Genetic Engineering--would you?

[MagicManICT]

So after reading a bit of recent information, looks like recent discoveries have gotten the needed knowledge for doing genetic engineering down to a "graduate" level of knowledge, ie an enterprising teenager could learn it in their spare time. For only a few thousand dollars in equipment and supplies, anyone with the knowledge can start doing experiments. Effectively, this is getting to where computer programming was when PCs were first introduced in the 1970s.

My question to everyone is--what would you do with this if you were willing to learn it?

I'm not entirely sure what I'd do. There was a prize posted by PETA for a way to create vat grown animal proteins. I forget what the reward was ($1M* US if I recall), but that could be interesting. I think some interesting combinations of fruits and vegetables and flavors could be interesting to play with. (I'm trying to be innocuous here to avoid the really dangerous stuff like human embryo manipulation, but feel free to throw that out there if you'd want to try.)

A bit of "light" background reading on it and the battle over the tech can be found in the recent issue of Wired (http://www.wired.com). More technical information can be found on Wikipedia to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR. There's a ton of published work in Science and other peer-reviewed journals on it... nearing 1000 papers if I read the Wired article correctly.

edit: ok, read some old information, and it was only $1M, and I had posted $10. Oops. Although nobody won the prize, there are a few labs in with prototypes that are edible. I really don't care about the ethical crap, but all those animals do add to the burden of life on the planet, and if we can eat our meats without all that extra methane, I support it. (If only we could harvest all that methane.)

[GenghisKhan44]

Somehow the idea of eating meat made in a vat doesn't sound too appealing. Then again, the process by which we get proper animal meat... that isn't too appealing once one grasps it, is it?

I don't honestly care. We've been eating artificial foods for decades. Candy. Soda pop. Margarine. GMO crops. One could even argue hard liquor is artificial and "unnatural", whatever that means.

As long as no one minds invoking this trope. And as long as we're still able to farm real crops. (Particularly wheat and wine grapes, for the Mass.)

And could we please make it taste good, if we're going to be playing (God) with our food?

[LadyV]

I dont think we should mess with things on any serious level. We are not omnipotent beings and certainly can not see the grand scope of the impact our changes can make. To brashly forge ahead without controls or regard for every change we are making is just foolish and possibly dire. So I guess my short answer is don't play god, for you are not and have no basis to judge what you set in motion.

[mvgulik]

So after reading a bit of recent information

Don't mind seeing some more links related to that part. (cq: what sources you read. In OP post preferably.)

+For those having problems finding topic related articles on wired. try http://www.wired.com/?s=genetics

--- --- ---

"PETA is offering a $1 million reward to the first scientist to produce and bring to market in vitro chicken meat."

I'm not surprised the price was not collected. The "bring to market" part is kinda making sure of that. Research like that takes years(near decade, or longer.), and the one (person/company) that hold the relative patents stands to profit billions. One million is just chump change in relation to this. Ergo: I think this was more a PETA PR/wish_list thing, than anything else.

--- --- ---

*Continues reading*

[Amanda44]

Excellent subject for discussion ......

Personally I am against genetic engineering, the quick and simple response being that just because we failed to manage the already perfect system in place does not give us the right to try and reproduce our own. In my experience if something instinctively feels wrong then it is and will only prove to be a mistake further down the line.

In the words of mvgulik .... *Continues reading*

[mvgulik]

A bit off topic, but dear to my hearth.

and certainly can not see the grand scope of the impact our changes can make

I don't think that's actually true. If you dig around, and deep, in relation to particular grant problems, most of the time you will see that there where definitely some accurate sounds in advance warning of the potential problems. The real problem is that those that stand to profit from a particular process/product/activity (any which way), will brush any and all warnings aside with elaborate "divide and conquer" PR tactics to sway public and/or political opinions.

Or: Most problems did not become real problems because we did not see them coming, but because they where ignored until they really became a problem.

++ After some time by brain started to nag me about a possible other target of the quote. Possible side effects of the release of changed organisms into nature. And, yes, those are highly unpredictable, as can be seen by the problems that crop up in foreign animal introduction cases. (Dynamic systems are by there nature highly unpredictable.)


(See the, off topic, "Scientific consensus and arguments from authority"(17min) video from potholer54 as a nice road-map to detects a particular sides BS level.)

*backtracks to original topic, to do some more reading*

[GenghisKhan44]

I dont think we should mess with things on any serious level. We are not omnipotent beings and certainly can not see the grand scope of the impact our changes can make. To brashly forge ahead without controls or regard for every change we are making is just foolish and possibly dire. So I guess my short answer is don't play god, for you are not and have no basis to judge what you set in motion.

Ah... now if only people would take this attitude to things more proximate to the human condition.

and certainly can not see the grand scope of the impact our changes can make

I don't think that's actually true. If you dig around, and deep, in relation to particular grant problems, most of the time you will see that there where definitely some accurate sounds in advance warning of the potential problems. The real problem is that those that stand to profit from a particular process/product/activity (any which way), will brush any and all warnings aside with elaborate "divide and conquer" PR tactics to sway public and/or political opinions.

Or: Most problems did not become real problems because we did not see them coming, but because they where ignored until they really became a problem.

(See the, off topic, "Scientific consensus and arguments from authority"(17min) video from potholer54 as a nice road-map to detects a particular sides BS level.)

Again, it's amazing how people will apply this to GMO foods and petri meat, but not to more vital things...

[Cajoes]

Isn't Quorn™ already grown in vats?

[mvgulik]

Some "Just in case" additional reading material.
Wikipedia::Common_misunderstandings_of_genetics

And some examples, to boost the imagination on the topics main question:
yourdictionary::examples-of-genetic-engineering
(Not found any other pages, with different cases, yet.)

[Massa]

"graduate" level of knowledge, ie an enterprising teenager could learn it in their spare time. For only a few thousand dollars in equipment and supplies, anyone with the knowledge can start doing experiments.

This is NOT what this means, unless that "teenager" is truly exceptional. Graduate level scientists and research costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to finance and grant, and gaining that level of understanding and mastery takes almost a decade of higher education.

Furthermore, in the time I spent with an Eli Lilly biochemist, this has been around for a while. Mostly to create proteins with delicate tools. Manipulating DNA allows the protein maps to be made, and then the proteins themselves are formed in mouse ovaries which are then taken and used in testing. It's gross, but it works. This is genetic engineering, to make proteins.

This stuff is NOT easy. I've seen the labs they work in, and their equipment as well as supplies are expensive and impressive.

Basic genetic modifications can be made to bacteria, like e. coli pretty easily, but those are not precise at all, and usually produce silly effects, a few being adding a bioluminescence to a part of the DNA or making it smell like lavender. The work and research to make this small novelty was nothing short of massive. Some of you probably have done this, I have. It smelled terrible.

To conclude, anyone who has taken high school biology and understood the material should know that this kind of thing is not as easy as 123. Back your information up with more than a vague link to Wired or Wikipedia. Real, published professors and doctorate level research, because that's the only place this kind of understanding is.

EDIT: Another edit, because this is still itching my teeth. Modifying genes will usually, if not always just kill an organism. It would produce harmful cancers and release toxic, dangerous and malformed proteins. To modify a lifeform itself would first require understanding of genetic systems far beyond what we currently know. And we know very little.