StemCell Therapy

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 mainstream for saving lives of many people. A lot of human genetic engineering pros and cons have been involved since the evolution of genetic engineering. Mentioned below are some important advantages or pros of genetic engineering:

Other human genetic engineering pros and cons include the desirable characteristics in different plants and animals at the same time convenient. One can also do the manipulation of genes in trees or big plants. This will enable the trees to absorb increased amount of carbon dioxide, and it will reduce the effects of global warming. However, there is a question from critics that whether man has the right to do such manipulations or alterations in the genes of natural things.

With human genetic engineering, there is always a chance for altering the wheat plants genetics, which will then enable it to grow insulin. Human genetic engineering pros and cons have been among the concern of a lot of people involved in genetic engineering. Likewise the pros, certain cons are there of using the genetic engineering. Mentioned below are the cons of human genetic engineering:

The evolution of genetic engineering gets the consideration of being the biggest breakthroughs in the history of mankind after the evolution of atomic energy, and few other scientific discoveries. However, human genetic engineering pros and cons together have contributed a lot in creating a controversial image of it among the people.

All these eventualities have forced the government of many countries to make strict legislation laws to put restrictions on different experiment being made on human genetic engineering. They have made this decision by considering different human genetic engineering pros and cons.

Human Genetic Engineering Pros And Cons

3.12 (62.36%) 3295 votes

Read more:
Human Genetic Engineering Pros And Cons

Step 1: Earn a Bachelor's Degree

A genetic engineer starts by earning a bachelor's degree, typically in a branch of the physical sciences, such as biology or chemistry. Some schools offer undergraduate programs in genetic engineering or in closely-related fields such as biological engineering. Curricula typically include rigorous courses in calculus, biology, chemistry and physics.

A bachelor's degree may be sufficient educational preparation for some entry-level careers in genetic engineering. However, many employers only hire candidates with advanced degrees (master's or Ph.D.). Advanced degree programs allow aspiring genetic engineers to gain valuable experience through laboratory-based research. To carry out genetic engineering research independently, one should expect to earn a doctoral degree, and to advance in a genetic engineering field, one usually needs a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) degree. You may pursue a degree in biochemistry or biophysics. If you want to treat human patients, you'll likely need a medical degree as well.

While attending a graduate school, it is a good idea for students to participate in an internship program to gain experience. Universities often have fellowship and research programs that allow students to receive relevant training before leaving the academic environment. The Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES), The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other professional or governmental organizations in the field may post internship opportunities.

Genetic engineering is a broad field. Engineers can specialize in agriculture, healthcare and other specialties. They may work as molecular biologists, breast cancer researchers, forensic scientists and genetic counselors, among other positions. These careers can be found at universities, healthcare organizations, research and development firms, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and government agencies.

Aspiring genetic engineers seeking to advance their careers may consider joining a professional membership organization, such as the Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES), which offers its members access to continuing education, professional training, networking opportunities, industry-related events and other resources for professional growth and career advancement.

Genetic engineers commonly need a master's degree or a doctoral degree in a related field, such as biophysics or biochemistry, though some entry-level positions may be available to individuals with a relevant bachelor's degree.

Read more here:
Become a Genetic Engineer: Education and Career Roadmap

Over the last century, the field of genetics and biotechnology has greatly developed because of the better understanding of the gene. Because of the improvement of technology, scientists have already gone up until the manipulation of the genome (complete set of genes) of organisms. This process is called genetic engineering. In this article, we will explore 13 important genetic engineering pros and cons.

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.

In literature, there are in fact many synonyms of the term genetic engineering: genetic modification, genome manipulation, genetic enhancement, and many more. However, this term shall not be confused with cloning because genetic engineering involves the production of new set of genes while the latter only involves the production of the same copies of genes in the organism.

Genetic engineering is the process of manipulating an organisms genome using biotechnology and the products of it are either referred to as genetically modified or transgenic organisms. Check out the disadvantages of genetically modified foods here.

Basically, genetic engineering is done by inserting a gene of interest from sources like bacteria, viruses, plants, and animals into the target organism. As a result, the organism with the inserted gene of interest is now able to carry out the new trait or characteristic.

This technology grants us the ability to overcome barriers, exchange genes among organisms, and produce new organisms with favorable traits.

For a more detailed explanation of the process, check out this video below:

Now we will dive into the pros and cons of Genetic Engineering now.

Supporters of genetic engineering believe that genetic engineering is indeed safe and is still comparable to the traditional process of breeding in plants and animals. Advocates of genetic engineering support the technology primarily because of the following reasons:

Golden RiceA variety of food crops and products have already been modified in order to provide better nutrition for consumers. For instance, did you know that you can already have your daily requirement of vitamin A by eating rice alone? By inserting a gene that encodes for vitamin A to the gene of regular rice, scientists were able to create a new breed of rice plants called Golden Rice. Such discovery is very helpful to the diet of populations that consume rice.

Increased Resistance To PestsA common problem in farming and food production is the rapid infestation and rotting of crops. Using genetic engineering, scientists have already found a solution: by creating rot and pest resistant crops. By genetically engineering the gene that encodes for rotting in plants, the ability of a certain fruit to resist rotting is enhanced. In the case of pest resistance, scientists insert genes for toxin production into plants, thus resulting to them deterring their insect pests.

Belgian Blue CattleAnimals have already been modified in order to increase meat production. One example of a genetically modified animal for such purpose is the Belgian blue cattle which originated from Belgium, as the name suggests. Unlike regular cattle, this genetically engineered cattle has an impressive muscling known as double muscling. By inserting a gene that inhibits the production of myostatin (the protein that suppresses muscle growth), scientists were able to produce a new breed of cattle that has humongous body size ideal for meat production.

Novel Vaccine & Drugs In medicine, genetic engineering is used in order to produce various drugs like human growth hormone, insulin, and vaccines. Basically, a vaccine is a synthetic substance given in order to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against a certain disease. To do this, inactive forms of viruses or the toxins they produced are injected into the person being immunized.

Gene Doping Through the course of time, genetic engineering is no longer limited to plants and animals alone. Surprisingly, a study published in the journal Nature showed that genetic engineering in humans is already being performed in a process called gene doping. Unlike the known process of doping, which involves the use of performance enhancing drugs like growth hormones and steroids, gene doping involves the non-therapeutic use of genes and cells to improve athletic performance.

Designer Baby In addition to the above mentioned, did you know that using genetic engineering, you can already choose the type of baby you want to have? The term designer baby refers to a baby whose genetic makeup has been chosen in order to ensure that a certain gene will be present or to remove a certain unwanted trait. Although possible, this genetic technology has not yet been started because of continuing ethical debates.

On the other hand, 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:

Unintended Growth In short, there is no 100% chances that the genes inserted will be expressed. In fact, they can even end up in unexpected places. Such changes can contribute to alteration in the organisms growth, metabolism and response.

AllergensWhen GM crops were first introduced to the market, the possibility that they might cause allergies became the prime concern of consumers. Apparently, there have already been several studies which suggest that the genetic engineering may have increased natural allergens in crops. As alluded to earlier, the transfer of genes across organisms is prone to high probabilities of failures. For instance, the supposedly gene of interest is not transferred; instead, another gene for producing allergen is.

Antibiotic Resistance Another damaging effect of producing GM organisms is a condition called antibiotic resistance. In this phenomenon, the supposedly target organisms of antibiotics change in a way that they eventually become resistant to the drug. As a result, they will continue to survive, causing greater harm.

Loss of Biodiversity 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 in the environment will be more similar between individuals. So what? Loss biodiversity in the environment means lower chances of adaptation and survival of organisms to changing environment.

Source: CBC.ca In relation to the above point, the increase in the production of GM crops and animals may lead to the rise of invasive species. Because GM organisms are often better adapted to the environments that they were modified for, they out-compete naturally occurring plants and animals. In science, such organisms are termed as invasive species. They are basically organisms with uncontrollable growth of populations up to a degree that already harms organisms and the environment.

Because of the technology used to create genetically modified crops and animals, private companies that produce them do not share their products at a reasonable cost with the public.

BioethicsFor critics, genetic engineering has no resemblance to the natural process of breeding. This is because in the process, a different gene is forced to combine to the genes of an organism.

In addition, they believe that the process is somewhat disrupting the natural way and complexity of life. In addition to this, critics fear the misuse and abuse of biotechnology.

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

But theres really no doubt that with the rapid advancements in technology, the creation of GM organisms are also increasing.

What do you think? Are GM organisms slowly becoming the future?

13 Important Genetic Engineering Pros And Cons

See more here:
13 Important Genetic Engineering Pros And Cons | Bio Explorer

The MSPCAbelieves scientists ability to clone animals, to alter the genetic makeup of an animal, and to transfer pieces of genetic material from one species to another raises serious concerns for animals and humans alike.

This pagewill explore issues related to genetic engineering, transgenic animals, and cloned animals. It will examine the implications of genetic engineering on human and animal welfare and will touch on some related moral and ethical concerns that our society has so far failed to completely address.

Definitions

Problems related to the physical and psychological well-being of cloned and transgenic animals, significant ethical concerns about the direct manipulation of genetic material, and questions about the value of life itself must all be carefully weighed against the potential benefits of genetic engineering for disease research, agricultural purposes, vaccine development, pharmaceutical products, and organ transplants.

Genetic engineering is, as yet, an imperfect science that yields imperfect results.

Changes in animal growth and development brought about by genetic engineering and cloning are less predictable, more rapid, and often more debilitating than changes brought about through the traditional process of selective breeding.

This is especially apparent with cloning. Success rates are incredibly low; on average, less than 5% of cloned embryos are born and survive.

Clones are created at a great cost to animals. The clones that are successful, as well as those that do not survive and the surrogates who carry them, suffer greatly.Many of the cloned animals that do survive are plagued by severe health problems.

Offspring suffer from severe birth defects such as Large Offspring Syndrome (LOS), in which the cloned offspring are significantly larger than normal fetuses; hydrops, a typically fatal condition in which the mother or the fetus swells with fluid; respiratory distress; developmental problems; malformed organs; musculoskeletal deformities; or weakened immune systems, to name only a few.

Additionally, surrogates are subjected to repeated invasive procedures to harvest their eggs, implant embryos, or due to the offsprings birth defects surgical intervention to deliver their offspring. All of these problems occur at much higher rates than for offspring produced via traditional breeding methods.

Cloning increases existing animal welfare and environmental concerns related to animal agriculture.

In 1996, the birth of the ewe, Dolly, marked the first successful cloning of a mammal from adult cells. At the time of her birth, the researchers who created Dolly acknowledged the inefficiency of the new technology: it took 277 attempts to create this one sheep, and of these, only 29 early embryos developed, and an even smaller number of these developed into live fetuses. In the end, Dolly was the sole surviving clone. She was euthanized in 2003 at just 6 years of age, about half as old as sheep are expected to live, and with health problems more common in older sheep.

Since Dollys creation, the process of cloning has not demonstrated great improvement in efficiency or rates of success. A 2003 review of cloning in cattle found that less than 5% of cloned embryos transferred into surrogate cows survived; a 2016 study showedno noticeable increase in efficiency, with the success rate being about 1%.

Currently, research is focused on cloning for agricultural purposes. Used alone, or in concert with genetic engineering, the objective is to clone the best stock to reproduce whole herds or flocks with desired uniform characteristics of a specific trait, such as fast growth, leaner meat, or higher milk production. Cloning is often pursued to produce animals that grow faster so they can be slaughtered sooner and to raise more animals in a smaller space.

For example, transgenic fish are engineered to grow larger at a faster rate and cows injected with genetically engineered products to increase their productivity. Another example of this is the use of the genetically engineered drug, bovine growth hormone (BGH or BST) to increase milk production in dairy cows. This has also been associated with increased cases of udder disease, spontaneous abortion, lameness, and shortened lifespan. The use of BGH is controversial; many countries (such as Canada, Japan, Australia, and countries in the EU) do not allow it, and many consumers try to avoid it.A rise in transgenic animals used for agriculture will only exacerbate current animal welfare and environmental concerns with existing intensive farming operations.(For more information on farming and animal welfare, visit the MSPCAs Farm Animal Welfare page.)

