Gene Cloning

Are Humans Being Used As Lab Rats In A Genetic Engineering Experiment?

2014-01-09T15:13:00.000-08:00

Indeed, the writing is on the wall and screaming out trying to tell us that we are all being used as human lab rats, and without our consent, in one of the biggest uncontrolled scientific experiments in history! Evidence is all around us showing us that agri-biotech companies are genetically engineering food that is to be fed to us for the purpose of transforming us into genetically modified organisms.

To date there are 81 food items listed on the FDA's List of Completed Consultations on Bioengineered Foods some of which include corn, soybeans, cotton, potatoes, tomatoes, and squash. Yet, this list is far from comprehensive since at present in the U.S., agri-biotech companies are not required to obtain FDA approval for GM foods. In fact, under current FDA policy companies need only "voluntarily" seek FDA consultation and adhere to FDA recommendations following the consultation. Even more compelling is that because many GM foods are "substantially equivalent" to non-GM foods and are whole foods rather than food additives, they are not subject to FDA regulation, which means that only processed foods are being regulated.

So what this means is that we are being scared and manipulated into eating more processed foods. Why? Because consuming such foods ultimately lead to obesity and an increase in health problems, which equates to more dollars being spent on medicine and cosmetics, all of which are industries being "regulated" by the FDA. Thus, the writing is on the wall and democracy has a new face and its called genetic engineering. It's becoming more and more evident all around us.

When capitalism dictates the direction of science its called technological advancement. When increased revenues take precedence over the value of human life its called free enterprise and when corporations are allowed to go unregulated to dictate the very essence of life through DNA manipulation its called genocide. That said, since humans don't classify as whole foods, what does the future hold for us if there is no regulation of what is being done to us?

Amirah Bellamy is a Vegan Coach, Vegan Fitness Meal Planning Expert, and Author. To learn more about her fabulous Vegetarian Meal Plans, purchase her infamous eBook "The 50¢ Book That's Hotter Than 50 Cent," or INSTANTLY grab her FREE Vegetarian Starter Kit go to http://www.AmirahBFit.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Amirah_Bellamy
http://EzineArticles.com/?Are-Humans-Being-Used-As-Lab-Rats-In-A-Genetic-Engineering-Experiment?&id=5512549

Organic Food vs. Genetic Engineering

2014-01-08T02:38:00.000-08:00

It's always helpful to step back and take a look at things from an objective perspective, especially when we are personally involved.

Creating and sustaining an organic lifestyle means we are in the "center" of that activity, daily. Among all the other things going on in our daily lives, as moms, we are also trying to develop new habits for our family in regards to their health and well being.

So I thought it would be helpful for us all, myself included, to just take a step or two back and revisit the basic questions and reasons why we are pursuing an organic lifestyle to begin with.

What Is Organic Food?

Certified organic food is most commonly described as food grown and packaged without the use of chemicals, preservatives or additives. Food that is either completely or at least 70% all natural.

Another way to explain it, from a bigger picture standpoint is:

"Organic food is produced through a system that is based on ecological balance and humane care for the plants, animals and people that make up the farm environment."

One important reason to consider organic food, and an organic lifestyle, that I've not read much about previously, is genetic engineering. The Sierra Club site states:

"Eating organic food is one way you can avoid genetic engineering. All certified organic produce and ingredients are produced free of any genetic engineering"

What Is Genetic Engineering?

In layman's terms I would translate it to be the taking of genes from one species of plant and injecting another plant with those genes to force certain characteristics. For example, if you had a corn plant that was delicious and seemed to be resistant to pests, you would take its' genes and inject it into another plant of a different variety, in the hopes to force the taste and/or pest resistance onto the other.

Doesn't sound too bad, but when you understand the "risks" associated with genetic engineering, it doesn't sound so good either.

Here's a more technical description of genetic engineering and the associated risks:

"In genetic engineering technology, genes are isolated and transferred using a "gene gun" or a viral vector from one species into a foreign species, crossing over what is called the "species barrier." An example is the transfer of an insect-resistant gene from a soil bacterium (called Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt) into corn plants to confer insect resistance. This kind of genetic transfer never occurs in nature and cannot be achieved through traditional plant breeding methods. The new gene lands in a random spot in the genome of the recipient organism, and can disrupt normal functioning of that organism in unpredictable ways."

Risks of Genetic Engineering

Non-target insects, including ones that are beneficial to farmers are harmed by genetically engineered crops.

Genetically engineered organisms have harmed soil microorganisms, leading to stunted or killed crops.

Plants engineered to be insect- or herbicide-resistant can lead to resistance in weeds and insect pests. This means more chemicals or new genetic engineering.

New allergens and toxins are the potential result of genetically engineering food. Some are detected before market approval while others are not.

Pollen from genetically engineered crops can drift into wild environments and breed with wild relatives of crop plants.

The effects of this genetic pollution cannot be predicted. Once genetically engineered organisms are released into the environment they cannot be con-trolled and they cannot be recalled. Genetic pollution is irreversible.

So we can conclude that organic food is grown WITHOUT the use or need for genetic engineering. And if organic farming can help us avoid "genetic pollution", AND it's better for our health and well being, doesn't it just make good sense for everyone?

The Sierra Club article goes on to conclude that:

"The industrial approach is to "improve nature" and make food products exempt from natural systems and laws. Harmful consequences are corrected using new and more technologies, usually leading to further problems. In contrast, the organic approach is to understand these laws as much as possible and work with them. Organic farmers practice prevention, not correction."

I think any reasonable consumer, without a financial interest in the mass production of genetically altered foods would agree that when it comes to the foods we eat and the environment we need, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".

Organic farmers, like organic moms, care about the food and sustaining the land for future generations. We all know, whether we want to admit it or not, what the large corporations who mass produce traditional food crops are most interested in.

Moms Organic House [http://www.momsorganichouse.com] is your place for practical, everyday organic living information, tips and ideas. Whether it's the garden, kitchen, bathroom or cleaning closet, "themom" is living an organic lifestyle and sharing information and experiences along the way.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Denise_Palmer
http://EzineArticles.com/?Organic-Food-vs.-Genetic-Engineering&id=463471

The First Genetic Engineering - How Dogs Became Man's Best Friend

2014-01-07T02:27:00.000-08:00

I guess I figured that dogs evolved from wolves somehow, but not how I expected. They were more created by...human....intervention. If you're a dog lover you may already know about this, and if you're not, you might not care. But I like dogs and I didn't really know most of this. We watched this show earlier this week, I think it was on the National Geographic Channel, it was called 'And Man Created Dog'. Needless to say I thought it was fascinating.

They guesstimate that it started sometime around thirty thousand years ago. Wolves are pack animals and they are predators. But when people started coming along in groups, wolves would follow them around. They probably started out with the intention of hunting us (I can't remember), but they found that they could also scavenge from our leftovers. So, they started hanging around us more and more.

This became very valuable to us. Wolves obviously have far keener senses than we do, especially smell. So when other animals would get near the camp at night, the wolves knew long before us that a predator was in the area and they would howl and it would wake us up. So it was to our survival benefit to keep them around, albeit at a comfortable distance. So we didn't mind them scavenging our camps when we packed up to move on to follow, well, our own prey.

Somewhere, sometime, a brave man or woman (or child?), probably took in some abandoned wolf pups and raised them, and over time attracted more to find out if any others were safe to be around and feed. If they were safe, we kept them as our pets and fed them. If they demonstrated any threat to the group, especially the children, we would take them out and kill them. We then began the first genetic engineering ever, we mated together only the friendly wolves.

And generation after generation, we kept and mated together the wolves that were the most friendly and attentive to us, thereby getting offspring that were likely to have the same traits. We took care of them and they protected us by being our predator alert system. As time went on, we selectively mated only our friendly new pets and weeded out the not-so-friendly ones. Over time, this completely separated the gene pool between the wild wolves and the ever human-friendlier version, the new dog.

Back then, well until the past couple hundred years, dogs kept the wolf-like appearance, kind of a dog-wolf (there was a scientific name for it but I sure don't remember it). We were buddies. We made them into our buddies by our selective breeding of them. It has even gotten to the point that when we pet and care for a dog, we get the same hormonal release as when we play with and nurture children, to a far lesser degree I'm sure. But still, pretty amazing. And they have the same hormonal reaction toward us. So now we're not only bonded together in a practical way, but an emotional way as well.

One thing I really took away from the show is the responsibility we have toward dogs. We took them (as wolves) from their natural habitat and away from their predatory hunting nature, and made them dependent on us for food and care. We made them. They are no longer able to, or meant to, survive on their own in the wild. They don't hunt anymore (when they help us hunt they don't eat the prey). If left in the wild they are left to the only means they know to survive, scavenging human leftovers and hoping to get fed by humans. They can't survive without us. They have a strong survival instinct to please us. They are the only animal that actually is attentive toward us, looks us in the eye, and cares about us. We owe it to them to take care of them.

Ronald Arnott is a computer desktop application technician with a Masters Degree in Administration.

Visit his personal site at [http://www.ronsonlinewriting.com]

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ronald_Arnott
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-First-Genetic-Engineering---How-Dogs-Became-Mans-Best-Friend&id=4861159

Genetic Engineering, Pesticides And Your Health

2014-01-06T06:05:00.000-08:00

We know that GE crops are contaminating conventional and organic crops. We know GE products are making their way, directly or indirectly, onto our plates. So, until regulations catch up to the reality (and if it's not too late to save our food supply by then), there are two main things we, as consumers, can do. First, we must speak out to our representatives and make our voices heard so that businesses do not flourish at the expense of human welfare and irreparable damage to our food supply and environment. Second, we must educate ourselves on the health issues related to GE products, so that we can each make our own best decisions about what we purchase and eat, and by extension, which companies we support through our consumerism.

To that end, I spoke recently with molecular biologist, Dr. Kevin Nash, and asked him what, if any concerns he had about the health impact of eating GE products. According to Dr. Nash, "We eat DNA all the time in any plant, animal or fungi material. We cannot incorporate, only digest, genetic material from other sources. The product of that gene manipulation can cause a problem [for example, in the case of] modified plants to restrict bugs and disease. This may be the production of a natural pesticide; and pesticides are not necessarily good for us in large doses." So, while human DNA is arguably safe from ingesting the GE products themselves, the main concern with GE crops becomes exposure to chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, the ingestion of which does pose a significant health risk and can endanger human DNA according to Dr. Nash.

Of course, herbicides and pesticides are nothing new in crop production. What is new is the growth of herbicide-resistant weeds, which have cropped up as a result of the unchecked growth (and spreading) of GE alfalfa among other GE crops. In particular, according to a recent report, "The spread of pollen and seed from Monsanto-made, genetically engineered (GE) RoundUp Ready alfalfa into non-GE commercial and organic alfalfa crops might eliminate the U.S. supply of organic alfalfa and lead to overuse of potentially toxic glyphosate-based herbicides, said organic interest groups such as the Center for Food Safety, the Northeast Organic Farming Association and the National Organic Coalition."

The end result is that glyphosate-tolerant (GT) weeds have appeared as a by-product of the GE alfalfa contaminating simple weeds. This means that, in order to rid their fields of those weeds, farmers now have to use more chemicals, and more dangerous chemicals, to fight these so-called "superweeds." Ultimately, that means more chemicals in our soil, our air, our foods, and our bodies. And, of course, when fields have been contaminated with these weeds and with GE alfalfa, farmers cannot sell their alfalfa as "organic" because it no longer meets the criteria, thus losing money when they sell this product as a conventional, rather than organic, crop.

When part of the reason many of us choose to eat organics is to avoid pesticides and other chemicals, the idea that organic farmers are unprotected in their efforts to keep their land clear of GE and GT seeds, and are bearing the cost themselves when their crops do become infected, is odious to say the least. And of course, ultimately, those of us choosing organics will pay the price in our health and our wallets. As organic farmers struggle against the pollution of their land by nearby GE farming, making their once-organic seeds grow into crops that don't meet the "organic" guidelines, the prices of organics will continue to go up, and fewer people will be able to afford to eat organic.

This ultimately means we will be exposed to GE crops or the chemicals needed to keep them at bay. And none of it has to be labeled, so we truly won't even know what we're eating. So it is time for us to speak out, write our representatives, and be sure to keep buying organics and support organic farmers by buying non-food products from companies using organic materials whenever possible.

Fashion & Earth to provide eco consumers with organic clothes at affordable prices. With their hassle free returns policy and, extremely popular Rewards Program you really have nothing to lose! Go ahead - check them out and experience the feeling of wearing eco friendly clothing

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Adrian_Desbarats
http://EzineArticles.com/?Genetic-Engineering,-Pesticides-And-Your-Health&id=6229251

No More Teary Onion, Thanks to Genetic Engineering

2014-01-04T20:30:00.000-08:00

The blog, Rael the Prophet, reports on an article in the UK Telegraph about a research on a genetically engineered tear-free onion being collaboratively conducted by researchers from Japan and the New Zealand Institute for Crop & Food Research. We're all aware how teary an onion can be if mishandled when chopping. To men and women who spend considerable amounts of time cooking, this, definitely is news worth celebrating.

In addition to ridding onion of the gene that causes teary effects on our eyes, these researchers promise that this new variety will be sweeter and healthier.

What an exciting research? Indeed, it has generated quite a buzz. The journal Onion World, in its December edition, has featured this work, which is being piloted by Dr. Colin Eady. The popular environmental blog Environmental Grafita gleefully proclaims, GM onions means no more tears, with sarcasm:

Anti-GMO activists may soon be tearing up after a New Zealand company announced the development of a genetically modified tear free onion.

I can't also wait to see their [anti-biotech activists] reactions. Instead of inserting a foreign gene into the onion, which has been the practice in crop genetic engineering, researchers in this project will be working to suppress the gene that makes onions teary.

The key is not to introduce a foreign gene but to silence one using a phenomenon called RNA interference. By stopping sulphur compounds from being converted to the tearing agent and redirecting them into compounds responsible for flavour and health, the process could even improve the onion.

So, which direction will the debate on safety of this new onion variety take? We're always told there's no guarantee of safety of genes inserted into crops such as corn, cotton, or soya. Will the anti-biotech groups now claim removing a gene from a crop, and onion onion for that matter, will compromise human health and the environment? Let's wait for the debate to start.

James Wachai specializes in agricultural biotechnology communication.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=James_Wachai
http://EzineArticles.com/?No-More-Teary-Onion,-Thanks-to-Genetic-Engineering&id=988979

Genetic Engineering

2014-01-03T18:35:00.000-08:00

This subject is immensely intricate but hugely entertaining and stimulating for a human mind. It involves manipulation of material that has such wide diversity, which is yet not fully covered or even understood by the scientists. This article will try to tackle the subject by explaining its meaning and functions.

What does genetic engineering mean? If we break the words down, then we understand that it is engineering of some material that involves genes. Genetic is something involves genes and genes are the coded information contained within a material that is known as DNA. DNA is a chemical molecule, which contains information about the make up of an organism. For example in our DNA, the information will be about our looks, eye colour, hair colour, size of our body parts, our blood group, etc. So if we have a DNA of any organism we can (on paper) reproduce that very organism as we have all the information about it. It's like having a recipe for a dish, which can be used to make that exactly same dish again and again. DNA is just like a recipe for any organism. Going back to cooking analogy, if we use a recipe to cook a dish, when its cooked we don't like the taste because perhaps there was too much of some ingredient So next time when we cook the dish we either omit that ingredients or substitute with another ingredient. This will cause the dish to be different from the original recipe and may be more to your taste. We can say that recipe has been manipulated or engineered to give us the dish with taste that we like. Well Genetic Engineering is when we manipulate the DNA and try to bring about changes in the organism, which would improve the organism or make it do what would be beneficial to us. For example, an organism such as cow that produces milk, if we manipulate with her DNA and make her produce more amount of milk, we have genetically engineered the cow for our benefit.

As genetic is a huge subject, therefore its engineering stems to many varied directions. The basic technique carried many advantages and disadvantages. The advantages allow us to use this technique to treat or cure many diseases. Genetic Engineering is applied to gene therapy where the faulty gene that is causing the diseases is either replaced with a normal gene or omitted in order to cure the disease. An example is Cystic Fibrosis where one of the gene is faulty, that causes build up of thick mucus in a person's breathing system and the person suffers from chest infection and cough for most of their life. In this case, the normal gene (that does not cause the build up of thick mucus) is inserted into the DNA, which then gives instruction and helps to stop the build up of the mucus. Though this is a good technique to help the problem but it is very expensive and the research takes a long time to be able to clone the normal genes.

It is also used to genetically engineered microorganism. For example manipulating bacteria to produces antibiotics, hormones and enzymes. If we think of bacteria as a photocopier we can understand how it is used to make so many beneficial materials. A bacterium tries to survive by multiplying a very high rate. Whatever it ingests it will reproduce and multiply. If we insert the gene of interest (gene to make antibiotic) in bacterium feed, it will ingest and reproduce bacteria with that particular gene. The bacteria have photocopied information that we require in bulk such as antibiotics.

Genetic Engineering is used to improve nature, change animals, change plants, and to find many answers relating to human activities. Where its uses are immensely beneficial, they also give rise to many social ethical and economical issues. For example when it is used to select either sex of an unborn baby, or select features of baby such as eye colour, hair colour or any other in demand feature, giving rise to designer babies. This technique is also used to produce GM food (genetically modified) which also raises many issues such as if the use of GM food produces more illnesses in people and weather its use is should be allowed.

There is much more research needed to be done to advance this technique. Like everything else in life, it has advantages and disadvantages. Its correct use can be very beneficial for humankind and for that reason it should come with some legal limitations.

[http://www.manchesterscience.co.uk]

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Dr_Chand_Zahid
http://EzineArticles.com/?Genetic-Engineering&id=3220401

Common Interview Questions For the Upcoming Genetic Engineers

2014-01-03T09:55:00.000-08:00

Genetic engineering is not a new term for the world now. This branch of science may be described as the process of manipulating a living gene to generate a desired outcome. It basically deals in RNA technology (cloning), Gene modification, Gene slicing, Tissue culture and Breeding. Genetics has a wide scope if terms of career. If you're all set for a professional interview in the Genetic industry, you need to cover these hot topics. These are the general questions asked by some interviewers.

Describe Klinefelter's syndrome?

It is a characteristic disorder in which the addition of an extra X sex chromosome (aneuploidy) takes place in the genetic makeup of an individual. The females possess an XXX chromosomal structure, while the males comprise XXY. This extra chromosome results in sexual deformity.

What do you mean by Parkinson's Disease?

It is a briefly described as the movement disorder. It results in the deformity of the central nervous system and habitually impairs the mental ability, motor skills, speech, and other functions of the sufferer.

How can you define 'Fruit fly Genetics'?

This field involves various techniques and experiments conducted on the fruit fly, to understand the genetic pattern of the fruit fly (Drosophila). It is the best organism to conduct a research on, for the genetic engineers.

Explain the concept behind Athletic genes.

Genes that are reported to affect the athletic performance of an individual are termed as the Athletic gene.

Explain gene doping.

The non-therapeutic utilization of genetic elements like the cells and the genes and the modulation of gene expression, in order to develop the athletic performance of a person is gene doping.

How can the genetic farming be advantageous for the farmers?

Genetic farming basically deals with the development of genetically modified seeds, plants and fertilizers in order to yield more harvest. It also involves the application of higher technology for improving the agricultural pattern. It simplifies the process of agriculture thereby resulting in the increase of profits.

Describe a few potential harms of genetic engineering?

The development of unsafe chemical products like insecticides, pesticide and various drugs, the involuntary elevation food toxicity levels due to the application of recent food preservation technology, environmental damage due to artificial breeding etc. are some of the visible negative effects of Genetics.

What are the characteristic traits of the stem cells?

Stem cells are the immature, embryonic cells found in the earlier stages of fetus development that are characterized by the capability to renew themselves in the process of mitotic cell division. After division, they can differentiate into a miscellaneous range of cells; in short they are totipotent cells.

What is sickle cell Anemia?

In this genetic disorder, the human RBCs loose their characteristic biconvex shape and distort to form a sickle like shape. This reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of these cells thereby, raising a fatal condition for the humans.

