Genetics and our future

Y’all will survive (possibly benefit from) this basic presentation of genetics. With microscopes, >100 years ago, it was clear that chromosomes* were somehow involved. About 60 years ago came the structure of DNA, how it ‘commands’ molecular syntheses, and that chromosomes are really long DNA data files. About 25 years ago came genetic sequencing – reading those data files. About 5 years ago came CRISPR and its allied technologies – rewriting those data files in living organisms.

I do not think that significance of this technological sequence can be overstated. Whether you feel God created every species, or that environmental pressures change species, there is now a third ‘kid on the block’. It is us. Whatever evolution was before, it is now, potentially, in our hands. I only write this because while media are attuned to sparkly ‘flavors of the month’, this is a Real Thing.

Not a moment too soon; some might say. As human population grows, needs for ‘everything’ grow, and DNA editing can contribute to our enterprise. As it should! It may not remind you of Einstein’s view of nuclear technology vs. human wisdom, but perhaps there is a similarity.

Ecology (ta dah!) could lead us here. But for me, ecologists are way behind the curve. Not only because they (we!) diddle within comfortable areas of expertise, but because political and financial leadership comes from political and financial leaders.

Gene editing will surely continue in specific areas; economically driven. Its expansion depends upon (1) things not going well for us, (2) no other ‘fixit’, and (3) assessing benefits/harms better than we have ever done before.

* Chromosomes only mean ‘colored things’ because chemical dyes made them microscopically visible. A weak beginning, but whaddayagonnado?

 

Bayer bought Monsanto, at least partially to modify crop plants. For sale of course. Some degree of governmental regulation already; more coming? Needed?

Or would that be intruding on the Sacred Rights of Free Markets? That's the thing. Policy decisions ought to be informed by scientific insight.

Just a thought, y'know? Don't anybody start throwing things

 

My opinion, there is at most 'diffuse risk' from GMO. Related to how it does differ from natural selection and 'directed' selection (wolf->dog, etc.). In the latter two instances a novel gene occurs, and the individual bearing it survives into parenthood. Or not.

In GMO plant seeds (for example) are put into environment in abundance. Leading to new viable seeds* is not the point. What is missing is negative selection pressure. That is novel.

Hard to anticipate negative outcomes because of incomplete understanding of interactions among species.

*One of the things Bayer cannot do with Monsanto technology is make plants that produce sterile seeds. This would guarantee them a captive market. I think it would be tough to enforce as they might lower germination efficiency 'just enough'. Plausible deniability, and desired marketing outcome.

 

DNA >300 ky old is pretty rotten. Unclear whether future tech can get past that problem.

There are many other more recent extinctions that are more feasible, fascinating targets. Our genus Homo had 7 or so species 'back in the day'. Ice-age megamammals.

 

I agree it is very easy to hate on GMO profiteering. As on epipen and other medical profiteering. But GMO is a costly activity; not a hackerspace. If the companies cannot make themselves nice, and govt/envtl oversight is curtailed (for whatever reason), then we might not do so well.

Seems to me that large, 'conscientious' money has stayed out of GMO, and I don't know why. Gates, Google, and who else?