Name: Anonymous 2010-09-19 0:31
Why is mutagenesis not looked into as a way of treating disease? I think we all know that we're reaching the limit of what strictly surgical treatment can cure, and our technology does not advance quickly enough to rely upon artificial solutions to lasting disease, but bacteria and protozoa reproduce quickly, have relatively simple DNA, can be easily manipulated
(namely bacteria, see synthetic insulin and other products of recombinant DNA bacteria), and are easy to raise.
Why, then, does science seem to have a taboo against toying with our genes to make, literally, superhumans.
For example, it is known that a base pair mutation of the gene CCR5, called Δ32, results in either resistance or delayed onset of HIV/AIDS.
Why then do governments that acknowledge and are actively searching for ways to curb the rampant spreading of HIV not look into this? If one simple base-pair mutation allows for whole-body resistance to HIV, then why is it not looked into?
It wouldn't necessarily be that difficult to test. Just take criminals who are sentenced to death, and tell them that if they consent to this experimentation that they will have better accommodations during and after the experimentation. Who cares about their lives, they're sentenced to death anyway?
The moral and ethics of human experimentation aside, it wouldn't be hard to look into it. Cause mutagenesis of CCR5 to produce the Δ32 mutation, and then run them through a gauntlet of chemical, physical, mental, and radiological tests. This, if done, could take no longer than 5-7 years to see results of the mutation.
So, can we have a mutagenesis through chemical/radioactive thread?
(namely bacteria, see synthetic insulin and other products of recombinant DNA bacteria), and are easy to raise.
Why, then, does science seem to have a taboo against toying with our genes to make, literally, superhumans.
For example, it is known that a base pair mutation of the gene CCR5, called Δ32, results in either resistance or delayed onset of HIV/AIDS.
Why then do governments that acknowledge and are actively searching for ways to curb the rampant spreading of HIV not look into this? If one simple base-pair mutation allows for whole-body resistance to HIV, then why is it not looked into?
It wouldn't necessarily be that difficult to test. Just take criminals who are sentenced to death, and tell them that if they consent to this experimentation that they will have better accommodations during and after the experimentation. Who cares about their lives, they're sentenced to death anyway?
The moral and ethics of human experimentation aside, it wouldn't be hard to look into it. Cause mutagenesis of CCR5 to produce the Δ32 mutation, and then run them through a gauntlet of chemical, physical, mental, and radiological tests. This, if done, could take no longer than 5-7 years to see results of the mutation.
So, can we have a mutagenesis through chemical/radioactive thread?