The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Biotech: All Your Codons Belong To Us
Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Adenine
Guanine
Thymine
Cytosine
And occasionally Uracil :P
Scientists have found that the code for life as we know it, stems from these nucleotides. This has some incredibly awesome and sometimes scary implications. We stand on the edge of a very exciting period.
Recombinant products are just the start.
For those that don't know: most insulin produced today is made by this little cute guy
through the powers of biotechnology. What's more exciting is that it's pretty simple on a micro-level.
Hell, I'm a first year biotech student at a community college and for lab two weeks ago, I implanted foreign genes into plasmids.
The focus of biotech today is on protein production using simple eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. The focus will shift as the technology gets more efficient. Eventually we will be able to manipulate the human genome efficiently. This isn't science fiction, anymore. This brings up some questions:
I've been listening to a great podcast by these two dudes:http://www.twit.tv/FIB Eventually, we will be able to practice a form of eugenics, where we can select which genes are beneficial and remove which coding regions are harmful.
So we have these problems-
1. Who decides what is truly "harmful?"
2. Should deaf parents select for deaf children?
3. What do we do to maintain diversity? If all defects are removed, then how can we persist as a race?
4. Who has access to these treatments. Obviously, the rich will have preference, as they have the moneys.
5. How do we ensure that we do not cause an ecological catastrophe by toying with things we do not fully understand?
Already there is legislation being introduced. Search for the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act. This is a beneficial act, ensuring that when health insurance companies obtain your genomic information, they can't drop you for having a pre-existing vulnerability to say, prostate cancer. The legislation, if passed, will level the playing field, keeping insurance companies from weeding out the potentially sick.
In Europe, genetically modified food is banned. They call it "Frankenfood." Although organic food might be preferential, only the well off can afford such food. Genetically modified food, like drought resistant crops, could benefit an entire continent.
I haven't even brought up the issue of "playing God."
So, uh, discuss. I'm curious to see others opinions, as I support the biotech movement more wholeheartedly than other students. Hell, bringing up glow-in-the dark pigs can get some people pretty pissed off. So, yeah, I'm pretty curious to see the myriad of opinions on biotechnology. This stuff isn't science fiction and will increasingly become more prominent as time passes.
Guanine
Thymine
Cytosine
And occasionally Uracil :P
Scientists have found that the code for life as we know it, stems from these nucleotides. This has some incredibly awesome and sometimes scary implications. We stand on the edge of a very exciting period.
Recombinant products are just the start.
For those that don't know: most insulin produced today is made by this little cute guy
through the powers of biotechnology. What's more exciting is that it's pretty simple on a micro-level.
Hell, I'm a first year biotech student at a community college and for lab two weeks ago, I implanted foreign genes into plasmids.
The focus of biotech today is on protein production using simple eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells. The focus will shift as the technology gets more efficient. Eventually we will be able to manipulate the human genome efficiently. This isn't science fiction, anymore. This brings up some questions:
I've been listening to a great podcast by these two dudes:http://www.twit.tv/FIB Eventually, we will be able to practice a form of eugenics, where we can select which genes are beneficial and remove which coding regions are harmful.
So we have these problems-
1. Who decides what is truly "harmful?"
2. Should deaf parents select for deaf children?
3. What do we do to maintain diversity? If all defects are removed, then how can we persist as a race?
4. Who has access to these treatments. Obviously, the rich will have preference, as they have the moneys.
5. How do we ensure that we do not cause an ecological catastrophe by toying with things we do not fully understand?
Already there is legislation being introduced. Search for the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act. This is a beneficial act, ensuring that when health insurance companies obtain your genomic information, they can't drop you for having a pre-existing vulnerability to say, prostate cancer. The legislation, if passed, will level the playing field, keeping insurance companies from weeding out the potentially sick.
In Europe, genetically modified food is banned. They call it "Frankenfood." Although organic food might be preferential, only the well off can afford such food. Genetically modified food, like drought resistant crops, could benefit an entire continent.
I haven't even brought up the issue of "playing God."
So, uh, discuss. I'm curious to see others opinions, as I support the biotech movement more wholeheartedly than other students. Hell, bringing up glow-in-the dark pigs can get some people pretty pissed off. So, yeah, I'm pretty curious to see the myriad of opinions on biotechnology. This stuff isn't science fiction and will increasingly become more prominent as time passes.
Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
0
Posts
Required watching for this thread?
Genetic diversity of a species is maintained by random mutations. Some of these mutations are deleterious; they have a negative impact on the survivability of the organism. Some are beneficial; they give the organism an advantage to adaptation or reproduction. Most are neutral; they are neither advantageous nor harmful.
With the advent of biotechnology we are gaining the ability to eliminate deleterious mutations from our genetic code. If we as a society decide to get rid of genes that increase the chances of getting, say, breast cancer, then ten thousand years from now it is likely that there will no longer be breast cancer.
In other words, our persistence as a race is not a question. On the contrary, with biotechnology we now have the ability to positively affect our survival and reproduction capabilities. Now, if, in the future, conditions on Earth change dramatically to favor, say, deaf people - perhaps an alien species invades Earth and they hunt people by emitting a sound wave of a certain frequency that paralyzes their prey - and if by that time we have eliminated deafness from our genetic code, then yes, we will be screwed. But that seems unlikely.
Every piece of technology starts ridiculously expensive and eventually goes down in price to be affordable by everyone. I don't see how this is a cause for worry in the long term.
Playing with nature is not something we have just started doing with biotechnology. Humans have been screwing around with their surroundings since the beginning of time. Think about how many new species have have introduced just by making dog A and dog B fuck, or introducing species A to environment B. Sometimes this has caused a local catastrophe, sometimes it has been to everyone's favor.
