couldn't put Humpty together again

Quantum Quack

Quantum Quack

Life's a tease...
Valued Senior Member
Hi,
My first post here so please excuse me If I have repeated a question already ansered. If I have may be some one can provide me with an addy.

When ever I get in to a discussion about genetic engineering the same concern comes up for me every time.

When we decide to geneere a life form be it plant or animal are we not taking an enormous risk?

The risk that concerns me is that if we make a mistake in our geneering are we able to restore the plant or animal back to where it was genetically?

Say for instance in our confidence we remove a gene for motor neurons disease and later we discover we have created another disease not known of before. Are we able to restore that person genetic code back to what it was before the geneering took place?

Is there any real guarantee that we are not heading for a disaster?

I think I know the answer to this one and it doesn't make me feel to good about genetic engineering.
 
Originally posted by Quantum Quack
When we decide to geneere a life form be it plant or animal are we not taking an enormous risk?
Click to expand...

yes and no, depends on what we are engineering, and on how stupid the engineer is (or how smart he thinks he is).
 
6000 prototypes make a light bulb, 600 a vacuum cleaner, etc.

It's gotta be tried before it works. Hopefully in fairly safe containment!

Greetz,

Phoenix
 
phoenix, welcome (you're quite new)

As for your answer, well, true that many achievements occur after trials and errors, but for human, who would be sadistic enough to do that? Also, how?
 
say a hypothetical

You remove the gene responsible for dementia.....this would be really terrific yes?

But by doing so you create an environment for a killer virus to come into existence that sweeps the world with no vaccine.

I think the question is

Is it worth the risk?

A failed light bulb isn't going to do much but a failure at a genetic level could.
 
Last edited:
We have model organisms: rats, mice, pigs, cats, dogs, sheep, cows; yeasts (Saccharomyces, Schizosaccharomyces). Within that range, we can try about any alteration of the biomchemistry fairly safely before applying it to "higher-level" organisms.

Regards,

Phoenix
 
What happens to the 'guinea pigs' may not happen entirely to human, that's the problem with it, I guess.
 
do you think we have enough knowledge to predict all the possible outcomes of genetic engineering?

If not, do you think it a wise act to fiddle with something so fundamental?
 
Quantum Quack,

I would not worry we have made a lot of fuck ups with normal selective breeding, hebraizing and introduction. Disastrous things like the Cane Toad and Purple Lucite. Genetic engineering will most likely not do anything worse or more damaging then what we have done already with conventional agriculture technologies, but disasters of equal ecological and medical damages are possible, the thing is we should learn better from the past, be more careful the technology its self is very promising we just need ot use it properly and safely.

here are some past threads on the subject:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24471&highlight=foods
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23740&highlight=foods
 
I think most of the proposed genetic therapies are based on adding a gene rather than removing one. This is to treat diseases where the patient lacks a single functioning enzyme, the lack of which causes the disease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top