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."

112 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. 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 macdaddy357 · · Score: 2

      Paging Doctor Frankenstein. Doctor Frankenstein to the operating room.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    3. 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.
  2. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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

    5. 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

    6. 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.
    7. 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!

    8. 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.
    9. 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. :)

    10. 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....

    11. 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.

    12. 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."

    13. 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
    14. 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?

    15. 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.

    16. 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
  3. Orwell ... by rosewood · · Score: 5, Funny

    One step closer to animal farm...

  4. 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.

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

    be sued for patent infringement?

  6. 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.
  7. 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 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.)

    8. 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.)
    9. 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.

    10. 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.
  8. 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?

  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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 ?

  12. 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.
  13. 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!
  14. 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.
  15. 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.

  16. 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 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.

    4. 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...

  17. 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
  18. 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"
  19. 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.
  20. 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!
  21. hehehe by Tensor · · Score: 2

    hehehehe ... good point :)

  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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?

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

    ...sounds like my neighbours.

    --
    ...um...like...a sig...
  26. Old News! by GroovBird · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    Dave

  27. 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

  28. 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
  29. 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.

  30. 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

  31. 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.
  32. 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

  33. 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!
  34. 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.

  35. 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

  36. One step closer to the KissMammal by KillThemALL · · Score: 2, Funny
  37. 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.

  38. 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.
  39. 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?

  40. 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).

  41. 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...
  42. 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.
  43. 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...

  44. 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.

  45. 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

  46. Yum! by orthogonal · · Score: 2

    Yum! GOOD EATING!

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

  47. 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.

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

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

  49. 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").

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

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

  51. 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...

  52. 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!

  53. 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."
  54. 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.

  55. No by Nept · · Score: 2

    this was more of a segfault piece, imho

    RIP

    --
    "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
  56. 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.

  57. 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 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.
  58. 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

  59. 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!

  60. 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
  61. 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!
  62. 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.