Genetic Engineering

[Sleepy Raisin]

I've heard about scientists in the US, China, and many other countries, working on genetic engineering. By that i mean glow in the dark mice, wired moths, monkeys with 3 arms, hybrid animals, and using animals as chemical storage/banks. Theres other things theyre doing but i dont feel like going through it any more of it..
Do you think its right to use animals in these ways? I mean some of these scientists are goig to the extreme and abusing theyre power overthe animals.. I understand if it has ethical purposes(i.e. if someone loses their arm ans gets a prosthetic arm they can use fully functionally) but the glow in the dark animals? Really? What purpose does that serve?
And for the hybrids, these scientists combine animals and they are sold to stores to be eaten.. Without the publics knowledge. In my opinion its so not right.

[Gigablue]

I think genetic engineering can be useful and could have human health applications, but there is a fine line between science and animal abuse. The animals should be kept in good conditions and treated humanely.

What do you mean about hybrids being sold for food without public knowledge? Do you have a source for this? Also, there isn't anything unnatural about hybrids, the occur occasionally in the wild.

The glow in the dark animals was a very interesting experiment, and a proof of concept for the technique of inserting specific genes in embryos. The mice aren't really useful, but this technique could be used for many different things.

[FreeFall]

No and I hate it when it serves no purpose.
I agree, what profound positive impact do glow in the dark mice have in the world?
The ears on the mice and prosthetic limbs being grown, I'm still not a fan but at least it help people and such.

The food combo, I'm already pissed their giving us steroid/hormone growth cows!
I'm of the "natural is best" mentality. I don't want enhanced foods, genetically altered food, I want it to come the way that it is unless that would kill me. Mice don't glow. Don't play god, leave the mouse alone and let it be the non glowing critter it is.

[Gigablue]

I agree, what profound positive impact do glow in the dark mice have in the world?

The glow in the dark mice were the first transgenic animals. They themselves are completely useless, but the technique that they used to insert the gene that made them glow has many potential applications. It can be used to easily modify crops to make them more pest resistant or increase yield. It could make animal produce healthier for humans. One of the most useful applications is to create animals that will develop a certain disease in order to test different treatments. This might cause some ethical issues, but the potential for medical breakthroughs is huge.

The food combo, I'm already pissed their giving us steroid/hormone growth cows!

I don't really see what the problem with modifying food is. They can make drought and pest resistant crops, and animals with more meat. As long as the animals are treated well and killed humanely, I don't see what the issue is. All genetically modified food items have to be tested to be proven safe for human consumption before being sold.

Also, humans have been genetically modifying food for centuries through artificial selection. This produces the same results as genetic engineering, but is far less efficient.

I'm of the "natural is best" mentality. I don't want enhanced foods, genetically altered food, I want it to come the way that it is unless that would kill me.

Natural isn't necessarily better. We could potentially engineer food so that it son rains more vitamins and other nutrients. We can also make crops easier to grow to help feed many starving people. There is no evidence that natural food is healthier, provided the modified food is well tested.

Mice don't glow. Don't play god, leave the mouse alone and let it be the non glowing critter it is.

This is more of a philosophical issue, but I don't see the issue with modifying animals. The amount of knowledge to be gained is huge. I'm not saying we should make all mice glow, but if animals are treated well and science can progress, I don't see a problem, even if it is unnatural.

[Sleepy Raisin]

What do you mean about hybrids being sold for food without public knowledge? Do you have a source for this? Also, there isn't anything unnatural about hybrids, the occur occasionally in the wild.

In the US companies arent required to put on their label if they use hybrid animals in their product, thus we are unaware. They may occur in the wild on occasion but Ligers would NEVER occur in the wild.

The glow in the dark animals was a very interesting experiment, and a proof of concept for the technique of inserting specific genes in embryos. The mice aren't Lreally useful, but this technique could be used for many different things.

Different useful things? Like what? Its not just mice. Its monkeys, fish, kittens and theres other i cant remember.
Although i agree it may have been useful for he specific genes, dont you think they went a little far with continuing producing glow in the dark animals? I mean they'd have to get used to a whole new life.

[FreeFall]

The glow in the dark mice were the first transgenic animals. They themselves are completely useless, but the technique that they used to insert the gene that made them glow has many potential applications. It can be used to easily modify crops to make them more pest resistant or increase yield. It could make animal produce healthier for humans. One of the most useful applications is to create animals that will develop a certain disease in order to test different treatments. This might cause some ethical issues, but the potential for medical breakthroughs is huge.
Fine, I can understand that but I'm not going to like it if they go to market it. Just like the Glofish (Zebra danios genetically infused with jellyfish genes) they've made. For medicine and better understanding of techniques, sure. That can benefit us and others, I accept that and understand it. But as Suzy's new pet, no way. It's not fair to the mouse.

