There's also an interview with Dr. Betsy Dresser, who very briefly talks about the work at the Audubon Center for Research on Endangered Species.
Other than clips of the cat, and Dr. Dresser, the video mostly shows people taking frozen samples out of liquid nitrogen, but there's an interesting bit towards the end where they show a pipette transferring material into the nucleus of an egg cell. Mr. Green Genes is certainly a cute cat.
Thanks go to David Ricks for sending links to the photos and video.
Huh, a genetic basis for Furry Raver art...
I think I'm just going to lie down over here for a while.
On a very similar note, PETA sent me a letter recently* discussing "genetic tinkering" with pigs. Specifically, "inserting jellyfish genes into the genetic code of pigs to make the pigs glow in the dark."
See the letter here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lloydm/2785901193/
*Don't ask me: I was flabbergasted when I saw it was from them... where do they get their marketing information?
Didn't PETA recently propose using human milk in ice cream?
Nothing they do surprises me.
Isn't GFP from jellyfish? I mean, isn't that exactly what was done with Mr. Green Genes (a cute name, I'll admit)? I'm not a fan of PETA, but I'm unclear as to why that statement about inserting jellyfish genes into pigs would surprise you, especially given the topic of the blog.
I'm not attacking you, so please don't take it that way. I hate that it's so difficult to relay emotional and behavioral cues in the digital world. I just really don't understand and am curious about your reaction. Would you consider elaborating?
Is this really and example of the subject "glowing in the dark" or is it an example of fluorescence under the influence of black light? Would the subject actually glow in total darkness? Just wondering...
You do need the black light.
I agree on the digital-emotional divide. Quite frustrating at times, especially given that sometimes I find it difficult to communicate my thoughts effectively (i.e. within the constraints of a comment box).
Yes on both accounts (GFP origin and Mr. Green Genes), but my reaction (surprise/shock) had nothing to do with the actual statements made (the jellyfish-pig experiments) and was more based on the fact that PETA would send _ME_ their marketing information. I have been known to be quite vocal on my anti-PETA views and was flabbergasted that somehow their marketing department felt that _I_ was a good 'target'.
I was merely commenting to point out the similarities between our dear Mr. Green Genes and the anonymous pig that PETA are mentioning in their mail-outs, 'tis all.
I hope I'm being lucid? All the best,
Thanks, Lloyd! I get it now. Yeah, PETA has some wide reach. It's unfortunate they can't be more intelligent about their beliefs and more rational in their actions. If they weren't so extreme, they might actually be able to do considerable good through education and awareness campaigns. Then again, if they weren't so extreme, they probably wouldn't have the wide reach that they do. Catch-22.
Thanks for the explanation! :)