Like Hollywood, it's all artificial.

"Mmmm. There's nothing like biting into hot, freshly buttered teosinte. Have any of you guys seen Avatar yet? There's nothing like going to the movie theaters with a big bucket of popteosinte. Then maybe a few decades later when we have no teeth, we'd rather be enjoying a big bowl of creamed teosinte!"

That's what we would be saying if the geniuses of science didn't engineer a weedy grass found in central America into the beloved corn that we have today. 10,000 years ago, our ancestors never had the golden pleasure of corn! By artificial selection, we engineered teosinte into corn. So how does one do this? A stalk of teosinte, has variations. Some are tall, some are short, fat while some are skinny, and some have plump seeds and some has itty bitty ones. Some smart person though "What do I want to eat next year?". Genes are then taken from crop that have the desirable traits and the process if repeated generation after generation until VOILA, masterpiece.


After looking at this picture of teosinte, I've never been so grateful for science in my life.

And take a look at wild tomatoes (right) and domestic ones (left)


Artificial selection in plants is wonderful, though we do risk them being wiped out by diseases or environmental factors. Since they lack variation, they're all in the same boat which may lead to survival or doomsday ( So dramatic...). I think designing our fruits and veggies is still a good gamble. Can you imagine having those tomatoes in your salad? Yuck!


Now let's talk about artificial selection in animals. A study was done in Pushkinskoe Fur Farm in Moscow, where over the course of 41 years they experimented on sables. In the wild, they are usually found with furs that vary from a sandy yellow to dark brown. Dark brown, black, or blue-black fur is considered the most valuable. From this study, they concluded that artificial selection aimed to change characteristics unrelated to fitness has a co-relation to the decrease of the animal's fitness.

Of course, cows, pigs, chickens and other produce are genetically enhanced to be bigger, meatier, and produce more. The question is, is it okay to do that to them, knowing they suffer the consequences? Well this can branch out to two point of views:
-No! These animals deserve a good quality of life too. Animal rights is important, especially in a world where we rely on them so much.
-Yes, they are going to get slaughtered for meat anyway and live in a domestic environment. it's not like they're in the wild, fending for themselves with their less-than-efficient fitness.

Though i thought of both of these points myself, I believe in my second one a more. (Animal rights activists, I'm looking forward to your angry letters). Yes, I understand it's a pretty morbid point of view but farmers need to have the best produce, it's our dinner but their livelihood that they are controlling.

But what if people are artificially selecting to make perfect domestic animals? The video "Artificial Selection: Creating the perfect pet" introduced in unit 8 was terrifyingly creepy. In the video, Brian Simison, the head of The Center of Comparative Genomics said that when owners strive to make pure breeds, it results in overlapping genes which can be recessive. Cavalier Spaniards can get syringomyelia which causes them a lot of pain, yet they win contests for their owners. Now that's just mean. I believe that artificially "enhancing" an animal to win it's owner prize money in dog contests is cruel. I say to those dog breeders, go get a real job.




Work cited
http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=24827621n282n824&size=largest
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070201_corn
http://www.sable-pro.net/rl-sable.jpg

Gucci Gucci Goo!

I know. "Jon and Kate on bioblogs too?" Everybody is sick of hearing and seeing them all over gossip magazines and TMZ, but when I read the words "designer babies" I immediately thought about those kids! I remember once telling someone: "I want kids looking JUST like them! They are so cute!".
So keeping that in mind; if I had the chance to, would I ever create a designer baby for cosmetic reasons?
Yes! A hundred times, yes!
Do I think everyone should be able to do so?
No!

Before the comments come in, I fully understand that this is extreme hypocrisy on my behalf. But if you had the chance to pick and choose which characteristics your baby would have, wouldn't you do it too? (Okay, fine. Maybe I'm one of the few morally misguided people here)

The thing that doesn't sit well with me about designer babies is what quickly came to mind: Hitler's Germany. During World War II, Hitler's fuzzy guidelines to who should live is Germans of blond hair and blue eyes. He wanted to keep the 'pure' race alive, known as the Aryans. That fool didn't even have those traits himself!
The reason why I brought this up, is that the idea of societies coming to a belief that there is a "pure' race based on looks is horrifying. In the future, if everyone could choose what their children look like, history may repeat itself, and there may be an 'ideal' look.

