header logo image


Page 27«..1020..26272829..»

Archive for the ‘Genetic Engineering’ Category

Genetic Engineering and Diseases Gene Drive & Malaria …

Friday, October 4th, 2019

We have the choice to attack one of our oldest enemies with genetic engineering. But should we do it?

Support us on Patreon so we can make more videos (and get cool stuff in return): https://www.patreon.com/Kurzgesagt?ty=h

Steady: https://steadyhq.com/de/kurzgesagtMerchandise: https://shop.kurzgesagt.org Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/cRUQxzFacebook: http://bit.ly/1NB6U5OTwitter: http://bit.ly/2DDeT83Instagram: http://bit.ly/2DEN7r3Discord: https://discord.gg/cB7ycdv

The Voice of Kurzgesagt: Steve Taylor: http://voice-pool.com/en/english/Get the music of the video here: soundcloud: http://bit.ly/2cJQIskbandcamp: http://bit.ly/2dj4np0http://www.epic-mountain.com

Big thanks to James Gurney and Roya Haghighat-Khah for their help and advice with this video!

THANKS A LOT TO OUR LOVELY PATRONS FOR SUPPORTING US:

Lucien Delbert, Mike C, Ricardo Chavarria, Juha Wellman, Zachary Jordan, Patrick Chang, Adrian Mihali, Nicodemos Nicodemou, Lacey Larson, Austin Earnest, Andre Wee, Koroslak, Alex Brady, Roberto Cano, Andreas Stokholm, Plamen Ivanov, E Smith, Kieran Hunter-East, Christopher Trinh, Tony Kwok, Adam Rabenstein, Andrew Whitehurst, Alena Vlachova, Mackenzie Broadbent, Andreas Hertle, Martin Petersen, Kasturi Raghavan, Gregory Griffin, KiaTheDead, Aaron Stevens, Jimmy C, Benedikt Jaletzke, Jonathan Bowler, Zdravko aek, Wouter Stokhof, Zealotus, Long Vu, Fatman13, Jeremy Dumet, Miles Spoor, Mirton I, Al Fl, Jonathan Carter, Stanislaw Wasowicz, Marek Turcani, Francisco Santos, Justin Choi, Dagoberto Chapa, Chip Salzenberg, TinFung, Bob Bergeron, Peer, Justin Elstrott, Rachid Malik, Octavio Astillo, Romain Isnel, Rich Sekmistrz, Kuosora, Mozart Petter, Justin Jeffries, Nicola Licheri, Bahram Malaekeh, Florent Petterschmitt, David Mark, Gaby Germanos, Shweta Bharadwai, Lux Stamm, Marc Johann, Joe, Nefaur Khandker, Anders Madsen, Sarah Yoshi, monoxide, Brandon Meador, Dovydas Bartkevicius, Tyler Vigen, Michael Niella, Gordon Timilty, Slava Dzyba, Bagel Krippen Chandra, KodinCage, Miikka Harjuntausta, Magid Elgady, Vince Houmes, Irae Carvalho, Josh Talbot, Mr.Z, Pawel Urbanek, Russ Clarke, Lucas Tostes, Oscar Chamaria, Zachary Langdon, Steve Bollenbaugh, Xiaogiang Zheng, Peter LoPinto, Jenny Nordenborg, Evan Faas, Greg Fowler, Cicmil Mladen, Canut Durgun, Malovich, Cedric, Dave Anderson, Jones, Elliot, Denis Dube, David Allen, Dawson Reid, Jake Zwirdowski, Denis Leu

SOURCES AND FURTHER READING:

Harvard FAQs on gene drive:http://bit.ly/1TYNIAo

Research paper on using CRISPR for malaria gene drive:http://bit.ly/2cGXNqp

Nature article on engineered mosquitos:http://go.nature.com/1Ij39yS

STAT new article on using gene drive against Zika:http://bit.ly/2ctw24X

Tech review article on using gene drive against malaria:http://bit.ly/1V0Qpr7

Smithsonian on deadliness of mosquitos:http://bit.ly/1sqQ1D7

Science article about the risks of the technology:http://bit.ly/2dgtpCt

New Yorker on Pros and Cons:http://bit.ly/1PTKGlt

Gates note on death rate through mosquitos:http://bit.ly/1UdvIqI

Status quo on field trial in the U.S.:http://bit.ly/2b16ufu

Evolution working against gene drive technology:http://theatln.tc/2cmMjau

Research paper on evolution of resistance against gene drive:http://bit.ly/2cGWPKO

Science news on possible safety feature for gene drive:http://bit.ly/29I0Z26

Help us caption & translate this video!

http://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_p...

Read more:
Genetic Engineering and Diseases Gene Drive & Malaria ...

Read More...

Category:Genetic engineering – Wikimedia Commons

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2019

ingeniera gentica (es); (kk-kz); Kejuruteraan genetik (ms); (kk-cn); (bg); genetik mhendislii (tr); (zh-hk); Genteknik (sv); (uk); Genetika inenerligi (tk); (zh-hant); (zh-cn); Genetik injeneriya (uz); (kk); Gentekniko (eo); genetick inenrstv (cs); Genetiki inenjering (bs); (bn); gnie gntique (fr); Genetiko inenjerstvo (hr); K thut di truyn (vi); (kk-arab); Genetka njenerligi (kk-latn); genetiese manipulasie (af); (sr); Engenharia gentica (pt-br); (zh-sg); Gentechnik (lb); genmodifisering (nn); genslyd (nb); Rkayasa genetik (su); (kk-cyrl); (zh-hans); (lzh); (ckb); genetic engineering (en); (ar); Teknologiezh c'henetek (br); (zh-tw); (pa); (yue); Genetka njenerligi (kk-tr); Genetik mhndisliyi (az); Genetiki inenjering (sr-el); ingeniaritza genetiko (eu); (he); Inxeniera xentica (ast); Enginyeria gentica (ca); Gentechnik (de-ch); Jinetik injinierin (jam); (gan-hans); Inxhinieria gjenetike (sq); (hy); (zh); Gensplejsning (da); (ka); (ja); genetische technologie (nl); (be); (ky); (gan-hant); (si); Technologia genetica (la); rekayasa genetika (id); (hi); (wuu); Angenharie gentica (mwl); Endazyariya bmayk (ku-latn); Genetic engineering (en-ca); (th); (ta); ingegneria genetica (it); (mn); Innealtireacht ghiniteach (ga); Rekonbinezon jenetik (ht); geenitehnoloogia (et); genetic engineering (en-gb); Geenitekniikka (fi); (ur); (gan); Endazyariya bmayk (ku); Ncignira gintica (scn); engenharia gentica (pt); (fa); gnu inenierija (lv); genetic ingineerin (sco); Gen ininerija (lt); Genetsko inenirstvo (sl); Inhenyeriyang henetiko (tl); Inginerie genetic (ro); (ru); Inhenyerya henetika (war); inynieria genetyczna (pl); (ml); Genetiki inenjering (sh); (ba); Gentechnik (de); (sr-ec); Genetyske technology (fy); Enxeara xentica (gl); (ko); (el); (ku-arab) tecnologa de la manipulacin y transferencia de ADN (es); ensemble des outils de manipulation du gnome (fr); direkte manipulering av genomet til ein organisme ved hjelp av bioteknologi (nn); (he); directe modificatie van het genoom van een organisme (nl); , (ba); Methoden und Verfahren der Biotechnologie (de); biotekniikan haara (fi); direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology (en); zintne par gnu prmainanu un prstdanu (lv); settore delle biotecnologie che si occupa della manipolazione dei geni (it) Tecnologa del ADN recombinante, Modificacion genetica, Ingeniera gnica, Biogentica, Manipulacin gentica, Biotecnologa gentica, Tecnologia del ADN recombinante (es); (ky); ingenieritza genetikoa (eu); (ru); (ba); Gentechnisch, Rekombinante DNA-Technologie, Gentechnologisch, Genmodifikation, Gentechnologie, Genmanipulation, Graue Gentechnik (de); Inxhinieringu gjenetik (sq); , , , , , , , , (zh); Genmanipulation, Gensplejset (da); Gen mhendislii, Genetik manplasyon, Gen mhendislii gelimeleri, Genetik mhendislik, Genetik modifikasyon, Gen ekleme, DNA klonlamas (tr); , , , , , , DNA, (ja); Gentekniken (sv); (uk); Geenimuuntelu, Geenimanipulointi, Geenimanipulaatio, Geeniteknologia, Geenimuokkaus (fi); , (kk); Genetika inenierio (eo); genetick manipulace, genov inenrstv, genetick modifikace (cs); (ta); Tecnologia DNA ricombinante, Manipolazione genetica (it); manipulation gntique, ingnierie gntique, ingnierie du gnome (fr); Genetski inenjering (hr); Ingigniria ginetica, Ngignira gintica (scn); Modificao gentica, Modificao celular, Modificao da celula, engenharia genetica (pt); Geneticko inzenjerstvo, , (sr); , , (ko); Rekayasa gen, Rekayasa genetik, Rekayasa biologi (id); genspleising, genslyd, genteknikk (nn); Genetic engineering (ml); GGO, Frankenstein-voedsel, GMO, genmodificatie, genetische modificatie, gentechnologie, gmo's, transgeen, genetische verbetering, genentechnologie, genetisch gemodificeerd organisme, gentech, genetische manipulatie, ggo's (nl); Manipulacin xentica, Enxeera xentica (gl); geenitehnika, geenimanipulatsioon (et); Genetic engineering (gan); K thut di truyn (vi); genetic modification, genetic manipulation (en); , , , , , Genetic engineering, , , , , (ar); Genetic engineering, (ur); Genmanipulering, Genmanipulasjon, Genetisk modifisering, Genspleising, Genmodifisering (nb)

Here is the original post:
Category:Genetic engineering - Wikimedia Commons

Read More...

10 Reasons to Oppose Genetic Engineering – NW RAGE

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2019

10 Reasons to Oppose Genetic Engineering

2. Health risksGenetic engineering can make foods that were once safe to eat a threat to people with allergies. Because this process is unpredictable, new substances can develop in engineered foods. The FDA knows this and does some testing, but there are no guarantees.

Besides the new allergies, inserting genes into plants and animals can cause existing genes to react in unknown ways, including reduced nutritional values and changes in organism quality.

4. Biodiversity in dangerEngineering specific traits into select species threatens the planets biodiversity by upsetting the natural balance. Engineered organisms spread uncontained into the wild. They also spread their genes into the gene pool. Once engineered organisms are released, there will be no recalls, and as they continue to upset nature, it may be impossible to undo the damage.

5. Genetic engineering is about corporate control of agricultureThe reason to engineer and patent a seed is to make money off of a captive market. Although some family farmers in the US are using this technology, they are not the driving force behind its creation. Genetically engineered crops further lock farmers into a cycle of dependence on quick fix techno schemes with royalty fees and debts to the bank.

6. Organic Agriculture is at RiskGenetically engineered plants do not recognize buffer zones and containment fields. They will drift and they will be carried wherever fate will have it. Contamination of conventional and organic crops isn't a matter of if, its a matter of when. These new creations have proven impossible to contain outside of a lab.

So who will be liable when this contamination occurs? Not the Biotech companies. Currently there are few if any laws assigning liability to life's new architects. The laws that do exist are concerned with intellectual property rights. It seems the court want to be certain you pay for every GE seed that grows, whether you planted it or not.

8. Increase in insecticide and herbicide useWhen plants are engineered to resist insecticides, farmers spray more insecticide on the plants. Couple that with pests building up insecticide resistance because of the larger usage and you have a company selling more chemicals, an environment more polluted, and a farmer more dependent.

9. Monopolization of food productionThe spread of genetic engineering coincides with widening legal possibilities to patent plants and their genes. Patents on food bear the intrinsic danger that a few transnational corporations obtain exclusive control over the whole chain of food production, from the gene to the dish. Initial conflicts over patent rights in Northern America show how, in the future, farmers may lose some of the rights concerning their crops. Patents on life are not compatible with the concept of intellectual property rights. They confer rights which go far beyond what the "inventor" has really accomplished.

Source: Basic outline and text adapted and borrowed from The Church's Statement on Genetic Engineering 2003.

Original post:
10 Reasons to Oppose Genetic Engineering - NW RAGE

Read More...

Regulation of genetic engineering – Wikipedia

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2019

The regulation of genetic engineering varies widely by country. Countries such as the United States, Canada, Lebanon and Egypt use substantial equivalence as the starting point when assessing safety, while many countries such as those in the European Union, Brazil and China authorize GMO cultivation on a case-by-case basis. Many countries allow the import of GM food with authorization, but either do not allow its cultivation (Russia, Norway, Israel) or have provisions for cultivation, but no GM products are yet produced (Japan, South Korea). Most countries that do not allow for GMO cultivation do permit research.[1]One of the key issues concerning regulators is whether GM products should be labeled. Labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries.[2] Labeling can be mandatory up to a threshold GM content level (which varies between countries) or voluntary. A study investigating voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%.[3] In Canada and the USA labeling of GM food is voluntary,[4] while in Europe all food (including processed food) or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled.[5]

There is a scientific consensus[6][7][8][9] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[10][11][12][13][14] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[15][16][17] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[18][19][20][21] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[22][23][24][25]

There is no evidence to support the idea that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health.[26][27][28] Some scientists and advocacy groups, such as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund, have however called for additional and more rigorous testing for GM food.[27]

The development of a regulatory framework concerning genetic engineering began in 1975, at Asilomar, California. The first use of Recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology had just been successfully accomplished by Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer two years previously and the scientific community recognized that as well as benefits this technology could also pose some risks.[29] The Asilomar meeting recommended a set of guidelines regarding the cautious use of recombinant technology and any products resulting from that technology.[30] The Asilomar recommendations were voluntary, but in 1976 the US National Institute of Health (NIH) formed a rDNA advisory committee.[31] This was followed by other regulatory offices (the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)), effectively making all rDNA research tightly regulated in the USA.[32]

In 1982 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a report into the potential hazards of releasing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment as the first transgenic plants were being developed.[33] As the technology improved and genetically organisms moved from model organisms to potential commercial products the USA established a committee at the Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) to develop mechanisms to regulate the developing technology.[32] In 1986 the OSTP assigned regulatory approval of genetically modified plants in the US to the USDA, FDA and EPA.[34]

The basic concepts for the safety assessment of foods derived from GMOs have been developed in close collaboration under the auspices of the OECD, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). A first joint FAO/WHO consultation in 1990 resulted in the publication of the report Strategies for Assessing the Safety of Foods Produced by Biotechnology in 1991.[35] Building on that, an international consensus was reached by the OECDs Group of National Experts on Safety in Biotechnology, for assessing biotechnology in general, including field testing GM crops.[36] That Group met again in Bergen, Norway in 1992 and reached consensus on principles for evaluating the safety of GM food; its report, The safety evaluation of foods derived by modern technology concepts and principles was published in 1993.[37] That report recommends conducting the safety assessment of a GM food on a case-by-case basis through comparison to an existing food with a long history of safe use. This basic concept has been refined in subsequent workshops and consultations organized by the OECD, WHO, and FAO, and the OECD in particular has taken the lead in acquiring data and developing standards for conventional foods to be used in assessing substantial equivalence.[38][39]

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was adopted on 29 January 2000 and entered into force on 11 September 2003.[40] It is an international treaty that governs the transfer, handling, and use of genetically modified (GM) organisms. It is focused on movement of GMOs between countries and has been called a de facto trade agreement.[41] One hundred and fifty-seven countries are members of the Protocol and many use it as a reference point for their own regulations.[42] Also in 2003 the Codex Alimentarius Commission of the FAO/WHO adopted a set of "Principles and Guidelines on foods derived from biotechnology" to help countries coordinate and standardize regulation of GM food to help ensure public safety and facilitate international trade.[43] and updated its guidelines for import and export of food in 2004,[44]

The European Union first introduced laws requiring GMO's to be labelled in 1997.[45] In 2013, Connecticut became the first state to enact a labeling law in the USA, although it would not take effect until other states followed suit.[46]

Institutions that conduct certain types of scientific research must obtain permission from government authorities and ethical committees before they conduct any experiments. Universities and research institutes generally have a special committee that is responsible for approving any experiments that involve genetic engineering. Many experiments also need permission from a national regulatory group or legislation. All staff must be trained in the use of GMOs and in some laboratories a biological control safety officer is appointed. All laboratories must gain approval from their regulatory agency to work with GMOs and all experiments must be documented.[47] As of 2008 there have been no major accidents with GMOs in the lab.[48]

The legislation covering GMOS was initially covered by adapting existing regulations in place for chemicals or other purposes, with many countries later developing specific policies aimed at genetic engineering.[49] These are often derived from regulations and guidelines in place for the non-GMO version of the organism, although they are more severe. In many countries now the regulations are diverging, even though many of the risks and procedures are similar. Sometimes even different agencies are responsible, notably in the Netherlands where the Ministry of the Environment covers GMOs and the Ministry of Social Affairs covers the human pathogens they are derived from.[48]

