Athlete of the Week: Zane Peterson of Sebring McKinley – The-review

SEBRING Using his feet along with his head, Sebring McKinley senior Zane Peterson has developed into a true dual-threat quarterback.

After missing more than half of his junior season with an injury, Peterson showed resiliency through offseason preparation and intense commitment to help a struggling football program begin to turn the corner and establish a winning culture.

Through the first five Sebring games this season, Peterson's offensive play helped the Trojans go 2-3 and lay a positive foundation for the future. He has been accurate throwing the football, completing 50 of 83 attempts (60 percent) for 737 yards, six touchdowns, a pair of two-point conversions and only two interceptions. Peterson also has rushed for 289 yards on 61 tries (4.7 avg.), with five touchdowns and three two-point conversions.

For his play and positive impact on the team, Peterson was selected The Review Athlete of the Week.

"It's been a good year," Peterson said. "We have more numbers, because a lot of seniors who played when they were younger decided to come back out and play. Those guys have bonded well with the guys who returned and we've gotten better since our first game."

Peterson, who stands 6-foot-1 and weighs 175 pounds, has been an impact player in each contest, both at quarterback and outside linebacker. The Trojans, who struggled to score in several games last season, are averaging 18.4 points this season and have yet to be blanked. Peterson's arm and legs helped propel the attack, but so have running backs Jake Hunter and Cody Horning, and wideouts Carson Rouse, Noah Fredrick and Isaiah Bivins.

"We have a lot of [offensive] weapons," Peterson said. "Jake can plow through the line, Cody is fast and can jump, Carson is [about] 6-5 and can go up and get the ball, Noah has good moves and Isaiah is so fast."

Sebring lost 29-12 to Lowellville in its last game, but the Trojans amassed 262 yards of total offense. Peterson was 15 of 21 passing for 163 yards, successfully distributing the football to Hunter, Horning, Fredrick and Rouse, and just missing Bivins on a fly pattern.

Although he was forced to scramble occasionally and he was sacked a couple of times, Peterson managed to have ample time most of the game to throw. He credited the offensive line of center Noah Dennis, tackles Matt Byrd and Donovan Seruch, and guards Austin Haas and Frank Lozoya for protecting him and also opening holes for Hunter, who rushed for 73 yards and scored twice.

"Our offensive line did a great job against Lowellville," Peterson said. "The coaches have moved guys around and they're getting comfortable with their positions and working together."

That is part of Petersons maturation process, assuming a leadership role.

"The coaches want me to lead and I feel the best way to do that is to offer words of encouragement," he said.

Peterson began playing football when he was in elementary school, taking part in the Sebring Little Trojans program. His coach when he played on the 5th-6th grade team and the 7th-8th grade team was Matt Seidel, now the high school coach.

Seidel inherited a program which went 0-20 the two previous years.

"We knew him, because we had played for him before," Peterson said. "We also knew he's a Sebring guy and is passionate about wanting to help make the program succeed. We also knew he had the type of personality to get [increased] numbers, because he has a job [salesman] where you know how to [reach] people."

While Peterson had three years of high school football playing experience, he was starting over this year after recovering from a torn tendon in his right ring finger which forced him to miss the final six games last year.

Diving into the offseason weight lifting program run by assistant coach Dalton Smith, Peterson got into better physical condition His teammates also bought into the program. Peterson noticed it after Sebrings second game, a 37-29 win over Southington Chalker.

"We watched Chalker play the night after our Leetonia [season-opening] game and we thought we could beat them because we were in better shape," Peterson said. "When we played them, we noticed they were getting tired, so our conditioning and lifting paid off."

Peterson has been receptive pupil, both in the football meeting room and in a high school classroom. He carries a 4.0 grade-point-average and aspires to attend college and study physical therapy. He also would relish getting a chance to play football at a higher level.

"My favorite subject is anatomy," Peterson said. "It's going to help me get ready for studying [physical therapy]. Id like to play more football. If I dont, I want to have a career that's involved with athletics."

Original post:

Athlete of the Week: Zane Peterson of Sebring McKinley - The-review

Flashback: Peterson carries Vikings to win over Bears in 2007 – The Viking Age

This Sunday, the Minnesota Vikings and Chicago Bears (both 2-1) are set to faceoff inside Soldier Field. Both the Vikings and Bears are coming off a victory last week and this early divisional matchup is very critical for each team.

Divisional games are always very important regardless of when they take place on the schedule. Both Minnesota and Chicago could be in the race for the NFC North title this season and whoever wins this week could play a factor in who finishes on top of the division at the end of the year.

This will be a tough game for the Vikings to win, no doubt. Aside from Minnesotas struggles at Soldier Field, the Bears also have a good team this season and they are the defending NFC North champions.

Currently, the Vikings lead the all-time series against Chicago 60-54-2. One of the most memorable matchups between these two teams came back in 2007 when the Bears hosted a visiting 1-3 Minnesota team in Week 6.

This contest in Chicago was one of the best performances by Vikings rookie running back Adrian Peterson. In addition to rushing for 224 yards and three touchdowns on 20 carries, Peterson also returned a kick 53 yards to help set up a 55-yard game-winning field goal by Ryan Longwell.

During this matchup, Minnesota wide receiver Troy Williamson caught a 60-yard touchdown and linebacker Ben Leber recorded a sack and interception. The Vikings defense also recorded two interceptions and two fumble recoveries.

For the Bears, quarterback Brian Griese went 26-of-45 for 381 yards, three touchdowns, and two interceptions. Devin Hester chipped in with an 81-yard touchdown reception and also returned a punt for an 89-yard score. Chicago receiver Bernard Berrian ended his afternoon with five receptions for 78 yards and a touchdown.

Minnesota ended up winning by a final score of 34-31 to improve to 2-3 on the season. This was Minnesotas first win in the Windy City since the 2000 seasonand since this game in 2007, they have only been able to come out with a victory in Chicago twice.

Original post:

Flashback: Peterson carries Vikings to win over Bears in 2007 - The Viking Age

The Rise of Jordan Peterson Review: New Documentary Captures the Tumultuous Celebrity of the Famous Academic – legal Insurrection

As the old saying goes, he contains multitudes.

It would be easy to take a side on the issue of Jordan Peterson. Certainly at this point most everyone has. The controversial Canadian professor, author, free speech activist and public speaker has developed a massive international reputation over the past three years since he initially spoke out against the Canadian Bill C16, which threatened to make anti-transgender speech illegal.

In leftist circles, Peterson has been branded a transphobe and a clown. But hes developed a bad reputation in the fringe corners of the right where hes been written off as everything from a globalist, socialist, a mentally ill sociopath projecting his insecurities onto a generation of young men, a cult leader, an atheist spreading misinformation about Christianity, a Jewish stooge and, according to one unnamed far right forest creature, a wizard.

Certainly hes not without criticism. Still its hard to deny his work hasnt been a boon to western civilization. By all rights, Petersons ideas are a wart on the face of modern life, evidence that the modern progressive status quo isnt sustainable. Any world where Dr. Jordan Peterson can rise to fame with basic truism and life advice isnt in a good place.

Thus is the central contradiction explored in the new documentary The Rise of Jordan Peterson. The film, from first time director Patricia Marcoccia, follows the life behind the scenes of Dr. Peterson from 2016s free speech protests until the moment his star rose and he began his international book tour for 12 Rules for Life.

While overall a mostly positive exploration of Dr. Petersons celebrity, the movie does offer a somewhat nuanced opinion on the professor. The movie is mostly about him, his internal life and thoughts and the reaction the world has had to his rise but it doesnt shy away from some harsh points against him.

We meet friends of Dr. Peterson including supporters like Jonathan Pageau but we also get comprehensive interviews with critics of his both in and outside of his immediate circle. Most notable of these includes an extensive interview with one of the leaders of the transgender/non-binary protesters from the 2016 protests who is concerned his fame has created an atmosphere of open hostility towards government policies that protect trans people.

The only real problem with this is that it focuses the entire narrative around Peterson in a way that mostly marginalizes his critics. The movie does a good job giving his critics a chance to plainly speak their minds but the movies attention is so focused on him that it makes those critiques feel trivial at times. Still the portrait it paints isnt designed to worship him.

Overall we see Dr. Peterson is a delicate, conflicted man whose ideas have been thrust onto the stage of history. Hes a man dealing with having been declared a savior. This realization sparks fears of both wanting to reject that title and egotistically feeling the need to embrace it.

Maybe the most interesting contradiction it captures is the way he expresses himself at home. Hes the kind of man who fears totalitarianism more than anything yet lines his home with Soviet Realist paintings to contemplate them.

As the old saying goes, he contains multitudes.

Its clear from the footage just how much celebrity has affected him physiologically. In his earliest interviews he talks extremely stiffly with an air of fear. Three years on you can tell that the effects of his fame have been quite prominent. Hes lost a lot of weight; likely from stress.

While its not addressed in the documentary, Dr. Peterson recently checked himself into rehab as a result of an addiction to clonazepam which he was prescribed after discovering his wife was gravely ill. I can only wish the best for him as hes dealing with such horrific, serious personal and family problems.

The best takeaway from The Rise of Jordan Peterson one can take is that more than anything, hes just a person. Hes not the savior of western civilization. Hes not a messiah figure. Hes also not some malicious globalist figure attempting to control the minds of the youth. Hes a man whos unique psychology, position, intelligence and willingness to put his freedom on the line thrust him into prominence.

See the original post:

The Rise of Jordan Peterson Review: New Documentary Captures the Tumultuous Celebrity of the Famous Academic - legal Insurrection

Trina Peterson Is Riding 140 Miles to Save the Planet – 5280 | The Denver Magazine

In June 2017, the Nederland-based cyclist sustained a traumatic brain injury that nearly ended her cycling adventures. This weekend, she'll be biking 140 miles in support of Climate Ride.

Two years ago, Trina Peterson experienced a cycling accident that could have taken her life. Now, shes about to embark on a two-day, 140-mile rideand shes convinced it wouldnt be possible without the healing powers of community and nature.

This weekend, Peterson, 54, will join 200 cyclists in Petaluma, California, for the Green Fondo Weekend. The term is a playful spin on the Italian Gran Fondo, which loosely translated means Big Ride. Its just one of many cycling and hiking events organized by Climate Ride, a nonprofit that organizes charity bike rides and hikes to support a greener planet.Climate Ride participants commit to a fundraising minimum, which goes toward a nonprofit organization of their choosing, such as 1% For the Planet, National Geographic, and the Nature Conservancy.

Advertisement

Peterson did her first Climate Ride in 2013, welcoming the chance to mix philanthropy, athleticism, and nature. Its like this trifecta, she says. Today, shes grateful that, despite sustaining a traumatic brain injury, she can do it again.

On June 25, 2017, Peterson was biking with her dad on the Peak to Peak Highway, just six miles away from her Nederland home. About a half-mile into the ride, the pair pulled over to take a selfie, before hopping back on their bikes and continuing along the road.

That selfie is the last thing Peterson remembers.

Her recollection of what happened next is based on what she was told by the first responders and family members who rushed to help her that afternoon and in the days that followed. Upon hitting a rock at 22 mph, she and her bike catapulted into the center of the road while her dad, not realizing what had happened, continued on. When he finally discovered she wasnt behind him, he turned around, encountering a scene that was every parents nightmare. Peterson was foaming at the mouth, her body splayed out on the pavement.

Another passing cyclist, Dorin McClish, was the first to find Petersen. Coincidentally, McClish is also the head nurse on Boulder Community Hospitals ortho-neuro unit. Knowing Peterson had suffered a head injury and was having a seizure, McClish organized her husband, who was riding with her, and a team of passersby to move her off the road and call 911. She is my guardian angel, Peterson says.

Advertisement

Peterson arrived at Boulder Community Hospital with a cracked helmet and a shaky prognosis. In addition to sustaining a TBI, which caused an intraparenchymal hemorrhage, Peterson had a skull fracture, a burst elbow bursa, and a hip contusion. Initially, doctors were unsure if shed survive. The surgeon was telling [my husband], you know, every head injury is different. It could be two years, it could be five years before Trina gets her cognitive abilities back. We just dont know.

After several days in the ICU and a week of inpatient rehabilitation, Peterson went home with extensive bruising behind her ear, along with headaches, fatigue, vertigo, and slowed speech that would continue for months.

While shes grateful to her speech, occupational, and physical therapists, Peterson credits much of her healing to nature. Pointing toward a charm of hummingbirds outside her kitchen window, she recalls watching them as a tracking exercise to help restore her visual scanning ability. They were my friends, she says.She also spent a lot of time lying on a futon on her patio, feeling the sunshine and listening to the birds and the breeze in the aspens. Every day it was my job to sit out there and nap and nap and nap some more, she says, recalling the months following her accident. And every day it was my job to just look for beauty [in nature].

A former soccer and lacrosse player at Princetonbefore a career-ending ACL injury her sophomore yearPeterson has always felt connected with nature. Upon graduating high school, she took a summer job as a wilderness educator at National Outdoor Leadership School(NOLS). That summer, and every summer through her college years, she spent her days leading wilderness courses in Wyomings Wind River Range. [The] incredibly wild, open spaces made an imprint on me, she says. It taught me to always look for beauty.

Participating in a Climate Ride event is a way for Peterson to pay tribute to the birds, trees, and mountain views that supported her recovery. This year, she selected Climate Ride as her fundraising beneficiary. In addition to raising roughly $25,000 through participating in their events over the years, shes also served on Climate Rides board since 2015.

Advertisement

Aside from nature, Peterson says her near-full recoveryshe has yet to regain her sense of smellhinged on the support of her community. She describes the cards, the Facebook messages, and the acts of kindness she received during her recovery. It was like this buoy, just lifting me up and motivating me, she says. I kind of felt like Id been to my own funeral and wow. These people, they liked me. I felt so overwhelmed with their support that I felt like I owed it to them to come back.

Peterson has certainly made a comeback. Of the six Climate Ride events shes completed, this is her second bike event since her accident (the first was in summer 2018, just months after her first post-accident bike ride). Though she struggles with fear every time she gets on her bike, shes grateful for the ability to participate in the Climate Ride. You get to be active, you get to give back, and you get to do it all for beautiful places and for our natural environmentWhat could be better?

Get Involved: To support Trina Petersons effort to raise awareness of climate change, sustainable solutions, and active transportation advocacy, visit her Climate Ride fundraising page.

Read more from the original source:

Trina Peterson Is Riding 140 Miles to Save the Planet - 5280 | The Denver Magazine

Genetic engineering – Britannica.com

Genetic engineering, the artificial manipulation, modification, and recombination of DNA or other nucleic acid molecules in order to modify an organism or population of organisms.

Read More on This Topic

origins of agriculture: Genetic engineering

The application of genetics to agriculture since World War II has resulted in substantial increases in the production of many crops. This

The term genetic engineering initially referred to various techniques used for the modification or manipulation of organisms through the processes of heredity and reproduction. As such, the term embraced both artificial selection and all the interventions of biomedical techniques, among them artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (e.g., test-tube babies), cloning, and gene manipulation. In the latter part of the 20th century, however, the term came to refer more specifically to methods of recombinant DNA technology (or gene cloning), in which DNA molecules from two or more sources are combined either within cells or in vitro and are then inserted into host organisms in which they are able to propagate.

The possibility for recombinant DNA technology emerged with the discovery of restriction enzymes in 1968 by Swiss microbiologist Werner Arber. The following year American microbiologist Hamilton O. Smith purified so-called type II restriction enzymes, which were found to be essential to genetic engineering for their ability to cleave a specific site within the DNA (as opposed to type I restriction enzymes, which cleave DNA at random sites). Drawing on Smiths work, American molecular biologist Daniel Nathans helped advance the technique of DNA recombination in 197071 and demonstrated that type II enzymes could be useful in genetic studies. Genetic engineering based on recombination was pioneered in 1973 by American biochemists Stanley N. Cohen and Herbert W. Boyer, who were among the first to cut DNA into fragments, rejoin different fragments, and insert the new genes into E. coli bacteria, which then reproduced.

Most recombinant DNA technology involves the insertion of foreign genes into the plasmids of common laboratory strains of bacteria. Plasmids are small rings of DNA; they are not part of the bacteriums chromosome (the main repository of the organisms genetic information). Nonetheless, they are capable of directing protein synthesis, and, like chromosomal DNA, they are reproduced and passed on to the bacteriums progeny. Thus, by incorporating foreign DNA (for example, a mammalian gene) into a bacterium, researchers can obtain an almost limitless number of copies of the inserted gene. Furthermore, if the inserted gene is operative (i.e., if it directs protein synthesis), the modified bacterium will produce the protein specified by the foreign DNA.

A subsequent generation of genetic engineering techniques that emerged in the early 21st century centred on gene editing. Gene editing, based on a technology known as CRISPR-Cas9, allows researchers to customize a living organisms genetic sequence by making very specific changes to its DNA. Gene editing has a wide array of applications, being used for the genetic modification of crop plants and livestock and of laboratory model organisms (e.g., mice). The correction of genetic errors associated with disease in animals suggests that gene editing has potential applications in gene therapy for humans.

Genetic engineering has advanced the understanding of many theoretical and practical aspects of gene function and organization. Through recombinant DNA techniques, bacteria have been created that are capable of synthesizing human insulin, human growth hormone, alpha interferon, a hepatitis B vaccine, and other medically useful substances. Plants may be genetically adjusted to enable them to fix nitrogen, and genetic diseases can possibly be corrected by replacing dysfunctional genes with normally functioning genes. Nevertheless, special concern has been focused on such achievements for fear that they might result in the introduction of unfavourable and possibly dangerous traits into microorganisms that were previously free of theme.g., resistance to antibiotics, production of toxins, or a tendency to cause disease. Likewise, the application of gene editing in humans has raised ethical concerns, particularly regarding its potential use to alter traits such as intelligence and beauty.

In 1980 the new microorganisms created by recombinant DNA research were deemed patentable, and in 1986 the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the sale of the first living genetically altered organisma virus, used as a pseudorabies vaccine, from which a single gene had been cut. Since then several hundred patents have been awarded for genetically altered bacteria and plants. Patents on genetically engineered and genetically modified organisms, particularly crops and other foods, however, were a contentious issue, and they remained so into the first part of the 21st century.

Originally posted here:

Genetic engineering - Britannica.com

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering – Conserve Energy Future

Genetic engineering is the process to alter the structure and nature of genes in human beings, animals or foods using techniques like molecular cloning and transformation. In other words, it is the process of adding or modifying DNA in an organism to bring about great deal of transformation.

Genetic engineering was thought to be a real problem just a few short years ago. We feared that soon we would be interfering with nature, trying to play God and cheat him out of his chance to decide whether we were blonde or dark haired, whether we had blue or bright green eyes or even how intelligent we were. The queries and concerns that we have regarding such an intriguing part of science are still alive and well, although they are less talked about nowadays than they were those few years ago.

However, this does not mean that they are any less relevant. In fact, they are as relevant today as they ever were. There are a number of very real and very troubling concerns surrounding genetic engineering, although there are also some very real benefits to further genetic engineering and genetic research, too. It seems, therefore, as though genetic engineering is both a blessing and a curse, as though we stand to benefit as well as lose from developing this area of science even further.

With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve the human race. But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code.Stephen Hawking

Although at first the pros of genetic engineering may not be as apparent as the cons, upon further inspection, there are a number of benefits that we can only get if scientists consider to study and advance this particular branch of study. Here are just a few of the benefits:

1. Tackling and Defeating Diseases

Some of the most deadly and difficult diseases in the world, that have so resisted destruction, could be wiped out by the use of genetic engineering. There are a number of genetic mutations that humans can suffer from that will probably never be ended unless we actively intervene and genetically engineer the next generation to withstand these problems.

For instance, Cystic Fibrosis, a progressive and dangerous disease for which there is no known cure, could be completely cured with the help of selective genetic engineering.

2. Getting Rid of All Illnesses in Young and Unborn Children

There are very many problems that we can detect even before children are born. In the womb, doctors can tell whether your baby is going to suffer from sickle cell anemia, for instance, or from Down s syndrome. In fact, the date by which you can have an abortion has been pushed back relatively late just so that people can decide whether or not to abort a baby if it has one or more of these sorts of issues.

However, with genetic engineering, we would no longer have to worry. One of the main benefit of genetic engineering is that it can help cure and diseases and illness in unborn children. All children would be able to be born healthy and strong with no diseases or illnesses present at birth. Genetic engineering can also be used to help people who risk passing on terribly degenerative diseases to their children.

For instance, if you have Huntingtons there is a 50% chance that your children with inherit the disease and, even if they do not, they are likely to be carriers of the disease. You cannot simply stop people from having children if they suffer from a disease like this, therefore genetic engineering can help to ensure that their children live long and healthy lives from either the disease itself or from carrying the disease to pass on to younger generations.

3. Potential to Live Longer

Although humans are already living longer and longer in fact, our lifespan has shot up by a number of years in a very short amount of time because of the advances of modern medical science, genetic engineering could make our time on Earth even longer. There are specific, common illnesses and diseases that can take hold later in life and can end up killing us earlier than necessary.

With genetic engineering, on the other hand, we could reverse some of the most basic reasons for the bodys natural decline on a cellular level, drastically improving both the span of our lives and the quality of life later on. It could also help humans adapt to the growing problems of, for instance, global warming in the world.

If the places we live in become either a lot hotter or colder, we are going to need to adapt, but evolution takes many thousands of years, so genetic engineering can help us adapt quicker and better.

4. Produce New Foods

Genetic engineering is not just good for people. With genetic engineering we can design foods that are better able to withstand harsh temperatures such as the very hot or very cold, for instance and that are packed full of all the right nutrients that humans and animals need to survive. We may also be able to make our foods have a better medicinal value, thus introducing edible vaccines readily available to people all over the world

Perhaps more obvious than the pros of genetic engineering, there are a number of disadvantages to allowing scientists to break down barriers that perhaps are better left untouched. Here are just a few of those disadvantages:

1. Is it Right?

When genetic engineering first became possible, peoples first reactions were to immediately question whether it was right? Many religions believe that genetic engineering, after all, is tantamount to playing God, and expressly forbid that it is performed on their children, for instance.

Besides the religious arguments, however, there are a number of ethic objections. These diseases, after all, exist for a reason and have persisted throughout history for a reason. Whilst we should be fighting against them, we do need at least a few illnesses, otherwise we would soon become overpopulated. In fact, living longer is already causing social problems in the world today, so to artificially extend everybodys time on Earth might cause even more problems further down the line, problems that we cannot possibly predict.

2. May Lead to Genetic Defects

Another real problem with genetic engineering is the question about the safety of making changes at the cellular level. Scientists do not yet know absolutely everything about the way that the human body works (although they do, of course, have a very good idea). How can they possibly understand the ramifications of slight changes made at the smallest level?

What if we manage to wipe out one disease only to introduce something brand new and even more dangerous? Additionally, if scientists genetically engineer babies still in the womb, there is a very real and present danger that this could lead to complications, including miscarriage (early on), premature birth or even stillbirth, all of which are unthinkable.

The success rate of genetic experiments leaves a lot to be desired, after all. The human body is so complicated that scientists have to be able to predict what sort of affects their actions will have, and they simply cannot account for everything that could go wrong.

3. Limits Genetic Diversity

We need diversity in all species of animals. By genetically engineering our species, however, we will be having a detrimental effect on our genetic diversity in the same way as something like cloning would. Gene therapy is available only to the very rich and elite, which means that traits that tend to make people earn less money would eventually die out.

4. Can it Go Too Far?

One pressing question and issue with genetic engineering that has been around for years and years is whether it could end up going too far. There are many thousands of genetic scientists with honest intentions who want to bring an end to the worst diseases and illnesses of the current century and who are trying to do so by using genetic engineering.

However, what is to stop just a handful of people taking the research too far? What if we start demanding designer babies, children whose hair color, eye color, height and intelligence we ourselves dictate? What if we end up engineering the sex of the baby, for instance in China, where is it much more preferable to have a boy? Is that right? Is it fair? The problems with genetic engineering going too far are and ever present worry in a world in which genetic engineering is progressing further and further every day.

Genetic engineering is one of the topic that causes a lot of controversy. Altering the DNA of organisms has certainly raised a few eyebrows. It may work wonders but who knows if playing with the nature is really safe? Making yourself aware of all aspects of genetic engineering can help you to form your own opinion.

A true environmentalist by heart . Founded Conserve Energy Future with the sole motto of providing helpful information related to our rapidly depleting environment. Unless you strongly believe in Elon Musks idea of making Mars as another habitable planet, do remember that there really is no 'Planet B' in this whole universe.

See the rest here:

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering - Conserve Energy Future

Genetic engineering | Memory Alpha | FANDOM powered by Wikia

A portrait of Khan Noonien Singh, a man who was a product of genetic engineering

Genetic engineering, genetic programming or genetic manipulation was a process in which the DNA of an organism was selectively altered through artificial means. Genetic engineering was often used to produce "custom" organisms, such as for agricultural or medical purposes, as well as to produce biogenic weapons. The most common application of genetic engineering on intelligent beings in the Federation was corrective DNA resequencing for genetic disorders. A far more dubious application of genetic engineering was the genetic enhancement of individuals to produce improved senses, strength, intelligence, etc.

During Earth's 20th century, the efforts of ambitious scientists' to produce "superhumans" eventually resulted in the Eugenics Wars. Genetically engineered individuals such as Khan Noonien Singh attempted to seize power. (TOS: "Space Seed")

This would lead to the banning of genetic engineering on Earth by the mid-22nd century, even research which could be used to cure critical illnesses. This ban was implemented because of the general fear of creating more tyrants such as Khan. It was also felt that parents would feel compelled to have their children genetically engineered, especially if "enhanced" individuals were allowed to compete in normal society.

Some, including geneticist Arik Soong, argued that it was simply convenient for Humanity to denounce the attempts at genetic "improvement" of Humanity, that it was inherently evil because of the Eugenics Wars. He argued that the source of the problem, in fact, wasn't the technology, but Humanity's own inability to use it wisely. Imprisoned for, among other crimes, stealing the embryos of a number of Augment children, Soong wrote long treatises on the subject of genetic augmentations and improvements. His works were routinely taken and placed into storage (although his jailers often told him that his work was vaporized). Though Soong himself gave up genetics to begin research in cybernetics, Captain Jonathan Archer expressed his hope to Soong that research into genetic engineering could cure life-threatening diseases would someday be resumed. (ENT: "Borderland", "The Augments")

Symbols used to indicate presence of genetically engineered lifeform

Others, however, chose to establish isolated colonies, as became the case with the Genome colony on Moab IV, which was established in 2168. It became a notable and successful example of Human genetic engineering in which every individual was genetically tailored from birth to perform a specific role in society. However, after a five-day visit by the USS Enterprise-D when the ship came to the colony in an effort to save it from an approaching neutron star which, eventually, the craft was able to effectively redirect twenty-three colonists left the colony aboard the craft, possibly causing significant damage to the structure of their society. The reason for the societal split was that those who left the colony had realized their organized, pre-planned world had certain limitations, lacking opportunities to grow that were offered by the Enterprise. (TNG: "The Masterpiece Society")

By the 24th century, the United Federation of Planets allowed limited use of genetic engineering to correct existing genetically related medical conditions. Persons known to be genetically enhanced, however, were not allowed to serve in Starfleet, and were especially banned from practicing medicine. (TNG: "Genesis", DS9: "Doctor Bashir, I Presume")

Nevertheless, some parents attempted to secretly have their children genetically modified. (DS9: "Doctor Bashir, I Presume") Unfortunately, most of these operations were performed by unqualified physicians, resulting in severe psychological problems in the children due to their enhancements being only partially successful, such as a patient's senses being enhanced while their ability to process the resulting data remained at a Human norm. (DS9: "Statistical Probabilities")

In some cases, genetic engineering can be permitted to be performed in utero when dealing with a developing fetus to correct any potential genetic defects that could handicap the child as they grew up. Chakotay's family history included a defective gene that made those who possessed it prone to hallucinations, the gene afflicting his grandfather in Chakotay's youth, although the gene was suppressed in Chakotay himself. (VOY: "The Fight") In 2377, The Doctor performed prenatal genetic modification on Miral Paris to correct a spinal deviation, a congenital defect that tends to run in Klingon families; Miral's mother and grandmother had undergone surgery to correct the defect at a young age, but the modification meant Miral would not need surgery herself. Unfortunately, learning of this capability, B'Elanna briefly became obsessed with having her child modified to remove all Klingon DNA traits to try and 'protect' her daughter from the discrimination she had experienced as a child, even going so far as to reprogram The Doctor so that he would believe these changes were necessary to prevent later illness, but she was talked out of it by her husband (VOY: "Lineage").

The Founders of the Dominion performed extensive genetic modifications on their two servant races, the Jem'Hadar and the Vorta, in order for them to better serve their roles and to ingrain a fanatical devotion to the Founders. (DS9: "The Abandoned", "Ties of Blood and Water") As a result of these modifications, neither species reproduced in the traditional biological sense. (DS9: "To the Death")

According to Vorta legend, they were originally ape-like creatures who were gifted sentience by the Founders after they helped a changeling escape pursuit. (DS9: "Treachery, Faith and the Great River")

It is unknown whether the Jem'Hadar had any such ancestral species.

The Dominion also genetically engineered biological weapons, such as the blight they unleashed against the people of the Teplan system. (DS9: "The Quickening")

During the 22nd century, the Suliban were no more evolved than Humans. However, a number of Suliban, from a faction known as the Suliban Cabal, became recipients of some very sophisticated genetic engineering thanks to a mysterious humanoid from the 28th century. These enhancements included subcutaneous pigment sacs, a bio-mimetic garment, modified alveoli, more bronchial lobes and eyes with compound retinas which allowed them to see things starship sensors likely could not detect. The Suliban considered these "enhancements" as "progress". (ENT: "Broken Bow")

When they were captured by a pre-warp civilization in 2152, Jonathan Archer and Malcolm Reed claimed to be prototypes of a new breed of supersoldiers to conceal the existence of alien life from the civilization. (ENT: "The Communicator")

Genetic engineering had been employed on Denobula since the twentieth century, to generally positive effect. (ENT: "Borderland")

Genetic programming was Surmak Ren's major field of study at the University of Bajor. (DS9: "Babel")

The Angosians used psychological and biochemical modifications and mental programming to make the perfect soldier such as Roga Danar. (TNG: "The Hunted")

The Tosk were engineered by the Hunters to be prey for their traditional hunts. (DS9: "Captive Pursuit")

The Son'a used genetic manipulation as part of a range of strategies to retard aging. (Star Trek: Insurrection)

The Brunali were proficient at genetic engineering, which they used to create modified crops capable of surviving on their Borg-devastated homeworld. However, they also genetically engineered some of their children to produce a pathogen deadly to Borg. These children were then allowed to be assimilated, so that they could spread the infection to their Borg vessels. Icheb was one such child, the pathogen causing the cube that he was on to break down, killing all of the active drones and causing the young drones in their maturation chambers to activate before they were fully processed into the Collective. (VOY: "Child's Play")

The Taresians used genetic engineering in tandem with a form of biological weaponry to manipulate the DNA of other species. This occurred to Ensign Harry Kim in 2373, who was infected with a virus that altered his DNA to make him a potential Taresian mate. (VOY: "Favorite Son")

Continue reading here:

Genetic engineering | Memory Alpha | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Genetic engineering could save chocolate from going …

The world's chocolate supply is dwindling. As our global sweet tooth begins to outpace cocoa production, major chocolate companies like Mars Inc. and Barry Callebaut expect to see an industry deficit of 4.4 billion pounds of chocolate by 2030. And by 2050, the cacao seeds used to make chocolate could be extinct.

As farmers struggle to keep up with demand, Bloomberg reports that the price of chocolate has continued to rise, making popular items like Hershey bars more expensive.

Companies that want to keep costs low have had to sacrifice the flavor of their products. In 2014, Bloomberg's Mark Schatzker predicted that chocolate could follow the path of food items like chicken and strawberries, which have lost some of their flavor in the quest to satisfy demand. According to Schatzker, chocolate could soon become "as tasteless as today's store-bought tomatoes."

To prevent that from happening, the nonprofit coalition of farmers called A Fresh Look released a line of chocolate bars that promote the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Ethos Chocolate uses sugar derived from GMO beets. A Fresh Look

While the bars, known as Ethos Chocolate, don't contain genetically modified cacao an ingredient that's still being developed and tested they do contain sugar that's derived from GMO beets.

According to A Fresh Look's lead scientist, Rebecca Larson, it's the first time a farmer's group has come together to espouse GMO technology, which has been criticized by environmentalists.

Around 70% of the world's cocoa beans hail from West Africa, with Ghana and Ivory Coast serving as the two largest producers. As global temperatures continue to rise, these nations have seen increasingly dry weather, which can prevent cacao trees from growing.

Cacao trees are also particularly vulnerable to disease.

The International Cocoa Organization (ICCO) reported that diseases and pests have resulted in the loss of 30% to 40% of global cocoa production. The report also noted that cocoa species are susceptible to a disease called frosty pod, which has led to entire cocoa farms being abandoned in Latin America.

In West Africa, swollen shoot virus and black pod have also overtaken cacao trees, resulting in huge financial losses. These diseases are made worse by weather conditions such as floods, droughts, and windstorms.

In addition to placing a strain on chocolate manufacturing companies, the loss of cacao trees can impair the livelihoods of tens of millions of people who depend on them economically.

But genetic modification has the potential to lessen these effects by making crops drought tolerant or insect resistant. Studies have shown that GMO crops can improve crop yield, boost farmers' profits, and even reduce the use of pesticides.

While GMOs could be instrumental in saving the world's chocolate supply, they've often been painted as a risk to human health.

Environmental groups contend that GMO crops are more resistant to herbicides, which may or may not be carcinogenic.

Read more: It's almost impossible to avoid GMOs in these 7 everyday items

The 1,600 farmers that make up A Fresh Look have resisted this argument, saying that GMOs are not only safe to consume, but also require less water and improve our nutrition.

A chocolatier in the Ivory Coast explains how cocoa is processed into chocolate. Sia Kambou/AFP/Getty Images

"There's this idea [among consumers] that everything is as mother nature intended, or it was manufactured in a laboratory," Larson told Business Insider. "[We're] helping people understand that GMOs aren't a scary ingredient in their food, but rather a farming technique."

These findings are supported by numerous scientific organizations. In the last two decades, institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the European Commission have all publicly stated that GMOs don't present harm to human health.

While plenty of chocolate contains ingredients derived from GMOs like corn syrup and soy lecithin, researchers have been slow to develop a genetically modified version of cacao.

Many chocolate companies still cater to consumer preferences for non-GMO items. Ghirardelli, for instance, has publicly stated its mission to make all recipes GMO-free.

One notable exception is Mars, the company behind M&M's and Snickers, which has teamed up with the University of California Berkeley to develop cacao plants that don't wilt or rot. To achieve this, the research team turned to CRISPR, a gene-editing technology that makes small changes to an organism's DNA.

But it could be some time before GMO cacao makes its way onto shelves.

"It all depends on legislative acceptance in different countries where the cacao is being produced," said Larson.

Some of the nations where people buy the most chocolate, such as Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, have restricted their cultivation of GMO crops.

When it comes to consumers, Larson said her team's pro-GMO stance is already starting to catch on: "We've gotten overwhelming feedback from all kinds of industry groups and consumers saying, 'Hey, it's about time.'"

Original post:

Genetic engineering could save chocolate from going ...

genetic engineering | Definition, Process, & Uses …

Genetic engineering, the artificial manipulation, modification, and recombination of DNA or other nucleic acid molecules in order to modify an organism or population of organisms.

Read More on This Topic

origins of agriculture: Genetic engineering

The application of genetics to agriculture since World War II has resulted in substantial increases in the production of many crops. This has been most notable in hybrid strains of maize and grain sorghum. At the same time, crossbreeding has resulted in much

The term genetic engineering initially referred to various techniques used for the modification or manipulation of organisms through the processes of heredity and reproduction. As such, the term embraced both artificial selection and all the interventions of biomedical techniques, among them artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization (e.g., test-tube babies), cloning, and gene manipulation. In the latter part of the 20th century, however, the term came to refer more specifically to methods of recombinant DNA technology (or gene cloning), in which DNA molecules from two or more sources are combined either within cells or in vitro and are then inserted into host organisms in which they are able to propagate.

The possibility for recombinant DNA technology emerged with the discovery of restriction enzymes in 1968 by Swiss microbiologist Werner Arber. The following year American microbiologist Hamilton O. Smith purified so-called type II restriction enzymes, which were found to be essential to genetic engineering for their ability to cleave a specific site within the DNA (as opposed to type I restriction enzymes, which cleave DNA at random sites). Drawing on Smiths work, American molecular biologist Daniel Nathans helped advance the technique of DNA recombination in 197071 and demonstrated that type II enzymes could be useful in genetic studies. Genetic engineering based on recombination was pioneered in 1973 by American biochemists Stanley N. Cohen and Herbert W. Boyer, who were among the first to cut DNA into fragments, rejoin different fragments, and insert the new genes into E. coli bacteria, which then reproduced.

Most recombinant DNA technology involves the insertion of foreign genes into the plasmids of common laboratory strains of bacteria. Plasmids are small rings of DNA; they are not part of the bacteriums chromosome (the main repository of the organisms genetic information). Nonetheless, they are capable of directing protein synthesis, and, like chromosomal DNA, they are reproduced and passed on to the bacteriums progeny. Thus, by incorporating foreign DNA (for example, a mammalian gene) into a bacterium, researchers can obtain an almost limitless number of copies of the inserted gene. Furthermore, if the inserted gene is operative (i.e., if it directs protein synthesis), the modified bacterium will produce the protein specified by the foreign DNA.

A subsequent generation of genetic engineering techniques that emerged in the early 21st century centred on gene editing. Gene editing, based on a technology known as CRISPR-Cas9, allows researchers to customize a living organisms genetic sequence by making very specific changes to its DNA. Gene editing has a wide array of applications, being used for the genetic modification of crop plants and livestock and of laboratory model organisms (e.g., mice). The correction of genetic errors associated with disease in animals suggests that gene editing has potential applications in gene therapy for humans.

Genetic engineering has advanced the understanding of many theoretical and practical aspects of gene function and organization. Through recombinant DNA techniques, bacteria have been created that are capable of synthesizing human insulin, human growth hormone, alpha interferon, a hepatitis B vaccine, and other medically useful substances. Plants may be genetically adjusted to enable them to fix nitrogen, and genetic diseases can possibly be corrected by replacing dysfunctional genes with normally functioning genes. Nevertheless, special concern has been focused on such achievements for fear that they might result in the introduction of unfavourable and possibly dangerous traits into microorganisms that were previously free of theme.g., resistance to antibiotics, production of toxins, or a tendency to cause disease. Likewise, the application of gene editing in humans has raised ethical concerns, particularly regarding its potential use to alter traits such as intelligence and beauty.

In 1980 the new microorganisms created by recombinant DNA research were deemed patentable, and in 1986 the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the sale of the first living genetically altered organisma virus, used as a pseudorabies vaccine, from which a single gene had been cut. Since then several hundred patents have been awarded for genetically altered bacteria and plants. Patents on genetically engineered and genetically modified organisms, particularly crops and other foods, however, were a contentious issue, and they remained so into the first part of the 21st century.

Read the original:

genetic engineering | Definition, Process, & Uses ...

Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever …

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...

Visit link:

Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever ...

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering – HRF

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 - HRF

Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever CRISPR

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...

Read this article:

Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever CRISPR

Genetic Engineering: What is Genetic Engineering?

Written by Patrick Dixon

Futurist Keynote Speaker: Posts, Slides, Videos - BioTech, MedTech, Gene Therapy and Stem Cells

Video on Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is the alteration of genetic code by artificial means, and is therefore different from traditional selective breeding.

Huge number of other resources on this site about Genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering examples include taking the gene that programs poison in the tail of a scorpion, and combining it with a cabbage. These genetically modified cabbages kill caterpillers because they have learned to grow scorpion poison (insecticide) in their sap.

Genetic engineering also includes insertion of human genes into sheep so that they secrete alpha-1 antitrypsin in their milk - a useful substance in treating some cases of lung disease.

Genetic engineering has created a chicken with four legs and no wings.

Genetic engineering has created a goat with spider genes that creates "silk" in its milk.

Genetic engineering works because there is one language of life: human genes work in bacteria, monkey genes work in mice and earthworms. Tree genes work in bananas and frog genes work in rice. There is no limit in theory to the potential of genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering has given us the power to alter the very basis of life on earth.

Genetic engineering has been said to be no different than ancient breeding methods but this is untrue. For a start, breeding or cross-breeding, or in-breeding (for example to make pedigree dogs) all work by using the same species. In contrast genetic engineering allows us to combine fish, mouse, human and insect genes in the same person or animal.

Genetic engineering therefore has few limits - except our imagination, and our moral or ethical code.

Genetic engineering makes the whole digital revolution look nothing. Digital technology changes what we do. Genetic engineering has the power to change who we are.

Human cloning is a type of genetic engineering, but is not the same as true genetic manipulation. In human cloning, the aim is to duplicate the genes of an existing person so that an identical set is inside a human egg. The result is intended to be a cloned twin, perhaps of a dead child. Genetic engineering in its fullest form would result in the child produced having unique genes - as a result of laboratory interference, and therefore the child will not be an identikit twin.

Genetic engineering could create crops that grow in desert heat, or without fertiliser. Genetic engineering could make bananas or other fruit which contain vaccines or other medical products.

Genetic engineering is helped by the fact that it only costs $1000 to analyse someone's genetic code (sequencing of genome) - down from $800m in 2001.

Genetic engineering is aided by techniques such as Crispr which allow scientists to swop genes between humans or between animals and humans or between animals, in a very precise and controlled way.

Genetic engineering will alter the basis of life on earth - permanently - unless controlled. This could happen if - say - mutant viruses, or bacteria, or fish or reptiles are released into the general environment.

READ FREE BOOK on Genetic Engineering - by Patrick Dixon, author of 16 books and creator of this website - read now: Chapters 1 and 2 explain basics in way which is easy to understand.

Related news items:

Newer news items:

Older news items:

Thanks for promoting with Facebook LIKE or Tweet. Really interested to read your views. Post below.

Javacript is required for help and viewing images.

Reply to Captain K-Baby Jr. VIII

Reply to Allison Anderson 😀

Reply to Mitocondria Planterium

Reply to Mitocondria Planterium

Reply to Mitocondria Planterium

Reply to krishtika pillay

Reply to krishtika pillay

Reply to krishtika pillay

1

Read more:

Genetic Engineering: What is Genetic Engineering?

Genetics in fiction – Wikipedia

Aspects of genetics including mutation, hybridisation, cloning, genetic engineering, and eugenics have appeared in fiction since the 19th century.

Genetics is a young science, having started in 1900 with the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's study on the inheritance of traits in pea plants. During the 20th century it developed to create new sciences and technologies including molecular biology, DNA sequencing, cloning, and genetic engineering. The ethical implications were brought into focus with the eugenics movement.

Since then, many science fiction novels and films have used aspects of genetics as plot devices, often taking one of two routes: a genetic accident with disastrous consequences; or, the feasibility and desirability of a planned genetic alteration. The treatment of science in these stories has been uneven and often unrealistic. The film Gattaca did attempt to portray science accurately but was criticised by scientists.

Modern genetics began with the work of the monk Gregor Mendel in the 19th century, on the inheritance of traits in pea plants. Mendel found that visible traits, such as whether peas were round or wrinkled, were inherited discretely, rather than by blending the attributes of the two parents.[1] In 1900, Hugo de Vries and other scientists rediscovered Mendel's research; William Bateson coined the term "genetics" for the new science, which soon investigated a wide range of phenomena including mutation (inherited changes caused by damage to the genetic material), genetic linkage (when some traits are to some extent inherited together), and hybridisation (crosses of different species).[2]

Eugenics, the production of better human beings by selective breeding, was named and advocated by Charles Darwin's cousin, the scientist Francis Galton, in 1883. It had both a positive aspect, the breeding of more children with high intelligence and good health; and a negative aspect, aiming to suppress "race degeneration" by preventing supposedly "defective" families with attributes such as profligacy, laziness, immoral behaviour and a tendency to criminality from having children.[3][4]

Molecular biology, the interactions and regulation of genetic materials, began with the identification in 1944 of DNA as the main genetic material;[5] the genetic code and the double helix structure of DNA was determined by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953.[6][7] DNA sequencing, the identification of an exact sequence of genetic information in an organism, was developed in 1977 by Frederick Sanger.[8]

Genetic engineering, the modification of the genetic material of a live organism, became possible in 1972 when Paul Berg created the first recombinant DNA molecules (artificially assembled genetic material) using viruses.[9]

Cloning, the production of genetically identical organisms from some chosen starting point, was shown to be practicable with the creation of Dolly the sheep from an ordinary body cell in 1996 at the Roslin Institute.[10]

Mutation and hybridisation are widely used in fiction, starting in the 19th century with science fiction works such as Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein and H. G. Wells's 1896 The Island of Dr Moreau.[11]

In her 1977 Biological Themes in Modern Science Fiction, Helen Parker identified two major types of story: "genetic accident", the uncontrolled, unexpected and disastrous alteration of a species;[12][13] and "planned genetic alteration", whether controlled by humans or aliens, and the question of whether that would be either feasible or desirable.[12][13] In science fiction up to the 1970s, the genetic changes were brought about by radiation, breeding programmes, or manipulation with chemicals or surgery (and thus, notes Lars Schmeink, not necessarily by strictly genetic means).[13] Examples include The Island of Dr Moreau with its horrible manipulations; Aldous Huxley's 1932 Brave New World with a breeding programme; and John Taine's 1951 Seeds of Life, using radiation to create supermen.[13] After the discovery of the double helix and then recombinant DNA, genetic engineering became the focus for genetics in fiction, as in books like Brian Stableford's tale of a genetically modified society in his 1998 Inherit the Earth, or Michael Marshall Smith's story of organ farming in his 1997 Spares.[13]

Comic books have imagined mutated superhumans with extraordinary powers. The DC Universe (from 1939) imagines "metahumans"; the Marvel Universe (from 1961) calls them "mutants", while the Wildstorm (from 1992) and Ultimate Marvel (20002015) Universes name them "posthumans".[14] Stan Lee introduced the concept of mutants in the Marvel X-Men books in 1963; the villain Magneto declares his plan to "make Homo sapiens bow to Homo superior!", implying that mutants will be an evolutionary step up from current humanity. Later, the books speak of an X-gene that confers powers from puberty onwards. X-men powers include telepathy, telekinesis, healing, strength, flight, time travel, and the ability to emit blasts of energy. Marvel's god-like Celestials are later (1999) said to have visited Earth long ago and to have modified human DNA to enable mutant powers.[15]

James Blish's 1952 novel Titan's Daughter (in Kendell Foster Crossen's Future Tense collection) featured stimulated polyploidy (giving organisms multiple sets of genetic material, something that can create new species in a single step), based on spontaneous polyploidy in flowering plants, to create humans with more than normal height, strength, and lifespans.[16]

Cloning, too, is a familiar plot device. In his 1990 novel Jurassic Park, Michael Crichton imagined the recovery of the complete genome of a dinosaur from fossil remains, followed by its use to recreate living animals of an extinct species.[11] Aldous Huxley's 1931 dystopian novel Brave New World imagines the in vitro cloning of fertilised human eggs.[17][18] Huxley was influenced by J. B. S. Haldane's 1924 non-fiction book Daedalus; or, Science and the Future, which used the Greek myth of Daedalus to symbolise the coming revolution in genetics; Haldane predicted that humans would control their own evolution through directed mutation and in vitro fertilisation.[19] Cloning was explored further in stories such as Poul Anderson's 1953 UN-Man.[20]

Cloning is a recurring theme in science fiction films like Jurassic Park (1993), Alien Resurrection (1997), The 6th Day (2000), Resident Evil (2002), Star Wars: Episode II (2002) and The Island (2005). The process of cloning is represented variously in fiction. Many works depict the artificial creation of humans by a method of growing cells from a tissue or DNA sample; the replication may be instantaneous, or take place through slow growth of human embryos in artificial wombs. In the long-running British television series Doctor Who, the Fourth Doctor and his companion Leela were cloned in a matter of seconds from DNA samples ("The Invisible Enemy", 1977) and thenin an apparent homage to the 1966 film Fantastic Voyageshrunk to microscopic size in order to enter the Doctor's body to combat an alien virus. The clones in this story are short-lived, and can only survive a matter of minutes before they expire.[21] Films such as The Matrix and Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones have featured human foetuses being cultured on an industrial scale in enormous tanks.[22]

Cloning humans from body parts is a common science fiction trope, one of several genetics themes parodied in Woody Allen's 1973 comedy Sleeper, where an attempt is made to clone an assassinated dictator from his disembodied nose.[23]

Genetic engineering features in many science fiction stories.[16] Films such as The Island and Blade Runner (1982) bring the engineered creature to confront the person who created it or the being it was cloned from, a theme seen in some film versions of Frankenstein. Few films have informed audiences about genetic engineering as such, with the exception of the 1978 The Boys from Brazil and the 1993 Jurassic Park, both of which made use of a lesson, a demonstration, and a clip of scientific film.[11][24] In 1982, Frank Herbert's novel The White Plague described the deliberate use of genetic engineering to create a pathogen which specifically killed women.[16] Another of Herbert's creations, the Dune series of novels, starting with Dune in 1965, emphasises genetics. It combines selective breeding by a powerful sisterhood, the Bene Gesserit, to produce a supernormal male being, the Kwisatz Haderach, with the genetic engineering of the powerful but despised Tleilaxu.[25]

Genetic engineering methods are weakly represented in film; Michael Clark, writing for The Wellcome Trust, calls the portrayal of genetic engineering and biotechnology "seriously distorted"[24] in films such as Roger Spottiswoode's 2000 The 6th Day, which makes use of the trope of a "vast clandestine laboratory ... filled with row upon row of 'blank' human bodies kept floating in tanks of nutrient liquid or in suspended animation". In Clark's view, the biotechnology is typically "given fantastic but visually arresting forms" while the science is either relegated to the background or fictionalised to suit a young audience.[24]

Eugenics plays a central role in films such as Andrew Niccol's 1997 Gattaca, the title alluding to the letters G, A, T, C for guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine, the four nucleobases of DNA. Genetic engineering of humans is unrestricted, resulting in genetic discrimination, loss of diversity, and adverse effects on society. The film explores the ethical implications; the production company, Sony Pictures, consulted with a gene therapy researcher, French Anderson, to ensure that the portrayal of science was realistic, and test-screened the film with the Society of Mammalian Cell Biologists and the American National Human Genome Research Institute before its release. This care did not prevent researchers from attacking the film after its release. Philim Yam of Scientific American called it "science bashing"; in Nature Kevin Davies called it a ""surprisingly pedestrian affair"; and the molecular biologist Lee Silver described the film's extreme genetic determinism as "a straw man".[26][27]

The geneticist Dan Koboldt observes that while science and technology play major roles in fiction, from fantasy and science fiction to thrillers, the representation of science in both literature and film is often unrealistic.[28] In Koboldt's view, genetics in fiction is frequently oversimplified, and some myths are common and need to be debunked. For example, the Human Genome Project has not (he states) immediately led to a Gattaca world, as the relationship between genotype and phenotype is not straightforward. People do differ genetically, but only very rarely because they are missing a gene that other people have: people have different alleles of the same genes. Eye and hair colour are controlled not by one gene each, but by multiple genes. Mutations do occur, but they are rare: people are 99.99% identical genetically, the 3 million differences between any two people being dwarfed by the hundreds of millions of DNA bases which are identical; nearly all DNA variants are inherited, not acquired afresh by mutation. And, Koboldt writes, believable scientists in fiction should know their knowledge is limited.[29]

Original post:

Genetics in fiction - Wikipedia

Gene – Wikipedia

This article is about the heritable unit for transmission of biological traits. For other uses, see Gene (disambiguation).

In biology, a gene is a sequence of DNA or RNA that codes for a molecule that has a function. During gene expression, the DNA is first copied into RNA. The RNA can be directly functional or be the intermediate template for a protein that performs a function. The transmission of genes to an organism's offspring is the basis of the inheritance of phenotypic trait. These genes make up different DNA sequences called genotypes. Genotypes along with environmental and developmental factors determine what the phenotypes will be. Most biological traits are under the influence of polygenes (many different genes) as well as geneenvironment interactions. Some genetic traits are instantly visible, such as eye color or number of limbs, and some are not, such as blood type, risk for specific diseases, or the thousands of basic biochemical processes that constitute life.

Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population. These alleles encode slightly different versions of a protein, which cause different phenotypical traits. Usage of the term "having a gene" (e.g., "good genes," "hair colour gene") typically refers to containing a different allele of the same, shared gene. Genes evolve due to natural selection / survival of the fittest and genetic drift of the alleles.

The concept of a gene continues to be refined as new phenomena are discovered.[1] For example, regulatory regions of a gene can be far removed from its coding regions, and coding regions can be split into several exons. Some viruses store their genome in RNA instead of DNA and some gene products are functional non-coding RNAs. Therefore, a broad, modern working definition of a gene is any discrete locus of heritable, genomic sequence which affect an organism's traits by being expressed as a functional product or by regulation of gene expression.[2][3]

The term gene was introduced by Danish botanist, plant physiologist and geneticist Wilhelm Johannsen in 1905.[4] It is inspired by the ancient Greek: , gonos, that means offspring and procreation.

The existence of discrete inheritable units was first suggested by Gregor Mendel (18221884).[5] From 1857 to 1864, in Brno (Czech Republic), he studied inheritance patterns in 8000 common edible pea plants, tracking distinct traits from parent to offspring. He described these mathematically as 2ncombinations where n is the number of differing characteristics in the original peas. Although he did not use the term gene, he explained his results in terms of discrete inherited units that give rise to observable physical characteristics. This description prefigured Wilhelm Johannsen's distinction between genotype (the genetic material of an organism) and phenotype (the visible traits of that organism). Mendel was also the first to demonstrate independent assortment, the distinction between dominant and recessive traits, the distinction between a heterozygote and homozygote, and the phenomenon of discontinuous inheritance.

Prior to Mendel's work, the dominant theory of heredity was one of blending inheritance, which suggested that each parent contributed fluids to the fertilisation process and that the traits of the parents blended and mixed to produce the offspring. Charles Darwin developed a theory of inheritance he termed pangenesis, from Greek pan ("all, whole") and genesis ("birth") / genos ("origin").[6][7] Darwin used the term gemmule to describe hypothetical particles that would mix during reproduction.

Mendel's work went largely unnoticed after its first publication in 1866, but was rediscovered in the late 19th century by Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns, and Erich von Tschermak, who (claimed to have) reached similar conclusions in their own research.[8] Specifically, in 1889, Hugo de Vries published his book Intracellular Pangenesis,[9] in which he postulated that different characters have individual hereditary carriers and that inheritance of specific traits in organisms comes in particles. De Vries called these units "pangenes" (Pangens in German), after Darwin's 1868 pangenesis theory.

Sixteen years later, in 1905, Wilhelm Johannsen introduced the term 'gene'[4] and William Bateson that of 'genetics'[10] while Eduard Strasburger, amongst others, still used the term 'pangene' for the fundamental physical and functional unit of heredity.[11]

Advances in understanding genes and inheritance continued throughout the 20th century. Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was shown to be the molecular repository of genetic information by experiments in the 1940s to 1950s.[12][13] The structure of DNA was studied by Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins using X-ray crystallography, which led James D. Watson and Francis Crick to publish a model of the double-stranded DNA molecule whose paired nucleotide bases indicated a compelling hypothesis for the mechanism of genetic replication.[14][15]

In the early 1950s the prevailing view was that the genes in a chromosome acted like discrete entities, indivisible by recombination and arranged like beads on a string. The experiments of Benzer using mutants defective in the rII region of bacteriophage T4 (1955-1959) showed that individual genes have a simple linear structure and are likely to be equivalent to a linear section of DNA.[16][17]

Collectively, this body of research established the central dogma of molecular biology, which states that proteins are translated from RNA, which is transcribed from DNA. This dogma has since been shown to have exceptions, such as reverse transcription in retroviruses. The modern study of genetics at the level of DNA is known as molecular genetics.

In 1972, Walter Fiers and his team were the first to determine the sequence of a gene: that of Bacteriophage MS2 coat protein.[18] The subsequent development of chain-termination DNA sequencing in 1977 by Frederick Sanger improved the efficiency of sequencing and turned it into a routine laboratory tool.[19] An automated version of the Sanger method was used in early phases of the Human Genome Project.[20]

The theories developed in the early 20th century to integrate Mendelian genetics with Darwinian evolution are called the modern synthesis, a term introduced by Julian Huxley.[21]

Evolutionary biologists have subsequently modified this concept, such as George C. Williams' gene-centric view of evolution. He proposed an evolutionary concept of the gene as a unit of natural selection with the definition: "that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency."[22]:24 In this view, the molecular gene transcribes as a unit, and the evolutionary gene inherits as a unit. Related ideas emphasizing the centrality of genes in evolution were popularized by Richard Dawkins.[23][24]

The vast majority of organisms encode their genes in long strands of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA consists of a chain made from four types of nucleotide subunits, each composed of: a five-carbon sugar (2-deoxyribose), a phosphate group, and one of the four bases adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine.[25]:2.1

Two chains of DNA twist around each other to form a DNA double helix with the phosphate-sugar backbone spiralling around the outside, and the bases pointing inwards with adenine base pairing to thymine and guanine to cytosine. The specificity of base pairing occurs because adenine and thymine align to form two hydrogen bonds, whereas cytosine and guanine form three hydrogen bonds. The two strands in a double helix must therefore be complementary, with their sequence of bases matching such that the adenines of one strand are paired with the thymines of the other strand, and so on.[25]:4.1

Due to the chemical composition of the pentose residues of the bases, DNA strands have directionality. One end of a DNA polymer contains an exposed hydroxyl group on the deoxyribose; this is known as the 3'end of the molecule. The other end contains an exposed phosphate group; this is the 5'end. The two strands of a double-helix run in opposite directions. Nucleic acid synthesis, including DNA replication and transcription occurs in the 5'3'direction, because new nucleotides are added via a dehydration reaction that uses the exposed 3'hydroxyl as a nucleophile.[26]:27.2

The expression of genes encoded in DNA begins by transcribing the gene into RNA, a second type of nucleic acid that is very similar to DNA, but whose monomers contain the sugar ribose rather than deoxyribose. RNA also contains the base uracil in place of thymine. RNA molecules are less stable than DNA and are typically single-stranded. Genes that encode proteins are composed of a series of three-nucleotide sequences called codons, which serve as the "words" in the genetic "language". The genetic code specifies the correspondence during protein translation between codons and amino acids. The genetic code is nearly the same for all known organisms.[25]:4.1

The total complement of genes in an organism or cell is known as its genome, which may be stored on one or more chromosomes. A chromosome consists of a single, very long DNA helix on which thousands of genes are encoded.[25]:4.2 The region of the chromosome at which a particular gene is located is called its locus. Each locus contains one allele of a gene; however, members of a population may have different alleles at the locus, each with a slightly different gene sequence.

The majority of eukaryotic genes are stored on a set of large, linear chromosomes. The chromosomes are packed within the nucleus in complex with storage proteins called histones to form a unit called a nucleosome. DNA packaged and condensed in this way is called chromatin.[25]:4.2 The manner in which DNA is stored on the histones, as well as chemical modifications of the histone itself, regulate whether a particular region of DNA is accessible for gene expression. In addition to genes, eukaryotic chromosomes contain sequences involved in ensuring that the DNA is copied without degradation of end regions and sorted into daughter cells during cell division: replication origins, telomeres and the centromere.[25]:4.2 Replication origins are the sequence regions where DNA replication is initiated to make two copies of the chromosome. Telomeres are long stretches of repetitive sequence that cap the ends of the linear chromosomes and prevent degradation of coding and regulatory regions during DNA replication. The length of the telomeres decreases each time the genome is replicated and has been implicated in the aging process.[28] The centromere is required for binding spindle fibres to separate sister chromatids into daughter cells during cell division.[25]:18.2

Prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) typically store their genomes on a single large, circular chromosome. Similarly, some eukaryotic organelles contain a remnant circular chromosome with a small number of genes.[25]:14.4 Prokaryotes sometimes supplement their chromosome with additional small circles of DNA called plasmids, which usually encode only a few genes and are transferable between individuals. For example, the genes for antibiotic resistance are usually encoded on bacterial plasmids and can be passed between individual cells, even those of different species, via horizontal gene transfer.[29]

Whereas the chromosomes of prokaryotes are relatively gene-dense, those of eukaryotes often contain regions of DNA that serve no obvious function. Simple single-celled eukaryotes have relatively small amounts of such DNA, whereas the genomes of complex multicellular organisms, including humans, contain an absolute majority of DNA without an identified function.[30] This DNA has often been referred to as "junk DNA". However, more recent analyses suggest that, although protein-coding DNA makes up barely 2% of the human genome, about 80% of the bases in the genome may be expressed, so the term "junk DNA" may be a misnomer.[3]

The structure of a gene consists of many elements of which the actual protein coding sequence is often only a small part. These include DNA regions that are not transcribed as well as untranslated regions of the RNA.

Flanking the open reading frame, genes contain a regulatory sequence that is required for their expression. First, genes require a promoter sequence. The promoter is recognized and bound by transcription factors and RNA polymerase to initiate transcription.[25]:7.1 The recognition typically occurs as a consensus sequence like the TATA box. A gene can have more than one promoter, resulting in messenger RNAs (mRNA) that differ in how far they extend in the 5'end.[32] Highly transcribed genes have "strong" promoter sequences that form strong associations with transcription factors, thereby initiating transcription at a high rate. Others genes have "weak" promoters that form weak associations with transcription factors and initiate transcription less frequently.[25]:7.2 Eukaryotic promoter regions are much more complex and difficult to identify than prokaryotic promoters.[25]:7.3

Additionally, genes can have regulatory regions many kilobases upstream or downstream of the open reading frame that alter expression. These act by binding to transcription factors which then cause the DNA to loop so that the regulatory sequence (and bound transcription factor) become close to the RNA polymerase binding site.[33] For example, enhancers increase transcription by binding an activator protein which then helps to recruit the RNA polymerase to the promoter; conversely silencers bind repressor proteins and make the DNA less available for RNA polymerase.[34]

The transcribed pre-mRNA contains untranslated regions at both ends which contain a ribosome binding site, terminator and start and stop codons.[35] In addition, most eukaryotic open reading frames contain untranslated introns which are removed before the exons are translated. The sequences at the ends of the introns, dictate the splice sites to generate the final mature mRNA which encodes the protein or RNA product.[36]

Many prokaryotic genes are organized into operons, with multiple protein-coding sequences that are transcribed as a unit.[37][38] The genes in an operon are transcribed as a continuous messenger RNA, referred to as a polycistronic mRNA. The term cistron in this context is equivalent to gene. The transcription of an operons mRNA is often controlled by a repressor that can occur in an active or inactive state depending on the presence of certain specific metabolites.[39] When active, the repressor binds to a DNA sequence at the beginning of the operon, called the operator region, and represses transcription of the operon; when the repressor is inactive transcription of the operon can occur (see e.g. Lac operon). The products of operon genes typically have related functions and are involved in the same regulatory network.[25]:7.3

Defining exactly what section of a DNA sequence comprises a gene is difficult.[1] Regulatory regions of a gene such as enhancers do not necessarily have to be close to the coding sequence on the linear molecule because the intervening DNA can be looped out to bring the gene and its regulatory region into proximity. Similarly, a gene's introns can be much larger than its exons. Regulatory regions can even be on entirely different chromosomes and operate in trans to allow regulatory regions on one chromosome to come in contact with target genes on another chromosome.[40][41]

Early work in molecular genetics suggested the concept that one gene makes one protein. This concept (originally called the one gene-one enzyme hypothesis) emerged from an influential 1941 paper by George Beadle and Edward Tatum on experiments with mutants of the fungus Neurospora crassa.[42] Norman Horowitz, an early colleague on the Neurospora research, reminisced in 2004 that these experiments founded the science of what Beadle and Tatum called biochemical genetics. In actuality they proved to be the opening gun in what became molecular genetics and all the developments that have followed from that.[43] The one gene-one protein concept has been refined since the discovery of genes that can encode multiple proteins by alternative splicing and coding sequences split in short section across the genome whose mRNAs are concatenated by trans-splicing.[3][44][45]

A broad operational definition is sometimes used to encompass the complexity of these diverse phenomena, where a gene is defined as a union of genomic sequences encoding a coherent set of potentially overlapping functional products.[10] This definition categorizes genes by their functional products (proteins or RNA) rather than their specific DNA loci, with regulatory elements classified as gene-associated regions.[10]

In all organisms, two steps are required to read the information encoded in a gene's DNA and produce the protein it specifies. First, the gene's DNA is transcribed to messenger RNA (mRNA).[25]:6.1 Second, that mRNA is translated to protein.[25]:6.2 RNA-coding genes must still go through the first step, but are not translated into protein.[46] The process of producing a biologically functional molecule of either RNA or protein is called gene expression, and the resulting molecule is called a gene product.

The nucleotide sequence of a gene's DNA specifies the amino acid sequence of a protein through the genetic code. Sets of three nucleotides, known as codons, each correspond to a specific amino acid.[25]:6 The principle that three sequential bases of DNA code for each amino acid was demonstrated in 1961 using frameshift mutations in the rIIB gene of bacteriophage T4[47] (see Crick, Brenner et al. experiment).

Additionally, a "start codon", and three "stop codons" indicate the beginning and end of the protein coding region. There are 64possible codons (four possible nucleotides at each of three positions, hence 43possible codons) and only 20standard amino acids; hence the code is redundant and multiple codons can specify the same amino acid. The correspondence between codons and amino acids is nearly universal among all known living organisms.[48]

Transcription produces a single-stranded RNA molecule known as messenger RNA, whose nucleotide sequence is complementary to the DNA from which it was transcribed.[25]:6.1 The mRNA acts as an intermediate between the DNA gene and its final protein product. The gene's DNA is used as a template to generate a complementary mRNA. The mRNA matches the sequence of the gene's DNA coding strand because it is synthesised as the complement of the template strand. Transcription is performed by an enzyme called an RNA polymerase, which reads the template strand in the 3' to 5'direction and synthesizes the RNA from 5' to 3'. To initiate transcription, the polymerase first recognizes and binds a promoter region of the gene. Thus, a major mechanism of gene regulation is the blocking or sequestering the promoter region, either by tight binding by repressor molecules that physically block the polymerase, or by organizing the DNA so that the promoter region is not accessible.[25]:7

In prokaryotes, transcription occurs in the cytoplasm; for very long transcripts, translation may begin at the 5'end of the RNA while the 3'end is still being transcribed. In eukaryotes, transcription occurs in the nucleus, where the cell's DNA is stored. The RNA molecule produced by the polymerase is known as the primary transcript and undergoes post-transcriptional modifications before being exported to the cytoplasm for translation. One of the modifications performed is the splicing of introns which are sequences in the transcribed region that do not encode protein. Alternative splicing mechanisms can result in mature transcripts from the same gene having different sequences and thus coding for different proteins. This is a major form of regulation in eukaryotic cells and also occurs in some prokaryotes.[25]:7.5[49]

Translation is the process by which a mature mRNA molecule is used as a template for synthesizing a new protein.[25]:6.2 Translation is carried out by ribosomes, large complexes of RNA and protein responsible for carrying out the chemical reactions to add new amino acids to a growing polypeptide chain by the formation of peptide bonds. The genetic code is read three nucleotides at a time, in units called codons, via interactions with specialized RNA molecules called transfer RNA (tRNA). Each tRNA has three unpaired bases known as the anticodon that are complementary to the codon it reads on the mRNA. The tRNA is also covalently attached to the amino acid specified by the complementary codon. When the tRNA binds to its complementary codon in an mRNA strand, the ribosome attaches its amino acid cargo to the new polypeptide chain, which is synthesized from amino terminus to carboxyl terminus. During and after synthesis, most new proteins must fold to their active three-dimensional structure before they can carry out their cellular functions.[25]:3

Genes are regulated so that they are expressed only when the product is needed, since expression draws on limited resources.[25]:7 A cell regulates its gene expression depending on its external environment (e.g. available nutrients, temperature and other stresses), its internal environment (e.g. cell division cycle, metabolism, infection status), and its specific role if in a multicellular organism. Gene expression can be regulated at any step: from transcriptional initiation, to RNA processing, to post-translational modification of the protein. The regulation of lactose metabolism genes in E. coli (lac operon) was the first such mechanism to be described in 1961.[50]

A typical protein-coding gene is first copied into RNA as an intermediate in the manufacture of the final protein product.[25]:6.1 In other cases, the RNA molecules are the actual functional products, as in the synthesis of ribosomal RNA and transfer RNA. Some RNAs known as ribozymes are capable of enzymatic function, and microRNA has a regulatory role. The DNA sequences from which such RNAs are transcribed are known as non-coding RNA genes.[46]

Some viruses store their entire genomes in the form of RNA, and contain no DNA at all.[51][52] Because they use RNA to store genes, their cellular hosts may synthesize their proteins as soon as they are infected and without the delay in waiting for transcription.[53] On the other hand, RNA retroviruses, such as HIV, require the reverse transcription of their genome from RNA into DNA before their proteins can be synthesized. RNA-mediated epigenetic inheritance has also been observed in plants and very rarely in animals.[54]

Organisms inherit their genes from their parents. Asexual organisms simply inherit a complete copy of their parent's genome. Sexual organisms have two copies of each chromosome because they inherit one complete set from each parent.[25]:1

According to Mendelian inheritance, variations in an organism's phenotype (observable physical and behavioral characteristics) are due in part to variations in its genotype (particular set of genes). Each gene specifies a particular trait with different sequence of a gene (alleles) giving rise to different phenotypes. Most eukaryotic organisms (such as the pea plants Mendel worked on) have two alleles for each trait, one inherited from each parent.[25]:20

Alleles at a locus may be dominant or recessive; dominant alleles give rise to their corresponding phenotypes when paired with any other allele for the same trait, whereas recessive alleles give rise to their corresponding phenotype only when paired with another copy of the same allele. If you know the genotypes of the organisms, you can determine which alleles are dominant and which are recessive. For example, if the allele specifying tall stems in pea plants is dominant over the allele specifying short stems, then pea plants that inherit one tall allele from one parent and one short allele from the other parent will also have tall stems. Mendel's work demonstrated that alleles assort independently in the production of gametes, or germ cells, ensuring variation in the next generation. Although Mendelian inheritance remains a good model for many traits determined by single genes (including a number of well-known genetic disorders) it does not include the physical processes of DNA replication and cell division.[55][56]

The growth, development, and reproduction of organisms relies on cell division; the process by which a single cell divides into two usually identical daughter cells. This requires first making a duplicate copy of every gene in the genome in a process called DNA replication.[25]:5.2 The copies are made by specialized enzymes known as DNA polymerases, which "read" one strand of the double-helical DNA, known as the template strand, and synthesize a new complementary strand. Because the DNA double helix is held together by base pairing, the sequence of one strand completely specifies the sequence of its complement; hence only one strand needs to be read by the enzyme to produce a faithful copy. The process of DNA replication is semiconservative; that is, the copy of the genome inherited by each daughter cell contains one original and one newly synthesized strand of DNA.[25]:5.2

The rate of DNA replication in living cells was first measured as the rate of phage T4 DNA elongation in phage-infected E. coli and found to be impressively rapid.[57] During the period of exponential DNA increase at 37C, the rate of elongation was 749 nucleotides per second.

After DNA replication is complete, the cell must physically separate the two copies of the genome and divide into two distinct membrane-bound cells.[25]:18.2 In prokaryotes(bacteria and archaea) this usually occurs via a relatively simple process called binary fission, in which each circular genome attaches to the cell membrane and is separated into the daughter cells as the membrane invaginates to split the cytoplasm into two membrane-bound portions. Binary fission is extremely fast compared to the rates of cell division in eukaryotes. Eukaryotic cell division is a more complex process known as the cell cycle; DNA replication occurs during a phase of this cycle known as S phase, whereas the process of segregating chromosomes and splitting the cytoplasm occurs during M phase.[25]:18.1

The duplication and transmission of genetic material from one generation of cells to the next is the basis for molecular inheritance, and the link between the classical and molecular pictures of genes. Organisms inherit the characteristics of their parents because the cells of the offspring contain copies of the genes in their parents' cells. In asexually reproducing organisms, the offspring will be a genetic copy or clone of the parent organism. In sexually reproducing organisms, a specialized form of cell division called meiosis produces cells called gametes or germ cells that are haploid, or contain only one copy of each gene.[25]:20.2 The gametes produced by females are called eggs or ova, and those produced by males are called sperm. Two gametes fuse to form a diploid fertilized egg, a single cell that has two sets of genes, with one copy of each gene from the mother and one from the father.[25]:20

During the process of meiotic cell division, an event called genetic recombination or crossing-over can sometimes occur, in which a length of DNA on one chromatid is swapped with a length of DNA on the corresponding homologous non-sister chromatid. This can result in reassortment of otherwise linked alleles.[25]:5.5 The Mendelian principle of independent assortment asserts that each of a parent's two genes for each trait will sort independently into gametes; which allele an organism inherits for one trait is unrelated to which allele it inherits for another trait. This is in fact only true for genes that do not reside on the same chromosome, or are located very far from one another on the same chromosome. The closer two genes lie on the same chromosome, the more closely they will be associated in gametes and the more often they will appear together (known as genetic linkage).[58] Genes that are very close are essentially never separated because it is extremely unlikely that a crossover point will occur between them.[58]

DNA replication is for the most part extremely accurate, however errors (mutations) do occur.[25]:7.6 The error rate in eukaryotic cells can be as low as 108 per nucleotide per replication,[59][60] whereas for some RNA viruses it can be as high as 103.[61] This means that each generation, each human genome accumulates 12 new mutations.[61] Small mutations can be caused by DNA replication and the aftermath of DNA damage and include point mutations in which a single base is altered and frameshift mutations in which a single base is inserted or deleted. Either of these mutations can change the gene by missense (change a codon to encode a different amino acid) or nonsense (a premature stop codon).[62] Larger mutations can be caused by errors in recombination to cause chromosomal abnormalities including the duplication, deletion, rearrangement or inversion of large sections of a chromosome. Additionally, DNA repair mechanisms can introduce mutational errors when repairing physical damage to the molecule. The repair, even with mutation, is more important to survival than restoring an exact copy, for example when repairing double-strand breaks.[25]:5.4

When multiple different alleles for a gene are present in a species's population it is called polymorphic. Most different alleles are functionally equivalent, however some alleles can give rise to different phenotypic traits. A gene's most common allele is called the wild type, and rare alleles are called mutants. The genetic variation in relative frequencies of different alleles in a population is due to both natural selection and genetic drift.[63] The wild-type allele is not necessarily the ancestor of less common alleles, nor is it necessarily fitter.

Most mutations within genes are neutral, having no effect on the organism's phenotype (silent mutations). Some mutations do not change the amino acid sequence because multiple codons encode the same amino acid (synonymous mutations). Other mutations can be neutral if they lead to amino acid sequence changes, but the protein still functions similarly with the new amino acid (e.g. conservative mutations). Many mutations, however, are deleterious or even lethal, and are removed from populations by natural selection. Genetic disorders are the result of deleterious mutations and can be due to spontaneous mutation in the affected individual, or can be inherited. Finally, a small fraction of mutations are beneficial, improving the organism's fitness and are extremely important for evolution, since their directional selection leads to adaptive evolution.[25]:7.6

Genes with a most recent common ancestor, and thus a shared evolutionary ancestry, are known as homologs.[64] These genes appear either from gene duplication within an organism's genome, where they are known as paralogous genes, or are the result of divergence of the genes after a speciation event, where they are known as orthologous genes,[25]:7.6 and often perform the same or similar functions in related organisms. It is often assumed that the functions of orthologous genes are more similar than those of paralogous genes, although the difference is minimal.[65][66]

The relationship between genes can be measured by comparing the sequence alignment of their DNA.[25]:7.6 The degree of sequence similarity between homologous genes is called conserved sequence. Most changes to a gene's sequence do not affect its function and so genes accumulate mutations over time by neutral molecular evolution. Additionally, any selection on a gene will cause its sequence to diverge at a different rate. Genes under stabilizing selection are constrained and so change more slowly whereas genes under directional selection change sequence more rapidly.[67] The sequence differences between genes can be used for phylogenetic analyses to study how those genes have evolved and how the organisms they come from are related.[68][69]

The most common source of new genes in eukaryotic lineages is gene duplication, which creates copy number variation of an existing gene in the genome.[70][71] The resulting genes (paralogs) may then diverge in sequence and in function. Sets of genes formed in this way compose a gene family. Gene duplications and losses within a family are common and represent a major source of evolutionary biodiversity.[72] Sometimes, gene duplication may result in a nonfunctional copy of a gene, or a functional copy may be subject to mutations that result in loss of function; such nonfunctional genes are called pseudogenes.[25]:7.6

"Orphan" genes, whose sequence shows no similarity to existing genes, are less common than gene duplicates. Estimates of the number of genes with no homologs outside humans range from 18[73] to 60.[74] Two primary sources of orphan protein-coding genes are gene duplication followed by extremely rapid sequence change, such that the original relationship is undetectable by sequence comparisons, and de novo conversion of a previously non-coding sequence into a protein-coding gene.[75] De novo genes are typically shorter and simpler in structure than most eukaryotic genes, with few if any introns.[70] Over long evolutionary time periods, de novo gene birth may be responsible for a significant fraction of taxonomically-restricted gene families.[76]

Horizontal gene transfer refers to the transfer of genetic material through a mechanism other than reproduction. This mechanism is a common source of new genes in prokaryotes, sometimes thought to contribute more to genetic variation than gene duplication.[77] It is a common means of spreading antibiotic resistance, virulence, and adaptive metabolic functions.[29][78] Although horizontal gene transfer is rare in eukaryotes, likely examples have been identified of protist and alga genomes containing genes of bacterial origin.[79][80]

The genome is the total genetic material of an organism and includes both the genes and non-coding sequences.[81]

The genome size, and the number of genes it encodes varies widely between organisms. The smallest genomes occur in viruses,[90] and viroids (which act as a single non-coding RNA gene).[91] Conversely, plants can have extremely large genomes,[92] with rice containing >46,000 protein-coding genes.[93] The total number of protein-coding genes (the Earth's proteome) is estimated to be 5million sequences.[94]

Although the number of base-pairs of DNA in the human genome has been known since the 1960s, the estimated number of genes has changed over time as definitions of genes, and methods of detecting them have been refined. Initial theoretical predictions of the number of human genes were as high as 2,000,000.[95] Early experimental measures indicated there to be 50,000100,000 transcribed genes (expressed sequence tags).[96] Subsequently, the sequencing in the Human Genome Project indicated that many of these transcripts were alternative variants of the same genes, and the total number of protein-coding genes was revised down to ~20,000[89] with 13 genes encoded on the mitochondrial genome.[87] With the GENCODE annotation project, that estimate has continued to fall to 19,000.[97] Of the human genome, only 12% consists of protein-coding genes,[98] with the remainder being 'noncoding' DNA such as introns, retrotransposons, and noncoding RNAs.[98][99] Every multicellular organism has all its genes in each cell of its body but not every gene functions in every cell .

Essential genes are the set of genes thought to be critical for an organism's survival.[101] This definition assumes the abundant availability of all relevant nutrients and the absence of environmental stress. Only a small portion of an organism's genes are essential. In bacteria, an estimated 250400 genes are essential for Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis, which is less than 10% of their genes.[102][103][104] Half of these genes are orthologs in both organisms and are largely involved in protein synthesis.[104] In the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae the number of essential genes is slightly higher, at 1000 genes (~20% of their genes).[105] Although the number is more difficult to measure in higher eukaryotes, mice and humans are estimated to have around 2000 essential genes (~10% of their genes).[106] The synthetic organism, Syn 3, has a minimal genome of 473 essential genes and quasi-essential genes (necessary for fast growth), although 149 have unknown function.[100]

Essential genes include Housekeeping genes (critical for basic cell functions)[107] as well as genes that are expressed at different times in the organisms development or life cycle.[108] Housekeeping genes are used as experimental controls when analysing gene expression, since they are constitutively expressed at a relatively constant level.

Gene nomenclature has been established by the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) for each known human gene in the form of an approved gene name and symbol (short-form abbreviation), which can be accessed through a database maintained by HGNC. Symbols are chosen to be unique, and each gene has only one symbol (although approved symbols sometimes change). Symbols are preferably kept consistent with other members of a gene family and with homologs in other species, particularly the mouse due to its role as a common model organism.[109]

Genetic engineering is the modification of an organism's genome through biotechnology. Since the 1970s, a variety of techniques have been developed to specifically add, remove and edit genes in an organism.[110] Recently developed genome engineering techniques use engineered nuclease enzymes to create targeted DNA repair in a chromosome to either disrupt or edit a gene when the break is repaired.[111][112][113][114] The related term synthetic biology is sometimes used to refer to extensive genetic engineering of an organism.[115]

Genetic engineering is now a routine research tool with model organisms. For example, genes are easily added to bacteria[116] and lineages of knockout mice with a specific gene's function disrupted are used to investigate that gene's function.[117][118] Many organisms have been genetically modified for applications in agriculture, industrial biotechnology, and medicine.

For multicellular organisms, typically the embryo is engineered which grows into the adult genetically modified organism.[119] However, the genomes of cells in an adult organism can be edited using gene therapy techniques to treat genetic diseases.

Continue reading here:

Gene - Wikipedia

History of genetic engineering – Wikipedia

Genetic recombination caused by human activity has been occurring since around 12,000 BC, when humans first began to domesticate organisms. Genetic engineering as the direct transfer of DNA from one organism to another was first accomplished by Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen in 1972. It was the result of a series of advancements in techniques that allowed the direct modification of the genome. Important advances included the discovery of restriction enzymes and DNA ligases, the ability to design plasmids and technologies like polymerase chain reaction and sequencing. Transformation of the DNA into a host organism was accomplished with the invention of biolistics, Agrobacterium-mediated recombination and microinjection.

The first genetically modified animal was a mouse created in 1974 by Rudolf Jaenisch. In 1976 the technology was commercialised, with the advent of genetically modified bacteria that produced somatostatin, followed by insulin in 1978. In 1983 an antibiotic resistant gene was inserted into tobacco, leading to the first genetically engineered plant. Advances followed that allowed scientists to manipulate and add genes to a variety of different organisms and induce a range of different effects. Plants were first commercialized with virus resistant tobacco released in China in 1992. The first genetically modified food was the Flavr Savr tomato marketed in 1994. By 2010, 29 countries had planted commercialized biotech crops. In 2000 a paper published in Science introduced golden rice, the first food developed with increased nutrient value.

Genetic engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using certain biotechnology techniques that have only existed since the 1970s.[2] Human directed genetic manipulation was occurring much earlier, beginning with the domestication of plants and animals through artificial selection. The dog is believed to be the first animal domesticated, possibly arising from a common ancestor of the grey wolf,[1] with archeological evidence dating to about 12,000 BC.[3] Other carnivores domesticated in prehistoric times include the cat, which cohabited with human 9,500 years ago.[4] Archeological evidence suggests sheep, cattle, pigs and goats were domesticated between 9 000 BC and 8 000 BC in the Fertile Crescent.[5]

The first evidence of plant domestication comes from emmer and einkorn wheat found in pre-Pottery Neolithic A villages in Southwest Asia dated about 10,500 to 10,100 BC. The Fertile Crescent of Western Asia, Egypt, and India were sites of the earliest planned sowing and harvesting of plants that had previously been gathered in the wild. Independent development of agriculture occurred in northern and southern China, Africa's Sahel, New Guinea and several regions of the Americas.[7] The eight Neolithic founder crops (emmer wheat, einkorn wheat, barley, peas, lentils, bitter vetch, chick peas and flax) had all appeared by about 7000 BC.[8] Horticulture first appears in the Levant during the Chalcolithic period about 6 800 to 6,300 BC. Due to the soft tissues, archeological evidence for early vegetables is scarce. The earliest vegetable remains have been found in Egyptian caves that date back to the 2nd millennium BC.

Selective breeding of domesticated plants was once the main way early farmers shaped organisms to suit their needs. Charles Darwin described three types of selection: methodical selection, wherein humans deliberately select for particular characteristics; unconscious selection, wherein a characteristic is selected simply because it is desirable; and natural selection, wherein a trait that helps an organism survive better is passed on.[11]:25 Early breeding relied on unconscious and natural selection. The introduction of methodical selection is unknown.[11]:25 Common characteristics that were bred into domesticated plants include grains that did not shatter to allow easier harvesting, uniform ripening, shorter lifespans that translate to faster growing, loss of toxic compounds, and productivity.[11]:2730 Some plants, like the Banana, were able to be propagated by vegetative cloning. Offspring often did not contain seeds, and therefore sterile. However, these offspring were usually juicier and larger. Propagation through cloning allows these mutant varieties to be cultivated despite their lack of seeds.[11]:31

Hybridization was another way that rapid changes in plant's makeup were introduced. It often increased vigor in plants, and combined desirable traits together. Hybridization most likely first occurred when humans first grew similar, yet slightly different plants in close proximity.[11]:32 Triticum aestivum, wheat used in baking bread, is an allopolyploid. Its creation is the result of two separate hybridization events.[12]

Grafting can transfer chloroplasts (specialised DNA in plants that can conduct photosynthesis), mitichondrial DNA and the entire cell nucleus containing the genome to potentially make a new species making grafting a form of natural genetic engineering.[13]

X-rays were first used to deliberately mutate plants in 1927. Between 1927 and 2007, more than 2,540 genetically mutated plant varieties had been produced using x-rays.[14]

Various genetic discoveries have been essential in the development of genetic engineering. Genetic inheritance was first discovered by Gregor Mendel in 1865 following experiments crossing peas. Although largely ignored for 34 years he provided the first evidence of hereditary segregation and independent assortment.[15] In 1889 Hugo de Vries came up with the name "(pan)gene" after postulating that particles are responsible for inheritance of characteristics[16] and the term "genetics" was coined by William Bateson in 1905.[17] In 1928 Frederick Griffith proved the existence of a "transforming principle" involved in inheritance, which Avery, MacLeod and McCarty later (1944) identified as DNA. Edward Lawrie Tatum and George Wells Beadle developed the central dogma that genes code for proteins in 1941. The double helix structure of DNA was identified by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953.

As well as discovering how DNA works, tools had to be developed that allowed it to be manipulated. In 1970 Hamilton Smiths lab discovered restriction enzymes that allowed DNA to be cut at specific places and separated out on an electrophoresis gel. This enabled scientists to isolate genes from an organism's genome.[18] DNA ligases, that join broken DNA together, had been discovered earlier in 1967[19] and by combining the two enzymes it was possible to "cut and paste" DNA sequences to create recombinant DNA. Plasmids, discovered in 1952,[20] became important tools for transferring information between cells and replicating DNA sequences. Frederick Sanger developed a method for sequencing DNA in 1977, greatly increasing the genetic information available to researchers. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), developed by Kary Mullis in 1983, allowed small sections of DNA to be amplified and aided identification and isolation of genetic material.

As well as manipulating the DNA, techniques had to be developed for its insertion (known as transformation) into an organism's genome. Griffiths experiment had already shown that some bacteria had the ability to naturally take up and express foreign DNA. Artificial competence was induced in Escherichia coli in 1970 when Morton Mandel and Akiko Higa showed that it could take up bacteriophage after treatment with calcium chloride solution (CaCl2).[21] Two years later, Stanley Cohen showed that CaCl2 treatment was also effective for uptake of plasmid DNA.[22] Transformation using electroporation was developed in the late 1980s, increasing the efficiency and bacterial range.[23] In 1907 a bacterium that caused plant tumors, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, was discovered and in the early 1970s the tumor inducing agent was found to be a DNA plasmid called the Ti plasmid.[24] By removing the genes in the plasmid that caused the tumor and adding in novel genes researchers were able to infect plants with A. tumefaciens and let the bacteria insert their chosen DNA into the genomes of the plants.[25]

In 1972 Paul Berg used restriction enzymes and DNA ligases to create the first recombinant DNA molecules. He combined DNA from the monkey virus SV40 with that of the lambda virus.[26] Herbert Boyer and Stanley Norman Cohen took Berg's work a step further and introduced recombinant DNA into a bacterial cell. Cohen was researching plasmids, while Boyers work involved restriction enzymes. They recognised the complementary nature of their work and teamed up in 1972. Together they found a restriction enzyme that cut the pSC101 plasmid at a single point and were able to insert and ligate a gene that conferred resistance to the kanamycin antibiotic into the gap. Cohen had previously devised a method where bacteria could be induced to take up a plasmid and using this they were able to create a bacteria that survived in the presence of the kanamycin. This represented the first genetically modified organism. They repeated experiments showing that other genes could be expressed in bacteria, including one from the toad Xenopus laevis, the first cross kingdom transformation.[27][28][29]

In 1974 Rudolf Jaenisch created a transgenic mouse by introducing foreign DNA into its embryo, making it the worlds first transgenic animal.[30][31] Jaenisch was studying mammalian cells infected with simian virus 40 (SV40) when he happened to read a paper from Beatrice Mintz describing the generation of chimera mice. He took his SV40 samples to Mintz's lab and injected them into early mouse embryos expecting tumours to develop. The mice appeared normal, but after using radioactive probes he discovered that the virus had integrated itself into the mice genome.[32] However the mice did not pass the transgene to their offspring. In 1981 the laboratories of Frank Ruddle, Frank Constantini and Elizabeth Lacy injected purified DNA into a single-cell mouse embryo and showed transmission of the genetic material to subsequent generations.[33][34]

The first genetically engineered plant was tobacco, reported in 1983.[35] It was developed by Michael W. Bevan, Richard B. Flavell and Mary-Dell Chilton by creating a chimeric gene that joined an antibiotic resistant gene to the T1 plasmid from Agrobacterium. The tobacco was infected with Agrobacterium transformed with this plasmid resulting in the chimeric gene being inserted into the plant. Through tissue culture techniques a single tobacco cell was selected that contained the gene and a new plant grown from it.[36]

The development of genetic engineering technology led to concerns in the scientific community about potential risks. The development of a regulatory framework concerning genetic engineering began in 1975, at Asilomar, California. The Asilomar meeting recommended a set of guidelines regarding the cautious use of recombinant technology and any products resulting from that technology.[37] The Asilomar recommendations were voluntary, but in 1976 the US National Institute of Health (NIH) formed a recombinant DNA advisory committee.[38] This was followed by other regulatory offices (the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), effectively making all recombinant DNA research tightly regulated in the USA.[39]

In 1982 the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a report into the potential hazards of releasing genetically modified organisms into the environment as the first transgenic plants were being developed.[40] As the technology improved and genetically organisms moved from model organisms to potential commercial products the USA established a committee at the Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) to develop mechanisms to regulate the developing technology.[39] In 1986 the OSTP assigned regulatory approval of genetically modified plants in the US to the USDA, FDA and EPA.[41] In the late 1980s and early 1990s, guidance on assessing the safety of genetically engineered plants and food emerged from organizations including the FAO and WHO.[42][43][44][45]

The European Union first introduced laws requiring GMO's to be labelled in 1997.[46] In 2013 Connecticut became the first state to enact a labeling law in the USA, although it would not take effect until other states followed suit.[47]

The ability to insert, alter or remove genes in model organisms allowed scientists to study the genetic elements of human diseases.[48] Genetically modified mice were created in 1984 that carried cloned oncogenes that predisposed them to developing cancer.[49] The technology has also been used to generate mice with genes knocked out. The first recorded knockout mouse was created by Mario R. Capecchi, Martin Evans and Oliver Smithies in 1989. In 1992 oncomice with tumor suppressor genes knocked out were generated.[49] Creating Knockout rats is much harder and only became possible in 2003.[50][51]

After the discovery of microRNA in 1993,[52] RNA interference (RNAi) has been used to silence an organism's genes.[53] By modifying an organism to express microRNA targeted to its endogenous genes, researchers have been able to knockout or partially reduce gene function in a range of species. The ability to partially reduce gene function has allowed the study of genes that are lethal when completely knocked out. Other advantages of using RNAi include the availability of inducible and tissue specific knockout.[54] In 2007 microRNA targeted to insect and nematode genes was expressed in plants, leading to suppression when they fed on the transgenic plant, potentially creating a new way to control pests.[55] Targeting endogenous microRNA expression has allowed further fine tuning of gene expression, supplementing the more traditional gene knock out approach.[56]

Genetic engineering has been used to produce proteins derived from humans and other sources in organisms that normally cannot synthesize these proteins. Human insulin-synthesising bacteria were developed in 1979 and were first used as a treatment in 1982.[57] In 1988 the first human antibodies were produced in plants.[58] In 2000 Vitamin A-enriched golden rice, was the first food with increased nutrient value.[59]

As not all plant cells were susceptible to infection by A. tumefaciens other methods were developed, including electroporation, micro-injection[60] and particle bombardment with a gene gun (invented in 1987).[61][62] In the 1980s techniques were developed to introduce isolated chloroplasts back into a plant cell that had its cell wall removed. With the introduction of the gene gun in 1987 it became possible to integrate foreign genes into a chloroplast.[63]

Genetic transformation has become very efficient in some model organisms. In 2008 genetically modified seeds were produced in Arabidopsis thaliana by simply dipping the flowers in an Agrobacterium solution.[64] The range of plants that can be transformed has increased as tissue culture techniques have been developed for different species.

The first transgenic livestock were produced in 1985,[65] by micro-injecting foreign DNA into rabbit, sheep and pig eggs.[66] The first animal to synthesise transgenic proteins in their milk were mice,[67] engineered to produce human tissue plasminogen activator.[68] This technology was applied to sheep, pigs, cows and other livestock.[67]

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.[69][70]

In 2014 a bacteria was developed that replicated a plasmid containing an unnatural base pair. This required altering the bacterium so it could import the unnatural nucleotides and then efficiently replicate them. The plasmid retained the unnatural base pairs when it doubled an estimated 99.4% of the time.[71] This is the first organism engineered to use an expanded genetic alphabet.[72]

In 2015 CRISPR and TALENs was used to modify plant genomes. Chinese labs used it to create a fungus-resistant wheat and boost rice yields, while a U.K. group used it to tweak a barley gene that could help produce drought-resistant varieties. When used to precisely remove material from DNA without adding genes from other species, the result is not subject the lengthy and expensive regulatory process associated with GMOs. While CRISPR may use foreign DNA to aid the editing process, the second generation of edited plants contain none of that DNA. Researchers celebrated the acceleration because it may allow them to "keep up" with rapidly evolving pathogens. The U.S. Department of Agriculture stated that some examples of gene-edited corn, potatoes and soybeans are not subject to existing regulations. As of 2016 other review bodies had yet to make statements.[73]

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.[74] In 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court in the Diamond v. Chakrabarty case ruled that genetically altered life could be patented.[75] The insulin produced by bacteria, branded humulin, was approved for release by the Food and Drug Administration in 1982.[76]

In 1983 a biotech company, Advanced Genetic Sciences (AGS) applied for U.S. government authorization to perform field tests with the ice-minus strain of P. syringae to protect crops from frost, but environmental groups and protestors delayed the field tests for four years with legal challenges.[77] In 1987 the ice-minus strain of P. syringae became the first genetically modified organism (GMO) to be released into the environment[78] when a strawberry field and a potato field in California were sprayed with it.[79] Both test fields were attacked by activist groups the night before the tests occurred: "The world's first trial site attracted the world's first field trasher".[78]

The first genetically modified crop plant was produced in 1982, an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant.[80] The first field trials of genetically engineered plants occurred in France and the USA in 1986, tobacco plants were engineered to be resistant to herbicides.[81] In 1987 Plant Genetic Systems, founded by Marc Van Montagu and Jeff Schell, was the first company to genetically engineer insect-resistant plants by incorporating genes that produced insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) into tobacco.[82]

Genetically modified microbial enzymes were the first application of genetically modified organisms in food production and were approved in 1988 by the US Food and Drug Administration.[83] In the early 1990s, recombinant chymosin was approved for use in several countries.[83][84] Cheese had typically been made using the enzyme complex rennet that had been extracted from cows' stomach lining. Scientists modified bacteria to produce chymosin, which was also able to clot milk, resulting in cheese curds.[85]The Peoples Republic of China was the first country to commercialize transgenic plants, introducing a virus-resistant tobacco in 1992.[86] In 1994 Calgene attained approval to commercially release the Flavr Savr tomato, a tomato engineered to have a longer shelf life.[87] Also in 1994, the European Union approved tobacco engineered to be resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil, making it the first genetically engineered crop commercialized in Europe.[88] In 1995 Bt Potato was approved safe by the Environmental Protection Agency, after having been approved by the FDA, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the USA.[89] In 1996 a total of 35 approvals had been granted to commercially grow 8 transgenic crops and one flower crop (carnation), with 8 different traits in 6 countries plus the EU.[81]

By 2010, 29 countries had planted commercialized biotech crops and a further 31 countries had granted regulatory approval for transgenic crops to be imported.[90] In 2013 Robert Fraley (Monsantos executive vice president and chief technology officer), Marc Van Montagu and Mary-Dell Chilton were awarded the World Food Prize for improving the "quality, quantity or availability" of food in the world.[91]

The first genetically modified animal to be commercialised was the GloFish, a Zebra fish with a fluorescent gene added that allows it to glow in the dark under ultraviolet light.[92] The first genetically modified animal to be approved for food use was AquAdvantage salmon in 2015.[93] The salmon were transformed with a growth hormone-regulating gene from a Pacific Chinook salmon and a promoter from an ocean pout enabling it to grow year-round instead of only during spring and summer.[94]

Opposition and support for the use of genetic engineering has existed since the technology was developed.[78] After Arpad Pusztai went public with research he was conducting in 1998 the public opposition to genetically modified food increased.[95] Opposition continued following controversial and publicly debated papers published in 1999 and 2013 that claimed negative environmental and health impacts from genetically modified crops.[96][97]

Originally posted here:

History of genetic engineering - Wikipedia

Sustainable Table | Genetic Engineering

Genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GM) foods are produced from plants and animals that have had changes made to their DNA, which introduce or modify genetic traits.

Most packaged foods contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) engineered to be resistant to herbicides and pests; corn, soybeans and canola oil are prime examples. Concerns about GMOs range from their safety to how genetically modified plants pollen effects the environment, to the increasing use of herbicides associated with their use, with decreasing effectiveness. Polls show that consumers want mandatory labels on foods containing GE ingredients.

All living organisms are made up of cells, within which are strings of DNA molecules possessing instructions to make genes, which form a unique blueprint determining how an organism grows, develops, looks and lives. Genes make up about one percent of the DNA sequence; the rest is responsible for regulating when and how quantities of proteins are made.

Genetic engineering (GE) is the direct manipulation of genetic material (or the genome) by artificial means to alter the hereditary traits of a cell or organism. The process can involve the transfer of specific traits, or genes, from one organism to another, including across diverse species. Other types of genetic engineering include removing or switching off certain genes, adding new genes or introducing desired mutations. An organism that is created or modified by genetic engineering is called a genetically modified organism.

Genetic engineering is different from traditional cross-breeding methods, which have been used for millennia. Traditional breeding more closely resembles accelerated evolution: breeders select organisms with a desired trait and then further select and breed whichever of its offspring most exhibits that trait. A breeder seeking a disease-resistant tomato, for example, will grow many tomatoes, but save the seeds of only the most disease-resistant plants. After several generations, offspring will be much more disease resistant than the progenitor. Traditional breeding is done between the same or closely related species and keeps strands of DNA and gene sequences intact which can also mean that negative traits are reproduced alongside positive traits. Through genetic engineering, on the other hand, it is possible to isolate a single gene out of the whole genome and insert it into another organism.

The future of genetic engineering appears to be even more targeted than that: CRISPR technology (which stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat) allows scientists to isolate and essentially cut and paste very specific sections of DNA. This makes the process much more precise and efficient and inexpensive, making it easier for many more scientists to experiment with the technology. As it becomes more common, many scientists also urge caution, as unintended consequences, whether at the cellular, human or ecosystem level, cannot be known in advance.

Genetically engineered crops have been adopted at an exceptionally rapid rate. In 1997, 17 percent of US soybean acres were planted with GE varieties; by 2014, that figure rose to 94 percent. GE cotton usage went from 10 percent in 1997 to 91 percent in 2014. GE corn acreage increased from 25 percent in 2000 to 92 in 2017.

The vast majority of these crops have been engineered to tolerate herbicides, allowing the plants to be sprayed with a particular chemical while the surrounding weeds die. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is the most common. Other crops are engineered to produce their own natural pesticide (primarily to produce Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, a naturally-occurring bacterium that is lethal to a number of agricultural pests), to increase drought resistance or improve nutritional content. The AquAdvantage Salmon, the first GE animal approved for human consumption, was engineered for faster growth, so that it reaches market weight more quickly than a natural salmon.

In addition to corn, soybeans and cotton, the other GE crops that are commercially available in the US are potatoes, papaya, squash, canola, alfalfa, apples and sugar beets. Several others are USDA approved but are not currently produced, including tomatoes, (non-sugar) beets, rice, roses, flax, plums and tobacco. The controversial hormone rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone), which increases milk production in dairy cows, is genetically engineered as well.

The FLAVR SAVR tomato, engineered to retain real tomato taste after shipping, was the first GE food approved for human consumption by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 1992, but has since been taken off the market. Most recently, the Impossible Burger a meatless burger that uses a genetically engineered yeast to make its signature ingredient known as heme (which accounts for its meat-like flavor) has been popping up on menus and causing controversy because it does not have FDA approval.

In the US, regulatory approvals for GMOs are a complicated patchwork of the Food and Drug Administration for pharmaceutical developments, the Environmental Protection Agency for insecticide uses and the USDA for food crops.

For many farmers, GE crops require much less work and provide a larger yield, which offsets the substantially higher cost of GE seed. One 2014 metastudy found that globally, GE crops have reduced pesticide use by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent and increased farmer profits by 68 percent. It is important to note that it was insect-resistant Bt crops that had much more advantage than herbicide-tolerant crops (from Roundup Ready seeds).

A 2014 analysis of USDA data had similar findings for insect-resistant crops in the US, but many more mixed results on herbicide resistance. Certainly, when farmers start with GE seeds, yields and profits increase in the first few years. But some studies show that this tapers off. For reasons discussed below, GMO technology is problematic for farmers and consumers alike.

On a larger scale, corporate interest plays an enormous role in the rapid growth of the technology. In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that scientists could patent a GE bacterium developed to break down oil spills. This ruling stating that life itself could be patented and owned gave companies an incentive to develop GMOs that could be useful and profitable.

Monsanto (now part of Bayer ), the largest manufacturer of GMOs, has a long history as a chemical maker, including as one of several makers of Agent Orange, the highly toxic defoliant used during the Vietnam War. Following the war, the company turned to making agricultural chemicals, including its bestseller glyphosate herbicide, Roundup, and experimenting with genetically modifying seeds to resist the chemical so that pesticides could be liberally applied without fear of killing the crops. It introduced Roundup Ready seed in 1996 and spun off its chemical operations two years later to focus on biotechnology.

In 2017, Monsantos net sales of GE corn, soybean and cotton seeds and traits totaled $9.5 billion. Most troubling, in the last two decades, is that Monsanto has bought many competitor seed companies, giving it control of a wide swath of the seed market and its accompanying genetic diversity. In 2018, Monsanto was bought by Bayer, further consolidating the production and ownership of seed stocks around the world.

The biotech industry claims that this chemical-based agricultural technology and biotechnology is necessary to feed a growing world population, increase crop yields and adapt to a changing climate. Herbicide-resistant crops do not require tilling, which leaves carbon in the ground and is better for soil structure, and proponents claim that they require less pesticide application than non-GE crops. However, this does not tell the whole story. These crops have actually driven up the use of herbicides like glyphosate, thereby increasing weed resistance and leading to the reintroduction of more potent herbicides. These false narratives are perpetuated by biotech and other agribusiness corporations, but also by land grant universities (which receive more funding from agrochemical companies than public dollars ), many agricultural scientists and farm organizations.

However, technology and the industrialized food system are not currently feeding the world, so there is reason for skepticism about this claim. Globally, agriculture produces more than one and a half times the number of calories needed to feed the world population, yet one in nine people goes hungry. The profit motive of Bayer/Monsanto and other agrochemical companies, as well as their long lack of support for small farmers, should subject their claims of working solely for the public good to scrutiny.

When it comes to increasing calorie production for the parts of the world that sorely need to feed a hungry populace, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development report from the United Nations proposes that organic and sustainable agriculture is the best solution for countries like Africa and India, where the need is greatest.

Much of the debate around genetically modified food crops and animals focuses on potential threats to human health. But, long-term studies of the impact of consuming GM foods have yet to be done. Some independent studies have documented health effects on animals from eating GMO foods, which have become the subject of controversy.

Companies have determined that GE crops are different enough from those derived by conventional crops to get a patent, but not different enough to require adequate safety testing before they get to market. Additional independent studies and testing are needed. Ways in which GE foods can cause health problems are already documented, particularly in terms of allergens: genes from an allergenic plant can transfer the allergen to the new plant, causing it to provoke a reaction in those sensitive to the first plant. It is also possible that new allergens could be created from combinations of genes that did not previously exist. Overall, though, we do not understand all of the potential health concerns, but that uncertainty is enough to warrant more oversight, not less.

Perhaps the most concerning consequence of herbicide-resistant crops is the huge increase in herbicide use and the evolution of herbicide-resistant superweeds. Weeds resistant to glyphosate, which have survived annual use of the herbicide, have become a problem. A 2016 survey across the Midwest found that one third to upwards of three quarters of fields showed resistant weeds. To address the problem, seed and chemical companies have turned to older chemicals such as 2,4D and dicamba, engineering seeds resistant to these more toxic compounds and increasing their use in farmers fields.

Contrary to industry promises that GE crops would require less pesticide application, chemical use has increased steadily, particularly by farmers growing herbicide-resistant crops. Farmers growing Bt pest-resistant crops have been able to decrease their insecticide use, but scientists are concerned that the effect may not last, as pests also evolve resistance.

One of the major ways that GMOs have impacted the environment, therefore, has been in a mass of side effects stemming from increased pesticide use, including compromised water quality, loss of biodiversity and threats to human health.

While biotech seeds are touted as the only way to feed a growing world population, the data on yields are mixed. It should also be noted that GE crops rely on the promise of reduced pest and weed pressure to boost yields; no successful GE technique has yet increased intrinsic yields (such as more kernels per corncob).

A 2008 literature review by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that herbicide-tolerant GE crops produced no yield gain, while Bt crops produced marginal increases. A 2013 New Zealand study found that average US GE corn yields were slightly lower than non-GE corn yields in western Europe in the same period. 2016 studies by both the National Academies of Sciences and the New York Times found no evidence that yield increases could be tied to GM technology.

Meanwhile, traditional plant breeding techniques have increased yields significantly and have even outperformed GE technology in improving drought tolerance and other factors necessary for farming in a warming climate. But investment in GE research means less funding going to these more promising methods.

Farmers adopt GE seeds and their attendant herbicides ostensibly to make farming easier and more profitable. However, GE seeds cost a lot more than conventional seeds (up to $150 more per bag, according to one report) plus the cost of herbicides. An analysis by AgriWize farm business consultant Aaron Bloom found that GM corn costs an average of $81 more per acre per season than conventional. For many farmers, the yield increase at harvest time makes the upfront costs worth it, but for others, the proliferation of superweeds or simply one bad harvest can put them in debt, with few options for how to get off the GE treadmill.

Congress passed the Plant Patenting Act in 1930, as the rise of hybrid seeds made the business of selling seeds (which since time immemorial have been freely reproducible) profitable for the first time. The law applied to certain plants only, but in 1985, it was expanded to include not only all crops but also their cells, genes and DNA. Seed patents, along with laws on intellectual property, seed marketing and more, have exploded in years since.

Humans have been breeding seeds for aeons, making plants more productive, tastier and better adapted to local conditions. In fact, adaptation has been bred into seeds throughout the ages by subsistence farmers; we take ancient farmer breeding ingenuity for granted. Todays seed patents, meanwhile, bestow rights and profits on multinational companies for discovering the newest traits, ignoring the long and unsung contributions of farmers localized agricultural knowledge.

Patents and other legal measures put control of this long heritage of seed development, and therefore our future food security, in the hands of a very few companies. The seed industry is one of the most concentrated in the US economy. Almost 80 percent of corn and more than 90 percent of soybeans grown in the US feature Monsanto/Bayer seed traits, while the top three seed firms control more than half of the total seed market, with Monsanto/Bayer alone controlling one quarter. Up-to-date numbers on seed market control are difficult to come by, however, because huge mergers in the industry, including the 2017 Dow/Dupont and the 2018 Monsanto/Bayer mergers have shifted the landscape.

These companies value their patents and other intellectual property highly. Monsanto/Bayer has filed suit against 147 farmers for violating the terms of their planting agreement and has also at times threatened or intimidated farmers.

Surveys consistently show that upwards of 90 percent of Americans support labeling of GMO foods, but unlike most developed countries including 28 nations in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and China the US had for many years no federal requirement for labels. States responded by taking the matter into their own hands. More than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states, and labeling laws were passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine. In high-profile cases in Washington State and California, bills were defeated due to aggressive lobbying efforts by big food and biotechnology companies to the tune of $63.6 million in 2014.

In 2016, a federal law was passed, mandating labeling of GE ingredients in foods, which strikes down or pre-empts state labeling laws. The federal laws many critics dubbed it the Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, because not only does it override state efforts (which in some cases, as in Vermont, are stringent), but because many GMOs would be exempted from being labeled. Further, the federal law states that labeling can be in the form of a digital QR code or toll-free phone number rather than a textual label that clearly marks the product as containing GMOs.

See the article here:

Sustainable Table | Genetic Engineering

Genetic Engineering Is the New Nuke – TV Tropes

"Biotechnology promises the greatest revolution in human history. By the end of this decade, it will have outdistanced atomic power and computers in its effect on our everyday lives."Once upon a time, superheroes inevitably gained their superpowers from radiation, the latest and most mysterious-yet-powerful fad of the 50s and 60s.Technology Marches On, however, and gene splicing has replaced atom smashing as the most glamorous sciencey stuff: nowadays, many modern remakes of classic superheroes go with Genetic Engineering. Be it a bite from a genetically engineered spider, or exposure to it in a freak accident, genetically engineered origins are the Phlebotinum for the 21st century. It is worth noting that in Real Life rarely are the effects of genetic engineering anything like those portrayed in speculative fiction yet.Genetic Engineering also lends itself to being weaponized to do exactly the same thing as those ultracool nukes that kill people but leave buildings standing. Now that a nuclear apocalypse is substantially less likely (or at least less likely to wipe us all out), and chemical weapons just aren't destructive enough in terms of human life, biological weapons make a nice scary (and vague) alternative.May lead to Bio-Augmentation and Mutants. Superpowerful Genetics may either come from this, or have a hand on the engineering overall.It's also interesting to note the other favourite sources of weirdness used by SF writers before the advent of nuclear physics.

open/close all folders

Anime & Manga

Comic Books

Fanfiction

Film

Literature

Live Action TV

Tabletop Gaming

Video Games

Web Comics

Dr. Lambha: "God damn you idiots in the media! I'm doing research on spider genetics, and you infer that I'm going to cure fatness or turn people into spidermen! Do you understand nothing about science?"

Web Original

Western Animation

Real Life

Genetic engineering will eliminate some of the most horrific things that can happen to anyone, ever, and make everyone better at everything as a mere side effect. Anyone campaigning against genetic engineering is saying, "I was lucky enough not to get cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, or any one of a hundred other unthinkable horrors, and that's 100 percent of the humans I care about! Yay!"

Follow this link:

Genetic Engineering Is the New Nuke - TV Tropes

Human Genetic Engineering

Human Genetic Engineering - A Hot Issue!Human genetic engineering is a hot topic in the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. government. Time will tell how committed the United States will be regarding the absolute ban on human cloning.

Human Genetic Engineering - Position of the U.S. GovernmentHuman genetic engineering has made its way to Capitol Hill. On July 31, 2001, the House of Representatives passed a bill which would ban human cloning, not only for reproduction, but for medical research purposes as well. The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001, sponsored by Rep. Weldon (R-fL) and co-sponsored by over 100 Representatives, passed by a bipartisan vote of 265-to-162. The Act makes it unlawful to: "1) perform or attempt to perform human cloning, 2) participate in an attempt to perform cloning, or 3) ship or receive the product of human cloning for any purpose." The Act also imposes penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment and no less than $1,000,000 for breaking the law. The same bill, sponsored by Sen. Brownback (R-kS), is currently being debated in the Senate.

The White House also opposes "any and all attempts to clone a human being; [they] oppose the use of human somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning techniques either to assist human reproduction or to develop cell or tissue-based therapies."

Human Genetic Engineering - The ProblemsThere are many arguments against human genetic engineering, including the established safety issues, the loss of identity and individuality, and human diversity. With therapeutic cloning, not only do the above issues apply, but you add all the moral and religious issues related to the willful killing of human embryos. Maybe the greatest concern of all is that man would become simply another man-made thing. As with any other man-made thing, the designer "stands above [its design], not as an equal but as a superior, transcending it by his will and creative prowess." The cloned child will be dehumanized. (See, Leon Kass, Preventing a Brave New World: Why we should ban human cloning now, New Republic Online, May 21, 2001.)

Human Genetic Engineering - A Final ThoughtHuman genetic engineering leads to man usurping God as the almighty creator and designer of life. No longer will a child be considered a blessing from God, but rather, a product manufactured by a scientist. Man will be a created being of man. However, man was always intended to be a created being of God, in His absolute love, wisdom and glory.

Learn More Now!

What is your response?

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

I still have questions

Link:

Human Genetic Engineering

Genetic Engineering in Agriculture | Union of Concerned …

While the risks of genetic engineering are often exaggerated or misrepresented, GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts. For instance, they may spread undesirable traits to weeds and non-GE crops, produce new allergens and toxins, or harm animals that consume them.

At least one major environmental impact of genetic engineering has already reached critical proportions: overuse of herbicide-tolerant GE crops has spurred an increase in herbicide use and an epidemic of herbicide-resistant "superweeds," which will lead to even more herbicide use.

How likely are other harmful GE impacts to occur? This is a difficult question to answer. Each crop-gene combination poses its own set of risks. While risk assessments are conducted as part of GE product approval, the data are generally supplied by the company seeking approval, and GE companies use their patent rights to exercise tight control over research on their products.

In short, there is a lot we don't know about the long-term and epidemiological risks of GEwhich is no reason for panic, but a good reason for caution, particularly in view of alternatives that are more effective and economical.

Excerpt from:

Genetic Engineering in Agriculture | Union of Concerned ...