CNN: What opportunites do you see from this?

One possibility that has been overlooked is that certain biological organisms can concentrate minerals over 1 million times. (The sea urchin does this with selenium)

A while back there was an article that explained that popular trees can remove pollutants. If this trait could be transferred to other plants so that harmless or even useful by-products are produced I would think it worth while to do so.

Is genetic engineering, "messing with mother nature"?

Yes, it sure is. Can I have my eyes fixed now please?

"Mother Nature" could stand some "messing with" here and there. Caution is advised, but this is a persuit of such wide ranging value and impact that we can not even begin to predict where it will go.

Since many people think that we are definitely "messing with nature" here are some good links that may interest you.

For years Sci. Fi. stories have talked about "super humans". We are not there yet but genetic disease free humans are becoming practicable in the near future.

I agree with Keith. Nature could use some help. For starters there have been too many species that have disappeared without any help from man.

Then there is the idea that humans are a part of nature and just as the stars and trees we have a right to be here. With a lot of effort we may be able to undo some of the problems "nature" is causing.

Also we are now becoming self evolving as we leave the garden planet and venture into the blackness and poverty of outer space. This is natural.

YES, IT IS FOOLING WITH MOTHER NATURE.

I THINK GENETIC ENGINEERING IS A USEFUL "TOOL" AND IT WILL PRESENT SOME GREAT OPPORTUNITIES. I LIKE DR. ANDERSON'S IDEA AND I HOPE HE SUCCEEDS.

ARE WE READY FOR IT? WOULD WE HAVE IT IF WE WERE NOT? I DOUBT IT. I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT WE ARE READY FOR GENETIC ENGINEERING BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY HERE, IN THE HERE AND NOW. THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE A PERFECT HUMAN BEING IS REALLY A CHALLENGE AND VERY EXCITING. WE HAVE A CHANCE HERE TO IMPROVE THE HUMAN RACE.

I HAVE TO WONDER ABOUT A FEDERAL PANEL OF GENETICS EXPERTS, THOUGH. IS GOVERNMENT IN THE BUSINESS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING? ETHICS(GOD FORBID!)? SO WHY IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVED? I COULD SWEAR THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS TO BUILD STREETS, HOSPITALS, SCHOOLS, FIRE STATIONS, POLICE STATIONS AND THE MILITARY AND TO RUN THEM (THIS IS SOMEWHAT OVER-SIMPLIFIED).

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM SOME OTHER CORNERS OF THE WORLD.

CARL NICOLAI: THE IDEA OF "SUPER MAN" WAS NEVER THE IDEA OF A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MAN BUT RATHER THE IDEA OF A MAN PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHICALLY DEVELOPED TO HIS HIGHEST POTENTIAL. THIS BELONGS IN THE CATEGORY OF "EAR WHISPERED SECRETS" AND THE REAL "WHITE BROTHERHOOD" (NOT THE RUSSIAN VARIETY). STOP AND REMEMBER THE SUPERMAN COMIC BOOKS WHERE HE HAD X-RAY VISION AND ASK YOURSELF HOW THIS WOULD BE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INTO A HUMAN BEING, THEN YOU WILL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHY I SAY IT WAS NEVER THE IDEA. WE WILL NEED A NEW TERM FOR THIS GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MAN AS SUPERMAN IS ALREADY TAKEN. ANYBODY OUT THERE HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR WHAT WE CALL THESE PEOPLE?

I don't know about others but I'd like to call some of them relatives.

Just remember we can still do 6 parent people.

They have done it with mice

Talk about a support system or extended famlies!

Time for a little Science Fiction practising.

No reason we could not take animal, or even human cells, and engineer them to provide a complete balanced diet. Proteins, vitamins, minerals, fats, and all.

Feed them low grade carbs and out comes a complete meal.

We could even control the taste, smell, and texture.

We could guarantee non allergy reactions that people have to certain foods.

Millions of new combinations of taste combined with other palatable characteristics.

And best for the vegetarians we don't have to kill any animals.

Naturally "grow your own at home" kits could evolve.

Carl, did you call that "practising"?

Wolll Ya! This is not the heavy stuff and it does not involve human rights issues at this time.

It is orientated to those people who wish to remain on the garden planet, but whose vision can extend to a time when they may wish to have alternatives, or at least offer them to their children.

Cliff, Im' trying to keep the time travel down to at most a few hundred years.

Heck, my human probably won't last another 50.

Woops! I mean I probably won't last another fifty years. (Much better way to say it.)

Does a genetic engineer drive a train that was created in the lab?

In the headlong rush to know everything about the human genome the project is advancing faster than expected.

Of cource you have to bear in mind that they are doing the easy stuff first and that these are the expressed genes, or xons. As far as I know no one has a clue about what the other 90% of the DNA does.

What is odveous is that countless oppertunities to invistagate further will be discovered.

Exploring this "inner space" may prove to be just as exciting as "outer space".

When the entire human genome is finished there is going to be this relatively low cost set of sequencers available to do the rest of the worlds life forms.

I expect that the cost of the equipment and the ease in this type of invistagation will allow even high school students to do what today we would call serious science.

The related sites are also very good.

If you havent had your fill of serious paranoia the Friends Of The Earth site should do the job.

It looks like the entire EU is going to struggle over genetic engineering of food crops.

Lots of regulatory fever over there.

While there are some legitimate robber barron concerns it looks like the "Stop Sign" ecologists are having a field day.

The biggest concern is that of unwitting cross species transfer of engineered characteristics.

I have to admit that this could get very strange. It could be dangerous or accidentally beneficial.

First of all, I don't believe that "genetic engineering" can really mess with mother nature. The most front-standing "human genome project" will be finished before the year of 2005, and it has already cost the US government billiions of $. What we can learn or have already learnt is just some simple mapping between the genetic sequences and the complex functions of thousands of proteins and nucleide acids. We (human beings) just know too few about genetics, even though we really want to play the role of god, like the Sci Fic, we really cannot, because we don't have enough knowledge. As far as Dr. Anderson proposed, it is just a child of single sex, can he manipulate the gene? No, he didn't say so. Can he build a brand new human like the "perfect human being", of course no. We don't even know what is the perfect human being either on the meaning of genetics or moral standards. "Genetics engineering" is certainlly worth of people to put in money, from the point view of health improvement.

Now that some traditional herbs are proving effective the industry wants to turn them into drugs.

For years many of them were dismissed as bogus. Now that they are not, they must be regulated and priced much higher.

Of course the unwashed masses can always genetically engineer conventional drug production into conventional plants.

I can see it now, the pharm police going around and testing everyone dandelions to make sure that they are not producing penicillin. Totally indiscriminate antibiotic use via the now wild plants that grow unbidden everywhere. Massive epidemics of antibiotic resistant microbes.

It looks like a genetic "jail break" to me. Does heightened awareness of the people make them more cautious, or cause them to take advantage of the illicit economic possibilities.

If you think that some poor person living a long way from the reach of the law is going to let their child die while they can do something about by purchasing drugs from an underground source, think again.

The whole point of the various genome projects is to give you enough knowledge.

First there was literacy, then came computer literacy, and now we come to genetic literary. If you can write the code you can build the creature.

