overall is genetic engineering a good thing?
341599
Like most advances in technology, it is a double-edged sword, meaning it can be both good and bad. \n\nOn the good side, genetic engineering promises to enhance the quality of life and to extend it to greater lengths.  Cures to most diseases may be solved through genetic engineering.\n\nOn the bad side, it allows for incredibly destuctive tools to be levied against others.  More lethal viruses could be produced, custom tailored to affect only specific people or specific parts of the body.  \n\nThis is just a mere glimpse into the possibility of what genetic engineering has to offer.
591467
There are pros and cons unique to RNAi.  As for the pros, RNAi is cheaper than creating a transgenic model and is generally easier too.  It allows you to see the direct effect of the targeted gene product in a relatively short amount of time.  By direct, I mean that you can target the RNAi suppression to a specific region by using tissue specific promoters.  Oh, and with RNAi, it's much easier to control the level of inhibition, allowing you to observe a range of phenotypes (full knockdown, partial knockdown, etc).  As for the cons, not all genes are going to be susceptible to RNAi.  And occasionally, a mutant gene will completely escape the effects of RNAi, creating a potential 'head-ache' for the researcher.  Lastly, you never really achieve 100% suppression of gene expression with RNAi (this requires a transgenic model).\n\nThe choice between RNAi and a transgenic model really depends on the gene(s) of interest, the animal model, and the level of suppression that you need.
762023
What you're referring to is eugenics, and no, I don't think it's the solution. Just because some genes may be detrimental now, it is impossible to know if they will become valuable as evolution continues - "bad genes" may become "good genes" in some cases. Look up China's Eugenics law to get a better sense of what eugenics is.
541442
Applications of Genetic ENGINEERING\n\nThe first Genetically Engineered drug was human insulin approved by the USA's FDA in 1982 [1]. Another early application of GE was to create human growth hormone as replacement for a drug that was previously extracted from human cadavers. In 1986 the FDA approved the first genetically engineered vaccine for humans, for hepatitis B[2]. Since these early uses of the technology in medicine the use of the GE has expanded to supply many drugs and vaccines.\n\nOne of the best known applications of genetic engineering is that of the creation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).\n\nThere are potentially momentous biotechnological applications of GM, for example oral vaccines produced naturally in fruit, at very low cost.\n\nA radical ambition of some groups is human enhancement via genetics, eventually by molecular engineering. See also: transhumanism.\n\nDNA sequencing is a technique which is used to identify each base in DNA. Although the costs of DNA sequencing has dropped dramatically, the NIH estimates it costs at least $10 million to sequence 3 billion base pairs [3] - the size of the whole human genome.\n\n[edit]\nGenetic Engineering and Research\nAlthough there has been a tremendous revolution in the biological sciences in the past twenty years, there is still a great deal that remains to be discovered. The completion of the sequencing of the human genome, as well as the genomes of most agriculturally and scientifically important plants and animals, has increased the possibilities of genetic research immeasurably. Expedient and inexpensive access to comprehensive genetic data has become a reality, with billions of sequenced nucleotides already online and annotated. Now that the rapid sequencing of arbitrarily large genomes has become a simple, if not trivial affair, a much greater challenge will be elucidating function of the extraordinarily complex web of interacting proteins, dubbed the proteome, that constitutes and powers all living things. Genetic engineering has become the gold standard in protein research, and major research progress has been made using a wide variety of techniques, including:\n\nLoss of function, such as in a knockout experiment, in which an organism is engineered to lack the activity of one or more genes. This allows the experimenter to analyze the defects caused by this mutation, and can be considerably useful in unearthing the function of a gene. It is used especially frequently in developmental biology. A knockout experiment involves the creation and manipulation of a DNA construct in vitro, which, in a simple knockout, consists of a copy of the desired gene which has been slightly altered such as to cripple its function. The construct is then taken up by embryonic stem cells, where the engineered copy of the gene replaces the organism's own gene. These stem cells are injected into blastocysts, which are implanted into surrogate mothers. Another method, useful in organisms such as Drosophila (fruit fly), is to induce mutations in a large population and then screen the progeny for the desired mutation. A similar process can be used in both plants and prokaryotes. \nGain of function experiments, the logical counterpart of knockouts. These are sometimes performed in conjunction with knockout experiments to more finely establish the function of the desired gene. The process is much the same as that in knockout engineering, except that the construct is designed to increase the function of the gene, usually by providing extra copies of the gene or attracting more frequent transcription. \n'Tracking' experiments, which seek to gain information about the localization and interaction of the desired protein. One way to do this is to replace the wild-type gene with a 'fusion' gene, which is a juxtaposition of the wild-type gene with a reporting element such as Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) that will allow easy visualization of the products
109161
yes there s s lot of scope towards biotechnology... so dont worry... its worth workin hard 4 it.. so log off and get back to ur books...
