Re:great, we're all doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright then, bacon butties all round!

    33. Re:great, we're all doomed by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      whereas atheists assert the negative without a single shred of evidence.

      That's a pretty radical view imo, and very subjective indeed. This statement is clearly made from the point of view, and that an atheist as such is understandable, yet wrong. Perhaps some of us simply don't care, or tend more towards the agnostic approach, or are simply of the opinion that even if there is a higher being that spoiling your sunday sitting in a cold building listening to someone who has no clue whatsoever is not exactly what that higher being had in mind...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    34. Re:great, we're all doomed by swillden · · Score: 2

      That's a pretty radical view imo, and very subjective indeed.

      Not radical at all, it's just the plain meaning of the word atheist. What exactly are you saying is subjective? The definition of atheist? Or my assertion that' there's not a single shred of evidence of the nonexistence of God? The first is a matter of definitions, the latter is a matter of objective evidence. No subjectivity here.

      Perhaps some of us simply don't care

      That is certainly your prerogative, but if you don't care, why even bother talking about it? However, I'd say that from a purely rational point of view, Pascal's argument is a good reason to care, even if it's not sufficient for belief.

      or tend more towards the agnostic approach

      Which, IMO, is the most logical position. However, an honest agnostic should probably be interested in researching the question, again based on Pascal's argument.

      or are simply of the opinion that even if there is a higher being that spoiling your sunday sitting in a cold building listening to someone who has no clue whatsoever is not exactly what that higher being had in mind...

      Which makes the unfounded assumption that the someone you're listening to does not, in fact, have a clue. How do *you* know if they do or not? (Actually, there is a way, but I'll bet that you don't know it). I'll grant that I'm automatically suspicious of anyone who is personally profiting from the word of God, since there's an obvious ulterior motive that has nothing to do with my eternal welfare.

      Oh, and some churches do believe in heating :-)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  19. Hmm....kinda funny :) by carlmenezes · · Score: 4, Funny

    A guy with a heart problem caused by cholestrol getting a heart that came from a fat pig!

    --
    Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
  20. Stemcells by e8johan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does this mean that a doctor can extract stem cells from me, clone a genetically designed pig with a suitable spare part for my body and then make a transplant without any complications and added toxins to prevent my body from rejecting the organ. In that case it sounds great

    How do they address the issue that most cloned animals turn out sick, I don't want a sick organ in replacement for my allready sick organ!

    1. Re:Stemcells by guybarr · · Score: 4, Interesting


      I think you're a little confused here:

      cloning == creating an organism with a DNA identical to a source DNA

      transgenics == implanting DNA from one specie to sperm, eggs or fertilized egg from another specie.

      If I read the article correctly they are doing transgenics, not cloning.

      also, the article does not say anything on stem cells.

      You seem to be interested, but not knowledgeable, for a very good basic biology book I recomend Keeton & Gould.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    2. Re:Stemcells by e8johan · · Score: 2

      I know the difference between cloning and what they do, but the principle of designing (cut'n'paste or just plain copy-all) to build DNA which is inserted into an egg and grown in a creature gives the same problems. You cannot guarantee that the outcome will be healthy, even if it looks good, it will probably differ in some way from what was intended and is therefore more likely to develop some sort of diseace or dysfunction as a consequence from this.

      Is an organ developed using transgenetics likely to be healthy? That is what I'm trying to ask!

    3. Re:Stemcells by guybarr · · Score: 2

      You cannot guarantee that the outcome will be healthy, even if it looks good, it will probably differ in some way

      this is what's science is all about: instead of being afraid the result will be different "in some way" the researchers are actually finding out the problems and dealing with them one by one.

      Is an organ developed using transgenetics likely to be healthy? That is what I'm trying to ask!

      healthy compared to what ? A person needs a transplant when the original body-part has serious malfunctions. Compared to a malfunctioning liver (you'll die in 3 days) a transplant which will kill you in a year is a blessing.

      BTW, human-origin transplants also raise problems (life expectancy of transplant recievers is much shorter than for normal people)

      always take the ratio-nal approach.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    4. Re:Stemcells by e8johan · · Score: 2

      this is what's science is all about: instead of being afraid the result will be different "in some way" the researchers are actually finding out the problems and dealing with them one by one.

      I'm open minded about this kind of research. I just don't feel ready to have one of these alpha-testing organs put into me.

      healthy compared to what ?

      If you know that the organ will give you, perhaps a year, then it is good. Do we know that? Do we know that the pain and struggle to recover from a transplant is worth something (a longer life, not just longer pain). I'm just trying to point out the problems with the technology. I truly hope and wish for the to succeed to make custom transplants without problems a reality. That would be a huge step forward!

      As for problems with human-origin transplants, I think that I mentioned that in my original post...

    5. Re:Stemcells by guybarr · · Score: 2

      I'm open minded about this kind of research. I just don't feel ready to have one of these alpha-testing organs put into me.

      This kind of testing is not done on healthy people. If you get to the stage you'll acutely need a transplant, you'll probably change your mind.

      If you know that the organ will give you, perhaps a year, then it is good. Do we know that?

      How do you propose we find out without testing it on human being ?

      I'm just trying to point out the problems with the technology

      Donald Knuth, which is a much smarter man then me, and possibly you, once said in a different context: "premature optimization is the root of all evil"

      pointing out potential problems in future technology is analogous: it is, IMHO, much better to try and see.

      --
      Working for necessity's mother.
    6. Re:Stemcells by e8johan · · Score: 2

      In cloning experiments (copy the DNA from one being into an egg and let it grow - just to be clear) *most* results are in some way defect. I interpret this as this technology not being ready for use. I believe that the people that suggest that this technology is used now are a bit too optimistic. In the future, with more refined techniques though, I think that this is a solution to the lack of transplant organs.

      As for determining how long a grown organ will last I suggest cloning and transplantations on animals to refine the DNA replacement technolgies. This has to be done until the probablility for each organ to be good (or a method to measure how good an organ is) is good enough. As we know, transplants today are risky, so we need at least that probability of success before trying. We will never reach 100% though, so there will always be a risk involved.

      I don't believe in Mr.Knuth or you being more or less "smart" than I am. I suppose that Mr.Knuth knows more than any of us in this area, since that is his expertice. I believe that I know a fair amount of computer architecture and software design and implementation, but I have a grasp of general sience and I utter my opinions in areas where I don't know the whole truth. Sometimes I utter my concerns as questions to state that I want to gain knowledge, but even when I don't, I still want to learn from the discussion that arises.

      I do not want you to judge me as an opposer to new technology, but rather a realist. I work as an engineer, developing new technology, and I feel that it is important to verify that a technology works before appying it to real cases. Just pointing at possible hazards is not "premature optimizations", it is discussing areas that might need attention before the technology is actually used.

    7. Re:Stemcells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, for your information, Donald Knuth very likely doesn't know much about this area... he's a computer scientist.

  21. ive seen this movie by NO_NYT_POSTS · · Score: 0

    i think it was called 'Planet of the Pigs'...or something close to that.

  22. Excellent ! by Tensor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait ... there is NO WAY all that glorious foods come from the same animal ... who do you take me for ?

  23. Interesting.. by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

    One organ transplant and a plate of pork chops to go please!

    --
    Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
  24. Only a matter of time by BoBaBrain · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm really not surprised by this. pig genes are very similar to other genes.

    --
    I am a Karma Library.
    1. Re:Only a matter of time by BoBaBrain · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you think the above comment is just a bad joke, you should have a quick read of this article...

      --
      I am a Karma Library.
  25. Re:swine sperm by computechnica · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a movie where a country bumpkin dressed up a sweet little swine in a bikini and OO-la-la

  26. For years, they've been toying with this idea... by drblunt · · Score: 1

    If I remember properly, at least. I've been reading about it in the agricultural papers for several years, about how pigs would make the perfect organ carriers, etc. How interesting that they finally carried through with something. Hmph. Well, at least a pig's got personality, and personality goes a long way...or was that a dog?

    --
    We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
  27. ethics, ethics, life by sickmtbnutcase · · Score: 1

    This opens a whole can of worm on ethical issues. You can look at it that pigs will die just to help people out and that the pigs will have no choice to die and to just be raised for organs. For all you animal rights wackos out there, think of it this way: If your friend, brother, sister, father, etc... is going to die, and they say the only way for them to live is to raise a pig with a new organ for transplant, I'm sure you'll want that important person to live. Pigs aren't very unique, granted some are pets and they can be one of a kind, but your brother, sister, mom, so on is a very special one of a kind person that you could never replace with just any other human. So, think using your heart, not using ethics when thinking about something this.

    1. Re:ethics, ethics, life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I prefer to think with my brain and logic vs my heart, I do agree with you.

      Within reason, a human has more to offer than a damn pig does.

  28. Not nearly as efficient... by bravehamster · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why genetically alter these helpless swine? Poor people are a perfectly good source of human organs, and the rejection rates are much lower. Lets try and save the pigs to make the bacon that necessitates the heart transplant that makes me strangle that bum down on 2nd Avenue. It's called the Circle of Life, folks.

    --
    ---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
  29. Here Piggy Piggy Piggy! by MrNybbles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, we use to get insulin straight from pigs so why not a whole pancreas?

    Now if they harvest organs from these pigs with human DNA, does that mean we can't eat the leftovers without being cannibals?

    --
    Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.
  30. Makes you really wonder... by The+Impossible · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... when do pigs fly ...

    --
    ... Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
    1. Re:Makes you really wonder... by Jugalator · · Score: 2

      ... when do pigs fly ...

      They already can, silly!

      Pigs entering atmosphere

      And in other news:

      Dead pigs fly from truck, almost hit minivan

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Makes you really wonder... by MrNybbles · · Score: 2, Funny

      Caution: Really dumb joke ahead.

      What happens when pigs fly?

      Bacon goes up!

      You have been warned.

      --
      Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.
  31. Re:I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no no no... they gave up their claim to any form or semblance of humanity at the time they graduate from piggy school.

  32. this is not a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    although I don't agree on the God's work point, there are 4 perfectly valid points in this post. It is surely not a troll.

  33. This is hardly news... by Arcaeris · · Score: 5, Informative

    I can't believe this story was reported here, let alone even on MSN.

    Essentially, what these guys did was find a way to add a gene into a pig by messing with the sperm. This technique can't be used for removing genes, and can't replace genes. They can only add genes.

    So they added DAF, because they say it helps fight rejection. Great. That is still a pig heart/liver/kidneys that you would be getting. There are lots of reasons that you can't transplant organs, including but not limited to:

    1) Marker proteins. Your body won't even take organs from other people, let alone pigs. You'd have to replace pig markers with your own, which they cannot do.

    2) Other surface proteins. They think they can ADD genes to do stuff to combat the sugars that pigs have on the surfaces of their cells. No removal, just throwing some gene for creating a suppressing chemical into the mix.

    3) Cell morphology/DNA. Pig DNA is not human DNA. Pig cells are not human cells. Pig cells expressing "human genes" are closer, but when these cells replicate, when you get a virus, when something goes wrong.. what's gonna fix it? How do we know what will happen? Your body isn't built to have weird cells throw into it - that's why it destroys them. They have a long way to go before they even understand just membrane/cell surface reactions, and yet they wanna throw them into people.

    To quote: "Lavitrano said that five to seven other pig genes will need to be silenced or replaced by human genes before useful organs could be harvested from the animals."

    So tell me, how is this really news? The headline should have read "Scientists develop new but limited method for gene implantation." It's been done.

    1. Re:This is hardly news... by Guppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Essentially, what these guys did was find a way to add a gene into a pig by messing with the sperm. This technique can't be used for removing genes, and can't replace genes. They can only add genes."

      Even if you can't replace genes with this method, you may be able to do the functional equivalent. For instance, add the new gene, and then add a gene which counteracts the original (antisense, targeted ribozyme, RNA silencing, etc.). So it's entirely possible that you could knock out or replace the marker proteins and sugar-producing pathways. There are an awful lot of them, of course -- but no one ever claimed this would be easy.

      "Cell morphology/DNA. Pig DNA is not human DNA. Pig cells are not human cells. Pig cells expressing "human genes" are closer, but when these cells replicate, when you get a virus, when something goes wrong.. what's gonna fix it? "

      An obvious observation, of course pig!=human. As for the rest of this, you're a little fuzzy on just what exactly your concerns are. Now, "when these cells replicate", I imagine they should in the course of normal tissue repair and turnover. Are you referring to the possibility that cells will migrate out of the transplant (resulting in microchimerism)? Such a thing could cause some rejection problems, but that's really a minor case compared to the big rejection problem of the whole organ. I would be more concerned about the possibility of porcine immune cells hitching a ride with the organ -- that's a real concern (Note: There shouldn't be enough to cause any sort of GVHD, it's more of problem with increasing rejection risks). There are ways to deplete immune cells, though, I think some of them have been tried (in human organ transplants).

      As for the virus, I will assume you mean the problems of introducing possible porcine viruses. For most viruses, you can raise the animals in isolation, and then screen them before/during/after. However, there is one exception -- Porcine Endogenous Retrovirus (PERV -- yes, that's the acronym). I believe it's present in the genome of just about all pigs. It's been a topic of a great deal of research, and for a time it caused an FDA ban of all xenografting trials (since lifted). Although PERV doesn't seem to be able to spread in humans, I imagine that if we could knock out a dozen other genes from the pig genome, we could probably knock out the viral sequence too.

      "How do we know what will happen?"

      How about finding out by the empirical method?

      "So tell me, how is this really news? The headline should have read "Scientists develop new but limited method for gene implantation." It's been done."

      I'll agree with you here, it's another case of an attention-grabbing sensational headline.

      -Guppy

    2. Re:This is hardly news... by nerdfunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      not to mention the possibility of cross-over disease. . one of the biggest (and scariest) causes of new disease is the development of a virus previously only viable in a non-human host, to the point that it can now take up board in a human host . . how can they prevent a previously un-sequenced pig virus from finding a way into the cells of it's cosy new human host? short of breeding sterile pigs with built in anti-viral encoding protiens or something :/ there was an episode a few years back where they transplanted babboon livers into two hepatitis patiens, both of whom died from the combination of 4 'hidden' viruses. . . one of which is homologous to HIV . . if they hadn't died so soon this could have caused a major epidemiological event with a new strain of HIV possibly entering our society. . i for one don't want such a direct new pathway for virii being opened up, that's for sure. . .

    3. Re:This is hardly news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your body won't even take organs from other people, let alone pigs. You'd have to replace pig markers with your own, which they cannot do.

      Am I the only one who thought of making an emulator so the organs will work? Yes, I need sleep....

    4. Re:This is hardly news... by constantnormal · · Score: 3, Informative

      Quite a number of diseases exist because they can exist in animal populations, crossing back into human populations every now and then. We get a number of new diseases this way anyhow. Ever hear of HIV? Originated in monkey populations, made its way into the human population. How about Swine Flu? Hoof and mouth disease? Mad Cow disease? It's hard to think of a disease that lives solely in human populations -- because we can wipe those out.

      This isn't really an insidious "new" way for diseases to come about - it's the rule rather than the exception.

      And while it's probably the researchers' number one concern, it's not a reason to abandon the line of research, only a reason to exercise appropriate caution. You might feel differently about this if you were awaiting a transplant.

    5. Re:This is hardly news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "I would be more concerned about the possibility of porcine immune cells hitching a ride with the organ -- ..."

      I would also be concerned with contaminating porcine stem cells creating microchimeras.

    6. Re:This is hardly news... by schlach · · Score: 2

      Jared Diamond made the argument in Guns, Germs, and Steel that all major epidemics (small pox, plague, etc) have arisen from our close association with domesticated animals (mainly pigs, dirty SOBs). The lack of domesticated animals by the New World population was the reason he cites for the one-sidedness of the spread of epidemics to/fro the European invaders.

      Which makes sense, I guess, if you figure that evolutionarily we could handle our own microbes and infectious organisms well before we started domesticating other animals ~ 9000 years ago. We couldn't handle the infectious organisms they showed us (so much). And it's been nothing but good times ever since.

      Who knows what lies in wait for the future? Without having precisely all the facts, I'm predicting that every recipient of a pig-grown organ will one morning wake up in a mindless trance, stumbling around attacking humans and mumbling "braaaaaaiiinnns" until bludgeoned or shot in the head. There was a George Romero documentary about something similar in the 60s...

    7. Re:This is hardly news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, its news to me, because I hadn't heard of it. Just because its not a solution for cancer/aids/world hunger, doesn't mean its not news. Stop being such a pedant.

  34. So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My only question is when the aliens start using people to grow alien parts in. Or wait, thats why they steal all those cows.

  35. Nose/Snout transplant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want a nose transplant so i can have a snout and scoff down my slop bucket quicker.

  36. More info at NewScientist by SHiFTY1000 · · Score: 5, Informative
    There is a NewScientist article on how a new technique is 25 times more efficient at inserting DNA into an organism, making "home-brew" genetic engineering within the realms of possibility...

    Quite an interesting article, despite the usual newscientist hyperbole: "The technique is very easy - you could do it on the farm." Umm yeah whatever.

    1. Re:More info at NewScientist by jericho4.0 · · Score: 2
      Genetically-modified animals can be created simply by washing sperm, swishing it in a centrifuge with an additional gene, and using the altered sperm for artificial insemination, say Italian researchers
      Hmmmm. Sounds pretty simple to me. In the article they say the key is to remove all the interferon-1 from the surface of the sperm, and that they had a 57% success rate. Of course, there's always the problem of getting the gene to insert in the first place.
      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  37. Yes, but... by Associate · · Score: 1

    How many asses does it have?

    --
    Someone hates these cans.
  38. "you swine!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would take on a whole new meaning

  39. how close is it? by pyrote · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Question at this point is... having pigs so close to human DNA does it constitute canibalisim if you have bacon at breakfast? let alone the crap McDonalds sells for breakfast...well I guess that may as well be.

    --
    THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
    1. Re:how close is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      What's so interesting about cannibalism anyway? Unless someone cares, such as the creature (pig, human) being killed in the process or their friends, it's meat. To liberalize this a little, the uhmm "size" of the consciousness/feelings/blahblah vanquished for food should matter more than genes. Is it cannibalism to eat a chimpanzee? Is it cannibalism to eat that left hand of yours that you just chopped off in self-disgust? I know, I'm not making sense. Just feeling like people in general (and not you-the-poster in particular) are a wee bit too cynical or cold-blooded or something.

      Cowardly apologies

  40. hehehe by Tensor · · Score: 2

    hehehehe ... good point :)

  41. question by diamond0 · · Score: 1
    They say "all men are pigs", is this one step closer to us becoming men again?

    TIA.

    --

    --
    There is no hatred more pure and true than that expressed by children.
  42. potshot by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Pigs with human genes? Isn't that the republican party?

    --
    "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
  43. Size and quality of external organ... by Cheese+Cracker · · Score: 5, Funny

    In the future we transplant horse and rabit genes into the human race...
    No more need for vacuum pumps or viagra... Isn't the human race
    heading for eternal happiness?

    1. Re:Size and quality of external organ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the future we transplant horse and rabit genes into the human race... No more need for vacuum pumps or viagra...

      ...which would make me horny as heck, hung like a stud and _still_ without a gf, due to lack in basic communications skills. And how exactly is this supposed to improve my happiness? :-(

    2. Re:Size and quality of external organ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      In the future we transplant horse and rabit genes into the human race...No more need for vacuum pumps or viagra... Isn't the human race heading for eternal happiness?

      I think it will socially backfire when you winney in the middle of it.

  44. Pigs wirh human genes.... by minghe · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...sounds like my neighbours.

    --
    ...um...like...a sig...
    1. Re:Pigs wirh human genes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know how to get some of 'em. Drive like a motherfucker and they'll come right after you...

  45. Old News! by GroovBird · · Score: 3, Funny

    My girlfriend has been telling me for years that I'm a pig with human genes!

    Dave

  46. He doesn't need pigs here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That criminal still has all the money needed to silence (or buy) any media other than his TV stations and newspapers/magazines, then win another couple of elections by "popular choice".

  47. Other way round... by mseeger · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think the other way round (humans with pig genes) has already been implemented successfully. At least i met some cases in which this would offer a perfect explanation.

    Martin

  48. Irksome side-effect for transplant recipients-- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Overwhelming urge to root for truffles.

  49. Sausages anyone? by legomad · · Score: 1

    Human pork?

    1. Re:Sausages anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hunan human pork?

  50. Quotes by Nept · · Score: 3, Funny

    After reading this story, I noticed that this was the current /. qotd:
    "It's interesting to think that many quite distinguished people have bodies similar to yours. "
    ah.

    --
    "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
  51. not to koshur by buswolley · · Score: 1

    Is it cannabalism to eat these pigs???

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  52. alien cell recognition == rejection by magwm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All cells in the body carry on their outer membranes molecules that identify them as being part of the body. now finding all these genes, cloning them all into pig cells AND removing all native pig recognition molecules would be the way to go, WERE IT NOT that the pig itself would not be viable 'cause its own cells are not recognized anymore. any slight amount of alien molecules left causes a massive attack of the host immunologic system (white blood cells etc). it is possible to overcome this _PARTIALLY_ by weakening the immunosystem with chemicals.

