Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

BWhite · 2004-08-12 15:18:01

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.a … -12-1]Link

clark · 2004-08-12 15:25:44

For their study, Richmond and colleagues used a molecular technique to shut off expression of a gene encoding receptors called D2. They created a DNA antisense agent—a genetic mirror image that shuts off production of target proteins—and injected it into an area of the brain called the rhinal cortex. The area was targeted because it's rich in dopamine and was previously associated with reward learning. The antisense agent turned off D2 expression for several weeks.

Mania is a wonderful thing.

Expected side effects from this will probably be higher instances of stress in the end user.

To kind of give you an idea, ever have a compulsion to check the locks? Or perhaps you can't recall if you left the stove on or not? That feeling you get that makes you get out of bed, or turn the car around half way to your destination is chemically induced by relationships to stress. Certain things bug you enough to motivate action.

This basically shuts off a regulating mechanism wihin the brain that would reward you for doing something- for solving the stressor.

Talk about your stress-monkies.

Palomar · 2004-08-12 15:29:10

http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.a … -12-1]Link

*Yeah, genetic engineering has a lot of potential...in many different directions.

BTW, this reminds me of a study I saw on the news a few weeks ago. Scientists trying to determine why male voles bond with their female partners for life, whereas a near "cousin" of theirs (forgot the name of the species) simply goes from mate to mate. Perhaps it was the other way around -- anyway, the study involved voles and their "cousins."

Scientists determined which was the gene which promoted bonding and switched it on in the non-bonding animal. Bingo....bonding. ::shrugs::

So much manipulation, so much potential. For good or ill.

--Cindy

Trebuchet · 2004-08-12 18:26:47

Actually, they did more than that. They discovered the hormone that causes the bonding behavior, too - the gene tells the body to create it.

The same chemical promotes fidelity in humans, as well, which makes you wonder if people will get a prescription instead of counseling in the future. Hillary will probably be buying that hormone and loading it into tranquilizer gun darts for use on Bill...

BWhite · 2004-08-12 19:48:13

Hillary will probably be buying that hormone and loading it into tranquilizer gun darts for use on Bill...

I read this post backwards and for a moment thought you meant me. . . (Bill. . .)

Dook · 2004-08-13 00:54:48

In the future I am absolutely confidant that we will be able to cure all genetic diseases through genetic means. I also believe we will be able to turn on the DNA that grows limbs to replace ones lost in accidents. We will take some stem cells from a person who has a failing heart, grow a new heart, then transplant that heart into that person with no rejection.

I do think there should be regulation on genetic preferences though. Parents shouldn't be able to completely design every trait their children would possess.

Morris · 2004-08-13 01:16:30

So much manipulation, so much potential. For good or ill.

Yes, and so many immediate implications. Some of these have been discussed in other threads. But the one that makes such a difference here is genetic testing of potential settlers. In the early days it will be hard to support children with disabling genetic disorders. And even for people who are typically fully adult before the disorder appears, we may wish to restrict access. Will the settlers need even one person with the gene for Huntington's disorder? And what about less dramatic disorders such as Tourette's disorder?

If all the possibilities are taken into consideration, acceptable early settlers may be a very small proportion of the human population. Do you suppose that some of the early SF speculations that the settlers will become genetically and culturally superior might come true on Mars?

How about an experiment? Let's settle the moon with prisoners, L5 and similar areas without genetic screening, and Mars with full genetic screening and see how it all comes out in a couple of hundred years.

clark · 2004-08-13 14:14:19

Why don't we lock a baby in a room from birth, never talk to it, and see what language it develops too. :laugh:

I don't think it's very ethical to artificialy create societies like this.

Morris · 2004-08-13 16:20:41

Why don't we lock a baby in a room from birth, never talk to it, and see what language it develops too. :laugh:
I don't think it's very ethical to artificialy create societies like this.

How is it less ethical than genetic manipulations? Not to say there there aren't significant ethical issues in both cases.

We do have some experience of this on earth, e.g. prison settlements in the U.S. and Australia, the Gulags in Siberia, etc.

My guess is that the prisoners would do surprisingly well.

Dook · 2004-08-13 19:21:47

Why don't we lock a baby in a room from birth, never talk to it, and see what language it develops too. :laugh:
I don't think it's very ethical to artificialy create societies like this.