Including the above mentioned questions, you need to focus on the basic concepts of the RNA technology. So, these were the most frequently covered topics. Good luck for your interview!

Confused about how to Search Common Interview Questions. Read more about Engineering Graduate Interview Questions

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Anna_Jones_D
http://EzineArticles.com/?Common-Interview-Questions-For-the-Upcoming-Genetic-Engineers&id=4405847

How The Uses Of Genetic Engineering Are Endangering Dinner Time

2014-01-01T19:08:00.000-08:00

In ancient times, farmers generally relied on the natural elements to plan their planting cycles. Crops were planted during dry season, and harvested before the wet season. Farmers also used organic or natural fertilizers, pesticides and other chemicals to nurture their crops and eliminate harmful pests. As civilization progressed though, and the increasing population placed added pressures on farmers and societies to produce more food, scientists and crop experts began devising new methods for developing crops that were more resistant to varying weather patterns, pests and other external elements. Thus came forth the words genetic engineering.

In genetic engineering, the inherent structure of crops were modified in ways were they are considered safe to be eaten. Some crop breeders and scientists have even induced mutations in a crop's genetic structure though chemicals, radiation and chemicals. The process of altering a crop's genetic structure to make it pest and drought-resistant is now referred to as GMO development, or genetically modified engineering.

Is The GMO Industry Only Worried About Profit?

Today, gene transfer technology is available worldwide, and some even hail this development as a victory against pests and sudden weather changes. However, many worry that few large companies are slowly gaining full control of world agriculture, to the detriment of small farmers in poorer countries.

The GMO industry however counters that poor third-world farmers can actually adopt these GMO technologies, to help them achieve efficient farming practices, as well as to ward off harmful pests from their fields. However, critics of the uses of genetic engineering argue that genetic engineering is a technology is actually making global agriculture dependent only on large multinational companies. The potentially harmful effects of a number of GMO foods have also not yet been fully determined by health researches.

The Public Should Know The Truth Behind The GMO Research

Genetic engineering is not actually a truly safe process. One example of the hazards of GMO research was brought to the public limelight a couple of years ago, when scientists in the US state of Nebraska planned to transfer a gene from a Brazil nut to soybean, to get good quality protein. What happened was that people developed severe allergic reactions to the Brazil nuts. As a result of this debacle, the soybean genetic modification project was discontinued.

Staunch critics of genetic engineering also claim that the process has a negative impact on the environment and food safety. Although there have not yet been any publicly documented cases on any sever illness or environmental damage, the critics fear that the development of more GMO crops may lead to the possibility of creating disease or pesticide-resistant insects, as well as to the development of certain diseases and infections in humans.

Concerned whether the food you eat is genetically engineered or modified?

Recent polls show that over 90% of American's believe genetically engineered food should be labeled. Unfortunately this will not happen until consumers choose to get informed about what they are eating and stop purchasing genetically modified food.

You can take action by staying informed about GMOs at http://geneticallyengineeredfoodnews.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ella_Baker
http://EzineArticles.com/?How-The-Uses-Of-Genetic-Engineering-Are-Endangering-Dinner-Time&id=6232588

Genetic Engineering, Mosquitoes, and Anger in a Tropical Paradise

2014-01-01T05:27:00.000-08:00

Debates about genetic engineering have been making headlines for a long time. Most of the genetic engineering debates have involved food production. Many food companies utilize genetic modification to allow the crops to resist rotting and pesticides. In recent years, the genetic modification of animals for food and non-food purposes has become an equally contentious subject. Such a debate is raging right now concerning mosquitoes and the island city of Key West.

Recently an England-based company, Oxitec, which specializes in genetically modified insects, is in the process of attempting to release a mosquito in Key West, Florida that will hopefully reduce the probability of a virus that causes the dengue fever in that area. The dengue fever is a particularly nasty disease that is characterized as being extremely uncomfortable for the afflicted individual.

The South Florida area and the Caribbean have been areas that the dengue fever has had prevalence in recent years. The current mosquito control plan is based around pesticides and chemically attempting to eradicate the specific type of mosquito that carries the dengue fever, Aedes aegypti. Aedes aegypti mosquitoes originally come from Africa and can carry yellow fever, dengue fever, and other diseases.

The method Oxitec is using to quell the population of mosquitoes is a modified version of something developed in the 1930s and 1940s known as the Sterile Insect Technique. This process is where a company sterilizes a large amount of male insects in the same breed and then releases them into the wild. Once in the wild, these mosquitoes mate with the females and either have no offspring or have offspring that does not survive.

Oxitec has tested their method in a few other locations already and have achieved success in reduction of mosquito populations in those areas. Grand Cayman and Brazil both implemented this mosquito control policy and saw population reductions of 80 and 90 percent respectively.

Some residents of Key West and environmentalist are outraged at this proposal. In fact, the outrage has spread to the tune of 100,000 signatures on a Change.org petition that hopes to catch the attention of the Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, and a host of other local politicians.

The opposition to Oxitec, led by Key West resident and mother of 3 Mila de Mier, contests that there is not of knowledge surrounding the possible effects of releasing genetically modified insects into the environment. That being said, Mila de Mier who formed the petition is extremely active on the largely liberal petition site.

The petition gained a lot of steam after coverage in national news sources from online publications that included New York Times, The New Yorker, CNN's blog, and other reputable sources with heavy readership.

Many have criticized that the majority of signatures on the petition are not from residents of the region, but from environmental activists around the country. Despite this fact, many residents have come out against the proposed Oxitec initiative in Key West. Many people contest that the Oxitec method is much more environmentally friendly than using pesticides to treat the mosquito issues.

While Oxitec says that these methods are harmless and have showed success, the residents have a right to express their opinions about how the handling of their local ecosystem. One of the questions at hand is how the company should handle the delicate situation. Additionally, the government needs to decide on whether the method is the right thing for the community. Oxitec, who has projects pending in France and other regions, could implement other projects before Key West. This could help the company gather research on the safety and effectiveness of the method in order to ease the minds of the Key West community.

If you have your own South Florida pest problem, get in contact with a Miami Pest Control professional. Suncoast Pest Control is a Tampa Florida Exterminator serving much of South and Central Florida

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Philip_Hannigen
http://EzineArticles.com/?Genetic-Engineering,-Mosquitoes,-and-Anger-in-a-Tropical-Paradise&id=7182131

Biodiversity and Genetic Engineering

2013-12-31T11:19:00.000-08:00

Genetic Engineering is a process of artificially modifying plant or animal cells by cutting and splicing DNA from one cell into another for the purpose of transferring desirable qualities that will make a crop resistant to herbicides, insects, or to enhance food value. When genetic engineers insert a new gene into any organism, there are what are called position effects. These effects can lead to unpredictable changes in patterns of gene expressions and genetic functions. The protein product of the inserted gene may carry out unexpected reactions, producing potentially toxic products.Genetically modified foods in U.S. markets include tomatoes, squash, yeast, corn, potatoes, canola and soybeans (which are used in 60 % of all processed foods, such as bread, pasta, candies, ice cream, pies, biscuits, margarine, meat products and vegetarian meat and cheese substitutes). Genetically engineered foods not tested nor labeled as genetically altered could jeopardize our health.

Living organisms are highly complex, and genetic engineers cannot predict all the effects of introducing these new genes. Problems may develop from this process: new toxins and allergens, loss of bio-diversity in seed and crops, or damaging health effects from manipulated food crops. When new genetic information is introduced into plants, bacteria, insects, or animals, it can then be passed into related organisms through naturally occurring processes such as cross-pollination.

It is estimated that 70% of the current genetically modified (GM) harvest is made up of herbicide-resistant crops (HRCs) designed to tolerate high levels of exposure to broad-spectrum herbicides, enabling farmers to spray only one heavy dosage per year, but still this does not break the overall cycle of dependence upon chemical applications.

This process has already created some herbicide-resistant "super weeds" causing many farmers to have to spray even greater quantities of herbicides on their GM crops because the weed species have become even harder to control. Cross-species transfers between fish and tomatoes, or other unrelated species that would not have happened in nature may create new toxins, diseases, and weaknesses that can spread across species barriers. This new combination of host genes and introduced genes have unpredictable effects. These artificially induced characteristics can be passed on to subsequent generations and other related organisms. Transferring animal genes into plants also raises important ethical issues for vegetarians and religious groups.

Another form of genetic engineering is used to create BT crops by inserting a genetically modified gene into a plant gene from a soil organism called Bacillus Thuringiensis (a pest-specific powder used, only when it is needed, by organic farmers and gardeners). This inserted gene causes the plant to produce a substance that makes it toxic to certain insects - creating a built in pesticide - eliminating the need for chemical sprays. However, insects exposed to these transgenic crops over sustained periods of time may develop immunity to BT, and even harsher pesticides will be needed to control the problem.

Genetic engineering companies are carrying out a potentially dangerous global experiment by introducing large numbers of genetically engineered foods into agriculture and food supplies which may have unanticipated and harmful side effects leading to national and/or global food shortages.

More than 50% of the crops developed by biotech companies have been engineered to be resistant to herbicides. This could promote a rapid appearance of resistant insects, destroy the beneficial insects, or alter soil organisms and ecosystems. In addition, the pesticide produced by the plant may be harmful to the health of consumers.

There is no way of knowing the overall, long-term effects of genetically engineered foods on the health of those who eat them. Since most genetically modified foods are not be labeled, manufacturers have already introduced genetically modified ingredients into many of our foods. Labeling should be required for any food that contains a genetically engineered ingredient, or has been produced using GM organisms or enzymes. This would help scientists trace the source of health problems arising from eating these foods. Food scares and epidemics are increasingly commonplace, and in response, the demand for organic food is skyrocketing. Greenpeace has launched a new version of their popular Shopper's Guide, which is an online resource to help you find out whether the food in your shopping basket is GM free go online to Shoppers Guide to GM Foods there are hundreds of products are listed that are genetically modified or have genetically modified ingredients.

The Importance of Biodiversity includes social-cultural, economic, and environmental elements. Genetic biodiversity provides not only healthy crops, it also allows for new plant and seed varieties, maintains soil fertility and its microorganisms, and makes soil and water conservation a priority. Agricultural diversity maintains our bio-diverse plants, seeds, animal food sources, croplands, pastures, range lands and the microbial and fungal sources necessary for healthy soil. Another growing objection to genetic engineering is that we don't need to figure out how to grow more food.