    I reseached the possibilities of pig organ usage for transplantation.. believe me, it might be possible some day, but that day is WAY ahead of us.

    the alternative of growing new organs from stem cells (ie programming from the ground up) is up to now a much more promising than modifying pigs (ie patch core components of a massive _unknown_ project while porting it to another OS)

    my 2 eurocents

  53. Imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine having a stallion's organ

  54. They're all ready doing that.... by candylilacs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Scientists are creating organs from genetic material, basically growing organs from part bodies. I don't know the logistics, but I'm sure they'd love to be able to create a part human with only a brain stem so we can harvest away.

    They want to do that to us all right now. You have a "donor" on your driver's license, don't you?

    There is surprisingly little that keeps unscrupulous people from harvesting people like us instead of using a human without the ability to speak or gain consciousness.

    Those reared in a laboratory don't have pesky families that would appear on television.

    c.

    1. Re:They're all ready doing that.... by DEBEDb · · Score: 2

      By the same logic, omigod, we should really
      be afraid - they are eating pigs! We are next!

      --

      Considered harmful.
  55. Sorry, my pig is a friend! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, my pig is a friend!

  56. Potential Cannibalism Concerns... by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 3, Interesting



    So.. Anyone care to wager how long it takes for a clerical error to allow one of these pigs to interbreed with a normal one, and produce offspring that ends up in your hotdog?

    Oink!

    Cheers,

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

  57. So, whats on the menu? by tobo · · Score: 1, Funny

    Would you rather eat a human with pig genes, or a pig with human genes?

    What about a carrot with human genes?

    I am getting really hungry! I love science!

  58. you might, I don't by DrSkwid · · Score: 1, Troll

    Since we're willing to butcher them and eat them, there shouldn't be any ethical objection to butchering them for parts.

    I'm not willing to butcher them & 'harvest' them for food any more than I could stick a gun in *your* ribs and harvest your wallet.

    But it no surprise that a society that doesn't treat all of it's citizens with dignity would come up with such an horrific idea.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:you might, I don't by DohDamit · · Score: 2

      I'm betting you'll sing a different tune when the continuation of your life depends on such "horrific" ideas.

    2. Re:you might, I don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm betting that you have friction burns on your penis after excessive, endless bouts of beating off.

  59. So a which point is a pig just a pig? by pg133 · · Score: 1

    If you add enough human genes, don't the pigs start to have rights, human rights.

    So a which point is a pig just a pig?

  60. When Pigs Fly by cybermage · · Score: 2

    I'm surprised they haven't tried to give pigs wings. Who here hasn't been told, atleast once, that they'll get what they want when pigs fly.

  61. Wouldn't it just be easier... by mraymer · · Score: 1
    Why don't we find a way to transfer human minds into machines, then transform ourselves into a race of perfect, immortal machines. Think of the advantages! No more need for organs! Mwa ha ha!

    Err... umm... hey, anyone else notice that CowboyNeal is on a roll? Five stories in a row! Is there any reason that he isn't listed in the Hall of Fame with the other /. authors?

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

  62. Oh, my major histocompatibility complex is .... by ketamine-bp · · Score: 1

    going to be compatible with a pig's one? I have a obvious question - isn't genetic modification on sperm only result in ONE pig growing organs histocompatible with exactly ONE person only? oh well...

    Or did they completely eliminated the MHC gene?

  63. Scientists create Vegetarian Organ Transplant! by Guppy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Besides, I'm a vegetarian.

    Newsflash --

    In other news today, scientists have created an artificial tofu-based organ, utilizing genetically engineered soybeans. The resulting organs are said to be whitish in color, and quote -- "rather soft and squishy, but low in fat and cholesterol free."

    However, not all are pleased with the development. Vegetable rights activists have condemned the move as a violation of leguminous rights, pointing out that the modifications could inflict pain and suffering to the bushy crops, while Environmentalists and Anti-GMO protestors brought up the danger that the genetically engineered plants could spread out of control, leading to giant mutant soybeans roaming the streets, ravishing our daughters, and voting republican.

    Other critics have more practical concerns. Said one scientist, "We haven't fully researched the possibility that vegitransplantation may introduce foreign viruses into the human population. My god, what would happen if the soybean leaf-spot virus were to break into the human population? What's more, the synthetic organs are bland and tasteless."

    The research team countered, however, that most humans don't have leaves. "Besides, the organs will adsorb flavors from whoever they're transplanted into."

    It is unknown when the organs will be suitable for use in humans. However, scientists believe they are already suitable for use in Spicy Ma-po Bean Curd and Buddha Delight Combo #6, pending approval by the FDA and Ming's Peking Imperial Inn.

    --by Jesse Chang

  64. well... by PierPush · · Score: 1

    ...italian power... that's it!

  65. Point of view ... by KecCu · · Score: 1

    Are these creatures pigs with human organs, or humans with the skin of a pig?

  66. One step closer to the KissMammal by KillThemALL · · Score: 2, Funny
  67. pig organs could eventually be better by g4dget · · Score: 2
    So far, they haven't made anything transplantable. But with enough genetic engineering, it should be possible to make pig organs that are less likely to be rejected than organs from most human donors.

    The reason is that with pigs, they can really delete, add, or replace whatever genes they like; obviously; with human donors they obviously can't.

  68. A new breed of superpigs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..."Please don't eat me. Oink."

  69. Actually... by jonr · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I know a lot of people who seem to have pig genes in their brains & hearts.

  70. well... by MoonRider · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... some humans have a lot of pigs genes, so why not ?

