Archive | Protect

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

GM Mosquitoes May Piggyback the Zika Virus

Posted on 09 April 2016 by Jerry

Genetic modification of a male mosquito whose offspring die before they mature and mate can be used to kill a certain kind of mosquito (Aedes aegypti) that carries dengue fever, chikungunya, yellow fever and now Zika virus.  Oxitec, a company out of the United Kingdom, produces this mosquito, with an engineered “self destruct” gene.

This company provides only one of three ways to drastically reduce the number of the offending mosquitoes.  The other two ways are using male mosquitoes that have been sterilized by low doses of radiation and/or a mosquito that is infected with the Wolbachia bacteria.  These bacteria do not infect humans but prevents eggs of infected females from hatching.  All of these approaches entail releasing large numbers of male mosquitoes into the environment.

The Oxitec genetically modified mosquito has been tested in Brazil, the Cayman Islands and a trial has been proposed in Florida.  Now the World Health Organization is very interested in the Oxitec mosquito as a viable way of stopping the spread of the Zika virus.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has tentatively agreed that the Oxitec genetically modified mosquito would not have a significant impact on the environment as a result of a trial in Florida.  The FDA report states, “The FDA found that the probability that the release of OX513A male mosquitoes would result in toxic or allergenic effects in humans or other animals is negligible.”  The FDA has to wait for public comment before giving final approval of the trial.  The process will probably take a few months.

Genetically modified insects have been introduced into the environment to protect or enhance crops for a number of years.  This however, will be the first GM insect introduced into the environment to have a direct effect on human beings. 

The problem is that use of this genetically modified mosquito has opened up quite a bit of controversy.  An opponent of the genetically modified mosquito, Jaydee Hanson a senior policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, has been quoted in a Bloomberg news article published on 1/29/2016.  He said “Mosquitoes are food for lots of animals; We would still want to see studies of when birds and bats and amphibians eat these genetically modified animals.  They’re introducing into the ecosystem some genetic constructs that have never been there before.”

The same article quotes the Oxitec CEO Hadyn Parry as arguing the opposite position.  He said, “You always get some people who say I don’t like genetic engineering because it’s a bad thing and we’re messing with nature.”  Referring to criticism that his mosquito might die out and another will come to the fore, he has also been quoted as saying, “So in the very worst case, where you find that you eliminated Aedes aegypti in an area and the Aedes albopictus went up, then you would actually be replacing a very dangerous vector with a far less effective one.”

You know that there are two other options that could be used to stop this type of mosquito that do not involve genetic modifications.  There are male mosquitoes of the same species that are exposed to low-grade radiation that sterilizes them and there are males that pass on the Wolbachia bacteria that make it so female eggs do not hatch.  Both of these two methods use males to mate with females to cause an end to successful fertilization and replication.

The question becomes why are we moving to choose the method that requires genetic modification.  The only answer that is probable is that we want to see a genetically altered alternative in the market.  This is a continuation of the government push for genetic engineering.   There have been numerous articles on this blog going back to the June 13, 2012 posting of Genetic Engineering Influence Peddling and Profit (see www.iamaguardian.com/category/protect/genetic-engineering/page/4/ ) that show the government’s bias to push for genetic modification products.

This support is hidden from the average citizen’s view and is the reason we are seeking a genetically engineered alternative.  There are just too many economic interests to be satisfied.  These, as an example, range from educators to scientists to entrepreneurs to established major competitors like Monsanto and to politicians.  The U.S. voter should rise up and call for a hiatus on approval of genetically modified products until there is proof that these products do not represent a threat to our health.

The FDA approved the first genetically modified animal intended to be human food in the AguAdvantage Salmon for sale and consumption in the U.S. sometime after November of last year.  Fortunately members of Congress disagreed.  On page 106 of the 2016 federal spending bill congress people added a requirement for the FDA to not allow the selling of this product in the U.S. until the agency puts in place labeling guidelines and “a program to disclose to consumers” whether a fish has been genetically modified.

We have a very short time to influence this genetic engineering issue.  We should insist that our candidates for president address this issue for us so we know where they stand on genetically engineered foods.  In all cases we should ask for regulation and oversight by a newly established governmental agency that dramatically slows the headlong rush to get these products into the market. 

Use the following links to access more information or read the source documents used to prepare this article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/04/what-it-would-really-take-for-gmo-mosquitoes-to-solve-the-zika-crisis/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/10/gm-mosquitos-malaria-genetic-modification

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-35585656

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-29/genetically-modified-mosquito-may-become-weapon-against-zika

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/Genetically-Modified-Mosquitos-May-Be-Released-in-Florida-Keys/384859/

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/genetically_modified_mosquito_sparks_a_controversy-in-florida/2883/

http://www.dw.com/en/fda-gives-nod-to-genetically-modified-mosquitoes/a-19112519

http://time.com/4258317/fda-genetically-engineered-mosquito/

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , ,

‘Aging Out’ of Nuclear Weapons

Posted on 23 February 2016 by Jerry

In 1996 President Bill Clinton became the first world leader to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. In 1999 Bill Clinton suffered a major defeat when the U.S. Senate rejected this treaty’s ratification. Not since just after World War I when the Senate refused to ratify the treaty setting up the League of Nations had the Senate balked at ratifying a major arms treaty. Although both Clinton and Obama have sought ratification in the interim, the Senate continues to block ratification of this treaty.

This is after we have overcome the two main objections to this treaty that bans all nuclear test blasts including those conducted underground. In October 2015 a group headed by Energy Secretary Earnest Moniz, the head of the NNSA Frank Klotz, directors of the main nuclear weapons labs at Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories, former Deputy Energy Secretary Charles Curtis and others stated emphatically that the ‘stockpile stewardship program’ that was initiated in place of ratification of this treaty was an unbridled success.

NNSA head Klotz stated, “Today we have a more detailed understanding of how a nuclear weapon works than was possible under nuclear testing.” He gave credit to the development of supercomputers and our modeling skills to have replaced the needs for more actual nuclear tests.

With the implementation of the worldwide seismic monitoring network that consists of 170 seismic monitoring stations in 73 countries we now have a system that can tell us if others have tested an underground nuclear weapon. Not only can we now detect an underground explosion using seismic waves but also we can use an additional 11 monitors to detect an undersea explosion or 60 monitors detecting frequency waves in the open atmosphere or 80 detectors measuring radioactive particles in the air.

For this reason, we have now measured and verified all of the tests of nuclear blasts by North Korea. Our network of monitors is so pervasive and sensitive that we can normally measure a sub-one megaton explosion or any other low-yield event.

With these principal restraints now gone, scientists, nuclear pundits and world leaders are suggesting this is the time to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. For example, only eight nuclear-capable states must ratify the treaty for it to become effective – China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, and the United States. Fully 183 countries have signed the treaty. Of these 164 states have ratified the agreements. Russia, the other large nuclear weapons power, has signed and ratified the agreement.

As an example, Lassina Zerbo, executive secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization suggested a sort of domino effect. If both Israel, that has never acknowledged having nuclear weapons and Iran, who has just signed an agreement to not develop a weapon for 15 to 20 years both ratify the treaty, this would initiate a domino effect. This would apply pressure to Egypt to begin the establishment of a nuclear free zone in the Middle East.

A January 29, 2016 article in the International Business Times by Himanshu Goenka quotes Zerbo as saying, “Iran and Israel ratifying CTBT would provide momentum for Egypt to do so as well, which in turn would put pressure on the U.S. to ratify it as well. China would not ratify the treaty before the U.S., India wouldn’t do so before China and Pakistan wouldn’t ratify it before India, therefore making the U.S. action crucial.”

The article continued by saying that Zerbo added that North Korea was the least likely to ratify the CTBT. He said the international community needed to change the way it dealt with the East Asian country. It is the only country in the world to have tested nuclear weapons in the 21st century. It should be the target of worldwide condemnation and the subject of more sanctions.

The U.S. Senate should ratify the treaty in any case since its two main objections have been resolved. We should ratify because our worldwide sensor network serves as verification that countries either have or have not adhered to the treaty. We also have gained far more from supercomputer modeling that we could ever learn from additional test blasts.

Unfortunately the U.S. is not going to ratify the treaty in the Senate until one political party, probably the Democrats, dominates Congress. We are subject to a political stalemate. Once Congress is willing, the U.S. should ratify the treaty.

While this treaty does not eliminate nuclear weapons it does ban any further blast testing. This means the weapons will eventually age into obsolescence and we will age out of our nuclear weapons.

While all countries ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty are only a single step that does not accomplish the ultimate goal, it is a step in the right direction. We should settle for half measures if we cannot accomplish a full forbidding of all weapons.

Ultimately we should continue to impose harsh sanctions on North Korea in an effort to get them to sign and ratify this treaty. In the meantime other negotiations that continue to reduce the size of our arsenals should continue. We, at the bottom line, should not care how the world rids itself of the nuclear menace. We should just end it anyway we can.

Use the following links to find out more information or access the original documents used to prepare this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/oct99/senate14.htm

http://thebulletin.org/new-push-comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty8830

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/nuclear-test-ban-obama-kerry-moniz-215142

http://www.ibtimes.com/iran-israel-could-ratify-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-un-official-says-2285671

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/04/comprehensive_nuclear_test_ban_treaty_the_u_s_should_ratify_it_now_.html

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/10/24/rough-path-ahead-kerry-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-ctbt/74460820/

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2012/03/30-nuclear-pifer

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-barack-obama-prague-delivered

 

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , ,

Disagree (and Agree) With Stephen Hawking

Posted on 26 January 2016 by Jerry

Dr. Stephen Hawking, professor and research director at Cambridge University’s Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, has expressed his belief that technology will be our undoing and will bring new ways for things to go wrong and end humanity’s future existence. Hawking said at a teleconference in Hong Kong, “Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of.” He made substantially the same statements in response to questions when recording the BBC’s annual Reith Lectures on January 7, 2016.

He said that he believes our only hope is to spread out in space and colonize other worlds. He believes that it will take at least 100 years to establish a colony on another world in our solar system and the next 1000 years to spread to other solar systems. Our objective must be to establish self-sustaining colonies that are independent of our home planet Earth. This is because he believes we will kill ourselves on planet Earth and we need to be self-sustaining elsewhere for humanity to survive.

While we agree on the threats, we must be a pessimist about the space options and an optimist that human beings on this planet are taking the steps necessary for us to survive. We must support space colonization because of the knowledge we gain about surviving in hostile environments. We cannot believe we can colonize other solar systems. We cannot believe that colonies can support more than a few thousand humans, certainly not any real fraction of the seven plus billion population of the world.

Dr. Hawking has reliance on the science fictional development of a technology that allows our speed to approach that of light. The author sees no practical approach that permits us to significantly increase our speed.  This Hawking suggestion represents his ‘hail Mary’ pass about the future.

In our book, Beyond Animal, Ego and Time, it is shown it would take 18,000 years at 150,000 miles per hour, our current rate of maximum speed, to reach the nearest star. Even if you triple or quadruple this speed the time to reach the star dwarfs our ability to maintain life in outer space by a large margin. The book is explicit about our practical isolation in the universe (see Chapter 4 about travel to Alpha Centuri C).

Those readers who have the book Beyond Animal, Ego and Time or follow the blog www.iamaguardian.com know that the writer has warned about these hazards specifically with the exception of artificial intelligence. The author has warned about climate change, nuclear weapons and genetic engineering/synthetic biology. While we have also warned about the ozone depletion of the planet’s atmosphere, we have recently written blog articles about asteroids and meteors hitting the earth. On these threats there is agreement.

Although the writer wishes it were not so, he is not the fatalist that Dr. Hawking is proving to be. The outcomes we fear, while all legitimate, must be solved soon by us before our worst fears come to pass. There is certainly no option to wait for a century to solve these problems. The climate change outcome is dependent upon what humanity does in the next decade.

All of these problems should be dwelt with in the next few decades. We must have faith there is a solution to each of these hazards that has been spelled out in the blog articles over the last four years or so.

The only one we have not dealt with is the meteor strike on our planet and this too can be solved. We can interrupt the trajectory of a meteor or asteroid that we know is coming toward us. So far we are making too little an effort to identify these objects and are making no effort to learn how to modify trajectories. We just need to get going.

We must stay the course on each of the threats we face. None of them involve quick or easy fixes. We cannot give up as Dr. Hawking suggests. We can be fatalistic but not in his way. We must believe human beings will confront each threat and solve the underlying problems. We should believe in ourselves to triumph over problems we have created or we can foresee.

Use the following links to access additional information or the source documents used to support this article.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/13293390/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/hawking-says-humans-must-go-space/#.Vp6tixHSalU

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/scientific-progress-a-disaster-hawking/news-story/deadb3343090a1e679c6795cee076d32

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/stephen-hawking-humanity-1000-years_n_7160870.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3406751/Hawking-Threats-human-survival-likely-new-science.html

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , ,

Paris Climate Conference 2015: a Beginning

Posted on 25 December 2015 by Jerry

Many people watching the proceedings at the Paris Climate Change Conference that took place this December did not have the right expectation. They were disappointed that the 195 or so countries did not legally commit to absolute levels of emissions and penalties they would incur should they fail to achieve the targeted levels. They also reacted negatively to the failure to address the carbon fossil fuel yet to be taken out of the ground. There was no mention of a ban on further mining or extracting fuel from the ground around the world.

The detractors have to understand that all of the representatives were from sovereign nations. Sovereign nations cannot be forced to accept penalties that they would just ignore and not pay. The United Nations has tried the top down imposition of penalties for many years. In 2015 it switched to a bottoms up expression of voluntary cuts on emissions. As unpleasant as it may be, this approach has worked by bringing everyone to the table. India and China both offered reductions of emissions.

One other reason for the change in approach is Obama’s need to get congress to ratify a treaty that requires U.S. approval or additional expenditures. The scuttlebutt is this agreement, since it is voluntary and does not require any approval of additional funds, can be ratified by Obama without the further involvement of congress.

Yes, the emissions do not add up to the low level necessary to avoid a significant increase beyond 2° C. Present commitments add-up to a 2.7° C level. As cited in an earlier article on this blog (see http://iamaguardian.com/1777/will-the-paris-climate-meeting-make-a-difference ) this 2.7° Celsius level converts to a 4.9° Fahrenheit increase.

To deal with the carbon fuel still in the ground the present approach is voluntary to each country. Representatives at the UN will allow the countries themselves to regulate their own energy industries. The betting is that the governments will let the prices of un-pumped oil and un-mined coal fluctuate to a level that is uneconomic. They believe that under this approach the Keystone pipeline project will not be revived.

Of course there were winners and losers at the conference. While the European Union wanted to be perceived as the leader in climate change (and their achievements actually make them a leader) they were not perceived as such. This is while France, a EU country recovering from an attack, showed that it could marshal the world’s nations to reach a major agreement to save the world from climate change in the face of terrorism.

China emerged as a full participant instead of blocking agreement as was perceived at the climate summit six years ago. At the same time India had wanted access to western technology with no restraints from intellectual property rights and did not gain the free access they were seeking.

The big winners of the climate conference were the small islands of the world.   They won a commitment from the world’s developed nations to provide funding for emergency efforts in the event of rising seas from climate change. They also received a concession from the world’s nations that the world would actually seek to not go beyond a 1.5° Celsius temperature rise.

This conference was marked by discussion of mass migration due to climate change’s effects. Scientists and scholars have said that a drought in Darfur, Sudan in part caused migration in the last decade. In addition, they cite a drought lasting from 2006 to 2011 in Syria as a factor in the mass migration of the Syrians.

E.U. leaders warned the world about mass migrations as a result of climate change in the future. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission on Climate Change was quoted as warning world leaders that climate change could “destabilize entire regions and start massive forced migrations and conflicts over natural resources.” This quote appeared in an article in the New York Times by Sewell Chan on December 12, 2015.

The same article quoted Marine Franck who works on climate change and migration for the high commissioner for refugees. He stated, “Climate-related displacement is not a future phenomenon. It is a reality; it is already a global concern.”

People who read this blog know that migration and how the world handles immigrants is a continuing topic. Among the prominent mentions of migration, the article appearing on September 8, 2013 comes to mind (see http://www.iamaguardian.com/1488/what-would-you-do-life-or-death/ ). Migration because of drought or other climate change induced calamity should be top of mind for all of us. We need to consider how we relate to distressed migrants from many countries. Do we personally try to help them or resist? Are we sensitive to their plight or not?

This recent conference on climate change represents a new beginning that unfortunately does not lessen our personal workload. While it does signal a worldwide agreement to fight climate change, it also signals continued work within each country to agitate and apply pressure to keep our governments working on lowering emissions.

We need each country to reduce their emissions further than they have committed. Especially the big offenders (USA, China and India) need to continually work the issue to better their performance. This will require further work from each of us and signals a long haul for the world to once and for all control climate change.

Use the following links to gain additional information or access the source documents used for this article.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/12/06/paris-climate-negotiations-wont-stop-planet-burning

http://newsdaily.com/2015/11/u-s-senators-vow-to-block-climate-aid-scrutinize-paris-deal/

http://www.xyz.net.au/paris-climate-conference-a-failure/

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-12-17/the-paris-climate-summit-a-useful-failure

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/07/20/news/two-degree-target-may-still-cause-catastrophic-sea-level-rise-james-hansen-warns

http://news.yahoo.com/paris-climate-deal-cop21-criticized-063148941.html:_ylt=AwrSbnWlo3xWencAe3NXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByb2lvbXVuBGNvbG8D3ExBHBvcwMx

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/paris-accord-considers-climate-change-as-a-factor-in-mass-migration.html

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2595.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6267/1451.summary?sid=f30bec59-791a-492f-9b4c-3576af2da825

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6267/1450.summary?sid=f30bec59-791a-492f-9b4e-3576af2da825

http://iamaguardian.com/1777/will-the-paris-climate-meeting-make-a-difference/

http://iamaguardian.com/1488/what-would-you-do-life-or-death/

http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-to-read-the-jargon-at-the-paris-climate-change-talks/

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/climate_consensus_signs_ofnew_hope_on_road_paris/2843/

 

Comments (0)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Concerns Grow About CRISPR & Gene Editing

Posted on 16 December 2015 by Jerry

International controversy is growing about the potential of the new genetic engineering technologies, especially CRISPR. All sorts of groups are meeting to gain some measure of control over these technologies by setting up agreements on how to evaluate the ethical issues and control the experiments that are done.

These include in 2015 the Hinxton Group, the National Institute of Health, the Welcome Trust and various conferences like one hosted in Washington DC and another in Napa, California. In addition, interested parties are writing editorials that oppose strict limits on or banning alterations of the human germline using CRISPR etc. Most notably Frank Church at Harvard Medical School.

In a previous article on CRISPR (see the August 2015 posting on this web site under Genetic Engineering, “CRISPR”, Breakthrough or Trouble), there is an outline of the technological innovation. The problem is that the development of CRISPR/Cas9 and other technologies have made alteration of DNA too accessible and available even to amateurs playing in their garages. This technology is very accurate and extremely low cost.

As an example, an article in the December 3, 2015 issue of Nature magazine identifies the cost of a widely used genetic plasmid created with the CRISPR-Cas9 technology at $65 or less.  It is ordered online and shipped in the normal mail.  It requires little specialized training to use.

Most scientists say that serious alterations to genetics are still beyond the hobbyist. They say the CRISPR technology and understanding of it are not enough for mastery or major changes. They also claim that most institutions do all of their experiments as a function of government grants that are not given to hobbyists. Even though there is no direct regulation of the area they claim this indirectly regulates experimentation at least for now.

There are many issues but the one that troubles scientists most is the new ability to cheaply and effectively edit the genomes of all sorts of living entities. Particularly troubling are alternations to germline cells (sperm and eggs) in early human embryos. By definition, germline cell alterations can be passed to future offspring of the resulting human. This raises the specter of “designer babies” with their genes altered to reflect the wishes of expectant parents.

Beyond the specter of eugenics, it also recognizes that in theory altering the germline cells of human embryos can change a number of genetic traits. The elimination of babies carrying harmful, disease-ridden genes that inhabit various family trees is an objective most people would favor. Unfortunately, these potential applications remain a way off into the future.

Of course there are also positive possibilities from CRISPR. CRISPR-Cas9 is being used to develop “gene drives” that spread proper genetic changes quickly throughout an entire population. Groups that want to eradicate malaria are testing a couple of methods on mosquitos. One group is using the technology to produce DNA that is not infected by or is immune to the parasite P. falciparum that causes malaria. The drive represents creating two or more strings of the requisite DNA to be passed on to all offspring. Normally, a mutation is spread to only 50% of the offspring. The “gene drive” feature allows the new DNA to be passed to all offspring.

The second alternative is being worked on at the Imperial College London and involves a gene drive that inactivates genes that control egg production in female mosquitos. They believe this would be a way to drastically reduce the overall population of mosquitos.

The concerns raised with these two approaches relate to the use of gene drives and fear that genetic changes would wipe out mosquitos entirely in an area. This would eliminate a species that might fill a significant need in the local food chain. The fear is there would be no way to call back a change that produced unforeseen effects elsewhere in the DNA.

Already the CRISPR technology is being used to alter the genetic code of plants that are subject to some regulation.   This has been identified as a faster and more accurate way of engineering insect resistant strains of crops by disabling specific genes in wheat and rice. Disabling genes is not subject to the same regulation as introducing new genes into an organism i.e. in the European Union.   For this reason, some South Korean scientists see this method as a way to side step normal regulation imposed in the EU and elsewhere.

Genetic engineering is a technology area to be mastered and is a governmental objective in countries that have international ambitions. An article in the November 18, 2015 issue of Nature magazine quotes Minhua Hu, a geneticist at the Guangzhou General Pharmaceutical Research Institute as stating, “It’s a priority area for the Chinese Academy of Sciences.”

The availability and the ease of altering genes have prompted a host of new experiments including those overseas.   For example, the previously cited article discusses the flurry of experiments taking place in China and research papers being written that describe CRISPR-modified mammals such as sheep, goats, pigs, monkeys and dogs.

In addition, there is discussion in the same article about research in China to increase the muscle and hair growth of goats. So far 10 modified goat kids have larger muscles and longer fur than normal goats. The article calls them “designer livestock”.

Lei Qu, a genetic researcher from Yulin, who has implemented CRISPR-Cas9, is quoted as stating, “We believe gene-modified livestock will be commercialized after we demonstrate (that it) is safe.” He predicts it is a simple way to boost the sale of goat meat and cashmere sweaters from his province in China.

The dilemma faced by scientists the world over is that these new genome splicing technologies almost take these experiments out of their hands and put them into the hands of amateurs. This raises alarm bells in most of the scientific community. Most scientists want to rely on peer pressure to limit the behavior of hobbyists. They feel that if enough organizations voice concern and restraint this will cause neophytes to pause before they try major alterations of genetic material. They want self-regulation rather than have the government step in.

A strong case can be made for government regulation to protect the populous and more importantly the genetics of life itself. It would be so easy to alter the DNA of an organism and set it free in the environment that havoc might result. While government control would surely slow down progress and reduce the personal opportunities all these scientists have to make money, it would protect people and the genetics of all living organisms on the planet. The trade-off would be worth it from the perspective of a non-scientist.

Use the following links to obtain additional information or see the original articles used for reference in this article.

http://go.nature.com/enfxjz

http://go.nature.com/fes1wc

http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-a-path-through-the-thicket-1.18748

http://www.nature.com/news/global-summit-reveals-divergent-views-on-human-gene-editing-1.18971

http://www.nature.com/news/splice-of-life-1.17476

http://iamaguardian.com/category/protect/genetic-engineering/

http://www.nature.com/news/biohackers-gear-up-for-genome-editing-1.18236

http://www.nature.com/news/china-s-bold-push-into-genetically-customized-animals-1.18826

http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-tweak-may-help-gene-edited-crops-bypass-biosafety-regulation-1.18590

http://www.nature.com/news/gene-drive-mosquitos-engineered-to-fight-malaria-1.18858

http://www.nature.com/news/human-genome-editing-summit-to-sample-global-attitudes-1.18879

http://www.nature.com/news/caution-urged-over-editing-dna-in-wildlife-intentionally-or-not-1.18123

http://www.nature.com/news/caution-urged-over-editing-dna-in-wildlife-intentionally-or-not-1.18123

http://www.nature.com/news/future-proofing-1.18977

https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=82406

http://www.nature.com/news/crispr-the-disruptor-1.17673

http://www.nature.com/news/scientists-sound-alarm-over-dna-editing-of-human-embryos-1.17110

http://www.nature.com/news/don-t-edit-the-human-germ-line-1.17111

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6230/36.summary?sid=0cb82e64-12bf-4f39-b102-24be88c4e5bc

 

Comments (0)

Advertise Here
Advertise Here
April 2017
S M T W T F S
« Feb    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30