There is a near universal system for assessing the relative risks associated with GMOs and other agents to laboratory staff and the community. They are then assigned to one of four risk categories based on their virulence, the severity of disease, the mode of transmission, and the availability of preventive measures or treatments. There are some differences in how these categories are defined, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) including dangers to animals and the environment in their assessments. When there are varying levels of virulence the regulators base their classification on the highest. Accordingly there are four biosafety levels that a laboratory can fall into, ranging from level 1 (which is suitable for working with agents not associated with disease) to level 4 (working with life threatening agents). Different countries use different nomenclature to describe the levels and can have different requirements for what can be done at each level.[48]

In Europe the use of living GMOs are regulated by the European Directive on the contained use of genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs).[47] The regulations require risk assessments before use of any contained GMOs is started and assurances that the correct controls are in place. It provides the minimal standards for using GMMs, with individual countries allowed to enforce stronger controls.[50] In the UK the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2014 provides the framework researchers must follow when using GMOs. Other legislation may be applicable depending on what research is carried out. For workplace safety these include the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Carriage of Dangerous Goods legislation and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. Environmental risks are covered by Section 108(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and The Genetically Modified Organisms (Risk assessment) (Records and Exemptions) Regulations 1996.[51]

In the USA the National Institute of Health (NIH) classifies GMOs into four risk groups. Risk group one is not associated with any diseases, risk group 2 is associated with diseases that are not serious, risk group 3 is associated with serious diseases where treatments are available and risk group 4 is for serious diseases with no known treatments.[47] In 1992 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration determined that its current legislation already adequately covers the safety of laboratory workers using GMOs.[49]

Australia has an exempt dealing for genetically modified organisms that only pose a low risk. These include systems using standard laboratory strains as the hosts, recombinant DNA that does not code for a vertebrate toxin or is not derived from a micro-organism that can cause disease in humans. Exempt dealings usually do not require approval from the national regulator. GMOs that pose a low risk if certain management practices are complied with are classified as notifiable low risk dealings. The final classification is for any uses of GMOs that do not meet the previous criteria. These are known as licensed dealings and include cloning any genes that code for vertebrate toxins or using hosts that are capable of causing disease in humans. Licensed dealings require the approval of the national regulator.[52]

Work with exempt GMOs do not need to be carried out in certified laboratories. All others must be contained in a Physical Containment level 1 (PC1) or Physical Containment level 2 (PC2) laboratories. Laboratory work with GMOs classified as low risk, which include knockout mice, are carried out in PC1 lab. This is the case for modifications that do not confer an advantage to the animal or doesn't secrete any infectious agents. If a laboratory strain that is used isn't covered by exempt dealings or the inserted DNA could code for a pathogenic gene, it must be carried out in a PC2 laboratory.[52]

The approaches taken by governments to assess and manage the risks associated with the use of genetic engineering technology and the development and release of GMOs vary from country to country, with some of the most marked differences occurring between the United States and Europe. The United States takes on a less hands-on approach to the regulation of GMOs than in Europe, with the FDA and USDA only looking over pesticide and plant health facets of GMOs.[53] Despite the overall global increase in the production in GMOs, the European Union has still stalled GMOs fully integrating into its food supply.[54] This has definitely affected various countries, including the United States, when trading with the EU.[54][55]

European Union enacted regulatory laws in 2003 that provided possibly the most stringent GMO regulations in the world.[5] All GMOs, along with irradiated food, are considered "new food" and subject to extensive, case-by-case, science-based food evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The criteria for authorization fall in four broad categories: "safety," "freedom of choice," "labelling," and "traceability."[56]

The European Parliament's Committee on the Environmental, Public Health, and Consumer Protection pushed forward and adopted a "safety first" principle regarding the case of GMOs, calling for any negative health consequences from GMOs to be held liable.

However, although the European Union has had relatively strict regulations regarding the genetically modified food, Europe is now allowing newer versions of modified maize and other agricultural produce. Also, the level of GMO acceptance in the European Union varies across its countries with Spain and Portugal being more permissive of GMOs than France and the Nordic population.[57] One notable exception however is Sweden. In this country, the government has declared that the GMO definition (according to Directive 2001/18/EC[58]) stipulates that foreign DNA needs to be present in an organism for it to qualify as a genetically modified organisms. Organisms that thus have the foreign DNA removed (for example via selective breeding[59]) do not qualify as GMO's, even if gene editing has thus been used to make the organism.[60]

In Europe the EFSA reports to the European Commission who then draft a proposal for granting or refusing the authorisation. This proposal is submitted to the Section on GM Food and Feed of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and if accepted it will be adopted by the EC or passed on to the Council of Agricultural Ministers. Once in the Council it has three months to reach a qualified majority for or against the proposal, if no majority is reached the proposal is passed back to the EC who will then adopt the proposal.[5] However, even after authorization, individual EU member states can ban individual varieties under a 'safeguard clause' if there are "justifiable reasons" that the variety may cause harm to humans or the environment. The member state must then supply sufficient evidence that this is the case.[61] The Commission is obliged to investigate these cases and either overturn the original registrations or request the country to withdraw its temporary restriction.

The U.S. regulatory policy is governed by the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology[62] The policy has three tenets: "(1) U.S. policy would focus on the product of genetic modification (GM) techniques, not the process itself, (2) only regulation grounded in verifiable scientific risks would be tolerated, and (3) GM products are on a continuum with existing products and, therefore, existing statutes are sufficient to review the products."[63]

For a genetically modified organism to be approved for release in the U.S., it must be assessed under the Plant Protection Act by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) agency within the USDA and may also be assessed by the FDA and the EPA, depending on the intended use of the organism. The USDA evaluate the plants potential to become weeds, the FDA reviews plants that could enter or alter the food supply,[64] and the EPA regulates genetically modified plants with pesticide properties, as well as agrochemical residues.[65]

The level of regulation in other countries lies in between Europe and the United States.

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMASA) is responsible for assessing the safety of GMOs in most of Africa, although the final decision lies with each individual country.[66]

India and China are the two largest producers of genetically modified products in Asia.[67] The Office of Agricultural Genetic Engineering Biosafety Administration (OAGEBA) is responsible for regulation in China,[68] while in India it is the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBSC), Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) and Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).[69]

Brazil and Argentina are the 2nd and 3rd largest producers of GM food.[70] In Argentine assessment of GM products for release is provided by the National Agricultural Biotechnology Advisory Committee (environmental impact), the National Service of Health and Agrifood Quality (food safety) and the National Agribusiness Direction (effect on trade), with the final decision made by the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fishery and Food.[71] In Brazil the National Biosafety Technical Commission is responsible for assessing environmental and food safety and prepares guidelines for transport, importation and field experiments involving GM products, while the Council of Ministers evaluates the commercial and economical issues with release.[71]

Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency[72] are responsible for evaluating the safety and nutritional value of genetically modified foods released in Canada.[73]

License applications for the release of all genetically modified organisms in Australia is overseen by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, while regulation is provided by the Therapeutic Goods Administration for GM medicines or Food Standards Australia New Zealand for GM food. The individual state governments can then assess the impact of release on markets and trade and apply further legislation to control approved genetically modified products.[74][75]

One of the key issues concerning regulators is whether GM products should be labeled. Labeling can be mandatory up to a threshold GM content level (which varies between countries) or voluntary. A study investigating voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%.[3] In Canada and the United States labeling of GM food is voluntary,[4] while in Europe all food (including processed food) or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled.[5] In the US state of Oregon., voters rejected Measure 27, which would have required labeling of all genetically modified foods.[80] Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Australia require labeling so consumers can exercise choice between foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins.[81]

The Cartagena Protocol sets the requirements for the international trade of GMO's between countries that are signatories to it. Any shipments contain genetically modified organisms that are intended to be used as feed, food or for processing must be identified and a list of the transgenic events be available.

"Substantial equivalence" is a starting point for the safety assessment for GM foods that is widely used by national and international agenciesincluding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Japan's Ministry of Health and Welfare and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization and the OECD.[82]

A quote from FAO, one of the agencies that developed the concept, is useful for defining it: "Substantial equivalence embodies the concept that if a new food or food component is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with respect to safety (i.e., the food or food component can be concluded to be as safe as the conventional food or food component)".[83] The concept of substantial equivalence also recognises the fact that existing foods often contain toxic components (usually called antinutrients) and are still able to be consumed safelyin practice there is some tolerable chemical risk taken with all foods, so a comparative method for assessing safety needs to be adopted. For instance, potatoes and tomatoes can contain toxic levels of respectively, solanine and alpha-tomatine alkaloids.[84][85]

To decide if a modified product is substantially equivalent, the product is tested by the manufacturer for unexpected changes in a limited set of components such as toxins, nutrients, or allergens that are present in the unmodified food. The manufacturer's data is then assessed by a regulatory agency, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. That data, along with data on the genetic modification itself and resulting proteins (or lack of protein), is submitted to regulators. If regulators determine that the submitted data show no significant difference between the modified and unmodified products, then the regulators will generally not require further food safety testing. However, if the product has no natural equivalent, or shows significant differences from the unmodified food, or for other reasons that regulators may have (for instance, if a gene produces a protein that had not been a food component before), the regulators may require that further safety testing be carried out.[37]

A 2003 review in Trends in Biotechnology identified seven main parts of a standard safety test:[86]

There has been discussion about applying new biochemical concepts and methods in evaluating substantial equivalence, such as metabolic profiling and protein profiling. These concepts refer, respectively, to the complete measured biochemical spectrum (total fingerprint) of compounds (metabolites) or of proteins present in a food or crop. The goal would be to compare overall the biochemical profile of a new food to an existing food to see if the new food's profile falls within the range of natural variation already exhibited by the profile of existing foods or crops. However, these techniques are not considered sufficiently evaluated, and standards have not yet been developed, to apply them.[87]

Transgenic animals have genetically modified DNA. Animals are different from plants in a variety of waysbiology, life cycles, or potential environmental impacts.[88] GM plants and animals were being developed around the same time, but due to the complexity of their biology and inefficiency with laboratory equipment use, their appearance in the market was delayed.[89]

There are six categories that genetically engineered (GE) animals are approved for:[90]

The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.

Domingo, Jos L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Gin (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.

Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40 (6): 132. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.

And contrast:

Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 37 (2): 15. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN0738-8551. PMID26767435. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.

and

Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96 (6): 185155. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011).

Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.

Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

"REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 September 2012. Retrieved March 21, 2017. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

"Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved March 21, 2016. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.

Originally posted here:
Regulation of genetic engineering - Wikipedia

Read More...

Genetic Engineering | Talking Glossary of Genetic Terms …

Saturday, September 14th, 2019

Genetic engineering is a term that was first introduced into our language in the 1970s to describe the emerging field of recombinant DNA technology and some of the things that were going on. As most people who read textbooks and things know, recombinant DNA technology started with pretty simple things--cloning very small pieces of DNA and growing them in bacteria--and has evolved to an enormous field where whole genomes can be cloned and moved from cell to cell, to cell using variations of techniques that all would come under genetic engineering as a very broad definition. To me, genetic engineering, broadly defined, means that you are taking pieces of DNA and combining them with other pieces of DNA. [This] doesn't really happen in nature, but is something that you engineer in your own laboratory and test tubes. And then taking what you have engineered and propagating that in any number of different organisms that range from bacterial cells to yeast cells, to plants and animals. So while there isn't a precise definition of genetic engineering, I think it more defines an entire field of recombinant DNA technology, genomics, and genetics in the 2000s.

Link:
Genetic Engineering | Talking Glossary of Genetic Terms ...

Read More...

Human Genetic Engineering – Probe Ministries

Wednesday, May 15th, 2019

Although much has occurred in this field since this article was written in 2000, the questions addressed by Dr. Bohlin are still timely and relevant. Is manipulating our genetic code simply a tool or does it deal with deeper issues? Dealing with genetic engineering must be done within the context of the broader ethical and theological issues involved. In the article, Dr. Bohlin provides an excellent summary driven from his biblical worldview perspective.

Genetic technology harbors the potential to change the human species forever. The soon to be completed Human Genome Project will empower genetic scientists with a human biological instruction book. The genes in all our cells contain the code for proteins that provide the structure and function to all our tissues and organs. Knowing this complete code will open new horizons for treating and perhaps curing diseases that have remained mysteries for millennia. But along with the commendable and compassionate use of genetic technology comes the specter of both shadowy purposes and malevolent aims.

For some, the potential for misuse is reason enough for closing the door completelythe benefits just arent worth the risks. In this article, Id like to explore the application of genetic technology to human beings and apply biblical wisdom to the eventual ethical quagmires that are not very far away. In this section well investigate the various ways humans can be engineered.

Since we have introduced foreign genes into the embryos of mice, cows, sheep, and pigs for years, theres no technological reason to suggest that it cant be done in humans too. Currently, there are two ways of pursuing gene transfer. One is simply to attempt to alleviate the symptoms of a genetic disease. This entails gene therapy, attempting to transfer the normal gene into only those tissues most affected by the disease. For instance, bronchial infections are the major cause of early death for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). The lungs of CF patients produce thick mucus that provides a great growth medium for bacteria and viruses. If the normal gene can be inserted in to the cells of the lungs, perhaps both the quality and quantity of their life can be enhanced. But this is not a complete cure and they will still pass the CF gene on to their children.

In order to cure a genetic illness, the defective gene must be replaced throughout the body. If the genetic defect is detected in an early embryo, its possible to add the gene at this stage, allowing the normal gene to be present in all tissues including reproductive tissues. This technique has been used to add foreign genes to mice, sheep, pigs, and cows.

However, at present, no laboratory is known to be attempting this well-developed technology in humans. Princeton molecular biologist Lee Silver offers two reasons.{1} First, even in animals, it only works 50% of the time. Second, even when successful, about 5% of the time, the new gene gets placed in the middle of an existing gene, creating a new mutation. Currently these odds are not acceptable to scientists and especially potential clients hoping for genetic engineering of their offspring. But these are only problems of technique. Its reasonable to assume that these difficulties can be overcome with further research.

The primary use for human genetic engineering concerns the curing of genetic disease. But even this should be approached cautiously. Certainly within a Christian worldview, relieving suffering wherever possible is to walk in Jesus footsteps. But what diseases? How far should our ability to interfere in life be allowed to go? So far gene therapy is primarily tested for debilitating and ultimately fatal diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

The first gene therapy trial in humans corrected a life-threatening immune disorder in a two-year-old girl who, now ten years later, is doing well. The gene therapy required dozens of applications but has saved the family from a $60,000 per year bill for necessary drug treatment without the gene therapy.{2} Recently, sixteen heart disease patients, who were literally waiting for death, received a solution containing copies of a gene that triggers blood vessel growth by injection straight into the heart. By growing new blood vessels around clogged arteries, all sixteen showed improvement and six were completely relieved of pain.

In each of these cases, gene therapy was performed as a last resort for a fatal condition. This seems to easily fall within the medical boundaries of seeking to cure while at the same time causing no harm. The problem will arise when gene therapy will be sought to alleviate a condition that is less than life-threatening and perhaps considered by some to simply be one of lifes inconveniences, such as a gene that may offer resistance to AIDS or may enhance memory. Such genes are known now and many are suggesting that these goals will and should be available for gene therapy.

The most troublesome aspect of gene therapy has been determining the best method of delivering the gene to the right cells and enticing them to incorporate the gene into the cells chromosomes. Most researchers have used crippled forms of viruses that naturally incorporate their genes into cells. The entire field of gene therapy was dealt a severe setback in September 1999 upon the death of Jesse Gelsinger who had undergone gene therapy for an inherited enzyme deficiency at the University of Pennsylvania.{3} Jesse apparently suffered a severe immune reaction and died four days after being injected with the engineered virus.

The same virus vector had been used safely in thousands of other trials, but in this case, after releasing stacks of clinical data and answering questions for two days, the researchers didnt fully understand what had gone wrong.{4} Other institutions were also found to have failed to file immediate reports as required of serious adverse events in their trials, prompting a congressional review.{5} All this should indicate that the answers to the technical problems of gene therapy have not been answered and progress will be slowed as guidelines and reporting procedures are studied and reevaluated.

The simple answer is no, at least for the foreseeable future. Gene therapy currently targets existing tissue in a existing child or adult. This may alleviate or eliminate symptoms in that individual, but will not affect future children. To accomplish a correction for future generations, gene therapy would need to target the germ cells, the sperm and egg. This poses numerous technical problems at the present time. There is also a very real concern about making genetic decisions for future generations without their consent.

