@ samseau.
I am going to segment the post. separate the scientific from the historical. I will reply to the scientific first, then reply to the historical examples second.
Thanks for the rep.
Indeed, successful animal testing is not necessarily successful human testing: we can create a cancer drug that will work in rats, but will not work in humans. However, The PEPCK-C and NR2B gene experiment are different in away. What do i mean? It was a gene upregulation experiment. A gene that is already present and performing the same function in humans changed to do it better. All that the experiments did is make it *increase* its original performance. Like nitrous to make a car go faster.
It is one thing to introduce a completely different gene(Nissan car engine into a toyota car); it is another to just boost an already present gene(nitrous a toyota car engine). Boosting an already present gene is much more likely to work than introducing a foreign gene and hoping it sticks.
The PEPCK-C and NR2B gene experiment is a like nitrous a car engine to work faster.
Take the case of Liam Hoekstra. He has two mutated muscle gene, he was born with six packs and he is insanely strong.
![[Image: super-strength-babies.jpg]](http://cdn.singularityhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/super-strength-babies.jpg)
Scientist has already mutated in mice to create super strong mice, the exact same gene mutation that Liam Hoeskstra has. They havent done a human experiment, luckily, Nature provides one in the person of Liam Hoeskstra. Which provides a positive proof that if a gene performs the same strongly homologous function in mice( or monkey) as it does in humans; it is a fair chance that if you mutate the human gene you can get a similar results to the one you get in a mutated monkey or mice.
Another case is that of Eero Mäntyranta of Finland. He won 7 medals in the olympic. One of the most successful skiing champion in the world. He has a mutation in his red blood cells gene, causing his red blood cell to carry 50% more oxygen than normal human being.
The case of Liam Hoekstra and Eero Mantyranta are both mutants of upregulation. The NR2B and PEPCk-C experiments are mutants of upregulation too. Upregulation of gene activity in genetic experiments are more likely to work than not.
Nonetheless, genes can be fiendishly complicated mess, as i explained here. Some genes are easier to understand, some are totally not.
Yes and no. It all depends on what you are genetically engineering. If you give me 50 or so fertilized human eggs, after a couple of misses, i will produce for you another Eero Mäntyranta mutant. How? I can simply subclone Eero Mantyranta mutated gene and use a vector to insert it into the embryos. Bunch of them will fail, of course; but a couple will be successful. These kinds of mutation are easier because you are simply upregulating an already present gene. Mutations that are more difficult are the ones involving introducing a jellyfish gene into a monkey or a human.
Taking a gene that naturally occurs in humans and simply increasing its production rate is much easier, and have a higher likelihood of being successful.
France and UK already performed successful somatic genetic engineering to cure little children with SCID. Here is the French results; and here is the UK results.
So, yeah, they've done partially successful studies on humans.. obviously, there will be longitudinal study on these children.
Nonetheless, i doubt that wide-scale genetic engineering in the western world will become available in our lifetime. The western world is strongly against genetic engineering is more or less.
It is one thing to based extrapolation on current scientific fact e.g. google glass will eventually become google contact lenses. That is sensible. It is another thing entirely to base extrapolation on absolutely nothing. e.g. flying cars, lightsabers. My post is based on current, verified science; not star wars science.
Absolutely, you need the right political environment. In france you can do somative genetic engineering, in america you cannot. Different political climate. But my point is this: if you have complete chaos as conservative dystopians are predicting, what is preventing a bunch of millionaires and billionaires from moving and guarding a bunch of islands. Then performing genetic engineering there? nothing. They can create there own political climate to pursue their own science.
I am not well versed on this kind of racial topics, so i cannot properly address it. I will say this though, from my own anecdotal experience, my graduate science classes are filled to the brim with asian students. They dominated completely. I have performed scientific research with asian students, and they are creative and innovative. Besides, if you do a search in scientific journals, you will see a lot of asian names doing ground breaking, creative scientific research.
Next, i will reply to your historical examples:
I am going to segment the post. separate the scientific from the historical. I will reply to the scientific first, then reply to the historical examples second.
Quote: (07-27-2014 05:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:
Overall -
Some great points made up above. Rep added. However, just because we can get things to work on animals doesn't mean we're close to getting it to work on humans.
Thanks for the rep.
Indeed, successful animal testing is not necessarily successful human testing: we can create a cancer drug that will work in rats, but will not work in humans. However, The PEPCK-C and NR2B gene experiment are different in away. What do i mean? It was a gene upregulation experiment. A gene that is already present and performing the same function in humans changed to do it better. All that the experiments did is make it *increase* its original performance. Like nitrous to make a car go faster.
