David King

The main debate around human genetics currently centres on the ethics of genetic testing, and possibilities for genetic discrimination and selective eugenics. But while ethicists and the media constantly re-hash these issues, a small group of scientists and publicists are working towards an even more frightening prospect: the intentional genetic engineering of human beings. Just as Ian Wilmut presented us with the first clone of an adult mammal, Dolly, as a fait accompli, so these scientists aim to set in place the tools of a new techno-eugenics, before the public has ever had a chance to decide whether this is the direction we want to go in. The publicists, meanwhile are trying to convince us that these developments are inevitable. The Campaign Against Human Genetic Engineering, has been set up in response to this threat.

Currently, genetic engineering is only applied to non-reproductive cells (this is known as 'gene therapy') in order to treat diseases in a single patient, rather than in all their descendants. Gene therapy is still very unsuccessful, and we are often told that the prospect of reproductive genetic engineering is remote. In fact, the basic technologies for human genetic engineering (HGE) have been available for some time and at present are being refined and improved in a number of ways. We should not make the same mistake that was made with cloning, and assume that the issue is one for the far future.

In the first instance, the likely justifications of HGE will be medical. One major step towards reproductive genetic engineering is the proposal by US gene therapy pioneer, French Anderson, to begin doing gene therapy on foetuses, to treat certain genetic diseases. Although not directly targeted at reproductive cells, Anderson's proposed technique poses a relatively high risk that genes will be 'inadvertently' altered in the reproductive cells of the foetus, as well as in the blood cells which he wants to fix. Thus, if he is allowed to go ahead, the descendants of the foetus will be genetically engineered in every cell of their body. Another scientist, James Grifo of New York University is transferring cell nuclei from the eggs of older to younger women, using similar techniques to those used in cloning. He aims to overcome certain fertility problems, but the result would be babies with three genetic parents, arguably a form of HGE. In addition to the two normal parents, these babies will have mitochondria (gene-containing subcellular bodies which control energy production in cells) from the younger woman.

Anderson is a declared advocate of HGE for medical purposes, and was a speaker at a symposium last year at UCLA, at which advocates of HGE set out their stall. At the symposium, which was attended by nearly 1,000 people, James Watson, of DNA discovery fame, advocated the use of HGE not merely for medical purposes, but for 'enhancement': 'And the other thing, because no one really has the guts to say it, I mean, if we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we do it?'

In his recent book, Re-Making Eden (1998), Princeton biologist, Lee Silver celebrates the coming future of human 'enhancement', in which the health, appearance, personality, cognitive ability, sensory capacity, and life-span of our children all become artifacts of genetic engineering, literally selected from a catalog. Silver acknowledges that the costs of these technologies will limit their full use to only a small 'elite', so that over time society will segregate into the "GenRich" and the "Naturals":

"The GenRich - who account for 10 percent of the American population - all carry synthetic genes... that were created in the laboratory ...All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class...Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as labourers, and their children go to public schools... If the accumulation of genetic knowledge and advances in genetic enhancement technology continue ... the GenRich class and the Natural class will become...entirely separate species with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee."

Silver, another speaker at the UCLA symposium, believes that these trends should not and cannot be stopped, because to do so would infringe on liberty.

Most scientists say that what is preventing them from embarking on HGE is the risk that the process will itself generate new mutations, which will be passed on to future generations. Official scientific and ethical bodies tend to rely on this as the basis for forbidding attempts at HGE, rather than any principled opposition to the idea.

In my view, we should not allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by this argument. Experience with genetically engineered crops, for example, shows that we are unlikely ever to arrive at a situation when we can be sure that the risks are zero. Instead, when scientists are ready to proceed, we will be told that the risks are 'acceptable', compared to the benefits. Meanwhile, there will be people telling us loudly that since they are taking the risks with their children, we have no right to interfere.

One of the flaws in the argument of those who support the possibility of HGE for medical purposes is that there seem to be very few good examples where it is the only solution to the medical problem of genetic disease. The main advantage of HGE is said to be the elimination of disease genes from a family. Yet in nearly all cases, existing technologies of prenatal and preimplantation genetic testing of embryos allow the avoidance of actual disease. There are only a few very rare cases where HGE is the only option.

Furthermore, there is always another solution for those couples who are certain to produce a genetically disabled child and cannot, or do not want to deal with this possibility. They can choose not to have children, to adopt a child, or to use donor eggs or sperm. Parenthood is not the only way to create fulfilment through close, intimate and long lasting relationships with children. The question we have to ask is whether we should develop the technology for HGE, in order to satisfy a very small number of people.

Although the arguments for the first uses of HGE will be medical, in fact the main market for the technology will be 'enhancement'. Once it was available, how would it be possible to ensure that HGE was used for purely medical purposes? The same problem applies to prenatal genetic screening and to somatic gene therapy, and not only are there no accepted criteria for deciding what constitutes a medical condition, but in a free market society there seems to be no convincing mechanism for arriving at such decision. The best answer that conventional medical ethics seems to have is to `leave it up to the parents', ie. to market forces.

Existing trends leave little doubt about what to expect. Sophisticated medical technology and medical personnel are already employed in increasingly fashionable cosmetic surgery. Another example is the use of genetically engineered human growth hormone (HGH), developed to remedy the medical condition of growth hormone deficiency. Because of aggressive marketing by its manufacturers, HGH is routinely prescribed in the USA to normal short children with no hormone deficiency. If these pressures already exist, how much stronger will they be for a technology with as great a power to manipulate human life as HGE?

Germ line manipulation opens up, for the first time in human history, the possibility of consciously designing human beings, in a myriad of different ways. I am not generally happy about using the concept of playing God, but it is difficult to avoid in this case. The advocates of genetic engineering point out that humans constantly 'play God', in a sense, by interfering with nature. Yet the environmental crisis has forced us to realise that many of the ways we already do this are not wise, destroy the environment and cannot be sustained. Furthermore, HGE is not just a continuation of existing trends. Once we begin to consciously design ourselves, we will have entered a completely new era of human history, in which human subjects, rather than being accepted as they are will become just another kind of object, shaped according to parental whims and market forces.

In essence, the vision of the advocates of HGE is a sanitised version of the old eugenics doctrines, updated for the 1990s. Instead of 'elimination of the unfit', HGE is presented as a tool to end, once and for all, the suffering associated with genetic diseases. And in place of 'improving the race', the 1990s emphasis is on freedom of choice, where 'reproductive rights' become consumer rights to choose the characteristics of your child. No doubt the resulting eugenic society would be a little less brutal than those of earlier this century. On the other hand the capabilities of geneticists are much greater now than they were then. Unrestrained, HGE is perfectly capable of producing Lee Silver's dystopia.

In most cases, the public's function with respect to science is to consume its products, or to pay to clean up the mess. But with HGE, there is still time to prevent it, before it becomes reality. We need an international ban on HGE and cloning. There is a good chance this can be achieved, since both are already illegal in many countries. Of course it may be impossible to prevent a scientist, somewhere, from attempting to clone or genetically engineer humans. But there is a great difference between a society which would jail such a scientist and one which would permit HGE to become widespread and respectable. If we fail to act now, we will only have ourselves to blame.

Read this article:

The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering - hgalert.org

On A Friday Forum earlier this year, Illinois U.S. Representatives Bill Foster and Randy Hultgren talked about their hopes and concerns for the new Congress as it began its work. For this week's Friday Forum,WNIJ's Guy Stephens asked the two for an update on how things are going in Congress.

Randy Hultgren and Bill Foster have both served several terms in the U.S. House. Hultgren, a Republican considered one of the most conservative members of Congress, took the old 14th District from Foster in 2010. When new lines were drawn in 2012, Hultgren won election in the new 14th, while Foster, who calls himself a centrist Democrat, won the seat in the new 11th District. Both won re-election last year.

Its been a tumultuous several months in Washington, but Hultgren felt that Congress, at least, has earned a fairly good grade. He gave it a B. Why?

"Theres some really good things happening," he said, but it could be better -- with some help.

"We need to be doing our work, certainly, in the House, but also need the Senate to step up and do some of the important things. Theyve been very focused early on in this session on appointments and I know that took a lot of time.

Hultgren based his positive assessment, in part, on Congresss productivity. Just look at the numbers through this week, he said. Theres more going on than youd guess from the headlines. He finds that encouraging.

Weve passed 158 bills through the House, and thats the highest, really, in recent history," he said. "The average at this point would be right around a little over 91 bills, and 37 of them have actually gone on to become law, through the Senate and signed by the President. So in spite of all of the busy-ness and noise and challenges and bumps, were still getting our work done. Were still moving forward on some important issues.

But Hultgren said he thinks there is a limited window of opportunity to pursue those big issues, and the challenge is for the White House and Congress to stay focused. Otherwise, the people may give his party a much lower grade than his in the 2018 elections.

Foster had a very different view. He didnt disagree that a lot has been done. Whether thats a positive, he said, it depends.

Well," he said,"youd have different grades in different subjects. For instance, in health care, I would give Congress a D-.

Foster said thats because he thinks Republicans should have gone in another direction than they did with the GOP health care bill, which he said was often referred to during the debate by opponents as a "wealthcare bill."

"The starting point and the ending point of that was a tax cut for the wealthy of most of a trillion dollars," he said. "And when thats your starting point, you then have to balance the books. You have to take away most of a trillion dollars of healthcare from someone in the United States.

Foster said likewise, the effort to repeal and replace the financial reform legislation known as Dodd-Frank, which passed on a party-line vote, has provisions that could have dire consequences for both individuals and the economy.

Foster said those concerns also apply to proposals on tax reform and infrastructure spending, which he says have so far been disappointing, but where there remains the possibility of bipartisan action.

Hultgren emphasized that most of the issues and bills that he and his colleagues are working on arent the big polarizing ones like health care or tax reform. But theyre still important. He listed his service on the financial services committee, as co-chairman of the Tom LantosHuman Rights Commission that deals with problems such as religious persecution and human trafficking, work on improving access to Perkins Loans that provide individuals money for education, a bill to protect veterans whose credit has been adversely affected by reimbursement delays when using the Veterans Choice Program, and work to strengthen the Federal Home Loan Bank.

Hultgren said those efforts are often -- in fact, mostly -- bipartisan. Foster, too, said it has been possible to work across the aisle on some things. One he pointed to thats transcended party politics is the opioid crisis. He said the problem is widespread and has, on average, affected Republican districts harder than Democratic ones.

"Its something where, if youre going to do some good, you have to spend money," he said. "And so, even people who believe they were elected to cut the size of government are often willing to spend some amount of taxpayer money on things like dealing with the heroin epidemic.