According to the Institute for Food Development Policy, nearly one third of the worlds land area is used for food production and we already grow more than enough to feed everyone. If the vitality, biodiversity, and health of our soil and crops can be improved, plants would be naturally resistant to pests and disease. We need to educate our farmers about the benefits of bio-diversity, soil sustainability, plant and animal health, natural pesticides, composting, and companion planting.

It has been estimated that only 1% of pesticides applied to crops reach the insects they are designed to kill; the other 99% pollutes the air, soil, food, water, kills wildlife, ruining the vitality of the soil. In the past it has been acceptable for farmers and gardeners to buy and spread chemicals and pesticides over their crops instead of understanding the mechanisms of sustainable organic growing methods, and the importance of biodiversity. As consumers demand more organic foods and growing methods, governments, agribusinesses, giant chemical companies, farmers, and home gardeners will be motivated to eliminate the use of genetically altered seeds and plants, carcinogenic pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Hopefully, this will grow to include the livestock and fisheries industries currently using antibiotics, chemical food additives, growth regulators, and hormones.

"When the planes still swoop down and aerial spray a field in order to kill a predator insect with pesticides, we are in the Dark Ages of commerce. Maybe one thousandth of this aerial insecticide actually prevents the infestation. The balance goes to the leaves, into the soil, into the water, into all forms of wildlife, into our selves. What is good for the balance sheet is wasteful of resources and harmful to life."
-Paul Hawkin from The Ecology of Commerce

Frank and Vicky Giannangelo
Copyright (c) 2008 Giannangelo Farms Southwest

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Frank_Giannangelo
http://EzineArticles.com/?Biodiversity-and-Genetic-Engineering&id=1788731

Genetic Engineering and Its Unpredictable Impact to Humanity

2013-12-29T19:52:00.000-08:00

Genetic engineers see the potential of the industry towards being able to change the DNA. DNA recombinant technology has the potential to offer positive impacts to humanity but this goal is seemed to be opposed by several ethical groups due to various reasons. This article will investigate more on these issues over the unpredictable impact of genetic engineering.

The ability to accurately manipulate the human DNA is an opportunity to develop treatments for diseases that are impossible to cure as of the present. This can completely eliminate the possibility of having birth defects among babies. The technology can also be employed to prevent hereditary diseases and stop the transfer of these maladies from one generation to another.

Another possible benefit that this opportunity can offer is the application to agriculture by development of genetically modified plants and animals. Because of the growing population, farmers can produce more varieties of plants and animals that have more meat and fruits for food. This will allow more plentiful harvests and more access to food, which is very important especially in developing countries with larger number of mouths to feed. This will also be a prospect to develop more nutritious foods and even better tasting ones.

This intervention of men, however, can possibly have negative effects too. There are possibilities, due to the creation of these new organisms, that genetic engineering can cause havoc to our ecological balance. This is because the impact of these genetically engineered species to the environment can be unpredictable especially with our very little knowledge of the true nature of the DNA. Thus, there is the possibility of causing an imbalance in the ecosystem with the creation of these new types of organisms.

As an example of a possible scenario, genetically enhanced bacterial strains can be accidentally released to the environment to cause a serious epidemic just like the SARS epidemic. Another concern would be the possibility that genetically modified plants and animals can produce side effects such as allergies when consumed as food.

Genetic engineering can also fall to the wrong hands and be used as weapons for warfare. When this technology is used for destructive purposes, the effects can really be alarming. Genetically modified organisms can be used as biological weapons of mass destruction. Because these organisms will likely spread faster and be resistant to existing medicines, it can potentially be devastating to the society.

Genetic engineering is like a double-edged sword. It should be used with responsibility as it can produce either positive or negative effects to mankind. Yes, we may be ready to use this technology but the scientific community agrees with the fact that we are blind on all its possible consequences.

In ending, there are concerns with the little knowledge of the role of DNA among living things as of the present. But even with such lack of understanding, our genetic engineers are convinced that the potential of this newfound technology can dramatically affect humankind, either helping it or destroying it altogether. Without a doubt, there is a need to regulate this technology by different governments all over the world for it to be controlled and put to good use.

Robert Ian Maranon is a licensed chemist, environmentalist, writer, and blogger. He is also reviewing various home products in the internet.

Check out his new website on the review of Electric Clothes Airer [http://electricclothesairer.com/]. His site also features an eco friendly take on using these products like the use of Indoor Airer [http://electricclothesairer.com/category/indoor-airer/] without energy costs.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Robert_Ian_Maranon
http://EzineArticles.com/?Genetic-Engineering-and-Its-Unpredictable-Impact-to-Humanity&id=4695777

Human Genetic Engineering Explained

2013-12-28T18:15:00.000-08:00

If you are thinking of taking up genetics as your major, it is important to understand the basic concepts of the subject. In this article, we will discuss about human genetic engineering which refers to the process of genetically engineering the human beings by altering their genotypes before birth. The 'Genotype' refers to the individual's genetic constitution, with respect to the specific character under consideration. This process helps to control the traits that are possessed by the individual after birth.

The cells present in our body consist of the encoded information regarding the structure, growth, and functioning of the body, in the form of genes. The subject - human genetic engineering actually aims at de-coding this data and applying it to the benefit of mankind. There are basically two different types of genetic engineering, and they are somatic modification and germline modification.

In the case of somatic modification, genes are added to cells. This proves as a cure for several types of diseases that are caused by the defective genes. They cannot be inherited. The germline modification, on the other hand, is the form of human genetic engineering, where the genes in the early embryos are altered. The genes which are modified in this way are actually inheritable. This is quite an effective form of and it results in some enduring modifications.

The human genetic engineering can actually be classified as positive and negative. In the former kind of genetic engineering, the positive traits of the individuals are augmented. This results in increasing longevity or increasing in human capacity. The later type is about introducing the first-class copy of a definite gene into the cells. As a result, the suffering trait to genetic diseases can be lessened to a great extent.

In the case of human genetic engineering, the DNA or the genes of a human being are changed. This is used to bring about changes in the structure of the human beings. It can also be used to launch the genes for several positive and desirable characteristics in the embryos. It can also be used for finding a permanent cure for various diseases.

Some human beings possess exceptional qualities. When the genes are responsible for the qualities, they can be easily identified and implanted in early embryos. This results in what is known as the custom-made babies. If you want detailed explanation on the topic with illustrations, consider hiring a private tutor.

Are you looking for a private home tutor for genetics? You can now find one with the help of the Internet. Search for a private genetics tutor in Los Angeles, now.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Umesh_Kumar_M
http://EzineArticles.com/?Human-Genetic-Engineering-Explained&id=6371550

Benefits of Genetic Engineering

2013-12-27T18:04:00.000-08:00

Every human being inherits approximately 30000 genes at birth. These determine his or her physical and emotional attributes. Some of these genes might have mutated or become otherwise defective making the carrier predisposed to certain genetic diseases. These diseases may strike the person during his lifetime or alternatively may not do so at all. Nonetheless the person is a carrier and passes on these defective genes to his progeny. At some point, perhaps generations later when conditions are conducive, the disease will manifest itself.

One of the primary objectives in genetic engineering is to identify and isolate such genes with a view to repairing them or eradicating them so that their harmful effects are negated. An alternate strategy employed is to introduce a gene that has the effect of countering or combating the defective gene.

Another goal of genetic engineering is to find remedies and therapies to treat other non-genetic diseases. With preliminary data available long before the project was completed new protocols were developed to treat auto-immune and cardiac ailments.

The field of human reproduction, pharmaceuticals and medicine has gained significantly from genetic engineering. More sophisticated and effective medicines have been developed; bio-engineered insulin and human growth hormone being two such examples. With the new techniques available, at the fetus stage genetic diseases are being identified and successfully treated before birth.

Genetic engineering has thrown fresh insight into evolution and the origin and relationship man had with his primate ancestors 25 million years ago. This has enabled scientists to take a fresh look at some of the genetic diseases that might have descended through a process of evolution.

Pauline Go is an online leading expert in the medical industry. She also offers top quality articles like :

Human Chromosomes,
Mitochondrial DNA

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Pauline_Go
http://EzineArticles.com/?Benefits-of-Genetic-Engineering&id=2242705

Genetic Engineering: Boon Or Curse?

2013-12-27T02:23:00.000-08:00

Genetic Engineering is the alteration of the genes of an organism, to improve its chances of survival, boost its immunity, help in its regeneration and reproduction, and in more complex fields of study - even clone them. It is the direct manipulation of an organism's genes. It uses the techniques of cloning and transformation to alter the structure and characteristics of genes directly. It has ushered in a new era of science and technology with many successful applications. The most notable of such applications include increased crop productivity, development of insulin in hamster ovary cells, development of organs such as 'ear' on the body parts of mice and the most known example that really accelerated the researches on genetics and its application - cloning of a sheep named Dolly in 1997.

Today, genetic engineering is one of the most hotly debated topics in the world. Many believe and hope that it can once and forever get rid of all human sufferings due to diseases, disability, starvation, etc. On the other hand, more conservative and pessimistic people - who actually believe they are rather realistic, argue that genetic engineering will never be able to accomplish what it promises. They argue that it will do more harm than good citing the principles of natural selection and evolution.

Genetic Engineering has a wide range of applications including agriculture, animal husbandry, medicine and surgery. With its help, various species of crops have grown immune to many lethal diseases. Hybridization has helped to increase crop yield. Today, many species of crops such as wheat are genetically altered for high nutrition value and quicker and higher productivity. Countries all over the world are adopting genetically enhanced crops which have helped to minimize food scarcity, provide highly nutritious food and grow crops much immune to various illness and pesticides. This has thus brought about a new era of agricultural revolution, which can hopefully eradicate starvation and malnutrition.

However, some people believe that genetically altered crops are not healthy in the long run. There are also doubts about the effects of such highly enhanced and immune crops in the much delicate ecosystem. Genetically altered animals are also thought to bring about similar problems.

