Organs that can be transplanted are the heart, kidneys, liver, lungs, pancreas, penis, and intestine. Tissues include bones, tendons, cornea, heart valves, veins, arms, and skin. Worldwide, the kidneys are the most commonly transplanted organs.

Transplantation medicine is one of the most challenging and complex areas of modern medicine. Some of the key areas for medical management are the problems of organ rejection – where the body has an immune response to an organ which causes failure of the transplant and of ensuring that the organ can be kept in a functioning state while it is transplanted from one body to another. This is a very time sensitive process.

In most countries there is a shortage of suitable organs for transplantation. Countries often have formal systems in place to manage the allocation and reduce the risk of rejection. Some countries are associated within international organisations like Eurotransplant in order to increase the supply of appropriate donor organs and the organ recipients.

Transplantation also raises a number of bioethical issues, including the definition of death, when and how consent should be given for an organ to be transplanted and payment for organs for transplantation.

Timeline of successful transplants

• 1905: First successful cornea transplant by Eduard Zirm^[9]
• 1954: First successful kidney transplant by Joseph Murray (Boston, U.S.A.)
• 1966: First successful pancreas transplant by Richard Lillehei and William Kelly (Minnesota, U.S.A.)
• 1967: First successful liver transplant by Thomas Starzl (Denver, U.S.A.)
• 1967: First successful heart transplant by Christiaan Barnard (Cape Town, South Africa)
• 1981: First successful heart/lung transplant by Bruce Reitz (Stanford, U.S.A.)
• 1983: First successful lung lobe transplant by Joel Cooper (Toronto, Canada)
• 1986: First successful double-lung transplant (Ann Harrison) by Joel Cooper (Toronto, Canada)
• 1987: First successful whole lung transplant by Joel Cooper (St. Louis, U.S.A.)
• 1995: First successful laparoscopic live-donor nephrectomy by Lloyd Ratner and Louis Kavoussi (Baltimore, U.S.A.)
• 1998: First successful live-donor partial pancreas transplant by David Sutherland (Minnesota, U.S.A.)
• 1998: First successful hand transplant (France)
• 2005: First successful partial face transplant (France)
• 2006: First jaw transplant to combine donor jaw with bone marrow from the patient, by Eric M. Genden (Mount Sinai Hospital, New York)^[10]
• 2008: First successful complete full double arm transplant by Edgar Biemer, Christoph Höhnke and Manfred Stangl (Technical University of Munich, Germany)^{[citation needed]}
• 2008: First baby born from transplanted ovary.^[11]
• 2008: First transplant of a human windpipe using a patient’s own stem cells.^[12]

Ref : Wikipedia

The field of bioethics addresses a broad swath of human inquiry, ranging from debates over the boundaries of life (eg. abortion, euthanasia) to the allocation of scarce health care resources (eg. organ donation, health care rationing) to the right to turn down medical care for religious or cultural reasons. Bioethicists often disagree among themselves over the precise limits of their discipline, debating whether the field should concern itself with the ethical evaluation of all questions involving biology and medicine, or only a subset of these questions. Some bioethicists would narrow ethical evaluation only to the morality of medical treatments or technological innovations, and the timing of medical treatment of humans. Others would broaden the scope of ethical evaluation to include the morality of all actions that might help or harm organisms capable of feeling fear and pain, and include within bioethics all such actions if they bear a relation to medicine and biology. However, most bioethicists share a commitment to discussing these complex issues in an honest, civil and intelligent way, using tools from the many different disciplines that “feed” the field to produce meaningful frameworks for analysis.

[edit]Principles

One of the first areas addressed by modern bioethicists was that of human experimentation. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research was initially established in 1974 to identify the basic ethical principles that should underlie the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research involving human subjects. However, the fundamental principles announced in the Belmont Report (1979)–namely, autonomy, beneficence and justice–have influenced the thinking of bioethicists across a wide range of issues. Others have added non-maleficence, human dignity and the sanctity of life to this list of cardinal values.

[edit]Perspectives and methodology

Bioethicists come from a wide variety of backgrounds and have training in a diverse array of disciplines. The field contains individuals trained in philosophy such as Peter Singer of Princeton University and Daniel Brock of Harvard University, medically-trained clinician ethicists such as Mark Siegler of the University of Chicago and Joseph Fins of Cornell University, lawyers such as Jacob Appel and Wesley J. Smith, political economists like Francis Fukuyama, and theologians including James Childress. The field, once dominated by formally trained philosophers, has become increasingly interdisciplinary, with some critics even claiming that the methods of analytic philosophy have had a negative effect on the field’s development. Leading journals in the field include the Hastings Center Report, the Journal of Medical Ethics and the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.

