Category: Genetics

Introduction

There have been major revolutions in the genetic world in the 21^st century, which have directly affected health care policies. Some of the major issues that have come with genetic revolution include the policies applied when administering genetic tests, genetic privacy, and education on genetics, their standardization and regulations as well as gene patenting.

Genes as the basic unit of heredity are responsible for the passing of characteristics from one generation to the other and this is where healthcare comes in. This passing on of characteristics is enabled by the presence of sequential DNA or RNA that bring about similarities or differences in individuals.

If the genetic revolution is not well safeguarded, instances of their misuse can surface and that is why care must be taken during genetic testing. Regulations governing these procedures require implementation to ensure that DNA sequences are not monopolized (Ojha and Thertulien, 2005). This paper focuses on genetics role in healthcare of patents and defines the language of genetic manipulation, its safety, legal and ethical issues, as well as mandatory screening and the role of the healthcare providers in gene therapy.

Genetics role in healthcare of patents

Healthcare has benefited largely from biotechnology and genetics and that is why there has been a necessity to ensure the safety of patents. For a genetic to be declared patentable, it must be unique in all sense and must have been modified, isolated, or purified to attain this status.

Intellectual property rights is an issue that has taken center stage in genetic innovations for decades. There have been numerous debates on how some genetic inventions have been licensed and used in the health care sector. The set rules seemed to impede the genetic processes due to their complexity thus flawing the whole process (OECD, 2006).

The OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) is a body comprised of 30 countries that deals with the social, economic, and environmental issues brought about by globalization. This body resolved to put up clear guidelines that would govern the use of patents in genetic inventions for the health care sector.

This move led to the formation of the Council of the Recommendation on the Licensing of Genetic Inventions in 2006. Healthcare professionals must ensure that genetics meet some conditions before they are presented for patenting. They must be very specific on how the gene functions, must identify its sequence, and must be user friendly to others in the field.

Gene tests are carried out in humans with potential of developing some diseases. The owner of the disease gene patent has all legal rights and that is why they license their use.

This makes them owners of the royalties and no one can touch the tests not unless they are licensed to do so. However, there is still a lot of controversy on the patenting of human stem cells that are used in the health care sector to cure and control some diseases (OECD 2006).

Genetic manipulation

Genetic manipulation is also referred to as genetic modification or genetic engineering and it refers to the treatment of genetic material artificially using recombinant DNA. This process encompasses the creation of heritable material outside the organism and this is followed by fusing it with the host. This fusing is made possible through microinjection, micro encapsulation, a vector system or through macro injection. The final product of this genetic manipulation is referred to as a genetically modified organism (GMOs, 2001).

The reasons behind genetic manipulation include choosing a phenotype of a baby, curing genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis, infertility, increasing immunity, metabolism and intelligence as well as altering the physical appearance of individuals (Singers and Kuhese, 2000).There are ethical implications that come with genetic engineering and recently, President Obamas government decided to do away with the limitations previously imposed on embryonic stem cell research by the previous regime. This has reopened the discussion that questions the ethics applied.

Altering the natural functions of a human being is seen to interfere with the work of creation though scientists have put a strong fight citing that this could be the only way to correct gene defects that limit peoples productivity. It is also seen as the only way to have individuals who are above average thus making them more productive in the society. Genetic engineering is prohibited in many countries of the world due to the potential risks it presents to peoples health. It is also seen as a sure way of affecting future generations with its outcomes that are yet to be fully verified according to Mir and Morgan (2009).

Canada for instance is one of the countries that have put strict prohibitions on genetic engineering as they are in high doubt of its effectiveness, safety, appropriateness, and the technology in use. Bioethics are the competing factions here and they argue that it is ethical to improve the quality of peoples lives if there is a way of doing so. They support this by providing facts that go towards treating people with genetic diseases and this makes genetic engineering a therapeutic process.

Improving the quality of peoples lives is quite alluring since genetic modifications will ensure that people are above average. In this case, people will live longer, age slowly, be more intelligent, and have high immunity to diseases. Since this process is still undergoing rigorous tests, its efficacy and safety is highly doubted as scientists try to piece workable facts together. The principle of non-maleficence is however against the bioethical approaches since it advocates for zero harm in the employed therapies.

The trial and error genetic modification process for humans could be very detrimental to peoples lives and many could be lost in the process. It is thus seen as an insult to human dignity as it cannot be justified morally. The harm that such genes would present to human beings remain unknown though they are feared to be fatal since this has been tried on animals and many of the offspring are variable making it even more questionable (Mir and Morgan, 2009).

Genetic engineering is prohibited in some states for both human and animal use. For instance, North Carolina scientists embarking on genetic engineering must hold legal permits allowing them to do so. Legal and ethical implications were highlighted again in 1997 when a sheep was cloned in Scot. The failures associated with cloning are also high and this has led to more restrictions as cloning is viewed as murder by some people. Moral, scientific, and religious issues have also taken a forefront in genetic engineering campaigns.

The success recorded have been few and short lived and this is attributed to poor immunity of the clones thus making them vulnerable to diseases. As a result, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety Environment on GMOs was passed in 2000 to ensure that genetic engineering processes are transferred, handled, used and disposed safely (Darvall, 1993).

Mandatory Genetic Screening

Mandatory genetic screening has been initiated in an effort to curb genetic disorders that many people are born with today. These disorders not only threaten longevity but also lead to the birth of people with physical and mental disabilities.

Other genetic disorders have been known to be the main cause of multiple malformations, stillbirths, infertility, mental illness, retarded growth, and miscarriages among others. Genetic screening is thus made mandatory especially for people with particular genotypes known to have potential for genetic disorders according to Miller (1999).

This process can therefore be defined as the systematic search for people with defective genetics that may lead to diseases that may affect the current and future generations as well. It has thus become a necessity for the public health care sector to conduct such screenings as families become more and more concerned about the plight of their family members who might be at a risk of acquiring the aforementioned conditions that affect thousands of people.

Mandatory genetic screening works towards preventing the occurrence of diseases and treating the ones that have already been diagnosed. Other objectives of this screening include medical management, enumeration, treatment of diseases, research, as well as providing people with reproductive information. The preventative nature of genetic screening makes it more appealing than the traditional forms of medication that only seek to cure the symptoms of a disease (Miller, 1999).

Role of the healthcare providers in gene therapy

Gene therapy is the introduction of genes into patients cells with the aim of treating diseases. The main diseases treated using this therapy include those that are acquired through heredity or through genetic anomalies.

Gene therapy has proved to be the link to cures for diseases such as cancer, hemophilia, and cystic fibrosis among others. To exploit gene therapy potential, health care providers have embarked on a research mission to improve this technology (BIO, 1999).

To ensure the protection and safety of patients in such a move, the FDA and NIH organizations that regulate drug development have become party to these studies. Unfortunately, a patient undergoing gene therapy clinical tests at the University of Pennsylvania died and this has raised questions about the efficacy of these bodies.

