Designer Babies

Genetically modifying embryos to have certain desired traits is far from being done. The ability to select different traits is much more difficult than targeting genetic diseases. This is because genetic diseases can be caused by a single mutation, while selecting certain traits is influenced by multiple genes. Shai Carmi said how it is much more accepted to alter a baby if it is for a disease versus an outward identity. Also traits can be very unpredictable, even if altered.

In my opinion, I do not think genetically modifying embryos should be allowed with the purpose of a "designer baby." I think it is acceptable to modify in the interest of the health and well being of a child, but to completely change their characteristics should not be okay. If somebody wants to change the way they are, it should be decided by them, not their parents. Also all life should be accepted the way it is, parents should be happy with the way their baby looks without genetically modifying them. I hope this is never something that is available to the public when it does become successful.



https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2019-11-21/designer-babies-a-long-way-off

Related Article:
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies

New Way to Attack Malarial Parasite in Blood Cells

Scientists Attack Malaria in Blood Cells by Altering Parasite Genes

Scientists at Yale University have found a way to slow the development of malaria inside blood cells. By altering gene expression of RNA, they were able to block other molecules from accessing specific sequences. This leads to a disruption of the parasite's development once it is inside a blood cell.

Malaria, a disease which claims the lives of over 600,000 people every year, is becoming an even bigger problem when drug-resistant strains pop up and render common anti-malaria drugs useless. An amazing advantage to this gene alteration is that even strains resistant to drugs used to treat malaria are affected. Gene alteration, along with the crime scene compoud Luminol, and playing around with the host's blood proteins are new ways that researchers are developing to combat malaria.

If you'd like to read the news release from Yale, click here.

Cell Therapy

A large study was completed at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center on patients with advance leukemia. They found that 88% of patients went into remission with the use of genetically modified T cells (their own immune cells). Patients with adult B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, which is a type of blood cancer in B cells,  normally relapse without a successful bone marrow transplant. So sixteen patients were given genetically modified immune cells from their own body. The cells were modified so that they would recognize and destroy cancer cells that contained the protein CD19. The modified cells are called chimeric antigen receptor T cells. The results were better than the traditional method with salvage chemotherapy. The first patient to receive the treatment is still in remission three years later. This treatment basically uses the persons own immune system to attack and kill the cancer cells because traditionally, without the genetically modified cells, the body does not recognize cancer cells as something to fight off. This method was also successful for cancer treatment in 2013 when tested on five different advanced B-ALL patients. The only known side effects are severe flu-like symptoms (fever), cytokine release syndrome (trouble breathing), low blood pressure, and muscle pain.
I think that the modification of your own body cells is a great new technology to fight cancer. It may prove to have many less side effects than traditional chemotherapy. Using your own cells instead of something foreign and potentially hazardous is a great thing. Hopefully the side effects are manageable and this treatment can be offered more commonly to help more cancer patients reach remission.

Link
Link2

Britain votes on allowing world's first three-parent IVF babies

The never-ending dispute between science and ethics continues with a new proposed law in Britain. This law would allow parents who carry maternally-inherited incurable conditions to participate in a technique, called mitochondrial donation, in which during the fertilization process, the genes will be altered to contain the genetic material of three people. Carried out through IVF (In Vitro Fertilization), doctors could remove mitochondria (the powerhouse of a cell that, if defective, accounts for numerous inherited and potentially fatal diseases), and modify it with genes from a normal female donor. The baby would contain the genetic material from the mother, father, and donor, and could help those who would suffer from mitochondrial disease including brain disorders, liver failure, fatal heart problems, and muscular dystrophy.

Opponents of this law include religious groups as well as other critics, such as lawmaker Rees-Mogg, who said he would vote against it. The fear is that genetically modified embryos, or "designer babies", will become more popular in the future and basically deem the whole process as 'cruel'. My opinion on this is a slightly torn. While the technology is incredible and could potentially help people across the globe not suffer from these diseases, I feel it would be very strange to have a child with three parents, and I'm not sure where it falls on the line between science and ethics. To solve this dilemma, maybe parents could try to find out if their child could be diagnosed with these diseases prior to getting pregnant.

