Blog is about Genetic, Genetics, Genetic engineering, Genetic disorder & Bio technology
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Genetic Essentialisim and Embroy Identitiy.
Genetic Essentialisim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Human Clonning and "The Matter of Whiteness"
Genetic Engineering can cope with diversity...
Monday, May 25, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Hypothermia particularly in severe cases is rightly considered a malady in Bio Technology
Increased risk of suffering harms and evils associated with the condition...
Can rightly be said to be suffering from a genetic malady....
While the difference between Tay-Sachs and sickle cell anaemia and eye colour in relation to their status as maladies can clearly be seen, the situation is not as clear with other conditions that have a genetic basis. Take, for example, a person who develops Huntington disease. There is no doubt they are suffering from a malady and, as it is caused by the person’s genetic structure it can be classified as a genetic malady. What of the person who through screening in their late teens or early twenties discovers they have the gene that causes Huntington disease? It would appear that we can correctly say that this person is suffering from a genetic malady. This is because a person with the Huntington’s gene has a far greater risk of developing the disease and therefore suffering the harms and evils associated with it than does the general population. There is also no distinct sustaining cause of the suffering it results from his or her genetic makeup. Therefore it is the case that someone who has the gene for Huntington disease but has not yet developed the disease can rightly be said to be suffering from a genetic malady.
What is a Genetic maladies...
A little to stop individuals undergoing genetic interventions...
acceptable and unacceptable forms of enhancement of Bio Technology...
The second view is that virtually all enhancements are acceptable...
Genetic enhancements which are an opposite extremes....
If we begin by considering two viewpoints on genetic enhancements which are an opposite extremes and that are seriously flawed, we will have a starting point from which a more sensible account can be constructed. The first view is that all enhancements are unacceptable. There are a number of problems with this view. The first is that there are some hard borderline cases. Let us for a moment suppose that IQ becomes something, as easy to alter as eye colour, and further that if a person has an IQ of under 60 they are considered to have a malady that should be corrected. In this case a number of problems arise for the advocates of the all enhancements are unacceptable view. Take for example a person who has an IQ of 50. Clearly they fall into the treatment category and should be able to access genetic interventions to correct their condition. What does correction mean in this case? Does it mean that, because enhancements are unacceptable, that the IQ of the person in question can only be raised to the minimum acceptable level; 60? If this is the case then, the value of the procedure as a treatment seems small. If treatments were only meant to bring people up a very minimal level of functionality, then a large number of medical procedures we take for granted today seem to be ruled out by this minimal functionality story, which is an unacceptable conclusion. A procedure as simple as that of setting a broken bone would become problematic under this minimal functionality position as a person with broken arm, but nothing else wrong with them would appear to still be minimally functional. There would appear to be no reason for us to need to properly fix the arm in question because the person would still be able to function reasonably well and probably somewhat more than minimally even if the arm was never attended to and as a result became unusable.
Somatic cell germ-line distinction is a problematic method...
Sorts of genetic interventions that are acceptable...
Genetic engineering effects in the decision making role of a child...
Clinical childhood obesity can treat through Bio Technology…
Bio technology can remove the disability some pros and cons…
Oversimplify relationship Through Cloning between parent and child is lost...
Is Genetic Engineering emphasis safety of a child…?
Societal views and Child rights…
Parent child relationship and Gene Therapy…
Human Cloning and moral status of a child…
Alone the three claims outlined by Noggle and Brennan, appear to be valid, it is only when that are placed together that they become problematic. The first question I want to ask about this commonsense view is can any of the three claims stand alone as workable models for the parent child relationship. The answer in the case of the first claim, the equal consideration thesis is no, as this model is very similar to the ‘miniature adult model’ put forward by Scales. Any model based around this sole claim will fail, because even though the claim itself is indisputable, the breadth of the claim is not. It is implausible to suggest that children have the same rights and same access to those rights that is enjoyed by adults for reasons outlined when the miniature adult model was discussed.
Genetic interventions that should overturn this right as a general principle..
