Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Has Anyone Seen My Rabbit?

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the popular-at-raves dept.

Biotech 92

New submitter geoskd writes "Scientists at the university of Hawaii have created glow in the dark rabbits. Where can I get my hands on one of these critters? It would drive the cats nuts! These guys are missing a bet, they could sell these things for big bucks and use the money to further fund their research. This is the perfect gift for the geek who has "everything"." The technique used is similar to the glow in the dark cats bred a couple of years ago. The fluorescence isn't the end goal of course; it just happens to be a very obvious marker that their genetic manipulation technique works. According to the researchers, "the final goal is to develop animals that act as barrier reactives to produce beneficial molecules in their milk that can be cheaply extracted, especially in countries that can not afford big pharma plants that make drugs, that usually cost $1bn to build, and be able to produce their own protein-based medication in animals."

cancel ×

92 comments

Really, rabbits for milk? (2)

Valdrax (32670) | about a year ago | (#44565969)

Why rabbits? These aren't the first people to do this. Another group modified rabbits to produce human C1 inhibitor, but they only get 120 mL of milk per day. [nationalgeographic.com] Is this economical from a perspective of input feed to output milk?

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year ago | (#44566067)

At a guess, it's that rabbits make good experimental subjects when you want to work on mammals larger than mice and rats, because they're famous for breeding like ... um ... rabbits.

I WANT ONE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44567137)

WHY haven't these been brought to market yet? I want one RIGHT NOW!

Re:I WANT ONE! (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44568647)

Calm down, Lenny.

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (2)

Maj Variola (2934803) | about a year ago | (#44567619)

And they give voluntary consent really easily...

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (4, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | about a year ago | (#44566101)

Rabbits reach sexual maturity in 4 months. Gestation is one month That means you can see the results of two, almost three generations of genetic manipulation in a year's study.
 
Cows, on the other hand take 10 months for gestation + age of safe breeding. If you're going to do genetic research, choosing the one that "multiplies like rabbits" is generally the way to go in a laboratory setting.

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (2)

cusco (717999) | about a year ago | (#44566123)

Apparently the only real 'news' is that they're working with a new genetic manipulation technique which should be easier to reproduce. Only 30 percent of the offspring were actually implanted with the gene, so I'm not sure whether that's actually considered a "success" or not.

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about a year ago | (#44566143)

Why rabbits?

How many dairy cows could you fit into the same space?

Makes sense to experiment on the rabbits first. You'll need a small ranch to start experimenting on cows.

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year ago | (#44568657)

They're also tidier poopers.

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

Trikenstein (571493) | about a year ago | (#44569303)

In a previous universe they tried the same expiremnt, but breeding Cthulhu's

The multiverse is still paying for that

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#44566157)

You know, I think Sheldon's glow in the dark fish night lights would sell like hot cakes.

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44566537)

Hotcakes taste better...

You're getting to be a rabbit with me [youtube.com]

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#44571623)

But hot cakes ALWAYS sell like hot cakes.

The trick is to sell like hot cakes, only something much more profitable.

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

triffid_98 (899609) | about a year ago | (#44567051)

There already is such an animal [wikipedia.org] and it's legal in all 49(*) states.

(*)
The great country of Mexifornia is of course doing what they always do, declaring random things illegal. You may now send your angry letters [wikipedia.org] to El Presidente Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44566221)

Yea lets factory farm the hell out of rabbits to get the same volume of milk :/

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#44566313)

On the plus side, we're creating a big Chinese child labor market to take advantage of kids' small hands to milk all those rabbits. No, wait....

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#44567027)

Yea lets factory farm the hell out of rabbits to get the same volume of milk :/

They are using rabbits to test and refine the technology. Once they figure out how to do it with rabbits, they will move on to goats or cows. This is standard procedure for genetic manipulation: Get it working on microorganisms in a petri dish, then move on to mice, then to something bigger.