Some would seek to get around these difficulties by performing gene therapy in early embryos before tissue differentiation has taken place. This would allow the new gene to be incorporated into all tissues, including reproductive organs. However, this process does nothing to alleviate the condition of those already suffering from genetic disease. Also, as mentioned earlier this week, this procedure would put embryos at unacceptable risk due to the inherent rate of failure and potential damage to the embryo.

Another way to affect germ line gene therapy would involve a combination of gene therapy and cloning.{6} An embryo, fertilized in vitro, from the sperm and egg of a couple at risk for sickle-cell anemia, for example, could be tested for the sickle-cell gene. If the embryo tests positive, cells could be removed from this early embryo and grown in culture. Then the normal hemoglobin gene would be added to these cultured cells.

If the technique for human cloning could be perfected, then one of these cells could be cloned to create a new individual. If the cloning were successful, the resulting baby would be an identical twin of the original embryo, only with the sickle-cell gene replaced with the normal hemoglobin gene. This would result in a normal healthy baby. Unfortunately, the initial embryo was sacrificed to allow the engineering of its identical twin, an ethically unacceptable trade-off.

So what we have seen, is that even human gene therapy is not a long-term solution, but a temporary and individual one. But even in condoning the use of gene therapy for therapeutic ends, we need to be careful that those for whom gene therapy is unavailable either for ethical or monetary reasons, dont get pushed aside. It would be easy to shun those with uncorrected defects as less than desirable or even less than human. There is, indeed, much to think about.

The possibility of someone or some government utilizing the new tools of genetic engineering to create a superior race of humans must at least be considered. We need to emphasize, however, that we simply do not know what genetic factors determine popularly desired traits such as athletic ability, intelligence, appearance and personality. For sure, each of these has a significant component that may be available for genetic manipulation, but its safe to say that our knowledge of each of these traits is in its infancy.

Even as knowledge of these areas grows, other genetic qualities may prevent their engineering. So far, few genes have only a single application in the body. Most genes are found to have multiple effects, sometimes in different tissues. Therefore, to engineer a gene for enhancement of a particular traitsay memorymay inadvertently cause increased susceptibility to drug addiction.

But what if in the next 50 to 100 years, many of these unknowns can be anticipated and engineering for advantageous traits becomes possible. What can we expect? Our concern is that without a redirection of the worldview of the culture, there will be a growing propensity to want to take over the evolution of the human species. The many people see it, we are simply upright, large-brained apes. There is no such thing as an independent mind. Our mind becomes simply a physical construct of the brain. While the brain is certainly complicated and our level of understanding of its intricate machinery grows daily, some hope that in the future we may comprehend enough to change who and what we are as a species in order to meet the future demands of survival.

Edward O. Wilson, a Harvard entomologist, believes that we will soon be faced with difficult genetic dilemmas. Because of expected advances in gene therapy, we will not only be able to eliminate or at least alleviate genetic disease, we may be able to enhance certain human abilities such as mathematics or verbal ability. He says, Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we wish to become.{7} As early as 1978, Wilson reflected on our eventual need to decide how human we wish to remain.{8}

Surprisingly, Wilson predicts that future generations will opt only for repair of disabling disease and stop short of genetic enhancements. His only rationale however, is a question. Why should a species give up the defining core of its existence, built by millions of years of biological trial and error?{9} Wilson is naively optimistic. There are loud voices already claiming that man can intentionally engineer our evolutionary future better than chance mutations and natural selection. The time to change the course of this slow train to destruction is now, not later.

Many of the questions surrounding the ethical use of genetic engineering practices are difficult to answer with a simple yes or no. This is one of them. The answer revolves around the method used to determine the sex selection and the timing of the selection itself.

For instance, if the sex of a fetus is determined and deemed undesirable, it can only be rectified by termination of the embryo or fetus, either in the lab or in the womb by abortion. There is every reason to prohibit this process. First, an innocent life has been sacrificed. The principle of the sanctity of human life demands that a new innocent life not be killed for any reason apart from saving the life of the mother. Second, even in this country where abortion is legal, one would hope that restrictions would be put in place to prevent the taking of a life simply because its the wrong sex.

However, procedures do exist that can separate sperm that carry the Y chromosome from those that carry the X chromosome. Eggs fertilized by sperm carrying the Y will be male, and eggs fertilized by sperm carrying the X will be female. If the sperm sample used to fertilize an egg has been selected for the Y chromosome, you simply increase the odds of having a boy (~90%) over a girl. So long as the couple is willing to accept either a boy or girl and will not discard the embryo or abort the baby if its the wrong sex, its difficult to say that such a procedure should be prohibited.

One reason to utilize this procedure is to reduce the risk of a sex-linked genetic disease. Color-blindness, hemophilia, and fragile X syndrome can be due to mutations on the X chromosome. Therefore, males (with only one X chromosome) are much more likely to suffer from these traits when either the mother is a carrier or the father is affected. (In females, the second X chromosome will usually carry the normal gene, masking the mutated gene on the other X chromosome.) Selecting for a girl by sperm selection greatly reduces the possibility of having a child with either of these genetic diseases. Again, its difficult to argue against the desire to reduce suffering when a life has not been forfeited.

But we must ask, is sex determination by sperm selection wise? A couple that already has a boy and simply wants a girl to balance their family, seems innocent enough. But why is this important? What fuels this desire? Its dangerous to take more and more control over our lives and leave the sovereignty of God far behind. This isnt a situation of life and death or even reducing suffering.

But while it may be difficult to find anything seriously wrong with sex selection, its also difficult to find anything good about it. Even when the purpose may be to avoid a sex-linked disease, we run the risk of communicating to others affected by these diseases that because they could have been avoided, their life is somehow less valuable. So while it may not be prudent to prohibit such practices, it certainly should not be approached casually either.

Notes

1. Lee Silver, Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World, New York, NY: Avon Books, p. 230-231. 2. Leon Jaroff, Success stories, Time, 11 January 1999, p. 72-73. 3. Sally Lehrman, Virus treatment questioned after gene therapy death, Nature Vol. 401 (7 October 1999): 517-518. 4. Eliot Marshall, Gene therapy death prompts review of adenovirus vector, Science Vol. 286 (17 December 1999): 2244-2245. 5. Meredith Wadman, NIH under fire over gene-therapy trials, Nature Vol. 403 (20 January 1999): 237. 6. Steve Mirsky and John Rennie, What cloning means for gene therapy, Scientific American, June 1997, p. 122-123. 7. Ibid., p. 277. 8. Edward Wilson, On Human Nature, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, p. 6. 9. E. Wilson, Consilience, p. 277.

2000 Probe Ministries

On January 8, 2007, the Associated Press reported that scientists from Wake Forest University and Harvard University discovered a new type of stem cell found in the amniotic fluid within

Genetic Diseases The age of genetics has arrived. Society is in the midst of a genetic revolution that some futurists predict will have a greater impact on the culture than

Continue reading here:
Human Genetic Engineering - Probe Ministries

Read More...

Genetic Engineering in Humans – Curing Diseases and …

Wednesday, May 15th, 2019

Over the past few years, the field of biotechnology has advanced at a very high rate that scientists can now edit plants and animals at the genomic level. Different genetic engineering or genome-editing techniques such aszinc fingernucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), meganucleases and theCRISPR/Cas9 system have aided scientists to alter genomes to create modified organisms.

Like in plants and animals, could genome-editing be performed in humans? Yes. But a bigger question arises here, should genome editing techniques be used to create designer babies, to remove heritable diseases or to enhance the human capabilities? It is one of the most controversial topics among scientists and hence it all comes down to ethics.

In a recent research, Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland reported successfully repairing a genetic mutation in human embryos bringing the idea of genetic engineering in humans closer to reality.

To understand the ethical implications of genetic engineering in humans, it is important to first understand the basics.

Genetic engineering is basically manipulating or changing the DNA to alter the organisms appearance in a particular way. The human body cells contain encoded information compiled into a form called genes, which are responsible for the bodys growth, structure and functioning. Human genetic engineering decodes this information and applies it to the welfare of mankind.

For example, all over the world, several scientists have reported the singing in mice. However, the frequencies at which they sing is not audible to humans. The Alstons brown mouse or Alstons singing mouse is a famous example. It would be interesting to hear these songs too.

Japanese geneticists at the University of Osaka were conducting a research to study the mutagenic effects in a strain of mice that were genetically engineered. Among many effects, the mutation may have caused the alteration in the vocalization in the mice giving birth to an offspring which could sing at a frequency audible to humans.This genetic modification (which was actually an accident) may help in studying the communication patterns in mice as well as in comparing of similarities and differences with other mammals. Some other examples of genetic engineering are GloFish, drug-producing chickens, cows that make human-like milk, diesel-producing bacteria, banana vaccines and disease-preventing mosquitoes.

Based on their type of cell, there are two types of genetic engineering;

Human genetic engineering can further be classified into two types;

In human genetic engineering, the genes or the DNA of a person is changed. This can be used to bring about structural changes in human beings. More importantly, it can be used to introduce the genes for certain positive and desirable traits in embryos. Genetic engineering in humans can result in finding a permanent cure for many diseases.

Some people are born with or acquire exceptional qualities. If the genes responsible for these qualities can be identified, they can be introduced in the early embryos. The embryo develops into a baby called Designer baby or customized baby. Human genetic engineering is advancing at an increasing rate and might evolve to such an extent discovering new genes and implanting them into human embryos will be possible.

Let us take an example of bacteria to understand how genetic engineering works. Insulin is aprotein produced in the pancreasthat helps in the regulation of the sugar levels in our blood. People with type 1diabetes eithercannot produce insulin or produce insufficient insulin in the body. They have to acquire insulin from external sources to control their blood sugar levels. In 1982, Genetic engineering was used to produce a type of insulin which is similar to the human insulin, called the Humulin frombacteria which was then approved and licensed for human use.

An illustration showing how genetic engineering is used to produce insulin in bacteriaCourtesy: Genome Research Limited

Using this process, Chinese scientists have edited the genome of the human embryo for the first time. According to Nature News report, Researchers at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China, were partially successful in using a genetic engineering technique to modify a gene in non-viable human embryos which was responsible for the fatal blood disorder.

The technique used, called CRISPR (short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) technology involves an enzyme complex known as CRISPR/Cas9, originating in bacteria as a defence system. CRISPR is a short, repeated DNA sequence that matches the genetic sequence of interest to be modified by the researchers. CRISPR works along with the Cas9 enzyme that acts like molecular scissors and cuts the DNA at a specific site.

As explained by John Reidhaar-Olson, a biochemist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York First, in a simple explanation, the CRISPR/Cas9 complex navigates through the cells DNA, searching for the sequence that matches the CRISPR and binds to the sequence once found. The Cas9 then cuts the DNA which, in this case, is repaired by inserting a piece of DNA desired by the researcher.

Since 2013, CRISPR system has been to edit genes in adult human cells and animal embryos but for the first time has been used for modification in human embryos.

Junjiu Huang, a genetics researcher at Sun Yat-sen University, injected the CRISPR/Cas9 complex into human embryos with the aim of repairing a gene responsible for Beta thalassaemia which is a fatal blood disorder that reduces the production of haemoglobin. The non-viable embryos were obtained from local fertility clinics. These embryos would have been unable to survive independently after birth or develop properly as they had been fertilized by two sperms. The procedure was performed on 86 embryos and gene editing was allowed to take place in four days. Out of 86, 71 of the embryos survived and 54 of them were tested.

Splicing (removal of introns and joining of exonsineukaryotic mRNA) only occurred in 28 embryos successfully indicating the removal of faulty gene and the incorporation of the healthy gene in its place. However, in order for the technique to be used in viable human embryos, the success rate would need to be closer to 100%.

While partial success was achieved, certain worrisome mutations responsible for the detrimental effect on cells during gene-editing were also observed and at a much higher rate in mouse embryos or adult human cells undergoing the same procedure.

One of the most beneficial applications of genetic engineering is gene therapy. Gene therapy is one of the most important benefits of human genetic engineering. Over the last few years, gene therapy has successfully treated certain heart diseases. Driven by this success, researchers are working to find cures for all the genetic diseases. This will eventually lead to a healthier and more evolved human race.Inspired by the recent success of gene therapy trialsin human children and infants, researchers are now moving towards the treatment of genetic disorders before birth. The idea of using fetal gene therapy to treat genetic disorders that cant be treated after birth has generated hype among some of the scientists. Parents will be able to look forward to a healthy baby. Genetic engineering can be done in embryos prior to implantation into the mother.However, some are also questioning the feasibility and practicality of the therapy in humans.

While genetic engineering or modification may seem easy to cure diseases, it may produce certain side effects. While focusing on and treating one defect, there is a possibility it may cause another. A cell is responsible for various functions in the body and manipulating its genes without any counter effect or side effect may not be that easy.

Other than side effects, Cloning, for instance, can lead to an ethical disturbance among the humans risking the individuality and the diversity of human beings. Ironically, man will become just another man-made thing!

Among the social aspects of human genetic engineering, it can impose a heavy financial burden on the society, which may cause a rift between the rich and the poor in the society. Its feasibility and most importantly its affordability will also be a determinant of its popularity.

Human genetic engineering is a widely and rapidly advancing field. It can lead to miracles. But when assessing its benefits, its threats need to be assessed carefully too. Human genetic engineering can be beneficial to human beings and its potential advantages can come into reality only if it is handled with responsibility.

Like Loading...

Related

See the article here:
Genetic Engineering in Humans - Curing Diseases and ...

Read More...

What is Genetic Engineering and Pros and Cons of …

Tuesday, March 12th, 2019

Genetic engineering refers to the set of technologies that directly manipulate on an organisms genes, change the genetic make up of cells and add one or more new traits that are not found in that organism. At the heart of all life is what we call DNA. It is responsible for the abundance of life on this Earth and the reason why we are the way we are. The genetic make-up of any organism is defined by DNA. In nature, the genetic nature never remains fixed.

Genetic engineering has a huge array of applications, for instance, surgery, animal husbandry, medicine, and agriculture. With genetic engineering, many crops species have developed immunity to most lethal diseases. Genetic engineering has also helped to increase yields at the farm. Today, wide-ranging crop species like wheat are genetically modified to achieve high nutritive value, and faster and higher productivity. These days, more and more countries are embracing genetically engineered crops to fight scarcity of food, offer highly nutritious foods, and grow and cultivate crops that are immune to various diseases and pests. Genetic engineering, in many ways, has heralded an age of agricultural revolution, which many hope will help wipe out malnutrition and starvation.

What is genetic engineering? Well, its when a gene of a particular organism is harnessed and the copy inserted into the DNA of another organism to modify its characteristics. An organism is any living thing such as humans, plants, and animals. To understand how genetic engineering works, it would be prudent to know how DNA works. Any organism has a cell. In the cell, there is DNA, which acts as an instructional manual for the entire body.

DNA is responsible for every characteristic of an organism, for example, in humans; its responsible for eye color, hair color, height and so on. So, to harvest the height gene from an organism, biologists use restriction enzyme (which resemble a scissor) to cut it out. The harvested height gene is then inserted into a second targeted organism. The targeted organism then reproduces, and the result is multiplication of organisms with the modified height. The same process applies to genetically modified foods.

Genes rarely ever comprise of a single genetic material. The more complex an organism becomes, the more genetic material it has. Much of it has no use and only a small fraction of it is responsible for our specific characteristics. For example, humans and apes share some 99% of their DNA. It is the rest 1% which can be used to create such spectacular differences.

It is also the amount from which active genetic material is extracted and introduced to a new host cell, usually bacteria. This allows it to perform or inherit a certain function from the new genetic material. If it sounds too tough to understand genetic engineering, just imagine that artificial insulin for diabetics is produced through this method.

The applications of this field are growing each day. One example is the production of insulin for diabetes patients. The field of medicine is reaping the benefits of genetic engineering. They have used the process to create vaccines and human growth hormones, changing the lives of many in the process. Gene therapy has been developed, which could possibly provide a cure for those who suffer from genetic illnesses.

It has also found a place of importance in research. As scientists successfully understand genetic engineering, they use it to resolve issues in current research methods. Most of these are done with the help of genetically modified organisms.

Statistics according to scientists at the Germanys University of Gttingen indicate that Genetically Modified Foods (GMO) increase crop yield by more than 22%. This is why most areas experiencing food shortage have taken up the use of GMOs to help reverse the trend.

Genetic modification greatly increases flavor of crops. For, instance, modification makes corn sweeter and pepper spicier. In fact, genetic modification has the capability to make difficult flavor a lot palatable.

Resistance to disease was the main reason for genetic engineering research. Genetically modified foods exhibit great resistance to various diseases. Just like vaccine, genetic codes are implanted into foods to fortify their immune system.

Genetic modification has enabled researchers to incorporate variety of nutrients like proteins, vitamins, carbohydrates and minerals in crops to accord consumers greater nutritive value. This aspect has helped many in the developing world who cannot afford a balanced diet every single day. In addition, genetic modification has gone a long way towards solving worldwide malnutrition. For instance, rice thats strengthened with vitamin A, referred to as golden rice, now assist in mitigating deficiency of vitamin A across the globe.

