Week14

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/basics_what_is_a_gene.php

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/2011-04-22-eugenics-journal_N.htm?csp=Dailybriefing

My question has to do the with the slide on heritability and the smoking where you identified misstatements and there were 3 of them listed. I kind of got your explanation but didn't fully understand the concept of why they were different or didn't make sense.

I was wondering what scientists back in the day considered to be one of the biggest breakthrough's when it comes to experiments that were not quite so obviously amazing. Therefore excluding Watson and Crick's discovery and any other major discoveries we discussed. They may have been done by people who were not as well known and maybe did not receive as much credit as they should have. http://www.dnaftb.org/20/

In Besteman and Gunderson's review of The Bell Curve, the authors lament that, centuries after the promise of modern science gestated in the Enlightenment, "some science actually exists with the goal of increasing the level of misery in the world." They perceive the work as having the goal of institutionalizing and as necessary restoring permanent socioeconomic inequalities, that these inequalities are portrayed as somehow rational and justified. The movement, such as the Pioneer Fund affiliated with the publication, is implied to be a fairly recent turn for the worse. It seems surprising that the authors feel, particularly regarding their self-professed anthropology outlook, that this is a new development. Social darwinism and eugenics alone had existed and often promulgated inequality for over a century prior to The Bell Curve's publication. Was this a deliberate exaggeration of the significance of the book or something less insidious?

The work on drosophila by Nusslein-Volhard and altering its genes and seeing the resulting body plan was interesting. How far did she take this? Was she able to fully control and predict how the fly would look after altering its genes? Were people afraid of its implication for other organisms? http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1995/nusslein-volhard-autobio.html http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=9&id=94

So I just finished the last paper on flexible eugenics. How far do you think genetic testing will go? Will the LPA's fears come true? Will people start aborting pregnancies because they are going to have a dwarf? === According to Rayna Rapp's article, many people do not accurately know all of the information and statistics of the Prenatal Diagnosis test. Wouldn't the people who ask if the soon to be parents want the test give the correct information and run down of the procedure? Rapp makes it seem like it is an important test, but if it is why are people so worried about having it done? === In the article "Flexible Eugenics", they talk about the development of biochips that do prenatal DNA testing for a number of genetic conditions, including Down's syndrome and Achondroplasia. How successful have these been on the market and how widely are they used for effective diagnosis of genetic conditions in fetuses? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/GeneTests/?db=GeneTests http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/index.htm http://www.lpaonline.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=84634#LPAPosition

When reading the gizmodo article attacking the genetic testing site 23andme I noticed a few things. It seems that the customer did not do proper research on the website as well as properly consider what the test results might yield. My question is about online genetic testing itself. Why would genetic testing, on legitimate websites, limit their results (ie stats if of European decent) and not include a proper list of arguments with and against genetic testing so people may decide on their own?

After reading 'Why 23andme genetic testing is a waste of time and money," it seems like people are getting more information then they are comfortable dealing with. Should there be something akin to a informed consent process before getting a genetic test?

The idea is that this would make sure that the person will have a beneficial response to whatever results they get from the test. http://www.genomicslawreport.com/index.php/2010/08/05/the-past-present-and-future-of-dtc-genetic-testing-regulation/

my question this week is why is genetics engineering called "flexible eugenics"? how can something be flexible if you can find hard evidence that something is present or not present? http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

We have been talking about genes, dna, and the secret to life for quite a while now and I have learned so much from it. But I got to wonder, what are the chances that we are just wrong about DNA and genes being what causes us to be us? Obviously the evidence is pretty compelling, but science is full of well accepted ideas proved wrong. What if the real secret is hidden even deeper than DNA or maybe there is a part 2 to what makes us who we are? Is there even a thought amongst the scientific world or is the evidence just so concrete that no one will ever challenge it? It could make all the difference in curing disease.

Why has it taken scientists so long to acknowledge the effects that cells have on genetics? Is there a general consensus that the cell is important again or is the concept still catching on?

We have seen that lots of mutated genes can act differently and be expressed as inconsistent phenotypes and we don't always know exactly why, but we think environment probably has a lot to do with it. How can we even begin to study genetic diseases for which environment may play a large role when there are such huge ranges of possible environments? How will we ever know what is really causing the gene to be expressed in a certain way when there is so much to consider?

media type="youtube" key="36HquPzdxf4?fs=1" height="390" width="640"