Slashdot Mirror
Hypoallergenic Cats
Lambticc writes "The BBC is running an article about how a US firm has successfully bred cats to reduce the production of the protein which causes an allergic reaction. Since the result was achieved through selective breeding, there should not be any complaints from the anti-GM lobby." From the article: "The cats will not cause the red eyes, sneezing and even asthma that some cat allergy sufferers experience, except in the most acute cases. Despite costing $3,950 (£2,104), there is already a waiting list to get one. Allerca first started taking orders for genetically engineered hypoallergenic cats back in 2004."
I hope they annoyingly patented what they did (though I don't get how to you specifically patent selective breeding), or the first two owners of frisky felines will put them out of business.
Maybe they'll sell one gender of cat?
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
As noted in a prior comment to Slashdot, I proposed this idea to Usenet in 1992 (link to Google archive of my original article included in my prior comment.) Of course, I'm tooting my horn, but Allerca actually did it. Good luck to Allerca.
Why pay that much for a cat when theres plenty of dogs out there that are already hypoallergenic.
Take the Basenji for example. It's hypoallergenic, doesn't bark, grooms itself like a cat, and dislikes water like most cats.
And while they don't bark, they do make a yodeling type of noise.
And, you can usually get one for quite a lot less than $4000.
Interestingly, it's a marketting term - it has no legal meaning per the FDA, which is why cosmetic companies feel free to use it; they are not saying you won't be allergic to this or that any FDA approved testing has been done. Yet people think it means something so they buy hypoallergenic products.
As one marketeer put it during a presentation - "My job is great - I sell a product that is 90% air and people pay a premium for it!!"
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
A torrent of anecdotal evidence claims that this breed, a more normal looking one, doesn't make allergic people wheeze and break out. On the other hand neither my allergist nor our late cat's vet has seen anything to confirm that in the professional literature.
They're also very expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_(cat)
Well, this is obviously good news anyway for people who don't want a Siberian.
1. Have you seen a Siberian? The Siberian isn't just another body shape or fur pattern, it's something as big as your arm. It's a _huge_ cat. It's bigger than some dog breeds. (And legends have it that some are also actually able to function as a dog, because at that size it feels a lot less threatened by someone human sized. So it _can_ defend its territory from a human, if needed. I wouldn't know if it's myth or not, though.)
Now I'm all for large cats myself, but I can also see why someone would want a standard 5 pound lap cat instead.
2. The Siberian isn't anywhere near allergen-free. In fact, no natural cat breed is, from moggie to lions and tigers. The Siberian does produce a lot less allergen, but for some people it's still too much. So producing cats with even less, would still be welcome news for a lot of people.
3. The Siberian only has less of the cat-speciffic protein. I.e., it won't help anyone whose allergy is to something else. E.g., someone with a generic allergy to fur, will still be just as allergic to the Siberian as to any other cat breed. Basically, if holding a rabbit or petting a dog also gives you an allergy, getting a Siberian won't help at all.
I don't know if this new breed addresses this third point, but it IS one area where improvement is possible.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
1. Dogs take big piles of steaming shit wherever they please. Every cat I've had finds an area of loose earth and digs a hole, covering it over after he has finished. A dominant unneutered tom may leave his faeces uncovered, but if you let such a beast roam free, you're an idiot.
2. The cat by its temperament is unlikely to attack a human, its natural prey being always smaller than itself; when outside its own territory, if it confronts a giant, it prefers to flee. The fox, a locally populous wild creature, exhibits similar properties, making it mostly harmless(tm). The wolf/dog, on the other hand, has evolved to confront prey its own size, thus has far more potential for aggression against humans.
3. The cat by its size is unlikely to cause damage to property.
3. As if this wasn't enough, the cat is not a pack animal like a dog, not considering its owner the pack alpha. The average dog (like the average human human, pretty much) is naturally subservient, which is why you can train it, and are responsible if your training fails. This may explain why, at least under English law, you have far greater responsibility for the actions of your dog.
6. Any sufficiently larger animal, human or otherwise, would show no qualms about killing me.
In summary, you get service from dogs, to whom you present orders, but companionship from cats, to whom you can only present reasonable propositions.
We have been "genetically modifying" animals through selective breeding for millenia.
It is not neccessary to introduce bits of cells (the narrow understanding of "GM") from other things to modify genes.
If agriculture was invented today, it would've been banned...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.