Much remains unknown about thepotential environmental impacts of widespread cloning of animals. The creation of genetically identical animals leads to concerns about limited agricultural animal gene pools. The effects of creating uniform herds of animals and the resulting loss of biodiversity, have significant implications for the environment and for the ability of cloned herds to withstand diseases. This could make an impact on the entireagriculture industry and human food chain.

These issues became especiallyconcerning when, in 2008, the Federal Drug Administration not only approved the sale of meat from the offspring of cloned animals, but also did not require that it be labeled as such. There have been few published studies that examine the composition of milk, meat, or eggs from cloned animals or their progeny, including the safety of eating those products. The health problems associated with cloned animals, particularly those that appear healthy but have concealed illnesses or problems that appear unexpectedly later in life, could potentially pose risks to the safety of the food products derived from those animals.

Genetically Engineered Pets

Companion animals have also been cloned. The first cloned cat, CC, was created in 2001. CCs creation marked the beginning of the pet cloning industry, in which pet owners could pay to bank DNA from their companion dogs and cats to be cloned in the future. In 2005, the first cloned dog was created; later, the first commercially cloned dog followed at a cost of $50,000. Many consumers assume that cloning will produce a carbon copy of their beloved pet, but this is not the case. Even though the animals are genetically identical, they often do not resemble each other physically or behaviorally.

To date, the pet cloning industry has not been largely successful. However, efforts to make cloning a successful commercial venture are still being put forth.RBio (formerly RNL Bio), a Korean biotechnology company, planned to create a research center that would produce 1,000 cloned dogs annually by 2013. However, RBio, considered a black market cloner, failed to make any significant strides in itscloning endeavors and seems to have been replaced by other companies, such as South Korean-based Sooam Biotech, now the worlds leader in commercial pet cloning. Since 2006, Sooam has cloned over 800 dogs, in addition to other animals, such as cattle and pigs, for breed preservation and medical research.

While South Korean animal cloning expands, the interest in companion animal cloning in the United States continues to remain low. In 2009, the American company BioArts ceased its dog cloning services and ended its partnership with Sooam, stating in a press release that cloning procedures were still underdeveloped and that the cloning market itself was weak and unethical. However, in September 2016, ViaGen Petscreated the first American-born cloned puppy. ViaGen, an American company that has been cloning horses and livestock for over a decade, not only offers cloning services, but also offers to cyropreserve a pets DNA in case owners want to clone their pets in the future.

Of course, ViaGens process is more complicated than it sounds cloning and preservation costs pet owners up to tens of thousands of dollars, and the cloned animals are not necessarily behaviorally identical to their original counterparts. Furthermore, companion animal cloning causes concern not only because of the welfare issues inherent in the cloning process, but also because of its potential to contribute to pet overpopulation problem in the US, as millions of animals in shelters wait for homes.

Cloning and Medical Research

Cloning is also used to produce copies of transgenic animals that have been created to mimic certain human diseases. The transgenic animals are created, then cloned, producing a supply of animals for biomedical testing.

A 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision to permit the patenting of a microorganism that could digest crude oil had a great impact on animal welfare and genetic engineering. Until that time, the U.S. Patent Office had prohibited the patenting of living organisms. However, following the Supreme Court decision, the Patent Office interpreted this ruling to extend to the patenting of all higher life forms, paving the way for a tremendous explosion of corporate investment in genetic engineering research.

In 1988, the first animal patent was issued to Harvard University for the Oncomouse, a transgenic mouse genetically modified to be more prone to develop cancers mimicking human disease. Since then, millions of transgenic mice have been produced. Transgenic rats, rabbits, monkeys, fish, chickens, pigs, sheep, goats, cows, horses, cats, dogs, and other animals have also been created.

Both expected and unexpected results occur in the process of inserting new genetic material into an egg cell. Defective offspring can suffer from chromosomal abnormalities that can cause cancer, fatal bleeding disorders, inability to reproduce, early uterine death, lack of ability to nurse, and such diseases as arthritis, diabetes, liver disease, and kidney disease.

The production of transgenic animals is of concern because genetic engineering is often used to create animals with diseases that cause intense suffering. Among the diseases that can be produced in genetically engineered research mice are diabetes, cancer, cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Huntingtons disease, Alzheimers disease, and a rare but severe neurological condition called Lesch-Nyhansyndromethat causes the sufferer to self-mutilate. Animals carrying the genes for these diseases can suffer for long periods of time, both in the laboratory and while they are kept on the shelf by laboratory animal suppliers.

Another reason for the production of transgenic animals is pharming, in which sheep and goats are modified to produce pharmaceuticals in their milk. In 2009, the first drug produced by genetically engineered animals was approved by the FDA. The drug ATryn, used to prevent fatal blood clots in humans, is derived from goats into which a segment of human DNA has been inserted, causing them to produce an anticoagulant protein in their milk. This marks the first time a drug has been manufactured from a herd of animals created specifically to produce a pharmaceutical.

A company has also manufactured a drug produced in the milk of transgenic rabbits to treat a dangerous tissue swelling caused by a human protein deficiency. Yet another pharmaceutical manufacturer, PharmAnthene, was funded by the US Department of Defense to develop genetically engineered goats whose milk produces proteins used in a drug to treat nerve gas poisoning. The FDA also approved a drug whose primary proteins are also found in the milk of genetically engineered goats, who are kept at a farm in Framingham, Massachusetts. Additionally, a herd of cattle was recently developed that produces milk containing proteins that help to treat human emphysema. These animals are essentially used as pharmaceutical-production machines to manufacture only those substances they were genetically modified to produce; they are not used as part of the normal food supply chain for items such as meat or milk.

The transfer of animal tissues from one species to another raises potentially serious health issues for animals and humans alike.

Some animals are also genetically modified to produce tissues and organs to be used for human transplant purposes (xenotransplantation). Much effort is being focused in this area as the demand for human organs for transplantation far exceeds the supply, with pigs the current focus of this research.

While efforts to date have been hampered by a pig protein (porcine endogenous retroviruses- PERVs) that can cause organ rejection by the recipients immune system, efforts are underway to develop genetically modified swine with a human protein that would mitigate the chance of organ rejection. A Cambridge-based company, eGenesis, is using CRISPR to make organs grown in pigs more human-compatible. PERVs are often passed down from the surrogate mothers into the fetuses, which can then cause tumors, leukemia, and neuronal degeneration in the humans that receive the organs. eGenesis was able to remove 62 PERV genes when growing organs in petri dishes. Further, eGenesis has been working on inserting 12 human genes into the pig ovum to make the grown organs more human-like. Even in the early stages, genetic manipulation has impacts on both the mother pig and the genetically-modified piglets. One batch of embryos all died, and another batch resulted in a lot of miscarriages. Read more about the research here.

Little is known about the ways in which diseases can be spread from one species to another, raising concerns for both animals and people, and calling into question the safety of using transgenic pigs to supply organs for human transplant purposes. Scientists have identified various viruses common in the heart, spleen, and kidneys of pigs that could infect human cells. In addition, new research is shedding light on particles called prions that, along with viruses and bacteria, may transmit fatal diseases between animals and from animals to humans.

Acknowledging the potential for transmission of viruses from animals to humans, the National Institutes of Health, a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,issued a moratorium in 2015 onxenotransplantation until the risks are better understood, ceasing funding until more research has been carried out. With the science of genetic engineering, the possibilities are endless, but so too are the risks and concerns.

Genetic engineering research has broad ethical and moral ramifications with few established societal guidelines.

While biotechnology has been quietly revolutionizing the science for decades, public debate in the United Statesover the moral, ethical, and physical effects of this research has been insufficient. To quote Colorado State University Philosopher Bernard Rollin, We cannot control technology if we do not understand it, and we cannot understand it without a careful discussion of the moral questions to which it gives rise.

Research into non-animal methods of achieving some of the same goals looks promising.

Researchers in the U.S. and elsewhere have found ways togenetically engineer cereal grains to produce human proteins. One example of this, developed in the early 2000s, is a strain of rice that can produce a human protein used to treat cystic fibrosis. Wheat, corn, and barley may also be able to be used in similar ways at dramatically lower financial and ethical costs than genetically engineering animals for this purpose.

Here is the original post:
Genetic Engineering - MSPCA-Angell

In the old days, parents would wait to see and check what gender their baby is going to be. However, in today's era, people already know beforehand through ultrasound and whatnot. In addition, people have even discovered means of literally "creating" a child! They can choose what their baby is going to look like; that would diminish the feeling of surprise and joy, especially to the mother, when they see their baby come out and into this world.

I don't think genetic engineering is very good because it's sorta cheeky and is against the word of my God Buddha and Allah. It is bad and wrecks the genetic distrubutor modifiers and deoxy ribonucleic acid modifiers so isn't very good. My mom says that science is bad too so you shouldn't listen to the pros. Someday I will be President of Canada so listen hard

Today I am here not only brighten your view of this topic but to expose you to a different perspective. Gene modification is highly unethical to the environment and to our society today. It brings me great sadness to see that people debate about this topic since it seems clear to me that the knowledge given to us from God should be used to address the purpose of life, rather than perfecting the physical state of society. No human can ever be flawless that's just something we have to learn to accept. Our life expectancy cannot exceed a certain number of years. We should rely on God's will.

No one has the right to manipulate the creation of the ALMIGHTY.This has to be strictly prohibited as it can affect the religious status of different religions.So there should not be any discrimination among the society as it helps them build a better individuality.It helps in keeping the individuality intact

An important thing that happened in 1999 was that a series of surprising experiments were released in Britainexperiments that the industry had spent six months trying to suppress. They showed that laboratory rats that were fed genetically engineered potatoes had severe problems with their digestive tracts, immune responses, and the development of nearly all their vital organs. Their brains, hearts, livers, spleens, etc. were all significantly reduced in size, and many of the endocrine glands were enlarged. Some of this data was published in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, but the lead scientist was fired and the research was never finished. The suggestion is that much more extreme health effects are possible, but the industry has a huge vested interest in seeing to it that we dont ever know for sure.

Let's talk about food. The Monsanto company (for example) is not looking to benefit us. They are only digging in our wallets by patenting their gmo crops. Remember the incident where their seeds blew into other farmer's crops and contaminated them? Those innocent people were forced to destroy their hard-earned seeds because they supposedly belonged to Monsanto. They are also looking at "terminato?" Crops where the seeds they produce will be infertile (so seeds would have to be bought by the company every single year). Now imagine that spreading and contaminating our crops. So many more reasons why gmo is bad but not enough space.

Parents should not want to genetically engineer their babies, it is wrong on so many levels. They should love their kids the way they are and stop trying to change them to make them "perfect", and with genetic engineering comes many possible birth defects so they really shouldn't do that to their babies.

I am really leaning toward no I would first have to ask, when having this HGE therapy is there an increased risk and/or incidence of miscarriage, intrauterine fetal death, or stillbirth? Also, are there any known complications of the pregnancy that can be related to these HGE therapies? At this point I am looking into the HGE to treat genetic diseases in the fetus. Now this type of HGE is understandable. You might even say it is medically necessary, which is why most medical insurance companies will probably cover it, so I think HGE for this purpose is probably ok. But as far as HGE for "enhancement" goes, I don't think that is right. I am not sure what the procedure is or how often it does or does not cause a miscarriage, but there is that to consider. Also getting all these "enhancements" for our babies will cost quite a lot and only the elite will be able to afford it. This type of HGE is NOT medically necessary so most medical insurance companies will not cover it. I read that this means only approx. 10% of the population will be able to get these "enhancements" for their children. So what happens then? This 10% gets to be in some way superior to the kids whose parents couldn't afford the HGE so they were born all natural? By the way, what comes next? I mean are the scientists gonna go all 'Spiderman' on us? Or try to make some of the characters from the X-men?

Genetic engineering, is not natural, we have no idea of the harm that could come to us in the future. Once we start, who decides when enough it enough? It is interfering with nature and not for the better. We have survived this long without it and have thrived, the human race is not suffering, we are doing just the opposite. Genetic engineering is not needed to advance the human race.

