Post by thread:[OT]: Was: Space trave Now: "Gene" Splicing

> "Some people seem not to have grasped the significance > of moving genetic code between species, something > that could never happen in nature." > > Please correct me if I am wrong, You are entirely correct as fas as you have gone but, as they say, the devil is in the details. And it may be a VERY large devil :-) I am not a biotech professional but I have been reading extensively in this area. I have several contacts in the industry - one has been involved in GMO production and another in vetting GMO applications. I am certainly not an expert in this area (yet :-) ) but feel I know a reasonable amount. My "study" has been directed specifically towards GM and the areas of likely concern. There are no doubt some biotech professionals here who can fill in the gaps. > but I am of > the impression that genetic science has discovered > that a wide range of species possess similar, > verily, common genes - There is much genetic commonality both between creatures which are apparently close by inspection and also a degree of commonality between species which are apparently very far apart. For example, horses and lettuces share some common genetic material. Primates and homo sapiens have a lot of genetic material in common. AFAIR the figure is about 6% difference in the non-garbage DNA. This may sound close but it can represent a vast difference in end product. Note that there is vast amounts of APPARENTLY unused materail in DNA. When scientists compare eg apes and mankind they have tended to exclude this material in making comparisons. An examination of the garbage DNA (which makes up typically around 90% of the total) shows that it has charcteristics which are possessed by certain types of data. It appears that there is more to it than meets the eye but as yet it is keeping most of its secrets. This should not surprise us. The difference in the garbage DNA between species may be a very significant factor in their real differences. In some gene sequencing techniques it is found that some genes are lost if the "garbage" is stripped during sequencing. Note that we don't need to know HOW the arrangements that we see arose in order to start to explore them. It MIGHT be wise to try to find out how but that can be annother issue. But might not be. Key contenders (and how key will depend on your world view) are evolution via natural selection from scratch, Divine creation (source = "being" from outside system), and "Panspermia" - seeded from somewhere else whether purposefully and with alien involvement or by serendipitous act (source = being inside system). Rejection out of hand of all but one's favoured alternative may cost you dearly in one way or another. > although not all traits, > characteristics, or facets of these genes manifest > themselves in the formation of each creature or > plant in each of the creatures/organisms in those > so-called varied or different "species" (obviously). This is true but it is far more complex than this. The complexity of the system is beyond our present imagining. We are learning to crawl as it were, but know how to make the machinery run by pulling levers and pressing buttons, so we do. This is not too bad a metaphor. What we have discovered is vastly complex interacting machinery. Real genuine machines. The very simplest fully working self reproducing system (a cell) is complex beyond belief. A common metaphor is that a cell contains as much complexity as a large city. I don't find that useful enough and want to seek to find a better image. An apparently minor change can have results out of all proportion. Consider a gene to be a sub-program.The subprogram typically results in the creation of a machine - a protein, via some intermediate machines. Originally it was thought that genes produced a single protein each but each gene can in fact make a number of programs and thjerefore proteins. As stored in DNA the gene contains extra "pieces" of code which are not part of the finished sub-program. When the subprogram is copied out of the DNA (onto MRNA) to be taken to the protein making machine the unwanted pieces of code are cut out and the wanted fragments rejoin. Lo and behold - they can rejoin in different ways. Each way of rejoining creates a different protein when they are read. Imagine trying to write programs like that - chop out 6 segments of unwanted code, join the pieces in various ways and get N useful working programs with substantially different results. To make different proteins that all work and are useful is a miracle. A protein is a series of molecules which fold in an extremely complex manner. Designing such a folding pattern to do something useful would be a major achievement, Making a program that writes N such sequences when chopped up anmd recombined in different ways beggars the imagination. (If it doesn't you need to try to imagine harder :-) ). But it gets worse (or better). The relative location of genes to each other and the proximity of other "things" up and downstream in the DNA alter how the gene works. The presence of various "chemicals" in the nucleus of the cell (where the DNA is stored) or in the outer courtyards (where the Ribosme protein making machinery waits to read the mRNA and create proteins) will alter / turn on / turn off what DNA is read. The "chemicals" can be environmental or can have been produced (and typically are) by the prior processes which have occurred. Talk about program complexity! The amount of interleaving, overlapping and interaction is beyond reasonable belief. We know vast amounts about how it all works - but I'd bet that if we sat a how-it-works-101 exam set by the creator/alien/blind-watchmaker we'd not yet rate more than a few % on the test. Stick any new gene into DNA and you can have a fair bet about what it will do. But certainty is absolutely unassured. The very best techniques available allow you to insert genes quite accurately