A Slippery Slope? Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering

To say that genetic engineering has attracted some controversy would be an understatement. There are many cries that scientists are 'playing God' and that it will lead to a two-tier society - the genetically haves and the have-nots. But is this any different to the cries of horror and fears of Frankenstein's monster that greeted Louise Brown, the first child to be born by IVF treatment? There was great uproar in the late 1970's but IVF is now a common, if expensive, fertility treatment. And there aren't any monsters stalking the Earth.

Having said that, genetic engineering does hold the potential that parents could (if the technology worked) assemble their kids genetically, to be smarter, to be more athletic or have a particular hair or eye colour. Though it's rather fanciful to suggest that intelligence could be improved by the substitution of a gene, it may be found that there are several genes that are more commonly expressed in the genomes of intelligent people than those with more limited intellectual capacity. And parents might want to engineer an embryo to house a greater number of these genes. It is this genetic engineering of humans that so frightens people, that we could somehow design the human race. Though some people point out other potential benefits. What if it turned out that there were sets of genes that were commonly expressed in criminals - could we tackle crime by weeding out those genes?

The technology is nowhere near there yet, but a tiny number of parents undergoing IVF have selected their embryos to be free from genetic mutations that have blighted generations of their family. In the UK in January 2009 a mother gave birth to a girl whose embryo had been selected to be free from a genetic form of breast cancer. Some see this as a slippery slope towards a eugenic future, others view it as a valuable use of genetic engineering to prevent disease from striking someone down.

Society will decide how it uses this technology, and it is for governments to weigh up the pros and cons of genetic engineering in humans to see what may be carried out and what should be illegal. They will be prompted by public understanding, desire and concern. It therefore behoves all of us to understand what scientists are trying to accomplish and what they are not trying to do. We must all become better informed, to equip ourselves with more information and to know the difference between science fiction and science fact.

See more here:
Human Genetic Engineering Cons: Why This Branch of Science ...

Human Genetic Engineering Facts 1.84/5 (36.89%) 161 votes

Names of a lot of scientists come to notice whenever there are talks about Human Genetic Engineering Facts. Two scientists namely Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer discovered a technique for cloning using DNA. These two have contributed a lot in Human Genetic Engineering studies. This stage was the discovery of science for historians. It was also the beginning of advanced sciences.

Two other popular scientists involved in studying Human Genetic Engineering Facts were Cohen and Boyer. They made proper use of enzymes with the purpose of cutting bacteria plasmid in slices.

A different DNA strand was required for placing these slices. DNA strands can be obtained from that particular bacteria plasmid. Cohen and Boyer, together with their efforts, proved that it is quite possible to manipulate or mix the genes. DNA mapping has made it easier for the scientists to do the genes manipulation.

Human Genetic Engineering Facts have emerged a lot in this area of work. With the emergence of these facts it became possible for scientists to develop insulin that can be used in the treatment of patients that suffer from diabetes. The technique can also be used for creating insulin that can be given to patients suffering from ailments in their kidney.

The invention of genetic therapy also involves the use of this technique. White blood cells present in humans can be altered genetically. This is the situation in people that have defects in the immune system. Altered blood cells can easily be reinserted for improvements in the immune system.

Agricultural benefits of Human Genetic Engineering

Crops can be modified with the help of genetic engineering. This is an important advantage or factor contributing in the vast scope of Human Genetic Engineering Facts . Gene therapy will alter or change the genes, and this will keep the vegetable and fruits resistant from any kind of disease. Human Genetic Engineering Facts have inspired many scientists. Farmers have also been impressed with the effect that it lays on the growth of fruits and vegetables. Many additional benefits are there for using gene therapy in agricultural activities. It will increase the production by making minimum investment.

Many otherHuman Genetic Engineering Facts are there that can leave positive impact on agricultural development. This can be done in order to fulfill the demand of food items. It will also result in reducing the use of insecticides, and fertilizers at the same time convenient. All these factors will contribute together for reducing the amount of pollution caused from the fertilizers. It will also increase the level of health among people.

Other benefits

See the rest here:
Human Genetic Engineering Facts

POST

It has been a long time since Human Genetics got introduced to mankind. One can definitely think of it as a great achievement in the entire history of humans. It is the alteration of genes in a human being for making him or her resistant to different kind of diseases that can prove deadly, because Read more

POST

Major area for human genetic engineering debate revolves around the ethics involved in testing of genetics. Other areas for debate include selective eugenics as well as genetic discrimination. Apart from the above debates, the scientists have now been found busy on making debates on some other frightening prospects of human genetic engineering. Human genetic engineering Read more

POST

Human genetics research is a revolutionary change in the field of medical science. It has made several advances in this field. It entered this field many years ago when Hippocrates discovered nature laws can easily describe the body workings. This revolution identified that contaminated water is a primary reason that leads to a disease like Read more

POST

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 Read more

POST

A primary debate topic among the people from western civilization is the effects of human cloning and genetic engineering. This topic has given place to a lot of controversies in that civilization. It is an asexual reproduction using genetic engineering. There is a huge relation between human cloning and genetic engineering. In fact, cloning cannot Read more

Read the original:
Human Genetics

Gene therapy is the therapeutic delivery of nucleic acid polymers into a patient's cells as a drug to treat disease. The polymers are either expressed as proteins, interfere with protein expression, or possibly correct genetic mutations.

The most common form uses DNA that encodes a functional, therapeutic gene to replace a mutated gene. The polymer molecule is packaged within a "vector", which carries the molecule inside cells.

Gene therapy was conceptualized in 1972, by authors who urged caution before commencing human gene therapy studies. The first gene therapy experiment approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) occurred in 1990, when Ashanti DeSilva was treated for ADA-SCID.[1] By January 2014, some 2,000 clinical trials had been conducted or approved.[2]

Early clinical failures led to dismissals of gene therapy. Clinical successes since 2006 regained researchers' attention, although as of 2014, it was still largely an experimental technique.[3] These include treatment of retinal disease Leber's congenital amaurosis,[4][5][6][7]X-linked SCID,[8] ADA-SCID,[9][10]adrenoleukodystrophy,[11]chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL),[12]acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL),[13]multiple myeloma,[14]haemophilia[10] and Parkinson's disease.[15] Between 2013 and April 2014, US companies invested over $600 million in the field.[16]

The first commercial gene therapy, Gendicine, was approved in China in 2003 for the treatment of certain cancers.[17] In 2012 Glybera, a treatment for a rare inherited disorder, became the treatment to be approved for clinical use in either Europe or the United States after its endorsement by the European Commission.[3][18]

Following early advances in genetic engineering of bacteria, cells and small animals, scientists started considering how to apply it to medicine. Two main approaches were considered replacing or disrupting defective genes.[19] Scientists focused on diseases caused by single-gene defects, such as cystic fibrosis, haemophilia, muscular dystrophy, thalassemia and sickle cell anemia. Glybera treats one such disease, caused by a defect in lipoprotein lipase.[18]

DNA must be administered, reach the damaged cells, enter the cell and express/disrupt a protein.[20] Multiple delivery techniques have been explored. The initial approach incorporated DNA into an engineered virus to deliver the DNA into a chromosome.[21][22]Naked DNA approaches have also been explored, especially in the context of vaccine development.[23]

Generally, efforts focused on administering a gene that causes a needed protein to be expressed. More recently, increased understanding of nuclease function has led to more direct DNA editing, using techniques such as zinc finger nucleases and CRISPR. The vector incorporates genes into chromosomes. The expressed nucleases then "edit" the chromosome. As of 2014 these approaches involve removing cells from patients, editing a chromosome and returning the transformed cells to patients.[24]

Other technologies employ antisense, small interfering RNA and other DNA. To the extent that these technologies do not alter DNA, but instead directly interact with molecules such as RNA, they are not considered "gene therapy" per se.[citation needed]

Gene therapy may be classified into two types:

See original here:
Gene therapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Human Genetic Engineering : History 4.90/5 (98.07%) 83 votes

Human Genetic Engineering History goes back to the 1919 when an engineer from Hungary gave a term biotechnology to products developed by using raw materials. The engineer made use of this term in its best possible sense. Civilizations in the ancient times discovered that a lot of products can be made by using micro-organisms.

However, people that time have no idea about there are active agents in the microbes. Back in 7000 B.C. some existing tribes also made precious discoveries about how to make beer using yeast. TheHuman Genetic Engineering History continues going ahead since those times. There is a lot of difference between Biotechnology and genetic engineering.

In one hand, gene manipulation is the result of equating biotechnology. However, many aspects are there that define biotechnology. On the other hand, genetic engineering came to perspective, because of its specific technique for manipulating genes.

The term Human Genetic Engineering made it presence felt in 1970. This is the time when several methods were devised with the help of molecular biologists for identifying or for isolating clone genes. Methods were also devised for manipulating the genes to other species or for mutating them in humans.

Restrictive enzymes got discovered during this research, and many have considered as the main success in the Human Genetic Engineering History. This enzyme can make organisms to isolate the DNA, and then it gets mixed with a vector preparation. Hybrid molecules can easily be generated with the sticky ends virtue. This molecule contains interest genes that can later get inserted into the vector.

Ethical concerns involved in Human Genetics

Many scientists knew that a lot of risk is there during the transfer of genes from one person to the other. Human Genetic Engineering History contains all the factors responsible for the invention of genetic engineering as a part of advance sciences. They found that their labs have been poised when they started experimenting clone genes.

Scientists also organized several meetings in order to discuss the risks involved in the transformation of genes. All scientists were given a chance to keep their points of view on the above subject. They made discussion on all the dangers that can potentially take place during their research. However, the meeting went unprecedented.

In this meeting, they made necessary or relevant decisions regarding the amount of time that might be needed for sorting out the solution. Certain guidelines came to existence for the recombinant organism biological and physical isolation. This should be done for ensuring that the organisms do not get mixed with the environment. Human Genetic Engineering History involves profound or numerous consequences.

Read more from the original source:
Human Genetic Engineering : History

The human body is not perfect. Some are created with inherent faults and others break down before their time. Science has the potential to make good these problems by altering how humans are made. This is genetic engineering, and this article looks at the pros and cons of the technology in humans

This is part one of a two-part series. Here I will look at a definition of genetic engineering and the pros of human genetic engineering. In part two the cons and the ethics of human genetic engineering are discussed.

Before weighing up the pros and cons of genetic engineering in humans, it's worth taking the time to understand just what is meant by the idea. Simply put, it's a way of manipulating our genes in such a way as to make our bodies better. This alteration of a genome could take place in the sperm and egg cells. This is known as germline gene therapy and would alter the traits that a child is born with. The changes would be inheritable and passed down through the generations. It is currently illegal in many countries.

The other way to change our genome is to swap our bad genes for good ones - in cells other than the sex cells. This is known as somatic cell gene therapy. This is where a functioning gene could be fired into our bodies on a viral vector to carry out the functions that a faulty gene is unable to. This technology is permitted, though it has enjoyed a very limited success rate so far (largely because it is technically very difficult). Nonetheless, it still holds out a great deal of promise.

There are many potential advantages to being able to alter the cells in our bodies genetically.

To make disease a thing of the past

Most people on the planet die of disease or have family members that do. Very few of us will just pop up to bed one night and gently close our eyes for the last time. Our genomes are not as robust as we would like them to be and genetic mutations either directly cause a disease such as Cystic fibrosis, or they contribute to it greatly i.e. Alzheimer's. Or in the case of some conditions such as the heart disease Cardiomyopathy, genetic mutations can make our bodies more susceptible to attack from viruses or our own immune system. If the full benefits of gene therapy are ever realised we can replace the dud genes with correctly functioning copies.

To extend life spans

Having enjoyed life, most of us want to cling on to it for as long as possible. The genetic engineering of humans has the potential to greatly increase our life spans. Some estimates reckon that 100-150 years could be the norm. Of course gene therapy for a fatal condition will increase the lifespan of the patient but we're also talking about genetic modifications of healthy people to give them a longer life. Once we fully understand the genetics of ageing it may be possible to slow down or reverse some of the cellular mechanisms that lead to our decline - for example by preventing telomeres at the ends of chromosomes from shortening. Telomere shortening is known to contribute to cell senescence.

Better pharmaceuticals

Read the original:
Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering in Humans - Part 1

In the last, wrenching episode of BBCs Blue Planet 2, theres a distressing moment when a young Australian diver, expert in his patch of the Great Barrier Reef, admits I cried in my mask as he swam over an ossuary of recently bleached-out coral bones. Professor Callum Robertss memoir of a life devoted to the study of our oceans, and in particular their coral reefs, is a ravishing, alarming account of these underwater palaces of wonder, and the existential threat they face from humanity and our warming climate.

Reefs take up just 0.1 per cent of our planets surface, yet provide home and breeding grounds for more than a quarter of all sea life. They are also the canaries in the carbon dioxide coal mine. As ocean temperatures rise, corals bleach and die, the tiny organisms that feed them (zooxanthellae) expelled from their chalky hosts. Further, the acidification of the seas weakens the very structures the coral relies on for support and reduces the amount of calcium carbonate available in the seawater to make new coralline homes.

Robertss first student dives in 1982 were made off the Saudi coast of the Red Sea, counting reef fish with a waterproof whiteboard. He writes of the traditional Arab attitude towards the desert as an endless waste disposal and how one of his heroes, Jacques Cousteau, saw the sea the same way. Cousteau regretted this much later, writing: Water and air, the two essential fluids on which all life depends, have become global garbage cans.

The chief pleasure of this book is Robertss rich descriptive power. He was an adviser for Blue Planet 2, and his writing does more than justice to those stunning films. Natures throne rooms are thrown open by Robertss prose. Here he describes a dive in the Hol Chan Marine Reserve off Belize:

Coral outcrops rise through the canopy like Mayan temples above rainforest A group of batfish swim past, their bodies like pewter plates. Passing into the channel, fish coalesce into shoals of hammered copper, slate and sulphur, liveried with royal blue.

Roberts visits some of the most idyllic places on earth, and finds them under threat from mining, tourism and war. Most human development seems to spell doom. He surveys reefs in Egypt and sets up a marine centre, before being shunted off for the massive Sharm-el-Sheikh resort. He inspects Arab reefs hit by Saddams deliberate release of oil in Kuwait in 1991 and finds that local fishing fleets have inflicted even more terrible damage.

Flying back to Kuwait City, he looks out of the window to see the aftermath of Saddams obscene tactic:

In the suns glare, the spills shine like pools of water on the dry earth. Thousands of migrating birds fell for the same illusion, alighting on the waters surface only to find themselves mired in oil.

Shadows cast by burning wells cause the sea temperatures to fall and blot the sun so the coral struggles to photosynthesise.

