Slashdot Mirror
Hypo-Allergenic Cats Now Available for Pre-Order
humuhumunukunukuapu' writes "Allerca Inc is now taking reservations for genetically engineered hypo-allergenic cats, which it calls 'lifestyle pets'... and apparently they are just the beginning... Read the press release here... and you can take delivery of a cuddy non-sinus bothering bundle of joy for just $3500. 'The hypoallergenic cats produced by ALLERCA will allow consumers to enjoy the love and companionship of a pet without the cost, inconvenience, risk, and limited effectiveness of current allergy treatments. Clients will take delivery of the first ALLERCA kittens in 2007. The hypoallergenic cat is the first of a planned series of lifestyle pets that ALLERCA will develop over the next few years.' Meow!"
Who would want to own a cat?
Sincerely,
A Dog Person
</wishfulthinking>
Sigs cause cancer.
Wait until one mistake that turns these cute little kittens into Hyper-Allergenic.
On a more serious note though, I think everybody has her/his ideal world in mind, and this GE is offering the opportunity to achieve that.
However, like the old saying "One person's meat is another person's poison", I believe there is a reason for such allergy symptoms (maybe telling your body to get away from that bleeming cat?), and without this warning, I wonder if the still-allergic-to-cat person will suffer from far worse sickness because one of the cat allergens wasn't identified and removed?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
I, for one, welcome our new genetically-engineered cat overlords.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
...and you've still got to housetrain the bastard.
If only they'd genetically engineer fashion models to like nerds... Overweight fetishes are a plus.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
when owners start breeding from them and selling on the kittens??? Will there be a strict EULA that forbids the owner from breeding and that they must have them neutered at the first available opportunity???
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Call me back when they have lasers on sharks. Then I'll be impressed...
without the cost
RESTRICTIONS: 'Without cost' offer excludes $3,500 startup fee, prices and participation may vary.
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
video
We got a cat, it was free... we named it 1.
We did this for two reasons. First, if it has a number, we're less attached to it when the inevitable happens. Second, my wife was allergic to cats but we weren't sure how badly.
If we had spent $3500 on a cat, we're then somehow obligated to spend $4000 on feline coronary bypass surgery, $8000 on a feline tummy-tuck, and $3000 on feline counseling services.... Where does this end?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Cornish Rex
...are all "hypo-allergenic" breeds (don't produce dander).
Devon Rex
Siberian
Sphynx
From the site:
Priced at $3,500, the cost of an ALLERCA kitten is similar or less than some of the more exotic cat breeds available today.
Ummhh.. yeah.. But, it's a bit more than the "free kittens" we all see signs for throughout our home towns.
corporations genetically engineering my favorite foods.
For $3500, kitty better have at least 20GB of storage in her butt.
...dogs with dietary allergies.
Seriously, if you are that hard up for companionship, $3500 will pay for some nice hookers.
" I can make my cat like that with a shaver..."
r gy.htm
It's not really the animals hair/fur that is the most significant allergen, but rather their *dander*. (Dander is flakes of dead skin). Their saliva and urine can also cause an allergic reaction.
http://www.theallergyreliefcenter.com/animal_alle
From their site:
A glycoprotein, Fel d 1, secreted by the sebaceous glands, is the major cat allergen. This allergen is found in the fur, pelt, saliva, serum, urine, mucous, salivary glands, and hair roots of the cat.
Allerca cats will only lack one of the potential cat allergens... potentially deadly for people allergic to other proteins secreted by the cats. In addition, the gene silencing technique (I assume they refer to RNAi perhaps using siRNAs) cannot be guaranteed 100% effective--all it takes is one mutation.... More info about RNAi here and here.
However, as someone with moderately severe cat allergies, this is definitely a start.
--- "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." ~ Ben Kenobi, 'Return of the Jedi'
From the first hit on Google searching for cat gestation:
"Cats generally have pregnancies lasting from 58 to 65 days".
So the fact that the first one won't "ship" until 2007 is a bad sign. Anybody sending these folks money now, *please* contact me for a great deal on a bridge.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Homer - "I know, I'll breed the pets together. Soon, I will have a miracle hybrid with the loyalty of a cat and the cleanliness of a dog."
Totally useless.
How about a cat that doesn't shed, a cat that sleeps AT NIGHT instead of during the day, a cat that doesn't s**t behind the couch when you piss it off, a cat that is hairball resistant, a cat that doesn't care if the bowl isn't exactly full, a cat that can actually decide if it wants to be inside or outside (as opposed to wanting both simultaneously), a cat that views keyboards as natural preditors, a cat that will not release any "presents" in the house until said "gift" is completely DEAD, a cat that will actually kill said "gifts" that get into your house by other means, a cat that'll bring home USEFUL things instead of the typical birds, rabbits, mice, frogs... a new lawnmower would be nice once in awhile, or maybe some PC hardware - but no, it's always half-dead stuff.
THAT would be a cat worth a couple grand.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Yeah, I'm not buying it. Digging back, we find that Allerca claims to be owned by Geneticas. If we check out the other "companies" under that umbrella, we'll find Genequus, who claim to do horse cell banking and cloning. Yes, that's right. They'll sell you a clone of your horse for $100k. Discounts for 10 or more.
Another one, LifeARK, claims to be doing cell banking for endangered animals. They want donations, and they accept them through PayPal. Don't think so. A large company that was doing such work wouldn't deal with PayPal's onerous agreement and high fees. Especially not if their other divisions were dealing with large sums of money already.
