Genetic Engineering
 

Is it good or bad? There are alot of different types of genetic engineering. Some are which we have been using for centuries, like

*selective breeding, is when a breed is cultivated over time. To make the breed strong, or to modify it to how we wish the breed to be like. Most remain pure, like pure-breed English Collies, to make that selected dog breed strong, and have no genetic flaws. Others are purposely tempered with, like the labradoodle, or what ever it is, a cross between a Labrador and a poodle, obviously.
Others are uses that we are just discovering, like

*Cloning, which is too make an exact replica of something, through the use of duplicates of DNA fragments (also called molecule cloning). This term also covers plants, bacteria, and insects, that reproduce asexually.

*Genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organisms genes. This is also called gene splicing, and recombinant DNA technology. It uses techniques of transformation and molecule cloning. This means organic things can be modified and changed, to help adapt to certain environments.

So, that are just some examples of the new, genetic engineering which we humans can harness. Is it good or bad though? I think it shouldn’t be used, as the negative sides far out weight the positive. However, we normal folk don’t really seem to have much of a choice, as nearly 60-70% of food we consume (that are sold in supermarkets) are made from genetically engineered crops. They contain substances that humans were not suppose to eat naturally. Who knows what that unnatural stuff will do to us? There could be side effects towards DNA surgery, as such, they could make mutations which could be harmful towards our health and the environment. There could also be wide-spread crop failure, as most seeds (genetically modified ones) are cloned, so they have identical DNA, so if a virus arises, it could wipe out whole crop cell, which is world wide.
Also, messing with DNA could cause new virus to attack us. Many virus cannot harm humans, as the ‘species barrier’ prevents it. However, scientists have been creating new genes that can ‘ignore’ the barrier, this also means there is a lope hole for the virus.

There are my reasons to prevent scientists from continuing genetic engineering. What about you guys?

Fucking with nature is fun. If we stuff up, well, hopefully we managed to make a good successor. As long as it ain't zombies.

Obviously you've got to be careful when messing around with this sort of thing, but some of those reasons are mute. Presumably, as currently scientists are always careful with this, no one's gonna mess about with viruses any time soon (Wait, we already did that. Read: Myxamatosis. I think). GM crops contain non-natural substances? Example please? To my knowledge they've only put certain things into the plants from other plants usually, so that crop provides certain important elements in it that would otherwise only be found elsewhere. This has been done for growing rice in poorer countries, since such a large bulk of their diet is rice, which otherwise is missing certain important nutrients, minerals etc. that the people need to stay healthy. I can't think of any particularly unnatural substances they could put into a plant that would even work if they're that unnatural. Usually the GM crops sold to us are only slightly modified, so they grow faster than the normal variety, but that's essentially the only difference made. A virus arising is unlikely, as somehow it would have to suddenly evolve to fit that type of DNA, arising from something completely different, to do much harm, and even so it could be contained. This is the case with bananas, all banana plants today are clones as some stupid f*ck decided to grow ones without flowers, so now no more of the original flowered variety exist...idiots. Since all banana plants are clones, they have this problem too, yet they've been fine for many years. Also, DNA surgery on a living person is impossible. The only way it would be is if somehow they could change the genetic structure of each and every cell all at the same time, and obviously that's impossible, and even if we did it, a sudden genetic change to a physical body like that which would then be incorrect according to it's own genes...that's just not possible.

I also hate Catholics going on that this is 'playing God' and that it's immoral. How is it immoral exactly, when it can do such good for people if harnessed correctly? And how is it playing God if it's perfectly within our human capabilities? We are nowhere near playing God.

You just can't stop progress, and this is an example of it. The main problem is if it becomes more widely available, and it starts being abused by people. I can see them making viruses for the sake of war, though whether that would easily backfire and wipe out alot of people. All we can do is hope it continues being used in a responsible way.