One Saudi fertiliser plant flushes 5.8 million cubic metres of water poisoned with ammonia and heavy metals into the sea every year. The Saudi city of Al Khobar expels ten million cubic metres of raw sewage into the gulf annually. In Bonaire, a Caribbean island off the coast of Venezuela, Roberts finds a massive wipe-out of the coral, up to 99 per cent. The culprit: human gut bacteria from sewage sloshed into the sea. Fertilisers and spillage from land developments and the overfishing of grazing fish cause seaweed to explode, smothering reefs and boosting the numbers of Crown of Thorns starfish, who feast on corals corpses like looters after a massacre.

Extreme weather events like El Nio, their frequency and impact aggravated by the climate crisis, also play a part. By the end of 1998, roughly 70 to 95 per cent of all corals had perished across a vast swathe of the Indian Ocean from the Seychelles to Sri Lanka, Kenya to the Maldives. This catastrophe had no historical precedent. One Australian professor Roberts quotes believes all is lost: reefs have become a zombie ecosystem set to collapse by the centurys end.

Roberts and his colleagues rake through the ashes of a desolate future, looking for embers of hope. Some corals have been found that can live in acidified water, and perhaps natural selection will throw up heat-tolerant corals, although the adaptation might be slower than the oceans rate of warming. Perhaps there will be less diverse, but more resilient reefs, like the hardier corals Roberts encountered in the Arabian Gulf.

Maybe technology could use molecular or genetic engineering to make heat-proof corals. Theres also evidence in the Caribbean that the manageable stresses of pollution, overfishing and development are hurting coral more than the climate crisis, and the creation of marine parks could help mitigate this. Reducing fishing, fertilisers, pulling development back from the coasts these would all be local actions not hamstrung by the inertia of global agreements on greenhouse gas reduction.

Roberts is wary of putting a capital value on reefs, despite the services reefs provide being worth billions of dollars worldwide: the risk of monetising nature is that markets will assume that the loss of habitats is just a cost of doing business. For Callum Roberts, its the moral argument that we have a duty of care to preserve as many species as we can: What right do we have to rob future generations of their chance to revel as we do in the sheer joy of what is, arguably, the greatest show on Earth?

See the original post:
The Great Barrier Grief and countless other marine disasters - Spectator.co.uk

This biological fact, combined with overfishing, pollution, and habitat degradation, has resulted in their plight today. An estimated 15 million sturgeon used to exist in the Great Lakes, with fishers bringing in upwards of four million pounds per year between 1879 and 1900. The trade took a serious toll on the species. By 1929, commercial sturgeon fishing had closed in Lake Michigan due to too few fish. And by the end of the century, fishers had taken 80 percent of the sturgeon out of Lake Erie. Meanwhile, dams and development ruined habitat and kept the fish from reaching key spawning grounds. In response to the population crash, most states instituted protections and mandated hunting limits in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Today, only 1 percent of the lake sturgeon's population remains. In addition to the states that list them as threatened, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service announced in August that it would study whether to list the fish as federally threatened or endangered.

The Right Thing for the Great Lakes

Ryan Koenigs, a fisheries biologist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR), is among those dedicated to bringing the lake sturgeon back. He's part of a team that keeps track of every individual caught, and he helps run the registration stations where fishers who spear a sturgeon in Lake Winnebago must go before taking their catch home. Koenigs and his colleagues look for a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag, which offers information about the fish. These tags are implanted in each fish reared or caught and released by the agency. Some individuals caught in the past few years were tagged decades ago. "I'm reaping the benefits right now of what the biologists two generations before me did in the 1970s," Koenigs says.

Restoration efforts also exist in many other states bordering the Great Lakes. In New York, the Department of Environmental Conservation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe harvest sturgeon eggs from the St. Lawrence River and send them to hatcheries in the central part of the state and in Wisconsin. In Michigan, fisheries biologists, researchers, and state agencies successfully protected the sturgeon population in Black Lake and now use the data collected from their efforts to guide their restocking of nearby lakes and streams.

These types of projects replenish waterways with the fish, but the species' recovery has a long way to go. Should conservationists succeed, the fish could end up benefiting the entire ecosystem, notes Ed Baker, a fisheries biologist in Michigan. "If we have a native species fish community that's been degraded, that's a sign that its environment is no longer healthy," he says. "If we can restore lake sturgeon to their prominence, or at least somewhat close to what their prominence was before we started harvesting them, that's a sign that we're doing the right thing for the Great Lakes."

As the lake sturgeon populations rebound, they could help biologists beat back some new threats, too. Notably, they eat invasive zebra and quagga mussels that now blanket the lake beds. They also eat invasive round gobies. All three of these marine species hail from faraway waters and snuck their way in through the ballast water used to balance ships' hulls.

Mysteries Unsolved

In 1995, Baker was tasked with finishing and implementing Michigan's new sturgeon rehabilitation plan. He observed reach after reach, finding only a few places were the fish still existed. One of those was the Upper Peninsula's Black Lake. Locals still spearfished sturgeon, and the population appeared to be falling. In 2001 Baker and Kim Scribner of Michigan State University set out to study the fish and get a rough population estimate. They concluded that over a 25-year period, sturgeon numbers had declined by more than 60 percent.

The state's Department of Natural Resources decided sturgeon spearfishing could continue, but fishers could harvest no more than five fish a year. Baker and his team stocked the lake, too, and the sturgeon population grew. The limit is now up to 14. Still, the population isn't recovering as quickly as expected.

To figure out why, Baker and Scribner continue their research. They also use the information they collect on basic sturgeon biology, genetics, and behavior to inform conservation efforts in other Michigan water bodies.

One major question they hope to answer concerns the timing of the sturgeon's reproduction. As with steelhead and salmon, it appears that the river where sturgeon spend the first summer of life, between May and October, is imprinted on the fish, and they come back to that place to spawn. Confirming this would help in their stocking effortsespecially in reaches where the fish haven't swum for decades.

In addition to the hatchling adopt-and-release program that takes place in September in Milwaukee, Wisconsonites get another opportunity to help biologists in April, when Koenigs does his stock assessments. On the Wolf River near Lake Winnebago, hundreds of thousands of sturgeon ranging in size from four to seven feet long swim along the waterline. Koenigs and his team stand at the ready with nets to pull the fish out of the water, then weigh, measure, and tag them.

When the team finds fish with those tags implanted during the February spearfishing season, they track the data to get a tagged to non-tagged fish ratio, which is then used to set harvest limits. The data collected at each event helps inform how best to manage the species.

"We're on the right path," says Koenigs, who is now prepping for the spearfishing season that begins on Feb. 8. "The work that's being done through these various efforts seems to be showing some pretty promising signs."

Read the rest here:
Scientists Combine AI With Biology to Create Xenobots, the World's First 'Living Robots' - EcoWatch

HYBRIDS, NEPHILIM, HUMAN GENETIC ENGINEERING TRANSHUMANISM
Tom Horn discusses transhumanism and trans genetic manipulation Behind closed doors scientists and corporations have breached genetic codes that separate the individuality of all animal and...

By: Icelandic Watchman

Read more from the original source:
HYBRIDS, NEPHILIM, HUMAN GENETIC ENGINEERING & TRANSHUMANISM - Video

Share

Share

Email

This article was originally published as an Essay in Advanced Healthcare Materials under the title A New Era for Cyborg Science Is Emerging: The Promise of Cyborganic Beings, by Gorka Orive, Nayere Taebina, and Alireza Dolatshahi-Pirouz.

