Intro............................................................................................................................................................... 1

Human embryos 'genetically modified for the first time after leading scientists pioneer

controversial technique' ............................................................................................................................. 3

Genetically Modifying Humans Via Antibiotics? Something You Need To Know ............................... 6

Almost 150 of Our Genes May Have Come From Bowel Flora Microbes ............................................... 11

Expanding Human Capabilities via Genetic Engineering .................................................................. 13

Building Better Humans ....................................................................................................................... 13

Genetically-modified humans are already walking among us .......................................................................... 16

GM babies are a 'biological product,' which puts them under FDA jurisdiction .............................. 17

Real to Life Island or Dr Moreau.................................................................................................. 17

.......................................................................................... 21 Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code

Head-on collisions between DNA-code reading machineries accelerate gene evolution ...................................... 23

U.S. Supreme Court decision to bar gene patents opens genetic test options ...................................................... 26

-Intro-

The [US Government Recombinant DNA Advisory] Committee said that in no circumstances would it consider any request for government funds that

would result in modification of the human germline. Back in 2001 no one would have guessed that the UK would be the country to go

against the worldwide consensus against such human experimentation. Lord Robert

Winston, Professor of Science and Society and Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies

at Imperial College, told the BBC:

“There is no evidence that this technique is worth doing… I am very surprised that it was even carried out at this stage. It would certainly not

be allowed in Britain.”

Additionally, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), the UK’s

regulatory agency for reproductive medical activities, said that it would not license the

technique because it involved altering the germline.

Human embryos 'genetically modified for the first time after

leading scientists pioneer controversial technique'

Extensive work carried out into altering the DNA of human embryos

Revolutionary technique could lead to diseases being eliminated

But critics say the controversial treatment is 'ethically unacceptable' By LAURIE HANNA FOR MAILONLINE PUBLISHED: 10:01 GMT, 14 March 2015 | UPDATED: 14:07 GMT, 14 March 2015

Innovative: Leading American scientists have secretly carried out extensive work into altering the DNA of human embryos. Pictured here is a two-day old human embryo

Human embryos have been genetically modified for the first time ever, which could soon lead to the creation of designer babies. Leading American scientists have secretly carried out extensive work into altering the DNA of human embryos. The technique would revolutionise health care, allowing scientists to prevent genetically inherited diseases and significantly lessening the chances of others being passed down. But the treatment has sparked controversy, with critics saying that tampering with the essence of human code is 'dangerous and ethically unacceptable'. The research is believed to have been carried out on ovary cells taken from a woman with inherited ovarian cancer to investigate the possibility of eventually using gene-editing to produce IVF embryos that are free of the disease. The Independent reports that researchers at Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, used the Crispr

gene-editing technique on human ovarian tissue cultured in the lab to attempt to correct the defective BRAC1 gene which results in inherited breast and ovarian cancer. The work was carried out last year by Luhan Yang, a researcher working in the lab of the respected Harvard geneticist George Church. Professor Church insisted that the work was purely experimental and there was no intention of fertilising any eggs or transplanting them into a woman.

He said: 'The experiments were not in human beings. They were in cells in culture. 'This is very basic science and there is a very big difference between doing experiments on human cells in culture, which we've been doing for many years, and putting them into a human being.' The Crispr technique has been used to correct inherited diseases in laboratory animals as well as mending human genetic defects in nonreproductive human cells grown in the laboratory. Researchers have been amazed by its precision, leading it to be considered for human germ-line therapy to correct inherited diseases by genetically modifying eggs, sperm or IVF embryos. The study has not yet been published in a scientific journal and Dr Yang was unavailable for comment.

Controversial: Critics insist that tampering with the essence of human code is 'dangerous and ethically unacceptable'

Several laboratories are believed to have altered the DNA of human embryos, which means scientists could try to make changes to people's personalities, such as improving their physical attributes or intellectual capabilities. And although it is illegal in most of the world, such techniques would not break the law everywhere and would be allowed in Russia and parts of South America. Professor John Parrington, from Oxford University, told The Times: 'I have been expecting this, perhaps not quite so soon. New genome-editing tools are highly efficient and relatively easy to use. 'These are tools available to practically any molecular biology laboratory in the world and if you also have the ability to inject a fertilised egg, then combining these two technologies makes it possible to precisely modify the genome of the resulting embryo. 'This makes it feasible for any reasonably skilled lab to use and science being what it is, people will seek to apply these technologies. Clearly some people have done it on human embryos.'

+3

Location: The work was carried out last year by Luhan Yang, a researcher working in the lab of the respected Harvard Medical School geneticist George Church

A comment article by leading academics in science magazine Nature this week warns of the dangers of the practice. They wrote: 'Genome editing in human embryos using current technologies could have unpredictable effects on future generations. This makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable. 'Many oppose germline modification on the grounds that permitting even unambiguous therapeutic intervention could start us down a path towards non-therapeutic genetic enhancement. We share these concerns.' A group of leading researchers at Alliance for Regenerative Medicine in Washington, USA, have called for the work to now stop, citing ethical, safety and scientific reasons. In a statement, they said: 'Philosophically or ethically justifiable applications for this technology — should any ever exist — are moot until it becomes possible to demonstrate safe outcomes and obtain reproducible data over multiple generations. 'Many oppose germline modification on the grounds that permitting even unambiguously therapeutic interventions could start us down a path towards non-therapeutic genetic enhancement. We share these concerns.'

Genetically Modifying Humans Via Antibiotics?

Something You Need To Know October 23, 2013 by Lisa Bloomquist. .

A new kind of antibiotic has been developed by researchers at Oregon State University. The new antibiotics

are called PPMOs, which stand for peptide-conjugated phosphorodiamidate morpholino oligomers. They are

“a synthetic analog of DNA or RNA that has the ability to silence the expression of specific genes.” (1) The

way that PPMO antibiotics will work is to, “specifically target the underlying genes of a bacterium.” In plain

English, PPMOs will genetically modify bacteria.

This may not sound like a horrible thing on initial glance. Bacteria are generally thought of as evil (soap

commercials have conditioned us all), something to fight because some bacteria can make people sick and

even kill them if their body is overwhelmed by “bad” bacteria. However, bacteria and the other single-celled

organisms that make up the human microbiome are intimate parts of each human being. Per the Human

Microbiome Project:

The healthy adult body hosts ten times as many microbial cells as human cells, including bacteria, archaea,

viruses, and eukaryotic microbes resident on nearly every body surface. The metagenome carried collectively

by these microbial communities dwarfs the human genome in size, and their influences on normal

development, diet and obesity, immunity, and disease are under active research. (2)

The average 200 pound human body contains 6 pounds of microbiome organisms, including several billion

bacteria (3). These bacteria act symbiotically with us, helping to digest food, extract vitamins and other

nutrients from food, regulate the immune system and even contribute to each individual’s personality. Per an

article published in Molecular Psychology, “CNS neurotransmission can be profoundly disturbed by the

absence of a normal gut microbiota.” (4) Multiple neurochemicals are produced by gut bacteria, including

95% of the serotonin in each human body (5). Studies of mice have shown that behavioral changes can be

triggered by changes in the gut bacteria and it has been observed that people with Crohn’s Disease and other

GI disorders often suffer from anxiety and depression. The health of each person’s microbiome is intimately

connected to both their physical and the mental health.

The bacteria that compose our microbiome work so synergistically with our human cells that the difference

between “us” and “the bacteria” is difficult to decipher. Where do “we” begin and “they” end? If all of the

bacteria in a person’s microbiome were killed off, that person would die. Bacteria are an intimate and

important part of “us.” In genetically modifying “them,” are we genetically modifying “us?” How could

genetically modified bacteria affect the balance of the human microbiome? How could they affect the bodily

systems that the microbiome controls? How could a GM bacteria adversely affect human health including

personality and behavior?

One of many other things to consider is that mitochondria, the energy centers of our cells, are very similar in

structure and design to bacteria. (6) Mitochondrial DNA is also much more vulnerable to environmental

toxins than the rest of the human DNA. (7)

Could PPMOs (or other drugs that genetically modify bacteria) modify human mitochondria? If so, what are

the consequences of having genetically modified mitochondria? One consequence is that humans truly would

be genetically modified. Perhaps that should be taken into consideration before developing drugs that

genetically modify bacteria.

There are thousands of medical and ethical questions that should be asked about the development of drugs that

genetically modify bacteria. Sadly, I suspect that many people will look the other way, assuming that PPMOs

are just another antibiotic that are as innocuous as penicillin, rather than asking the really difficult questions

that should be asked before our mitochondrial DNA is permanently and irreversibly altered. I suspect that the

questions about whether or not antibiotics that alter the human microbiome should be created or not will not be

asked though, because human mitochondrial DNA has been being altered and damaged by a certain class of

antibiotics, fluoroquinolones, for years without anyone saying a peep.

Genetic Modification via Antibiotics is Already Occurring

Fluoroquinolone antibiotics, more popularly known as Cipro (Ciprofloxacin), Levaquin (Levofloxacin),

Avelox (Moxifloxacin), Floxin (Ofloxacin) and a few other less commonly used ones, are topoisomerase

interrupters. They unravel bacterial DNA and lead to apoptosis, programmed cell death. This video explains

how they work:

The chemical backbone of fluroquinolone antibiotics, nalidixic acid, was developed in 1962 by George Lesher.

(8) They became popular starting in the 1980s when pharmaceutical companies pressured the FDA to accept

them as a “first line of defense” antibiotic despite the fact that they had shown to be toxic to mammalian

cells. They increased in popularity after the 2001 anthrax scare. They are used to treat urinary tract infections,

sinus infections, bronchial infections, strep throat, etc. despite the fact that the side effects include psychosis

(9) and destruction of every tendon in the body. A side-effect that is lightly referred to as “tendinitis” on the

warning label. (A more complete list of effects of fluoroquinolones can be found

on www.ciproispoison.com. The person who wrote that list of things that happened to him as a result of taking

Cipro was a happy, healthy, employed 31 year old when he took Cipro. He is now disabled.)

Multiple studies have shown that quinolones/fluoroquinolones adduct to bacterial DNA. (10)(11) This means

that they attach to and change DNA, that the DNA has altered molecules hooked onto it and that all duplicate

versions of the cells have been altered. An example of another chemical that adducts to DNA is Agent Orange.

Some DNA tests performed on people who have experienced severe adverse reactions to fluoroquinolone

antibiotics have shown that the quinolone/fluoroquinolone molecules have adducted to their human DNA,

attaching to and changing their DNA into perpetuity. (As cells replicate, the altered DNA replicates too.) A

DNA Adduct Mass Spectrogram Analysis showed that the quinolone/fluoroquinolone molecules had attached

to every cell in the subjects’ bodies, not just the bacteria that make up their microbiome; the drug adducted to

their DNA, to THEM.

They, along with thousands of other people who have had an adverse reaction to a fluoroquinolone, have been

genetically modified by an antibiotic.

A large portion of those who have been genetically modified by a fluoroquinolone antibiotic have been

subjected to irreversible damage to their DNA for no sensible reason at all. Fluoroquinolone antibiotics are

given out to treat benign infections like sinus and urinary tract infections, which can be treated with other,

safer antibiotics. A 2011 study (12) found that 39% of patients given fluoroquinolone antibiotics were given

them unnecessarily (and the necessity of them was determined without it being taken into consideration that

DNA damage can be done by these drugs as this fact is not acknowledged, despite the peer reviewed studies

noted above.)

26.9 million prescriptions for fluoroquinolone antibiotics were dispensed in America in 2011 alone

(13). Similarly massive numbers of prescriptions of these drugs have been dispensed each year since Bayer

patented Cipro in 1983. Humanity has not stopped existing since these DNA modifying drugs were introduced

to the market, but before you find that to be reassuring, the following should be noted.

1. An article in the September, 2013 issue of Nature entitled “Topoisomerases facilitate transcription of long

genes linked to autism” (14) noted that, “Our data suggest that chemicals or genetic mutations that impair

topoisomerases, and possibly other components of the transcription elongation machinery that interface with

topoisomerases, have the potential to profoundly affect the expression of long ASD candidate

genes.” Fluoroquinolone antibiotics impair topoisomerases. A post about this is on Collective Evolution –

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/09/18/a-horrifying-cause-of-autism-dna-damage-from-synthetic-

antibiotics

2. Anthraquinone was found in the subject who underwent The DNA testing. Anthraquinone causes an

inflammatory process within the body and causes pain, burning, and hurting sensations, a condition that is

often confused with fibromyalgia. (15)

3. Fluoroquinolone antibiotics have been shown to damage mitochondria (16)(17)(18) and “Damage to

mitochondria is now understood to play a role in the pathogenesis of a wide range of seemingly unrelated

disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disease, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, migraine

headaches, strokes, neuropathic pain, Parkinson’s disease, ataxia, transient ischemic attack,

cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, retinitis pigmentosa,

diabetes, hepatitis C, and primary biliary cirrhosis.” (19)

So, if you’re wondering what happens when humans are genetically modified, the experiment is being

conducted as you read this post. Since fluoroquinolone antibiotics have been popularized, rates of autism,

schizophrenia, bipolar disease, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, migraine headaches, strokes,

neuropathic pain, Parkinson’s disease, ataxia, transient ischemic attack, cardiomyopathy, coronary artery

disease, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, retinitis pigmentosa, diabetes, hepatitis C, and primary biliary

cirrhosis have risen substantially.

Perhaps the question of the intelligence of altering human DNA with antibiotics can be questioned before

PPMOs are introduced to the market, as opposed to 30+ years afterward, as is the case with fluoroquinolone

antibiotics. It would show wisdom and desire for sustainability as a species. Unfortunately, neither wisdom

nor sustainability are valued at the moment and I suspect that the travesty of people being genetically altered

by fluoroquinolones will continue and that the travesty of people being altered by PPMOs will begin.

Post Script:

1. If enough people gathered together, got their DNA tested, got those test results interpreted by a

Toxicologist, and appropriate research was published on the results, this atrocity could stop. Please note

that both Bayer (producer of Cipro and Avelox) and Johnson and Johnson (producer of Levaquin), and even

the generic producers of these drugs, have very deep pockets.

2. The author’s blog is www.floxiehope.com.

Sources:

1. Drug Discovery and Development, “Beyond Antibiotics: New Approach to Bacterial Infections” published

online on 10/16/13 – http://www.dddmag.com/news/2013/10/beyond-antibiotics-new-approach-bacterial-

infections?et_cid=3541647&et_rid=45519727&location=top

2. PLOS Collections, “Table of Contents: The Human Microbiome Project

Collection” http://www.ploscollections.org/article/browseIssue.action?issue=info:doi/10.1371/issue.pcol.v0

1.i13

3. Neergaard, Lauran, “Human Microbiome Project: 10,000 Species Of Microbes In And On Our Bodies,”

Huffpost Healthy Living, 06/13/2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/human-microbiome-

project-100-trillion-bacteria_n_1594430.html

4. Mol Psychiatry. 2013 Jun;18(6):666-73. doi: 10.1038/mp.2012.77. Epub 2012 Jun 12. The microbiome-gut-

brain axis during early life regulates the hippocampal serotonergic system in a sex-dependent manner.

Clarke G, Grenham S, Scully P, Fitzgerald P, Moloney RD, Shanahan F, Dinan TG, Cryan

JF.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22688187

5. Carpenter, Siri. “That Gut Feeling: With a sophisticated neural network transmitting messages from

trillions of bacteria, the brain in your gut exerts a powerful influence over the one in your head, new

research suggests.” Monitor on Psychology. American Psychological Association. September 2012, Vol

43, No. 8 Print version: page 50 http://www.apa.org/monitor/2012/09/gut-feeling.aspx

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria

7. John Neustadt and Steve R. Pieczenik. “Medication-induced mitochondrial damage and disease.” Mol.

Nutr. Food Res. 2008,52, 780 –

788 http://psychrights.org/Research/Digest/NLPs/DrugsCauseMitochondrialDamage.pdf

8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoroquinolone_antibiotic

9. Nagaraja Moorthy, N. Raghavendra, and P. N. Venkatarathnamma. “Levofloxacin-induced acute

psychosis.” Indian J Psychiatry. 2008 Jan-Mar; 50(1): 57–

58. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745871/

10. Arkady B. Khodursky and Nicholas R. Cozzarelli. “The Mechanism of Inhibition of Topoisomerase IV by

Quinolone Antibacterials” The Journal of Biological Chemistry. August 5,

1998. http://www.jbc.org/content/273/42/27668.full

11. G. PALLJ*, S. VALISENA*, G. CIARROCCHI, B. GATTO, AND M. PALUMBO. “Quinolone binding

to DNA is mediated by magnesium ions.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 89, pp. 9671-9675, October

1992 Biochemistry. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC50194/pdf/pnas01094-0315.pdf

12. Nicole L Werner, Michelle T Hecker, Ajay K Sethi and Curtis J Donskey. “Unnecessary use of

fluoroquinolone antibiotics in hospitalized patients.” BMC Infectious Diseases. Volume

11. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/11/187

13. “FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA requires label changes to warn of risk for possibly permanent

nerve damage from antibacterial fluoroquinolone drugs taken by mouth or by injection”

08/15/2013http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/UCM365078.pdf

14. Ian F. King, Chandri N. Yandava, Angela M. Mabb, Jack S. Hsiao, Hsien-Sung Huang, Brandon L.

Pearson, J. Mauro Calabrese, Joshua Starmer, Joel S. Parker, Terry Magnuson, Stormy J.

Chamberlain, Benjamin D. Philpot & Mark J. Zylka. “Topoisomerases facilitate transcription of long genes

linked to autism.” Nature 501, 58–62 (05 September 2013) doi:10.1038/nature12504 Received 17 January

2013 Accepted 24 July 2013 Published online 28 August

2013 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v501/n7465/full/nature12504.html

15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthraquinone

16. “Dodging Antibiotic Side Effects.” July 3, 2013. http://wyss.harvard.edu/viewpressrelease/117/

17. “Pinpointing How Antibiotics Work” April 19, 2012. MIT Media

Relations. http://web.mit.edu/press/2012/pinpointing-how-antibiotics-work.html

18. J W Lawrence, D C Claire, V Weissig and T C Rowe. “Delayed cytotoxicity and cleavage of mitochondrial

DNA in ciprofloxacin-treated mammalian cells.” Molecular Pharmacology November 1996 vol. 50 no. 5

1178-1188http://m.molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/50/5/1178.abstract

19. John Neustadt and Steve R. Pieczenik. “Medication-induced mitochondrial damage and disease.” Mol.

Nutr. Food Res. 2008,52, 780 –

788 http://psychrights.org/Research/Digest/NLPs/DrugsCauseMitochondrialDamage.pdf

Almost 150 of Our Genes May Have Come From Bowel Flora Microbes

March 13, 2015 | by Justine Alford

We know that our bodies are absolutely teeming with microbes. In the average healthy human,

bacterial cells outnumber our own cells 10 to 1. And let’s not forget about viruses;

some studies have suggested that the number of viral particles in our body is greater than the

number of human and bacterial cells combined. But what about our genomes? It turns out that our

DNA, too, is less human than we thought.

According to a new study, humans—and a wide variety of other animals—possess tens, if not

hundreds of “foreign” genes that have been passed on from single-celled organisms, such as

bacteria. What’s more, these genes play active roles in the body, such as contributing to

metabolism, and this process of gene acquisition could still be occurring, at least in some lineages.

According to the authors, these findings suggest that this gene transfer could have played a

previously underappreciated role in biochemical diversification during the evolution of animals. The

study has been published in Genome Biology.

Biology textbooks will tell you that DNA is passed from parent to offspring, a process known as

vertical gene transfer. But some organisms, such as bacteria, are able to transfer their genes to

other species living in the same environment, which is known as horizontal gene transfer (HGT).

This is how genes for antibiotic resistance are able to spread so rapidly, creating serious problems

for the treatment of infections.

This process is known to play an important role in the evolution of bacteria and other single-celled

organisms, but it has also been documented in some simple animals, such as the coffee berry borer

beetle that acquired bacterial enzyme genes for the breakdown of coffee berries. However, whether

this occurs in higher animals, such as humans, has long been debated.

To find out whether it exists in higher organisms, scientists from the University of Cambridge,

England, examined the DNA of various different animals, including several species of fruit fly,

nematode worms and various different primates, including humans. Specifically, they were looking

for high sequence similarity between genes from these organisms and other species, which could

indicate that they are foreign in origin.

According to their analysis, HGT in animals typically results in tens or hundreds of active foreign

genes, the majority of which seem to be involved in metabolism. In humans, for example, they

confirmed 17 previously identified genes that were attributed to HGT, plus an additional 128 that had

not been reported. These genes played a variety of roles, for example helping to break down fatty

acids, or assisting antimicrobial or inflammatory responses.

Most of the foreign genes identified in the study came from bacteria and another group of mostly

unicellular organisms known as protists, but viruses and fungi were also found to be donors. This

could be why previous studies failed to identify as many foreign genes since only bacteria were

included.

“Surprisingly,” says lead author Alastair Crisp, “far from being a rare occurrence, it appears that HGT

has contributed to the evolution of many, perhaps all, animals and that the process is ongoing,

meaning that we may need to re-evaluate how we think about evolution.”

Expanding Human Capabilities via Genetic Engineering

Building Better Humans

The human body is a remarkable thing with enormous natural capabilities and capacity that

we can choose to develop as we wish. We can develop our muscular capacity to lift more

than three times our own body weight, we can train our minds to recall thousands of facts

or numbers. Record books are full of these amazing feats and achievements. Not only that

but when faced with danger to ourselves or others we can reach into our reserves and use

as yet untapped resources and skills.

And we can do all this without the assistance of science or medicine. Add into the mix

genetic engineering and it’s associated sciences and the potential for human endeavor is

extraordinary and controversial.

For centuries we have been performing genetic manipulation; as a species we learned early

to identify the healthiest, strongest plants and animals- those with the traits that were most

desirable and to use them for producing the next generation: genetic engineering at its

most basic.

As humans we may choose our breeding partners for very similar reasons, though perhaps

less consciously. Many theories suggest that we seek mates that we perceive as

advantageous to us and our offspring. The characteristics we measure (many times

unconsciously) are many and varied and are based not only on our personal experiences

(nurture) but with the added influences of evolutionary psychology (nature). It may be we

want or are attracted to someone with high emotional or logical (or

other)intelligence, physical fitness/ability or attractiveness, an artistic flare, the

mechanically inclined, the famous, the list goes on. Theories suggest that we presume a

natural inheritable (i.e. genetic) foundation upon which better lives for ourselves and our

children can be built.