I don't really see what the problem with modifying food is. They can make drought and pest resistant crops, and animals with more meat. As long as the animals are treated well and killed humanely, I don't see what the issue is. All genetically modified food items have to be tested to be proven safe for human consumption before being sold.
This issue for me is not the animals' treatment and life, I just personally don't want that crap in my body. If I eat a cow want one that's natural, not altered by man to be Super Cow with the ultimate yield.
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/rbgh/

Also, humans have been genetically modifying food for centuries through artificial selection. This produces the same results as genetic engineering, but is far less efficient.
No. Selective breeding is much different from a farmer/scientist/anyone injecting the crop or animal with a growth hormone, steroids, other hormones, or whatever. There's no intervention by man other than picking the best cow being mated with the best bull to create the (hopefully) best calf. The animals are themselves, they grew that way naturally, no change made to them by man.

Natural isn't necessarily better. We could potentially engineer food so that it son rains more vitamins and other nutrients. We can also make crops easier to grow to help feed many starving people. There is no evidence that natural food is healthier, provided the modified food is well tested.
That's your opinion on it. I'm not wavering on mine.
I personally don't trust anything man thinks they can control. I see the medical evidence and hurray for them that they're yielding more crops, I just won't trust it myself.
You've got me thinking though now that it's brought up and it's not relevant to this is just a little 'oh weird' moment and doesn't mean anything to our debate. I'm growing raspberries by the side of my house. I'm not spraying them with repellents, if I need to shoo the bugs I use water. I stick lady bugs on it (the pupa are numerous this year) to help control bugs and leave the spiders, ick, where they are. These are natural found in the woods grown raspberries. They're huge, soft, juicy, and really that's it. The raspberries we can buy in the store, tiny, sort of chewy and not worth the money.


This is more of a philosophical issue, but I don't see the issue with modifying animals. The amount of knowledge to be gained is huge. I'm not saying we should make all mice glow, but if animals are treated well and science can progress, I don't see a problem, even if it is unnatural.
If it benefits us, I understand. Progress for science and the medical field is something I encourage. If it's just for kicks and to sell, no. Just how I feel.

[Gigablue]

In the US companies arent required to put on their label if they use hybrid animals in their product, thus we are unaware. They may occur in the wild on occasion but Ligers would NEVER occur in the wild.

What's wrong with using hybrid animals? They aren't dangerous to eat. They might not be natural, but I don't really se a problem with them.

Different useful things? Like what? Its not just mice. Its monkeys, fish, kittens and theres other i cant remember.
Although i agree it may have been useful for he specific genes, dont you think they went a little far with continuing producing glow in the dark animals? I mean they'd have to get used to a whole new life.

The animals don't really glow in the dark. The gene added to the mice causes fluorescence under ultraviolet light. It doesn't I don't see how they would have to get used to a different way of life.

The introduction of a specific gene into a cell or animal can be very useful for producing animal models of disease. Animals can be programmed to be susceptible to a specific disease in order to test treatments and vaccines. This is exceedingly useful for studies.

[dontfiguremeout]

I am not on the right page with this at all! First of all poor animals who have to be the ones getting experimented! Now I know this sounds cool and all, but it's going to ruin the whole life cycle! Unless scientists have a good reason why they are doing this, or know that this won't hurt the life cycle, then yeah go ahead. But if it's going to ruin one part of the life cycle, EVERYTHING will go down! It may not seem at first, but everything is in a cycle (food chain) and once something changes or goes away, everything gets messed up.

[Gigablue]

Fine, I can understand that but I'm not going to like it if they go to market it. Just like the Glofish (Zebra danios genetically infused with jellyfish genes) they've made. For medicine and better understanding of techniques, sure. That can benefit us and others, I accept that and understand it. But as Suzy's new pet, no way. It's not fair to the mouse.

I agree with this. I think it's a waste to genetically engineer pets.

This issue for me is not the animals' treatment and life, I just personally don't want that crap in my body. If I eat a cow want one that's natural, not altered by man to be Super Cow with the ultimate yield.
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/rbgh/

There really isn't evidence that genetically modified food is less healthy than regular food. There is no reason to assume that natural is always better.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/

No. Selective breeding is much different from a farmer/scientist/anyone injecting the crop or animal with a growth hormone, steroids, other hormones, or whatever. There's no intervention by man other than picking the best cow being mated with the best bull to create the (hopefully) best calf. The animals are themselves, they grew that way naturally, no change made to them by man.

I wasn't talking about the use of growth hormones, simple genetic modification. Selective breeding and genetic modification both change the organisms DNA, but genetic engineering is faster and can produce greater changes. I still don't see why human intervention is necessarily bad.

