It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The DNA so dangerous it does not exist

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Source


“There must be some DNA or protein sequences that are not compatible with life and have therefore been selected out”

...

Whether these sequences have any biological significance in living organisms is not yet known - the next step is to test 20 of the peptoprimes in bacteria and human cells to see whether they have any effect such as causing death or provoking an immune reaction.


And if you keep reading.... Guess who jumped into the project right away.who you ask? read below:



Hampikian believes the applications of his work could be wide-ranging. He has already received a $1 million grant from the US Department of Defense to develop a DNA "safety tag" that could be added to voluntary DNA reference samples in criminal cases to distinguish them from forensic samples. Such tags would not necessarily have to consist of lethal sequences, but could be based on primes that would be easy to detect using a simple kit.


Sure!


Quite the news it's interpretation is based on how optimistic or pessimistic you are....




posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   
More Sources:

Dr. Hampikian's Homepage

From Link above we have:



Comparative Bioinformatics and "DNA Safeguard"
We have designed an algorithm which identifies small sequences common to, or excluded from, selected genomes. The study of these sequences is being used to identify potential therapeutic and bioterror targets. We have coined the terms “nullomers” (sequences absent from a selected species or groups of species), and “primes” (sequences absent from all GenBank data). We refresh the GenBank mirror on our BSU Beowulf cluster each day, and have developed a web tool to allow other researchers to search for nullomers and primes. These sequences are being used to develop artificial sequence tags to safeguard DNA samples.
2007 publication and web links
Personnel: Greg Hampikian, Tim Andersen, Ken Cornel, James Smith and Amit Jain; Ben Noland, (BS student in Computer Science)
Funded by DOD, $1,000,000, Greg Hampikian PI, (2006-2009).



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
ohh yes if you read the link above also found this:


US Patent Applied for December 23, 2004: DNA Safeguard, #2876599877, a DNA marker to be added to voluntary samples as a safeguard against planting, or accidental switching of reference and evidence samples. The oligomers are based on sequences not found in GenBank, and can be coded to contain a wide variety of information. Patent includes 60 DNA sequences.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
IMPORTANT find.



IMO - this is VERY important news - and should be on ATSNN.

A key question:

Why "look" for DNA dangerous to life unless the intent is to sequence it for
military use?


...I noted this thread earlier, and came back to it after getting an email about it.



Could there be forbidden sequences in the genome - ones so harmful that they are not compatible with life? One group of researchers thinks so. Unlike most genome sequencing projects which set out to search for genes that are conserved within and between species, their goal is to identify "primes": DNA sequences and chains of amino acids so dangerous to life that they do not exist.

"It's like looking for a needle that's not actually in the haystack," says Greg Hampikian, professor of genetics at Boise State University in Idaho, who is leading the project. "There must be some DNA or protein sequences that are not compatible with life, perhaps because they bind some essential cellular component, for example, and have therefore been selected out of circulation. There may also be some that are lethal in some species, but not others. We're looking for those sequences."

Hampikian ...has already received a $1 million grant from the US Department of Defense to develop a DNA "safety tag" that could be added to voluntary DNA reference samples in criminal cases to distinguish them from forensic samples. Such tags would not necessarily have to consist of lethal sequences, but could be based on primes that would be easy to detect using a simple kit.




What happened to all our conspiracy theorists?





posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Ok Made Submission to ATSNN.... thanks for the tip



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   
I'm no biologist, but if we create new DNA and amino acids and that kind of thing, ones that are not found in humans, couldn't we maybe find some that are beneficial as well as harmful? Maybe something that, say, makes the immune system stronger, or makes bones more dense to fight osteoperosis, or enhances memory? I think it's probably more likely that any given DNA strand would be harmful rather than helpful to humans, but it would be pretty cool if we found something that could cure disease.

Unfortunately, the potential for disaster looks a lot more probable than that for any benefits.

So, yeah, could there (in theory) be any way to benefit medically from this?



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Sounds like the potential for new "ethnic detectors". Rather than going to war, spread a disease that only affects certain ethnic groups (like the one you want to wage war with) and save all that money of flying troops and weapons to another country.
This is definitely one bit of news we all need to keep our eyes on and see what is being developed and for what reason.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Good find:

Im not sure if anyone remembers but wernt the old Apartied South African governmnet spending huge sums on similair research for many years into producing such a dna sequence that could be piggy backed onto a common virus such as a cold, but the extra tagged on sequences would then target and kill only selected racial profiles... I do remmeber this from the late 80's .... So this work has been underway for some time and it is very very very worrying.


Regards

Elf.


Tea

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MischeviousElf
...the extra tagged on sequences would then target and kill only selected racial profiles...

Yeah, so what? The planet is overloaded. We've foiled Mother Nature with improved medicine and destroyed everything in our path. Earth is dying because of it.

Terra won't miss a few billion.


We all have to die sometime. The human race has turned into a bunch of chicken****s. Someone says "asteroid" and everyone pees their panties.

Time to start living in the real world.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   
tea

well maybe the earth could do with loosing a few million or even a few billion for that matter.... however stating that it would be ok then if only one racial group was targetted is to say the least a little brash....

infact very similair to hitler and uegenics... carefulll where you tread my little cup of not soo sweet but hot tea!

In addition the reason for this research is not to help the planet but to help individuals and groups have more power.

there is another thread also on this I just noticed an ATSNN article:



ATSNN Article

Regards

Elf


Tea

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:13 AM
link   
I am a huge fan of eugenics. I think the planet would be better off if man had stressed quality instead of quantity. Who knows how brilliant we could have been if we had truly strived for the best in everything. Who knows what diseases we could have conquered by now. Who knows how extraordinary our physiology might have turned out.

We won't know and that's a bloody shame and a tremendous waste of potential.

Eugenics is a good idea. Unfortunately, the execution of it has been poor. We breed our animals for superior traits. Why the hell aren't we doing the same with ourselves?

We have pretty low expectations of ourselves if we will breed for the best cattle and dogs, but not do the same for the top predator on the planet.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tea
I am a huge fan of eugenics. I think the planet would be better off if man had stressed quality instead of quantity.
And how would you feel if somebody decided that you were one of the human specimens to be exterminated so as to insure superior breeding? What would you do if you had to go to a hospital after a motor vehicle accident and they refused to treat you because of your race/political persuasion/hair colour/eye colour/whatever as you are not on the "approved human beings" list but are on the "undesirables" list? Hmm? How about thinking a little before you start spewing such rubbish!


Tea

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by LovingSoulAnd how would you feel if somebody decided that you were one of the human specimens to be exterminated so as to insure superior breeding? What would you do if you had to go to a hospital after a motor vehicle accident and they refused to treat you because of your race/political persuasion/hair colour/eye colour/whatever as you are not on the "approved human beings" list but are on the "undesirables" list? Hmm? How about thinking a little before you start spewing such rubbish!

So be it. I'm not susceptible to the belief that I deserve anything including my life. That's half the problem with people on this planet. They seem to think that they deserve one thing or another. That isn't what this whole scene is about.

Life's too short to waste time in church mythologizing existence. We're born, we live for a while, we die. Finis. Ultimately, this big dirt ball is going to fry when old Sol goes supernova. Nothing is permanent. Why not make our short time here prima?

One man's trash is another man's treasure. If you want to blow your stack and state that my personal opinion is crap, great. PC-overload disgusts me as much as my eugenics stance angers you.

Get over yourself.

Ciao, baby.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tea
I am a huge fan of eugenics. I think the planet would be better off if man had stressed quality instead of quantity. Who knows how brilliant we could have been if we had truly strived for the best in everything. Who knows what diseases we could have conquered by now. Who knows how extraordinary our physiology might have turned out.

We won't know and that's a bloody shame and a tremendous waste of potential.

Eugenics is a good idea. Unfortunately, the execution of it has been poor. We breed our animals for superior traits. Why the hell aren't we doing the same with ourselves?

We have pretty low expectations of ourselves if we will breed for the best cattle and dogs, but not do the same for the top predator on the planet.



Unfortunately, the rich and powerful call the shots. Ant they are so genetically inferior, they have even lost the ability to reproduce. ALL the evidence shows clearly that they do NOT have any legitimate understanding of what might constitute genetic strength.

More to the point - they have hoarded medical technologies for their own use, and as a result, have failed to evolve along with the bulk of humanity, and adapt to the all-new biochemical world they created.

The next few years likely will be critical in terms of human evolution.



BTW all - a1ex and I exchanged several emails before I made an ATSNN submission, and I did so only after securing his permission. ...His submission disappeared into the ATS netherworld - and I thought the subject was too important not to go out on our news network.

US Military Funds Geneticist Searching for DNA "So Dangerous It Does Not Exist"

Thanks,
sofi



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
genetic racial profiling would be disastrous in this melting pot of mixed races in america. you may only be 1/10th of the "undesirable race" but that could well be enough to ensure your destruction in the event of a genetically designed, ethnic cleanser superbug.

we had a eugenics program in this country in the early part of the century. probably why hitler thought we wouldn't interfere with his "eugenics" pogram. (no, that was not mispelled). In those early days, we routinely sterilized the mentally retarded, genetically defective, insane, criminal and even began extending it to the "immoral poor" (women who had babies out of wedlock, etc.)

I, personally, am not opposed to a eugenics program, per se, but the potential for abuse is too great and we have already proven that we are incapable of restraining ourselves from an abuse of power in that area.

Genetic screening with potential mates is not a bad idea and could save a lot of dollars and grief. forewarned is forearmed but to use it to say who lives and who dies, or worse, who's worthy of breeding at all is an extreme abuse of technological power.

The only immediately recognizable benefit to finding DNA so dangerous that it doesn't exist is for military applications on a global scale. Genocide.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I think a good eugenics program would be making people take a test before becoming a parent. We don't let poor drivers have a license to drive so why should just anyone be able to have 50 kids. Limit it to one or two kids per couple. People with unwanted genetic conditions could be denied this permit to breed.



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by guyopitz

People with unwanted genetic conditions could be denied this permit to breed.



We don't have the scientific knowledge to make such judgements.

Many negative conditions confer other positives - which in the long term, could be essential to our species' survival.

For example, mutation and evolution is a part of life. Life being a dynamic process that occurs in a dynamic and changeable environment. Mutation and evolution allow life to adapt to environmental changes.

But often, the way evolution works is counter-intuitive. For example, some mutations that cause disease actually are beneficial - because they confer immunity to other disease(s).



Certain diseases are the result of genetic adaptations against other diseases; the best example being sickle-cell anemia, a double dose of a trait which in single-dose confers immunity against malaria.

***

Genetics, Inheritance & Variation

Another example of codominance is sickle cell haemoglobin in humans. The gene for haemoglobin Hb has two codominant alleles: HbA (the normal gene) and HbS (the mutated gene). There are three phenotypes:

HbAHbA - Normal. All haemoglobin is normal, with normal red blood cells.

HbAHbS - Sickle cell trait. 50% of the haemoglobin in every red blood cell is normal, and 50% is abnormal. The red blood cells are slightly distorted, but can carry oxygen, so this condition is viable. However these red blood cells cannot support the malaria parasite, so this phenotype confers immunity to malaria.

HbSHbS - Sickle cell anaemia. All haemoglobin is abnormal, and molecules stick together to form chains, distorting the red blood cells into sickle shapes. These sickle red blood cells are destroyed by the spleen, so this phenotype is fatal.

***

Infection with H9N2 influenza viruses confers immunity against lethal H5N1 infection O'Neill E, Seo SH, Woodland DL, Shortridge KF, Webster RG. Options for the Control of Influenza IV, Osterhaus et al. eds., International Congress Series 1219, 775-781, 2001

***

From Maps to Medicine: The Impact of the Genome Project by Dr. Beverly S. Emanuel, Director of Human Genetics Center; Charles E. H. Upham Chair in Pediatrics


The easiest genetic diseases to understand are those caused by a single gene that has gone awry. Single gene diseases include relatively rare disorders such as cystic fibrosis, phenylketonuria, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia and Huntington's disease. In a sense, the genes for these diseases act like a single time bomb ticking away inside the DNA double helix.

Much more common, and far more complicated, are the diseases caused by malformations in several or many genes that influence each other in complex ways that are poorly understood. Hypertension, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, coronary artery disease and numerous other diseases that afflict our species are caused by the interactions of multiple different genes. Each individual gene has a relatively modest effect, but together they determine whether someone is going to develop a disease or not. Multiple gene diseases or what we call polygenic diseases are far harder to understand than those which are caused by single genes.

Complicating matters even further, most genetic diseases result from an interplay between an inherited predisposition and factors in a person's external environment and lifestyle. It's not just the individual cards that you have been dealt, but it also depends upon how you play the hand. It's important to keep this in mind to avoid the dangers that can potentially arise from biological determinism--thinking that everything about an individual is predetermined by the DNA code written in his or her genes.





So disease is not always bad, or non-adaptive. "Genetic disease" can be, and often is, part of the adaptive evolutionary process.

Unfortunately though, human industrial activities change the environment faster than most lifeforms can adapt to the changes, including humans.

Ie., see:


The Sixth Extinction

So what is the Sixth Extinction? When is it coming? And what is its cause? "It's the next annihilation of vast numbers of species. It is happening now, and we, the human race, are its cause," explains Dr. Richard Leakey, the world's most famous paleoanthropologist. Every year, between 17,000 and 100,000 species vanish from our planet, he says. "For the sake of argument, let's assume the number is 50,000 a year. Whatever way you look at it, we're destroying the Earth at a rate comparable with the impact of a giant asteroid slamming into the planet, or even a shower of vast heavenly bodies." The statistics he has assembled are staggering. Fifty per cent of the Earth's species will have vanished inside the next 100 years; mankind is using almost half the energy available to sustain life on the planet, and this figure will only grow as our population leaps from 5.7 billion to ten billion inside the next half-century. Such a dramatic and overwhelming mass extinction threatens the entire complex fabric of life on Earth, including the species responsible for it: Homo sapiens.

***

MASS EXTINCTION UNDERWAY: The World Wide Web's Most Comprehensive Source of Information on the Current Mass Extinction

***

New Frontiers: Evolution and the Future The Sixth Extinction by Niles Eldredge




We really don't have the knowledge to decide what's genetically good or bad....



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Stephen Hawking is a poor genetic specimen but I'm glad HIS parents were allowed to breed. Physical fitness and 6-pack abs are not the only desirable qualities in human beings. As a nurse, I can tell you that people who are chronically or terminally ill develop compassion, mercy, patience, tolerance, aren't biased against physical imperfections, etc. These are all crucial traits for our species to develop and, who knows, may be the reason we have them.
If we all had such a nihilistic attitude as has previously been expressed, where would our advances in technology have come from? If cave men had said, "we're all going to die anyway. why bother trying to figure out how that warming fire started in the grass?", none of us would be here.
There are not too many people on the planet. It's just that our resources are being mismanaged so that too many people on the planet don't get to benefit from them.
That may be the real reason a genetic marker is being sought-to get rid of the "proliferating herd of barbarians".



posted on Jan, 12 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   


That may be the real reason a genetic marker is being sought-to get rid of the "proliferating herd of barbarians".


Meaning evolution will get rid of men eventually? ... see the komodo dragon news


[edit on 1/12/2007 by a1ex]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by a1ex


That may be the real reason a genetic marker is being sought-to get rid of the "proliferating herd of barbarians".


Meaning evolution will get rid of men eventually? ... see the komodo dragon news





Don't know if that's what whitewave meant, but very funny response.



Virgin Komodo Dragon to Become a Mom

Flora, a Komodo dragon who has spent her entire life in captivity and has never encountered a male of her species has managed to fertilize her own eggs. Results of genetic testing showed that although the Komodo dragon embryos are not exact Flora clones, their DNA could not have come from any other dragon.





top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join