Meanwhile, in the complex world of genetics

Lately, the Violet Band has been exploring some pretty heavy metal controversial genetics concepts and discussing them as we learn more about the subject. We have been reading Mendel in the Kitchen and the other day we listened to a podcast from Radio Lab about a new phenomenon discovery in microbiology known as CRISPR. Standing for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, it is said to be a nearly universal, precise, and cost-effective method of genetic engineering which, potentially, could lead to everything in genetic science from weakening invasive species in at-risk ecosystems to designer babies in a Brave New World scenario.

Listen to the podcast here.


The Mandel chapter that we just read is appropriately named Tinkering with Evolution and explains how evolution in genetics works, and how to introduce a gene from one species, say a fish, into another completely unrelated species (or so you would think) like a tomato, as well as delving into the implied ethical mess behind these practices.

As people have said before, is it really our place to tamper with the fundamentals of nature? Is there a line to be drawn and where do we draw it? What are the limitations of this procedure and can we push the envelope? What could be the long-term effects of one or two little edits? The consequences are still unforeseen, if they exist, which makes all of this pretty murky and difficult to take a standpoint on, especially once you have heard both sides of the argument presented in the chapter, and take a look at the vast history behind the study of plant mutations. 

The podcast did a very good job of explaining the enigma of CRISPR, I can see what all the fuss is about. However, thus far CRISPR has been used in so few practical situations, it's amazing to me that people are already this concerned about it this early in the game. I mean sure, the possibilities are endless... I guess I'm just surprised by the lack of faith people seem to have in geneticists and other scientists to keep the use of it under control and be responsible. Are skeptics expecting another atom bomb? But then again, when has fear of the unknown not been a scary and difficult thing to grapple with? I say the scientific community, proponents and conservatives alike need to put their differences of opinion (however educated these may be) aside and figure out a plan for this kind of technology (and future technologies it could inspire), so we can start to baby step into this and use it to really make the wold a better place. Set some ground rules, get some constructive, contributive conversation going instead of worrying about the speculative implications. 

I find it funny that people seemed to fear bacteria and viruses so much, and now the idea of the tools that bacteria use to defeat viruses, landing in human hands is what is most scary of all, humans utilizing our adaptability and big brains to adopt the defense mechanisms of other organisms, turning them into tools that revolutionize our outlook on life, the endless possibilities cascading into a vague ripple effect that only science and patience will clarify, only time will tell what these breakthroughs hold in store for our destiny or whatever. 

It's Homo Habilis all over again, but perhaps that's a weird human progress thing, we are constantly discovering and rediscovering and transferring ideas to new contexts that, we learn new things every day, we are always being born again and seeing things in a new light, with fresh eyes. But how does one measure such progress? How can we possibly know the right from the wrong in this case? [insert/dump more meaningless conjectural philosophical junk here.]

think about it, until next time

Sayuri out, brb