Creative Genetics

[fastortoise]

I always try making threads where people actually feel the need to reply, so I avoid creating opinionated, news, or any sort of controversial threads that go nowhere. After a long period of avoiding making a new thread, I've finally found something worth thinking and discussing on here. Obviously this first post is too long, I will trim it down as time goes along.

 

Scientists. Even though I'm surrounded by them on a daily basis, I usually avoid them. When I look at them I see empty bodies and brains, working on a research project even though they already know it's outcome - they are just pleasing their grant donators. Unless a scientists is extremely well established in his or her institution, there is no way they will do any groundbreaking paradigm shifting research. This frustrates me to no end - but thats really the only way science and the government work hand in hand. Even though you may think scientists as extremely creative minds, they are always confined to the thin restrictions imposed on them by people who have their own agendas. Most fields of science are like this. If you're a biologist, you can go out and observe primate activity and establish a conclusion on how their society works. If you're a scientist who does science for the pure curiosity of knowledge, you are content. If you're like me and want to mess around with the basis of all life, regular science is a bore.

 

That's why genetics is so appealing to me - we have discovered Nature's toolbox that created every single living organism on the Earth, past and present. We now have the knowledge to use this toolbox for our own good: we can screen human embryos for common diseases and only implant the healthy ones, we can duplicate entire grape plant genomes in order to make giant grapes, we can clone sheep, dogs and humans if they let us, we can engineer plants to mine out toxic substances from the soil and deposit them safely, we can synthesize an entire genome, insert it into a bacterial cell stripped of its DNA, and it just picks it up and chugs along happily.

 

These are things we can already do, only decades after genetics/biochemistry was established. My question is, what could we do? I'm not interested in what we should do - I've been in enough boring university lectures on ethics to understand the general population's opinion about genetic matters. I want you to let your mind work, think about what potential uses our knowledge of genetics can help our everyday lives. Don't be afraid if you think your ideas are too radical - given enough time, I honestly believe we can mold life however we please. Thinking about these things is truly the only thing keeping me in the field of science, and I'm sure many of you also get excited when they think about the future. Humans living indefinitely? Bacterial factories converting carbon dioxide into oxygen? Super cows with extra delicious and tender meat? The point here is to post creative well thought out ideas, so save your sarcastic "WOOO POKEMON" or "BUTLER DRAGONS" posts for another thread.

[Grim_]

The most interesting part of genetics for me is the betterment of the human race (ie the weeding out of all harmful genetic disorders [not just through natural selection either]). Well that and the whole "super crops" and things like that.

[mcneilp]

I think apart from the obvious development of humans, making us resistant to disease/infection kind of thing, you could tinker about with the genetics of animals and plants to maximise the amount of "food" we can get from them. A bit like selective breeding, really.

Having wings would be pretty sweet as well but that'd probably take a back seat until humans are disease resistant and what not.

[Kenshinjapan]

The scary thing that comes to mind is the resurface to the 'ideal' race similar to what Hitler created. We all know that society likes to comform and what would change this ideal when genetics are able to be altered as well.

[SeanyTheSailor]

I believe that when fiddling with genetics we walk a fine line, like kenshinjapan said about a master race. Also consider, you could make supersoliders. Another thing I just thought of is (and this woudl require a lot of manipulation and secrecy) over time you could make people completely dependent by giving them a sort of disease (diabetes for example) so they have to come to you in order to live. But i do also try to look at how it could be used for good, curing of diseases, increasing food production, all that stuff. I kind of recently read this thing about how scientists now believed the could make a healthy human baby without the need of a physical mother or father. This sort of reminds me of "A Brave New World" a book I didn't really enjoy but was creepy in the way it was sort of possible. Another thing this reminds me of is in science I believe this is the perfect example of that line where you have to ask, "We always wanted to know can we, can we, can we, no one ever asked if we should."

[EarthySun]

That second paragraph made me want to vomit with rage.

 

Also, OT: I think that genetic science used to create specifically-tailored offspring of a species could be very beneficial and also a possible future. However, I doubt it will be here any time soon (if ever). I don't think it's very plausible, to say the least, that we'll be able to choose anything exactly, but we might be able to (for example) make cows that have naturally tender meat (not veal).

 

Edit: My opinion is also that this topic is stupid to argue about. :\ With genetic science being nowhere near this, nor having any hint of it being on the near horizon, I think we can safely say that conversations like these are a waste of time. :P

[anonymous_user]

There are a few advantages that other animals have. Some things may be resistant to heat or electricity and it might be useful if a human took these qualities. You could create different types of humans designed for different jobs. A silly example would be a roach-man working in a nuclear power plant. But I don't see anything like that happening if the morality-obsessed people get their say and of course some things may go horribly wrong. I think the best way we can go further as an intelligent species is by dabbling in the more complex reaches of science otherwise the world wouldn't change much.

[Faux]

I actually agree with the second par. Most "scientists" jump on the bandwagon that will get them the most grant (ie global warming)

[Romy]

Cure HIV! Yeah!

[fastortoise]

That second paragraph made me want to vomit with rage.

 

Also, OT: I think that genetic science used to create specifically-tailored offspring of a species could be very beneficial and also a possible future. However, I doubt it will be here any time soon (if ever). I don't think it's very plausible, to say the least, that we'll be able to choose anything exactly, but we might be able to (for example) make cows that have naturally tender meat (not veal).

 

Edit: My opinion is also that this topic is stupid to argue about. :\ With genetic science being nowhere near this, nor having any hint of it being on the near horizon, I think we can safely say that conversations like these are a waste of time. :P

The point is to imagine how our world would be like in the future if we were given a pass to mold life using genome engineering. A lot of people came up with what could go wrong, and I find the post about engineering humans to have a hidden disease, easily activated by whoever made them, really interesting. We can already do this at the organism level (viruses do it all the time), so its very plausible to do it at the embryo level, too.

 

I was thinking less about humans and more about amplifying cool animals/plant traits, and in what way they'd be practical.

[mcneilp]

I actually agree with the second par. Most "scientists" jump on the bandwagon that will get them the most grant (ie global warming)

I'd agree with the part about global warming. A couple of my courses this year at uni were taught by professors and senior students concerned with "environmental" science (things like meteorology, oceanography and geoscience, among others) and a high number had ongoing research projects which related to global warming and climate change. None of the professors said anything about obtaining grants but a PhD student made a few jokes about how climate change projects were getting a ton of grant money. Makes sense i suppose, as its quite a major concern at this point in time.

[Tim]

Cure HIV! Yeah!

This. I prefer them focusing on the common killers/infections before we go making superhuman armies and the next genocide of SH verse SH or Zombies.

[Abc1230]

Isn't this exactly what Gattaca was about?

[The Dark Lord]

Have you read Brave New World?

 

Ford bless your soul if you haven't.

 

This. I prefer them focusing on the common killers/infections before we go making superhuman armies and the next genocide of SH verse SH or Zombies.

 

The problem with trying to find cures for every disease is that we're in the long-term just replacing illness for some other problems. It's nature's way of keeping the population controlled, but we are wiping that factor out. As humans, we naturally want to "defeat death" or try to find cures to every disease, but overpopulation will still screw us over in the long-term, whether it be through starvation or something more sinister... It's deliciously ironic, no?

[fastortoise]

Yes I've read Brave New World. I'm just not as interested in human genetics as you guys are - I prefer thinking about how we could mold and use Nature's successful organisms for our own well being. I don't think the ethical people would ever let us engineer human embryo genomes, even though we could.

[Guthorm]

Genetics is a dangerous territory, curing all diseases would lead to over population, the parents would "tweak" their children to be perfect, and we are messing with thousands of years of evolution. There may be some unforeseen consequence if we are not careful, what if some DNA mixed with some other DNA created some super virus? Nobody knows.

[tortilliachp]

The scary thing that comes to mind is the resurface to the 'ideal' race similar to what Hitler created. We all know that society likes to comform and what would change this ideal when genetics are able to be altered as well.

 

Godwin's law: this topic does not facillitate discussion. a scientist "who cannot create paradigm change because of his affiliation with economy" has predicted with high accuracy how this topic will turn out. Paradigms don't just change at a whim: in today's scientific world our scientific models are extremely well documented in most areas. Consider the big bang theory: it predicted blackbody radiation as background radiation at 2,6K due to the big bang itself and the expansion of the universe. That was verified later, and so the big bang theory is so likely to be correct, there are no concievable scientific alternatives to how the universe expanded / has existed.

 

Contrastingly, the relationships modern sciences like sociology, neurology, physical psychology and genetics explore so complex relationships of so many individual variables that the conclusions are almost all provisionary. Thus, advances in genetic theory are at such a basic step that almost all the "results" are theories that have a decent probability of being right. Currently, the human genome has been mapped. However, that's simply like opening a book. We have started identifiying genes as letters in this book. we don't even have the alphabet yet, so genetic research is in its baby stages. After identifying the letters, we must then identify words, then sentences, paragraphs and the structure of the work. only then can we start decyphering the language of the sentences. Considering much simpler languages, like Linear B have not been decoded, and egyptian was only cracked due to a lucky rosetta stone, we're at least 50 years away from finding out what individual genes do. After that we can start examining the relationships between genes on the level of an organism.

 

No, for the forseeable future genetics will remain trial and error, as it is today. That leaves an "I think that...." topic, where little meaningful discussion can take place. The tweaking of children etc. is science fiction of the distant future

[michel555555]

curing HIV and other diseases is good and all but personally i would like to see genetics advance to the point where we can actually start manipulationg our own DNA. Not small things like hair or eye clour, male or femal, ect. but grander things like actually growing wings or gills, and have people actually start being able to live underwater with no support gear or experiance flying first hand.

 

But it won't happen in many centuries if not millenia. a man can dream though, a man can dream...

[The Dark Lord]

curing HIV and other diseases is good and all but personally i would like to see genetics advance to the point where we can actually start manipulationg our own DNA. Not small things like hair or eye clour, male or femal, ect. but grander things like actually growing wings or gills, and have people actually start being able to live underwater with no support gear or experiance flying first hand.

 

But it won't happen in many centuries if not millenia. a man can dream though, a man can dream...

 

Hmm... I foresee a caste system if that happens.

 

Daughter: I'm marrying Fred, father. May we have your blessing?

Father: Fred! That Finback?! I'll be damned if you destroy our blood line by marrying that mongrel!

Daughter: But why......

Father: No buts. If you marry that slimy mongrel, I will disown you. MY WORD'S FINAL!

[Alg]

I was thinking less about humans and more about amplifying cool animals/plant traits, and in what way they'd be practical.

So like:

Photosynthesis: Our key to ending world hunger.

[Jeffwilson99]

I want you to let your mind work, think about what potential uses our knowledge of genetics can help our everyday lives. Don't be afraid if you think your ideas are too radical - given enough time, I honestly believe we can mold life however we please.

 

Well why do you think we should use genetics to improve our lives? If you ask me, the problems that humans face aren't genetic ones, they are problems of society, ones that can't be fixed by genetics.

[Barihawk]

I want you to let your mind work, think about what potential uses our knowledge of genetics can help our everyday lives. Don't be afraid if you think your ideas are too radical - given enough time, I honestly believe we can mold life however we please.

 

Well why do you think we should use genetics to improve our lives? If you ask me, the problems that humans face aren't genetic ones, they are problems of society, ones that can't be fixed by genetics.

 

In addition to this, having a bunch of idiots who's ancestors could afford to have their genes manipulated and are therefore resistant against disease/etc would only add to those social problems.

 

The sheer thought that your genes were better than others led to centuries of slavery, warfare, and genocide. Imagine if you actually were. There's a reason that selective breeding/genetic manipulation of the genome is portrayed as VILLAINY in fiction. Dr Moreau, Moonrake, Khan Noonien Singh...even if the genetically enhanced humans kept in line, others would cause strife on the fear of them.

[assassin_696]

I actually agree with the second par. Most "scientists" jump on the bandwagon that will get them the most grant (ie global warming)

 

Are you suggesting more money shouldn't be allocated to researching issues like climate change instead of things which have less importance for our immediate future? Of course there's money in it, there's money in it because it's a pretty important issue.

 

As for the topic, I have no problem with looking into genetically enhancing humans. I think the knee-jerk reaction to it being morally wrong assumes that all genetic enhancements would be the same. Anyway, this book by Robert Harris puts forward a good ethical and moral case for why you'd want to enhance humans.

[fastortoise]

I want you to let your mind work, think about what potential uses our knowledge of genetics can help our everyday lives. Don't be afraid if you think your ideas are too radical - given enough time, I honestly believe we can mold life however we please.

 

Well why do you think we should use genetics to improve our lives? If you ask me, the problems that humans face aren't genetic ones, they are problems of society, ones that can't be fixed by genetics.

Very true. But I'm talking more about sustainability problems, like trying to keep the atmospheric content constant, the earth nice and nutrient filled for our plants to grow, make enough energy for future generations which will undoubtedly consume a lot, ect. And all this would have to be done by genetically engineering other lifeforms, not us.

 

Here's my train of thought:

Humans noticed that caves were an ideal place to live & reproduce, but not caves are not widespread. So they took rocks out of their natural habitats and constructed houses.

Then, humans noticed that mammals living in cold climates had a thick fur coat. So they killed wholly mammoths and other big mammals and made their own fur.

Soon after, they noticed a pattern in flower production in different parts of their region. So they wandered the place, and every time they stopped they had a nice field of food ready to be eaten if they calculated their timing properly. This soon led to farming.

Now, we are starting to understand the intricacies of nature and how it's nature's diversity that leads to more "natural services" and thus wealth. We now know things like phytoplankton have the same nitrogen:carbon:phosphorus ratios as deep sea rocks, and largely contribute to our atmospheric content. What I imagine our next step to be is to use to ocean's large surface area to introduce a lot of phytoplankton, happily converting CO2 to O2. But they won't be able to live in every climate found across the ocean, so we will have to genetically engineer their "software" in order to maximize their numbers.

[Jeffwilson99]

I suppose that isn't a bad idea, of course taking into consideration the possible side-effects in the ecosystem. Still, It kinda falls back on the notion that science will fix all our problems. Which I guess is another debate all together.