HOW HUMANS BENEFIT FROM GENETIC-ENGINEERING

           I was fascinated by the topic of biological engineering. To see how man has learnt to manipulate organisms by splicing, joining, adding and tweaking existing organisms to produce functioning, feasible and new varieties of organisms just amazed me. Whole new-age products have been designed by these innovative engineers to aid humanity and improve life on earth. This manipulation of organisms by revolutionary techniques and experimental genetic engineering will help the world population and environment. It is too new to be understood fully by regular folk, so we discover little bits as they are introduced to society. We marvel at the processes and our eyes are opened a little at a time as we learn what’s happening around us.

            One of my research sources led me to an article detailing a breakthrough advance in biological engineering on land. An article from the Biotechnology Foundation Laboratories at Thomas Jefferson University shares research data from Tobacco plants that have been genetically altered to be a new, untapped source of biofuel. Because Tobacco plants typically produce oil mainly in their seeds, biotech engineers genetically engineered plants so they would change their growth pattern and produce more oil in their leaves. “In some instances, the modified plants produced 20-fold more oil in their leaves” (Andrianov). These “plants were engineered to overexpress one of two genes: the diacyglycerol acytransferase (DGAT) gene or the LEAFY COTYLEDON 2 (LEC2) gene” (Andrianov).

           







         

      
         Another research article showed me new technologies related to the sea and water. Oil production, use and transportation has led to some disastrous environmental oil spills that have affected not only the environment, but wildlife too. “Scientists in Europe have sequenced the genome for an oil-eating bacterium, a move that could pave the way for faster and more efficient ways to clean up oil spills” (Graham-Rowe). Because we have created situations where accidents happen, like oil spills, we have to be responsible and counter any future effects this could have on our environment and wildlife that are adversely affected by this.

            Further research showed up an interesting atmospheric invention that relates to the air way above earth’s surface. The U.S. Naval Research Laboratory engineers working at the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) have “successfully produced a sustained high density plasma cloud in Earth’s upper atmosphere” (Parry). They have manufactured “artificial plasma clouds...(which together with) electrostatic waves…responsible for accelerating electrons to high enough energy to produce the glow discharge in the neutral atmosphere” (Parry). While I am not savvy enough to understand the significance of this artificial cloud, the fact that it can be done so far away from earth and still be under scientists control is huge. Perhaps this technology could lead to correcting the earth’s current damage to its ozone layer; or manufacture rain in drought stricken regions.

            Finally, my research pointed me towards current work on research with animals that can benefit humans with diabetes. “Type 1 diabetes affects approximately 1.5 million people in the United States” (Grey). Insulin production by their bodies is defective, so they need insulin shots daily to survive, or the outcome can be fatal. The trouble is that pancreatic islets need to be harvested from cadavers and transferred after purification, into the patient. Understandably there are not enough cadavers to aid this vast need, so other sources are required to mass produce these islets. This is where Xenotransplantation comes into effect. Pigs have proved to be the most compatible non-human transplant option for use in human diabetic treatment. Grey concludes there are two main reasons why pigs are such a viable commodity. “Physiological reasons…blood levels of glucose in pigs and humans are similar…(and) Practical reasons…the commercial rearing and breeding of pigs for food is currently practiced…this knowledge could be used to develop…large-scale preparation of pig islets” (Grey).

            All of my research be it from land, sea, air or animal, had far-reaching effects that could only be of benefit to our society, environment and well-being. Finding innovative biotechnical engineering ways to produce something out of parts of other organisms to fix, cure, adapt and aid us as a whole is all due to genetic enhancement on an unprecedented scale. Any positive research that results in sustainable biofuels that can be grown easily, or bacteria-cleaning oil spills, new techniques for cloud production and animal-human disease control are worthy of recognition.

Work cited

Andrianov, Dr.”Engineered Tobacco Plants Have More Potential as a Biofuel”. Science Daily.  Web. 21 March 2013. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230174128.htm#

Graham-Rowe, Duncan. “Better Bug for Oil Spills”. MIT Technology Review.mht. German Research Center for Biotechnology. Web. 21 March 2013.

Grey, Shane T. “Genetic Engineering & Xenotransplantation”. Action Bioscience. Web. 21 March 2013. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/grey.html

Parry, Daniel. “NRL Scientists Produce Densest Artificial Ionospheric Plasma Clouds Using HAARP”. U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. Web. 21 March 2013. http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2013/nrl-scientists-produce-densest-artificial-ionospheric-plasma-clouds-using-haarp

Part 2. Thinking about the course.

1.    What one assignment or activity you performed in this unit are you the most proud of?

The assignment that I feel the most proud of doing was the “Genetics Problem Calculation Lab”.  It was a fun lab to take, and the fact that my college bound daughter helped me by being the other “parent” made it a fun assignment.

2.    What do you now understand best about the information in this unit?

I now understand the link between cloning, genetics and inheritance.

3.    What actions did you take for yourself to enhance learning or enjoyment of the material?

I made sure to watch all the extra class links that would aid me in my understanding of the material. So much new information is very difficult to digest if you only grasp parts of it, especially the very technical and detailed sections.

