dead dogs walking?

if the link is there have a look , it sounds like somethink out of the movies.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117...-13762,00.html

This is disgusting, yet again humans try to play god and mess with nature, this is pathetic and totally inhumane!!!!!!!!!

Fascinating stuff - tons of possible medical applications!

Shame 'they' still insist on calling scientists 'boffins', and I doubt the photo has anything to do with the story though! :smt043 :smt043

Sorry luke cant agree with all you have said
'But even this should be enough to save lives such as battlefield casualties and victims of stabbings or gunshot wounds, who have suffered huge blood loss.'
so you dont think that such lives are not worth saving? this 'inhuman' science could end up saving many lives i say go for it really cant see whats pathetic about it

No i am not saying this, i am saying im sorry but its playing god, i agree with saving life, but this seems to be like playing god, which IMO is wrong.
The Inhuman poart is choosing dogs to do so, yes it is a great step forward in the medical field but it seems wrong to run trial and error on dogs

Luke, pretty much everything we do as humans in the twenty-first century is playing God. Medical intervention of any kind "to save a life" is playing God in itself - nevermind trivial things like the food we eat, contact lenses and glasses, the dogs we have as domesticated pets and so on - the list is endless.

As wonderful as it would be to have some sort of computer software to 'test' on instead of animals, as it stands animals are all we have. Even they aren't 100% reliable - as in the thalidomide incident. Testing these kinds of things on animals can also help animals themselves, not just humans. I'm very much against vivisection for cosmetic purposes, but if you complain about "playing God" think about that in its entirity, not just for the specific situations you disapprove of

You appear to be missing the point who else can they test it on? they have to see if it works first and the implications, imagine if they didnt test it out first and they went straight onto using it on humans
you say its wrong because they are 'playing god' but you agree with saving life you cant have it both ways you either agree with other humans saving life or you dont, how can it be wrong saving a life? im sure if ever something tragic happened to a mem of your family you would want every scientific method available to save them, i sure know i would

i am all for this i think its fantastic.

i think its a good idea, must apologise as i didnt fully read the article, also the way the way the title was worded didnt seem a very nice prospect

Well i would suggest reading the article next time before commenting, thats the whole point of bolty giving the link and not just giving us a title
And by the way you were talking so harshly about it made it seem like you had read it, harsh words for someone who had not read it