That's your opinion on it. I'm not wavering on mine.
I personally don't trust anything man thinks they can control. I see the medical evidence and hurray for them that they're yielding more crops, I just won't trust it myself.
You've got me thinking though now that it's brought up and it's not relevant to this is just a little 'oh weird' moment and doesn't mean anything to our debate. I'm growing raspberries by the side of my house. I'm not spraying them with repellents, if I need to shoo the bugs I use water. I stick lady bugs on it (the pupa are numerous this year) to help control bugs and leave the spiders, ick, where they are. These are natural found in the woods grown raspberries. They're huge, soft, juicy, and really that's it. The raspberries we can buy in the store, tiny, sort of chewy and not worth the money.

I don't think you should trust it immediately, but after looking at the evidence, it's clear that genetically engineered food can produce a greater yield and be just as safe as conventional food. I doesn't make sense to dismiss all the evidence just because you humanity.

[FreeFall]

I didn't mean to sound like I was saying the evidence is a load of bull, I see all it's doing and how nice it is, I just really don't care about it. It means nothing to me, it's still there just something I avoid for myself when I can. I personally do not want to eat anything altered in a lab or whatever. That's the lifestyle I've chosen for myself, like if I wanted to eat things only I raised that's my prerogative. If I only wanted to eat vegetables, same there. That's a little path I've chosen to walk.

You're correct. genetic engineering and selective breeding are pretty much the same in practice and definition. But like I said, selective breeding is that. You pick the best with the best and try to get them to produce the best between the two. Genetic engineering, you isolate the best gene and give it to all that apply to make them better. The new material enters the cell and inserts itself into the DNA, the DNA has been manipulated by the human to make it better.

[Gigablue]

I didn't mean to sound like I was saying the evidence is a load of bull, I see all it's doing and how nice it is, I just really don't care about it. It means nothing to me, it's still there just something I avoid for myself when I can. I personally do not want to eat anything altered in a lab or whatever. That's the lifestyle I've chosen for myself, like if I wanted to eat things only I raised that's my prerogative. If I only wanted to eat vegetables, same there. That's a little path I've chosen to walk.

You're correct. genetic engineering and selective breeding are pretty much the same in practice and definition. But like I said, selective breeding is that. You pick the best with the best and try to get them to produce the best between the two. Genetic engineering, you isolate the best gene and give it to all that apply to make them better. The new material enters the cell and inserts itself into the DNA, the DNA has been manipulated by the human to make it better.

I don't really understand your choice, but I can respect it, as long as you acknowledge that the evidence exists. I just try to find the healthiest and best tasting food I can, without really caring how natural it is. I suppose what food you chose to eat is just a matter of personal preference.

[Zarakly]

I think the idea of genetic engineering is cool. It can help repopulate endangered animals, make prosthetics, and a lot more. The glow in the dark thing is pretty cool. Imagine glow in the dark fish! haha. Anyway, glow in the dark animals is also found in nature. There is a mole that its fur is like cats eyes at night. Which makes the mole sort of glow if you look at it.

[Sleepy Raisin]

I think the idea of genetic engineering is cool. It can help repopulate endangered animals, make prosthetics, and a lot more. The glow in the dark thing is pretty cool. Imagine glow in the dark fish! haha. Anyway, glow in the dark animals is also found in nature. There is a mole that its fur is like cats eyes at night. Which makes the mole sort of glow if you look at it.

You have a good point, for the endangered animals and prosthetics. Thats being done. And so is the glowing fish! But i still dont consider it fair

[Gigablue]

You have a good point, for the endangered animals and prosthetics. Thats being done. And so is the glowing fish! But i still dont consider it fair

I don't see how it's unfair to the animals. It doesn't hurt them in any way. The way you would make the glowing animals is very simple. Insert the gene into a few individuals, them breed them. All the descendants will have the gene as well. There is no difference on the breeding after the gene has been inserted.

[FreeFall]

The only way I'd see it as unfair is if they were to market the "new" animal. The Glofish already bother me, those fish aren't found in the wild florescent, something just doesn't sit well with me on that. Like if I had the money I could pay for them to find out how to make my cat glow, or spawn a litter that have feathers instead of fur.

If it's in the lab and used to forward science and medical fields, as gigablue has pointed out, I too see no issue.

[Silicate Wielder]

Basically this is just re-writing DNA for fun/scientific purpouses.

Having a cat's night-vision, if thats what you want to call it, would be cool though.

and theres many medical revolutions that could be made with this. for instance we coulld make ourselves immune to diseases or even cure diseases such as Asthma, or even possibly correct Heart defects