Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • Free Essays • My Term Papers • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Science Portrait of a Revolutionary Portrait of a Revolutionary October can be a month of festivity. Usually birthdays are revered and holidays are celebrated. In the October of 2000, however, an unusual birthday was commemorated. In that month, “Andi,” a transgenic animal, was born. The reason why his birth should be regarded with great esteem is not only that he was a genetically modified rhesus monkey, but that he is the first. The news was monumental for several reasons; namely, Andi is a close genetic cousin to humans. The experiment was a lengthy one and the outcome is a product well worth the effort on behalf of the scientific and global community. The experiment is a beneficial one, for an understatement is to deem it one of frivolity. Andi’s genesis marks a new chapter in the history of the planet. The key part in this chapter is the ability of humans to manipulate creation. The issue now is whether Andi is a great destructive force or a conglomeration of human intelligence. In the near future, the world will eventually feel the brunt of an explosion catalyzed by genetic manipulation and Andi is part of a lit fuse. “Andi” is a backward acronym for “inserted DNA” that describes the method used by scientists at the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center (ORPRC) in Beaverton. The lead scientists Gerald P. Schatten and Anthony W.S. Chan, along with their team, placed copies of the green fluorescent protein (GFP), found in jellyfish, in specialized viri: retroviri. Their main goal was to create a monkey with a new gene introduced in a laboratory, thus a transgenic monkey. The significance of the GFP gene was to provide quick, detectable, and vivid evidence of whether the experiment was successful. These “replication-defective” retroviri that carried the gene were injected into 224 unfertilized rhesus oocytes. There, the retroviri inserted their genes and the GFP gene into the DNA of the egg cells. Through fertilization via “intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)--described in the journal Science--126 of the eggs grew into embryos in laboratory containers and 40 were transferred to 20 surrogate mothers so that each could carry two embryos. Five pregnancies, one of which were twins, resulted and three males were born live from the six fetuses. “[The] set of fraternal twins miscarried at 73 days (150 to 155 days normal gestation) and a blighted pregnancy (implantation attempt without a fetus) occurred...The miscarriage is likely due to the twin pregnancy, which is rare and high-risk in rhesus” (Science, p. 310, 311). Andi was the only surviving infant, because the other two infants were stillborns. To the astonishment of the scientists, the stillborns exhibited fluorescence when exposed to ultra-violet light; however, Andi did not glow when exposed to the light even though all his analyzed tissues, fluids, and cells--including lymphocytes, blood, and hair--showed the presence of the transgene. The scientists do not know if the fact that the stillborns glowed green had something to do with the fact that they did not live. Although the lone survivor, Andi, did not glow; his existence confirmed the incorporation of the GFP gene, making the experiment a successful one. Andi’s inability to fluoresce and the stillborn infants may be explained by the unusually common function of the retroviri. “Retroviruses are notorious for inserting their genes in unpredictable locations, often disrupting useful genes or landing in places where the new gene does not work, said John Gearhart of Johns Hopkins University” (Post). The GFP gene is present throughout Andi, but is non-functional. However, the GFP gene is present and functioning within the other infants, yet it may explain their stillbirths. This implies that the technique may be faulty and gives credit to skeptics who doubt the significance of the existence of the ORPRC and Andi. The next obstacle for the team, in consequence, is to comprehend and control where the gene is inserted into a host cell’s DNA. Once that is achieved, how the gene functions can be better understood and the mastery of genetic integration takes shape. Andi is not the only success borne from genetic modification. Alterations in plants and animals, especially mice, have proven worthwhile in certain cases. Scientists have learned a great deal, since the first transgenic mouse was created in 1976 by Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass. Discoveries have been made from studies of human diseases by the insertion of certain genes into mice. “‘You can probably get about 15%-20% of the mice offspring that have taken up the new genes. Monkeys, on the other hand, have only one offspring...,’ [Dr. Chan] said” (Reuters 2). The transgenic procedures in mice have a better rate of success because of the number of offspring in one generation. The possibility of the functioning gene in the many offspring of the mice is much greater than the possibility in other animals that produce less offspring. However, mice are not the best models for studying human diseases because of an obvious genetic disparity from humans. “...[P]roducing transgenic monkeys...could be...the ideal models to accelerate discoveries and to bridge the scientific gap between transgenic mice and humans” (Science, p.312). A transgenic monkey used as a disease model would offer a better understanding of particular illnesses than mice. The present success with a transgenic monkey would offer a more accurate perspective on how the human body reacts and recovers from illnesses. The objective of scientists when employing modification techniques in mice and other animals is to attempt to efficiently combat diseases and ultimately benefit humankind. “‘We believe that a monkey model would be a better way to study human diseases. We hope to be able to learn more about how exactly a particular disease works and what types of drugs might be best for treatment,’ said lead author Dr. Anthony W.S. Chan” (Reuters 2). Diseases such as diabetes, Parkinsons, muscular dystrophy, cancers, HIV, hemophilia, and Alzheimers are a few which scientists hope to research after integration in a nonhuman primate. Enough research on transgenesis would allow scientists to determine how to disable a disease genetically and discover a cure. “‘We wouldn't want to make a monkey that carries a disease unless we knew there was a cure right in front of us. Our goal isn’t to make sick monkeys. Our goal is to eradicate diseases,’ [Dr. Schatten] said” (Reuters 1). Once the gene for a specific illness is introduced into the monkey genome, scientists can experiment and figure out how to prevent the illness form existing in the genome. The National Institutes of Health, which funded the research, apparently supports the concept of modifying monkey genomes with prospect of curing diseases by utilizing non-human primates. If fluorescence can be incorporated within the genome of a primate, inevitably--as technology flourishes--other genes have the possibility. If one can isolate and insert a gene from a jellyfish into a monkey, then one can infer doing the same with a human genes for particular diseases. Once humans are involved in the genetic game, the future can seem promising or foreboding. The human genome is on the verge of being completely mapped and identified. As of now 90% of genes on every chromosome has been documented and that number is increasing by the efforts of the Human Genome Project, Celera Genomics and other organizations. Genetic modification of the human genome is becoming a great concern. Humans, monkeys, and apes are primates. Since a primate was modified, there is a dubious understanding whether the same techniques can be used to alter human embryos. One issue revolves around the possibility of parents to choose how to influence the genetic makeup of their baby in their best interest. However, these “designer babies” are not too distant. “Already, some fertility clinics offer tests that allow parents to choose embryos free of unwanted traits (such as disease genes) or carrying desirable traits (such as tissue type that will make the newborn a useful organ donor for a sibling)” (Post). Certain parents will desire to have “perfect” children and laws may not be able to prevent them from achieving flawless offspring. The correction of genetic defects which cause diseases is the goal, and the possibility of adding genes for enhancement of the particular human may be a byproduct. Dr. Schatten does not believe that his group’s research is a “first step” toward the production of ideal human infants. “‘We are only in this business to make disease models to eradicate diseases,’ [Dr. Schatten] said” (Reuters 1). The possibility of altering the human genome is dependent on the desire of the knowledgeable individual with the initiative to do so. The possibility of manipulating human offspring is a future concern; but, in present day, the possibility of Andi’s children being altered is a hopeful symbol that the experiment bears more success. “We have neither demonstrated germline transmission nor the presence of transgenic sperm; this must await Andi’s development through puberty in about 4 years” (Science, p. 312). The notoriety of retroviri enter this situation as well. New genes introduced by the retroviri usually remain inactive in the offspring of the transgenic animal. However, if the offspring prove the GFP gene is congenital, then an ethical concern arises. The concern being that the offspring will have their “building blocks” permanently altered and each succeeding generation would not have a “typical” genome, an “inalienable right” all animals bear. If humans have the ability to regulate what genes can be reproduced in certain animals, then the research should continue. If animals can be affected by research without being permanently damaged while living, the concern should be what will determine the next stage of experiments. Scientific breakthroughs leave solid precedents to eradicating diseases and understanding genetics, but with every great power comes great responsibility and misuse. Andi’s creation ushers in a new age in the planet’s history, because it is for certain that nature can and will be permanently altered. Rules will have to be made concerning which modifications are acceptable and which are inappropriate. The legal system will have to protect the interests of test subjects and certify that all practices follow guidelines. However, is it fair to the person with the capability to have their skills limited by the rule of a bureaucracy? The answers depends on how humans want genetic research to mature and develop. The responsible use of technology is what is advocated among scientists. Every genetic experiment needs to be monitored closely, since any result could greatly affect the world. Many are wondering what the next result will be. If a transgenic monkey resulted, which is close to humans, then the next result might a human. Most scientists believe that inserting animal genes into the human genome now would have no medical use and no scientific benefit. The procedure could be risky because genetically engineering a human is too “premature” at this time. Andi proved by his birth that the possibilities for modification depend on time. Soon, scientists will go beyond monkeys and enter the realm of the human genome. There will be a enormous debate over the issue of genetically altering humans and a decision will be made. Humans will be experimented on even if the ruling is or is not in favor of experimentation. Evolution has explained and defined why humans are in their present state. It has taken its course by naturally modifying humans. Yet, does the next stage of human evolution rest in the palms of genetic engineers? Maybe, because it seems to be a fathomable possibility. Only they have the power to change a human’s genome, either enhancing or deactivating certain traits. Understanding advanced scientific concepts or space exploration may require a more anatomically advanced human. The future may consist of those humans due to a necessity for or interest in them. The ethics of engineering must be discussed now because humans are at the crossroads over how to approach such a topic. Humans are on the verge of something looming in the distance and must wait for it to slowly engulf their livelihood. Bibliography: Bibliography Chan, Anthony. “Transgenic Monkeys Produced by Retroviral Gene Transfer into Mature Oocytes” Science. Vol. 291 (2001): p.309-312 “First Ever Genetically Modified Monkey Created” Reuters Health 2 http://news.lycos.com/headlin.../article.asp?docid=RTHEALTH-MONKEY&date=2001011 “First Genetically Modified Primate Could Help Human Disease Research” CNN http://cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/01/11/modified.monkey.ap./index.html “Scientists Create First Genetically Altered Monkey” Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49318-2001Jan11.html “Scientists Genetically Engineer a Monkey” Reuters Health 1 http://news.lycos.com/hea.../article.asp?docid=RTSCIENCE-MONKEY-DC&date=2001011 Word Count: 1996
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests