I found this post informative, so I forwarded it to you as the science is a bit lacking in fw. Eva Kevin wrote: >I guess my first question is: How is this diabolical genetic engineering >any different from the time-honoured practice of breeding? Farmers, >cattlemen, ranchers, all intervene in the "natural" order of things in= order >to select for certain traits that are deemed desirable. So how is directly >altering the gene different from getting your sow with pig from a certain >boar? Ludwig Krippahl wrote: [snip] > -In genetic engineereing you place 'foreign' DNA on an organism, > which does not occur in breeding > > -To do that you need vectors, wich may be problematic in themselves, > and are unecessary in breeding. > > I think that, as with any technological advance, it has its dangers > if not used carefully. However, I feel the dangers are being blown > out of proportion (this technology has been used successfully for > vacine production and general protein sinthesys for some time). Perhaps it would be good to add a few points. In the place of "engineering" should be the word "art" or "science". The only point where we can really speak of "engineering" is that we can make any kind of protein sequence or RNA sequence we wish. Exactly what it *does* -- if anything -- is typically another matter. Moreover, how to target an organism in the "engineering" sense, is still basically a guessing game. Breeding is usually seeking a "phenotype" (selecting a particular "measurable" characteristic) as opposed to a genotype which my not even be "measurable". By "measureable" I mean that it displays a characteristic like resistance to disease, a particular color of fir, etc. Much of breeding is aimed a visible characteristics, but in agriculture, there are certainly plants that are breeded for resistance to infection etc. In such cases, you might call "breeding" a crude form of genetic "science". Perhaps it is important to point out the benefits of such research, which are many I think. * The AIDS, hepatitis C virus, and some other pernicious vermin will most likely be conquered only via genetic engineering (when it really becomes "engineering"). Hence, our best weapon against pathogens is knowledge, not fear. * Most cancers and chemotherapies will eventually turn to genetic engineering (when it really becomes "engineering") to rid this scourge. Hence, our best solution to transcriptional corruption is knowledge, not fear. * Possibly when we really understand life cycles of cells, we may even be able to develop therapies for cell regeneration. Hence, our best "alternative medicine" is knowledge, not fear. Of course, without some form of ethics, we might have reason to fear such capabilities, but once again, whether we are fundamentally theistic or a-theistic, the best form of ethics come from a desire to understand this world and seek to do right, not a blind fear that some utterly diabolical boggyman (with black hat) could succede in some nefarious scheme or a fear that some Cosmic Dictator who will become angry if we find out how the world works. We already have plenty of potential to destroy ourselves many times over if we want to hurry up the end of the world. Wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- End of forwarded message from Wayne Dawson -----