into the target genome. But not always. It is not currently possible to always be CERTAIN where an inserted gene will end up. In practice, insertions go to unexpected locations, multiple copies occur and strange results can happen at any time. Even if we get what we want where we want it and it does what we expected there is absolutely no guarantee that something unexpected wil not make things change. The "machinery" can be affected by new chemicals, heat or cold, failure to get enough water or light, or too much and much much more. When we play we can NEVER (so far) be certain of what the results will be. The further we get away from what nature "allows" the more probable it is that the results will not be typical of what we have experienced previously. A single human Interlukin 4 expressing gene was inserted in mousepox. MP is a mild mouse disease. IL4 is a commion human body product useful in allergy and infection applications. Added to mousepox it produced a highly lethal mouse disease that killed all exposed mice in short order. The result was entirely unexpected by the reserachers. > What has been discovered is that a wide range of > what we call "life" possesses remarkable similarity > at the *genetic* level. Various 'things' are turned > on or enabled to be developed depending on the > "species" Yes - whether by evolution or the use of a common toolkit. > (remember, the concept of different "species" > predates genetic-level science > - I liken it to early > claims that the world is *flat* before disproval > occurred and the true nature of the earth was > discovered). Species is a very specific concept. It means that naturally fertilisation is not observed to occur. You can in fact breed inter-group sterility between creatures of the same species by artificial crossing. There are some gulls which vary little by little around the world until having gone right round you find they cannot breed with each other. The compatability has been "selected out". Species are nature's way of saying no :-) Regardless of WHY it is this way, nature has a set of barriers which are not crossed by normal means. It seems highly likely that the more dangerous paths which lead to major catastrophe have been blocked in nature. All 3 models (evolution, God, Alien) would lead us to expect this would probably be so. Where we do find interspecies crossover we usually find disaster. AIDS, BSE/CJD, Rabies, and others. A few cross species infecters convey benefit. Cowpox (actually ratpox transferred via cows!) conveys immunity to smallpox! Which might lead one to worry about the risk to humans from mosuepox with interleukin 4 expression added. > We aren't all as different as we *think* we area, > therefore, I am going to extrapolate that inter-species > gene splicing doesn't carry the risks that some leap > to conclude. The quantitative differences are relatively known. The human genome has been entirely sequenced. What they mean is very largely unknown. We are 95% or 5% like chimpanees (depending on garbage inclusion or not). Horses contain lettuce genes. Those who seek to explain such things "to the masses" make vaaaaaast leaps of faith which alas they often seek to hide with blandishments. I am just completing "Climbing Mt Improbable" by Dawkins. A more dishonest book with the facade of open revelation is harder to imagine. We don't know anything! Almost. We can push the buttons and watch the flashing lights. We can make it perform many of its tricks. We often enough have no idea of what other tricks it MIGHT do. We can be certain that we are increasing the probability of doing new and novel things when we do things that nature has "decided" not to let itself do. We don't know if the new and novel things will be dangerous BUT we have had a crystal clear demonstration that a very simple change can be. We know that we can make dangerous new designer tailored diseases. Stumbling upon utter disaster is clearly a possibility. Our present approach is an extremely good way to maximise our chances of doing so. If we fall off the edge of the world it will not be because we didn't know that it might vcry possibly be possible ! Russell McMahon -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

Ken (not on list) > I am continually amazed by what I percieve as a widespread belief that > natural always equates to good and artificial often equates to bad. > rest of post at end Agree. But not sure whether that is agreeing or disagreeing with something I said :-) I am trying to be, while not in the middle, at least be wandering the battle ground and not far out on one side. I am PRO GE in the general sense but also pro common sense. I am well aware (as you might expect) of the bad things that are specifically human infecting. What I have been commenting on is the ability or normality of "greeblies" to infect cross species or bring in new genetic material via pathways previously unused, at least recently. Nature appears to have erected largish barriers on almost all such pathways. We are in the process of leaping high over the barriers and depositing genetic material in locations that nature has chosen not to allow its own processes to get at. It is hard to see how undesirable and unpredictable results would not be expected. The lessons "learned" by long term infectors are matched by the lessons "learned" by our bodies against them. Usually. Arms Races, when found, tend to be relatively balanced, else the race would be over. Hopefully it's not our race. Smallpox lost by being too dangerous. Or so we hope - it may yet be back. Interestingly - AIDS is PROBABLY natural (some suggest a germ warfare lab) but probably resulted from massive human contact with green monkey viscera. Ebola appears not to have had the interfering human hand involved, yet. (Some suggest it as a prime germ warfare candisdate but I suspect that it is a little too hair-triggered for that). BSE probably rose from feeding Scrapie infected