Healthcare providers and their patients would be key beneficiaries if gene therapy researches were successful. They have the duty of treating their patients of life threatening conditions such as AIDS, cardiovascular diseases and metabolic diseases that have spread fast in the 21^st century.

This would therefore be a huge breakthrough for the healthcare fraternity. Some of the procedures adopted by gene therapy include limiting tumor growth through the destruction of blood vessels, cancer immunotherapy, and anti-angiogenesis as well as angiogenesis interventions.

Other technologies in use include retrovirus, adenoassociated virus and plasmid delivery systems. Healthcare professionals thus have the role of conducting clinical trials to find out which system works for what condition.

They also focus on the safety of the patient during such trials to avoid the risk of exposing them to serious illnesses or even death. Healthcare professionals also have the duty of ensuring that the vector being investigated is well guarded to avoid contamination that could lead to inaccurate outcomes.

They also work hand in hand with researchers to ensure that the vector exhibits the desired biological effect. Healthcare providers thus not only administer gene therapy to patients but also work towards its development (BIO, 1999).

In addition, healthcare providers have the duty of understanding their fields well in order to discover new ways and improve on the existing ones used in gene therapy. For instance, those dealing with cancers have to learn more about tumor cell biology to be able to come up with remedies for the condition.

Many of these diseases are sometimes accelerated by the types of lifestyles that people live and thus healthcare professionals have the duty of advising patients on diet and exercise. This helps cut down on these diseases and gives hope to those affected through healthy living (Science Daily 2010).

Conclusion

This paper looks critically at the issues of genetics role in healthcare of patents, defines the language of genetic manipulation, its safety, legal and ethical issues as well as mandatory screening and the role of the healthcare providers in gene therapy.

The aforementioned processes all aim at improving the health of patients by ridding them of various life threatening diseases. However, legal, ethical, and safety concerns are not absent since these processes if mishandled can cause more harm than good.

That is the reason why ethical, legal, and safety measures are implemented. On the other hand, the role of healthcare providers in gene therapy is clearly laid out and it is evident that they not only administer gene therapy but also aid in its development.

References

BIO. (1999). Oversight of gene therapy. Biotechnology Industry Organization, 1(6), 1-20.

Darvall, L. (1993). Medicine, Law and Social Change. New York: Oxford University Press.

GMOs. (2001). The European parliament and the council of the European Union.

Directive on the release of genetically modified organisms. Official Journal of the European Communities, 2(2), 17.

Miller, K. (1999). Genetic screening: an overview. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 7(1), 355-374.

Mir, H. & Morgan, C. (2009). Ethical implications of germ line genetic engineering. UWO Medical Journal, 78(3), 1.

OECD. (2006). Guidelines for the licensing of genetic inventions. Organization for economic co-operation and development, 1(2), 1-3.

Ojha, R. & Thertulien, R. (2005). Health Care policy issues as a result of the genetic revolution: Implications for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 95(3), 385-388.

Science Daily. (2010). Psychologists at the forefront of weight management. Health Care Journal, 1(2), 1-4.

Singers, P. & Kuhese, H. (2000). Bioethics: An Anthology. Public Health Journal, 2(3), 1-6.

Introduction

The term genetic enhancement refers to the use of genetic engineering to change or improve ones traits and capabilities (Borenstein 5180. In most cases, the term is confused with gene therapy. The latter refers to the use of genetic engineering to repair malfunctioning genes or disseminate functioning genes into ones body in a bid to cure a specific illness (Borenstein 518). Breakthrough in the medical field has led to numerous methods of genetic enhancements being employed today. Drugs have been developed that facilitate hormonal growth in human beings (Devettere 437). These are being used by parents in an attempt to help them and their children grow. Cases of athletes using genetically modified drugs to enhance their performance have also been reported. The practice of genetic enhancement is not only unethical but has also led to the emergence of inequality in society as well as other evils that undermines social norms.

Genetic enhancement challenge the value of social equality

One of the challenges that have emerged with the advent of genetic enhancement is the inability to ensure that all people have access to the technology (Seck 56). Generally, the costs associated with the technology are high making it hard for the less fortunate in the society to benefit from the technology. This implies that only the rich can benefit from the technology resulting in the emergence of social classes. Those that can afford genetic enhancement become superior to those who can not afford the enhancement. There are some forms of genetic enhancements that can be passed from one generation to another. A good example of these enhancements is germline modification (Mehlman & Berg pp. 546-553). This means that the lineage of those who use the technology is expected to comprise of superior people. Consequently, using genetic enhancement would draw a clear line between the enhanced and those who are not enhanced.

Genetic enhancement results in unfair advantages

The practice of genetic enhancement in itself is unfair. This is because the practice is costly and can only be accessed by the wealthy (Seck 56). It disadvantages the poor who can not afford it. In addition, the enhancement leads to people doing things they could not manage naturally. This disadvantages those who can do the same without enhancement as it becomes difficult for them to exploit their capacities. A good example is athletics. There are people who are capable of running without enhancements (Seck pp. 56-60). Consequently, they get an opportunity to exploit and benefit from their talents. Using enhancements to improve ones performance in athletics disadvantages such people. Despite some of the athletes being identified to use enhancement drugs and their titles being revoked, there are many who have gone unnoticed thus benefiting at the expense of others.

Genetic enhancement violates human rights

The proponents of genetic enhancements argue that it is an opportunity through which people can mold the future of their children. Through technology, parents can significantly contribute to developing the qualities of their children. They argue that genetic enhancement can facilitate in enhancing peoples intelligence as well as in the development of cures for genetic diseases (Borenstein pp. 517-521). Nevertheless, the enhancement curtails the ability of children to shape their future. Through genetic enhancements, parents are capable of remaking the genetic constituents of their children. Hence, they are capable of completing turning around the future of their children (Borenstein pp. 522-530). This implies that through enhancement parents can positively or negatively affect the future of their children. In short terms, the practice is unethical and immoral as it infringes on peoples life by artificially redirecting ones destiny. Definitely, some children would not be happy to realize that their parents had a hand in their fate. For the unsuccessful, they would never forgive their parents (Glover 79). It is imperative that all children are given an opportunity to determine their future despite them needing assistance from their parents. Rather than influencing them in molding their future, parents ought to just act as mentors.

The practice is against religious teachings and social norms

Genetic enhancement can be viewed as going against some pre-determined biological processes (Borenstein 527). Those who participate in it can be said to be going beyond their bounds and trying to assume Gods role. For them, they believe that God did not perfectly create mankind and there are numerous improvements that needed to be made. This is against religious teachings.

The technology is bound to contribute to enhancing vices such as abortion in society as well as intensifying divorces. For instance, if a parent wishes to give birth to a child with specific qualities, he or she may turn down his or her partner on identifying that he or she does not exhibit the required qualities (Glover pp. 113-119). Eventually, this may lead to betrayals in marriage or even divorce. Besides, parents may authorize for tests to be carried out on their unborn babies to determine if they have the desired characteristics. On learning that they do not have the desired characteristics, such parents may decide to carry out an abortion.

