How Far Can Genetic Engineering Take Us?

[Tony]

Theoretically speaking, How far can we take genetic engineering. Will we ever be able to create a super human race? Will we ever be able to create hybrid humans, perhaps a human race with wings? scales? feathers? Gills? Ideas like this fascinate me.

[LuxFerum]

wings???
I thougth that was the end of breast implants:D

[athon]

Theoretically, once we know how genes work in combination, we could technically do anything. Practically, I think you would need such an immense supercomputer just to model the outcomes of something even as 'simple' as a new morphological trait.

The more we discover, the more we see that it is not a 'one gene - one trait' system. Even gene has numerous influences on other genes, while in itself is impacted by such diverse things as methelation, control sequences, primer sites, introns...not to mention the products of other genes. For a given trait, you would need to know the impact of a massive number of factors. Substrates, coenzymes, pH to name a few non-coding factors.

Just to map out how all of these interact would take a modelling system far beyond modern capabilities. In the future, though, we might have a better grasp of the rules, and see patterns that would make the job easier. Hence anything too complicated lies in the realm of mere speculation at this point.

Oh, and I'd make women with beer-flavoured nipples.

Athon

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by athon:
The more we discover, the more we see that it is not a 'one gene - one trait' system. Even gene has numerous influences on other genes, while in itself is impacted by such diverse things as methelation, control sequences, primer sites, introns...not to mention the products of other genes. For a given trait, you would need to know the impact of a massive number of factors. Substrates, coenzymes, pH to name a few non-coding factors.


This is illustrated very well by physical differences between
cloned piglets. (www.landandlivestockpost.com/technology/100101cloning.htm)

While their gene sets are the same, the cloned piglets are not identical. Some of the siblings are more aggressive and bigger.

One developed a blockage in its digestive tract, a condition that also appears in noncloned pigs and may or may not be abnormal.

The differences suggest that environment plays a greater role in development than previously thought, Piedrahita said. It also shows that cloning doesn’t always produce exact copies of an animal.

“We still have a lot to learn about the mechanisms of the process,” he said.

[Jon_in_london]

Possibly somethingawful?

http://www.xs4all.nl/~pwitteve/hybrid.htm

(Not safe for work)

[neutrino_cannon]

Theroretically genetic engineering could take us to the physical limits of our inherant biology. I'm personaly looking forward to ultraviolet vision and non-decaying teeth.


And beer flavored nipples... hmm...

edited to add:

OK, here's what I meant. Sure we could have wings on people with advanced enough genetic engineering. Why not? Take a few genes for wing-producing cells, few more genes for areas of the brain required to control those wings, throw in some hormones to get the cells going. Whether or not the person could fly is entirely a function of the physics of flight.

[sorgoth]

That is..mildly disturbing. The fact that he used attractive woman makes it more so.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

OK, here's what I meant. Sure we could have wings on people with advanced enough genetic engineering. Why not? Take a few genes for wing-producing cells, few more genes for areas of the brain required to control those wings, throw in some hormones to get the cells going. Whether or not the person could fly is entirely a function of the physics of flight.

It wouldn't be nearly that simple. The wings would have to replace the arms, there's no vertebrate in the world with six limbs. Otherwise you'd be designing basic body structure from the ground up, a much harder problem. On the flip side, of course, controlling the wings uses exactly the same part of the brain that controlling your arms does. But the thing is, you'd never get a winged person to fly. We're just too massive, there's no way our rib cage can support the kind of musculature necessary. And wings capable of supporting a human body would have to be incredibly big, much larger than any bird's.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


It wouldn't be nearly that simple. The wings would have to replace the arms, there's no vertebrate in the world with six limbs. Otherwise you'd be designing basic body structure from the ground up, a much harder problem. On the flip side, of course, controlling the wings uses exactly the same part of the brain that controlling your arms does. But the thing is, you'd never get a winged person to fly. We're just too massive, there's no way our rib cage can support the kind of musculature necessary. And wings capable of supporting a human body would have to be incredibly big, much larger than any bird's.

Designing a vertibrate from the ground up could be possible, given advanced enough technology. And what would be wrong with putting in redundant genes for more robust ribs, or even a bird style sternum?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

Designing a vertibrate from the ground up could be possible, given advanced enough technology. And what would be wrong with putting in redundant genes for more robust ribs, or even a bird style sternum?

Nothing wrong (in the technical sense) with it, or inherently impossible. Just that it's a much harder problem than just the splicing of the right genes from one animal to another.

[Shane Costello]

IMO while genetic engineering could theoretically produce a race of bird people, why would anyone bother? Quite apart from the ethical considerations, what purpose would it serve?

Theoretically we could genetically engineer microbes to produce complex hydrocarbons, alleviating some of our relaince on fossil fuels. Alternatively if fuel cell technology advances, genetically modified microbes might provide a plentiful source of hydrogen.

Another area where genetic modification could come into it's own is using GM animals to produce valuable proteins. Research into this is already at an advanced stage. (http://www.globetechnology.com/search/News/19980901/RNEXI.html)Animals could be used as bioreactors, producing all sorts of valuable pharmaceuticals. Nexia biotechnology is also trying to produce spider silk (www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-02a.html) in GM goats milk. If they're successfull then they'll have produced the hardest material known to man.

[Eos of the Eons]

We need to find out more about 'gene expression'. Even identical twins can have some differences from each other.

I think gene expression plays a bigger role than environment. Environment didn't cause the differences in identical twins (like one having a mole a birth, and the other being mole free).

[DaChew]

You know, if I could just get a third arm, I'd be happy. I mean, we're going to evolve one anyway so why not speed things up?

[sorgoth]

Evolution has all but stopped for humans. We save everyone (I'm not saying we shouldn't, just the reason for why evolution has stopped.) Evolution only happens when the descendents with a certain trait have more children. I think humans have pretty much stopped evolution.

[Sindai]

If they're successfull then they'll have produced the hardest material known to man.

No, diamond (or carbon nanotubes, or something similar) is about the hardest material known to man.

Spider silk is remarkable because it's amazingly strong for its weight. It is not, however, the strongest material known to man either. Spider silk is also rather stretchy, which makes it useless for some things yo'd think it would be good for - like making bulletproof vests. Sure, the silk doesn't break when a bullet hits, but it deforms and passes the KE right on to your body.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by sorgoth
Evolution has all but stopped for humans. We save everyone (I'm not saying we shouldn't, just the reason for why evolution has stopped.) Evolution only happens when the descendents with a certain trait have more children. I think humans have pretty much stopped evolution.

The biggest evolution jumps happen when something happens on a big scale like a meteor hitting the planet. That tests everyone's survival.

We don't really need to evolve right now. No big change will really be beneficial to our survival right now. We don't know which trait will be beneficial in possible scenarios.

My thinking leads to an example that may arise out of the ozone layer being more depleted and the rise in skin cancers. Out of that the humans with more pigment or other protection will survive while others without it will die.

Then we'll see an evolution of people more able to withstand solar radiation.

Just think of a stress factor and try to figure out what trait would be most beneficial out of all the traits we have now.

All the mutations we've had in the past years (blue eyes, etc.) may lead to a better chance at survival and the humans as a whole will suddenly all have that trait except for the odd individual.

If we don't have the trait we need to survive yet, then if that mutation doesn't occur, then we could be wiped out. Do you think that a short warm blooded T-rex species could have survived until the present? How about all those cold blooded reptiles that DID survive until today. Their smaller size was a 'trait' that helped them survive. You don't see any huge cold blooded reptiles now.

So until we are 'tested' by some difficulty, then we probably won't evolve much.

I do hope that we evolve people less prone to addiction with all the addictive substances destroying peoples' lives out there...maybe there are situations out there now that will cause at least microevolution. Then in millions of years you will see a different hominid.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Another area where genetic modification could come into it's own is using GM animals to produce valuable proteins. Research into this is already at an advanced stage. (http://www.globetechnology.com/search/News/19980901/RNEXI.html)Animals could be used as bioreactors, producing all sorts of valuable pharmaceuticals. Nexia biotechnology is also trying to produce spider silk (www.spacedaily.com/news/materials-02a.html) in GM goats milk. If they're successfull then they'll have produced the hardest material known to man.

The Roslin is doing fantastic stuff in getting cows to manufacture valuable proteins, vaccines etc...

Another possibility is using plants to produce the same, BioPharming is somewhat more attractive because it avoids the whole animal rights issue but the greenies will still try and get as much milage out of it as possible no matter what.

How are you going to milk that goat :eek:

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Sindai:
No, diamond (or carbon nanotubes, or something similar) is about the hardest material known to man.

Spider silk is remarkable because it's amazingly strong for its weight. It is not, however, the strongest material known to man either. Spider silk is also rather stretchy, which makes it useless for some things yo'd think it would be good for - like making bulletproof vests. Sure, the silk doesn't break when a bullet hits, but it deforms and passes the KE right on to your body.

From what I've read getting the transgenic goats to produce the silk will be the relatively easy part, it's weaving the silk into a viable form that will be tricky. Body armour was one of the potential uses suggested, but we'll just have to wait and see.

Originally posted by Eos of Eons:
I think gene expression plays a bigger role than environment. Environment didn't cause the differences in identical twins (like one having a mole a birth, and the other being mole free).

Don't forget that environmental factors directly influence gene expression, so the two don't function in isolation from one another. Take the example of nutrition and mouse colour. (www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24539)

Originally posted by Jon_in_london:
Another possibility is using plants to produce the same, BioPharming is somewhat more attractive because it avoids the whole animal rights issue but the greenies will still try and get as much milage out of it as possible no matter what.

True, and while admitting a certain bias I'd go with transgenic animals, simply because they provide a more controlled environment. That being said, I'm sure we'll discover that some proteins are optimally produced in either animals and plants, so both could end up being utilised.