gene modification

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-29 03:10am

what if congress allowed human fetuses to be modified and otherwise edited during the first 6 months of growth?

would this be a good thing? would we learn much? is it unethical?

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-29 09:15am

Is it even possible to GENETICALLY modify a 6-month old baby? I thought genetic changes had to be done WAY before birth.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-04-29 10:42am

Question: How would you do this without it being in vitro? Secondly, WHY would you do this?

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-29 01:43pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Question: How would you do this without it being in vitro? Secondly, WHY would you do this?

Umm... I suppose if you took out EVERY CELL in the child's body and replaced it with the genetically altered cells... but then why not just create a baby from scratch? Ooh... that's a thread idea.

As for why you would do it, I suppose it would be the same ol' reasoning behind any genetic modification: Get rid of diseases first, design-a-kid second, master race third.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-04-29 01:57pm

Personally i think it would be a stupid idea, our genes sohuld be just fine the way they are, if they are unsuitable, they should get preened out naturally.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-29 02:04pm

Rye wrote:Personally i think it would be a stupid idea, our genes sohuld be just fine the way they are, if they are unsuitable, they should get preened out naturally.

You know, this just inspired some really cool thoughts. What if we used genetic modifications to speed up evolution? I mean, it's theoretically possible, right? If we create two people whose genetic makeup contains every conceivable human advantage, then their children would, theoretically, posess those advantages. They might also create new advantageous adaptations as a result of the combination of the genetic advantages of their parents. (It might not take one generation for this to happen, but I'm making it brief.) And then, using the genetic code of the children and their new-found advantageous adaptations, we could combine this NEW "best" genetic structure with one similar to it and create an even more advantageous adaptation. And so on and so on ad infinitum.

Is this feasible?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-04-29 02:10pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Rye wrote:Personally i think it would be a stupid idea, our genes sohuld be just fine the way they are, if they are unsuitable, they should get preened out naturally.
You know, this just inspired some really cool thoughts. What if we used genetic modifications to speed up evolution? I mean, it's theoretically possible, right? If we create two people whose genetic makeup contains every conceivable human advantage, then their children would, theoretically, posess those advantages. They might also create new advantageous adaptations as a result of the combination of the genetic advantages of their parents. (It might not take one generation for this to happen, but I'm making it brief.) And then, using the genetic code of the children and their new-found advantageous adaptations, we could combine this NEW "best" genetic structure with one similar to it and create an even more advantageous adaptation. And so on and so on ad infinitum.

Is this feasible?

I don't think so, "best" adaptations depend on where you are geographically and so on. Also, you don't just get one thing with a gene, it's usually a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" sort of system, in my experiencce anyway. For example people who are artistic may have a predisposition to be depressed, and so on.

Variation is the key to evolution imo, i doubt you could get a perfect pairing of parents, that's why love exists IMO at least. We'd die out if we didn't fall in love or "settle for second best" on a biological scale. Like if everyone went for the perfect woman in the tribe, only one male would get to mate with her, and all the other males would die out, and all the other females.

Variation is the key.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-04-29 02:11pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Rye wrote:Personally i think it would be a stupid idea, our genes sohuld be just fine the way they are, if they are unsuitable, they should get preened out naturally.
You know, this just inspired some really cool thoughts. What if we used genetic modifications to speed up evolution? I mean, it's theoretically possible, right? If we create two people whose genetic makeup contains every conceivable human advantage, then their children would, theoretically, posess those advantages. They might also create new advantageous adaptations as a result of the combination of the genetic advantages of their parents. (It might not take one generation for this to happen, but I'm making it brief.) And then, using the genetic code of the children and their new-found advantageous adaptations, we could combine this NEW "best" genetic structure with one similar to it and create an even more advantageous adaptation. And so on and so on ad infinitum.

Is this feasible?

Perhaps, but I'll tell you now, I'd hate to be one of the engineers working on that project.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-04-29 02:15pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Rye wrote:Personally i think it would be a stupid idea, our genes sohuld be just fine the way they are, if they are unsuitable, they should get preened out naturally.
You know, this just inspired some really cool thoughts. What if we used genetic modifications to speed up evolution? I mean, it's theoretically possible, right? If we create two people whose genetic makeup contains every conceivable human advantage, then their children would, theoretically, posess those advantages. They might also create new advantageous adaptations as a result of the combination of the genetic advantages of their parents. (It might not take one generation for this to happen, but I'm making it brief.) And then, using the genetic code of the children and their new-found advantageous adaptations, we could combine this NEW "best" genetic structure with one similar to it and create an even more advantageous adaptation. And so on and so on ad infinitum.