Genetic enchantment poses threats to social cohesion and goodwill. As mentioned earlier, genetic enhancement leads to inequality in society. If people understood that their success is a result of superior genes and not their commitment, they would feel compelled to split their genetic fruits with others in society. On the other hand, they would be reluctant to split their success with the less fortunate in society if they learned that success was not a result of good luck. The people that are genetically enhanced would look down upon the ones that are not and take advantage to exploit them.

Despite the scientists being able to enhance peoples capability through genetic engineering, they have not been able to predict the future behavior of genetically enhanced humans. Consequently, at times the enhanced humans may fail to achieve their objectives. For instance, children born out of the practice may turn out to be misanthropic (Mehlman & Berg pp. 554-559). They may consider themselves to be mutants who were developed in test tubes thus feeling to be unworthy. Based on films such as Gattaca, it is evident that genetically enhanced persons are highly susceptible to suffering from depression (Seck 73).

Responding to genetic enhancement

To ensure that people shun using genetic enhancements there are numerous procedures that ought to be adopted. In the issue of athletics, all countries need to promote and support those people that are found to be naturally talented in athletics. People need to be educated on some of the negative effects of genetic enhancements as well as encouraged to tolerate the differences in capabilities exhibited in society (Seck 70). Rather than using genetic engineering to improve ones capacity in a field that he or she feels not to excel in, it would be wise to ask such a person to look within himself and identify the field he is talented in then perfect it.

Another approach that ought to be used in eliminating cases of unfairness that arise from genetic enhancement is banning the practice (Devettere 438). All countries need to declare the practice illegal and endorse heavy punishments on those found to practice it. This would discourage people from practicing genetic engineering. It would also ensure that even the rich do not take advantage of their wealth to acquire the technology and use it in exploiting the poor.

Conclusion

In spite of banning the use of genetic enhancements being considered to be the most viable method of controlling its use, the method; on the other hand, undermines peoples rights. It would not be good to limit people from pursuing goals they wish to pursue. Based on equality, the poor would claim to have significantly achieved their objectives (Seck pp. 61-73). However, the rich would be disadvantaged as they would be prevented from pursuing their goals.

This underlines the need for health professionals to adhere to professional ethics when using genetic enhancements. Health professionals ought to only practice genetic enhancements only on very crucial events. For instance, they need to only practice it if it will benefit the fetus or the infant (Devettere pp. 438-442). The practice needs to steer clear from enhancements aimed at improving ones features or attributes. This would help in ensuring that the rich do not take advantage of its accessibility to exploit the poor. Finally, there is a need for health professionals to ensure that everybody has access to the technology regardless of his or her income. By so doing, everybody will make use of the technology thus ensuring that there is equality and fairness in society.

Works Cited

Borenstein, Jason. The wisdom of caution: genetic enhancement and future children. Science and Engineering Ethics 15.4 (2009): 517-530.

Devettere, Raymond J. Practical decision making in health care ethics: Cases and concepts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2010.

Glover, Jonathan. Choosing children: The ethical dilemmas of genetic intervention. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Mehlman, Maxwell J. & Berg, Jessica W. Human subjects protection in biomedical enhancement research. The Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 36 (2008): 546-559.

Seck, Chris. Arguing for and against genetic engineering. The Stanford Review 38.7 (2007): 56-73.

Abstract

The main purpose of the lab report was to investigate the concept of genetic cross among Drosophila melanogaster (fruit flies). The experiment was aimed at understanding how the Mendelian genetic principles are manifested in the breeding patterns of Drosophila. The laboratory experiment involved the reciprocation of a monohybrid cross in consideration of the flies sex-links. The flies were sexed, crossbred, and finally, their resulting phenotypes were analyzed.

The parent generation (F1) was of unknown genotype. However, all the F1 generation belonged to the wild phenotype. The hypothesis of the experiment was that the second generation of flies (F2) could be used to determine the phenotypes of both groups depending on the results of the experiment. The results of the experiment backed up the initial hypothesis partially but the specimen did not completely align with the Mendelian principles.

Introduction

The study of Drosophila genetic crosses can be applied in various biological fields including the study of various organisms genetics and the resulting inheritance of traits. The fly is favored in experiments mostly because it is easy to obtain and handle. Furthermore, the fly can be easily and inexpensively cultured in laboratory environments. The flys relevance to human biology has adequately been noted through the 1995 Nobel Prize in medicine (Clark & Pollard, 2010). The reliance on the flies for genetic-related experiments can also be attributed to the fact that they have a short life cycle.

Consequently, experiments that would take several years on humans and other vertebrates only take a few weeks on Drosophila species. There are two prominent principles that apply to this research. The first one is the principle of natural selection as outlined by Charles Darwin and the other one is Mendelian genetics. According to Darwin, the fittest organisms within any population have the greatest chances of surviving and reproducing. On the other hand, Mendelian laws outline modalities on how various genes are passed from parents to their offspring (Kohler, 2014). The Mendelian genetics are used to determine how various traits are passed from the F1 to the F2 group of flies.

The Mendelian and Darwin principles are at the center of this experiment because they both hypothesize the parameters under which genetic traits are passed. The organisms homology to human beings lies in the fact that most scientists seek to understand how the flys simple reproduction modalities can apply to complex ones such as those of human beings.

Furthermore, a select Drosophila contains homologs (corresponding genes with similar structure and functions) with other animals including vertebrates hence, when some vertebrate genes are introduced to flies they act as the homologous fly gene (Robert, 2009). The Drosophila has been useful to scientists in their study of genetic diseases. For instance, the study of the fruit fly has been instrumental in the study of contemporary genetics and genomics. The organism was also one of the pioneering eukaryotes to have its entire genome map produced.

The objective of this experiment is to study the Drosophila with the view of understanding how the organisms genetic crosses can be utilized in determining its sex-link and other trait assortments. Consequently, the main objective in this experiment will be to observe how mutant traits in flies are translated from one generation to the other.

In addition, it is also important to determine the sexes and the mutations of the Drosophila accurately. Another objective of the laboratory experiment is to be able to make assessments of F2s resulting traits in line with Mendels principles. In this last regard, the results of the experiment will be compared with the initial predictions using the Chi-square analysis (Xu & Rubin, 2010).

The core hypothesis in this experiment is that by cross breeding wild-type flies of unknown phenotypes, their resulting offspring can be used to determine the parents phenotype. Moreover, when the wild-type male and female flies are mated, their offspring can be used to predict the (parents) genotypes by easily relying on the phenotype observations (of the offspring). The phenotypic observations are set to rely on the ratios of the resulting F2 generation. This hypothesis can be checked through the use of the Chi Squared X² Test. Consequently, the primary hypothesis in this experiment is that the F2 generation will be used to prove that the male parents are predisposed to wild type wings. On the other hand, the female parents are also predisposed to wild type wings with higher instances of mutant-type wings.