Living flesh, hacked beyond known biological borders, and sophisticated machineries, made by humans, are currently being united to address some of the impending challenges in medicine. Imagine biological systems made from smart biomaterials with the capacity to operate like smart machines to regulate insulin production in diabetic patients, or cardiac patches that can monitor and release important biological factors, on demand, to optimize the mending of broken hearts. It sounds like something from the realm of science fiction; however, this big gap between the real world and the world of fantasy and fiction is slowly being bridged. This piece sheds a much-needed light on this emerging area, as this futuristic concept is gaining momentum, at a speed, that soon will ignite a paradigm shift in disease management and the healthcare sector as an entirety.

When Manfred Clynes and Nathan S. Kline termed cyborg to conceptualize self-regulating extraterrestrial humans in 1960, they would have hardly envisioned the fast-track toward humanmachine symbiosis with increasing level of sophistication, wherein medical biomaterial prostheses replace missing organs and revive impaired senses.

The earliest evidence of humankinds ability to manufacture implants from biomaterials dates back to the Neolithic period. The ancient prostheses were mostly derived from natural materials including silk, wood, nacre, ivory, and various types of animal tissues to provide relief to those suffering from missing teeth, limbs, and bone-related disorders. As technology advanced, gold, silver, titanium, and various metallic alloys began to serve as implants, and today, scientists face the dilemma of which materials to use, as in recent years, the number of available options has increased with unprecedented speed. In particular, multifunctional biomaterials that are electrically, magnetically, and biologically active are being employed to develop even smarter and more effective implants. Auspiciously, some of these next-generation biomaterials can be incorporated directly into tissues and cells, which not only enhances the level of integration with the human body, but also fuels the development of more complex devices that can monitor, diagnose, and treat diseases.

More recently, this beautiful marriage between living matter and intelligent materials is anticipated to offer the prospect of hybrid living/inanimate systems that would have been mind-boggling just decades ago. These so-called cyborganic systems are bolstered by advances in cybernetics, cyborganics and bioelectronics, and represent a gateway to a brave new world, in which programmed tissues and biomaterial-like machineries can unite to serve as a wall-of-protection against age-related diseases. We believe that these systems possess the ability to hack human biology beyond the limits of known territories and into uncharted realms.

Indeed, this coordination has already lead to inspiring therapeutic applications including scaffold carriers for cell transplantation therapy and cell-loaded 3D cell-laden biomaterials for tissue engineering. In brief, 3D cell-laden biomaterials are porous, biocompatible materials incorporating living cells. The biomaterial serves to physically shield the cells from harm (e.g., host immune responses), while simultaneously enabling them to effectively carry out their outcomes by providing embedded cells with native like stimuli. Going 3D greatly sped-up the evaluations prior to animal or clinical trials and therefore, this is an important accomplishment in the pharmaceutical industry. Looking forward, this advancement could also dramatically advance the degree of sophistication of prosthetic interfaces and empower tissue implants even more. It seems hard to believe, but we are not that far away from actualizing this exciting era for humanity, wherein the fine line between human and machine ceases to exist.

In 2012, a series of milestone contributions from Harvard University led to a successful merger between electronic components and living tissues [see references 58]. The concept was termed cyborg tissues and created a media frenzy that sparked a wave of excitement regarding the prospect of regenerative medicine. In simple terms, a group of scientists propitiously developed a bioactive 3D microenvironment, able to electrically probe various important physicochemical and biological events throughout its porous interior. They accomplished this futuristic goal by simply embedding networks of biocompatible nanowire transistors within engineered tissues. To this end, they introduced, for the first time, macroporous, flexible and free-standing silicon-based nanowire scaffolds. Specifically, they incorporated these nanoengineered silicon wires into 3D cell cultures without disturbing their normal function and opened up a whole new realm of possibilities for detecting electrical signals generated by the cells within an engineered responsive tissue. This state-of-the-art platform was further applied to explore the effect of drugs on neural and cardiac tissue models and to distinct pH changes within muscle constructs. Since then, the cyborganic field and its application portfolio has been progressing rapidly and a growing number of groundbreaking proof-of-concepts have been developed in the laboratory both in the micro and macro scale. When looking at the microscale and the interaction between biomaterials and cells, one particularly interesting frontier is half-living and half-electronic devices, which can monitor the heartbeat, respond to various microenvironmental changes in the body, and record neurological activities in the brain.

Along these thoughts, Feiner et al. generated a cyborganic patch that can monitor, regulate, and stimulate cardiomyocytes incorporated into flexible, electronic silicon-based materials. Over time, the hybrid construct matures into an implantable patch in which living cardiac tissue and the electronic biomaterials are interwoven. The electronic nature of the construct makes it possible to remotely synchronize cardiac cell contraction and growth via electrical stimulation, and release drugs in a controlled manner. We note that the inclusion of a wireless feedback loop into this cyborganic cardiac patch could provide a basis for future self-regulating cell therapies that have the capacity to remedy a wide range of heart diseases by the controlled release of biologics, stimulation of cell growth, and electrical synchronization of cardiac function [see figure below].

More interestingly, the union of cyborganic systems and human-made genetic circuits in engineered cells is changing the face of the field. Shao and colleagues has recently reported a technological interface that allows wireless regulation of engineered cells functionality with an Android-operated smartphone. More specifically, a custom-designed home server was programmed to enable a smartphone to regulate insulin production by designer cells encapsulated within an electronic scaffold in diabetic mice via a far-red light (FRL)-responsive optogenetic interface. Looking forward, this is an elegant forerunner toward engineering a cyborganic feed-back loop that can sense deficiencies and deliver the needed biological stimuli to normalize critical situations within the body. However, building designer cells that can selectively fight against diseases such as diabetes might outweigh the risk of genetic manipulation, and thats why this brand-new technology must meticulously undergo safety tests, to verify that these genetically enhanced guards do not dangerously interact with healthy tissues and organs function. In theory, it is also possible to design cells that can release important factors for mental alertness, up-regulate the expression of mitochondrial
enzymes in muscle cells and the secretion of various tissue growth factors; all through electromagnetic stimulations similar to the system developed by Shao et al. Therefore, the range of scientific possibilities offered by merging cyborganics and designer cells is truly enormous and could equip human beings with skill-sets to address a wide range of different scenarios.

As exciting as these works may seem, therapeutic efficacy of these systems is limited due to their invasiveness. One way to overcome this obstacle is to make the technology injectable, and an elegant forerunner toward this end was represented by Charles Lieber as syringe-injectable electronics. In simple terms, these biomaterial devices are composed of mesh-like electronic circuits that can contract and expand almost indefinitely. As a consequence, they are readily injectable and therefore can mitigate the implantation process, which usually requires either open or laparoscopic surgery.

Moreover, when it comes down to macroscale systems, a new frontier is represented by robotic implants. The latter can be implanted in the body for an extended period of time and interact with tissues to regulate fluid flow rates or tissue forces. In an intriguing application, robotic implants fabricated from stiff waterproof polymers were used for esophageal testing in swine via mechanostimulation. Results showed that the applied forces induced cell proliferation and lengthening of the organ while the animal was healthy and able to eat normally. Another interesting example of this synergistic approach was the development of a wireless closed-loop system, which was recently developed and enabled the monitoring and modulation of peripheral organ (bladder) functions in real-time by means of coordinated operation between a flexible strain gauge for feedback control and a proximal light source for optogenetic stimulation. Whats more, skin-mimicking electronics that sense and stretch are, as we speak, opening new doors to monitor vital signals for a relatively long period. Notably, in a recent study, a two-part electronic skin (e-skin), which softly integrates between human tissues and robotic material, enabled dynamic inter-skin communication through a wireless interface that could activate and control a robot as an entirety. Moreover, by bonding a pair of silicon-on-insulator wafers using adhesion layers of silica, created by calcination of poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS), scientists have designed an emerging class of bioresorbable electronic sensors that can monitor intracranial pressures in rats for over 25 days, with no side effects or immune reactions. In spite of these progresses, several challenges still remain for optimal clinical translation of this technologies, including the improvement of patient comfort, accuracy of the collected data as well as long-term functionality of the systems.

In summary, the era of cyborg science is evoking a significant excitement and enthusiasm given its potential medical implications, and the imaginations of potential cyborg-like humans might sound like sweet music to the ears of some readers; however, a number of obstacles still haunt this path. The survey of approaches presented here, albeit not comprehensively, aims to illustrate the broad spectrum of applications made possible by lab-monitoring, wearable and implantable cyborganic healthcare devices. One of their major consequences is the emerging field of precision health, by means of which, one is empowered to prevent their own diseases. The combination of cuttingedge cyborganic-integrated diagnostics and precision medicine may become one of the important backbones in the healthcare sector of the future. However, until then, much work lies ahead and several hurdles must be tackled. Durability, reproducibility and long-term biocompatibility, as well as robust data-analytics to accurately distinguish true from false positives are somebut not allof these challenges. Concurrently, considering the lack of comprehensive knowledge about the unique complexity of the human organism, and the unavoidable inductive risk, lying behind any engineering enterprise, the very question about the cost of the current paradigm shift from world-engineering to human-engineering seems ethically compulsory. Progress in the field may lead us to a new scenario, wherein the fine line between humans and machines may become essentially indistinguishable. Now the question is whether we really want to embrace this brave new world? Do we even have the right to transcend human biology on our own termsin the name of advancementand when do we have sufficient mastery to move into this uncharted territory without incurring unfavorable repercussions? These questions are of ultimate importance, particularly when the consequences are potentially fatal. The cyborganic technology might appear exciting upon first sight. However, this emerging field must be treated with a wary eye, as many of the suggested applications raise a number of ethical questions. These questions are unavoidable and must be carefully and critically evaluated by bioethics experts and laypeople alike to illuminate which is the most appropriate course for humankind.

The authors wish to thank Martin Fussenegger for his valuable insight and comments in this piece.

Adv. Healthcare Mater. 2019, 1901023

DOI: 10.1002/adhm.201901023

Go here to see the original:
The Promise of Cyborganic Beings - Advanced Science News

Genetic Engineering Pros and Cons have been one of the hottest topics in life sciences. The first genetically modified organism to be created was a bacterium, in 1973. Genetic engineering applications are numerous now. It includes human genome improvement, birth defects treatment, gene therapy, genetic drugs, agriculture, food, dairy, veterinary, animal modeling, ecological control, material design, space biology, and technology.

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.

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 among the individuals in an environment will be more similar, against the principles of diversity and evolution.

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

Before discussing Genetic Engineering pros and cons in detail, let have a look at what Genetic engineering is?

Genetic engineering is the process of manually adding new DNA to an organism. The goal is to add one or more new traits that are not already found in that organism. Examples of genetically engineered (transgenic) organisms currently on the market include plants with resistance to some insects, plants that can tolerate herbicides, and crops with modified oil content. Genetic engineering is used by scientists to enhance or modify the characteristics of an individual organism.

Genetic engineering is as much benefit in human life as we think. It has many advantages:

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:

Human genetic engineering is but one aspect of the overall field of Human Biotechnology. It is a fascinating aspect of Human Biotechnology with the power to improve everyones quality of life, healing all of our genetic diseases permanently. It carries the promise of enabling humanity to survive a wider range of environments on alien worlds ensuring our long-term survival. Human genetic engineering is coming. Science is about to solve some of the worst problems that can happen to people: cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Alzheimers and the many other devastating results that can come out of the random genetic lottery that is the reproduction.

Genetically modified foods, GM foods or genetically engineered foods, are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering as opposed to traditional crossbreeding. There are genetically engineered versions of tomatoes, poplars (for paper production) wheat and rice, but none are grown in the United States. The National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy estimates that 85 percent of U.S. corn is genetically modified.

See the original post:
Genetic Engineering Pros and Cons in Human and Food ...

In April 2015, China shocked the world by with the announcement that they have engineered human embryos. Researchers from the Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou confirmed that they had modified the gene responsible for thalassaemia, a fatal blood disorder.

Led by Junjiu Huang, the research team fended off fears of eugenics by stating that the embryos used were non-viable. Meaning, they couldnt have developed into humans. The achievement was the first in the world.

Critics have warned that China is becoming the Wild West of genetic research. They called whats being done as a first step towards the creation of designer children and have called for a ban on the practice around the world.

The research of the team from the Sun Yat-sen University was reported in the journal Protein and Cell. Science journals Nature and Science didnt want to publish the study on grounds of ethics.

Human Genetics Alert Director Dr David King said that the news underlines the importance of an immediate global ban on the development of GM designer babies. He adds, It is critical that we avoid a eugenic future in which the rich can buy themselves a baby with built-in genetic advantages. It is entirely unnecessary since there are many ethical ways to avoid thalassaemia. This research is a classic example of scientific careerism assuring ones place in the history books even though the research is unnecessary and unethical.

The Sun Yat-sen University team used a gene-editing technique known as CRISPR/Cas9, discovered by MIT scientists. CRISPR works based on the fact that when bacteria attacks viruses, they hack away at part of their genetic code which results in dismembering the virus. The cut-away gene is then replaced or repaired by another molecule which is introduced at the same time. This technique has been used in adult cells and animal cells, but has never been tried on human embryos.

The team used embryos obtained from fertility clinics that were created for IVF use but had an extra set of chromosomes, a result that followed fertilization by two sperm, and prevents them from resulting in a live birth. The team injected 89 embryos with Cas9 protein. Of that, 71 survived and 54 were genetically tested. From that, 28 were spliced successfully and just a fraction of those had the replacement genetic material.

Dr Philippa Brice, from the health policy think-tank PHG Foundation, says of the news: This story underlines the urgent necessity for international dialogue over the ethics of germline editing in human embryos, well in advance of any progression towards theoretical clinical application. She adds, Recent calls for a moratorium on any such research to allow time for expert and public consideration of what is and is not ethically, socially and indeed legally acceptable with respect to human germline genetic modification should definitely be heeded.

Human genetic engineering is such a huge debate, with advocates and detractors. Lets look at the arguments of both sides of the divide:

1. It eliminates devastating inherited diseasesBirthing a child who is 100% healthy is a dream of every parent. However, that is not always the case. Theres a huge chance that a child ends up sickly as they grow older and sometimes carried over into adulthood. No parent wants to see their child suffer, and human genetic engineering seems to provide the answer to creating healthy and disease-free kids.

Also, if parents have a known family history of devastating illnesses, they know that that could be passed on to their offspring. In particular, if both parents have health issues to begin with, they are worried that might get passed on to their child. Again, its difficult for parents to deal with sickness in a child, especially if it leads to early death. And they want to do everything they can to ensure a healthy baby, and apparently, thats something the realm of human genetic engineering can provide.

2. It helps extend lifeImagine a world where people are born free from diseases. Surely, inhabitants of that world would be able to live longer and have healthier lives. Some of those who support the idea of modifying the human gene believe that it improves the quality of life.

3. It prevents the spread of disease to the next generationLets just say that a genetically modified human being produces an offspring. Given that genes are inherited, that child will get the traits their parents were made with. If their parents were made to have superior intellectual ability, then the child might inherit the same. In other words, its the beginning of a superior race something that isnt seen too kindly by everyone given our own history regarding that matter.

1. It crosses the ethical lineWith genetic engineering, the physical appearance, metabolism of future children can be changed. In fact, even their physical capabilities and mental faculties (including memory and intelligence) can be improved upon. Ethical concerns regarding germline engineering are in the lines of every fetus has the right to remain genetically unmodified.

2. It raises safety issuesWith cloning animals, it has been shown that there are certain health issues involved. While Dolly the Sheep did live to see more than five years, she also had a couple of health scares that shortened her life. The animals cloned after Dolly didnt fare well either, even the extinct specie of mountain goat only lived for a couple of minutes.

The same can be said with modifying human genes. Although the Chinese study mentioned here reported successful results, the actual consequences of creating life through modification isnt yet known. That and the fact that the process of modifying genes is rather complex, the success rate is something of concern.

While other would want to conduct further studies on this, the topic is one that is frowned upon by a majority around the world. Also, there are rules and laws in place that prohibit the practice of genetically modifying humans.

Read more here:
5 Standout Pros and Cons of Human Genetic Engineering ...

When you take a close look at the human body it is easy to see that it is not without imperfection. This means that some bodies are built with inherent flaws and others fail over time. Science has the ability to change the way that humans are made and alter the flaws that are known. This can be done through the process of human genetic engineering. Altering the technology in humans is a topic that causes a lot of controversy. Human genetic engineering is something that people are either very passionate about or opposed to completely. Differing opinions on this issue drive forward the debate.

1. End Disease Human genetic engineering relies heavily on science in technology. It was developed to help end the spread of diseases. Using human genetic engineering it could be possible to change the way genomes are constructed to end some diseases. Genetic mutations can be to blame for certain diseases including Cystic Fibrosis, but with the help of human genetic engineering it could be possible to end this disease completely. If the complete benefits of human genetic engineering therapy are ever seen, it could have a huge impact on disease as a whole.

2. Longer Life Without certain diseases to increase death rates and decrease life span, it would be possible for more individuals to live longer and healthier lives. This means that human genetic engineering has the potential to improve the quality of life and allow for longer life spans. Reversing some of the cellular causes for decline of the body could be possible if strides are made with human genetic engineering.

3. Eliminating Illness and Disease in Unborn Children One of the largest benefits of genetic engineering is the prospect of helping cure illness and diseases in unborn children. Having a genetic screening with a fetus can allow for treatment of the unborn. Overtime this can impact the growing spread of diseases in future generations.

1. Ethical Issues Many of those opposed to human genetic engineering have their opinion based on ethical views. The belief that god should have ultimate power and we should not be altering nature is what many think should halt the progression of human genetic engineering. The power to shape the human race should not be left up to us humans, because there is divine intervention at work.

2. Safety Issue There are still many different unknowns linked to human genetic engineering. This brings up issues involving of safety. Getting genes into the human body is a complex process that could go bad very easily. The extent to the consequences if it goes bad are not fully known and could be quite devastating. The success rate is also something that brings up concern.

Some feel that more research needs to be done to further human genetic engineering technology, but others feel that this type of engineering has no place in society at all.

In order to obtain a full opinion on the topic of human genetic engineering, it is imperative that you gain a deeper understanding at the most basic level. It is essential that you know exactly what is meant by the concept of human genetic engineering and what it entails. This can be a very complex process, but you can break it down somewhat. In basic terms, human genetic engineering is a way to manipulate genes to make the human body closer to perfection. The altering of the genome has the ability to happen in the sperm or the egg cell. This type of genetic engineering is also referred to as germ line gene therapy and has the ability to change some of the traits a child is born with. The changes that are made through the child using germ line gene therapy would then be inherited traits that would be passed down for generations.

There is also another type of human genetic engineering that involves trading in a bad gene for a good one. This is done in the cells, but does not include the sex cell, which is the process of human genetic engineering refereed to as somatic cell gene therapy. To complete this process of human genetic engineering, functioning genes are fired into the human body to remove the bad function of the inferior gene. This technology does exist to some extent, but it has not been perfected and does not yet have a high success rate.

It is pretty difficult to classify such a complex issue as either good or bad. It is so much more complicated and hard to decipher than that. This issue brings up questions of ethics and often causes outrage among both sides. The only way to gain your own unbiased opinion on the topic of human genetic engineering is to look at both the pros and cons. Not everything involving this issue is a positive, but it is not all negative either.

More here:
5 Key Pros and Cons of Human Genetic Engineering | NLCATP.org

By Rebecca Cokley By Rebecca Cokley August 10

Rebecca Cokley is former executive director of the National Council on Disability. She served in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2017.

Its ironic that news of a breakthrough in human gene editing was released on July 26. That was the 27th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the landmark civil rights legislation intended to remedy centuries of discrimination against 57 million disabled Americans. And yet the announcement served as another reminder that there is still much desire to put those rendered undesirable in our place.

Nearly 1 out of every 5 people in this country has a disability. What would it mean for society to render such a large group of people unfit for the human germline? Stories about genetic editing typically focus on progress and remediation, but they often ignore the voice of one key group: the people whose genes would be edited.

Thats my voice. I have achondroplasia, the most common form of dwarfism, which has affected my family for three generations. Im also a woman and a mother the people most likely to be affected by human genetic editing.

I remember clearly when John Wasmuth discovered fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 in 1994. He was searching for the Down syndrome gene and found us. I remember my mothers horrified reaction when she heard the news. And I remember watching other adult little people react in fear while average-height parents cheered it as progress.

How, if you are an average-height parent, do you explain to children whom youve spent years telling are beautiful the way they are, that if you could change them fix them in a minute you would?

People with disabilities have always played pivotal roles in society. People with dwarfism were hired as engineers to work in the engines of 747 jets. Deaf scientists Henrietta Swan Leavitt and Annie Jump Cannon created the field of astrophysics. And Dan Harmon, who has a form of Aspergers, makes us laugh with TV shows such as Community.

I am who I am because I have dwarfism. Dwarfs share a rich culture, as do most disability groups. We have traditions, common language and histories rich in charismatic ancestors. I can honestly say that I may not have been able to work in the White House doing diversity recruitment for President Barack Obama had I not been born a little person. It allowed me to understand discrimination, isolation and societys lowered expectations.

While non-disabled people fear a prenatal diagnosis of disability, disabled people think of the possibilities. How rich would our society be if we all did this? What if that child with osteogenesis imperfecta becomes a world-changing architect because they think differently about how the world is set up due to their disability?

Now think about the message that societys fear of the deviant that boogeyman of imperfection says to disabled people: We dont want you here. Were actively working to make sure that people like you dont exist because we think we know whats best for you. This is ableism. Its denying us our personhood and our right to exist because we dont fit societys ideals.

Proponents of genetic engineering deliberately use vague language, such as prevention of serious diseases, leading many people with disabilities to ask what, in fact, is a serious disease. Where is the line between what society perceives to be a horrible genetic mutation and someones culture?