Carl,
I think "building the creature" is a bit off, but I basicaly agree with the thrust of your post. :-)

We will probably have to stick to modifying existing creatures for now.

I apologize for the all capitals, I was just trying to save touching the shift key.

Not in my refrigerator or freezer! I read that article and the idea is a good one but please believe me I would be afraid I would only half wake up some night hungry and do one of those midnight raids on the wrong thing, Ugh! I'm one of those people who has to prop my eyelids open in the early morning and grab for the coffe cup or I end up with mismatched socks, etc.,etc.,etc..

I hear tell they are growing skin for burn victims already over here. Well, at least we are going forward and not backwards to the cave man.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Yes, in a way. But then again, living on this planet is "messing with mother nature"...

I am all for it. But once again, this is nothing new. Its been part of an on going process for the last few billion years...

Directed engineering. Hopefully for thereputic uses.

This message is a reply to a message posted to the cloning board: reference cloning message numbers 296. 303 and 304, since I am somewhat concerned that the message might be deleted for being off subject if posted to that board. I have decided to post this reply on this board since it is closer to being on subject.

After giving this some thought, I tend to assume that this may be what the creators of Star Trek intended with Spock's Mind Meld. In addition, I see that my lie detector "solution" was rather pedestrian, and not very original. In a sense, it was like looking for "advanced" forms of surgery--using a knife--in the 23rd century.

But whatever it's size, it is finite. If it is finite, it must have a solution in a finite number of steps.

Or a Vulcan :-)

I think I will probably pass on that one. No sense making a fun thing into a job.

The cost of sequencing genetic material being the first step to understanding the genome is one bar to understanding how various genes work.

I note that no one has yet talked about altering the genes of an animal to compensate for low gravity calcium loss. This is a serious problem unless the people who live for any time in space wish to stay there for life.

And from the local paper I read that some Cal Tech researchers have discovered a fruit fly gene that they duped the methuselah gene because it enables fruit flies to live longer.

It also helps them to resist heat, starvation, and poison.

I'm wondering what the trade off for this gene is.

Mother Nature is not a force to be messing with. I read somewhere that there are trees that filter out certain harmful pollutants from the air, and taking this trait a implementing it into other plants wouldn't be such a bad idea. Let's say we do that, and its eliminates that specific type of pollutant, people would then use this pollutant freely, or in the human quest of bettering ourselves and our lifestyles another pollutant is created "supposedly better" except this one cannot be filtered out of by trees. True one less pollutant, but it would be like finding a cure for aids, and people not praticing safe sex, (what the heck there is a cure) but then the virus mutates so it can survive,and we lead ourselves back to square one.

Even if scientist feel 100% sure that there will be no side effect in rescrambling genes, who is to say they have any control over it. There are many thing in nature science cannot explain, and even if it tried, there is no way of being for sure. I say we focus on bettering our situations with what we know to be ethically sound. Genetic engineering is something deep down in our hearts we know we can't and shouldn't ever try to do.

We all ready do it. The question is on what level and to what degree.

Creating life has been held before us like a shining jewel for thousands of years.

We can not resist. We are the children of our Creator(s). We will be good children and learn to do what we have been taught is good.

It is my own, personal opinion that genetic tampering justifies the accusation that science, and some people involved, are attempting to play creator. Is the desire for immortality so strong that man will continue this trend? Does anyone stop to ponder the fact, that, there might be a reason for the unfortunate abnormalities that accur with some births? Nature seems to have done quite well in both the animal (and human) kingdom in allowing the fittest to survive. The human body cannot last over its given lifetime and, at that point, nature should be allowed to take the proper course. Mankind has done well in discovering the causes and effects of many illnesses as well as thier cures. But, quality is more important than quantity. Thanks for reading...tkat

Carl Nicolai,

I understand the fact that we do, its just when do we realize the fact that we can only do so much, and that genetic altering, engineering, cloning will lead disaster. Don't misunderstand I see its uses, but there are better ways of doing the same thing. Ones that are less questionable.

They are not playing. They are creating unique forms of life.

The natural life expectancy of humans is 35 years of misery, pain, plague, and starvation.

But wait the good news is that the earth can only hold 100,000 people and starvation is an excellent method of birth control.

"Here and there, now and again, some extremely devoted people are able to extend the quality and quantity of life.

When these people are not able to function or worse yet punished for doing their work, humanity slips back into the abject misery from which it arose." Robert Heinline

So did the majority of surgery the first 10,000 times or so.

Once we know something can be done we always find better ways to do it.

"So did the majority of major surgeries the i first 10,000 times or so."

Maybe in most skeptics eyes, but I feel that genetic engineering is different. Genetic engineering, just the word itself describes that we will be designing(engineering) ourselves. Right now to my knowlegde, we are only using this technology to better foods, which is innocent enough. It when we adapt this to humans, thats where it scares me. We would be able to choose are features and what not, and what happens if something goes wrong, instead of making your eyes green you grow a third eye. As far as I know genetic engineering is ireversible, nothing is 100% and when this reaches the wrong hands, what happens then. A whole new type of crime. The road to hell is paved with good intensions.

Once we know something can be done we always find better ways to do it.

Who said its better?

Luis, I basically agree with you. Genetic Engineering in the wrong hands could be quite dangerous. That is why we must insure the technology is not abused by use of appropriate regulations.

I can not help but note that I have never come across the road to Hell. I looked hard for it, once upon a time, and became convinced it did not exist.

Cheers.

Ah, cliff once again with the religious points, What I said was a figure of speech as bad thing start with good intensions. I don't mind genetic engineering, it how man reacts to everthing that going to make it bad, really really bad. Once any new technology is introduced to society, a new crime is created, and I am afraid we won't be able to stop it. (i.e. superhuman strength, enhance brain capacity)

good day to you.

(sorry for the huge post) I am a graduate student of biophysical chemistry at Yale University, and I have had the honor and good fortune to work beside and under many talented scientists. I have generally found my colleauges and mentors to be learned people of high character, and primarily interested in the pursuit of science for the sake of knowledge and the benefit of mankind; a purpose, I will remind all of you, that has been the focus of scientific endeavor for many centuries. The dangers implicit in genetic engineering come not from the processes themselves, for humans have always used whatever tools were available to try to better their lives (the agricultural and industrial revolutions are examples of both the benefits and dangers inherent in such enterprises). The situation we now face results not only from the incredible power of genetic engineering, but also from the equally great power of corporate entities, and their influence on the "market" (ie. you and I, and our families). The current proceedings against Microsoft are a perfect example of corporate power gone awry, doing whatever it can to achieve yet more dominance. That, folks, is just software. Imagine the wars we will see over the infinitely more powerful engineering of life itself! Most companies, though, are just the same - they want our money, and will sometime cross any "inconvenient" moral boundaries to get it. Routinely, our children succumb to advertisements and fashion trends, while education and discipline suffer. We are ALL responsible for what we do with our tools (of which genetic engineering is but one), and like it or not, mankind WILL genetically modify itself and it's domesticated plants and animals. We have been doing it to bacteria for over 50 years, and I have personally done it. It is a remarkable tool, bursting with potential good for all of us, and even those that we, in this country of plenty, tend to forget. Let us pray that this power will be harnessed for th

In debating the issue of genetic engineering, you have to differentiate between redesigning oneself and redesigning ones children. If I choose to redesign my own body (increased IQ, freedom from ageing, etc.), I am just engaging in self-enhancement, no different from going to the gym to life wieghts or going to the plastic surgeon for a "touch up". The only relevant issue here is individual freedom of self-expression, which is probably protected by the first admendment to the U.S. constitution. I fail to see anything morally wrong with using genetic engineering for personal self-enhancement. I personally plan to have an IQ of 300 and live forever young.My life is my own. Obviously, I have the right to do with my body as I please. End of argument.

