4 ms·

> The pig kidney was provided by eGenesis of Cambridge, Mass., from a pig donor that was genetically-edited using CRISPR-Cas9 technology to remove harmful pig g

> The pig kidney was provided by eGenesis of Cambridge, Mass., from a pig donor that was genetically-edited using CRISPR-Cas9 technology to remove harmful pig genes and add certain human genes to improve its compatibility with humans. Additionally, scientists inactivated porcine endogenous retroviruses in the pig donor to eliminate any risk of infection in humans. "donor" seems a little rich. I dislike what precedent this sets in human's "use" of animals.

drivingmenuts 2y ago
Well, the alternative is a dead human, so you might want to think about that. You will probably never need one, so you can think about it without fear. As a potentially dead human, I’m ok with them using animals bred to be donors for this. I’m a Stage IV Kidney Disease patient.
- Atotalnoob 2y ago
  These animals also probably live pretty decent lives, since they need to keep the organs in good shape…
  - SecurityLagoon 2y ago
    This is the same argument used for meat production and is questionable. Would you really care that your murderer treated you well before killing you? Or would you feel even more betrayed? This pig would have lived a very short and probably isolated life (to isolate from pathogens). No matter how well it was treated in life it was still forcibly operated on and/or killed at the end.
- ffsm8 2y ago
  But the term "donor" means that it was donated, right? I don't think it should be used in this context either, it should be called something like "organ provider" which gets "harvested".
  - iancmceachern 2y ago
    The term wasn't new, pulled out of thin air. The term was previously used when describing human donors. They just kept using it because it's as good a euphemism as any.
    - ffsm8 2y ago
      At least where I live no organs can be taken unless the patient has a donor card/explicitly allows this. This makes it into a donation, not a forceful taking, which is why they're called donors. I don't think animals can opt-in to such a system, as such I'd consider it an incorrect usage of the term.
      - iancmceachern 2y ago
        Yes but animals don't speak or care about English, so the term couldn't bother them, it's just you.
        SecurityLagoon 2y ago
        That's the same as slurring at someone in a language they don't know. They don't understand what you meant so it doesn't matter right? The point is not the animal's comprehension of the term but the implication that the animal gave consent to have their organs harvested by saying "donor". If you argue that the pig cannot understand English so can't be offended the same applies that they can't understand English so cannot give affirmative consent.
  - drivingmenuts 2y ago
    In this context, it means "the one who gives". While the general impression is that such giving is voluntary, it's not an absolute requirement of the definition. This is a normal usage of language and not some attempt to wiggle around meaning. If this somehow makes you uncomfortable, you should remember that, if you eat meat, or otherwise consume any sort of animal product, or if you have ever done so, then aforementioned animal was straight up killed, humanely or sometimes inhumanely, to make that product. We domesticate animals to make our lives easier through the usage of their byproducts and this is just one of those usages. Yes, an animal died, but it wasn't killed without reason or justification. We don't live in a Star Trek world where one can wave some sort of device and the person is magically healed. People are working to get there and maybe someday they will succeed, but until then, imperfect means are all we have. It's either that or dead humans. Which do you prefer?
iancmceachern 2y ago
We have genetically engineered plants and animals to our liking for thousands of years. Take my poodle for example.
- bozey07 2y ago
  I think we can agree genetically modifying plants is pretty different to genetically modifying animals to harvest their organs. I'd also contend pet breeding is a wildly misguided practice too. Attempting to maintain breed "purity" is at the very least detrimental to their health, but even a pug mutt is clearly not an animal that should exist.
  - iancmceachern 2y ago
    I agree with your science, but tell a pug owner that.
    - bozey07 2y ago
      Yeah, fair point.

drivingmenuts 2y ago

Well, the alternative is a dead human, so you might want to think about that. You will probably never need one, so you can think about it without fear. As a potentially dead human, I’m ok with them using animals bred to be donors for this. I’m a Stage IV Kidney Disease patient.

Atotalnoob 2y ago
These animals also probably live pretty decent lives, since they need to keep the organs in good shape…
- SecurityLagoon 2y ago
  This is the same argument used for meat production and is questionable. Would you really care that your murderer treated you well before killing you? Or would you feel even more betrayed? This pig would have lived a very short and probably isolated life (to isolate from pathogens). No matter how well it was treated in life it was still forcibly operated on and/or killed at the end.
ffsm8 2y ago
But the term "donor" means that it was donated, right? I don't think it should be used in this context either, it should be called something like "organ provider" which gets "harvested".
- iancmceachern 2y ago
  The term wasn't new, pulled out of thin air. The term was previously used when describing human donors. They just kept using it because it's as good a euphemism as any.
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    At least where I live no organs can be taken unless the patient has a donor card/explicitly allows this. This makes it into a donation, not a forceful taking, which is why they're called donors. I don't think animals can opt-in to such a system, as such I'd consider it an incorrect usage of the term.
    - iancmceachern 2y ago
      Yes but animals don't speak or care about English, so the term couldn't bother them, it's just you.
      - SecurityLagoon 2y ago
        That's the same as slurring at someone in a language they don't know. They don't understand what you meant so it doesn't matter right? The point is not the animal's comprehension of the term but the implication that the animal gave consent to have their organs harvested by saying "donor". If you argue that the pig cannot understand English so can't be offended the same applies that they can't understand English so cannot give affirmative consent.
- drivingmenuts 2y ago
  In this context, it means "the one who gives". While the general impression is that such giving is voluntary, it's not an absolute requirement of the definition. This is a normal usage of language and not some attempt to wiggle around meaning. If this somehow makes you uncomfortable, you should remember that, if you eat meat, or otherwise consume any sort of animal product, or if you have ever done so, then aforementioned animal was straight up killed, humanely or sometimes inhumanely, to make that product. We domesticate animals to make our lives easier through the usage of their byproducts and this is just one of those usages. Yes, an animal died, but it wasn't killed without reason or justification. We don't live in a Star Trek world where one can wave some sort of device and the person is magically healed. People are working to get there and maybe someday they will succeed, but until then, imperfect means are all we have. It's either that or dead humans. Which do you prefer?

iancmceachern 2y ago

We have genetically engineered plants and animals to our liking for thousands of years. Take my poodle for example.

bozey07 2y ago
I think we can agree genetically modifying plants is pretty different to genetically modifying animals to harvest their organs. I'd also contend pet breeding is a wildly misguided practice too. Attempting to maintain breed "purity" is at the very least detrimental to their health, but even a pug mutt is clearly not an animal that should exist.
- iancmceachern 2y ago
  I agree with your science, but tell a pug owner that.
  - bozey07 2y ago
    Yeah, fair point.