Ramblings of an old Doc

 

This really isn’t “Personal Computing”, but I don’t think the appropriate Forum cross posts from JU. However, I’m not going to try to figure it out.

Honestly, I’ve waited for this for a decade… more… since college, really.

I’d been waiting for the weekend to publish this. I can’t. It’s too big. It is to Medicine what “Dark Matter” is to modern physics.

Medicine has been progressing rapidly, but no one could really explain the effect of the genes whose alleles (mutant genes) caused many complex diseases. Why should some function and others not, and what controls the sequence of function?

Since 2003, the “Encode” project has been running, and the amount of data generated is truly huge. “Encode” is the project which deciphered (to a large, but not complete extent) what goes on in the nucleus of cells. It involved 440 scientists and 32 labs around the world.

It turns out that what appeared to be “junk’ DNA wasn’t junk at all, and that 80% of it is quite active. These small DNA sequences were thought to be junk because they were located at quite a distance from the genes they were found (now) to turn on and off.

To understand this very complex picture, you have to realize that each cell I’m discussing has the ‘normal’ (2N) amount of chromosomes. That means I’m not talking about eggs, sperm or red blood cells. The first two have N chromosomes (half the number) and red blood cells have none.

The amount of DNA in the 2N cells if stretched out would be a strand 10 feet long. Obviously then, it’s all balled up tightly in the nuclei of your cells. Now picture this: The ball is not random. It is coiled such that the switches are in very close proximity to the genes they regulate (on and off) as well as to other switches, which they interact with as well. This is a very complex “hair ball”.

So, imagine switches a,b,c and d. In that order they produce (along with the gene cascade and secondary, tertiary , quaternary, etc. switches and genes regulated by them) a liver cell. Thus, the different sequences will determine different DNA folding patterns and proximities. In a different order, a brain cell, and so on. This means there is a hierarchy of switches controlled by hormones and even by “up-ness” or “down-ness”) of cells and by neighboring cells…. It is truly mind boggling, especially when you consider that a cell can be thought of (so we can picture the complexity) as an ocean liner filled completely with machinery on the size order of a Swiss watch.

Take a breather.

Digest that.

So, how many switches are there? About four (4) million.

“The result of the work is an annotated road map of much of this DNA, noting what it is doing and how. It includes the system of switches that, acting like dimmer switches for lights, control which genes are used in a cell and when they are used, and determine, for instance, whether a cell becomes a liver cell or a neuron.” - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/science/far-from-junk-dna-dark-matter-proves-crucial-to-health.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

You all remember “The Human Genome Project”. Think of that as a picture of Earth from space (the “blue marble” picture). This current research has presented the equivalent of “Google Maps”. The latter now shows the roads, restaurants, hospitals, cities and rivers, according to Dr. Eric Lander (Harvard and MIT, Broad Institute).

“In one of the Nature papers, researchers link the gene switches to a range of human diseases — multiple sclerosis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn’s disease, celiac disease — and even to traits like height. In large studies over the past decade, scientists found that minor changes in human DNA sequences increase the risk that a person will get those diseases. But those changes were in the junk, now often referred to as the dark matter — they were not changes in genes — and their significance was not clear. The new analysis reveals that a great many of those changes alter gene switches and are highly significant.” – ibid

The basis of many diseases and the future attacks on these diseases will be in the switches. That means Cancer, as well.

The parts which haven’t been figured out yet are the next phase of “Encode”.

Hope this has given some mind expansion as well as…well… hope.

Just to add some 'pepper' - What determines the "up-ness" and "down-ness"? What was most fundamental to all of this ... allowed it all to occur? The Higgs-Boson. It allows matter to aggregate, and form gravity, without which there could be no "up" or "down". 

Sources:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/05/genes-genome-junk-dna-encode

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/science/far-from-junk-dna-dark-matter-proves-crucial-to-health.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all


Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Sep 07, 2012

on Sep 07, 2012

Hehe--I was already thinking about that.  Scary thing is, the "voluntary suicide" centers in Soylent Green are scarily plausible today as "humane" options for people.

When we reach for social solutions that approach human life and freedom as a problem, we always end up in a very bad place.  People have to come first.

on Sep 07, 2012

DrJBHL
There is a potential for misuse. That should not be minimized and it should be watched for and dealt with firmly when discovered. 

The idea is not to intervene without cause, to select and produce freaks/monstrosities or someone's idea of "perfection". 

The idea is to prevent disease and its attendant suffering, and to enable people to live their lives in good health.

 

I am a bit disappointed that folks don't see the incredible accomplishment that this is... I really did try to explain it as best I could. Sorry if it fell short because those researchers are my heroes.

 

It surely is an important step along the way, and you did a great job explaining it. I love philosophical sci-fi books/movies like Soylent Green, Total Recall (book), 1984, etc. but most of the time they seem a little too far fetched and I don't feel like it could actually happen. In this case though, I felt GATTACA painted a very realistic depiction of what society could evolve into (well, besides the art deco style, fedoras and big bands) as medical technology advances. Sure, there's tons of room for misuse but when you say that DNA technology is intended to prevent disease and the suffering it creates, where do we draw the line?

Obviously we want to find cures for deadly diseases like cancer, leukemia, HIV, etc. What if we could reverse developmental disorders like autism or down syndrome? What about debilitating diseases that aren't immediately life threatening but still cause undue suffering like ulcerative colitis? Celiac disease? Diabetes? Blindness? Overactive Thyroid? Depression? 

Do we only use this power to treat things that are defined as diseases? Lots of things that are treated today weren't even heard of 50 years ago (especially in the mental health field). What if 50 years down the line having less than perfect 20/20 vision is classified as an inherited genetic disease? People already get laser surgery to correct their vision, is it that big of a leap to correct it through DNA?

In an example from the movie, people are chosen for the space program because of superior physical traits. The protagonist has a high likelihood of heart disease and his estimated lifespan is 30 years. If we could use DNA technology to prevent that, should we? Do we never use this technology to "pick" traits, even if they prevent disease? Should we instead just fix them after a person has the condition?

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I just think that there's a lot of good questions regarding ethics, technology and the role it plays as we go forward into the future, and would love to explore this topic with you guys (especially after reading some of the other topics about quantum mechanics, space travel, etc. that appear in this forum). Admittedly I have no background in any sort of biological science, so feel free to point out things that are very implausible. 

on Sep 07, 2012

You can actually rephrase it in a much more immediate way.  The cures you mention are likely quite a way off, but there's something looming much more immediately.  If we pinpoint which genes are responsible for everything from cancer to near-sightedness, it then becomes possible for couples to custom build their offspring, and never need cures for those problems in the first place.

But should we?  If you think having humans consciously designing organisms (in this case other humans) is fine, you need only look at certain dog breeds to see how that can go drastically wrong.

 

on Sep 07, 2012

*note to self : Add T-bone, beer, Souvlaki, and several other flavor switches.


For those repulsed by the thought of "Soylent Green", it should be pointed out that since matter/energy are neither created nor destroyed, we do the equivalent of eating that (and everything else) every day... as will our descendents.

Also, evolution need not be 'helped' by humans... and our bizarre and quaint ideas of what is 'best'. There's really an innate spontaneous mutation rate which will frustrate those 'goals' anyway. 

What we consider 'ideal'/'best' might well not be so under other environmental pressures.

As for cancer and obvious crippling and horrendous diseases, every effort must be made to alleviate and reverse/eliminate factors causing them. Myopia (except in the case of retinal detachment) is not in the class of diseases I'm referring to.


on Sep 08, 2012

Cauldyth
You can actually rephrase it in a much more immediate way.  The cures you mention are likely quite a way off, but there's something looming much more immediately.  If we pinpoint which genes are responsible for everything from cancer to near-sightedness, it then becomes possible for couples to custom build their offspring, and never need cures for those problems in the first place.

But should we?  If you think having humans consciously designing organisms (in this case other humans) is fine, you need only look at certain dog breeds to see how that can go drastically wrong.

 

 

But... I love my goldendoodle!

on Sep 10, 2012

Cauldyth
You can actually rephrase it in a much more immediate way.  The cures you mention are likely quite a way off, but there's something looming much more immediately.  If we pinpoint which genes are responsible for everything from cancer to near-sightedness, it then becomes possible for couples to custom build their offspring, and never need cures for those problems in the first place.

But should we?  If you think having humans consciously designing organisms (in this case other humans) is fine, you need only look at certain dog breeds to see how that can go drastically wrong.

 

 

I get that, it seems like the consensus is that ordering children like you're at a McDonald's drive-thru window is wrong. It has that super creepy vibe just like the Stepford Wives... but I don't see humanity jumping right to that point without the intermediate gray area that I'm most interested in.

In this case it seems like the act of choice is the part that people get hung up on. However, today we already choose so many things regarding our mates and offspring that are deemed socially acceptable. Vaccines anyone? We vaccinate our children and ourselves to prevent future disease and suffering. What if new DNA technology allowed us to use a 'Vacci-gene™' (any time traveling DNA sequencing corporations please give me royalties if you use this name) that flipped the correct DNA switches so that kids previously at risk for all those diseases listed before, from autism to near-sightnedness, are free and clear? You're not "designing" a child then, you're just making sure that they're never at risk for any future suffering caused by their DNA. The side-effect being that we end up with a population that has "healthier" genes (although probably less diverse, which is a problem in itself) and the need for pharmaceuticals and other medical treatments decrease (and then those big pharmaceutical and health insurance companies would probably get into the DNA treatment business, charge through the roof so only the 1% can afford those healthy genes leading to a class of genetic elite and then everyone else... but that's a whole different ball of wax).

This is where I think we're heading... because I believe that individual parents will choose protecting their progeny against disease over letting "nature take its course". After all, we've been doing it for hundreds of years already.

on Sep 10, 2012

Sure, I guess I'm just pessimistic that humans will be able to resist the urge to use such technological capabilities on much more frivolous or bizarre stuff.

"I want my child to have dimples!"

"I want my child to have freakishly long arms so he can be an Olympic swimmer and make me rich!"

 

on Sep 10, 2012

This type of thing, along with prosthetics, will change what people are.  While things will start off as medically necessary I am sure that they'll become electives soon enough.  It won't be long before people will want a heart that will never fail or limbs that are stronger than the ones they were born with.

on Sep 10, 2012

That's fine, since they're making that decision for themselves.  It's their choice, and it's not at a genetic level so it doesn't affect any children they may subsequently have.  What worries me more is people making those choices for their not-yet-existent children, at a genetic level.

 

on Sep 10, 2012

This type of thing, along with prosthetics, will change what people are.  While things will start off as medically necessary I am sure that they'll become electives soon enough.  It won't be long before people will want a heart that will never fail or limbs that are stronger than the ones they were born with.

But... but... ZubaZ of Clan Stardock: "There can be only one!"

 

 

on Sep 10, 2012

It won't be long before people will want a heart that will never fail or limbs that are stronger than the ones they were born with.

I'm horribly nearsighted, so I can't wait until the day when I can get cybernetic eyes with 20/20 or better vision and low-light and thermographic viewing modes.

on Sep 10, 2012

Cauldyth
That's fine, since they're making that decision for themselves.  It's their choice, and it's not at a genetic level so it doesn't affect any children they may subsequently have.  What worries me more is people making those choices for their not-yet-existent children, at a genetic level.

 

 

That worries me as well... we already have parents that live vicariously through their kids, pushing them into all sorts of different activities at a very early age, and kids don't know any better to do something else than what their parents tell them. I imagine the situation would only get worse if parents had the elective option for a "David Beckham" DNA package or something.

 

@SpardaSon

Amen!

on Sep 10, 2012

I'm hoping they do more colors than white and shades of red, and definitely with less obtrusive technical information, hopefully controlled by mental impulse.  My ability to see with those eyes you're showcasing would be worse than it is now.

An alternative would be some cultured bioware with 20/20 and low-light vision, but hopefully Essence loss from cybernetics won't be an issue for me or anyone else in the future.

on Sep 10, 2012

SpardaSon21
I'm horribly nearsighted, so I can't wait until the day when I can get cybernetic eyes with 20/20 or better vision and low-light and thermographic viewing modes.

It's coming.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-30/bionic-eye-major-development/4231204 

Don't worry too much about 'horribly nearsighted' wait till your eye 'problem' leads you to be listed as a genetic study case in the Medical Journals....

4 Pages1 2 3 4