Bio-engineering

[errata]

*Originally posted by CurtC *
No, errata, I still don’t think there’s any difference. We could, with traditional methods, eventually come up with a tomato that has a mouse gene. Consider this: start with two genes in the two that are similar (there are gobs of these), and force mutations in the tomato until it’s the same as the mouse gene. Is there a difference that the source was not a mouse?

Could you please explain how you “force mutations” using animal husbandry/ plant grafts? Otherwise, I’m not sure why you’re mentioning this.

They’re just chemicals - all atoms are alike. No difference. It’s a modified tomato either way.

Saying they’re just chemicals doesn’t answer the question of whether or not it’s a tomato. In fact it seems to say the opposite. If the “mouse” genes are just chemicals then the “tomato” genes are just chemicals too. So the tomato is not a tomato to begin with. It’s just a bunch of chemicals.

Your point I think, is not that they are just chemicals, but that the alteration was so small that the tomato essentially remained a tomato. My point is that the alteration doesn’t have to be small.

I’m not so much concerned with whether the gene came directly from the mouse, so much as our capacity to create new organisms absent an ethical framework that’s ready to handle it.

[QUOTE]

*Originally posted by edwino *
When a virus infects an organism, it often takes a chunk of genome with it. This can be passed along to the next infected organism. Granted, there aren’t any viruses (of which I am aware) which infect both plants and animals. But this doesn’t mean that it can’t happen, or that it hasn’t happened. We carry a lot of viral DNA in our genomes and chances are not all of it is strictly viral in origin. In fact, given the fact that viruses as particles don’t replicate, chances are that most viral genes in fact have originated in other organisms.

This also appears to have nothing to do with animal husbandry and plant grafts. It is interesting to note that viruses could play a role in evolution, but this seems to have little to do with the sheer power granted by direct genetic manipulation.

My worry isn’t so much that “this is all so unnatural” so much as we don’t have the ethical groundwork laid for this yet. Therefore it is the power and the scope of genetic engineering which worries me, not whether it could be considered “unnatural”.

In the end, nearly every legal system in every society recognizes what makes us humans. That is the brain and sentience. If you are brain dead to the point that you fail an apnea test, in the US (and most other places, to the best of my knowledge), you are dead. Life support is discontinued because you are dead.

Then perhaps you would have no problem with creating humans (oh wait they won’t be human) with stunted nervous systems for the purposes of organ farming? Or what if we gave them monkey brains. Then they would be just some kind of monkey right?

Nobody will care much if pigs are growing recognizable human livers or human hearts or even human ears or human eyes. Not even human hands. As long as their brains are pig brains, then they are pigs.

Actually I think a lot of people would. And if we did go that far, I find it hard to believe, with all of that genetic similarity, that we really could guarantee that their pig brains were indeed “pig” brains.

If the pigs could no longer produce viable offspring with non-modified pigs (which we may already have done), then we have, I think, a reasonable basis for calling them a new species. If we have created a new species by making them more human (whether or not the genetic material actually issued from a human) then I think it is fair to consider it a cross-breed of some sort. And considering that some of their organs would have now become interchangeable with ours, it’s hard to deny that they are specifically more human.

[errata]

*Originally posted by edwino *
errata, you seem to have a skewed view of how genetic engineering works. Our technology limits us right now: when we talk genetic engineering, we are talking about introducing a handful of genes.
…
In the future, with huge leaps in technology, perhaps we could introduce these thousands of genes – all of the transcription factors and enzymes and DNA replication machinery and translation machinery etc. etc.

I’m not so sure that we have that far to advance. In the first link I provided in this thread, some of the mice had an entire human chromosome. That would make them 1/46th human in some sense wouldn’t it? That was in 1997.

[John_Mace]

Errata:
Mouse DNA is about 90% identical to human DNA. Does that make a mouse 90% human?

[CurtC]

errata wrote:
Could you please explain how you “force mutations” using animal husbandry/ plant grafts? Otherwise, I’m not sure why you’re mentioning this.

Sure. You breed the plant/animal in question. Genes will have random mutations. You select which offspring get to breed in the next cycle, thereby selecting the mutations you want. That’s the way humans have been doing it for 10,000 years or so. More recently (100 years), we’ve been subjecting the seeds/eggs to radiation or mutagenic chemicals to force more severe mutations, to see whether any of these have any benefit. Genetic Engineering is just a more precise version of these. Not different in substance, just in precision.

I’m not so much concerned with whether the gene came directly from the mouse, so much as our capacity to create new organisms absent an ethical framework that’s ready to handle it.

We’ve been creating new organisms for ten thousand years or so. What’s different nowadays that we don’t already have the ethical framework to handle it?

