Genetic modification or engineering of food entails changing the DNA make-up of the seeds used to grow certain food crops and pharmaceutical plants.
As a result, genetic modification aims at altering the characteristics of plants so that they can be grown within a short period, to suit the prevailing climatic conditions, to resist the damage from pests, diseases, and weeds, and to increase food production (Windley, 2008, p. 1).
Therefore, research studies note that genetically modified foods hold the key to solving the current issues regarding the global food production patterns. Conversely, critics of these modified foods have raised several concerns regarding the safety of these foods and their effect on the environment and traditional varieties of food crops.
Thus, this essay presents discussions on the concerns raised over the safety and effect of genetically modified (GM) foods, and the benefits of these foods in order to assess whether the benefits outweigh the risks.
The Concerns regarding GM foods
Most researchers are concerned about the safety of GM foods to human health. Here, the researchers note that there are no human studies regarding the effect of GM foods on human beings and therefore, one cannot certainly state the effect of these crops relative to their digestibility, their present and future impact on human health, and their effect on the human microbiota (Windley, 2008, p. 1).
In addition, studies note that most GM foods contain a lot of pesticide and herbicide residues, which are potential risk factors in the development of different food allergies (Bant, 2008). Conversely, other studies posit that some GM foods such as GMO potatoes can lead to the development of pre-cancerous lesions in the intestinal tract, testicles, and the liver of test animals (Windley, 2008, p. 2).
Additionally, there are concerns over the long-term effect of GM seeds in that their increased use threatens the existence of natural seeds. Here, most researchers note that GM seeds have found popularity in different parts of the world whereby they have been replanted over the years and therefore, raising concerns in that they may lead to the lose of the natural seeds.
Furthermore, natural plants may lose their nutritional profile and the cost of farm inputs may increase because farmers will be forced to purchase seeds, which were previously available for free (Windley, 2008, p. 2).
Furthermore, there are concerns regarding the effect of GM foods on the environment. Here, the critics of GM foods argue that the increased use of herbicides and pesticides may lead to the emergence of resistant strains of weeds and insects, which may become potentially harmful to the environment (Bant, 2008).
Moreover, certain GM crops including pharmaceutical plants may escape from containment fields to the food crop fields and therefore, contaminate the natural crops (Marvier, 2007, p. 59).
Benefits of GM foods
Despite the increased criticism against GM foods, they are important in terms of guaranteeing the global food safety because of their potential to increase the yield and the nutritional content of some food crops (Bant, 2008).
Additionally, GM crops can survive in different climatic conditions and therefore, they have the potential to expand the cultivation areas and resources relative to the diminishing natural resources. Furthermore, GM crops are designed to resist herbivores, insects, and herbicides. As a result, there is maximal utilization of the limited resources to realize increased yields with GM foods (Bant, 2008).
Furthermore, most GM foods can endure long-distance transportation, which does not normally favor most natural crops such as greens. As a result, GM foods can expand the shelf life of foods and thus, reduce the costs incurred due to food spoilage (Bant, 2008).
Additionally, since most developing countries rely on grains as the only staple food, they can derive several benefits from GM crops, which aim at diversifying the nutritional profile of food grains. Moreover, most GM crops have been designed by excluding potential allergens in the original plants and therefore, GM foods have increased the range of food crops available to farmers (Bant, 2008).
Lastly, scientists have designed genetically modified pharmaceutical plants, which possess the ability to produce large quantities of drugs and vaccines. As a result, genetic engineering of plants allows the increased availability of pharmaceuticals while reducing the cost of health care provision in the world (Marvier, 2007, p. 59).
Conclusion
The essay presents discussions on the benefits and concerns regarding the production of GM foods and pharmaceuticals. The discussions above note that GM foods and pharmaceuticals hold several benefits amid the intense criticism regarding their safety and their effect on the environment.
As noted above, most critics base their arguments on assumptions while the benefits of GM foods cannot be overemphasized. As a result, there is the possibility that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the concerns over their safety and potential impact on human beings and the environment unless the claims made against GM foods are supported by factual and statistical data.
