Rewriting Ourselves: Genomics Will Change Everything
Like designing your model child, this video expresses that science has improved enough to actually create a bug from nothing! From a scientific standpoint this could mean great things (farming, randomized trials, etc). However, where should the line be drawn? Is it ok to genetically create plants, what about animals, what about human kind?
More importantly, this TED talk goes into many aspects covered in class. From the start of the “new” genome to pharmacogenomics to the future of DNA sequencing ($5000 and in an hour or even 30 minutes). What are your thoughts on the video? What do you think about the rapid development in genomics and the repercussions society will face positively or negatively?
First of all, I love TED talks. I watch many videos a week from this website and have learned so much about so many different topics from these lectures. I was so excited to hear that there was a video on Genomics on TED talks. The way that Barry Schuler explains DNA and the genome is very simplified and intriguing. I like how he discusses that DNA and its sequencing is a language, because, as we know from our class, DNA and your genome sequenced is truly a complicated reading of you.
ReplyDeleteI like how Schular links DNA sequencing to the technological advancements that have come about in the last decade as it pertains to computers and coding. I thought it was hysterical how he says that the human genome is less information than that coding of Microsoft Office. I like that he relates coding a software system to the "bug" in our genome where things go wrong and must be recoded or changed. The topic of "how can we ultimately determine how genes express themselves?" is something that we have studied during our class is well-explained through the invention and progression of the computer.
My favorite part of this talk what was Schuler talked about how each one of us is going to be walking around in public with our genome sequenced at everyone's disposal. I think he may be right, despite some ethical issues that may arise about privacy. We are understanding the genome so well now that we can find out the history of our ancestors as well as "understand the functionality behind it." Because we can comprehend this, we can understand what causes disease, the possible outcomes of our health, and how to prevent/prolong these possible negative health outcomes. I am very interested to see everyone else in the class has to say in this blog.
How do I feel about creating organisms/living things from stem cells? I am torn. Obviously, I believe that we should not be able to control nature and our ecosystem and let it run its course how it was "supposed" to. However, I believe that we could better our lives in our ecosystem if we could create certain living things. For example, Schuler brings up creating microbial colonies to increase oxygen levels in our ecosystem. I wholeheartedly believe that we could be healthier if we could create certain organisms and plants.
Are we playing god? "Well somebody has to," Watson's response, is perfect. We do invent molecules/compounds. We reorganize these chemicals to make things, both good and bad. It is our job to understand the mistakes we have made and work from there. Well done, Schuler, well done!
Dana sums up this talk in a nutshell! Schuler is a great public speaker and was able to discuss the process and composition of DNA in layman's terms. His analogies about the human genome and computers/technology seemed to work well and he even cracked a few jokes here and there! The presentation was very informative and understandable by the general public.
DeleteHowever, it's hard to say where the line should be drawn when referring to creating a bug from scratch. Schuler discusses how this is the next step in human evolution: to be able to use the tools given to us in nature in order to enhance technology, health, and medicine. It makes sense when discussing evolution. At least for now, as far-fetched it is to think about, humans probably are not going to evolve physically any time soon. This is the human body and it's most likely going to stay this way for hundreds of thousands of years. But it's the MIND that may continue to evolve, and Schuler's TED talk seems to hint at that. With all these new scientific discoveries, Schuler says that we're not being "unnatural". In fact, he states that everything man even creates is natural. We're using natural ingredients to produce and create something else. So are we playing God? Or is society just evolving? It's hard to say and there's no straightforward answer to it at all.
Genomics and technology are improving rapidly and I think (and hope) that it will all be fruitful and positive. One can only hope that those "genome cards" Schuler was talking about will help personalize medicine so as to reduce side effects and improve efficacy of treatments. It's all about pharmacogenomics! Schuler said to stay healthy for 20 more years in order to see the advancements in genomics and technology. Well, I plan on it!