Genetic Engineering does not seem ethical or natural. Fixing the DNA for something for our benefit is not right. We may be benefiting from the modified genes, but it is not natural and is fixed. With genetic manipulation, there will be an imbalance in nature. For an example, if we were to genetically manipulate humans so that they are resistant to diseases, it could off set nature. Diseases are meant to control the population, so that the human race does not grow too much and use up all of earths resources. Even if a human is genetically modified, it does not mean that they are perfect. By definition, perfect means that the human will have no flaws and will have the required elements or characteristics. But if the genetic manipulation changes all of these things to make a perfect human, than that person no longer has their own identity. Also, we will never be able to live forever and will only live for a certain number of years, since our body will break down and die. Even with genes fixed, it seems impossible.

Read more:
Is genetic engineering ethical? | Debate.org

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease. Gene targeting is a different technique that uses homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene, remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations.

An organism that is generated through genetic engineering is considered to be a genetically modified organism (GMO). The first GMOs were bacteria generated in 1973 and GM mice in 1974. Insulin-producing bacteria were commercialized in 1982 and genetically modified food has been sold since 1994. Glofish, the first GMO designed as a pet, was first sold in the United States December in 2003.

Genetic engineering techniques have been applied in numerous fields including agriculture, industrial biotechnology, terraforming, and most notably, medicine.

Humans have altered the genomes of species for thousands of years through selective breeding, or artificial selection as contrasted with natural selection, as well through mutagenesis. Genetic engineering as the direct manipulation of DNA by humans outside breeding and mutations has only existed since the 1970s. The term "genetic engineering" was first coined by Jack Williamson in his science fiction novel Dragon's Island, published in 1951, one year before DNA's role in heredity was confirmed by Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase, and two years before James Watson and Francis Crick showed that the DNA molecule has a double-helix structure.

In 1972 Paul Berg created the first recombinant DNA molecules by combining DNA from the monkey virus SV40 with that of the lambda virus. In 1973 Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen created the first transgenic organism by inserting antibiotic resistance genes into the plasmid of an E. coli bacterium. A year later Rudolf Jaenisch created a transgenic mouse by introducing foreign DNA into its embryo, making it the worlds first transgenic animal. These early achievements led torestrictions on genetic research after a backlash from environmental groups and members the scientific establishment. Activists groups strongly opposed to genetic engineering pushed for increasingly restrictive laws on research and the use of genetic engineering in crops.

In 1976 Genentech, the first genetic engineering company, was founded by Herbert Boyer and Robert Swanson and a year later the company produced a human protein (somatostatin) in E.coli. Genentech announced the production of genetically engineered human insulin in 1978. In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Diamond v. Chakrabarty case ruled that genetically altered life could be patented. The insulin produced by bacteria, branded humulin, was approved for release by the Food and Drug Administration in 1982. The early success of Genentech and the legal victory for genetics companies, led to an explosion of research into Genetically modified crops in the 1980s and 90s. Field trials in France and the US in 1986 introduced herbicide resistant tobacco plants, and transgenetic crops like the Bt Potato and the Flavr Savr tomato all entered mass market during this period.

Main Article: Biotech bubble

In 2010, scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute, announced that they had created the first synthetic bacterial genome. The researchers added the new genome to bacterial cells and selected for cells that contained the new genome. To do this the cells undergoes a process called resolution, where during bacterial cell division one new cell receives the original DNA genome of the bacteria, whilst the other receives the new synthetic genome. When this cell replicates it uses the synthetic genome as its template. The resulting bacterium the researchers developed, named Synthia, was the world's first synthetic life form. Synthia spawned a new wave research into and public outcry over Genetically modified organisms. Dubbed "Frankenfood," by environmental groups and left-wing politicians, a series of laws were passed across the US and Europe to identify and limit access to GMO foods.

The technology saw rapid advances in the 2010s and 2020s with the introduction of CRISPR-based gene editing technologies which radically reduced the cost while increasing the accuracy of gene editing. New government regulations were slow to be adopted, and at the time there were fears that CRISPR would make it possible for anyone to create a "super-bug" or antibiotic resistant bacteria or supervirus. Regulatory reforms during the Booker administration established national programs for researching gene editing technologies and created guidelines for the private sector to begin experimenting with CRISPR.

The public backlash against GMOs subsided in the face of the Flood, or more specifically the Famine of 2027 which resulted from the effects of climate change. Government support and funding for GMO crops spawned new strains of heartier corn, wheat, and potatoes that could endure harsher climates, and fish farms began growing strains of Tuna that were modified to handle the drop in salinity of the oceans. European nations began aggressively removing barriers to genetically modified organisms to remain competitive, while China and India faced protests and even riots demanding the import of high-yield rice and wheat strains to end the famine. Many of these new strains were originally developed for use on the Moon and Mars, and research capital from the Space Industry for terraforming GMOs nearly equaled government research funding. On the moon, the first Genetically modified tree, the Hedra Fir, was introduced in Armstrong city on the moon. Genetically modified strains of bacteria were introduced to break up lunar silicates and produce nutrients for a soil base; similar strains were employed across the solar system in early stages of terraforming. On Earth these technologies fueled an explosion in the biotech industry to cater to agribusiness, healthcare, and bio-industry.

When humans started being genetically modified, they were discriminated against by law. This led to the Augment Rights Movement which brought an end to such discrimination.

Genetic engineering in plants is the oldest form of commercially viable genetic technology. During the Famine of 2027, Bio-ethics protocols were relaxed to allow for more GM produce to be produced to feed the hungriest places on Earth. Golden Rice, developed in the early 1990s, was one such GM Plant that benefitted from the new policies. Rich in Beta Carotene, Golden Rice is widely claimed to have solved the problem of Vitamin A deficiencies in Children in underdeveloped countries. Golden Rice was the first of a new generation of GM Foods engineered to be healthier than their traditional cousins. To counter the risk of the new crops intermixing and contaminating those of the natural world, new regulations were put in place that required them to be grown in isolated areas. Agribusiness managed to capitalize on this with the creation of vertical farms in major cities, limiting the cost of exporting their goods, and containing them in a sealed environment. As of 2160, GM Plants account for 70% of the world's produce intake.

Genetically modified beef, poultry, and fish faced far tougher bio-ethics restrictions during their initial development, and for many years following the reforms of the late 2020s, remained tightly controlled by government regulators. It was on Mars where GMO livestock research grew virtually unchecked. The Famine of 2027 pushed regulators to loosen restrictions on genetically modified fish species. Strains of Tuna, salmon, and carp and tillapia were bred to thrive in the more desalinated oceans, but international fishing laws restricted them to fish farms and mobile fish pens, and further regulations placed demands on suicide genes to prevent them from breeding in the wild. During the Refreeze and rewilding projects of the late 21st and early 22nd century, these restrictions were removed and genetically modified/cloned species of fish were re-introduced into the wild. Beef and dairy cattle restrictions were loosened as well, however vat-grown meat had gained popularity as an inexpensive alternative to farmed meat.

Perhaps the greatest impact of the Genetic Engineering in livestock was the New Domestication movement of the 2030s. Genetically modified Bison, venison, and elk were introduced for farms with reduced adrenal glands, making them easier to corral. Cloned populations of Mammoth, Moa, and Dodo were created for exotic meat as well.

During the leadup to the Mars colonization program, Lunar Energy Ltd. contracted a number of research labs to develop and test genetically modified bacteria in lunar caverns for localized terraforming. Early strains of genetically modified Vostok bacteria were used to break down rock, bioleach atmospheric compounds and soil nutrients to produce a soil-base and buffer atmosphere. Additional research for genetically modified flora produced some of the first complex genetic hybrids, primarily strains including the growth pattern of English Ivy, which took advantage of the low gravity and large walls of the Moon's subsurface caves. The isolated habitats of the Lunar caverns also let terraforming techniques be refined before proceeding to Mars. On Mars more advanced strains were introduced to take advantage of the higher levels of surface radiation, salt and iron rich regolith, and cold surface temperatures. All these initial strains were bred with faulty metabolisms, designed to encourage rapid growth and reproduction, and therefore spread across the planet with relative ease. Later strains of algae, mosses, and lichens were introduced to build up this soil base and process the CO2 rich atmosphere into breathable air. For Mars, any organism introduced had to take advantage of the high concentration of salt and iron in the soil, a process largely achieved by inserting and modifying genes from plants typical of alkali rich soils on Earth. Additional modifications to the pigment of leaves to take advantage of the reduced light from the Sun were typical on Mars.

While phosphorescent fish were popular novelty pets in the 2000s and 2010s, it wasn't until the 2020s that GM Pets really came into high demand. Originally some animals were bred using artificial selection to produce tameness, as was the case with the Siberian Fox, however this took decades. Genetic modification sped up the process and gave greater control over desired qualities.

The first GM pet to gain widespread popularity, Genetically Stunted Animals or "Cubs," pets modified to stay in their juvenile stage, were introduced in 2024. These modifications made it possible to domesticate many animals previously too wild to keep in captivity. Breeders and kennel clubs initially opposed the use of genetic engineering in dogs as it threatened to destroy their industry by creating countless microbreeds. However, after California passed restrictions against purebreeding (which had led to a generation of inbred and unhealthy dogs being sold at over-inflated prices), several kennel club owners began creating companies to offer designer breeds that were not subject to the same restrictions as purebreds, and did not suffer the same health problems. Dog and cat breeds created in the 2020s and 2030s were noted for being far healthier than their natural counterparts and were generally held much longer lifespans and heightened intelligence to natural pets. By the 2040s, most pets could live almost as long as their owners, and held a similar position in family hierarchies as children in the Agrarian Age.

By mid-century GM seals, foxes, big cats, bears, wolves, and birds of prey had become the most popular GM pets on the market, and sterility modifications kept them from contaminating the biosphere or diluting the global pet market. New organisms introduced in the 2050s and 60s were recognized as completely separate species and featured several unique modifiers to their physiology, including unusual pigment and fur patterns, changes in size, and an increased ability to sense the mood and commands of humans.

Genetic engineering in humans was originally developed to screen for genetic deficiencies and hereditary diseases, and for much of its history was afforded only to the super rich. New genome manipulation technologies developed in the 2010s eventually made these treatments available for a larger portion of the population, and offered peace of mind to many parents with family illnesses. Under the healthcare reforms of the Price administration, these treatments were covered under Medicare as low birthrates reduced any serious burden they would impose on the treasury. For the first half of the 21st Century, genetic engineering in humans was conducted primarily through in vitro modification. By Biotech Boom of the 2040, it was estimated that 45% of births, the fetus was selected for beneficial health traits, basic appearance, sex, and even factors influencing sexual orientation.

Following WWIII, genetic modification for humans became increasingly popular among the youth as military research into human augmentation began to transfer into the public market. Athletes, the elderly, and the infirm were the first to receive these modifications. Cosmetic modifications became very popular among the youth, who incorporated animal traits into their genomes to alter their appearances. Several companies were established to provide modifications to sex organs, pheromone production and reception organs to improve their physical attraction between individuals. These technologies spawned a new culture war between members of the Flood Generation and the Made Generation. Socially conservative bio-ethics laws were put in place to limit access to cosmetic genetic enhancements. Some states saw mass migrations of young people escaping extremely severe laws, like California's Human Preservation Act or New Mexico's Heritage Act.

By the 2070s human augmentation became more socially acceptable, but legal restrictions against genetic modifications to minors remained in place. Common augmentations were purely decorative while others served specific functions, and were largely derived from existing genetic code in plants and animals. These included tails, skin patterns, fur patches (some as simple as adding color and patterns to existing hair patches) and augmentations that emulated the look and function of animals (eyes, claws, padded feet, reproductive organs, etc.). This spawned what some have called "Genetic Fashion" movements and the birth of "Body Shops," for inexpensive modifications which contributed to new subcultures. The largest of the 2070s genetic subcultures were the Furries, who advocated extensive animal augmentations, in some cases to the point where subcultures became sub-species of humanity.

By the early 22nd Century animal modifications had decidedly fallen out of fashion in favor of less flashy custom augmentations that found a larger audience than the counterculture augmentations. Atypical hair color, skin color patterns, bone structures, and in some circles modifications derived from alien lifeforms became more popular.

