Rich people can use gene therapy to enhance traits or qualities in their kids or eliminate stuff. I need info!
538795
Yeah...that's not possible.\n\nDon't get me wrong, it's theoretically possible.  But our technology is nowhere near sophisticated enough to even identify the genetic basis of most traits (except for specific genetic diseases and the simplest traits like hair color) let alone manipulate them.  Also, very few of what we call "traits" when we are talking about humans, have a genetic basis.  Genes have various amounts of influence on them but you can't simply alter a few genes and change them.\n\nWe do this all the time with lower organsims like plants and bacteria. For example, something not widely known is that roughly 50% of all lard actually comes from plants that have had the genes for animal fats implanted into them.  At least in the US, the law specifically allows this to be used without being labeled as such and almost all commercial lard is roughly 50% real lard and 50% vegetable based lard mixed together.\n\nPeople ain't plants, however.  Genes for us are fiendishly complex where in plants, they are simple.  Other than cloning, I don't see any form of gene manipulation technology being successful anytime soon.
325023
First, DNA is not the person, its the template for making protein which can build a person, but its no more the person than blueprint are a building.. Second, if you are talking biologically, the only characterstics that are passed on to the progeny are those in the DNA-But keep in mind, philosophy, ideas, culture can all evolve, and of course you will teach these to your children, and thus pass them on.  I think, though , that your question was what biological traits are passed on, and those are only carried in the DNA.  Protein, by the way, does not evolve independently-If the DNA mutates, it will produce a slightly different protein (or more or less of a protein, if the mutation was in a promoter and not coding region of DNA).  Proteins do not pass directly from parent to child.
375027
Pro: Decrease in genetic diseases, therefore: less disabled children born (dunno whether this is a con as well). decrease in healthcare spending, healthier society\n\nCons: \nDesigner babies; possibly a less-diverse society; \n\nif it fails it could lead to litigation against the genetic testing people; \n\nhuge backlash from religious and ethical groups, \n\nwiden the gap between rich and poor (not only are the rich wealthy, but also genetically enhanced (could be a pro if you are a believer in "eugenics" a la Hitler)\n\n\nhope this helps, whack it into a table in Word or somthing\n\nAll the best
107262
Please be smarter. If anyone knew, they would use it themselves, then with their siblings, then with first cousins. Not with strangers. Besides, if it is an honest lottery, there isn't any way to influence it.
657508
My brother.\nMutations occur every where (in any living organism)\nMutants can exist of course.\nnow gene therapy for humans is being developed, also clinical trials on transgenic animals are crossed in laboratories.\ndo u know that 40% of drugs, and many proteins and active chemical agents are produced in farm animals like cows.\nSo why we cannot inject a man with a gene that develops one of it's male characteristics (skeletal muscles development).\nso maybe it'll be an X-man in Ur opinion.\nMy bro, we don't yet discover a gene that have super activities.. man is not an angel or a God.\nhe can know limited thinks.\nso tell me under the title of biology or human sciences, is there a power for knowing the future.\nnot yet dud.\nmaybe in another world.
1016859
Human fertility funding will assure that those people willing to go to great lengths to have a child will be among the ones populating the world. These people will be more likely to provide advantages to a child, which will make it a more productive citizen.\n\nWith the falling rates of fertility in industrialized nations, the rate of reproduction will be much higher in poorer nations, therefore reducing the ratio of well-educated to poorly educated people, leading to an overall decline of quality of life worldwide. With fertility research, this ratio will be improved. (Doesn't mean those people will help anyone else, but it's a decent argument anyway.)\n\nThose two are the only ones I can come up with off the top of my head. You've got a tough position to support, but, as Rob Schneider says, "You can do eeeet."
1076178
DNA technology is fast developing. You can now trace your paternal relatives. Give it a couple of years you can trace your maternal lineage too.
103980
In gene therapy, no one actually changes the original DNA of the patient. Typically they simply provide a correct copy of the gene in question in the tissues/organs/cells that need the correct gene for the patient to be healthy again. Therefore it is not very important to have the gene-therapy cells/DNA in every cell of the patient; at least in case of SCID. But in some other cases like muscular dystrophy, the gene therapy would need to be done in literally 70% of the body tissues.. now that's a real challenge still waiting to be solved!
227543
Direct application of recombinant DNA technology in people has so far been difficult.  The best known therapy is treatment of SCID (severe combined immunodeficiencies), aka 'bubble-boy disease'.  15 of the 16 patients treated responded to the gene therapy.  However, three of the 15 developed a leukemia-like disease, of whom one died.  The first article below gives a thorough, albeit highly technical, look at gene therapy in people.\n\nMore generally, recombinant DNA technology has been extremely useful in developing drugs for a variety of diseases.  Remicade, Anakinra, and Enbrel are useful drugs for rheumatoid arthritis and Crohn's disease.  Rituxan is useful for certain lymphomas, a type of cancer.  There are many other examples, these are just a few.
22321
This is an issue that I spend a lot of time thinking about. Being sort of closet theoretical evolutionist, I wonder just how poorly equipped our species is becoming with each medical/genetic advance we discover and then apply.\n\nYour question implies the direct application of genetic engineering and manipulation to the human race -- which is an area where there is a lot more potential for than has actually been applied, thus far. I propose that our plight has been cultivated by the application of much more mundane medicine -- to be honest, mundane might not be the best choice of words here because many of these advances are truly grandiose. However, for every modern advance that has come down the way, we surely have done nothing but weaken the genetics of our species.\n\nThink about every time an antibiotic is administered? Yes, we are helping that person overcome an infection that he/she was otherwise ill equipped to rid themselves of via their own immune system. But look where that’s got us. After only a few generations of using – and grossly misusing – antibiotics, these same organisms we were able to fight off have developed resistance to. Now, not only are these bacteria back weeding out the less genetically fit folks among us, there are literally orders of magnitude more of such people susceptible to infection because they have been able to propagate these deficiencies through procreation. In this instance, saving thousands of people of lives over the years may ultimately cost millions of other theirs. You have to ask yourself: Which situation is better.\n\nWhat you have to truly realize is that is it more correct to think and apply our medical abilities on the individual. We are able to heal many diseases and disorders that, even as recent as 50 years ago, would have never even been detected, let alone treatable. But there are a litany more that, even though they aren't curable, they are able to be treated and controlled to the point that become nothing more than chronic inconveniences -- whereas in prior times, these diseases and disorders would have been lethal. Every time we have been able to sustain a person's life beyond that which the technologies of prior years could have, we are allowing those people the opportunity to procreate. Because we don't treat these disorders and genetic susceptibilities to diseases at the genetic level, the offspring of these individuals still carry these "deficiencies.” And thus pass them along for future generations. This is great for the coffers of the medical establishment – acting as ready-made population in need of their services, but it is definitely polluting our gene pool with lesser-fit alleles that would have been eliminated by the process of natural selection. If medicine wanted to truly live up to its credo of: To practice and prescribe to the best of my ability for the good of my patients, and to try to avoid harming them; and to never deliberately do harm to anyone for anyone else's interest, maybe the medical field should take in consideration what they are doing to the species – something that Hippocrates could not have even contemplated let alone include in his oath.\n\nWhere we humans miss the boat at is thinking that we are always one step ahead of nature. What we are realizing is that’s probably a huge miscalculation. We need to take a step back and reconsider our objectives. Is medicine’s and science’s ultimate goal to help individuals within the species or to help the species?
762023
What you're referring to is eugenics, and no, I don't think it's the solution. Just because some genes may be detrimental now, it is impossible to know if they will become valuable as evolution continues - "bad genes" may become "good genes" in some cases. Look up China's Eugenics law to get a better sense of what eugenics is.
499561
No, because the person who finds the cure first will be richest.  It is competitive like everything else.  \n\nIf what you said was true, then in socialist countries where the researchers can't get rich, they would be finding cures for everything, because money wouldn't be a consideration.
209132
Some people claim they have already done it (but they were French cultists and there was no reliable evidence). It can theoretically be done but there are a lot of unknowns. Dolly the sheep aged very rapidly because the dna of her chromosomes was already old when she was created. Ethically, there are lots of potential problems. For example, rich people might try to achieve some kind of immortality by cloning themselves but this is problematic if that person is a male because only the nucleus of the cell will be used ... the rest of the egg will have to come from a woman and the clone will not be identical to the donor.
874074
B, that's it. The idea is to stall for time until a cure is found. \n\nOh, and it can still be transferred. Be careful kids.
435366
This is a good question. What it basically comes down to, is how their parents treated them. By giving them a value system that includes, treating people with respect regardless of socio/economic stratus.\n\nKnowing the value of what you possess. Well, you get the idea. Hope this has helped.
191938
pcr, gene therapy, antisense drugs... umm
1077817
nothing, maybe the world is better off without your genes being pass on