It is one thing to introduce a completely different gene(Nissan car engine into a toyota car); it is another to just boost an already present gene(nitrous a toyota car engine). Boosting an already present gene is much more likely to work than introducing a foreign gene and hoping it sticks.
The PEPCK-C and NR2B gene experiment is a like nitrous a car engine to work faster.
Take the case of Liam Hoekstra. He has two mutated muscle gene, he was born with six packs and he is insanely strong.
Scientist has already mutated in mice to create super strong mice, the exact same gene mutation that Liam Hoeskstra has. They havent done a human experiment, luckily, Nature provides one in the person of Liam Hoeskstra. Which provides a positive proof that if a gene performs the same strongly homologous function in mice( or monkey) as it does in humans; it is a fair chance that if you mutate the human gene you can get a similar results to the one you get in a mutated monkey or mice.
Another case is that of Eero Mäntyranta of Finland. He won 7 medals in the olympic. One of the most successful skiing champion in the world. He has a mutation in his red blood cells gene, causing his red blood cell to carry 50% more oxygen than normal human being.
The case of Liam Hoekstra and Eero Mantyranta are both mutants of upregulation. The NR2B and PEPCk-C experiments are mutants of upregulation too. Upregulation of gene activity in genetic experiments are more likely to work than not.
Nonetheless, genes can be fiendishly complicated mess, as i explained here. Some genes are easier to understand, some are totally not.
Quote: (07-27-2014 05:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:
Genetically engineered humans is still probably a century away.
Yes and no. It all depends on what you are genetically engineering. If you give me 50 or so fertilized human eggs, after a couple of misses, i will produce for you another Eero Mäntyranta mutant. How? I can simply subclone Eero Mantyranta mutated gene and use a vector to insert it into the embryos. Bunch of them will fail, of course; but a couple will be successful. These kinds of mutation are easier because you are simply upregulating an already present gene. Mutations that are more difficult are the ones involving introducing a jellyfish gene into a monkey or a human.
Taking a gene that naturally occurs in humans and simply increasing its production rate is much easier, and have a higher likelihood of being successful.
Quote: (07-27-2014 05:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:
2. The idea that this technology will become available to the masses in our lifetimes seems like fantasy to me. You better start saving up millions if you want your kids to be born in a test-tube.
France and UK already performed successful somatic genetic engineering to cure little children with SCID. Here is the French results; and here is the UK results.
So, yeah, they've done partially successful studies on humans.. obviously, there will be longitudinal study on these children.
Nonetheless, i doubt that wide-scale genetic engineering in the western world will become available in our lifetime. The western world is strongly against genetic engineering is more or less.
Quote: (07-27-2014 05:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:
4. People back in the 1950's were predicting that there would be flying cars in the future, there was 2001: A Space Odyssey, etc. Sir Francis Bacon used to predict amazing things were coming from science.Ultimately, if scientific progress is not stopped then it does produce amazing things, but people always over-estimate how fast progress is. Science is not some kind of exponential increase like Ray Kurzweil and other hucksters try to tell us. There is no reason to believe scientific progress will be quick or efficient. It may not be centuries until this stuff comes to fruition.
And if the political situation deteriorates, then most of this scientific progress stuff is going away unless carried on by other civilizations.
It is one thing to based extrapolation on current scientific fact e.g. google glass will eventually become google contact lenses. That is sensible. It is another thing entirely to base extrapolation on absolutely nothing. e.g. flying cars, lightsabers. My post is based on current, verified science; not star wars science.
Absolutely, you need the right political environment. In france you can do somative genetic engineering, in america you cannot. Different political climate. But my point is this: if you have complete chaos as conservative dystopians are predicting, what is preventing a bunch of millionaires and billionaires from moving and guarding a bunch of islands. Then performing genetic engineering there? nothing. They can create there own political climate to pursue their own science.
Quote: (07-27-2014 05:08 PM)Samseau Wrote:
5. The idea that the Chinese or some other Asian society will carry on Western research (read: White-men research) is also dubious. Currently over 90% of technology comes from Western civilizations. Asians seem to lack the creative gene. So there's no guarantee that other civilizations will take things forward.
I am not well versed on this kind of racial topics, so i cannot properly address it. I will say this though, from my own anecdotal experience, my graduate science classes are filled to the brim with asian students. They dominated completely. I have performed scientific research with asian students, and they are creative and innovative. Besides, if you do a search in scientific journals, you will see a lot of asian names doing ground breaking, creative scientific research.
Next, i will reply to your historical examples:
.
A year from now you will wish you had started today.....May fortune favours the bold.