Early full-prosthetic bodies were largely bionic in composition, but as genetic engineering of stem-cells developed throughout the 2030s, artificial bodies began to include more biomass, mainly skin and guts. Genetically engineered organs and tissue entered service in specialty bodies available to the military and spacers. By 2040 artificial bodies incorporated a blending of bionic and biologic material in their construction, proving the feasibility of genetically modified organs in humans. During WWIII artificial body technology grew by leaps and bounds, to the point where it was possible to grow a full body from genetically modified tissue.

Artificial bodies have been a common practice for individuals who's original bodies are severely damaged or degraded due to biological aging, however since the 2090s, they are also issued in the military for all new recruits. Mil-spec bodies include advanced augmentations for combat and field duties, and were originally developed exclusively for the space force.

The 2050s saw the first cosmetic genetic modifications gain popularity among the youth despite social conservative backlash. By the 2070s cosmetic augmentations became a relatively common practice across generations and age groups, and has carried forward to today as a practice to enhance the distinctiveness of subcultures, improve physical beauty, and reduce signs of aging. Body Shops are the most common centers for cosmetic modifications, however most governments restrict the degree of modifications they are able to perform to limited modifications to existing appendages, effect skin and eye coloration, and the presence of hair/fur/hide. More advanced cosmetic augmentations are typically administered at Cosmetic Augmentation Centers, which require special licencing in most areas, and cater more to specialized clients, often associated with major subcultures. Federal law requires that any fetus conceived between parents with augmentations must remain essentially human, and cannot receive augmentations until they reach biological maturity. However, this law has largely been ignored by various subspecies of humanity that have emerged as a result.

Human cloning was largely outlawed worldwide until mid-Century. In the lead up to WWIII the US and Japan began relaxing certain policies toward human cloning to enable more rapid innovations in biotech (mostly to create replacement limbs and such). Vat grown bodies are just a form of human cloning after all. But the actual technique of taking a human and making a full genetic copy, brain and all, wasn't legalized until after the war. First in Japan, then South Korea, then Germany, then Russia; all in a space of about 10 years legalized human cloning to try and at least delay their population problems.The way they saw it, it was just a more efficient form of creating designer babies (clones are seldom direct copies, they usually turn off some faulty genes and turn on useful ones). In the US human cloning was made legal after the US supreme court ruled that since it qualified as a form of reproduction, the US government had no right to ban it, keeping with the legal precedent set by Roe v. Wade. It was only brought up because a woman in Maine had used the techniques to create designer babies to clone herself by using her eggs and creating sperm cells from her stem cells, which was a common practice for same sex couples at the time.

Once it was legal in the US, several families tried to have kids who were clones of famous dead people (and famous not-so dead people). The genomes of several major historical figures had been sequenced by this point, and were free for any and all to see, so DNA sythesizers could make it possible for anyone to clone a lot of people. Basically, within 9 months of it being legal, there were numerous clones JFKs, FDRs, George Washingtons, Albert Einsteins, and Madonnas. There were persistant rumors that Adolf Hitler was also cloned from Neo-nazi groups around the globe, leading to the first laws banning the cloning of certain individuals (primarily those who hold a criminal record).

A number of children whose genetic material was largely extracted from historical figures went on to have very similar careers to their genetic parents, however the ratio was roughly the same as the general population. Most parents gave their cloned children the first name of their genetic doner. Current examples include:

It can also be noted that the number of orders for clones would experience a spike of high demand upon the death of a celebrity. Former US President Lionel Halvidar, for example, held the highest record of 28 million orders shortly after his death by the end of 2160 alone.

Original post:
Genetic Engineering | Second Renaissance Wikia | FANDOM ...

For some, simply earning a good salary and enjoying strong job stability isnt enough to satisfy. Working in a field that allows them to have a major impact on the future of our species is something that is just as important as a paycheck. If this sounds like you, one option you may want to consider for your career is to become a genetic engineer.

While it isnt specifically a health oriented career like nursing would be, genetic engineering will have a big impact on the health and wellbeing of the planet. As such, the process to become one of these highly trained specialists involves hard work and dedication. Its not a perfect job for everyone, but for many it could be a dream career. Keep reading to learn more about the job and what it involves.

What Is a Genetic Engineer?

Genetic engineers are highly trained experts who use a variety of molecular tools and technologies to rearrange fragments of DNA. The overall goal in doing so is to add or remove an organisms genetic makeup for the better, or to transfer DNA code from one species into the other. The overall goal of this is to enhance organisms so that they are better able to thrive in certain environments. An example is when a plant is modified to thrive better in drought conditions or when a bacteria is adapted in such a way that it helps improve drug treatment.

Common job duties include:

The job involves a lot of things, and usually you will specialize in a very niche area of genetic science so that your attention is solely focused on that area throughout your career.

Characteristics

As with any other job, possessing a few personal skills will have a big impact on your ability to excel in the position. Here are some of the areas youll need to be strong in.

Nature of the Work

Genetic engineers rarely work outside a laboratory setting. The vast majority of the work is done in a lab, while some minor office work such as drafting reports and writing papers for publication may be handled at times.

Usually, genetic engineers work for private companies. Pharmaceutical companies, research organizations, and even some hospitals or universities will often hire these professionals. Some government level jobs exist as well, and those who enter this field of work will usually have options when deciding where to focus their skills.

Education and Training

To become a genetic engineer, the bare minimum education requirement will be a bachelors degree in biochemistry, biophysics, molecular biology, or molecular genetics. However, in most cases it will be much more beneficial to have a masters or doctorate level degree in molecular genetics or molecular biology instead. Undergraduate degrees may provide an initial entry point into the field, but holding a PhD is the primary path used to enter the field and conduct your own work.

Additionally, experience of at least 3 years in the field under the direct guidance of a supervisor will also be used to help gain employment. Obviously, different employers will have their own specific requirements but the points above make a good example of what youll need to enter the field.

Salaries vary greatly, and generally run from $45,000 up to about $140,000. The average salary is about $82,800 annually. Again, your experience, your specific employer, and a variety of other things will have a big influence on your overall pay.

Read the original post:
Genetic Engineer | Careers In Public Health

Today, Genetic Engineering is one of the top career choices made by students in engineering courses.

What is Genetic Engineering?

Genetic Engineering is also referred as genetic modification. It is a process of manually adding new DNA to a living organism through artificial methods.

Genetic Engineering is a method of physically removing a gene from one organism and inserting it to another and giving it the ability to express the qualities given by that gene.

Some examples of genetic engineering are Faster-growing trees, Bigger, longer-lasting tomatoes, Glow in the dark cats, Golden rice, Plants that fight pollution, banana vaccine, etc.

Genetic Engineering is that field which is related to genes & DNA. Genetic engineering is used by scientists to improve or modify the traits of an individual organism.

Want to know more about it?

An organism which is generated by applying genetic engineering is called as genetically modified organism (GMO). The first GMO were Bacteria generated in 1973 and GM mice in 1974.

The techniques of genetic engineering have been applied in various fields such as research, agriculture, industrial biotechnology, and medicine. Genetic engineering focuses on biochemistry, cell biology, molecular biology, evolutionary biology, and medical genetics.

The term genetic engineering was firstly used by Jack Williamson in Dragons Island a science fiction novel. In 1973 Paul Berg father of genetic engineering invents a method of joining DNA from two different organisms.

Genetic engineering is used in medicine, research, industry and agriculture and can also be used on a wide range of plants, animals and micro organisms.

Medicine Genetic engineering in the field of medicine is used in manufacturing drugs. The concepts of genetic engineering have been applied in doing laboratory research and in gene therapy.

Agriculture In Agriculture, genetic engineering is used to create genetically modified crops or genetically modified organisms in order to produce genetically modified foods.

Research Scientists uses the genetic engineering in their various researches. Genes from various organisms are converted into bacteria for storage and modification, creating genetically modified bacteria.

What are the courses in this field?

You may also check:

Courses After 12th Science

Genetic engineering is a specialization of biotechnology. It can also be studied as a separate specialization. There are many undergraduate and postgraduate courses available in this field. Some most sought courses opted by students for genetic engineering are listed below:

Bachelor Courses:

Master Courses:

Here, we are mentioning some specializations available in genetic engineering. These are as follows:

Also Check:

Courses After 12th

For admission in UG courses, students must have passed 12th Science exam. In India, most of the colleges give admission on the basis of ranks secured in JEE Main 2019. Joint Entrance Examination Main (JEE Main) is usually conducted in the month of April. Some institutions also provides admission on merit basis. For IITs, it is necessary for students to qualify JEE Advanced 2019after clearing JEE Main.

For admission in PG courses, students should hold a bachelor degree in genetic engineering from any recognized university. Mostly GATE 2019score card will be considered for admission in pg courses. On the basis of GATE scores, candidates can apply for admission in Master of Engineering/ Master of Technology courses.

Top colleges which offers various courses in genetic engineering:

Today, demand for genetic engineers is rising in India as well as abroad.

After pursuing courses in genetic engineering, you can work in medical and pharmaceutical industries, research and development departments, agricultural sector, genetic engineering firms, chemical companies, etc. A genetic engineer can work in both private and public sectors.

Genetic engineering graduates are required in government as well as private organizations.

There is a great growth of genetic engineering in India as well as in abroad. With the increasing number of biotech firms in India, the future scope in genetic engineering is good.

The graduates of this field can also opt teaching as a career. Numerous colleges are introducing genetic engineering course in their colleges and for that they recruit professionals of this field.

To become a genetic engineering research scientist, you need a doctoral degree in a biological science. The genetic engineering research scientist can become project leaders or administrators of entire research programs.

Responsibilities of a genetic engineer:

The National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi

The Centre for DNA Fingerprint and Diagnostics, Hyderabad

The Institute of Genomic and Integrative Biology, Delhi

Biochemical Engineering Research and Process Development Centre, Chandigarh

How much salary should I expect as a genetic engineering?

Salary packages of a genetic engineer are based on qualification, experience, working area, etc. You can get a handsome salary package after gaining the sufficient experience in this field.

The average salary of a well-qualified genetic engineer is Rs. 20,000 to 35,000 per month. They can earn more in the private sector as compared to the public sector.

Which are the best books for genetic Engineering?

Here we have listed some books which will help you throughout your studies:

For any queries regarding Genetic Engineering, you may leave your comments below.

See more here:
Genetic Engineering: Career Scope, Courses & Job Scenario

Designer babies, the end of diseases, genetically modified humans that never age. Outrageous things that used to be science fiction are suddenly becoming reality. The only thing we know for sure is that things will change irreversibly.

Support us on Patreon so we can make more videos (and get cool stuff in return): https://www.patreon.com/Kurzgesagt?ty=h

Kurzgesagt merch here: http://bit.ly/1P1hQIH

Get the music of the video here:

soundcloud: http://bit.ly/2aRxNZdbandcamp: http://bit.ly/2berrSWhttp://www.epic-mountain.com

Thanks to Volker Henn, James Gurney and (prefers anonymity) for help with this video!

THANKS A LOT TO OUR LOVELY PATRONS FOR SUPPORTING US:

Jeffrey Schneider, Konstantin Kaganovich, Tom Leiser, Archie Castillo, Russell Eishard, Ben Kershaw, Marius Stollen, Henry Bowman, Ben Johns, Bogdan Radu, Sam Toland, Pierre Thalamy, Christopher Morgan, Rocks Arent People, Ross Devereux, Pascal Michaud, Derek DuBreuil, Sofia Quintero, Robert Swiniarski, Merkt Kzlrmak, Michelle Rowley, Andy Dong, Saphir Patel, Harris Rotto, Thomas Huzij, Ryan James Burke, NTRX, Chaz Lewis, Amir Resali, The War on Stupid, John Pestana, Lucien Delbert, iaDRM, Jacob Edwards, Lauritz Klaus, Jason Hunt, Marcus : ), Taylor Lau, Rhett H Eisenberg, Mr.Z, Jeremy Dumet, Fatman13, Kasturi Raghavan, Kousora, Rich Sekmistrz, Mozart Peter, Gaby Germanos, Andreas Hertle, Alena Vlachova, Zdravko aek

SOURCES AND FURTHER READING:

The best book we read about the topic: GMO Sapiens

https://goo.gl/NxFmk8

(affiliate link, we get a cut if buy the book!)