I also thought this was a great talk! Dana highlighted a lot of the parts that I found to be the most intriguing and entertaining. One part that resonated with me was when Schuler took out his card, pretending it had his genome, and handed it to the pharmacist. We talked about pharmacogenomics in class but the visual of being able to actually hand someone your sequenced genome was pretty profound.
DeleteI can't think of another word that describes how I feel about being able to switch a plant or animal's genome with another genome, except 'weird.' Part of me feels that changing the 'being' of a plant or animal is overstepping some invisible boundary. It feels like if you strip them of their defining physical characteristics and functions, they would no longer be the same species. One of my best friends is studying Food Science at Cornell and she was explaining to me about how farmers and companies have to be really careful that they don't let their crops germinate and spread to other farms. If a seed of a GM crop was carried to the farm a few acres over, there could be a serious problem with unwanted species being created that can outgrow and kill existing species of crops and it would cost millions to compensate. This ties into the altering or creation of new species because there needs to be caution with how they're maintained and where they'll be kept so that they won't interfere with or outcompete natural populations in the wild and cause these natural species to go extinct (as we have seen with the introduction of invasive species). Like Schuler said, we can't make babies grow from grape vines but we can do a lot of things within the set of rules, and we're just beginning to test what the rules are.
Another profound moment was when Schuler closed his talk by telling everyone to stay health for the next 20 years and they'll be able to easily live past 100 with the help of genomics and advancement in technology and medicine. It might have been somewhat of a joke to say humans can live 150 or 300 years, but we don't really know where the possibilites lie. And that's both exhilarating and scary.
Great post Suzann. I completely agree that being able to switch a plant or animal's genome with another genome is simply WEIRD. And I think your assessment of the complexities and possible problems with attempting to do so is right on. Your comments on food science make a lot of sense, and I think although it is promising in some regards to imagine that we could virtually engineer genomes, sometimes there are things that we are just simply not meant to do because it is not possible for us to comprehend the effects of our actions. I think this idea speaks to that 'invisible boundary' that you referred to. Perhaps just because we can't doesn't mean we should.
DeleteIn thinking about the food science-related effects that Suzann references, I was reminded of a class I took in Environmental Health where we discussed how human actions can affect the environment and human health in unintended and unexpected ways. Specifically, I was reminded of the problems we have created with regards to genetically modified crop plants. This practice has shown some clear short-term benefits but the broader consequences are largely unknown and many researchers are increasingly worried about the magnitude of those consequences. More specifically, genetic resistance to pesticides is an issue of increasing concern. But more importantly, I think it should be highlighted that when we as humans interfere with natural ecosystems that we don't fully understand, there are often broader and unforseeable consequences. I think in the area of environmental health, genetic resistance to pesticides, target pest resurgence, and secondary pest outbreak are good examples of the negative and unintended consequences that can occur when we interfere with the world in areas that we do not fully understand and cannot fully control. This is not to say that we shouldn't test what the rules are as Schuler asserts, but rather that we should be cautious in doing so and not overly eager to jump into engineering genomes in bugs, crops and animals before we have a better understanding of the broader consequences of doing so.
The "invisible boundary" referred to above is analogous to ethical concerns that we could (or should) be discussing when considering the broad spectrum of possibilities opened by genomics and genetic modification. While the potential advances are exciting, we need to be careful about what course we take to ensure we don't cause irreparable harm to anyone's genome - particularly when the science is still so new and unknown that an antidote might not be readily available.
DeleteMichelle's example of the repercussions of genetically modifying agricultural products is great, and it's scary that some crops are becoming genetically resistant to pesticides. Extrapolating further, there are also direct risks to people's health from these GMOs. Genetic antibiotic resistance has also been documented in such plants. This is scary because it can lessen the effects of antibiotics when we take them at the same time as we eat this food, and the resistance gene could conceivably be transferred to a bacteria or virus that would then be unaffected by the antibiotic. Again - science needs to tread carefully to avoid much bigger potential problems in the long term.
