Genetically Engineer Your Slave!

In my opinion this will greatly help us. Not the slave part, but the growing of organs part. This could safe thousands of lives of those needing human organ donations. And instead of waiting for some human being to die, they could just get pig-human organs instead and be perfectly fine.

Now as for the merging of the brain thing. That is very interting, i wonder what physical implications would incur upon something of that nature.

The problem with pig-human or any other hybridized zygotic creation is that in order to match a human, you need to match not only blood type, but 56 different tissue markers, not to mention cross-match the completely unstudied genetic markers that occur intra-species.

Sorry for the soapbox.

sounds kind of like an old RTS game called warbreeds or something.

Yes, but don't forget that in our society as it is today it would probably only benefit the rich and powerful. Sorry, just my anti-capitalist views shining through!

That's just plain creepy.

I'm just afraid of a planet of the apes scenario, the slaves revlot and become the masters. The former masters are now the slaves.

Well Chimeric organisms aren't exactly a new thing, nor unnatural. Most natural Chimeric organisms are plants though. There are a few really good examples of semi-common plants, but I totally can't think of them right now (sorry - its late for me - I do remember that it is a tree).

I used to do genetic experiements for research at my University, have a good idea of what goes into them.

The article is definetely op-ed (as evedinced by the writing style) so I suspect that a large amount of it is exaggerated. I do know of some hydridization experiments, the pig's blood in particular, but a large amount of it (last time I looked at the literature) was mere speculation (like one day we might be able to do this).

Tyrantus has a very strong point regarding tissue rejection. One of the "concepts" suggested is to use the patients own DNA to grow a new organ (either in a modified animal, like a pig, or grow it in a culture) to avoid the rejection problem, but that raises a totally new set of problems in regards as to how to make the new organ (rejection in the donnor pig, for example) or if the failure of the organ is related to DNA damage.


PS - I really doubt the credability of this article - I'm pretty sure that if you inject brain cells into mouse fetuses or anything else, the brain cells will simply die. First, I don't believe human brain cells reproduce once they have differentiated into a brain cell (someone who is a MD, please correct me if I'm wrong). Secondly, how would a human brain cell integrate into a mouse brain? If anything it would be able to stay alive in the mouse brain, but it would not participate in the brain function. There's no way, as the article suggests, that a mouse would become more intelligent or more "human".

You are not wrong. Human brain tissue is very resilient, but does not grow, nor reproduce, nor does it repair itself.

Brain injury is the most serious calamity a human can suffer.

(Not an MD, just an old Special Forces Combat Medical NCO.)

Hah, glad to hear I am not the only one



As far as I know(which isnt far), if you take the brain tissue early enough, while its still in stem-stage then it will continue to multiply. Probably wrong, but thats the idea behind stem-cells.

Incorrect on all counts. This was the mindset for many years because the brain is so complex, and it takes so much longer than any other system to repair and 'rewire' itself, that it seemed as if it wasn't happening at all. We know differently now. A lady by the name of Christa Lilly just woke up after 7 years in a persistent vegetative state, caused by a heart attack and subsequent massive stroke. She said that she missed eating cake, and looked forward to getting to know her grandchildren, (born while she was 'away'). In 2005, another lady, Sarah Scantlin, awoke from a TWENTY year coma, the result of an automobile accident with a drunken driver. Stroke victims recover the use of their speech and motor functions, as do accident victims. The brain can and does repair itself, just slowly, compared, to say, a broken bone.

As Mistralok stated, this is not true.

Having a degree in experimental psychology, I have some knowledge about the matter.

The traditional view on the 'robustness' of the central nervous system was that it is very vulnerable. After the brain has matured, you can only loose brain cells.

However, the current prevailing view in cognitive neurosciences is that the central nervous system is actually much more flexible and adaptive than we thought.

At least three mechanisms are involved in this fexibility
- Reorganization of neural networks
- Cell division (in memory associated brain areas for instance)
- Repair of damaged cells

These processes explain why people can sometimes recover from serious brain injuries, but also explains how we are able to learn new things even when we are very old.

It is also true however, that our brain is a very delicate 'piece of equipment' and that after some damaging event (stroke, accident, psychiatric illness) it will never return to its old state. In that sense, any recovery is more the result of the fact that the brain is better at adapting than repairing.

yes, I know about the reorganization of brain patterns, but I wouldn't necisarily conisder that repair. The ending coniditon ofthe brain is certianly different than the state of the brain prior to the injury. Different areas of the brain are simply stepping in as a substitute. Hence why total recovery is not plausible (To my knowledge anyway)

I was not aware of any large scale cell division (This is very interesting to me), however was aware of some repair and replacement mechanisms. I'm actually very curious about the repair mechanisms of the brain (on a cellular level).

I was taught an always held the more traditional veiw (fairly in line with SideMancer's - Just didn't know about the ability for brain cells to reproduce) that large scale damage to the brain was irrepairable, athough the functioning parts of the brain could "step in" and substitute, it would be an imperfect substitution, resulting in disorders (speech problems, for example)





Kind of. Brain tissue is brain tissue. No matter how early you take brain tissue in developement, it will still be only brain tissue, and like all human cells, will only live for so long and reproduce only a certian number of times.

Stem cells, Like the ones taken from fetuses, placenta, etc, are known as undifferentiated cells. You can think of these cells as say, a computer. They have amazing capabilities (particulary fetal stem cells), but, like a computer, they need to be given specific instructions as what to do. Most research today is focused towards discovering what signals to send these cells to make them differentiate (ie - turn into a different type of cell - brain tissue, liver, etc). Once you tell the stem cell to differentiate by placing it in a specific medium (Think cell food laced with a specifc chemical), there is no going back.

There's a lot of controversy concerning stem cells. First, there is great moral controversy, particularly here in the US, over the collection and harvesting of stems cells. The Best stem cells are fetal stem cells. They are more stable (less likely to develope mutations), and versitile (we can turn them into more different types of tissue and have a higher rate of sucess). Many ppl in the US think that fetal stem cells come from abortions, which is not true. In fact, fetal stem cells come from fertility clinics. When a couple decides to undergo in-vitro fertilitazation, several eggs are extracted and fused with sperm. The result is several fertiliazations. Fertility clinics will fertilize multiple eggs for several reasons. First, fertilization is not always perfect, and there is a chance cell death - (fatal defect genetically, such as trisomy). Second, extracting an egg and sperm is not very pleasant, so the clinics do not want to have to do it multiple times to a couple. This way, if the couple plans to have multiple children, the other fertilized eggs can be frozen at -80 C until the couple is ready for another child. Now there are usually extra fetuses that the clinic stores. Storage is expensive. Particulary if the couple decides not to have anymore children. The clinics have either to throw away the fetuses or can donate them to science. People in the US in particular, are very concerned over the destruction of fetuses in the name of science. There is a fairly hot debate going on in the country and currently, the President has limited funding for stem cell research. No new fetal stem cell lines may be created in the US (atleast with public money - Private institutions are free to research).

The second controvery concerns versitility and, in my opinion is a good controversy. Recently, there was a paper published where researcher have found stem cells in the placenta and discharge (afterbirth) that were just as good as fetal stem cells. We always new of placental stem cells, which were lesser wuality stem cells. That new that there might be high quality stem cells also in the placenta is excellent news as we can avoid the controversy state above and still research high quality stem cells. On the other hand, this is very new information (just his year), so it will take a while to become normal practice as it needs to be verified and tested by the scientific community and make sure these newly discovered cells can do everything fetal cells can.

Lastly, there is a lot of safety and health issues concerning stems cells. That is an ongoing issue, before we can even think to use them for medicine, we have to make sure that they won't hurt the people we wish to help. This is very very slow, and probably why we won't see much in the way of tangible stem cell medicines/therapies for many many years.

The article doesn't really scare me.



Now that scares me.

Taking into account my limited knowledge of the subject, the fact that my information is more than twenty years old, and the fact I only minored in psycology while matriculating two Engineering degrees, I concede that what I may know to be true may be old information.   

But, come on now, you guys jumped on me, and were slightly rude in the process. There is always a better way.

This is just a forum posting.

Remember, "There is no spoon."

Lol, matix refence...I however, think there is a spoon. Theres a spoon in all of us   ...

lol. Anywho, this is interesting stuff! I actually learned by these responses.   

I don't care what anybody says, that's borderline sadistic, and the mad scientist who thought this up needs to go to jail.

It was pobably Sci-fi fantasy at one time...but now, the human race is at an age where it is deciding what to do with this knowledge: Use it to further our sadistic ego, or continue on with gene research to create cures and medicines... Who knows what will happen in the future.   

I wish galciv2 had crossroads like this. Issues you can relate to in the world and ultimately decide what your race will be and stand for.

If stuff like this keeps popping up, it won't matter what we do with our knowledge because it'll be evil!

Tyrantus,
I'm sorry If I or anyone here offended you. I don't think that was anyone's intent. We all get a little excited when it comes to science, I think




Sorry, you think that. If it makes you feel better, genetic alteration of organisms, isn't entirely man made. Genetic alterations of organisms occur in nature (quite often too!), and infact, virutally every single method we use in the lab to alter an organism's DNA essentially mimicks what happens in nature (only on a larger scale).

For example, Virus's operate by genetically altering thier host cells (via infection). The Virus DNA commands the cell to perform a specific function (ie make more virus).
In a more interesting example, one of the lectures I remember focused on the Argobacterium Tumafecians (Sorry, I'm not a Plant Biology expert). This bacteria can inject a wounded plant with a special segment of DNA called a plasmid. Essentially this plasmid genetically alters the plants cells, forcing them to make food and shelter (in the form for of a tumor) for the bacteria. Cool, huh?

In real life, genetic engineering is farily prevailent, we call it Biotechnology for the most part, and not in the Extreme create your own minion way. Take anitbiotics as an example. Penicillin is a made by a fungus. We don't go foraging in the woods for this fungus. We farm it. We breed a certian fungus to be make as much penicillin as possible. Now with genetic engingeering, we can take the pencillin gene and place it in an organism (maybe yeast) that doesn't have as much upkeep, allowing us to make more penicillin cheaper, faster, and more efficiently.

A lot of medicines and chemicals are made by microrganisms (think like big farms). Here's another example: the bacteria Bacillus Thuringiensis naturally makes a protien that kills insects. Its called BT toxin. BT toxin is used all over the world as a pesticide as it is eco - firendly (compared to like DDT). How do we make it? We have big bacteria farms. We've actially figure out how to give plants the BT toxin gene, so the plant can make its own instead of us spraying it everywhere. Currently, BT corn is grown and sold in the US (possibly in Europe too?). As far as I know, BT Corn is not authorized for human consumption (anywhere), and is instead used for livestock feed. The reason why (atleast for BT corn) is that the FDA and other angencies are worried that a small amount of people may be allergic to the toxin (The toxin itself is not dangerous to humans, mammals or anything that has acid in its stomach).

We make medicines using genetics. Insulin, factorXII (for hemophilia), growth hormone, DNAseI (for cystic fibrosis) are made by other organisms that we have altered. In fact, the recombinat protein market pulled about 15 billion USD in 2001. Its the only way for us to make complex medicines in masse. We can't make complex protiens in a test tube. A living organism is too complicated to mimic, so we give bacteria, etc the instructions to make the medicine for us.

Genetics is a lot wider than just engineering. DNA fingerprinting, Paternity/maternity tests, looking for disease or risk of disease, even looking at how diseases and the human defences react.

For example, a study of most cancers revealed that tumors seem to follow a general trend of genomic damage as the tumor becomes more severe. The most sever tumors have damage to chromosome 9 (sometimes Chromosome 9 is even deleted - poof - Gone!!). We found that the human "anti - cancer" genes (TP53 I think) are located in chromosome 9. The genes here make proteins that essentially fight cancer, amoung many other things. Some suggested therapies involve producing this protein for those with cancer as the cancerous cells can no longer produce it.


In short, Biotechnology isn't really about making new humans, new minions, etc. Most genetics in use today is simply to produce medicines, food, and chemicals. We rely on biotech in a more subtle way and important way. Insulin, antibiotics, pesticides, antibodies, all thanks to biotechnology.


ps thanks Quixen - I'll try no to scare you too much.

If your curious, my job (small part of a giant project studying the proteins involved in meosis) was to take certian genes from Yeast, make several billion copies of the gene via PCR and then insert them into plasmid vectors for transformation into e coli for mass production. Then finally transfer the plasmid into another e coli (or yeast) for expression of the protein.

Sorry.

Hey, General,

I did not to mean to sound like I was jumping all over you, I just wanted to give you some examples where biotech has been helpful to us.

One key thing is that all of our current commerically available biotech medicines, foods, chemicals are largely secondary to the human. That is, we've altered organisms to make something for us. People don't mind so much when we alter another organism for our gain. We've done it with breeding of plants and animals for thousands of years.

We haven't altered the human in anyway, yet.

I say yet, because I know of techniques currently being explored to help individuals with genetic diseases, where we attempt to give a human a copy of a correct working gene to replace thier damaged one. At the moment, gene therapy is a long way off. It's very very hard to get animal cells (especiall human cells) to accept foreign DNA and then use the DNA (expression). The hope is that one day we can innoculate (just like a vaccine - even use viruses) people against sever genetic defects. I think there will be much more uproar when gene therapies hit the market. In every society, religion, etc, the human itself is essentially sacred. Commandments are made to respect it, Governments made to protect its rights, medicines made to enhance its health. Altering a human in a genetic level will be a mjor issue to contend with.

It's okay, I just went crazy.