Good Overview by Wired:http://bit.ly/1DuM4zq

timeline of computer development:http://bit.ly/1VtiJ0N

Selective breeding: http://bit.ly/29GaPVS

DNA:http://bit.ly/1rQs8Yk

Radiation research:http://bit.ly/2ad6wT1

inserting DNA snippets into organisms:http://bit.ly/2apyqbj

First genetically modified animal:http://bit.ly/2abkfYO

First GM patent:http://bit.ly/2a5cCox

chemicals produced by GMOs:http://bit.ly/29UvTbhhttp://bit.ly/2abeHwUhttp://bit.ly/2a86sBy

Flavr Savr Tomato:http://bit.ly/29YPVwN

First Human Engineering:http://bit.ly/29ZTfsf

glowing fish:http://bit.ly/29UwuJU

CRISPR:http://go.nature.com/24Nhykm

HIV cut from cells and rats with CRISPR:http://go.nature.com/1RwR1xIhttp://ti.me/1TlADSi

first human CRISPR trials fighting cancer:http://go.nature.com/28PW40r

first human CRISPR trial approved by Chinese for August 2016:http://go.nature.com/29RYNnK

genetic diseases:http://go.nature.com/2a8f7ny

pregnancies with Down Syndrome terminated:http://bit.ly/2acVyvg( 1999 European study)

CRISPR and aging:http://bit.ly/2a3NYAVhttp://bit.ly/SuomTyhttp://go.nature.com/29WpDj1http://ti.me/1R7Vus9

Help us caption & translate this video!

http://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_p...

View original post here:
Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever ...

Manipulation of genes in natural organisms, such as plants, animals, and even humans, is considered genetic engineering. This is done using a variety of different techniques like molecular cloning. These processes can cause dramatic changes in the natural makeup and characteristic of the organism. There are benefits and risks associated with genetic engineering, just like most other scientific practices.

Genetic engineering offers benefits such as:

1. Better Flavor, Growth Rate and NutritionCrops like potatoes, soybeans and tomatoes are now sometimes genetically engineered in order to improve size, crop yield, and nutritional values of the plants. These genetically engineered crops also possess the ability to grow in lands that would normally not be suitable for cultivation.

2. Pest-resistant Crops and Extended Shelf LifeEngineered seeds can resist pests and having a better chance at survival in harsh weather. Biotechnology could be in increasing the shelf life of many foods.

3. Genetic Alteration to Supply New FoodsGenetic engineering can also be used in producing completely new substances like proteins or other nutrients in food. This may up the benefits they have for medical uses.

4. Modification of the Human DNAGenes that are responsible for unique and desirable qualities in the human DNA can be exposed and introduced into the genes of another person. This changes the structural elements of a persons DNA. The effects of this are not know.

The following are the issues that genetic engineering can trigger:

1. May Hamper Nutritional ValueGenetic engineering on food also includes the infectivity of genes in root crops. These crops might supersede the natural weeds. These can be dangerous for the natural plants. Unpleasant genetic mutations could result to an increased allergy occurrence of the crop. Some people believe that this science on foods can hamper the nutrients contained by the crops although their appearance and taste were enhanced.

2. May Introduce Risky PathogensHorizontal gene shift could give increase to other pathogens. While it increases the immunity against diseases among the plants, the resistant genes can be transmitted to harmful pathogens.

3. May Result to Genetic ProblemsGene therapy on humans can end to some side effects. While relieving one problem, the treatment may cause the onset of another issue. As a single cell is liable for various characteristics, the cell isolation process will be responsible for one trait will be complicated.

4. Unfavorable to Genetic DiversityGenetic engineering can affect the diversity among the individuals. Cloning might be unfavorable to individualism. Furthermore, such process might not be affordable for poor. Hence, it makes the gene therapy impossible for an average person.

Genetic engineering might work excellently but after all, it is a kind of process that manipulates the natural. This is altering something which has not been created originally by humans. What can you say about this?

Read the original post:
Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering | HRFnd

Nigeria remains Africas largest [corn] producer, growing nearly 8 million tons annually. It is closely followed by South Africa, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda. It was therefore a nightmare when Nigeria, like the rest of Africa, woke up to the fall armyworm (FAW) infestation that is rapidly spreading across the region. The five zones affected by the infestation include the southeast, south, southwest, northeast and northwest.

[Chief Audu Ogbeh, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development] said the federal government required N2.98 billion to curb the armyworm infestation in farmlands across the country, adding the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had pledged to support the country in its fight against the armyworm.

However, scientists are calling on farmers to embrace biotechnology by using genetically engineered (GE) crops, which have been proven safe for humans and the environment, to permanently tackle such occurrences.

[Dr. Rose Gidado, the country coordinator of the Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology (OFAB)] said adopting genetic modification technology to develop maize varieties resistant to pests offered a lasting solution for army worm infestation, adding that GE plants are selectively bred and enhanced with genes to withstand common problems that confront farmers.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: Food shortages loom as Nigeria battles fall armyworm infestation

Related Stories

Original post:
Fall armyworm threatens Nigerian crops; genetic engineering offers ... - Genetic Literacy Project

This article originally appeared on Grist

The Impossible Burger has had a charmed honeymoon period. Crowds offoodies surged into fancy eateriesto try it.Environmentalistsandanimal rights activistsswooned. So did investors: Impossible Foodsbrought in $75 millionduring its latest investment round.

Now the backlash is here. The activist organizationsFriends of the Earthand theETC Groupdug up documents which they claim show that Impossible Foods ignored FDA warnings about safety and they handed them over to the New York Times.

Theensuing storydepicted Impossible Foods as a culinary version of Uber disrupting so rapidly that its running headlong into government regulators. In reality, Impossible Foods has behaved like a pedestrian food company, working hand in hand with the FDA and following a well-worn path to comply with an arcane set of rules.

So why isnt this story a nothingburger?

In a word: GMOs. You see, soy leghemoglobin, or SLH, the key ingredient that makes the Impossible Burger uniquely meaty, is churned out by genetically modified yeast. This is a protein produced with genetic engineering; its a new food ingredient, Dana Perls, senior food and technology campaigner at Friends of the Earth, told me when I asked why theyd singled out Impossible Foods.

The company has never exactly hidden the fact that they used genetic engineering, but they havent put it front and center either. You have to dig into theirfrequently asked questionsto catch that detail and thats a recent edit, according to Perls. When I first looked at the Impossible Foods website, maybe back in March, there was no mention of genetic engineering, she said.(An Impossible Foods spokesperson disputed Perlss claim, saying the FAQ has included references to genetic engineering for at least a year, since before the burgers launch in restaurants. But areview of cached webpagessuggests the references were added in June.*)

By tiptoeing around this issue, Impossible Foods set themselves up for a takedown by anti-GMO campaigners. These groups monitor new applications of genetic engineering, watch for potentially incriminating evidence, then work with journalists to publicize it. In 2014, Ecover, a green cleaning company,announced it was using oils made by algae as part of its pledge to remove palm oil a major driver of deforestation from its products. When Friends of the Earth and the ETC Groupfigured out the algae was genetically engineered, they pingedthe same Times writer. Ecover quickly went back to palm oil.

WhenI asked Impossible Foods founder Pat Brownabout the GMO question, he said he didnt think that battle was theirs to fight. After all, the SLH may be produced by transgenic yeast, but it isnt a GMO itself. He also pointed out that this isnt unusual:nearly all cheese contains a GMO-produced enzyme.

But now, Friends of the Earth and the ETC Group have brought their battle to Impossible Foods doorstep. (In ablisteringseriesofresponsesto the New York Times article, the company charged it was chock full of factual errors and misrepresentations and was instigated by an extremist anti-science group.)The FDA documents handed over to the Timesinclude worrying sentences like this one: FDA stated that the current arguments at hand, individually and collectively, were not enough to establish the safety of SLH for consumption.

If FDA officials say your company hasnt done enough to convince them that a new ingredient is safe, arent you supposed to stop selling it?

Not according toa risk expert at Arizona State Universitywho reviewed the documents released by activists. There are no indications that they should have pulled this off the market, Andrew Maynard told me.

Thats just not how the food safety review process works, said Gary Yingling, a former FDA official now helping Impossible Foods navigate the bureaucracy. In the United States, its up to the companies themselves to determine if an ingredient is safe. (Not everyone likes that systemorthinks the FDA is doing enoughto protect public safety, but it is the law.)

Impossible worked with a group of experts at universities who decided in 2014 that their burger was safe. SLH, it turns out, grows naturally in the roots of soy plants, and the proteins in the burger look a lot like animal proteins a good indicator of safety.

Impossible could have stopped there: Companies, however, can ask the government to weigh in on their research. Sometimes, the FDA asks for more information, which is what happened with Impossible Foods. Its not unusual for the FDA to determine it cant establish the safety of a new ingredient its happened more than 100 times, with substances like Ginkgo biloba, gum arabic, and Spirulina. The FDA has called for more information in about one in every seven of the ingredients companies have asked it to review.

In the case of SLH, the FDA suggested more tests, including rat-feeding trials. Impossible Foods has finished these tests, and academics who have studied the new data confirmed that its generally recognized as safe. Next, Impossible Foods will bring the new evidence back to the FDA, Yingling said.

The criticism raised in this case is really criticism of a system that allows companies to decide for themselves if a new ingredient is OK to add to our food.

If a company decides something is safe, they can go ahead and do it, said Maynard, the risk expert. So thats a weakness in the system. On the other hand, you can argue that once you start this process with the FDA, they have smart scientists who ask tough questions. You can see in those documents that the level of due diligence that a company has to go through is really pretty deep. You really want to make sure that you have a system that doesnt inhibit innovation, but captures as much potentially harmful things as possible.

Each new innovation creates the potential for new hazards. We can block some of those hazards by taking precautions. But how high should we put the precautionary bar?

Impossible Burger could indeed pose some unknown hazard. We just have to weigh that against the known hazards of the present foodborne diseases in meat, greenhouse gases from animal production, the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria in farms, and animal suffering. These are problems which Impossible Foods is trying to solve.

There are other companies trying to solve these problems. (Friends of the Earthnotesthat the success of non-animal burgers, like the non-GMO Beyond Burger, demonstrates that plant-based animal substitutes can succeed without resorting to genetic engineering.) But its not yet clear that any of these companies including Impossible Foods will be successful in just generating a profit, let alone in replacing the global meat industry. No one knows which startups will pan out. And well probably need to try and discard lots of new things as we shift to a sustainable path.

Trying new things can be risky. Not trying new things and staying on our current trajectory is even more risky.

*This story has been updated to include a response from Impossible Foods about when references to genetic engineering first appeared in its FAQ, and to add information about the FDAs food safety review process.

Read more from the original source:
The Impossible Burger wouldn't be possible without genetic engineering - Salon

This article originally appeared on Massive.

Even small changes in temperature can have massive impacts on crop productivity. In the United States, a single degree of warming is expected to decrease corn yield by 10 percent. Worldwide, one degree of warming is expected to decrease crop productivity by 3-7 percent. Making matters worse, at the same time as crop yields are expected to decrease, the global population will continue to rise. If we do nothing to slow the effects of climate change, we risk a global food shortage that will affect us all.

Deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions could do a lot to stave off disaster. But many researchers predict that even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow, wed still experience some degree of future warming due to past emissions. So, even if we prevent additional damage, well still have to adapt to the changes in climate that are already underway.

If we want to feed our growing population, well have to tackle the problem of adapting agriculture to climate change head-on. Right now, one of our best hopes for adapting to a warming climate is a controversial one: genetically engineering our crops to survive better in higher temperatures.

Genetic engineering, the process of directly modifying an organisms DNA, strikes many people as an arrogant, unsafe intrusion on the natural world. The debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) has raged for decades, with opponents arguing that our capacity to tinker with nature has outpaced our understanding of the risks.

