Is a genetically modified experiment like Yao Ming a good or bad advertisement for the technology?
366608
I dont believe that Ming is genetically modified. I just thought that his parents were more or less chosen to reproduce with one another in order to produce the very tall offspring that is Yao Ming. I'm pretty sure they didnt modify his body genetically. (mixing your information up could be the reason nobody had answered your question yet.)
11882
i think this one is good\n\nhttp://www.ncrr.nih.gov/biomedical_tech.asp
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.
190068
According to Bill Joy co founder of Sun Microsystems Nanotechnology will rise up and out of our control...I disagree since the technology is still on the drawing board and he's jumping to conclusions without factoring in human interaction and societal factors...so I see a complex future with governmental regualtions and social protests like such with the genetic engineering of produce.
1139159
Genetic engineering, genetic modification (GM) and gene splicing are terms for the process of manipulating genes, usually outside the organism's normal reproductive process.\n\nIt involves the isolation, manipulation and reintroduction of DNA into cells or model organisms, usually to express a protein. The aim is to introduce new characteristics or attributes physiologically or physically, such as making a crop resistant to a herbicide, introducing a novel trait, or producing a new protein or enzyme. Examples can include the production of human insulin through the use of modified bacteria, the production of erythropoietin in Chinese Hamster Ovary cells, and the production of new types of experimental mice such as the OncoMouse (cancer mouse) for research, through genetic redesign.\n\nSince a protein is specified by a segment of DNA called a gene, future versions of that protein can be modified by changing the gene's underlying DNA. One way to do this is to isolate the piece of DNA containing the gene, precisely cut the gene out, and then reintroduce (splice) the gene into a different DNA segment. Daniel Nathans and Hamilton Smith received the 1978 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for their isolation of restriction endonucleases, which are able to cut DNA at specific sites. Together with ligase, which can join fragments of DNA together, restriction enzymes formed the initial basis of recombinant DNA technology.\n\nGenetic Engineering and Research\n\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 interact
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.
564093
I recommend you begin your studies by seeing the IMAX presentation "Wired to Win."  It's a brief look at the competitors in the 2005 Tour de France and relates their incredible performances to our own earliest learning.  The big message is that so long as we're willing to continue to challenge ourselves, there is no end to our potential no matter what our ages.  However, the really sensational news comes from Philadelphia, PA, USA.\n\nIn my not so humble opinion, the greatest expert on learning, and he'll get a Nobel Prize for it some day, is Philadelphia's Glen Doman founder of the (7) Institutes for the achievement of human potential.  He started out dealing with brain injured babies and children and also with mongoloids.  \n\nDoman created a series of 'patterning' drills that parents could perform moving the children's legs and arms in rhythmic fashions;  and was the instigator of a lot of exercises such as creeping, crawling, the prime, etc. which are now used in visual therapy and to help slow readers, etc.  \n\nPerhaps his greatest breakthrough was the discovery that the 'stupidity' traditionally associated with mongoloidism is not a primary symptom but rather just a bi-product of the mongoloid's typically poor respiratory system.  Once he began teaching parents to pattern; then to use behavior modification techniques to encourage huge amounts of crawling and creeping -- the mongoloid children gained intelligence rapidly.  \n\nThen he ran into a huge stumbling block . . . walking typically came far, far later in life and he knew it was vital to these children's brain development as well as their continued physical improvement but he couldn't seem to make things better until he began using swimming lessons and brachiation (monkey bar swinging like apes in trees).  Soon the mongoloids were walking, running etc.  The strange thing was that the cardio-vascular debilities never fully go away and since the brain is the body's biggest user of oxygen, IQ's never fully fall into the normal range.  Nevertheless, some Doman mongoloids with modest 105-110 IQs have become Valedictorians and Salutatorians because they've learned all their lives the value of hard work, patience and persistence.\n\nHis next big leap was to ask if people with half their brains in a vat; or those born mongoloid can do so well, then what's wrong with 'normal' children.  Several of his institutes are concerned with early childhood education and physical development.  He calls his programs for achieving excellence at an early age:  "the gentle revolution."
87621
I think all forms of cloning should be banned.  What good can possibly come of it?\n\nThe ones that they have cloned have died at early ages or turned out to be a veg, instead of a sheep
567253
Do you remember the comment by Jimmy the Greek about breeding?  It was a true statement and ABC fired him for it. As far as genetically engineered we are probably some way out, we will get engineered laborers first because there would be more money in them but athletes won't be far behind.
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...
908536
First off I am pro-genetic research.  I think it is the key to understanding the way the human body works so we can combat diseases and perhaps cure AIDS and cancer if we understand how they affect the body at a genetic level.  Anyone who doesn't see the potential benefit of this and the REAL practical aspects to advancing  our knowledge as a whole for the betterment of our standard of living is blind.  If we want a future with cheaper and more effective medicine and more efficient ways to treat diseases including some now considered terminal or incurable then it's better to research than not to research.\n\nSecondly, genetic "coding" goes on whether we want it to or not.  In fact, all living things are a product of genetic coding so if you are against it, then you are against reproduction. ;)\n\nAs for checking to see if there is a "crime gene"...  First we need to find out if one exists before worrying about the possible "Minority Report" scenario coming true.  I don't know if there is one but I also believe people have control over their own actions and shouldn't be held accountable for something they have not yet committed IF such a scenario existed...  However, as it sits now, this would be a poor argument against genetic research given the real world potential applications that can be used today vs. the far-fetched notion of preemptive crime prevention based on one's genetic makeup.  Who knows?  Maybe they can find a cure to crime in the form of a pill instead of a cell.  Why not?  The chances of that happening would be just as plausible and good for humanity.
143186
Genetic engineering, genetic modification (GM), and the now-deprecated gene splicing are terms for the process of manipulating genes, usually outside the organism's normal reproductive process.\n\nIt often involves the isolation, manipulation and reintroduction of DNA into cells or model organisms, usually to express a protein. The aim is to introduce new characteristics such as making a crop resistant to a herbicide, introducing a novel trait, or producing a new protein or enzyme. Examples include the production of human insulin through the use of modified bacteria, the production of erythropoietin in Chinese Hamster Ovary cells, and the production of new types of experimental mice such as the OncoMouse (cancer mouse) for research, through genetic redesign.\n\nSince a protein is specified by a segment of DNA called a gene, future versions of that protein can be modified by changing the gene's underlying DNA. One way to do this is to isolate the piece of DNA containing the gene, precisely cut the gene out, and then reintroduce (splice) the gene into a different DNA segment. Daniel Nathans and Hamilton Smith received the 1978 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for their isolation of restriction endonucleases, which are able to cut DNA at specific sites. Together with ligase, which can join fragments of DNA together, restriction enzymes formed the initial basis of recombinant DNA technology.
265261
I think that to be honest GM foods are far better than standard pesticide ridden foods.  Many pesticides are highly toxic and carcinogens. \nAlso if one considers all genetic modification unnatural then what about the selective breeding of livestock which has gone on for centuries - this is effectivly re-shaping the genome of whole species.  \nIf people would be prepared to spend a small amount more money to obtain high quality locally produced organic food rather than supermarket produce from the other side of the globe grown in economically crippled countries by people who do not get paid well enough to adequatly provide for their families then GM food would not be an issue.
600832
I met one.  He was a salesmen who sold those chips.  He had one put in his arm so he could demonstrate their use.\n\nThere really isn't any reason to experiment on people for this.  The chips are the size of a large grain of rice, which is much smaller than many implanted medical devices.  They have a biologically inert covering.  Medically, they are about as harmless as anything that can be implanted.  The privacy issues are a different matter.
711961
Hi Genetic engineering is done with a purpose, for making human insulin by the use of bacteria for instance. Genetic modification can be caused by an errant cosmic ray.
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!
343014
People have been manipulating the genetic makeup of all kinds of species for a long time.  Until recently, they have had to make do with regular sexual reproduction to breed into a species the qualities they value.  Lately, they can alter the genes in a lab.\n\nThis has good consequences, and could have bad ones.  But it is not different from what they have always done.\n\nWhy does no one complain people are playing god when they change the course of rivers to suit themselves, drain swamps to get rid of disease carrying bugs or to build condos on, and so on.\n\nRecently, science has genetically engineered a strain of rice that makes Vitamin A for use in South Asia, particularly India, because there is so little of the vitamin in people's diet that children are being born blind.\nI don't think any god would mind, really, do you?