  71. Odds on this being shot down by the+grace+of+R'hllor · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Way back, a Dutch bull had been genetically engineered, so that his offspring would produce milk with a number of human proteins. Proteins normally found in human mother's milk, Lactoferrin. This would be a possible cure for rheumatoid arthritis, among other things. Including a treatment for some forms of cancer, as I recall. This was Herman the Bull. Eventually, his offspring remaining in the Netherlands was destroyed, and Herman was made infertile. One of the reasons was lack of money and funding.

    Couple that with people's attitudes towards cloning, and what kind of chance do half-human pigs have?

  72. human cloning for organ transplants by g4dget · · Score: 5, Interesting
    wouldnt it be "easier" to just have a replacement human with say, no brain (so its not "really" a clone)

    Probably, although it wouldn't involve machines. One way this might work is as follows. A doctor would take a sample of your DNA and place it into an egg, creating a clone. That egg can be carried by a surrogate mother, or possibly implanted back into you (eggs can develop pretty much anywhere). When the organ that is needed has started to form, the embryo is removed, the developing organ is removed from the embryo, transplanted into you, and the rest of the embryo destroyed. When the transplanted organ has matured, your original defective organ is removed.

    Some organs might need to develop long enough that it becomes a concern whether the developing embryo has some kind of higher brain activity. In that case, the doctor could make sure that the embryo develops without higher brain functions--it would start out ``brain dead'', roughly the same way at which we already harvest organs.

    Where does one draw the line ethically? Hard to say. I find it difficult to see why human cloning should raise significant ethical problems as long as the clone does not develop higher brain functions.

    1. Re:human cloning for organ transplants by ziriyab · · Score: 2
      That egg can be carried by a surrogate mother, or possibly implanted back into you (eggs can develop pretty much anywhere).

      This is not intended as a flame, but the fertilized egg/embryo will need the uterus to grow and develop. As far as I know an artificial womb has yet to be designed that will supply the blood vessels and surface markers needed for an embryo to attach and develop, and I don't know of any other part of an animal that can be stimulated to act like a uterus. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

      I do agree with you that there shouldn't be ethical issues harvesting organs from brainless humans. Our brains, after all, are what make us who we are.

    2. Re:human cloning for organ transplants by g4dget · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is not intended as a flame, but thefertilized egg/embryo will need the uterus to grow and develop.

      No, it doesn't. A fertilized egg will implant pretty much anywhereit can get a reasonable blood supply. The uterus is mainly there toprotect the mother. Women actually occasionally give birth via cesareansection after ectopic pregnancies, it just is pretty risky.

      Even if carrying to term is very risky, if properly planned, it seems plausiblefor a man to be able to carry a cloned embryo ectopically without too muchrisk. Women, of course, can just use the more usual place to carrytheir own clones.

      An artificial uterus is difficult to make pretty much because an artificialbody is difficult to make. However, it is quite conceivable that anotherresult of genetic modification in pigs or other animals will be that animalscan carry human babies, with all sorts of interesting implications for humanevolution (no constraints on human head size anymore, for example, and allsorts of complicated constraints on human female evolution removed as well).

  73. Will the pig not reject them? by nofx_3 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Anyone out there think that maybe if we make the pig organs too human like, the pig may start rejecting them. Now that would be a P.R. fiasco, pigs rejecting their own organs due to human tampering, I wish the provided more info on this aspect in the article.

    --
    Visualize Whirled Peas
  74. It's a simple solution by skurk · · Score: 1

    and it doesn't involve cruelty or experiments with animals, and it's called "donor cards".

    --
    www.6502asm.com - Code 6502 assembly or.. DIE!!
  75. Finally by carcosa30 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Man, pigs with human hearts, who'd have thought it.

    I never expected genetics to solve the problem of police brutality.

    --
    Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
  76. So.... by ath0mic · · Score: 1

    does eating bacon now make me a cannibal?

  77. What about diseases? by Jan+Venema · · Score: 1

    This would be excelent material for viruses to cross genetic boundies. We already have BSE, AIDS who knows whats next?

  78. And man descends from apes? by tobo · · Score: 0, Troll

    By suggesting that pigs have actually descended from humans you have forever hurt my religious beliefs. Lots of bad karma for Slashdot. Lots and lots and lots of bad karma for Slashdot!

    Next you will start publishing wicked evolutionary communist propaganda that Darwin was actually right. I shall ban my wife and kids from reading Slashdot immediately.

    When Slashdot becomes Sodom and Gomorrah the wrath of God will be so strong that even Stallman cannot lead you to the promised land of better open source software.

  79. The big news is this GM method is EASY by Evil+Pete · · Score: 3, Informative

    Check this article in New Scientist. The researchers have found a way of increasing the effectiveness by a factor of 25 , and it is so easy that the technique could be done on a farm. Incredible. Smells like a revolution to me.

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  80. A Feminist Field Day! by erroneus · · Score: 2

    First I'd like to comment what a cool thing this is. This is one more politically correct step to extending human life. Those moves are hard enough to find, let alone make possible. Politics be damned.

    Now on to my attempt at being funny:

    This is also one more step to extending the argument that "men are pigs." I knew it would be said, so I wanted to be the first to say it so it would appear to be original.

    My first reaction was to make some comment about being kosher, but then I don't give a rat's ass about that whole god myth and I care even less for it when it causes droves of people to violate their own religious law. (Killing for God is okay?)

    Damnit... I don't feel funny at all... I think I'll go back to sleep...

  81. Another white meat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is it as tasty as chicken?

  82. Animal Farm by Fortyseven · · Score: 1
    "No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs.

    The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

    Heh.