Statistically, GMOs have a much longer lifespan than other traditional foods. This means they can be transported to far destinations that lack nutritious foods without fear of going bad.

The use of molecular biology in vaccine creation has bore fruits so far according to FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Biologists have been able to genetically engineer plants to generate vaccines, proteins, and other important pharmaceutical products via a technique referred to as pharming.

Production of genetically modified foods involves less time, land, machinery and chemicals. This means you wont worry about greenhouse gas emission, soil erosion or environmental pollution. In addition, with increased productivity witnessed with genetically modified foods, farmers will use less farmland to grow crops. Not to mention, they are already growing foods like corn, cotton, and potatoes without using insecticides because genetically modified foods generate their own insecticides.

Scientists indulge in crop modification to achieve enhanced resistance to diseases and superior crop health. Genetically modified foods also have the capability to resist harsh weather conditions. All these factors lead to one thing: reduced risk of crop failure.

A research study by Brown University concluded that genetic modification normally blends proteins that are not naturally present in the organism, which can result in allergy reactions to certain groups people. In fact, some studies found out that GMOs had caused significant allergic reactions to the population. A separate research by the National Center for Health Statistics reported that food allergies in individuals under 18 years leaped from 3.4% in the year 1997-2999 to 5.1% in 2009-2011.

Although reports have pronounced that genetically modified foods have no impact on the environment, there are some noted environmental impacts. It has been established that GMOs grown in environments that do not favor them often lead to environmental damage. This is evident in the GMO cross-breeding whereby weeds that are cross-bred with modified plants are reported to develop resistance to herbicides. This, eventually, calls for added modification efforts.

The fact that GMOs take the same amount of time to mature, and same effort to cultivate and grow, they dont add any economic gain compared to traditional growing methods.

According to a research study by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), GMOs can transfer genes to other members of similar species or different species through a process called gene escape. This gene interaction might take place at different levels including plant, cell, gene or ecosystem. Trouble could arise if, for instance, herbicide resistant genes find way into weeds.

Research finding according to Iowa State University stipulates that some GMOs contain antibiotic characteristics that boost your immunity. However, when consumed, their effectiveness dramatically reduces compared to the real antibiotics.

1. Identification of an organism that exhibits the desired trait or gene of interest.

2. Extracting the DNA from that organism.

3. Through a process called gene cloning, one desired gene (recipe) must be located and copied from thousands of genes that were extracted.

4. The gene is slightly modified to work in a more desirable way once it is inserted inside the recipient organism.

5. The transformation process occurs when new gene(s), called a transgene is delivered into cells of the recipient organism. The most common transformation technique uses a bacteria that naturally genetically engineer plants with its own DNA. The transgene is inserted into the bacteria, which then delivers it into cells of the organism being engineered.

6. The characteristics of the final product is improved through the process called traditional breeding.

Hawaii is well documented as a place where genetically modified papaya trees have been cultivated and grown since 1999. The harvested papayas are disseminated to markets such as the United States and Canada. The reason for modifying these papayas is the Papaya Ringspot virus that has caused havoc for many years. Also, Hawaii papayas have been modified to slow down their maturity to accord suppliers sufficient time to ship to the market.

Statistically, over 90% of soybeans available in the marketplace today are genetically engineered to naturally resist a herbicide known as Round Up. This enhanced resistance enables farmers to use a lot more Round Up to exterminate weeds.

Eggplant, also known as Zucchini, is another food product that is widely genetically modified. Genetically modified eggplant encompasses a protein, which gives it more resistance to insects.

Cotton is very susceptible to diseases, insects, and pests. It is heavily modified to boost yields and resistance to pests and diseases.

Corn also makes the list of the most genetically modified foods. Half of farmers in the United States grow corn that has been genetically modified. Most of the corn is utilized for human consumption and animal feed.

Sugar beets are surprisingly modified due to their high demand in countries like U.S., Canada, and Europe. Genetically modified sugar beets debuted in the United States markets in 2009. They are genetically modified to develop resistance to Round Up.

These days, dairy cows are increasingly being genetically modified with growth hormones to enable faster growth and beef up of yields.

Harnessed from rapeseed oil. According to studies, it is the most well know genetically modified oil in the world.

Most countries require that any genetically modified food be labeled. 64 countries across the world with an estimated world population of 64% already label GMOs, the entire European Union included. China also joined the bandwagon of labeling GMOs. Although genetically modified food companies are fighting against labeling, the battle may not be won in the near future.

Science has been able to genetically engineer animals and plants alike. While the animals are used in research or sold as a novelty pet item, the plants have a different purpose. Following the years of pesticide and insecticide use, most pests have developed an immunity to them. With the help of scientists that understand genetic engineering, farmers now benefit from seeds that have been engineered.

They are provided with traits from other plants that can naturally balance the plant-pest relationship. As expected, the use of such engineering has become heavily commercialized and is used to produce more attractive varieties of food.

Genetically modified food is not an experimental project. Foods that have been engineered to look, smell and taste better have found their place in the supermarket shelves since 1994. Thats twenty years ago and the trend has become habit. Apart from their looks, foods are produced simply for consumer convenience, such as seedless fruits.

As of now, soybean, cotton seed oil, corn and canola are the most advanced of the modified crops. Most of the livestock grown in the country is feed with crops that were genetically modified, making them partly genetically modified organisms in the long run. For those that understand genetic engineering, the growing use of the technology is quite alarming.

However, not all is wonderful in world of genetic engineering. It has been launched into controversy many times over the last decade. Since it is still a fledgling technology whose implications are yet not clear, there are many liberties taken with it. Lack of policy and laws makes it easy for research based companies to misuse the work of those that understand genetic engineering.

Most concerns regarding genetically modified food and animals are the ethical ramifications, while others are related to problems in the ecology and future misuse of the technology. As a result, the process and technology is highly regulated as of now.

Even with the regulations and laws being passed to reign in the rampant abuse of genetic engineering, the process is not in a hurry to stop. The government is pushing for one step at a time, such as labeling foods as GM Foods in markets to help the customers make their own choice. But the commercial advantages are quite high and further research will be able to possibly solve many of our health and poverty related issues. This is the biggest argument in the favor of engineering. Even so, it takes a lot many years to fully understand genetic engineering.

A true environmentalist by heart . Founded Conserve Energy Future with the sole motto of providing helpful information related to our rapidly depleting environment. Unless you strongly believe in Elon Musks idea of making Mars as another habitable planet, do remember that there really is no 'Planet B' in this whole universe.

See more here:
What is Genetic Engineering and Pros and Cons of ...

Read More...

CRISPR: A game-changing genetic engineering technique …

Friday, March 8th, 2019

Have you heard? A revolution has seized the scientific community. Within only a few years, research labs worldwide have adopted a new technology that facilitates making specific changes in the DNA of humans, other animals, and plants. Compared to previous techniques for modifying DNA, this new approach is much faster and easier. This technology is referred to as CRISPR, and it has changed not only the way basic research is conducted, but also the way we can now think about treating diseases [1,2].

CRISPR is an acronym for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat. This name refers to the unique organization of short, partially palindromic repeated DNA sequences found in the genomes of bacteria and other microorganisms. While seemingly innocuous, CRISPR sequences are a crucial component of the immune systems [3] of these simple life forms. The immune system is responsible for protecting an organisms health and well-being. Just like us, bacterial cells can be invaded by viruses, which are small, infectious agents. If a viral infection threatens a bacterial cell, the CRISPR immune system can thwart the attack by destroying the genome of the invading virus [4]. The genome of the virus includes genetic material that is necessary for the virus to continue replicating. Thus, by destroying the viral genome, the CRISPR immune system protects bacteria from ongoing viral infection.

Figure 1 ~ The steps of CRISPR-mediated immunity. CRISPRs are regions in the bacterial genome that help defend against invading viruses. These regions are composed of short DNA repeats (black diamonds) and spacers (colored boxes). When a previously unseen virus infects a bacterium, a new spacer derived from the virus is incorporated amongst existing spacers. The CRISPR sequence is transcribed and processed to generate short CRISPR RNA molecules. The CRISPR RNA associates with and guides bacterial molecular machinery to a matching target sequence in the invading virus. The molecular machinery cuts up and destroys the invading viral genome. Figure adapted from Molecular Cell 54, April 24, 2014 [5].

Interspersed between the short DNA repeats of bacterial CRISPRs are similarly short variable sequences called spacers (FIGURE 1). These spacers are derived from DNA of viruses that have previously attacked the host bacterium [3]. Hence, spacers serve as a genetic memory of previous infections. If another infection by the same virus should occur, the CRISPR defense system will cut up any viral DNA sequence matching the spacer sequence and thus protect the bacterium from viral attack. If a previously unseen virus attacks, a new spacer is made and added to the chain of spacers and repeats.

The CRISPR immune system works to protect bacteria from repeated viral attack via three basic steps [5]:

Step 1) Adaptation DNA from an invading virus is processed into short segments that are inserted into the CRISPR sequence as new spacers.

Step 2) Production of CRISPR RNA CRISPR repeats and spacers in the bacterial DNA undergo transcription, the process of copying DNA into RNA (ribonucleic acid). Unlike the double-chain helix structure of DNA, the resulting RNA is a single-chain molecule. This RNA chain is cut into short pieces called CRISPR RNAs.

Step 3) Targeting CRISPR RNAs guide bacterial molecular machinery to destroy the viral material. Because CRISPR RNA sequences are copied from the viral DNA sequences acquired during adaptation, they are exact matches to the viral genome and thus serve as excellent guides.

The specificity of CRISPR-based immunity in recognizing and destroying invading viruses is not just useful for bacteria. Creative applications of this primitive yet elegant defense system have emerged in disciplines as diverse as industry, basic research, and medicine.

In Industry

The inherent functions of the CRISPR system are advantageous for industrial processes that utilize bacterial cultures. CRISPR-based immunity can be employed to make these cultures more resistant to viral attack, which would otherwise impede productivity. In fact, the original discovery of CRISPR immunity came from researchers at Danisco, a company in the food production industry [2,3]. Danisco scientists were studying a bacterium called Streptococcus thermophilus, which is used to make yogurts and cheeses. Certain viruses can infect this bacterium and damage the quality or quantity of the food. It was discovered that CRISPR sequences equipped S. thermophilus with immunity against such viral attack. Expanding beyond S. thermophilus to other useful bacteria, manufacturers can apply the same principles to improve culture sustainability and lifespan.

In the Lab

Beyond applications encompassing bacterial immune defenses, scientists have learned how to harness CRISPR technology in the lab [6] to make precise changes in the genes of organisms as diverse as fruit flies, fish, mice, plants and even human cells. Genes are defined by their specific sequences, which provide instructions on how to build and maintain an organisms cells. A change in the sequence of even one gene can significantly affect the biology of the cell and in turn may affect the health of an organism. CRISPR techniques allow scientists to modify specific genes while sparing all others, thus clarifying the association between a given gene and its consequence to the organism.

Rather than relying on bacteria to generate CRISPR RNAs, scientists first design and synthesize short RNA molecules that match a specific DNA sequencefor example, in a human cell. Then, like in the targeting step of the bacterial system, this guide RNA shuttles molecular machinery to the intended DNA target. Once localized to the DNA region of interest, the molecular machinery can silence a gene or even change the sequence of a gene (Figure 2)! This type of gene editing can be likened to editing a sentence with a word processor to delete words or correct spelling mistakes. One important application of such technology is to facilitate making animal models with precise genetic changes to study the progress and treatment of human diseases.

Figure 2 ~ Gene silencing and editing with CRISPR. Guide RNA designed to match the DNA region of interest directs molecular machinery to cut both strands of the targeted DNA. During gene silencing, the cell attempts to repair the broken DNA, but often does so with errors that disrupt the geneeffectively silencing it. For gene editing, a repair template with a specified change in sequence is added to the cell and incorporated into the DNA during the repair process. The targeted DNA is now altered to carry this new sequence.

In Medicine

With early successes in the lab, many are looking toward medical applications of CRISPR technology. One application is for the treatment of genetic diseases. The first evidence that CRISPR can be used to correct a mutant gene and reverse disease symptoms in a living animal was published earlier this year [7]. By replacing the mutant form of a gene with its correct sequence in adult mice, researchers demonstrated a cure for a rare liver disorder that could be achieved with a single treatment. In addition to treating heritable diseases, CRISPR can be used in the realm of infectious diseases, possibly providing a way to make more specific antibiotics that target only disease-causing bacterial strains while sparing beneficial bacteria [8]. A recent SITN Waves article discusses how this technique was also used to make white blood cells resistant to HIV infection [9].

Of course, any new technology takes some time to understand and perfect. It will be important to verify that a particular guide RNA is specific for its target gene, so that the CRISPR system does not mistakenly attack other genes. It will also be important to find a way to deliver CRISPR therapies into the body before they can become widely used in medicine. Although a lot remains to be discovered, there is no doubt that CRISPR has become a valuable tool in research. In fact, there is enough excitement in the field to warrant the launch of several Biotech start-ups that hope to use CRISPR-inspired technology to treat human diseases [8].

Ekaterina Pak is a Ph.D. student in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences program at Harvard Medical School.

1. Palca, J. A CRISPR way to fix faulty genes. (26 June 2014) NPR < http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/06/26/325213397/a-crispr-way-to-fix-faulty-genes> [29 June 2014]

2. Pennisi, E. The CRISPR Craze. (2013) Science, 341 (6148): 833-836.

3. Barrangou, R., Fremaux, C., Deveau, H., Richards, M., Boyaval, P., Moineau, S., Romero, D.A., and Horvath, P. (2007). CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315, 17091712.

4. Brouns, S.J., Jore, M.M., Lundgren, M., Westra, E.R., Slijkhuis, R.J., Snijders, A.P., Dickman, M.J., Makarova, K.S., Koonin, E.V., and van der Oost, J. (2008). Small CRISPR RNAs guide antiviral defense in prokaryotes. Science 321, 960964.

5. Barrangou, R. and Marraffini, L. CRISPR-Cas Systems: Prokaryotes Upgrade to Adaptive Immunity (2014). Molecular Cell 54, 234-244.

6. Jinkek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. (2012) 337(6096):816-21.

7. CRISPR reverses disease symptoms in living animals for first time. (31 March 2014). Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. <http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/crispr-reverses-disease-symptoms-in-living-animals-for-first-time/81249682/> [27 July 2014]

8. Pollack, A. A powerful new way to edit DNA. (3 March 2014). NYTimes < http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/health/a-powerful-new-way-to-edit-dna.html?_r=0> [16 July 2014]

9. Gene editing technique allows for HIV resistance? <http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/waves/2014/gene-editing-technique-allows-for-hiv-resistance/> [13 June 2014]

View post:
CRISPR: A game-changing genetic engineering technique ...

Read More...

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering – Conserve Energy Future

Thursday, March 7th, 2019

Genetic engineering is the process to alter the structure and nature of genes in human beings, animals or foods using techniques like molecular cloning and transformation. In other words, it is the process of adding or modifying DNA in an organism to bring about great deal of transformation.

Genetic engineering was thought to be a real problem just a few short years ago. We feared that soon we would be interfering with nature, trying to play God and cheat him out of his chance to decide whether we were blonde or dark haired, whether we had blue or bright green eyes or even how intelligent we were. The queries and concerns that we have regarding such an intriguing part of science are still alive and well, although they are less talked about nowadays than they were those few years ago.

However, this does not mean that they are any less relevant. In fact, they are as relevant today as they ever were. There are a number of very real and very troubling concerns surrounding genetic engineering, although there are also some very real benefits to further genetic engineering and genetic research, too. It seems, therefore, as though genetic engineering is both a blessing and a curse, as though we stand to benefit as well as lose from developing this area of science even further.

With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve the human race. But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code.Stephen Hawking

Although at first the pros of genetic engineering may not be as apparent as the cons, upon further inspection, there are a number of benefits that we can only get if scientists consider to study and advance this particular branch of study. Here are just a few of the benefits:

1. Tackling and Defeating Diseases

Some of the most deadly and difficult diseases in the world, that have so resisted destruction, could be wiped out by the use of genetic engineering. There are a number of genetic mutations that humans can suffer from that will probably never be ended unless we actively intervene and genetically engineer the next generation to withstand these problems.

For instance, Cystic Fibrosis, a progressive and dangerous disease for which there is no known cure, could be completely cured with the help of selective genetic engineering.

2. Getting Rid of All Illnesses in Young and Unborn Children

There are very many problems that we can detect even before children are born. In the womb, doctors can tell whether your baby is going to suffer from sickle cell anemia, for instance, or from Down s syndrome. In fact, the date by which you can have an abortion has been pushed back relatively late just so that people can decide whether or not to abort a baby if it has one or more of these sorts of issues.