sheep central nervous system (CNS) material to cows. New variant human CJD "probably" arose from feeding cow CNS material to people. BUT cross species prion diseases appear to have occurred from cows in 1947 in USA when many mink farms were wiped out about a year after receiving feed from a central feed plant that rendered "downer" cows. (Note that this seems to be another prion disease in cows and NOT BSE/CJD). So it appears that we may have had about 30 years warning of cross species prion disease transfer caused by rendering animals and using them as feed. Cross species prion transfer in the wild was already known. If we ever get (or cause to arise) a prion disease that attacks non CNS area in its final form (ie in body tissues etc) we are in deep trouble. Prion infectiousness is high, small physical infector size (<virus and << cell) makes containment "interesting" and destruction by normal means just doesn't work. The only known cure for a person with CJD is to incinerate them at 1000 C . Not that such little things are liable to stop us though ... Russell > Nature (i.e. natural processes) has long proven that it is very good at > producing "bad" things and the likelihood is that it will continue to do so. > Obvious examples include the pathogens of old (B plague, poxes (various), > influenza, polio, diptheria), and (probably) more recent ones (AIDS, Ebola, > CJD and other prion nasties, etc.) Then there are diseases of direct > genetic or cellular origin where patahogens are (probably) not involved. > There are probably other categories too which I can't think of right now > (some might even want to add obesity and diabetes to the list). > > All of these are undeniably natural. > > If nature is so good at coming up with these "baddies", then given that it > is generally agreed that it does so very slowly through whatever mechanisms, > is it not reasonable to assume that humankind will do much better (in terms > of baddies created per unit time) by actively exploiting essentially the > same mechanisms on a large scale ? > > In a nutshell - if nature can produce such baddies are we perhaps deluding {Quote hidden}> ourselves that we won't ? > > While I wouldn't want to see GE held back unnecessarily I think many in > authority need to be made more aware of the possibility of the unexpected, > and put in place proper safeguards which are actually taken seriously. At > the moment many are only paying lip-service and some are deliberately > obstructive. > > Regards, > > Ken Mardle > > Applied Digital Research Ltd. Tel : +64 9 415-2514 > P.O. Box 6480 Fax : +64 9 415-3514 > Wellesley St Mobile : +64 25 879-648 > Auckland E-mail : spam_OUTkenmarTakeThisOuTadr.co.nz > NEW ZEALAND WWW : http://www.acqura.com > > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

Russel, here is what I was referring to earlier about a compound (PBB) inadvertantly being added to cattle feed - which then made it into the food chain. I think we have far more to fear from conventional human mistakes, than GeneEng'd food sources, but, that is no reason to halt scientific study in that area. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.dscr.dla.mil/htis/novdec01.htm Researchers in the US have found that exposure to Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs) may cause an increased risk of cancer to the digestive and lymph systems. The study looked at the incidence of cancer in individuals exposed to PBBs after a 1973 food contamination incident in the state of Michigan, in which 1 ton of PBB fire retardant was added to cattle feed by mistake, thus contaminating the animal and human food chain. Approximately nine million people were affected. Some 25 years later, in a study published in 1998, researchers found that humans in the group with the highest exposure to the contamination were 23 times more likely to develop digestive cancers, including stomach, pancreas and liver cancers. Preliminary results also found a 49-fold increase in lymph cancers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.valuelogicmaths.com/vlfood_sec07.htm b) Poisoning Bulk production by industrial farming scales up the risk of food poisoning, and introduces new risks. In 1973 a Michigan factory which produced both fire-retardant (poison) and animal feed, got the two mixed. The poison was sent out to hundreds of farms and used unsuspectingly. When cattle started dying the cause was not traced for some time: animals slaughtered were converted into feed which affected healthy animals: meanwhile infected meat, eggs, and milk were sold, and thousands of chickens which had inexplicably stopped laying were sold to an international soup company. The poison (for which there was no known antidote) was chemically akin to one which causes cancer and genetic defects (Observer 5 Dec 1976). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chemical of the Month Carcinogen Profile: Polybrominated Biphenyls (PBBs) http://www.prop65news.com/pubs/p65news/issues/9409/940909.html A PBB-containing commercial product, FireMaster FF-1, was mistaken as the feed supplement magnesium oxide. Initially, health problems in dairy cattle indicated a poisoning, but several months passed before PBBs were identified as the problem. Following the establishment of a Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) farm animal testing and quarantining program, over 30,000 cattle, 2,000 swine, 400 sheep and 2,000,000 chickens exceeding PBB tolerances were destroyed (MDA meat fat 0.02 ppm, FDA milk 1 ppm, FDA 0.1 ppm eggs). During the nine months between the initial accident, detection, PBB identification, animal testing, and quarantines, PBB contaminated food products were consumed by producers and consumers. Epidemiological studies targeting the exposed population continue in order to evaluate long- term risks. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - RF Jim -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics