Science + History, how cool can you get ?   

A 2,000-year-old sample of horse faeces has solved one of the ancient world's most enduring mysteries — how Carthaginian General Hannibal led an army of 40,000 men, as well as horses and elephants, across remote terrain and snow-covered Alps to surprise unsuspecting Roman forces.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-06/horse-faeces-solves-mystery-of-carthaginian-general-hannibal/7305518

A science story especially for Rumpy:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-06/orange-gold-for-citizen-science-peacock-spider-buffs/7304180

Tardis001 at April 6, 2016 at 9:20 PM

A science story especially for Rumpy:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-06/orange-gold-for-citizen-science-peacock-spider-buffs/7304180

Very cute looking things Tardy, if I spot any I'll let you know.

Monster black hole discovered in an unlikely galaxy may be common

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-07/supermassive-black-holes-could-be-everywhere/7306610

A powerful new gene-editing technology called CRISPR has enormous potential to treat human diseases but the ability to tinker with genes can also be controversial.

Key Points:  CRISPR is a faster, cheaper and more accurate way of editing genes.  It should allow replacing faulty genes with healthy ones.

Now combine this with advanced cybernetic technology.

We’ll have an Army of Super Cyborgs at our disposal.

How cool is that ? 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-07/crispr-gene-editing-technology-explainer/7217782

Photon at April 7, 2016 at 2:35 AM

A powerful new gene-editing technology called CRISPR has enormous potential to treat human diseases but the ability to tinker with genes can also be controversial.

Key Points:  CRISPR is a faster, cheaper and more accurate way of editing genes.  It should allow replacing faulty genes with healthy ones.

Now combine this with advanced cybernetic technology.

We’ll have an Army of Super Cyborgs at our disposal.

How cool is that ? 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-07/crispr-gene-editing-technology-explainer/7217782

 

Evolution is well and truly finished.

I can see good and evil coming out of this.

Good that it can produce healthy offspring, bad in that the gene pool is reduced which could have implications for diversity and innovation.

Rumpole at April 7, 2016 at 2:51 AM

Photon at April 7, 2016 at 2:35 AM

A powerful new gene-editing technology called CRISPR has enormous potential to treat human diseases but the ability to tinker with genes can also be controversial.

Key Points:  CRISPR is a faster, cheaper and more accurate way of editing genes.  It should allow replacing faulty genes with healthy ones.

Now combine this with advanced cybernetic technology.

We’ll have an Army of Super Cyborgs at our disposal.

How cool is that ? 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-07/crispr-gene-editing-technology-explainer/7217782

 

Evolution is well and truly finished.

I can see good and evil coming out of this.

Good that it can produce healthy offspring, bad in that the gene pool is reduced which could have implications for diversity and innovation.

It is indeed a bit worrying to learn of this technique, but it is unlikely to result in a reduced human gene pool.  As I understand, the CRISPR would turn on or off the actions of genes in our DNA, just like everyday chemicals.  This is known as epigenetics.  Epigenetic treatment would not alter the structure of the gene pool, just the way it is expressed. 

The CRISPR also has the ability to cut out or replace a deleterious gene from DNA, which in theory would have the ability to reduce the human gene pool if done at a big scale.  But inadeqate gene pool sizes are only a problem if the population of a species is very small (i.e. a species or a geographically and/or reproductively isolated population that is in danger of becoming extinct).  There are 7.4 billion humans on the planet, representing a huge gene pool.  You would have to manipulate a huge number of genes in a single person and in lots of people to have a significant impact on the human gene pool. Even if a person's gene pool is medically manipulated, their genome will continue to diversify as genetic mutations occur with cell division in the body.  The older a person becomes, the more mutations occur during cell division, which is part of the aging process.

The other issue is that many people who would be treated medically by CRISPR would probably not have children if left untreated (because of their medical condition).  So they would not be contributing to the evolution of the human genome because they would not be passing their genes onto future generations.  If their medical condition is managed or cured by CRISPR, it would perhaps give them the opportunity to survive longer and have children.  This, in turn, would allow them to contrbute (albeit in a small way) to the gene pool of future generations.

On Tardy's post concerning CRISPR,

It's a small step from treating illnesses to designer children which only the rich can afford, so we'll end up with a tendency towards a superior class of genetically designed people and an underclass of the rest.

That's not a reason not to use the technology to treat illnesses, but a point to consider when deciding on the ethics of such technology.

So you guys don't fancy having Army of Super Cyborgs ? 

Photon at April 7, 2016 at 7:51 PM

So you guys don't fancy having Army of Super Cyborgs ? 

As long as they work for me I'm ok with it.

Rumpole at April 7, 2016 at 7:45 PM

On Tardy's post concerning CRISPR,

It's a small step from treating illnesses to designer children which only the rich can afford, so we'll end up with a tendency towards a superior class of genetically designed people and an underclass of the rest.

That's not a reason not to use the technology to treat illnesses, but a point to consider when deciding on the ethics of such technology.

Some people are already choosing donations from the most "suitably matching" people.   My concern goes far back to when IVF became available.  I feel it was offered witnout due thought of its possible consequences.  If it hasn't already happened I feel sure that one day a half brother and half sister will meet and marry and produce children, and I wonder what  they will be like.   

gusset at April 7, 2016 at 8:28 PM

Rumpole at April 7, 2016 at 7:45 PM

On Tardy's post concerning CRISPR,

It's a small step from treating illnesses to designer children which only the rich can afford, so we'll end up with a tendency towards a superior class of genetically designed people and an underclass of the rest.

That's not a reason not to use the technology to treat illnesses, but a point to consider when deciding on the ethics of such technology.

Some people are already choosing donations from the most "suitably matching" people.   My concern goes far back to when IVF became available.  I feel it was offered witnout due thought of its possible consequences.  If it hasn't already happened I feel sure that one day a half brother and half sister will meet and marry and produce children, and I wonder what  they will be like.   

I think IVF creates more problems than it solves, especially for the children.

Some of them spend years searching for their biological parents with much heartache involved.

Now that donors must be prepared to face their children there will probably be a reduction in people prepared to be donors. That's a good thing imo.

I have relatives, one of which had a congenital disease and did not want to pass that on, so they had a baby by IVF, and the child had cystic fibrosis passed on by the donor. I wonder how many cases like this there are.

You can't beat the traditional methods of having children imo.

Rumpole at April 7, 2016 at 7:45 PM

On Tardy's post concerning CRISPR,

It's a small step from treating illnesses to designer children which only the rich can afford, so we'll end up with a tendency towards a superior class of genetically designed people and an underclass of the rest.

That's not a reason not to use the technology to treat illnesses, but a point to consider when deciding on the ethics of such technology.

Yes, I agree that it is important to consider the ethics of technology.

Using this method to develop a superior class of genetically designed people is the stuff of fiction.  We are all a product of our genes and the environment.  That means our genes provide the template for how we look, function and behave (which could be genetically designed), but it is our environment that determines what parts of that template are expressed or inhibited (epigenetics). This is going to vary between individuals, depending on their environmental experiences.  This is demonstrated clearly in identical (human) twins or cloned individuals (of other species) who are raised in separate environments, or in the same environment but exposed to different conditions.

As I mentioned in the previous email, mutations occur during cell division in tissues throughout the body.  Those mutations may occur by chance, aging, illness or other environmental influences.  It takes about 7 years for every cell in your body to be replaced by new cells.  The older we get, the more mutations at the cellular level occurs. Therefore, there is no guarantee that a genetically-engineered strand of DNA would be expressed physically or mentally over the course of an individual's lifetime as a result of the aging process or if the optimal environmental conditions that favour the expression or inhibition of a modified gene prevail.

A good example of this is hair colour.  Individuals may be genetically-designed to have blonde hair to create a "super-race".  But that blonde hair may turn white or grey if the individual suffers from illness, stress, shock, premature aging, diet, extent of exposure to sunlight (epigenetics that turn off or inhibit the gene responsible for blonde hair), or chance mutation of the "hair-colour gene". 

No trace of Neanderthal DNA on Y chromosome of modern men.

Have they sampled the sub-species known as Boof-Head NRL Player ?  

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-08/neanderthal-y-chromosome-disappeared-from-modern-men/7308982

Photon at April 7, 2016 at 11:40 PM

No trace of Neanderthal DNA on Y chromosome of modern men.

Have they sampled the sub-species known as Boof-Head NRL Player ?  

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-08/neanderthal-y-chromosome-disappeared-from-modern-men/7308982

Only modern men?  What about modern women?  

Good discussion on science ethics generally.

Specific discussion on gene technology starts around 15 mins.

https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/peBDzwMeK3?play=true

Rumpole at April 8, 2016 at 5:43 PM

Good discussion on science ethics generally.

Specific discussion on gene technology starts around 15 mins.

https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/peBDzwMeK3?play=true

Just listened to the podcast and thought it was very good, covering a broad range of ethical topics.  The discussion certainly identified a few ethical issues that I had not considered previously.