However, with genetic engineering, we would no longer have to worry. One of the main benefit of genetic engineering is that it can help cure and diseases and illness in unborn children. All children would be able to be born healthy and strong with no diseases or illnesses present at birth. Genetic engineering can also be used to help people who risk passing on terribly degenerative diseases to their children.

For instance, if you have Huntingtons there is a 50% chance that your children with inherit the disease and, even if they do not, they are likely to be carriers of the disease. You cannot simply stop people from having children if they suffer from a disease like this, therefore genetic engineering can help to ensure that their children live long and healthy lives from either the disease itself or from carrying the disease to pass on to younger generations.

3. Potential to Live Longer

Although humans are already living longer and longer in fact, our lifespan has shot up by a number of years in a very short amount of time because of the advances of modern medical science, genetic engineering could make our time on Earth even longer. There are specific, common illnesses and diseases that can take hold later in life and can end up killing us earlier than necessary.

With genetic engineering, on the other hand, we could reverse some of the most basic reasons for the bodys natural decline on a cellular level, drastically improving both the span of our lives and the quality of life later on. It could also help humans adapt to the growing problems of, for instance, global warming in the world.

If the places we live in become either a lot hotter or colder, we are going to need to adapt, but evolution takes many thousands of years, so genetic engineering can help us adapt quicker and better.

4. Produce New Foods

Genetic engineering is not just good for people. With genetic engineering we can design foods that are better able to withstand harsh temperatures such as the very hot or very cold, for instance and that are packed full of all the right nutrients that humans and animals need to survive. We may also be able to make our foods have a better medicinal value, thus introducing edible vaccines readily available to people all over the world

Perhaps more obvious than the pros of genetic engineering, there are a number of disadvantages to allowing scientists to break down barriers that perhaps are better left untouched. Here are just a few of those disadvantages:

1. Is it Right?

When genetic engineering first became possible, peoples first reactions were to immediately question whether it was right? Many religions believe that genetic engineering, after all, is tantamount to playing God, and expressly forbid that it is performed on their children, for instance.

Besides the religious arguments, however, there are a number of ethic objections. These diseases, after all, exist for a reason and have persisted throughout history for a reason. Whilst we should be fighting against them, we do need at least a few illnesses, otherwise we would soon become overpopulated. In fact, living longer is already causing social problems in the world today, so to artificially extend everybodys time on Earth might cause even more problems further down the line, problems that we cannot possibly predict.

2. May Lead to Genetic Defects

Another real problem with genetic engineering is the question about the safety of making changes at the cellular level. Scientists do not yet know absolutely everything about the way that the human body works (although they do, of course, have a very good idea). How can they possibly understand the ramifications of slight changes made at the smallest level?

What if we manage to wipe out one disease only to introduce something brand new and even more dangerous? Additionally, if scientists genetically engineer babies still in the womb, there is a very real and present danger that this could lead to complications, including miscarriage (early on), premature birth or even stillbirth, all of which are unthinkable.

The success rate of genetic experiments leaves a lot to be desired, after all. The human body is so complicated that scientists have to be able to predict what sort of affects their actions will have, and they simply cannot account for everything that could go wrong.

3. Limits Genetic Diversity

We need diversity in all species of animals. By genetically engineering our species, however, we will be having a detrimental effect on our genetic diversity in the same way as something like cloning would. Gene therapy is available only to the very rich and elite, which means that traits that tend to make people earn less money would eventually die out.

4. Can it Go Too Far?

One pressing question and issue with genetic engineering that has been around for years and years is whether it could end up going too far. There are many thousands of genetic scientists with honest intentions who want to bring an end to the worst diseases and illnesses of the current century and who are trying to do so by using genetic engineering.

However, what is to stop just a handful of people taking the research too far? What if we start demanding designer babies, children whose hair color, eye color, height and intelligence we ourselves dictate? What if we end up engineering the sex of the baby, for instance in China, where is it much more preferable to have a boy? Is that right? Is it fair? The problems with genetic engineering going too far are and ever present worry in a world in which genetic engineering is progressing further and further every day.

Genetic engineering is one of the topic that causes a lot of controversy. Altering the DNA of organisms has certainly raised a few eyebrows. It may work wonders but who knows if playing with the nature is really safe? Making yourself aware of all aspects of genetic engineering can help you to form your own opinion.

A true environmentalist by heart . Founded Conserve Energy Future with the sole motto of providing helpful information related to our rapidly depleting environment. Unless you strongly believe in Elon Musks idea of making Mars as another habitable planet, do remember that there really is no 'Planet B' in this whole universe.

Visit link:
Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering - Conserve Energy Future

Read More...

Genetic engineering | Memory Alpha | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Wednesday, March 6th, 2019

A portrait of Khan Noonien Singh, a man who was a product of genetic engineering

Genetic engineering, genetic programming or genetic manipulation was a process in which the DNA of an organism was selectively altered through artificial means. Genetic engineering was often used to produce "custom" organisms, such as for agricultural or medical purposes, as well as to produce biogenic weapons. The most common application of genetic engineering on intelligent beings in the Federation was corrective DNA resequencing for genetic disorders. A far more dubious application of genetic engineering was the genetic enhancement of individuals to produce improved senses, strength, intelligence, etc.

During Earth's 20th century, the efforts of ambitious scientists' to produce "superhumans" eventually resulted in the Eugenics Wars. Genetically engineered individuals such as Khan Noonien Singh attempted to seize power. (TOS: "Space Seed")

This would lead to the banning of genetic engineering on Earth by the mid-22nd century, even research which could be used to cure critical illnesses. This ban was implemented because of the general fear of creating more tyrants such as Khan. It was also felt that parents would feel compelled to have their children genetically engineered, especially if "enhanced" individuals were allowed to compete in normal society.

Some, including geneticist Arik Soong, argued that it was simply convenient for Humanity to denounce the attempts at genetic "improvement" of Humanity, that it was inherently evil because of the Eugenics Wars. He argued that the source of the problem, in fact, wasn't the technology, but Humanity's own inability to use it wisely. Imprisoned for, among other crimes, stealing the embryos of a number of Augment children, Soong wrote long treatises on the subject of genetic augmentations and improvements. His works were routinely taken and placed into storage (although his jailers often told him that his work was vaporized). Though Soong himself gave up genetics to begin research in cybernetics, Captain Jonathan Archer expressed his hope to Soong that research into genetic engineering could cure life-threatening diseases would someday be resumed. (ENT: "Borderland", "The Augments")

Symbols used to indicate presence of genetically engineered lifeform

Others, however, chose to establish isolated colonies, as became the case with the Genome colony on Moab IV, which was established in 2168. It became a notable and successful example of Human genetic engineering in which every individual was genetically tailored from birth to perform a specific role in society. However, after a five-day visit by the USS Enterprise-D when the ship came to the colony in an effort to save it from an approaching neutron star which, eventually, the craft was able to effectively redirect twenty-three colonists left the colony aboard the craft, possibly causing significant damage to the structure of their society. The reason for the societal split was that those who left the colony had realized their organized, pre-planned world had certain limitations, lacking opportunities to grow that were offered by the Enterprise. (TNG: "The Masterpiece Society")

By the 24th century, the United Federation of Planets allowed limited use of genetic engineering to correct existing genetically related medical conditions. Persons known to be genetically enhanced, however, were not allowed to serve in Starfleet, and were especially banned from practicing medicine. (TNG: "Genesis", DS9: "Doctor Bashir, I Presume")

Nevertheless, some parents attempted to secretly have their children genetically modified. (DS9: "Doctor Bashir, I Presume") Unfortunately, most of these operations were performed by unqualified physicians, resulting in severe psychological problems in the children due to their enhancements being only partially successful, such as a patient's senses being enhanced while their ability to process the resulting data remained at a Human norm. (DS9: "Statistical Probabilities")

In some cases, genetic engineering can be permitted to be performed in utero when dealing with a developing fetus to correct any potential genetic defects that could handicap the child as they grew up. Chakotay's family history included a defective gene that made those who possessed it prone to hallucinations, the gene afflicting his grandfather in Chakotay's youth, although the gene was suppressed in Chakotay himself. (VOY: "The Fight") In 2377, The Doctor performed prenatal genetic modification on Miral Paris to correct a spinal deviation, a congenital defect that tends to run in Klingon families; Miral's mother and grandmother had undergone surgery to correct the defect at a young age, but the modification meant Miral would not need surgery herself. Unfortunately, learning of this capability, B'Elanna briefly became obsessed with having her child modified to remove all Klingon DNA traits to try and 'protect' her daughter from the discrimination she had experienced as a child, even going so far as to reprogram The Doctor so that he would believe these changes were necessary to prevent later illness, but she was talked out of it by her husband (VOY: "Lineage").

The Founders of the Dominion performed extensive genetic modifications on their two servant races, the Jem'Hadar and the Vorta, in order for them to better serve their roles and to ingrain a fanatical devotion to the Founders. (DS9: "The Abandoned", "Ties of Blood and Water") As a result of these modifications, neither species reproduced in the traditional biological sense. (DS9: "To the Death")

According to Vorta legend, they were originally ape-like creatures who were gifted sentience by the Founders after they helped a changeling escape pursuit. (DS9: "Treachery, Faith and the Great River")

It is unknown whether the Jem'Hadar had any such ancestral species.

The Dominion also genetically engineered biological weapons, such as the blight they unleashed against the people of the Teplan system. (DS9: "The Quickening")

During the 22nd century, the Suliban were no more evolved than Humans. However, a number of Suliban, from a faction known as the Suliban Cabal, became recipients of some very sophisticated genetic engineering thanks to a mysterious humanoid from the 28th century. These enhancements included subcutaneous pigment sacs, a bio-mimetic garment, modified alveoli, more bronchial lobes and eyes with compound retinas which allowed them to see things starship sensors likely could not detect. The Suliban considered these "enhancements" as "progress". (ENT: "Broken Bow")

When they were captured by a pre-warp civilization in 2152, Jonathan Archer and Malcolm Reed claimed to be prototypes of a new breed of supersoldiers to conceal the existence of alien life from the civilization. (ENT: "The Communicator")

Genetic engineering had been employed on Denobula since the twentieth century, to generally positive effect. (ENT: "Borderland")

Genetic programming was Surmak Ren's major field of study at the University of Bajor. (DS9: "Babel")

The Angosians used psychological and biochemical modifications and mental programming to make the perfect soldier such as Roga Danar. (TNG: "The Hunted")

The Tosk were engineered by the Hunters to be prey for their traditional hunts. (DS9: "Captive Pursuit")

The Son'a used genetic manipulation as part of a range of strategies to retard aging. (Star Trek: Insurrection)

The Brunali were proficient at genetic engineering, which they used to create modified crops capable of surviving on their Borg-devastated homeworld. However, they also genetically engineered some of their children to produce a pathogen deadly to Borg. These children were then allowed to be assimilated, so that they could spread the infection to their Borg vessels. Icheb was one such child, the pathogen causing the cube that he was on to break down, killing all of the active drones and causing the young drones in their maturation chambers to activate before they were fully processed into the Collective. (VOY: "Child's Play")

The Taresians used genetic engineering in tandem with a form of biological weaponry to manipulate the DNA of other species. This occurred to Ensign Harry Kim in 2373, who was infected with a virus that altered his DNA to make him a potential Taresian mate. (VOY: "Favorite Son")

Read the original here:
Genetic engineering | Memory Alpha | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Read More...

Genetic Engineering Products | Boundless Microbiology

Wednesday, February 20th, 2019

Overview of Biotechnology

Biotechnology is the use of biological techniques and engineered organisms to make products or plants and animals that have desired traits.

Describe the historical development of biotechnology

Biotechnology: Brewing (fermentation of beer) was an early application of biotechnology.

People have used biotechnology processes, such as selectively breeding animals and fermentation, for thousands of years. Late 19th and early 20th century discoveries of how microorganisms carry out commercially useful processes and how they cause disease led to the commercial production of vaccines and antibiotics. Improved methods for animal breeding have also resulted from these efforts. Scientists in the San Francisco Bay Area took a giant step forward with the discovery and development of recombinant DNA techniques in the 1970s. The field of biotechnology continues to accelerate with new discoveries and new applications expected to benefit the economy throughout the 21st century.

In its broadest definition, biotechnology is the application of biological techniques and engineered organisms to make products or modify plants and animals to carry desired traits. This definition also extends to the use of various human cells and other body parts to produce desirable products. Bioindustry refers to the cluster of companies that produce engineered biological products and their supporting businesses. Biotechnology refers to the use of the biological sciences (such as gene manipulation), often in combination with other sciences (such as materials sciences, nanotechnology, and computer software), to discover, evaluate and develop products for bioindustry. Biotechnology products have made it easier to detect and diagnose illnesses. Many of these new techniques are easier to use and some, such as pregnancy testing, can even be used at home. More than 400 clinical diagnostic devices using biotechnology products are in use today. The most important are screening techniques to protect the blood supply against contamination by AIDS and the hepatitis B and C viruses.

Genetic engineering means the manipulation of organisms to make useful products and it has broad applications.

Describe the major applications of genetic engineering

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organisms genome using biotechnology.

New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest, using molecular-cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence; or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or knocked out, using a nuclease.

Genetically manipulated mice: Laboratory mice are genetically manipulated by deleting a gene for use in biomedical research.

Gene targeting is a different technique that uses homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene, remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations. Genetic engineering has applications in medicine, research, industry and agriculture and can be used on a wide range of plants, animals and microorganisms.

Genetic engineering has produced a variety of drugs and hormones for medical use. For example, one of its earliest uses in pharmaceuticals was gene splicing to manufacture large amounts of insulin, made using cells of E. coli bacteria. Interferon, which is used to eliminate certain viruses and kill cancer cells, also is a product of genetic engineering, as are tissue plasminogen activator and urokinase, which are used to dissolve blood clots.

Another byproduct is a type of human growth hormone; its used to treat dwarfism and is produced through genetically-engineered bacteria and yeasts. The evolving field of gene therapy involves manipulating human genes to treat or cure genetic diseases and disorders. Modified plasmids or viruses often are the messengers to deliver genetic material to the bodys cells, resulting in the production of substances that should correct the illness. Sometimes cells are genetically altered inside the body; other times scientists modify them in the laboratory and return them to the patients body.

Since the 1990s, gene therapy has been used in clinical trials to treat diseases and conditions such as AIDS, cystic fibrosis, cancer, and high cholesterol. Drawbacks of gene therapy are that sometimes the persons immune system destroys the cells that have been genetically altered, and also that it is hard to get the genetic material into enough cells to have the desired effect.

Many practical applications of recombinant DNA are found in human and veterinary medicine, in agriculture, and in bioengineering.

Describe the advances made possible by recombinant DNA technology

Recombinant DNA technology is the latest biochemical analysis that came about to satisfy the need for specific DNA segments. In this process, surrounding DNA from an existing cell is clipped in the desired amount of segments so that it can be copied millions of times.

Construction of recombinant DNA: A foreign DNA fragment is inserted into a plasmid vector. In this example, the gene indicated by the white color is inactivated upon insertion of the foreign DNA fragment.

Recombinant DNA technology engineers microbial cells for producing foreign proteins, and its success solely depends on the precise reading of equivalent genes made with the help of bacterial cell machinery. This process has been responsible for fueling many advances related to modern molecular biology. The last two decades of cloned-DNA sequence studies have revealed detailed knowledge about gene structure as well as its organization. It has provided hints to regulatory pathways with the aid of which gene expression in myriad cell types is controlled by the cells, especially in those organisms having body plan with basic vertebrae structure.

Recombinant DNA technology, apart from being an important tool of scientific research, has also played a vital role in the diagnosis and treatment of various diseases, especially those belonging to genetic disorders.

Some of the recent advances made possible by recombinant DNA technology are:

1. Isolating proteins in large quantities: many recombinant products are now available, including follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), Follistim AQ vial, growth hormone, insulin and some other proteins.

2. Making possible mutation identification: due to this technology, people can be easily tested for mutated protein presence that can lead to breast cancer, neurofibromatosis, and retinoblastoma.

3. Hereditary diseases carrier diagnosis: tests now available to determine if a person is carrying the gene for cystic fibrosis, the Tay-Sachs diseases, Huntingtons disease or Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

4. Gene transfer from one organism to other: the advanced gene therapy can benefit people with cystic fibrosis, vascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis and specific types of cancers.

Bacterial genetics can be manipulated to allow for mammalian gene expression systems established in bacteria.

Describe the sequence of events in a genetically engineered expression system

Gene expression is the process by which information from a gene is used in the synthesis of a functional gene product. These products are often proteins and are produced after the process of translation. An expression system that is categorized as a genetic engineering product is a system specifically designed for the production of a gene product of choice. This is normally a protein, although may also be RNA, such as tRNA or a ribozyme.

The genetically engineered expression system contains the appropriate DNA sequence for the gene of choice which is engineered into a plasmid that is introduced into a bacteria host. The molecular machinery that is required to transcribe the DNA is derived from the innate and naturally occurring machinery in the host. The DNA is then transcribed into mRNA and then translated into protein products.

In a genetically engineered system, this entire process of gene expression may be induced depending on the plasmid used. In the broadest sense, mammalian gene expression includes every living cell but the term is more normally used to refer to expression as a laboratory tool. An expression system is therefore often artificial in some manner. Viruses and bacteria are an excellent example of expression systems.

The oldest and most widely used expression systems are cell-based. Expression is often done to a very high level and therefore referred to as overexpression. There are many ways to introduce foreign DNA to a cell for expression, and there are many different host cells which may be used for expression. Each expression system also has distinct advantages and liabilities.

Expression systems are normally referred to by the host and the DNA source or the delivery mechanism for the genetic material. For example, common bacterial hosts are E.coli and B. subtilis. With E. coli, DNA is normally introduced in a plasmid expression vector. The techniques for overexpression in E. coli work by increasing the number of copies of the gene or increasing the binding strength of the promoter region so as to assist transcription.

Bacterial Flora: E. coli is one of the most popular hosts for artificial gene expression.

Genetic engineering enables scientists to create plants, animals, and microorganisms by manipulating genes.

Explain the advantages and disadvantages of producing genetically engineered proteins in bacteria

The first successful products of genetic engineering were protein drugs like insulin, which is used to treat diabetes, and growth hormone somatotropin. These proteins are made in large quantities by genetically engineered bacteria or yeast in large bioreactors. Some drugs are also made in transgenic plants, such as tobacco. Other human proteins that are used as drugs require biological modifications that only the cells of mammals, such as cows, goats, and sheep, can provide. For these drugs, production in transgenic animals is a good option. Using farm animals for drug production has many advantages because they are reproducible, have flexible production, are easily maintained, and have a great delivery method (e.g. milk).

Synthetic Insulin: human insulin produced by recombinant DNA technology.

Recombinant DNA technology not only allows therapeutic proteins to be produced on a large scale but using the same methodology protein molecules may be purposefully engineered. Genetic modifications introduced to a protein have many advantages over chemical modifications. Genetically engineered entities are biocompatible and biodegradable. The changes are introduced in 100% of the molecules with the exclusion of rare errors in gene transcription or translation. The preparations do not contain residual amounts of harsh chemicals used in the conjugation process. Bacterial expression systems, due to their simplicity, are often not able to produce a recombinant human protein identical to the naturally occurring wild type. Bacteria did not develop sophisticated mechanisms for performing post-translational modifications that are present in higher organisms. As a consequence, an increasing number of protein therapeutics is expressed in mammalian cells. However the low cost and simplicity of cultivating bacteria is an unbeatable advantage over any other expression system and therefore E. coli is always a preferable choice both on a lab scale and in industry.

Many mammalian proteins are produced by genetic engineering. These include, in particular, an assortment of hormones and proteins for blood clotting and other blood processes. For example, tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) is a blood protein that scavenges and dissolves blood clots that may form in the nal stages of the healing process. TPA is primarily used in heart patients or others suffering from poor circulation to prevent the development of clots that can be life-threatening. Heart disease is a leading cause of death in many developed countries, especially in the United States, so microbially produced TPA is in high demand. In contrast to TPA, the blood clotting factors VII, VIII, and IX are critically important for the formation of blood clots. Hemophiliacs suffer from a deciency of one or more clotting factors and can therefore be treated with microbially produced clotting factors. In the past hemophiliacs have been treated with clotting factor extracts from pooled human blood, some of which was contaminated with viruses such as HIV and hepatitis C, putting hemophiliacs at high risk for contracting these diseases. Recombinant clotting factors have eliminated this problem.

Go here to see the original:
Genetic Engineering Products | Boundless Microbiology

Read More...

Human Genetic Modification | Center for Genetics and Society

Wednesday, February 20th, 2019

Human genetic modification is the direct manipulation of the genome using molecular engineering techniques. Recently developed techniques for modifying genes are often called gene editing. Genetic modification can be applied in two very different ways: somatic genetic modification and germline genetic modification.

Somatic genetic modification adds, cuts, or changes the genes in some of the cells of an existing person, typically to alleviate a medical condition. These gene therapy techniques are approaching clinical practice, but only for a few conditions, and at a very high cost.

Germline genetic modification would change the genes in eggs, sperm, or early embryos. Often referred to as inheritable genetic modification or gene editing for reproduction, these alterations would appear in every cell of the person who developed from that gamete or embryo, and also in all subsequent generations. Germline modification has not been tried in humans, but it would be, by far, the most consequential type of genetic modification. If used for enhancement purposes, it could open the door to a new market-based form of eugenics. Human germline modification has been prohibited by law in more than 40 countries, and by a binding international treaty of the Council of Europe.

View post:
Human Genetic Modification | Center for Genetics and Society

Read More...

Genetic engineering could save chocolate from going …

Saturday, February 16th, 2019

The world's chocolate supply is dwindling. As our global sweet tooth begins to outpace cocoa production, major chocolate companies like Mars Inc. and Barry Callebaut expect to see an industry deficit of 4.4 billion pounds of chocolate by 2030. And by 2050, the cacao seeds used to make chocolate could be extinct.

As farmers struggle to keep up with demand, Bloomberg reports that the price of chocolate has continued to rise, making popular items like Hershey bars more expensive.

Companies that want to keep costs low have had to sacrifice the flavor of their products. In 2014, Bloomberg's Mark Schatzker predicted that chocolate could follow the path of food items like chicken and strawberries, which have lost some of their flavor in the quest to satisfy demand. According to Schatzker, chocolate could soon become "as tasteless as today's store-bought tomatoes."

To prevent that from happening, the nonprofit coalition of farmers called A Fresh Look released a line of chocolate bars that promote the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Ethos Chocolate uses sugar derived from GMO beets. A Fresh Look

While the bars, known as Ethos Chocolate, don't contain genetically modified cacao an ingredient that's still being developed and tested they do contain sugar that's derived from GMO beets.

According to A Fresh Look's lead scientist, Rebecca Larson, it's the first time a farmer's group has come together to espouse GMO technology, which has been criticized by environmentalists.

Around 70% of the world's cocoa beans hail from West Africa, with Ghana and Ivory Coast serving as the two largest producers. As global temperatures continue to rise, these nations have seen increasingly dry weather, which can prevent cacao trees from growing.

Cacao trees are also particularly vulnerable to disease.

The International Cocoa Organization (ICCO) reported that diseases and pests have resulted in the loss of 30% to 40% of global cocoa production. The report also noted that cocoa species are susceptible to a disease called frosty pod, which has led to entire cocoa farms being abandoned in Latin America.

In West Africa, swollen shoot virus and black pod have also overtaken cacao trees, resulting in huge financial losses. These diseases are made worse by weather conditions such as floods, droughts, and windstorms.

In addition to placing a strain on chocolate manufacturing companies, the loss of cacao trees can impair the livelihoods of tens of millions of people who depend on them economically.

But genetic modification has the potential to lessen these effects by making crops drought tolerant or insect resistant. Studies have shown that GMO crops can improve crop yield, boost farmers' profits, and even reduce the use of pesticides.

While GMOs could be instrumental in saving the world's chocolate supply, they've often been painted as a risk to human health.

Environmental groups contend that GMO crops are more resistant to herbicides, which may or may not be carcinogenic.

Read more: It's almost impossible to avoid GMOs in these 7 everyday items

The 1,600 farmers that make up A Fresh Look have resisted this argument, saying that GMOs are not only safe to consume, but also require less water and improve our nutrition.

A chocolatier in the Ivory Coast explains how cocoa is processed into chocolate. Sia Kambou/AFP/Getty Images

"There's this idea [among consumers] that everything is as mother nature intended, or it was manufactured in a laboratory," Larson told Business Insider. "[We're] helping people understand that GMOs aren't a scary ingredient in their food, but rather a farming technique."

These findings are supported by numerous scientific organizations. In the last two decades, institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the European Commission have all publicly stated that GMOs don't present harm to human health.

While plenty of chocolate contains ingredients derived from GMOs like corn syrup and soy lecithin, researchers have been slow to develop a genetically modified version of cacao.

Many chocolate companies still cater to consumer preferences for non-GMO items. Ghirardelli, for instance, has publicly stated its mission to make all recipes GMO-free.

One notable exception is Mars, the company behind M&M's and Snickers, which has teamed up with the University of California Berkeley to develop cacao plants that don't wilt or rot. To achieve this, the research team turned to CRISPR, a gene-editing technology that makes small changes to an organism's DNA.

But it could be some time before GMO cacao makes its way onto shelves.

"It all depends on legislative acceptance in different countries where the cacao is being produced," said Larson.

Some of the nations where people buy the most chocolate, such as Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, have restricted their cultivation of GMO crops.

When it comes to consumers, Larson said her team's pro-GMO stance is already starting to catch on: "We've gotten overwhelming feedback from all kinds of industry groups and consumers saying, 'Hey, it's about time.'"

Read the original:
Genetic engineering could save chocolate from going ...

Read More...

Human Genetic Engineering Pros And Cons

Saturday, January 19th, 2019

Many human genetic engineering pros and cons are there that have stayed the same since its introduction to humanity. When the humans started harnessing the atomic powers, then just few years later they also start recognizing the effects of human genetic engineering on mankind. Many scientists have a belief that gene therapy can be a mainstream for saving lives of many people. A lot of human genetic engineering pros and cons have been involved since the evolution of genetic engineering. Mentioned below are some important advantages or pros of genetic engineering:

Other human genetic engineering pros and cons include the desirable characteristics in different plants and animals at the same time convenient. One can also do the manipulation of genes in trees or big plants. This will enable the trees to absorb increased amount of carbon dioxide, and it will reduce the effects of global warming. However, there is a question from critics that whether man has the right to do such manipulations or alterations in the genes of natural things.

With human genetic engineering, there is always a chance for altering the wheat plants genetics, which will then enable it to grow insulin. Human genetic engineering pros and cons have been among the concern of a lot of people involved in genetic engineering. Likewise the pros, certain cons are there of using the genetic engineering. Mentioned below are the cons of human genetic engineering:

The evolution of genetic engineering gets the consideration of being the biggest breakthroughs in the history of mankind after the evolution of atomic energy, and few other scientific discoveries. However, human genetic engineering pros and cons together have contributed a lot in creating a controversial image of it among the people.

All these eventualities have forced the government of many countries to make strict legislation laws to put restrictions on different experiment being made on human genetic engineering. They have made this decision by considering different human genetic engineering pros and cons.

Human Genetic Engineering Pros And Cons

3.12 (62.36%) 3295 votes

Read more:
Human Genetic Engineering Pros And Cons

Read More...

Become a Genetic Engineer: Education and Career Roadmap

Sunday, December 30th, 2018

Step 1: Earn a Bachelor's Degree

A genetic engineer starts by earning a bachelor's degree, typically in a branch of the physical sciences, such as biology or chemistry. Some schools offer undergraduate programs in genetic engineering or in closely-related fields such as biological engineering. Curricula typically include rigorous courses in calculus, biology, chemistry and physics.

A bachelor's degree may be sufficient educational preparation for some entry-level careers in genetic engineering. However, many employers only hire candidates with advanced degrees (master's or Ph.D.). Advanced degree programs allow aspiring genetic engineers to gain valuable experience through laboratory-based research. To carry out genetic engineering research independently, one should expect to earn a doctoral degree, and to advance in a genetic engineering field, one usually needs a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree. You may pursue a degree in biochemistry or biophysics. If you want to treat human patients, you'll likely need a medical degree as well.

While attending a graduate school, it is a good idea for students to participate in an internship program to gain experience. Universities often have fellowship and research programs that allow students to receive relevant training before leaving the academic environment. The Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES), The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other professional or governmental organizations in the field may post internship opportunities.

Genetic engineering is a broad field. Engineers can specialize in agriculture, healthcare and other specialties. They may work as molecular biologists, breast cancer researchers, forensic scientists and genetic counselors, among other positions. These careers can be found at universities, healthcare organizations, research and development firms, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and government agencies.

Aspiring genetic engineers seeking to advance their careers may consider joining a professional membership organization, such as the Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES), which offers its members access to continuing education, professional training, networking opportunities, industry-related events and other resources for professional growth and career advancement.

Genetic engineers commonly need a master's degree or a doctoral degree in a related field, such as biophysics or biochemistry, though some entry-level positions may be available to individuals with a relevant bachelor's degree.

Read more here:
Become a Genetic Engineer: Education and Career Roadmap

Read More...

13 Important Genetic Engineering Pros And Cons | Bio Explorer

Tuesday, November 20th, 2018

Over the last century, the field of genetics and biotechnology has greatly developed because of the better understanding of the gene. Because of the improvement of technology, scientists have already gone up until the manipulation of the genome (complete set of genes) of organisms. This process is called genetic engineering. In this article, we will explore 13 important genetic engineering pros and cons.

The sharing of genetic material among living organisms is known to be a natural event. This phenomenon is known to be very evident among bacteria, hence they are called natures own genetic engineer. Such phenomenon is the inspiration of scientists in this endeavor.

In literature, there are in fact many synonyms of the term genetic engineering: genetic modification, genome manipulation, genetic enhancement, and many more. However, this term shall not be confused with cloning because genetic engineering involves the production of new set of genes while the latter only involves the production of the same copies of genes in the organism.

Genetic engineering is the process of manipulating an organisms genome using biotechnology and the products of it are either referred to as genetically modified or transgenic organisms. Check out the disadvantages of genetically modified foods here.

Basically, genetic engineering is done by inserting a gene of interest from sources like bacteria, viruses, plants, and animals into the target organism. As a result, the organism with the inserted gene of interest is now able to carry out the new trait or characteristic.

This technology grants us the ability to overcome barriers, exchange genes among organisms, and produce new organisms with favorable traits.

For a more detailed explanation of the process, check out this video below:

Now we will dive into the pros and cons of Genetic Engineering now.

Supporters of genetic engineering believe that genetic engineering is indeed safe and is still comparable to the traditional process of breeding in plants and animals. Advocates of genetic engineering support the technology primarily because of the following reasons:

Golden RiceA variety of food crops and products have already been modified in order to provide better nutrition for consumers. For instance, did you know that you can already have your daily requirement of vitamin A by eating rice alone? By inserting a gene that encodes for vitamin A to the gene of regular rice, scientists were able to create a new breed of rice plants called Golden Rice. Such discovery is very helpful to the diet of populations that consume rice.

Increased Resistance To PestsA common problem in farming and food production is the rapid infestation and rotting of crops. Using genetic engineering, scientists have already found a solution: by creating rot and pest resistant crops. By genetically engineering the gene that encodes for rotting in plants, the ability of a certain fruit to resist rotting is enhanced. In the case of pest resistance, scientists insert genes for toxin production into plants, thus resulting to them deterring their insect pests.

Belgian Blue CattleAnimals have already been modified in order to increase meat production. One example of a genetically modified animal for such purpose is the Belgian blue cattle which originated from Belgium, as the name suggests. Unlike regular cattle, this genetically engineered cattle has an impressive muscling known as double muscling. By inserting a gene that inhibits the production of myostatin (the protein that suppresses muscle growth), scientists were able to produce a new breed of cattle that has humongous body size ideal for meat production.

Novel Vaccine & Drugs In medicine, genetic engineering is used in order to produce various drugs like human growth hormone, insulin, and vaccines. Basically, a vaccine is a synthetic substance given in order to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against a certain disease. To do this, inactive forms of viruses or the toxins they produced are injected into the person being immunized.

Gene Doping Through the course of time, genetic engineering is no longer limited to plants and animals alone. Surprisingly, a study published in the journal Nature showed that genetic engineering in humans is already being performed in a process called gene doping. Unlike the known process of doping, which involves the use of performance enhancing drugs like growth hormones and steroids, gene doping involves the non-therapeutic use of genes and cells to improve athletic performance.

Designer Baby In addition to the above mentioned, did you know that using genetic engineering, you can already choose the type of baby you want to have? The term designer baby refers to a baby whose genetic makeup has been chosen in order to ensure that a certain gene will be present or to remove a certain unwanted trait. Although possible, this genetic technology has not yet been started because of continuing ethical debates.

On the other hand, there are several types of potential health effects that could arise from the insertion of a novel gene into an organism. Critics disagree with the methods of genetic engineering because of:

Unintended Growth In short, there is no 100% chances that the genes inserted will be expressed. In fact, they can even end up in unexpected places. Such changes can contribute to alteration in the organisms growth, metabolism and response.