Foster said that was evident in the bipartisan pushback that reversed proposed cuts to addiction programs in the administrations preliminary budget.

He said progress also can happen on things that dont seem so dire in fact, maybe just the opposite.

Ive often found its easier to get bipartisan agreement when youre talking about the long-distant future," he said."If youre talking about next years budget, it immediately gets very partisan."

He cites as an example human genetic engineering -- think designer babies --which seems the stuff of science fiction, but which Foster said is closer to being a reality than you think. He was able to get the chairman of his committee, a Republican with whom he says he rarely agrees, to arrange a hearing on the topic.

Although hes in the majority, Hultgren said he too realizes that getting a bill not just through the House but the Senate as well and signed into law means reaching out to the other side. He said he often strives to do so, even as he tries to move quickly on his own and his partys agenda.

But Foster remains concerned about how that process happens in the House these days. He said hed like to return to how things used to work in Congress -- whats known as regular order. He explained by giving as an example what used to happen to an appropriations bill.

It would come up under whats called an open rule, where any member of Congress would get to propose an amendment," he said. "We couldnt just arbitrarily add large amounts of money to a program, but we could, for example, move money from one bucket to another bucket within the same bill."

This, Foster said, was a very positive way for members of both parties to get involved in coming to a better place, and he thought it was a very healthy thing for the institution.

"But," he said, "it is not loved by those who are in charge of the U.S. House. They want -- them and their staff -- to write just write all the final deals.

As a result, he said, members of Congress often are asked only for an up-or-down vote on big omnibus bills put before them.

On top of that, Foster said the turmoil -- as well as the policies -- of the Trump Administration has him worried and complicates efforts in Congress to do something constructive for the country. But he said hell continue to do his bit to affect change for the better.

Hultgren doesnt necessarily disagree about the effects of the turmoil on the process. Still, he said, in spite of that, he reminds people once again that its not all partisan battling and stalemate in Washington.

I would say eighty percent of the things we work on or more are absolutely bipartisan things," he said. "So, well continue to get things done and continue to struggle and find ways to get things done on the other twenty percent or so that we absolutely do disagree on.

But he thinks that, for more of that to happen, both representatives including him -- and their constituents need to work harder at being well-informed, to recognize other points of view, and not take every bit of information that comes their way from a particular source as gospel truth.

To listen to not just Fox News, but to tune in to MSNBC once in a while, or CNN, or vice versa," he said. "Or to still get a newspaper and look through that, or if you can get some different websites where you can get some information."

He adds that public radio continues to be a great place to hear a range of perspectives and for going a little bit more in depth on issues than, say, the cable news shows.

If everyone did that, he said, then the system and Congress would have a better chance to work more like it should.

See the original post:

Two Representatives Offer A Look At How Congress Is Doing - WNIJ and WNIU

Anime fans in the U.S. who grew up watching Gundam Wing on Cartoon Networks Toonami block will love the darker, more mature take on the mecha subgenre of anime theyll find with Netflixs Knights of Sidonia.

Whereas series like Power Rangers, Voltron, and various Gundam iterations are lighthearted in their tone and small in their stakes, Knights of Sidonia is a dark post-apocalyptic story of mecha vs. kaiju that feels an awful lot like Battlestar Galactica meets Pacific Rim and its not afraid to depict some truly grisly deaths.

In Knights of Sidonia, the year is 3394 and the half-million remaining humans live aboard a massive arc named Sidonia as it hurdles through space. As the series begins, Sidonia has already spent 1,000 years fleeing from the gauna, the monstrous shapeshifting alien race that destroyed Earth. A select few Knights pilot Gardes, Sidonias name for giant mechs.

The protagonist Nagate Tanikaze grew up hidden underground with his grandfather, training daily in a Garde simulation. He emerges from hiding to join a society he never knew, and he eventually becomes one of humanitys greatest defenders. Its a job he trained his entire life for, and through his eyes, the viewer slowly learns truly how desperate existence is on Sidonia.

Special humans piloting giant mecha is a tried-and-true premise for an anime that could very easily be a bore here, but rather than just throw mecha pilots into an endless war with flashy fight scenes, Knights of Sidonia deftly explores the practical implications of its setting.

What would humanity really look like after a thousand years aboard a massive space arc? What technologies or innovations would be invented for the sake of survival? How dangerous and gritty would their lives be? Knights of Sidonia has a lot to say about these questions and so much more.

Much like the recently released Blame! anime film, Knights of Sidonia is adapted from a manga by Tsutomu Nihei and produced by Polygon Pictures. Both anime feature a very similar dystopian sci-fi design aesthetic with 3D character animations (at times its even implied that both series exists in the same universe). Whereas many sci-fi anime can come across colorful and refined, both these series make a point of presenting worlds with a uniquely weathered look that conveys how grim and desperate these dystopias really are.

Sure, both Blame! and Knights of Sidonia present high-tech settings in the worlds of tomorrow, but after millennia, even our future could become the distant past. High-tech gadgets are transformed into ancient relics by the passage of time. Even Sidonia itself is of brutish, practical design, built right into a massive asteroid.

In Sidonias society, innovations like human cloning, asexual reproduction, and human genetic engineering are commonplace, along with an adaptation that allows most humans to gain nutrients via photosynthesis rather than actually eating. And one of the shows most interesting characters is Izana Shinatose, who is actually a nonbinary third gender. She has androgynous features and, like all third genders, her body can shift into either male or female when she finds a mate.

These adaptations do not arise out of creative or inspired feats of innovation; they arise out of necessity in a resource-starved and highly volatile existence. Much of it is very cool, but as a whole the series does a great job of communicating how bleak life is on Sidonia.

Starvation might be a concern, but the real threat comes from the gauna, which are faceless, emotionless, formless blobs that are nearly impossible to kill. Because theyre so grotesquely inhuman, theyre that much more of an absolute terror.

Not only are the fight scenes in Knights of Sidonia truly horrifying even with Gardes, humanity is hopelessly outmatched and the frequent deaths are truly gruesome but the despair permeates throughout and beyond the militarized portion of society.

Humanity is totally screwed. If you dont die from a gauna attack of some kind, then youll probably just die of starvation at some point. In this, Knights of Sidonia is a lot like Attack on Titan in space.

Knights of Sidonia is easily one of the best anime available on Netflix right now, and you cant watch it anywhere else. Sure, its overwhelmingly dark and gritty, but at least theres a fun and hilariously cute momma bear that takes care of Nagate:

Because what would an anime be without some bizarre comic relief?

See more here:

'Knights of Sidonia' is the Pinnacle of Gritty Mecha Anime - Inverse

(RC$IR)gESj&Y#*kh]eOg]R[RR"nhxblU|b ?okH>L'^J6"uYf>dC2Td)CI/SO=$ 0)4t}?!SYu TVarppp~.|bB'_1U!9d57FhgvyZd00,$c?#4AR_w5j7_0e/L^=[KUNwd'W. rX2laXgYTw2"U,V` jh~&6w%=HqccH@~HA-Yr '677":tbkOo{gy"_ ,X` *0:8RqUwG $N:8DT'ypK[[WNa$,2kf?j'Ovrp/IR =g9ix*3i:Pye(~I*CI9nCSu"Ke63I`X,0cIst"8u[*SW1%+V_ikKDFxbW0y%U=Z]YYRRu"LOtvoo24.8/xI 1wI+I!jCsBRlc!QPW6Oz}UW_W*F!vN?L7e$N>0=n@_DU*g1)cTfE0Q8ZEE8}"k~>. e -=pbb_|?}Kc}`2pUwbDj(=5}l;K-pMAHDSpcy]`Jp-kE/9sfiBf22.^UsN^Cx90t+'~.7*#)_9pDqY|OXdL 24:^X$O.^T%$^23fH7,E'-t`#Pq3wiiYcL?^Q)R%b_wukeyyyXC}}'xIUg8D>Yh^ Cc1r 'I*{bY>=MJZ[TEEK)x!oQ-8s34xV-=Z1ASy:1! CC&rpnjc:::x!3j6Ocn"H!S7;e )]vT"?;f7utR^ |M"tzgac#LUPW}"=mb-%h7I qShyF[lL~#t[C&iWbI/Y$1flI#e(4w$UR0F@yJi}g4,-S3kmqVhy1Ph n xLUV7O$3@Rbe(> [[HL1>`(KFPKHfSyT@_'%6MV3%V@ax?^/lVPIJ Yuo avLpC|b[*,vIU!"cwxq.amHq;xPfN:(T*ti2|";b%(2,_M~0Wx{G~6qO=Z3c!*-3+y!AA3oE#yAdZx`]2&EOVe=VzUeMLU{v1OwY~(-;hW>b&g9s&y?O ,j2robO;o~Tah2 .sF ,kpG}w!y_>fZ|iX-Fi5MJcilsC;9s&7PY!#66DO$!RPr Gk&G'L}lY2a&pnRiMRO CCzCu_*mT$%b6WWb#CRHg*F od:2?3mXE4HF/zfACMHef{x-0[=wTz&N?M1>05W:XyGrVoye[ k[hS Qhh C34+3-.r0ZA ?p /t^HCr=HXm|,E=2=1?U:r4LVe Fr(YGig-3.so6^5@ [at,=;N:0E-9U`|+X/m?AqR3F1{}od(q+a#r'),B+#6_bOu0Dchql*dOR)JH2Ha@A F1xg m)j= o[yI;#s*9gx4+6-Rp9L";Jwv7/]^!Y-BSwh$-~ !`(!rURmg4X2]Qbz3$HC!k)inO(K5bZO[keXAS/]SX,AAR,4/ 1 UqPB0n^^,,vXw-0Izm`"iN?W2&G'MBr$[WCekRx$0> @%Ls.F}=tS92ovX!zkt*@(#IY~=#]:+jnBR,Mo_%7_?:A$DX!r1>q~|1hL2_v0 k|E>V, l~1oeP'%ELLR(l'-)Le8#k/JD Q#uvL'>(USUX?=2EHFASmmGO]{Sga8)T5'e!Yj +[P*8potVdg R )n8w2;kn[E C")8CCK?+2a7NdR1`l&RHGk,`u 3rb[)xiJ`]/e2J {zqG3'8fv!g^zvoWW;n7]hnZ3N~,/Or)v9FVp0K~M:yN&t+TXkhFkS%8psIa;)lZY;~k!)gDTj%)jYt)Y y?G7~kd3gg~R(Wiv|BIvVTT,&),L{jx,FCWU*?FAR^^*ZyXIIV]V=Oo?]^&v? wHb+D" !LRX%#'}p=?!}QLwWOtG&~(K|rZ!:z8=6x~tB43!,K2/?FJJjonS!P6+UXoB-)xclRLR=/wsYfJCla^GPJk}{`K #)Z(K6%KZ]uw)2Kp Qc"k$={V4b=C=$o$ef2?=L+w&y6m_`O8giukmHA{px.q,|,0C1&>poo^U$eYaskKKuw2lyRbvMRRISuB",1J#*B~Ig]Nwbc[[MI LmT&Q#_)`Dy&x-** p[/LR}*7dTcz=~g}G5IR3:H2ahUHHH8GGMTmQQ5ykTvX8fl5fN?(.u"=f1h$F1)^p5p$P Sn&'kGz_-8~PSr0Q2/%wD+4-2C/jfT`L,q&rSp;)IY4eF7>wrD]uP326>uJ+?_fq-=hKE Fv'BVja@2yd.vH a9O>5>xH`Dl5'd5EW=,0kkW&N:}_w>kg[{?|$Z;[LG ERLRL qCRLfp'n~EYkXN*,YC,9Jv-DGeLR8H $;P(JD "G?9j#S MX5Ik[yR#f$Yv>}d#OR61%1a!2OW3zO*2dLRh|)=_68CSxPeF)!b!Lp12Xn)(-edLHZ1Ky!S~([D$W==(u|(D}inO+31 Y'Ohvp,."401g'?F]@ 6PZyzig-%$_[T#g=p;2(|k0V|CJG")?~`Z2UISTky`5>)PL Ii"@A' bY2wy'?wh |e$gF1U U~M:Zf9oS&z3x -Nff@sS*ICZeHih]RgKOH`L8_2c Cg|myyoxI01@ERH 2bP`(` uS9>J)!@Rd' ~P(:u^b9a$`Y@f)#H0H 23-a2@PmX=&8URBWWYXO`w ]VO^0U

Zb/xN(^fj"[g&gWU%2KXDaHQLyU;(tK1HW9vTTju%P%?xS8TyCeAxJ__2"s0JNBoYfNihb@*>s}.9IQ0h%mM!/qauIjP_R,2#LO'(*xJr%K87rXu}1EvZ+Db% @'p@/E`a2n71(^tgR~c@2)n),.S~f tDS2a;IQT+X^Vds?di`Jy5XA$}HT8h/>R|"_Y;+#AR _t5*Off8(8tahia@l2K R>4"D"5XhRO G-GP):!n411=KT jy'#(^CMK80KVI%477~hd=V LpI($t: O.9@bNY N}KU}|PcP&>,Id*k-cS *@vj>T;H#ad?hys#?8+6Hhf'3~KCW&) qyV]$I"tLQ~gAI]kKkpJDVl#CJtr$;wdDcb%Q1S(BjCS-~Vs }VdIR0E*CANV*yl@R[Z"df$nN/1-/+2j QoUWyw-vtGR>Lmj}dh1wDdt}Z:;;'[77PSQFua|OZe!$z#!F]f3`{i%wX54 C/8Hj2~"2P:@ L'ojx?6m/.Yrs 2d 3na"/O>`K$%o;ERd^SOA(6$)x~Eb]H%~ ]- S?U~,*!Rgtr/ FbIbe&e|S__L1SNq0"3:/BX9#cGw${P=,[*HAOa",T`1jOM eJYWUd4(k'3OeL_md(',;@RX/(ker6VUuJt]-MVs.^VlSm )Q/odq]'L=_3TTs|q[3K!)0T/41wdI?,@RSM3.qPRk|K~1f&)9}gI,xL/F1gX0 "SdjIeGR$sYqYY}Db]^yB#Cib>Et))/De M2z"_M5>_o,6f( 8E3+7Zit LU2#8M4yb?=4K>;NxAa^i4L*CR`RcIu2sNpDPs=t@g|QW,:4Uc_?>Go?4Y7;N`aOpn#XV0Oe:{,amG3B2Z.KH CPX_$%Ed@ZV8>y[jLLw?sp(PmSvo9s~g 1ox25=WxoEGW1vVTT3T9(w!EM&a.v*@J,XzS(8sI 9y?tIkAawwTHg,_c}^][WW#4$%Yj}Xnb9sy+HYke`9-HX#ZLFsdS$t%Fy.aL$,u,BkUl^cHS

j@IqH;uQ)8s@K&)c=xP|Hw >ED*L:mmmHWUs6 uY{v6,_e(Kj4OOuis rkJuw'zJZ%l(jAb,*> y*o(OQoG,I*c 2j*..>-j5%!UQP.W#+{VRlX]1*o$ bAd)Kei K,KStYo(fr!)?0!WD"Q,"XLhnn~fMc"/Egj5p>?{a)-LAPO0E>N4=5dx lF]e) K$1J6uMA @,w 9|kF?_~Z,GyU&'Mzn?vNJD_@R,. 2I =Y5MIJ)/^Xf?Snm`D[D#Sda?O =e.[*w0/sKuk1#V,idc_{z7q|G"4HX'SqT>x/-J)2>E R. ,ON %BURRWiH$%kI4!^3J)TJ`5#J.y$Oi_pu$d"}uMna:::|z_r)+Zc16/EjXAvWn

^%*xJ&rgR>T%[%D:'jJ$sZYGd-C"xx^ F.7B&p9Ex_/o!V -HBTtS&nhzOH sh/#=u8Qwc .}GOm.x(3]q1@ggrp IOT5z [99Q'7mSxbM8!/$ppaf+ou TIs(O3g!t1Y|;NR|sbzkcW]c?8ZTij|lXkdB3lY)0fXzamDf1*$ET5gTi_7~PA "L I9802V;w.V`>E$, 6=, Jt_B5%6-}Bupp=83w1?yk5#`_JEf#45uL]:za,bHYdORd2H,]3Sh>Twk6 [GV%'u|yCj+.3yHKuQ CJzc!$X[8"YM0SXwN4X+>I)YrL=`rXp)S4vW2)P1ttt8rHfT.]SXm}(a@|% wb4pRd%`)Ji:uJr:D38u%Ez STQH.]pAOo"2$E Y|kY7 28Jc!)] ^Wd@H$x"zZVS:]aP`,@44%5+NC/^Xf?Z[ekNe,JR+}(%BHeQ=N Y:_`(5jIJHFRl$3!/~O$Ftx}:i:X+[{R)+OWSa@d&)Xria=x2Q}}ua|Puu"HRd--J+R]BQ>Gy>!70Ao")10iMPH UU~JJf&YU,%pMT=mt=!;fFpJwwwOO_&o R)nX }.PPFHJ Rj Y;`:b `(MKa|#o$E O~CI6$%t=oW Uqrbn1;?C4S~`9wMHPtex'rpp O^r'hii ei}PFRr+7 aOd%L"H'$G]!o?c~Gw[ XdJ.'~C=;wd>R`CViD{)t`810uO(9E2c IA,Hzd^b~OC?)|FRDZn$EAFw??kU3>r-[#0?G{kXKc!)IG1HHmAbN_B>JImH>J]dF27$O&01:~RYCACACA#o$uMq|I$0knn~uI7 4XMQlI md|MRd4c=f} m;:?`zu0f"Aa w:88+ER#(CD.$d$&(J`bA@ .m^cw%I~00ICggs8pp$0HIQ][ I-I9888>/Length 32773>>stream x tTU.#j@D~NcZ2+d~Vqgc3.gkL;5siisi#MtQB H{sNU*!^CSg}Wd%+YJZ$'YJV6bnVO0mmmyyyCxCYJVrHyyyFl=:}DGQSC^??z^v]z?pW6Syx1!C$~xU0o 7+Y.&I9BHVz3yL=vU/~>$qiTsa0BF&tj RIPK0u$bD |=COO8ckx>UlY hl N8TpLZ_ shbnVs{waJ@V=pZ& 0m'?F,Gt@kI:K?xvmjW*/rrpiy0bSe sG~(d60%LP{,%]4id%-rf(5)VqQ3Yy-smKy*]^T|O `._F[X .y#p[!02/&@@LSk9s50:8A bx=`__~??JVW='O2{:tT`w)h|3fWs5>648+

{[*>S8%mL2sKg7keB+L]8+f6Suwb.+/**JFJJhDwy.BZdl:)eENjc8 R.ZUiKd Hz@'#T?J,EiADuCbP-ld mlive^ RC[x"ONkAFWL1 53R}S2VVV;2)R&Ug5?_O?vc5Skp[[^3LdG 2_xpn_+`s9 [BaiDNO0ALE]ltEMWVel>wfi+]4Z Bf" n{zqYS]=== :ah#[?g$ZMbar+_ t[Soph.y.(B;x{%.8'NrTUnJg"/)7n(NfsmUW:aTV8+3(H/n?7$oB+$*Ii0x1Tbn&:8PoAi'#,3B!y-u!b>+n:Tr"2^S2s1%F@*^]$kN.|9[Tkp0~c@ {(p%Mb{@c':zP@^Z]Fxh jM x5]}p2Fs=@rsvEv;fZ&J/455EIlWYyckCP 0Vqe#OspR/_jS%o+pNII {Vg=?2 ![1NE:6 C1 K[& FOxv.pmOmLFe4Gfxa;`h/{[Zl@aw{Fqidq11)itW;&__]z?v5!%naIp?}F@ 9ORcOx6'#tA|a>MUk=BGxr}F@aW[bi>[s.]`X?yC9+N~8jW%B= Wu3 Ygt=#[IU,L56&(J$8uM^WG.B$g9JYq{Eu61Z)([j/tWYLv{P4 q%2]>L ~t`rlq}3^3][`#FYi@[ArzYpC@XEA):GB7xJ6v7WA*~?A*f Z|jik~2fCAx]QZT*^henecaUsEk_@'jx{2o#0C5Kl*`9E Z/ _D fyi&]@xXcG]%0+- ,z"*U93mket3a7XBul:v{:s?:M9b`Su&5Ay.3nE^.mH5g.yI~_Ahs?{5o8b4+d$kG', !x E0.r8Dss*aal5 Dde(HApQT]=NtD1Og]`4R,f%+Y21I.8QmcOfr-?*t%L{OUQQS,f%+Y2%&Nc mE(/oikdI`zns .t3yNi.F_PP'OYwcKodXuwvCsa/.=j{b[Y!cAX!LI%Khf~7Z-h2L1ywqClp &5NYJV2bx%q^Dx n;u+$y5n^I`vwGd17+Y maX|hQlF{{?p_N2QyA[_Nel 7qoX2TnC_^tZ$YJV-=&!CUSVqMgj 1)[mI$YI1ZbnVt>H3z^6X@6mmm[m%Ur"%bnV`nunIO^wo/_|Z_*^J?%L/YJV-pZr~1LJIBzJ3/2b[7&gbPZFBsozv:Oky0tZeSC3{NCi;},}WA`OWcz* ? 2NnK/%JV^}Y~~~s-Q(a&}8z*W-a )_ t^Kty}@GO^*+.%e`6yxqeso;~i_s%w*$77'eU+Sv|J-%Q'h#G&O:%zFQVyDj82hCa26J=BV}}|4;TZ' rp*XP?L_c]z5gs21"M,R|xt'zVHhGmUkLXW VlcDhLv?|yIaYJo~aX=1JRV'3JDeEH*yE_rqT'Ga8p).:O+"v#qg/-..J(eG0Y[[zkz17$]sgui1Z$,X;J|S4H' /jx5*Jd Jq`*tgAmm}u*M7ykO57,&F===g3f9bfFZK6j;vLcl9a;z]@)|S'LICg5E2QCS91lalDwCkRkza- &r_|^"[7]P8m$6ze:~&Vv=gC4n{8okVY~ /8t`8hVQ,vDhK7}-6#L,6lNN {z~moI^x Fv=v'D,]Rw[C=~x&sv)wD0jku= ^Yk@rTP>R

zx|Q8ib%a`[ZG1qF[d3?{{9y3P[MCfHYA8hr|G@.3t~!8x}FA-5zg2k4tj-%":?!!F25?4:D'GhA= vO8A Xvb4vyH-r9so_1ed7Y%tS>0aUukd*#v&H'e* =!s+z*--:~x"qR*3=J6Il --pZXtn^R94hzj!rpUvCV8LvwZKva.TWLL$==PtGthiD[zm#AT" Yv_aAe.s ptb@nMqnkk+3$2).ZMbhEv.>}S?t|b:pZ0G&x9y6}&r=p#CCu>PsL+p-y C {UUs%1vI~7zV72Tm*_}Q/!uCrh'^Pp bOUZZz&g*ti(.gA3Q0;[ Q&MW/*Ndr76muKB"F@mWtWl,@,-$EZMktoT>u>4yzK'HS.|O>ZBv47G"z]YT4DX4rZujhPv;=}8|3%F 1^f *>BbuOnQ&us1~;iNzIr2sJ'cG)Quo6m yM4Wi&6zo_nh$8YT)mM}Q3dS-k^h#GwFm@Civ{kJK5Q5@;Tri6N2y) %UDK$(8 .{t0`aq]K`;V~#QZb/d@Cs,/rV&" w]pG8H-VMM [ny+"(q2WU%t}pY}yvbp/>3{Ai96 sW H /iP31635 S'%mo;>4PW]@Cj"U."8^Xz'O^1 ZP#4&%W2sM# RC "v")1__RP_=6&D#GVN2n-P]% GQR4 |QuVUVz #`V!A|&aaAW}U H6X**s=^i:>5dPEc'AMB#5a>(Y jgs2IQm&2SniH>JKx1W9&wun/F* *0WX 5X M`mxMR:l?p0xnK^"bmKkfxbaK`@O?"DO+NS-IOZ9a'N*P$C(9ab$xqtd9E3MR +4_C[*!L~tR'yL IX BsfAi.&%QLS1k,'dJCd8r~VMMJvx4}4,x0>M6F'>v]r4-JB44DUo#6KWw54@#84iOeGVk/i" Hu.Ib[9pJM@Wovj'VDXX? l:7{).~={r"YZe_%QukKBk61f]DvyO 5Gt~.W1$2saI bK+D[(i U[03z3lpD_^2/ %JePk!Z*]B b#6W8>(9'wf{tv>n7![0=IJG[lKK4Z|Ws|3aIp~.7;tm`#4bh&,zrIAS p+ s_YH96J;TW& Y9 [^Z&h[/v>} wkx}Qs}W:rg&V*IHfv_[}Xz7/nj7(jvZ }0l~cLYszj#{e59Dvt`:*f %)Xn>f6P#RUK^~&,H6dUNmvw/;!MHoF2x6aCS;*^H// QtaFuMi|8K w-V*Y1l>}z7e4_A[ki* q$Q,nXF1kq[;b| $H%9i0/fuO95xaiF(!9s>SPc.]5v|+b:=Vv}#5~g5K~K D?& 0z|v0"V"D;Rc q/ 9 y"Sl[Z0 xou)&A^4paji, [Xv20us'SH-1/Kp@K8iv#wC*Ft{T[9s$MU9^"yrPi#.E6d-ll)75*1u)27&%Kmth,0uR. #}yf{{HE9:Y.Xw~x (A"ObB7I.to`Ri70 x]BZoWfcpfeC"oFooJlq;h|1WxJ#W^yyPjM^e}w%1JWf8q.kZm[~xGrp*F_~{W;u hm#G5/Vp^ZK`P0W ?l@v}-s={he!2vi+i&+!7 wofr~[&?M$Weped2PH6::7g{S+2Nil:E">h&LXzZD9eI07sf5bgC)'&WY[KP++S&=]lR&e;prZV|iK3aV?O n8akFwSgKo~g$.(__I{LnDa*nJz{J3e`1x8vC2gPNyOa4HtVc0sfl#SD@YI3?N7Y?zo17D>LdIB ^ bN $,"{z=f{QnbHH$t}B{%]6#!vosO(Fd]t/uPw}fOwr9;]G4E%L}w;),x~wkseX,$&Y(XiWv3U2s[ZZh9Zx r&fn*} !r3 % f*F"_^blh]=8sVjve,bVvwWQT']*zN0W9f3m37hz- 4xI' 4%Qu Rk'_aV.r{'x$c0uq$Be5d8niv$DDt@YJ~XWp LkSUp|0&&F~= g||+8,''[ @w>r-xYv;s(d| r&aIvsMJqdI&!EKh^YH`YTBiX SUNF57 xD~aNUEL@ .$aW[|{a5zZ}0-FA68&-++#e#4"+7d*-^E'FKftC" 5Mzo}u~U!YZ0Lbzs~qv 5(q#qAw4&OVVxwiGAZwEU%/YJ$0VB+,b N^Ien-6C>DL'hBa%Qit#t.dYexbj|#MC7 e+B?Sq~ghQ] 4"r5kl8sa_^Zp$d&nlo_j xp/;@OddPPQ%()AU| %dTN &s? gjJHqI"eYS:J1t2n^HUV={6{uvL.v2ZN~&N

F{HK ds.xIcV~jX;mtNB5 ]'9jP++knxpZ&ti_DLz3c{bb$q-B /ziG0gR}~A|:Jw9h:e$0{/bVpiVlb=MNC? tx'0d=/ppO Irt2K"[s2/wMh~^J40WB1cKOixd065## }C (aJSV&$Bu8oX0>vcF~rQsi=PBmY.ZaWxf?: V(qBuk@9,KLD_`Rv HCLQ4DB99@@w)IpS^+H.X_i@!`7r00UU {Xa*DK5r"~ytW^ZI]*"i$M6rfBuiBc4u3N G3. >$11X^$CObvPH@G@)g>Mb%5HzzQYY4}:z4>O?}^!+O9d|WTWn"gYZ6La0aWKm)@|7OWF$duq6YWpCKDCAB4i1Fu3'_^oMLL!;wf39%?E"p5 5([[L~]nn,Ea!WW9mOJ'Lb2f|]q#ZU F6my[}ay}e`-suSJGp{WHy5MmWF|jw6]-v7C'BAnotxWpsxUDt@p fNlv}5I"Ba%J-t,()NNbUU->-=oLNNNb^b?E/Cr [^Mk{V`=6l1^C/,]qi&O=~7ag+gV*=@v?*-!MVMRO@U/I[(3mUb4H|BGr'Puu_vj2Eo- vj_umH[a{ y("[E6e. {w)^_ }k6knps.yq?f^,EQfY/F#>:Tn]gHY;U9l.L1[@oq@0#P[!LNN8R~x?ngyyBtM>NN45% Ql6S~S)5-']=~X(9_z>R:mH"@B1l 9iE*pW}yi{Zd2UU&YMH&& (i>Drx4*jh"(i;)2*_}Z[W;?P@23;Wj) ylP'*`5 Ar+jAx`{s.k!=fGJ jYW|Z#bB0F#c-ZXhA)55 FG/ 5I8U47+|XWBYSDOGK&?PWGv1J`LB]|EzGN=6@jS^CJdAz8Lr{2;{vhhj[@gR[5d j^\B7xe`AX 4`}=1SH-k.uWL:MV|ee%2@=I!.j|N&'eGA0Qos'wO[RtJmhp|K=W2,.(Yd;7ejK=WA4W(W^{+q^8UxDsf}u">tGypI[E/s-0sM$.UUU[@ K+I^@;8a~3:MNDos[u_)G2NKJJt+{>99yxVKLFnzJ A5n',ydFz+Wjv [?K=XN>>S2xSOH$WhJAq.r'4>Yv]v8p&J2PYskLY*c%-|eGV%*5aD.MmmIYYfQ_H>Htz~[1/:X&GLq?sqYzmH-'+VJUkgv?>W. o=9}7)}y|5B&_~+lF`7ygrCkXs.;=9Cu]8s)/sc#'`/vxv1V4WkUfTd`|Qsq%o&mp1$p&X0Ge%?'{%]OH> endobj 41 0 obj <> endobj 42 0 obj <> endobj 46 0 obj <> endobj 47 0 obj <> endobj 51 0 obj <> endobj 52 0 obj <> endobj 56 0 obj <> endobj 57 0 obj <> endobj 61 0 obj <> endobj 62 0 obj <> endobj 63 0 obj <>stream x| x93F%vY[UlY^x8{H bCB-"!@O))MR@iKShKH>>Og29#h#PJHVo:/E#z/[(0h,jA]Q%p^%4~'t9QrQH@oME;sX(2t3:E rE5?F2-h}A$jxeK34%oOozQ> Gf-AVJ^!]!t:}kC".9wL1 v3r@/uM_BOB^@/y'wC>gkD&9-"DB@JC9(GC;U+CEC 4)F{p!.aF<_i#BN( ""b'qq6Cc3!w o*h8ihO%5F`&#5TE(J(h}928l@{^}n~Gr< B'Ak9@{4o]?g>CI8X),2ZlVl `"*2[q;x} x'(_ow1@;x_OC''.#Zb7qxxI I R !k: Wcsk;dykyyN^w{Cu;wO R*JO]G=)%B31n'Q#BD0Xos7qr(F#&XD$0E!k5?{EVTL:Y//HFRQFk::z|KkK2Hf;Q:kY]Cu ]#XE _Q- P 71ux#S6!N:#hfv5*Z5qAm^cvN!o32'{w(SyO{Dh]]/6emFr,`eO[,io/R/L~x".ZN>xBIK IhoS+> 4maiB6XcTbt[>k'r ?1)E"J0R]@?_#)K`S"U"6M@#%<6 Q~tPJ:(9(%.'. )~KGK9 Eso5..>OqN.DRQLIONI'S,#|t%',j3QN5x)9kE3hP1I;RdC;CSw s USS;ZheRMZ)^O_h?G&OZOLv=kqm~Z-_C fZU{ZJZL !qjpP`L 6ghOF O ^^85+/``iD2x}gcg8e8;;dI{gN{rzO>,icF} }}bjH{ARY U{} p{y&hVj9~G#FBDw';#_|WyQ>8:9bnEec"STV=9&rrLY1=dK1^+ZBH> J*4`%PR<('gp99gy MNr_159j||rp= v,G|:=hZXmnS3*@doAtVNY!' { oM~C!L>1Q]VYC2yRr3"Rh;i&anzVkXivV("~gO[-tsTb,cp|gW#RkU:[#[#[####C^ S^yL)(H9e1$]hf MBP/ B0' B`'8"?5?`f/gjp!jx= .vF6lP|-F6OxKo/zd/>WUK*X[6rv;X#N't:w6w1B7wX{fh,qz'Cpb@' + N,"Nb'&uMh'D2 RRRu8IEU@ 5e4M24HLL3WSKxhk 6G=0w6y>?AiIc/c?N/+v nkj>//8F=BT[[Vr#D*$s: S^:.Qp6SI6`a J Eo^K-4IRPSZ".Amrv#Ne&lm_QBDyTIaA%Q,Q:+:'nc5GxeE}.k|:k3QZy d5QT]rg&F?>#<9O.S2u]/R'3s<F>slm^)^ qP`!t J@ql.)09"IuI%9`5 &,x_KU^ym'Ze*I2,!tPb>tS09STV~=*$%vN%!W&8XiP7jEjXptMC`2.iW^sJlLV,0#%uB,}mk5-we1u60=tx_{y':37[| zt'b-kjG"Z>SMm1SggrnnEj+dm5Db,`7fZNtT;UXg>tU)c^:.WK??Vfy7W]szmN4U%cOC+1w +,b_8h]rO`h9XoX~KK6 R6{ivr73&E[smYffF)a3Z^0 ` 0_E6|D)]#=`q;O g&Mcr;{FF*[Cr S4h `D~>!4b.8.!"65XIsiJ+ }-bTmW[W7#F}+*YY|=HdSU_ P/X,=R+X4aj9Qp6y0."5,q[s*kr2N;}$$l/gfYa] r3f~gk6w37&?]w>|s]#[w` lry=k?gFh{J6d3s$9,]/zm"ZCVrTl Y/wnSF| W ]sz@=^b_5w%W:uM}4DZ[jp(r?s/?CA?R]>E/m>,U2l.{@VZd|U`~xi*-g{I 7&4MMyYNAZ KJHp)Rz7NWaP|YK+t~%hg TX)X5z.*U-o5-;DVQ<>]" iMywTm#me^XRbin4`E ]d(iYV+ay] huD+*+UYz"j.7S=-?@BSis,'vRB 8S5jLJ08"8_S_ER#nl+[-+v //cJs_u}!k=iNz=7:d+VZ2 qc3" !=vLPCneC}|W-gV_ ?*FVdZ23WJ> X1T+UjB]NfYYyl,:gl latjRTVB<[YaA]y~NN@w*k.y%(=:BS!qyt*cH9YJjV [NX5VxXhTfp$Ig"RB1NMBl_yG6voqk?,xw^1:&9c-eOTU6O3dP l%fHZZY2::GcaKiqa ]92dfeqA)Y.l` xt`-a?_:Kw3h-OvW*J 2*rcdCJlr HL$7/`ak+h;>{O2uQDyH'1L0Xx drA9Sxu7n9q>_6r^1Z*,j5C cjepfef e"UPj'("eph,oSb$C ,,-ZM[y/ebHMHTj /RSX4X4to$nxoV* +Es+G L7vfXn+s/6;[d++^^*"n)+^ %~tuvtge{DHPA#i-VEY>50 V1bl5IsjqF*Ct@i 3lcL mR_85T,M6)!]^p'Kv*1/?V"4k]EUae;YUk?Wf_ %DvDKoiiZ~.|AGj(HxF!41Zmjj!,F)0xlDy9 5JU/1G#x~.n3Fi3gtwjCRik*d`$WfB0pLWQ*mZSf2uMFzLy%/a]{+19P ht|LRA9j3dP:"]jEAjj1M .;r*D!`Izzv("N){"e("x<OKivW7Mv-};o ~1'T%J[p2;1T`n3BD44$d CDoclQ[,[P2-@Qm68[l z0EOTB I*;;H^b57N'iY,WM#`q*2,@v1tCNX+ 57{m}uUS#w,U8V=;kvC6gzO;6o*FUGZ}8tK"3t?wuGnC*[kk1_w :'TH(:hDFRGdr/GYl,U6P&3X,H>If=o/EsKK~l`AbSIZ^klvr}\i'!oj{VgKk.{vf~V7|fr[ao.TvIWLG~{y^?/:Ah8 bipvvm$d+knJAdcj]{L2yN}3z(zS?`8.&5^0Al@r/7l*/^X^h96 kK!X{3g xe7'~f8*UK[#w;Zq}GM[ +l+[%83JF&H_Nyy|w~w*C[Yux{7d5Feo[xYMqOK?9"l5 ls?j2,<>A}Rq9SdG15m"xrHEbZ-'+F"Zd"$BQ'[ xR*)|yDiRaU^@s#b # h!(U@@z%'a8VE~=Cspi/) FRN'_RgDV0UIU%+s$~ _N||cpc)*: PR-)NLh+!K9t"w KmqJD=$&*=#n%we|SG]ZD~+3|[U_uTk#aJ?nTEey`&R'%j%Kw,[%Ozr?oO K1x'`8.)APbj@ 5%_diA sC)E}h2dl{cP )BGkJy/ KO?F_woo=Hsw~/A|sve[G?p^A#p=A(c:K-bA?~jP)cp6rzO|fa <>stream x|yxUt$,vh H$Hf3FI5b4D"2J3 8:(33c^EqKwnueyySws=U ApP2kn0?45Ihp>8mV_re]5uo``PUm-~R|

Read the original post:

Human Genetic Engineering on the Doorstep - hgalert.org

This article originally appeared on AlterNet.

The chasm between rich and poor in the world has become so extreme it is frequently difficult to grasp. The eight richest men in the world now own as much as the entire bottom half of the worlds population. The wealthy OECD countries, representing less than 20% of the global population, consume 86% of the worlds goods and services, while the poorest 20% consume only 1.3%. These numbers translate into the shameful reality that a billion people go hungry every day and another billion remain chronically malnourished.

Nevertheless, you wont hear much talk about these numbers in techno-optimist circles that breathlessly discuss the tantalizing possibilities of human enhancement. When futurists blithely envision the possibilities for human enhancement, they ignore the fact that billions of people are barely surviving. and will have no realistic chance of gaining access to these advances. In fact, spend enough time on these topics and youre liable to forget that the majority of human beings are struggling to make ends meet and barely able to think about the next month, never mind decades ahead.

In certain affluent echelons of the developed world, the technological promise of an enhanced human lifestyle exerts a powerful attraction. Leading Silicon Valley companies are funding startups intent on discovering how to disrupt the aging process and allow people to achieve something close to immortality. Breakthroughs in neural implant technology raise the possibility of people being able to communicate with their computer and each other by thought alone in the near future.

Meanwhile, advances in genetic engineering offer the possibility that, within a few decades, the gulf between rich and poor might extend beyond economics and technology to become part of our biological makeup. Scientists are working on identifying sets of genes that correlate with better intelligence, physical fitness, health, and longevity. Once they do so, affluent parents will not forego the advantages that genetic engineering could offer their offspring. At first, new generations will appear much like the older ones, only somewhat more intelligent, healthier, and longer lived. Before too long, however, we will see a new default perception of what constitutes a human being in the affluent world.

Gregory Stock, an advocate of human genetic engineering, predicts we will soon see humans as divergent as poodles and Great Danes. Hes not alone in this view. Physicist Freeman Dyson has warned that engineering the human germline could cause a splitting of humanity into hereditary castes, while biologist Lee Silver sees what he calls GenRich and naturals ultimately splitting into entirely separate species, with no ability to cross-breed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.

Eventually, the affluent and the dispossessed will become effectively, if not literally two separate species. One species, genetically and technologically enhanced, exploring entirely new ways of being human; the other species, genetically akin to us, left behind to struggle in a world reeling from resource exploitation and environmental degradation. Its a future scenario I refer to as Technosplit.

Cameron and Jude, circa 2050

Based on the current rate of converging technical advances, its reasonable to expect, by 2050, a young affluent urban couple lets call them Cameron and Jude to be planning their genetically optimized offspring while communicating their thoughts and feelings to each other in an enhanced form using neural implants.

Cameron and Jude will be increasingly segregated from the fate of billions of others suffering the effects of climate change and resource scarcity. They are fortunate to be living in London, one of the affluent cities that by then, will have spent many billions of dollars to protect itself against the massive tidal surges that will be part of the new normal. As they enjoy their virtual reality tours of the few carefully engineered eco-zones still maintained as wilderness parks, what kind of world will the majority of humanity be experiencing on the other side of the Technosplit divide?

In future decades, as the affluent minority enjoy their neurally interconnected, genetically enhanced lives, cities in much of Africa and Southeast Asia, beleaguered by political instability, massive poverty and inadequate infrastructure, are likely to be reeling from the ravages of climate change. Reduction in river flows and falling groundwater tables will lead to widespread shortages of potable water. Flooding and landslides will disrupt electricity, sanitation and transportation systems, leading to rampant infectious disease.

Meanwhile, even as these cities strain to the breaking point, millions more refugees will be streaming in from the rural hinterland where the effects of climate change will be even more devastating. Wealthier residents will flee these urban disaster zones for safer abodes, either in the developed world or newly planned, segregated cities insulating them from the suffering of their compatriots, leaving the largest urban population centers without the capital reserves to fortify their structures against the threatening onslaught of even more severe climate disruption.

Along with the human catastrophe of failed states and the misery of billions in overwhelmed coastal megacities, the nonhuman world is heading inexorably to its own form of collapse. At current rates of destruction, natural ecosystems are likely to be reduced to islands of conservation habitats surrounded by vast agribusiness plantations and urban sprawl. Tropical rainforests will only survive as degraded, shrinking remnants in national parks.

Cameron and Jude might not, however, consider this situation as gravely as we do, given their reduced expectation of the natural world and their ability to experience vastly enhanced virtual reality immersions in wildlife reservations, enabling them to feel closer to nature in some ways than many of todays urban residents. Meanwhile, the affluent world will be doing its utmost to maintain an iron grip on access to vital global resources through its stranglehold on the worlds economic and military systems.

A betrayal of human values

At the current rate of increase in global economic disparity and technological innovation, this is what we must expect for humanitys future. But is it what people desire, even in the affluent world? Many techno-optimists, who argue that humanitys defining feature is the ability to reach beyond the limitations of our biology, believe so and celebrate the possibility of humanitys ultimate triumph: the unfettered progress of technologys conquest of nature.

But theres another view of humanity that permeates the modern world, one based on the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. These words, from the U.N.s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, represent a different kind of historical progressthe progress of humanitys moral scope, which has expanded beyond tribal groupings to encompass the entire human race. In this view, spelled out by the Declaration in 1948, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. According to this view, everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

From this viewpoint, the Technosplit scenario would be a fundamental betrayal of human values. It would be equivalent to the rich minority building a luxury lifeboat and deserting a rapidly sinking ship thats taking down those who cant afford the entry ticket.

Avoiding Technosplit

On the other hand, might Cameron and Jude be more profoundly disturbed by the convulsions of their world than an equivalent couple in todays society? Could their enhanced connection with whats left of the natural world cause them to treasure it more keenly? Might the impending devastation from climate change drive them and their peers to demand a radical redirection in the worlds trajectory? Could their potentially enhanced neural ability to connect with the suffering of the impoverished billions cause them to press for a different world economic order that honors the intrinsic rights of each human being?

The attitude Cameron and Jude and millions of their peers take to their world will fundamentally affect the future trajectory the human race. And this attitude will depend ultimately on their core values, which will emerge to a large extent from ideas developed by our generation.

A scenario where humanity remains resilient requires something deeper than even the most compelling economic and technological solutions to our current crises, such as a global price on carbon and massive investment in green energy. These are undoubtedly necessary to avert disaster, but even if theyre fully effective, they wouldnt be sufficient to avoid the Technosplit scenario. That would require a more fundamental shift in the underlying values that drive our daily decisions, along with structural changes to the global economic system that is causing the inequalities wrenching humanity apart and leading us step-by-step towards Technosplit.

When a system is stretched to breaking point, something has to give. In the Technosplit scenario, our economic model remains resilient, but our shared humanity is transformed beyond recognition. In a scenario where our shared humanity remains intact, the economic system driving our current trajectory would need to be transformed, along with its underlying values: the pursuit of never-ending material growth and the glorification of humanitys conquest of nature. In its place, we need to nurture a new set of values, ones that emphasize growing the quality of life rather than material possessions, a profound sense of our shared humanity, and a commitment to the flourishing of the natural world.

As we progress further into this century, with its combination of glorious possibilities and existential threats, it is becoming clear that our generation, along with the next, is engaged in nothing less than a struggle over the future of what it means to be human.

This article was adapted from the final chapter of The Patterning Instinct: Trajectories to Our Future.Jeremy Lent is author of The Patterning Instinct: A Cultural History of Humanitys Search for Meaning (Prometheus Books) available May 23, 2017.

View original post here:

Technosplit: The bifurcation of humanity - Salon

In Brief

The gene editing technology CRISPR/Cas9has paved a new path forward for us from eliminating diseaseandfixing pests,to restoring lost abilities the process is expected to graduateus into a new age of medicine. But it begs the question, can we make ourselves better? Can we improve our intelligence inthe advent of gene engineering?

The answer might just be a resounding yes.

The Cognitive Genomics Projectis focused on understanding the origin of intelligence within our own genome. Its lead by BGI, a non-profit research group based in Shenzhen, China, that was founded in 1999. The organization is currently conducting a gene-trait association study of g, a general factor of intelligence. General intelligence is defined by three prominent categories: stability, heritability, and predictive powers. In short, the study is collecting genetic data from over 20,000 individuals who have an IQ above 150, and looking for patterns in their genes.

While this might seem relatively straightforward, its actually a complex and difficult task. Thats becausegeneral intelligence does not follow mendelian, single-gene genetics. Researchers cannot simply look for specific mutations in specific genes, as they do for diseaseslike Huntingtons Disease or Cystic Fibrosis. Rather, intelligence is more similar to traits like eye color and hair color that involve multiple genes in inheritance patterns that we are just beginning to understand.

It remains to be seen how effective gene editing can be at influencing traits like personality and intelligence in peoplewhose brains have already been formed. One way we could avoid the gene editing process entirely is by genetically designing intelligence into our children from conception. We could utilize in vitro fertilization and carefully process the genetic information of each embryo produced for genetic preferences.

If the Cognitive Genomics Project provides significant data supporting thecorrelation between particular parts of the genome and intelligence, then parents can look for these genetics sequences in potential embryos and select the embryos with the desired traits. This method would increase the probability of intelligent children without having to edit particular genome sequences.

While the ethics of human genetic engineering continue to be debated, we may be closer to a more intelligent humanity than ever before.

Read more:

Gene Editing Could Make You Smarter - Futurism - Futurism

Commentary | Feb. 6, 2017

Should Christians face unethical uses of biotechnology with despair and resignation or with hope and determination?

Ive spent the last decade writing and speaking about the remarkable and terrifying world of biotechnology from a Catholic perspective. Many times Ive felt like Frodo Baggins at the gates of Mordor, looking upon Mt. Doom with despair and dread.

Ive never felt this more acutely than in the past few months. A series of recent headlines have renewed my sense of hopelessness in the face of the never-ending assault on the dignity of human life by modern biotechnology.

The gloom began to settle when it was revealed that a Swedish scientist is editing the DNA of healthy human embryos.Fredrik Lanner,a developmental biologist, is using a new gene-editing technique called CRISPR to disable some genes in healthy human embryos to see how those genes affect development. He and his team are intentionally modifyingotherwise healthy IVFembryos so they cannot develop properly.

Anin-depth story byNPRreveals that while the reporter was observing thegeneticmanipulation of five donated IVF embryos, one didnt survive the thawing process and one perished after being injected with the experimental gene-editing tool. Of the three who survived, one continued to divide, but not for long.All of the embryos were to be destroyedbefore they are 15 days old,as the law in Sweden dictates. Lanner insists that his research is critical to understanding human development, which, in turn, will shed light on infertility and disease.

Lanners work makes many ethicists and scientists extremely nervous. Jennifer Doudna, the co-inventor of CRISPR, along with other heavy-hitting scientists,havecalled for a voluntary moratorium on any editing of human embryosfor fear that it will lead to the creation of genetically modified children. Marcy Darnovsky, of the left-leaning Center for Genetics and Society, explains why she and her group havebeen so vocal in their opposition to the modification of human embryos. She told NPR: The production of genetically modified human embryos is actually quite dangerous. ... When youre editing the genes of human embryos, that means youre changing the genes of every cell in the bodies of every offspring, every future generation of that human being. So these are permanent and probably irreversible changes that we just dont know what they would mean.

Then came the revelation that a U.S. doctor traveled to Mexico to create the first baby intentionally engineered to have three genetic parents. This technique, misnamed mitochondrial replacement or MR, seeks to eliminate the transmission of genetic disease through the mitochondria.Mitochondria are small but abundant organellesoutside the nucleusinthe cytoplasmof our cells that make energy. They have their own DNA called mtDNA. We inherit our mtDNA solely from our mothers. A woman who carries a deleterious mutation in her mtDNA cannot help but pass that on to her offspring.

There are various MR techniques that replace the mitochondria of a woman with mitochondrial disease with the mitochondria of a donor femalein the IVF process.Essentially, MR creates a genetically alteredembryo with the genetic material from three people, one man and two women.

MR had only undergone limited study in primates before getting approval in the United Kingdom for use in fertility clinics to make babies. Little is known about the complexcommunication between the DNA in the nucleus and the DNA in the mitochondria,and so there is little data on the effects ofa mismatch between the nuclear DNA and mtDNA.

Alsoin all MR, its the nucleus thats being moved from cell to cell, not the mitochondria which is why mitochondrial replacement is such a misnomer.This makes MR acousin to cloning, which also transplants the nucleus of one cell into anotherto make a new organism. MR brings with it many of the same risks.Scientists are concerned about the health of the resulting children.

In anopen letterto the U.K. Parliament, Dr. Paul Knoepfler, a vocal American stem-cell researcher, warned: Even if, hypothetically, this technology might help avoid some people from having mitochondrial disorders (and thats a big if), the bottom line is that there is an equal or arguably greater chance that it will tragically produce very ill or deceased babies.

MRis also a germ-line genetic modification, which means that any girl born with this technique will pass her genetic modification on to her children.

A recent review in Nature reveals that MR leaves a tiny percentage of mutant mitochondria behind, and sometimes the mutant mitochondria rapidly divide and overtake the healthy mitochondria. Shoukhrat Mitalipov, head of the Center for Embryonic Cell and Gene Therapy at the Oregon Health and Science University, reported a 15% failure rate where mitochondrial defects returned. Mitalipov told NPR, That original, maternal mitochondrial DNA took over, and it was pretty drastic. There was less than 1% of the original maternal mitochondrial DNA present after replacement with donor DNA and before fertilization, and yet it took over the whole cell later. University of California San Francisco professor Patrick OFarrell suggests that mutant mitochondria can resurge at any time in a developing three-parent child or even resurface in future generations.

For all these reasons, MR is not yet approved by the FDA in the United States,and may never be.So, when a Jordanian woman with mitochondrial disease wanted to have a child using MR, John Zhang, from the New Hope Fertility Center in New York City, had to perform the procedure in Mexico. He created five embryos,and, according toNewScientist.com,only one developed normally. That child is now 9 months old.

Zhang went to Mexico because, he said, there are no rules, and yet he insists he did the safe and ethical thingin the absence of any medical or ethical oversight. In an ironic twist, the couple is Muslim and so chose the MR technique that wouldnt destroy existing embryos.But it was clear that only male embryos would be transferred for gestation, because boys cant pass on the genetic modification. What happened to the other four embryos, however? Were they destroyed,discarded or frozen? If they were females, would they have been destroyed anyway to make sure they couldnt pass on any ill effects?

Darnovskycalledthis rogue experimentationand added, No researcher or doctor has the right to flout agreed-upon rules and make up their own. This is an irresponsible and unethical act.

Knoepflerrespondedto the news by remindingus that this is a living human experiment that is going to unfold over years and decades. It is also worth noting that this child is a genetically modified human being as a result of this technique.

Of course, these are happenings to despair of not only because of the sheer disregard for the sanctity of individual human lives, but because of the breakneck speed at which scientists are kicking ethical lines farther and farther down the road like a tin can. All the while, they insist that its for the good of humanity. I wonder: How can wetreatindividual members of the human species so callously and then, at the same time, say its for the good of the whole human race?

I fear there is no line we wont cross;no ethical boundary wewonttear down in the name of science.

On a daily basis, Im surrounded by science and scientists. Often, their response to this madness is that its going to happen anyway, and theres no way to stop it, which implies we must go along to get along all in the name of progress.

If I am Frodo, then they and the rest of society are Saruman giving in to the despair and making a deal with Sauron.In the film version of The Lord of the Rings, Saruman says to Gandalf: Against the power of Mordor there can be no victory. We must join with him, Gandalf. We must join with Sauron. It would be wise, my friend.

Gandalf replies, Tell me, friend, when did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?

Indeed. When did science abandon reason for madness, ethics for recklessness?

So what shall we do? If wesuccumb to despair, we become like Saruman.

We always have prayer. Its time toadd human embryonic research and germ-line human genetic engineering to our list of life issues that we pray about.It doesnt matter whether we understand the finer points of the science or not.Praying for an end to abortion andassisted suicide is nolongerenough.

In addition to prayer, there are other things we can do. The first is to vote pro-life at every level of government, from city council to state assemblymen. Being pro-life isnt just about abortion, however. Its about protecting the sanctity of life from the beginning to the end. Pro-life legislators, even if they cannot overturn Roe v. Wade, can effect local and state laws and steer funding away from unethical research.

Secondly, we must fight for conscience rights for medical professionals. I envision a not-so-far-off world wheredoctorsare forced into making genetically engineered embryos and bringing these children to term simply because parents claim its their reproductive right to have the children of their design. Without conscience rights, unethical experimentation on the next generation will be rampant and unchecked.

We must, however, always have hope. Whenstaring downthe juggernaut that is modern biotechnology, I always remember Frodo Baggins.When he was faced with the seemingly impossible task of taking the One Ring to Mordor, instead of shying away because it was too hard, he said: I will take the Ring, though I do not know the way.

Rebecca Tayloris a

clinical laboratory specialist in molecular biology.

She writes about bioethics on her blog,Mary Meets Dolly.

Read more:

Immoral Uses of Biotechnology Even With Good Intentions Are Evil - National Catholic Register

Human genetic engineering is but one aspect of the overall field of Human Biotechnology. It is the most fascinating aspect of Human Biotechnology with the power to improve everyones quality of life, healing all of our genetic diseases permanently. We will soon be able to improve our mental, physical, and emotional capabilities. Well be able to introduce regenerative functions natural in other animals, increase longevity, and ensure a healthy diversity in the human genome. It carries the promise of enabling humanity to survive a wider range of environments on alien worlds ensuring our long term survival.

In this section of the website we have several articles on exactly what genetic engineering is, up to the state of the art, how it is accomplished, how we humans have been engaged in the activity for our own betterment for thousands of years, and how we can and are applying it to humans.

In addition to just the facts we also have a number of speculative articles that extrapolate the plausible, the probable, and the very unlikely in our exploration of the many paths to the future of human evolution.

The menu to the right has links to our genetic engineering articles.

Human Genetic Engineering: Improving the Quality of Life Now. Ensuring the Diverse, Robust Future of Human Evolution.

Go here to see the original:

Human Genetic Engineering - The Future of Human Evolution

By Paul Knoepfler By Paul Knoepfler February 2

Paul Knoepfler is a stem-cell biologist at the University of California at Davis and writes about innovative science at the Niche. His most recent book is GMO Sapiens: The Life-Changing Science of Designer Babies. You can watch his TED talk on that topic here and find him on Twitter: @pknoepfler.

A new study out of California unsettled a lot of people last week after revealing that scientists had, for the first time, made part-human, part-pig embryos referred to as chimeras. That should be expected: The debate over the technology is a mixed bag of difficult issues not unlike the fire-breathing hybrid Chimera from Greek mythology.

But on balance, the promise of this biotechnology should outweigh our fears and ethical questions. Chimeras could be a game-changer in terms of organ transplants in coming decades, and for that reason, scientists should carefully proceed with the research.

More than 100,000 people in the United States currently sit on organ waiting lists, struggling to stay alive long enough to get a new liver or kidney. With few realistic alternatives to the limited supply of cadaver-based transplants, about 22 Americans die each day. Hundreds more die daily at the global level.

[Eight questions to ask before human genetic engineering goes mainstream.]

Our recent renaissance of cutting-edge biotechnologies particularly based on the utilization of pluripotent stem cells gives real hope for these people in need of transplants. What exactly is a human chimera? Its a mixture of a small number of human cells within an otherwise predominantly animal embryo, such as a pig. The hope is that, if allowed to grow, a chimera embryo would develop entirely as animal except for one harvestable organ that is human. It might even be possible for that organ to be produced from the patients own stem cells, making it a perfect match.

In the past, other researchers have made similar chimeric embryos, mixing human stem cells with mouse cells. But a mouse-size kidney or liver even if made of human cells cannot help a human, because these organs would be about the size of a small kidney bean. Pigs, on the other hand, are relatively closer to humans on the evolutionary tree, perhaps bringing us a small step closer to actual clinical use.

Even so, theres a long road ahead. The California researchers found that many of the human-pig chimeric embryos did not grow properly. And even if organs in pig chimeras ended up 100 percent human at a cellular level, they are certain to contain other factors such as pig proteins that could spark a patient immune reaction leading to organ rejection. Still, every cutting-edge biomedical technology faces technical obstacles at first, and there is a good chance that researchers might overcome these hurdles in the future.

Its understandable if people imagined full-grown, human-pig creatures when reading about this new research. In reality, though, the chimeras produced were only embryos just tiny collections of cells. If the technology progresses further, chimeras would have to be taken to term or near-term before full-size organs could be harvested. Inevitably that means there may be large chimeras produced and photographed for the world to see; but remember, these animals wouldnt look any different from ordinary animals, because only a single organ would be human.

Animal rights advocates were quick to raise ethical questions: Should we allow chimeric pigs to be used as a biomedical incubator of sorts and then sacrificed to obtain a human organ? But this ignores the fact that people are eating billions of animals each year.

Tougher questions focus on the human side of chimeras and include the dilemma of what makes an animal a human in terms of cells. How many human cells within a chimera overall would make that chimera too close to a human being? How many human brain cells and in particular neurons in a human-pig chimera would be too many? What should we do if a human-pig chimera accidentally ended up with an abundance of human cells in its brain? What if a human-pig chimera made human sperm or eggs?

[Whats the difference between genetic engineering and eugenics?]

Fortunately, there are some simple technological answers to many of these questions. We could agree, for example, to prevent all chimeras from being born. We could also use animals that are sterile as the basis for making chimeras and closely monitor human cell numbers in chimeras (including in the brain) during early research studies. We could also ban organ production if human-cell levels consistently fall outside acceptable parameters.

Overall, though, the global shortage of organs for transplants is too urgent a problem to refuse to explore innovative solutions. We should pursue more human-chimera technology while from the start acknowledging and addressing the important bioethical considerations it faces. We should also carefully plan outreach efforts to the public as the technology advances.

Human chimeras not only have potential to address the organ shortage; they also could educate us about unexplored questions of human development. Groundbreaking biomedical technologies might be unnerving, but they have real potential to positively change our world.

Read more:

Eight questions to ask before human genetic engineering goes mainstream

Whats the difference between genetic engineering and eugenics?

In defense of transhumanism

Read the original here:

Human-pig hybrids might be unsettling. But they could save lives. - Washington Post

The genes present in the body of all living organisms helps determine the organism's habits. Genetic engineering is defined as a set of technologies that are used to change the genetic makeup of cells and move the genes from one species to another to produce new organisms. The techniques used are highly sophisticated manipulations of genetic material and other biologically important chemicals.

What are the Benefits of Genetic Engineering

Human Cloning: Almost everyday, a scientist makes a new breakthrough in the field of human engineering. Mammals have been successfully cloned and the human genome project has been completed. This is pushing the scientists all over the world to research many different facets of human genetic engineering. These researches have allowed a better understanding of DNA and its role in medicine, pharmacology, reproductive technology and various other fields. The scientists at Roslin Institute in Scotland, cloned an exact copy of a sheep, named 'Dolly'. Newly created animals by the process of genetic engineering are known as xenographs.

Medical Treatment: In humans, the most promising benefit of genetic engineering is gene therapy which is the medical treatment of a disease wherein the defective genes are repaired and replaced or therapeutic genes are introduced to fight the disease. Over the past decade, many autoimmune and heart diseases have been treated using gene therapy. Certain diseases like the Huntington's disease, ALS and cystic fibrosis is caused by defective genes. There is hope that a cure for such diseases can be found by either inserting the corrected gene or modifying the defective gene. Eventually, the hope is to completely eliminate genetic diseases and also treat non-genetic diseases with appropriate gene therapy. The latest research in the field makes it possible to repair or grow new muscle cells when they are not working or are damaged.

Pharmaceuticals: Thanks to genetic engineering, the pharmaceutical products available today are far superior to their predecessors. These new products are created by cloning certain genes. Some of the prominent examples are the bio-engineered insulin which was earlier obtained from sheep or cows and the human growth hormone which was earlier obtained from cadavers. New medicines are being made by changing the genetic structure of the plant cell.

Pregnancy Cases: Genetic engineering is also a boon for pregnant women who can choose to have their fetuses screened for genetic defects. These screenings can help the parents and doctors prepare for the arrival of the child who may have special needs during or after the delivery. A possible future benefit of genetic engineering which is very eagerly awaited is that a fetus with a genetic defect could be treated with genetic therapy even before it is born. Research is going on for gene therapy for embryos before it is implanted into the mother via in-vitro fertilization. The latest term coined is 'Designer Babies' wherein the couple can actually choose the features of the baby to be born!

Agriculture: The field of agriculture too greatly benefits from genetic engineering which has improved the genetic fitness of various plant species. The common benefits are increase in the efficiency of photosynthesis, increasing the resistance of the plant to salinity, drought and viruses and also reducing the plant's need for a nitrogen fertilizer. The latest research at Cornell University is to map the 'Oat' crop so that extra nutrients can be added to the sequence and the make the crop healthier. Similar research is done with the 'Soya' crop as well.

Here is a list of some of the most upfront benefits of genetic engineering:

Read more from the original source:

Benefits of Genetic Engineering - Buzzle

When you take a close look at the human body it is easy to see that it is not without imperfection. This means that some bodies are built with inherent flaws and others fail over time. Science has the ability to change the way that humans are made and alter the flaws that are known. This can be done through the process of human genetic engineering. Altering the technology in humans is a topic that causes a lot of controversy. Human genetic engineering is something that people are either very passionate about or opposed to completely. Differing opinions on this issue drive forward the debate.

1. End Disease Human genetic engineering relies heavily on science in technology. It was developed to help end the spread of diseases. Using human genetic engineering it could be possible to change the way genomes are constructed to end some diseases. Genetic mutations can be to blame for certain diseases including Cystic Fibrosis, but with the help of human genetic engineering it could be possible to end this disease completely. If the complete benefits of human genetic engineering therapy are ever seen, it could have a huge impact on disease as a whole.

2. Longer Life Without certain diseases to increase death rates and decrease life span, it would be possible for more individuals to live longer and healthier lives. This means that human genetic engineering has the potential to improve the quality of life and allow for longer life spans. Reversing some of the cellular causes for decline of the body could be possible if strides are made with human genetic engineering.

3. Eliminating Illness and Disease in Unborn Children One of the largest benefits of genetic engineering is the prospect of helping cure illness and diseases in unborn children. Having a genetic screening with a fetus can allow for treatment of the unborn. Overtime this can impact the growing spread of diseases in future generations.

1. Ethical Issues Many of those opposed to human genetic engineering have their opinion based on ethical views. The belief that god should have ultimate power and we should not be altering nature is what many think should halt the progression of human genetic engineering. The power to shape the human race should not be left up to us humans, because there is divine intervention at work.

2. Safety Issue There are still many different unknowns linked to human genetic engineering. This brings up issues involving of safety. Getting genes into the human body is a complex process that could go bad very easily. The extent to the consequences if it goes bad are not fully known and could be quite devastating. The success rate is also something that brings up concern.

Some feel that more research needs to be done to further human genetic engineering technology, but others feel that this type of engineering has no place in society at all.

In order to obtain a full opinion on the topic of human genetic engineering, it is imperative that you gain a deeper understanding at the most basic level. It is essential that you know exactly what is meant by the concept of human genetic engineering and what it entails. This can be a very complex process, but you can break it down somewhat. In basic terms, human genetic engineering is a way to manipulate genes to make the human body closer to perfection. The altering of the genome has the ability to happen in the sperm or the egg cell. This type of genetic engineering is also referred to as germ line gene therapy and has the ability to change some of the traits a child is born with. The changes that are made through the child using germ line gene therapy would then be inherited traits that would be passed down for generations.

There is also another type of human genetic engineering that involves trading in a bad gene for a good one. This is done in the cells, but does not include the sex cell, which is the process of human genetic engineering refereed to as somatic cell gene therapy. To complete this process of human genetic engineering, functioning genes are fired into the human body to remove the bad function of the inferior gene. This technology does exist to some extent, but it has not been perfected and does not yet have a high success rate.

It is pretty difficult to classify such a complex issue as either good or bad. It is so much more complicated and hard to decipher than that. This issue brings up questions of ethics and often causes outrage among both sides. The only way to gain your own unbiased opinion on the topic of human genetic engineering is to look at both the pros and cons. Not everything involving this issue is a positive, but it is not all negative either.

Follow this link:

5 Key Pros and Cons of Human Genetic Engineering | NLCATP.org

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. Government Human 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 Problems There 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 Thought Human 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!

Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others. What is this?

Read the original:

Human Genetic Engineering - Popular Issues ...

What forms of genetic engineering can be done in human beings? Genetic technology harbors the potential to change the human species forever. The soon to be completed Human Genome Project will empower genetic scientists with a human biological instruction book. The genes in all our cells contain the code for proteins that provide the structure and function to all our tissues and organs. Knowing this complete code will open new horizons for treating and perhaps curing diseases that have remained mysteries for millennia. But along with the commendable and compassionate use of genetic technology comes the specter of both shadowy purposes and malevolent aims.

For some, the potential for misuse is reason enough for closing the door completely--the benefits just aren't worth the risks. In this article, I'd like to explore the application of genetic technology to human beings and apply biblical wisdom to the eventual ethical quagmires that are not very far away. In this section we'll investigate the various ways humans can be engineered.

Since we have introduced foreign genes into the embryos of mice, cows, sheep, and pigs for years, there's no technological reason to suggest that it can't be done in humans too. Currently, there are two ways of pursuing gene transfer. One is simply to attempt to alleviate the symptoms of a genetic disease. This entails gene therapy, attempting to transfer the normal gene into only those tissues most affected by the disease. For instance, bronchial infections are the major cause of early death for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). The lungs of CF patients produce thick mucus that provides a great growth medium for bacteria and viruses. If the normal gene can be inserted in to the cells of the lungs, perhaps both the quality and quantity of their life can be enhanced. But this is not a complete cure and they will still pass the CF gene on to their children.

In order to cure a genetic illness, the defective gene must be replaced throughout the body. If the genetic defect is detected in an early embryo, it's possible to add the gene at this stage, allowing the normal gene to be present in all tissues including reproductive tissues. This technique has been used to add foreign genes to mice, sheep, pigs, and cows.

However, at present, no laboratory is known to be attempting this well-developed technology in humans. Princeton molecular biologist Lee Silver offers two reasons.{1} First, even in animals, it only works 50% of the time. Second, even when successful, about 5% of the time, the new gene gets placed in the middle of an existing gene, creating a new mutation. Currently these odds are not acceptable to scientists and especially potential clients hoping for genetic engineering of their offspring. But these are only problems of technique. It's reasonable to assume that these difficulties can be overcome with further research.

The primary use for human genetic engineering concerns the curing of genetic disease. But even this should be approached cautiously. Certainly within a Christian worldview, relieving suffering wherever possible is to walk in Jesus' footsteps. But what diseases? How far should our ability to interfere in life be allowed to go? So far gene therapy is primarily tested for debilitating and ultimately fatal diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

The first gene therapy trial in humans corrected a life-threatening immune disorder in a two-year-old girl who, now ten years later, is doing well. The gene therapy required dozens of applications but has saved the family from a $60,000 per year bill for necessary drug treatment without the gene therapy.{2} Recently, sixteen heart disease patients, who were literally waiting for death, received a solution containing copies of a gene that triggers blood vessel growth by injection straight into the heart. By growing new blood vessels around clogged arteries, all sixteen showed improvement and six were completely relieved of pain.

In each of these cases, gene therapy was performed as a last resort for a fatal condition. This seems to easily fall within the medical boundaries of seeking to cure while at the same time causing no harm. The problem will arise when gene therapy will be sought to alleviate a condition that is less than life-threatening and perhaps considered by some to simply be one of life's inconveniences, such as a gene that may offer resistance to AIDS or may enhance memory. Such genes are known now and many are suggesting that these goals will and should be available for gene therapy.

The most troublesome aspect of gene therapy has been determining the best method of delivering the gene to the right cells and enticing them to incorporate the gene into the cell's chromosomes. Most researchers have used crippled forms of viruses that naturally incorporate their genes into cells. The entire field of gene therapy was dealt a severe setback in September 1999 upon the death of Jesse Gelsinger who had undergone gene therapy for an inherited enzyme deficiency at the University of Pennsylvania.{3} Jesse apparently suffered a severe immune reaction and died four days after being injected with the engineered virus.

The same virus vector had been used safely in thousands of other trials, but in this case, after releasing stacks of clinical data and answering questions for two days, the researchers didn't fully understand what had gone wrong.{4} Other institutions were also found to have failed to file immediate reports as required of serious adverse events in their trials, prompting a congressional review.{5} All this should indicate that the answers to the technical problems of gene therapy have not been answered and progress will be slowed as guidelines and reporting procedures are studied and reevaluated.

Read the original:

Human Genetic Engineering - Leadership University

Human genetic engineering is about genetically engineering human beings by modifying their genotypes before birth. The Genotype is the genetic constitution of an individual with respect to a particular character under consideration. This is done to control the traits possessed by the individual after his/her birth.

The cells of our body contain encoded information about the body's growth, structure and functioning in the form of genes. Human genetic engineering aims at decoding this information and applying it to the welfare of mankind.

There are two types of genetic engineering. They are:

In human genetic engineering, the genes or the DNA of a person are changed. This can be used to bring about structural changes in human beings. More importantly, it can be used to introduce the genes for certain positive and desirable traits in embryos. Genetic engineering in humans can result in finding a permanent cure for many diseases.

There are people with certain exceptional qualities. If the genes responsible for these qualities can be identified, they can be implanted in the early embryos. This can lead to something like 'personalized babies'! Human genetic engineering might progress to such an extent that it will be possible to discover new genes and embed them into unborn babies.

The Lighter Side Gene therapy is one of the most important benefits of human genetic engineering. Over the past decade, gene therapy has succeeded in finding treatments for certain heart diseases. Researchers hope to find cures for all the genetic diseases. This will result in a healthier and more evolved human race.

A future benefit of human genetic engineering is that a fetus with a genetic disorder will be treated before the baby is born. Parents will be able to look forward to a healthy baby. In case of in-vitro fertilization, gene therapy can be used for embryos before they are implanted into the mother.

Genes can be cloned to produce pharmaceutical products of superior quality. Researchers are hopeful about being able to bio-engineer plants or fruits to contain certain drugs.

The Darker Side Firstly, while it seems easy to cure diseases by genetic modifications, gene therapy may manifest side effects. While treating one defect, it may cause another. Any given cell is responsible for many activities and manipulating its genes may not be that easy.

The process of cloning can lead to risking the fundamental factors such as the individuality and the diversity of human beings. Ironically, man will become just another man-made thing!

Link:

Human Genetic Engineering - Buzzle

What are the benefits of human genetic engineering?

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

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

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

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

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

Like this information? Help us by sharing it with others. What is this?

Continue reading here:

Benefits of Human Genetic Engineering - Popular Issues ...