Concerns about the safety and ethics of genetic engineering are absolutely valid, but we should also realize that, in some cases, our ethical intuition may lead us astray. If you have ever grown a tomato plant, and you live somewhere other than the Andean region of South America, you have selected a plant with mutations that allow it grow somewhere it wouldnt naturally do so. When we domesticated the tomato plant, we picked out mutant plants that were able to thrive in different areas of the globe. The difference between that process and genetic engineering is that scientists dont have to search for a rare mutant; they can create it themselves.

Speedier adaptation

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing tools have made modifying DNA much easier. Using CRISPR/Cas9, scientists can create a DNA break in a specific place in the genome. They provide a strand of DNA that has a new sequence and the cell copies from that strand when it repairs the break, creating a genetic change.

Crops made using this technique are not, strictly speaking, GMOs, because they contain no foreign DNA. A wild tomato plant that was modified using CRISPR/Cas9 to be able to grow further north would be indistinguishable from the mutant plants that arose naturally, right down to the molecular level. And yet if engineers use genome editing to make that same change, it strikes many people as dangerous, even though the plants are completely identical.

Our food sources have already benefited from past forays into genetic engineering. Researchers past efforts were focused on creating crops that are resistant to pests and disease. This is an important part of feeding the world we could feed 8.5 percent of all the people on Earth with the crops lost to fungal pathogens alone. Climate change is making this problem worse: as warmer temperatures have spread toward the poles, so has disease.

But disease isnt the sole consequence of climate change: the overall yield of food will likely drop because the areas where crops grow will no longer have the right weather for them to thrive.

Expanding crop-growing regions

One solution to this problem is to move heat-sensitive crops closer to the poles. But its not that simple: the seasonal cue that tells many plants when to flower is day length, and day length depends on latitude. That means you cant take a plant that requires short days, move it further north, and expect it to produce fruit, even if its at the right temperature.

Recently, researchers discovered the gene that represses flowering in tomato plants in response to long days. Its thanks to the variation in this gene that were able to grow tomatoes further from the equator. These researchers used CRISPR to show that disrupting this gene results in plants that flower rapidly, regardless of day length. That means that if we want crops to grow at different latitudes, we wont have to find a rare mutant. By zeroing in on the genes that control day-length-sensitive flowering, we can create those crops within months.

Increasing yields

And when it comes to boosting crop productivity, one option is to create plants that convert sunlight into food more efficiently. Thats the goal of the RIPE(Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency) project, an international group working to increase crop yield by improving photosynthesis through genetic engineering.

Surprisingly, photosynthesis isnt as efficient as it could be. Plants dont adapt as quickly as they could to transitions between sunlight and shade. When theres too much sunlight, plants protect themselves by releasing excess light as heat. But if a cloud passes in front of the sun, the protective mechanism lingers, which means less photosynthesis and lower yield. By speeding up the process of adaptation, RIPE scientists have shown that they can increase crop yield by 15 percent.

Although producing enough food to feed the world is crucial, genetic engineering isnt a cure-all. As long as we fail to confront the problems of war and unequal distribution of wealth, people will starve no matter how much food we produce. But adapting agriculture to climate change is unquestionably part of the equation, and genetic modification allows us to produce those changes quickly, easily, and safely.

Critiques of genetic engineering often focus on the most ethically questionable and unsettling research, but many scientists are doing work that could save the lives of millions. Keeping a closed mind risks demonizing a technology that may help us to survive.

Follow this link:
Climate change will cause food shortages. We should use genetic engineering to prevent them - Salon

There are two ways to upgrade a human - tinker with biology or augment with technology. So when the time comes to upgrade to human 2.0, should we become Bioshock-style splicers or Halo-esque spartans?

This week we look at the science behind a genetic boost.

Science fiction isnt afraid to mess with genetics. Bioshocks ADAM is a syrup of stem cells augmented with plasmids that carry superhuman genetic traits. Preys Neuromod enhances cognitive abilities by splicing alien genetics into viruses delivered directly into the brain through the eyes. And Prototype's Blacklight gets in to cells and tweaks their genetic code, activating and editing dormant sequences.

So how close are we to game-changing genetic upgrades?

(Image: I.C. Baianu et al.)

The genetic revolution started in the 1950s with two wily Cambridge scientists. With data nabbed from colleagues in London, Watson and Crick deciphered the structure of DNA and opened Pandoras box. Since then, the field has moved fast, and it's littered with Nobel Prizes.

By the mid 1970s, scientists had discovered DNA-snipping molecular scissors known as restriction enzymes, and DNA-stitching enzymes called ligases. It became possible to cut and splice the genetic code, stitching components from different organisms to create recombinant DNA.Bacteria were turned into factories, churning out molecules that they were never intended to make, and genetic engineering began in ernest.

(Image: Bethesda)

In the 1980s, everything sped up. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was invented, allowing chunks of DNA to be copied millions of times in a matter of hours. And DNA sequencing became automated, enabling the genetic code to be read faster than ever before.

And the next logical step once you can read the genetic code? Read all of it.

In 2003, the Human Genome Project was completed , revealing the recipe for a human in its entirety. All three billion letters and over 20,000 genes. And, what took an international team decades can now be repeated in days.

We've got the manual to make a human being. We have the tools to read, write and edit DNA. Time to get creative.

(Image: Irrational Games/2K Games)

Interested in making fire with your fingers? Bioshock-style plasmids are already here. Every day scientists stuff them with genes and jam them into cells to give them new abilities.

Real-world plasmids are loops of DNA most often found in bacteria, where they carry genes for useful traits like antibiotic resistance. They replicate independently of the main bacterial genetic code and can be swapped between cells like trading cards that upgrade the microbes' abilities.

And, with a molecular toolkit, they can be cut open and edited, carrying thousands of letters of genetic code like miniature trojan horses.

(Image: Minestrone Soup )

Plasmids can force cells to make new molecules or switch the behaviour of their existing genes. Bacteria will make infinite copies of them on demand. And, they can be frozen down and stored for years.

But, they tend stay out of chromosomes, floating about in the cell and never meshing with the host unless some serious selective pressure is applied.

They're good for a temporary upgrade, but maybe not for a permanent human 2.0 changes. Maybe thats why splicers need a constant ADAM or EVE fix to keep their abilities topped up.

(Image: 2K Games)

Looking for something a little more permanent than a plasmid? Augments in Prey are delivered by viruses, a step up in terms of persistence.

Retroviruses (like HIV) stitch their own genetic code into the code of the cells they infect, permanently merging with their host to ensure that their genes remain active generation after generation. Every time the cell copies its own DNA, it copies the viral genes too.

So, scientists stripped them out, snipping away the genes that cause disease and turning them into empty genetic transport vessels.

(Image: Bethesda Softworks)

Like plasmids, these 'viral vectors' can be stuffed with genetic code, but this time theyll stitch the new genes straight into the cell, adding the new trait permanently. This is the tech is used in Prey to deliver alien genetics into human brains.

Trouble is, viruses aren't that picky about where they choose to integrate. And, if they tuck their DNA right in the middle of something important, they can ruin a crucial gene and destroy the cell they've infected. Worse still, inserting into some genes can cause cancer.

Then there's the problem of getting them to infect the right cells. If you want fire at your fingertips, you'd need a virus that knew the difference between a hand and a foot.

Scientists are working on improving the usability of viral vectors, but to achieve true human 2.0 without the unpredictable side effects, we'll probably need a more targeted approach. Enter CRISPR.

(Image: Thomas Splettstoesser)

Bioshock or Prey-style approaches to gene editing work well, but they're fuzzy and they take time. CRISPR delivers precision genetic manipulation, fast.

Here's how it works.

Viruses, known as bacteriophages, inject their genetic code into bacteria, turning the microbes into miniature virus factories. But the bacteria evolved a way to fight back.

When they come under attack, they store strips of viral genetic code in a CRISPR reference library so that they'll have a head start if the virus returns. When it attacks again, they check the library and an enzyme called Cas9 chops out any matching code, stopping the infection in its tracks.

(Image: National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) from Bethesda, MD, USA)

The great thing about CRISPR is that it's programmable. Give Cas9 a 20-letter strip of genetic code to guide it, and it'll chew up any DNA you want. These are quick and cheap to make in the lab, and the sequence can be made to match all kinds of different genes. And, when the cell goes to repair the cut, you can swoop in with any new DNA you want to add.

The technique has the scientific community so excited that it was named 'breakthrough of the year' by Science in 2015. But is the world about to be overrun with splicers?

(Image: Ingrid Moen et al. 2012)

Splicers can make fire with their hands, hurl balls of ice and cling to the ceiling like spiders. Morgan Yu can morph into a cup, superheat plasma and create telekinetic shields. What could we do with CRISPR at our disposal?

So far, scientists have repaired a gene that causes muscular dystrophy in mice, and they're trialling the technique to reprogram immune cells in people with cancer. We're now in a CRISPR arms race as scientists across the world rush to be the first to make a gene editing breakthrough.

(Image: Bethesda)

It's early days, but the tech has a lot of potential. We could edit single letter mistakes in genetic code, switch genes off, turn genes on, make genetic tweaks. Or, best of all, we could borrow genes from other species and smash them into our cells to acquire traits we were never supposed to have, glow in the dark jellyfish genes, anyone?

In 2010, scientists created the first synthetic cell. In 2016, they designed and built a genome. In the future, it's possible that we could design brand new genes of our own.

Let's face it, this is still a dream, but the toolkit to make it happen is there.

We still don't know what all of our DNA is for, let alone what changes we'd need to make to improve it. Good luck finding the right genes to edit if you're looking to make yourself taller, smarter or funnier, let alone inventing one that'll give you wings.

And then there's the issue of inheritance. Editing adult, or 'somatic', cells could change a person Bioshock-style, but editing sperm and eggs, or 'germline' cells, could change a whole species.

At the moment, genetic engineering tech is moving faster than the regulation to control it, and it's got scientists worried. We all saw what happened to Rapture when the brakes were taken off scientific advancement.

Gene editing germline cells is restricted in many countries, including the UK, but in July 2017, Chinese scientists got CRISPR working in human embryos for the first time. It was a huge breakthrough, but out of 86 embryos only 28 were successfully edited, and not all of them ended up with the right gene mod at the end.

Rapture, a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, Where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well.

Luckily, no-one is trying to take edited human embryos all the way though to birth, yet. But, CRISPR opens a whole can of ethical worms, and if youre in any doubt that human modification is coming, watch this.

Pandora's box is open, and we're betting humans of the future will be genetically augmented, but it isn't the only way our species could upgrade. Come back next week when we'll be looking at tech and what it'd take to join the ranks of Halo's Master Chief or Deus Ex's Adam Jensen.

Originally posted here:
Genetic engineering: upgrading to human 2.0 - T3

Should we welcome human genetic engineering? Tyler Cowen

If you could directly alter your kids genetic profile, what would you want? Its hard to know how the social debate would turn out after years of back and forth, but I was dismayed to read one recent research paper by psychologists Rachel M. Latham and Sophie von Stumm. The descriptive title of that work, based on survey evidence, is Mothers want extraversion over conscientiousness or intelligence for their children. Upon reflection, maybe that isnt so surprising, because parents presumably want children who are fun to spend time with.

Would a more extroverted human race be desirable, all things considered? I genuinely dont know, but at the very least I am concerned. The current mix of human personalities and institutions is a delicate balance which, for all of its flaws, has allowed society to survive and progress. Im not looking to make a big roll of the dice on this one.

Amazon robots bring a brave new world to the warehouse The Financial Times

Another way to look at US wage growth The Financial Times

The robot tax gains another advocate Wired

Kim got the idea of a robot tax from Bill Gates, who mentioned it in an interview in February. Since then, shes been meeting with stakeholdersunions and business types and the likeabout how San Francisco, and California, might explore such a thing.

Among the issues with a robot tax: What is a robot? Even roboticists have a hard time agreeing. Does AI that steals a job count as a robot? (Nope, but youd probably want to tax it like one if youre going to commit to this.) Were still working on what defines a robot and what defines job displacement, Kim says. And so announcing the opening of the campaign committee is going to also allow us to have discussions throughout the state in terms of what the actual measure would look like.

