![The Health Care Industry Apocalypse In "Repo Men"](http://cache-03.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/03/126x100_repomenonthejob.jpg "The Health Care Industry Apocalypse In "Repo Men"")
Enter your username and password.
but is there a catch? What is if we do turn them back on will i grow a 3rd arm? I would not complain i think that would be badass but still.
Reply
@ZetaCrossfire: I could use a third arm.... putting shelves for example would be so much easier...
Reply
@ZetaCrossfire: Personally, I'd want that third arm to be a tail. A nice strong prehensile tail.....
Reply
@ZetaCrossfire: No, it merely makes your immune system start producing retrocyclin to fight off HIV.
Reply
@Kakkoister: The problem is you've done so by using a molecule known to mess with translation of RNA to proteins. If you end up starting up other genes or changing their regulation, you might start producing retrocyclin, but also contract cancer or auto-immune problems, or start overproducing various proteins, or all sorts of other unintended consequences. Most of which would not be as fun as extra limbs.
Reply
@ZetaCrossfire: What if we grow an extra torso? Or gills? Honestly, I'm in favor of all kinds of mutation as long as it's consensual. But I don't think you can mess with somebody's developmental genes and get their permission at the same time. Since, um, they'll be developing in a womb at the moment you introduce those mutations.
Reply
@kagekiri: Actually, my bad. Apparently this additive is normally a topical antibacterial cream, not just some random mutation-affecting molecule. How the heck does an anti-bacterial cream get FDA approval when it's known to mess with RNA transcription? I have no idea.
Reply
I see your concern @Kakkoister, but there are a couple of things that I think work in favor of this approach:
1) The gene is already in our genome. This thing was very likely once expressed in our ancestral past. This is huge. It's not like we're trying to add fish genes or bacterial genes that have no homolog in humans or even primates. This is a gene that sometime in the past got a mutation that was not seen by natural selection as being detrimental (no HIV-like disease around at the time?). Why it got a mutation and is now just a pseudogene will I'm sure be a common topic of conversation in retrocyclin circles. Could it be that the small group of humans that was alive during the "bottleneck" that occurred ~75,000 years ago have had the mutation, just making it our bad luck? Of course, we could since have evolved other attributes that conflict with the workings of retrocyclin, but because we have an already working model (see point 2), we can learn a lot about it before we start inducing 3rd arm growth and toenail tumors.
Here's a what-if for you; What if we were still hunter-gatherers and HIV came along? I could imagine a scenario where the human population gets decimated, but then someone comes along who has the mutation that corrects the original mutation that knocked out retrocyclin. Boom- instant HIV immunity. We're just helping it happen before the selection pressure gets too great...
2) We can see the homologous gene at work in non-human primates, which gives us a huge advantage in seeing how these genes work. Again, really huge. We can see them at work in a system we KNOW works now. Reply
1) The gene is already in our genome. This thing was very likely once expressed in our ancestral past. This is huge. It's not like we're trying to add fish genes or bacterial genes that have no homolog in humans or even primates. This is a gene that sometime in the past got a mutation that was not seen by natural selection as being detrimental (no HIV-like disease around at the time?). Why it got a mutation and is now just a pseudogene will I'm sure be a common topic of conversation in retrocyclin circles. Could it be that the small group of humans that was alive during the "bottleneck" that occurred ~75,000 years ago have had the mutation, just making it our bad luck? Of course, we could since have evolved other attributes that conflict with the workings of retrocyclin, but because we have an already working model (see point 2), we can learn a lot about it before we start inducing 3rd arm growth and toenail tumors.
Here's a what-if for you; What if we were still hunter-gatherers and HIV came along? I could imagine a scenario where the human population gets decimated, but then someone comes along who has the mutation that corrects the original mutation that knocked out retrocyclin. Boom- instant HIV immunity. We're just helping it happen before the selection pressure gets too great...
2) We can see the homologous gene at work in non-human primates, which gives us a huge advantage in seeing how these genes work. Again, really huge. We can see them at work in a system we KNOW works now. Reply
@ZetaCrossfire:
Doesn't work that way. Any instances of extra limbs can usually be traced to some sort of chemically-induced mutation (like that whole "children of thalidamide" thing). Turning on unused DNA just shows up in other weird ways. For instance, people of African descent are known to be at high risk for sickle-cell anemia, but what is less commonly known is that the gene that increases that risk has a somewhat beneficial effect. It also makes the individual more resistant to malaria. Reply
Doesn't work that way. Any instances of extra limbs can usually be traced to some sort of chemically-induced mutation (like that whole "children of thalidamide" thing). Turning on unused DNA just shows up in other weird ways. For instance, people of African descent are known to be at high risk for sickle-cell anemia, but what is less commonly known is that the gene that increases that risk has a somewhat beneficial effect. It also makes the individual more resistant to malaria. Reply
@ZetaCrossfire:
A third arm would make putting together anything from Ikea instantly more possible...they'd have to rework their entire catalogue to regain that "frustrating and insulting" feeling back.
Reply
@KhaiJB:
Studies have shown that symmetry is key in human perceptions of beauty/attractiveness so better make sure it's a third AND FOURTH arm, otherwise you'll just look silly.
Reply
@Annalee Newitz:
If you modify your own genome though, the changes will be passed on to any subsequent offspring.
I am also all for modification of our genomes, but some of the potential moral issues are troubling. Suppose two people turn themselves into furries, and then procreate? Can we legally hunt them for sport?
Reply