Methods

The experiment began by sorting out the flies according to phenotype and sex and then selecting four from each sex. The F1 generation of flies was not of any specific mutant trait and the sample consisted of a mix of mutations in regards to shapes, eye colors, antenna size/shape, and wing shape.

All the F1 mutations are noted for the purposes of comparisons with the F2 offspring. In this experiment, there are three distinct cross mutations namely monohybrid, dihybrid, and those with the white-eye recessives. The most important variables in this experiment involved the sterility rates of the males and the ability to sort out the flies accurately. The sterility of the samples is mostly dependent on the age of male flies. The ratios of F1 generation should also be random so as to add validity to the results of the experiment (Klemenz, Weber, & Gehring, 2012).

Results

The P1 sample group, which was used in monohybrid crossbreeding, consisted of four males and four females, all of different mutations. The ratios that are used in the F1 generation are selected randomly but under controlled environment. However, the resulting F2 generation (whose results are listed below) indicates that the results of the experiment bear an unexpected ratio. To gauge the validity of the experiments hypothesis, the Chi Test calculations are also demonstrated below.

This is the resulting data from the cross experiment

Those with the Monohybrid cross:

• Wild types; 99 males, 113 females
• Recessive phenotype; 10 males, 16 females

Those with a Dihybrid Cross:

• Wildtype; 96 males, 81 females
• Abb; 16 males, 28 females
• aaB; 26 males, 32 females

Groups with White Eye Recessive

• Wild types; 14 males, 32 females
• White eyes; 16 males, 0 females

Analysis: The Chi Square Test

• Consequently, the Chi Square Test statistic = 4.6874
• Degrees of freedom = 4
• Level of significance = 0.6874

From the above findings, it is imprudent to reject the hypothesis that was forwarded at the beginning of the experiment.

Discussion

The results of this experiment are mainly dependent on the proposed hypothesis. At the beginning of the experiment, it was proposed that the results of this experiment will prove that the both the male and female parents are wild-type but the latter are also predisposed to having mutant wings. The Chi Test calculations indicate that this hypothesis is accurate to a certain degree.

The final value of the Chi Test was found to come to 0.6874, and this acted as proof of the proposed hypothesis because the value was greater than 0.05. Therefore, the results of the experiment are understood to mean that the hypothesis of the study was near accurate. It is also important to note that the figure that was obtained through the Chi Test validates the Mendelian principles and eliminates the probability that the results of the experiment are the product of mere chance.

Even though the results of the calculations indicate that the hypothesis has high levels of accuracy, it is still not yet completely accurate. This indicates that some errors were present during calculations or in relation to the Mendelian principles. Human error is one of the most probable impediments to the experiments accuracy. For instance, analyzing the fruit flies one by one was a difficult task and some of them might have died in the process. The tiresome process might also have made it difficult for observers to distinguish the flies eye color and gender accurately.

In future, the experiments accuracy can be improved by ensuring that other types of organisms, whose traits are easily distinguished, are used instead of flies. Although an experiment that uses such organisms might take longer, the shift is likely to improve overall accuracy levels. The experiment validates the Mendelian principles and puts a stamp of approval on Darwins theories (Sturtevant, 2013). Nevertheless, more research is required to distinguish the various accuracy levels between the two principles.

References

Clark, A. G. & Pollard, D. A. (2010). Evolution of genes and genomes on the Drosophila phylogeny. Nature, 450(7167), 203-218.

Klemenz, R., Weber, U., & Gehring, W. J. (2012). The white gene as a marker in a new P-element vector for gene transfer in Drosophila. Nucleic Acids Research, 15(10), 3947-3959.

Kohler, R. E. (2014). Lords of the fly: Drosophila genetics and the experimental life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Robert, J. (2009). Genetics analysis & principles. New York: McGraw Hill International Edition.

Sturtevant, A. H. (2013). The linear arrangement of six sexlinked factors in Drosophila, as shown by their mode of association. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 14(1), 43-59.

Xu, T., & Rubin, G. M. (2010). Analysis of genetic mosaics in developing and adult Drosophila tissues. Development, 117(4), 1223-1237.

The structure and functions of genes is studied in biology under genetics and it is done at a molecular level. Nicholas Wade capture this in his article, from one Genome, many types of cells. But How? Wade attempts to explore the idea that several specialized cells have an identical genome yet on the other hand, they collaborate in the process of bodybuilding (Wade 12). The cells found in the different body organs get different hereditary instructions from the DNA. These instructions are implemented without the cells interfering with each other. The instructions originate from the fertilized egg before being transmitted during cell division.

The epigenome that is embedded in the DNA controls the access processes to the genes, and as such determines the type of cell to be accessed and the time. The components of epigenome are complex both in their form and in structure. Wade also discusses the DNA packaging system. This has histones that form the core around then nucleus. The histones provide a way of marking up the genetic script along with playing a role during cell division. The chromatin regulators are also involved in shaping the epigenome.

In Benedict Careys article titled, Genes as Mirrors of Life Experiences, a number of ideas have been explored. The article analyses epigenetics. A study evaluating how experiences that people go through and their environment affect the functioning of the genes. The environment that subsequently affects the behavior of people is affected by the development in epigenetics (Carey 09). The type of nurturing given by parents to their children affects behavior that can be passed over genetically to the offsprings. The negative effects on the epigenetics are linked to the conditions that include autism and schizophrenia.

Sandra Blakeslee analyses how a mothers diet can permanently alter the functioning of genes in the offspring while leaving the genes intact. If markers close to the genes are affected then they can cause diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and obesity. This means that what pregnant mothers eat may lead to the children developing diseases. The sequence of the genes in relation to the specific illness that are caused by their defects is currently the focus of scientists (Blakeslee 07). Attention in this study has shifted from mutation to the biological mechanisms. Carl Zimmer in his article, The rest of the Genome, presents the gene as an identity crisis. The fundamental definitions of the gene including their forms and structure are widely discussed. The details include protein components of DNA and the relations with RNA (Zimmer 05). The location and constituents of the genome was discussed and first drafted at the turn of the 21^st Century. Further research revealed the presence of epigenome.

Several important observations can be made from the four articles. It is worth noting that the idea behind the working of the body organ cells is important. This is in the article by Nicholas Wade. The explanation surrounding the second layer of information plays a great role in understanding the transfer of information from the fertilized egg during cell division. In the genes as mirrors, the discovery that the cause of certain conditions was beyond the study of genes played a role in the study of epigenetics to unravel the link between the gene defects and the exact conditions they cause. The fact that environmental factors within which a pregnant mother is in can directly be inherited by an offspring inform of illness was a great step towards addressing some of the conditions.

Works Cited

Blakeslee, Sandra. A pregnant Mothers Diet may turn the Genes around. New York: New York Times, 2003. Print.

Carey, Benedict. Genes as Mirrors of Life Experiences. New York: New York Times, 2010. Print.

Wade, Nicholas (2009). From one Genome, Many types of cells. But how? New York Times, 2009. Print.

Zimmer, Carl. The Rest of the Genome. New York: New York Times, 2008. Print.

Man, in all his uniqueness, has managed to conquer the world and its inhabitants for thousands of millennia now. Animals and plants have their own unique characteristics too, at least scientifically as well as biologically.

Scientists and other theorists have been working round the clock to understand the origins and nature of these unique characteristics found in both primate and non-primate organisms (Lahn & Ebenstein, 2008). Below, several concepts that are thought to cause genetic diversity are critically evaluated in a bid to offer answers to the myriad of questions on the unique characteristics prevalent in organisms.

Genetic diversity is a term mostly used to underscore the variation in the nucleotides, genes, chromosomes, or whole genomes of organisms (Harrison et al, 2004, para. 1). In its most straightforward level, genetic diversity is characterized by variations in the nucleotides, the basic ingredients that forms the DNA contained in the cells of a living organism.

The chromosomes residing within the organisms cells play host to the DNA. Most organisms contain two sets of chromosomes, with a few exceptions that have one, three, or four pairs of chromosomes in a cell. If an organism is diploid (two sets of chromosomes), it means that it has two alleles of each gene (Harrison et al, 2004).

Mutation and sexual reproduction comes in since there are the major factors that lead to variation of either one or more alleles contained in each gene (Lewontin, 1995; Harrison et al, 2004). Other biologists and anthropologists are of the opinion that geographical localities and lifestyles are also possible candidates for genetic diversity in primates.

Generally, mutations are changes in the structure of the DNA which form the foundation for dissimilarities between related organisms (Lewontin, 1995; TutorVista.com, 2008). Although a single mutation can have an overbearing effect on an organism, most evolutionary variations and spontaneous mutations are as a result of accrual of many mutations in the natural setting.

One of the fundamental objectives of all living creatures is to survive. It is therefore imperative for cells to continue reproducing so that the objective can be met (Knight, 2009). During sexual reproduction, an organism inherits alleles from the sperm and ova of both parents.

The pairing or copying of these alleles after fertilization to form an offspring can assist to introduce genetic variation which may indeed be of great benefit in the future. This process is called sexual recombination (Harrison et al, 2004; Knight, 2009). An example of such genetic variation can be witnessed in the difference in looks between an offspring and its parents.

Sexual reproduction introduces the issues of migration and population size. Migration is the progression or movement, in most cases within organisms (USDA, 2006). The chromosomes inherited by the offspring from the parents are bound to change more if there has been a case of migration or hybridization (Harrison et al, 2004).

This is especially so if parents of the offspring happen to come from different populations, and therefore posses dissimilar gene pools. In plants, genetic diversity via migration takes place through pollen dispersal or grafting of vegetative stems.

Lastly, sexual reproduction, in altering genetic diversity, allows organisms to increase their population size with the aim of maintaining a high competitive advantage over the others (Harrison et al, 2004). This is crucial for survival. Sexual reproduction has the capacity to introduce new and more advanced gene into a population.

The essence of this type of gene shuffling is yet another fundamental foundation for genetic diversity. It cannot escape mention that genetic variation also occurs when alleles of two or more sets of populations mix through migration incase of primates or via pollen and seed dispersal via non-primates (USDA, 2006). It is therefore true to say that genetic diversity is in a constant mode of change  both through time and across geographical localities.

Reference List

Harrison, I., Laverty, M., & Sterling, E. (2004). Genetic Diversity. Web.

Knight, J.C. (2009). Human Genetic Diversity: Functional Consequences for Health and Disease: Oxford University Press. Web.

Lahn, B.T., & Ebenstein, L. (2008). Lets celebrate human genetic diversity. Nature, Vol. 461, pp. 726-728.

Lewontin, R. (1995). Human Diversity, 2^nd Ed. W.H. Freeman & Company. Web.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2006). Why is Genetic Diversity always Changing? Web.

The documentary elucidates the topic of genetic engineering. It is explained why manipulations with genetic information are so important and how humanity may use them for its own benefit. The narrator describes, step by step, the importance of deciphering genetic codes using some examples to explain how the genetic mechanisms work, what information genes contain, what benefits a person may gain when exploiting genetic engineering. Additionally, towards the end of the documentary, the narrator and some of the interviewed individuals explain the problem of anonymity that is also related to genetic manipulations. All in all, although there is not enough depth, the coverage is sufficient to understand the basics of this topic.

The primary weak point of the film is that it creates great expectations using a large amount of evidence. This is a weak point because there are people who believe in genetic manipulations and who are very interested in moving forward with this area of scientific knowledge. These people may start thinking that it is possible to manipulate genes right now, while, in reality, this process is very far away from being achieved. Next weak point lies in the fact that there is too little scientific evidence. The language used in the documentary is indeed created to be understood by people that do not actually know anything about genetic manipulations and peculiarities of genes functioning in the human body. Therefore, the film does not provide an opportunity to understand the topic in full nor does it cover every aspect of genetic information, genetic engineering, etc.

On the other hand, the latter weak point may also be regarded as a strong one. While it is true that the film does not provide sufficient information regarding every aspect of genetic information, it covers the most important basic facts that are required to understand the importance of the topic. Additionally, the presentation is well-structured and follows a particular plan to showcase crucial points in order of their relevance. It is easy for any viewer to get a grasp of what is discussed in the documentary. The film also provides a lot of expert opinions, examples of people and social groups that may gain significant benefits from genetic engineering, and is overall well-thought-through regarding the expressed claims.

The topic discussed in the documentary is one of the most important issues in bioethics. There are a lot of opinions regarding whether or not a human is allowed to manipulate genes and what consequences this may lead to in the future. While some claim that genetic engineering is acceptable and humankind has the right to make life better and easier, others state that it is only up to God to decide whether a humans body may be altered so radically. Supporters of both of these sides often regard their position from the confessional standpoint. In other words, the topic of genetic engineering is often related to the subjects of faith and belief. Additionally, there are such concerns as disregard for ones free will and ability to decide as well as attention towards safety issues. It is often stated that by using genetic engineering, people are taking away the ability to shape their own future and decide how and when to deal with their problems. Safety concerns, in turn, are stipulated by the fact that it may simply not be safe enough to manipulate genes in one way or another.

Introduction

The author tries to prove the importance of facial attractiveness on genetic diversity. He therefore carries out a background research to make predictions and then undertakes an empirical research to prove his hypothesis. The study applies two approaches in its investigations.

The first approach that it applies to study the relationship between facial features and their genetic human preferences is the novel approach where the author tries to investigate whether attractiveness has any association with mate quality. The second approach which applies the use of microsatellite markers in an empirical approach, investigates the structural facial characteristics which can be used to determine the relationship between facial attractiveness and the relative genetic diversity.

Goals of the Research

The main aim of the author is to establish the significance of facial attractiveness in genetic diversity in terms of mate preferences. The author tries to establish whether males also have unique preference for Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) heterogygosity in females appearances.

This was prompted by research results which have proved that MHC genotype has an influence in mate preferences for many species. Another goal that the author tries to find out is whether genetic diversity is also associated with female facial attractiveness.

The author also tries to show the role of MHC in human beings as regards to mate preferences. The author investigates the differences between the influences of genetic diversity and the possible influences of MHC genetic diversity on humans mate preferences. MHC could be essential particularly in mate preferences since MHC heterozygosity had no correlation with the general heterozygosity in many human samples.

The author also tries to establish the relationship between human facial attractiveness and the genetic diversity that falls within as well as outside the MHC. Finally, the author investigates whether genetic diversity has any relationship with femininity, masculinity as well as averageness.

Hypotheses

The author predicts that there is a strong correlation between genetic diversity and facial attractiveness. The author also predicts that genetic diversity has a strong relationship with major histocompatibility complex and influences reproductive success and fitness. The author hypothesizes that facial characteristics shapes the selection for high-quality males.

Research Methodology

The research applied the use of microsatellite markers which is normally used to carry out researches on non-human animal studies to investigate the genetic significance of human facial attractiveness. The microsatellite markers are used in approximating the genetic diversity independently for non-MHC as well as MHC loci and in estimating the individual mean heterozygosity which the author symbolized by H as well as the standard mean which the author also symbolized as d2.

The study involved taking DNA samples from 160 Caucasian students from the University of Western Australia who had written consents for their participation in the research. 80 males and females took part respectively and their ages averaged at 20 and 19 in that order. The research procedures were endorsed by the Human Research Ethics Committee in the university.

Thereafter, DNA samples were taken and two Buccal swabs were collected from each participant. These were then set up for Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) under the instructions of the manufacturer. The Australian Genome Research Facility did the PCR as well as fragment analyses. 12 microsatellites were typed at key loci in the MHC region that had linkages with disequilibrium in every HLA locus.

In measuring the non-MHC genetic diversity, the researchers used eleven non-MHC microsatellites which were all from elevens different chromosomes. The MHC microsatellites as well as the non-MHC microsatellites chosen were qualitatively similar in terms of the number of alleles as well as the expected heterozygosity. Bayesian Clustering Method was to analyze the population ancestry for each participant (Donnley et al. 2000,).

Genetic diversity for non-MHC loci as well as for MHC loci was measured separately. This was done using standard mean d2, the individual mean heterozygosity (H) as well as genetic distance in the alleles. Both H and d2 were calculated at each locus per individual.

The d2 measure was standardized to achieve a higher weighting of every locus. The standardized values were averaged in all loci to achieve a standardized d2. There was also the need to test for the underlying mechanisms of the effects of the genetic diversity particularly on the facial appearance.

Here, Heterozygosity-heterozygosity (H-H) correlation test was used. It involved randomly sampling the loci into two sets where each set was examined to establish whether each H that was calculated from the two groups was correlated to the other.

The procedure was replicated 100 times, each time randomly resampling to achieve a standard deviation, a strong correlation coefficient and mean for MHC as well as non-MHC loci. Multiple regression models were applied to analyze each locus so as to determine the local effects of genetic diversity.

Quality digital color photograph was also taken of students who participated in the DNA sampling. The participants were asked to remove their make-ups or any facial hair before the photographs were taken. The researchers used separate groups from the same university mainly from the opposite sex to rate the attractiveness, masculinity, symmetry as well as averageness and femininity of each photograph. Outliers in the face ratings who had extreme scores below and above the mean and the standard deviations were removed.

Multiple regression models were then used to separately conduct male and female analysis. Pearsons correlation coefficient was used to analyze face ratings: hierarchical multiple regression which included the use of SPSS 16 and Sobels test were used to analyze attractiveness.

Conclusion

The results of the study proved that MHC diversity has a critical effect on male facial attractiveness. It also proved that males and females particular attractive facial characteristics were related to their genetic diversity. It established that the MHC is responsible for female preferences for the facial attractiveness of the male. However, MHC plays no role in male preferences for the females facial attractiveness.

The study also provided evidence of the relationship between facial appearance and genetic diversity (Brown 1997; 1999). It also established that human facial attractiveness especially that of the male faces influenced the mate quality. Finally, the results showed that the males as well as the female are inclined at finding attractive genotype in the opposite sex faces. The author boasts of having provided research results that links MHC genotype with male facial averageness.

Critique

The strength of the study lies in its methodology. The author applies the use of novel approach to provide the basis for his predictions on the relationship between facial attractiveness and genetic diversity in humans. It tests variables which are practical and easy to test using the available research methodologies and analysis models. It tests attractiveness, masculinity, symmetry as well as femininity and averageness.

The various methods used in collecting the data, testing and analyzing the variables are standard and valid. Although microsatellite marker that was used has majorly been applied in other non-human animals, it was used perfectly used as the researchers sought the guide of the manufacturers of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR).

The use of multiple regression models to analyze the variables makes the research more credible. The multiple regression models enable the researchers to present reliable qualitative results which also lead to stronger conclusive results. The results are explained qualitatively and supported by quantitative results of the empirical research.

According to the reviewer, the research failed to organize a sample size that could provide stronger results. The author acknowledges that there was a fairly small sample size for the research. Thus it was not possible to find significant relationship between attractiveness and the non-MHC standardized-mean.

The research could not provide significant statistical power to prove the relationship. Besides, the study has made use of all white Caucasians as the respondents. Perhaps if the research was a comparative study between say, the Caucasians and the African Americans, this would have helped to shed more light on the research.

The methods that were used in the research are certainly appropriate as they helped investigate the possible associations between genetics and attractiveness in human beings through DNA sampling and use of photographs.

According to the reviewer, the research method that was applied provided more conclusive results which could not have been possible through the use of another method. The previous results that had been done by other research methods could not establish MHCs role in mate preferences as well as whether males had any unique preferences on the females facial attractiveness.

This research was the first to provide evidence on the role of MHC diversity on male facial attractiveness. It was also the first to establish that genetic diversity is related to unique facial attractiveness. This proves the feasibility and the credibility of the research. Therefore, in the reviewers opinion, this was the best research methodology for the research topic. However, the results presented could have been more comprehensive and stronger if he sample size could have been made larger and diverse.

Significance

The research makes significant contributions to the field of evolution. It provides evidences that support the relationship between genetics and human attractiveness. It enables us understand the underlying phenotypic characteristics which are associated with genotype in opposite-sex facial attractiveness, thus providing significant insights into human sexual selection. It enhances research in genetic diversity as it explores research areas which have never been proven by previous researches in the topic.

The topic of the study in the article is well covered in the study book used in class (Ridley 2004). The book covers many areas covered by the article and provides more insight in it since most of the contents of the article is related to several chapters and subtopics in the book. However, the research methodology used in the study; Microsatellite Markers, has not been fully elaborated in the book.

The research methodology has proved to be more reliable and therefore more skills on its application would be very important in our research processes. I would also recommend that Ridley (2004) cite this article since it presents a professionally conducted research with strong conclusions.