Video: Powerball lotteries and the endowment effect Marginal Revolution

3,700-year-old Babylonian tablet rewrites the history of math The Telegraph

Winner-takes-all effects in autonomous cars Benedict Evans

Transcript: Gary Cohn on tax reform and Charlottesville The Financial Times

FT: So what exactly will you have in the tax bill?

GC: On the personal side, we have protected the three big deductions charitable, mortgage and retirement saving. We want to raise the standard deduction caps and get rid of many of the other personal deductions. We want to get rid of death taxes and estate taxes.

On the business side, we are proposing to get rid of many of the deductions that companies can take right now to lower taxable income. At the moment we start with a high corporate tax rate in America but companies use deductions: what we are trying to do is get everyone to pay at a lower rate. This is a big base-broadening exercise.

Revenue may decline in the medium term but it will then explode for the government. When we grow the economy we will see substantial growth in revenue.

Continued here:
Around the web: Concerns with human genetic engineering, Gary ... - American Enterprise Institute

NEW DELHI: Activists today criticised the biotech regulator GEAC's decision to recommend commercial use of genetically modified mustard in a submission to the environment ministry.

Coalition for a GM-Free India said it is no coincidence that credible committees are asking to stop the introduction of GM crops.

Their comments came a day after a parliamentary panel said that no GM crop should be introduced in India unless the bio-safety and socio-economic desirability is evaluated in a "transparent" process and an accountability regime is put in place.

The department-related parliamentary standing committee on science and technology and environment and forest chaired by Congress leader Renuka Chowdhury made its recommendations in its 301st report on 'GM crop and its impact on environment'.

The panel's comment came in the wake of India's GM crop regulator Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) recently recommending the commercial use of genetically modified mustard in a submission to the environment ministry.

The coalition said the latest report is a reiteration in many ways of what earlier committees like the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture (2012 and 2013) had said as well as the majority report of the Supreme Court's Technical Expert Committee (2013).

"The fact that certain unacceptable lacunae are being pointed out again and again by neutral, independent committees in the law-making and judicial wings of our democracy clearly shows that there are serious problems with transgenic crops as well as their regulation.

"While the government is claiming that it is yet to take a decision with regard to GM mustard 'environmental release', it is clear that this GM food crop does not stand scrutiny under the parameters recommended by the Parliamentary Committee," the coalition said in a statement.

Some of the findings and consequent recommendations of the committee are a "strong indictment" on the approach of the various concerned ministries including the Ministry of Environment, Health and Agriculture with regard to GM crops, the coalition said.

It said the report also acknowledges the rejection of GM crops by state governments.

"The report clearly exposes how poor and unreliable the Indian regulatory regime is, in addition to exposing the lies of GM proponents including within the government.

"It is worrisome that there are no strong policy shifts happening despite repeated exposures of the failures of the Indian biotech regulation," the coalition said.

The Coalition also demanded an inquiry into the "farcical" recommendation of the GEAC for GM mustard environmental release, to "expose the anti-national elements" therein.

The Coalition said the GEAC should be immediately dissolved and its approvals and clearances annulled.

"The report keeps alive our faith in the Parliamentary processes, and we urge the Supreme Court also to take note of this report," the Coalition said.

Excerpt from:
Activists criticise recommendation on GM mustard by Genetic ... - The New Indian Express

The Impossible Burger has had a charmed honeymoon period. Crowds of foodies surged into fancy eateries to try it. Environmentalists and animal rights activists swooned. So did investors: Impossible Foods brought in $75 million during its latest investment round.

Now the backlash is here. The activist organizations Friends of the Earth and the ETC Group dug up documents which they claim show that Impossible Foods ignored FDA warnings about safety and they handed them over to the New York Times.

The ensuing story depicted Impossible Foods as a culinary version of Uber disrupting so rapidly that its running headlong into government regulators. In reality, Impossible Foods has behaved like a pedestrian food company, working hand in hand with the FDA and following a well-worn path to comply with an arcane set of rules.

So why isnt this story a nothingburger?

In a word: GMOs. You see, soy leghemoglobin, or SLH, the key ingredient that makes the Impossible Burger uniquely meaty, is churned out by genetically modified yeast. This is a protein produced with genetic engineering; its a new food ingredient, Dana Perls, senior food and technology campaigner at Friends of the Earth, told me when I asked why theyd singled out Impossible Foods.

The company has never exactly hidden the fact that they used genetic engineering, but they havent put it front and center either. You have to dig into their frequently asked questions to catch that detail and thats a recent edit, according to Perls. When I first looked at the Impossible Foods website, maybe back in March, there was no mention of genetic engineering, she said.(An Impossible Foods spokesperson disputed Perlss claim, saying the FAQ has included references to genetic engineering for at least a year, since before the burgers launch in restaurants. But areview of cached webpages suggests the references were added in June.*)

By tiptoeing around this issue, Impossible Foods set themselves up for a takedown by anti-GMO campaigners. These groups monitor new applications of genetic engineering, watch for potentially incriminating evidence, then work with journalists to publicize it. In 2014, Ecover, a green cleaning company, announced it was using oils made by algae as part of its pledge to remove palm oil a major driver of deforestation from its products. When Friends of the Earth and the ETC Group figured out the algae was genetically engineered, they pinged the same Times writer. Ecover quickly went back to palm oil.

When I asked Impossible Foods founder Pat Brown about the GMO question, he said he didnt think that battle was theirs to fight. After all, the SLH may be produced by transgenic yeast, but it isnt a GMO itself. He also pointed out that this isnt unusual: nearly all cheese contains a GMO-produced enzyme.

But now, Friends of the Earth and the ETC Group have brought their battle to Impossible Foods doorstep. (In a blistering series of responses to the New York Times article, the company charged it was chock full of factual errors and misrepresentations and was instigated by an extremist anti-science group.) The FDA documents handed over to the Times include worrying sentences like this one: FDA stated that the current arguments at hand, individually and collectively, were not enough to establish the safety of SLH for consumption.

If FDA officials say your company hasnt done enough to convince them that a new ingredient is safe, arent you supposed to stop selling it?

Not according to a risk expert at Arizona State University who reviewed the documents released by activists. There are no indications that they should have pulled this off the market, Andrew Maynard told me.

Thats just not how the food safety review process works, said Gary Yingling, a former FDA official now helping Impossible Foods navigate the bureaucracy. In the United States, its up to the companies themselves to determine if an ingredient is safe. (Not everyone likes that system or thinks the FDA is doing enough to protect public safety, but it is the law.)

Impossible worked with a group of experts at universities who decided in 2014 that their burger was safe. SLH, it turns out, grows naturally in the roots of soy plants, and the proteins in the burger look a lot like animal proteins a good indicator of safety.

Impossible could have stopped there: Companies, however, can ask the government to weigh in on their research. Sometimes, the FDA asks for more information, which is what happened with Impossible Foods. Its not unusual for the FDA to determine it cant establish the safety of a new ingredient its happened more than 100 times, with substances like Ginkgo biloba, gum arabic, and Spirulina. The FDA has called for more information in about one in every seven of the ingredients companies have asked it to review.

In the case of SLH, the FDA suggested more tests, including rat-feeding trials. Impossible Foods has finished these tests, and academics who have studied the new data confirmed that its generally recognized as safe. Next, Impossible Foods will bring the new evidence back to the FDA, Yingling said.

The criticism raised in this case is really criticism of a system that allows companies to decide for themselves if a new ingredient is OK to add to our food.

If a company decides something is safe, they can go ahead and do it, said Maynard, the risk expert. So thats a weakness in the system. On the other hand, you can argue that once you start this process with the FDA, they have smart scientists who ask tough questions. You can see in those documents that the level of due diligence that a company has to go through is really pretty deep. You really want to make sure that you have a system that doesnt inhibit innovation, but captures as much potentially harmful things as possible.

Each new innovation creates the potential for new hazards. We can block some of those hazards by taking precautions. But how high should we put the precautionary bar?

Impossible Burger could indeed pose some unknown hazard. We just have to weigh that against the known hazards of the present foodborne diseases in meat, greenhouse gases from animal production, the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria in farms, and animal suffering. These are problems which Impossible Foods is trying to solve.

There are other companies trying to solve these problems. (Friends of the Earth notes that the success of non-animal burgers, like the non-GMO Beyond Burger, demonstrates that plant-based animal substitutes can succeed without resorting to genetic engineering.) But its not yet clear that any of these companies including Impossible Foods will be successful in just generating a profit, let alone in replacing the global meat industry. No one knows which startups will pan out. And well probably need to try and discard lots of new things as we shift to a sustainable path.

Trying new things can be risky. Not trying new things and staying on our current trajectory is even more risky.

*This story has been updated to include a response from Impossible Foods about when references to genetic engineering first appeared in its FAQ, and to add information about the FDAs food safety review process.

Go here to read the rest:
The Impossible Burger wouldn't be possible without genetic engineering - Grist

This article originally ran on Ensia.

Which is more disruptive to a plant: genetic engineering or conventional breeding?

It often surprises people to learn that GE commonly causes less disruption to plants than conventional techniques of breeding. But equally profound is the realization that the latest GE techniques, coupled with a rapidly expanding ability to analyze massive amounts of genetic material, allow us to make super-modest changes in crop plant genes that will enable farmers to produce more food with fewer adverse environmental impacts. Such super-modest changes are possible with CRISPR-based genome editing, a powerful set of new genetic tools that is leading a revolution in biology.

My interest in GE crops stems from my desire to provide more effective and sustainable plant disease control for farmers worldwide. Diseases often destroy 10 to 15 percent of potential crop production, resulting in global losses of billions of dollars annually. The risk of disease-related losses provides an incentive to farmers to use disease-control products such as pesticides.

One of my strongest areas of expertise is in the use of pesticides for disease control. Pesticides certainly can be useful in farming systems worldwide, but they have significant downsides from a sustainability perspective. Used improperly, they can contaminate foods. They can pose a risk to farm workers. And they must be manufactured, shipped and applied all processes with a measurable environmental footprint. Therefore, I am always seeking to reduce pesticide use by offering farmers more sustainable approaches to disease management.

It often surprises people to learn that GE commonly causes less disruption to plants than conventional techniques of breeding.

What follows are examples of how minimal GE changes can be applied to make farming more environmentally friendly by protecting crops from disease. They represent just a small sampling of the broad landscape of opportunities for enhancing food security and agricultural sustainability that innovations in molecular biology offer today.

Genetically altering crops the way these examples demonstrate creates no cause for concern for plants or people. Mutations occur naturally every time a plant makes a seed; in fact, they are the very foundation of evolution. All of the food we eat has all kinds of mutations, and eating plants with mutations does not cause mutations in us.

A striking example of how a tiny genetic change can make a big difference to plant health is the strategy of "knocking out" a plant gene that microorganisms can benefit from. Invading microorganisms sometimes hijack certain plant molecules to help themselves infect the plant. A gene that produces such a plant molecule is known as a susceptibility gene.

We can use CRISPR-based genome editing to create a "targeted mutation" in a susceptibility gene. A change of as little as a single nucleotide in the plants genetic material the smallest genetic change possible can confer disease resistance in a way that is absolutely indistinguishable from natural mutations that can happen spontaneously. Yet if the target gene and mutation site are carefully selected, a one-nucleotide mutation may be enough to achieve an important outcome.

A substantial body of research shows proof-of-concept that a knockout of a susceptibility gene can increase resistance in plants to a wide variety of disease-causing microorganisms. An example that caught my attention pertained to powdery mildew of wheat, because fungicides (pesticides that control fungi) are commonly used against this disease. While this particular genetic knockout is not yet commercialized, I personally would rather eat wheat products from varieties that control disease through genetics than from crops treated with fungicides.

Plant viruses are often difficult to control in susceptible crop varieties. Conventional breeding can help make plants resistant to viruses, but sometimes it is not successful.

Early approaches to engineering virus resistance in plants involved inserting a gene from the virus into the plants genetic material. For example, plant-infecting viruses are surrounded by a protective layer of protein, called the "coat protein." The gene for the coat protein of a virus called papaya ring spot virus was inserted into papaya. Through a process called RNAi, this empowers the plant to inactivate the virus when it invades. GE papaya has been a spectacular success, in large part saving the Hawaiian papaya industry.

