Can Humans Live to 1,000? Some Experts Claim We Can — Others Want to Prevent That

Cambridge University geneticist Aubrey de Grey has famously stated, “The first person to live to be 1,000 years old is certainly alive today …whether they realize it or not, barring accidents and suicide, most people now 40 years or younger can expect to live for centuries.”

Perhaps de Gray is way too optimistic, but plenty of others have joined the search for a virtual fountain of youth. In fact, a growing number of scientists, doctors, geneticists and nanotech experts—many with impeccable academic credentials—are insisting that there is no hard reason why ageing can’t be dramatically slowed or prevented altogether. Not only is it theoretically possible, they argue, but a scientifically achievable goal that can and should be reached in time to benefit those alive today.

“I am working on immortality,” says Michael Rose, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of California, Irvine, who has achieved breakthrough results extending the lives of fruit flies. “Twenty years ago the idea of postponing aging, let alone reversing it, was weird and off-the-wall. Today there are good reasons for thinking it is fundamentally possible.”

Even the US government finds the field sufficiently promising to fund some of the research. Federal funding for “the biology of ageing”, excluding work on ageing-specific diseases like heart failure and cancer – has been running at about $2.4 billion a year, according to the National Institute of Ageing, part of the National Institutes of Health.

So far, the most intriguing results have been spawned by the genetics labs of bigger universities, where anti-ageing scientists have found ways to extend live spans of a range of organisms—including mammals. But genetic research is not the only field that may hold the key to eternity.

“There are many, many different components of ageing and we are chipping away at all of them,” said Robert Freitas at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, a non-profit, nanotech group in Palo Alto, California. “It will take time and, if you put it in terms of the big developments of modern technology, say the telephone, we are still about 10 years off from Alexander Graham Bell shouting to his assistant through that first device. Still, in the near future, say the next two to four decades, the disease of ageing will be cured.”

But not everyone thinks ageing can or should be cured. Some say that humans weren’t meant to live forever, regardless of whether or not we actually can.

“I just don't think [immortality] is possible,” says Sherwin Nuland, a professor of surgery at the Yale School of Medicine. “Aubrey and the others who talk of greatly extending lifespan are oversimplifying the science and just don't understand the magnitude of the task. His plan will not succeed. Were it to do so, it would undermine what it means to be human.”

It’s interesting that Nuland first says he doesn’t think it will work but then adds that if it does, it will undermine humanity. So, which is it? Is it impossible, or are the skeptics just hoping it is?

After all, we already have overpopulation, global warming, limited resources and other issues to deal with, so why compound the problem by adding immortality into the mix.

But anti-ageing enthusiasts argue that as our perspectives change and science and technology advance exponentially, new solutions will emerge. Space colonization, for example, along with dramatically improved resource management, could resolve the concerns associated with long life. They reason that if the Universe goes on seemingly forever—much of it presumably unused—why not populate it?

However, anti-ageing crusaders are coming up against an increasingly influential alliance of bioconservatives who want to restrict research seeking to “unnaturally” prolong life. Some of these individuals were influential in persuading President Bush in 2001 to restrict federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. They oppose the idea of life extension and anti-ageing research on ethical, moral and ecological grounds.

Leon Kass, the former head of Bush's Council on Bioethics, insists that “the finitude of human life is a blessing for every human individual”. Bioethicist Daniel Callahan of the Garrison, New York-based Hastings Centre, agrees: “There is no known social good coming from the conquest of death.”

Maybe they’re right, but then why do we as humans strive so hard to prolong our lives in the first place? Maybe growing old, getting sick and dying is just a natural, inevitable part of the circle of life, and we may as well accept it.

"But it's not inevitable, that's the point," de Grey says. "At the moment, we're stuck with this awful fatalism that we're all going to get old and sick and die painful deaths. There are a 100,000 people dying each day from age-related diseases. We can stop this carnage. It's simply a matter of deciding that's what we should be doing."

One wonders what Methuselah would say about all this.

Posted by Rebecca Sato

Article from: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/08/can-science-con.html

This article can be linked to the other article on the heart disease cure.

Are We Close to Creating Super-Mutant Humans?

Nearly every day we are inundated with new genetic discoveries. Scientists can now pinpoint many specific genes including being lean, living a long life, improved self-healing, thrill seeking behavior, and having an improved memory among many other incredible traits. Many believe that these genes can be manipulated in ordinary humans, in effect creating Super-Mutants.

Isaac Asimov, the famous thinker and sci-fi writer wrote, “The advance of genetic engineering makes it quite conceivable that we will begin to design our own evolutionary progress.”

The options are nearly limitless. Theoretically, if a gene exists in another species, it can be brought over to a human cell. Imagine some of the incredible traits of the animal kingdom that humans miss out on- night vision, amazing agility, or the ability to breath underwater. The precedence for these types of radical changes is already in place. Experimental mice, for example, were successfully given the human ability to see in color. If animals can be engineered to have human traits, then humans can certainly be mutated to have desirable animal traits.

Recently, a National Human Genome Research Institute team reported a mutation in a gene that codes for a muscle protein known as myostatin which can increase muscle mass and enhance racing performance in whippets. Some wonder if human athletes could benefit from having a gene or two artificially mutated to give them a little extra strength and speed.