There are real ethical issues when one thinks about designing thier kids. Since the kid does not yet exist to give his/her consent to the genetic alteration. So, you have a problem of consent. I really don't see any other ethical problems of genetic engineering of people.

As for playing creator, I really do want to be my own creator. I want to have complete biochemical control over my body and life. That way, I can always have the life that I want. You can have the life you want too! As long as you choose to be your own creator. I don't see how God or Christianity has anything to do with genetic engineering.

Would that it were true. The law does not recognize that you can do with your body as you please.

As the power to change what you are is vastly enhanced by genetic engineering we are going to have new rights to deal with. It is not at all sure in what way governments will recognize your rights to modify yourself.

I am afraid we are on our own as neither the presently existing religions or the law will be able to offer much help in regards the morals and ethics of the new power we are receiving via the information that is being unleashed by the study of human and animal gnomes.

The genesis is upon us. The apotheosis beckons.

There is an existing system of ethics that can guide us with the issue of genetic engineering. This system of ethics is called libertarianism, or objectivism if you prefer. This system of ethics holds that people exist as free agents, and that the governments (and gods) are created solely for the purpose of arbitrating disputes between free individuals as to maximize the choices of the individuals in a particular dispute. Libertarianism, or some derivative of it, really is the philosophy of the future.

Really, if I genetically augment my body, it is no different than if I go to the gym to get more muscular, or to the plastic surgeon to become more pretty. I really don't see how anyone could find any objection to this. Clinton's bedroom is his business and my body (and my genes) are my business.

We have already fought a war for freedom. Sometimes the tree of liberty has to be watered with blood. Carl, are you suggesting that I (and others like me) will have to fight for our freedom to own our bodies, and for the right to do what we wish with them? Do you really think that anyone is willing to risk his/her own life to prevent us from having this freedom? I think we will win, and I'd would much rather win by peaceful means (I detest violence and war), or better yet, just have my rights generally recognized by society in general. I don't like having to fight other people to do what is really my own personal business. I really do think that most people would regard my body (and its enhancement) to be my business as much as Clinton's bedroom is his own business. Afterall, I just want to live forever young, I don't want to bone anyone in the oval office (even if I could ever enter it).

Free Yourself

In debating the issue of genetic engineering, you have to differentiate between redesigning oneself and redesigning ones children. - Kurt Schoedel

From where did you get the idea that you can genetically "redesign" yourself, or your existing children?

You cannot change your existing genetic structure, but you can create a future "designer" child.

Yes I do. There are a lot of people out there who do not believe as you do. I don't know how many times I've heard the expression "people can not handle the freedom they have now".

I give you the WoD as a prime example.

They will enforce the law, rational or not. We are only a short time away from legal slavery.

Give it 200 years and I would agree. If you want that kind of freedom sooner be prepared to fight or have a lot of dedicated voters on your side.

Remember there now are several state laws on the books that make attempted cloning a crime. S B1602 if passed would make it a federal crime. A 1,000,000$ fine+forfeitures.

Check out the FAQ link at the top of the cloning group and the CNN links on this group and the cloning group.

One of the prime ethical considerations is how to change your genetic structure without passing the genes on to future generations.

Check out the FAQ link at the top of the cloning group and the CNN links on this group and the cloning group. - Carl Nicolai

There is no reference in the FAQ that confirms what Kurt is saying. Namely that genetic engineering can alter him as he exists now. In other words, a genetic cosmetic surgery. To my knowledge, this is an impossibility.

The genetic structure can only be changed during the cloning process. When reproducing, the clone will pass on those changes to the next generation.

Carl, we are already engaged in the legal battle already. The Life Extension Foundation has a legal defence fund as well as an active political lobbying organization as well. We have already defeated the FDA in several lawsuits. The WoD is a perfect example of the legal battle left to be fought. However, illicit drugs are illegal because of the perceived medical problems (impared abilities, addiction, etc.) resulting from thier consumption. Almost everyone agrees that Heroin and cocaine are bad for you. The kind of stuff I want to do to myself is general perceived as being good for you (no ageing or age-related impairments, greater ability to learn new technical skills, etc.). As such, I really don't expect to see an anti-life-extension political movement. The problem will always be meddlesome beaurocrats (FDA) who stand in the way.

BTW, even though cocaine is illegal almost everywhere in the world, I can guarentee you that I could find a supply in eny city you choose in the U.S. Anti-life-extension therapy laws will only create a black market many time bigger than the one that currently exists for drugs right now. Besides, we can always bribe the cops with immortality (at least in Chicago).

About the people who can't handle freedom as it is. We call this the "marching morons" problem. Biotechnology offers various solutions to this problem as well, both positive and negative.

Bernhard, Geron Corporation (among others) is working on an" immortal stem-cell" therapy which would not only allow for gene-therapy of oneself, but will ultimate lead to regeneration (i.e. regrowing a lost limb) and freedom from ageing.

Gee, I feel disagreable! :-)

I don't see any basic problem with the concept of genecticaly modifying an existing organism. I really don't have a good answer to how one would achieve 100% penetration, but you can, quite obviously, alter celular genectics with viruses. Nano-tech will further enhance this control capacity.

On designer children;
I don't think consent is really an issue. The individual who might be consulted only exists as that individual due to the application, or non-application therein, of genetic engineering. There are no virtual individuals (bad Demi Moore movies not-withstanding.)

The ethical issues won't be in what we do with our designs for our progeny, but in how we treat them.

I meant the links on the FAQ. I doesn't matter I'll handle this directly.

If I take for instance a liver cell and alter the genetics of it, clone a lot of them and then transplant them back into the same being, the genetic alterations will not effect the offspring because I have not altered any cells used for reproduction.

If I take for instance a liver cell and alter the genetics of it, clone a lot of them and then transplant them back into the same being, the genetic alterations will not effect the offspring because I have not altered any cells used for reproduction. - Carl Nicolai

Yes, but this is not the issue. Kurt, in his original post, assumed that you could get a genetic "booster" to alter yourself, e.g. like you could become an Arnold Schwarzenegger by adhering to a strict schedule of diet and special exercise. The latter is possible, the former is not.

The genetic "booster" is exactly what Geron Corporation is trying to develop. The idea is to take a cell, any cell, from your own body, clone it (as with Dolly the sheep), then reinject the resulting stem-cells into your body, then get them to divide by applying the appropriate growth factors in order to get the implanted stem-cells to regenerate the desired tissue. This results in regeneration and rejuvenation. If you insert new genes into the stem-cells (something else Geron and others are working on) then you can alter the genetic program of the resulting newly grown tissues in your body. The Geron people, as well as others, have no desire to involve themselves in reproductive cloning.

BTW, there is a life extension conference in Las Vegas every year in early December. It is sponsored by the American Academy of Anti-Ageing Medicine (A4M) and features all of the latest life-extension work as well as cryonics. Some of the Geron people have been regular participants in this show. This is where thier motivation is.

He He Ya well particularly since some of these meddlesome bureaucrats (FDA) are now armed according to a press story I read a few years ago.

The idea is to take a cell, any cell, from your own body, clone it (as with Dolly the sheep), then reinject the resulting stem-cells into your body, then get them to divide by applying the appropriate growth factors in order to get the implanted stem-cells to regenerate the desired tissue. - Kurt Schoedel

I do not consider that this process involves genetic engineering. By "genetic engineering," I am referring to a process where DNA material is being artifically altered. Cloning does not utilize such alteration.

In Europe, there are numerous "rejuvenation" clinics where cells from animal embryos are being injected in humans with the hope that these cells will find aging organs and rejuvenate them. I believe this method is outlawed in the U.S.

If you insert new genes into the the cell before you clone it to get the resulting stem-cells, The resulting stem-cells will carry the inserted gene. Thus you have genetic engineering.

The "rejuvenation" clinics in Europe don't work because the fetal issue is animal and, therefor can't be expressed in human beings. Also, there is no attempt to cultivate the stem-cells and to implant them where they need to be in the body for them to work. Also, stem-cells need to supplied with specific growth-factor harmones (IGF-1, nerve growth factor, etc.) in order for them to start reproduceing and specializing into the specific tissues you want to regenerate. What Geron (and others) are developing is totally different than the sheep fetal implants done at these "clinics" in Europe.

The FDA is indeed armed, along with the DEA and other aphabet soup combinations that make up the federal government. The Life Extension Foundation was raided by these jerks back in 1987. They even wear helmets that look exactly like the helmets worn by the Gestapo in the 1930's. This prompted our 5 year lawsuit as well as our legal defense fund (to defend others against such raids). All the more reason for everyone on this board to join the LEF and support them anyway you can to fight for medical freedom.

Here's a thought, I read somewhere that there is a place in the body that produces blood cells, the spine, I think. If you could genetically engineer a cell and place it in the exact place that the blood cells are produced, that is making it the producer of cells,(assuming that the cell is reproducing in it's own image), wouldn't that allow the genetically altered cell to replicate and spread throughout the body, essentially changing the DNA throughout?

Another thing, the stem cell experiments have just achieved success. They can now create stem cells and place them in the body and achieve organ replacement, just like in re-growing the skin cells and replacing them on a burn victim. The stem cell research has apparently already reached the human experiment stage. Which is logical, if you think of how long the burn victims doctors have been using this re-grown tissue to replace burnt skin. What is more, apparently there is no scar tissue or very little scaring from this procedure. The way to go!

If you could genetically engineer a cell and place it in the exact place that the blood cells are produced, that is making it the producer of cells,(assuming that the cell is reproducing in it's own image), wouldn't that allow the genetically altered cell to replicate and spread throughout the body, essentially changing the DNA throughout? - D. Molino

No. First, a blood cell has no nucleus. Second, even if it had one, it would not transfer new DNA to another cell.

D. Molino, It actually gets better than that. Your own body has all of the stemcell in it necessary for regeneration/rejuvenation. The only problem is that they are not immortal like the embryonic ones. However, if you can "spike" them with telemerase, something that Geron did last year in-vitro with human skin cells, you can make them immortal, thereby eliminating the need for embryonic cloning and other ethically questionable techniques. It would also be much less expensive as well. I expect this to be the next milestone we read about in the papers (probably 2-4 years from now).

Dawn, Is this the chemical that you expressed reservations about several months ago in a CNN story?

Bernhard and Kurt: Thank You both for answering.

I actually was not thinking of a tranfer of the DNA from the blood cells. I now remember that the replication of blood cells occurs in the bone. The actual point is that the blood cells are being created on an ongoing basis and if you could change what the DNA is of the cells then you would have changed the whole being, eventually.

I like the stem cells answer a lot better though. I really wouldn't want to replace everything and I really doubt most people would. I just would like to replace some parts. It opens up a whole lot of questions, like could one replace an eye? What about something as complicated as your immune system? Especially, if you would like to keep some of it and get rid of some other part. For instance, I would happily replace whatever makes me allergic but I don't want to get rid of the immunity to some serious diseases. I cannot see getting rid of antigens to smallpox, for instance.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Folks, here is the world's first commercial establishment to offer human cloning.

We, (or the infamouse 'they') could eventually create 'humans' immune to radiation. looking at the risks from nuclear accidents, or possible wars, surly this would be a way for humanity to survive a global nuclear holocaust, even if the survivors have only cocaroaches to eat. We (or 'they') could (or will?) just as easely create 'D.E.Fs.' to do our dirty work, and menial tasks. As always there are good and bad sides to the story. As Mr. Darwin realised, "the adapted will survive". - even if we have to created them ourselves!

And, who will be the First Mother of the first fetus subject?

What sort of mother would subject her child to such testing?

Is America now redefining Motherhood?

I think it is time to send all the scientist to Pluto.

I think we can safely say that we are more benevolent towards genetic engineering then we are towards cloning. Yet, somehow the cloning board is seeing more postings. What does that say about us?

The new gene therapies are on the horizon and it looks as if we may have a whole new future. One problem, though, what will that do to world population? Let us say that the elderly will suddenly be able to repair the damage done by arthritis, osteoporosis and heart disease. They will live longer, if accidents don't happen, and enjoy it more, I might add. But that means that instead of the younger generation replacing an older, dying generation - the numbers will simply increase quicker because the elderly won't be dying as fast. Do we then support population control? If so, do we then need to use the therapy on fetuses?

Love, Peace and Wisdom, especially wisdom.

Nannon: Post #55. "We could then produce humans immune to radiation."

Radiation is not really a disease even though they call the results radiation sickness. Radiation is a decaying of the tissues due to the transfer of atoms from the nucleus of the cell, and a concomitant drying out of the water in the cells. This is usually caused by particles of irradiated material. The material gives off alpha, beta and gamma rays. These rays cause friction as they pass through the surrounding area. Because they are sub-atomic they can pass through the spaces between the atoms in the material. This is an over-simplification but essentially explains the process. Excitation of the atoms is caused by the bombardment of the atoms by other atoms causing nuclear collisions. This excitation is called radiation. When it is in a bomb it becomes a chain reaction, caused by the release of two elements (i.e. plutonium) into each other on impact. Radiation sickness is really radiation burns. In high dosage these can cause diarrhea, vomiting, fatigue, loss of teeth and hair and, in more severe cases, damage to the blood-forming tissues.

Survive with only cockroaches to eat? Who would want to? We would survive with mutant plants to eat (if we survived the wind blast and the nuclear winter) with no way of knowing how poisonous they might be. Not a very pretty prospect.

No sir, we would not be able to change that with genetic engineering. It will help, but not that much.

Love, Peace and Wisdom.

