Animal's genetic code redesigned

  • Thread starter Thread starter thorium1010
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Code Genetic code
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the implications of redesigning an animal's genetic code, particularly in the context of recent scientific developments in genetic modification. Participants explore the potential risks and ethical considerations of such engineering, as well as the historical context of genetic modification practices.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern about the readiness of society to handle the implications of genetic code engineering, emphasizing the need for caution due to the unknown outcomes of such modifications.
  • Others argue that the recent developments are not significantly different from existing genetic modification practices and that scientists are aware of the implications of their work.
  • One participant highlights that the engineered organisms may not pose a threat to the environment or human health, citing the lack of heritability of the genetic changes and the dependency on external sources of unnatural amino acids for functionality.
  • There is a contention regarding the justification of caution, with some participants accusing others of being overly apprehensive without substantial reasoning.
  • References to popular culture, such as "Jurassic Park," are used to illustrate concerns about unintended consequences of genetic engineering.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are multiple competing views regarding the safety and implications of genetic modifications, with some advocating for caution and others defending the current scientific understanding and practices.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include uncertainties about the heritability of genetic changes made to the organisms and the conditions under which the engineered traits may be expressed or lost over generations.

thorium1010
Messages
178
Reaction score
6
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14492948"

Just want to discuss this development.

IMO, we are not prepared for this kind of revolution, unless we fully understand the implications and effect of engineering the genetic code without exactly knowing the outcome. I know this is done in the lab. Even though genetic codes have been there around for long time, it was nature (evolution ) that tinkered or tampered with it .

We trying to tamper with genetic code faster than nature , surely we wouldn't know the outcome. I am not against this kind of research, only that we have to proceed cautiously.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biology news on Phys.org
This is, as usual, a highly distorted article. This is not a "redesign" or anything else, this is barely different to the prolific genetic modification we've been partaking in for decades. The only difference here is that the organism can now create a protein that contains an amino acid not used by animals in nature (this has been done in e. coli before).

Scientists know the implications of what they are doing, they study it all the time. Saying "we are not prepared for this kind of revolution" without supplying any proper references or demonstration of scientific understanding is fallacious. This is a minor development that will, as with all science, incrementally improve our understanding of nature and the technology we can employ.
 
ryan_m_b said:
Scientists know the implications of what they are doing, they study it all the time. Saying "we are not prepared for this kind of revolution" without supplying any proper references or demonstration of scientific understanding is fallacious.

Well tinkering with the genetic code to give the organism the ability to produce a protein using a amino acid, which it normally does not use, i think would give enough reason to proceed cautiously. I certainly think my use of the phrase "we are not prepared for this kind of revolution " is justified.

I used the phrase to indicate to proceed cautiously, We could be doing more harm to ourselves than good.
 
Last edited:
thorium1010 said:
Well tinkering with the genetic code to give the organism the ability to produce a protein using a amino acid, which it normally does not use, i think would give enough reason to proceed cautiously. I certainly think my use of the phrase "we are not prepared for this kind of revolution " is justified.

I used the phrase to indicate to proceed cautiously, We could be doing more harm to ourselves than good.

We've been making organisms that produce http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombinant_DNA" before. I appreciate the need for proper thought to be given to the implication and ethics of all research but what do you have in mind? I still don't get what you mean by "not prepared for this kind of revolution" as clearly this is nothing new. To me you seem to be displaying far more ignorance of the topic than well thought out opinions, honestly you should look into the amount of thought that goes into the kind of thing and how huge bioethics is as a field.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thorium1010 said:
I used the phrase to indicate to proceed cautiously, We could be doing more harm to ourselves than good.

How so? What is your reasoning? You're just as bad as the "cell phones may cause cancer" and the anti genetically modified food people. You're apprehensive based on absolutely nothing.
 
aroc91 said:
How so? What is your reasoning? You're just as bad as the "cell phones may cause cancer" and the anti genetically modified food people. You're apprehensive based on absolutely nothing.

Based on nothing? Haven't you seen Jurasic Park? :smile:

Dr. Malcolm was right. lol
 
Well, let's say these engineered worms escape into the environment. I don't see these engineered worms posing any threat to the environment or human health. 1) the paper does not show whether the changes they made to the worm's genome are heritable (the engineered genes did not go into every cell in the worm, so it's not clear whether they went into the germ cells). So, the worm's offspring might not be able to incorporate the unnatural amino acids and the trait might go away after the escaped engineered worms die. Even if the trait is heritable, the paper suggests that the gene cassette they engineered into the worm gets lost from the genome over time, so after a few generations, the trait would likely be lost. 2) these worms do not have the ability to synthesize the unnatural amino acids on their own. They incorporate the unnatural amino acids into their proteins only when the researchers feed the worms large amounts of the unnatural amino acid. Without a source of unnatural amino acids, they are just slightly broken versions of a normal C. elegans worm.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
8K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
10K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K