Many religious communities have their own histories of inquiry into bioethical issues and have developed rules and guidelines on how to deal with these issues from within the viewpoint of their respective faiths. The Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths have each developed a considerable body of literature on these matters. In the case of many non-Western cultures, a strict separation of religion from philosophy does not exist. In many Asian cultures, for example, there is a lively (and often less dogmatic, but more pragmatic) discussion on bioethical issues. Buddhist bioethics, in general, is characterised by a naturalistic outlook that leads to a rationalistic, pragmatic approach. Buddhist bioethicists include Damien Keown. In India, Vandana Shiva is the leading bioethicist speaking from the Hindu tradition. In Africa, and partly also in Latin America, the debate on bioethics frequently focusses on its practical relevance in the context of underdevelopment and geopolitical power relations.

Ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics

Using good manners will help you make a good impression with your boss and also your co-workers. Office etiquette includes everything from the proper way to use email to knowing when, where, and how to use your cell phone while at work.

2. Face Up to Your Mistakes

When you make a mistake at work, which everyone inevitably does at some point, face up to it. Don’t ignore your error or place the blame on others. Take responsibility and come up with a solution to fix your mistake. Your boss may not be too happy about it, but she will at least be impressed with your response.

3 Know When to Call in Sick to Work

Do you think coming to work when you are sick instead of staying at home will impress your boss? Reasonable bosses know that a sick employee not only isn’t productive, he or she can spread an illness around the office rendering everyone else unproductive. Call in sick when you need to.

4. Come Through in a Crisis

When the unexpected happens at work, who will make a better impression on the boss — the employer who wrings his hands and does nothing or the one who springs into action? Of course it’s the employee who deals with the crisis quickly and effectively.

5. Know What Topics to Avoid Discussing

Avoiding inappropriate topics may not help you make a good impression at work but it will keep you from making a bad one. Subjects that do not make for good workplace conversation include politics, religion, and health problems and other personal issues.

6. Manage Your Time Effectively

Your ability to complete projects in a timely manner will help you make a good impression on your boss. You should demonstrate that you know how to manage your time effectively by handing in projects when, or even before, your deadline.

7. Dress Appropriately

Make a good impression at work by wearing the right clothes. You should dress the right way for the “role you are playing.” If you aspire to be a leader at work, dress like one.

8. Avoid Offending Your Co-Workers

Make a good impression or avoid making a bad one by not doing things that offend your co-workers. Always show respect towards your co-workers. The last thing a boss wants brought to his attention are the uncivil actions of one of his employees.

9. Represent Your Company Well at Business Meetings

When you represent your employer at a business meeting making a good impression on other attendees will in turn help you make a good impression on your boss. Dress appropriately, network on your employer’s behalf, and bring back information.

Ref : http://careerplanning.about.com/od/workplacesurvival/tp/good_impression.htm

Theoretically, cells of any type can be cultured upon procurement in a viable state from any organ or tissue. However, not all types of cells are capable of survival in such an artificial environment because of many reasons on which the artificial environment may fail to mimic the biochemical parameters of the source environment. Some good examples include the absence of growth regulators, cell to cell signal molecules, etc. Under optimal conditions of maintenance, the cell culture established can be sub-cultured (passaging) until a pure-culture of specific cell type is obtained. This can repeatedly sub-cultured to maintain as a cell-line. As a matter of fact, cell lines from cancerous tissues have also been established. The presence of excess growth regulators or other factors may often render the cells to undergo rapid uncontrolled proliferation resulting in a cancerous state. Good examples of established cell lines areHeLa, BHK, Vero, CHO etc.^{[citation needed]}

[edit]Media

The artificial environment is generally known as media. A media comprises an appropriate source of energy for the cells which they can easily utilize and compounds which regulate the cell cycle. A typical media may or may not contain serum. The latter is called a serum-free media. Some of the common sources of serum can be fetal bovine serum, equine serum, and calf serum. Both types of media have their own sets of advantages and disadvantages.

[edit]Applications

Consider drug testing in the process of discovery of a new drug. The test drug must pass through many phases after which it gets approved and marketed. Among the preliminary phases, one such involves the testing of the test drug on animals for toxicity or efficacy and efficiency. Now this can also be harmful and/or fatal to the animal on which it is being tested. This can be minimized if the drug is tested on a cell line it is targeted against as a cure, thereby assessing the toxicity on an initial scale thus reducing the probability of death on the test animal.

Production of therapeutically significant biological compounds like hormones and proteins on an industrial scale has been made simpler, faster and more efficient by the use of cell lines in the place of the living animal themselves.

