Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
New Code Of Life
Scientists have gone one step further in their project adding two new base letters to the DNA codes of life. They now have incorporated the new codes into the chromosomes of living bacteria.
The extra codes should allow 152 new artificial amino acids in addition to the twenty natural ones that make up the proteins of life.
This could ultimately enable countless number of new proteins to be synthesised by organisms. The potential for bioengineered substances is phenomenal.
Those who disagree with genetic engineering would surely be horrified.
http://
The extra codes should allow 152 new artificial amino acids in addition to the twenty natural ones that make up the proteins of life.
This could ultimately enable countless number of new proteins to be synthesised by organisms. The potential for bioengineered substances is phenomenal.
Those who disagree with genetic engineering would surely be horrified.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by beso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's more than time for me to stop cautionary posts on this topic.
I, as its major critic, seem to be stimulating phrases such as "hysteria", "paranoia" and sulky phrases like "we may as well give up science altogether".
None of these comments reflect my love of science and, if applied to me are total misinterpretations of my messages.
As a fully qualified biochemist who has spent his life in science I believe I am equipped to debate this subject rationally although its nature does provoke what appear to be scare-mongering sentences. This is not
paper-comic scary fiction, its happening now.
If I may link this to Colmc's happy event, I am not having kittens over this single project! Congratulations not necessary:)
I have just been highlighting an example of where science may well be getting out of its usual ethical and well-thought-through actions.
Kindest Regards to All,
SIQ.
I, as its major critic, seem to be stimulating phrases such as "hysteria", "paranoia" and sulky phrases like "we may as well give up science altogether".
None of these comments reflect my love of science and, if applied to me are total misinterpretations of my messages.
As a fully qualified biochemist who has spent his life in science I believe I am equipped to debate this subject rationally although its nature does provoke what appear to be scare-mongering sentences. This is not
paper-comic scary fiction, its happening now.
If I may link this to Colmc's happy event, I am not having kittens over this single project! Congratulations not necessary:)
I have just been highlighting an example of where science may well be getting out of its usual ethical and well-thought-through actions.
Kindest Regards to All,
SIQ.
sandyRoe,
Thalidomide was not rushed out as you allege. It had fulfilled all the criteria and tests laid down at the time. It appeared to be a major breakthrough in the batttle against anxiety, ironically pre-natal anxiety.
It was a tragic affair but was fuelled by science's usual effort to aid mankind, not by greed.
Unfortunately nature played a cruel trick.
As a result the FDA and health organisations worldwide increased the number of animal species tested in the approximate 7-years of testing a new drug.
Another example of science's philosophy of continuous improvement in its methods.
SIQ.
Thalidomide was not rushed out as you allege. It had fulfilled all the criteria and tests laid down at the time. It appeared to be a major breakthrough in the batttle against anxiety, ironically pre-natal anxiety.
It was a tragic affair but was fuelled by science's usual effort to aid mankind, not by greed.
Unfortunately nature played a cruel trick.
As a result the FDA and health organisations worldwide increased the number of animal species tested in the approximate 7-years of testing a new drug.
Another example of science's philosophy of continuous improvement in its methods.
SIQ.
Thalidomide was an interesting case. The molecule is chiral, meaning that it has a handedness and hence two forms that are chemically identical in non-chiral reactions.
Unfortunately biology is very strongly chiral. In the laboratory samples used for testing were all twisted in one direction. The industrial production did not control the chirality and the opposite form caused big problems.
It was a big learning experience for science and chirality has been an important consideration ever since.
Unfortunately biology is very strongly chiral. In the laboratory samples used for testing were all twisted in one direction. The industrial production did not control the chirality and the opposite form caused big problems.
It was a big learning experience for science and chirality has been an important consideration ever since.
Ty for your info on thalidomide chirality. News to me and very interesting.
When I have used the term "stereochemistry" in other threads, that was meant to encompass chirality. Also I have explained left- and right-handedness in living forms in one other thread.
However your info is fascinating.
How long has this been known, beso?
Are there implications or facts that the stereoisometric mix in manufacturing process (commonly yielding a 50:50 mix as it is in vitro) was the cause of the tragic infant deformations?
With Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
When I have used the term "stereochemistry" in other threads, that was meant to encompass chirality. Also I have explained left- and right-handedness in living forms in one other thread.
However your info is fascinating.
How long has this been known, beso?
Are there implications or facts that the stereoisometric mix in manufacturing process (commonly yielding a 50:50 mix as it is in vitro) was the cause of the tragic infant deformations?
With Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
No. The trials on the drug were flawed because the 'all clear' screening process on pregnant animals was taken to mean that it was OK in humans when horrifically it turned out to be teratogenic in our species.
A mistake that will never be made again. In the meantime;
http://
Science never demonised the molecule. It was wrongly deployed in haste by the interface between the demands of society and the scientists. Now the faith science kept in the molecule is helping many unfortunate people- just as long as they aren't pregnant.
A mistake that will never be made again. In the meantime;
http://
Science never demonised the molecule. It was wrongly deployed in haste by the interface between the demands of society and the scientists. Now the faith science kept in the molecule is helping many unfortunate people- just as long as they aren't pregnant.