It is even thought possible to so drastically alter human genomes that a type of superhuman species could emerge. The fear with germline engineering is that since it is inheritable, offspring and all succeeding generations would carry the modified traits. This is one reason why this type of engineering is currently banned- it could lead to irreversible alteration of the entire human species.

Ethics, not scientific limitations, is the real brick wall. Most scientists believe manipulating genes in order to make an individual healthy is a noble and worthwhile pursuit. Some are against even that notion, arguing that historically amazing individuals have sometimes been plagued by genetic mental and physical disorders, which inadvertently shaped the greatness of their lives. Should we rob the human race of character shaping frailty? Very few scientists would dare to publicly endorse the idea of using genetic engineering to make a normal, healthy individuals somehow superior to the rest of the human race.

“The push to redesign human beings, animals and plants to meet the commercial goals of a limited number of individuals is fundamentally at odds with the principle of respect for nature,”
said Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth in his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

However, would it be so bad if the human race was slightly improved? What if a relatively simple procedure could make an individual and his or her offspring more compassionate, intelligent and thoughtful? Currently scientists are using gene therapy in an attempt to wipe out disease, but what if we could save many more lives by wiping out war instead though engineering humans to be less bloodthirsty, hateful and narrow-minded?

After all, Nature isn’t always right. Nature has naturally selected many people to carry the burden of uncomfortable and often lethal genetic disorders. If nature knows best, then shouldn’t we quit trying to “improve” upon nature by “curing” people of genetic conditions we consider inferior? Many say we shouldn’t change human genetics, UNLESS it’s the RIGHT thing to do. Who gets to decide where the line is between righteous endeavor and the corruption of nature? These are the questions facing our generation.

Posted by Rebecca Sato

Article from: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/05/are_we_close_to.html

The First GM Human Embryo Could Dramatically Alter the Future

“The advance of genetic engineering makes it quite conceivable that we will begin to design our own evolutionary progress.”

~Isaac Asimov, famous thinker and sci-fi writer

Cornell University researchers in New York revealed that they had produced what is believed to be the world’s first genetically altered human embryo—an ironic twist considering all the criticism the US has heaped on South Korea over the past several years for going “too far” with its genetic research programs. The Cornell team, led by Nikica Zaninovic, used a virus to add a green fluorescent protein gene, to a human embryo left over from an in vitro fertilization procedure. The research was presented at a meeting of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine last year, but details have emerged only after new controversy has emerged over the ethics and science of genetically modifying humans.

Zaninovic has pointed out that in order to be sure that the new gene had been inserted and the embryo had been genetically modified, scientists would ideally want to keep growing the embryo and carry out further tests. However, the Cornell team did not get permission to keep the embryo alive. The GM embryos created could theoretically have become the world’s first genetically altered man or woman, but it was destroyed after five days.

British regulators form the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA), have warned that such controversial experiments cause “large ethical and public interest issues”.

Much of the debate stems from the fact that the effects of genetically altering an embryo would be generational and permanent. In other words, if we create a mutant baby and it grows up to have children of it’s own—they’ll all be mutant gene carriers too. Genes injected into embryos and reproductive cells, such as sperm, affect every cells in the body and would be passed on to future generations. Critics say current humans don’t have the right to tamper with the gene pool of future generations.

On the other hand, proponents of such technology say that this science could potentially erase diseases such as cystic fibrosis, hemophilia and even cancer. In theory, any “good” gene could be added to embryos to offset any “bad” genes they are currently carrying. That could potentially mean the difference between life and death for many children.

John Harris, the Sir David Alliance Professor of Bioethics at Manchester University, takes it a step further. He believes that as parents, citizens, and scientists, we are morally obliged to do whatever we can genetically to make life better and longer for our children and ourselves. Society currently devotes so much energy and resources towards saving lives, which, in reality, is simply postponing death, he notes. If it is right to save life, Harris reasons, then it should also be right to postpone death by stemming the flow of diseases that carry us to the grave.

For Harris, having the ability to improve our species lot in life but refusing to do so, makes little sense. He has a difficult time understanding why some people are so insistent that we shouldn’t try to improve upon human evolution.

“Can you imagine our ape ancestors getting together and saying, ‘this is pretty good, guys. Let’s stop it right here!’. That’s the equivalent of what people say today.”

Ethicists, however, warn that genetically modifying embryos will lead to designer babies preloaded with socially desirable traits involving height, intelligence and coloring.

Dr David King, director of Human Genetics Alert, warns, “This is the first step on the road that will lead to the nightmare of designer babies and a new eugenics.”

Harris, however, doesn’t support that argument. He says it’s not about “beauty” it’s about health, and what parent wouldn’t want a healthy child, he asks.

“Certainly, sometimes we want competitive advantage [for our children], but for the enhancements I talk about, the competitive advantage is not the prime motive. I didn’t give my son a good diet in the hope that others eat a bad diet and die prematurely. I’m happy if everyone has a good diet. The moral imperative should be that enhancements are generally available because they are good for everyone.”

The only other route to equality, he says, is to level down so that everyone is as uneducated, unhealthy and unenhanced as the lowest in society – which would be much more unethical in his opinion. Even though we can’t offer a liver transplant to all who need them, he says, we still carry them out for the lucky few. “Much better to try to raise the baseline, even if some are left behind.”

The Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill in currently under consideration in Britain will likely make it legal to create GM embryos in that country, but only for research—implantation in the womb will still be banned—at least for now. However, ethicists believe that the legislation could easily be relaxed even further in the future.

People who believe that genetically modified humans is something way into the future might want to consider that many experts are worried that some forms of it are already happening in the sports world.

Faster, bigger, better, stronger—in theory, the single most effective way to radically alter your physical capacities is to manipulate your genes. Athletes are beginning to take notice. Now that we’ve mapped out the human genome and identified exactly which genes make you buff, tough and rough—experts are concerned about the future of genetic doping.

Gene doping could spawn athletes capable of out-running, out-jumping and out-cycling even the world’s greatest champions. However, researchers at the University of Florida are attempting to prevent that from happening by detecting the first cases of gene doping in professional athletes before the practice becomes mainstream.

Montreal-based World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), responsible for monitoring the conduct of athletes, is working with investigators around the globe to develop testing to identify competitors who have injected themselves with genetic material that is capable of enhancing muscle mass or heightening endurance.

“If an athlete injects himself in the muscle with DNA, would we be able to detect that?” asked one of France’s leading gene therapy researchers, Philippe Moullier, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Gene Therapy Laboratory at the Universite de Nantes in France.

Right now, he says the answer is clearly “no”. But that may soon change. The UF scientists are among several groups collaborating with national and global anti-doping organizations to develop a test that can detect evidence of “doped” DNA.

“WADA has had a research program in place for some years now, to try to develop tests for gene-based doping,” said Theodore Friedmann, M.D., head of the agency’s panel on genetic doping and director of the gene therapy program at the University of California, San Diego.

Nearly every day now we are inundated with new genetic discoveries. Scientists can now pinpoint many specific genes including being lean, living a long life, improved self-healing, thrill seeking behavior, and having an improved memory among many other incredible traits. Many believe that these genes can be manipulated in ordinary humans, in effect creating Super-Mutants.

Theoretically, options are nearly limitless. Even a gene that exists in another species could be brought over to a human cell. Imagine some of the incredible traits of the animal kingdom that some humans don’t possess such as night vision, amazing agility, or the ability to breath underwater. The precedence for these types of radical changes is already in place. Experimental mice, for example, were successfully given the human ability to see in color. If animals can be engineered to have human traits, then humans can certainly be mutated to have desirable animal traits.

It is even thought possible to so drastically alter human genomes that a type of superhuman species could emerge. The fear with germline engineering is that since it is inheritable, offspring and all succeeding generations would carry the modified traits. This is one reason why this type of engineering is currently banned- it could lead to irreversible alteration of the entire human species.

Ethics, not scientific limitations, is the real brick wall. Most scientists believe manipulating genes in order to make an individual healthy is a noble and worthwhile pursuit. Some are against even that notion, arguing that historically amazing individuals have sometimes been plagued by genetic mental and physical disorders, which inadvertently shaped the greatness of their lives. Should we rob the human race of character shaping frailty? Very few scientists would dare to publicly endorse the idea of using genetic engineering to make a normal, healthy individuals somehow superior to the rest of the human race.

“The push to redesign human beings, animals and plants to meet the commercial goals of a limited number of individuals is fundamentally at odds with the principle of respect for nature,”
said Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth in his testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

However, would it be so bad if the human race were slightly improved? What if a relatively simple procedure could make an individual and his or her offspring resistant to cancer? After all, Nature isn’t always right. Nature has naturally selected many people to carry the burden of uncomfortable and often lethal genetic disorders. If nature knows best, then shouldn’t we quit trying to “improve” upon nature by “curing” people of genetic conditions we consider inferior? Many say we shouldn’t change human genetics, UNLESS it’s the RIGHT thing to do. Who gets to decide where the line is between righteous endeavor and the corruption of nature? These are the questions facing our generation.

Posted by Rebecca Sato

Article from: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/03/the-worlds-fi-1.html

Ready to eat: the first GM fish for the dinner table

A GM salmon which grows twice as fast as ordinary fish could become the first genetically-modified animal in the world to be declared officially safe to eat, after America's powerful food-safety watchdog ruled it posed no major health or environmental risks.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it could not find any valid scientific reasons to ban the production of GM Atlantic salmon engineered with extra genes from two other fish species – a decision that could soon lead to its commercial production.

The verdict clears one of the last remaining hurdles for GM salmon to be lawfully sold and eaten in the US and will put pressure on salmon producers in Britain and Europe to follow suit.

Successive chief scientists to the UK Government, as well as science institutions such as the Royal Society, have endorsed the concept of GM technology as a tool for increasing food production in the 21st Century, but consumer opposition has so far blocked the approval of GM food for the dinner table.

Several government bodies including the advisory committees on the release of GM organisms and on novel foods and processes would have to review the technology before it was approved in the UK.

Supporters of the technology believe the GM salmon will make it not only easier and cheaper to produce farmed salmon, but that it could also be better for the environment because they can be grown on land-based fish farms.