Radiation is a decaying of the tissues due to the transfer of atoms from the nucleus of the cell, and a concomitant drying out of the water in the cells. - D. Molino

Rubbish. Ionizing radiation primarily affects lymphoid tissue and bone marrow, resulting in a decrease of white blood cells being manufactured. Other organs are affected to a lesser degree.

Most nuclear radiation occurs as electromagnetic waves which carry no "atoms" to knock off other atoms.

D. Molino:

instead of the younger generation replacing an older, dying generation - the numbers will simply increase quicker because the elderly won't be dying as fast.

This has been brought up on similar boards many times. The simple answer is that all developed countries - i.e. those where people have access to high-tech medicine, - already have two children per family and zero population growth. US is the only exception, but its population increase is due mostly to immigration. When people become more affluent, they have fewer children. It happens time and again, even in Catholic countries where birth control is supposedly banned. In a subsistence economy children are a labor boon, in a modern industrial society they are a financial burden. Several Western European countries actually have negative population growth - without any population control policies. Increasing lifespan will result in "graying of society" and (proportionally) fewer children. Actually, it is happening already - in affluent countries, that is.

I think the entire Gen. Eng. trend will follow the money. Serious uses or not. It's the marketing that counts.

If green skin was sellable that is what the geneticists would be put to work on. ______________________________________________

There are not a lot of purely American traditions but Thanksgiving is one.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Carl, I'm not sure what CNN story you are talking about--was it the TV interview I did a few months back on squalamine? Or a print story on agents that block blood vessel formation? Anyway, the compound in the article you cite is another of the latter that are now in clinical trials. None of them work nearly as well in people as in mice, but they are promising. Several years away from general use.

Diana, Nannon may be right in saying we could make humans more resistant to radiation through genetic engineering There are enzymes that repair radiation damage to DNA, and it is certainly possible to make bacteria more radiation resistant by altering these enzymes.

Vic, mothers have already volunteered for French Anderson's fetal gene therapy--the mothers who have already borne one or more children with the defect he knows how to correct ( ADA deficiency). Right now, these parents have only one alternative, to abort fetuses that carry the defect or to have the child. It is a recessive gene, which means one in four children statistically will have the severe immunodeficiency that this gene causes. Another condition that could be prevented with fetal gene therapy is cystic fibrosis.

It was the chemical which blocks the massive network of blood vessel formation that allows cancer to grow so fast that it becomes a problem to the whole body.

My understanding is that if you could slow cancer cells down enough there would not be a cure, but the cells would grow so slowly that they would never be a problem, even if mal functioning, for the natural life of the person.

I think this invasion by the ability to divert sustenance to the cells is the same process that enables a blastocyst to create the placenta that invades the mother and provides the fetus with food and oxygen. I guess no one should take this while pregnant.

I am not sure how things work with ectopic interparitaneial (SP?) pregnancies which, baring intestinal blockage, can result in the delivery of a normal baby by caesarean section.

An enhanced repair mechanism would certainly help, but I believe the fundamental reason insects have a very high resistance to radiation is that their genetic code is extremely redundant so that while they evolve so slowly that the cockroach has basically the same genome as it did say 1 million years ago, it can also withstand extreme gene damage.

There are in effect many copies of the blueprint for the proteins it requires.

Carl, the anti-angiogenesis agents that got all the press in the NYTimes and elsewhere for curing cancer in mice have yet to be produced in sufficient quantity for human use--plus other scientists are having difficulty repeating the mouse work so they are going to visit each others labs, exchange reagents, etc. There are about 11 compounds with this mechanism of action that are being tested, but you are right--pregnancy would be absolutely impossible. In fact, normal menstrual functioning would cease while being treated with these agents. One would not be able to heal wounds, and I would guess that children might not be able to take them either, as growing tissue requires new blood vessels. The mouse experiments suggested that a few rounds of treatment might eliminate the tumors entirely by starving them to death, so in that case the patients might not have to take them forever.

Outside of the cancer field, physicians are using gene therapy to encourage the growth of new blood vessels in patients with coronary heart disease, to bypass the blocked vessels. This works!

I don't know all that much about insect genetics. You are probably right, genome redundancy would explain their radiation resistance.

Carl: Green skin is a good idea. If we could engineer people to contain chloroplasts, then they could derive their energy from the sun and there would be no more starvation (except maybe in Seattle). :)

Along with making all amino acids self synthesize why not? There are some that are on the border line in that some people can make them under non stress conditions. (semi essential??)

A question many si fi types have asked is why there are not animals which have evolved these photo synthetic abilities. Is there anything other than vitamin D which is produced by photon interaction on the skin?

Now wait a sec. What you imply is a total fabrication. Why it was just back in 1947 that we had two whole days of sunlight in Seattle. I clearly remember people pointing up to the sky and asking "Hey what is that thing?".

Dawn,

I've become interested in leukaemia and other diseases that require a bone marrow match.

My primitive understanding is that the information bank to find donors test for 2 of the 6 (5 I understand with some new discoveries) required genetic matches. If they find a match of those two they then spend the money to type all 6 of them.

I understand that this approach is required because a complete typing is too expensive to do unless their is a partial match.

My question is are there any other associated factors that are easier to type and correlate with the critical marrow factors? Are there likely to be?

I would also like to find out the stats. on genetic distance based on "race" vrs. random sampling in this area.

Any Internet links would be appreciated as it is hard to find a lot of english scientific magazines and books here in Taiwan.

Also what is your take on using placenta stem cells.

That would depend on what you consider "normal" genetic drift?

I am for it in the sense of research and health reasons. I am against all non-beneficial and/or non-therapeutic uses. I am against backyard abominations such as the lunatic in Texas who is inbreeding cats to come up with a horrible mutation that cripples them (she does this for fun and profit, marketing them as ideal cats since they can't run away...). I am against the kind of "playing with nature" that goes unmonitored. There needs to be regulation regarding such experimentation.

I see targeted health benefits for a wide variety of diseases. I see a biotech industry taking off with products from bio-drain cleaners to cheap and plentiful nitrogen fixers. I see right wing zealots with no understanding; protesting and meeting with their lobbyists to prevent all research in this area...

It must have some close relatives so we can study the differences in genes and the structure that results.

Exciting times. I wonder about the introns. Does anyone know if they have them yet?

In theory it should be effective against a large number of cancers which share the same dangerious and now vulnerable p35 gene mutation.

More and more it seems that the pesky virus is proving to be a "magic bullet" when engineered to do a specific job.

Hi, Carl--I don't look at this board very often, but today is a holiday. I don't know too much about tissue typing, but I believe it is correct that the first test is for the two major histocompatibility antigens, then if they match, for the minor ones. Even so, only matches from identical twins are perfect and don't require treatment of the patient with immunosuppressive drugs. The placental stem cells--I call them umbilical cord stem cells--so far seem to "take" very well. Stem cells--no matter what the source-don't express the major transplantation antigens. Without knowing a lot about it, I would think that as the cells mature they would express whatever antigens were encoded in their genomes as they differentiate. But maybe something about the maturation process causes the transplanted cells to be recognized as "self." I'll look for a website.