Unfortunately your experiment about locking a baby in a room from birth and never talk to it has happened.

Trying to remember from an old college class but there was a deaf woman who was married to a deaf and blind man. They had a child and put the child in a closet where for the most part the child lived until it's early teens.

When finally discovered by child protective people they found that the child could not speak because he/she hadn't been taught any words. They tried to teach the child to speak over time but the area of the brain that controls that function had not developed correctly. It seems there is a critical time that humans must learn a language or it becomes virtually impossible. The brain uses that area for other things, memory?

I wouldn't support using prisoners for genetic experimentation.

Morris · 2004-08-13 22:08:42

I wouldn't support using prisoners for genetic experimentation.

Neither would I and I didn't propose it. The prisoners are unselectedc for anything but being prisoners. I suggested that the genetic selection be on Mars with a population heavily screened to rule out serous known genetic defects which would incapacitate a person. No actual manipulation of genes would be involved.

It is a social experiment, not primarily a genetic experiment.

The business about the child in the closet is totally irrelevant as Clark knew when he made his comments. Clark, as shown by previous posts on other threads, believes that criminals should be allowed the opportunity to move to new situations anonymously in order to get a new start. That's the kind of thinking that led to the numerous arrests of violent criminals in the 80's and 90's who had many previous arrests that nobody in the community knew about. If he wants to live next to them without knowing about it, let him! As a matter of fact, he would make a great ethical officer for the Moon portion of the experiment. He can see that none of them are mistreated, like having to be interrogated by screeners to decide whether they should be offered an opportunity to emigrate to Mars.

How about it Clark?

MarsDog · 2004-08-14 01:02:54

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natu … Workaholic Theraphy soon mandatory.

Morris · 2004-08-14 07:42:55

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natu … Workaholic Theraphy soon mandatory.

I am shocked that BBC would put out such a horribly distorted version of this story. If this is a good sample of what they are producing since their recent big shakeup, their reputation is going to be shot very shortly.

In the first place, no "hardworking gene" was discovered and there were no genetic manipulations at all in this experiment. Instead agents which block a variant (D2) of the dopamine neurotransmitter were injected into a region of the brain rich in receptors for this chemical. Dopamine is heavily involved in our brains' reward system. The monkeys did indeed become more hardworking. The speculation was that the monkey's understanding of the relationship between the work and the reward was disturbed.

For a much more accurate description of this research, scroll up to the top and click on the link in the post which originated this thread.

Morris · 2004-08-14 07:53:23

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natu … Workaholic Theraphy soon mandatory.
I am shocked that BBC would put out such a horribly distorted version of this story. If this is a good sample of what they are producing since their recent big shakeup, their reputation is going to be shot very shortly.
In the first place, no "hardworking gene" was discovered and there were no genetic manipulations at all in this experiment. Instead agents which block a variant (D2) of the dopamine neurotransmitter were injected into a region of the brain rich in receptors for this chemical. Dopamine is heavily involved in our brains' reward system. The monkeys did indeed become more hardworking. The speculation was that the monkey's understanding of the relationship between the work and the reward was disturbed.
For a much more accurate description of this research, scroll up to the top and click on the link in the post which originated this thread.

<blush> I goofed. While I was correct in saying that no "hardworking" gene had been discovered, I was wrong in saying that no genetic manipulations were involved. The mechanism used to block the dopamine receptors did involve gene expression.

I'm very sorry.

Palomar · 2004-08-14 11:54:25

In the future I am absolutely confidant that we will be able to cure all genetic diseases through genetic means. I also believe we will be able to turn on the DNA that grows limbs to replace ones lost in accidents. We will take some stem cells from a person who has a failing heart, grow a new heart, then transplant that heart into that person with no rejection.
I do think there should be regulation on genetic preferences though. Parents shouldn't be able to completely design every trait their children would possess.

*I hope you're right on the first paragraph and I agree with the 2nd paragraph.