Sir John Beddington, the current chief scientist, warned two years ago of a "perfect storm" of growing human numbers, climate change and food shortages, where it would be "very hard to see how it would be remotely sensible to justify not using new technologies such as GM".

GM opponents, however, argue that the introduction of the fast-growing salmon creates risks for both human health and the environment. They also argue that the salmon will be the start of concerted efforts to create other GM animals for human consumption, which could raise serious questions about animal welfare.

The FDA had already indicated the salmon was fit for human consumption. But in a draft environmental assessment written in May and published on Friday following inquiries by The Independent, it goes further by declaring that the production of the GM fish is unlikely to have any detrimental impact on the wider environment.

Opponents of the GM salmon – which some have dubbed the "Frankenfish" – have argued it could escape into the wild, interbreed with wild fish and undermine the genetics of the endangered Atlantic salmon, the "king of fishes" grown on fish farms in the UK.

However, the company behind the GM AquAdvantage salmon emphasised that the genetically engineered fish will be only be grown as sterile females and kept in secure containers on land.

In its draft assessment prepared as part of a New Animal Drug Application (NADA), the FDA agrees that the possibility of GM salmon escaping from fish farms is extremely remote and that interbreeding with wild salmon is equally unlikely.

The possibility of the GM salmon escaping into rivers and the sea from land-based fish farms is "extremely remote", the FDA said. "[The] FDA has made the preliminary determination it is reasonable to believe that approval of the AquAdvantage salmon NADA will not have any significant impacts on the quality of the human environment of the United States (including populations of endangered Atlantic salmon) when produced and grown under the conditions of use for the proposed action," it concludes.

Anti-GM groups last night raised concerns about the report. Peter Riley, of the pressure group GM Freeze, said: "The sterility system does not guarantee that there will be no escapes into the wild and some of them will be fully fertile. It's also debatable whether anyone wants to buy GM salmon, even in the US, if it is properly labelled."

The FDA also states the two other US Government agencies responsible for overseeing laws on endangered species – the National Marine Fisheries Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service – have agreed with the FDA's assessment that there will be "no effect" on wild Atlantic salmon or its habitat.

In its report, the FDA warns that if final approval is not given by the US Government, other countries may still develop GM Atlantic salmon.

The research into the GM salmon goes back to the late 1980s and it has gone through 17 years of bureaucratic wrangling over whether it should be approved for human consumption. The FDA indicated in 2010 that it would declare the GM salmon safe to eat but the issue was then kicked into the Washington long grass, which some have put down to nervousness on the part of the White House in the run-up to this year's Presidential election.

AquaBounty Technologies, the Massachusetts biotechnology company that developed the GM salmon, has become increasingly irritated by the delays to its application, which have caused severe strains on its finances.

Last September, the company's chief executive, Ron Stotish, expressed his anger with the FDA, which promised in May this year that it would soon publish its environmental assessment, on which the approval of the application rests.

"We are frustrated and disappointed in the delay, and we feel the FDA and US administration have a responsibility to inform us why they have not yet released the environmental assessment and moved forward our application," Mr Stotish said.

A spokeswoman for the FDA said: "The draft environmental assessment is an interim step in the overall evaluation of the application and is not a decision on the application itself."

Article from: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ready-to-eat-the-first-gm-fish-for-the-dinner-table-8430639.html

History of Genetic Engineering in Humans

Gene therapy trials on humans began in 2004 on patients with Severe Combined Immunodeficiency (SCID). In 2000, the first gene therapy "success" resulted in SCID patients with a functional immune system. These trials were stopped when it was discovered that two of ten patients in one trial had developed leukemia resulting from the insertion of the gene-carrying retrovirus near an oncogene. In 2007, four of the ten patients had developed leukemia. Work is now focusing on correcting the gene without triggering an oncogene.

Trial treatments of SCID have been gene therapy's only success; since 1999, gene therapy has restored the immune systems of at least 17 children with two forms (ADA-SCID and X-SCID) of the disorder.

Human genetic engineering is already being used on a small scale to allow infertile women with genetic defects in their mitochondria to have children. Healthy human eggs from a second mother are used. The child produced this way has genetic information from two mothers and one father. The changes made are germline changes and will likely be passed down from generation to generation, and, thus, are a permanent change to the human genome.

Other forms of human genetic engineering are still theoretical. Recombinant DNA research is usually performed to study gene expression and various human diseases. Some drastic demonstrations of gene modification have been made with mice and other animals. In some instances changes are usually brought about by removing genetic material from one organism and transferring them into another species.

Extracted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_engineering#History

Human Genetic Engineering History goes back to the 1919 when an engineer from Hungary gave a term biotechnology to products developed by using raw materials. The engineer made use of this term in its best possible sense. Civilizations in the ancient times discovered that a lot of products can be made by using micro-organisms.

However, people that time have no idea about there are active agents in the microbes. Back in 7000 B.C. some existing tribes also made precious discoveries about how to make beer using yeast. The Human Genetic Engineering History continues going ahead since those times. There is a lot of difference between Biotechnology and genetic engineering.

In one hand, gene manipulation is the result of equating biotechnology. However, many aspects are there that define biotechnology. On the other hand, genetic engineering came to perspective, because of its specific technique for manipulating genes.

The term Human Genetic Engineering made it presence felt in 1970. This is the time when several methods were devised with the help of molecular biologists for identifying or for isolating clone genes. Methods were also devised for manipulating the genes to other species or for mutating them in humans.

Restrictive enzymes got discovered during this research, and many have considered as the main success in the Human Genetic Engineering History. This enzyme can make organisms to isolate the DNA, and then it gets mixed with a vector preparation. Hybrid molecules can easily be generated with the sticky ends virtue. This molecule contains interest genes that can later get inserted into the vector.

Ethical concerns involved in Human Genetics

Many scientists knew that a lot of risk is there during the transfer of genes from one person to the other. Human Genetic Engineering History contains all the factors responsible for the invention of genetic engineering as a part of advance sciences. They found that their labs have been poised when they started experimenting clone genes.

Scientists also organized several meetings in order to discuss the risks involved in the transformation of genes. All scientists were given a chance to keep their points of view on the above subject. They made discussion on all the dangers that can potentially take place during their research. However, the meeting went unprecedented.

In this meeting, they made necessary or relevant decisions regarding the amount of time that might be needed for sorting out the solution. Certain guidelines came to existence for the recombinant organism biological and physical isolation. This should be done for ensuring that the organisms do not get mixed with the environment. Human Genetic Engineering History involves profound or numerous consequences.

Even if these recombinant organisms get mixed in the environment, then there will still be some time to make sure that it does effect the environment to a great effect. Gene cloning was at its peak position, and known to people of all religions and tribes by the end of 1976. Human Genetic Engineering History also involves the different advantages of advantages and disadvantage gene therapy can have on the living things.

Extracted from: http://humangenetic.org/human-genetic-engineering-history/

Gene could rejuvenate old hearts

The hearts of newborns have the remarkable capacity to heal themselves after injury by generating new heart cells but we lose this ability shortly after birth.

Now researchers have for the first time identified the gene which causes this change, allowing cells to continue dividing and potentially giving the adult heart the same regenerative power.

In experiments on rats, deleting the Meis1 gene allowed the heart cells of newborn mice to keep dividing for longer, and reactivated the regeneration process in adults without impeding the normal working of the heart.

Results also showed that making the gene more active in newborn mice prevented their cells from dividing and regenerating damaged tissue.

The findings suggest that deactivating the gene could lead to new treatments for adult heart failure patients and offer an alternative to stem cell therapies currently being developed, researchers said.

Dr. Hesham Sadek of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Centre, who led the study, explained: "We found that Meis1 controls several genes that normally act as brakes on cell division.

"As such, Meis1 could possibly be used as an on/off switch for making adult heart cells divide. If done successfully, this ability could introduce a new era in treatment for heart failure."

Heart failure, which limits the heart's ability to effectively pump blood around the body, affects more than 700,000 people in the UK.

It is most commonly caused by heart attack damage, but can also result from a variety of other conditions including high blood pressure, heart disease and congenital illness.

The researchers wrote in the Nature journal: "The hallmark of heart failure is the progressive nature of the disease, and the inability of the adult heart to regenerate after injury."

The transition which takes place in the heart shortly after birth could be the "key to unlocking the regenerative potential" of adult hearts, they said.

Professor Jeremy Pearson, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said: “By identifying Meis1 as a key component of the mechanism that prevents adult heart muscle cells from being able to replicate, this paper opens up the exciting prospect that blocking Meis1 will encourage heart muscle to regenerate and repair heart function after a heart attack.

“Further research is now needed to confirm this, and to design ways of blocking Meis1 that could be used clinically.”

Article from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10000446/Gene-could-rejuvenate-old-hearts.html

Well, you might be thinking what has this got to do with genetic engineering? This article actually shows us that there is a cure for heart diseases and many other diseases that are caused because cells in human body fail to multiply as the human body grows older. As mentioned in the article, when doctors delete the cell, Meis1, cells can continue dividing and this could lead to a whole new discovery of cures for other diseases that derive from the same problem. This is therefore an example for how genetic modification affects us in human life.

Safety Concerns Over Genetic Engineering

• Risks and Controversy

  Part one of this article looked at the pros of genetic engineering in humans. Now, we look at the cons. As with any new technology, there are some downsides.

  There's a big question mark over safety

  There are risks associated with getting genes into a human body and having them carry out the desired function. Some genes are carried in on viral vectors and these bugs have been altered so as not to infect a patient with a disease. However, a small number of gene therapy trials have resulted in the deaths of some subjects.

  Also, we simply do not know long term the potential ramifications of altering genes. For example, if you were to stop telomeres from shortening would this have negative knock-on effects elsewhere in the genome? The human genome and our whole bodies are a maze of complicated biological signals, pathways and interrelationships. A positive change upstream could cause a negative effect downstream.

  Genetic diversity

  If we were all to undergo genetic modification would this limit our genetic diversity? Could there be a danger that our gene pool diminishes and that as a population we become more susceptible to being wiped out by a hitherto unknown disease threat?

