Hermenuetics

Comments

When I hear stories like this, I think about the dialogue in the movie, "Jurassic Park," where the mathmatician criticizes the park owner for his hubris. It goes something like this, "Your scientists only asked 'can we?', not 'should we?' !!"

There's a reason for a sea anemone to fluoresce. But, why create a dog that can fluoresce beyond the intellectual challenge and arrogance of 'can we do it?'

Posted By: LawGirl | May 5, 2009 2:15 PM

Amazing!

Now if they could only clone a dog that won't go on my lawn! LOL

http://www.scholarshiphunter.com/keepdogsofflawn.html

Posted By: Angie Waters | May 5, 2009 3:52 PM

There's a reason for a sea anemone to fluoresce. But, why create a dog that can fluoresce beyond the intellectual challenge and arrogance of 'can we do it?'

This is proof-of-concept type of experiment; it's not necessarily "arrogance" (or a bioaesthic project like the Green Fluorescent Rabbit). It's easy to detect Red Fluorescent Protein in both embryos and in mature animals; the choice to make a fluorescing dog ws probably purely practical. This experiment shows that we can express non-native genes in dogs (I believe this had already been shown in embryos) and that those dog embryos can grow into puppies. It's probable that this lab plans to introduce other non-native genes into dogs using this technique either for practical/medical purposes or to answer basic scientific questions.

Should we do this? What does scripture say on this kind of activity? Could we consider this an extension of animal husbandry which was clearly practiced in biblical times and has been breeding animals more useful to humans for ages? Or is this something new?

I haven't done this, but I think it would be instructive to examine the response of South Korean Christians to their nation's genetic/biological research, and compare it with American Christians' responses to things like this and related topics such as stem cell research.

Posted By: Bill (a biochemist by trade) | May 5, 2009 4:36 PM

I've written several books on genetic engineering and cloning, so you'd think that I'd be used to all these "innovations." But it never fails to amaze me when I read about the strange things that "scientists" want to do, and sometimes succeed in doing.

I find it appalling that someone would want to destroy the natural purity of a living being. Every creature on this earth was perfectly designed. We don't need scientists who try to play God.

Posted By: Linda Tagliaferro | May 6, 2009 8:55 AM

I find it appalling that someone would want to destroy the natural purity of a living being. Every creature on this earth was perfectly designed. We don't need scientists who try to play God.

Was the original breeder of the Chihuahua destroying the natural purity of a living being? Is this any different than creating a new dog breed? Or, is this different than traditional animal husbandry because it involves introducing non-canine genes? From a basic research standpoint, is it wrong to do this kind of thing to a dog even for the sake of "figuring out how things work" for possible benefit to humanity (I doubt anyone would argue making a Ruman [Red Fluorescent Human] would be inside the bounds of the ethical)?

What kind of biblical guidance can we look for in such matters?

Posted By: Anonymous | May 6, 2009 1:01 PM

"Ruppy is a far cry from the genetically engineered humans of futuristic movies like Gattaca; at the same time, I wonder if Ruppy represents a step toward that."

Ruppy's purpose is to perfect and move forward with human genetic engineering. We're so easily taken by a cute story about a glow in the dark puppy, but the incidieousness of this should not go unnoticed. The goal for these geneticists is eugenic in purpose. How can the human species be improved? How can defective humans be erradicated? This should cause us to pause and consider what it means to be made in the image of God, the meaning of suffering, and the nature of sin and our ultimate redemption. Redemption will not be located in genetic engineering, but only through the culmination of God's sovereign plan.

Posted By: Anonymous | May 7, 2009 9:48 AM

From Linda Tagliaferro: Someone anonymously replied: "Was the original breeder of the Chihuahua destroying the natural purity of a living being? Is this any different than creating a new dog breed"
--My answer is that a number of breeds have physical problems because of the blending by selective breeding. And yes, this is tremendously different than creating a new dog breed.

What's happening here is that researchers are playing God by taking genes from one organism and inserting them into another living being, when these disparate beings could never mate and reproduce naturally.

And he/she also anonymously asked: "From a basic research standpoint, is it wrong to do this kind of thing to a dog even for the sake of "figuring out how things work" for possible benefit to humanity (I doubt anyone would argue making a Ruman [Red Fluorescent Human] would be inside the bounds of the ethical)?"
--I've heard the hollow argument that research on animals could benefit humans and is therefore the correct thing to do. The flawed logic here is that if you do research on animals, you know a lot about how something affects that animal... but not necessarily how it affects humans.

And I once heard Dr. Michael Fox speak about how the Bible tells us that we should care for the animals of this earth. He also said that maybe not wanting to make a genetically engineered creature suffer is part of what makes us human.

Posted By: Linda Tagliaferro | June 3, 2009 8:45 PM

they've already done glow in the dark fish. they got a varyed report

Posted By: Red Sea Max | January 6, 2011 5:14 AM