If there is one criticism I have of the discussion, all the panellists were ethicists (after all, it was a discussion about ethics).  At least one of them admitted that he wasn't aware of the precise technical details as to how CRISPR works, and I assume the other ethicists were in the same boat. That is not suprising because they are ethicists and not molecular scientists.  Therefore, it would have been good for at least one biomolecular scientist to have been on the panel to explain the science behind CRISPR and the biological outcomes of genetic modification.  This would have allowed the ethicists to have a more informed discussion.  For instance, the ethicists glossed over the nature vs nurture part of the discussion, not even considering to any great extent how the expression of an individual's genome is determined by environmental influences, despite genetic manipulation.

But overall, I thought it was an interesting and thought-provoking discussion, especially the latter bit which discussed the use of behavioural conditioning (as done by the US Army in the Vietnam War) and pharmaceuticals to enhance one's mental capacity or to change an individual's behaviour. 

Tardy, would I be correct in saying that "nature vs nurture" applies mainly to behaviour, whereas it is still possible to create people with desirable physical characteristics such as strength, height, stamina etc that make them more suitable for certain things like various sports or other physical tasks ?

So we may come to the position where a keen AFL payer or spectator may choose to have offspring that will have characteristics that provide his children with the  capabilities to excel in that sport. Whether the child decides to use them is another matter, they have still been "designed" with a particular purpose in mind.

Rumpole at April 8, 2016 at 11:04 PM

Tardy, would I be correct in saying that "nature vs nurture" applies mainly to behaviour, whereas it is still possible to create people with desirable physical characteristics such as strength, height, stamina etc that make them more suitable for certain things like various sports or other physical tasks ?

So we may come to the position where a keen AFL payer or spectator may choose to have offspring that will have characteristics that provide his children with the  capabilities to excel in that sport. Whether the child decides to use them is another matter, they have still been "designed" with a particular purpose in mind.

You are correct to some degree, Rumpy.  Nature vs Nurture is just another way of saying that every organisim is a product of its genes (nature) and its environment (nurture).

Although we talk about a human genome, every human has a slightly different genetic make-up (except for identical twins).  The overall variation in that genetic make-up is what defines the human genome. 

Our genetic make-up can best be viewed as a computer program.  We are are all genetically-programmed to look, behave and function in a particular way, just like a computer program is responsible for the design of a particular product or performing other tasks.  Our genetic program (make-up) is the "nature" part of the equation, i.e. what we end up with at the time of fertilisation (in the case of humans).

The "nurture" side of things refers to how an individual's environment can influence how an individual looks, behaves and functions by the way it acts on our genetic make-up.  Our genetic make-up can change structurally during cell division (mutation) or the actions of individual genes can be activated or inhibited by other molecules attaching themselves to those genes.  Those molecules lock onto our genes as a result of changes in our environment (e.g. environmental pressures that lead to prolonged physiological stress, an intake of drugs, or a change in diet).  This process is called epigenetics. Genetic mutations can occur by chance or they may occur as a result of environmental influences (e.g. radiation, toxins, UV light). 

So, in a way, gene mutation is like a computer program being corrupted, whereas epigenetics is a bit like the result of a computer virus altering the structure or affecting the operation of a computer program.

Therefore, in your example of the AFL child, the child may have decided not to play in that sport even though he/she has the physical capability, because of nature, nurture or both.  The child may already be genetically-programmed to find other activities (e.g. reading novels) more interesting activity to take part in (nature), but needs to be in an environment that provides that child with the opportunity to partake in that activity (nurture). 

Alternatively, if the parents continually pressure the child against his/her will to play AFL, then the child becomes physiologically- and emotionally-stressed, resulting in prolonged secretion of stress hormones (e.g. adrenal hormones).  Recent scientific studies have shown that long-term secretion of stress hormones can result in parts of those hormone molecules or other molecules in the body to permanently bind (stick) to specific genes in the nuclei of cells, thus permanently inhibiting or activating the functions of those genes.  The permanent binding of a molecule to a gene (part of the DNA chain) permanently alters the genetic makeup of that individual.  If those genes are in brain cells that program our behaviour, then it's possible that a child may develop an over-anxious personality, as a result of that gene inhibition or anxiety.  The turned "on or off" gene would be passed onto the child's offspring becuse the structure of the gene has been permanently changed. So for the original child the change in gene expression is an example of nurture, but in the child's offspring the change is an example of nature because that genetic trait is inherited.

So as you can see, the concept of "nature vs nurture" is quite complex.

Very interesting, thanks.