Similarly, genetic engineering which has proved revolutionary in the medical sector is also believed by some people to be morally and socially unethical. Altering some organism's genes is thought to be against religious beliefs and values. It is also considered immoral to hybridize some organism for selfish human needs. Most of these arguments are correct and not baseless. There have been many cases of genetically enhanced crops being potentially harmful to the consumers as well as the ecosystem. Also, it is not hard to get to the point of argument that genetic engineering, especially cloning and hybridization are immoral and unethical. However, most of the people that support the ever-increasing applications of genetic engineering argue that something that might free humans from all kinds of sufferings is bound to have some drawbacks. These drawbacks are in fact correctable provided required effort is put in. Therefore, there must not be a stop to the applications of and researches on genetic engineering. It is too great an opportunity for humans to undo their past mistakes of conflicts that have brought poverty, of mismanaged civilization and development that have brought destruction of natural resources and disturbed the delicate ecosystem, and of thoughtless and haphazard technological advancement.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Pawan_Dhakal
http://EzineArticles.com/?Genetic-Engineering:-Boon-Or-Curse?&id=6541372

Who Invented Genetic Engineering?

2013-12-26T12:46:00.000-08:00

If you are wondering who invented genetic engineering, do not be surprised to hear that this controversial area began way long ago in the early 1900s by the works of the Austrian monk and scientist named Gregor Mendel. What his work led to was the establishment of genetics as a scientific field to be studied. From then on, many other scientists followed through and made discoveries.

In 1944, Oswald Avery Colin McLeod and Maclyn McCarty found that genetic information could be found in the DNA. From then on, scientists from all over began to study on DNA and its properties. In 1953, Watson and Crick made a breakthrough when they decoded the structure of the DNA. This was an important finding because understanding the structure allowed for specific alterations to the DNA.

Then in the 1960s, Ian Wilmut had begun developing ways to clone animals from the cells of mammals. Restriction enzyme was later discovered in 1968 by Swiss microbiologist Werner Arber, followed by type II restriction enzymes found in 1969 by American biologist Hamilton Smith.

More research in genetic engineering took place in the 1970s, which focus laid on bacteria and microorganisms. From there, gene isolation and alteration techniques were developed, allowing scientists to pull one gene of a plant to another. It was also found that this could be done with animals, which would create changes to the heredity.

In 1973, a process of slicing DNAs and attaching it to another DNA was developed by Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen, which allowed them to make bacteria reproduce. This was used in the production of insulin. Within that decade, scientists were also attempting to slice genes of other organisms of higher forms. The first of such was the insertion of human growth hormone into a mouse, in which made the mouse grow twice its size. In 1986, a virus that was genetically altered was sold as vaccine. In 1987, a conclusion was made that replacing genes from one organism to another would not pose danger to the environment.

Throughout the history of genetic engineering is filled with controversies and debate. While we will never know how the future will be influenced by it, the possibilities it bring is truly remarkable. Things would be different if there was no one who invented genetic engineering.

Chris is the writer of this article, you can visit us for more information on Invented Genetic Engineering and Who Invented DNA. Visit to read more detail.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Chris_Cornell
http://EzineArticles.com/?Who-Invented-Genetic-Engineering?&id=5803973

The Argument Over the Use of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells

2013-12-09T11:40:00.000-08:00

Recent published reports on the isolation and successful culturing of the first human pluripotent stem cell lines have generated great excitement and have brought biomedical research to the edge of a new frontier. The development of these human pluripotent stem cell lines deserves close scientific examination, evaluation of the promise for new therapies, and prevention strategies, and open discussion of the ethical issues. Over the next few weeks we will look at cloning, transgenics and the people who have brought us to these new frontiers of medicine. Let us first look at stem cells and the scientific case presently before the British Government looking for a change in the law governing the use of human embryos for research. Any changes in the law will involve allowing scientists taking stem cells at an even earlier stage of development - from an embryo a few days old - and using them directly to restore the function not only of defective bone marrow, but other diseased tissues.

Why do we need stem cells at all?

It is generally accepted that the earlier in human development stem cells are taken, the greater the chance of them being able to develop into a wider set of tissues. A stem cell taken from the umbilical cord blood of a newborn can easily be made to generate specialised blood cells, but not brain or heart tissue. Yet a stem cell taken from an early embryo just a few days old could theoretically develop into any of the 200 to 300 specialised cells and tissues of the human body. The potential for using embryonic stem cells to treat previously incurable conditions is vast. Harold Varmus, the former director of America' s National Institutes of Health, recently told the US Congress: "There is almost no realm of medicine that might not be touched by this innovation."

If it were possible to create an unlimited source of embryonic stem cells, many of the problems associated with the shortage of organs for transplants may be overcome. Britain's Royal Society, our de facto national academy of sciences, has told the Government's inquiry into the issue: "Organs damaged by trauma or disease do not always need replacing, and repair often would be possible if a suitable source of cells was available. Stem cells are a potential source. Patients suffering from certain degenerative diseases of the brain, liver (hepatitis), pancreas (diabetes), blood (leukaemias), joints (rheumatoid arthritis), heart and kidneys are likely to benefit from stem cell therapy. Other diseases which might be alleviated thus include muscular dystrophy and cystic fibrosis."

As the law stands, scientists can only work with stem cells taken from an embryo less than 14 days old if the research is geared towards understanding fertility, reproduction or congenital disorders. Austin Smith, the only scientist in Britain with such a licence, says that the law should be relaxed to allow people like him to use them for treating other medical disorders. "They are a wonderful natural resource as they can develop into almost any kind of human cell, such as brain, bone or heart. They offer a unique opportunity to replace tissues damaged by disease," Dr Smith says.

How does technology harvest stem cells at the moment?

At present, human pluripotent cell lines have been developed from two sources with methods previously developed in work with animal models:

(1) In the work done by Dr. Thomson, pluripotent stem cells were isolated directly from the inner cell mass of human embryos at the blastocyst stage. Dr. Thomson received embryos from IVF (In Vitro Fertilisation) clinics-these embryos were in excess of the clinical need for infertility treatment. The embryos were made for purposes of reproduction, not research. Informed consent was obtained from the donor couples. Dr. Thomson isolated the inner cell mass and cultured these cells producing a pluripotent stem cell line.

(2) In contrast, Dr. Gearhart isolated pluripotent stem cells from fetal tissue obtained from terminated pregnancies. Informed consent was obtained from the donors after they had independently made the decision to terminate their pregnancy. Dr. Gearhart took cells from the region of the fetus that was destined to develop into the testes or the ovaries. Although the cells developed in Dr. Gearhart's lab and Dr. Thomson's lab were derived from different sources, they appear to be very similar

So what's the problem?

Why doesn't the Government change the law to allow scientists to exploit the obvious benefits of embryonic stem cells? The answer of course is that some religious groups perceive even the earliest embryo as a potential human being that cannot be treated as an expendable resource. But there is another ethical issue mixed up with the Government's deliberations. This concerns whether permission should be given to scientists to attempt a form of human cloning for therapeutic, as opposed to reproductive, purposes.

What exactly is cloning?

The word 'clone' comes from the Greek 'klwn', meaning twig, and refers to one or more offspring derived from a single ancestor, whose genetic composition is identical to that of the ancestor. For example, every chrysanthemum plant you buy at a Garden Centre is a clone of some distant and probably long dead chrysanthemum. Whenever one divides an overgrown shrub or successfully cultivates a houseplant cutting you are cloning. In each case you are deliberately propagating a copy of the parent and producing a multitude of plants (clones) all genetically identical to the prized parent.

No sex is involved in the production of clones, and since sex is the normal means by which new genetic material is introduced during procreation, clones have no choice but to have the same genes as their single parent. In the same way, a clone of cells refers simply to the descendants of a single parental cell. Many tumours are clones, as are the offspring of organisms, which reproduce asexually, like corals. Thousands of years before anyone understood the physical nature of heredity, specific genetic constitutions were preserved through cloning because they bestowed on the plant desirable qualities such as disease-resistance, high yield and predictable growth. Cloning is as important to the production of fine wine, the supply of rubber and the fruit harvest as it is to the variety of an English country garden.

Furthermore, natural cloning is not confined to plants: microbes and some insects frequently propagate themselves by producing genetically identical offspring without recourse to sex. The toothless mammal, the armadillo, gives birth not to identical twins but to genetically identical octuplets, every litter a batch of eight clones. There is nothing a priori unnatural about cloning. In theory cloning provides an alluring short cut to amplifying the the number of animals with an apparently desirable genetic constitution

Dr. Patrick Treacy is Medical Director of Ailesbury Clinics Ltd and the Cosmetic Medical Group. He is also Medical Director of OnboardSpa Ltd. He is Chairman of the Irish Association of Cosmetic Doctors and is Irish Regional Representative of the British Association of Cosmetic Doctors. He is European Medical Advisor to Network Lipolysis and the UK's largest cosmetic website Consulting Rooms. He practices cosmetic medicine in his clinics in Dublin, Cork, London and the Middle East. He was amongst the first doctors worldwide to use the permanent facial endoprosthesis BioAlcamid for HIV Lipodystrophy patients. He was also the first person to introduce many techniques such as Radiofrequency assisted lasers, Fibroblast transplant and Contour Threads to Irish patients.

Dr. Treacy is an advanced aesthetic trainer and has trained over 300 doctors and nurses from around the world. He is also a renowned international guest speaker and features regularly on national television and radio programmes. He was invited to speak about stem cells and cosmetic medicine at the World Aesthetic Conference in Moscow this year.

The Irish College of Cosmetic Doctors
The British Association of Cosmetic Doctors
The British Medical Laser Association
The American Society for Aesthetic Medicine
The American Society for Lasers in Medicine and Surgery
The European Society of Laser Dermatology
The European Society for Dermatological Surgery (ESDS)
The International Society for Dermatologic Surgery
The International Academy of Cosmetic Dermatology

Dr. Treacy is the European Representative for the NetWork-Lipolysis where he is on the Medical Advisory Board and the Scientific Advisory Board.
Ailesbury Clinics Ltd Suite 6 Merrion Road Ailesbury Road Dublin 4 Ireland
Phone +35312692255/2133 Fax +35312692250
Ailesbury Clinic Cosmetics Surgery

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Patrick_Treacy
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Argument-Over-the-Use-of-Human-Pluripotent-Stem-Cells&id=2424489

Reproductive Cloning and Potential Threats to Society

2013-12-08T06:29:00.000-08:00

It is argued by many that reproductive cloning (RC) would pull sharply at several threads of our social fabric. reproductive cloning is construed as a threat to family values, RC might enable de facto or full-on eugenics programs, and RC entails many concerns for the safety of mothers and children.

