Model text of gene biotechnology-gene research
What causes people to make a fuss is the technology that enables parents to consciously choose the genetic characteristics of their children. In the foreseeable future, transgenic adults are unlikely to appear except for a few genetic diseases, such as cystic fibrosis. Changing the genes of adults is not a technology that people dare to try easily. There are many simpler, safer and more effective ways to restore or strengthen the function of adults.
Embryo selection technology refers to a series of techniques that parents influence their children's gene combination during pregnancy. The simplest intervention method is to modify genes. This is not a drastic change, because it will achieve the effect of screening all kinds of embryos and selecting embryos with the required genes. In fact, this embryo screening procedure has been applied to genetic diagnosis before embryo implantation. This technology has been used for more than ten years, but it is still being tested and will mature in the next five to 10 years. With the maturity of these technologies, parents' choices will greatly increase.
There will be further intervention in the reproductive system-that is, selecting eggs, sperm, or, more likely, the first cell of an embryo. These programs have been applied to animals, but the way they are used is not safe and reliable for humans.
A more reliable method for human beings may be to use artificial chromosomes. This technology sounds like an incredible science fiction movie, but it has been used on animals. Artificial chromosomes were implanted in mice and passed down from generation to generation. Artificial chromosomes are also used in human cell culture and can remain stable during hundreds of cell divisions. Therefore, they can be used as a stable "platform" for inserting gene modules. These inserted gene modules include the necessary control mechanism to activate or hibernate genes at appropriate time, just like the activation or dormancy of normal genes in our 46 chromosomes, depending on their physiological tissue types or environmental conditions.
Of course, for the sake of safety, early intervention is needed to focus. You can't modify a gene that is activated when the physiological tissues are constantly changing during fetal development, because we know little about this process, and there may be unwanted or catastrophic side effects. Therefore, the first attempt to use artificial chromosomes in human body mostly requires that the implanted genes are in a "dormant" state, and only when they reach adulthood can they be "activated" in appropriate physiological tissues.
This control mechanism has been used in animal experiments to observe the role of specific genes in mature organisms. Of course, there is a mechanism that always controls the genes in the body. Different kinds of genes are activated or rested in different physiological tissues at different positions and times, which is lucky for future genetic engineers, because the proven regulatory structures related to our existing genes can be copied to control the implanted genes. The goal of embryo selection
Preventing diseases may be the initial goal of embryo selection. This possibility may soon go far beyond the scope of correcting abnormal genes. For example, recent research shows that the incidence of cancer in children with Down syndrome has dropped by nearly 90%. It is probable that three body 2 1 (that is, the third copy of chromosome 2 1, which has the function of enhancing gene expression level, leads to mental retardation and other symptoms of Down's syndrome) has a preventive effect on cancer. If you can identify which genes on the chromosome have a preventive effect on cancer? Geneticists may put such genes on artificial chromosomes and then implant them into embryos, so that the incidence of cancer can be reduced to the level of patients with Down syndrome, and all the problems caused by copying other genes on chromosome 2 1 can be avoided. Many other similar possibilities will undoubtedly arise, and some possibilities will almost certainly be beneficial.
The use of artificial chromosomes may go smoothly, especially because the chromosomes themselves can be tested in a laboratory environment before being used in humans. They can be tested on animals and used in humans under basically the same conditions after success. Now every gene therapy is restarted, and it is impossible to obtain absolute reliability.
If there are clear transgenic cases that show that it is meaningful, seems to be safe and cannot be simpler and safer, then people will welcome them. However, there is not enough evidence to show that it is worth doing. In the future, gene therapy experts will have various ideas, and they will conduct experiments to see if this therapy is feasible. If possible, we should not refuse. For example, reducing the incidence of cancer and heart disease, delaying aging, these are the means to improve health that everyone needs very much.
Extend life with genes
Preventing aging is a very meaningful scientific research field, because it seems possible and it is strongly needed by most people. If we can uncover the basic procedures of the aging process and find some means to develop drugs or other effective interventions for adults, then everyone will need them.
Embryonic engineering may be simpler and more effective than adult gene therapy. Because the genes in the embryo will be copied to every cell in the body, so as to obtain the control mechanism of specific tissues. Therefore, intervention measures for embryos are likely to be ineffective for adults. In this way, parents are likely to see pregnancy as an opportunity to give their children healthy conditions-an opportunity that cannot be missed.
If we invest in the research of aging biology, it will greatly accelerate the "aging treatment". Now the funds in this field are very scarce. A lot of money is spent on the research on the treatment of senile diseases, but not on understanding the basic process of aging. Many senile diseases (such as cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, arthritis and diabetes) are caused by this process. Another thing that can accelerate the research process of aging prevention is to improve the image of this field. The work has started, but it is progressing slowly. It is essential to attract young researchers and serious scientists into this field. Anti-aging (that is, prolonging the life span of children) may be an important goal of reproductive intervention, but it is not the only goal. It is the unshirkable responsibility of mankind to seek the greatest happiness for children. In fact, global opinion polls show that in every test,
Quite a few people in all countries are interested in improving children's physical and mental health. What they consider is not how to avoid certain diseases, but how to improve children's appearance, intelligence, strength and spirit of helping others through intervention. Once the technology is reliable, many people need this kind of intervention. Even people who are not stressed will do it, in order not to let the children be at a disadvantage. Of course, people will be careful because they don't want to hurt their children. In short, if the intervention fails, they have to put up with the result and feel guilty. Is it an unpopular choice?
Society may not welcome some parents' choices. Sex selection is legal in America, but illegal in Britain and many other countries. Many people think that although there is no serious gender imbalance in western countries and it is hard to say who is hurt by parents' choices, this procedure should also be illegal in the United States. Another decision to be made soon is whether parents should be screened for a large number of genetic diseases. Parents will soon be able to choose their children's height and IQ, or choose other characteristics of temperament-the mechanism of susceptibility to diseases may soon be clear in genetic interpretation.
The first hope of embryo selection technology lies in gene detection and screening, that is, selecting one embryo instead of another. At first, it was difficult for many people to accept this technology, but it was almost impossible to control it, because this kind of embryo could have formed completely naturally. Such a choice may be distressing, but it is not dangerous. I guess they bring us more benefits than problems. Some people worry that it will lose its diversity, but I think the bigger problem is that the embryo chosen by parents may produce a baby with serious health problems. So should parents be allowed to make such a choice? For example, deaf people launched a movement against cochlear implants, because cochlear implants hurt deaf-mute culture and regard deaf-mute people as a kind of disability. Most non-deaf people think of them this way. Some deaf parents say they will use embryo selection technology to ensure that their children remain deaf. This is not to say that they take out an embryo to destroy it, but to choose an embryo that can cause deaf-mute babies.
This has caused a real social problem, because the society must bear the medical expenses required for this health problem. If we think that parents really have the right to make such a choice, we have no reason to attach importance to the birth of healthy children and despise babies with serious diseases, then we can't control such choices. But if we think there is a problem and try our best to fight it, we will find that this kind of struggle is very promising.
Let go of your hands and feet and lift the ban
Shortly after the first case of pregnancy caused by human cloning was reported in the newspaper, US President George W? W? Bush expressed support for a Senate proposal that outlaws all forms of human cloning, including the creation of embryonic stem cells that will not be rejected when transplanted, that is, therapeutic cloning. I think such a ban is immature, ineffective and seriously misleading. In other words, this ban is undoubtedly wrong. It can not substantially delay the emergence of regenerative cloning. I think this type of clone will appear in 10 years. This ban has injected political, religious and philosophical factors into basic research, which will be a dangerous case. The legislative thinking of this ban pays more attention to tiny cells, but ignores those who are suffering from diseases and suffering. This ban threatens embryo researchers with severe criminal punishment (10 years imprisonment), which is inconceivable in a country where women have the right to have an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy for whatever reason.
The restrictions on embryo research in the United States have affected the development of biotechnology aimed at creating regenerative medicine. These restrictions have slowed down the progress of the United States in this field, and its scientific research strength in biomedicine is second to none in the world. Now this research has been transferred to Britain and other countries, such as Singapore, which is funding a huge project to study embryonic stem cells. This delay is very unfortunate, because what should have happened has not happened now. For most people, the delay of 10 or 20 years is not a big problem, but for actor Michael? j？ For Michael J. Fox and other patients with Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease, this is a matter of life and death.
Ignorance of all kinds of regeneration possibilities often causes people's fear. But this ignorance cannot be the basis of public policy, because public attitudes will change rapidly. Twenty-five years ago, in vitro fertilization really surprised people. Children who are fertilized in vitro are called test-tube babies. Now we see that these children are no different from other children, and this method has become a clear choice for many parents who have no children.
Whether for ideological or religious reasons, mystifying new technologies and opposing them as a symbol will not effectively delay even the most controversial applications. This opposition will only stifle the mainstream scientific research that could have been transformed into new biomedical achievements supported by everyone.
Human cloning will be achieved in a certain country: it is likely to be achieved in an ambiguous and secret way, even before the safety is confirmed. Protest and prohibition may slightly delay the birth of the first cloned human, but is it worth the serious price of human legislation?
No matter how worried we are, human embryo selection is inevitable. Embryo selection already exists, cloning is also in progress, and even direct human reproductive engineering will appear. This technology can't be stopped, because many people think it can benefit mankind, because it will be carried out in thousands of laboratories around the world, and most importantly, because it only removes the by-product of biomedical research in the mainstream of biology.
For us, in the face of the rapid development of technology, it is important not to make rules and regulations for it in advance. It is important to remember that this technology is not dangerous compared with atomic weapons. In atomic weapons, a little carelessness will immediately discourage many innocent bystanders. These techniques are only used by people who make decisions.
Their talents are dangerous. If we carry the hopes and fears of these technologies into the future and control them in advance on this basis, so as to stifle their potential, we can only make very poor laws. Today, we don't have enough knowledge to predict what problems these technologies will have in the future.