The best we can do is be careful. It's like using condoms during sex.
I'm just saying...
If private entities have access to gene selection, those with the means to acquire it will produce offspring that in addition to having the advantages of their socioeconomic class, will be superior to other people at the genetic level. This will contribute to a much more marked split between rich and poor.
Unless we eat the poor first as a way to publicly fund the gene selection for everyone else.
Please tell me how your psych prof is wrong then. Put my fears at ease.
What?
Either it shoots lightning and helps me bulk up, or I ain't interested.
And if you don't know what i'm referring to, go play Bioshock.
But biotech/genetic engineering certainly has brought the world many great things. For example, there would be famine right now in asia if not for the super rice developed by the IRRI. It perplexes me as to why people are still so uneasy about biotechnology these days.
Actually that'd probably be a good selling point. The primary cause of any fears are likely related to the long history of invasive species fucking shit up and people being made aware of it thanks to PSA's. The ash boarer being the most recent example, and all those ash trees were planted after a different foreign bug destroyed loads of a different sort. What's to prevent a 'super wheat' of our own creation from taking over other farmland, and prairie reserves, &c. thanks to a stiff breeze/birds and abloo bloo bloo, high price to pay for super-toast, abloo.
The shortest retort is the best one.
Or is it the worst one? I can't seem to remember.
Okay, there was this movie, Gattaca.
Please tell me why that doesn't happen, and to the point where Ethan Hawke is never able to keep up with his brother and commits suicide at 18.
Plasmids and vectors are basically interchangable terms. I am also not talking about transfecting eukaryotic cells, but transfecting cells WITH eukaryotic genes. There are many problems associated with this. For example, longer sequences often get rejected by the host organism, etc.
Capacity =! capability?
Unless there's a gene which makes you a more driven individual that can be tinkered with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPYEpdAQQcE
I think you are greatly exaggerating the importance of genetic superiority in determining one's socioeconomic class. If it was as important as you suggest, there would be no one who is poor and smart, or rich and stupid. Clearly that is not the case. Therefore, the idea that genetic superiority would somehow "reinforce" one's assumed-to-be-already-high socioeconomic class and furthers the gap between the rich and the poor is laughable.
Okay.
Gattaca is set in a dystopia where the vast majority of babies are born not through traditional intercourse, but by having both parents submit sex cells and having the best sperm and egg meet. Since these cells do not show any genes leading to any bad condition, and all variety of positive genes, the babies born are far superior to the average human. They have perfect eyesight/hearing/organs/everything, they are smart, athletic, creative, etc. Eventually society is controlled by the majority of people who have been controlled for genetics, while the "love children" form an underclass. Gattaca is a movie following the narrative of a love child who manages to sneak his way into the government space program through hard effort, luck, and many extremely painful surgeries.
But thats not the point. The point is that, as genetic engineering becomes better and better, and as we understand how the human genome and the sex cells work, this could very clearly become possible. After all, we have been able to pinpoint a few genes as being causes of various cancers and heart conditions. Why can't we figure out which genes make you taller? Smarter? Healthier?
And while this would be a great boon for mankind, its the people who can't afford the treatment who get screwed over in the end. As Ege noted, any new science starts out as extremely expensive, but gets less expensive over time as new technologies make it cheaper. This presents two dillemas.
1: The rich are getting to it first. If the effects are of any significance, that means that the people who were born wealthy are also smarter, faster, stronger, etc, for some period of time. How long is that period of time? Are the effects so great that these people are able to obtain the greatest fortunes in human history just by dint of their genetics? And what if the cost only decreases by a token amount from now to forever? That would mean that the people who were wealthy at that time are superior enough that they will be wealthy, forever.
2: If the rich have access to it first, why are they giving it away? This is entirely reliant upon the power of the genetic modification. Lets say that a leap of genetics have occurred, in the year 3000 (heck, it can be 2050, its just more likely that truly massive leaps will occur with a strong base of research) genetic selection/modification has been discovered and the children of the wealthy will now be twice as tall, have IQ's of 500, and will be able to lift a car over their heads. In a generation, the science will be refined to the point that anyone can have it. But, the new generation of 12 feet tall car throwers don't want to allow the technology to be available. And they could keep it that way, due to their wealth, height, intelligence, and ability to throw cars. What then? The rest of society is stuck at normal, while rich people solidify their advantage through new modifications made possible by their genius, and suddently the upper class is shooting lightning out of their fingertips and have created an autocracy on their might.
3: Fine, even if the last two never happen, what about the truly destitute who would never be able to pay for a genetic modification? Would the government subsidize them? Why, if most people could afford it? And if they can't afford it, why keep them around? In Gattaca they exist to do the dirty work, but what if there are just too many poor people without a reason for existence, using resources that could be spent on the genetically superior? What happens is Soylent Green, as mentioned on the first page.
TL;DR: Either rich people are going to use biotech to take over the world, or poor people are going to be turned into soylent green to feed the genetically superior.
Hmmm i read what i wrote in the first reply and it seems that i have mistyped transforming with transfecting. That may be why we seem to be talking about different things
The new technique seems doesn't seem to be much different from the typical x-gal or ampicilin resistance techniques. Although i guess it may be more efficient since u do not need the thing to be in the middle of the lac operon.
Are you saying that these things are predominately nurtured, or are you saying that there is no genetic component?
Haha, this reminds me of that picture where Paris Hilton is wearing a shirt with "I'm hot your not on it."
Tell that to my +2/+3 T-shirt.