Yes its cool that poor places can grow rice easy etc now but what isn't cool is that the seeds of these plants spread and so the GM crops will out do the "normal" plants. This will screw things up sooner or later since its messing with the natrual ecosystem of how things are supposed to work.
So all the rice is now toxic or a deterant to whatever bugs used to eat them, what happens when all those bugs die cause they can't eat the rice anymore, what happens to whatever used to eat those bugs? Boom.

Usually this kind of GM crop is restricted from flowering and prevented from breeding genetically, so they can only be reproduced by cloning (which can easily be done in plants by snipping pieces of currently existing plants etc.).
There won't be many insects that reliable on rice as it is usually grown in places where it doesn't naturally occur. In other cases, those insects usually still have access to other food sources as well.

If this were the case, you would see GM products used 0% of the time.

What unnatural substances does genetic engineering of food organisms introduce? All we are doing is adding DNA, which is hardly absent from our food, in fact we need it to survive. So all that there could possibly be is the substances produced by these genes. Genes which have come from other organisms (hardly unnatural). So then, geneticists must have to be modifying our food to produce harmful chemicals for this to be true. I'm sorry, but where's the point in that? That is counter-intuitive to the purpose of GM food. What's the point of creating a crop that produces a toxic antifreeze that remains in them even to the table? Firstly, it will be a natural antifreeze, present in the original organism, so its toxicity, if any, is likely to be limited (and no one will choose to splice a gene for something toxic into food). Secondly, not must is going to be needed just to keep ice crystals from tearing the cells apart, so the quantity is going to be limited and within acceptable levels. Thirdly, it is likely that it would not even survive preparation anyway. These considerations are factored into the design process. It may surprise you to learn, but wavy-haired mad scientists cackling over static electricity in a stone-walled laboratory are somewhat rare in today's genetics industry. I have not yet joined the professional workforce.

You mean gene therapy (the closest I could find to the term)? The effects, so far, are incredibly limited. Our cells do not easily accept foreign DNA, and applications are limited.

A problem only if we go ahead and use only one clone parent, so there is an obvious solution to that, and a pandemic is only possible if the crop is grown the world over (unlikely) and is allowed to spread, which can be dealt with in the usual way. It could only affect one strain of one species, and if the strain was made to grow to feed those unable to grow conventional strains, if the crop fails they are no worse than they would have otherwise been. (harsh, but the logical conclusion). And after all, diversity is an issue that can be dealt with.

I can find no evidence of cross-species risks to humans, only within plants. The viruses used in gene therapy on humans are made using non- or low-pathogenic viruses already present in most humans, such as adenoviruses or adeno-associated viruses.

Obviously care must be taken to prevent engineered genes from entering the wild. Generally the new forms will not out-do the wild phenotypes, even with genes that make them hardier. Remember, they are still domesticated species, and domestication and selective breeding enhances traits that are opposite to those natural selection would favour. Otherwise we would not have had to breed them into these forms in the first place. Obviously. Cross-breeding with wild strains is the biggest concern, and there are ways to tackle this issue (sterile specimens, for example).

That's hardly a new effect with genetic engineering. Pesticides anyone? But genetically engineered crops won't run off into rivers, nor accumulate through the food chain in the manner of pesticides. Those insects that do not eat the crops suddenly have an advantage. If the behaviour is genetic in origin, it will spread through the population in a few generations so long as the crops continue to be grown. Natural selection.



Remember that this is a new technology. There are risks associated, as there is in everything, but they are, can and will be tackled as the technology develops. In the meantime, I do not agree that the risks warrant abolishing all the current and potential benefits genetic engineering can offer us.

BM ends thread with brain destroying science again. :D

Now for the random degeneration into spam and closure by Nate/Hobo.

No no, this is a contentious issue, there's still plenty to be said on the other side of the argument.

Genetic Engineering and stuff like DNA research is what can move us forward. It's ridiculous that something like morality stands in the way of this. We eat cows, pigs, horses. We sentence human beings to death, shoot them in wars and torture them when needed. But we can't experiment with stuff like this because it's not humane? Give me a fucking break.

Experiment! Experiment away until we are all super humans for all I care. If I had the money I'd fund it myself.

Morality is not the real problem with genetic engineering.

It is, since most of those things are illegal to be experimented with on humans.

Who's talking about human experimentation? I mean the risks of the unpredictable way some biological systems might react to a new gene.

You mean sleeper genes getting activated and active genes becoming silent as the direct result of insertion?

How about we also consider the transference of an allergenic gene into another substance like the gene that produces the allergic reaction for a nut appearing in wheat or maize?

Maaaaybe...


But why would anyone insert the peanut gene for the Ara h 1 protein into a new crop? What could possibly be the desired goal?

It was only an example, surely without refinement of the method and more knowledge about the genes in food we could accidentally find an allergenic and place it in bread? Animal testing wouldn't pick that up if it only produced a reaction in humans.

I really don't care about humanity in general. Its just we are stuffing up everything, but then, thats what we do. Ahh, well, if we can survive a nuke, we can survive anything. 'Humane' is a silly word, we gave that up when we started wars.
ANYway, back on topic;
I will admit, there are quite alot of helpful things with genetic engineering.
Like numerous disease could be cured, through, as BM said, gene therapy, which is the medical treatment of infected or damaged genes, or introducing theraputic genes, which helps revive and heal crippled genes. You could also screen a pregnants womans foetuses for any birth defect, and other illnesses. they may also be able to heal the child before it is born.Another benefit is that certain genes can be preserved from plants, like corn and oats, meaning they would be able to grow in harsher envrioments, and with less water. A benefit for third-world countries.

Without experimentation our society won't go anywhere. Go for it.

(APOCALYPSE FTW!!!)

If the birth defect is genetic, then the baby is going to be born with it, unless they get to it at the stage where it's still a single cell, which isn't going to happen unless it's a 'test tube' baby or whatever. The principle of being unable to change the DNA of an already existing organism still stands in this case. And I can't think of a gene that would enable a plant to grow just as well with less water. Harsher environments maybe, but without completely changing the plant, amount of water is going to stay the same.

Morality is a problem because our governments and decided laws seem to have to abide with what silly Catholics think, saying this and that is inhumane or 'immoral' or whatever.

Giving the plant slimmer stomata and/or a thicker cuticle will reduce water loss.

Hmm, well I think Skillya is kinda right. In the sense there are many bad things assosiated with it, though and there are good...
I say, However, forward! In small, tintive steps, not massive leaps that people are doing nowdays, and not studying things throughly.

The last "giant leap" was pointed out by a certain famous naval aviator in the summer of '69.

Seriously, not studying things thoroughly? Just think this through for a minute. Would these things even be possible if we had not studied them thoroughly? In today's anally safety-conscious, officious and bureaucratically choked world, would anything even be allowed without extensive safety testing? Nothing is perfect of course, but seriously, any slower and we wouldn't be moving.

Here in the U.S. the problem seems to be the lack of separation between Church and State and religion heavily influencing policy in recent years. This is especially true in the regard of stem cell research, etc. As for Genetic Engineering, the question of ethics may be addressed but like any ambiguous set of possibilities there is always the potential for large breakthroughs and positive advancement, but also the huge potential for abuse and maladaptive thoughts usage that may arise.

Sometimes radical and groundbreaking decisions are needed for our advancement aka "The Greater Good," or the notion that there is no progress without risks. The rub is that such a notion of the greater good is always going to fall into ambiguity or morally gray areas, as such will be a subjective truth rather than concretely objective or definitive. This is life however and I guess it's a fitting reflection.

I would like a black lab sized rhino, please.

Me too.

With tentacles.

Al, I agree with you that a lack of seperation between religion and state is a major problem but I don't share your belief that the Stem Cell issue is an example of that. I'd say that that is the politicians using their personal sense of ethics to make their decisions; which is surely what we vote them for.