So it is easy to see, at the micro (familial) level the impetus for improving one’s own lot.

Current societal structure and its supporting laws and cultural practices encourage the

building and preserving of the most significant reinforcing factor of not only keeping up with

the Jones, but being better than – wealth: the heretofore ever-present reality of the fight

for the distribution/possession of limited resources. He who has the best genes wins, may

be how we may subconsciously behave.

A not so insignificant side note, and notably missing from our list of desirable traits above is

the obvious “wealth” attribute. An argument could be made that we perceive those with

wealth as having superior genetics, and that our subconscious assessment of the

possessor’s underlying genetic canvas is that it is fit to benefit future generations. A

counter argument could be made that wealth is an isolated and primary factor sought after

in a mate in and of itself, in recognition that the possession of wealth is increasingly less

dependent on genetic advantage than on the inheritance of wealth- the well documented

fact that wealth is becoming more centralized and polarized, based on one’s already having

it to begin with (I’m sure we’ve all heard the old adage, “the rich get richer”!). The truth lies

all along the spectrum between the two extremes, as with all things in life and reality.

But I digress. Although a fascinating subject, I’ll tackle that somewhere else- perhaps in the

Political Philosophy section. Currently there really are economic and social advantages to be

had for the fastest, smartest, most talented, hardest working (yes, it is quite likely that

stamina and perseverance do have genetic components) individuals in society. And as long

as that is true there is motivation to continually improve those characteristics that we as

individuals target as being the most advantageous to us and ours.

Previous versions of this article posed several potential controversies regarding exactly what

human capacities we as a society would select to improve once human genetic

engineering is readily available. How do we measure intelligence? IQ tests, for example,

only measure a certain kind of intelligence. There are other types of intelligence both highly

desirable and beneficial to society overall. Conversely, what about undesirable traits such as

criminality?

The truth is, there is little question as to what we will choose to improve (in general). See

two paragraphs above. So long as individual mindsets, supported by social acceptance and

the resulting laws we allow to exist that favor the accumulation of “stuff” by individuals and

families to the detriment of the greater society, we will generally speaking and most likely

overall, choose those traits that favor individuals who can better accumulate “stuff”. If ever

we evolve socially to a point to where we perceive all of humanity as family we will choose

to emphasize and enhance traits that benefit our family. They are not necessarily the same

traits as those so significant today.

But we are here, today. Most certainly the time is fast approaching when we will be able to

genetically modify, using stem cell engineering, our major organs, heart, lungs, liver etc. At

present this research is aimed at organ repair and renewal and at creating ‘designer babies’,

embryos that are chosen and/or engineered for specific traits. Potentially these techniques

could be used for organ enhancement; a heart that pumped more efficiently would increase

an athletes performance. Genetically modified muscle cells, introduced into the person

would increase their strength. The list of opportunities for modifying humans for enhanced

capacity is enormous and the possible usage limited only by our imagination.

The major organs have relatively simple, specialist functions, ergo; the genetic engineering

of these organs is relatively simple. It is when we get to the brain, behavioral

proclivities, and intelligence types, that the story gets a little more complex.

Researchers believe they have begun to identify the genes that give us certain types of

intelligence, the nature/nurture debate notwithstanding, genetic similarities exist among

those gifted with the types of intelligence being studied. Taking that a step further, what if

we can identify the ‘genius gene’? It may be possible to far outweigh the influence of our

environment. We could use present technologies such as Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis

(PGD) to choose only those embryos that demonstrate the desired gene sequences or we

could genetically engineer embryos to include certain chosen traits, say musicality or

enhanced language skills. Another avenue might be to use stem cells to implant the

required genes into an adult to enhance there mental capacity. Experimentation is quite

advanced in the area of treatment for neurological disease and disorder and it is not such a

huge leap to foresee the use of this technology for the enhancement of brain functions.

As we look into the future, and as we assume we survive the pummeling of spaceship earth

long enough to seek our destiny among the stars, the environments encountered will

require a great deal more out of human capacity than presently exists. Sheer physical

survival on planets of greater gravity requiring more muscle mass and bone densities, lung

and liver capacities to filter out toxins not encountered in the same quantities (or perhaps

ever) in our human history on earth may need to be engineered. Skin able to reflect or

absorb harmlessly varying levels of radiation. Immune systems rivaling that of the

creature(s) in Alien, impervious to every potentially invasive foreign life form may be

possible.

Not far out enough? Blowholes or gills for aquatic planets- why not here on earth to

alleviate overcrowding on land? Gas planets afford the opportunity for human flight: wings

and feathers, hydrogen pouches.

Tentacles for appendages for more effective maneuvering inside weightless spacecraft

traveling between the stars. Add to that vacuum and radiation-impervious skin and a large

lung capacity and you have the perfect space-faring species able to work inside and outside

the craft as easily as waking the dog, immune to the occasional hull breech caused by

undetected debris.

I do believe we have officially arrived at FAR OUT, MAN!

Genetically-modified humans are already walking among us

Wednesday, May 15, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) An undated article discussing the invention of genetically-modified (GM) human

beings that was published by the U.K.'s DailyMail at least 10 years ago is gaining fresh attention

from the online community these days. And even though the heinous practice, which is known

as cytoplasmic transfer, is technically illegal in the U.S., the current regulatory framework offers

little in the way of enforcement capacity against those that breach this moratorium.

Because the DailyMail article is not dated, some have mistakenly taken it to be current, and

have adopted the position that GM babies may potentially become the next big thing in

reproductive medicine. But it appears as though this is not actually the case, as the U.S. Food

and Drug Administration (FDA) apparently banned this form of genetic manipulation back in the

early 2000s after declaring it to be under its regulatory jurisdiction.