4.    When did you feel most “connected” with the course? Most distanced?

I felt most connected with the course during the first part of Chapter 17 because the subject of cloning is really interesting to me. I felt most distanced when the many, many details of the cell cycle came up because of their similarities it seemed very confusing to separate the parts.

5.    What could the tutor offer to help your understanding or enjoyment of the material?

As I mentioned the last time, just continue to supply your video feeds and explain in simple terms the most difficult parts of the new material we receive.

THE VALUE OF REPRODUCTIVE CLONING

There is global positive and negative public reaction to reproductive cloning. I am pretty sure most of the general public is ignorant of the relevant scientific facts of cloning, but the word “cloning” itself brings forth a powerful response. Most is negative because of the moral and ethical dilemmas it raises. The correct medical terminology is lost to most that are not in the medical field. There are actually two kinds of cloning, therapeutic and reproductive, but they are lumped together in the public’s minds. Scientist’s of course, are all for reproductive cloning because of the infinite possibilities that are still out of reach. Successful reproductive cloning done on animals has its downside; the carbon copies of cloned animals have been found to have high percentages of short life spans and ill-health due to some undetected glitches in the process itself.

            Jean Chambers takes a close look at Carson Strong’s take on reproductive cloning.  Strong makes the following statements which she quotes in her journal. Arguing that reproductive cloning should be restricted only to   “infertile opposite sex couples for whom cloning is the last resort for having a genetically related child…would give such couples respectable reasons for cloning themselves” (Chambers). Strong also states that cloned children have a humane right to a “decent minimum opportunity for development” (Chambers). This refers to selective cloning where genetic imperfections of disease are prohibited.  Strong worries that this could lead to society producing designer babies, which again is morally corrupt.

            In a scholarly Journal written by Bertrand Pulman, issues involving cloning from sociological and bioethical viewpoints were addressed. Pulman brings up the important “law… passed by the French parliament in 2004 (that) qualifies reproductive cloning as a “crime against the human species”, a clear indication of how threatened the social world feels about certain aspects of genetic engineering” (Pulman).  He also mentions an important fact about “the difficulties encountered when attempts are made to formulate a prohibition at the national and international levels” (Pulman). He goes on to say how hard it is to get international agreement of exactly what and how prohibition on reproductive cloning should be formulated to make it standard worldwide. Currently different countries worldwide do not agree on how far to take, or prohibit reproductive cloning.

            Lee Turnpenny, a senior researcher at the University of Southampton in the UK, voices his concern that “clinical trials do not guarantee safety…we cannot guarantee a risk-free process in humans, until a sufficient number of…clones…have lived demonstrably healthy lives” (Turnpenny). He adds “(n)obody asks to be born, but we…opt for health…To pre-designate future human(s)…of an unproven technology would be a totalitarian act” (Turnpenny).  He declares this as “the real ethical reason why human reproductive cloning should remain prohibited” (Turnpenny).

            I feel there should be international standards set and maintained to ensure one country doesn’t overstep the boundaries to gain fame as becoming the “leader” of the field. There are moral and ethical sides to cloning that need to be addressed, as well as further long-term testing to ensure no poor quality humans are cloned. In deciding just who should be viable candidates for reproductive cloning. Carson Strong seems to forget that there are more than just same-sex married couples who deserve to be considered for cloning. Gay couples of the same sex and single parents of either sex should fall into his accepted category. Equal opportunity and equal rights are part of our culture today. Lee Turnpenny too brings up extremely valid concerns that current technology is not complete when it comes to reproductive cloning. To rush ahead because the information is out there does not mean it is the right time to proceed with reproductive cloning.

Carson Strong is too narrow minded in his viewpoints. His limited selection of who are viable candidates for reproductive cloning, are extremely discriminating. He is correct, however in his fear of the dangers of society becoming a part of producing designer babies. The ethics involved in this path are too horrific to think about. Bertrand Pulman too, brings up the importance of having internationally set standards for the laws and rules on reproductive cloning. Lee Turnpenny also brings up vitally important moral and ethical reasons not to clone human beings. It would be a totalitarian act to go ahead and clone humans. Those clones would have had no say in the outcome, and they would utlimately  be viewed differently by society.

All of my research targets have valid arguments either for or against human reproductive cloning. The underlying facts are that all of them point in the same direction. This is for society to slow down and think about reproductive cloning, in social, moral and ethical terms before more harm than good is done. As in all science, time and success in their initial experimental work produce better results. Because research on reproductive cloning is being done by countries all round the world, they should adhere to standards set and not race towards the finish line when the finish line is not one hundred percent clear.

Work cited

Chambers, Jean E. “Response to “Clone Alone” by Carson Strong”. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2002:11, 169-179. Proquest. 27 February 2013. Yavapai College online Library resources.

Pulman, Bertrand. “The issues Involved in Cloning: Sociology and Bioethics”. Revue Francaise de Sociologie. 2007: 129-156. Proquest, 27 February 2013. Yavapai College online Library resources.

Turnpenny, Lee. “Is ‘cloning’ mad, bad and dangerous?”. The European Molecular Biology Organization”. Rep. 2007 January: 8 (1):2. Web. 27 February 2013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1796746/