[sammiz]

I do not believe that just because it can be done that it should be done. I am of the belief that man is not knowledgeable enough in these areas to be doing these things.

There is a lot of experimentation going on. The part that we (the general public) have knowledge of is just the tip of the iceberg. If you read the entire article there are many points in there that should cause concern.

First, they have been trying this for a while and have just recently become successful at the attempts. Those of you that are breeders have a modicum of knowledge about genetics and how faults are passed from grandparents, to parents to pups. (This is not a disrespectful statement, for the comparison is between breeders and scientists). All this in a 'natural' process. What sort of problems may these pups have that are not yet apparent and who is to say that these pups will not display problems in the next generation or the one after that or the one after that? The life span of a dog, compared to that of humans means that these pups could be observed by the scientists, for a time, in order to insure that things have not gone awry. This would be the responsible thing to do. However, due to the high prices they charge for the process, I believe that the 'responsible thing' becomes secondary. There it is again....that global greed disease rearing it's ugly head once again.

The article states that the woman is donating the others to work as service dogs for the handicapped or elderly. Who assumes responsibility for the suitability of these 'experimental dogs' for this purpose? Anyone? No one? If they are proven not suitable and something disastrous occurs, who then is liable?

I have much more I could say about this subject, but this is enough to get my point across, I guess. I am also one that will not eat genetically altered foods. I just simply do not have enough faith in the knowledge of humans in this area. Sometimes, what they know is not what they think they know and vice versa.