According to the original DailyMail article, Jacques Cohen, a former employee at theInstitute for

Reproductive Medicine & Science of Saint Barnabas in New Jersey, came up with a way to

blend the genes of multiple mothers into a single egg that can then be fertilized with sperm from

a male. The end product is a child with a genetic blueprint from three different parents, a

process of human manipulation known as "germline" alteration.

This unscrupulous discovery, which only further taints the natural order of life with man-made

genetic modifications, reportedly led to the development of at least 15 GM babies at that time,

which are presumably still alive and now progressing through their adolescent years. And

according to the original report, any children born to these GM individuals will also bear these

modified GM traits, as they are inherently passed down from generation to generation.

"The fact that the children have inherited the extra genes and incorporated them into their

'germline' means that they will, in turn, be able to pass them on to their own offspring," wrote

Michael Hanlon for the Daily Mail back at that time. "Altering the human germline - in effect

tinkering with the very make-up of our species - is a technique shunned by the vast majority of

the world's scientists."

GM babies are a 'biological product,' which puts

them under FDA jurisdiction

This is admittedly a very frightening development, as it has the potential to unleash untold

horrors on the human genome. But what is not clear from the original DailyMail article is when it

was actually written, and if the procedure is still taking place today. As explained in a later paper

published by the Washington Monthly in 2002, it appears as though GM babies did not

necessarily take off as some believe, and this is due to FDA prohibitions.

"Since 1998, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has argued that genetically manipulated

embryos are a 'biological product,' and therefore subject to regulation, just like medical devices

and drugs," wrote Shannon Brownlee for the Washington Monthly. "FDA sent warning letters to

six fertility centers threatening 'enforcement action,' and asserting its regulatory power over

'therapy involving the transfer of genetic material by means other than the union of [sperm and

egg]'."

But some of the biotechnologists working in the field have since challenged the FDA's authority

on the matter, arguing that the agency's perceived dominance is "a stretch." Does this mean

that GM babies will soon become mainstream? It is difficult to say, but at this time, there does

not appear to be any clinics in the U.S. actively performing such procedures in violation of the

FDA's orders.

Real to Life The Island of Dr Moreau

http://www.markbrake.com/sci-fi/monster/genetic-engineering/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CyFtKlqVio

In HG Wells’ novel, The Island of Dr Moreau (1896), a rampant drooling vivisectionist is

secretly conducting surgical experiments with the goal of transforming animals into

humans. Though the aim was to create a race without malice, the result of the doctor’s

chicanery is a race of half-human, half-animal creatures that lurk in the island’s jungles,

only marginally under Moreau’s command.

Wells’ book was the most notable example of a handful of early stories that featured the

deliberate ‘engineering’ of living creatures. It was written at a time when the scientific

community was engaged in impassioned debate on animal vivisection. Indeed, pressure

groups were even created to confront the issue: the British Union for the Abolition of

Vivisection was formed just two years after the publication of Wells’ novel.

By 1924, little more was known of the biochemistry of genetics. Even so, British biologist

JBS Haldane foresaw our genetic future. His remarkably prophetic,Daedalus, or Science and

the Future (1924), divined a day when scientists would engineer a solution to the world’s

food problem, and modified children, born from artificial wombs, would represent a

eugenically selected improvement of our race.

But Haldane was also a keen and shrewd populariser of science. He realised that there

would be an acute reaction against the ‘blasphemous perversions’ of direct genetic

manipulation. He was not to be disappointed.

Haldane was friend to the Huxleys. Ideas from Haldane’s optimistic Daedalus, such as

ectogenesis (the growth of foetuses in simulated wombs), had greatly influenced brother

Aldous’ Brave New World (1932), in which ectogenetic embryos are engineered to fit them

for life as ‘alphas’, ‘betas’ or ‘gammas’. Aldous’ extrapolation of a future in which there is no

war, no poverty and no pain through the application of genetics, harboured dark secrets. A

future stripped of genetic variance, rids the race of any humanity. Brother Julian, friend to

Wells and to Haldane, wrote a notable story along the same lines in The Tissue-Culture

King (1927).

By the 1950s the code was cracked. DNA was deciphered, and since then the genetic

engineering of bacteria has became commonplace. But Haldane’s prediction

persists. Notwithstanding the technophilia of science fiction, there has been little support

for genetic engineering.

A new wave of fiction predictably surfaced after the 1960s. The anxiety with which the

popular imagination held biological engineering was typified byDoomwatch, a BBC TV series

about an agency dedicated to preserving the world from dangers of unprincipled scientific

research.

As genetic research makes rapid progress, authors have acquired a better sense of what

actually goes on in real labs. Michael Crichton’s Next (2006) is a techno-thriller about our

bio-technological world. Throughout the novel, Crichton explores a world dominated by

genetic research, corporate greed, and legal conflict.

Next features governments and private investors who spend billions of dollars each year on

genetic research. It follows a genetic researcher as he produces a transgenic ape, with

some human features, and the psyche of a young child. His family struggle to raise the

chimera, as they attempt to hide the true nature of the ape’s genetic makeup. And a leading

genetic research company is embroiled in a lawsuit with a cancer survivor whose cells it has

taken without his knowledge. The company also develops a ‘maturity’ gene that seems to

transform social deviants into sober, responsible individuals.

Is this our future? A frighteningly bizarre world of gene-mongering scientists and biotech

profiteers leading us into a strange moral wilderness? Only time will tell. Meanwhile, it

seems many writers reflect, only too willingly, public anxieties over what Haldane once

described as the ‘blasphemous perversions’ of direct genetic engineering.

Recently scientists in China developed a GM (Genetically Modified) cow that yields human breast milk. This has put

the spotlight an ongoing debate over the appropriate place of GM organisms in society. Several animal species have

already been genetically modified, and at least eleven have been cloned.

Some of these efforts are commercial, either for agribusiness or for sale directly to consumers as pets. Others are

scientific experiments, usually defended as advancing, directly or indirectly, the cause of medicine for humans. The

modification of livestock (i.e. cows engineered to produce human breast milk) and the possibility of cloned meat

entering the food chain have proven to be very controversial. So is the possible use of genetically modified animals to

"grow" either pharmaceutical products or organs for transplant into humans.

Scientists discover double meaning in

genetic code Stephanie Seiler UW Health Sciences & UW Medicine

Posted under: Health and Medicine, News Releases, Research, Science, Technology

Scientists have discovered a second code hiding within DNA. This second code contains information

that changes how scientists read the instructions contained in DNA and interpret mutations to make

sense of health and disease.

Genome scientist Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos led a team that discovered a second code hidden in DNA.

A research team led by Dr. John Stamatoyannopoulos, University of Washington associate

professor of genome sciences and of medicine, made the discovery. The findings are reported in the

Dec. 13 issue of Science.

Read the research paper. Also see commentary in Science, “The Hidden Codes that Shape

Protein Evolution.”

The work is part of the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements Project, also known as ENCODE. The

National Human Genome Research Institute funded the multi-year, international effort. ENCODE

aims to discover where and how the directions for biological functions are stored in the human

genome.

Since the genetic code was deciphered in the 1960s, scientists have assumed that it was used

exclusively to write information about proteins. UW scientists were stunned to discover that genomes

use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and

the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other,

which is why the second language remained hidden for so long.

“For over 40 years we have assumed that DNA changes affecting the genetic code solely impact

how proteins are made,” said Stamatoyannopoulos. “Now we know that this basic assumption about

reading the human genome missed half of the picture. These new findings highlight that DNA is an

incredibly powerful information storage device, which nature has fully exploited in unexpected ways.”

The genetic code uses a 64-letter alphabet called codons. The UW team discovered that some

codons, which they called duons, can have two meanings, one related to protein sequence, and one

related to gene control. These two meanings seem to have evolved in concert with each other. The

gene control instructions appear to help stabilize certain beneficial features of proteins and how they

are made.

The discovery of duons has major implications for how scientists and physicians interpret a patient’s

genome and will open new doors to the diagnosis and treatment of disease.

“The fact that the genetic code can simultaneously write two kinds of information means that many

DNA changes that appear to alter protein sequences may actually cause disease by disrupting gene

control programs or even both mechanisms simultaneously,” said Stamatoyannopoulos.

Grants from the National Institutes of Health U54HG004592, U54HG007010, and UO1E51156 and

National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases FDK095678A funded the research.

In addition to Stamatoyannopoulos, the research team included Andrew B. Stergachis, Eric Haugen,

Anthony Shafer, Wenqing Fu, Benjamin Vernot, Alex Reynolds, and Joshua M. Akey, all from the

UW Department of Genome Sciences, Anthony Raubitschek of the UW Department of Immunology

and Benaroya Research Institute, Steven Ziegler of Benaroya Research Institute, and Emily M.

LeProust, formerly of Agilent Technologists and now with Twist Bioscience.

Stephanie H. Seiler heads

arch 29, 2013

Head-on collisions between DNA-code

reading machineries accelerate gene

evolution Leila Gray UW Health Sciences/UW Medicine

Posted under: Health and Medicine, News Releases, Research, Science, Technology

Christopher Merrikh

Using bacteria as a model organism, Houra Merrikh, assistant professor of microbiology, and her student

Samuel Million-Weaver, study DNA replication and transcription conflicts that can lead to genomic instability

and mutations.

Bacteria appear to speed up their evolution by positioning specific genes along the route of expected

traffic jams in DNA encoding. Certain genes are in prime collision paths for the moving molecular

machineries that read the DNA code, as University of Washington scientists explain in this week’s

edition of Nature. Read the article.

The spatial-organization tactics their model organism, Bacillus subtilis, takes to evolve and adapt

might be imitated in other related Gram-positive bacteria, including harmful, ever-changing germs

like staph, strep, and listeria, to strengthen their virulence or cause persistent infections. The

researchers think that these mechanisms for accelerating evolution may be found in other living

creatures as well.

Replication – the duplicating of the genetic code to create a new set of genes– and transcription –

the copying of DNA code to produce a protein – are not separated by time or space in bacteria.

Therefore, clashes between these machineries are inevitable. Replication traveling rapidly along a

DNA strand can be stalled by a head-on encounter or same-direction brush with slower-moving

transcription.

The senior authors of the study, Houra Merrikh, UW assistant professor of microbiology,

and Evgeni Sokurenko, UW professor of microbiology, and their research teams are collaborating

to understand the evolutionary consequences of these conflicts. The major focus of Merrikh and her

research team is on understanding mechanistic and physiological aspects of conflicts in living cells –

including why and how these collisions lead to mutations.

Impediments to replication, they noted, can cause instability within the genome, such as

chromosome deletions or rearrangements, or incomplete separation of genetic material during cell

division. When dangerous collisions take place, bacteria sometimes employ methods to repair, and

then restart, the paused DNA replication, Merrikh discovered in her earlier work at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Christopher Merrikh

The researchers on the Nature paper “Accelerated gene evolution through replication-transcription conflicts”

pose before a microbiology history timeline. They are: Sandip Paul, Houra Merrikh, Evgeni Sokurenko,

Sujay Chattopadhyay, and Samuel Million-Weaver, all of the UW Department of Microbiology

To avoid unwanted encounters, bacteria orient most of their genes along what is called the leading

strand of DNA, rather than the lagging. The terms refer to the direction the encoding activities travel

on different forks of the unwinding DNA. Head-on collisions between replication and transcription

happen on the lagging strand.

Despite the heightened risk of gene-altering clashes, the study bacteria B. subtilis still orients 25

percent of all its genes, and 6 percent of its essential genes, on the lagging strand.