Original Article
Related

GMO Potatoes

As of November 19, 2014, the New York Times released an article on the Department of Agriculture's approval of commercially planting G.M.O. potatoes. The reason for this modification was to reduce the amount of a potentially harmful ingredient, acrylamide, in French fries and potato chips, once the potato is fried. This ingredient is suspected of causing cancer in people. This new G.M.O. potato is also bruise proof, something that farmers and processors long sought after for financial purposes. A bruised potato can lose value or become unusable. Consumers are questioning the safety of this new genetically modified potato and may pose an issue for franchise companies such as McDonald's, who buy most of their potatoes from the companies that harvest G.M.O. potatoes. So far about 50 countries as well as the state of Vermont require that G.M.O. based foods be labeled and 20 additional states are considering similar laws.

Consumers these days seem to wave a pitch fork and torch at every new idea that comes their way, especially if its science based. For starters, Americans are anything but healthy and  frying potatoes will eventually clog your arteries regardless of whether they are genetically modified or not. To protest this modification, that is lessening the amount of a toxic cancer provoking ingredient in a widely consumed food, is just ridiculous. Consumers might as well protest conola oil, corn cereals, soy products, and refined sugar too, because they're genetically modified as well. I think we, as American citizens, should be thankful that scientists are looking to reduce toxicity in our foods as safety precautions rather than protesting them. 

Primary Article: http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/food-fight-researching-and-debating-the-future-of-g-m-o-s/?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A18%22%7D&_r=0

Secondary Article: http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/23.genetically_modified_potato.html

                                          'GMO'  'OMG'

           In the world of genetics there has been a growing controversy over Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). Recently there has been a documentary released by the director Jeremy Seifert. The documentary follows the director on his quest to find food in America that is not genetically modified. Throughout the documentary he is constantly throwing statistics about our food that I and most people don’t seem to know about. Facts such as 85% of all corn grown in America is genetically modified, there are 420 million acres of GMO’s worldwide, and how the world’s demand for pesticides is reaching up to 52 billion dollars. 

           

            The documentary also targets Monsanto and how they refuse to disclose what chemicals they put in the food and other details on how it’s harvested and stored. Interestingly enough the government through a budget provision gave Monsanto its own Protection act for their genetically modified seeds and allows them to get by without any lawsuits in regard to the food they are creating. So instead of enforcing judicial scrutiny on company who doesn’t have the decency to let the American people know what they are putting in their bodies the government protects them so they can keep making GMO’s and making money off the health of the American people.

Nice to know our government cares more about the economy behind the food and the business instead of the people who are putting genetically, biologically, and chemically modified foods in their body. And we wonder why the cancer rate is so high. Watch what you eat!!!! Monsanto is everywhere.

This is a link will take you to the documentary:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/gmo-omg-jeremy-seifert_n_3942545.html

More on Monsanto Protection Act

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-protection-extended-house-741/

Genetically Altered Salmon Get Closer to the Table

[caption id="attachment_7309" align="alignleft" width="273" caption="Genetically altered fish and normal fish at same age"][/caption]

The New York Times published an article called "Genetically Altered Slamon Get Closer to the Table" written by Andrew Pollack.  The article is about a company called AquaBounty Technologies who is trying to get their creation of genetically altered salmon approved by the FDA. These salmon are altered in order to grow faster.  By combining hormones from Chinook salmon and gene switches from pout, the salmon are able to reach full adulthood by 1.5 years instead of 3.  AquaBounty has been trying to get this passed for over a decade, but many arguments as to why it should not be still remain.  If it does get passed by the FDA, questions of how it should be labeled for consumers is also an issue.  Genetically altered crops are not labeled,

but should the salmon be?  Getting the salmon approved would be a major advancement in genetics and food production and it could open the door to more genetic alterations.