As an aside of sorts, it's fascinating to watch forensic scientists work with detectives/police on nabbing murderers with DNA evidence. My husband and I frequently watch "Cold Case Files" on A & E, and "The New Detectives" on the Discover Channel. I worked for a pathologist in the 1980s, who of course also worked in forensics. I sometimes wish I'd gone into forensics as a career path. Very intriguing. The DNA profiling and sample techniques, etc., have indeed brought murderers to justice -- even 15+ years after the crime.

As for genetic engineering: It's one of the few areas of science I have some deep-seated reservations about. It seems one of those things likely to easily come back and kick us in the face. Sure, every new avenue of progress has its risks and etc., but I can't help thinking of Mary Shelley's story... :-\

--Cindy

clark · 2004-08-16 09:12:07

Unfortunately your experiment about locking a baby in a room from birth and never talk to it has happened.
Trying to remember from an old college class but there was a deaf woman who was married to a deaf and blind man. They had a child and put the child in a closet where for the most part the child lived until it's early teens.

I can predate that... :laugh:

Old story, Egyptian King wants to know what the first language of man was. So, he conducts a test, has a baby locked in a room, nurse maids are forbidden to speak to the child or interact with the child on any meaningful level. Long story short, it grows up and makes unintelligible mono-syllabic grunts. The moral of the story is the ethical ramifications of certain experiments when you involve humans.

Which is why any psychological or medical experiment involving humans has to pass muster through an ethics board.

As an aside, current theories have developed to deduce that while language is not inherent, grammatical structure that creates the basis for language is. Basically, we are hard wired to figure out rules that allow for the spoken and written word (as evidenced by second generation children in multi-lingual communities that develop new hybrid langauges- they take the mish mash of various vocabulary and develop consistent grammitcal rules)

Anyway...

How is it less ethical than genetic manipulations? Not to say there there aren't significant ethical issues in both cases.

Well, like everything, it depends. Ethics is pretty fuzzy, and is subjective given the times and culture, no? Also, presenting it as "less ethical" dosen't seem to make your suggestions any more ethical. Playing social gods usually ends in disaster- I forget the actual study, but there was one where some well meaning researchers went in, did a longitudal study over decades involving helping disadvanataged youths- giving them extra help and support. End result? When the support was removed (because the study was over) the kids by and large faield because they had self-identifed themselves as needing extra help.

Creating artifical social situations for no purpose other than to see what happens for comparison purposes is unethical. But that's just me.

I suggested that the genetic selection be on Mars with a population heavily screened to rule out serous known genetic defects which would incapacitate a person

Serious genetic defects? Defined by whom? What is the criteria? Deafness may be considered a defect, but there are a great many people who don't exactly agree. Cleft pallete? Skin color?- afterall, some think it is. Eye color? certain color eyes are more predisposed to cataracts and what not. Homosexuality? Color blindness? It's not the black and white issues that bother me, it's the wide exspanse of grey that does.

The business about the child in the closet is totally irrelevant as Clark knew when he made his comments.

Most comments are irrelevant, but they act as a bridge... so what else am I thinking? :laugh:

Clark, as shown by previous posts on other threads, believes that criminals should be allowed the opportunity to move to new situations anonymously in order to get a new start.

Are you sure that this is me? I did suggest a "tattoo"- what better way to know if someone was a criminal? You prefer electronic tattoo's. I was trying to demonstrate that you object to one instance of the same thing you advocate. [shrug] It's all in how you market it I suppose.

As a matter of fact, he would make a great ethical officer for the Moon portion of the experiment. He can see that none of them are mistreated, like having to be interrogated by screeners to decide whether they should be offered an opportunity to emigrate to Mars.

I agree! LOL! Give me the keys.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-08-12 15:18:01

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#2 2004-08-12 15:25:44

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#3 2004-08-12 15:29:10

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#4 2004-08-12 18:26:47

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#5 2004-08-12 19:48:13

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#6 2004-08-13 00:54:48

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#7 2004-08-13 01:16:30

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#8 2004-08-13 14:14:19

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#9 2004-08-13 16:20:41

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#10 2004-08-13 19:21:47

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#11 2004-08-13 22:08:42

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#12 2004-08-14 01:02:54

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#13 2004-08-14 07:42:55

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#14 2004-08-14 07:53:23

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#15 2004-08-14 11:54:25

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

#16 2004-08-16 09:12:07

Re: Genetic engineering - Tailor made workers?

Board footer