quote:

---

Scientists in Australia's Northern Territory say the blood from crocodiles may help in developing powerful new antibodies for humans.

Australia's ABC television reports that researchers from Darwin's Crocodylus Park are collecting blood samples from the giant reptiles and hope to isolate the antibodies that make them immune from most diseases.

One of those antibodies appears to destroy HIV the broadcaster reports.

Professor Mark Merchant, an American biochemist working with the Australian researchers said that in addition to being immune from most diseases crocodiles often lose limbs in territorial fighting but rarely succumb to any illnesses.

Merchant said that the team hopes to isolate the antibody chemicals that are in crocodile blood and reproduced them for use in drugs for humans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nanuq:
The hardest part of the process is getting the crocodile to donate the blood.

---

Especially annoying as CBS just reduced the deferral for those who have sex with an opposite sex partner whose sexual history they don't know from 12 to 6 months.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nanuq:
The hardest part of the process is getting the crocodile to donate the blood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HerculesRockefeller:
PETA will freak over this. I mean, it's not like the crocodile gave up its blood voluntarily.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:
Just in the last decade, Tape_342? I thought the permanent deferral was for MSM anytime after the mid-70s? *grrrr*

Especially annoying as CBS just reduced the deferral for those who have sex with an opposite sex partner whose sexual history they don't know from 12 to 6 months.

The whole thing is stupid and pisses me off A LOT. Totally discriminatory.

---

Stupid question: MSM? CBS?

quote:

---

Ya, better a human die slowly than an animal with a brain the size of a walnut donate blood against its will.

---

Er, what relevance is the size of the brain of the animal in question, really? Would you be more likley to take PETAs side if the animal in question had a brain the size of a grapefruit, or a loaf of bread, or a basketball? I think for most people who would disagree with PETA's position, the concern is that the blood in question comes from a non-human, not the size of the brain of the animal.

I also think its more than a bit disingenuous to refer to the animal "donating" blood (when not speaking in a tongue in cheek sense) - I'd imagine they will be killed, and the blood will be harvested. People can make whatever judgement they want on whether the rights of the animal or the people who benefit from the treatment, but I do have an issue when people don't want to face what their choice means.

*edited to add*

quote:

---

Stupid question: MSM? CBS?

---

No such thing! I apologize for random acronym use (what can I say? I work for the government!)

MSM = men who have sex with men
CBS = Canadian Blood Services

[ 22 August 2005: Message edited by: swirrlygrrl ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Ya, better a human die slowly than an animal with a brain the size of a walnut donate blood against its will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swirrlygrrl:
I also think its more than a bit disingenuous to refer to the animal "donating" blood (when not speaking in a tongue in cheek sense) - I'd imagine they will be killed, and the blood will be harvested.

---

Here is another issue that riles me up. Do you remember, some years ago, that it was discovered that there were sex workers in Nairobi who seemed to be 'immune' to HIV? Big Pharma was very interested in studying these women because of the possibility of using their specific genetic material to create a vaccine. Now here is the thing: it appeared that patent rights for pharmaceutical products derived from their DNA could be legally secured, as long as the company obtained a waiver from the original donors.

quote:

---

Er, what relevance is the size of the brain of the animal in question, really?

---

It correlates with cognitive functions, and so to whatever degree you believe an animal suffers under any given treatment, it's going to suffer more if it has a larger brain to recognize that suffering.

It's why nobody talks about cruelty to plants, right? The assumption that plants lack any self-awareness or consciousness?

quote:

---

People can make whatever judgement they want on whether the rights of the animal or the people who benefit from the treatment, but I do have an issue when people don't want to face what their choice means.

---

Why would you think I wasn't being tongue in cheek?

[ 22 August 2005: Message edited by: chubbybear ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nanuq:
The hardest part of the process is getting the crocodile to donate the blood.

---

quote:

---

From the crocodilehunter.com:
Crikey, we’ve come a long way in our croc trapping technology since 1980. Australia Zoo’s International Crocodile Rescue allows me the freedom and engineering expertise to design, build, trial and utilize the most advanced trapping techniques in the world.
-Steve Irwin

---

quote:

---

It correlates with cognitive functions, and so to whatever degree you believe an animal suffers under any given treatment, it's going to suffer more if it has a larger brain to recognize that suffering.

---

Dangerous assumption. Brain size has only a rough correlation to cognitive function. The human brain only needs about 10% of its mass, I believe. Further, "suffering" doesn't require much cognitive function. Just because we can't understand much about reptiles, we mammals needn't assume we're vastly superior to them.

quote:

---

It's why nobody talks about cruelty to plants, right? The assumption that plants lack any self-awareness or consciousness?

---

Actually, there has been some interesting research in this area. Evidently, plants do *respond* to having neighbouring plants killed. To call it "consciousness" is pushing it but, still, it's best to tread softly.

As far as the crocodile blood goes, though, once a decent amount is collected, why can't it be grown in the lab thereafter? It's certainly doable for DNA (via polymerase chain reactions) so why not for other types of cells?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MyNameisLeo:
PETA is supported by a vast spectrum of people, not all of whom will appreciate the reference to "animal rights kooks." There was a time, not that long ago, when people talked about "women's rights kooks" and even more recently "gay people's kooks."

---

quote:

---

Dangerous assumption. Brain size has only a rough correlation to cognitive function...Further, "suffering" doesn't require much cognitive function.

---

Word.

People tend not to worry a lot about the pain caused to animals when the animals aren't cute and in their sight (usually must have both conditions).

Some people don't like the correlation (and PETA has a habit of discussing at times in the most broad, offensive, aggressive, confrontational terms, which I don't think is particularly effective or helpful), but human history is ripe with examples of people declaring that those who are different, other in some way, are less worthy of consideration. Currently, we look back on a lot of their logics and rationales and actions as wrong, or mistaken.

Some animal rights activists think humans should see all pain as valid, regardless of whether it is human or animal. They think we are, or should, be moving away from such distinctions. I have my own personal opinions, but again, I think that people should be honest about what they think and why - justifying things in bad science isn't needed. Why not simply say "they're a crocodile, and regardless of whether they feel pain, or how much of it they feel, I value a human life over their life, or their pain?"

I'll end with some Shakespeare.

quote:

---

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?

---

quote:

---

Word.

People tend not to worry a lot about the pain caused to animals when the animals aren't cute and in their sight (usually must have both conditions).

---

So, simple question then: would you kill an insect? A mosquito, or a yellowjacket perhaps?

If you believe in "animal rights", do you believe in them for insects as well?

Grow up, Magoo. This isn't about me, or at least I never made it about me. If you want to know my opinions on the issue, you could ask, but I've never stated them, in part because I don't think its black or white - zealots on both sides are problematic (as is usually the case).

But, since you asked, I do kill mosquitos and wasps. Well, actually, I'm squeamish, so in the case of wasps, I run around in a girly fashion, or ask someone else to kill them if they hang around for a bit. And I do so because mosquitos suck my blood and could result in the contraction of West Nile Virus or such, let alone itchy bites, while wasps are aggressive and I've been stung on many occassions. Both are self defense. I could probably kill a human in self defence as well, if I had to.

Anyone who thinks that all animals have "rights" (whether that refers to you or not) either has to say that insects, as animals, also have rights, or else they have to make an exception for insects.

And without putting any words in their mouths, I'd guess that if they make an exception for our smallest animals, it's on the grounds that they lack the sentience and self-awareness that we tend to believe are factors in any organism's ability to suffer. An unaware animal may react to a stimulus, but we don't really think of them, typically, as suffering. Same with plants, as I noted. We know plants are alive, but as they don't have a measurable "brain" we assume them to be unconscious and unaware.

Anyway, I just thought I'd take the chance to needle at one of my bugbears: when I suggest that for the most part consciousness, sentience, and the ability to suffer are proportional to brain size, someone will inevitably suggest that "there's much I don't know".

This may be true, but does it cut the other way?

In other words, if I'm biting off more than I can chew by suggesting that animals with tiny brains don't suffer the way a primate would, for example, then would someone be similarly biting off more than they can chew by suggesting that insects wouldn't suffer? After all, we'd both be making pretty much the same assumption.

Similarly, if you'd kill an insect, why not a shrimp? One lives under your porch, the other under the waves, but otherwise, pretty much the same thing.