Tampering with Genes?

Hello AOland it's been a long time ;D

But I'm more concerned with the ever changing field of human biology really, so let's forget the fomalities and start talking science.

If the techonology were availible today I think I'd apply for gene therapy as I'm too far gone to benefit from genetic engineering. Mainly people see screwing around with DNA (and alleles, and chromosomes, etc) as a means for people to imrpove on their bodies in mostly physical ways, or some other immoral thing. My reason for wanting to change the most basic structure of my being would be to get rid of all the nasty little hereditary monsters surfing down my double helix. Though who wouldn't want to live longer anyway?

At one point I was convinced that if God was truly real than he had intended for us to discover all the "blasphemous" technology we have, he did equip us with a curious nature and intellectual tendencies after all. Now I'm wondering if humans have wandered too far from God's radius of control and continue to move farther away; could we have overwhelmed our creator with all the fancy things we have? If God were real of course which remains one of the puzzling questions of life.

In any case:

I see genetic engineering as a means to a more peaceful life. If the science is raised to the degree of efficiency that modern medicine enjoys we could eliminate or lessen the impacts of crippling diseases which currently use the world as a plaything. However there are many downsides to every revolutionary thing that comes into the world.

Societal dynamics would shift er, melodramatically. Relantionships between the middle and upper class would maybe, MAYBE see the least changes but the lower class would suffer, unable to afford something that becomes the norm. If genetic engineering takes the left road and heads for human perfection not only in medical areas but also in physical and hereditary areas. You see, gene therapy is done after the fact but genetic engineering is done before.

That is, you engineer extra information into the regular process of reproduction; something is added to an already complete model or something is changed to yield a different result. For example: a child is in the making, its mother has the genotype Bb, the capital B represents brown eyes and the lower case b is for blue. Its father shares this same genotype. Now this child has a chance of getting either blue or brown eyes but the chance of her getting brown eyes are much higher than getting blue; dominate genes usually take presidence over recessive genes unless there are many complex genes working little by little to the same end. Also, environmental factors--and human factors as well--can influence how the genotype is represented in the phenotype.

The phenotype basically describes what a person looks like. One person's genotype may be BB, for their hair and eye color, so brown hair and brown eyes. Though this child is under the same set of rules as all other children are when picking out their genes, it can be influenced and manipulated through genetic engineering to choose something more favorable. Obviously the goal is to make handsome, magnetic offspring ipso facto the genotype would be bb, blonde hair and blue eyes. These genes will remain with the person for all their life and will be passed down to their children.

Gene Therapy modifies elements already present in the body or extracts mutant alleles and replaces them with working ones. I'm not certain if the modified DNA is hereditary :O

Obviously genetic engineering is thought of as more sinister because a doctor takes the seat God usually sits and changes the natural order of things from the process of chance, to the process of choice. They are both legitimant and useful techonologies handled under noble and correct circumstances.

I don't consider this a debate though it very well may become one.. any conversation on science period could be thought of as a debate. It's shocking to realize how many people take comfort in science when it's foundations and logics are all so unstable.

:P AOland, your thoughts?

Im not up to par in the gentics field
but i think modifying genes to find cures
for MS or some other flawed gene would
be of great use , im al for being geneticly
alterd if it meant getting rid of the most
common problems or even the bad ones.

like i said im not to sure about what this is but thats my view on it

What people think about genetic engineering is on them. Many would probably think of it as wrong. People may use it as a way to manipulate outcomes such as making a child come out with a different eye or hair color which I see as picky and useless. Although I think of it to bring benefits in relation to medical use.
And I think modified DNA would be inherited since the gene has already been changed, and it is a gene so yeah.

I see nothing wrong with genetic engineering what so ever. I mean who cares, really. i am all for artificial means of reproduction as well. Why not take things one step further. Besides it was like a said in a teen preganacy debate unless we come up with artificial means of reproduction pregnancy stands as the only viable alternative to what has become a socially unfavorable condition. Besides it works fine with the Abh so I am all for it. Wonder if w may be able to make Abh children someday.

I have to respectfully disagree. God made us to make choices, he gives us a "sword" and sends us out into the world. we could either go around murdering, use it as a last defense, or throw it away. And I believe that their is nothing more beautiful than natural means. We humans are digging so deep for oil, one day we will hit lava, and all perish.

Let's review quickly: at the time of.. making(?) the baby to be has two sets of chromosomes passed down from it's parent. From the those chromosomes we get genes, of course it's not a 1-2-3 thing but that's super simplified version, from those gense we get the frame a human.

