For what practical purposes is genetic engineering being developed?what makes it a controversial subject?
352857
Genetic engineering can help many disorders that result from genetic misorders and mutations.  The controversy surrounds the use of cloning to produce "identical organisms" where the clone's cells can be used to produce talor made tissue.  I do not believe cloning is necessary to get stem cells to carry out genetic engineering.  THere are sources in the body to retrieve stem cells.  The problem is obtaining cells that have not specialized.  The less specialized the easier to make the cell transform into a specific cell for tissue growth.  Also, all cells contian the same copy of DNA.  I think it is only a matter of time before engineeris can stimulate a cell into changing into another cell.  Other than that there is nothing really controversial about genetic engineering.
427919
I agree with the above post in that if any research is being done, then it's still in the works, so it hasn't been announced yet. And genetically altering things, especially something as complicated as poultry, is a lot harder than most people seem to think. I would seriously doubt that anyone is working on genetically altering an entire species just to raise resistance to this strain of avian influenza. Any mutation in the flu and the genetic alterations would probably end up useless.
423242
Ya why not? If you really think about humans have been modifying plants and animals for a long time.  When we first tilled the soil and intentionally planted a seed that nature didn't put there and we first slaughtered an animal we raised for that soul purpose, we have been modifying nature.  Now its just so that we can have healthier food in more quantities.\n\nSome current applications of plant biotechnology include:\nDeveloping plants that are resistant to diseases, pests, and stress\nKeeping fruits and vegetables fresh for longer periods of time which is extremely important in tropical countries\nProducing plants that possess healthy fats and oils\nProducing plants that have increased nutritive value\nProducing soybeans with a higher expression of the anti-cancer proteins naturally found in soybeans\nDeveloping a whole range of higher value added feed\nOther applications such as lignin modification in trees that will make possible much higher fiber extraction rates in the paper and pulp industry\nProducing new substances in plants, including biodegradable plastics, and small proteins or peptides such as prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines\n\nAnimals \nIncreased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency \nBetter yields of meat, eggs, and milk \nImproved animal health and diagnostic methods
833385
Because we never know exactly all the changes the trasgene is doing in the transgenic organism. If its not very well controlled it can be harmful or dangerous. Imagine you put a gene in a fruit tree that codifies a protein important to avoid insects (and you don't have to use insecticides!!). Very good. But you will sell that fruit and someone (not aware of the transgene) might be allergic to that. That's why we need laws and control over that kind of things!
454026
Genetic engineering is the manipulation of the DNA of one organism by the introduction of a gene from another organism. After adding the gene, the gene starts functioning normally and we get the desired characteristics we want in that organism.\nThe gene can be introduced by 'carriers' or vectors- like viruses, bacteria or a spray of liposomes.
88210
None of these are theories.  You are listing technologies, or areas of scientific inquiry in the case of stem cell research and genetic research.\n\nIf you mean to ask for a critique of each of these (e.g. how should the technologies be used, or how should these subjects be studied, if at all) I think it would be best to pose each question individually!  They are not really related in any way.
658364
biotechnology is seen by many as one of the most advanced form of technology.according to me biotechnology is engineering for the animals.it is a blend of biology and chemistry that is used to cure, incurable diseases just by correcting the very genes or cells that cause the disease.an engineer aspiring to become a doctor can make a great biotechnologist.
898479
Obviously ethics comes from what one believes is right and wrong and so religious beliefs are always at the forefront of this question.  I personally am not very religious but am infinitely spiritual.  From a strictly religious viewpoint, which may not reflect my own, the Higher Power created all living things, for better or for worse, and each has its own purpose.  Genetic engineering takes the guess work out of "what if".  The answer is known in advance and the end result (hopefully) is that answer.  Most religious objections come from one belief:  that it is the Higher Power's domain to create (and destroy). \nHaving said that, let's go further.  Gregor Mendel was one of the first, and definitely the most recognized, pioneers in genetic engineering.  He worked on altering pea plants.  Some would say no harm, no foul, but we don't have any records as to what "mistakes" were the result of this work.  Surely there are no monster plants that destroy everything in their path that have evolved from there, but then we're talking about small plants.\nFrom a practical standpoint though, as a former engineering student with much field experience,  I know that what goes on paper as a wonderful idea, does not always come out the same in the field as a wonderful invention.  There are always inherent flaws that cannot be predicted, as well as, human error which produces unexpected results.  When an engineering project goes bad, we go back to the drawing board, fix the problem, and either dismantle or alter the resultant product to meet our primary expectations and goals.\nNow, however, we have taken genetic engineering from pea plants to livestock (and maybe even humans).  Higher order organisms, fall under laws.  Animal rights groups use these laws to protect their target group from unlawful treatment and use.  Civil and criminal laws protect humans as far as they can.  Laws, unlike ethics and morals, are curative, not preventative.  Ethics and morals keep us from doing things that we know are wrong (or at least they should) while laws can only remedy or cure what has already happened.  Laws are written down and enforced after the fact, but are only things that have been deemed by lawmakers to be wrong.  Ethics and morals are mental warnings that should keep one from doing the wrong thing beforehand.  This is why sometimes we find the case of something not being illegal, but it is definitely immoral and unethical.\nAll this leads to one thought, which is a big problem with genetic engineering.  If this field were unregulated, what would we do with the unexpected results of human and animal projects.  Would we lock them in a room or cage somewhere until their expiration, would we exterminate them thoughtlessly because they weren't the desired result, or would we simply set them free to run amock around the world with no thought at all as to the results of that action?  And the question of their freedom itself is another thought:  Who has the right to control or contain another human?  Especially if this human were "created" but wasn't what was expected; they would still be a human, but totally under the supervision and control of the ones who "invented" them.  But even if they were the expected result, they would still be in the same position.\nAnd finally, the question of good versus evil.  Since an invention becomes free game, more or less, of anyone who uses it, how would we use and/or regulate the "perfected" science of genetic engineering as it would apply to humans and animals?   Eventually, the evil would infiltrate this field too, and who knows what the effects would be:  Armys of unstoppable Atilla the Hun's and Adolph Hitler's?  Masses of mutated animals (and even humans) that were so dangerous that the world would be on constant quarantine?  Offspring that were nothing like their parents because certain qualities and characteristics had been deem
433542
Where is the genetic revolution headed? Without question, it contains great potential for good in the form of better drugs, better medical care, and improved understanding of how living things work. But there is another side to the revolution.\n\n“We want perfect babies,” says Jeremy Rifkin. “We want perfect plants and animals. We want a better economy. There’s no evil intent here. The road to the Brave New World is paved with good intentions.\n\n“Step-by-step, we are deciding to engineer parts of the genetic code of living things. Two important questions emerge: If we’re going to engineer the genetic code, what criteria does this society establish for determining good and bad, useful and dysfunctional genes? And I would like to know whether there is an institution anyone here would trust with the ultimate authority to decide the genetic blueprints for a living thing?”\n\nThese are questions that deserve answers. Who is better equipped than the Creator of DNA to determine what is a good or a bad gene? He is the one who knows the innermost workings of the genetic code, as is shown by David at Psalm 139:13-16: “You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, as my soul is very well aware. My bones were not hidden from you when I was made in secret, when I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they were formed and there was not yet one among them.” Would you not prefer to trust Him with the ultimate authority to decide the genetic blueprints for all living things?\n\nFor more info visit http://watchtower.org
644679
There are several answers to this question. It depends from person to person, and on your religion too. According to some religions, it might be considered unethical to modify children. And if people really were to modify their children, (assuming they all want their children to be perfect) mankind would have nothing but brainiacs in its society.\n\nHowever, there are some advantages to genetic engineering. For example, if you through genetic screening, you would find out that your future child will have a disease or will be infected in any way, you could use genetic engineering to modify the child's characteristics so that it would not have to suffer when it's born. Just some things to think about...
415982
In the strictest sense, genetic engineering refers to intentional manipulation of genetic material.  Therefore, if you are a creationist (meaning you believe we were CREATED BY A GOD), then we absolutely are.  However, if you are an evolutionist (meaning you belive that that life started and changes according to environmental niches and their changes and opportunities) then we are NOT.\n\nThere is, however, and intersting note here.  If you more loosely define genetic engineering as the selecting of traits to pass onto the next generation, then ABSOLUTELY, we are.  We all pick partners based on traits we find to be desirable, and as such wish to have passed on.  These do, however, vary somewhat from culture to culture.
927213
You make a good point. It is not at all obvious that a technical medical training guarantees a solidly thought out ethical stance on any issue. This seems especially true when the scientists and doctors involved have a vested interest in this research going forward (billions in federal grant money, and much more in biomedical patents). \n\nI read recently that there is an ethically less problematic process called ANT that can make stem cells without killing developing human beings. (see link) \n\nThese claims have been raised by other answers:\nCLAIM 1. Sections 5, 6, 6a protect against unethical practices.\nMY RESPONSE: If you were poor and I offered you $50,000 for your liver, would you "voluntarily" give it to me? Section 17 authorizes the following to be paid to a "voluntary donor:" "consideration (money) paid to a donor of human eggs or sperm by a fertilization clinic or sperm bank, as well as any other consideration expressly allowed by federal law." In other words, women will be paid for their eggs by a feltility clinic. These eggs will then be sold to researchers. This is the issue that feminists and many African American leaders have with Amendment 2. See link 2 below. \n\nCLAIM 2: this amendment bans cloning or attempted cloning, so what's the problem? \nMY RESPONSE: the amendment defines "cloning" in Section 6.2 as "to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being." \nThis means that you can clone all that you want, as long as you don't let the clone grow up. It enshrines in the constitution the requirement that these embryos be killed. Also, a group of 300 lawyers has pointed out that this doesn't necessarily mean that you can't implant the embryo for some other purpose than the creation of a human fetus. For an expert analysis of this issue, see link 3. \n\nFor these reasons, I am not comfortable "taking Mr. Danforth's word for it" that Amendment 2 is good for Missouri.
135029
Genetic Engineering can be used in the production of microbial strains that can synthesise insulin - the protein pancreatic hormone, commonly whose deficient production is the reason for Diabetes. Thus commercial availability of this hormone is made possible. Insulin injections have proved to be a life saver for millions of diabetics worldwide. \n\nFor example, a genetically engineered (transgenic) strain of Escherichia coli (the colon bacterium) is used now for insulin mass production.
714120
Genetic engineering can, indeed solve many health and ecological issues such as preventing diseases involved in transcription, etc. and increasing crop yield.  Whether or not it's the hope of the future is unique to each person.
233182
There is not a lot of information out there on GE foods. Some of the testing has been stopped because the results were not what the GE companies wanted. You could start by looking at "Seeds of Deception" by Jeffery M Smith.(copywrite 2003) It does not talk about fruits specifically, but does discuss some potential effects of genetic engineering. There is also an extensive bibliography with some references from 2002.
13121
To propagate one's DNA. Without this act, there would be no life. So that better be the focus of it, if you want to have a life.
14962
Bioethics concerns the ethical questions that arise in the relationships between biology, medicine, cybernetics, politics, law, philosophy, and theology. Disagreement exists about the proper scope for the application of ethical evaluation to questions involving biology. Some bioethicists would narrow ethical evaluation only to the morality of medical treatments or technological innovations, and the timing of medical treatment of humans. Other bioethicists would broaden the scope of ethical evaluation to include the morality of all actions that might help or harm organisms capable of feeling fear and pain.\n\nBioethics involves many public policy questions that are often politicized— used to mobilize political constituencies. For this reason, some biologists and others involved in the development of technology have come to see any mention of "bioethics" as an attempt to derail their work and react to it as such, regardless of the true intent. Transhumanist biologists in particular can be inclined to this line of thought, as they see their work as inherently ethical, and attacks on it as misguided.