ForeverPet does cell banking for companion pets. But they can't yet clone them. But another division can clone horses? Yeah, right.
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
The term 'hypoallergenic' is not meaningful in any scientific sense whatsoever.
The FDA states that "There are no federal standards or definitions that govern the use of the term 'hypoallergenic'." Back in 1973, they tried to establish definitions for the use of the term hypoallergenic, but the regulation was overturned in court.
A little bit of googling returns this
It's a nonsense marketing claim, with no scientific standard or basis. People can be allergic to anything... even themselves.
---
the pen is mightier than the sword, the sword is mightier than the court, the court is mightier than the pen.
Of course, the only truly free cat will be free-as-in-willy....
Note that all the research, work, effort, and awareness programs directed at both cancer and allergies focus on drugs to control the conditions rather than prevention of the condition. The reason for this becomes apparent when you note that the majority of the funding for the cancer and allergy research comes from polluters.
The obvious step would be to reduce pollution, but somehow that doesn't get mentioned in any cancer or allergy literature. I wonder why...
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
funny but I take you haven't met my mom, who, although not a cleaningless freak, did keep a spotless house and encouraged me to learn proper hygiene from an early age :-)
The more I think about this the more I wonder if the prevalence of carpeting as a flooring material here in North America is to blame for the much higher incidence of allergies, as where I'm from pretty much everybody has marble/tiles/cotto/hardwood floors and basically nobody has carpet.
Also since it's not customary at all to have visitors remove their shoes, people tend to wash their floors at least daily, where people here probably wash their carpets once a year (if that much).
-- the cake is a lie
'Fraid not. Comparing the amount of the population in a city with relatively low pollution like, say, Stockholm (Sweden), with a relatively dirty one, say, Krakow (Poland), you'd expect the number of allergies to be far higher in the more polluted city. This turns out not true. Allergies are much more common in the modern "Western world" than in, for instance, the old "East block". And this even though there is a much higher percentage of coal used in heating homes, industry pollution levels are higher, and cars are generally older and typically generate worse exhaust. Just stating pollution as a factor doesn't make sense.
What is reasonably clear from a research perspective, however, is that growing up in a spotlessly clean environment makes you MORE susceptible to allergies. It seems better to be subjected to (a reasonable amount of) "filth" than to none at all. Unless, of course, you DO develop an allergy - in which case spotlessness is more or less your only option.
What I would personally like to see, is more research focused on this simple fact - what factors are different between the "richer" and the "poorer" societies - is it the chemicals we use to clean our homes? Or could there be some correlation with the kind of food we tend to consume?
I just think there's a lot we don't know here...
'Fraid not. Comparing the amount of the population in a city with relatively low pollution like, say, Stockholm (Sweden), with a relatively dirty one, say, Krakow (Poland), you'd expect the number of allergies to be far higher in the more polluted city. This turns out not true. Allergies are much more common in the modern "Western world" than in, for instance, the old "East block".
Good point. Another interesting datapoint is the much lower rate of allergies in crowded, dirty Asian cities (these cities have decent healthcare, so it's not like allergies are underreported). Also, Asians (at least South Asians) seem to have much lower rates of nut allergies, hayfever allergies, etc.
I just think there's a lot we don't know here...
I'd love to see some research on the correlation between 'cleaner societies' and immune systems development.
Go somewhere random
Tell me about it. When I had a couple, I was still here in California :).
:). Cops don't seem to study much biology...
I must have told about a dozen different cops in San Francisco that Felix the little albino fert was a rat
I'd have fun with everybody else though.
One time I'm standing at a streetcorner waiting for the light to change, Felix poking his nose out of my jacket, and this guy next to me says "cool rat!".
"Yeah, he's a nice rat, but I got him from some kids that abused him. It was horrible."
"Really?"
"Yeah, they built a rack in their basement and stretched him!"
"What? No, nobody stretched your rat!"
"Yup - see, check it out!" as I pull his foot-plus-long skinny bod out inch by inch as the dude completely freaked out...:)
I once read a study (my bookmarked link seems to be dead) that reviewed most of the studies on cancer preventative diets. You know the fish oil/olive oil/red wine/etc. reports. The researchers pointed out that all of the reasons each of these foods had been studied was because they were primary dietary components of groups of people with low cancer rates, compared to American society. When they started correlating factors the big commonality they found was that most of these societies used an extremely low amount of preservatives in their diet, with almost no artificial preservatives consumed at all. Through the data gathered by the other studies, and logical explanation of how preservatives work and the effect they probably have when induced into a living organism, they were able to convincingly postulate that what may be driving the high incidents of cancer in the western world, particularly the U.S., could be the massive amounts of preservatives the typical "modern world" person consumes over their lifetime.
At the time this was published there was quite a bit of talk about it on some of the research biology mailing lists. One of the students working for the main researchers posted some comments that the grant request to study the possible harmful effects of artificial preservatives had been turned down by their university. One of the reasons given was that the ability to preserve food for long periods was essential to modern food distribution methods, and if preservatives ended up having to be banned or heavily regulated as cancer causing agents it could mean mass starvation and worse health problems from food spoilage. To date I still have not seen any large scale or in depth studies on the cancer causing potential of artificial preservatives when taken in large quantities over a period of years.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar