"It's pretty exciting stuff," he said.
I was not so sure.
The discussion was regarding how scientists are going beyond the genetic manipulation of our food (GMOs), of which I am not a fan of already. Scientists are working on engineering their own genetic designs, building living parts and systems, literally creating a whole new genetic sequence when they can.
Creating new life, in the image of man's desires, I suppose.
Genetics has gotten to the point where they are writing and programming new DNA to create new life forms, genetic machines if you will, so that they can learn how life works, and then create new life.
The scientists call it exciting and breakthrough science. Others call it "playing god."
In the world of Synthetic Biology there is even a whole new host of competitions, one of which that has been around for eleven years, International Genetically Engineered Machine. iGEM is a nonprofit organization out of MIT, claiming it produces transformative science, and believes a market for synthetic biology could emerge by 2016. The market would include pharmaceuticals, diagnostic tools, chemicals, and energy products, such as biofuels.
GMOs deal with the creation of a single engineered gene, while synthetic biology goes after larger clusters of genes and gene parts. The synthetic clusters then become something that can be developed to create a whole new generation of GMOs, and perhaps even lead to products that can be synthetically created, rather than grown in the field, or milked from an animal.
In the world of Synthetic Biology there is even a whole new host of competitions, one of which that has been around for eleven years, International Genetically Engineered Machine. iGEM is a nonprofit organization out of MIT, claiming it produces transformative science, and believes a market for synthetic biology could emerge by 2016. The market would include pharmaceuticals, diagnostic tools, chemicals, and energy products, such as biofuels.
GMOs deal with the creation of a single engineered gene, while synthetic biology goes after larger clusters of genes and gene parts. The synthetic clusters then become something that can be developed to create a whole new generation of GMOs, and perhaps even lead to products that can be synthetically created, rather than grown in the field, or milked from an animal.
Opponents of the practice warn that manipulating genetic material in food is dangerous as it is, causing a whole array of ailments, including cancer. Synthetic biology, if used irresponsibly, could also lead to more serious problems that could cause more harm than what we are currently experiencing from GMO foods, including more vigorous pests, and more aggressive pathogens. Scientists don't know how these new organisms will interact with a natural balance that was not designed to interact with them in the first place.
With an increasing population, scientists argue the new technologies are necessary to keep up with the increased number of mouths to feed. "Efficiency and a reduction of waste," said my conversation-mate, "is the goal. It is a matter of adapting to our changing world."
He muttered something about climate change, and the need to change how we produce food as the climate around the world changes, but I rejected his claim, not because I don't believe in the rise and drop of global temperatures, but because I don't believe humanity is the cause. "Still," he said, "if there are extreme weather phenomena on the horizon, regardless of the cause, we need to figure out how to keep the flow of food flowing. Synthetic Biology holds the key."
"Yes," I responded, "but genetics developed outside of nature upsets the balance, and there is bound to be unwanted consequences. Programming an organism to do something is invariably programming something else in nature, as well, and you just don't know what the long term effect on nature will be. A special class of a microorganism, for example, may be designed for good, but what will such a thing cause down the road with related microorganisms that cause disease?"
He accused me of reading too many science fiction novels about post apocalyptic futures brought on by bio-engineered diseases that escape the lab, and kill most of humanity. I told them that often Science Fiction is not as much fiction as it is a warning.
In an attempt to save the planet, we may be doing harm to it, and ourselves.
He muttered something about climate change, and the need to change how we produce food as the climate around the world changes, but I rejected his claim, not because I don't believe in the rise and drop of global temperatures, but because I don't believe humanity is the cause. "Still," he said, "if there are extreme weather phenomena on the horizon, regardless of the cause, we need to figure out how to keep the flow of food flowing. Synthetic Biology holds the key."
"Yes," I responded, "but genetics developed outside of nature upsets the balance, and there is bound to be unwanted consequences. Programming an organism to do something is invariably programming something else in nature, as well, and you just don't know what the long term effect on nature will be. A special class of a microorganism, for example, may be designed for good, but what will such a thing cause down the road with related microorganisms that cause disease?"
He accused me of reading too many science fiction novels about post apocalyptic futures brought on by bio-engineered diseases that escape the lab, and kill most of humanity. I told them that often Science Fiction is not as much fiction as it is a warning.
In an attempt to save the planet, we may be doing harm to it, and ourselves.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment