The Rise of the Sheep-People

Didn't President Bush promise to ban this sort of thing a few years back? I mean, seriously, a sheep with human organs? Admittedly, only 15 percent human, but still.

3/26/07 2:08PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

Wow! I can't wait for there to be human-sheep hybrids. I've always wanted to wear their clothing.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf on March 26, 2007 02:10 PM

My understanding is that:

Putting animal genes in people: BANNED!
Putting human genes in animals: A-OKAY!

Posted by: MG on March 26, 2007 02:12 PM

" I've always wanted to wear their clothing."

Ba-dump-bump. Neil will be here all week, folks. Remember to tip your waitresses well.

But seriously, as a stop-gap solution, I'd recommend picking up a few sweaters at Old Navy. All the comfort with none of the hybridization.

Posted by: Petey on March 26, 2007 02:14 PM

I like sheep-pussy the way it is. If I wanted human pussy, I'd bathe and brush my teeth and maybe buy a car.

Posted by: Gregorio the Greek on March 26, 2007 02:17 PM

About time if you ask me.

I was a bit pessimistic about the state of technology and advancement. But with the exciting advent of the robotic cyborg arm for amputees and now this technology allowing for the best aspect combinations of all of god's creatures, the future seems limitless.

Posted by: DRR on March 26, 2007 02:25 PM

I don't know if I agree that this is such a clear cut case. There are a lot of people waiting for organs and if it's possible to "grow" human organs in other animals, perhaps the research should be carried out.

It might wind up saving a lot of lives.

Posted by: golddog on March 26, 2007 02:28 PM

Matthew, are you a regular reader of CBN news or you just have a Google-Alert set for "sheep hybrids"?

Posted by: Preston on March 26, 2007 02:39 PM

What's the problem?

I think this is an example of how people have ethical problems with certain bioengineering without having a clear argument for why. It's like cloning. What's the big deal (besides overpopulation, I suppose)? Why is having people walking around with the exact genetic data of others a problem? We already have those, identical twins. People seem to have problems with the possible uses of clones-- we'll raise a clone army! We'll harvest their organs!-- but I don't ever seem to hear a compelling argument against the creation of humans through cloning per se.

Likewise, this. What's the problem? It's a little creepy, sure, and if you are an animal rights activist, I understand that you would have a problem with it. But I don't see why this is anymore of a problem than using (noncloned) animals in other experiments.

Posted by: Freddie on March 26, 2007 02:43 PM

Didn't President Bush promise to ban this sort of thing a few years back?

Apparently, that promise was chimerical.

Posted by: Glenn on March 26, 2007 02:45 PM

Identical twins do not have identical dna.

Posted by: jerry on March 26, 2007 02:47 PM

Best to ask some questions before ordering the lamp kidneys at your local gourmet restaurant. Is eating a part-human illegal like cannibalism?

There are some good humanitarian arguments for this process if it leads to better transplanted organs, but some very good scientific (biological, virological) arguments why this a potentially hazardous process that could threaten not just one person, but humankind. The careful balances between species and their parasites like bacteria, and viruses has evolved over 100's of millions of years, and we really don't have any scientific idea what we are playing with.

There are other benefits of stem cell research (of all kinds) that seem much less fraught with danger.

Researchers will do things if they see possibly interesting results. It is up to society to put on the brakes when the overall benefits and downsides need to be balanced.

This just does not sound to me like a very good idea at this stage of our understanding in biology and genetics. There are human diseases that could also be introduced into animal populations without detection that scare me. Would you like your HIV-laden beef cooked medium or rare?

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on March 26, 2007 03:20 PM

Identical twins do not have identical dna.

I am far from an expert on this, but I always thought that was the case. Wikipedia (admittedly an imperfect source) says

"Although their traits and physical appearances are not exactly the same due to environmental conditions in both the womb and outside the womb, they do have the same DNA."

Posted by: Freddie on March 26, 2007 03:34 PM

Nobody f's with the manimal lobby.

Posted by: Brian Gyss on March 26, 2007 03:55 PM

"Sheep-People"? I believe you mean "sheeple."

Posted by: Port Manteau on March 26, 2007 04:10 PM

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Firstly, I hope that was a tongue in cheek comment about Bush.

Secondly, at what point does an animal with human engineered parts become a "human"? I can sense the lawyers out there licking their chops now.

Posted by: danceswithgoats on March 26, 2007 04:11 PM

"at what point does an animal with human engineered parts become a 'human'?"

When he or she says so.

Posted by: rea on March 26, 2007 04:17 PM

The really sobering thing is that, at 15%, the sheep is one-third more human than Dick Cheney.

Posted by: Anderson on March 26, 2007 04:32 PM

Hey sheep boy, is it true your dad is human?

Na-a-a-a-a-a-a

Posted by: Keith on March 26, 2007 04:52 PM

Anyone remember "O Lucky Man"?

Posted by: citizenstx on March 26, 2007 04:56 PM

mmm, chops!

Posted by: wolf in sheeps clothing on March 26, 2007 05:08 PM

Will the sheep get to host an MTV nostalgia show about the '80s?

Posted by: JP on March 26, 2007 05:09 PM

At last, the Fundies will see a Lion lie down with a Lamb, only to see the "manimals" proceed to copulate using their human genitalia and give birth to the terrifying fleecy-maned hybrid known as Malcolm Gladwell!

Posted by: Gregorio on March 26, 2007 06:04 PM

Identical twins have identical DNA. Deal with it.

Posted by: dk on March 26, 2007 07:31 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070326/sc_livescience/raresemiidenticaltwinsdiscovered;_ylt=AovilSsdvmHjaJ8OoxqkX3gDW7oF

Rare Semi-Identical Twins Discovered

LiveScience Staff

LiveScience.com Mon Mar 26, 10:01 AM ET

Twins can be identical, fraternal and apparently semi-identical, scientists now report.
ADVERTISEMENT

Researchers discovered twins who are identical on their mom's side of the equation but share only half their genes from dad.

Here's how it happened: Two sperm cells fertilized one egg—an event assumed to be very rare—then split into two embryos.

"Their similarity is somewhere between identical and fraternal twins," said geneticist Vivienne Souter, of the Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona. "It makes me wonder whether the current classification of twins is an oversimplification."

The finding, detailed in the Journal of Human Genetics, was reported today by news@nature.com, the online site of the journal Nature.

Identical twins are created when one fertilized egg splits into two embryos. They share the same placenta and are always of the same sex. Fraternal twins result from two eggs being fertilized at the same time, each by a different sperm. Each has its own placenta, and they can be the same sex or not.

The semi-identical twins only came to the attention of Souter and her colleagues because one had ambiguous genitalia. The child was born a "true hermaphrodite" with both ovarian and testicular tissue. The other twin is a male, anatomically.

The twins are now toddlers, according to the report. They were conceived and born normally and appear to be mentally normal and are growing normally.

Posted by: GregorYahoo on March 26, 2007 09:01 PM

I enjoyed Anderson's take. Work in a shotgun blast to an old man's face and this might just be the Yglesias Comedy thread of the year.

Posted by: theCoach on March 26, 2007 10:30 PM

I'm more worried about the prospect of people with brains that are 15% sheep DNA. Oh, wait...

Posted by: al-Anon on March 26, 2007 10:33 PM

Didn't President Bush promise to ban this sort of thing a few years back?

Someone reminded him: sheeple vote GOP!

Posted by: moron on March 26, 2007 11:52 PM

I, for one, welcome our new sheeple overlords.

Everyone else is either too baaaaad or too aaaaaaaaaapathetic for my liking.

Posted by: (: Tom :) on March 27, 2007 08:15 AM

I find the concern about mutating viruses more than a little amusing. A virus mutating to adapt to a "new organism" is basically proto-evolution. But wait, there's no evolution! God must be directing the virus to mutate.

Posted by: Steve H. on March 27, 2007 08:53 AM

The good news is, this will eventually become a reality:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1dxtto2-WY

Posted by: Matt that you met at Julian Sanchez's Party on March 27, 2007 09:45 AM

Sağır Oda Fan Club
Türk
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
www.r10.net küresel ısınmaya hayır seo yarışması
youtube video
forum
downloads
Haberler
küresel ısınma
dizi izle