Is this feasible?

Feasible perhaps, and it might be a good idea, but unless we make sure that all future generations will have all conceivable advantages each, we might end up with a Gattaca-style society. (Or even worse, "Brave New World"-style society!)

However, if 100% of humanity is elevated to a higher level, I'm for it.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2003-04-29 02:18pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:what if congress allowed human fetuses to be modified and otherwise edited during the first 6 months of growth?

would this be a good thing? would we learn much? is it unethical?

Yay, welcome to the slippery slope to eugenics. If I can modify and edit the genetic code of an unborn child to thwart some developmental disease, then I can do it to produce the perfect specimen of the mythical Aryan race. If genetic modification at that level is allowed, it probably ought to be tightly regulated.

Ignorant twit · Post by **Ignorant twit** » 2003-04-29 02:50pm

Is it even possible to GENETICALLY modify a 6-month old baby? I thought genetic changes had to be done WAY before birth.

Yes, it is just harder and not total.

Question: How would you do this without it being in vitro? Secondly, WHY would you do this?

You could do this in vivo with a retro virus. Basically take whatever gene you want to splice into the fetus, ligate it into the viral DNA, and then let the virus infect the infant leaving copies inside the fetus's genome. There are numerous technical difficulties with this approach, but it is in theory possible.

Another shot is to take the tissue of interest, say the liver or marrow, out and then GM those and then surgically reimplant them.

Why would you do this? To treat something like SCIDS, at least that's what I've read.

This does NOT garuntee effects in every cell, but for plenty of GM you don't need that. Just a few cells GM'ed in the marrow can have an extreme effect on the idividual. Mainly this works for "simple" gain of function GM, normally working with some missing biochemical signal.

Umm... I suppose if you took out EVERY CELL in the child's body and replaced it with the genetically altered cells... but then why not just create a baby from scratch? Ooh... that's a thread idea.

Because you don't need to have it effect every cell. Do I need to GM the nerve cells to repair immuno response genes that are only active in the marrow? No.

Personally i think it would be a stupid idea, our genes sohuld be just fine the way they are, if they are unsuitable, they should get preened out naturally.

Great so we should stop heart surgery because we want to naturally weed out genes that cause high cholesterol. We shouldn't treat people with underactive thyroids ... let nature weed it out. We shouldn't administer chemo for genetic caused cancer ... let nature weed it out.

This is simply another medical procedure, and may one day be less invasive, costly, and painful than traditional treatment.

You know, this just inspired some really cool thoughts. What if we used genetic modifications to speed up evolution? I mean, it's theoretically possible, right? If we create two people whose genetic makeup contains every conceivable human advantage, then their children would, theoretically, posess those advantages. They might also create new advantageous adaptations as a result of the combination of the genetic advantages of their parents. (It might not take one generation for this to happen, but I'm making it brief.) And then, using the genetic code of the children and their new-found advantageous adaptations, we could combine this NEW "best" genetic structure with one similar to it and create an even more advantageous adaptation. And so on and so on ad infinitum.

Monoculturing is BAD for the species. If the "best" alleles include say increased susceptability to SARS if we all have ... we are shot. Frankly I don't WANT to speed up evolution. Evolution works, most often, by something dying. I much prefer to slow evolution down and have a healthy, stable, and diverse genetic bank for the population.

Quite frankly I care nothing if we do GM now to correct problems. I have a bit of problem if we try to make our kids "better" seeing as we barely know the genome and have hardly touched the proteome. What happens if the genes we give our kids to be smarter, stronger, etc. turn out to have hideous side effects? Is it our right to screw them for the rest of their lives just because we think these genes would be benificial?

Death from the Sea · Post by **Death from the Sea** » 2003-04-29 04:35pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:Feasible perhaps, and it might be a good idea, but unless we make sure that all future generations will have all conceivable advantages each, we might end up with a Gattaca-style society. (Or even worse, "Brave New World"-style society!)

However, if 100% of humanity is elevated to a higher level, I'm for it.

Gattaca is probably how it would turn out, but not so blatently at first.
And 100% of humanity would not be able to elevated because of costs and peoples inability to pay for the modifications(not to mention those who don't want to be modified or modify their children).

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-04-29 07:34pm

No way in hell I would ever modify myself or my children.* No way in hell I'll allow the modified world to look down on me and spit upon me. I'm of the school of thought that we are all biologically equal, and hold to the sacredness of human life in that respect. I'm not going to let some fucking 'genie' elite dictate over me with his/her own self-preceived "superiority."

*I would only accept it in the case of a genetic disease, of which my family has none of.

Tasoth · Post by **Tasoth** » 2003-04-29 09:44pm

When you make the perfect people, it takes one good disease to target the physical characteristics they all share. Myabe it would even be a good bioweapon.

Ignorant twit · Post by **Ignorant twit** » 2003-04-29 10:02pm

UltraViolence83 wrote:No way in hell I would ever modify myself or my children.* No way in hell I'll allow the modified world to look down on me and spit upon me. I'm of the school of thought that we are all biologically equal, and hold to the sacredness of human life in that respect. I'm not going to let some fucking 'genie' elite dictate over me with his/her own self-preceived "superiority."

*I would only accept it in the case of a genetic disease, of which my family has none of.

Nope. The average human being has multiple recessive genetic diseases. Most genetic diseases are recessive and neither parent has a history of that genetic disease in their family. Cancer ones like mine, Huntington's disease, and other late onset dominants are rare; most genetic diseases are recessives where the homozygote gets screwed. This gets particularly bad if you breed in small gene pool, there is a reason Ashkenazi Jews and Royalty have some nice genetic diseases running rampant in them.

Basically its a crap shoot if your matehas the same set of recessive diseases as you. If they don't match you are clear and free. If not then about 1 in 4 of your kids will. Unless you have your genes run or you already have plenty of kids ... it is nigh to impossible to tell if you carry a genetic disease.

The only action you can take is to:
1. Avoid close blood relations for mates.
2. Avoid mating whatever restricted gene pool your ancestors confined themselves to for centuries.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-04-29 11:01pm

"Whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stronger," I say. Bring it on. I would assume then that my family's gene pool is fairly healthy, as only several people had/have cancer (and that's due to their own damn fault for smoking so damn much), and my grandfather died at 69 of a sudden heart attack (also a life-long smoker)...Well, now all I need to do is find a young woman to procreate with, and spread my Kwizatz Haderach-like DNA.

Little UltraViolences running around...Blessing or ominous omen of impending doom? You decide.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-04-30 11:23am

So at what point do we get genetically engineered superhumans? Island-III colonies in orbit? Mobile suits?

Because this sounds remarkably like the setup for Gundam SEED...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-04-30 12:33pm

Iceberg wrote:So at what point do we get genetically engineered superhumans? Island-III colonies in orbit? Mobile suits?

Because this sounds remarkably like the setup for Gundam SEED...

Never. Because by that time my armageddon virus will have taken out those I do not want.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-04-30 04:40pm

Death from the Sea wrote:
Simon H.Johansen wrote:Feasible perhaps, and it might be a good idea, but unless we make sure that all future generations will have all conceivable advantages each, we might end up with a Gattaca-style society. (Or even worse, "Brave New World"-style society!)

However, if 100% of humanity is elevated to a higher level, I'm for it.
Gattaca is probably how it would turn out, but not so blatently at first.
And 100% of humanity would not be able to elevated because of costs and peoples inability to pay for the modifications(not to mention those who don't want to be modified or modify their children).

I know that the last probably is true, but it would still be nice if we were able to eliminate diseases by means of genetic engineering. Actually, I must confess that I've never seen Gattaca, and deep inside I think of that movie of a worst case scenario in the vein of "Brave New World"...* Mind you, I was the one who typed "LAMA SU FOR PRESIDENT" with big letters in response to an announcement of an anti-cloning bill - accompanied by a movie still of the long-necked alien politician....

On the downside, genetic engineering might actually lead to a lack of genetic variation in the human gene-pool, which might be bad.

*Brave New World was the Aldous Huxley novel about a caste system based upon cloning, right?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-30 09:21pm

yeah, I read it last night. surprisingly. . . happy.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-04-30 09:31pm

You know it's completely legal to download since no one owns the copyright for it anymore? I have it on the harddrive, but I must confess I haven't read it yet.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-04-30 09:40pm

read a brave new world revisited. its his predictions in 1950 of 2010.

highly amusing.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-05-01 02:11am

Enforcer Talen wrote:read a brave new world revisited. its his predictions in 1950 of 2010.

highly amusing.

And it is about a cloning-based caste system?? (How much does "Gattaca" own to that book??)

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-05-01 08:20am

brave new world has a caste system, yes.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2003-05-01 10:06am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Never. Because by that time my armageddon virus will have taken out those I do not want.

Quiet fool! Do you want then knowing?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

gene modification

gene modification

Re: gene modification