Genetic interventions and correction of such disabilities….
Is IVF part of Biological Techniques…
If genetic interventions do become prevalent then….
Can Genetic Engineering remove the Tension of Disability?
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Feinberg’s conception and Genetic Engineering
Ability of making distinctions between various types of genetic interventions
Improved quickness and dexterity by Genetic engineering
Genetically engineered to be a good soccer player
Genetic engineering and IQ of a child
Genetic Engineering and Disability
What factors would motivate the desire, on the part of persons with disabilities, to have a child who shares their disability, or not to ‘correct’ such disability when the option to do so exists? There are a number of reasons put forward for this choice. These include the idea of the value of Deaf culture(or any other culture surrounding a disability), issues relating to how persons with disabilities are viewed by the community at large, a fear of being unable to relate to and interact with a child that does not share their disability and the difficulties associated with adapting facilities and lifestyle to cope with a non-disabled child.
Is there any realtionship in Gene Therapy and Disability????
A conflict between parental autonomy and the child’s future autonomy
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
A somatic cell intervention is morally justified…
It is morally acceptable to offer somatic interventions to those person who acquire it in each generation it appears, then it is also morally acceptable to alter the germ-line so that this condition is not passed on to future generations. This would also have the added benefit of being more efficient in terms of time, money and resources then somatically altering the genes of each sufferer on an ongoing generational basis. To use the example of Huntington’s again, if we find it morally acceptable to correct instances of the disease in people through somatic cell therapy, performed on each generation, then it is also morally acceptable and would be more efficient to correct the condition through germ-line interventions to ensure the condition is not passed on and the becomes more and more rare, requiring less interventions per generational group.
Somatic cell interventions will not have unintended effects on the germ-line of recipients….
Some proponents, through application of the principle of double effect have answered the problem of somatic cell interventions designed and intended only to affect the somatic cells, which unintentionally cause alterations to the germ-line. Marc Lappe states that “Germ-line engineering as a direct attempt to change the genotype of future generations cannot ethically be justified. However, when such changes arise as an indirect and otherwise unavoidable consequence of an approved form of somatic cell engineering, they are morally acceptable. The first objection relates to the issue of intention and the unintended consequences of the interventions. Two people, both suffering the same condition attempt to acquire somatic cell intervention to remedy the condition they possess. The intention of the first person is to have the therapy in order to correct the condition, as it is present in them. The second person however knows that there is risk that the procedure will have an effect on their germ-line and this is the major reason for them wanting to undergo the procedure. While they want the condition corrected in them, the major intention in undergoing the procedure is to alter the germ-line so that any progeny will not have to suffer the condition in their life. It seems under the principle of double effect that the first person should be accepted for the therapy while the second should be rejected on the ground that he is more concerned about the effects of the condition on his offspring then on himself. As Moseley suggests, “this would seem to be a morally questionable criterion for a physician to use in deciding whether to proceed with genetic therapy. It is also troubling that all that the second person needs to in order to procure the procedure for them is to lie about their primary intention for wanting to the intervention. Having a situation where people are forced to lie or omit information in order to receive treatment cannot be one that can be said to be good medical practice.
Gene Therapy and human cloning some pros and cons….
Before moving on to this however, it is necessary to point out that with respect to enhancements, if our technology developed in such a way as to allow somatic cell interventions that could be contained within the recipient with a high degree of certainty, then there would be little to stop individuals undergoing genetic interventions that would otherwise by considered unacceptable. There is a caveat on this suggestion however, and that is that in most cases interventions that were of a radical nature, say growing extra arms or having skin that changed colour at varying intervals would and should not be paid for out of the public purse. Anyone who wanted an intervention that was of this nature would have to be willing to pay for the procedures themselves. Public funding for genetic interventions should in my view whether or not they are somatic or germ-line is restricted to those interventions that fall within the boundary of treatment and those that are publicly acceptable forms of enhancement. This position will be further discussed later when the issues of social justice and the effects of germ-line interventions are considered.
