Good facts inform good ethics. It is therefore obligatory to look into the current research knowledge about xenotransplants (organs from one species to another, for example animal to human) in more detail. The advocates of xenotransplantation argue that it could provide organs “relatively quickly” and hence save more lives. If animal organs were easily available for transplantation most eligible recipients would receive the transplantation much earlier on in their illness. It is argued that this may decrease distress and suffering. Whilst xenotransplantation may theoretically increase the survival time, it is unclear, however, whether the negative impact on recipients’ quality of life due to long-term immunosuppressant therapy and the risk of zoonotic infections would in fact worsen the overall long-term outcome3. Recent research suggests that xenotransplantation may be associated with the transmission of pig microorganisms including viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites. Because of the recipient’s likely immunosuppressed state, infection and pathologic consequences may be more pronounced. Transmission of most microorganisms with the exception of the porcine endogenous retroviruses may be prevented by screening the donor pig and qualified pathogen- free breeding. However, porcine endogenous retroviruses represent a special risk as they are present in the genome of all pigs and infect human cells in vitro. Until now, no porcine endogenous retrovirus transmission was observed in experimental and clinical xenotransplantations as well as in numerous infection experiments4. Nevertheless, strategies need to be developed to prevent their transmission to humans.