Like Dana, I thought that the video was very interesting and well-explained. Schuler accurately but clearly explains the idea of genomic testing and the scientific and social implications of genomics. As Schuler mentions, the rapid pace of technology is quite incredible. After all, the human genome is exponentially more complex than the binary code (which is used to interpret our genetic code onto a computer), yet technology has allowed us to read extremely complex material in a fast and increasingly inexpensive way. As Schuler described, this poses virtually endless possibilities: medicines formulated specifically for each individual or plants that are nutritious but able to survive the harshest climates. I was also interested that he brushed off the idea that people are uncomfortable with genetic changes. I was a bit sad that he did not spend more time explaining his excellent point that most modern (or ancient) agriculture is effectively genetic modification. After all, the long slow process that gave us modern wheat, corn, and livestock is in fact a long process of selective (and somewhat accidental) breeding, which is the simplest form of genetic alteration. The only difference with modern technology is that it allows for much more drastic and significant changes in a much shorter time period, like grain that can act as its own pesticide.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there were some aspects to the fast genetic changes which he did not mention, serious consequences to our actions that could seriously harm future generations. While grain that acts as a natural pesticide may seem like an excellent idea, it can actually be quite problematic, because the pests are also adaptable and can build resistance, which eventually forces farmers to use stronger (and more dangerous) pesticides. Even though the technology, and our ability, to make genetic changes has increased significantly, there is still a lag time before we can realize the side effects of our actions. Relatively small changes to agriculture may be easy to fix, but other changes may be much harder to fix if they more drastically alter nature's path. I do not agree with people who say that we are "subverting" or "corrupting" nature because we are not. As Schuler said, we are simply using the toolbox that nature as given us. However, nature's toolbox was not necessarily meant to be used this quickly, evolution and development take time and that time has the advantage of decreasing the seriousness of drastic changes. I think that our use of genetic modifications may be essential in an increasingly complex and crowded world, but I do think that we should be cautious not to get too used to playing God because after all, we are only human.
I agree with Sami, while the talk was very informative and interesting there are aspects of his discussion that need more critical analysis. He did not discuss in detail the potential harm that genomics and our actions could cause.
DeleteI disagree with Schuler’s point about “playing God.” I may be old fashioned but I do not agree with Watson’s remark “Well somebody has to.” Schuler mentions that nothing created is unnatural, not chemicals or even gasoline. He says that we do not invent molecules we simply reorganize them. While this is technically true, we do invent new products that wouldn’t have occurred naturally, therefore are unnatural. I think that the potential harms need to be more carefully predicted and weighed.
I really enjoyed this video, I agree that the next part in the human evolutionary tract is to understand and work with the genomes of the world. I do not think that the successes in genomic science is moving fast, like everything else around us information and technology has been advancing at such a fast pace it would be easy to adapt to the new information that genomic research can provide. I am at least speaking of people who are already understanding of the fast paced world ( the younger generations). Though the main point that I liked was that we are still "playing inside the rule" mother nature still has specific outlines for different genomes and although as humans we can alter different aspects of it we can not make one thing do something completely different.Like Schuler said have the plant birth a baby, it is just not in its genome. The possibilities are endless, and as the knowledge that we gain from research is compiled our discoveries and innovations will gain speed and the things that we can do with the genome will be vast.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Veronika makes a valid point that perhaps the younger generation of more technologically savvy people might be more inclined to be on par with the fast-paced technological developments in the scientific fields, I don't think this necessarily makes young people more able or prepared to comprehend genomic research and all its implications. I would argue that genomic science is actually moving forward very fast and has been making significant progress over the course of recent decades. I would even venture to say that I think it will be increasingly challenging for the public - especially laypeople - to understand the evolving field of genomics/genetics and to sift through the sensationalized and biased media delivery of scientific research that is often misleading and even inaccurate (as we have seen in class). Certainly the challenge is to try to understand and work with genomes in the world around us as Veronika suggests, but I think doing that will be easier said than done, especially as we enter into areas of science that are extremely politically, religiously and socially charged.