Reproductive cloning would make it possible for any sort of family configuration to have children. And much more than in vitro fertilization procedures, RC eliminates entirely the need for sexual reproduction. Single men who are infertile would be enabled to have children who are their genetic clones. A single woman could serve as her own DNA source for RC, an example of a woman having a child in the absence of spermatic services. All these possibilities, it is said by many, will destroy the traditional family along with its values that are the bedrock of our civilization.

Reproductive cloning raises the specter of eugenics, thoroughly discredited public policy attempts to "improve" the quality of the human race. RC would allow prospective parent(s) to select eggs from women who exemplify highly desired traits and qualities. For example, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but prized physiologic markers frequently include blonde hair, blue or green eyes, and athletic frames. Desired behaviors include above-average intelligence, artistic and/or aesthetic pursuits, and demonstrable achievements. A typical list, recently posted on a surrogacy services website, requests an egg donor who is "talented, intelligent, high achieving, humble, kind, organized, clean, healthy, attractive".

The above list was compiled for a one-off surrogacy procedure. But such requests, when aggregated and multiplied, represent a de facto eugenics program. Reproductive cloning would streamline and simplify the processes used in IVF. For example, in RC no donor eggs are needed. A skin cell from the donor of choice will suffice. Highly attractive donors could sell ten skin cells a day or more, depending on the technology, indefinitely. The Alphas and Betas of Brave New World would soon become a reality. Unplanned (by the state, that is) eugenics would silently slip into the mainstream. Instead of being the world's melting pot, it is said that RC would cause America to become a land populated by homogeneous Barbies and Kens.

The safety of RC is another important policy issue. At present most RC procedures in animals have a very low yield. Even if, for example, a live birth was possible for every ten procedures, a human mother-to-be would need to undergo ten implantations and early pregnancies before a living baby was born. Such repeated hormonal stress has unknown consequences, including maternal mortality due to such entities as eclampsia.

The child-who-is-a-clone would also be subject to a range of unknown health risks. RC attempts to replace physiologic processes that have developed over millions of years. Epigenetic reprogramming of gametes is an example of such a process that occurs over a long period of time. A second round of reprogramming on the sperm is performed by unknown factors in the egg cytoplasm after fertilization. Donor DNA obtained from an adult somatic cell is diploid, not haploid. It has not undergone primary spermatogenesis-related reprogramming, and egg-based reprogramming is significantly different than that occurring during sexual reproduction.

The above factors are representative of a much more detailed list of unknown variables that would have unforeseen consequences for the health of the clone. The long-term health of a clone is very much a roll of the dice at present. These issues will only begin to become apparent during the lives of the first few generations of human clones. What unfolds could possibly represent human experimentation at its worst.

David Lemberg, M.S. in Bioethics, Albany Medical College, May 2010 Consultant, Author, Speaker. Research interests - health care and health care policy, reproductive technologies, genetics and genomics, K-12 science education Executive Producer, SCIENCE AND SOCIETY, http://scienceandsociety.net
Twitter - http://twitter.com/david_lemberg Visit SCIENCE AND SOCIETY for cutting-edge interviews with Nobel Laureates, trendsetting industry executives, and best-selling authors in the fields of cancer research, genetics, health care policy, nanotechnology, and space exploration.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=David_Lemberg
http://EzineArticles.com/?Reproductive-Cloning-and-Potential-Threats-to-Society&id=3632240

Reproductive Cloning - Harms to the Mother and Harms to the Clone

2013-12-07T06:16:00.000-08:00

A human clone can't be created by methods available today. The process of cloning mice is now fairly well-established. African wildcats have been successfully cloned by Dr. Betsy Dresser, Director of the Audubon Center for Research of Endangered Species. Research on primate cloning, done at the Oregon National Primate Research Center, has led to the creation of cloned rhesus monkey embryos. The results were reported in November 2007 in Nature, and described the derivation of embryonic stem cells from the cloned blastocysts. This was a significant breakthrough in the field of reproductive medicine. Yet work on cloning itself has not proceeded any further than the ability to produce cloned early embryos in rhesus monkeys.

The practical challenges to human reproductive cloning are huge. Additionally, of course, there are formidable ethical challenges. On the practical side, all the potential obstacles relate to the fact that cloned embryos are not the same as embryos created by sexual reproduction. These latter "standard" embryos are the products of two haploid sets of chromosomes. Millions of years of evolutionary refinement have developed the processes by which an embryo is formed. Embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) break this process. At present cloned embryos are created by brute force. SCNT in its initial iteration used a jolt of electricity to fuse the injected donor nucleus with the cytoplasm of its enucleated egg host. Researchers are now using more refined methods - involving various chemical cocktails - to cause the two disparate components to fuse and begin the process of development.

The list of developmental processes that are broken by SCNT is long. Embryologic development involves deep and complex events. The circumstances may be relatively well understood, but the biochemical mechanisms are at best poorly described and at worst completely unknown. For example, the processes by which the egg cytoplasm reprograms the sperm DNA's set of epigenetic marks are completely unknown. In cloning the egg cytoplasm must reprogram a diploid set of chromosomes, twice as many as the haploid number contained in the sperm. Also, somatic chromosomes contain epigenetic marks that vary significantly from those of sperm chromosomes. The sperm's configuration has been modified extensively during the process of sperm production, i.e., gametogenesis. The effects on the developing embryo of these several contrasts in epigenetic management are completely unknown at present.

Privately funded researchers, imagining themselves to be free of ethical constraints, might push ahead and force the issue without waiting for new findings to emerge from legitimate science. The consequences for the mother-to-be, gestating a cloned embryo in her womb, could be disastrous, even fatal. If a live birth is obtained, that child's health could be at risk for his entire life.

David Lemberg, M.S. in Bioethics, Albany Medical College, May 2010
Consultant, Author, Speaker. Research interests - health care and health care policy, reproductive technologies, genetics and genomics, K-12 science education
Executive Producer, SCIENCE AND SOCIETY, http://scienceandsociety.net
Twitter - http://twitter.com/david_lemberg
Visit SCIENCE AND SOCIETY for cutting-edge interviews with Nobel Laureates, trendsetting industry executives, and best-selling authors in the fields of cancer research, genetics, health care policy, nanotechnology, and space exploration.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=David_Lemberg
http://EzineArticles.com/?Reproductive-Cloning---Harms-to-the-Mother-and-Harms-to-the-Clone&id=3638240

Benefits of and Materials Needed in Plant Cloning

2013-12-06T15:58:00.000-08:00

One of the most efficient ways to propagate plants is through cloning, which is an asexual method compared to seed cultivation. For the beginner gardener, there are three methods for plant cloning - layering, cutting and grafting.

Basically, you have to produce new plants from the parent plant.

Layering means growing new roots from parent stems before removal. Cutting involves cutting off the leaf, the leaf bud, the stem or the root and then sticking it into the medium. Grafting requires fusing two plants - the stock and the scion - to create one new plant.

Cloning Benefits

Despite the negative connotations that plant cloning has in the eyes of the uninitiated who equate it with animal and human cloning, plant cloning poses many benefits to the gardener in particular and humanity in general. Let's just say that plant cloning allows for survival of the fittest in plants albeit in a non-violent way.

With plant cloning, you can choose the healthiest, strongest and most productive parent plants. In turn, you are more likely to produce only the healthiest, strongest and most productive clones. (Or whatever genetic characteristics you want your plants to possess) And so the cycle continues.

Another benefit with plant cloning is that you can have your almost full-grown plants in as little as a month because you have already allowed the roots to develop.

Now, contrast that with growing from seeds that takes time to grow to become a mere seedling

And then there is also the matter of the seedlings' characteristics being left to chance. You never know if the plants you will have with seed growing will be healthy and strong even if you have done everything possible to ensure that it will be so.

Materials Necessary

Now, if you are ready for plant cloning, you need to gather the necessary materials. These include the following:

The parent plant must exhibit the desired characteristics for the new plants, which can include healthy foliage, bright colors and sufficient productivity. Plus, the parent plant must be at least 2 months old.

Whitney Segura is the founder and owner of Mini Greenhouse Kits, a company that manufacturers and distributes garden greenhouses , hydroponics equipment, and composting accessories .

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Whitney_Segura
http://EzineArticles.com/?Benefits-of-and-Materials-Needed-in-Plant-Cloning&id=3805942

How Can a New Organism Be Created by Cloning?

2013-12-05T00:35:00.000-08:00

Almost everyone around the world has heard of Dolly, the famous cloned sheep. Still, for those who haven 't, Dolly was a sheep "created" in a laboratory, by manipulating cells, in an experiment Scottish scientists conducted in 1997. Unlike sheep conceived through sexual reproduction, from two parents, Dolly had genes identical to those of her mother. So how can a new organism be created by cloning? How does cloning work?

Cloning means creating a genetic duplicate of the organism, creating another organism that has the exact same DNA. Dolly became famous all around the world, and made it to all news, but actually cloning was around long before the first cloned sheep appeared. Just think of the gardeners who like to make copies of a certain plant by rooting a stem cutting. In nature, single-cell organisms reproduce by cloning when the cell splits into two new cells with identical genes. Moreover, identical twins start out as a single fertilized cell, which splits into two, forming two genetically embryos - clones of one another.

However, even though the articles about cloned animals generally refer to them as identical copies, actually they 're not exactly the same. The DNA that controls inherited characteristics is located in the nucleus, but there 's also a second DNA source - the mitochondria. The mitochondria consists of small structures in the cell, involved in energy production, and are always inherited from the mother, because they 're part of egg cells, not sperm cells. So mitochondrial DNA represents only a small part of the DNA in a cell. If you create a clone by nuclear transfer, it will actually not be as closely related to its nuclear parent as identical twins are related to one another.