C. elegans does have introns. All multicellular organisms do, and even yeast has short ones. I have hopes for gene therapy vector, but adenovirus is a very strong immunogen and may not be the best delivery vector

Genetic engineering will undoubtedly be used to make the next quantum jump in health care for humans, animals and plants.

As far as I am concerned anyone against such progress is equivalent to a Luddite and deserves to live the "natural" life expectancy of a whole 35 years. The bad news is that it is a life of hunger, poverty, pestilence, and disease.

THERE IS NO TURNING BACK NOW! Mark Gaffney

God is allowing scientist to discover miracles!

We have a responsibility to use our knowledge to save our earth and all people on earth regardless of race, creed, sex, nationality, or ethnic origin (UNITED STATES EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT).

People on this planet die of starvation. Children are infested with worms and other parasites.

I believe all disease, including old age, is satanic and diabolical. I believe mankind should dedicate every available scientific and economic resource to eradicate sickness and hunger of every description. We as private citizens should support a change in public policy to pave a smooth road for organizations, private corporations, government institutions, and individual scientist who are working on scientific research projects with the goal of betterment of humanity.

I really believe this is the destiny of mankind. In the Holy Bible, Satan promised Adam and Eve that if they ate the fruit of the tree of life they will become like god's (GENESIS 2 : 15 - 12 & GENESIS 3: 2-4 OXFORD NIV SCOFIELD STUDY BIBLE). Satan's promise is now being fulfilled with the scientific breakthroughs that are occurring. Basically, humans are becoming godlike in knowledge and ability.

Mankind will never be on equal status with God. We need God because He is the source of all purity and goodness. In the book RELATIVITY: THE SPECIAL AND THE GENERAL THEORY by Albert Einstein (Published by Crown Trade Paperbacks, a Division of Random House Inc., Copyright 1961), Albert Einstein discusses a concept referred to as a REFERENCE BODY. God can be thought of as a Reference Body for the human r

(POST CONTINUED) race.

Mankind is quickly arriving at a point in human history where we will be able to do remarkable god like things.

Beginning with the decision of Adam and Eve to eat the fruit from the tree of life , mankind has chosen to follow the road we are now on. I now believe God wants us to follow this road to the ultimate end--even if this should mean the evolution of mankind to a higher level.

We actually have no choice. It will be evil and morally unethical to withhold medical treatment from people. Doctors take an oath to save life by using the best medical interventions available. If Doctors fail to use the best medical treatments available then Doctors are breaking the oath upon which their practice of medicine is based.

If we choose to be half hearted about about the value of life by not fully implementing God given knowledge, than we should abolish non profit organizations that seek to feed the hungry and strife to raise money to find cures for heart disease, cancer, and other illness.

WE CAN NOT QUIT. WE CAN NOT TURN BACK NOW. I believe God, as heavenly Father wants us to go forward and become all that we can be.

God as Divine Heavenly Father is overseeing this entire process. God has the power to stop it at any time he chooses. At one point in history mankind built a tower to the heavens. God destroyed the Tower of Babel and confounded the language of all people. (GENESIS 11: 1 - 9 OXFORD NIV SCOFIELD STUDY BIBLE).

The language of people did not stay confounded. The Internet is the new Tower of Babel. It is the decision of God, and God alone, to either let this process continue or bring the process to a conclusion. An asteroid from deep space may collide with earth and wreck havoc as in the Hollywood Box Office Smash hit movie ARMAGEDDON.

Nanotechnology is the most promising of the new sciences.

Nanotechnology is a new science which will allow us to gain control of all material substance on the earth

(POST CONTINUED) and everything the universe is made of. Nanotechnology will allow us to change chemical properties of a substance and transform one element into another by manipulating atoms and molecules with machines which are subatomic (no bigger than one or two atoms).

The physical understanding of the universe and the new science helps deepen my faith. In the past no one really understood how Jesus transformed water into wine or multiplied the fish and bread to feed multitudes. Now, at this point in human history science is allowing us to see that these miracles are physically possible. We are beginning to understand how miracles can occur and that miracles are truly possible. My faith is in God and not science, but, God has blessed us with science and we should use it.

Change is very difficult to cope with. This is why there is so much fear concerning technological change and the future. Fear of change is also a reason there is so much hoop-la concerning the millennium (year 2000). In the hearts of people there are so many seething emotions- ranging from euphoria to fear and deep depression. Humans tend to want to stop in their tracks and quit, both personally and collectively, and this includes me (GENESIS 19:26). Mankind choose this path in the garden of eden and THERE IS NO TURNING BACK NOW

I believe that if Armagadden does not occur, mankind has a chance to meet God somewhere in space and time. For this reason I believe it is crucial for all the major religious faiths develop a greater understanding and acceptance of each other. I think we all want the same thing, which is summed up in the simple ideal of love. The Holy Bible states that love exceeds all doctrine and knowledge. 1CORINTHIANS 13: 1-13. I believe Christians need to let other major religious faiths know that we do not want to rub them out of exis

(FINAL POST 4 of 4) existence.

Is it determined by Biblical prophecy that we should perish in a final battle called Armageddon? Scientist are so puzzled and baffled by what they see occurring on the subatomic level they (scientist) have proposed a theory of an alternative parallel universe which exist in actual physical reality in separate dimension of time and space.

Where was John when he was raptured into heaven to envision the future of mankind? I believe that John was raptured into heaven and he saw a very real actual vision of the future.

God asked Job, "Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand?" JOB 38: 1-41 OXFORD NIV SCOFIELD STUDY BIBLE )

The difference between what a "life form" does and what some "non living" nano machine does is getting smaller.

As usual genetic diversity can provide the maximum protection against natural, accidental, or purposefully engineering of "race" selective weapons.

Bio diversity is an old argument but a real good one.

How about genetically engineering morals and halting the self destructive nature of the human race. We as a species are not ready for anymore advancement. We need to clean up our own backyard called EARTH, look at the oceans, the disappearing animals, the homeless person we walked past this morning the few million sad hungry war torn fellow human beings we saw on TV today. Wake up and smell the coffee, we as a species are not responsible enough for anymore advancement, let alone putting a price to human DNA. Look at all that nuclear rubbish all over the earth, how are we going to clean that up so it does not affect future generations? We need to get our priorities right before we can really call it advancement!

I think that there is a very lucrative market out there for genetically engineered pets. I heard of one group of scientists that inserted the Green Flourescent Protein (GFP) DNA from fireflies into a mouse. The mouse glowed under UV light. I think more work needs to be done to produce mice that glow in the dark like fireflies. I think that this would make a very nice pet. Plus if it escaped in the middle of the night, he would be easier to catch.

I think there are a lot of people that would be interested in other genetically engineered pets as well. Maybe one day I will start an internet business to sell such pets to interested people all over the world.

And now we have more attempts to restrict innovative stem cell research by the religious right.

We are talking in this instance about cells which are all ready slated for legal destruction, and in some cases like "unbical stem cells" no other use.

The US has all ready blown it's lead in private cryptography by forcing development to go overseas and I think it will now do so with genetic engineering.

I don't think these modern day Luddites will be happy until we revert back to our natural 35 year life expectancy.

It is ironic that the US has devoted more money to the human genome project that all other countries combined.

Oh well; technology, like capital, will flow to the place where it can be utilized.