DeleteI agree with Michelle, that even though younger generations are accustomed to living in a fast paced, always changing world due to our recent technological advances and "I have to have it now" attitude, there is an extreme lack of understanding about the advances, particularly those in the field of genetics and genomics, that are becoming so prevalent in our world, from media outlets to the consumer realm to our doctors offices. I hope that as we continue to advance society begins to learn to appreciate that the information we are learning can be drastic and life changing, but that it takes time to utilize it in the correct and most useful manner. The hype surrounding discovery of "new genes" and their uses does deserve recognition, but research is far away from being able to treat many of the "mistakes" found in people's genomes. Only with widespread educational programs will doctors and individuals come to understand that even this incredibly rapid process of gene discovery is occurring, that it will take some time before we are able to effectively use the information we are obtaining for the betterment of society.
DeleteHe starts of by saying that genomics is going to change everything we know about the world we live in....that's a bit farfetched. DNA has been around since the beginning of human life, so in my opinion knowing about it now/learning how to manipulate it does not mean suddenly our purpose for existing is different. Or that we've unlocked the secret to human life...what are we trying to say...that all the billions of people that came before us and didnt know about DNA, genes, and biotechnology, were wrong in their understanding of their existence on Earth? mmm I dont think that many people can consistently be wrong over hundreds of generations.
ReplyDeleteMy view might be over-the-top, but might I suggest that perhaps they knew exactly what life was all about despite their ignorance of genomics, and they knew that every new discovery about their 'being' only further reiterated the existence of God and their position in relation to Him as His creation. It's great to think of DNA as the Code of Life and give it the power of dictating our observed and visible traits and physical characteristics, but when a person dies his DNA is still inside of him...it hasnt gone anywhere, yet the traits we observe in his body are so different from when he was alive with that very same body! So I don't believe that the grandiose powers Barry and other scientists try to attribute to DNA are in line with what we see in real life. DNA plays a role, for sure, but that role is limited and operates according to strict guidelines and laws of nature which we are only able to manipulate to a certain extent. I'm happy as long as scientific DNA investigation stays in the medical, illness curing realm. I'm not ready/willing to let it's significance seep into how we assign meaning to/organize human social life.
This semester I have been exposed to a lot of TED talks in each of my classes showing different perspectives on the topics we discuss every day. This video was no different and I like how he reviewed some of the most basics concepts we have learned this semester. And even though there is much more the audience needs to know in order to fully grasp the potential of the human genome project, I think he did his best outlining it for them. But considering what we have learned about genomics and the future of sequencing our genome, to improve our everyday life, I think the idea that every person will have their own genome sequence card in the near future is much farther off than he would like to admit. Only recently has the cost of sequencing ones genome reached a somewhat affordable range and even so this cost is still high for many. Furthermore there are many other reasons our society will not be able to rep the benefits of sequencing genomes in the near future. Some of them include the fact that everyone might not want to have their genome sequenced and the fact that even if everyone did, implementing a system within all pharmacies, hospitals and physicians offices that can read ones genome sequence card will not be easy considering we still cannot even get all of those places to universally use electronic medical records. I definitely think one day we will be able to use genome sequencing in a very positive way to improve each individual’s health status but too much information is not always a good thing and attempting to individualize medicine too much might cause more problems within our health system that we are already trying to fix.