It is wiser to put this technology into early application and learn something from it. Sex selection is a good example, and real-world experience can tell us something. Many people want to control sex selection, but unlike underdeveloped countries, in developed countries, free sex selection has not led to a huge gender imbalance. In the United States, parents' choices are basically balanced between men and women, and girls have a slight advantage. Some people used to think that if parents had this choice, there would be serious problems because there would be a surplus of boys. But this is not the case. This danger is our imagination. Some people think that parents should not have this power over their children, but what they are worried about is often very vague. In my opinion, if parents really need a girl or boy for some reason, how can it hurt their children to let them give up their wishes? The opposite situation is really worrying: if parents desperately want a boy and finally give birth to a girl, this "gender-wrong" child may not have a good life. I believe that giving parents the right to choose has only advantages and no disadvantages.
We can also imagine all kinds of troublesome events about sex selection and make up a series of possible dangerous stories. But if things change in the future and the gender imbalance really appears, it is not too late for us to formulate policies to deal with such special problems. This is undoubtedly much wiser than responding to vague fears and thoughts that are now teasing God. Is this the technology of democratization?
The act of blocking renewable technologies has caused extreme division of society, because the act of blocking renewable technologies will only enable the rich to obtain these technologies, and they can easily bypass various restrictions, or go abroad or spend a lot of money to seek black market services.
Its core is embryo selection technology. If handled properly, it can become a very democratic technology, because early treatment measures can face all kinds of disabled people. It is much easier to raise people's IQ from 70 to 100 (group average) than from 150 (the highest percentage of the group) to 160. It is very difficult to make an already brilliant man by going up one flight of stairs, because it needs to improve the complicated mixed equipment of countless tiny factors, and it is these factors that together can make a superman. It is much easier to improve the degraded function. We have no case of Superman, but we have countless ordinary people as evidence. They can be used as examples to guide us how to modify the system to at least achieve normal functions.
I think people think we are equal creatures and everyone is equal before the law, so they think we are all the same. Actually, it is not. Gene lottery can be very, very cruel. Ask people who are slow-moving, or people with genetic diseases of one kind or another, and they won't believe the abstract statement that genetic lottery is so beautiful and fair. They just want to be healthier or gain some abilities. The wide application of these technologies has created an equal playing field in many aspects, because those who were originally at a disadvantage due to genetic reasons also have the opportunity to compete.
Another problem is that these technologies, like other technologies, are developing rapidly. Between the same generation, the application gap between the rich and the poor will not be great, but between two generations. Now, even Bill? Gates can't get some kind of genetic enhancement technology for his children. In 25 years, the middle class will think it is primitive.
An important factor of wisdom is knowing what we have the right to control and what we have no right to control. We must not deceive ourselves and think that we have the right to choose whether to let these technologies into our lives. It will definitely come into our lives. The development of the situation inevitably requires us to use these technologies.
But we can really choose how to use them, how they will divide our society and what impact they will have on our values. We should discuss these problems. I am full of hope for these technologies. Their possible benefits will greatly outweigh the possible problems. I think that when people look back at these technologies in the future, they will feel strange: how did we live in such a primitive era? We only lived to be 75 years old and died, so young and so painful.
Governments and policy makers should not hinder these research fields, because injuries caused by misuse or accidents are not the only risks. This is also a risk that technologies that can save many people will continue to suffer because of delays.
The urgent task is to make every effort to get enough safety and prevent accidents, and to do this, the coordinator seems to have to sacrifice the safety of many affected people. This is the case with vaccines. Vaccines have not progressed for many years because there is a great possibility of litigation. If the child is hurt, the consequences will be serious. However, it is obvious that it is very safe for all people who receive vaccination.
I think people have the same problem with cloning. It may affect a small number of people at most in the near future. In my opinion, it is a strange logic to reject medical progress that is likely to change the lives of millions of patients and plausibly claim that it is a respect for human life.
Loss of humanity or control of humanity?
Another worry of Qi people is that tampering with biological mechanisms at will may make us dehumanize. However, is "humanity" related to some very narrow biological structures, or is it related to the whole process of our contact with the world and our interaction? For example, if our life span doubles, will it make us "dehumanized" in a sense? Longevity will inevitably change our life trajectory, change our way of communication, change our organizational system, family outlook and attitude towards education. But we are still human beings. I believe we will adapt to these changes quickly, and we will be puzzled by the life without these changes in the past.
If primitive hunters imagine that they live in new york, they will say that they may no longer be human in such a place, and they think that this is not a human way of life. But today, most of us regard life in new york not only as a human life, but also much better than hunting life. I think the same is true when we change the biological mechanism.
At present, human beings are still in the early stage of evolution, at most in adolescence. Thousands of years later, people in the future will look at our era and find it primitive, difficult and full of hope. They will also regard our time as a particularly glorious moment of human development, because we have laid the foundation for their lives. It is hard for us to imagine what life will be like even after 1000 years, but I guess our current biological recombination will greatly affect the future human beings.
Click the next page for details >>& gt Demonstration paper on gene biotechnology.