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

Kingkaid (2751527) | about a year ago | (#44567035)

Why rabbits? These aren't the first people to do this. Another group modified rabbits to produce human C1 inhibitor, but they only get 120 mL of milk per day. [nationalgeographic.com] Is this economical from a perspective of input feed to output milk?

As someone that worked in a lab before, rabbits are great because: They make enough milk, can be easily handled, studied, etc. and frankly we know a LOT about their genetic makeup. Oh - and it is easier to do egg manipulations and implantations on these creatures. Making changes in genes is a pain in the butt. Some animals are better suited for specific jobs. We used to get insulin from pigs since it was the best we could do at that time. We got better and now harvest a lot of it from insects.

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

Maj Variola (2934803) | about a year ago | (#44567567)

Eeeeewww :-) Plus, rabbits don't bite, only scratch And, they multiply like, um, rabbits

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | about a year ago | (#44570785)

I have had several pet rabbits and yes, they most certainly do bite...and can draw blood if they want to

Have you ever tried to milk a rabbit? (1)

new death barbie (240326) | about a year ago | (#44567461)

It's easier just to use the juicer.

Re:Have you ever tried to milk a rabbit? (1)

Maj Variola (2934803) | about a year ago | (#44567593)

You could build something that consumed carrots and autodetected when a rabbit entered, then fired up the juicer. You'd need some kind of refridgeration source for the rabjuice, either ice or dry ice replaced daily or some power supply. Then you would not need to press a button only refill carrots weekly and harvest rabjuice at same time, if refridgerated. (Or visit the station more frequently for fresher rabjuice.) .... cf Simpson's rat-milk episode

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

Maj Variola (2934803) | about a year ago | (#44567607)

Well you also get meat for the grad students and you can sell the fur. When I was in grad school I tried to interest the PI in lobster research.

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#44567661)

Silly rabbit, milk is for kids!

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

zztong (36596) | about a year ago | (#44567691)

Yes! Exactly! Glow in the dark cows -- go big or go home!

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44569935)

Errrrrr! They already did cats! Why rabbits now? Naturally they should have moved up to Bengal Tigers! Now one of those bad boys glowing in the dark would be terrifying!

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year ago | (#44570541)

Now trying to work out how I would get a permit for one of those. Somehow I don't think it would fit through the existing cat flap to access the litter box though.

Re:Really, rabbits for milk? (1)

pepty (1976012) | about a year ago | (#44571381)

I also doubt pharma would build a $1bn plant to produce a biological product if it was cheaper to produce the product in mammals. As it is, production of antibodies as drugs is shifting from giant cell culture vats (the $1bn plant) to using multiple much smaller disposable bioreactors. This way a single incident of contamination, genetic drift, or what have you doesn't wipe out all of your production for a month.

And this solves the problem how? (4, Insightful)

Nexus7 (2919) | about a year ago | (#44565995)

The drugs are expensive because of the patents on them that allow big pharma to monopolize them. In this case, the people who develop the genes will then be poached by big pharma, or will form their own company, or the university will sell the patents to an IP shop, which will leave us exactly where we were before. But we will have glowing rabbits.

So spare me the homilies about poor people and drugs, and just say "shiny glowing rabbits!!! FTW!!!"

Re:And this solves the problem how? (3, Informative)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year ago | (#44566131)

Or the countries that need cheap drugs the most will say "screw your IP law" and start breeding their own drug-producing rabbits (or whatever) regardless of what the WTO and similar organizations have to say. This kind of thing has already happened with more conventional methods of drug production [wikipedia.org] and there was a lot of kerfluffle but nobody went to war over it. Once any useful application of the laws of nature is out there, people will make use of it if they perceive doing so to be in their interests.

Re:And this solves the problem how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44568745)

Except the REALLY poor country that don't have the resources to make their own drug-producing rabbits. They'll still suckle the free handouts from Gates that come with IP-Law strings attached.

Re:And this solves the problem how? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44566219)

Actually it's so expensive because their budgets are so huge because their income is so huge because there is no supply and demand. There's more like supply and I don't give a damn, it's insurance money.

Re:And this solves the problem how? (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about a year ago | (#44566473)

Let's not forget the airwaves full of commercials for lawyers with phone numbers like 1-800-BAD-DRUG trolling for "clients". Tort law in this (US) country is what allows these parasites to go hunting for the deep pockets, and why the big-pharma product-liability insurance rates are so high.

Remember, you might be entitled to substantial compensation.

Re:And this solves the problem how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44566727)

I'm just glad there's no torte law in this country (again, the US). There are already so many laws on the books, you'd think that there would be one about baked goods. Then again, I haven't really checked.

Don't confuse this with the legal torte, which is a layer cake with layers of pink slime in it made from lawyer meat. You might even say it's a lawyer cake. Tasteless.

Illegal tortes are made with immigrants, but that name is considered politically incorrect. Also tasteless.

Re:And this solves the problem how? (1)

jbburks (853501) | about a year ago | (#44567359)

> Illegal tortes are made with immigrants, but that name is considered politically incorrect.

Actually, the preferred term is "undocumented torte".

Re:And this solves the problem how? (1)

afidel (530433) | about a year ago | (#44566913)

Torts are a rounding error in the budgets of big pharma, hell even actual research is barely a blip, the development part of R&D is where all the money is spent, advertising and wining and dining doctors is where they focus their resources.

Re:And this solves the problem how? (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#44566879)

New drugs are fundamentally expensive because the research costs are huge. Patents, much as we like to rant about them on /., are a distraction here.

However, there are plenty of old drugs, most of modern medicine really, long out of any patent, that are needed in developing nations. You first have to live long enough before you care whether Viagra is still covered by a patent.

We get excited by new cures, but many people can't depend on all the boring, long-known remedies being available.

Re:And this solves the problem how? (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year ago | (#44567247)

The drugs are expensive because of the patents on them that allow big pharma to monopolize them.

It's a long road from the research lab to clinical testing on humans to production and distribution of a new drug on a global scale --- and it takes time, money, manpower, organization and material resources to make that happen.

Without any certainty that major problems won't be exposed further on.

TFS says $1billion plant, $4.5billion R&D per (3, Informative)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44567821)

If only it were so easy.
TFS said:
"the final goal is to develop animals that act as barrier reactives to produce beneficial molecules in their milk that can be cheaply extracted, especially in countries that can not afford big pharma plants that make drugs, that usually cost $1bn to build"

That BILLION dollars to build a plant meeting FDA style standards might have something to do with the cost. Figure one plant produces medicine for what, maybe a million people who need the drug(s) it produces? That would be $1 billion / 1 million = $1,000 / person just to build the thing. If you had 10 million people buying the medicine and one plant could produce enough for 10 million people, that's $100 / customer.

Add to that, 90% of medications don't make it through all of the trials and testing and get FDA approved. The one that gets approved needs to cover the cost of the nine that didn't make it. What does that R&D cost? Here are the numbers from all of the big pharma companies (All numbers are in millions, so 4,000 means $4 billion)/;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2012/02/10/the-truly-staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs/ [forbes.com]

So I'm curious, how do you plan on covering the four or five billion dollar cost of developing a drug, if not buy patenting and selling it? Dollar cost COULD be drastically reduced by reducing safety regulations. Obviously that's trading for human cost, which sounds scary. On the other hand, consider that if the cost was cut by 30%, more people could get the medicine they need. That's the human cost of regulations that make it difficult to get medicine approved - when it costs $5 billion to make a new medicine, people suffer and die from things less expensive medicine could cure. Reducing regulations somewhat might very well reduce a lot of suffering. It's a hard problem. It sure would be nice if there was an easy answer, if you could just call the people who make new medicines evil and that would magically cause medicine to be developed, tested, and produced at no cost.

Too bad they were not created at Baskerville (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44566007)

Buttercup was it? BlueBell something like that

Just wait (1)

jonyen (2633919) | about a year ago | (#44566015)

Don't worry, you'll get your rabbit soon enough once they start reproducing...

Obligatory Mrs. Slocombe (2)

bmo (77928) | about a year ago | (#44566021)

FTFS: "glow in the dark cats"

"Captain Peacock, have you seen my pussy?"

--
BMO

Re:Obligatory Mrs. Slocombe (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a year ago | (#44566053)

Also: "I must say your pussy is glowing tonight,"

Sherlock says 'Duh' (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44566035)

http://bbcsherlockpickuplines.tumblr.com/post/29594462174/you-light-up-my-life-like-a-baskerville-rabbit

Hmmm... could this be a solution...? (3, Interesting)

mark-t (151149) | about a year ago | (#44566109)

Glowing in the dark would, I imagine, constitute a significant anti-survival trait for a creature such as this... If this trait gets passed on, could the technique be used to bring the rabbit population under control within a few dozen generations in areas where rabbits are nothing more than profound pests?

Or do you think would it reduce their chances of survival so low that they wouldn't even get to breed?

Re:Hmmm... could this be a solution...? (4, Informative)

Kahlandad (1999936) | about a year ago | (#44566159)

They aren't phosphorescent (what most people consider to be 'glow in the dark'), they are fluorescent. They only glow under UV (black light) exposure.

Re:Hmmm... could this be a solution...? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about a year ago | (#44566551)

But they might still glow to sharp eyed predators? Maybe?

fluorescent lagomorphs (1)

BattleApple (956701) | about a year ago | (#44566863)

I don't know about other birds of prey, but kestrels are able to track rodents easily because they can see the ultraviolet light reflected by their urine trails.

Re:Hmmm... could this be a solution...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44567217)

No

Re:Hmmm... could this be a solution...? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44566613)

White rabbits already glow under black light.

Re:Hmmm... wavelength correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44567699)

Technical note: these rabbits are glowing with GFP, which fluoresces under *blue* light. Not UV. The fluorophores excited by the UV spectrum will emit blue light.

This has been your Daily Moment with Joyless Pedant. You may now return to your usual activities.

Re:Hmmm... wavelength correction (1)

Kahlandad (1999936) | about a year ago | (#44570505)

First of all, "The GFP from A. victoria has a major excitation peak at a wavelength of 395 nm and a minor one at 475 nm." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fluorescent_protein [wikipedia.org] .
395 nm is near UV. Whenever we used unaltered GFP in the lab, we used UV lamps to excite it. You can use a blue light to excite the minor excitation peak, but then you really have to screw around with filters, especially if you want to photograph it. The blue light needs to be so bright that it overpowers the green fluorescence and makes it very difficult to see without filters. Unless there are specific reasons to avoid exposing your subject to UV, it's much easier to just use a black light.

Second of all, there are many, many forms of GFP available (so much so that GFP, which stands for Green Fluorescent Protein, isn't a very accurate name anymore). Some of them have excitation peaks in the UV range, others within visible light. You can custom order GFP based on the excitation and emission spectra that you would like to use for your experiment. Saying that it only fluoresces under *blue* light is a blanket statement that is entirely inaccurate.

Re:Hmmm... could this be a solution...? (3, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year ago | (#44566185)

Until owls start carrying UV flashlights, the fluorescent rabbits are probably safe.

If birds of prey start using electronics, we may have bigger problems on our hands.

Re:Hmmm... could this be a solution...? (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about a year ago | (#44567439)

As another poster already mentioned some birds of prey can already see in the UV spectrum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vision#Ultraviolet [wikipedia.org]

Now if birds start using electronics you better be prepared to be very afraid of birds. In comparison to the average bird of prey humans are blind.

Re:Hmmm... could this be a solution...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44566263)

Only if predators happen to catch them under blacklights. We're not talking about phosphorescence, just UV florescence.

On the other hand, a UV-florescent Angora bunny would make a nifty pet.

(Captcha: Ovaries)

Re:Hmmm... could this be a solution...? (1)

Redmancometh (2676319) | about a year ago | (#44566891)

On a side note my 3 holland are SO DAMN CUTE. 2 Broken orange and one light grey 3

Re:Hmmm... could this be a solution...? (1)

Takahashi (409381) | about a year ago | (#44566459)

Other respondents to this comment pointed out that these are fluorescent (ie need an excitation light source) not "glowing".

But another problem with this idea is that, in a population neutral alleles maintain their frequency (though can drift randomly) and deleterious alleles will decline in frequency. In other words, you'd have to release a LOT of rabbits before the glowing allele would be common enough to have an effect on average fitness and that allele would be unstable in the population. Unless you don't believe in evolution, but then you're better off praying for the rabbits to go away.

Re:Hmmm... could this be a solution...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44566523)

Also, they're not being released into the wild so the engineered gene need not be evaluated for its survival cost/benefit.

Re:Hmmm... could this be a solution...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44566767)

Or do you think would it reduce their chances of survival so low that they wouldn't even get to breed?

On the contrary. In an urban setting, likely more rabbits are getting killed by cars than natural predators. The glowing ones would have better chances of survival...

Re:Hmmm... could this be a solution...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44567093)

I don't think you understand how natural selection works.

Oblig ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44566139)

the final goal is to develop animals that act as barrier reactives to produce beneficial molecules in their milk that can be cheaply extracted

What could possibly go wrong ...

Re:Oblig ... (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#44566321)

What could possibly go wrong ...

Glow-in-the-dark cheese?

Re:Oblig ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44567121)

It started with glow in the dark cats. Someday it'll lead to this [youtube.com] . Obviously, De Laurentis is a prophet.

Re:Oblig ... (1)

Maj Variola (2934803) | about a year ago | (#44567535)

I'm not clear: is there glow in the dark cheese? That would be an awesome hack, either fluorescent (GFP) mould or some other chemiluminescent pathway. Some fungi are phosphorescent, right? Is someone working on that gene-cluster? To be served in uranium-glass bowls, of course. (U-glass fluoresceses intense green under UV)

Re:Oblig ... (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#44566349)

Lots. That's why they're testing it.

Oryx and Crake redux (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year ago | (#44566163)

What's next? Wolvogs?

Re:Oryx and Crake redux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44566355)

No, bobkittens. We need those to kill all the wild glowing rabbits.

Girls Rabbit (1)

Nukenbar (215420) | about a year ago | (#44566165)

When a girl asks me if I have seen her Rabbit [adamevetoys.com] , I know it's not going well.

Re:Girls Rabbit (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year ago | (#44566177)

Yes, but does it glow in the dark?

Fluorescent Fish Night Lights! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44566659)

I believe Dr. Sheldon Cooper already invented glow in the dark fish night lights!

Rabbits? DNA? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#44566821)

Rabbit girls [kaneva.com] !

That's what SHE said! (1)

senorpoco (1396603) | about a year ago | (#44566869)

I'm sorry. I'll just take my things and be going.

Yes, I've seen it (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about a year ago | (#44566905)

It's in your ass. Shit it out.

Obligatory quote from Baskerville (2)

vmxeo (173325) | about a year ago | (#44566915)

Sherlock Holmes: Bluebell, John! I've got Bluebell, the case of the vanishing glow-in-the-dark rabbit. NATO's in an uproar.

(For the uninformed: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1942613/quotes?ref_=tttrv_sa_3 [imdb.com] )

Re:Obligatory quote from Baskerville (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44568305)

I was waiting for a Sherlock reference. Nice work!

NOT GLOW IN THE DARK! FLUORESCENT!!! (4, Informative)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year ago | (#44567101)

Just have to point out, that the jellyfish protein they're talking about is green fluorescent protein (GFP). It fluoresces. This is not glow in the dark. You shine a blue light on GFP, it sends some of it back as green light. The only way it "glows" is if you filter out the blue excitation light you're shining on it. The light shining on the rabbits is actually quite intense compared to the fluorescent light you get back.

At 0:48, they switch from a normal view of the bunnies to a the fluorescence. The reason it's a cut and not just flipping off the lights is that they put a green filter over the camera and set up a bright blue light shining on the bunnies. The green filter filters out the blue light but not the green light from the rabbits. You can see the one rabbit dims for a split second, that's because the beam of blue excitation light moves for a second. Turn off the blue light and those rabbits would go dark along with everything else. I suppose they'd glow for a very short time longer than anything else due to the fluorescence taking slightly longer, but it would be far too fast for you to perceive.

Here's an example of some GFP sample on the microscope [mecanusa.com] . Notice the bright blue light? That's what the article is calling "dark." (The orange filter in that example isn't the one you'd use to see fluorescence, it's what you'd use to keep you from blinding yourself by the blue light while moving the sample around.)

WHAT??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44567355)

I was promised "glow in the dark" rabbits when I clicked this link. Not "fluorescent" rabbits.

Words cannot express the depths of nerd rage I am experiencing at this egregious example of false advertising.

I'm suing.

Re:NOT GLOW IN THE DARK! FLUORESCENT!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44567417)

Damn it, I was about to ask whether these rabbits need to eat more to offset the (assumed) additional energy they burn in order to create light. DISAPPOINTED.

Re:NOT GLOW IN THE DARK! FLUORESCENT!!! (1)

Maj Variola (2934803) | about a year ago | (#44567515)

So the rabbits and cats should be wearing UV shades. BTW, this will mess with their vision (by introducing visible light into their retinae) during fluorescence. We look forward to the rabbits escaping and their progeny's distribution monitored via fluorescent owl-pellets. Good science.

UV =/= blue. Never has, never will. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44567721)

No. UV =/= blue. Please stop saying that.

UV is outside the visible light spectrum. Blue is not.
See: http://lumenistics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/electro-magnetic-spectrum1.jpg

Signed,
Joyless Pedant

My fiancee has a glow-in-the-dark rabbit! (1)

scubamage (727538) | about a year ago | (#44567257)

It has several variable speeds and vibrating patterns. Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

TFA is shit (1)

umafuckit (2980809) | about a year ago | (#44567507)

TFA is shit. GFP is just a marker that is used to do the real science. What's the real science? Who knows. TFA doesn't say anything comprehensible on the matter. Crappy science reporting if ever I saw it. Why's this even on Slashdot? Scientists have been creating GFP animals for years now.

This was in Code of the Woosters (1)

sandbagger (654585) | about a year ago | (#44567547)

Who knew that PG Wodehouse was a science fiction writer!

The real question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44567589)

How do they taste?

Yet Another Step Toward... (1)

d'baba (1134261) | about a year ago | (#44567623)

...axlotl tanks.

Prior art (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44567759)

Clearly this is an unacknowledged extension of the luminous fish effect pioneered by Dr. Sheldon Cooper.

It was delicious (1)

Trikenstein (571493) | about a year ago | (#44569255)

my bowel movements were disturbing

You'd be better off... (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year ago | (#44570323)

Growing marijuana and use that as medicine, like GOD intended. Screw big pharma, their rubber stamping FDA and the AMA who swallow all of their Bovine scatology hook, line and sinker.

glowing Brundleflies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44573165)

Makes you wonder what the Brundlefly-to-glowing-rabbit ratio is during those experiments.

Genetic Engineering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44581067)

Our world is more toxic, and has more radiation than it would have without our ignorance. And so many diseases have come from our stupidity. We need to clean up our planet before we start engineering things and letting them populate. With so much genetic mutation causing more birth defects, and other countless problems. It is impossible to predict the outcome when we keep disrupting nature like we are. We should repair the damage we have done to our planet, and the life that inhabits it. Then it would be a better idea for genetic engineering.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...