[artemis]

*Originally posted by errata *
**My worry isn’t so much that “this is all so unnatural” so much as we don’t have the ethical groundwork laid for this yet. **

Sure we do - because we’ve already been dealing with these problems for decades. Here’s a short list of problems that come up when just traditional animal husbandry/plant breeding methods are used:

Is it ethical to create animals or plants so altered from their original state that they are absolutely dependent on himan intervention for their survival (such as English bulldogs and pug dogs, whose heads are so large in proportion to their bodies that bitches must undergo Caeserian section to successfully deliver their litters, or corn, which can no longer self-seed)?

Is it ethical to introduce drastic changes in body forms that cause an animal to suffer (such as extremely foreshortened muzzles which hinder breathing, or long backs prone to disk problems) or which shorten its life (gigantism - large dogs such as Great Danes typically live only 8 years or so, about half the normal life expectancy for their species)?

Is it ethical to allow people to risk conceiving an infant which will have severe physical problems or a drastically shortened lifespan? Should people be forced to undergo screening and receive genetic counseling before they are permitted to marry?Should two people known to be carriers for severe genetic defects such as cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sach’s disease be permitted to marry each other? Should they be forced to abort their unborn child if pre-natal testing reveals the fetus is affected with a serious genetic disease?

What questions does genetic engineering raise that are more problematic than the ones I’ve just mentioned, ones we’re already dealing with?

[errata]

*Originally posted by CurtC *
—errata wrote:
Could you please explain how you “force mutations” using animal husbandry/ plant grafts? Otherwise, I’m not sure why you’re mentioning this.

**Sure. You breed the plant/animal in question. Genes will have random mutations. You select which offspring get to breed in the next cycle, thereby selecting the mutations you want. That’s the way humans have been doing it for 10,000 years or so.

It’s seems I’ve missed the part where selective breeding forced mutations. Care to try again?

More recently (100 years), we’ve been subjecting the seeds/eggs to radiation or mutagenic chemicals to force more severe mutations, to see whether any of these have any benefit.

Well, that’s neither here nor there is it? It’s not what I would call animal husbandry or simply selective breeding. It certainly hasn’t been practiced for 10,000 years.

Genetic Engineering is just a more precise version of these. Not different in substance, just in precision.

In the same way that a nuclear weapon is just an improvement on Chinese fireworks. Even given 10,000 years of selective breeding I doubt you could come up with a glow in the dark monkey. This and much more was practically impossible before genetic engineering. I still find the comparison to husbandry ludicrous.

We’ve been creating new organisms for ten thousand years or so. What’s different nowadays that we don’t already have the ethical framework to handle it?

Selective breeding does not create a new organism. The animal/plant creates a new organism with mutations that were generated through internal processes. Humanity could only select from the plants/animals and mutations that were given.

Man-made mutations are new. Direct genetic alteration as opposed to random mutation is an incredible leap which gives far more power than existed before. We could not breed jellyfish and monkeys or humans and pigs to get these mutations and the chance of intraspecies mutations like that are next to nil. The scope of the choices available to us in creating new organisms is vastly different with genetic engineering.

[edwino]

errata
There is just the question of selection criteria. We, by farming and breeding and looking for pretty things, make bizarre creatures without any kinds of genetic engineering. Look at broccoli, kale, kohlrabi, and cauliflower, which are all of the same species. Look at the aforementioned dog breeds. Look at tulips and roses. Look at fruit – have you ever seen what a “natural” apple or “natural” corn looks like? I take it on authority (Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel) that they are unrecognizable compared to what you find on your grocery shelf.

By your criteria, selective breeding does create new species. Granted it is not how nature creates new species. Chihuahuas cannot breed with Great Danes, so by your definitions they are not the same species. Needless to say, this is phylogenetically incorrect. We have never created non-fertile animals by genetic engineering, to the best of my knowledge. These animals would be very hard to deal with technically. With plants, maybe, but I am less familiar with that area.

Even given 10,000 years of selective breeding I doubt you could come up with a glow in the dark monkey. This and much more was practically impossible before genetic engineering.

Again, a matter of selective criteria. If we spent 10,000 years selecting a large population of goldfish or monkeys for fluorescence, I’m betting that indeed you may be able to create a glow-in-the-dark monkey. We have autofluorescing proteins in our bodies right now. A little enhancement of this with overexpression would probably do the trick nicely. We just cut out the 10,000 years by introducing a jellyfish protein into the monkey.

Now in your responses to my previous post:

It is interesting to note that viruses could play a role in evolution, but this seems to have little to do with the sheer power granted by direct genetic manipulation.

