Playing With Needles
Fun Fact:
Did you know that according to Live Science , FOXP2 is the gene responsible for human speech. Summarily, it is the differences within this gene across chimpanzees and humans that according to researcher Daniel Geschwind allows for the different abilities to communicate, and as I hinted to in the previous post, requires development of cranial muscle movements; something the gene has the full capacity to talk. Interestingly enough, the article concludes with the hyoid bone, a sliver of bone shaped like a U developed within our throats that gives us the ability to talk.
Is this fun fact a big detail? Yes. Did I include it because I forgot to mention in the previous article? Absolutely.
Now on to other matters...
How Can It Start
Try to picture the first time you had pizza. Surely the hot steamy vapors of gooey cheese, succulent juicy sausage (or pepperoni) with that fluffy buttery crust. If not, then consider the last time you had pizza. How would you rate the quality? Hold the thought for a moment while I continue on.
How would it first happen? What would be the system to approach this?
Hypothetical Birth vs. Late Life Modification
In reality, there could be two possible ways to give a selected animal advanced consciousness. And there are benefits and risks to both.
Oftentimes in genetic engineering, it is likely that the direct editing of genetic material occurs in the zygote stage before any cell division has occurred. This totally makes sense, considering that it's easiest to manipulate one copy of DNA rather than the millions and billions already present in a infantile animal. It very well could be easiest.
Another reason to begin genetic mutation at this level includes the common issue with more older GMO's. Oftentimes the immune system won't recognize any new tissue that receives changes in DNA. For those that don't know, the white blood cells patrolling our bodies use certain signatures to recognize foreign invaders. These signatures are of course present on the membranes of every single cell within our body. If there is a signature it doesn't recognize, i.e. a bacterium, virus, or even a wood splinter, they execute an inflammatory response. And of course, changing the DNA of a local tissue can very easily change to surface proteins that signal a typical white blood cell to attack. And if that's the tissue we modified, then a problem occurs, which is why often organisms with modified DNA in late stages in life are consistently on immune suppressants to avoid autoimmune attacks. And the sad reality is that this wouldn't be a suitable lifestyle for anyone, especially for those whom we desired to improve the quality of life.
Does that make zygotes the clear option? Not exactly. Consider why we work with full-grown animals. In a research article written by Wenfang Tan, Chris Proudfoot, Simmon G. Lillico, and C. Bruce A. Whitelaw, the beginning of transgenic organisms did begin by injecting DNA into a fertilized egg. The problem here was that this resulted in unpredictable gene expression. In other words: What the heck was coming out? The report does note in later periods of experimentation, that mammalian gene editing requires multiple steps including harvesting livestock cells and inducing them to regress back into embryonic stem cells. Which was still a difficult hurdle. And it closely brings the solution of gene editing back to the first option: Editing the DNA before birth.
Should the experiment begin in early zygote stage, this brings up the issue of ethics in experimentation. A certain demographic of audience would hold that being human starts from the zygote. I will try my best to not weigh in here, but if you don't consider zygotes as human, consider the thought anyway. If an injection of DNA was pushed into the zygote and the zygote had the potential to grow into a fully conscious creature, and to add on top of that, the creature was lost in experiment, do we mourn the loss of this individual as an animal, an egg that never made it, or as a loss of a human being equivalent? Regardless of whether you would feel loss besides a potential resource lost, consider those who are more passionate about preserving life.
Personally, I'd prefer the early embryonic stage. Imagine if the animal spent its infant and adolescent life in a research facility, which brings me to the second consideration.
Let's question about memories as a complication with late life genetic modification. Because it's obvious we can remember times, items, locations. What about animals? Turns out this phenomenon is called episodic memory, where we can replay a past experience like an... well... an episode.
Scientific American blog features an article where two scientists, Nicola Clayton and Anthony Dickinson test with western scrub jays, a bird that buries its food for storage. I won't go through the whole experiment, but through manipulations of time from when a bird buried its worms and nuts, it was established they did have episodic memory. The birds 'remembered' that past a certain time, the worms they buried decayed, that the nuts they buried were safe, and that they remembered where they buried the food despite the scientists' efforts to dig up the food. I probably didn't do the study justice with my uber brief summary, but I encourage you to check it out. Is it natural to assume that if a bird has this form of episodic memory, that higher animals, namely mammals have it too? Yes. Accurate? Sadly no. Dogs exhibit forms of short terms memory loss where obviously the joke goes they are always happy to see you, regardless of whether you were gone a minute, a day, or a year. It's because they do display short term memory loss. This doesn't mean they can't remember who you are. But that actual memories are not within they're abilities.
I can bet that it's best to avoid the trauma that comes with being raised in a cage manifesting itself in some animal given the gift of thought late in life. The way I picture it, some animals are fine with being in a cage for short periods of time. At the least, with humane treatment and allotment of exercise is necessary. But from what I know, no human would value their life in a cage. At least, none with the self-respect each one of us was mostly taught. Would these same life lessons about integrity and autonomy make its way to a sentient wolf cub or lion cub, that desired to be free and run around. To give the animal sentience from birth gives the mental incentive in scientists to respect it as a sentient figure of its own. Free to roam, free to interact, and free to learn and develop proper moral codes. Bottom line, it would be gut-wrenching for me to hear the words, "Why am I in a cage?"
Conclusion
So all in all, give an animal the ability to grow and develop from birth to full consciousness like a human would. It would grow and develop with its own personality, distinct vocal accents, (which would be so cool to hear, honestly) and honestly, the scientists would have to readily adapt a parental role in its development.
My area of knowledge with immunity is sketchy so if I got anything wrong there, (could be anywhere I got anything wrong) feel free to comment.
Did you know that according to Live Science , FOXP2 is the gene responsible for human speech. Summarily, it is the differences within this gene across chimpanzees and humans that according to researcher Daniel Geschwind allows for the different abilities to communicate, and as I hinted to in the previous post, requires development of cranial muscle movements; something the gene has the full capacity to talk. Interestingly enough, the article concludes with the hyoid bone, a sliver of bone shaped like a U developed within our throats that gives us the ability to talk.
Is this fun fact a big detail? Yes. Did I include it because I forgot to mention in the previous article? Absolutely.
Now on to other matters...
How Can It Start
Try to picture the first time you had pizza. Surely the hot steamy vapors of gooey cheese, succulent juicy sausage (or pepperoni) with that fluffy buttery crust. If not, then consider the last time you had pizza. How would you rate the quality? Hold the thought for a moment while I continue on.
How would it first happen? What would be the system to approach this?
Hypothetical Birth vs. Late Life Modification
In reality, there could be two possible ways to give a selected animal advanced consciousness. And there are benefits and risks to both.
Oftentimes in genetic engineering, it is likely that the direct editing of genetic material occurs in the zygote stage before any cell division has occurred. This totally makes sense, considering that it's easiest to manipulate one copy of DNA rather than the millions and billions already present in a infantile animal. It very well could be easiest.
Another reason to begin genetic mutation at this level includes the common issue with more older GMO's. Oftentimes the immune system won't recognize any new tissue that receives changes in DNA. For those that don't know, the white blood cells patrolling our bodies use certain signatures to recognize foreign invaders. These signatures are of course present on the membranes of every single cell within our body. If there is a signature it doesn't recognize, i.e. a bacterium, virus, or even a wood splinter, they execute an inflammatory response. And of course, changing the DNA of a local tissue can very easily change to surface proteins that signal a typical white blood cell to attack. And if that's the tissue we modified, then a problem occurs, which is why often organisms with modified DNA in late stages in life are consistently on immune suppressants to avoid autoimmune attacks. And the sad reality is that this wouldn't be a suitable lifestyle for anyone, especially for those whom we desired to improve the quality of life.
Does that make zygotes the clear option? Not exactly. Consider why we work with full-grown animals. In a research article written by Wenfang Tan, Chris Proudfoot, Simmon G. Lillico, and C. Bruce A. Whitelaw, the beginning of transgenic organisms did begin by injecting DNA into a fertilized egg. The problem here was that this resulted in unpredictable gene expression. In other words: What the heck was coming out? The report does note in later periods of experimentation, that mammalian gene editing requires multiple steps including harvesting livestock cells and inducing them to regress back into embryonic stem cells. Which was still a difficult hurdle. And it closely brings the solution of gene editing back to the first option: Editing the DNA before birth.
Should the experiment begin in early zygote stage, this brings up the issue of ethics in experimentation. A certain demographic of audience would hold that being human starts from the zygote. I will try my best to not weigh in here, but if you don't consider zygotes as human, consider the thought anyway. If an injection of DNA was pushed into the zygote and the zygote had the potential to grow into a fully conscious creature, and to add on top of that, the creature was lost in experiment, do we mourn the loss of this individual as an animal, an egg that never made it, or as a loss of a human being equivalent? Regardless of whether you would feel loss besides a potential resource lost, consider those who are more passionate about preserving life.
Personally, I'd prefer the early embryonic stage. Imagine if the animal spent its infant and adolescent life in a research facility, which brings me to the second consideration.
Let's question about memories as a complication with late life genetic modification. Because it's obvious we can remember times, items, locations. What about animals? Turns out this phenomenon is called episodic memory, where we can replay a past experience like an... well... an episode.
Scientific American blog features an article where two scientists, Nicola Clayton and Anthony Dickinson test with western scrub jays, a bird that buries its food for storage. I won't go through the whole experiment, but through manipulations of time from when a bird buried its worms and nuts, it was established they did have episodic memory. The birds 'remembered' that past a certain time, the worms they buried decayed, that the nuts they buried were safe, and that they remembered where they buried the food despite the scientists' efforts to dig up the food. I probably didn't do the study justice with my uber brief summary, but I encourage you to check it out. Is it natural to assume that if a bird has this form of episodic memory, that higher animals, namely mammals have it too? Yes. Accurate? Sadly no. Dogs exhibit forms of short terms memory loss where obviously the joke goes they are always happy to see you, regardless of whether you were gone a minute, a day, or a year. It's because they do display short term memory loss. This doesn't mean they can't remember who you are. But that actual memories are not within they're abilities.
I can bet that it's best to avoid the trauma that comes with being raised in a cage manifesting itself in some animal given the gift of thought late in life. The way I picture it, some animals are fine with being in a cage for short periods of time. At the least, with humane treatment and allotment of exercise is necessary. But from what I know, no human would value their life in a cage. At least, none with the self-respect each one of us was mostly taught. Would these same life lessons about integrity and autonomy make its way to a sentient wolf cub or lion cub, that desired to be free and run around. To give the animal sentience from birth gives the mental incentive in scientists to respect it as a sentient figure of its own. Free to roam, free to interact, and free to learn and develop proper moral codes. Bottom line, it would be gut-wrenching for me to hear the words, "Why am I in a cage?"
Conclusion
So all in all, give an animal the ability to grow and develop from birth to full consciousness like a human would. It would grow and develop with its own personality, distinct vocal accents, (which would be so cool to hear, honestly) and honestly, the scientists would have to readily adapt a parental role in its development.
My area of knowledge with immunity is sketchy so if I got anything wrong there, (could be anywhere I got anything wrong) feel free to comment.
Happy Thinking!
Comments
Post a Comment