  83. My mother-in-law... by MacOS_Rules · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... I'd dare say my mother-in-law qualifies, without even having surgery.

    What, oh yeah, sorry. Gut reaction. :)

    --
    If a man's character is to be abused there's nobody like a relative to do the business. -Thackeray, William
  84. Can you imagine... by distributed.karma · · Score: 2

    This comment was generated by a Herd of Transgenic Pigs for distributed.karma (566687).

    --

    --
    If you moderate this, then your children will be next.

  85. No? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have two words for you: Resident Evil

  86. This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    belongs on theonion, IMO :)

    LOL!

  87. Human genes for pigs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My gene have a 36" inseam, and I think the legs would be a bit long for any pig.

  88. PERV's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The pig retroviruses are quite lethal and can cross the species barrier. One of which alters the chromosomal DNA of the male sperm and is passed on via mating. If this passes to humans we're all in deep shit after 3-4 generations (120 yrs or so). Xenotransplantation is funded in part by large pharma companies utilising their new rejection therapies. The push is huge and the controls are few.

  89. Already done in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a close look on the next speach from the White House ;-)

  90. Pigs in jeans? by sporty · · Score: 2

    Why would you wanna put a pig in human jeans?

    Sorry :)

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

  91. Yum! by orthogonal · · Score: 2

    Yum! GOOD EATING!

    Pete's Pig Roast is now seating Donner Party of five... er, four!

  92. In Related News... by gspeare · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...law schools report a sudden unexplained surge in applications.

  93. Closer to designer babies? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 2

    If this technique turns out to be applicable to human sperm, it seems like it would be used for creating designer babies (with all the ethical issues that might cause).

    If you know that the parents have a genetic defect which will be passed to their children, it seems only logical to try and fix that genetic defect at the earliest possible stage of development.

    Of course, if the technology becomes "reliable", I could see vain & shallow parents asking for specific hair/skin/eye colors, "make sure they're athletic gods", etc.

    And how about the possibility of extending the telemorase cap of the fertilized cell? At some increased risk of cancer, you might be able to extend the kid's lifetime to some obscene length of time (if the telemorase length is the only cell division "counter").

  94. It's about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lunch time and I need a bacon transplant.

  95. Damn Hippies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    save a plant, eat a cow

  96. Yes! I'm not the only one! by mary_will_grow · · Score: 1

    I knew i couldnt be the only one manipulating swine sperm.

    --
    Why stick up for big business?
  97. Bacon? by DSL-Admin · · Score: 1

    Hmm...... Bacon, or Heart? Bacon, or Heart? What a choice.... I think it would be a good thing that way all of the animal will be used, although you might start getting urges to eat from a slop bucket and squeal alot... (sounds like my ex)

  98. So what? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2

    There are plenty of people who, by the way they act (and look), definitely got pig genes!!!!

  99. Pigs with human genes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a name for that. It's called French.

  100. Other concerns: viruses by SilverLuz · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There are huges issues in the feasibility and "is-this-a-good-idea" departments that have been discussed, but I'd like to touch on one (large) caution that I haven't seen mentioned.

    Pigs, like many species, have a large number of resident viruses, particularly retroviruses. They and the pigs are well-adapted for each other, and the pigs show little to no ill effect. Some of them are likely so benign to the pigs that we have no idea that they're there. (Indeed, many of these are revealed only by genetic analysis.)

    But then what do we want to do? Stick a pig organ in Grandma to save her life, or at least prolong it for a while? So, we've got a person who was unhealthy to begin with, we introduce dozens of foreign viruses directly into the body, and, to top it all off, we completely suppress the immune system so that the organ isn't rejected. I'm not sure that I can even imagine a a scenario more favorable for a virus to make the species jump. And if one did, you can bet that we wouldn't have much natural resistance to it...

    1. Re:Other concerns: viruses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, as long as noone has sex with your Grandma, we should be okay.

  101. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  102. Hannibal (TM) Brand Bacon & Ham by gabec · · Score: 2

    if we were to fry these guys up... would that make us cannibals?

    1. Re:Hannibal (TM) Brand Bacon & Ham by Dutchmaan · · Score: 2

      We already have it... "OLD FOLKS SAUSAGE" It's gooooooood!

  103. but furthermore... by phaderphox · · Score: 1

    Upon the replacement of your heart/liver, you can have an excelent meal of ham, pork chops, and so much more!

  104. I'll take some of their genes, please... by tswinzig · · Score: 2, Funny

    Like the ones that give them half-hour orgasms...

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  105. Old news again by dogfart · · Score: 1
    Once again /. gets news AFTER it happens. Mixing human and pig genetic material has been around for a while - in fact one of the early experiments ended up as a roommate of mine.

    Not a very neat fellow by the way.

    --

    "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

  106. Re:For years, they've been toying with this idea.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I saw something about this on TV, too. Kramer found a pig-man at a hospital.

  107. Call in Duke Nukem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's Duke Nukem when we need him?

  108. rejection - what about creating new diseases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There have been countless of fatal diseases that haven't touched humans due to the differences in dna. However, if we are now blurring the line between pigs and humans could these new pigs contract our diseases or vice versa. Pigs are not exactly clean animals, and our protien farms are far from sanitary.

    Something to think about.

  109. No by Nept · · Score: 2

    this was more of a segfault piece, imho

    RIP

    --
    "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
  110. Pigs With Human Genes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like your typical slashbot.

  111. Why not blood? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think they should create a pig that creates O+ and every other type human compatible blood. Then we could have farms of blood donor pigs. The red cross could setup this ultra sterile facility just for harvesting blood.

