Genetic Engineering Essay, Research Paper

In the past few years, genetic engineering and ‘cloning’ has come a long way. In a 1968 World Encyclopedia, genetics is described as the science of in-heritance (World Encyclopedia, pg. 84) , and only refers to the original pea work by Gregor Mendel as the most recent experiments and references. The explana-tion of what genetics is does not take the space of half a page. In 1978, another encyclopedia has ten pages on the subject, though it focuses on plant genetic manipulation. As defined in Biology by Miller and Levine, genetic engineering is the manipulation of an organism s deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Though genetic manipulation has been going on for years in breeding for a specific type of trait in animals or manipulating plant DNA, it has never reached the point it is at now: cloning.

As stated above, genetic engineering has evolved greatly over the past few years. From cloning Dolly the sheep (shown below) to Raising the Mam-moth (Kiger, Patrick J.) , it is amazing what is now being done with DNA. In the near future Fido Forever (Matt Creinson, 1) will soon become a reality. But as of now, the DNA is merely being stored in liquid nitrogen for safe keeping until the day comes that pets are cloned. Likewise, in the near future, doctors hope to genetically engineer hearts and other vital organs for those who need them (shown top of page). There would be fewer people dying of critical heart/vital or-gan diseases if the organs were produced faster then they are now. Even so, the prospect of even Building a Better Baby (Daniel Q. Haney) has come into play. Are we ready for this new technology? Are we ready to start messing with genes to create a better or more desirable human? Are we ready to have people like Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein clone themselves?

Before explaining genetic engineering, DNA must be explained. A DNA strand (as shown to the side and below) is arranged in the shape of a double he-lix. Within that double helix, there are nucleotides. In one nucleotide, there is a sugar (deoxyribose, that is green below), phosphate (red below), and nitroge-nous bases (blue and white below). Deoxyribose, as showed on page three, is comprised of hydrogen, oxygen, hydroxide, and a type of alcohol. It connects the nitrogenous bases together. The nitrogenous base can be adenine, thymine, guanine, or cytosine. In the double helix, the nitrogenous bases must follow a special pattern. Adenine and thymine may pair up in the chain of phosphate-sugar-adenine-thymine-sugar-phosphate. The nitrogenous bases then connect to the five-carbon sugar, also known as deoxyribose. This sugar then links the phosphate group, which, in turn, connects to the helix. This series of connections is what makes the DNA unique. For example, in a DNA strand, there could be an adenine -thymine duo, then a guanine – cytosine pair. After the guanine- cytosine, another guanine- cytosine could follow. The possibilities are endless for a pattern, hence making everybody s own genes unique. (Encarta + Biology 141-144)

The only thing that seems to stop the progress of cloning and continuing the study of genetic engineering is the ethics involved. Is it right to clone a per-son? Should genes be patented like inventions? There are two sides to this coin for cloning and against it. The for side of the coin has arguments such as people could benefit greatly from it. If genetically engineered major body organs were produced, then fewer people would die by the hundreds or thousands on a waiting list. For people awaiting a heart, the list is at around four thousand now and still growing. Only the sickest patients will make the list (Dawn Stover, 47) , and of those four thousand plus, only about twenty-three hundred will get the transplant. Twenty-three, bumped up to thirty-five hundred that survive, would be a great accomplishment and a great reason to continue on these experiments (Dawn Stover, 47)

Imagine what could happen if a terrorist got a hold of the means to clone himself. What good would come out the situation if cloning humans were possi-ble? Would we have to modify the Constitution, with a set of Genetic Bill of Rights (MartinTeitel, 2-3) . This Bill of Rights could include ideas such as All people have the right to have been conceived, gestated, and born without ge-netic manipulation (MartinTeitel, 2) or All people have the right to genetic pri-vacy (MartinTeitel, 2) . Is that what the world will come to? Will people have to take their DNA privacy for granted in the future?

Dr. Ryuzo Yanagimachi is trying to clone a mammoth frozen in the ice for 20,000 years using his DNA. However, Dr. Yanagimachi is fearful because the mammoth DNA was in the Siberian permafrost for so long at not low enough temperature, the DNA might be damaged. As shown in the picture to the right, a scientist is collecting DNA from the gums of the mammoth excavated in Siberia. Although the prospect of damage DNA is high, Dr. Yanagimachi believes the sperm DNA will be mostly intact, or so he hopes. To clone the mammoth, Dr Ya-nagimachi will take the sperm of the mammoth and use it to fertilize an Asian elephant, because the number of chromosomes being are so close (mammoth 58, elephant 56). If Dr. Yanagimachi chooses to use that road, a mere hybrid will form. With the proper breeding, a near full blood mammoth could be obtained in years to come (Patrick J. Kiger). Dick Mol, a specialist in the mammoth field, says:

“The mammoths and other mammals of their time disappeared 11,000 years ago. The environment in which the woolly mammoth lived disappeared also. So where to put the mammoth if we were able to clone it? (Dick Mol)

To look at this in both the ethical and scientific views, this is very true because when the mammoth became extinct, so did what it ate. Yes, if the stomach con-tents where studied, scientist may be able to discover what it ate. As of now, however, we do not have any clue what we could feed this animal. Could the body violently react with regular greens? We do not know because everything from that time-period is gone. Where could scientists start?

So what does this mean? Should we or should not we? That seems to be the real question. We have the means to clone animals and other organisms. We have been tinkering with genes for years, breeding certain horses to get the ideal horse for working or jumping. Companies genetically engineer oranges so they do not have seeds in the fruit. Could this new discover be abused, however. Should we flaunt our knowledge, manipulate it, like the genetically engineered fruit, and make it ripe for picking for terrorists or people who should not have this knowledge? Although genetically engineering has come far in the past few years, society as a hole is not yet ready. We are moving too fast for the changes to set into the old generation s mindset. Cloning and genetically engineering is still rather large issue being addressed by the science community, trying to con-vince others of its wealth. We must watch how fast we push ourselves, however, and not get caught up in believing genetic engineering will be helpful, when in the end, it may prove a rather large mistake.

Bibliography

Breaux, Kia Shant e. Dolly Creators Claim Cloning Pigs. N.pag. Online. Internet. 4/12/00. Available: www.popsci.com/news/03142000_dolly.html.

Crenson, Matt. Fido Forever: Pet DNA Stored for Future Cloning. N.pag. On-line. Internet. 4/12/00. Available: www.popsci.com/news/02322000_fido.html.

Genetics Encarta. Computer Software. Microsoft, 1998. PC-Dos, Windows, CD-ROM.

Genetics. The World Book Encyclopedia. 1968.

Genetics. The New Book of Knowledge. 1978.

Haney, Daniel Q. Building a Better Baby. 2 pages. Online. Internet. 4/12/00. Available: www.popci.com/scitec/features/building_babies/indext.html.

http://heat.usc.edu/bradpdb/dna.html. (All info given).

Kiger, Patrick J. Raising the Mammoth. N.pag. Online, Internet. 4/20/00. Available: www.discovery.com/exp/mammoth/cloned.html.

Levine, Joseph, and Kenneth Miller (eds.). (1993). Biology. Needham, Massa-chusetts: Prentice Hall Inc.

Shreeve, James. Secrets of the Gene. National Geographic October 1999: 42-75.

Stover, Dawn. Growing Hearts from Scratch. Popular Science April 2000: 47-50.

Teitel, Martin. From Genetics to Genomics a Bill of Rights for Everyone s Pro-tection. Boston Globe 26 March 2000. Online, Internet. Available: pro-quest.com.

In the past few years, genetic engineering and ‘cloning’ has come a long way. In a 1968 World Encyclopedia, genetics is described as the science of in-heritance (World Encyclopedia, pg. 84) , and only refers to the original pea work by Gregor Mendel as the most recent experiments and references. The explana-tion of what genetics is does not take the space of half a page. In 1978, another encyclopedia has ten pages on the subject, though it focuses on plant genetic manipulation. As defined in Biology by Miller and Levine, genetic engineering is the manipulation of an organism s deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Though genetic manipulation has been going on for years in breeding for a specific type of trait in animals or manipulating plant DNA, it has never reached the point it is at now: cloning.

As stated above, genetic engineering has evolved greatly over the past few years. From cloning Dolly the sheep (shown below) to Raising the Mam-moth (Kiger, Patrick J.) , it is amazing what is now being done with DNA. In the near future Fido Forever (Matt Creinson, 1) will soon become a reality. But as of now, the DNA is merely being stored in liquid nitrogen for safe keeping until the day comes that pets are cloned. Likewise, in the near future, doctors hope to genetically engineer hearts and other vital organs for those who need them (shown top of page). There would be fewer people dying of critical heart/vital or-gan diseases if the organs were produced faster then they are now. Even so, the prospect of even Building a Better Baby (Daniel Q. Haney) has come into play. Are we ready for this new technology? Are we ready to start messing with genes to create a better or more desirable human? Are we ready to have people like Adolph Hitler or Saddam Hussein clone themselves?

Before explaining genetic engineering, DNA must be explained. A DNA strand (as shown to the side and below) is arranged in the shape of a double he-lix. Within that double helix, there are nucleotides. In one nucleotide, there is a sugar (deoxyribose, that is green below), phosphate (red below), and nitroge-nous bases (blue and white below). Deoxyribose, as showed on page three, is comprised of hydrogen, oxygen, hydroxide, and a type of alcohol. It connects the nitrogenous bases together. The nitrogenous base can be adenine, thymine, guanine, or cytosine. In the double helix, the nitrogenous bases must follow a special pattern. Adenine and thymine may pair up in the chain of phosphate-sugar-adenine-thymine-sugar-phosphate. The nitrogenous bases then connect to the five-carbon sugar, also known as deoxyribose. This sugar then links the phosphate group, which, in turn, connects to the helix. This series of connections is what makes the DNA unique. For example, in a DNA strand, there could be an adenine -thymine duo, then a guanine – cytosine pair. After the guanine- cytosine, another guanine- cytosine could follow. The possibilities are endless for a pattern, hence making everybody s own genes unique. (Encarta + Biology 141-144)

The only thing that seems to stop the progress of cloning and continuing the study of genetic engineering is the ethics involved. Is it right to clone a per-son? Should genes be patented like inventions? There are two sides to this coin for cloning and against it. The for side of the coin has arguments such as people could benefit greatly from it. If genetically engineered major body organs were produced, then fewer people would die by the hundreds or thousands on a waiting list. For people awaiting a heart, the list is at around four thousand now and still growing. Only the sickest patients will make the list (Dawn Stover, 47) , and of those four thousand plus, only about twenty-three hundred will get the transplant. Twenty-three, bumped up to thirty-five hundred that survive, would be a great accomplishment and a great reason to continue on these experiments (Dawn Stover, 47)

Imagine what could happen if a terrorist got a hold of the means to clone himself. What good would come out the situation if cloning humans were possi-ble? Would we have to modify the Constitution, with a set of Genetic Bill of Rights (MartinTeitel, 2-3) . This Bill of Rights could include ideas such as All people have the right to have been conceived, gestated, and born without ge-netic manipulation (MartinTeitel, 2) or All people have the right to genetic pri-vacy (MartinTeitel, 2) . Is that what the world will come to? Will people have to take their DNA privacy for granted in the future?

Dr. Ryuzo Yanagimachi is trying to clone a mammoth frozen in the ice for 20,000 years using his DNA. However, Dr. Yanagimachi is fearful because the mammoth DNA was in the Siberian permafrost for so long at not low enough temperature, the DNA might be damaged. As shown in the picture to the right, a scientist is collecting DNA from the gums of the mammoth excavated in Siberia. Although the prospect of damage DNA is high, Dr. Yanagimachi believes the sperm DNA will be mostly intact, or so he hopes. To clone the mammoth, Dr Ya-nagimachi will take the sperm of the mammoth and use it to fertilize an Asian elephant, because the number of chromosomes being are so close (mammoth 58, elephant 56). If Dr. Yanagimachi chooses to use that road, a mere hybrid will form. With the proper breeding, a near full blood mammoth could be obtained in years to come (Patrick J. Kiger). Dick Mol, a specialist in the mammoth field, says:

“The mammoths and other mammals of their time disappeared 11,000 years ago. The environment in which the woolly mammoth lived disappeared also. So where to put the mammoth if we were able to clone it? (Dick Mol)

To look at this in both the ethical and scientific views, this is very true because when the mammoth became extinct, so did what it ate. Yes, if the stomach con-tents where studied, scientist may be able to discover what it ate. As of now, however, we do not have any clue what we could feed this animal. Could the body violently react with regular greens? We do not know because everything from that time-period is gone. Where could scientists start?

So what does this mean? Should we or should not we? That seems to be the real question. We have the means to clone animals and other organisms. We have been tinkering with genes for years, breeding certain horses to get the ideal horse for working or jumping. Companies genetically engineer oranges so they do not have seeds in the fruit. Could this new discover be abused, however. Should we flaunt our knowledge, manipulate it, like the genetically engineered fruit, and make it ripe for picking for terrorists or people who should not have this knowledge? Although genetically engineering has come far in the past few years, society as a hole is not yet ready. We are moving too fast for the changes to set into the old generation s mindset. Cloning and genetically engineering is still rather large issue being addressed by the science community, trying to con-vince others of its wealth. We must watch how fast we push ourselves, however, and not get caught up in believing genetic engineering will be helpful, when in the end, it may prove a rather large mistake.

Bibliography

Breaux, Kia Shant e. Dolly Creators Claim Cloning Pigs. N.pag. Online. Internet. 4/12/00. Available: www.popsci.com/news/03142000_dolly.html.

Crenson, Matt. Fido Forever: Pet DNA Stored for Future Cloning. N.pag. On-line. Internet. 4/12/00. Available: www.popsci.com/news/02322000_fido.html.

Genetics Encarta. Computer Software. Microsoft, 1998. PC-Dos, Windows, CD-ROM.

Genetics. The World Book Encyclopedia. 1968.

Genetics. The New Book of Knowledge. 1978.

Haney, Daniel Q. Building a Better Baby. 2 pages. Online. Internet. 4/12/00. Available: www.popci.com/scitec/features/building_babies/indext.html.

http://heat.usc.edu/bradpdb/dna.html. (All info given).

Kiger, Patrick J. Raising the Mammoth. N.pag. Online, Internet. 4/20/00. Available: www.discovery.com/exp/mammoth/cloned.html.

Levine, Joseph, and Kenneth Miller (eds.). (1993). Biology. Needham, Massa-chusetts: Prentice Hall Inc.

Shreeve, James. Secrets of the Gene. National Geographic October 1999: 42-75.

Stover, Dawn. Growing Hearts from Scratch. Popular Science April 2000: 47-50.

Teitel, Martin. From Genetics to Genomics a Bill of Rights for Everyone s Pro-tection. Boston Globe 26 March 2000. Online, Internet. Available: pro-quest.com.