Here's another reason why I believe modifying genes for cosmetic reasons is wrong: Western culture's efforts of trying to redefine beauty will be chewed up and spat back out.


The sign reads: You need to be this SHORT to enter.

As annoying of a TV personality that she is, I give it up for Tyra Banks. She defines "supermodel" and is always trying to redefine beauty and loves to inspire young girls. She created the show "America's Next Top Model" which is currently airing their 13th cycle. This cycle is special because Tyra is only casting girls that are 5'7 and under. The average fashion model is 5'9 to 6'2.



Even beauty legend, Barbie has changed her look through the decades to show that beauty comes in many different forms. Earlier this year, Mattel created a new line of "Black Barbies". Instead of the old ones, (which were normal barbies painted dark) they widened her nose, changed the cheekbones,and gave her fuller lips and curly hair.

We as humans have done so much to broaden people's minds about what beauty is, and this completely contradicts it. There is no turning back if us humans start to genetically modify our babies to create these 'gorgeous' human beings of God (which may not be so much God's doing any longer). There will be hypocritical people like me who believe that modifying THEIR baby will do no harm, but as soon as this trend catches on, who knows, Suri Cruise may be multiplied by her adult admirers. That's just not right. Therefore I think people should NOT be given the right to 'enhance' their child by selecting traits, or else we humans will run with it. If you're going to put food in front of a dog, don't expect it to not eat.

Keep in mind that I am talking about genetic modifications for cosmetic purposes only. For medical purposes, and avoiding genetic disorders, I am all for it! People who do not believe in genetic modifications can play the "We are playing God" card. Well, when have we NOT been playing God? It's not like it's an abortion, it's giving a better life to your child.

CNN covered the story of designer babies, and they interviewed Dr.Jeffery Steinberg a reproductive endocrinologist. He explained that when trying to avoid a disease, they can not remove a bad gene and replace it with a good gene. Instead, they let mother nature do her work first. Later on, they can identify if a bad gene was placed into an embryo and they will not use it to reproduce. This technology has already been used to avoid 200 different kinds of diseases.



The topic of choosing a baby's sex later came up. At first I thought: "No way is that right! Men will want boys to mow the lawn and teach them football! And women will want daughters so they can dress them as princesses on Halloween!" That was my FIRST thought, I then remembered reading about muscular dystrophy in our Nelson Biology 11 textbook. There is a sex-linked form of this genetic disorder that affects boys between the ages of 2 and 6, and can put them in a wheelchair by 12. So if technology can detect this gene in the parents before hand, they can genetically modify the genes to make sure that the parents have a daughter. I can easily see how this is extremely controversial, but the opposing argument would come from people who don’t have to deal with this terrible situation. May I clarify that I think manipulating a child's sex for other reasons is completely unethical.

In conclusion, I believe that messing around with your child's gene for cosmetic reasons is wrong, but doing it to avoid genetic disorders is fine. I am all against designing babies just to make more of Smallville's Clark Kents (You know; making strong, powerful, smart, attractive...okay I'll stop.) Science has given us many opportunities. At the same time, science has given us a lot to debate about. Morals and religion vs science and technology, the battle will around longer than these designer babies will live.




Sources Used:
Nelson Biology 11 textbook. Muscular Dystrophy, pgs 181-182

http://www.newmodels.com/height.html,
Height and Professional Modeling

http://www.bet.com/News/newsarticle_MattelAnnouncesNewBlackDollLine.htm,
Mattel's McBride Designs New Black Doll Line

http://www.bet.com/News/newsflipbook_So_In_Style.htm?wbc_purpose=Basic&WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished&i=2,
MATTEL'S BLACK BARBIE - "SO IN STYLE"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNdGAFc_45A,
CNN-Designer Babies

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheStixay#p/u/47/cMHNowQzqsU,
ANTM Cycle 13 - episode 2 part 2

http://evilbeetgossip.film.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/jon_kate_eight.jpg,
Jon and Kate Plus 8 Photo

http://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoonview_x.asp?start=&search=main&catref=pwo0079&MA_Artist=&MA_Category=&ANDkeyword=designer+babies&ORkeyword=&TITLEkeyword=&NEGATIVEkeyword=,
Designer Sperm Bank

Stewards of the earth, my arse!

Learned how to fly. Check
Gone to the moon. Check
Explored the ocean floor. Check.
Wiped out the Caspian tiger population. Check.

What humans have accomplished since the day that they’ve inhabited the earth is amazing, unbelievable almost. Yet still, the thought of this huge tin can in flight, carrying tons of people and luggage still amazes me. Humans have come so far from cave drawings and stone wheels, but what is the cost the earth and the other inhabitants are paying for our luxuries and greed?

Humans, as a whole, cannot call themselves 'stewards of the world'. My favourite example ever, is the tragedy of the blue whale. The series Planet Earth by BBC had this little scene on the blue whale, and what I learned from it stuck with me. Lucky for you, I found a piece of it on Youtube! Check it out, it will make your day, I promise.




These super mammals were once a population of 300,000, today there is less than 3% of that number left. How did this happen? Humans pollute the earth, which pollutes the water. DDT that any garden tender uses eventually gets into the ocean. Krill then consumes the DDT, and the blue whales, consume the krill. Blue whales must eat about 8,000 pounds of krill a day to survive, now imagine all the DDT that ends up in their bodies. Women who breastfeed their babies dump all their chemicals they've collected over their lifetime into their infants, but unlike humans, blue whales don’t have the choice of feeding their babies formula. So clearly, one gardener can greatly impact the chance of survival of this colossal mammal.

So what are the factors that lead to the loss of biodiversity? Climate change, pollution, over exploitation and invasive species, so in nutshell, the answer is “humans”.

Humans are the most invasive species, no doubt. Let’s look at this on a larger scale. Capitalism, the arch nemesis of environmentalism, is responsible for destroying and polluting the earth. A good example is the profitable industry of oil drilling. It’s simple; oil companies go to Alaska, find oil, build their oil mines, pump the land dry, then leave the habitats destroyed which were possibly once breeding grounds or hibernation routes for polar bears and caribou. Not to mention all the air pollution released during the whole operation. Capitalism is about money and power, and will put aside social and environmental values to make as much profit as possible.

I am not saying capitalism is bad. There is nothing wrong with a graduate student, trying to open his own business. It’s the greed and carelessness of large companies that is really hurting our earth on a social and environmental matter. We humans, need to develop, we can’t stop the progression of our world just like that to focus on the environment. What is our world without development? Is it possible for development and going green to co-exist? Or is it one or another? The solution is “sustainable development”. It’s basically environmental, economic and social well being for today and tomorrow. If humans can live, and think this way, we CAN be stewards of our Earth! It’s a win-win situation, but of course it’s not that easy. It takes masterminds to try to make sustainable development work. But impossible is nothing. When cell phones were first introduced, it was like talking into a brick! And in just within a few decades, cell phones can surf the internet, play music, and take pictures while still fitting in our pockets.
As much as humans are invasive and greedy, they are as intelligent. Therefore I personally believe that humans will find a way to make sustainable energy work, and when that day comes we may be able to call ourselves stewards of the earth. But now? Not so much.

We should have a lot of respect for the system, for the natural system, for the biodiversity. Don't worry if you don't know what good they are for; you didn't create it, so you don't know what it is for. Just let it be. Because who knows, someday down the road our future generations might find that they can survive becuase of that aspect of biodiversity. - Wangari Maathai, founder of the Green Belt Movement (from Planet Earth)


http://www.extremescience.com/BlueWhale.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fzT6ifrhL8

http://www.nrdc.org/energy/clouding.pdf

http://www.iisd.org/sd/

http://www.greenfacts.org/en/biodiversity/

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/extinct-animals/

Planet Earth BBC series