The chimpanzee genome has been sequenced, joining that of the cat, dog, horse, cow, mouse, elephant and others. Unfortunately, they’re all written in Klingon.
But when researchers announced the latest addition to the genome list last week, it made national headlines, thanks to the nature of the beast – our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. The $25 million chimp project was part of a federal program to sequence animal genomes that costs taxpayers $130 million a year.
Some enthusiasts claimed that data from the project proved Darwin’s theory of evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. Others said the information could eventually make it easier to develop treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
But some scientists are now questioning whether the expensive and complex sequencing of so many animal genomes is worth the effort. They argue that science needs more research on the anatomy and physiology of the animals themselves – and less into genetic heritage.
“We’ve sequenced all these animals, but it really doesn’t help much yet because we don’t know the functions of so many human genes, or their counterpart genes in other animals,” said Bernard Wood, an anthropology professor and an expert on apes and evolution at George Washington
University.
“You could say that the technology has advanced beyond our ability to make good use of the information.”
Wood’s review of the anatomical differences between chimpanzees and humans, published a few years ago in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that of 1,700 anatomical structures in humans, there are only 200 counterpart structures that match up in chimps.
“We still don’t know enough about chimpanzees,” he said.
Genome sequencing is the process of identifying the order of the billions of pairs of genetic code that dictate an organism’s functions and characteristics. To sequence a genome, researchers extract DNA from a blood or tissue sample and use sophisticated machines to identify the arrangements of the long chains of chemicals, known as “base pairs,” that together form different genes.
But the genetic code is written in an unfamiliar language, so sequencing a genome of any plant or animal doesn’t immediately lay open its genetic secrets.
Not only is it written in an “unfamiliar language”, that language can be “reinterpreted” differently from individual to individual, by the action of genes at other loci or environmental influences once thought unlikely – such as prenatal diet. For all the hoopla, it’s unlikely that gene therapy is going to have much more than very limited applications for the forseeable future.
From the Baltimore Sun.
“but it really doesn’t help much yet because we don’t know…”
Yep, that proves it to me. I BELEIVE in evolution!
I’m looking forward to the day my grandchildren grow feathers. Actually, I’d like the girls to have gills. You know with glow-ball worming and all, I think the oceans of mother gaia would be a good refuge.
/moonbat off
Anyone who has serious doubts about evolutionary science should not even bother reading about genetic advances.
One heard doubts about the utitlity of the human genome sequencing project some years back. Now one reads endless papers that are making remarkable advances due to the availability of the hsequencing of the human genome. It’s like arguing against higher mathematics because we don’t know the applied math yet. Full sequencing of the chimpanzee and the bonobo would assist immensely in identifying functions of uniquely human genes.
At a very minimum, it contributes to our knowledge of the world around us. We’d be even sorrier excuses as human beings if we decided it was just too expensive to keep expanding our horizons.
Nothing “moonbat” about that.
And I’m a great fan of the old adage:
“The more you know, the less you know.
The less you know, the more you know.”
I’m certainly not suggesting the information is useless, or will not someday lead to advances.
However, I do know enough about the complexity of genetic disease (being involved at a lay level in genetic research) to understand that there is a good deal of research grant motivated hype behind promises of curing disease through “fix the gene and shoot it in” therapy.
Where there looks to be more promise is in development of diagnostics – many of the diseases we know by generic terms – lung cancer, for example – can have multiple causes. Being able to identify specific genetic influences, and from there, unravelling the secrets of their chemical pathways, may help in determining the best treatment protocols and developing new ones.
The first two sentances of Watson & Crick’s “Molecular Structure of Nucleac Acid”, published in Nature in 1953, are: “We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.). This structure has novel features which are of considerable biological interest.”
I’d like to nominate their paragraph for some sort of understatement of the century award.
Not only is it grant motivated, but when something of genuine value is uncovered, would not the board members of Merk or Physer pounce and Patent, so as to profit by exactly the exhorbitant amount those who must use it have to pay? What a racket. We finance it, they patent it. 73s TG
While I agree, TonyGuitar, that the global patent system is currently a mess, I would be careful of throwing the concept of intellectual property out with the bathwater. Copyrights, patents, and trade secrets are all useful parts of the system we use to manage our interactions. There is a good reason for some form of the concepts. That’s why the founding fathers of the United States of America worried about it. According to http://tinyurl.com/d6g7s …
“On August 18, 1787, James Madison of Virginia arose in his place, and submitted, for reference to the committee of detail, additional powers to be added to those previously proposed for the legislature. Among these powers were “to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time,” and to “encourage by premiums and provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries.” On the same day Charles Pinckney of South Carolina also submitted a number of propositions, among which were: “to grant patents for useful inventions,” and “to secure to authors exclusive rights for a certain time.”
“On September 5, 1787, the committee reported and recommended, among other things, that Congress should have the power “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
The basic idea is that if you come up with something useful, not done before, and not obvious to an experienced practioner of the art, then you could get an exclusive jurisdiction for some short period of time, on the condition that you disclose your invention to the public, in the name of public good. (Trade secret is different.)
That said, I’ll never forget the words of Benjamin Franklin, the holder of hundreds of patents, who in 1791 wrote in his autobiography:
“Having, in 1742, invented an open stove for the better warming of rooms, and at the same time saving fuel, as the fresh air admitted was warmed in entering, I made a present of the model to Mr. Robert Grace, one of my early friends, who, having an iron-furnace, found the casting of the plates for these stoves a profitable thing, as they were growing in demand.
“To promote that demand, I wrote and published a pamphlet, entitled “An Account of the new-invented Pennsylvania Fireplaces; wherein their Construction and Manner of Operation is particularly explained; their Advantages above every other Method of warming Rooms demonstrated; and all Objections that have been raised against the Use of them answered and obviated, ” etc.
“This pamphlet had a good effect. Gov’r. Thomas was so pleas’d with the construction of this stove, as described in it, that he offered to give me a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but I declin’d it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on such occasions, viz., That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously”.
Very interesting. I embrace the honest practice of patent law as an incentive to intellectual achievement for the profit and benefit of many.
It is the crass abuse of the principle so well outlined above that I object to. Namely, using the exclusivity granted in patent law to exhort outrageous profits from a narrow sector of society who may be ill and may require the product under protection of patent.
The power to gather criminal surpluses of profit is well outside the intended concepts of patent law… eh?
A patent is not a license to practice blackmail. 73s TG