    As for the organs, I think this is a great step forward in being able to save peoples lives. However, my preferred method would be to grow cloned organs in vats. I think it would be cool if you could pay a company and they would take a blood sample from you and make a whole bunch of organs and put them in the deep freeze so when you need them, all the doctor has todo is make a phone call and ta-da, a copy of your existing heart shows up in 3 hours.

    In a more far fetched idea...keeping with the idea that you could in the future transfer your brain to a computer, you could start cloning a copy of yourself and when the clones ready, transfer your essence into the new body! Though, how you could go the other direction really isn't clear.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:Why not blood? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a great idea.. until superior beings decide to do the same to us. Hopefully they will be more ethical about exploiting less intelligent life forms than we are.

    2. Re:Why not blood? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 2

      Of all the things that are done to pigs, I would think taking blood from them would be the least... In order for pigs to be used as blood donors, they'd need to be well fed, well taken care of, gee sounds alot better than ending up as a link of jimmy dean saugage if you ask me!

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  112. So, soon WE WILL be the other WHITE MEAT? by wwwssabbsdotcom · · Score: 1

    Hmmmm. Interesting.

    --
    Relive the BBS Past - One Byte at a Time! www.ssabbs.com
  113. Life imitates art: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two legs good.
    Four legs better!

  114. Baaaad by maydog · · Score: 1

    Farmers have been attempting to do this with sheep for years - or maybe they were just lonely.

  115. How is this any different from GM food? by theophilosophilus · · Score: 1

    I find it odd that people think having a GMO body part inside them is a good idea if it saves their life but they wont eat GMO food even if they are starving to death. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/zam bia020902.html

    --
    Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
    1. Re:How is this any different from GM food? by Drawkcab · · Score: 1

      Did it occur to you that people aren't a monolithic group with identical opinions? Not everyone protests GM food, and certainly not everyone supports GM organ transplants. The people who can't afford food without massive aid aren't going to be able to afford any kind of organ transplant surgery anyway. And the people who protest GM food will for the most part protest GM organs even more loudly.

  116. breakfast this morning. by fruity1983 · · Score: 1

    I ate my bacon with some fava beans, and a nice Chianti.

    --
    I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
  117. yeah this is old hat, just a reverse. by guest12 · · Score: 1

    humans with pig genes been around for centuries.
    look around you.

  118. Obligatory Kramer Pigman remark by bobobobo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Jerry when will you open your eyes! That the federal government has been splicing pig DNA with that of a human. Pigman I saw him! I wandered into the wrong room. He was just waking up from a nap when he saw me and let out this horrible yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer!

  119. I can hear it now by PalmKiller · · Score: 1

    I got my pig heart a few years ago and it works fine, but my wife just had twins, and one looks kinda like a pig.

  120. Yum, long pig! by spun · · Score: 2

    I used to live in Hawaii. I wondered why Pacific Islanders liked Spam (the meat product) so much. They even make sushi out of it.

    My roommate told me that Spam was supposedly closest in taste to 'long pig.' In case you don't know what a 'long pig' is, YOU are long pig.

    Pacific Islanders supposedly like spam because it tastes like people.

    Now, I know this must be an urban legend. However, there may be another market for these modified pigs. If not Pacific Islanders, surely Goths and Satanists...

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  121. Re:Stop Screwin Around (Permit Stem Cell Research) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We shouldn't be bothering with this. We should be working to clone individual human organs (no rejection b/c it is 100% compatible). This has already been done in steers, now let's do it in humans (voluntary) instead of animals (involuntary).

  122. Sorry, prior art.... by dwater · · Score: 1

    Have they not heard/seen/read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:Restaurant at the End of the Universe?

    Tsk.

    --
    Max.
  123. And just in time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..for Halloween!

  124. A more likely scenario. by david_lewis3187 · · Score: 1

    So has anyone thought about the possibility that this technique could be used to say add Genes to people. if the requirements as far as lab equipment and time are so low and the rate of expression so high what's to keep labs from adding favorable genetic traits to humans. you to could the proud parent of the next generation of long distance runners or Olympic class weightlifters. Ask your self what are the simply must have genetic traits for the next generation you could be the envy of all the soccer moms on you block.

  125. This is wrong.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This animal will look like a pig, but deep in its heart it will be human...

  126. Humacon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, I'd be able to run around shouting, "Iiiiiiii'mmmmmmmmm BACON!!!!!"

    Humacon...the human bacon.

  127. Misprint by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

    I am sure that the correct title should be Humans with Pig Genes. The US Government has already done a study proving this a long time ago. So americans should be prety to take advantage of organ transplants from pigs any day now.

  128. Buon Giorno by DonGiaconia · · Score: 1

    Buon Giorno Miss Piggy, you are looking lovely today. :)

  129. Sez Eric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the words of Eric Cartman,
    "Nobody's splicing nothing with Fluffy!!!!"

  130. Immediate Application by SecretAsianMan · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    manipulated swine sperm to make an animal strain that carries human genes in the heart
    An immediate application may greatly benefit the offspring of politicians!
    --

    Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.

  131. We have those back where I'm from... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2

    We just call them "cops" around here.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  132. Would you say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  133. research link by mike3411 · · Score: 1
    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/222550299v1.pdf

    no google html version.... : /

    --
    Mod me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  134. Another idea? by Rlym_Sykorth · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be better to have synthetic organs made? You have more control over them and the are no ethical issues.