Vaccines effective against many viral infections and diseases require the cultivation and mass production of the virus followed by its attenuation. The drawback in this is that virus requires a living medium to replicate and multiply. Rather than the traditional concept- “Sacrifice one life to save many”, ACC can be employed to mass produce the virus. Passively, ACC can be employed to reduce the virulence of particular virus strains by cultivating them on cells other than target cells which the virus infects followed by repeated passaging.

Studies on regenerative medicine can be understood on deeper concepts if ACC is fully exploited as cells behave in a spectrum of patterns under various environments which can be simulated in an ACC laboratory and followed in vitro.

Active research on stem cell culture, proliferation leading to organogenesis is at a slow phase due to the non-availability of research materials. This can however be overcome if ACC is fully utilized. The fruits of such a study can be more than overwhelming towards the betterment of human life.

ACC also finds application in the preservation of highly valuable cord blood cells which are nothing but stem cells specific to an individual.

ACC is a potential tool in Assisted Conception which requires the maintenance of sperm and the egg from the donors viable under laboratory conditions after which they are allowed to fertilize (in vitro) followed by re-implantation.

Ref : Wikipedia

Genetic technology harbors the potential to change the human species forever. The soon to be completed Human Genome Project will empower genetic scientists with a human biological instruction book. The genes in all our cells contain the code for proteins that provide the structure and function to all our tissues and organs. Knowing this complete code will open new horizons for treating and perhaps curing diseases that have remained mysteries for millennia. But along with the commendable and compassionate use of genetic technology comes the specter of both shadowy purposes and malevolent aims.

For some, the potential for misuse is reason enough for closing the door completely–the benefits just aren’t worth the risks. In this article, I’d like to explore the application of genetic technology to human beings and apply biblical wisdom to the eventual ethical quagmires that are not very far away. In this section we’ll investigate the various ways humans can be engineered.

Since we have introduced foreign genes into the embryos of mice, cows, sheep, and pigs for years, there’s no technological reason to suggest that it can’t be done in humans too. Currently, there are two ways of pursuing gene transfer. One is simply to attempt to alleviate the symptoms of a genetic disease. This entails gene therapy, attempting to transfer the normal gene into only those tissues most affected by the disease. For instance, bronchial infections are the major cause of early death for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). The lungs of CF patients produce thick mucus that provides a great growth medium for bacteria and viruses. If the normal gene can be inserted in to the cells of the lungs, perhaps both the quality and quantity of their life can be enhanced. But this is not a complete cure and they will still pass the CF gene on to their children.

In order to cure a genetic illness, the defective gene must be replaced throughout the body. If the genetic defect is detected in an early embryo, it’s possible to add the gene at this stage, allowing the normal gene to be present in all tissues including reproductive tissues. This technique has been used to add foreign genes to mice, sheep, pigs, and cows.

However, at present, no laboratory is known to be attempting this well-developed technology in humans. Princeton molecular biologist Lee Silver offers two reasons.{1} First, even in animals, it only works 50% of the time. Second, even when successful, about 5% of the time, the new gene gets placed in the middle of an existing gene, creating a new mutation. Currently these odds are not acceptable to scientists and especially potential clients hoping for genetic engineering of their offspring. But these are only problems of technique. It’s reasonable to assume that these difficulties can be overcome with further research.

Should genetic engineering be used for curing genetic diseases?

The primary use for human genetic engineering concerns the curing of genetic disease. But even this should be approached cautiously. Certainly within a Christian worldview, relieving suffering wherever possible is to walk in Jesus’ footsteps. But what diseases? How far should our ability to interfere in life be allowed to go? So far gene therapy is primarily tested for debilitating and ultimately fatal diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

The first gene therapy trial in humans corrected a life-threatening immune disorder in a two-year-old girl who, now ten years later, is doing well. The gene therapy required dozens of applications but has saved the family from a $60,000 per year bill for necessary drug treatment without the gene therapy.{2}Recently, sixteen heart disease patients, who were literally waiting for death, received a solution containing copies of a gene that triggers blood vessel growth by injection straight into the heart. By growing new blood vessels around clogged arteries, all sixteen showed improvement and six were completely relieved of pain.

In each of these cases, gene therapy was performed as a last resort for a fatal condition. This seems to easily fall within the medical boundaries of seeking to cure while at the same time causing no harm. The problem will arise when gene therapy will be sought to alleviate a condition that is less than life-threatening and perhaps considered by some to simply be one of life’s inconveniences, such as a gene that may offer resistance to AIDS or may enhance memory. Such genes are known now and many are suggesting that these goals will and should be available for gene therapy.

