Thank you, booann. I'm sick to death of this forum being only an exercise in how fast I can click on the back arrow. It's time the regulars took it back and allowed those interested in identifying strange objects and bashing others to their own threads.

Yesterday, I was quite excited by news of a breakthrough on the encoding of the entire 46 chromosomes of the human. We've had lesser breakthroughs before, but none of this extent. We're still years off from identifying what drugs, etc. may react with mutant genes to eliminate cancers, etc. from a gene-pool, but I had hoped for this breakthrough in my lifetime, and I may just get that wish fulfilled.

Do you Know your DNA?

Of course, with this breakthrough come all the moral implications of messing with DNA for whatever reasons. I'll post another article on this issue. For ME, it's an exciting moment. For others, it may be the moment they've feared all their life.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 27, 2000

Answers

This breakthrough in DNA doesn't come without costs. Insurance companies [if they know] can discriminate against folks who have genes that lend themselves to life-threatening diseases. OTOH, folks who already KNOW they have such genes in their families have been able [in SOME cases] to get costly tests that confirm or deny their fears. The local news yesterday interviewed a woman whose mother and grandmother had died of breast cancer. Her mother asked [demanded] that she learn if she had inherited this trait. The woman spent $2500 for a genetic test to learn that she did NOT have the gene shared by her mother and grandmother. She now feels more confident that her offspring will not acquire this propensity as well.

Ethical Problems

We discussed the ethics involved with disclosure of DNA in a not so recent thread dealing with homosexuality. If amniocentesis can provide the information necessary for complete testing, will prospective parents abort their fetus if the genes reflect healthy, yet homosexual? Will they treat their offspring differently if they KNOW what the future lies for them?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 27, 2000.

"It's a happy day for the world," said Francis Collins, director of the federal Human Genome Project. "It is humbling and awe- inspiring to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."

This strike anyone else as an unusual statement to make to the press? Was he/she just overwhelmed and slipped in a viewpoint of such a personal nature?

Thanks Anita.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 27, 2000.

The one thing we have to remember is the genome is not finished," said Richard Gibbs, director of the Human Genome Sequencing Center at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, one of the federal laboratories. "The world needs a finished genome soon."

In fact the first STAGE of this project is not complete. Why a formal White House ceremony NOW? Why not wait for say, Neil Armstrong to actually disembark & set foot on the surface prior to releasing the celebratory balloons?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 27, 2000.

This is an extraordinary development. And it happened much quicker than predicted. Yes, much work remains to identify what the applications are but this work will be pursued. The results are not predictable. I think that, for better or for worse, whatever can be done will be done. Time to re-read Huxley's "Brave New World". Pandora, are you watching?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), June 27, 2000.

Bongo,

As for perplexing press eruptions, did you catch the Prez's companion remark - which dovetails into the one you cited? As I recall, it contained an even 'curiouser' God reference.

{Don't mean to be cryptic, am brain dead - just back from a week's worth of memorials & what my son called my extended family's 'confirmation of Shakespeare's theory of madness'.}

-- flora (***@__._), June 27, 2000.

Hey flora,

Don't mean to be cryptic, am brain dead - there's a good bit of that going around lately. I have a STRONG case of it myself right now. The neurotransmitters are on a sitdown strike. They say the synapses are getting wider. More likely an overload in the system, but that's another story altogether. ;^)

Hope you're holding up OK. Humor IS a great tonic. The kid is witty. Drop me one if you wish. Not a kid. An "e". Whew!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 27, 2000.

Thanks, 'Nita, for helping to bring this forum back with a fascinating topic.

Here's some more cool stuff from the New York Times...

Cool Genome Stuff

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), June 27, 2000.

Anita... Thanks for your support with this thread and coming to my aid in the "other".

This is unbelievable, as most new discoveries are. I don't have my thoughts sorted out regarding selective genetics, but I don't like the sound of it. What? A superior race? Keep this one, get rid of that one? Uuugggh.

Of course, maybe they'll find a dna memory sequence that cures Cantrememberitis. That I could use!!

Sending you one of my (selectively better) love genes...

-- keep the faith... (booann777@hotmail.com), June 27, 2000.

Gad Bongo,

Don't get my hopes up like that!

-- flora (***@__._), June 27, 2000.

Eve:

I'm not registered with the Times, and I have no interest in so doing. I WOULD appreciate ANYONE posting a link to another article on this topic. I doubt very much that the Dallas Morning News was the only newspaper that covered this.

As Booann pointed out in another thread, I miss the news. I've never had to do the look-ups myself before, let alone start a thread myself. [grin]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 27, 2000.

Bingo 1:

Was he/she just overwhelmed and slipped in a viewpoint of such a personal nature?

He would be correct.

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 27, 2000.

Anita:

Yesterday, I was quite excited by news of a breakthrough on the encoding of the entire 46 chromosomes of the human.

I'm not sure that is true. I believe it is primarily the coding sequences.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), June 27, 2000.

Z:

I do believe YOU'RE the geneticist on this forum. Please rephrase. I'm simply a lowly lover of Biology.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 27, 2000.

Hey "Z",

You're a geneticist & your total contribution to this thread as of this morning is less than two dozen words spread over two posts? Come on man. You can do better than this. Perhaps it is your (perceived) inability to ramp down terminology & concepts into layman's terms?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 28, 2000.