Wrong-o. Viruses have everything to do with this. First, because they can transfer genetic information between species in a novel fashion, just like we are doing with genetic engineering. Second, because they are the tool we use to do precisely this kind of modification.

Then perhaps you would have no problem with creating humans (oh wait they won’t be human) with stunted nervous systems for the purposes of organ farming? Or what if we gave them monkey brains. Then they would be just some kind of monkey right?

Yah know, I may be flamed for this, but I don’t think I would. It is just a logical extension of technology. If you could take stem cells and grow yourself an anencephalic body for organs, I think this would solve a lot of problems. It isn’t that far removed from what we are trying to perfect now: take stem cells, force them to differentiate into a skin stem cell or a liver stem cell, then grow them enough in culture so that they can be implanted. Growing a clone, of course genetically optimized, which undergoes organogenesis but never cephalogenesis would in theory generate the perfect organs. Society may find this distasteful now, but that hasn’t stopped technology before. Given the amount of money that could be made if one could grow and harvest organs, given the amount of life that could be saved and extended, there is no good reason not to. If such an opportunity arises, I fully expect it to be implemented.

There is of course a continuum here. Obviously one has to step back from a situation and assess it in total. Issues of “Is It Human Or Not?” are addressed in bioethics departments every day; they have been a source of debate which predates genetic engineering by hundreds of years. Bioethicists are around and are good resources available to every hospital and medical researcher. Should we give organ transplants to the mentally handicapped? What level of intervention should we take for 23 or 24 week premature births (before the limits of viability)? What constitutes death? At what point do we give up hope for recovery? See Terry Schiavo’s case, which is actually pretty bioethically straightforward. Your concerns over genetic engineering are not new problems, and have already been widely considered in different areas.

If you want a debate on this, let’s talk genetic testing, genetic correction of nonlethal disease, justification for pregnancy termination based on diagnosis of nonlethal genetic disease (for instance Gaucher’s Disease, or even cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease). Let’s talk gene patenting, sterilization and genetic homogenization of seed stock. Let’s talk “custom babies” with hair, eye, and skin color to order. Those are legitimate debates. Worrying that we are creating half-human half-mouse monsters that we won’t be able to ethically deal with is not.

[CurtC]

errata wrote:
The animal/plant creates a new organism with mutations that were generated through internal processes. Humanity could only select from the plants/animals and mutations that were given.

I’m trying to get a handle on the distinction you’re drawing here, and this is what I’ve come up with: If a novel gene occurs during the process of something’s normal life cycle, or if we introduce a novel gene by causing mutations randomly (mutation breeding), then that’s just dandy, but if we change genes in an intentional, non-random way, that has ethical issues. Is this your position?

[errata]

*Originally posted by CurtC *
I’m trying to get a handle on the distinction you’re drawing here, and this is what I’ve come up with: If a novel gene occurs during the process of something’s normal life cycle, or if we introduce a novel gene by causing mutations randomly (mutation breeding), then that’s just dandy, but if we change genes in an intentional, non-random way, that has ethical issues. Is this your position?

That’s part of it yes. Any human action has ethical consequences. Acts of nature do not.
I’m not saying that the manipulation is bad in itself, but that it presents a new range of choices that I think are being unduly influenced by the money that is to be made. I don’t think as a society, we are ready yet to make the distinctions in law that we need to.
edwino,
That’s an interesting post, but I will have to address it a little later.

[CurtC]

OK, so it’s human actions vs. acts of nature. Here’s how I would score them on a “human action” scale, from zero to one:

• Plants/animals evolving in the wild, before humans even existed: 0

• Plants/animals evolving in the wild, modern day: 0.05

• Human-induced, but inadvertent, selective breeding (what we did 10000 years ago): 0.3

• Human-directed selective breeding programs (200 years ago): 0.6

• Mutation breeding, forcing lots of mutations with radiation or chemicals and selecting: 0.8

• Modern genetic engineering: 0.95

In other words, there’s not a bright line separating acts of nature from human action. Why do you accept the first five without question but reject the last one?

[errata]

*Originally posted by edwino *
Again, a matter of selective criteria. If we spent 10,000 years selecting a large population of goldfish or monkeys for fluorescence, I’m betting that indeed you may be able to create a glow-in-the-dark monkey.

It would be a fool’s bet if you didn’t live to collect. Even if that was granted, 10,000 years is a loooong time. Much longer than any civilization has survived much less a particular breeding project. Basically, it still represents practical impossibility.

Wrong-o. Viruses have everything to do with this. First, because they can transfer genetic information between species in a novel fashion, just like we are doing with genetic engineering. Second, because they are the tool we use to do precisely this kind of modification.

