Genetically engineer a human?

[Rooster]

If it really becomes possible to genetically engineer a human, should we? You could probably eliminate most diseases but where would you draw the line?
Super humans? People with animal characteristics like wings and tails? I am not religious but something doesn't seem morally or ethically right about fiddling with evolution.

[Lee]

We genetically engineer humans all the time, have done for millions of years, we even have handy tools grafted onto our bodies to do the trick. Every woman who ever chose to have sex with the tall dark and handsome type has been engaged in genetic engineering of her potential offspring.

[panda]

Please don't get in the habit of making posts like that, rhinosaur.


Or else.

[Rooster]

We genetically engineer humans all the time, have done for millions of years, we even have handy tools grafted onto our bodies to do the trick. Every woman who ever chose to have sex with the tall dark and handsome type has been engaged in genetic engineering of her potential offspring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

ummmm...you are talking about selective breeding. Completely different topics buddy.
I am referring mainly to gene splicing as you could probably guess from the question about wings and tails. Unless you know a lot of people with animal features to have sex with. Thats okay, I am not judging.

[Rooster]

Booya!!! CAN you HAN-dle THAT? :cheer:

:rant:

[Ka.avik]

I think adding ears & tail is a fine idea.

There are ethical concerns that I have about trying to enhance something like intelligence, for the same reason I'm hesitant to endorse GM'd corn -- the variety of what we have now is exceptionally useful. Narrowing the field to just the 'tall dark & handsome' variety of 'smart' without keeping around a healthy glut of oddballs, will eventually bit us where it hurts.

What if a bunch of ESTJ judges get together and decide to breed-out the Ni trait that so many annoying INTJs have? Pass some law, buy some ads about how the next generation of office worker will be more efficient -- and where will our quirky librarian, or the story telling INFJs be? Up a creek.

In short, I'm all in favor of broadening the pool; I'm heavily against restricting it.

Especially if I get my top-mounted independantly rotating ears! ;)

[Lee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

ummmm...you are talking about selective breeding. Completely different topics buddy.
I am referring mainly to gene splicing as you could probably guess from the question about wings and tails. Unless you know a lot of people with animal features to have sex with. Thats okay, I am not judging.Sex is basically gene splicing.

Meiotic cell division leaves two cells, each with half of the complement of chromosomes, in humans that is 23. Almost every Chromosome in every gamete is unique, after a crossing over phase before cell division where the genes get spliced. During fertilisation, two gametes fuse and the 23 chromosomes are allowed to pair up with their counterparts, totalling 46.

All animals show a preference for mating with particular sets of genes. First, they select one of their own species, to ensure that the combining genes will work well together. Second, they show a preference within species for particular characteristics which indicate fitness, a word I use in the technical sense of evolutionary biology.

As genetic engineering goes, this is a process which cannot be equalled by any other existing technology. Imagine if scientists could actually construct an entirely new genome in the laboratory, after reliably selecting genes based upon phenotypic expression. Fact is, the activities of scientists in the lab pale in comparison, limited to knocking out a gene here or adding gene or two there.

There are actually viral agents which hijack our cells capacity for DNA replication, they can actually write themselves into the DNA of other organisms in a precise way. Parasites that propogate through horizontal gene transmission have long been performing genetic engineering on their hosts, the idea that humans may become consciously involved is simply adding a new player to a game that has been going on since our intrepid descendents first began evolving into more complex forms.

You can't interfere with evolution, because evolution is not something with an endgoal that can be interfered with. Our ability to learn, conceptualise, experiment and ultimately develop the ability to genetically engineer ourselves is itself a product of evolution, in no way will what we do with those abilities depart from some grand plan, because there isn't one!

It's far too late to get worried about GM foods too, we have been genetically modifying our foods since the dawn of agriculture, selective breeding is simply a haphazard method of doing what we may soon be able to do in the lab, which is pick and choose genes we like and rejecting those we do not.

However, nobody is going to be getting superpowers anytime soon, there are serious limits to what we can hope to achieve. Our genes are very good at working together to create humans, with a human body plan and brain, splicing in genes can have reasonably predictable consequences on a single cell, but the higher level we go, the more unpredictable things become. In other words, we are a very complex and finely tuned organism, there are far more ways to make things go horribly wrong than go right.

The idea of genetic engineering and all these wonderful abilities we could someday acquire is great for science-fiction, but I somewhat doubt that we may ever achieve the half of it.

As for the ethics, there really is no issue. Are you going to allow another to dictate to you what you can and cannot do with your own body? It'd make a mockery of individual rights and freedoms to allow the government to dictate to people like that.

[Ka.avik]

It's far too late to get worried about GM foods too, we have been genetically modifying our foods since the dawn of agriculture, selective breeding is simply a haphazard method of doing what we may soon be able to do in the lab, which is pick and choose genes we like and rejecting those we do not.

There's two major differences here. One is, we've been able to weed out, similiar to the whole darwinism thing, the mixes and crosses we don't want long before they become troublesome or pocketbook emptying, with a few exotics like possums & kudzu being partial exceptions. The lab can fill a farmers field with acres & acres of an untested design that may cause damage to the local ecology before anyone's aware...such as a weed-killer resistant weed in australia (?).

Two, and this perhaps relies more on the patenting of GM'd seeds, those acres & acres of crop are all from a single plant. Which, unbeknownst to us, is susceptible to some as-yet unseen blight. When it finally does show up as the weak link, everybody is already using near-clones, so the whole of the crop intended to feed the entire US this year, is gone.

If we're careful about how we deploy these seeds, and for goodness sakes sell the stupid plants and their descendants to the farmer then yes, GM'd crop is simply a little faster method than the curret Ag. stuff. that goes on every year.

But slashdot's scient subforum had a story some time back about a farmer who was jailed for growing corn. Err, scuz me for DMCA & patent violations.

because HE PLANTED NORMAL CORN next to his neighbor's GM'd corn

[Lee]

There's two major differences here. One is, we've been able to weed out, similiar to the whole darwinism thing, the mixes and crosses we don't want long before they become troublesome or pocketbook emptying, with a few exotics like possums & kudzu being partial exceptions. The lab can fill a farmers field with acres & acres of an untested design that may cause damage to the local ecology before anyone's aware...such as a weed-killer resistant weed in australia (?).

Two, and this perhaps relies more on the patenting of GM'd seeds, those acres & acres of crop are all from a single plant. Which, unbeknownst to us, is susceptible to some as-yet unseen blight. When it finally does show up as the weak link, everybody is already using near-clones, so the whole of the crop intended to feed the entire US this year, is gone.

If we're careful about how we deploy these seeds, and for goodness sakes sell the stupid plants and their descendants to the farmer then yes, GM'd crop is simply a little faster method than the curret Ag. stuff. that goes on every year.First, I need to change something I said, because I said 'what we may soon be doing in the lab,' but of course we are doing it already.

Second, the "natural" variants of these crops aren't exactly in harmony with nature. As a general rule, plants are designed to not be eaten, they regularly contain all kinds of toxins which damage local wildlife, many of the GM varieties are actually improvements for not only human consumption, but for the local ecology (except of course, for those plants that compete for the fields that the farmer wants to gorw his crops in and the animals that feed off them).

In fact, I challenge anyone to actually find evidence of the dangers of GM foods, because nothing substantial exists, you'll find far more evidence of the dangers of ungenetically modified crops. Most of the controversy is just scare mongering, the idea that these are frankenstien plants, contaminated by genes which are "unnatural" to them. All this shows is a general level of ignorance about biology, what it doesn't show is that GM foods are dangerous.

I do not deny that there is a small chance that GM crops could be dangerous, but the chances are slim, you are more likely to find a "natural" crop wreaking havoc with human health or the local ecology than the GM kind. On top of that, the economic benefits of GM foods have to be taken into consideration, they are a great hope for the future in any attempt to eradicate poverty.

[Mr. Good Beats]

i wouldn't mind being able to lick my balls like a dog. i wonder if i did enough stretching....

[Architectonic]

First, I need to change something I said, because I said 'what we may soon be doing in the lab,' but of course we are doing it already.

Second, the "natural" variants of these crops aren't exactly in harmony with nature. As a general rule, plants are designed to not be eaten, they regularly contain all kinds of toxins which damage local wildlife, many of the GM varieties are actually improvements for not only human consumption, but for the local ecology (except of course, for those plants that compete for the fields that the farmer wants to gorw his crops in and the animals that feed off them).

You are missing Ka.avik's point. Firstly we are not just talking about GM crop, but the concept in general. Ka.avik is pointing out that a homogenous group of a species is not necessarily biologically efficient. Indeed, a homogenous GM crop runs a serious risk of being wiped out by a serious pest or disease, since there are less possible mutations possible. GM also has a whole series of economic issues, including those of intellectual property laws etc that I won't get into here.

However, I would argue while Ka.avik's point is relevent to current genetic engineering practices, I would argue that the homogenisation of a species need not be the only possibility. Indeed, it is still theoretically possible to modify a wide selection of stock of a particular species and allow that species to continue to reproduce naturally.


If it really becomes possible to genetically engineer a human, should we? You could probably eliminate most diseases but where would you draw the line?
Super humans? People with animal characteristics like wings and tails? I am not religious but something doesn't seem morally or ethically right about fiddling with evolution.

Where would I draw the line? I would draw the line at whatever isn't functional - if the species is able to maintain some sort of equilibrium of life within the universe.

It doesn't really matter where we personally draw the line, because large modifications are inevitable, since not everyone will draw the line in the same place. Fortunately, in general the people who are most capable of doing such functional modifications, also happen to be the most intelligent and the most likely to predict any possible outcomes.
(Basically, if any problems arise, its because humanity wasn't capable of implementing a line.)