AllergensWhen GM crops were first introduced to the market, the possibility that they might cause allergies became the prime concern of consumers. Apparently, there have already been several studies which suggest that the genetic engineering may have increased natural allergens in crops. As alluded to earlier, the transfer of genes across organisms is prone to high probabilities of failures. For instance, the supposedly gene of interest is not transferred; instead, another gene for producing allergen is.

Antibiotic Resistance Another damaging effect of producing GM organisms is a condition called antibiotic resistance. In this phenomenon, the supposedly target organisms of antibiotics change in a way that they eventually become resistant to the drug. As a result, they will continue to survive, causing greater harm.

Loss of Biodiversity According to a study published in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, one major problem regarding the rise of GM organisms is that they can cause a reduction in the biodiversity (the difference in the traits of organisms) of plants and animals in the environment. This means that the DNA in the environment will be more similar between individuals. So what? Loss biodiversity in the environment means lower chances of adaptation and survival of organisms to changing environment.

Source: CBC.ca In relation to the above point, the increase in the production of GM crops and animals may lead to the rise of invasive species. Because GM organisms are often better adapted to the environments that they were modified for, they out-compete naturally occurring plants and animals. In science, such organisms are termed as invasive species. They are basically organisms with uncontrollable growth of populations up to a degree that already harms organisms and the environment.

Because of the technology used to create genetically modified crops and animals, private companies that produce them do not share their products at a reasonable cost with the public.

BioethicsFor critics, genetic engineering has no resemblance to the natural process of breeding. This is because in the process, a different gene is forced to combine to the genes of an organism.

In addition, they believe that the process is somewhat disrupting the natural way and complexity of life. In addition to this, critics fear the misuse and abuse of biotechnology.

Indeed, genetic engineering will always have two opposite sides. While the possibilities of what science can create are endless, and the harmful effects also are. At present, it is important to know that the real risks and benefits of genetic engineering lie in how science is interpreted and used.

But theres really no doubt that with the rapid advancements in technology, the creation of GM organisms are also increasing.

What do you think? Are GM organisms slowly becoming the future?

13 Important Genetic Engineering Pros And Cons

See more here:
13 Important Genetic Engineering Pros And Cons | Bio Explorer

Read More...

Genetic Engineering – MSPCA-Angell

Saturday, August 25th, 2018

The MSPCAbelieves scientists ability to clone animals, to alter the genetic makeup of an animal, and to transfer pieces of genetic material from one species to another raises serious concerns for animals and humans alike.

This pagewill explore issues related to genetic engineering, transgenic animals, and cloned animals. It will examine the implications of genetic engineering on human and animal welfare and will touch on some related moral and ethical concerns that our society has so far failed to completely address.

Definitions

Problems related to the physical and psychological well-being of cloned and transgenic animals, significant ethical concerns about the direct manipulation of genetic material, and questions about the value of life itself must all be carefully weighed against the potential benefits of genetic engineering for disease research, agricultural purposes, vaccine development, pharmaceutical products, and organ transplants.

Genetic engineering is, as yet, an imperfect science that yields imperfect results.

Changes in animal growth and development brought about by genetic engineering and cloning are less predictable, more rapid, and often more debilitating than changes brought about through the traditional process of selective breeding.

This is especially apparent with cloning. Success rates are incredibly low; on average, less than 5% of cloned embryos are born and survive.

Clones are created at a great cost to animals. The clones that are successful, as well as those that do not survive and the surrogates who carry them, suffer greatly.Many of the cloned animals that do survive are plagued by severe health problems.

Offspring suffer from severe birth defects such as Large Offspring Syndrome (LOS), in which the cloned offspring are significantly larger than normal fetuses; hydrops, a typically fatal condition in which the mother or the fetus swells with fluid; respiratory distress; developmental problems; malformed organs; musculoskeletal deformities; or weakened immune systems, to name only a few.

Additionally, surrogates are subjected to repeated invasive procedures to harvest their eggs, implant embryos, or due to the offsprings birth defects surgical intervention to deliver their offspring. All of these problems occur at much higher rates than for offspring produced via traditional breeding methods.

Cloning increases existing animal welfare and environmental concerns related to animal agriculture.

In 1996, the birth of the ewe, Dolly, marked the first successful cloning of a mammal from adult cells. At the time of her birth, the researchers who created Dolly acknowledged the inefficiency of the new technology: it took 277 attempts to create this one sheep, and of these, only 29 early embryos developed, and an even smaller number of these developed into live fetuses. In the end, Dolly was the sole surviving clone. She was euthanized in 2003 at just 6 years of age, about half as old as sheep are expected to live, and with health problems more common in older sheep.

Since Dollys creation, the process of cloning has not demonstrated great improvement in efficiency or rates of success. A 2003 review of cloning in cattle found that less than 5% of cloned embryos transferred into surrogate cows survived; a 2016 study showedno noticeable increase in efficiency, with the success rate being about 1%.

Currently, research is focused on cloning for agricultural purposes. Used alone, or in concert with genetic engineering, the objective is to clone the best stock to reproduce whole herds or flocks with desired uniform characteristics of a specific trait, such as fast growth, leaner meat, or higher milk production. Cloning is often pursued to produce animals that grow faster so they can be slaughtered sooner and to raise more animals in a smaller space.

For example, transgenic fish are engineered to grow larger at a faster rate and cows injected with genetically engineered products to increase their productivity. Another example of this is the use of the genetically engineered drug, bovine growth hormone (BGH or BST) to increase milk production in dairy cows. This has also been associated with increased cases of udder disease, spontaneous abortion, lameness, and shortened lifespan. The use of BGH is controversial; many countries (such as Canada, Japan, Australia, and countries in the EU) do not allow it, and many consumers try to avoid it.A rise in transgenic animals used for agriculture will only exacerbate current animal welfare and environmental concerns with existing intensive farming operations.(For more information on farming and animal welfare, visit the MSPCAs Farm Animal Welfare page.)

Much remains unknown about thepotential environmental impacts of widespread cloning of animals. The creation of genetically identical animals leads to concerns about limited agricultural animal gene pools. The effects of creating uniform herds of animals and the resulting loss of biodiversity, have significant implications for the environment and for the ability of cloned herds to withstand diseases. This could make an impact on the entireagriculture industry and human food chain.

These issues became especiallyconcerning when, in 2008, the Federal Drug Administration not only approved the sale of meat from the offspring of cloned animals, but also did not require that it be labeled as such. There have been few published studies that examine the composition of milk, meat, or eggs from cloned animals or their progeny, including the safety of eating those products. The health problems associated with cloned animals, particularly those that appear healthy but have concealed illnesses or problems that appear unexpectedly later in life, could potentially pose risks to the safety of the food products derived from those animals.

Genetically Engineered Pets

Companion animals have also been cloned. The first cloned cat, CC, was created in 2001. CCs creation marked the beginning of the pet cloning industry, in which pet owners could pay to bank DNA from their companion dogs and cats to be cloned in the future. In 2005, the first cloned dog was created; later, the first commercially cloned dog followed at a cost of $50,000. Many consumers assume that cloning will produce a carbon copy of their beloved pet, but this is not the case. Even though the animals are genetically identical, they often do not resemble each other physically or behaviorally.

To date, the pet cloning industry has not been largely successful. However, efforts to make cloning a successful commercial venture are still being put forth.RBio (formerly RNL Bio), a Korean biotechnology company, planned to create a research center that would produce 1,000 cloned dogs annually by 2013. However, RBio, considered a black market cloner, failed to make any significant strides in itscloning endeavors and seems to have been replaced by other companies, such as South Korean-based Sooam Biotech, now the worlds leader in commercial pet cloning. Since 2006, Sooam has cloned over 800 dogs, in addition to other animals, such as cattle and pigs, for breed preservation and medical research.

While South Korean animal cloning expands, the interest in companion animal cloning in the United States continues to remain low. In 2009, the American company BioArts ceased its dog cloning services and ended its partnership with Sooam, stating in a press release that cloning procedures were still underdeveloped and that the cloning market itself was weak and unethical. However, in September 2016, ViaGen Petscreated the first American-born cloned puppy. ViaGen, an American company that has been cloning horses and livestock for over a decade, not only offers cloning services, but also offers to cyropreserve a pets DNA in case owners want to clone their pets in the future.

Of course, ViaGens process is more complicated than it sounds cloning and preservation costs pet owners up to tens of thousands of dollars, and the cloned animals are not necessarily behaviorally identical to their original counterparts. Furthermore, companion animal cloning causes concern not only because of the welfare issues inherent in the cloning process, but also because of its potential to contribute to pet overpopulation problem in the US, as millions of animals in shelters wait for homes.

Cloning and Medical Research

Cloning is also used to produce copies of transgenic animals that have been created to mimic certain human diseases. The transgenic animals are created, then cloned, producing a supply of animals for biomedical testing.

A 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision to permit the patenting of a microorganism that could digest crude oil had a great impact on animal welfare and genetic engineering. Until that time, the U.S. Patent Office had prohibited the patenting of living organisms. However, following the Supreme Court decision, the Patent Office interpreted this ruling to extend to the patenting of all higher life forms, paving the way for a tremendous explosion of corporate investment in genetic engineering research.

In 1988, the first animal patent was issued to Harvard University for the Oncomouse, a transgenic mouse genetically modified to be more prone to develop cancers mimicking human disease. Since then, millions of transgenic mice have been produced. Transgenic rats, rabbits, monkeys, fish, chickens, pigs, sheep, goats, cows, horses, cats, dogs, and other animals have also been created.

Both expected and unexpected results occur in the process of inserting new genetic material into an egg cell. Defective offspring can suffer from chromosomal abnormalities that can cause cancer, fatal bleeding disorders, inability to reproduce, early uterine death, lack of ability to nurse, and such diseases as arthritis, diabetes, liver disease, and kidney disease.

The production of transgenic animals is of concern because genetic engineering is often used to create animals with diseases that cause intense suffering. Among the diseases that can be produced in genetically engineered research mice are diabetes, cancer, cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Huntingtons disease, Alzheimers disease, and a rare but severe neurological condition called Lesch-Nyhansyndromethat causes the sufferer to self-mutilate. Animals carrying the genes for these diseases can suffer for long periods of time, both in the laboratory and while they are kept on the shelf by laboratory animal suppliers.

Another reason for the production of transgenic animals is pharming, in which sheep and goats are modified to produce pharmaceuticals in their milk. In 2009, the first drug produced by genetically engineered animals was approved by the FDA. The drug ATryn, used to prevent fatal blood clots in humans, is derived from goats into which a segment of human DNA has been inserted, causing them to produce an anticoagulant protein in their milk. This marks the first time a drug has been manufactured from a herd of animals created specifically to produce a pharmaceutical.

A company has also manufactured a drug produced in the milk of transgenic rabbits to treat a dangerous tissue swelling caused by a human protein deficiency. Yet another pharmaceutical manufacturer, PharmAnthene, was funded by the US Department of Defense to develop genetically engineered goats whose milk produces proteins used in a drug to treat nerve gas poisoning. The FDA also approved a drug whose primary proteins are also found in the milk of genetically engineered goats, who are kept at a farm in Framingham, Massachusetts. Additionally, a herd of cattle was recently developed that produces milk containing proteins that help to treat human emphysema. These animals are essentially used as pharmaceutical-production machines to manufacture only those substances they were genetically modified to produce; they are not used as part of the normal food supply chain for items such as meat or milk.

The transfer of animal tissues from one species to another raises potentially serious health issues for animals and humans alike.

Some animals are also genetically modified to produce tissues and organs to be used for human transplant purposes (xenotransplantation). Much effort is being focused in this area as the demand for human organs for transplantation far exceeds the supply, with pigs the current focus of this research.

While efforts to date have been hampered by a pig protein (porcine endogenous retroviruses- PERVs) that can cause organ rejection by the recipients immune system, efforts are underway to develop genetically modified swine with a human protein that would mitigate the chance of organ rejection. A Cambridge-based company, eGenesis, is using CRISPR to make organs grown in pigs more human-compatible. PERVs are often passed down from the surrogate mothers into the fetuses, which can then cause tumors, leukemia, and neuronal degeneration in the humans that receive the organs. eGenesis was able to remove 62 PERV genes when growing organs in petri dishes. Further, eGenesis has been working on inserting 12 human genes into the pig ovum to make the grown organs more human-like. Even in the early stages, genetic manipulation has impacts on both the mother pig and the genetically-modified piglets. One batch of embryos all died, and another batch resulted in a lot of miscarriages. Read more about the research here.

Little is known about the ways in which diseases can be spread from one species to another, raising concerns for both animals and people, and calling into question the safety of using transgenic pigs to supply organs for human transplant purposes. Scientists have identified various viruses common in the heart, spleen, and kidneys of pigs that could infect human cells. In addition, new research is shedding light on particles called prions that, along with viruses and bacteria, may transmit fatal diseases between animals and from animals to humans.

Acknowledging the potential for transmission of viruses from animals to humans, the National Institutes of Health, a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,issued a moratorium in 2015 onxenotransplantation until the risks are better understood, ceasing funding until more research has been carried out. With the science of genetic engineering, the possibilities are endless, but so too are the risks and concerns.

Genetic engineering research has broad ethical and moral ramifications with few established societal guidelines.

While biotechnology has been quietly revolutionizing the science for decades, public debate in the United Statesover the moral, ethical, and physical effects of this research has been insufficient. To quote Colorado State University Philosopher Bernard Rollin, We cannot control technology if we do not understand it, and we cannot understand it without a careful discussion of the moral questions to which it gives rise.

Research into non-animal methods of achieving some of the same goals looks promising.

Researchers in the U.S. and elsewhere have found ways togenetically engineer cereal grains to produce human proteins. One example of this, developed in the early 2000s, is a strain of rice that can produce a human protein used to treat cystic fibrosis. Wheat, corn, and barley may also be able to be used in similar ways at dramatically lower financial and ethical costs than genetically engineering animals for this purpose.

Here is the original post:
Genetic Engineering - MSPCA-Angell

Read More...

Is genetic engineering ethical? | Debate.org

Monday, August 6th, 2018

In the old days, parents would wait to see and check what gender their baby is going to be. However, in today's era, people already know beforehand through ultrasound and whatnot. In addition, people have even discovered means of literally "creating" a child! They can choose what their baby is going to look like; that would diminish the feeling of surprise and joy, especially to the mother, when they see their baby come out and into this world.

I don't think genetic engineering is very good because it's sorta cheeky and is against the word of my God Buddha and Allah. It is bad and wrecks the genetic distrubutor modifiers and deoxy ribonucleic acid modifiers so isn't very good. My mom says that science is bad too so you shouldn't listen to the pros. Someday I will be President of Canada so listen hard

Today I am here not only brighten your view of this topic but to expose you to a different perspective. Gene modification is highly unethical to the environment and to our society today. It brings me great sadness to see that people debate about this topic since it seems clear to me that the knowledge given to us from God should be used to address the purpose of life, rather than perfecting the physical state of society. No human can ever be flawless that's just something we have to learn to accept. Our life expectancy cannot exceed a certain number of years. We should rely on God's will.

No one has the right to manipulate the creation of the ALMIGHTY.This has to be strictly prohibited as it can affect the religious status of different religions.So there should not be any discrimination among the society as it helps them build a better individuality.It helps in keeping the individuality intact

An important thing that happened in 1999 was that a series of surprising experiments were released in Britainexperiments that the industry had spent six months trying to suppress. They showed that laboratory rats that were fed genetically engineered potatoes had severe problems with their digestive tracts, immune responses, and the development of nearly all their vital organs. Their brains, hearts, livers, spleens, etc. were all significantly reduced in size, and many of the endocrine glands were enlarged. Some of this data was published in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, but the lead scientist was fired and the research was never finished. The suggestion is that much more extreme health effects are possible, but the industry has a huge vested interest in seeing to it that we dont ever know for sure.

Let's talk about food. The Monsanto company (for example) is not looking to benefit us. They are only digging in our wallets by patenting their gmo crops. Remember the incident where their seeds blew into other farmer's crops and contaminated them? Those innocent people were forced to destroy their hard-earned seeds because they supposedly belonged to Monsanto. They are also looking at "terminato?" Crops where the seeds they produce will be infertile (so seeds would have to be bought by the company every single year). Now imagine that spreading and contaminating our crops. So many more reasons why gmo is bad but not enough space.

Parents should not want to genetically engineer their babies, it is wrong on so many levels. They should love their kids the way they are and stop trying to change them to make them "perfect", and with genetic engineering comes many possible birth defects so they really shouldn't do that to their babies.

