Talk:Humster

Logic
"The existence of hybrid cell lines would seem to cause a logical conflict for people that hold the two above statements for true."

This statement is false. It exists; therefore, it is logical. The issue would the be ethics of it. The introduction of human "parts" into non human life forms and non human life form's "parts" into humans is not a conflict; the definition of a human goes beyond just our parts, even down to the molecular level.

The article on this aspect should use actual Catholic theology (if the focus is on the Catholic Church, other perspectives would need to be properly cited too though), instead of pseudo-logic with no citations.

LaRoza (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

POV?
It seems to me like there isn't a point of view expressed on the page. Has the POV conflict been resolved, or does it still need work? I'd like to remove the tag if it's appropriate... E ric W es B rown (Talk) 19:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am removing the tag right now. Anyone who states a rationale for a POV issue can put it back.  Blue Rasberry  03:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for deletion of page
I would like to request that this whole page be deleted as it appears to me to have no value other than to spread misinformation (possibly by the anti-vaxxer movement - but this is just a theory). These cells in question are and always will be single cells, not multi-cellular beings - and are also not fully human or hamster. The cells in questions are hamster cells that have had large sums of human DNA patched into them. I would recommend this page be deleted and a discussion of the ethical issues of using human DNA in genetics projects be discussed on a appropriate page. Mfernflower (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Unique promiscuity?
"This is possible due to the unique promiscuity of hamster ova, which allows them to fuse with non-hamster sperm."

I checked all the sources for this article and could find nothing suggesting "the unique promiscuity of hamster ova" has been scientifically proven or studied. In fact, Yanagimachi & Rogers states, "In this study we used the ova of the golden hamster simply because of convenience. The ova of other laboratory animals, such as the rat and mouse, might also be useful for this purpose," and in other studies, other laboratory animals have been used. But there are studies that suggest that among lab animals, hamster ova may be more promiscuous, if that's the term we want to use: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/624928/ But it wasn't tested with human sperm, and it doesn't suggest "unique promiscuity".

But I'm not a bio person or anything. If there's more to the hamster promiscuity thing, or if anyone wants to add any information speaking to which species' ova are more suitable etc., I took something out, so it'd be cool if someone could put something back in. Necropants (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)