We cannot look at this breakthrough without looking at the context. In times of economic and political uncertainty as we saw with the austerity measures that swept Europe in the past several years disability is often stigmatized in an attempt to cut costs. We can trace this historically to the growth of the eugenics movement in the 1920s.

Too often the media and society frame people with disabilities as takers, beggars and unworthy cost drivers for the rest of the public. Most recently, The Post published an article on the costs associated with people receiving Social Security Disability payments. These portrayals contribute to the myth of the Medicaid mama, reminiscent of the damaging welfare queen rhetoric of the Reagan era.

Such ableism adds to the notion that people with disabilities do not add to the fabric of society; that as lesser than sciences definition of what is normal, we have nothing to contribute; that our fight for equality is not as valid as other movements because with the right innovation, medicine could fix us.

Let us not forget that disabled Americans led the charge to save the Affordable Care Act for all Americans last month. It remains critical that we drive decisions about the future of disabled people and our health care. Many of us see our disabilities as a rich and diverse culture, many of us want to pass that culture down to our children through our genes, and many of us see no reason not to. We should have that right.

Originally posted here:
Please don't edit me out - The Washington Post - Washington Post

During the latter stage stages of the 20th century, man harnessed the power of the atom, and not long after, soon realised the power of genes. Genetic engineering is going to become a very mainstream part of our lives sooner or later, because there are so many possibilities advantages (and disadvantages) involved. Here are just some of the advantages :

Of course there are two sides to the coin, here are some possible eventualities and disadvantages.

Genetic engineering may be one of the greatest breakthroughs in recent history alongside the discovery of the atom and space flight, however, with the above eventualities and facts above in hand, governments have produced legislation to control what sort of experiments are done involving genetic engineering. In the UK there are strict laws prohibiting any experiments involving the cloning of humans. However, over the years here are some of the experimental 'breakthroughs' made possible by genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering has been impossible until recent times due to the complex and microscopic nature of DNA and its component nucleotides. Through progressive studies, more and more in this area is being made possible, with the above examples only showing some of the potential that genetic engineering shows.

For us to understand chromosomes and DNA more clearly, they can be mapped for future reference. More simplistic organisms such as fruit fly (Drosophila) have been chromosome mapped due to their simplistic nature meaning they will require less genes to operate. At present, a task named the Human Genome Project is mapping the human genome, and should be completed in the next ten years.

The process of genetic engineering involves splicing an area of a chromosome, a gene, that controls a certain characteristic of the body. The enzyme endonuclease is used to split a DNA sequence and split the gene from the rest of the chromosome. For example, this gene may be programmed to produce an antiviral protein. This gene is removed and can be placed into another organism. For example, it can be placed into a bacteria, where it is sealed into the DNA chain using ligase. When the chromosome is once again sealed, the bacteria is now effectively re-programmed to replicate this new antiviral protein. The bacteria can continue to live a healthy life, though genetic engineering and human intervention has actively manipulated what the bacteria actually is. No doubt there are advantages and disadvantages, and this whole subject area will become more prominent over time.

The next page returns the more natural circumstances of genetic diversity.

Continue reading here:
Genetic Engineering Advantages & Disadvantages - Biology ...

Human body is made up of both good and bad genes. The genes which may cause some disease or some unwanted traits can be altered using a branch of biotechnology known as genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is a technique which can be used to manipulate our genes to make our bodies better. This change can be done in sperm or egg level, but this is illegal in most of the countries.

The other way is to change our bad genes with the good ones in somatic cells. Good genes are cloned into a viral vector, and then these vectors are passed into our body using gene gun method or other methods. Somatic cell genetic engineering is done in many countries.

Advantages of Genetic Engineering in Humans:

1. Genetic engineering has the capacity to make disease a history. Almost all humans are prone to one form of the disease or the other. This disease may be a result of inheritance of bad gene from parents. Other reason could be genetic mutations in the genome because of the environmental mutagens. These genetic mutations cause diseases like cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer's, or heart diseases and also these mutations can make human body susceptible for infections. All these mutations can be reversed using genetic engineering. If the researchers can find an efficient way to replace bad genes with the functioning copy of gene in the correct position.

2. Genetic engineering has the potential to increase the life span of humans. Some scientists say that the by using genetic engineering average life span of a human can range anywhere between 100-150 years. Here genetic engineering technique is used on a healthy individual to change his genome in such a way that it slowdowns the aging process. Altering the genes which are related to aging and cell senescence. For example preventing the shortening of telomere length of a chromosome. As telomere shortening plays an important role in cell senescence and aging.

3. Better understanding of genetics with the help of genetic engineering may lead to better pharmaceutical products which will have the ability

Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering in Humans:

1. At present since the genetic engineering uses the viral vector to carry functional gene into the human body, consequences of these viral genes on human body is still not known. Still we don't know the exactly where the functional genes are placed in the genome. Functional genes may replace the other important genes other than the mutated gene. This may lead to other form of disease or conditions in human.

2. If we all change the defective gene with the functional gene, genetic diversity will become thing of past. As we all humans will have the same genome, as a population we may become susceptible to an unknown form of disease or virus and it may lead to the extinction of human population from the earth.

Therefore we must use this new technique known as genetic engineering with lot of cautions as it has got both advantages and disadvantages to mankind.

About Author / Additional Info:

Read the rest here:
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Genetic Engineering in ...

Human genetic engineering is about genetically engineering human beings by modifying their genotypes before birth. The Genotype is the genetic constitution of an individual with respect to a particular character under consideration. The engineering is done to control the traits possessed by the individual after his/her birth.

The cells of our body contain encoded information about the body's growth, structure, and functioning in the form of genes. Human genetic engineering aims at decoding this information and applying it to the welfare of mankind.

There are two types of genetic engineering. They are:

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.

There are people with certain exceptional qualities. If the genes responsible for these qualities can be identified, they can be implanted in the early embryos. This can lead to something like 'customized babies'. Human genetic engineering might progress to such an extent that it will be possible to discover new genes and embed them into unborn babies.

The Brighter Side Gene therapy is one of the most important benefits of human genetic engineering. Over the past decade, gene therapy has succeeded in finding treatments for certain heart diseases. Researchers hope to find cures for all the genetic diseases. This will result in a healthier and more evolved human race.

A future benefit of human genetic engineering is that a fetus with a genetic disorder will be treated before the baby is born. Parents will be able to look forward to a healthy baby. In case of in-vitro fertilization, gene therapy can be used for embryos before they are implanted into the mother.

Genes can be cloned to produce pharmaceutical products of superior quality. Researchers are hopeful about being able to bio-engineer plants or fruits to contain certain drugs.

The Darker Side Firstly, while it seems easy to cure diseases by genetic modifications, gene therapy may produce side effects. While treating one defect, it may cause another. Any given cell is responsible for many activities and manipulating its genes may not be that easy.

The process of cloning can lead to risking the fundamental factors such as individuality and the diversity of human beings. Ironically, man will become just another man-made thing!

There are certain social aspects to human genetic engineering. This new form of medical treatment can impose a heavy financial burden on the society. Along with its feasibility, its affordability will also determine its popularity.

Human genetic engineering is a widely growing field. It can work miracles. But its benefits and threats need to be assessed carefully. The potential advantages of the field can come into reality only if genetic engineering of humans is handled with responsibility.