The scientist observed that genes under the greatest natural selection pressure for amino-acid

mutations, a sign of their adaptive significance, were on the lagging strand. Amino acids are the

building blocks for proteins. Based on their analysis of mutations on the leading and the lagging

strands, the researchers found that the rate of accumulation of mutations was faster in the genes

oriented to be subject to head-on replication-transcription conflicts, in contrast to co-directional

conflicts.

According to the researchers, together the mutational analyses of the genomes and the

experimental findings indicate that head-on conflicts were more likely than same-direction conflicts to

cause mutations. They also found that longer genes provided more opportunities for replication-

transcription conflicts to occur. Lengthy genes were more prone to mutate.

The researchers noted that head-on replication-transcription encounters, and the subsequent

mutations, could significantly increase structural variations in the proteins coded by the affected

genes. Some of these chance variations might give the bacteria new options for adapting to changes

or stresses in their environment. Like savvy investors, the bacteria appear to protect most of their

genetic assets, but offer a few up to the high-roll stakes of mutation.

The researchers pointed out, “A simple switch in gene orientation …could facilitate evolution in

specific genes in a targeted way. Investigating the main targets of conflict-mediated formation of

mutations is likely to show far-reaching insights into adaptation and evolution of organisms.”

The research project was supported with start-up funds from the UW Department of Microbiology

and with grants from the National Institutes of Health (RC4AI092828 and RO1 GM084318.)

Scientists on this project, in addition to Merrikh and Sokurenko, were Sandip Paul, Samuel Million-

Weaver, and Sujay Chattopadhyay, all of the UW Department of Microbiology.

June 20, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court decision to bar

gene patents opens genetic test options Leila Gray UW Health Sciences/UW Medicine

Posted under: For UW Employees, Health and Medicine, Politics and Government, Research,Science, Social

Science, Technology

Colin Pritchard

Using a DNA sequencing instrument, medical technologists Karen Koehler (left) and Christina Smith (right)

of the UW Department of Laboratory Medicine perform a BROCA panel for a patient to check for known

disease-linked mutations in more than 40 genes.

The June 13 U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to bar the patenting of naturally occurring

genes opens up important clinical testing options for a variety of diseases. Several UW medical

geneticists and laboratory medicine experts hailed the ruling’s benefits for patients.

“We’re thrilled,” said Gail Jarvik, professor and head of the Division of Medical Genetics in the UW

Department of Medicine. She explained that some patents on human genes restricted clinical care

and research. Such patents posed an obstacle to developing and using multi-gene panels. These

efficiently check mutations in scores of a patient’s genes, not just one or two. While the Supreme

Court case focused on one company, Myriad Genetics Inc., that had patented two breast and

ovarian cancer genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, the ruling against gene patents has far greater medical

implications. According to Jonathan Tait, professor of laboratory medicine and director of the Clinical

Molecular Genetics Laboratory at University of Washington Medical Center, “The Supreme Court

decision is broadly beneficial to UW Medicine, going well beyond removing limits on testing for these

two cancer risk genes.”

“We’d like to be able to perform genomic tests that screen for all the mutations implicated in the

medical question at hand,” Jarvik said. “In our inherited colon cancer program, for example, we’d

also want the ability to report genetic results that might be important to a patient or family even if the

mutation is not related to the condition for which we are seeing them.”

Cancer treatment decisions also increasingly require multi-gene test panels on diseased tissue, as

the presence or absence of hundreds of gene mutations helps predict which therapies will and won’t

work. One of these tests, UW-OncoPlex, was developed by a UW team led by Tomas Walsh, UW

research associate professor of medicine in the Division of Medical Genetics, and Colin Pritchard,

UW assistant professor of laboratory medicine. The test checks a cancer sample for mutations in

194 genes. The information can help improve the accuracy of diagnosis and the selection of proper

therapy for solid tumors and blood cancers.

Along with the changes expected from the landmark court opinion, Myriad Genetics specifically was

denied its previously exclusive right to isolate an individual’s BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.

A woman’s odds of developing breast or ovarian cancer are greatly increased if she inherits a

mutation in either of these tumor-suppressor genes.

The existence of the genes was first determined by a University of California Berkeley group led by

Mary-Claire King, now a professor of medicine and genome sciences at the UW.

Myriad Genetics in Utah acquired several patents after establishing the genes’ DNA sequence and

exact location on the human genome. The company then designed medical tests to detect mutations

in their patented genes.

Because of gene patents, the UW Department of Laboratory Medicine had to mask results on

BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the cancer-risk gene panel conducted in the clinical labs at UW Medical

Center and the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance. Samples from hundreds of patients a year, whose

family history put them at risk for breast or ovarian cancer, had to be sent out for Myriad testing at a

cost in excess of $4,000, despite the institutional expertise available here. The UW’s clinical

laboratories had stopped performing their own methods to test for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2

after receiving a patent infringement warning letter.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, the UW Department of Laboratory Medicine announced that it

would provide clinical testing for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes as part of the BROCA

Cancer Risk Panel. This lab test looks for mutations in more than 40 genes associated with breast,

ovarian, colon, pancreatic, throat, kidney, and other cancers.

The BROCA panel emerged from UW genome research. Tait, who oversees UW Medical Center ‘s

clinical genetics lab for patients, explained that BROCA testing, performed with next-generation DNA

sequencing, detects all known classes of disease-causing mutations. Tomas Walsh, Mary-Claire

King and other UW medical scientists first developed this technology to study hereditary risk of

breast and ovarian cancer. They reported their methods in 2010.

“The Supreme Court decision is a victory for patients, their families, their physicians and common

sense,” King said. “A measure of its importance for our patients is that UW Lab Medicine now offers

testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 and all other known breast cancer genes. The test was open for

clinical use less than 24 hours after the decision was announced.”