Why didn't animals evolve wheels?

[Jason]

Accusation of intellectual cowardice in 3..2..1..

[Seth]

Another nail in the coffin of your skepticism.

Top biologists debate ban on gene-editing

Washington biology summit to consider ban on controversial technology
A genetically modified pet pig developed in China. Chinese scientists made headlines earlier this year after editing the genomes of human embryos
A genetically modified pet pig developed in China. Chinese scientists made headlines earlier this year after editing the genomes of human embryos. Photograph: Imaginechina/Rex Shutterstock

Robin McKie

Saturday 28 November 2015 16.51 EST
Last modified on Saturday 28 November 2015 17.44 EST

Share on Pinterest
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google+

Comments
43
Save for later

Delegates at a crucial scientific summit this week are expected to debate a ban on the use of the controversial technique of gene-editing. Hundreds of the world’s leading biologists will gather in Washington to discuss the procedure, in which genes are removed from or added to human embryos.

Some researchers say gene-editing of humans could have unpredictable effects on future generations and is ethically unacceptable. They also warn that the technology could be used to create lineages of “enhanced” humans and want all work in the area halted until its implications are fully assessed.

As a result they are expected to call for a moratorium on future research at the summit, which is to be attended mostly by researchers from the UK, US and China, where gene-editing is most widely practised. But other scientists say a moratorium would be harmful. Gene-editing has the potential to rid the planet of some fatal illnesses, they argue. Academics in favour of continuing the current research programme point to the work of Chinese scientists, who earlier this year reported they had used a gene-editing procedure called Crispr to modify an aberrant gene that causes beta thalassaemia, an inherited life-threatening blood disorder. This was done in IVF embryos obtained from fertility clinics. The embryos were not implanted into women once the modifications were made, however.

Other scientists say versions of genes that predispose humans to Alzheimer’s disease or make them susceptible to HIV and other infections could be removed from embryos and so free future generations from these conditions. The technology also offers ways to improve stem cell research, boost the effectiveness of IVF techniques and reduce human miscarriage rates. For good measure, techniques like Crispr will allow researchers to rewrite the genomes of plants and animals and transform agricultural science.

“There is a great deal to be gained through the use of gene-editing, but obviously we have be careful how we proceed,” said one conference organisers, Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, of the Francis Crick Institute, in London. “The point of this meeting is to determine just how quickly we should move.”

Gene-editing techniques use pieces of genetic material called RNA and work like the find-and-replace function on a word processor. First they locate a gene to be edited, then they make the necessary change to it, either by deleting or repairing it. The technology has made the process of genetic modification a dramatically simple one to operate and is now transforming medicine.

One example is provided by the work of George Church, at Harvard University, who used Crispr to alter, simultaneously, 62 genes in a pig cell and so remove all the retroviruses embedded in the pig’s DNA. The use of pig organs for transplants into men and women has been bedevilled by retroviruses which can infect humans. However, Church’s work suggests it is now possible to eradicate them and so open up the possibility of xenotransplants – animal organ transplants – for humans.

Other scientists envisage using gene-editing technology to remove harmful inherited conditions, such as Tay-Sachs or Huntington’s disease, from future generations. However, others warn of the dangers inherent in the process and question the ethics involved.

Francis Collins, director of the US National Institutes of Health, argues that individuals participating in research must be able to give fully informed consent. “But the individuals whose lives are potentially affected by germline manipulation could extend many generations into the future,” he says. “They can’t give consent to having their genomes altered.”

This point is backed by scientists, led by the head of the biotechnology company Sangamo BioSciences, Edward Lanphier, in a paper in Nature recently. “Permitting even unambiguously therapeutic interventions could start us down a pathway towards non-therapeutic enhancement,” he said. In other words, removing genes for fatal inherited diseases from future generations will result in humanity sliding swiftly down a slippery slope to the creation of generations of “improved” or “enhanced” humans with bigger muscle masses or higher IQs. Some could even be created to see in infra-red or ultra-violet light, it is argued

Defenders of gene-editing say this connection is simply not supported by the evidence. “You have to ask when people use the slippery slope argument is just how slippery is the slope, and just how bad will be it be when you reach the bottom,” said bioethicist Sarah Chan, at Edinburgh University.

“It is not clear the slope outlined by those calling for a moratorium is really that slippery or that things would be that bad if and when we reached the bottom.”

[JimC]

That article has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. The ability of current science to tinker with genes is well known. It makes no contribution whatsoever to a contention about "intelligent design" in the Earth's past...

The discussion about the ethics and future extent of genetic manipulation, however, is certainly worth having.

[Jason]

That article has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. The ability of current science to tinker with genes is well known. It makes no contribution whatsoever to a contention about "intelligent design" in the Earth's past...

The discussion about the ethics and future extent of genetic manipulation, however, is certainly worth having.

A philosophical discussion? Bah humbug!

Personally, I'm all for genetic manipulation of the human genome.. provided we can arrive on a moral consensus on the question of at what developmental stage abortion is morally acceptable - this is relevant as genetically modified humans, at the start at least, may have (in all probability will have) aberrations which may make terminating a pregnancy desirable for all concerned. I'm reminded of a 'sex in space' discussion I had recently on Google+ about foetal development in micro-G and the moral ramifications of such experiments.. anyway.. there's a word for when a gene expresses more than one thing in a phenotype.. poly-something I'm sure.

[Jason]

polymorphism? .. no that's not it.. but close.

[Seth]

That article has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. The ability of current science to tinker with genes is well known. It makes no contribution whatsoever to a contention about "intelligent design" in the Earth's past...

The discussion about the ethics and future extent of genetic manipulation, however, is certainly worth having.

It shows, again, that it is possible that such manipulation occurred. It also shows that scientists are concerned about the unintended consequences of doing so.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

It shows, again, that it is possible that such manipulation occurred.

No, it doesn't. It merely shows that low level manipulation by scientists is possible now. Life on Earth clearly arose through processes of natural evolution, as shown by all the available evidence.

Which you wouldn't understand, since you haven't got the faintest clue about science.

[Jason]

It's the inverse of a polygene.. feck this is going to bother me until I dig out my course materials and look it up

In a polygene there is a confluence of genes to produce a phenotypic trait.. but I'm thinking of when there is a single gene affecting multiple traits.. but damned if I can remember it.

Epistasis. It's epistasis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistasis

Fascinating stuff with huge ramifications for understanding genetic algorithms and such things.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

It shows, again, that it is possible that such manipulation occurred.

No, it doesn't. It merely shows that low level manipulation by scientists is possible now.

And therefore by logical inference higher level manipulation can occur when and if human technology and skill improves. Having discovered the methods for manipulating DNA there is nothing in science or physics that precludes humans from eventually assembling DNA from scratch to create an entirely human-designed-and-assembled organism.

Life on Earth clearly arose through processes of natural evolution, as shown by all the available evidence.

So far as you are aware. But remember, neither you nor "science" knows everything about everything and "available evidence" inherently means that there is, or may be evidence that is NOT available to you, or to science today, but which may come to light some time in the future. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, a concept that you seem to have great intellectual difficulty integrating.

Which you wouldn't understand, since you haven't got the faintest clue about science.

My grasp of both science and logic clearly exceeds your narrow-minded religious scientific orthodoxy.

[Jason]

I don't know.. probably always have to use the preexisting cellular machinery for transcription and translation, machinery that is inherently 'faulty' in that it inserts random errors (that's why evolution happens), and so without a sustained husbandry program your genetic stock goes wild which leaves a whole lot of 'junk' DNA behind that used to code for stuff but no longer does as well as stupid vestiges which are poorly suited to their purpose, at least from the perspective of genetic engineering, but are not deleterious to the reproduction - it doesn't affect fecundity in a negative way. In fact it's possible that an organism carries genes that are deleterious to its individual survival but beneficial to the fecundity of the gene pool to which it belongs - there are examples of insects you can look up to back this up. Which goes along with what Brian was saying earlier about perspective of the gene-centric view - natural selection selects only for fecundity of the gene pool and that's what we see in nature. If aliens bio-engineered life you could expect to see selection for specific traits, like wheels or flamethrowers, but we don't see that. It's what helps your gene pool continue to exist which means whatever helps produce the next generation - that's all.

[Jason]

Forgot to cap it off.. biologists don't know everything, but they do know what the hallmarks of engineering look like and there is zero evidence of it anywhere at this time. All life on earth is the product of 'flawed' translation and transcription machines and there is evidence for that everywhere.

[Jason]

My grasp of both science and logic clearly exceeds your narrow-minded religious scientific orthodoxy.

Oh get fucked. You're just playing the same old ontological song you've been stuck on for nigh these past 6 years and everyone is tired of it. Every now and then you play a note or two of epistemology to spice things up. We're not idiots you know.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

So far as you are aware. But remember, neither you nor "science" knows everything about everything and "available evidence" inherently means that there is, or may be evidence that is NOT available to you, or to science today, but which may come to light some time in the future. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, a concept that you seem to have great intellectual difficulty integrating.

Way to go, Captain Obvious...

Science is always prepared (unlike most religions) to modify its view of the universe as new evidence come to light. The statement that, in theory, there is a chance that a highly speculative intervention by aliens in Earths past genetic history does not mean that we abandon the current model, which parsimoniously explains all the evidence available. Simply, science can ignore such fantasies unless and until dramatic new evidence comes to light...

[Seth]

If aliens bio-engineered life you could expect to see selection for specific traits, like wheels or flamethrowers, but we don't see that. It's what helps your gene pool continue to exist which means whatever helps produce the next generation - that's all.

This assumes that the purpose of engineering life is to engineer a complete, perfect organism. I think this is a false assumption. If we view the possibility of intelligent design in the deep past as a long-term science experiment in carbon-based evolution there is no reason that the intelligent design can't be limited to setting the parameters and giving things a nudge and then sitting back and observing the results. That is after all what biologists are trying to do with respect to getting the primordial soup to produce the building blocks of DNA today.

Nor need the monitoring and tweaking of the experiment be limited to DNA manipulation. For example, suppose that the evolution of the dinosaurs was for some reason unsatisfactory to the designer so an asteroid was nudged out of orbit so it would strike off the Yucatan coast 160 million years ago, killing off the dinosaurs and giving mammals a chance to evolve.

The argument that intelligent design would necessarily include only perfected creatures with no "junk" in their DNA simply attempts to erect a strawman argument that's easy to knock down with the "well, if Goddidit why are there so many genetic errors?" fallacy. As we can see, however, current scientific practice belies this argument by demonstrating that by setting certain preconditions to an experiment and then letting it run unimpeded to see what happens. If we do it today, there's no argument to be made that it couldn't have been done in the past, or somewhere else.

But the pseudo-scientists here can't handle the prospect that their precious religious belief that "nature" is the only thing that guides evolution might be false. This is because it would force the Atheists among the scientific community to admit that they are not the ne-plus-ultra of universal intelligence and that there might be somebody who is smarter than they are out there.

[Seth]

My grasp of both science and logic clearly exceeds your narrow-minded religious scientific orthodoxy.

Oh get fucked.

I'd like to, but Brooke Shields is too old and Taylor Swift is in Australia, so it appears that wanking is on the menu for the foreseeable future.

You're just playing the same old ontological song you've been stuck on for nigh these past 6 years and everyone is tired of it.

Well, if the pseudo-intellectuals here would simply admit the obvious logical and rational truth that there is nothing in physics or science that suggests that intelligent design of living organisms on Earth (or anywhere else) is not possible, then I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself.

Every now and then you play a note or two of epistemology to spice things up. We're not idiots you know.

Frequently it appears that way, although I try to assume that it's only the persona of an idiot that's being presented. But it's getting progressively harder to grant that given the fervor and determination with which some people cling to their pseudo-scientific religious beliefs.