The most troublesome aspect of gene therapy has been determining the best method of delivering the gene to the right cells and enticing them to incorporate the gene into the cell’s chromosomes. Most researchers have used crippled forms of viruses that naturally incorporate their genes into cells. The entire field of gene therapy was dealt a severe setback in September 1999 upon the death of Jesse Gelsinger who had undergone gene therapy for an inherited enzyme deficiency at the University of Pennsylvania.{3} Jesse apparently suffered a severe immune reaction and died four days after being injected with the engineered virus.

The same virus vector had been used safely in thousands of other trials, but in this case, after releasing stacks of clinical data and answering questions for two days, the researchers didn’t fully understand what had gone wrong.{4} Other institutions were also found to have failed to file immediate reports as required of serious adverse events in their trials, prompting a congressional review.{5}All this should indicate that the answers to the technical problems of gene therapy have not been answered and progress will be slowed as guidelines and reporting procedures are studied and reevaluated.

Will correcting my genetic problem, prevent it in my descendants?

The simple answer is no, at least for the foreseeable future. Gene therapy currently targets existing tissue in a existing child or adult. This may alleviate or eliminate symptoms in that individual, but will not affect future children. To accomplish a correction for future generations, gene therapy would need to target the germ cells, the sperm and egg. This poses numerous technical problems at the present time. There is also a very real concern about making genetic decisions for future generations without their consent.

Some would seek to get around these difficulties by performing gene therapy in early embryos before tissue differentiation has taken place. This would allow the new gene to be incorporated into all tissues, including reproductive organs. However, this process does nothing to alleviate the condition of those already suffering from genetic disease. Also, as mentioned earlier this week, this procedure would put embryos at unacceptable risk due to the inherent rate of failure and potential damage to the embryo.

Another way to affect germ line gene therapy would involve a combination of gene therapy and cloning.{6} An embryo, fertilized in vitro, from the sperm and egg of a couple at risk for sickle-cell anemia, for example, could be tested for the sickle-cell gene. If the embryo tests positive, cells could be removed from this early embryo and grown in culture. Then the normal hemoglobin gene would be added to these cultured cells.

If the technique for human cloning could be perfected, then one of these cells could be cloned to create a new individual. If the cloning were successful, the resulting baby would be an identical twin of the original embryo, only with the sickle-cell gene replaced with the normal hemoglobin gene. This would result in a normal healthy baby. Unfortunately, the initial embryo was sacrificed to allow the engineering of its identical twin, an ethically unacceptable trade-off.

So what we have seen, is that even human gene therapy is not a long-term solution, but a temporary and individual one. But even in condoning the use of gene therapy for therapeutic ends, we need to be careful that those for whom gene therapy is unavailable either for ethical or monetary reasons, don’t get pushed aside. It would be easy to shun those with uncorrected defects as less than desirable or even less than human. There is, indeed, much to think about.

Should genetic engineering be used to produce super-humans?

The possibility of someone or some government utilizing the new tools of genetic engineering to create a superior race of humans must at least be considered. We need to emphasize, however, that we simply do not know what genetic factors determine popularly desired traits such as athletic ability, intelligence, appearance and personality. For sure, each of these has a significant component that may be available for genetic manipulation, but it’s safe to say that our knowledge of each of these traits is in its infancy.

Even as knowledge of these areas grows, other genetic qualities may prevent their engineering. So far, few genes have only a single application in the body. Most genes are found to have multiple effects, sometimes in different tissues. Therefore, to engineer a gene for enhancement of a particular trait–say memory–may inadvertently cause increased susceptibility to drug addiction.

But what if in the next 50 to 100 years, many of these unknowns can be anticipated and engineering for advantageous traits becomes possible. What can we expect? Our concern is that without a redirection of the world view of the culture, there will be a growing propensity to want to take over the evolution of the human species. The many people see it, we are simply upright, large-brained apes. There is no such thing as an independent mind. Our mind becomes simply a physical construct of the brain. While the brain is certainly complicated and our level of understanding of its intricate machinery grows daily, some hope that in the future we may comprehend enough to change who and what we are as a species in order to meet the future demands of survival.

Edward O. Wilson, a Harvard entomologist, believes that we will soon be faced with difficult genetic dilemmas. Because of expected advances in gene therapy, we will not only be able to eliminate or at least alleviate genetic disease, we may be able to enhance certain human abilities such as mathematics or verbal ability. He says, “Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we wish to become.”{7} As early as 1978, Wilson reflected on our eventual need to “decide how human we wish to remain.”{8}

Surprisingly, Wilson predicts that future generations will opt only for repair of disabling disease and stop short of genetic enhancements. His only rationale however, is a question. “Why should a species give up the defining core of its existence, built by millions of years of biological trial and error?”{9} Wilson is naively optimistic. There are loud voices already claiming that man can intentionally engineer our “evolutionary” future better than chance mutations and natural selection. The time to change the course of this slow train to destruction is now, not later.

Should I be able to determine the sex of my child?

Many of the questions surrounding the ethical use of genetic engineering practices are difficult to answer with a simple yes or no. This is one of them. The answer revolves around the method used to determine the sex selection and the timing of the selection itself.

For instance, if the sex of a fetus is determined and deemed undesirable, it can only be rectified by termination of the embryo or fetus, either in the lab or in the womb by abortion. There is every reason to prohibit this process. First, an innocent life has been sacrificed. The principle of the sanctity of human life demands that a new innocent life not be killed for any reason apart from saving the life of the mother. Second, even in this country where abortion is legal, one would hope that restrictions would be put in place to prevent the taking of a life simply because it’s the wrong sex.

However, procedures do exist that can separate sperm that carry the Y chromosome from those that carry the X chromosome. Eggs fertilized by sperm carrying the Y will be male, and eggs fertilized by sperm carrying the X will be female. If the sperm sample used to fertilize an egg has been selected for the Y chromosome, you simply increase the odds of having a boy (~90%) over a girl. So long as the couple is willing to accept either a boy or girl and will not discard the embryo or abort the baby if it’s the wrong sex, it’s difficult to say that such a procedure should be prohibited.

One reason to utilize this procedure is to reduce the risk of a sex-linked genetic disease. Color-blindness, hemophilia, and fragile X syndrome can be due to mutations on the X chromosome. Therefore, males (with only one X chromosome) are much more likely to suffer from these traits when either the mother is a carrier or the father is affected. (In females, the second X chromosome will usually carry the normal gene, masking the mutated gene on the other X chromosome.) Selecting for a girl by sperm selection greatly reduces the possibility of having a child with either of these genetic diseases. Again, it’s difficult to argue against the desire to reduce suffering when a life has not been forfeited.

But we must ask, is sex determination by sperm selection wise? A couple that already has a boy and simply wants a girl to balance their family, seems innocent enough. But why is this important? What fuels this desire? It’s dangerous to take more and more control over our lives and leave the sovereignty of God far behind. This isn’t a situation of life and death or even reducing suffering.

But while it may be difficult to find anything seriously wrong with sex selection, it’s also difficult to find anything good about it. Even when the purpose may be to avoid a sex-linked disease, we run the risk of communicating to others affected by these diseases that because they could have been avoided, their life is somehow less valuable. So while it may not be prudent to prohibit such practices, it certainly should not be approached casually either.

Ref : http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/humgeneng.html

Developments in genetic engineering are a method for changing agricultural productions and by improving yields on crops while simultaneously supporting a decrease in the utilization of poisonous pesticides.  Nanotechnology offers the promise of innovative plant species and improvements in animals that have the ability to augment reproduction with cloning processes and the potential for curing fatal and/or disabling diseases.  The promise for life span increases and life quality improvements are also supported by emerging nanotechnologies.

Intelligent machines and high tech robotics are in the future as robotic engineers begin to focus on nanotechnology too.  Engineers believe that they can create machines with intelligence that can outperform human beings and that such robotics will emerge during our life spans.  Engineers further envision a period when sophisticate machine systems will be able to perform a variety of complex tasks without the aid of human beings.

The tremendous advancements that can be supplied through nanotechnology are not hard to envision as engineers unified their knowledge with the rapidly evolving nanotech discoveries; the future of the world will either emerge as a more perfected world or one filled with chaos.  Whatever the future holds, changes are definitely imminent and on the horizon.  It is therefore imperative that human beings keep a solid focus on the ramifications of such advances including those that are ethically, and morally prominent.

Pessimists are fast to discuss the many dangers associated with nano-technological advances that go unchecked while failing to identify with the tremendous benefits associated with the field and the advancements that are occurring.  On the opposite side of the fence are optimists that fail to identify the real dangers of the rapid evolution of nanotechnology as they point out all of the advantageous options that such a science offers.

It must be understood that the major advances that will be the byproduct of nano-technological advances must be balanced with the full understanding of responsibility for creating such powerful devices and changes.  The line between beneficial nanotechnology advancements and those that can prove detrimental are indeed thin.  Carefully planning, safety measures, and risk assessments must go hand-in-hand with the rapid evolution of nanotechnology if humanity is to derive only benefits from the technology.

Ref : http://www.nanovip.com/the-news/477-genetic-engineering-robotics-and-nanotechnology

Like most technology industries, though, GMO advancements are varied, and it’s possible that some new processes are [more] natural and less harmful.

Some new methods don’t use antibiotics or mix DNA across species anymore. Similar to genetic engineering in mammal reproduction, some involve cloning and some involve manipulation of an organism’s existing DNA.

Also similar to engineered mammal reproduction, however, the ethical and health factors are still controversial and untested in the long-term.

Plants genetically possess strong defenses

The premise behind the newest types of genetic-engineering is that plants already possess the gene makeup to be robust, nutritious and pest-resistant.

Some believe that man’s imprecise cross-breeding on farms over the centuries has inadvertently weakened plant species to be less nutritious and/or vulnerable to pathogens and pests. Others believe plants have simply degraded from environmental effects.

Since the advent of gene cataloging, scientists can now determine which exact genes are responsible for positive traits in plants. They believe it’s simply a matter of manipulating those genes to develop or come out of dormancy.

Cross-breeding same species

Referred to as “transgenetics”, scientists identify which genes are responsible for positive traits (like nutrition level or pest-resistance) in a certain species.

They then take thousands of the most healthy, naturally pest-resistant varieties that possess a certain gene and cross-breed them in a laboratory.

Offspring plants that possess the particular, marked gene are planted in a field and tested. (Genes are marked with dye, not antibiotics.) Those that die or weaken in the field are rejected; those that survive and remain strong are distributed.

Sometimes the resulting offspring have ended up stronger than even the original wild and naturally strong “parent” plants.

Manipulating species’ existing DNA

A newer method, referred to as “transgenomics”, does not involve DNA marking or insertions.

Scientists believe certain traits are created not only by a particular gene, but by the way groups of genes interact with each other.

So, a species that possesses a desired trait is studied to identify which interaction of genes causes that positive outcome. That gene interaction is then “taught” to another crop species. The second species is stimulated to start mimicking that interaction, and the desired trait results.

Problems in the past

Historically, every advancement and development process in the GMO field has been snatched up and patented by private conglomerates, which are notorious for not using the technology in an ethical or conscientious way. They typically use it to monopolize the market and build dependencies on their products.

Hope for the future?

Both methods described above are for the most part un-patentable. This means that, IF they are shown to be safe for the environment and our health, they could become a viable solution to increase yields quickly, lower the use of conventional fertilizers and pesticides, and be distributed internationally at affordable prices.

In fact, the scientist involved with “transgenomics” is pushing for agricultural bio-engineering “Open Source”, the development model that has helped improve the computer software industry. The public could then share information to adopt the best methods, and the power (and benefits) would be spread to the majority.

What about organics?

IF these new types of “natural” GMOs are shown to produce healthy crops and be beneficial to the environment and our health, they could – in theory – be used in conjunction with organic farming methods to produce what Wired Magazinecalls “Super Organics”.

Ref : http://www.omorganics.org/page.php?pageid=96

• Natural Selection, nature’s own genetic engineering.
• Selective Breeding, our success in altering the course of natural selection.
• Genetic Manipulation, the current state of the art in genetic engineering.
• True Genetic Engineering, the next step.
• Playing God! If you’re offended by genetic engineering, read what’s theoretically possible. Beyond the best genetic engineering we can currently devise is much, much more: the re-engineering of life itself.
• Other Bio-technology, Human Cloning and Genetic Engineering Links.

Natural Selection

Natural Selection is nature’s own form of genetic engineering. The most fit organisms survive through natural selection. The rate of evolution of new species through natural selection is incredibly slow, but methods have been discovered by which nature has optimized the process.

The entire genome (all the genes) of higher animals and plants are broken up into functional components known as exons and separated by regions called introns. Special genes known as transposable elements serve to mix and match functional components of genes in an effort to maximize the likelyhood of creating better genes and organisms. There is some evidence that bacteria, one of the simplest organisms, had introns and exons in some past era, but lost them in favor of efficiency and other means of acquiring new DNA.

Selective Breeding

Selective Breeding or “Unnatural Selection”, is man’s most basic effort at genetic engineering by creating our own selective pressures. Many conventional farm animals, domesticated dogs and cats were likely created ages ago by selectively breeding animals together with desired traits. Gregor Mendel helped to establish the rules of genetics through his work selectively breeding plants in the 1800′s. Selective Breeding has worked well for engineering animals and plants, but it can take whole human lifetimes to bring about small changes in a species.

Through unnatural selection certain attributes and characteristics can be enhanced by selectively killing all organisms that do not have the desired traits. This has been suggested by some as a viable option for genetically engineering humans. Parents could produce a large number of fertilized eggs through in vitro fertilization. Each could be grown for a while in vitro and then be tested for desired traits. Only an egg with all the traits desired by the parents would then be implanted in the mother. There are obvious drawbacks, not the least of which is the large number of fertilized eggs that are not selected. This option is not a viable alternative for many couples for religious reasons.

Another drawback is that selecting for a very large number of traits is close to impossible. Each gene desired at least doubles the number of fertilized eggs required. Certain traits are the result of many genes acting in concert, which could inflate egg requirements very quickly. Last of all, fertilized eggs must have one copy of each gene from each parent. Even with an infinite number of eggs a bad gene cannot be totally eliminated if one parent has two copies of that gene.

Genetic Manipulations

Genetic Manipulations are becoming common as a means of genetic engineering. There are many methods of introducing new genetic material into a cell or organism, or altering the existing material. Radiation and mutagenic compounds are able to reek havoc on DNA. Special viruses have been altered and put to use which can introduce new genetic material to an organism. Transposable elements, natures own gene shuffling tools, have been put to use moving genes around in cells and organisms. Gene Targeting is a way of replacing a specific gene with another within a cell.

These kinds of genetic manipulations are great for research with animals. Gene targeting seems to be the most precise way of altering known genes. Gene therapies often try to replace or repair defective genes in tissues where the genes are in use. Gene therapy does not usually alter the “germ line”, that is the reproductive cells, so even if gene therapy corrects a problem, the problem can still be inherited by children.

Gene Therapy on the reproductive cells, or better yet, on a fertilized egg could be used to introduce whatever genes are desired into an organism, even a human, when they are still a single cell. With cloning technology, not even a fertilized egg is needed, just a cell that will grow in cell culture. This is where genetic engineering stands right now. It is technically possible to repair and/or replace any known gene, but it is not very efficient and requires a large number of cells, of which only a few will be properly repaired. The other limitation is the number of known genes.

The functions of all the genes are not known, only those of a very small percentage of the total genes in organisms such as humans. Research in animals is uncovering the functions of the precursors of human genes, and that research helps in determining the precise function of human genes, but research is proceeding slowly. There may come a time when we have the option of children who are Albert Einstien, Micheal Jordon and Bill Gates (or their female equivalents) roled into one, but not yet.

What’s preventing genetic manipulation of all the known genes in human eggs? Cloning has not been demonstrated to work with human cells for one thing, but Doctor Richard Seed may be working on that right now. There may be public opposition to human cloning that is slowing research. The cost of genetic manipulations is relatively high and takes quite a while. Supply and demand may be the key. Demand for children guaranteed not to have any of the known genetic diseases is outweighed by the costs, but they will eventually meet somewhere in the middle as the number of correctable diseases rises and the costs fall.

I can envision special gene constructions just for the purpose of cleanly replacing disease genes with the functional versions. Libraries of functional and optimal versions of genes -within DNA constructs necessary to introduce them into cells- will likely be created soon by genetic engineering companies, if they have not been started already. I have my own ideas about what those constructions must include. Current gene therapies are very sloppy when it comes to altering genes, but I have some ideas on making it cleaner and perhaps more precise. I intend to share those ideas with the world from right here on this page some time soon.

True Genetic Engineering

What I would call true genetic engineering is the creation of whole new genes and proteins, or even new organisms. We understand the genetic code and can create random or specific proteins quite readily, but creating new proteins precisely for a given purpose -for example, to strongly catalyze a particular chemical reaction- is still beyond us. Research into the structure and folding of proteins may yield some answers. Mixing and matching of the components of known proteins and organisms may yet be mastered, but that is a large step beyond even the manipulation of known genes, but there is still much more beyond that.

Playing God!

Is substituting one gene for another or introducing functional genes, as in gene therapy, playing God? Is creating new genes, proteins and organisms playing God? Perhaps, but it is all possible within a certain set of rules that have been handed down to the human race by 4 billion years of evolution, or perhaps by the creator himself. The genetic code was probably decided quite early in evolution, being defined almost entirely before the first eukaryotic cells (cells with a nucleus) over 1 billion years ago.

It may be possible to one day change the genetic code, so that every sequence of three nucleic acids codes for a different amino acid. This would be possible through a relatively simple change in the sequence of DNA coding transfer RNA. Changing the sequence of all the other DNA so that it would recognize the new genetic code and produce functional proteins would be the hard part, but why stop there!

While we’re at it we could replace the 20 amino acids that are included in the genetic code with all new amino acids. The current coding system of three nucleic acids per amino acid would allow for as many as 64 different amino acids. Think of the diversity of protein function possible with so much more variety! DNA itself could have more variety, how about 6 nucleic acids instead of 4. A three nucleic acid sequence could then code for 216 amino acids, or use just two nucleic acids to code for 36 different amino acids. Proteins could be right handed instead of left, DNA and RNA could spiral in the other direction, etc.

In fact life may be possible using entirely different chemicals than life here on earth, no DNA, RNA or protein as we recognize them. I actually think that’s quite unlikely. The components of life are in and of themselves quite simple molecules, most of which would probably be used again if life evolved somewhere else, or was created artificially. Some of the elements of the process are most likely entirely random, such as the handedness of protein, and the direction in which the DNA helix rotates. The genetic code itself is probably random, and there are rare occurences of non-standard genetic codes still found on earth, such as in the DNA of some cellular organelles and certain bacteria.

Ref : http://www.biofact.com/cloning/

One of the recent advanced tools for plant genetic engineering, developed in our laboratory, is the modular satellite (pSAT) vector system. Originally, this molecular tool has been developed to provide N- and C-terminal fusions of the genes under investigation to five different autofluorescent tags, EGFP, EYFP, Citrine-YFP, ECFP, and DsRed2. However, this plasmid system also allows cloning of untagged ORFs, or genes marked with different tags, for simultaneous expression in the plant cell. For further versatility and expanded spectrum of applications the pSAT vectors carry an extensive multiple cloning site that allows effortless cloning and exchange of the subcloned genes. The expressed genes are controlled by constitutive promoters, which can also be easily replaced with virtually any other promoter of interest. Up to six individual DNA cassettes from different pSAT vectors – carrying a promoter, gene of interest and a terminator – can be easily cloned into a single binary pPZP vector. The resulting compound multi-gene pPZP construct can be introduced in a single-step to the plant cell for transient and/or stable expression, following biolistic or Agrobacterium-mediated delivery, allowing introduction of multiple transgenes in a single transformation event. Furthermore, if several binary pPZP vectors with different selection markers are used, up to 12 or 18 transgenes might be introduced in two to three consecutive transformation steps.

Until just a few years ago simultaneous expression of more then 2-3 foreign genes in transgenic plants has been a technologically challenging task. After introduction of the pSAT vector system, the technological challenge of introduction of multiple transgenes into plant’s genome has been resolved. pSAT system might be particularly useful for plant metabolic engineering, as it permits reconstitution of whole metabolic pathways that involve multiple genes, hence being a pioneering solutions to some of the contemporary agricultural problems. Furthermore, we believe that this innovative gene transfer system will prove useful to most members of the research community, significantly facilitating experimentation in plant cellular and molecular biology.

Downstream processing and analytical bioseparation both refer to the separation or purification of biological products, but at different scales of operation and for different purposes. Downstream processing implies manufacture of a purified product fit for a specific use, generally in marketable quantities, while analytical bioseparation refers to purification for the sole purpose of measuring a component or components of a mixture, and may deal with sample sizes as small as a single cell.

[edit]Stages in Downstream Processing

A widely recognized heuristic for categorizing downstream processing operations divides them into four groups which are applied in order to bring a product from its natural state as a component of a tissue, cell or fermentation broth through progressive improvements in purity and concentration.

Removal of insolubles is the first step and involves the capture of the product as a solute in a particulate-free liquid, for example the separation of cells, cell debris or other particulate matter from fermentation broth containing an antibiotic. Typical operations to achieve this are filtration, centrifugation, sedimentation, flocculation, electro-precipitation, and gravity settling. Additional operations such as grinding, homogenization, or leaching, required to recover products from solid sources such as plant and animal tissues, are usually included in this group.

Product Isolation is the removal of those components whose properties vary markedly from that of the desired product. For most products, water is the chief impurity and isolation steps are designed to remove most of it, reducing the volume of material to be handled and concentrating the product. Solvent extraction, adsorption, ultrafiltration, and precipitation are some of the unit operations involved.

Product Purification is done to separate those contaminants that resemble the product very closely in physical and chemical properties. Consequently steps in this stage are expensive to carry out and require sensitive and sophisticated equipment. This stage contributes a significant fraction of the entire downstream processing expenditure. Examples of operations include affinity, size exclusion, reversed phase chromatography, crystallization and fractional precipitation.

Product Polishing describes the final processing steps which end with packaging of the product in a form that is stable, easily transportable and convenient. Crystallization, desiccation,lyophilization and spray drying are typical unit operations. Depending on the product and its intended use, polishing may also include operations to sterilize the product and remove or deactivate trace contaminants which might compromise product safety. Such operations might include the removal of viruses or depyrogenation.

A few product recovery methods may be considered to combine two or more stages. For example, expanded bed adsorption accomplishes removal of insolubles and product isolation in a single step. Affinity chromatography often isolates and purifies in a single step.

Ref : Wikipedia