In creating Dolly, the scientists removed the nucleus from the egg of a sheep, keeping the rest of the cell intact. After removing this nucleus, they took another adult sheep, isolated a single cell and removed its nucleus. By transferring the nucleus to the egg cell, they created a new complete cell, with genetic information identical to that of the adult sheep. This cell divided and formed and embryo, which was implanted into the uterus of a surrogate mother. Therefore, Dolly developed as a clone of her parent, the sheep from which the nucleus was taken.

Ever since this experiment was successful, a lot of controversy stirred around it, because if such procedures worked for cloning a sheep, they should also work for cloning humans. However, the implications are far greater when it comes to human cloning, and several other aspects must be taken into consideration. Just the idea of human cloning has generated numerous scientific, ethical, religious and various other dilemmas and polemics.

Alexandra is the editor of this article, but she also started a new project about how to use a construction project management software [http://www.construction-projectmanagementsoftware.net/]. This is a website which provides more info about how to obtain a project management degree [http://www.construction-projectmanagementsoftware.net/gain-access-to-the-most-thriving-industries-with-a-project-management-degree].

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Alexandra_Cazacu
http://EzineArticles.com/?How-Can-a-New-Organism-Be-Created-by-Cloning?&id=4679559

Can Hitler Be Cloned?

2013-12-04T00:33:00.000-08:00

A long time ago, a book entitled, "Boys from Brazil," was published. It was written by Ira Levin and the story revolved around the quest to clone Adolf Hitler.

It was a good, thrilling story, but the book and the concept of cloning Hitler will always remain in the annals of fiction.

Does this mean that human reproductive cloning is impossible? Definitely not! But if it were possible to clone Hitler, it would be impossible to clone the exact madman that Hitler was.

Hitler's rise to become Germany's Chancellor and his eventual hate and murder of millions of people were not a result of genes, but rather a result of various circumstances, which included the environment in which he grew. Perhaps there was a degree of insanity in him which may have been genetic, but this is hardly enough to clone an exact replica of the leader of the Third Reich.

To do this, you would have to replicate the kind of education Hitler had, the kind of parental upbringing, the classmates and friends (or even enemies) he had, the kind of Germany Hitler grew up in, plus a host of myriad effects that caused Hitler to do what he did. But, then again, these wouldn't even be a guarantee. Who knows? To produce these effects might even raise a new Hitler who would become a pacifist.

Thus, to start ringing alarm bells that human reproductive cloning will produce new Charles Mansons, Josef Stalins, Adolf Hitlers or an army of blood thirsty Mongols is baseless.

While human reproductive cloning may seem to be at the periphery of science fiction, we should not allow science fiction to be the basis for understanding this remarkable biotechnology.

Let's continue to place human cloning under the light of scientific research and science fiction under our reading lamps.

Tingnu Ma is the CEO of The Human Cloning Foundation. While he is not a biotechnologist, he is an advocate of human cloning, particularly on the possibility of healing degenerative diseases through stem cell therapy. Visit http://www.humancloning.org for more info.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Tingnu_Ma
http://EzineArticles.com/?Can-Hitler-Be-Cloned?&id=5481415

The Dangers of Cloning - A Popular Myth?

2013-12-03T00:11:00.000-08:00

The world of biology was relatively quiet and untainted, whereas other natural sciences such as physics and chemistry had suffered from some bad reputations. Nuclear physics is now associated with the tragedies of Chernobyl and Fukushima and chemistry has been associated with pesticides, dangerous drugs and horrible toxins. But the view on biology changed in 1996 when Dolly the Sheep was born, the first official clone of a mammal.

Suddenly the press went haywire, drawing scenarios of the doom of humanity. The scientists from Scotland were suddenly accused that they had been interfering with the essentials of life and created a monster. Was this the beginning of Frankenstein come true? Certainly not. The streets are still safe and there is no army of human clones trying to invade us as so beautifully demonstrated in Star Wars. But what is the truth about the myth of cloning? How does it affect our everyday lives and what are the biologists cooking next in their laboratories?

Dolly is dead now. She died from lung cancer in 2003 after enjoying only half the life span of a normal sheep of that breed. Since Dolly, many mammals have been cloned, including bulls and horses and none of those has hit the news as vigorously - or maybe the name Bull 86 just did not quite cut it. Why do we clone animals?

First of all, it is important to understand what is cloning. Cloning is a natural phenomenon, just as is nuclear energy. Many organisms in nature reproduce asexually, for example bacteria, some plants and some insects. By definition, two clones are organisms with exactly the same genetic make-up. If a bacteria divides for example, two clones are formed. There are approximately 40 million bacteria in one gram of soil, often from the same clone, and thus two grams of soil has potentially got more clones than Britain has people.

Cloning is a technique used routinely in laboratories and has been since the dawn of molecular biology. It is a tool absolutely necessary to study the fundamentals of life and study mechanisms in cells that ultimately help us understand many diseases. So, cloning seems to be a good word. But why do we need to clone mammals or potentially even humans, which is still illegal.

Interestingly, Dolly was not even a real clone. There are two pools of DNA in a mammalian cells, one the nucleus which is passed on from the father and the mother, and one in the mitochondria, the "power plants" of a cell, which is only passed on from the mother. The mitochondria were not replaced and thus Dolly was strictly speaking not a clone - neither is any of the other mammals that have been cloned since.

Many plants that we cultivate and finally eat are clones. With the technology available we can also use cloning to genetically modify plants in order to increase crops, yield and even taste. Again there is the question as to whether this is necessary.

Despite heated debates and many laws about stem cells, genetically modified food and cloning, once Pandora's box is open, it usually doesn't get closed again. Cloning is good and has helped our understanding of the mechanisms of the cell and helped guide the development of many drugs which help millions of people. The question is not as to whether one should use cloning, but rather what is the scientist's conscience using such techniques. We live in a society with strict moral codes laid upon us, some of them maybe debatable. As society evolves, the moral code also changes. To me, a scientist conducting experiments is responsible for his/her actions. Politics is responsible for laws that try to lead the conscience of people. It surely is our responsibility to understand the needs of society as a whole and help guide scientists to make good decisions and use the knowledge they generate wisely.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Sebastian_Muller
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Dangers-of-Cloning---A-Popular-Myth?&id=7613240

Reproductive Cloning - Arguments Against Its Use

2013-12-01T22:48:00.000-08:00

Many arguments decrying reproductive cloning (RC) are based on religious beliefs. For example, the Vatican Instruction on Bioethics, Dignitas Personae, states that "human cloning is intrinsically illicit". Human cloning "seeks to give rise to a new human being without a connection to the act of reciprocal self-giving between the spouses and, more radically, without any link to sexuality".1

Dignitas Personae also makes secular arguments. The document notes that reproductive cloning "would impose on the resulting individual a predetermined genetic identity". Dignitas Personae terms this "biological slavery". Other secular arguments against RC include

· Cloning may produce classes of people who are subservient to their "creators"

· Cloning will devalue and distort traditional family relationships

· The new individual will be used as a means to various ends, rather than being an end in herself

· The new individual will be hindered in developing his own future

The first argument may be thought of in terms of the armies of clones created to serve the Galactic Republic and later the Galactic Empire in the film saga Star Wars. Battle scenes show vast armies of clones marching to war, their seemingly endless numbers extending to the horizon. Aldous Huxley's dystopia of Brave New World also features a clone underclass. In this futuristic society, cloning is made possible by the "Bokansky Process". A human egg is processed to yield anywhere from eight to 96 "buds". In time, each bud will develop into an embryo and ultimately into fully-formed human clones. The Delta and Epsilon clones perform physical work. Alphas and Betas are the scientists, artists, and philosophers.

In our society, those opposed to cloning believe that mass production of clones is a likely end-result of legalization of reproductive cloning. Wealthy citizens could own dozens or hundreds of clones - human beings who are, in effect, slaves. Thus, cloning would lead to gross violations of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.2

It is also said that reproductive cloning will lead to breakdowns in society's traditional family structures. With legalized RC, children could come into the world without the necessity of a father and mother. Any single individual could have a child via RC, provided an egg source was available. Men would need to secure an egg for fertilization. Women could have their own cell nuclei fused with one of their own enucleated eggs. Those who oppose RC fear a potentially profound delinking of family-love-sexual reproduction. Moreover, if families break down the collapse of society as a whole might not be far behind. Thus, the advent of reproductive cloning is perceived as a formidable threat to "our" way of life.

1- Dignitas Personae.

2- Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Visit Science and Society for cutting-edge interviews with Nobel Laureates, trendsetting industry executives, and best-selling authors in the fields of cancer research, genetics, health care policy, nanotechnology, and space exploration.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=David_Lemberg
http://EzineArticles.com/?Reproductive-Cloning---Arguments-Against-Its-Use&id=3584273

Reproductive Cloning - Benefit Or Curse?

2013-12-01T06:48:00.000-08:00

The announcement in February 1997 of the birth of Dolly the sheep (1) startled the scientific world and shocked the public. Dolly was a clone - a complete genetic copy of her parent. Cloning a mammal from an adult cell had always been thought impossible. There had been speculation regarding the possibility of reprogramming an adult cell from its differentiated state to a primitive state of totipotency. But this seemed more the realm of science fiction than science.

There was a great outcry from many public sectors, including religious figures, ethicists, and politicians. Many people believed that cloning humans would be the final outrageous outcome of the very slippery slope created by the advent of Dolly, who in fact was a friendly, mild-mannered sheep. Many religious leaders believed that human cloning would be an abomination and cloning itself should be outlawed. The debate over cloning persists and is very much in the news.

The notion of human cloning immediately brings to mind well-known works of literature and film. In the dystopia of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World clones are created in vats and used to populate all segments of society. In the 2005 film The Island human clones are created to supply spare parts for wealthy individuals. The clones are fully functioning adults with hopes, wishes, and dreams. But they have no rights and are killed when needed by their respective hosts. The masses of soldiers in Star Wars represent the archetype of everything that is bad about clones. These clones are produced in huge quantities, apparently have no wills of their own, and are used for political purposes and warfare. The Star Wars Clone Wars are the fevered nightmare of opponents to human cloning.

But reproductive cloning could provide a profound benefit to families and individuals. In the United States at least 8% of women have had a medical office visit related to infertility. (2) More than 2 million men in the U.S. have been diagnosed with male infertility. More than 100,000 in vitro fertilization procedures are done in the U.S. each year. Many of these procedures are done with donated eggs and/or donated sperm.

Reproductive cloning would allow a couple to have a child genetically related to both parents. For example, the father would provide the cell to be cloned. The mother would provide the egg which would be fertilized with the nucleus of the father's reprogrammed cell. Similarly, reproductive cloning would allow single-sex couples to have a child genetically related to one or both partners, depending on the circumstances.

Clinical reproductive cloning will not be available, if ever, for many years. Much research needs to be done. The ethical, legal, and social questions regarding reproductive cloning are profound. As a society we need to continue to debate the issues and explore possibilities and alternatives. We need to do these things in advance of scientific developments.

(1) Wilmut I, et al: Viable offspring derived from fetal and adult mammalian cells. Nature 385:810-813, 1997

(2) CDC

David Lemberg, M.S. in Bioethics, Albany Medical College, May 2010
Consultant, Author, Speaker. Research interests - health care and health care policy, reproductive technologies, genetics and genomics, K-12 science education
Executive Producer, SCIENCE AND SOCIETY, http://scienceandsociety.net
Twitter - http://twitter.com/david_lemberg
Visit SCIENCE AND SOCIETY for cutting-edge interviews with Nobel Laureates, trendsetting industry executives, and best-selling authors in the fields of cancer research, genetics, health care policy, nanotechnology, and space exploration.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=David_Lemberg
http://EzineArticles.com/?Reproductive-Cloning---Benefit-Or-Curse?&id=3571303

The Argument in Favour of Human Reproductive Cloning

2013-11-30T13:57:00.000-08:00

If God, in his infinite wisdom has given us the means to reproduce, many people would argue that society itself, should have little right to determine the method in which this process is facilitated or indeed enacted. A visiting philosopher reviewing some of the ethical problems relating to these particular methods could not be faulted for saying that many appear to exist in the clarity, accuracy, and indeed consistency of the use of religious and scientific terms, specifically relating to this issue. These terms themselves have tended towards a level of inconsistency mainly because it is now widely morally accepted that most reproduction today is usually performed with the assistance of medicine. There is little doubt with the growing number of new reproductive techniques including IVF, ICSI, AID, AIH, GIFT, and ZIFT that this medical assistance is occurring earlier and is also becoming more invasive than ever before. During most of these procedures, the sperm and egg are combined in the laboratory and surgically implanted in the womb. Consequently, the traditional route of reproduction meaning sexual intercourse between husband and wife resulting in fertilisation through their gametes is less acceptably defined.

It is less than three decades ago, that ethical concerns similar to those surrounding reproductive cloning were raised over the moral and social implications resulting from the procedure of IVF or media "test-tube babies." We must now recognise that to date, nearly one hundred thousand babies have been born using these techniques throughout the world and the moral issues surrounding the concerns have largely all but disappeared. If we recognise that IVF is now almost universally ethically (rather than theologically) acceptable, then human cloning must have a strong argument for similar acceptance in the future, because effectively the only technical difference between the two resultant embryos is that DNA from an adult cell would replace the DNA of sperm and egg by this technique. God in his infinite wisdom has also decreed that clones or genotypes of exact genetic complement already exist in nature. About one in every 1,000 births results in a pair of babies with the same DNA, which are born into the world as identical twins.

There is little doubt we easily accept what they have in common as novel and even a thing of beauty, but we also recognise they are different people in the most fundamental sense, each with their own identities, their own thoughts, and their own rights. Essentially, a person's basic humanity is not governed by the method of reproduction used to bring them into this world, or more especially, whether another family member happens to have exactly the same DNA. If God in his wisdom decreed that human clones are a natural part of his creation, then we should not legislate against them before they are born based on their shared genetic complement with another human being. This is similar to defending our identity by denigrating that of others to the point that, at least symbolically, we refuse to recognise their full human quality.

Many theologians, especially those within the Catholic Church, have expressed concerns about "techniques of artificial procreation" being used to "produce" human beings. Their main concern is potential genetic selection according to racial criteria or other desirable characteristics and that this ethical acceptance could give rise to a resurgence of the deadly myth of eugenic racism. A 1988 Vatican theological document entitled 'Towards a More Fraternal Society' (Pontifical Commission Justice and Peace) reads, "wherever the absolute respect for life and its transmission according to the Creator's intentions disappears, it is to be feared that all moral restraint on a person's power will also disappear, including the power to fashion humanity in the derisive image of these apprentice sorcerers". This argument, although no doubt having considerable moral and ethical value, is tainted within the confines of logic. For a start, consider the medieval syntax used to describe reproductive molecular biologists or obstetricians in terms of 'these apprentice sorcerers.' It is not a large steps from similar syntax used in doctrines when theologians once refused to look down Galileo's telescope because 'the Devil was capable of making anything illusory and deceptive appear there'. Let us also consider the nebulous expression 'derisive image', and ask what exactly does this term mean?

Does 'derisive' mean 'irreverent' as in the Kylie type of image or 'cynical' as in the Ali G type of image or even 'contemptuous' as in the Saddam Hussein type of image. All are potentially genetically derisive in their own way. If people hypothetically suddenly began craving for Kylie's all singing buttock loaded type of genes, we would soon find out that even celebrity infatuation has its own constraining limits. This is because this type of irreverent celebrity image by definition has to be directly linked to rarity in order for it to be appreciated by the populous.

Again, people might presently be amused by the cynicism of Ali G, and even wish is genes to remain in circulation, but they certainly would find his image a lot less endearing when faced with a hundred or even a few thousand of them walking down our streets. Others fear that some evil dictator could raise an army of cloned warriors. However, armies are much easier to raise the old fashioned way, by drafting naive and impoverished young adults from the central heartlands to go and fight your Middle Eastern war. Let us not forget that Homer's myth of 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' has worked well enough to send countless young men to their deaths through the ages, so why interfere with success, especially if one cloned warrior disputed the reason for going to battle, then you potentially could have an immediate mutiny on your hands. Concerning the fears surrounding cloned dictators; I need not remind you that 'contemptible' Saddam Hussein 's natural son, Uday, is reputed to make his father seem close to St Brigid by comparison. On the other side of the world, KIM Chong-il has brought North Korea closer to nuclear war than his dictator father KIM Il-song, ever did. In other words, theoretically we should have no more to fear from a clone of these dictators than we do from their natural-born kin.

Consequently, once the philosophical die is cast, there will be more articles like this one challenging the established moral thinking and I predict that the procedure of reproductive cloning will become socially acceptable within the next ten to twenty years. However, there is a greater legislative issue that the world will need to consider face before introducing an international ban on human reproductive cloning. Towards the end of the eighteenth century that the word "race" was used for the first time to classify human beings biologically. Mainly as a result of the discoveries of Gregor Mendel, the word 'race' presently defines a human group in terms of immutable and hereditary physical traits and 'racial prejudice', can be applied by extension to all persons who act against others because of their ethnic origin or genetic complement. Established Catholic doctrine recently states 'victims of racism, wherever they may be, must be defended and acts of discrimination among persons and peoples for racist or ideological reasons, which lead to the phenomena of exclusion, must be denounced and brought to light without hesitation' In principle, prejudice of reproductive clones may theoretically be considered another form of racism. During the twentieth century western governments mostly agreed that it is wrong to discriminate against people based on a set of genetic characteristics, known as 'race'". To bring this to another level, mandatory calls for a ban on cloning are effectively discrimination against people based on another genetic trait--the fact that somebody already has an identical DNA sequence.

In the present United Nations Convention, genocide is a crime under international law under Resolution 96 (I) 11 December 1946. The definition of genocide means any act committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. This includes in subset (d) 'imposing any measures intended to prevent births within the group'. To bring it to another level, the most extreme form of 'racial discrimination' is 'genocide', where a group of people willingly take a conscious decision to eliminate other humans that are perceived to be different from themselves. During the Second World War, Nazi scientists experimented on Jewish females in order to find out a means to eliminate a group of people who were seen as been genetically inferior to them. In this case, technically the genocide is pre-emptive-we consider reproduced clones to be so abhorrent that we must eliminate them before they exist by banning their creation. Christian doctrine may counter this argument as the same document also states that "All men are endowed with a rational soul and are created in God's image; they have the same nature and origin and, being redeemed by Christ, they enjoy the same divine calling and destiny". This contains a second danger, because if theologians or legislators perceive clones as being less than equal to humans born by natural method, then people might feel they have an inherent right to sacrifice them for the benefit of their creators, perhaps by providing organs for transplant. At that point, unfortunately, the theologians would have created the very scenario that we they were trying to prevent.

This is, in conclusion, the very basis of the philosophical paradox and soon all free thinking men will all have to decide, whether human reproductive clones are really the same 'nature and origin' as the rest of us?

Dr. Patrick Treacy is a cosmetic expert. He is Medical Director of Ailesbury Clinics Ltd and the global Cosmetic Medical Group. He is Chairman of the Irish Association of Cosmetic Doctors and is Irish Regional Representative of the British Association of Cosmetic Doctors. He is European Medical Advisor to Network Lipolysis and the UK's largest cosmetic website Consulting Rooms. He practices cosmetic medicine in his clinics in Dublin, Cork, London and the Middle East.

Dr. Treacy is on the Specialist Register in the UK and Ireland and holds higher qualifications in Dermatology and Laser technology and skin resurfacing. He was amongst the first doctors worldwide to use the permanent facial endoprosthesis BioAlcamid for HIV Lipodystrophy patients. He was also the first person to introduce many techniques such as Radiofrequency assisted lasers, Fibroblast transplant and Contour Threads to Irish patients.

The Irish College of Cosmetic Doctors
The British Association of Cosmetic Doctors
The British Medical Laser Association
The American Society for Aesthetic Medicine
The American Society for Lasers in Medicine and Surgery The European Society of Laser Dermatology
The European Society for Dermatological Surgery (ESDS)
The International Society for Dermatologic Surgery
The International Academy of Cosmetic Dermatology

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Patrick_Treacy
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Argument-in-Favour-of-Human-Reproductive-Cloning&id=2425091