Genetic intervention technologies and issue of eugenics…
The issue of genetic interventions being used or co-opted for eugenic ends will also be considered. The problem can be broken down into two different problems; the first is that of state controlled genetic intervention which seems at least in some cases seems to bear a resemblance to the state sponsored eugenic programmed of earlier years. The second problem is that of eugenic style problems resulting from the choices made by individuals within a free market system were the provision of genetic interventions is not state controlled but is controlled by the market and individual choice. These are two different problems. Yet investigations of these problems will be show that it is possible to create a system in which the benefits of genetic interventions can be accessed by the public without this access falling into the realm of a eugenic nightmare.
Genetic interventions in general and their application in medical terms…
One of these concerns is already present in a non-genetic medical application. This is the type of objection raised by members of the deaf community to the ‘curing’ of deafness by use of the cochlear implant. With the advent of genetic technologies, particularly germ-line interventions the problems associated with ‘curing’ deafness take on additional implications. Deaf parents feel that this style of intervention would exclude an otherwise deaf child from Deaf culture. Some deaf parents do not consider the ‘cure’ to be in the children’s best interests, because it does not allow them access to Deaf culture. They believe that there is a full and vibrant deaf culture which their child will miss out on with such treatment. They also see problems with the relationship between them and their child, given that their child will never experience the world in the same way they do and neither will they. There have also been objections to this sort of treatment made on the grounds that it says something quite profound about society’s view of people with deafness and other disabilities.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Genetic therapy has distinct in its treatment...
The treatment/enhancement distinction has been seen as a means of deciding between those sorts of genetic interventions that are acceptable and those that are not, it does not fully answer the questions asked about these procedures. With the use of the concept of genetic maladies, the treatment side of the distinction seems able to cope quite well with objections raised against it; it is the other side of the distinction that requires more work. There are a number of reasons for looking further at the enhancement side of the equation. The first of these is that there may be conditions or states of a person that, though not falling within the boundaries of genetic maladies may nevertheless be worthwhile candidates, both in terms of particular persons and for society in general, for genetic intervention. The second reason is that there may be disagreement between differing groups with respect to the status of certain procedures. It may be the case that treatment of certain conditions, such as deafness, which seem to fall within the domain of a malady, may be viewed by other groups, particularly a deaf societal community, as unacceptable both because they do not view it as a necessary treatment, or because they view being deaf vital with respect to their community because they do not regard it as malady. We need a method of determining those conditions, which are not candidates for treatment, but which are nonetheless legitimate targets for enhancement genetic intervention.
[i] S Scales, "Intergenerational Justice and Care in Parenting.," Social Theory and practice 28.4 (2002)
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Genetic modifications create the secondary effect in the organism can perform the mitigating functions….
Bio-technological research has more focused towards genetic engineering
Convenient and economical way in to inclusive genetic data that has been happened to a certainty among billions of sequenced nucleotides by now online and explained.
Currently so as to the swift sequencing of randomly huge genomes has turn out to be a straightforward but not insignificant situation a lot greater challenge will be elucidating function of the extraordinarily composite mesh of interrelating proteins called the proteome that comprise in addition to controls all living things. Genetic engineering has turn out to be the typical in protein research major progress has achieved while with a broad diversity of techniques.
Failure of effectiveness at the same time as in a make unconscious research, within an organism is engineered to need the doings of one or added genes.
It permits the scientists to examine the imperfections which are caused due to this alteration as well as be able to be significantly practical in detection the utility of a gene. This is also second-hand particularly often in expansion of bio-technology. A sensation research absorbs the conception and treatment of a DNA build which during an effortless hit build of a duplicate of the preferred gene that has been somewhat distorted while to enhance the functions. The creation is then in use up by embryonic stem cells research anywhere the engineered reproduction of the gene put back the organisms possess gene. Stem cells are inserting into blow up cysts which are rooted hooked on substitute mothers. One more technique that is useful in organisms like as fruit fly is to persuade alterations in a huge populace and then screen the offspring for the desired alteration. A comparable development can be recycled in both plants and human being.