Maybe this counter-illustration will further my point:

Viruses have been killing humans for thousands of years, therefore no new ethical issues will come up if humans cause the death of humans, and especially so if humans use viruses to do it.

My point with this statement is not to equate genetic engineering with murder but to show that the actions of the virus or any natural process while ethically neutral in it’s original form presents us with entirely different considerations when humans overtake it. Viruses do not have choices presented to them. Any significant human action can have ethical consequences.

We are presented with a new range of choices ones which I am afraid will be more influenced by the money to be made than a full consideration of the consequences.

Society may find this distasteful now, but that hasn’t stopped technology before. Given the amount of money that could be made if one could grow and harvest organs, given the amount of life that could be saved and extended, there is no good reason not to. If such an opportunity arises, I fully expect it to be implemented.

A question: how would we achieve this anencephalic body through selective breeding?
Next question: Just how developed could the head be without giving us a human being? Certainly some amount of brain function would decrease the cost of maintaining the umm… organism.

There is of course a continuum here. Obviously one has to step back from a situation and assess it in total. Issues of “Is It Human Or Not?” are addressed in bioethics departments every day; they have been a source of debate which predates genetic engineering by hundreds of years.

Yet I would argue that we still don’t have a definitive answer. And bioengineering is one of the fields that is pushing our understanding and sense of self to the limit. Given, as you noted, the vast amounts of money to be made, ethical “hand-wringing” is bound to be pushed aside. I also feel that as a democratic society, we are not ready to cope with this and make the appropriate laws.

Bioethicists are not ultimate authorities. That is not a way out of having to address the question which I think we all (or at the very least a majority of us) must understand.

Should we give organ transplants to the mentally handicapped? What level of intervention should we take for 23 or 24 week premature births (before the limits of viability)? What constitutes death? At what point do we give up hope for recovery? See Terry Schiavo’s case, which is actually pretty bioethically straightforward. Your concerns over genetic engineering are not new problems, and have already been widely considered in different areas.

I’m going to have to ask you to back up your assertion that Terry Schiavo’s case is bioethically straightforward. It also bears little resemblance to an anencephalic body owned by a corporation and perhaps even pantented (if that’s what you were alluding to).
The fact that somewhat similar questions have been asked does not mean they were answered or that the same answers still apply. Our growing knowledge is creating an ethical moving target. I will, however, grant that genetic engineering is not alone in this.

If you want a debate on this, let’s talk genetic testing, genetic correction of nonlethal disease, justification for pregnancy termination based on diagnosis of nonlethal genetic disease (for instance Gaucher’s Disease, or even cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease). Let’s talk gene patenting, sterilization and genetic homogenization of seed stock. Let’s talk “custom babies” with hair, eye, and skin color to order. Those are legitimate debates.

I agree, great examples. I am not opposed to debating them.

Worrying that we are creating half-human half-mouse monsters that we won’t be able to ethically deal with is not.

You used the term “monsters”, not me. I don’t think that really sums up my worries either.

[edwino]

I have to work, but since I said Terry Schiavo’s case is straightforward, let me briefly expand on that:
All 50 states in the US recognize that if someone is incapacitated, decisions on healthcare go first to the spouse, then to the parents and children, then to further family, and finally to the doctors. Barring any grounded concerns (i.e. abuse, mental instability, etc.) this is always followed. It was followed in Florida until it was challenged by Terry Schiavo’s parents. The parents do not have any legal (or bioethical) right to overrule the husband. There are no grounded concerns. Lawmakers have no right or obligation to step in. The spouse gets the decisions, he had waited 10 years or whatever, the feeding tube should have been discontinued. Bioethically straightforward.

[Sergio]

*Originally posted by errata *
** Selective breeding does not create a new organism. The animal/plant creates a new organism with mutations that were generated through internal processes. Humanity could only select from the plants/animals and mutations that were given.

Man-made mutations are new. Direct genetic alteration as opposed to random mutation is an incredible leap which gives far more power than existed before. We could not breed jellyfish and monkeys or humans and pigs to get these mutations and the chance of intraspecies mutations like that are next to nil. The scope of the choices available to us in creating new organisms is vastly different with genetic engineering. **

I don’t know if you would call it selective breeding, but new species were obtained in laboratory without recourse to genetical engineering. Only natural mutations and isolation are needed. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[Epimetheus]

Oo, I wonder if I can get a genetical graft from some plant DNA, not sure I would pick tomato, but each their own. Just imagine! Easier to replace lost limbs, nutritional needs would be lessened what with the ability to gain some energy from the sun, and I am sure there would be other issues involved. Where do I sign up?

Question though, If a person WANTS such experimentation done to them, how is it unethical? Wouldn’t it be unethical to keep processes from other people that think or know that it would be benificial?