Abdulrasoul1

Kaothar Abdulrasoul
04/17/2015
Prof. Celestino
English 1010, 11:00 am
Genetic Engineering
Genetic engineering is the development and application of scientific methods,
procedures, and technologies that permit direct manipulation of genetic material in order to alter
the hereditary traits of a cell, organism, or population, and it is a technique that produces
unlimited amounts of otherwise unavailable or scarce biological product by introducing DNA
isolated from animals or plants into bacteria and then harvesting the product from a bacterial
colony, as human insulin produced in bacteria by the human insulin gene. Genetic engineering is
a phenomena of the phenomenas that shows up in the last centuries, So humans, animals and
plants can be genetically engineering.
Having sketched out the landscape of biological variation, we are now in a position to
consider the likely impact of GET on human genetic diversity. As noted in the previous section,
one of the major shortcomings of the EHA (EVOLUTIONARY HARM ARGUMENT) is that it
focuses on genetic variation per se rather than partitioning this class into the causally
differentiated categories of neutral and adaptive variation. This conflation is more than a simple
oversight it amounts to a fundamental flaw in the EHA, for several reasons. First, although
the EHA touts the value of diversity, it is abundantly clear that not all biological variations are
desirable. This may seem obvious, given that the very business of natural selection is to weed out
unfavorable variants from the population. But the idea goes deeper than this. Beyond a certain
age, humans will contribute little to the gene pool of the next generation, and thus (with some
rare and controversial exceptions) natural selection will tend to ignore the post-reproductive

Abdulrasoul2
period of life. Consequently, as the human organism ages, it invests less and less in the
physiological repair mechanisms that would otherwise eliminate harmful genetic variation. Like
a neglected house left to fall into disrepair, the body begins to accumulate genetic and
ontogenetic variation, leading to disease and eventually death. Surely, we do not desire the kind
of genetic variation that leads to functional disintegration, such as that wrought by cancerous cell
lines, neural degeneration, or recessive diseases. Thus, to make its case, the EHA must zero-in on
the beneficial subset of variation, while excluding the diversity associated with conditions that
we would treat as pathology. Second, because the vast majority of HGV is neutral, and since
biological systems will continue to accumulate variation in the absence of selection, it is unlikely
that GET (targeting phenotypes like eye color or attention span) will have a significant effect on
the overall level of genomic diversity. Recall that in biology, diversity arises for free in
systems that are not under selection. For obvious reasons, GET will be geared toward
engineering traits that make a difference to consumers of the technology. It will not waste time
modifying unexpressed genetic sequences that have no palpable effect on the architecture or
function of the organism. For this reason, GET will leave the lions share of genetic diversity
intact. But even if we remove junk DNA from the equation and focus only on adaptive variation,
it is unlikely that GET would have a greater homogenizing effect than ordinary background
selection. Although adaptive variation comprises a smaller fraction of the genome than junk
DNA, at any given moment the number of genes that are under selection is vast. Even if we did
manage to homogenize a subset of adaptive variation, the impact on overall functional diversity
would be negligible. Those who think otherwise tend to overestimate the degree of genetic
homogeneity that can be inferred from casually observed phenotypic traits. As studies in the
biology of race have shown, the variation within putative racial groups is greater than the

Abdulrasoul3
variation between them ( Cavalli-Sforza, 1994 ) pg 1. Everyone in a society could look like
either Ken or Barbie, and yet their underlying genetic diversity could rival that of any two
randomly selected people on earth. The set of traits that human beings tend to notice is but a tiny
fraction of existing phenotypic variation.
Methodology for research in population genetic diversity has improved tremendously
over the past 2 decades since the application of advanced molecular techniques Excoffier L,
Smouse PE, Quattro JM. Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among
DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 1992; 131:
479491. Genetic characterization studies also showed a steep increase. Genetic
characterization is carried out in livestock using various molecular biology techniques such as
allozymes, restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP), protein polymorphism, randomly
amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP),
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), short tandem repeat (STR or microsatellites), and SNPs. Attempts
have been made by using microsatellite, and mitochondrial markers to establish breed
characteristics and to determine relationships among indigenous goat breeds. Out of many
genetic markers now available, microsatellite loci are best suited for answering some of these
questions because of their high variability, high mutation rate, and large number, distribution
throughout the genome, dominant inheritance, and neutrality with respect to selection Boyce
WM, Hedrick PW, Muggli-Cockett NE, Kalinowski S, Penedo MC, Ramey RR. Genetic
variation of major histocompatibilty complex and microsatellite loci: a comparison in Bighorn
sheep. Genetics, 1996; 145: 421433.They are very useful to analyze the degree and pattern of
genetic variability within and differences between populations. Once extracted from the chosen
matrix (animal tissue, blood, muscle, hair, sperm, feces, or even processed food such as cheese or

Abdulrasoul4
canned meat), the DNA is analyzed by molecular markers to obtain a fingerprint or specific
allelic frequencies allowing for individual, breed, or species identification. Since the introduction
of PCR in 1989, many different markers have been studied. Presently the most widely used are
microsatellites, which are also known as STRs and SNPs. Although DNA analysis furnishes
different levels of identification, the individual one is of great interest for the verification of a
meat cut for food safety purposes, while breed and species discrimination are of interest to detect
fraud and to protect and validate typical productions. The use of these technologies in animals
and their products is just an extension of techniques already in use for human testing and
routinely applied in forensic casework Cunningham EP, Meghen CM. Biological identification
systems: genetic markers. Rev Sci Tech 2001; 20: 491499.The most widely used markers are
microsatellites and, most recently, SNPs. The results from this research in goats. It is worth
mentioning an important aspect when choosing the markers and the breeds to be analyzed in a
study on 4 cattle breeds, the informative content of each microsatellite varied among breeds
depending on the breeds allelic frequencies (alleles always present in one breed and always
absent in the others), especially in genetic characterization studies. When implementing a genetic
trace-back system it would be interesting to choose different panels for each breed to achieve
good efficacy in all breeds. In both cases, preliminary analyses of all breeds are needed to
determine the genetic structure of each population. Another interesting trait of microsatellites is
that we can relatively easily gain information on their molecular structure and mutation rate as
well. This has not escaped the attention of population geneticists. Recent work at the population
level may also shed light on the molecular forces acting on microsatellites. Microsatellites have
become widely applied for several types of studies, due to their advantages over other markers,
such as the relative ease in obtaining markers, high polymorphism rates, neutrality, and easy

Abdulrasoul5
automation of analytical procedure. Additionally, variation in simple nucleotide repeats, random
and abundant distribution across the genome, and dominance can be determined. Due to their
close chromosomal resemblance, microsatellites developed for cattle and sheep normally work
well in goats. The International Society of Animal Genetics described more than 1400
microsatellite markers that have been listed in cattle and around 40% of those markers can be
amplified efficiently in goat. Microsatellites are the marker of choice in animal genetic studies
due to the above mentioned advantages, and these markers have been used in numerous studies
all over the world. At the turn of the century, African and Asian researchers have concentrated on
genetic diversity studies using microsatellites. From these studies, we can conclude that goat
genetic diversity studies using microsatellites markers have been extensively conducted on the
African and Asian continents. These studies have paved the way for future genetic and
conservation studies. As an overall observation, the admixtures of local and foreign breeds have
shown greater genetic diversity than single breed structures.
Plants are genetically engineered for one of three primary reasons. With all three types of
GE crops, there are two separate (although linked) considerations. First are the environmental
effects caused by these plants when they are grown in farm fields; second are the health effects
on humans, animals, insects and other organisms when these plants are grown and eaten. One
goal of genetic engineering is to produce plants that can with stand spraying with herbicide. By
genetically engineering patented seeds that can tolerate its Roundup product, Monsanto has
profited greatly from its sales of both the GE seeds and its herbicide. Unfortunately, but
predictably, several weed species have developed a tolerance for Roundup, which has
necessitated the use of more toxic herbicides for control of these socalled super-weeds. Other
biotech companies have recently sought or obtained approval for new herbicides in what has

Abdulrasoul6
been described as an herbicide arms race. Dow Chemical has corn and soybeans that are resistant
to 2,4-D, an ingredient in Agent Orange. Monsanto itself has soybeans and cotton that are
resistant to dicamba, which acts as a hormone in a similar way to 2,4-D. Bayer, BASF and
Syngenta also have patented herbicide-resistant crops. DuPont is reportedly working on crops
that will be resistant to seven or more herbicides. All these chemicals are toxic in varying
degrees to humans, other animals, including birds and insects, and many forms of microbial and
larger forms of soil life. Their widespread heavy use has resulted in mass destruction of many
species. As with other farm and garden chemicals, there have been multiple instances of
unintended damage from spray drifting onto nearby crops. One casualty has been milkweeds
(Asclepias spp.), which are vital to the survival of the monarch butterfly, which is now severely
threatened, and other beneficial or harmless insects. A second type of GE crop is engineered to
produce its own pesticide, thus killing insect pests that are known to damage that crop. Plants
that produce their own insecticide, namely Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), were moderately
successful until, again predictably, the targeted insects developed resistance, or at least tolerance.
So while this GE feature initially reduced the use of sprayed pesticides, tolerant super bugs
have forced farmers to go back to using older and much more toxic pesticides. The biotech
companies have greatly profited from sales of patented seeds and then from sales of pesticides,
but the per-acre expense to farmers has increased beyond the ability of many to survive
financially. As insect pests were developing resistance to the Bt toxin, other pests increased. That
threat was met by the introduction of seeds coated with neonicotinoids, a class of systemic
insecticides that include imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine,
thiacloprid and thiamethoxam . These pesticides affect the central nervous system of insects,
resulting in paralysis and death. They are strongly suspected as a leading cause of Colony

Abdulrasoul7
Collapse Disorder, which has decimated the nations honeybee population. Thousands of
flowering plants sold by big-box stores nationwide are treated with systemic neonicotinoids;
many gardeners who think they are helping butterflies and pollinators may instead be killing
them. To ensure soil and plant health, farmers used to rotate (alternate) crops of, say, corn and
soybeans. This fed the soil, and, along with periodic planting of cover crops, discouraged
insect pests. Now, with the widespread use of GE crops, corn is grown year after year on
thousands of acres, so-called cornon-corn culture. These monocrops are chemical junkies,
totally dependent on GE traits and inputs of pesticides and herbicides. The soil in which they
grow is essentially dead.
All in all Genetic Engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism's genome using
biotechnology. New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the
genetic material of interest using molecular cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence, or by
synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be
removed, or "knocked out", using a nuclease. Gene targeting is a different technique that uses
homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene,
remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations, and that what scientist are using to
improve the human, animal, and plant genes.

Abdulrasoul8
Works Cite
GARNHAM, PETER. "Genetic Engineering Of Plants." Horticulture 112.2 (2015): 20-23.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 17 Apr. 2015.
MARIKAR, Faiz M. M. T., and Muneeb M. MUSTHAFA. "Usefulness Of Short Sequence
Repeat Markers In Goat Genetic Diversity Studies On The Asian And African
Continents." Turkish Journal Of Veterinary & Animal Sciences 38.6 (2014): 606-611.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Apr. 2015.
MILLER, HENRY I., and DREW L. KERSHEN. "Give Genetic Engineering Some Breathing
Room." Issues In Science & Technology 31.2 (2015): 62-72. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 11 Mar. 2015.
Muchero, Wellington, et al. "High-Resolution Genetic Mapping Of Allelic Variants Associated
With Cell Wall Chemistry In Populus." BMC Genomics 16.1 (2015): 555-581. Academic
Search Premier. Web. 11 Mar. 2015.
Powell, Russell. "The Evolutionary Biological Implications Of Human Genetic Engineering."
Journal Of Medicine & Philosophy 37.3 (2012): 204-225. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 8 Apr. 2015.