I have nothing bad to say about a parent choosing for their child genes they already have a chance of getting. That is, if the mother has the gene for blonde hair but the father does not, I see it as acceptable that the parents could choose for the child to have that gene. Things start to get mucky and morally pressing when someone starts putting foreign genes into the body.

However that raises the question, are any genes really foreign? We all share a common ancestor and are cousins to a degree if we follow a system of logic: inbreeding was wicked popular back in the day therefore we must all be related. Of course one can counter with the question, why are there Chinese people? Inuit people? etc.

I mean to say that in each country we share a relative with someone of our own race moreso than someone not of our ethnicity. The counter would be totally irrelevant though as we can only manipulate/see genes so far back. Someone told me a while ago that one day everyone would be brown because of all the rabbit sex happeneing in the world.

I'm frustrated AOland, truly frazzled. I can't understand the world's unwillingness to hold faith in science as equally as it does in religion.

(I'm having a hard time putting my thoughts to words) The quotation marks around sword strike me as your opinion; God gave humankind weapons to with that they would, in any moral direction. However we were not blessed with slings and swords, instead God gave us the possibility to evolve and be intelligent. Before we use to stick to the word of God like flys to tape though we have branched off as our intellect has changed. We are still like those people in our beliefs it's just we are modern and stuff is hard to deal with while being biblical.

That kind of got out of hand...

Anyway, we have the technology to tell us where to dig and how deep. As I see it, if God won't intervene and help out his children why is it so bad that science does? Death is tragic but constant; God does not stop death, or rarely anyway, whereas science is has been keeping people alive for years and years. ;P If science wasn't so seperated from God's house it just maybe could become it's own religion..

Anyway, as this is not a debate let's say other stuff.

Gene patents? Whaaa?

I think that's total stupidness. If we do suceed in being able to change genes or modify them but people claim ownership to a gene that they had found and mapped, would they not be able to change some kind of fee for using it? Like a rent-to-own kind of deal, or other craziness.

From the very first time I heard of this my face was like T__T

There shound't be anything thing like ownership of an idea, or a gene. Books and research and can be owned, characters and words, but not in a fashion that other people cannot freely use them for whatever purpose.

I'm for the 'tampering of Genes' particularly for removing diseases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLawEdmiNd

I have nothing bad to say about a parent choosing for their child genes they already have a chance of getting. That is, if the mother has the gene for blonde hair but the father does not, I see it as acceptable that the parents could choose for the child to have that gene.

---

I feel, like this area of genetics, is unacceptable, choosing what your child is going to look like..is that right? Does that mean in the future people will be able to create there child with genes that will make him/her super at sports? or look like models. It's like a human factory isn't it? however...if people really want to do it, why should they be stopped, I'm all for choice, though i do fear what sort of society we'd have if we allowed that choice..which leads me too....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FLawEdmiNd

Gene patents? Whaaa?

I think that's total stupidness. If we do suceed in being able to change genes or modify them but people claim ownership to a gene that they had found and mapped, would they not be able to change some kind of fee for using it? Like a rent-to-own kind of deal, or other craziness.

From the very first time I heard of this my face was like T__T

There shouldn't be anything thing like ownership of an idea, or a gene. Books and research and can be owned, characters and words, but not in a fashion that other people cannot freely use them for whatever purpose.

---

Why not have patents for non-medical genes, such as changing hair colour, making super athletics etc etc.

Well, that was my original thought anyway, then thought more about it..then you'd have an 'elite' in society wouldn't you? Only the rich can have the 'good' looking kids, or the super athletes or whatever.

Medical genes changes - should be free to anyone.

however I see your point, why should there be a patent for something we all have. It's like saying, for example "My green eye genes are patented to the coca cola company" Doesn't seem right does it?

I'm gonna take a stab in here. I might be way off topic, yet still on the topic. I take Biotechnology in high school and we are learning way beyond what this argument is sort of about.

We've picked of epigenetics, pharmacogenomics, pharmacogenetics and many more. Basically, these are sort of unannounced publicly for human safety. Anyone actually know about these?

Epigenetics explain diabetes and other diseases/disorders that appear out of know where.

Pharmacogenetics is the study on a specific genus.

Pharmacogenomics studies all of the genomes for medicine.

Basically, these two can take a DNA sequence, pull it apart, then point out specific enzymes being effected with whatever it may be. Then, you can prescribe a medicine that will do the job and leave no negative side effects.

Sorry to burst in on you guys, but I'm going into the bio-chem field when I get out of high school. Either way, check those terms out, I'll be back later.