Slashdot Mirror
Allergy-Free Kittens Produced
An anonymous reader writes "San Diego-based company, Allerca, said that using a technique known as genetic divergence, it has 'bred the world's first hypoallergenic kitten, opening the doors and arms of millions of pet lovers for whom cuddling a cat has, until now, been a curse ... After identifying the genes of kittens with proteins that provide less of a reaction in humans, they selectively bred litters over several generations to end up with an allergy-friendly super cat.' The company says its customers are expected to take delivery of their $4,000 hypoallergenic kittens in early 2007."
oops, they forget to mention the lawsuits against the owner, no actual product scientifically tested, and the expose done by local San Diego TV.. I'll take two..
This comment is guaranteed*
*not guaranteed
How exactly is this Your Rights Online? unless said $4000 cat is a blogger, it has nothing to do with online as i see it.
Why would you pay $4000 for a kitten that could be dead if only one person masturbates?
OMG Kittens!
I'm sure they will be delivering them spayed and neutered. But for my $4000, I'd want one that had all its parts... And if one got out into the wild, would they pull a "Monsanto" (Monsanto demanded and got fees from farmers who ended up with genetically altered crops from cross polarization, not because they planted them)
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Wouldn't it be much easier to just have a Bonsai Kitten? No mess, no fuss, no allergies. And you can store it neatly on the shelf.
I.O.U One Sig.
Ceiling cat is watching you
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
It would be nice to play with a cat without being miserable. However, I think we should be trying to breed healthy and smart pets instead of designer stuff like this. I'd rather have a smart mutt than one that is stupid and gets sick all the time. Yeah, I realize my ideal pet could be considered "designer". Also, YRO??
This smells like a troll, but what do you think different breeds of dogs and cats are? That's basically human genetic engineering.
Not to mention that dogs and cats are artificially created animals anyway. Dogs were 'manufactured' from wolves, and cats from (whatever that proto-cat was called that I'm too lazy to look up).
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I know the producers the genetically modified plants don't like people planting their proprietary seeds. Are people allowed to breed these genetically modified cats?
They aren't always going to cost $4000. Just at first.
Hasn't this been on Slashdot before, a few months ago?
You are correct, sir.
For someone who has grown up never having a cute,furry pet, this is something I strongly welcome. I have allergies to most things and cats are certainly one of them. There is the constant sense of envy as friends talk about what cute things their kittens have done or how proud they are that their cat has caught a few mice. You can't really say the same sort of thing about fish. Now don't get me wrong, I still care for my fishes very much but I guess that there isn't really the same sort of attachment you would get with a warm blooded mammal.
I would be willing to pay up to $4000 to buy such a kitten, for if I was to get a regular cat, I'd probably be spending as much in medication.
A link in that quote goes to a NewScientist.com article, which appears to have more details:
It's not right to use anti-allegery medicine. If being allergic is how you were made, then you shouldn't play God by taking it.
And while we're on the topic, something needs to be done about those people who use machines to add up thousands of numbers per second. Doing arithmetic on such a Godly scale, is just plain blasphemous and arrogant.
Then there's the people who think they can fly like gods, or move across an unnaturally-hard straight piece of ground faster than a cheetah, or breath while under water. Or kill other people at a distance far greater then the length of even a really long club. Or make music without any musicians appearing to be nearby. Or live in a cave-like habitat when there aren't any actual natural caves around. Some of the really arrogant ones, play God by drinking cold beer in spite of the fact that winter ended several months ago.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I've tried this in the past and this method seriously limited my quality of life. Most medcation that alleviate the symptoms are not without side effects. Would it not be better for all if these cats are made avaiable and people won't have to take medications. I mean, the cats wouldn't know they are geneticly engineered, so how would it possible affect their quality of life. If anything being such an expensive cat would mean the owners would take much care of it than if it was some little runt. I certain know if I was the owner of one of those cats, it would be spoilt silly.
So your problem is actualy with labs?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
You know, there's already a (possibly) hypoallergenic breed of cat from some russian genetic line ... they're cute, too.
So a data dog?
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
There are some side-effects to the genetic engineering process though, while the cats are both hypoallergenic and cute beyond belief, you must keep them out of daylight, you can never get them wet and you can never ever feed them after midnight.
