5 ms·

Coronavirus shares 90ish percent of its genetic material with SARS. So they had a head start.

• Traster 7y ago
  We share 99% of our DNA with chimps, I don't think it's a helpful measure.
  • Ensorceled 7y ago
    We use chimps in biomedical research precisely because of that overlap, why do you think it's not a helpful measure?
    • mattkrause 7y ago
      We...don’t actually. The NIH started phasing chimp research out in 2013 and USFWS declared them endangered (and thus off-limits for anything invasive or distressing) in 2015. Great apes can be used for observational studies (like kids), but I think even drawing blood for non-vet reasons is now pretty regulated. Other primates, especially rhesus monkeys and, increasingly, marmosets, are important model animals for lab experiments but are less closely related to humans. Sources for the down voters: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statements/timeline-nihs-decision-end-use-chimpanzees-research https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/who-we-are/nih-director/statem...
      • Ensorceled 7y ago
        You’re being downvoted for utterly missing the point.
        • mattkrause 7y ago
          Care to explain?
          • CardenB 7y ago
            The point is that we use genetically similar test subjects because it is helpful that they are genetically similar. The point was not to demonstrate which exact subspecies of primate that is used.
            • mattkrause 7y ago
              Here's my counterpoint. I do this stuff for a living. I know that primates are a valuable translational model, which is why I've spent the last 15 years working with them in neuroscience labs. On the other hand, I also know that it's an ethically-tricky form of research too[+]. Public support for research depends on people understanding what we're doing and why. Conflating chimps with marmosets (which are still primates, but much less "human-like") or rhesus monkeys risks eroding that support. For example, I'm fine with genetically engineering marmosets; I would have serious misgivings about doing the same thing to generate autistic or Parkinsonian chimps. Therefore, I think this is an important distinction and not being careful about it puts the benefits of primate work--that you're trying to champion!--at risk. [+] For what it's worth, we do take excellent care of them.
              • gridlockd 7y ago
                Still missing the point. The argument against chimps is ethical, not scientific. Chimps would still be better because they are closer.
                • mattkrause 7y ago
                  Not necessarily. Along with the ethical issues, the Institute of Medicine concluded that it wasn’t scientifically warranted. Data from chimps would be slightly closer to humans, but it’s also hard to get: they are dangerously strong (much more so than macaques, which are already terrifying), grow very slowly, and need tons of care and space—-and therefore money—-to thrive. Those trade offs, made starker by ethical issues, lead them to wind down chimp research. As a tech analogy, writing a browser in assembler is closer” to the hardware and could theoretically result in faster code, but in practice nobody does it because it wouldn’t be worthwhile. Fairly little research is done in monkeys for the same reason. Mice are faster, easier, and offer more tools. This isn’t always a good thing; in fact, my last few projects have made a big deal about the value of a monkey data over rats. Nevertheless, I have zero desire to spin up an ape version.
  • knolax 7y ago
    Guns are effectively at killing both chimps and humans.