ReplyDeleteBianca brings up a great point ... perhaps too much information is not always a good thing. I agree that everyone having a personal genome sequence card is much further off in the future than Schuler suggests due to the complexities associated with implementing and funding a system of such magnitude. There are also the obvious and significant issues associated with privacy that would exist if everyone were to have their own genome sequence card. But honestly, I think the biggest issue/barrier associated with personalized genome sequence cards would be practical concerns. How do we translate a personalized genome sequence into effective, individualized medical care? Surely this can be done as we have discussed this semester with pharmacogenomics, nutrigenomics etc., but we have also seen in some of the studies we have read that information does not always translate to improved clinical care. For example, the BRCA study showed that although many clinicians were aware of the available genetic testing for the gene, many of them were unable to identify the correct clinical scenarios where such testing was appropriate and advisable. I think many of the same issues would exist if everyone were to have a personalized genome sequence card. How would we translate that information into efficacious clinical advice? How would we train physicians and health care providers to be aware of the plethora of genetic factors that influence health and to act on that knowledge appropriately in clinical settings in a way that benefits patient health? Personalized genome sequence cards might be cool and certainly may have the potential to really impact health care delivery in the long-run in a really profound way, but I find it hard to believe that we would be able to implement that type of comprehensive system at the present moment when our health care system is plagued with serious issues of cost, quality and efficiency, and we have yet to even be able to implement widespread electronic medical record systems on an aggregate level.
DeleteLike Dana and most of my peers, I really enjoy watching TED talks and was happy to learn there was one on genomics. I thought Schular did a good job of explaining DNA in simple terms and relating it to products that people can understand and relate to.
ReplyDeleteI think that whenever the question is asked, how far can we take science until it is too far? is one that has no easy answer. I think it is important to realize that as Schular said, we are not creating compounds, we are reorganizing them. I also think that there are tremendous benefits for the "reorganization" or some compounds, like when he referred to using carbon dioxide to create gasoline- therefore solving two major world problems. I do not have the answer to what is "right" in regards to genetics, however, I think that where plants are concerned, cross-breeding or genetically enhancing is ok, but animals and humans are another aspect to be considered. I liked the part where he talked about Watson and his response to "playing God." These are difficult questions to answer and because there is not a "perfect" or "right" answer we will make mistakes, however, we will learn and continue from there. I also really liked how he ended the talk. Take care of yourselves for the next 20 years...I thought it was an intriguing ending!
This TED talk was amazing, Schular was able to identify all the fundamentals to understanding genomics and was able to put it in words that his audience and viewers were able to understand. The fact that we are able to create compounds and make something from nothing, is not only amazing, but it is an advantage. I think the fact that Schular connected our DNA and genomics to technologies advancements was spectacular. One thing we must understand about this is as Schular said, yes we are creating things from nothing in a laboratory setting, but we are using molecules, chemicals, atoms that already exist. We are just recombining nature to create a man made object. Do I believe that there is something wrong with this? No. After all advancements in technology, and science are what can help us progress. An example is that bacteria and viruses are always evolving, imagine if we didn't use science to invent better vaccines? We would not have the health we have today. I think that the advancements in genomics will have great positive results, by making genome sequencing more affordable and faster we will be able to learn so much about humans, and like Schular said maybe even receive treatment specific for us.
ReplyDeleteAs to creating things, I do believe that it is good, but I do believe a line should be drawn. These organisms and compounds may better our society and improve our health. But if we don't draw the line what will stop us from creating human kinds to the point where we lose our uniqueness? what makes us "us"? Would people want to live until 150 years? 300 years? What is there to do that would require so much time? I do believe that science should allow people to improve their lives so that they may live happily. But at some point everyone will feel like their time on earth has reached its end and they are ready for what comes next, that is why although we can use it to improve our health it should be stopped when it comes to creating creatures designed after us.
I agree with Yoal on the fact that creating things in a generally good thing. I think that creating extra plants (such as wheat or corn) could be very beneficial in places that are lacking food. Some people live in places where droughts and floods are very common and this can cause severe problems for farmers and for the rest of society. Farms have been ruined due to weather conditions. If we could create extra produce for these kind of situations, we could save many lives. However, I also agree that creating new human beings would cause a LOT of dispute. Like Yoal said, would people start to want to live to 200 or 300 years? Would this be good or our planet? We would use up all of our resources VERY quickly (unless we could really create anything out of nothing and could make oil, gas, etc). I think that we as a species are no where near ready (and might never be ready) to add to our society these created human creatures. There are way too many ethical, political, religious, emotional, etc issues that would take probably forever to figure out answers to. I think we need to stick to using genomics in a beneficial way like finding genes that determine specific diseases or risk factors and using this information to keep people alive and happy.
DeleteI also thought the Talk was great. He really did a great job of summarizing the role of DNA and our genome. I also agree with Bianca in the fact that I don't know if this "genome sequence card" is really doable. There are many many people who do not wish to know anything about their genome and wish to keep a sense of mystery in their lives. There are religious people who may not think that this idea goes along with their views. Also, the cost of sequencing our genome would need to come WAY down for everyone to have this card. Also, I think he is a bit off in saying that "all we have to do is find a bug in the ground, sequence them, figure out what traits we want, and fertilize those traits". I don't think it's as simple as that by any means, and I think science has a lot of work to do before anything like that is possible. He said that there are microbes out there that make gasoline and we can use those. This may be true, but how easy is it to reproduce gas and is it safe? He definitely brought up many good points/ideas, but I'm just not sure if all of that is possible within the next 20/30 years. I liked the ending though with the question "if we could, would we?" and "if you stay healthy for 20 years you could see 150 and maybe 200". The possibility of that is exciting, terrifying, confusing, and baffling all at once.
- Caroline Booth
I agree with Dana that Mr. Schuler definitely simplifies genomics in layman terms so it’s very understandable. I liked his example of numbers to explain things. At some point genome will soon be on a USB or when you go to the pharmacy it won’t be a drug for everyone but just for you. With all this information you can learn where your relatives come from, we can understand functionality, and out origin which I think is really interesting. We can learn what foes wrong and we can correct problems. There are definitely a lot of pros to knowing the genome.
DeleteBut were also writing genomes and plugging it into different things and...it works. If in the wrong hands this could definitely go wrong. We need to keep in mind that we are part of an ecosystem. What we do affects the other organisms around us. That is the only precaution I have about creating “bugs”. What if that creation creates another problem or makes another problem worse? What if it affects another population but we won’t know for several years until the effects are visible? I am all for science and medical advancements. I am just saying that we need to be careful. Sami also mentioned with all this genetics going on there probably will be some serious consequences to our actions that could seriously harm future generation.
But like Dana I don’t know where the line should be drawn. I don’t know the effects. I don’t know how it changes the future. But does that matter? What if our intentions are good? I agree that everything we do is natural because we are using natural resources. But I agree that we are evolving. We want to know more we want to do more and we want to understand more. So it’s completely understandable why we keep pushing our limits. I don’t know how smart it will be to put a cap on creativity and knowledge? Won’t that just make us push the limits farther? We always want what we can’t have and we always want to do what we’re told not to...right?
This whole TED talk and everyone's responses was very interesting! It's interesting to hear how the things we learn in class everyday is applicable to our lives and the next few years to come! It was very intriguing to hear the analogy of the evolution of computers to the prospective evolution of genomics. In a way, I found it kind of promising that our genome will interplay with pharmacogenomics in a way that would enhance the quality of the drugs administered. In a sense, the advancement of genomics can serve to enhance the quality of our life with respect to certain boundaries and limitations.
ReplyDeleteI found this video interesting for a variety of reasons. First, it was an easy look at the current state of genomics and was delivered in a way that most people could understand. Genomics is often a scary subject to most people and this video made the topic much more approachable. It allowed people to see that scientist are not playing god, are not messing with nature; they are simply working to understand nature to the best of their abilities. Second, I really enjoyed hearing about the mapping of wine’s genome, an action that never occurred to me. I thought you could only map the genome of things which are living, not all things. Third, I liked the idea of a card with your genomes on it for the goal of the common good, to heal and create and get rid of ill side effects. While the idea in general is scary and has the potential for negative repercussions, its goal is only the improvement of human kind. And finally, this video made me really happy because most of what the speaker talked about I had already learned in class. He delivered a basic background of genes and the human genome project, all of which I was familiar with.
ReplyDeleteThe video was wonderful and his simplistic yet informative introduction to Genomics was well put together. The future of Genomics has always been something that worried me for fear that we might reach a point where we are playing god. I liked how he approached that question in a spiritual matter where both religious and non religious persons could agree with. Genetics is not necessarily becoming unnatural. All the things we need are in nature and we are just altering it for the better of humanity. O f course there will always be negative repercussions with genetics because we can use this knowledge in ways that aren't necessarily the best for society. The issue becomes since we have knowledge , why not use it. He addressed a lot of positive ways studying the genome can contribute to society such as personalizing health care and diminishing the occurrence of side effects when using medicines that are generalized for the public. Overall the lecture was amazing and even without taking a Genomics class it was extremely easy to understand.
ReplyDeleteAs many others have stated, Barry Schuler is an excellent public speaker, and he explained what DNA is and how it works in a very understandable manner. I was curious about Schuler’s background, so I read about him on the TED website, which identifies him an entrepreneur. In the 1990s, Schuler and his colleagues at Medior (a company that he helped found) designed an easy-to-use interface for AOL, in turn making the Internet accessible for millions of people. Schuler then went on to serve as CEO of AOL, and now, he is on the board of directors for Synthetic Genomics, a company that uses genetically-modified or synthetically produced microbes to produce alternative fuels. (This he mentioned in the video.) He is also a wine connoisseur and vineyard-owner who wants to use genetic technology to enhance grapes used to produce better-tasting wine. (This he alluded to in the video as well.)
ReplyDeleteKnowing this about Schuler, I think, helps to explain a lot about his viewpoint on genomics. Overall, Schuler puts a very positive spin on genomics, and the possibilities for what we can do with it/how it will change things in the future. Schuler is very much a proponent of technological advances and making them accessible to the public. When the Internet was the big development in the 1990s, he was on board helping to promote it and make it easy for people to use. Now, with genomics being the big thing in science and technology, he is putting his energy into utilizing and furthering that technology, and brining its benefits (or at least what he sees as the benefits) to the public.
I do agree with Schuler on certain points, on some of the ways that we can/will be able to use genomics to our advantage. For example, we can use genomics to learn the history of our organisms, to understand physiological function (e.g., how we create plaque in our arteries), to learn what contributes to diseases (e.g., why does a cell go from normal to cancerous), and to develop treatments for these diseases. Further, we can use genomic information to develop drugs that are tailored to people’s genomes, so that people receive the most effective medications with the fewest side effects (pharmacogenomics).
However, I think that when Schuler discusses how we can use what we know about genomics to genetically modify organisms, or even synthesize genomes from scratch, he glosses over some of the potential negative consequences of doing so. Certainly, there is promise in genetically modifying organisms—we can create better tasting and more nutritious foods, and we can create microbes that can reduce carbon dioxide levels, for example. However, the science of genetic engineering is still so new, and so we don’t yet know the long-term consequences of manipulating genes. I agree with Michelle, and I think she brings up some great points, about how human actions can affect human health and the environment in unintended—and detrimental—ways, and these consequences are mostly unknown. Thus, I think that we need to cautious in how we use genomic technology to change the DNA of organisms or create it from scratch.
Like all of my peers, I really liked this TED talk--he explained everything simply and clearly. I agree when Schuler says that genomics can be used to our advantage...like creating more food in areas where it's hard to grow food, or creating gasoline out of carbon dioxide, or even giving a card at the pharmacy to get personalized medicine that works well with one's genetic makeup. All of this seems harmless to me; in fact, I think advances in technology like this can help and save a lot of people in many ways. However, the rapid development in genomics can be seen as a negative concept to some. Personally, I just think that some people view change in genomics as a negative or "unnatural" thing when in fact it's a simple reorganization of already existing chemicals. Some people are scared of change, especially when it messes with our genes and how living things are created. As long as the goal is to improve and help humanity, I don't see anything wrong with it.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how he explained everything in a way that was easy for people to understand. It will be interesting to see where all this new information in genomics will take us in the future. I’d like to think that we will use genetics only for the purpose of bettering humanity and not getting excessive. For example the use of genetics in pharmacogenomics and nutrigenomics to better our health and enhance the quality of our lives. Also using genetics to create food by helping to grow crops in areas that are suffering would be another beneficial way to use genetics. Going as far as to create human beings would definitely be where I would draw the line.
