A potential cure for HIV - manipulating the human genome

[i_love_burritos]

Mutation is random, you just don't know.

 

 

 

In this type of retro-virus definitley not. Most mutations regarding viruses and most single "bodied" organisms happen in response to drugs, or accidently in genome transcription. HIV mutates rapidly and only because of its frequent attachment to certain cells that force it to churn out more viruses. HIV never mutates into a "new virus" as such but slowly changes its indiviudual characteristic to adapt to foreign influences.

 

 

 

I was about to say that this was interesting and then I read Trapical's post.

 

 

 

What Trapical said is very relevant.

[warri0r45]

No, no, no, no, no.

 

 

 

This will never happen, the most basal rule any geneticist leans is never, NEVER, NEVER manipulate the DNA of humans. I mean, i can't stress this enough. The North Koreans and Iranians even follow this rule, and for good reason. Regular medicine like surgery is fine, if you screw up the person dies, no big deal. If you screw up with someone's DNA they leave your office carrying the DNA, and that mutated DNA is now in the general population. They can have kids, etc, and mankind's genome will forever be tainted. It took us billions of years to get to the point where we are genetically, trillions of humans/apes have died to evolve us to this point. If we start "activating genes" or what not, genes that we evolved to leave inactive, we screw up everything our species has lived and died for. I mean, look what we did to the wheat crops, 100 years ago their were thousands of species of wheat. Now we have about four, and a single virus can wipe out an entire species since we removed genetic diversity to increase crop yeilds.

 

 

 

Trust me, no scientist will ever even remotely consider doing DNA work in humans. It really would be like asking a historian to burn down the library of congress.

 

 

 

I don't see what the problem is, and I've never heard this "basic rule" before. Sure, it's risky and we're not in the right place to go around doing it at the moment, but I can see the day where it's safe enough (and even common place) to use gene therapy to cure things like cystic fibrosis, or even reactivate a pseudogene.

 

 

 

It's the kind of thing that obviously requires strict oversight, but there are scientists who have done DNA work like gene therapy in humans.

 

 

 

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/H ... tml#recent

 

UK researchers from the UCL Institute of Ophthalmology and Moorfields Eye Hospital NIHR Biomedical Research Centre have announced results from the worlds first clinical trial to test a revolutionary gene therapy treatment for a type of inherited blindness. The results, published today in the New England Journal of Medicine, show that the experimental treatment is safe and can improve sight. The findings are a landmark for gene therapy technology and could have a significant impact on future treatments for eye disease.

[Madmanpur3]

I don't see how you can blame people for getting AIDS in non-developed countries. Do you honestly believe Africans could have walked over to the corner store and buy a pack of condoms? Or maybe you just don't care about them or their lifestyle. This obviously doesn't only apply to Africa, but that entire continent does have an enormous death toll from AIDS alone, especially when combined with Malaria. You can be sure that the majority of the population that has AIDS aren't little teenagers fooling around.

 

 

 

Yes, my anti-preventing view does have a basis, which is that every attempt to prevent some sort of sickness or life threatening problem never works the way it's supposed to. We're better off just finding a cure asap. If you can demonstrate one major global problem that has been resolved just by prevention, I may consider leaving the AIDS battle at the condom/abstinence level.

 

 

 

If they fix all sexually transmitted diseases, maybe sex won't be frowned upon so much anymore... Sorry if my post did not make sense in some bits, it's 1:28 AM & I ought to be in bed.

I believe by now those non-developed countries know what AIDS is, and know how it's transmitted - so if they don't want to get it, they know how to prevent it. In no way am I saying I'm better than they are, at all, and to be honest (I'm sure Trapical would agree) they'd be better off helping the malaria victims seeing as how that isn't something you can just naturally prevent.

 

 

 

"If you can demonstrate one major global problem that has been resolved just by prevention", well that's sort of a silly statement...seeing as how if it's prevented there isn't one to demonstrate. But I'll give it a shot anyways: Nuclear war.

 

 

 

Also, I'm not saying sex is bad...I'm not a prude. What I'm saying is that if you are going to have sex, at least make sure you're not gonna contract AIDS from it.

[l0l0lpur34]

I don't see why so much money and so many resources are being put towards the "fight against AIDS/HIV" when we already have methods of prevention that prove essentially 100% effective.

 

 

 

1. Don't do drugs that require needles (and if you ignore this and do, make sure they are clean needles).

 

2. Don't have random sex.

 

3. Don't let idiots deal with the blood in hospitals.

 

*credit to a friend of mine for that list*

 

 

 

Personally I'd rather see all this attention put towards AIDS/HIV to go towards other diseases which we cannot prevent so easily. Honestly, in most cases it's the person's own fault that they have it.

 

ignorant

[Zierro]

I don't see why so much money and so many resources are being put towards the "fight against AIDS/HIV" when we already have methods of prevention that prove essentially 100% effective.

 

 

 

1. Don't do drugs that require needles (and if you ignore this and do, make sure they are clean needles).

 

2. Don't have random sex.

 

3. Don't let idiots deal with the blood in hospitals.

 

*credit to a friend of mine for that list*

 

 

 

Personally I'd rather see all this attention put towards AIDS/HIV to go towards other diseases which we cannot prevent so easily. Honestly, in most cases it's the person's own fault that they have it.

 

ignorant

 

 

 

He's absolute right though. All you have to do is control your horny urges and only have intercourse with someone you can trust doesn't have it.

[Lateralus]

I don't see why so much money and so many resources are being put towards the "fight against AIDS/HIV" when we already have methods of prevention that prove essentially 100% effective.

 

 

 

1. Don't do drugs that require needles (and if you ignore this and do, make sure they are clean needles).

 

2. Don't have random sex.

 

3. Don't let idiots deal with the blood in hospitals.

 

*credit to a friend of mine for that list*

 

 

 

Personally I'd rather see all this attention put towards AIDS/HIV to go towards other diseases which we cannot prevent so easily. Honestly, in most cases it's the person's own fault that they have it.

 

ignorant

 

 

 

He's absolute right though. All you have to do is control your horny urges and only have intercourse with someone you can trust doesn't have it.

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be better if you could just go with your urges if you wanted to? Keeping AIDS as some kind of abstinence encouragement is disgusting (not that I think you're advocating that).

[Zierro]

Wouldn't it be better if you could just go with your urges if you wanted to?

 

 

 

It would, but only if it didn't mean we had to use so much money and resources to reach that point. I think it comes down to our different perceptions of the stigma around sex.

[l0l0lpur34]

I don't see why so much money and so many resources are being put towards the "fight against AIDS/HIV" when we already have methods of prevention that prove essentially 100% effective.

 

 

 

1. Don't do drugs that require needles (and if you ignore this and do, make sure they are clean needles).

 

2. Don't have random sex.

 

3. Don't let idiots deal with the blood in hospitals.

 

*credit to a friend of mine for that list*

 

 

 

Personally I'd rather see all this attention put towards AIDS/HIV to go towards other diseases which we cannot prevent so easily. Honestly, in most cases it's the person's own fault that they have it.

 

ignorant

 

 

 

He's absolute right though. All you have to do is control your horny urges and only have intercourse with someone you can trust doesn't have it.

 

He's absolutely wrong and obviously knows nothing about what is causing the HIV epidemic in sub-saharan africa to get worse.

[Zierro]

Now that I think about it, that is only assuming everyone has consenting sex... I forgot about rape.

[Wisp]

There's always the chance of being born with aids, the lack of money to buy condoms or other protections, the lack of condoms. In a lot of areas, a hooker would cost you less than a condom. The thing is, in most of the really poor areas that are affected, there's no way to tell if someone has aids. Rape is also a huge problem in several parts of the world, and there's no much you can do about that.

[Bauke]

Mutation is random, you just don't know.

 

 

 

In this type of retro-virus definitley not. Most mutations regarding viruses and most single "bodied" organisms happen in response to drugs, or accidently in genome transcription. HIV mutates rapidly and only because of its frequent attachment to certain cells that force it to churn out more viruses. HIV never mutates into a "new virus" as such but slowly changes its indiviudual characteristic to adapt to foreign influences.

 

 

 

I was about to say that this was interesting and then I read Trapical's post.

 

 

 

What Trapical said is very relevant.

 

Mutation is always random. Mutation rate however, might vary. And retro-viruses do have a high mutation rate, due to the fact that they don't have proof reading mechanisms. And yes, certain chemical compounds might be mutagens, thus increasing mutation rate. However, which nucleotides might chance, and what the chance will be is totally random. Thus, nothing can be said about the outcome of a mutation. It is true that viruses can adapt to drugs and such, but that principle is covered by natural selection. It has nothing to do with the process that is mutation. It's simply the fact that only the viruses that can adapt will be able to replicate, and others can't, leaving only the adapted viruses.

 

 

 

In short: no, mutation is random.

 

No, no, no, no, no.

 

 

 

This will never happen, the most basal rule any geneticist leans is never, NEVER, NEVER manipulate the DNA of humans. I mean, i can't stress this enough. The North Koreans and Iranians even follow this rule, and for good reason. Regular medicine like surgery is fine, if you screw up the person dies, no big deal. If you screw up with someone's DNA they leave your office carrying the DNA, and that mutated DNA is now in the general population. They can have kids, etc, and mankind's genome will forever be tainted. It took us billions of years to get to the point where we are genetically, trillions of humans/apes have died to evolve us to this point. If we start "activating genes" or what not, genes that we evolved to leave inactive, we screw up everything our species has lived and died for. I mean, look what we did to the wheat crops, 100 years ago their were thousands of species of wheat. Now we have about four, and a single virus can wipe out an entire species since we removed genetic diversity to increase crop yeilds.

 

 

 

Trust me, no scientist will ever even remotely consider doing DNA work in humans. It really would be like asking a historian to burn down the library of congress.

 

Plenty of scientists that would want to induce genetic changes in humans. Fact is legislation won't allow that. But it is to be expected that once more is known about DNA manipulation in vivo and we can guarantee safety, new therapies will arise. It will certainly be something that is highly on the list of research potentials, and the so called "basal rule" you're talking about does not exist at all.

 

 

 

That genetic manipulation does not have to lead to bad consequences is proven by the fact that a lot of genetic variation exists in the human population. Lots of genes are turned on or off in different human beings.

 

 

 

Additionally, it would also be possible to turn genes back on when they are turned off by mutation in the first place. Think of cancer therapies, for example. Take P53 for example. If would be able to turn the P53 gene back on, we would be able to diminish quite a few tumours.

[MC_Kejml]

I smell Resident evil and Metal gear solid.

[RpgGamer]

Sounds interestnig, and plausible. I'm glad they finnially found something to fight it. Only took a few trillion dollars.

 

 

 

On a more pessimistic note, I don't trust this solution at all. Playing with our very evelutionary genes is a very risky buisness. What if this method is botched some how? What are the worst case scenario side effects? What if it unintentinally "turns off" a more important gene? Until these questions are answered and resolved, I suggest not using this method of prevention. But it's a great start.

[Powman3]

I don't see why so much money and so many resources are being put towards the "fight against AIDS/HIV" when we already have methods of prevention that prove essentially 100% effective.

 

 

 

1. Don't do drugs that require needles (and if you ignore this and do, make sure they are clean needles).

 

2. Don't have random sex.

 

3. Don't let idiots deal with the blood in hospitals.

 

*credit to a friend of mine for that list*

 

 

 

Personally I'd rather see all this attention put towards AIDS/HIV to go towards other diseases which we cannot prevent so easily. Honestly, in most cases it's the person's own fault that they have it.

 

 

 

I love how you're being completely stupid on the subject...

[i_love_burritos]

[hide=Quote Chain]

Mutation is random, you just don't know.

 

 

 

In this type of retro-virus definitley not. Most mutations regarding viruses and most single "bodied" organisms happen in response to drugs, or accidently in genome transcription. HIV mutates rapidly and only because of its frequent attachment to certain cells that force it to churn out more viruses. HIV never mutates into a "new virus" as such but slowly changes its indiviudual characteristic to adapt to foreign influences.

 

 

 

I was about to say that this was interesting and then I read Trapical's post.

 

 

 

What Trapical said is very relevant.

 

Mutation is always random. Mutation rate however, might vary. And retro-viruses do have a high mutation rate, due to the fact that they don't have proof reading mechanisms. And yes, certain chemical compounds might be mutagens, thus increasing mutation rate. However, which nucleotides might chance, and what the chance will be is totally random. Thus, nothing can be said about the outcome of a mutation. It is true that viruses can adapt to drugs and such, but that principle is covered by natural selection. It has nothing to do with the process that is mutation. It's simply the fact that only the viruses that can adapt will be able to replicate, and others can't, leaving only the adapted viruses.

 

 

 

In short: no, mutation is random.

 

No, no, no, no, no.

 

 

 

This will never happen, the most basal rule any geneticist leans is never, NEVER, NEVER manipulate the DNA of humans. I mean, i can't stress this enough. The North Koreans and Iranians even follow this rule, and for good reason. Regular medicine like surgery is fine, if you screw up the person dies, no big deal. If you screw up with someone's DNA they leave your office carrying the DNA, and that mutated DNA is now in the general population. They can have kids, etc, and mankind's genome will forever be tainted. It took us billions of years to get to the point where we are genetically, trillions of humans/apes have died to evolve us to this point. If we start "activating genes" or what not, genes that we evolved to leave inactive, we screw up everything our species has lived and died for. I mean, look what we did to the wheat crops, 100 years ago their were thousands of species of wheat. Now we have about four, and a single virus can wipe out an entire species since we removed genetic diversity to increase crop yeilds.

 

 

 

Trust me, no scientist will ever even remotely consider doing DNA work in humans. It really would be like asking a historian to burn down the library of congress.

 

Plenty of scientists that would want to induce genetic changes in humans. Fact is legislation won't allow that. But it is to be expected that once more is known about DNA manipulation in vivo and we can guarantee safety, new therapies will arise. It will certainly be something that is highly on the list of research potentials, and the so called "basal rule" you're talking about does not exist at all.

 

 

 

That genetic manipulation does not have to lead to bad consequences is proven by the fact that a lot of genetic variation exists in the human population. Lots of genes are turned on or off in different human beings.

 

 

 

Additionally, it would also be possible to turn genes back on when they are turned off by mutation in the first place. Think of cancer therapies, for example. Take P53 for example. If would be able to turn the P53 gene back on, we would be able to diminish quite a few tumours.

[/hide]

 

 

 

The way you initially phrased it, you were implying that randomness was the main determinant. Mutation can refer to how it mutates, when it mutates, the actual mutation, the effect before and after mutation. Your original post was more than ambiguous, if you want to argue semantics, feel free to PM me. :P

 

 

 

You second post, however makes more sense.