• A Slippery Slope? Ethics of Human Genetic Engineering

  To say that genetic engineering has attracted some controversy would be an understatement. There are many cries that scientists are 'playing God' and that it will lead to a two-tier society - the genetically haves and the have-nots. But is this any different to the cries of horror and fears of Frankenstein's monster that greeted Louise Brown, the first child to be born by IVF treatment? There was great uproar in the late 1970's but IVF is now a common, if expensive, fertility treatment. And there aren't any monsters stalking the Earth.
  Having said that, genetic engineering does hold the potential that parents could (if the technology worked) assemble their kids genetically, to be smarter, to be more athletic or have a particular hair or eye colour. Though it's rather fanciful to suggest that intelligence could be improved by the substitution of a gene, it may be found that there are several genes that are more commonly expressed in the genomes of intelligent people than those with more limited intellectual capacity. And parents might want to engineer an embryo to house a greater number of these genes. It is this genetic engineering of humans that so frightens people, that we could somehow design the human race. Though some people point out other potential benefits. What if it turned out that there were sets of genes that were commonly expressed in criminals - could we tackle crime by weeding out those genes?
  The technology is nowhere near there yet, but a tiny number of parents undergoing IVF have selected their embryos to be free from genetic mutations that have blighted generations of their family. In the UK in January 2009 a mother gave birth to a girl whose embryo had been selected to be free from a genetic form of breast cancer. Some see this as a slippery slope towards a eugenic future, others view it as a valuable use of genetic engineering to prevent disease from striking someone down.
  Society will decide how it uses this technology, and it is for governments to weigh up the pros and cons of genetic engineering in humans to see what may be carried out and what should be illegal. They will be prompted by public understanding, desire and concern. It therefore behoves all of us to understand what scientists are trying to accomplish and what they are not trying to do. We must all become better informed, to equip ourselves with more information and to know the difference between science fiction and science fact.
  
  
  By : Swedha Balachandar (03)

Genetic Engineering can be used to treat diseases

Proteins used to treat diseases

There is a protein called Erythropoietin (EPO). EPO is a hormone-like
substance made by the kidneys. It enters the bloodstream, goes to the
bone marrow and stimulates the production of red blood cells. Red
blood cells only last about 120 days, so they must be constantly
replaced. There are many people with kidney failure for various
reasons. These people are treated with kidney dialysis, because kidney
transplants are limited.

The kidney filters out the poisons and keeps the good things. In this
case, all you can do is to filter the bad things with the dialysis
machine. Among the things that get filtered out is EPO. So, these
people with kidney failure have kidney function restored by dialysis,
but they’re not making EPO. They have severe anemia. The only way to
get around this is by massive transfusion or to treat them with EPO.

The gene coding for EPO was isolated, EPO was made by recombinant DNA
technology, and this is now widely used for people who are undergoing
kidney dialysis and also people who are being treated with cancer
chemotherapy. Many of the drugs used in chemotherapy destroy bone
marrow cells.

EPO is also the first genetically engineered drug of abuse. Athletes
found that if they take some EPO they can increase their blood cell
count. Increasing the amount of red blood cells by about 10% can give
an athlete an edge in competition. There had been great controversies
in cycling and elsewhere because of the abuse of EPO.

Article from: http://human-genetics-blog.blogspot.sg/2010/01/benefits-of-genetic-engineering.html

Genetic Engineering is Good? Why?

he first major product of genetic engineering was human insulin.
Insulin is a protein that acts as a hormone to stimulate uptake of
blood sugar into tissues, such as the liver and the muscles. In
diabetes, people don’t make insulin. Previously, insulin came from
slaughtered animals. The insulin protein has 51 amino-acids. The
insulin from slaughtered animals is similar to human insulin, but very
often is one or two amino-acids different. It still has the same
function, but the human immune system will recognize these one or two
differences. So, in a significant number of diabetics, when taking
non-human insulin, their immune system reacts against it.

Here, what we need is human insulin. Insulin is made in very small
amounts. So, the only way to get this in reasonable amounts is by
amplifying the expression of genes for insulin in recombinant DNA.

At City of Hope Medical Center in California, Keiichi Itakura went
into the chemistry lab and made the insulin gene. It wasn’t even then
a big deal to make it. Itakura’s colleague, Art Riggs, took this gene
and put it into an expression vector, right next to a promoter. The
expression vector now had the gene and a marker. The expression vector
was then put into bacteria, and the bacteria expressed human insulin.
This is about 7 or 8 years after the first emergence of recombinant
DNA technology.

The insulin then was extracted, sent to a drug company, and then to
physicians. This is the source of all insulin now used to treat type 1
diabetics. This is really the great example of a genetically
engineered medication.

Another example is the blood-clotting protein that is missing in
hemophilia. This blood-clotting protein can be supplied with genetic
engineering. People no longer die of hemophilia thanks to genetic
engineering. So, here we have two clear benefits of genetic
engineering.

Article from: http://human-genetics-blog.blogspot.sg/2010/01/benefits-of-genetic-engineering.html

What are the benefits of human genetic engineering?

 The benefits of human genetic engineering can be found in the
headlines nearly every day. With the successful cloning of mammals and
the completion of the Human Genome Project, scientists all over the
world are aggressively researching the many different facets of human
genetic engineering. These continuing breakthroughs have allowed
science to more deeply understand DNA and its role in medicine,
pharmacology, reproductive technology, and countless other fields.

 The most promising benefit of human genetic engineering is gene
therapy. Gene therapy is the medical treatment of a disease by
repairing or replacing defective genes or introducing therapeutic
genes to fight the disease. Over the past ten years, certain
autoimmune diseases and heart disease have been treated with gene
therapy. Many diseases, such as Huntington's disease, ALS (Lou
Gehrig's disease), and cystic fibrosis are caused by a defective gene.
The hope is that soon, through genetic engineering, a cure can be
found for these diseases by either inserting a corrected gene,
modifying the defective gene, or even performing genetic surgery.
Eventually the hope is to completely eliminate certain genetic
diseases as well as treat non-genetic diseases with an appropriate
gene therapy.

 Currently, many pregnant women elect to have their fetuses screened
for genetic defects. The results of these screenings can allow the
parents and their physician to prepare for the arrival of a child who
may have special needs before, during, and after delivery. One
possible future benefit of human genetic engineering is that, with
gene therapy, a fetus w/ a genetic defect could be treated and even
cured before it is born. There is also current research into gene
therapy for embryos before they are implanted into the mother through
in-vitro fertilization.

 Another benefit of genetic engineering is the creation pharmaceutical
products that are superior to their predecessors. These new
pharmaceuticals are created through cloning certain genes. Currently
on the market are bio-engineered insulin (which was previously
obtained from sheep or cows) and human growth hormone (which in the
past was obtained from cadavers) as well as bio-engineered hormones
and blood clotting factors. The hope in the future is to be able to
create plants or fruits that contain a certain drug by manipulating
their genes in the laboratory.

 The field of human genetic engineering is growing and changing at a
tremendous pace. With these changes come several benefits and risks.
These benefits and risks must be weighed in light of their moral,
spiritual, legal, and ethical perspectives. The potential power of
human genetic engineering comes with great responsibility

Article from: http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/benefits-of-human-genetic-engineering-faq.htm

"We are Wrong to Use Genetic Manipulation for Future Health"

Should we improve our genetic make-up so we live longer, healthier lives? At first, the answer to this question may seem obvious - we all dream of winning the battle against ageing. But the idea of genetic improvement is deeply flawed.

The term "eugenics" was first coined by France Galton in 1883 to mean 'truly' or 'purely' born. It was later developed as 'the science of the improvement of the human race by better breeding'. Galton's many disciples believed that traits such as intelligence, feeblemindedness, criminality, alcoholism and prostitution were all caused by genes passed on by parents to successive generations. Eugenicists developed research programmes into all these conditions, as well as medical conditions such as deafness, blindness, depression, cancer and schizophrenia. They also lobbied for compulsory sterilisation and incarceration of the genetically unfit and, eventually, in Nazi Germany, for euthanasia.

Modern genetics has improved our understanding of genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. However, there are also important debates about the extent to which prenatal screening programmes prejudge the value of disabled people's lives. Genetic research into more complex conditions - such as heart disease - can sometimes help to find clues about the biological mechanisms underlying such diseases. In addition, a high risk of some rare familial forms of cancer - including about 5% of breast cancer cases - have been traced to mutations in particular genes, passed from one generation to the next. But genetic research has not delivered the much-promised 'genetic revolution' in health - the prediction and prevention of common diseases in most people - or an explanation of intelligence, criminality, heart disease or schizophrenia.

What more and more research has shown is that the underlying assumptions of eugenics - that some people are born genetically superior to others - are simply wrong. For example, the growing global epidemic of obesity is caused by overeating and lack of exercise, not by an increase in 'genes for obesity'. Of more than 600 obesity genes that have been identified, only a handful have been relevant to just a small number of families with children who are unusually obese. This relative un-importance of genetic factors limits the potential of human genetic engineering to improve our quality of life. Even for those relatively rare conditions known as genetic disorders, the genetic mutation does not determine a person's quality of life or their other attributes and value as a human being.

Genetic research can sometimes help to find new treatments for disease, and today's experimental gene therapy (known as 'somatic gene therapy') may one day become safe enough to treat some people with serious conditions - but this is not the same as altering the genetic make-up that an individual passes on to their children and their grandchildren. Changing genetic make-up (known as 'germline gene therapy') would involve enormous risks, experimenting on mothers and unborn babies, and would have unpredictable biological consequences which are passed to future generations. As most conditions are affected by many complex interactions between our biology and our environment, there is also likely to be little benefit to this approach. Genetic enhancement is a dangerous fantasy, which distracts us from the real issues affecting our quality of life. According to the United Nations, poverty is still the world's biggest killer. A billion people are suffering from malnutrition and another billion are threatening their health by eating too much saturated fat and sugar. Many of the latter are also poor people, living in cities in developing countries, or on our own housing estates. Genetic engineering isn't going to help them - tackling the global fast food industry, agricultural subsidies and other social and environmental factors might.

Article from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/zurichfuturology/story/0,,1920348,00.html

Biotechnology will solve the problems of an Aging Popoulation.

You can't turn on the radio these days without hearing something about the horrors that await us as a result of the "aging population". The upheavals and traumas predicted to occur are on the same scale as those resulting from global warming. Yet, we so far lack a coherent plan for what to do about this problem. This is rather different than the situation with global warming, where we have a fine plan but lack the collective will to implement it.

But what is actually the problem? There's ultimately only one: old people are not very well, compared to young adults. If people didn't decline in physical and mental ability in old age, we wouldn't have to spend immense sums on their health care, and moreover they would still be in the workforce, contributing wealth to society rather than consuming it.

"Er, but the elderly do decline, so why mention it?" you may be saying. Well, my work is focused on eradicating the functional decline of aging, and on the basis of a great deal of detailed scientific analysis and discussion with world-leading experts in the relevant areas I've concluded that my preferred approach to achieving this has at least a 50/50 chance of success within a few decades.

Don't believe me? Well, why do you think your snap judgement is more reliable than my conclusion from a decade of dedicated research?

I'll tell you why you think that: it's because you're in the pro-aging trance.

At root, we all know aging is really horrible, whether for us or for our loved ones, but we have also grown up in the rather firm knowledge that it is immutable. And when one is faced with a fate that is both horrible and immutable, it makes abundant sense to find some way -- any way, however illogical -- to put it out of one's mind and make the best of what time one has left, rather than spend that time preoccupied with something one cannot affect.

Reservations about curing aging are many and varied, of course - the "Tithonus error" that extended life means extended frailty, concerns about overpopulation, inequality of access, boredom and immortal dictators are some of the commonest - and they all have a germ of truth, but the most rudimentary sense of proportion shows that they can never outweigh the saving of 100,000 lives every day, which is what aging kills.

I can tell you what others without any axe to grind think. Luckily, as currently the most prominent proposer of a real cure for aging, I've recently been able to make my more strident detractors' information-free pessimism look pretty silly. In cooperation with interested journalists, I arranged for an eminent panel of unassailably neutral experts to evaluate my ideas - not whether they would work, since that can only be discovered by trying them, but whether they had enough chance of working to be worth discussing and developing. Some of my mainstream critics submitted an attempt to show that my proposals are too crazy to discuss, and both it and two other submissions from biologists who knew my work less well were unceremoniously and unanimously thrown out.

Radical ideas that mainstream scientists ridicule are usually wrong. But on occasion, they're right -- and if those with no axe to grind determine that an idea is not necessarily wrong, it's got a very good chance. Maybe we'll find that biotechnology can't solve the "aging population" problem, but the chance that we can solve it that way is easily high enough that we should be doing our very best to try.

Aubrey de Grey is a geneticist at Cambridge University
Article from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/zurichfuturology/story/0,,1920375,00.html

Should Genetic Engineering become more commonplace?

A positive 59% of Britons agree with controversial stem cell research, according to research by ICM conducted on behalf of the Guardian. The slight majority of respondents, 51% are in support of genetic engineering when designed to correct physical defects in unborn children. This indicates a positive change in the public's attitude to genetic engineering and is good news for the scientists who are adamant that cloning cells is the way to find cures for some of our most debilitating genetic diseases.

Stem cell research is advancing apace. Stem cells are cells that are capable of growing into any of the 300 different kinds of cell in the human body and researchers currently extract them from human embryos that have been discarded during fertility treatments.

However, British scientists are currently seeking approval to create embryos by fusing human cells with animal eggs in controversial research, which will boost stem cell science and tackle some of the most debilitating and untreatable neurological diseases. If they get approval from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority they plan to create embryos that will be 99.9% human and 0.1% rabbit or cow by fusing human cells with animal eggs. They will then use the embryos to create stem cells that carry the genetic defects responsible for neurological conditions such as motor neurone disease. By converting the stem cells into neurons, the scientists will be able to unravel how the disease destroys nerves and identify drugs to stop or reverse the damage.

The HFEA is also currently undertaking a public consultation on human egg donation, which is gathering views on whether scientists should be allowed to seek altruistic donations of eggs for research. The ICM research seems to suggest that this might not be as controversial as we once thought.

However, although the public are largely on side on the use of genetic engineering to help cure illness or provide transplant organs, there is still an overwhelming resistance to parents creating "designer babies". Only 13% of respondents to the ICM survey said they were in support of the parent's right to use genetic engineering to design their unborn child, with 63% opposing the process. However, a higher 20% of 18-24 year olds said they would condone the practice, which suggests perhaps that future generations will be more open to the idea.

Currently it is only legally possible to carry out two types of advanced reproductive technologies on humans using InVitrio Fertilisation to fertilise eggs with sperm in test tubes outside the mother's body. The first involves choosing the type of sperm that will fertilise an egg: this is used to determine the sex and the genes of the baby. The second technique screens embryos for a genetic disease: only selected embryos are implanted back into the mother's womb. This is called Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis.

In the future we may be able to "cure" genetic diseases in embryos by replacing faulty sections of DNA with healthy DNA. This is called germ line therapy and is carried out on an egg, sperm or a tiny fertilised embryo. Such therapy has successfully been done on animal embryos but at present it is illegal to do this in humans.

Fears are that this technique will be taken a stage further and used to select personality traits in the unborn child, from their hair or eye colour, to their ability to perform well in sports or exams. However, the results of the survey show that it will be some time before public opinion turns in favour of us playing God with our unborn children, while the way seems clear for scientists to continue the advancement of genetic engineering to help us live longer, healthier lives.

Article from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/zurichfuturology/story/0,,1920337,00.html