Some minor misunderstandings I can attempt to clarify on.. It's in my area of interest. Beware of the long post, but anyway I summarized it as the complete information anyone would want in this area of science. It's good to see another fellow board member who is into this area of science, in my time here I have found that there are actually
VERY few members that are/will speak their mind on it.
GENETIC ENGINEERING HANDOUT:
The human DNA has already had various drafts decoded by many scientists. I think I heard the first of all drafts came out in 2000-2001, and since then many other researchers have came out with their own results and findings to share. They were all using various subjects. One of them I recall used a Japanese puffer fish to substitute for about 1/3rd of the human DNA, because they had that much in similarities.
Genetic engineering has been available for some time now, but mostly it's been kept the lid on due to public protests and disproval of the methods incorporated.
There's the problem presented of birth defects that causes deafness - Everyone is supposed to be born hearing but through that small chance of genetic mutation and other deficiencies we get deafness, for those born d/Deaf, so.. how can we alternate this, as in "eradicate deafness"?
Two main alternatives that comes to my mind:
A. Simply choose the "donor" or carrier that would have a high probability of not procuring deafness in the offspring. IE, you get an egg donor or sperm donor from someone who has no history of hereditary deafness, and there is a high chance the offspring will not receive it. This is already available now. In gay marriages, you will see sometimes that between both partners they may choose a sibling in either of their families to be used as the donor for the other to impregnate. There's no sexual activity done at all.
B. Gene splicing of the DNA sequences that are responsible for the brain nerves or physical structure of the ear; as in taking that sperm/egg cell and alternating it to "engineer" the perfect human is not available at this time. However that is what scientists are doing with laboratory experiments, they are trying to research this area.
DEAFNESS: POST-EMBRYOTIC:
Recall that deafness is caused by two major categories.. If you're deaf or hard of hearing, I'm sure you've heard of either before.
Sensorineural (damage of the brain nerves), and
Conductive (some kind of damage/obstruction in the ear canal).
Conductive has been and usually will be treatable, it is known to many people as temporary deafness. Unless there is some kind of injury to the ear, then that will be permanent. Many hearing have suffered from a conductive problem in the ear one way or another, took some pills prescribed by the physician or had a checkup, and it is fixed. It comes and goes.
Restoration in the neurophysiology of the brain that causes sensorineural deafness at this time is kind of known to be implausible for the general public, and that's what stem cell research is all about as we know about it through this term. It is still in research.
CLIFF NOTES FOR THE LAZY:
There's two ways to define curing a person of a "genetic defect".
Somatic gene therapy - this is what stem cell research is all about. Somatic therapy refers to having to deal with a single individual through "repair" methods. It doesn't have to be just deafness, somatic therapy can cover other areas such as blindness, and many other general human anomalies.
Germline gene therapy - this is what was being spoken earlier as modifying eggs and sperm. If either of these are modified, then the subject falls under the category of germline therapy. This is also AKA "Gamete Gene Therapy" as well, the two are the same thing.
So knowing all this now, what's left to do with all this?
The to-be-coming worldwide debate:
Somatic therapy for illness has been generally accepted as OK, but for the other, Germline therapy is highly controversial.. according to a few of my professors, they believe that this will be the main debate issue over Earth for the years of anywhere around 2015 to 2040, it's already begun but right now its in the infancy stage. This is why the technology isn't advancing as quickly (publicly), we are having "ethical" problems with it. When the term becomes more generalized and mainstreamed, then that's when the debate will start. The children born of the 70's, 80's, 90's will most likely be the majority that determines the rest of the nation.
Further researching and experimentation:
There's never enough scientists, plus the experiments that they need to test on. Usually the modern age testing is done on laboratory animals like I've said previously, not just limited to mice, but they may base their experimenting other animals such as fish, rabbits, primates, and so on. This is why biomedical research has hit a giant bump in the road when people rally against animal testing, saying that it is unethical to animals. Without them, there is no plausible way we can advance on humans without some base to start on, unless everyone is ok with people having side effects as a result of testing.
How do we test hearing loss on a plant?
Whoever gets this question right gets a lucky prize.
