Genetic Engineering

Imagine a world where people learned things twice as quickly as we do now. Where we could live for twice as long. Where even the average person could run for miles and miles without becoming tired. Where autism and other genetic diseases ceased to exist. Within the realm of genetic engineering, this is not only possible, but inevitable.

The human genome is the record of DNA of the human species, and within recent years, scientists have been working hard to understand and log as many of the genes, or chunks of DNA, as they can. By understanding this genome, we can get a better grasp of what causes so many different genetic flaws. More importantly, we can figure out ways to in turn treat or prevent these conditions from arising.

Take the case of Hugh Rienhoff. As a graduate with a medical degree at Johns Hopkins and founder of two biotechnology companies, he's no novice in the field of genomic study. However, his daughter was born with a very rare mutation that stunted muscular growth and development. Rienhoff knew enough to search for the reason behind this on his own, and started studies of his daughter's genetic information as a platform to discover and possibly treat this disorder. To top off the effort he put in, Rienhoff started a laboratory in his own attic as a means of studying and hoping to find the cause. This disorder is only one of countless genetic syndromes that exist, and by understanding the genome as Rienhoff tried to, we can start to understand many, many other diseases.

Further, our forays into genetic research have given other fun side effects that have become a huge debate both in the political spectrum and even in water cooler debate: Genetic engineering. Simply understanding the human genome is one thing, but improving it is quite another. Scientific research has given us many surprising feats. Most of our work in genetic engineering is in animals and plants, with mice being the classic example. By altering segments of the mouse genome, scientists have found some truly remarkable things. One recent example was a change in the gene expression of IL-15R-alpha in mice. This acted by making it so the mice essentially never became exhausted. In the world of endurance running and sports, this is huge. Imagine becoming nearly superhuman. Effectively genetic engineering when done properly might give rise to this. Further, Swiss scientists have claimed that by altering the NCoR1 inhibitor, we can create super strong mice (Mighty Mouse anyone?). Again, for sports this sort of development is both beneficial and detrimental. On one hand, the normally frail and weak could compete. On the other hand, it could be seen as cheating, like steroids.

Even forgetting these more experimental adventures in genetic alteration, we can look at the simple but effective ways humans have already altered the genomes of other organisms for their own benefit. For example, weaving spider DNA into goats so that their milk has greater nutritional values. Even the artificial selection of cattle to ensure that only the best, most delicious cows are used for food products is functionally similar. The issue that comes up is the way these developments are presented. The goat milk and selective breeding of cows is one thing, but when you go around talking about altering the genome, suddenly people are up in arms because they're scared about something they don't understand. And even if they do understand the ideas behind genetic engineering, there are other concerns that come up.

The problem here is that there is such a thing as too much change. As I brought up in my post about bionics, there are people who think genetic engineering is a bad idea. Again, I disagree, but only to a point. Genetic engineering might be playing God, but only just a bit. Effectively all it serves to do right now is to help find better, safer ways to treat disorders we don't currently have the solutions to, or at the very least enhance our lives. I'll admit that some of this engineering goes too far. Using it to act like the current human growth hormone and steroids some athletes use is abusive at best and would be a large concern. As with anything that has both pros and cons, we would have to regulate any developments that come from this engineering.

The best argument against genetic engineering comes from a movie, of all things. The movie is from 1997, but it has outstanding insight into a possible future of genetic engineering. Known as GATTACA, it shows one of the biggest downfalls of genetic engineering: causing class differences. In the movie, parents make "designer children", essentially whatever traits they would want in a kid, they can get because of in vitro alterations of embryonic cells. If you want an astronaut, they'll make you an astronaut. If you want a swimmer, you'll end up with an Olympic level one, like Jude Law portrayed in the film. The problem is, as the movie shows, that by having these genetic biases, the more genetically superior are prejudiced against lesser people. This class division is, I would argue, the one real downside to genetic engineering.

As a whole though, genetic engineering is most definitely a positive. Huge advancements can be made in the name of science, and as long as we keep any negatives, such as prejudice and cheating at sports, to a minimum, the pros most certainly outweigh the cons.


As always, feel free to share your own opinions. I love to hear what others think about such cool water cooler debates as these.

Bionics

Bionics

(Luke Skywalker's arm in Star Wars)

We've all heard of the rebuilding humans into machines. You can thank popular science fiction for that: The Bionic Woman (and very similarly Deus Ex-Human Revolution, which we will discuss later), Star Wars, Terminator, Blade Runner, Alien, the list goes on and on of entertainment works that utilize the concept. Surprisingly enough, current science has made strides to the point that many concepts of these movies are not only plausible, but in fact have been created in primitive form. This concept is called bionics. By using machines to improve the human condition, either through prostheses or internal devices, we are bettering human life. Really exciting and promising stuff.

Unfortunately for those excited by science, there's a huge problem associated with this sort of advancement: religious and/or conservative people. For every scientific feat, there's always someone who's against it. They claim, as one Ramez Naam states in his book More than Human, "we cannot stop research into enhancing ourselves without also halting research focused on healing the sick and injured." I feel that this is the single most valid argument against the process. By merely improving existing people, we neglect to help save those afflicted by disease. It would be much more practical to use this technology to save lives instead of bettering lives that are already good.


Moreover, there's another reason these dissenters to the idea of bionics give as being problematic. Since current bionic advancements are expensive, and this cost is only ever going to increase as the devices become more complex, these bionics could become a sort of luxury or commodity. As such, they might become a status symbol to the rich, or even possibly trafficked like drugs.


I think this clip sums up many of the fears of conservatives quite well:




The game stars our protagonist, Adam Jensen. While working as head of security for a bioenhancement center based in Detroit, he falls victim to a horrific industrial terrorist attack. The world in which they live is embroiled in enough chaos, and the concept of human enhancement is prominent in politics. As you can see in the video, Jensen's life would have been ruined by the attack, had it not been for the prostheses that he received from the company he worked for. This really sums up how positive biotechnology can be. However, in the sense of being a menace to society, giving weapons and tools like those in the video to someone who might use them for something negative really supports the naysayers to body augmentation.

Sure, the world Jensen lives in is rife with corruption, chaos, and killing. Look at it the way most rational people would though, and consider how much better people's lives are when they're given back the quality of life they once had, or even more. We as people have a right to develop these advancements. If the idea of life is to be the best person we can, shouldn't we then want to advance things that would make us better people? Morally, yes there are repercussions to this idea. A new class separation would be a problem, and causing war is a very real possibility.

But don't the ends justify the means here? We could have drastically improved lives. And further, if we use some form of judgment while making these advancements, we could easily keep the Armageddon-situation argued for from occurring. Besides, if an end of worlds scenario evolves, chances are there will be more than one source of woe than mere body augmentation.


Just my two cents on the topic, comment with your own theories. Honestly I love hearing new ideas and concepts to try out.

Inevitable Introductions and whatnot

Welcome to Science and Video Games?!, a blog I intend to upkeep regularly and give info on not only the world of scientific advancement, but also about my second favorite thing: video games. A lot of the time there is some sort of correlation between the two (video games after all are a form of technological advancement). I've wanted to make this blog for awhile now, and I would like to thank my English 102 professor for giving me a good reason to finally get around to it.

I won't just focus on one realm of technology or science, because that would get boring really quick. Everything from bioengineering to ecology conservation to physics discoveries is fair game, and don't expect me to focus too heavily on video games. They're awesome, but frankly science is more important.

Additionally I'll be putting my email on the blog so any topics you might want me to write about, either video games or recent scientific developments, just contact me about it and I'll consider adding it to the queue of fun and controversial topics.

Now that that's out of the way, I'll be following up with some insight into genetic engineering. Spoiler alert, it's a hot topic open to a lot of debate. My point with this isn't necessarily to make you take a side in these debates, but I really want people to know both sides of the argument before they take a side. This holds true to anything I write here: I promise to remain as objective as possible. My overall goal is to inform, not to persuade, so feel comfortable to criticize or analyze anything I write. I'm by no means an expert on any of the topics, so I want others input as well.

Thanks a ton, and stick around, I'll make sure to keep this interesting for ya'll.

-Leo