I am really leaning toward no I would first have to ask, when having this HGE therapy is there an increased risk and/or incidence of miscarriage, intrauterine fetal death, or stillbirth? Also, are there any known complications of the pregnancy that can be related to these HGE therapies? At this point I am looking into the HGE to treat genetic diseases in the fetus. Now this type of HGE is understandable. You might even say it is medically necessary, which is why most medical insurance companies will probably cover it, so I think HGE for this purpose is probably ok. But as far as HGE for "enhancement" goes, I don't think that is right. I am not sure what the procedure is or how often it does or does not cause a miscarriage, but there is that to consider. Also getting all these "enhancements" for our babies will cost quite a lot and only the elite will be able to afford it. This type of HGE is NOT medically necessary so most medical insurance companies will not cover it. I read that this means only approx. 10% of the population will be able to get these "enhancements" for their children. So what happens then? This 10% gets to be in some way superior to the kids whose parents couldn't afford the HGE so they were born all natural? By the way, what comes next? I mean are the scientists gonna go all 'Spiderman' on us? Or try to make some of the characters from the X-men?

Genetic engineering, is not natural, we have no idea of the harm that could come to us in the future. Once we start, who decides when enough it enough? It is interfering with nature and not for the better. We have survived this long without it and have thrived, the human race is not suffering, we are doing just the opposite. Genetic engineering is not needed to advance the human race.

Genetic Engineering does not seem ethical or natural. Fixing the DNA for something for our benefit is not right. We may be benefiting from the modified genes, but it is not natural and is fixed. With genetic manipulation, there will be an imbalance in nature. For an example, if we were to genetically manipulate humans so that they are resistant to diseases, it could off set nature. Diseases are meant to control the population, so that the human race does not grow too much and use up all of earths resources. Even if a human is genetically modified, it does not mean that they are perfect. By definition, perfect means that the human will have no flaws and will have the required elements or characteristics. But if the genetic manipulation changes all of these things to make a perfect human, than that person no longer has their own identity. Also, we will never be able to live forever and will only live for a certain number of years, since our body will break down and die. Even with genes fixed, it seems impossible.

Read more:
Is genetic engineering ethical? | Debate.org

Read More...

Genetic Engineering | Second Renaissance Wikia | FANDOM …

Monday, August 6th, 2018

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease. Gene targeting is a different technique that uses homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene, remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations.

An organism that is generated through genetic engineering is considered to be a genetically modified organism (GMO). The first GMOs were bacteria generated in 1973 and GM mice in 1974. Insulin-producing bacteria were commercialized in 1982 and genetically modified food has been sold since 1994. Glofish, the first GMO designed as a pet, was first sold in the United States December in 2003.

Genetic engineering techniques have been applied in numerous fields including agriculture, industrial biotechnology, terraforming, and most notably, medicine.

Humans have altered the genomes of species for thousands of years through selective breeding, or artificial selection as contrasted with natural selection, as well through mutagenesis. Genetic engineering as the direct manipulation of DNA by humans outside breeding and mutations has only existed since the 1970s. The term "genetic engineering" was first coined by Jack Williamson in his science fiction novel Dragon's Island, published in 1951, one year before DNA's role in heredity was confirmed by Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase, and two years before James Watson and Francis Crick showed that the DNA molecule has a double-helix structure.

In 1972 Paul Berg created the first recombinant DNA molecules by combining DNA from the monkey virus SV40 with that of the lambda virus. In 1973 Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen created the first transgenic organism by inserting antibiotic resistance genes into the plasmid of an E. coli bacterium. A year later Rudolf Jaenisch created a transgenic mouse by introducing foreign DNA into its embryo, making it the worlds first transgenic animal. These early achievements led torestrictions on genetic research after a backlash from environmental groups and members the scientific establishment. Activists groups strongly opposed to genetic engineering pushed for increasingly restrictive laws on research and the use of genetic engineering in crops.

In 1976 Genentech, the first genetic engineering company, was founded by Herbert Boyer and Robert Swanson and a year later the company produced a human protein (somatostatin) in E.coli. Genentech announced the production of genetically engineered human insulin in 1978. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Diamond v. Chakrabarty case ruled that genetically altered life could be patented. The insulin produced by bacteria, branded humulin, was approved for release by the Food and Drug Administration in 1982. The early success of Genentech and the legal victory for genetics companies, led to an explosion of research into Genetically modified crops in the 1980s and 90s. Field trials in France and the US in 1986 introduced herbicide resistant tobacco plants, and transgenetic crops like the Bt Potato and the Flavr Savr tomato all entered mass market during this period.

Main Article: Biotech bubble

In 2010, scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute, announced that they had created the first synthetic bacterial genome. The researchers added the new genome to bacterial cells and selected for cells that contained the new genome. To do this the cells undergoes a process called resolution, where during bacterial cell division one new cell receives the original DNA genome of the bacteria, whilst the other receives the new synthetic genome. When this cell replicates it uses the synthetic genome as its template. The resulting bacterium the researchers developed, named Synthia, was the world's first synthetic life form. Synthia spawned a new wave research into and public outcry over Genetically modified organisms. Dubbed "Frankenfood," by environmental groups and left-wing politicians, a series of laws were passed across the US and Europe to identify and limit access to GMO foods.

The technology saw rapid advances in the 2010s and 2020s with the introduction of CRISPR-based gene editing technologies which radically reduced the cost while increasing the accuracy of gene editing. New government regulations were slow to be adopted, and at the time there were fears that CRISPR would make it possible for anyone to create a "super-bug" or antibiotic resistant bacteria or supervirus. Regulatory reforms during the Booker administration established national programs for researching gene editing technologies and created guidelines for the private sector to begin experimenting with CRISPR.

The public backlash against GMOs subsided in the face of the Flood, or more specifically the Famine of 2027 which resulted from the effects of climate change. Government support and funding for GMO crops spawned new strains of heartier corn, wheat, and potatoes that could endure harsher climates, and fish farms began growing strains of Tuna that were modified to handle the drop in salinity of the oceans. European nations began aggressively removing barriers to genetically modified organisms to remain competitive, while China and India faced protests and even riots demanding the import of high-yield rice and wheat strains to end the famine. Many of these new strains were originally developed for use on the Moon and Mars, and research capital from the Space Industry for terraforming GMOs nearly equaled government research funding. On the moon, the first Genetically modified tree, the Hedra Fir, was introduced in Armstrong city on the moon. Genetically modified strains of bacteria were introduced to break up lunar silicates and produce nutrients for a soil base; similar strains were employed across the solar system in early stages of terraforming. On Earth these technologies fueled an explosion in the biotech industry to cater to agribusiness, healthcare, and bio-industry.

When humans started being genetically modified, they were discriminated against by law. This led to the Augment Rights Movement which brought an end to such discrimination.

Genetic engineering in plants is the oldest form of commercially viable genetic technology. During the Famine of 2027, Bio-ethics protocols were relaxed to allow for more GM produce to be produced to feed the hungriest places on Earth. Golden Rice, developed in the early 1990s, was one such GM Plant that benefitted from the new policies. Rich in Beta Carotene, Golden Rice is widely claimed to have solved the problem of Vitamin A deficiencies in Children in underdeveloped countries. Golden Rice was the first of a new generation of GM Foods engineered to be healthier than their traditional cousins. To counter the risk of the new crops intermixing and contaminating those of the natural world, new regulations were put in place that required them to be grown in isolated areas. Agribusiness managed to capitalize on this with the creation of vertical farms in major cities, limiting the cost of exporting their goods, and containing them in a sealed environment. As of 2160, GM Plants account for 70% of the world's produce intake.

Genetically modified beef, poultry, and fish faced far tougher bio-ethics restrictions during their initial development, and for many years following the reforms of the late 2020s, remained tightly controlled by government regulators. It was on Mars where GMO livestock research grew virtually unchecked. The Famine of 2027 pushed regulators to loosen restrictions on genetically modified fish species. Strains of Tuna, salmon, and carp and tillapia were bred to thrive in the more desalinated oceans, but international fishing laws restricted them to fish farms and mobile fish pens, and further regulations placed demands on suicide genes to prevent them from breeding in the wild. During the Refreeze and rewilding projects of the late 21st and early 22nd century, these restrictions were removed and genetically modified/cloned species of fish were re-introduced into the wild. Beef and dairy cattle restrictions were loosened as well, however vat-grown meat had gained popularity as an inexpensive alternative to farmed meat.

Perhaps the greatest impact of the Genetic Engineering in livestock was the New Domestication movement of the 2030s. Genetically modified Bison, venison, and elk were introduced for farms with reduced adrenal glands, making them easier to corral. Cloned populations of Mammoth, Moa, and Dodo were created for exotic meat as well.

During the leadup to the Mars colonization program, Lunar Energy Ltd. contracted a number of research labs to develop and test genetically modified bacteria in lunar caverns for localized terraforming. Early strains of genetically modified Vostok bacteria were used to break down rock, bioleach atmospheric compounds and soil nutrients to produce a soil-base and buffer atmosphere. Additional research for genetically modified flora produced some of the first complex genetic hybrids, primarily strains including the growth pattern of English Ivy, which took advantage of the low gravity and large walls of the Moon's subsurface caves. The isolated habitats of the Lunar caverns also let terraforming techniques be refined before proceeding to Mars. On Mars more advanced strains were introduced to take advantage of the higher levels of surface radiation, salt and iron rich regolith, and cold surface temperatures. All these initial strains were bred with faulty metabolisms, designed to encourage rapid growth and reproduction, and therefore spread across the planet with relative ease. Later strains of algae, mosses, and lichens were introduced to build up this soil base and process the CO2 rich atmosphere into breathable air. For Mars, any organism introduced had to take advantage of the high concentration of salt and iron in the soil, a process largely achieved by inserting and modifying genes from plants typical of alkali rich soils on Earth. Additional modifications to the pigment of leaves to take advantage of the reduced light from the Sun were typical on Mars.

While phosphorescent fish were popular novelty pets in the 2000s and 2010s, it wasn't until the 2020s that GM Pets really came into high demand. Originally some animals were bred using artificial selection to produce tameness, as was the case with the Siberian Fox, however this took decades. Genetic modification sped up the process and gave greater control over desired qualities.

The first GM pet to gain widespread popularity, Genetically Stunted Animals or "Cubs," pets modified to stay in their juvenile stage, were introduced in 2024. These modifications made it possible to domesticate many animals previously too wild to keep in captivity. Breeders and kennel clubs initially opposed the use of genetic engineering in dogs as it threatened to destroy their industry by creating countless microbreeds. However, after California passed restrictions against purebreeding (which had led to a generation of inbred and unhealthy dogs being sold at over-inflated prices), several kennel club owners began creating companies to offer designer breeds that were not subject to the same restrictions as purebreds, and did not suffer the same health problems. Dog and cat breeds created in the 2020s and 2030s were noted for being far healthier than their natural counterparts and were generally held much longer lifespans and heightened intelligence to natural pets. By the 2040s, most pets could live almost as long as their owners, and held a similar position in family hierarchies as children in the Agrarian Age.

By mid-century GM seals, foxes, big cats, bears, wolves, and birds of prey had become the most popular GM pets on the market, and sterility modifications kept them from contaminating the biosphere or diluting the global pet market. New organisms introduced in the 2050s and 60s were recognized as completely separate species and featured several unique modifiers to their physiology, including unusual pigment and fur patterns, changes in size, and an increased ability to sense the mood and commands of humans.

Genetic engineering in humans was originally developed to screen for genetic deficiencies and hereditary diseases, and for much of its history was afforded only to the super rich. New genome manipulation technologies developed in the 2010s eventually made these treatments available for a larger portion of the population, and offered peace of mind to many parents with family illnesses. Under the healthcare reforms of the Price administration, these treatments were covered under Medicare as low birthrates reduced any serious burden they would impose on the treasury. For the first half of the 21st Century, genetic engineering in humans was conducted primarily through in vitro modification. By Biotech Boom of the 2040, it was estimated that 45% of births, the fetus was selected for beneficial health traits, basic appearance, sex, and even factors influencing sexual orientation.

Following WWIII, genetic modification for humans became increasingly popular among the youth as military research into human augmentation began to transfer into the public market. Athletes, the elderly, and the infirm were the first to receive these modifications. Cosmetic modifications became very popular among the youth, who incorporated animal traits into their genomes to alter their appearances. Several companies were established to provide modifications to sex organs, pheromone production and reception organs to improve their physical attraction between individuals. These technologies spawned a new culture war between members of the Flood Generation and the Made Generation. Socially conservative bio-ethics laws were put in place to limit access to cosmetic genetic enhancements. Some states saw mass migrations of young people escaping extremely severe laws, like California's Human Preservation Act or New Mexico's Heritage Act.

By the 2070s human augmentation became more socially acceptable, but legal restrictions against genetic modifications to minors remained in place. Common augmentations were purely decorative while others served specific functions, and were largely derived from existing genetic code in plants and animals. These included tails, skin patterns, fur patches (some as simple as adding color and patterns to existing hair patches) and augmentations that emulated the look and function of animals (eyes, claws, padded feet, reproductive organs, etc.). This spawned what some have called "Genetic Fashion" movements and the birth of "Body Shops," for inexpensive modifications which contributed to new subcultures. The largest of the 2070s genetic subcultures were the Furries, who advocated extensive animal augmentations, in some cases to the point where subcultures became sub-species of humanity.

By the early 22nd Century animal modifications had decidedly fallen out of fashion in favor of less flashy custom augmentations that found a larger audience than the counterculture augmentations. Atypical hair color, skin color patterns, bone structures, and in some circles modifications derived from alien lifeforms became more popular.

Early full-prosthetic bodies were largely bionic in composition, but as genetic engineering of stem-cells developed throughout the 2030s, artificial bodies began to include more biomass, mainly skin and guts. Genetically engineered organs and tissue entered service in specialty bodies available to the military and spacers. By 2040 artificial bodies incorporated a blending of bionic and biologic material in their construction, proving the feasibility of genetically modified organs in humans. During WWIII artificial body technology grew by leaps and bounds, to the point where it was possible to grow a full body from genetically modified tissue.

Artificial bodies have been a common practice for individuals who's original bodies are severely damaged or degraded due to biological aging, however since the 2090s, they are also issued in the military for all new recruits. Mil-spec bodies include advanced augmentations for combat and field duties, and were originally developed exclusively for the space force.

The 2050s saw the first cosmetic genetic modifications gain popularity among the youth despite social conservative backlash. By the 2070s cosmetic augmentations became a relatively common practice across generations and age groups, and has carried forward to today as a practice to enhance the distinctiveness of subcultures, improve physical beauty, and reduce signs of aging. Body Shops are the most common centers for cosmetic modifications, however most governments restrict the degree of modifications they are able to perform to limited modifications to existing appendages, effect skin and eye coloration, and the presence of hair/fur/hide. More advanced cosmetic augmentations are typically administered at Cosmetic Augmentation Centers, which require special licencing in most areas, and cater more to specialized clients, often associated with major subcultures. Federal law requires that any fetus conceived between parents with augmentations must remain essentially human, and cannot receive augmentations until they reach biological maturity. However, this law has largely been ignored by various subspecies of humanity that have emerged as a result.

Human cloning was largely outlawed worldwide until mid-Century. In the lead up to WWIII the US and Japan began relaxing certain policies toward human cloning to enable more rapid innovations in biotech (mostly to create replacement limbs and such). Vat grown bodies are just a form of human cloning after all. But the actual technique of taking a human and making a full genetic copy, brain and all, wasn't legalized until after the war. First in Japan, then South Korea, then Germany, then Russia; all in a space of about 10 years legalized human cloning to try and at least delay their population problems.The way they saw it, it was just a more efficient form of creating designer babies (clones are seldom direct copies, they usually turn off some faulty genes and turn on useful ones). In the US human cloning was made legal after the US supreme court ruled that since it qualified as a form of reproduction, the US government had no right to ban it, keeping with the legal precedent set by Roe v. Wade. It was only brought up because a woman in Maine had used the techniques to create designer babies to clone herself by using her eggs and creating sperm cells from her stem cells, which was a common practice for same sex couples at the time.

Once it was legal in the US, several families tried to have kids who were clones of famous dead people (and famous not-so dead people). The genomes of several major historical figures had been sequenced by this point, and were free for any and all to see, so DNA sythesizers could make it possible for anyone to clone a lot of people. Basically, within 9 months of it being legal, there were numerous clones JFKs, FDRs, George Washingtons, Albert Einsteins, and Madonnas. There were persistant rumors that Adolf Hitler was also cloned from Neo-nazi groups around the globe, leading to the first laws banning the cloning of certain individuals (primarily those who hold a criminal record).

A number of children whose genetic material was largely extracted from historical figures went on to have very similar careers to their genetic parents, however the ratio was roughly the same as the general population. Most parents gave their cloned children the first name of their genetic doner. Current examples include:

It can also be noted that the number of orders for clones would experience a spike of high demand upon the death of a celebrity. Former US President Lionel Halvidar, for example, held the highest record of 28 million orders shortly after his death by the end of 2160 alone.

Original post:
Genetic Engineering | Second Renaissance Wikia | FANDOM ...

Read More...

Page 27«..1020..26272829..»


2024 © StemCell Therapy is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) Comments (RSS) | Violinesth by Patrick