See original here:
Human Genetic Engineering - Buzzle

Photo by: Gernot Krautberger

Genetic engineering is any process by which genetic material (the building blocks of heredity) is changed in such a way as to make possible the production of new substances or new functions. As an example, biologists have now learned how to transplant the gene that produces light in a firefly into tobacco plants. The function of that genethe production of lighthas been added to the normal list of functions of the tobacco plants.

Genetic engineering became possible only when scientists had discovered exactly what is a gene. Prior to the 1950s, the term gene was used to stand for a unit by which some genetic characteristic was transmitted from one generation to the next. Biologists talked about a "gene" for hair color, although they really had no idea as to what that gene was or what it looked like.

That situation changed dramatically in 1953. The English chemist Francis Crick (1916 ) and the American biologist James Watson (1928 ) determined a chemical explanation for a gene. Crick and Watson discovered the chemical structure for large, complex molecules that occur in the nuclei of all living cells, known as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).

DNA molecules, Crick and Watson announced, are very long chains or units made of a combination of a simple sugar and a phosphate group.

Amino acid: An organic compound from which proteins are made.

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid): A large, complex chemical compound that makes up the core of a chromosome and whose segments consist of genes.

Gene: A segment of a DNA molecule that acts as a kind of code for the production of some specific protein. Genes carry instructions for the formation, functioning, and transmission of specific traits from one generation to another.

Gene splicing: The process by which genes are cut apart and put back together to provide them with some new function.

Genetic code: A set of nitrogen base combinations that act as a code for the production of certain amino acids.

See the article here:
Genetic Engineering - humans, body, used, process, plants ...

Human Genetic Engineering Effects 3.58/5 (71.63%) 172 votes

Some people can think of Human Genetic Engineering as a thing that makes them live a healthier life for a long time. People can think of it as a something straight from the heaven or a programmed human being. Genetic engineering is a concept that can be used for enhancing the life of human beings.

However, Human Genetic Engineering Effects are also there that can harm humans. A lot of doctors or scientists involved in gene engineering believe that if the research produces accurate and effective manipulation of DNA in the humans, then they can make medicines for diseases that have no cure. This will also enable the doctors to make changes in the genes of a child before the birth of that child, so there will be no defects on a child from birth.

This process can also be applied on curing hereditary disease. It will prevent the disease from carrying forward to other coming generations. This research primarily focused on being applied on families that have a history of suffering from diseases. It will fix the wrong positioning of the genes. TheHuman Genetic Engineering Effects are in its application towards animals and plants that have been modified genetically. When farmers make use of gene-engineering for breeding plants, then this will result in fast production of food items. Fast and increased production will also put down the prices of several food items. Human Genetic Engineering can also add taste and nutrition to different food items.

Human Genetic Engineering Effects can also help in fighting with severe uncured diseases. Those who suffer from life threatening diseases like cancer or AIDS can have a better idea about maintaining their lives according to the circumstances. This can only be done with the help of Human Genetic Engineering.

Hereditary diseases will not trouble any person, and nor there will be any fear of deadly virus taking place in people on all corners of the world. Human Genetic Engineering can achieve all these things in a theoretical way. Human Genetic Engineering Effects can also be seen in societies concerning health. It has tremendous benefits on health.

Human Genetic Engineering can help people in fighting with cystic fibrosis problems. It also helps to fight against diabetes, and many other specific diseases. Bubble boy is also a disease that can be treated successfully with the help Human Genetic Engineering. It is also termed as Severe Combined Immune efficiency.

Gene mutation is the only thing responsible for the characterization of this deadly disease. This mutation causes ADA deficiencies that later result in destroying the immune system cells. Human Genetic Engineering Effects include ecological problems that might be present in organisms developed or generated by Human Genetic Engineering. However, it can leave positive impacts on a lot of diseases.

One cannot predict the changes that can occur with the use of species that generates with the help of Human Genetic Engineering Effects. A newly generated species creates ecology imbalances due to Human Genetic Engineering Effects. This is a similar case with exotic or natural species.

Go here to read the rest:
Human Genetic Engineering Effects

Human Nature on Collision Course with Genetic Engineering

Human genetic engineering could be the next major battleground for the global conservation movement, according to a series of reports in the latest issue of World Watch magazine, published by the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization. While previous struggles have involved protecting ecosystems and human societies from the unpredicted consequences of new technologies, this fight over high-risk applications of human genetic engineering is a struggle over who will decide what it means to be human.

Many countries have already banned reproductive cloning, and the U.N. is working on a global treaty to ban it, but even more powerful and much more dangerous are the related technologies to modify the genes we pass on to our children, says Ed Ayres, Editor of World Watch magazine. The contributors to this special issue call on the U.N. and national governments to ban the technology known as inheritable genetic modification.

Many uses of human genetic technology could be beneficial to society, but as political scientist Francis Fukuyama writes in the magazine, our understanding of the relationship between our genes and whatever improvements we might seek for our children (and their descendants) is dangerously deficient. Fukuyama warns that the victim of a failed experiment will not be an ecosystem, but a human child whose parents, seeking to give her greater intelligence, will saddle her with a greater propensity for cancer, or prolonged debility in old age, or some other completely unanticipated side effect that may emerge only after the experimenters have passed from the scene.

Human genetic engineering has ramifications that reach far beyond the life of a single child. Several contributors highlight the disastrous results of the last serious effort to engineer genetic perfection. In the early part of the 20th century, scientists and politicians in the United States relied on the alleged science of eugenics to justify the forced sterilization of tens of thousands of people who were judged to be feebleminded, mentally defective, or epileptics. Hitler passed his own sterilization law soon after taking office in 1933, heading down the path toward the Holocaust. The U.S. biotechnology industry-which dominates the global industry-has become an increasingly powerful economic and political force, with revenues growing fivefold between 1989 ($5 billion) and 2000 ($25 billion). Aided by the equally rapid revolution in computing, laboratories that once took two months to sequence 150 nucleotides can now process over 30 million in a day, and at a small fraction of the earlier cost. The number of patents pending for human DNA sequences has gone from 4,000 in 1991, to 500,000 in 1998, to several million today.

We are publishing this special issue because we dont want to lose the opportunity to decide openly and democratically how this rapidly developing technology is used, says Ayres. This isnt a fight about saving whales, or the last rain forests, or even the health of people living today. The question is whether we can save ourselves from ourselves, to know and respect what we do not know, and to put the breaks on potentially dangerous forms of human genetic engineering.

Excerpts from the authors of the Beyond Cloning issue of World Watch

About World Watch magazine: This bimonthly magazine is published by the Worldwatch Institute, an independent research organization, based in Washington, DC. Launched in 1988, the magazine has won the Alternative Press Award for investigative journalism, the Project Censored Award, and a number of Utne Reader awards. Recent editions have featured articles on the imminent disappearance of more than half of the worlds languages, airport sprawl, and the rapid growth of organic farming. Please visit: http://www.worldwatch.org/mag/.

The Worldwatch Institute is an independent research organization that works for an environmentally sustainable and socially just society, in which the needs of all people are met without threatening the health of the natural environment or the well-being of future generations. By providing compelling, accessible, and fact-based analysis of critical global issues, Worldwatch informs people around the world about the complex interactions between people, nature, and economies. Worldwatch focuses on the underlying causes of and practical solutions to the worlds problems, in order to inspire people to demand new policies, investment patterns, and lifestyle choices. For more information, visit: http://www.worldwatch.org.

View original post here:
Human Nature on Collision Course with Genetic Engineering ...