Mutations occur naturally every time a plant makes a seed; in fact, they are the very foundation of evolution.

Through time, researchers discovered that even just a very small fragment from one viral gene can stimulate RNAi-based resistance if precisely placed within a specific location in the plants DNA. Even better, they found we can "stack" resistance genes engineered with extremely modest changes in order to create a plant highly resistant to multiple viruses. This is important because, in the field, crops are often exposed to infection by several viruses.

Does eating this tiny bit of a viral gene sequence concern me? Absolutely not, for many reasons, including:

Microorganisms often can overcome plants biochemical defenses by producing molecules called effectors that interfere with those defenses. Plants respond by evolving proteins to recognize and disable these effector molecules. These recognition proteins are called "R" proteins ("R" standing for "resistance"). Their job is to recognize the invading effector molecule and trigger additional defenses. A third interesting approach, then, to help plants resist an invading microorganism is to engineer an R protein so that it recognizes effector molecules other than the one it evolved to detect. We can then use CRISPR to supply a plant with the very small amount of DNA needed to empower it to make this protein.

This approach, like susceptibility knockouts, is quite feasible, based on published research. Commercial implementation will require some willing private- or public-sector entity to do the development work and to face the very substantial and costly challenges of the regulatory process.

The three examples here show that extremely modest engineered changes in plant genetics can result in very important benefits. All three examples involve engineered changes that trigger the natural defenses of the plant. No novel defense mechanisms were introduced in these research projects, a fact that may appeal to some consumers. The wise use of the advanced GE methods illustrated here, as well as others described elsewhere, has the potential to increase the sustainability of our food production systems, particularly given the well-established safety of GE crops and their products for consumption.

Visit link:
When genetic engineering is the environmentally friendly choice - GreenBiz

The idea of transplanting organs from pigs into humans has been around for a long time. And for a long time, xenotransplantsor putting organs from one species into anotherhas come up against two seemingly insurmountable problems.

The first problem is fairly intuitive: Pig organs provoke a massive and destructive immune response in humansfar more so than an organ from another person. The second problem is less obvious: Pig genomes are rife with DNA sequences of viruses that can infect human cells. In the 1990s, the pharmaceutical giant Novartis planned to throw as much $1 billion at animal-to-human transplant research, only to shutter its research unit after several years of failed experiments.

Quite suddenly, however, solving these two problems has become much easier and much faster thanks to the gene-editing technology CRISPR. With CRISPR, scientists can knock out the pig genes that trigger the human immune response. And they can inactivate the virusescalled porcine endogenous retroviruses, or PERVsthat lurk in the pig genome.

On Thursday, scientists working for a startup called eGenesis reported the birth of 37 PERV-free baby pigs in China, 15 of them still surviving. The black-and-white piglets are now several months old, and they belong to a breed of miniature pigs that will grow no bigger than 150 poundswith organs just the right size for transplant into adult humans.

eGenesis spun out of the lab of the Harvard geneticist George Church, who previously reported inactivating 62 copies of PERV from pig cells in 2015. But the jump from specialized pig cells that grow well in labs to living PERV-free piglets wasnt easy.

We didnt even know we could have viable pigs, says Luhan Yang, a former graduate student in Churchs lab and co-founder of eGenesis. When her team first tried to edit all 62 copies in pig cells that they wanted to turn into embryos, the cells died. They were more sensitive than the specialized cell lines. Eventually Yang and her team figured out a chemical cocktail that could keep these cells alive through the gene-editing process. This technique could be useful in large-scale gene-editing projects unrelated to xenotransplants, too.

When Yang and her team first inactivated PERV from cells in a lab, my colleague Ed Yong suggested that the work was an example of CRISPRs power rather than a huge breakthrough in pig-to-human transplants, given the challenges of immune compatibility. And true, Yang and Church come at this research as CRISPR pioneers, but not experts in transplantation. At a gathering of organ-transplantation researchers last Friday, Church said that his team had identified about 45 genes to make pig organs more compatible with humans, though he was open to more suggestions. I would bet we are not as sophisticated as we should be because weve only been recently invited [to meetings like this], he said. Its an active area of research for eGenesis, though Yang declined to disclose what the company has accomplished so far.

Its great genetic-engineering work. Its an accomplishment to inactivate that many genes, says Joseph Tector, a xenotransplant researcher at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Researchers like Tector, who is also a transplant surgeon, have been chipping away at the problem of immune incompatibility for years, though. CRISPR has sped up that research, too. The first pig gene implicated in the human immune response is alpha-gal. Making a pig that lacked alpha-gal via older genetic-engineering methods took three years. Now from concept to pig on the ground, its probably six months, says Tector.

Using CRISPR, his team has created a triple-knockout pig that lacks alpha-gal as well as two other genes involved in molecules that that provoke the human immune systems immediate hyperacute rejection of pig organs. For about 30 percent of people, the organs from these triple-knockout pigs should not cause hyperacute rejection. Tector thinks the patients who receive these pig organs could then be treated with the same immunosuppressant drugs that recipients take after an ordinary human-to-human transplant.

Tector and David Cooper, another transplant pioneer, were both recently recruited to the University of Alabama at Birmingham for a xenotransplant program funded by United Therapeutics, a Maryland biotech company that wants to manufacture transplantable organs.

Cooper has transplanted kidneys from pigs engineered by United Therapeutics to have six mutations, which lasted over 200 days in baboons. The result is promising enough that he says human trials could begin soon. These pigs were not created using CRISPR and they are not PERV-free, though recent research has suggested that PERV may not be that harmful to humans. It will be up to the FDA to decide whether pig organs with PERV are safe enough to transplant into people.

If it happens, routine pig-to-human transplants could truly transform healthcare beyond simply increasing the supply. Organs would go from a product of chancesomeone young and healthy dying, unexpectedlyto the product of a standardized manufacturing process. Its going to make such a huge difference that I dont think its possible to conceive of it, says Cooper. Organ transplants would no longer have to be emergency surgeries, requiring planes to deliver organs and surgical teams to scramble at any hour. Organs from pigs can be harvested on a schedule, and surgeries planned for exact times during the day. A patient that comes in with kidney failure could get a kidney the next dayeliminating the need for large dialysis centers. Hospital ICU beds will no longer be taken up by patients waiting for a heart transplant.

With the ability to engineer a donor pig, pig organs can go beyond simply matching a human organ. For example, Cooper says, you could engineer organs to protect themselves from the immune system in the long term, perhaps by making their own localized dose of immunosuppressant drugs.

'Big Pork' Wants to Get In on Organ Transplants

At last Fridays summit, Church speculated about making organs resistant to tumors or viruses. When an audience member asked about the possibility of genetically enhancing pig organs to work as well as Michael Phelpss lungs or Usain Bolts heart, he responded, We not only can but should enhance pig organs, even if were opposed to enhancing human beings ... They will go through safety and efficacy testing, but part of efficacy is making sure theyre robust and maybe they have to be as robust as Michael Phelps in order to do the job.

Xenotransplantation will raise ethical questions, of course, and genetically enhancing pigs might come uncomfortably close to the plot of Okja. These enhancements are hard to fathom for now because scientist dont yet know what genes to alter if they wanted to make, for example, super lungs. Its taken decades of research to pinpoint the handful of genes that could make pig organs simply compatible with humans. But the technical ability to make any editsor even dozens of edits at oncewith CRISPR is already here.

More:
Genetically Engineering Pigs to Grow Organs for People - The Atlantic

The DNA of early human embryos carrying a sequence leading to hypertrophic cardiomyopathya potentially deadly heart defecthas been edited to ensure they would carry a healthy DNA sequence if brought to term. The Nature paper announcing this has reenergized a terrific national and international debate over whether permanent changes in DNA that can be passed from one generation to another should be made. Bioethicists are asking, Should we genetically engineer children? while some potential parents are almost certainly asking, When will this technique be available?

The Should questions bioethicists are asking are probably not relevant. The only question whose answer ultimately matters is: Can techniques like CRISP-R be used to genetically engineer children safely? Because a variety of forces guarantee that if they can be, they will be.

The key questions reliable practitioners must answer are: Can we prove it works? Then: Can it be used safely?. If yes on these questions, then we will see: Who is marketing this technique to potential parents? Finally, we will learn: Where was it done, who did it, and who paid for its use?

We are closer than ever before to using CRISP-R to replace dangerous DNA sequences with those that wont keep a baby from being healthy. Fortunately, this Nature paper leaves many questions Unanswered because the embryos were not allowed to come to term.

Most importantly, we still dont know Could the embryos have developed into viable babies? Just as in 2015 when researchers at Sun Yat-Sen University in China didnt implant engineered embryos into a womans womb, the scientists who published in Nature recently didnt feel ready (and didnt have permission) to try this potentially enormous step. As experiments proceed, this question will, at some point, be answered.

It will be answered because there is an enormous, proven market for techniques that can be used to ensure that a baby will be born without DNA sequences that can lead to genetically-mediated conditions; many of which are devastating as we have been tragically reminded of late.

Under the best circumstances, in-vitro fertilization leads to a live birth less than half of the time. As a result, whoever tries to see if an embryo that has had targeted DNA repaired using CRISP-R will doubtless prepare a lot of embryos for implanting in quite a few women. When those women are asked to carry these embryos to term we will not know about it. We will probably not find out if none of the embryos come to term successfully.

We *will* know about this procedure if even one baby comes to term and is born with the targeted genetic sequence corrected as intended. Until now, (and maybe even with our new knowledge), any baby brought to term after CRISP-R was used to edit and replace unhealthy DNA would have almost certainly had other DNA damaged in the editing process. This near-certainty and other concerns have held people back from trying to genetically engineer an embryo that they would then bring to term. They could not, until recently, have confidence that only the sequence being targeted has been affected. With this new Nature report, this, at least, is changing.

The results of these newly reported experiments are many steps closer to usability than the Chinese experiments reported in 2015. This is the nature of scientific experimentation, particularly when there is demand for the capability or knowledge being developed.

People try something. It either works or it doesnt. Sometimes when it doesnt work, we learn enough to adjust and try again. If it does work, it often doesnt function exactly the way we expected. Either way, people keep trying until either the technique is perfected or it ultimately proves to be unusable.

This Nature paper is an example of trying something and doing a better job than the first attempt. It does not represent a provably safe and reliable technique . Yet. If market driven research works as it often does, people will work hard to publish data (hopefully from reliable experimental work) suggesting they have a safe and effective technique. Doing so will let them tell some desperate set of wealthy prospective parents: We should be able to use this technique with an acceptable chance of giving you a healthy baby.

Princetons Lee Silver predicted parents desire for gene editing in his Remaking Eden, a book published in 1997. He argued this because people fear sickness or disability and feel strong personal, economic and social pressures to have healthy, beautiful children who should become healthy attractive adults.

People already spend a great deal on molecular techniques like pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). PGD is regularly used to reduce couples risk of having babies with known (or potential), chromosomal abnormalities and/or single gene mutations that can lead to thousands of DNA-mediated conditions.

As I showed in my Genetics dissertation published from Yale in 2004, different countries respond differently to controversial science like this. Similarly, different individuals responses are equally diverse. One poll indicates nearly half of Americans would use gene editing technology to prevent possible DNA-mediated conditions in their children. Policy makers who object to the technology therefore have a problem: if they succeed in blocking it somewhere, research and real world experience indicate other governments may well permit its use. If this happens, these techniques will be available to anyone wealthy and desperate enough to find providers with the marketingand hopefully scientificskill needed to sell people on trying them.

This gene editing controversy is a reminder that we are losing the capacity to effectively ask, Should we? As our knowledge of science grows, becomes more globalized, and is increasingly easy to acquire for people with different morals, needs and wants, we must soon be ready to ask, Can we? and ultimately, Will someone? Their answers will give us the best chance to ensure any babies that may come from any technique described as genetic engineering are born healthy, happy, and able to thrive.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

See the original post:
It's Time to Stop Asking Whether Human Genetic Engineering Should Happen and Start Planning to Manage it Safely - HuffPost