Ethical or not, I think one day the technology will exist to create a race of superhumans. One day we will know all of the secrets of the genetic code and will be able to modify or transplant existing genes and even create new genes from scratch. Imagine if humans had the knowledge to modify the human muscular structure to make it stronger and more efficient (similiar to that of a chimpanzees), while at the same time copying the lung capacity of a dolphin. You could then create a super athlete. Also, you could design your offspring to have the desired hair color, eye color, height, inteligence, etc.

While most people today oppose this idea, I think it will become more tempting when the knowledge and technology exist.

Don't know what characteristics that human would have. I suspect one persons view of what constitutes a "super human" would be anthers idea of a "freak".

No question about it.

No problem except with so called "intelligence". No one really has a serious clue as to what it is.

(I'd really like to argue this with you)

Like other valuable things the .gov will probably regulate it and tax it heavily.

I think the one drawback to genetic engineering is it doesn't really help those people alive today. While it will be possible to custom design human beings from scratch, there really isn't much hope for grown adults who do not like their own genetic makeup to be re-engineered into smarter more attractive people. And how many people living today really want a new generation of stronger, smarter, more attractive people to flood the job market and force them into early retirement. I think that is where the biggest opposition to genetic engineering will come from.

Good point, Mr. Magner. If genetic engineering was just about making designer babies, then most of us would not want alot of these newly designed people to push us out of the job market and society. Fortunately, genetic engineering isn't just for designer babies, but for us as well.

For example, according to Dr. Klatz, of the American Academy of Anti-ageing Medicine, there is supposed to be a gene therapy cure for male pattern baldness either this year or next. It will be a topical lotion, containing genetically engineered hair folical stem cells or growth factors (I'm not sure which) that you rub on to your scalp. A slightly different version of this lotion will cure grey hair. Admittedly, these are cosmetic changes only. But they are a start and they will be available for existing adult people. Also, there will be memory and IQ enhancing drugs available, probably in 5 years or so. I fully intend to use them to learn Chinese (and C++) when they become available in the marketplace.

Of course, the greatest threat to our well-being are not the next generation of designer babies, but self-appointed know-it-all politicians and religious people who may try to prevent the availability of these new self-enhancing technologies in the marketplace. But then, noone said that freedom was free. Ithink it was Jefferson who said that the maintanence of freedom required enternal vigilance against the jerks who would take it away.

In the worst case event, we can always get these new technologies from the black market.

I.W.A. - Immortalists With Attitude

Kurt Shoedel, I have heard of the baldness therapy you mentioned. They are using a gene wrapped inside a lipsome. Apparently, the lipsomes are easily taken up by the hair folicle cells. I was not aware that they were within a year or two of actually putting a product on the market, however.

Genetic Engineering of adult human cells is extremely complicated in most cases. This is because it is hard to teach old cells new tricks. Cells do not absorb foreign DNA very readily. Often viral vectors are used to get the DNA in the cell. The problem with this approach is that the immune system tends to prevent this therapy from being very successful. The other problem is that you can get DNA into a cell but it is hard to get it into the nucleus where it will be transcribed. This is easier to accomplish in cell lines that are continually reproducing themselves such as hair follicles (or embryos). This is because the nuclear barrier is broken while the cell divides.

Your right, it is difficult to genetically engineer old cells. That's why I think all of the stem-cell therapies being developed will be used instead. Its will be easier to replace old tissue with some kind of stem-cell based regeneration therapy than to try to re-engineer the existing tissue. You can then genetically reprogram the stem-cell (which has already been developed) and then use them to replace/regenerate the tissue in your body. I strongly suspect that Geron Corp. and others are working on this kind of therapy. The other benefit of this approach is that you're regenerating aged tissue anyway. There's no point to genetically re-engineering yourself unless you plan to live forever young anyways.

Well I think, that a new technology is needed to play sorely and completely with human cells. Some kind of editor, medical editor, MEDITOR if you want. (It is nice abbreviation isn't it?)

What we need is a potent computer, a potent 3D imager based on several techniques such as X-ray, ultrasound, NMRI etc. and some ways to OPERATE, to manipulate a single atom, to destroy and to reassemble any molecule of a human body. Patient would be layed down on the bed, sensors will scan her or him, computer will be analyzing incoming data and making some decisions like: destroy that cancer cell, kill that virus, repair that vene ... Optional human doctor will be able to see what is going on and interfere occasionally. Nanotechnology controlled by computer. "MAcro Nano Interface" abbreviated MANI or hand in Latin. Another, even nicer abbreviation, isn't it?

By MEDITOR anything, including old age, is curable.

At present we have mainly access to the virtual world of symbols and pictures through keyboard and mouse. One day we will have complete access to EDIT the physical world, including our bodies. I think around 2020 maybe earlier this will happen and that will be the biggest event in medicine and all others technologies.

Dear Michael and Kurt,

I was reading your messages about the difficulties of Genetic Engineering of adult human cells, when I remember the HIV virus. I’m not and expert in this subjects, but couldn’t we use the same technique? The HIV is a retrovirus with RNA in it’s nucleus instead of DNA. The virus contaminate the cells and create from the RNA, with a help of an enzyme, a DNA molecule that goes inside the cell, contaminating it. If we do the same thing, using a RNA molecule genetic altered to fulfil our needs, we could change de genetic code of all the cells of our body by "contamination". Because all the process is controlled by us, the result will not be a disease but the changes we would like to make in genetic code of an adult. I don’t know if this is technical or theoretical possible. As I said I’m not an expert... What do you think?

Regard, Pedro

P.S- Sorry for my poor English

Pedro,

For someone who is "not and expert in this subjects", you are very perceptive. The technique you are describing is at least theoretically possible, and some experts already thought of it. I don't remember where I read about it, but work in this direction is going on already.

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but;

Such a thing could also make one heck of a dangerous weapon!

I don't think bans are in order, but careful (and genuinely thoughtful) regulatin and oversight will be in order.

Give a cold or flu virus the attributes of ebola (or worse!) and a "pre-programed" plan to mutate into something harmless in a few weeks. Spray this on your enemy and just walk in when the place is vacant.

I don't think we should forgoe the opportunity to radicaly improve medicine, but how do we prevent abuse?

Genetic perfection has always been a dangerous goal for those who seek it. In the past, the only way to achieve it is to eliminate the competition.

I doubt society will change it's mind when this technology becomes more widly practiced, I have a strong feeling, if viewed the way it currently is, would lead to genetic wars striving for perfection.

The road to perfection is destructive and dangerous, I don't feel that society is ready for that.

While I do think there is a substantial truth in that; How the heck do we prevent such a thing?

"Stuffing" technological genies back into their bottles, or repressing research outright has never been terribly succesful and has generaly been shown to be harmful (although Oppie could have kept his little toy to himself, IMO!).

How can society's collective wisdom and ethical development keep pace with individual arvice? We, in general, are certainly more ethical than we were even a few hundred years ago, but these technologies will mature in decades (or less.)

What will be the result when six billion agressive primates eliminate disease and decrepancy? Will we digress into a hundred million separate species, billions of species, each with one member, or will we seek some eaglatarian vision of human perfection as a group?

Can wisdom be defined in the human genome?