The evidences presented in the article have quantitative data to support them. The article would offer more credibility to the information provided in the Quantitative Genetics in chapter nine of the book (Ridley, 2004). The article provides relevant evidence to most sub topics in this chapter and this would offer learners and all those interested in the field of evolution a comprehensive learning material with more accurate and recent research results.

Follow-Up Design

The next level in the research should investigate the association of MHC-genotype and health. This would help justify the fact that genetic diversity has an effect on the reproductive success as well as fitness (Lie, Hanne and Simmons 2008).

In this case, the variables would be facial attractiveness, skin quality, masculinity, symmetry as well as averageness and femininity. The research would attempt to prove the fact put forward by Donnely et al (155), which explain that MHC heterozygous males have healthier skin as compared to less heterozygous males.

Therefore the hypothesis for the study would be: there is a strong correlation between MHC genotype and skin quality. The research methodology would involve the use of microsatellite in collecting DNA samples and in calculating the individual mean heterozygosity as well as standard mean for the DNA tests. Photographs would also be taken and analyzed by other separate groups from the non-participants. The results of all the tests carried out would then be quantitatively analyzed using multiple regression models.

Works Cited

Brown, Jerram. The new heterozygosity theory of mate choice and the MHC. Genetica, 104 (1999):215221.

Brown, Jerram. A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav. Ecol., 8(1997):6065.

Donnely, Peter., Pritchard, Jonathan., and Stephens, Mathew. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics, 2000(155): 945959

Lie, Hanne., Simmons, Leigh., and Rhodes, Gillian. Genetic diversity revealed in human faces. Crawley: University of Western Australia, 2008. Print.

Ridley, Mark. Evolution. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004. Print.

Genetic studies have quite advanced over the last few years. Medical and biological researchers have made it possible for people to acquire precise information on their genetic makeup. Genetic testing is rapidly growing, and the health industry is contemplating using the approach as a preventative mechanism. Biologically, this development is a great success because it makes it easy to analyze the human genome for education purposes. On the other hand, the understanding of various human genomes does not amount to much in medicine unless that information helps solve a medical dilemma (Batshaw, Roizen, and Lotrecchiano 75). So far, the knowledge of a persons genetic makeup only allows the medical officials to predict possible conditions but do not provide solutions. It is, therefore, difficult to argue the importance of genetic screening in medicine at this point.

Universal screening for the genetic syndrome is not a wise investment now. As mentioned earlier, understanding and the ability to identify a persons genetic makeup is only relevant in medicine if it can solve a medical dilemma. Rather than investing in universal screening, medical practitioners should conduct more research to determine the possible solutions and treatments to the medical issues arising from genetic screening. So far, genetic screening only complicates matters for patients and puts both the practitioners and patients in an impossible dilemma. For instance, a genetic screening process can indicate that a person is in danger of developing breast cancer. Batshaw, Roizen, and Lotrecchiano (54) assert that other than the warning, the screening does not offer an ideal solution to the matter thus presenting patients with an impossible situation. Practitioners, on the other hand, find themselves in a fixed situation for lack of enough information to advise or counsel their patients. For this reason, investing in universal genetic screening is not a wise investment at all unless there is more information about the course.

I would not want to know my genetic makeup if it only complicates my life without offering any solutions. Such information can destroy a persons life radically. Most of the genetic conditions detectable by genetic screening are hereditary. In this case, a couple diagnosed with a hereditary condition might choose not to have children in which case the information will have altered their lives negatively. The screening does not provide accurate information regarding the probability of passing the genetic conditions to the offspring. In addition, the testing can be inaccurate or offer false results, which inspire people to make undesirable options. According to Batshaw, Roizen, and Lotrecchiano (61), such discrepancies and uncertainties make the entire process of human genome screening unnecessary.

Genetic testing conflicts with medical ethics in many areas. Medical ethics allows screening of conditions only if those conditions have an already existing effective cure. Most of the conditions detectable by genetic testing do not have an effective cure. Even in newborn screening, an area where genetic testing is excelling, parents opt to terminate the pregnancy for lack of a better solution to their condition. In addition, the information presented by genetic testing makes some people develop anger, anxiety, and depression (Batshaw, Roizen, and Lotrecchiano 112). The duty of the medical department is to make people feel better and offer hope to hopeless situations. It becomes hard to offer consolation to a person whose genetic makeup indicates high chances of developing cancerous tumors. In General, doctors and other medical practitioners should only do a genetic test on conditions with possible solutions to prevent unnecessary falls out on patients.

Works Cited

Batshaw, Mark L., Nancy J. Roizen, and Gaetano R. Lotrecchiano. Children with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Pub, 2013. Print.

Before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, Aristotle and Hippocrates supported the concept of blending inheritance in explaining how organisms inherit traits. The concept of blending inheritance holds that genetic traits of parents randomly combine and generate intermediate traits in their respective offspring. However, the emergence of Mendelian genetics has rendered the concept of blending inheritance erroneous due to its inability to explain the persistence of variations and intermittent occurrence of traits. Therefore, this essay explains why valid genetic concepts such as incomplete dominance, co-dominance, pleiotropy, epistasis, and polygenic traits support the erroneous concept of blending inheritance.

The concept of incomplete dominance in genetics explains a situation where the expression of one of a pair of alleles partially dominates or suppresses the other allele. In genetics, traits can either be dominant or recessive depending on their expression levels in organisms. In incomplete dominance, offspring acquire intermediate traits, which reflect the blend of different traits of the parents. For example, the cross between red-flowered and white-flowered pea plants results in the production of pink-flowered pea plants. Essentially, traits in red flowers partially dominate the traits in while flowers resulting in blended traits in pink flowers. In this view, incomplete dominance in genetics supports the concept of blending inheritance.

The concept of co-dominance in genetics elucidates a scenario where there is an equal expression of dominant or recessive genes resulting in the production of a combined trait. Co-dominance normally occurs when parents with dominant traits or recessive traits cross and give rise to offspring with dominant traits or recessive traits respectively. Moreover, the expression of the inherited dominant traits or recessive traits has equal strength in that neither trait can dominate the other. As dominant traits or recessive traits in organisms have equal strength of expression, they blend and confer traits that reflect both traits. For example, A and B are dominant traits of a blood group that equally blend to form the AB blood group. Thus, co-dominance supports the concept of blending inheritance in genetics.

The concept of pleiotropy in genetics explains a phenomenon where a single gene in an organism has multiple phenotypic traits, which are normally unrelated to the gene. Pleiotropy supports the concept of blending inheritance because it indicates that a single gene can have multiple phenotypes, which can only occur through blending with other genes and phenotypes. For instance, sickle cell anemia is a genetic abnormality that occurs due to the pleiotropic effects of the mutation in the gene that encodes for hemoglobin. Thus, the ability of a single gene to cause multiple phenotypic effects implies that genes can blend and generate blended traits.

Epistasis is a genetic concept that explains how genes can interact and influence phenotypic characteristics in an organism. Essentially, epistasis holds that one gene can mask or magnify the expression of another gene. For example, the gene for baldness interacts with genes for red hair and blond hair to cause complete baldness in an individual. In this view, the gene for red hair or the gene for blond hair magnifies the occurrence of complete baldness in an individual. Therefore, the ability of genes to interact shows that they can blend and generate blended phenotypes in line with the concept of blending inheritance.

Polygenic traits comprise traits that are subject to the expression of two or more genes in different gene loci. Polygenic traits emanate from a polygenic inheritance, which is a genetic concept that elucidates how numerous genes influence a given trait. The hair color is an example of a polygenic trait because it is under the influence of numerous genes in humans. Hence, the ability of numerous genes to influence a trait implies that genes blend and bring about unique traits, according to the concept of blending inheritance.

In conclusion, the genetic concepts of incomplete dominance, co-dominance, pleiotropy, epistasis, and polygenic traits support the erroneous concept of blending inheritance for they indicate that genes interact and have multiple phenotypic effects on organisms.

ARTs

Assisted reproductive technologies are designed to help infertile people or couples with difficulties conceiving a child to successfully initiate the pregnancy process. For example, one of the basic approaches is to use a donor egg or donor sperm cell, depending on which person has abnormal reproductive cells, and insert the nucleus of the interested couples within these cells. This is followed up by in vitro fertilization, which means it is done outside the human body, and implanted back to a female (Preparing for ART, 2019). The use of ART for the treatment of infertility today is prevalent, but the attitude towards the use of assistive technologies among the population is not unambiguous.

On the one hand, this is an opportunity to become parents for infertile couples, on the other hand, the ART industry acts as a new type of business and, therefore, we can talk about the commercialization of parenthood and, accordingly, the problem of financial affordability. The success and failure rates are manifested in the fact that out of 150000 ART procedures, only 35% result in successful pregnancies, where 29% result in the normal birth of a baby (Preparing for ART, 2019).

In addition, religious and ethnic factors influence attitudes towards assistive technology use. In the context of the demographic crisis, the possibility of solving the problem of infertility with the help of assistive technologies becomes even more urgent, which makes the study of public opinion about assisted reproductive technologies in society, especially youth, problematic.

Advances in medicine have given parenthood happiness to many partners and single women. However, discussions about the admissibility of human intervention in the sacrament of conception still do not stop. Traditional denominations prohibit or restrict the use of assisted reproductive technologies, considering them an attempt by a person to compete with God in the ability to create the miracle of a new life. The Catholic Church is known for its categorical position on this issue, since almost all assisted reproductive technologies are rejected, while other world religions are more sensitive to the topic, where often priests bless in vitro fertilization, provided that the patients are married and donor material is not used for fertilization. In addition to problems of a religious nature, experts around the world regularly raise the issue of ethics for the use of embryos.

Cancer

Cancer is caused by a multitude of factors, such as genetic, environmental, and infectious, which results in abnormal growth and division rate of cancerous cells. Regardless of the type of factor triggering cancer, it is manifested in the genetic change of two forms of genes, such as tumor-suppressing genes or oncogenes. Tumor-suppressing genes, at a normal state, usually suppress the cell division process and act as a checkpoint for the cells lifecycle. The loss of such a gene can result in a cell losing the control mechanism for its division process, which results in cancer.

Normally, oncogenes are the genes, which induce the cell division process to regenerate or create new cells, but mutations that make them constantly active or overexpressed leads to abnormal cell division and cancer. These mutational changes can be triggered or accelerated by environmental factors, such as smoking. The chemicals within the smoke act as potent mutagens, which enhance the formation of mutations in cells and increase the likelihood of lung cancer by a significant margin.

Some forms of cancer can be genetically predisposed, such as breast cancer. It can be pre-diagnosed through genetic testing and analysis to take preliminary measures. It is stated that hepatitis C is an example of liver cancer caused by a virus (Hayes, 2018). Thus, infectious diseases can also trigger cancerous cells, which is the result of viral activity. The virus can be considered as mutagen itself because some types of them insert their genes into a hosts genome.

Gene Editing

The international pause on clinical trials of CRISPR/Cas9 technology is because it can be used for human design and embryonic changes, which always leads to ethical concerns. It is stated that the given technology can deliberately change ones genome by introducing positive or desirable traits, such as taller height, a certain eye color, stronger bones, and a lower risk for cardiovascular diseases (Doudna, 2015).

I believe that there is a need for precise regulatory limitations for the use of Crispr/Cas9 to avoid potential implications, starting from horrendous human designs to biological inequality achieved by children whose parents can afford such procedures. In addition, I can already imagine how the commercialization process can push aggressive advertising playing on ones physical insecurities and become more invasive and controversial than the plastic surgery industry.

CRISPR/Cas9 is simply a bacterial defense mechanism against viruses and their genetic material. The Cas9 protein uses a complementary RNA derived from viral DNA to find the viral insertion and degrade it (Doudna, 2015). This is critical because the technology can be programmed to cut out any sequence of DNA, and it is highly precise. In addition, double-strand breaks caused by these cuts are easily repaired in human cells due to the presence of double-strand break repair mechanisms, such as non-homologous end-joining and homologous repair.

There are other technologies for genome editing, such as zinc-finger nucleases (ZFN) and transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALEN) (Ain, Chung, & Kim, 2015). Both of them find the specific locus in the genome and, with the help of Fok1, can cut out the sequence. However, the overall simplicity of Crispr/Cas9 technology makes it more efficient and feasible to use.

Xenotransplantation

An organ transplant between different species is called xenotransplantation. In medicine, this term refers to the transplantation of organs and tissues from an animal to a person. The problem of organ deficiency, as well as several other problems in the development of transplantation, could be solved by developing a new area of organ transplantation from animals (Yang, 2018). Xenotransplantation refers to any procedure that involves transplanting, implanting, or infusing into the recipients body either living cells, tissues or organs derived from a different species, or fluids, cells, tissues or organs of the body of the same species as the recipient, but having ex vivo contact with living animal cells, tissues or organs of another species.

Fetal neurons or stem cells, porcine pancreatic cells, encapsulated chromaffin cells of bovine adrenal glands, primate bone marrow, and extracorporeal devices using the whole organ or its cells also fall into this category. Biological preparations or materials obtained from animals but not containing living cells, such as pork heart valves or porcine insulin, are not considered xenograft products and do not fit this definition. The success is manifested in the fact that many patients can acquire an organ without risking their lives waiting in line. The risks can be associated with tissue rejection because xenotransplantation involves intergrading foreign tissue within ones body.

References

Ain, Q. U., Chung, J. Y., & Kim, Y. H. (2015). Current and future delivery systems for engineered nucleases: ZFN, TALEN and RGEN. Journal of Controlled Release, 205, 120-127.

Doudna, J. (2015). How CRISPR lets us edit our DNA?TED. Web.

Hayes, N. (2018). Are you part of the silent epidemic? Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web.

Preparing for ART. (2019). Web.

Yang, L. (2018). How to create a world where no one dies waiting for a transplant?TED. Web.