They use traditional breeding, a technique that humans have been using for millennia to produce domesticated animals with desirable attributes. If anything, breeding cats to be hypoallergenic is more noble than usual reasons for selective cat breeding.
Furthermore, humans play God all the time. We have treatments for diseases (genetic ones even), shape the land, and create synthetic substitutes for fabrics, transportation, etc. etc. for stuff that isn't optimal. Even if they were to directly engineer the genome, it would follow in the grand tradition of humans not settling for what God provides us -- because it sucks.
Wouldn't allergy-free people be much more efficient?
You paid $200 for a cat to which you are allergic? You, sir, are pussy-whipped.
(all in humor, it was just too good to pass up)
Instead of pay $4k, go to a Siberian Forest Cat breeder and buy a kitten from them. This breed is claimed to be hypoallergenic because they contain low levels of Fel d1, meaning that if (like me) you are allergic to cats then you should have a fair chance of not being allergic to these. Note that all of the evidence so far is anecdotal, so you should give a visit to test your reaction to this breed first.
Some farmers sell their stuff for a premium because they are using "natural" methods for farming (don't recall the English term). They have certificates for that. If cross pollination caused your fields to be "infested" with GMO plants you lose that certificate AND you have to pay the patent holder a license fee for "using" their GMOs (while actually the producer or owner of the GMOs should have to pay you damages).
:D
Here in Germany the conservatives push to broaden patent protection on genetically modified plants and prevent GMO infestations from counting as damage (spewing FUD about alienating the GM crop industry without these changes) while the social democrats push for restrictions on patenting organisms and laws to prevent GMO infestations. The stances on genetic modifications for medical purposes are reversed, the cons want to outlaw that while the dems want to further it. I think the situation is the same in the US. That's one of the things you should factor in when determining who to vote for.
for the article: i have a kitten at home, never seen it having any allergies, got the kitten
for free from a neighbour and saved 4k$ appearantly
You got it the wrong way around, these kittens won't trigger a cat hair allergy a human may have.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I don't know about you, but i make the arduous trip to the other hemisphere, by foot, just to get my cold beer and not be sacrilegious. I am also a firm believer that these kittens were not genetically modified from any other kitten, but rather an individual creation by the oh so marvelous spaghetti monster. Ramen.
Why put "Not Show Quality" on the papers?
The hard truth of the matter is dogs, like cats, cows, horses and just about any other animal you're familiar with is the result of selective breeding. There was no such thing as a German Shepherd or an English Sheepdog until someone decided (hundreds or more years ago) on what they liked (or needed) and went about breeding the offspring to come up with the desired result.
Breeding, regrettably, requires a certain amount of inbreeding or you won't get where you want to go. That includes everything from nationalities, to the English Royal Family down to cats and dogs. And with inbreeding, problems are likely to crop up so the process has to be carefully controlled.
How that process is managed or controlled is a wide-open subject, but typically it comes to down breeder's reputation and abilities in conjunction with the established rules of various organisations (the AKC being one example in the dog world) to which the breeder belongs. Effectively, an animal that wins shows is prized. To show an animal, a full documented history of the animal has to be provided. No papers, no ability to show.
When a breeder decides to give or sell off an animal without papers, the effect of that decision is twofold; first, the new owner lacks sufficient information to successfully breed the animal; and secondly, the new owner is prevented from ever being able to show the animal. The reasons behind it aren't capricious. The breeder has simply determined that his line of animals would be negatively impacted if "substandard" animals were allowed to breed, and the breed, in general, would be negatively impacted as well. Keep in mind that "substandard" can include everything from appearance and temperament, to genetic defects (bad hips, heart problems, eye problems, etc.). If a person doesn't care about a breed, that's fine. The responsibility of the continuing existence and success of a particular breed, however, has to fall on someone's shoulders, and that someone is ultimately the breeder. Consequently, substandard animals are almost always sold spayed or neutered.
If you want to get last place in a show, that's just fine. Somebody needs to get last place. What is their problem?
"Last place" is fine, but I think you're speaking metaphorically. Animals like that don't belong in breeding programs or shows (agility shows, etc. are the exceptions), but can and do make great pets. And judging from what the typical person has as a pet, it seems oddball animals are indeed popular and loved.