OH NO!!!

My previous posts have been a bit light-hearted on this subject, so maybe it is time to get scientifically serious on this.

I was amazed to, one day, hear scientists had grown an ear on a mouse.....so decided to try it and see if it were morally correct....
the result.....



Brilliant, I could call UP, UP, LEFT, CLICK....hands-free for me.

But all this type of hi-tech stuff beings an unforeseen problem:

I looked a right wally taking this into Temple Bar to have its ear pierced...first mouse to want piercings, the shop even called the DSPCA. !!

My parents were also into genetic engineering.....crossing this blood with that blood:

here is a picture of me as a 9 month old.........you probably don't recognise me in this as my hair has receded in recent years (but I still have enough)




Now...Back to the silly-side of life:

"Survival of the Fittest" is an odd term as it is often taken to meaning "survival of the fittest" where the word "fittest" is interpreted in a rather anthropocentric way.

What it should be taken as is survival of a specimen that can best perpetuate a coding for RNA for future generations (irrespective of how that organism does it, or how best that organism can survive).

However, and this is because I am follower of RNA World school of thought, I do not believe that nature is trying to make persistent every known gene, allele or trait that has been on earth.

Nature, in my opinion, is simply using tatics for the ultimate strategy of perpetuating the RNA of the very very early life forms on this planet.........and they would probably be limited to only a few bits of genetic code.

Without getting into too much science, what we see in all organisms are some very common themes with respect to RNA and the components that make RNA......these components are ubiquitous in that they are absolutely linked with Bioenergetic Economics and are highly conserved.

Interestingly enough, as well, is that so many of those components of RNA (eg ATP, GTP, cAMP, etc etc...the 'energy control molecules') are central to the living organisms ability to postpone the inevitable state of "Static Head".
"Static Head" is a chemical state where there is no energy or disorder left to make changes...ie the system has gone to complete isolated equilibrium......which is another way of saying Death of an organism.

There seems to be another common theme in life in that nature tends to not put much energy into producing an organism that wastes time and space on this planet if it cannot effectively perpetuate the mandatory gene suit.

eg why would nature make a species that would waste resources in living for 100 years if that organism has a high chance of being killed within the first year of lie?

A few obvious examples in that are seen in annual killifish such as Nothobranchus (not only environmentally killed after 1 year, but also genetically programmed to die after about 1 year); or look at a tortoise....very good chance of survival (it's hard shell) and so why not give it a genetic make-up to live for a 100 years.

Degenerative Old age etc is really nature saying......"you're a waste of time and space mate....get off my planet (and surprise surprise, you have a time-bomb built into you).

As we know, the genetics of one species affects the genetics and evolution of another species.....we (as scientists, politicians, moralists, the general public) do have to consider the pros and cons of genetic manipulation in situations where nature may have already said "done that...didn't work...next trait".

ian

Sounds like everyones arguing in agreement.
Theres natural evolution and laboratory hyper-drive evolution.
Though what are the chances of just one fish being born naturally pink ? ( not albino,.which dont survive in the wild. Why? Because theyre the wrong colour)
Perhaps if the pink fish lived in a pink house with a pink little window and a pink corvette
and all day and all night everthing was pink like him inside and outside.........

I suppose it's NB to realize that all species are adapting through mutation all the time. Mutations are not always bad. It is a term used to describe a change which can confer a certain property. The real question here is if people feel there is an actual difference between natural mutation and engineered mutation e.g. If we know from nature that a species of fish carries a genetic variant or mutation that makes it a faster swimmer, what would the difference be if we used this knowledge to engineer a shop strain to have the exact same genetic variant and therefore have the same fast swimming capabilities. No difference other than we unlocked a secret of nature and used it to produce the same thing.....will come back to this later when I have more time.....

exactly, you just recognise that a certain gene is present, but what gives you the right to "unlock" it? there is no guarantee that this gene will ever take hold or mutate in the wild. nature has done just fine for millions of years without our interference, and yes mutations do happen naturally but there's still no reason for us to involve ourselves in things that don't require our involvement.

I think il sit on the fence here!
Maybe it's gone a bit far with a pink fish but at the same time if there is no laws against this sort of thing
Then what's the point in giving out about it,
There still fish and they have absolutely no choice in the matter!
It's not the fishes fault,
say if two or three fell into my lap its my duty,
As a fish keeper to look after them the best I could
And i probably would!

Evolution was always controlled by nature, until we evolved enough to tamper with it.So how do we know that us tampering with it is not the next evolutionary step? It might just be that it's the next step our species take's on the path to our destruction.

Stuart.

wylam wrote:

Evolution was always controlled by nature, until we evolved enough to tamper with it.So how do we know that us tampering with it is not the next evolutionary step? It might just be that it's the next step our species take's on the path to our destruction.

Stuart.

and all because we have a useful thumb and were capable of being born prematurely and remaining much like a gorilla foetus for most of our life.

To leave us as bit of mutt animal that can never properly mature, invents things through its infantile mind, yet lacks the mature instinct of many species that can go to maturity.

We are like a riotous infant playground with machine guns.

ian

just because we can doesn't mean we should or automatically give us the right to manipulate what nature intended!! if their colour is recessive then its that way for a reason! my opinion is we don't own all these living things so to manipulate them is vandalism and should be treated as criminal for the protection of nature!! i knew i disagreed with lots of practices carried out by scientists and geneticists alike but to even try defend these acts is unacceptable... although the fuel to the fire seems to be that because we are the dominant species we have the right to do what we want instead of helping what we are cohabiting this planet with

anyone see the prices
www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/11/09/2003547259

They are definitely not going to fall into my lap
But at prices like that,theres going to be people out there with dollar signs in there eyes!

Hi Davey,
Last question from me on this topic. If a fish species was becoming extinct due to over fishing and the like, would you then also disagree with genetic intervention? I assume you also strongly disagree with artificial insemination such as you will find in many breeding programmes for rare species? I don want to sound condescending but if you read some more on the science you might be able to see the extraordinary hope it offers so many critically ill children, adults and medicine as a whole - I know we were discussing fish and this all pales into insignificance compared to the use of genetic engineering and diagnostics in today and future medical practices............don't know what age you are personally but the use of biomarkers for example to earlier diagnose disease, to determine and guide most effective drug treatment regimes,to monitor disease progression and efficacy of intervention and to advise on likely prognosis are already being used widely...the future of medicine is tailored, personalized and predictive therapeutic interventions and I can tell you this is much, much more effective and safer than the 'one size fits all' approach that is so endemic in today's society....one drug does not act on all of us the same way and it is ridiculous to think it does yet we all take the same mass antibiotics, antivirals, pain killers etc......we are all genetic variants of one another and genetic engineering in all its guises is here to stay and will only become more mainstream. This is fact, like it or not. If you or a close family member was chronically/terminally ill, you might think differently.

This is a long way from meaningless engineering feats such as pink angels but the advances in science should not be met with such disdain when indeed these very advancements are being made in the hope to improve human and animal health alike.......fact.