Even though the fundamental theoretical foundation for the understanding of evolution has been in existence for the past few centuries, the essential significance of this framework is still debatable (Ayala & Robert 182). By population genetics, four basic forces influence evolution processes. These forces are natural selection, genetic flow, mutation, and genetic drift. Through natural selection, the best-adapted organisms sire the desired offspring.
These offspring will carry forward to the next generations the desired genes passed on from their parents. Unlike natural selection, genetic drift is an unintentional process through which probability determines the alleles that will continue to exist. Gene flow takes place when genes are passed from a population to the other. Gene flow is also referred to as migration. The mutation is responsible for the genetic disparity in a gene pool.
With the improvements in the understanding of evolution and molecular biology, the definition of species in the past has been changed several times (Moore 67). In the past, the term species referred to organisms with identifiable traits that could be distinguished from other identical organisms. This definition was dropped because in a population, variation exists and not all members of a given species look alike. Currently, the biological species concept describes the species as creatures that can interbreed to bring into being fertile offspring.
Just like the other three forces, natural selection has been a means of evolution, whereas variation has been a requirement for the evolution process (Moore 87). Based on this fact, it can be argued that evolution can be realized in the absence of natural selection. However, evolution cannot be realized in the absence of variation. Variation is an important facet of the population. As such, variation is realized when organisms in a population varies in their distinctiveness.
Variation is attributed to mutation, immigration, and the mixing of genetic material. Through mutation, changes in the DNAs of reproductive cells are passed on to the next generations. Usually, genes mutate at the rate of one to ten times in one hundred thousand cell divisions.
This indicates that mutation is a rare and random process. Despite this, it should be noted that mutation is the leading cause of variation in a population. Mutation can be manipulated by environmental abuses such as radiation and uses of certain chemicals. Variation through gene flow is realized when an organism moves into a territory of another related organism but with different variations. When this occurs, the resulting population from both the native and the immigrants can be categorized as genetically varied.
Based on the above discussion, it is apparent that evolution is realized when inherited traits of a population or a species are altered over time. When these changes are realized, speciation can be said to have taken place. If reproductive isolation occurs over time between members of different demes, they may evolve into new species.
Mechanisms that inhibit breeding between populations, eventually leading to speciation are referred to as isolating mechanisms. These isolating mechanisms are categorized into prezygotic and postzygotic. Prezygotic mechanisms inhibit the formation of hybrids. On the other hand, postzygotic mechanisms inhibit hybrids from producing viable offspring. Geographical isolation is the major isolation mechanism in nature.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the concepts of evolution have changed and might continue to change in the future with the advancement in microbiology. Concerning population genetics, four basic forces influence evolution processes. These forces are natural selection, gene flow, mutation, and genetic drift.
Works Cited
Ayala, Francisco José, and Robert Arp. Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell Pub., 2010. Print.
Farming is one of the backbones of the US economy given the fact the country is the leading exporter of various agricultural products. This aspect was captured clearly in Whiteman’s poetry, as he noted, “through the ample open door of the peaceful country barn, a sun-lit pasture field, with cattle and horses feeding; and haze, and vista, and the far horizon, fading away” (Whitman 78).
In this article, it is argued that the use of genetically modified organisms in farming should be supported since it helps in boosting productivity because of the soaring population.
A census conducted in the ministry of agriculture in 2007 revealed that at least two-billion farms were under agricultural production. The central region of the state boosts of farming, especially the Great Plains, where rearing of various breeds of animals and several plant types take place. Farmers in the country concentrate on the production of corns, turkeys, tomatoes, potatoes, and sunflower.
GMO Debate
Overgrazing and mono cropping was the major issue in the agricultural sector leading to soil erosion and environmental degradation. The issue of land use raised a heated debated and the ideas of Leopold claiming, “Central insight was that everything is connected” are valid since the agricultural sector was highly depended by the majority in the country (Leopold 265).
Colonialists had the capacity to produce more products since they utilized the oxen effectively, but it had an effect on the fertility of soil since deeper plough cuts allowed more contact between soil components and oxygen, causing nutrient depletion. Overgrazing never allowed soil to absorb adequate oxygen in order to sustain life.
In the mid 19th century, the country adopted scientific methods of farming leading to improved economic growth. The state had to formulate various laws to ensure sanity in agriculture, with the Morrill Act and the Hatch Act playing a critical role.
Baker noted in his writing that, “cities swelled, people talked frequently of the eastern megalopolis in the typically overheated prose of Time Magazine from 1966, a coruscating corridor of light, an unbroken, 450-mile-long conglomeration of humanity stretching from Boston to Washington” (Baker 377). This means people were interested in exploring new opportunities in farming in the states believed to support agriculture.
Therefore, the government had to move in to regulate the activities of farmers to ensure land use was in accordance with the law. The two bills facilitated the development of agricultural institutions of higher learning to enhance innovation. Currently, many farmers prefer genetically modified organisms due to their ability to grow rapidly.
However, a debate is ongoing on the viability of GMO products and the major concern is their impact on people’s health. This paper addresses the issues surrounding the manufacture and use of GMO products in the agricultural field.
Manufacture and usage of genetically modified organisms are in the rise in the country, but a controversy exists regarding their effects on the health of consumers. A controversy over the labeling, regulating, and prohibiting the supply of GMO foods exist and the major antagonists are biotechnology companies, government regulators, and a few scientists given the fact the products pose a diverse effects on the environment, farmers, and pesticide resistance.
Members of the public have been made to believe that GMOs are harmful to their health, but no scientific study supports the claim meaning foods obtained from genetic organisms have lesser risks just like the ones manufactured conventionally (Scatasta and Wesseler 244). Since researchers started engaging in studies to establish the effects of GMOs, documentation of a report confirming toxicity of the products is not yet out.
The law does not force companies producing GMOs to label their products, but the case is different in European countries. Those opposed to genetically manufacture products, such as the Organic Consumers Association and Greenpeace society, argue that regulatory bodies have been sleeping on the job because they have not yet identified the effects of these products even after receiving heavy funding from the government.
For some activists, GMO products have long-term effects even though they are not established and as such, they call on government regulators to insist on labeling. In his conclusion, Abbey noted that, “an observant reader might have noticed a lack of poke-in-the-ribs” (Abbey 413). This means the issue of GMO has always raised controversies in the country for many years.
From a medical perspective, opponents are of the view that consuming GMO foods exposes an individual to risks as opposed to utilizing farm products manufactured conventionally. In 2012, the American Association for the Advancement of Science posted in its website a statement claiming that foods made from GMO products have no risks when compared to others manufactured conventionally.
The American Medical Association and the National Academies of Sciences echoed these sentiments, as they both suggested that GMO foods do not have health effects and many studies confirm this assertion as well. The main risk of modifying a plant or animal species lies with the introduction of an antigen (Chen and Shelton 162). The studies going on in GMO testing centers focus on establishing whether the allergens have the capacity of altering the genetic composition of a specifies.
Regulation of genetically modified organisms in Europe is mandatory because allegations exist regarding the likelihood of the products to transmit dangerous compounds to consumers. The focus of the European Green Party and Greenpeace organization is to push the government to regulate the supply of such products in the market with claims that they affect people’s health significantly.
In their reports, organizations opposed to GMO products claim that allergens are likely to cause allergies in people leading to reactions to environmental conditions. In the United States, people are opposed to GMO goods because they cause allergic reactions. For the proponents of genetically modified organisms, the chances of introducing allergenic compounds or toxins to plants are minimal given the fact the process is scientific (Momaday 570).
Transgenic engineering of genes is known to have lesser impact as far as expression of genomes and metabolite levels are concerned. In other words, conventional breeding is likely to facilitate undirected mutagenic transmission. In fact, many studies confirm that conventional breeding has never been risk-free meaning it allows the transmission of toxic compounds.
In the United States and Europe, the kiwi fruit was introduced in early 1960s through conventional processes, but current studies prove that many people suffer from allergies because of consuming the products made from the fruit (Prudham and Morris 162).
Some studies support the claim that genetic modification could be employed effectively in removing allergens from foods hence reducing the risks of suffering from allergies. In 2003, a research undertaken on soybean revealed that genetically modified organisms do not have main allergens.
Opponents of GMO technology are concerned with testing since decisions do not consider the views of all other stakeholders meaning it is done without adequate consultation with the population and other concerned stakeholders. Companies are often quick to withdraw funding in case they realize that compounds are harmful to people’s health even before they are introduced in the market. The company was aware of the effects of nuts on people’s health and it went on to test the product for allergies (McHughen and Smyth 18).
The organization wanted to confirm whether serum reacts in any way with transgenic soy. Again, they tested the effects of the product on human skin and the results were positive meaning it causes allergy in people. Instead of communicating to relevant authorities appropriately, the company simply halted the program. In 2005, a similar case was reported when a study was conducted on the pest-resistant field pea that had been developed in Australia.
Animals utilize the product as a pasture crop. The test was positive meaning it had an effect on people’s health, as it caused allergy in mice. Just as the previous study, the program closed without giving a sufficient reason. Since various products have failed to pass validity test, many people are concerned with the free supply of GMO foods.
Government regulators approve most GMO products used as animal feeds, but businesspersons tend to exploit the opportunities to supply the products to the unsuspecting buyers locally and abroad leading to serious health problems.
On the other hand, opponents claim further that continued use of GMO products would affect breed diversity in the sense that fewer cultivars would be used (Doull and Greim 2075). Genetically modified products resist diseases, but if they fail, it would lead to overuse of agrichemicals, which is harmful to the environment.
Conclusion
According to the United Nations report, the future of US farming lies with the GMO technology because the world population is to hit ten billion in the next ninety years. The population increase is to exceed its target in fertile regions, including the United States and farming through GMO’s offers a perfect solution. However, diminishing agricultural fields and issues raised by environmentalists do not allow continuous clearance of forests to pave way for farming. Seeking an alternative seems the only solution in order to ensure sustainability.
Therefore, US farmers should be allowed to use genetically modified organisms to increase food production in the country. Clearance of forests is not an option towards food production because of issues to do with global warming. Scientific research suggest that continuous interference with nature would definitely lead to problems because rain seasons are likely to change and this would not go down well with farmers.
While opponents accuse GMO technology for causing a myriad of diseases, scientific studies are yet to prove the allegations meaning utilization of the technology should be encouraged. It is concluded that food security would be enhanced in case application of GMO technology is legalized in the country. Utilization of conventional agricultural methods would not serve the ever-increasing population.
Both opponents and supporters of GMO technology underscore the fact that the population increase calls on the government to think of alternative sources of food because the current sources are not adequate.
Works Cited
Abbey, Edward. “Polemic: Industrial Tourism and the National Parks”. American Earth: Environmental Writing since Thoreau. Ed. Bill McKibben and Albert Gore. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 2008. 413-434. Print.
Baker, Russell. “The Great Paver”. American Earth: Environmental writing since Thoreau. Ed. Bill McKibben and Albert Gore. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 2008. 359-379. Print.
Chen, Mao, and Anthony Shelton. “Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Rice in China: From Research to Commercialization”. Annual Review of Entomology 56.1 (2011): 81–101. Print.
Doull, Gaylor, and Lovell Greim. “Report of an Expert Panel on the reanalysis by of a 90-day study conducted by Monsanto in support of the safety of a genetically modified corn variety (MON 863)”. Food Chem. Toxicology 45.11 (2007): 2073–2085. Print.
Leopold, Aldo. “From a Sand County Almanac”. American Earth: Environmental Writing Since Thoreau. Ed. Bill McKibben and Albert Gore. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 2008. 265-294. Print.
McHughen, Alan, and Stuart Smyth. “US Regulatory System for Genetically Modified Genetically Modified Organism (GMO), rDNA or Transgenic Crop Cultivars.” Plant Biotechnology Journal 6.1 (2007): 3-21. Print.
Momaday, Scott. “A First American Views His Land.” American Earth: Environmental Writing since Thoreau. Ed. Bill McKibben and Albert Gore. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 2008. 570-582. Print.
Prudham, Scott and Angela Morris. “Making the Market ‘Safe’ for GM Foods: The Case of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee”. Studies in Political Economy 78.1 (2006): 145–175. Print.
Scatasta, Sara, and Justus Wesseler. “Differentiating the consumer benefits from labeling of GM food products.” Agricultural Economics 37.2 (2007): 237-248. Print.
In the past few decades, inventions and breakthrough scientific discoveries in the biological field have resulted in the prevalence of access to sophisticated equipment and advanced diagnostic procedures. One of these technological advancements has been in the form of genetic screening, which is the ability to determine the presence of a genetic marker for a specific disease or condition. This testing is especially significant in light of research estimates, which approximate that 1 in every 20 newborns in America is born with a severe disorder that is presumed to be genetic in origin (Pillitteri, 2009).
Genetic testing offers a way of forecasting some diseases and thereby equipping people with knowledge as to any genetic mishap and thereby affording them a chance to undertake some preventive measure in anticipation. Unlike most other medical technologies, genetic screening has an inescapable effect on not only an individual but also their families and the society at large. It is with these considerations that this paper shall set out to look at the merits and demerits of genetic screening so as to authoritatively state if the genetic screening is worthwhile to the individual.
Pros of Genetic Screening
The healthcare system is slowly moving towards the prevention of diseases rather than relying on the traditional fire-fighting habits of treating diseases once they occur. Genetic screening plays a preventive role in cases whereby a person tests positive for a disease gene e.g., cancer. Based on these findings, the person may take steps to avoid the diseases ever developing or mitigate their advancement. Bettina and Dunn (2001) state that the discovery of genetic markers for Huntington’s disease enabled doctors to use linkage analysis to identify currently unaffected carriers, thereby helping cope with the disease. As such, it can be contended that screening gives a person a better chance of survival than would be the case if the presence of a genetic defect was not known beforehand.
Genetic screening leads to the making of sound decisions by parties based on the findings presented by the tests. For example, decisions such as not to have babies, preventive care, or abortions can be made on screening results. Many couples envision starting up a family of their own, and they look forward to having healthy children who will be devoid of all but the common ailments. However, there is always the doubt as to whether their children may have some inheritable disease, which would render them disabled in some way.
Genetic testing (prenatal testing) can help ease the heart and mind of such people by giving them information as to the likelihood of their baby suffering from any gene disorder (Boskey, 2007). From the results, couples can decide to terminate a pregnancy or even not have babies at all. While the reaction that such findings can have on people is varied, it is commonly agreed that counseling is provided both before and after the test to help prepare one for what may be discovered as with dealing with the results.
In some cases, genetic testing may be necessitated by employers who dictate that their employees undertake genetic tests as part of the company policy. Initially, it was feared that this testing was aimed at giving results that would help in the screening for people who were genetically predisposed to certain occupational illnesses. However, it has been argued that employers may want to know the employees status so as to help with insurance policies and medical benefits. Susceptibility to some conditions can also be highlighted by these tests hence enabling the employer to place the employee properly. Furthermore, Brent (2000) observes that in states where genetic screening is allowed to employers, the law dictates that no employment decisions can be made on the basis of the results.
Cons of Genetic Screening
The major problem associated with genetic testing is that they rarely give a definitive answer, especially when one is seeking answers as to the likelihood of their children having some inheritable diseases (Boskey, 2007). In the case of couples who are expecting a baby, at best, the tests just let them know how likely they are to have a child with the disease. This notion is further reinforced by Jonsen, Veatch, and Leroy (1999), who argue that in some instances, the presence of markers showing genetic alteration might only indicate susceptibility for a certain disease and not the certainty of the disease. This means that the carrier to whom this knowledge has been given may end up making drastic decisions e.g., deciding not to have a baby, while in reality, he/she would have had a healthy baby had he chosen to. From this, it can be strongly suggested that genetic testing does more harm than good since it is probabilistic in nature.
