DARPA to Genetically Engineer Humans by Adding a 47th Chromosome

reply to post by Phage


Yes they have.

Mice have always been tools for genetic research, there's nothing new there i agree...the new part is adding Human Chromosomes to the mouse genetics, basically as per the OP is suggesting the research is headed.

reply to post by MysterX

the new part is adding Human Chromosomes to the mouse genetics, basically as per the OP is suggesting the research is headed.

I must have missed the transgenic part of the article. Can you point out where the project involves that? The article that that the OP quotes is a hoax.

reply to post by Phage


Have a read of the article in the link i gave, it more or less mirrors what the OP is saying..at least it comes very close to what is being said, with minimal extrapolation.

reply to post by MysterX

Have a read of the article in the link i gave, it more or less mirrors what the OP is saying..at least it comes very close to what is being said, with minimal extrapolation.

Forget what the OP is saying. Read the actual request for proposals.

This solicitation is focused on improving the utility of HACs as a DNA delivery platform by developing technologies to address several key technical hurdles associated with current HAC vectors.

HACs are not transgenics. They are artificial human chromosomes and they are in use already.
The project is not about making complete organisms, human or otherwise. It is about improving current techniques of utilizing cell lines, not humans, for things like antibiotics.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheomExperience

 

Try reading the actual document instead of the lies about it.

Well i did read the articles not the "article" that the OP has provided and i am responding to the OP not the articles provided. It is good to have your thoughts on the matter though if anyone can debunk a claim surly you can.

reply to post by Phage


Yes, but the crucial aspect to the OP, if i'm reading between the lines properly, is the connection of DARPA to this kind of research and the speculation on what implications that association can have and where this technology is likely to be headed, considering the kind of agency DARPA is.

I don't think the OP is claiming anything other than possibilities (or probabilities, depending on ones point of view).

I'm not suggesting 'growing' a completely 'new kind' of Human being is a goal, but it's certainly possible using this research to alter a living Human's genome and so their physicality / mentality by adding or indeed manipulating existing chromosomes and genes..or else there'd be little point to gene therapy, conventional or cutting edge.

Not everything discussed here is definite, we're thinking ahead and surmising what direction an agency with the resources, connections, and traditional areas of expertise and specialisations, like DARPA could take and utilise this research 5, 10 or 20 years down the line.

That's how i'm seeing it anyhow, more as a cautionary subject that may have very real benefits for us or the complete opposite, if (and perhaps when) this technology when fully explored and evolved in the labs of military researchers.

Militarised genetic weaponry could result, as could enhanced 'super soldiers'. The questions would be moral in nature if that were to happen and the question of diluting our very Humanity for the sake of warfare would be on the table too.

reply to post by burntheships


BioShock... anyone?

I've worked with HeLa cell lines as an undergraduate at university. We used it for basic research and training. We infected the human Hela cells with a virus (taking all safety precautions) and observed the changes in the cells.

How you get from that to a genetically modified human being is a big leap.

Scientists use cell lines for a number of reasons, research, testing drugs, creating vaccines. But taking cells in a test tube and turning them into humans is not that easy, you would have to inject the DNA directly into an human ovum. It would probably die.

Besides, the article the OP references is not about creating humans with modified DNA, but creating better lab cells, in a test tube, for applications.

There has always been an issue about using human cell lines. This is a bioethics debate. Is it ethical to do tests on human cells in a test tube? Well, would it be better to test anti-cancer drugs and vaccines on live humans?

Also, IF they were trying to genetically modify a human for the DoD, do you really believe they would publish an article about it, and put it online?

I can't help but feel DARPA are the Umbrella Co from Resident Evil.


Can pretty much determine that zombies will one day be a real thing we have to deal with.

Maybe all these movies are a sign to prepare.

Originally posted by Kratos40
Yes, this is true and it is know as aneuploidy. The most common occur in the sex chromosome set. One can have XXX (Turner aneuploidy), XXY (Kleinfelter aneuploidy), XYY aneuploidy and Trisomi 21(Down's syndrome). The XYY version has been shown to produce more aggressive, bigger males with more tendencies to become criminals. I read about that some years ago, so I will have to find the article.
So this already occurs in nature. By adding an artificial chromosome, who knows what this may cause. If it is used as a vector such as bacterial plasmids, then we can perhaps insert useful genes and knock out the bad ones.
This could be good or bad. But since the government is involved, I have a bad feeling about this

Me too. Either they find a safe way to introduce the 47th chromosome so that we don't become trisomic and they have super-enhanced humans, or they want to make us trisomic and have a reason to wipe us out. Any which way, and whatever they do with the 47th chromosome, I really don't trust the DARPA.
I agree that one day, genetic enhancements will help us, but right now, and with the DARPA in charge, I'm not volunteering myself.

Originally posted by dreamingawake
Perhaps it's part of assuring that,

The human race will one day split into two separate species, an attractive, intelligent ruling elite and an underclass of dim-witted, ugly goblin-like creatures, according to a top scientist. Source

wait, you mean like what it is like now? celebs, the 1% and then the rest of us "plebs"

Maybe that's why Monsanto are using the GMO's in our food it will change our DNA and make us their mind control slaves forever.

reply to post by burntheships


I don't think you read the proposal properly. I'm sure this has been pointed out to you already, but I haven't read the thread yet. While I think it's probably inevitable that bioengineering will take place with humans on some level, eventually, this isn't it. Not to mention a 47th chromosome is known to have catastrophic effect. I don't particularly welcome DARPA's hand in anything but there might be a very real need for this type of research, antibiotics are beginning to fail and that has the medical community very worried.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by burntheships

 

I don't think you read the proposal properly. I'm sure this has been pointed out to you already, but I haven't read the thread yet. While I think it's probably inevitable that bioengineering will take place with humans on some level, eventually, this isn't it. Not to mention a 47th chromosome is known to have catastrophic effect. I don't particularly welcome DARPA's hand in anything but there might be a very real need for this type of research, antibiotics are beginning to fail and that has the medical community very worried.

I understand about our bodies are rejecting antibiotics maybe because our bodies know that its bad for us. Also when it comes to DARPA and DNA it can only be for military applications and it sounds like a dark negative agenda. But that's my view so what do I know

reply to post by WhoKnows100

I come from a different perspective, but see what you're saying, I think. You're saying that they're changing our underlying facts of the world and in doing so they're making us come to false conclusions or false deductions. Essentially, they convinced us that natural selection is the way of the natural world. Natural selection works by randomly mutating genes in species as they reproduce and/or through some other means. The genes that favor survival will tend to be kept and the genes that do not will tend to be discarded. So as a result of convincing people this is true, the people have concluded that: a) there's a BEST (if obscure) way to survive expressed in our genes b) the things humans do are themselves a byproduct of natural selection.

See, I agree with the premise that natural selection is the way of things. I accept it. Here, I disagree with you, since you feel that natural selection is not the way of things. Where I also differ from you is that I feel individuals have a choice whether to be better or worse off. Apparently, you feel that everybody will want to be "better", but my opinion is many will not want to be genetically modified, even if they're told that a modification would benefit them. People are individuals.

There're people who believe there're other kinds of evolution too. For example, there's social evolution and sociocultural evolution. This is the evolution of society and behavior. It may be directly tied to our genes, or it may be a chance event that occurred and survived. The fact that people can remember and sustain a behavior - as a result of genes that regulate memory retention - is one possible direct link between behavior and genes. The general point is that these forms of evolution are not necessarily gene-based. Civilizations tend to keep what works. People may not know what works now, but as time continues forward, it becomes clear what works and what doesn't. The behaviors and values and customs that work will be shown in the societies that survive.

Anyway, my perspective is that for better or worse, individuals and societies have a right to exist, so long as they're able to. For example, if we determine that ants would be better if gene XYZ was disabled (it appears to produce a physical defect in a small sample of the ant population), my argument is that ants have been surviving for millions of years and if we chose not to modify their genes they'll probably continue to survive for the foreseeable future. Of course, I can't guarantee they'll survive, but if being as they're makes the ants happy then they should be left alone.

If I am rich and someone else is poor and they want to stay poor, it's not my choice to force them to become rich. If somebody has a disorder and wants to keep it then that's their choice.

Basically, I feel that if an individual wants to genetically modify themselves then fine. But if that change is forced onto a population then I disagree with that, since it's playing God.

One last thing. There's a term used in evolution study called Vicariance. It's a barrier between similar species that prevents them from exchanging genetic material. What's its importance? The answer is it increases diversity. Long ago, on Earth, there was one continent. I've read that they believe life would not have evolved to human intelligence if the one continent had not broken up. By breaking up, it isolated the species from one another and allowed them to follow different evolutionary paths. Now, thinking about this, it occurred to me that by allowing individuals and even societies to reject offers of genetic modification, we may in fact be giving our chances a shot in the arm. How so? Well, what if we're wrong? What if we're wrong about our evolutionary theories or wrong about XYZ gene? If we're wrong then by allowing others to reject our modification we better ensure our survival into the future. Another words, it might be good for there to be separation between people and societies. Too much unity would lead to everybody being the same and this might possibly make us vulnerable.

Originally posted by Sk8ergrl
Also when it comes to DARPA and DNA it can only be for military applications and it sounds like a dark negative agenda. But that's my view so what do I know.

The source article clearly says one of the objectives is to develop "multifunctional cell-based sensors for chem/biodefense applications" for the DoD.

While I don't have a problem if these human cell lines are used for medical applications, putting them on the battlefield is a different story.

I find it ironic that the U.S. restricts stem cell research for medical reasons, but allows weaponizing of human cells. I don't know what you can do, write your Congressman?

reply to post by ionwind
I agree with you and looks to me that they want a super soldier on the battlefield that one day will be attacking the public when they come for your guns. This reminds me of the movie " Universal Soldier "

reply to post by rayuki


Why do people take anything written in the Daily Mail as fact without doing some research to ensure that it isn't a distortion of what was said, was written, or had happened.

The purpose of the Daily Mail article was to sell papers and hype a UK television program, not to educate the public.

Dr. Curry issued a press release following the Daily Mail article:

"In the summer of 2006 I was commissioned by Bravo Television to write an essay on the future of human evolution. The essay was intended as a science fiction way of illustrating some aspects of evolutionary theory."

"Bravo then sent out a press release on the essay, but did not release the essay itself. As a result, a wildly distorted version of what I had written ended up being reported as science fact in the media. I do not endorse the content of these media reports."

Souce

The Daily Mail shouldn't be classed as a source due to the propaganda just to sell newspapers. Its known that they hype up news and change peoples stories just to get more sold. Also the SUN is the same basically we can't trust any corporations that are in the news business. Only the local rag which is free and all news should be free anyway.

reply to post by Sk8ergrl

I understand about our bodies are rejecting antibiotics maybe because our bodies know that its bad for us. Also when it comes to DARPA and DNA it can only be for military applications and it sounds like a dark negative agenda. But that's my view so what do I know

Our bodies aren't rejecting antibiotics, they are just losing their effectiveness... partially I think from our overuse of them. Many people run crying to their doctor every time they get the sniffles and demand to be given a course of them, they are also very present in our dairy, egg, chicken and meat supply as well as in our water systems from farm run off.

This could be important to DARPA simply because our troops are facing the same problems the rest of us are as far as overexposure to antibiotics. Something else to note is that our troops are deployed all over the world, their immune systems are exposed to much more than ours are, circumventing this immunity as well as more effectively treating them for all manner of illnesses and injuries.

Sometimes that big hairy spider lurking in that dark corner in the room turns out just to be a cobweb.