Kurt Shoedel, I have heard of the baldness therapy you mentioned. They are using a gene wrapped inside a lipsome. Apparently, the lipsomes are easily taken up by the hair folicle cells. I was not aware that they were within a year or two of actually putting a product on the market, however.

Genetic Engineering of adult human cells is extremely complicated in most cases. This is because it is hard to teach old cells new tricks. Cells do not absorb foreign DNA very readily. Often viral vectors are used to get the DNA in the cell. The problem with this approach is that the immune system tends to prevent this therapy from being very successful. The other problem is that you can get DNA into a cell but it is hard to get it into the nucleus where it will be transcribed. This is easier to accomplish in cell lines that are continually reproducing themselves such as hair follicles (or embryos). This is because the nuclear barrier is broken while the cell divides.

Your right, it is difficult to genetically engineer old cells. That's why I think all of the stem-cell therapies being developed will be used instead. Its will be easier to replace old tissue with some kind of stem-cell based regeneration therapy than to try to re-engineer the existing tissue. You can then genetically reprogram the stem-cell (which has already been developed) and then use them to replace/regenerate the tissue in your body. I strongly suspect that Geron Corp. and others are working on this kind of therapy. The other benefit of this approach is that you're regenerating aged tissue anyway. There's no point to genetically re-engineering yourself unless you plan to live forever young anyways.

Well I think, that a new technology is needed to play sorely and completely with human cells. Some kind of editor, medical editor, MEDITOR if you want. (It is nice abbreviation isn't it?)

What we need is a potent computer, a potent 3D imager based on several techniques such as X-ray, ultrasound, NMRI etc. and some ways to OPERATE, to manipulate a single atom, to destroy and to reassemble any molecule of a human body. Patient would be layed down on the bed, sensors will scan her or him, computer will be analyzing incoming data and making some decisions like: destroy that cancer cell, kill that virus, repair that vene ... Optional human doctor will be able to see what is going on and interfere occasionally. Nanotechnology controlled by computer. "MAcro Nano Interface" abbreviated MANI or hand in Latin. Another, even nicer abbreviation, isn't it?

By MEDITOR anything, including old age, is curable.

At present we have mainly access to the virtual world of symbols and pictures through keyboard and mouse. One day we will have complete access to EDIT the physical world, including our bodies. I think around 2020 maybe earlier this will happen and that will be the biggest event in medicine and all others technologies.

Dear Michael and Kurt,

I was reading your messages about the difficulties of Genetic Engineering of adult human cells, when I remember the HIV virus. I’m not and expert in this subjects, but couldn’t we use the same technique? The HIV is a retrovirus with RNA in it’s nucleus instead of DNA. The virus contaminate the cells and create from the RNA, with a help of an enzyme, a DNA molecule that goes inside the cell, contaminating it. If we do the same thing, using a RNA molecule genetic altered to fulfil our needs, we could change de genetic code of all the cells of our body by "contamination". Because all the process is controlled by us, the result will not be a disease but the changes we would like to make in genetic code of an adult. I don’t know if this is technical or theoretical possible. As I said I’m not an expert... What do you think?

Regard, Pedro

P.S- Sorry for my poor English

Pedro,

For someone who is "not and expert in this subjects", you are very perceptive. The technique you are describing is at least theoretically possible, and some experts already thought of it. I don't remember where I read about it, but work in this direction is going on already.

I hate to be the one to bring this up, but;

Such a thing could also make one heck of a dangerous weapon!

I don't think bans are in order, but careful (and genuinely thoughtful) regulatin and oversight will be in order.

Give a cold or flu virus the attributes of ebola (or worse!) and a "pre-programed" plan to mutate into something harmless in a few weeks. Spray this on your enemy and just walk in when the place is vacant.

I don't think we should forgoe the opportunity to radicaly improve medicine, but how do we prevent abuse?

Genetic perfection has always been a dangerous goal for those who seek it. In the past, the only way to achieve it is to eliminate the competition.

I doubt society will change it's mind when this technology becomes more widly practiced, I have a strong feeling, if viewed the way it currently is, would lead to genetic wars striving for perfection.

The road to perfection is destructive and dangerous, I don't feel that society is ready for that.

While I do think there is a substantial truth in that; How the heck do we prevent such a thing?

"Stuffing" technological genies back into their bottles, or repressing research outright has never been terribly succesful and has generaly been shown to be harmful (although Oppie could have kept his little toy to himself, IMO!).

How can society's collective wisdom and ethical development keep pace with individual arvice? We, in general, are certainly more ethical than we were even a few hundred years ago, but these technologies will mature in decades (or less.)

What will be the result when six billion agressive primates eliminate disease and decrepancy? Will we digress into a hundred million separate species, billions of species, each with one member, or will we seek some eaglatarian vision of human perfection as a group?

Can wisdom be defined in the human genome?

Actually, most genetic research in this area is directed toward the discovery of a way to treat "people alive today". Cystic Fibrosis, Muscular Dystrophy and many other horrible diseases are being targeted by geneticists.

"And how many people living today really want a new generation of stronger, smarter, more i attractive people to flood the job market and force them into early retirement. I think that is where the biggest opposition to genetic engineering will come from."

Personally, I sincerely hope my children are "stronger, smarter and more attractive" than I am!!!

Many in "society" weren't ready for the first transgenic crops back in the 70's. The first transgenic tomato field planted was stripped clean by protestors before there was any chance to harvest it. Now you can find those same genetically altered tomatoes (along with other transgenic fruits and veggies) in you local Winn Dixie. Not long ago pig insulin was harvested from pig pancreases to be used by diabetics. This was very costly and the risk of rejection in diabetic patients was high. Today insulin is much less expensive and dangerous, because it is produced by bacteria, with a human insulin gene inserted into their genome. "Society" has learned to get over it's fear once it sees the benefits of new technology.

You're right Ilya, Retrovirus's (HIV is a retrovirus) are allready being used today. They are one of several classes of "vectors" (carriers) used to transport genetic material into targeted tissues. Others are adenoviruses and plasmid-liposome type carriers.

Retroviruses are good because, by inserting themselves into the genome itself they can cause permanent change to the target cells, elminateing the need for additional periodic treatments. The problems with retroviruses are that they provoke an immune response against the viral particles. Another problem is that it is difficult to control the speciffic site where retroviruses insert themselves into the genome. What if the desirable gene you are transporting into the cell is inserted in the middle of another gene essential to the cells survival? That would deactivate the essential gene. What is that deactivated gene was one which kept the cell from turning into a malignantly cancerous cell? Also there is the problem of overexpression if too many copies of whatever gene you are inserting are taken up by the target tissue.

Adenoviruses don't permanently insert themselves into host cells DNA. They exist in the cell apart from the cell's genome. This eliminates some of the problems faced with retroviruses. Outside the genome they can be expressed by the cell but deteriorate with time. This requires repeated treatments. They also can cause immune reponses.

The liposome-plasmid vectors are desirable because they do not cause an immune reponse. But, as with adenoviruses, using these would require repeat treatments. Another drawback is that these carriers are not as efficient as the viral vectors in transferring genetic material to the target cell. In some cases it takes thousands of these vectors per cell to ge