The results from genetic screening have been known to result in increased anxiety levels as well as suicidal tendencies in some people. This is because some of the results of genetic testing can indicate the presence of incurable diseases that a person had no idea or beforehand. While research does indicate that patients have higher anxiety and depression levels before genetic testing, this does not discount the presence of a small number of patients who exhibit high levels of stress and disturbance after the results of the genetic testing. As such, Bettina and Dunn (2001) argue that genetic have less influence on emotional distress; however, the authors concede that suicidal tendencies spring from other social and economic issues and the presence of any disorder may just act as a trigger to an already volatile situation which would have boiled over at some other time in life.
Conclusion
This paper set out to discuss the pros and cons of genetic screening so as to provide a stand as to whether this practice should be encouraged. From the arguments presented in this paper, it is evident that genetic screening is hugely beneficial as it can lead to better decision making as well as preventive measures where genetic anomalies are discovered. While there exist risks associated with the practice e.g., psychological distress, measures such as pre and post-test counseling can reduce the negative effects that genetic screening can have. The increase in the perceived gains of genetic testing has resulted in it being considered as an essential part of the health care system, and future prospects are that it will be a fundamental component in medicine.
References
Bettina, M. & Dunn, S. (2001) Psychological effect of genetic testing for Huntington’s disease. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 48, 137–144.
Boskey, E. (2007). America Debates Genetic DNA Testing” New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.
Brent, N, J. (2000). Nurses and the Law: a Guide to Principles and Applications. 2nd ed. Elsevier Health Sciences.
Jonse, A, R., Veatch, R. M. & LeRoy, W. (1998). Sourcebook in Bioethics. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
Pillitteri, A. (2009). Maternal and Child Health Nursing: Care of the Childbearing and Childrearing Family. 6th edn. USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Genetic testing is a process where medical tests are used to identify mutations (changes) in an individual’s genes or chromosomes. Several hundreds of genetic tests exist today and many are still being developed. Genetic tests can be carried out for diseases that can be inherited. Thus, the tests can be used in many situations. For instance, to test for cancer risk, predictive gene testing can be done. In other cases, carrier screening is carried out in a situation where one person in a family’s history has a mutant copy of a particular gene. Pre-implantation testing can be done in prenatal periods such that embryos are tested before implantation.
Value of Genetic Testing
Although genetic testing has its drawbacks, its benefits far outnumber them. First of all, it provides a clearer understanding of one’s risk of particular cancer. By this, one can be in a perfect position to make an informed decision concerning his or her health. Negative results on families that are at high risk of particular cancer can be quite relieving. Positive results could help one confront the disease soon enough. It, therefore, matters not whether the results are positive or negative.
Genetic testing is also useful for people already diagnosed with cancer. Diagnosing the tumor can always help decide on its outlook. This helps in deciding on the proper treatment and management of that cancer.
Genetic Counseling
Genetic counseling can be conducted before or after genetic testing. Managing and dealing with information touching on cancer pose a challenge to many people. The segment most likely to be disturbed is that of people who have a strong family health history of particular cancer. Even for those families that do not have such history, understanding issues to do with the disease can be equally challenging. This is why genetic counseling comes in handy. Through it, individuals or their families may get specialized training and guidance by being provided with an array of useful information, relevant resources as well as support.
Value of Genetic Counseling
The psychological benefits of genetic counseling are many. This is because genetic testing becomes risky when the results have a high potential of indicating that one is at high risk. This counseling may help them know what to do. For example, they may be advised about the need for frequent check-ups.
Even though negative results may be relieving to an individual, that individual may not know that such results may not necessarily indicate that they may not develop cancer in the future. It is now the role of genetic counselors to help such individuals be aware of this fact. They may impress upon such people the need for regular check-ups.
Value of knowing that one has a particular genetic mutation
It still important for one to know that they have a particular genetic mutation. First of all, the uncertainty over whether one is at a higher risk than the rest of the population shall be removed. Secondly, with genetic testing, one will have obtained an almost accurate estimate of the risk they are exposed to than they would have by looking at family history only. Also, one can tell in advance the risk their offspring may be exposed to and advise accordingly. The same may apply to the larger family. All in all, gene testing greatly helps in making people be better informed concerning surveillance, prevention as well as management of cancer.
There have been major revolutions in the genetic world in the 21st 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 Obama’s 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 people’s 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 people’s 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 people’s 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 people’s 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 people’s 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 patient’s 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 21st 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.
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 fly’s 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 organism’s homology to human beings lies in the fact that most scientists seek to understand how the fly’s 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 organism’s 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 F2’s resulting traits in line with Mendel’s 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 experiment’s 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
Phenotype
Observed (o)
Expected (e)
(o-e)
(o-e)2
(o-e)2/e
Monohybrid
248
221
27
729
729/221 (3.2986)
White-eye Recessive
62
72
10
100
100/72 (1.3888)
c2calculated:
4.6874
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 experiment’s 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 experiment’s 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 Darwin’s 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 sex‐linked 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 Carey’s 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 mother’s 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 21st 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 Mother’s 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.
Creating models of the processes that occur at the genetic level is a rather tricky process that may trigger convoluted results and even lead to erroneous assumptions. The alleged phenomenon of blending is one of the graphic examples of these misunderstandings. Although supported extensively by Aristotle and Hippocrates, it relies on a false assumption resulting from a misinterpretation of the concepts such as incomplete dominance, co-dominance, epistasis, pleiotropy, and polygenic traits.
The concept of incomplete dominance implies that the zygote has the phenotype that is not only different from the one of the parents but also typically is in the middle between the two as far as the properties are concerned. Seeing that, as a result of incomplete dominance, certain elements of the recessive alleles are not entirely outbalanced by the dominant ones; as a result, the phenotypes of approximately half of the population retain the phenotypic characteristics of the recessive allele.
The phenomenon of co-dominance, in its turn, occurs in case neither of alleles is recessive or dominant. As a result, the phenotype of the zygote incorporates the characteristics of both alleles. Seeing that the phenotype represents not a mixture but a combination of the two, the theory of blending was designed as the tool for explaining the phenomenon.
Similarly, epistasis, which is defined as the ability of a gene belonging to a different allele to affect the presence of a specific gene, may lead to the invalid assumption that blending is a possible tool for explaining the observed phenomenon. In other words, the lack of observation of the effects that the gene suppressing the one from a different allele has on the phenotype of the zygote may cause one to think that the blending theory has a reason to exist. In reality, however, the phenotype of the other gene is locked or masked, whereas one of the first genes is manifested extensively in the second-generation representatives. Without knowing the specifics of the gene that can mask the properties of the other one, the observer may make a false assumption about blending as one of the possible explanations of the fact that ¾ of the next generation have certain characteristics that the epistatic gene predetermined.
Pleiotropy is another example of how a specific phenomenon may be misinterpreted. Similarly to the concept described above, pleiotropy implies that a specific gene may control at least two phenotypic characteristics that may seem completely unrelated to each other. For instance, several hereditary disorders caused by a specific gene can be deemed as an example of pleiotropy. The concept may be viewed mistakenly as the support for the blending theory.
Polygenic traits, or the characteristics that are defined by at least two genes, also used to be viewed as the support for the blending theory since their presence is determined by two or more genes. Therefore, the properties such as skin color, which is affected by a range of genes, may be falsely considered the manifestation of the blending theory.
When misinterpreted, the essential concepts of genetics, such as incomplete dominance, co-dominance, epistasis, pleiotropy, and polygenic traits, may spark the theories that will lead to significant mistakes in interpreting the mechanism of genetics. Despite the fact that the principle of blending is faulty in its nature, it has been supported as a viable theory by Hippocrates and Aristotle. Nevertheless, it is based on an entirely false premise. Applying the blending framework means simplifying a range of genetic processes that need careful observation and detailed analysis.
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 organism’s 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). Let’s celebrate human genetic diversity. Nature, Vol. 461, pp. 726-728.
Lewontin, R. (1995). Human Diversity, 2nd Ed. W.H. Freeman & Company. Web.
United States Department of Agriculture. (2006). Why is Genetic Diversity always Changing? Web.