Genetic engineering applications in biotechnology
1) In 1982 USA’s FDA is approved first genetically engineered drug was human Insulin.
2) Early application of GE was to create human growth hormone as replacement for a drug that was previously extracted from human cadavers.
3) Through genetically engineered it was enable human to develop human growth hormone to replace the use of drugs which was earlier got from human cadavers.
4) In 1986 the FDA approved the first genetically engineered vaccine for humans, for hepatitis B. Since these early uses of the technology in medicine, the use of GE has expanded to supply many drugs and vaccines.
5) First genetically engineered vaccine for hepatitis B for the service of mankind and it was approved in 1986 USA’s FDA. This is only possible to early use of technology in medicine and genetic engineering has open the unlimited ways to supply many drugs and vaccines for the mankind.
6) Now genetic engineering is evolving its applications towards the genetically modified organisms. At a very low cost through Genetic engineering oral vaccines can be produced in the fruits.
These bio-technology applications of genetic modification have enough potential if we use it in the limited boundary of ethics and we should not alter the way of nature because it creates distortion and we cannot manage the whole circle.
Today’s Gene therapy approach in genetic engineering…..
Hemophilia in the light of bio-technology…..
Here hemophilia treatments, for example, a gene-carrying vector could be injected into a muscle, prompting the muscle cells to produce Factor IX and thus prevent bleeding. This method would end the need for injections of Factor IX --a derivative of pooled blood products and a potential source of HIV and hepatitis infection. Patients have not needed Factor IX injections for more than a year. In gene therapies such as those described above, the introduced gene is always "on" so the protein is always being expressed, possibly even in instances when it isn't needed.
A newer change in the vector contains together the protein-producing gene and a type of molecular rheostat that would respond to a capsule to control gene appearance. This might show to be one of gene therapy's the majority helpful functions since scientists commence to think it in a lot of additional circumstances.
Conclusion:
Potential objectives in the area are to verification of thought in the subsequently not many years in replica inborn diseases which is gone behind by cancer and cardiovascular diseases sustained quick-tempered action in technological progress and improvement of regulatory strategy for the foodstuff and remedy supervision which will be helpful in commercial growth.
History of Gene therapy is different from human cloning in Genetic engineering and bio-technology….
This form of DNA treatment through gene therapy is difference by means of germ line gene therapy in a purpose is to go around the change on to offspring. Germ line gene therapy is not life form vigorously examined at smallest amount in animals as well as humans.
In half of 1980s the crucial point of gene therapy was completely on helpful for diseases started as of such different DNA imperfections as hemophilia Duchenne's muscular dystrophy and sickle cell anemia.
In near the ending of 1980 and beginning of 1990s the idea of gene therapy extended into a number of obtained diseases. At what time human being testing of first generation gene carriers began in 1990, scientists educated that the gene carriers didn't relocate genes capably and they were not adequately damaged. So make use of the therapeutic genes had not lasted very long.
Throughout 1995, an open discussion led to the negotiation that gene therapy has value yet although quite a few unanswered questions require continued fundamental explore. As the field has developed more than the most recent years, it has fixed the concentration of the biopharmaceutical business which has begun to type out its own role in gene therapy. This is dangerous since eventually this business will take gene therapies to large patient populations.
Further than a few exact gene-therapy cases connecting high cholesterol, hemophilia, and cystic fibrosis. Response to every therapy in diverse patient peoples will be reasonably changeable.
Visualize on gene therapy not mechanically to care for genetic disease but as a choice way to shift proteins. Protein therapeutics at here is affected by placing genes in laboratory refined organisms which makes the proteins coded by individual’s genes. Illustrations of such artificial proteins include insulin, growth hormone, and erythropoietin, all of which have to be injected often into the patient.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Gene therapy and cloning is same in genetic engineering.....
Gene therapy must not be confused with cloning that has been in the news very much in the previous years. Cloning is generating a different human being with in essence the identical genetic structure is especially dissimilar from gene therapy.