ReplyDeleteAfter recently attending the talk on genetics and race at MIT I’d like to add a few additional comments to my original post. Regarding the sheer number of genomic advances that we have seen in the past few years, I think that the progression will lead to more information being available for the masses and that it is not a bad thing. Technology has a way of increasing at exponential paces, from the 5 computers that were built in the first ten years of IBM’s existence to the world today where billions of computers are purchased each year. I think the rapid progression in this aspect is natural.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the smart card that was mentioned on the TED talk containing our genomes I cannot see that being a remote possibility at this point. I may turn around to bite my words in the near future but at this point it does not make good sense to me that an option such as that would exist. First off, if the card was stolen there could be incredibly awful repercussions including a black market for desirable genomes. Regarding on site pharmacological design as well, I cannot see that becoming a fathomable process as it would be incredibly expensive to personalize each individual’s medications to that extent.
After hearing the talk about genetics at the Broad institute and learning more about genological direct to consumer tests, I can’t help but question the validity of the websites and their claims. The scholar, Dr. Carson presented on the downfalls of these sites as presenting results based on an impersonalized statistically probable model. I believe it is just awful that companies such as the one sited by the guest speaker prey on the whims of customers in this way.
Regarding the creation of the synthetic mycoplasma genitalium genome, I am awed. I did not realize that we had the technological capabilities to do this yet, let alone in 2009. I am curious to see if any other organisms have been synthesized in the past three years following the posting of this TED talk. Scientists are treading in murky waters with this ability though, as there are sure to be religious and secular groups that disagree with the right of an individual to create life in an unnatural way such as this. Is it really any different though than in vitro fertilization? I am still unsure as to where I stand regarding this issue. I think that if we are able to design certain organisms we will be able to aid the stop of world hunger and other maladies, such as the energy crisis. But at the same time, perhaps we have those crises for a reason: the fact that mother earth cannot sustain more life than what we already have populated her with.
TED talk claimed that “we are being provided by nature with a toolbox. Nature has put up a set of rules and we have to be able to play along with.” If in the future we can defy these rules should we? Would we?
Hi to all, hoω is all, I think еvery one is getting mоге from this web sitе, and your views aгe nice designed for new viѕitors.
ReplyDeleteAlso visit my web blog : loans for bad credit
If уοu would like to take much fгom this pіeсe of writing then
ReplyDeleteyou have tо аpply these methods tο уour won weblog.
My website: loans for bad credit
Verу nice pοst. I just stumbled upon
ReplyDeleteyour ωeblog and wаnteԁ tο say that I have rеally еnjoyed browsing уour blog
posts. After all I'll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again very soon!
My site :: diet
My site: diet
Hеya і am for the first timе here.
ReplyDeleteI came across this boаrd and I fіnd It truly useful & it
helpеd me out a lot. I hope to give somethіng bacκ and aіd
others likе you helped me.
My webpage :: short term loans
hello there and thank you to уour infοrmation ?
ReplyDeleteI've definitely picked up something new from right here. I did then again expertise a few technical points the use of this website, since I skilled to reload the site a lot of occasions prior to I may just get it to load correctly. I have been brooding about if your web host is OK? Now not that I'm comρlaining, however slow loaԁіng
ciгcumstances οсcasions will somеtimeѕ impаct youг placement іn gοogle
and can injury your high-qualitу scorе if ads and marketing with
Adwoгds. Anywaу I'm including this RSS to my e-mail and can look out for much more of your respective fascinating content. Make sure you update this once more very soon..
Also visit my webpage ... payday loans