933483
microbiology is the emerging field of interest.\nIt can and plays a very important role in the pharma as we can force them to produce certain materials of our interest beyond their natural tedencies. \nnow a days genetic engineering and microbiology can both be used together for further increasing the scope.
302707
Genetic mutations are always a risk when manipulating genes.\nGross malformations can occur, thus making it necessary to imprison/destroy the life created.
360479
They are great for some developing countries such as those in Africa, but they have SERIOUS problems as well. Some genetically modified crops are created so they cannot reproduce (the seeds are not viable) This means the poor countries using the seed need to buy it from the company every year instead of being able to save their seed and plant the next season's crop with it like farmers have been doing for many thousands of years.\n\nI would say the group most affected by these crops is the companies like Monsanto which create them and get rich off it. \n\nThere are some cases where plants like rice have been modified to cure diseases by carrying certain vitamens like vitamen A. When people eat the rice, they get the nutrients they need and in this example blindness is prevented in some Asian countries.
694653
There are ethics and then there are morals.  Morality is what has to do with your motive: breaking some law in order to do a greater good (say to save someone) would be moral, but unethical.  Ethics are more like a code of conduct set by society, and aren't based on 'right' and 'wrong' but rather just conventions of behavior society expects you to follow so that it can operate smoothly.\n\nGenetically engineering a mutant human race wouldn't neccessarily be unethical.  However, in my opinion it'd be immoral; any motivation to make a new species is not likely a noble one.  At best, they'd be pons for research and bizarre experiments.  Furthermore, to even consider such a task with the limited understanding of genetics that we have would be wrong (morally) b/c its certain to result in abominations and travesties.  Even clones, which aren't new species, are not the same as 'normal' organisms.  They have a shorter lifespan, and some notable defects.  There's just something about it that seems wrong to me.  We should have some limitations on what we do, at least until we understand things better.
462921
Sure it WOULD work if there were means to deliver it to each cell, ensure 100% restriction efficiency & specificity, and ligate the DNA nick afterwards. So far it is sci-fi; prenatal diagnostics is the way to go for now.
1089442
Well..Scientific experiment or no, there is a new thing out that when it becomes more popular amoung the general public, I'm SURE it will create quite some controversy..The thing I am talking about are called, GenPets. They are genetically created pets, and I think they are cloned using a splice between a human child and a mole..That's what they look like, and believe it or not, next year, they will be coming available for purchase..Go check out the website for them, i'll leave it on the source thing..It's amazing actually..Living and funtioning clones, and for a pet at that..Biogenetic engineering is such a controversial thing, but I believe if scientists could actually hoan the full potential of it and not just goof around with it, it would be VERY useful!!\nHttp://www.GenPets.com
580832
Firstly, genetically modifying a human is *very* difficult. Scientists had just finished mapping the human genome, and there're are a lot of genes that they don't understand. Without fully understanding how each gene works, it is difficult and dangerous to alter it this drastically. Even if we can successfully incorporate the animal genes into human genes, we don't know if there is going to be any bad side effects.\nSecondly, the human and animal genomes are quite different. Scientists may know which genes can make birds fly, but they won't know where to insert these genes into the human genome.\nThirdly, genetics is still an extremely touchy subject. Many people can't even accept test-tube babies. Genetically modifying the human body? Those scientists would be condemned by millions of people, won't get government fundings, get hate mails etc. Now who would want to risk something like that?
585949
No.\n\nThere are several reasons. First, most "animal characteristics" are not the result of a single gene. Instead, they require many genes products working together with each other and the rest of the body. This is a level of complexity we simply don't understand yet.\n\nAnother major issue is getting the DNA into a person. People are beginning to experiment with modified viruses (ie, cannot replicate) for this purpose, but so far nothing has worked very well. Probably the biggest obstacle to gene therapy is a workable way to get new DNA into a person's cells.\n\nIn simpler organisms the DNA modifications have been done directly with fertilized eggs. That's a simple thing to do with plants and fruitflies, but a very difficult thing (not to mention the ethics involved) to do with people.\n\nWhile we are very able to insert particular genes into some cells, don't look for animal characteristics in the foreseeable future.
22321
This is an issue that I spend a lot of time thinking about. Being sort of closet theoretical evolutionist, I wonder just how poorly equipped our species is becoming with each medical/genetic advance we discover and then apply.\n\nYour question implies the direct application of genetic engineering and manipulation to the human race -- which is an area where there is a lot more potential for than has actually been applied, thus far. I propose that our plight has been cultivated by the application of much more mundane medicine -- to be honest, mundane might not be the best choice of words here because many of these advances are truly grandiose. However, for every modern advance that has come down the way, we surely have done nothing but weaken the genetics of our species.\n\nThink about every time an antibiotic is administered? Yes, we are helping that person overcome an infection that he/she was otherwise ill equipped to rid themselves of via their own immune system. But look where that’s got us. After only a few generations of using – and grossly misusing – antibiotics, these same organisms we were able to fight off have developed resistance to. Now, not only are these bacteria back weeding out the less genetically fit folks among us, there are literally orders of magnitude more of such people susceptible to infection because they have been able to propagate these deficiencies through procreation. In this instance, saving thousands of people of lives over the years may ultimately cost millions of other theirs. You have to ask yourself: Which situation is better.\n\nWhat you have to truly realize is that is it more correct to think and apply our medical abilities on the individual. We are able to heal many diseases and disorders that, even as recent as 50 years ago, would have never even been detected, let alone treatable. But there are a litany more that, even though they aren't curable, they are able to be treated and controlled to the point that become nothing more than chronic inconveniences -- whereas in prior times, these diseases and disorders would have been lethal. Every time we have been able to sustain a person's life beyond that which the technologies of prior years could have, we are allowing those people the opportunity to procreate. Because we don't treat these disorders and genetic susceptibilities to diseases at the genetic level, the offspring of these individuals still carry these "deficiencies.” And thus pass them along for future generations. This is great for the coffers of the medical establishment – acting as ready-made population in need of their services, but it is definitely polluting our gene pool with lesser-fit alleles that would have been eliminated by the process of natural selection. If medicine wanted to truly live up to its credo of: To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them; and to never deliberately do harm to anyone for anyone else's interest, maybe the medical field should take in consideration what they are doing to the species – something that Hippocrates could not have even contemplated let alone include in his oath.\n\nWhere we humans miss the boat at is thinking that we are always one step ahead of nature. What we are realizing is that’s probably a huge miscalculation. We need to take a step back and reconsider our objectives. Is medicine’s and science’s ultimate goal to help individuals within the species or to help the species?
577042
in more ways than one, yes... genetics, which is the science of genes, heredity and variation, is our future... genetically modified organisms; cloning; gene therapy; stem cell therapy; genetic counselling; forensic science; medicines, vaccines, antibiotics; biological weapons; assisted reproductive techniques; and human sex selection are but some of the promising yet controversial uses and applications of genetics through biotechnology and engineering.\n\nprehistorically, humans applied knowledge of genetics with the domestication and breeding of plants and animals. and with the passing of time, the gaining of knowledge now took genetics to a whole new level. \n\nfurther studies and modern researches even gave rise to different fields thus, paving the way for biotechnology and genetic engineering. classical genetics consists of the techniques and methodologies of genetics, and these patterns of inheritance still remain a useful tool for the study of genetic diseases. behavioral genetics studies the effects of human disorders as well as its causes. in clinical genetics, physicians are trained as geneticists to diagnose, treat, and counsel patients with genetic disorders or syndromes. molecular genetics focuses on the structure and function of genes at a molecular level.
1148799
In this time of environmental crisis, genetic engineering and other new technologies should be examined for possible flaws that indicate they might be environmentally hazardous or disruptive. On an ecological balance sheet, genetic engineering should be credited with both assets and liabilities. Consider these hits and misses in biotechnology's history:\n\n* Toxic-waste cleanup -- a hit (potentially): Genetic engineering is now addressing the problem of toxic waste site cleanups by, for instance, modifying the genes of chemical-eating bacteria in order to improve their ability to detoxify waste. With many GM bacteria at work, a toxic site might be cleaned up less expensively than by using conventional treatments. Of course, field tests must be monitored carefully to detect unforeseen problems. The GM bacteria may be shown to be excellent performers, but it is also possible that natural bacteria may have the edge over their modified brethren.\n\n* Nitrogen fixing -- a miss: Finding a way to use nitrogen-fixing bacteria more extensively has been a dream shared by many biologists. The bacteria colonize near the roots of alfalfa and other legume plants, and they provide their hosts with nitrogen obtained from the air. Corn, wheat, and other crops that do not have a symbiotic relationship with bacteria require applications of nitrogen fertilizer. Using genetic engineering, scientists tried to develop nitrogen-fixing bacteria that would live contentedly with non-legume host plants. Some experimental trials in the laboratory were somewhat promising, but field trials failed. The research was discontinued.\n\n* Safer pest control -- hits and misses: Insecticides used to protect field crops are expensive and environmentally hazardous. Geneticists have succeeded in helping plants produce their own insect-killing toxin. From the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, they obtained a toxic gene, which they cloned and then transferred to plants. Cotton and corn genetically engineered with the Bt toxin genes are able to produce their own insecticide.
32676
no. this is not genetic engineering. you must consider that an organism's characteristics, including the sex are governed by the genoytpe and the phenotype.the genotype is the characteristic that is embeddded in the gene. the phenotype on the other hand is the characteristic that is manifested or seen. in order to do genetic engineering, you have to manipulate the genes in order to change a certain genotype. in the case of sexual transplant only the appearance of the external organs are changed. the genotype of the individual is still the same although phenotypically it can look a lot like the opposite sex.