Scientific barriers in gene therapy highlight the conception of vehicles called vectors or gene carriers to bring therapeutic genes to the cells of patients. One time the gene is in the cell its requirement to function properly. Patient’s bodies may refuse treatments and lastly there is the call for to standardize gene expression.
Viruses have developed a method of summarizing and delivering their genes to human cells in a pathogenic approach. Scientists have attempted to obtain benefit of the virus's biology and control its genome to eliminate the disease-causing genes and introduce therapeutic genes. These gene-delivery gene carriers will build this field of realism.
Royal Society of UK views about stem cell research and human cloning….
The Royal Society support the founding of the UK Stem Cell Bank, considering that the therapeutic make use of stem cells could, one day, help out to progress or save the lives of millions of patients universally.
In line with UK government strategy, the Royal Society believes that human reproductive cloning should not be allowable to take place. It insists on all other nations, mainly the United States, to bring in and support rules and regulations that would generate a worldwide standstill on human reproductive cloning.
The standstill should not, though, broaden to research involving the cloning of very early human beings embryos for research into the therapeutic possible of stem cells.
Is human cloning lawful in genetic engineering? Some pros and cons about cloning…..
Human being re-productive cloning is unlawful in the United Kingdom and many other countries for the reason that it has not been verified to be medically secure, logically sound, or socially and ethically up to standard.
Re-productive cloning as a system is mainly useless and impulsive. It took scientists 277 attempts previous to them produced one viable animal protein - Dolly (Roslin Institute).
In addition, a lot of cloned mammal children are born abnormally bulky and with other cruel abnormalities. This raises the risk that several existing human clone could face serious health harms, and so as to the substitute mother would also be at danger during pregnancy.
It is not complicated to be aware of how individuals who want to substitute a lost child or who are not capable to bear children all the way through conventional methods might be influenced by the idea of human cloning.
Nevertheless, still if it were achievable, no human clone would ever be really identical to its genetic parent. At the same time as they might seem alike, they would grow up in a different time and surroundings, with diverse social and cultural back grounds. In addition, the facts that you are genetically the same to your 'parent' would add a huge psychological stress.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Can genetically engineered spices naturally interact with the biosphere?
In view of the fact that the early nineteen fifties, biologists began to revolve their thought to the mystifying double helix called DNA. Contained by twenty years scientists were before now integration DNA extracted from diverse species.
Now the question arises, can genetically engineered spices easily interact with the biosphere of nature? It’s the reality that things interact with nature, nature will always support them. But the spices to whom doesn’t interact with nature will not survive.
The quantum leap of this innovative technology permitted the human creature to be converted into the new creator of life on earth, creating a diversity of plants and animals. Now natural evolution can be halted at our fingertips, forever altering the meaning of life and forcing us to redefine religion, nature and individuality.
Cellular dynamics in all living systems requires mutual acknowledgement and interdependence, a constant collaboration between the personage life and the entire biosphere to maintain the stability and equilibrium suitable for species survival.
The holistic concept of the Gaia Hypothesis proposes a subtle mutual participation between organic life (the moving part) and the geological environment (the unmoving part) as an integral whole in the evolutionary journey.
Bioengineering disregards this essential complexity by disrupting species integrity, a gesture in contempt of nature's wisdom. Science can alter other creature's very genetic structure to suit our desires and the market value. Do animals, plants, forests, mountains, and oceans exist only for human benefit?
Because there is no regulation in labeling genetically engineered products, we have no way to avoid them. For this reason we must demand that our government enforce strict regulation in labeling all genetically engineered products. We can impose sanctions on processed food made by genetic engineering, and begin to educate our communities about this important issue. We should support local farmers by purchasing locally grown, organic produce, and switch to an ECO- VEGETARIAN DIET.
As long as we breathe fresh air, eat food, and enjoy the beauty of nature, we owe it to mother Earth and her billions of years of sustainability.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Oh GOD! Stem cell research is leading towards ethical and social issues.
Uncooperatively, therapeutic researches in this field argue that it is necessary to follow embryonic stem cell research since the resultant technologies are predictable to have major medical prospective. And embryos used for research are only those scheduled for destruction any way.
At this time of global crisis every one of us needs to awaken towards a new ethical vigor and put forward the energy which is our moral responsibility that our planet very much needs to refuse to accept the forces of commercial exploitation. We have to need this for our own good sense and meaningfulness, blessedness of the living Earth.
The continued existence of their future is our own survival. Without collective effort we will not be able to cure the ill fate of the planet. As an alternative of self-satisfaction we all need to make some sacrifices in order to give hope to other creatures.
The resulting debate has promoted powers that be around the world to search for regularity frameworks and highlighted the reality that stem cell researches be a symbol of a social and ethical challenge.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Animal Rights and injection of human DNA into animals is morally justified?????
Faces of hope, voices of space,
Genetic engineering is a technique to splice, delete, add, isolate, recombine or transfer genes from one organism to another which may be totally not linked. It’s a kind of unnaturally involuntary changing the individual organism as its starting point, in disparity to natural development in which changes occur among miscellaneous populations through natural selection. Do animals, plants, forests, mountains, and oceans exist only for human benefit? The new food method through genetic engineering is no longer real creatures that have many debates on animal rights.
Since there is no regulation in classification genetically engineered products. We have no way to avoid them.
That’s why we must demand that our government enforce strict regulation in classification all genetically engineering products. We can boycott processed food made by genetic engineering, and begin to educate our communities about this important issue. As long as we breathe fresh air, eat food, and enjoy the beauty of nature, we be obliged it to mother Earth and her billions of years of sustainability.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Genetic Engineering works than where is the Quality of life????????
Genetic engineering, genetic redesign or genes modification is basically a process of genes control in a way that is normal reproductive process outside the organism. It involves isolation genes, operating and re-introduction of DNA into a cell or replica organism. Now in genetic engineering what is re-introduction of DNA into the cells? It involves only putting across the protein in the cells or model organisms. Genetic engineering aims is to introduce, develop new characters or traits physically or inner side of the organism, such as develop a resistance for a specific crop infection introducing a novel trait in the embryo of the crop by producing new protein or enzymes.
Examples can include the production of human insulin through genetic redesigning of bacteria; another one is the production of erythropoietin in Chinese Hamster Ovary cells, and the production of new types of experimental like cancer mouse (Onco-Mouse) for research and it was only possible through genetic redesign.
How it works, since a segment is specified with protein or enzymes of DNA called a gene, future versions of that protein can be re-designed by changing the gene's underlying DNA .One way to do this is to isolate the piece of DNA containing the gene, precisely cut the gene out, and then reintroduce the gene into a different DNA segment called as splice or do splicing. Together with ligase, which can join fragments of DNA together, restriction enzymes formed the initial basis of recombinant DNA technology.
Above discussion shows that through genetic engineering we can alter the existing DNA by adding such enzymes or proteins that enable to produce a new organism but where is the quality of life of that organism. Genetic engineering is also applied on human beings to develop advance or such characteristics which he/ she don’t have. Enzymes or proteins will enter in the respective organism when it will be in the embryonic form.
Here we are going against the laws of nature if take it in more depth whether embryo haven’t feel pain. Another irritating thing is that how our society is going to accept that genetic redesign organism? What name does today’s civilized and modern society will give to them? Finally the quality of life is totally demonstrated because we are going against the laws of nature. We should explore the genetic, genetics, genetic engineering and bio technology for the welfare of human beings not changing or altering the spices if want that than solve the issues like ethics, quality of life with out changing the rules of God.
Genetic Essentialisim and Embroy Identitiy.
This is a difficult position to defend, even from a standpoint to embryonic identity. However this situation only worsens when we begin to c...
-
Genetic engineering has many applications for the service of mankind. 1) In 1982 USA’s FDA is approved first genetically engineered drug was...
-
One of these concerns is already present in a non-genetic medical application. This is the type of objection raised by members of the deaf c...
-
An important part of the definition offered by Gert is that for a condition to be considered a malady there must be an absence of an externa...