Genetic Engineering and Human Life Expectancy

The human body is fascinating. It is physically strong, chemically efficient, ultimately dependable, and is designed by a polymer comprised of four different compounds. This polymer, known as DNA, is the blueprint for every cell inside of us, and after the discovery of its molecular structure in 1953, the scientific community scrambled to unravel the answer behind its eccentric, trait-encoding capabilities (Nicholl 6). Since then multiple fields, the most important being genetic engineering, have emerged and provided promising developments for mankind. In fact, since 1900 we have seen a 30 year increase in human life expectancy alone (Scientific American). This statistic affirms the significance of advances made in the field of genetic engineering, and suggests that further development of genetic engineering practices will influence an increase in human longevity.

DNA

 Image by iStockPhoto
Provided by Coco Ballantyne

Although the molecular structure of DNA was discovered in the early 1950s, progress toward the development of techniques for gene manipulation was hindered until the early 1970s (Nicholl 6). According to Nicholl, current technologies, although capable of describing the genetic structure, had no way to analyze its molecular components (6). The scientific community was suffering from a lack of technological advancement, and major breakthroughs were needed before progress could resume. To scientists' relief, the isolation of DNA Ligase and a restriction enzyme provided the technological leap that they needed (Nicholl 6). While both molecules have separate functions—Ligase binds two separate DNA strands together, while the restriction enzyme specializes in cutting DNA  like a pair of scissors—together they allowed for the splicing of one organism's DNA into a new host, creating the foundation for recombinant DNA technology (Nicholl 6).
With this basic understanding in place, "molecular biologists learned how to remove bits of genetic material from various organisms and insert them into bacteria" (Jackson and Stich xiii). By examining the affect that the insertion had on these bacteria, researchers were able to discern the gene's role in the genome of the donor organism. Additionally, the mechanics involved in bacterial genetics, now more widely understood, "provided scientists with a singularly powerful tool for studying the basic mechanisms of genetics in all organisms" (Jackson and Stich xiii).

Though modern technologies have only recently revolutionized genetic engineering techniques, it is important to note that the concept of adapting a species to better suit the needs of people has been around for thousands of years (Genetically Modified Organism). Sure, while it's obvious that the early Europeans did not possess the capabilities—or knowledge for that matter—to unite DNA from different organisms, they did understand that by breeding two animals together (both with a desired trait) they could produce offspring that would have the desired trait as well.

In nature, this process of adapting a species to its environment occurs even more readily. Known as natural selection, an animal with a beneficial trait is more likely to survive and reproduce than one without it. Imagine a population of moths where there are two traits for wing color: drab-colored and white-colored. In order to avoid predators, the moth must be able to blend in with its surroundings. For the drab-colored moths, this is a simple task, yet for those that are white-colored, it is a challenge. Because of their lack of camouflage, the white-colored moths will be eaten more frequently, while those that are drab-colored will survive longer and consequently have a greater opportunity to reproduce. This will afford a higher instance of drab-colored moths in subsequent generations, eventually resulting in the dominance of the drab-color over the white-color.

While natural selection plays a large role in the determination of a specie's traits, human intervention, more commonly referred to as "genetic engineering," allows a species to evolve and adapt not to its environment, but to the needs of mankind. The key difference between nature's methods and ours is that in the wild, change is only achieved through evolution, and is perpetuated within a single population. In the hands of a geneticist, however, a gene can be altered or replaced with another more desirable variant—typically from another species.

Research on "Flavr Savr" tomatoes at UC Berkley
Provided by Bruening and Lyons

Developed in May 1994, the "Flavr Savr" tomato revolutionized genetic engineering by becoming the first genetically modified food product to be approved for commercialization by the Food and Drug Administration (Bruening and Lyons; Genetically Modified Organism). By splicing in a gene to prevent "fruit softening," engineers at Calgene Inc. had developed a way to increase the life expectancy of tomatoes by eliminating their tendency to over-ripen (Bruening and Lyons).

During tomato development, a protein known as polygalacturonase (PG) is readily produced, and is known to break down pectin. Pectin, on the other hand, is a major component in the cell walls of many plants, and its degradation results in the softening of cell walls across the fruit (Bruening and Lyons; Genetically Modified Organism). Researchers theorized that if they could inhibit the PG producing gene, then the pectin-based cell wall might not deteriorate as quickly, leading to an increase in the tomato's lifespan. An alternate copy, or antisense, of the PG producing gene was soon synthesized and afterwards spliced into the tomato genome. During analysis of the newly dubbed "Flavr Savrs," some tomatoes produced as little as 1% of normal PG concentrations (Bruening and Lyons). Furthermore, these tomatoes resisted softening for an extended period of time, evidence that the recombinant DNA procedure had been a success (Bruening and Lyons).

Without the inactivated PG gene, conventional, farm-grown tomatoes are quick to soften, and need to be picked before maturity so that by the time they arrive on store shelves, they are in peak condition. With this pre-picking need eliminated, Flavr Savr tomatoes are given more time to grow on the vine. Not only does this enhance the tomato's appealing flavor and color, but it makes them healthier as well (Brasher). While still attached to the vine, lycopene, a powerful antioxidant, is produced and then stored within the tomato (Brasher). If consumed, the tomato will pass the lycopene onto humans, which in some cases may help to inhibit the growth of cancerous cells.

Healthier, longer lasting, and better tasting, it is obvious why these tomatoes were in such high demand (Bruening and Lyons). Yet, with increasing production and distribution costs preventing the project from becoming profitable, the Flavr Savr tomato's marketing halted several years later (Bruening and Lyons).

Though the Flavr Savr never succeeded in becoming a widely distributed food, it proved that genetically modified foods could be developed to resist detrimental affects such as fruit softening. Soon after the downfall of the Flavr Savr, other genetically modified crops were developed. Hardy to insects, intense heat, and drought, these beneficial characteristics increased the plants' lifespan, increasing crop yields. As a result, food became less scarce, helping to increasing human life expectancy.

Although an organism may be modified by genetic modification to produce a desired result, as with the Flavr Savr tomato, less invasive procedures may be used. Such procedures include PGD, and may be used by doctors to give parents a child without genetic defects. As Leon Kass M.D. describes, "this approach, less radical or complete in its power to control, would not introduce new genes, but would merely select positively among those that occur naturally." The process hinges on in vitro fertilization (IVF) and screens unborn babies for both desirable and undesirable traits (Kass). Known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), twelve eggs are fertilized and allowed to grow until they reach the four-cell or ten-cell stage. One or two cells are then withdrawn, and the DNA within them is extracted and amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The resulting DNA strands are subsequently analyzed for Huntington Disease, Cystic Fibrosis, and other genetic disorders that may prove detrimental to the health of the mother or child both before and during birth (Genetics & IVF Institute). Embryos without defect are then grouped together, and one is selected to be transplanted into the mother. From here, the fetus will develop within the womb and will be delivered in nine months as a regular baby.

Though the intentional screening of a fetus for genetic disorders may sound grotesque and unnatural, the practice is generally limited to couples who have a higher chance of giving birth to a child with a genetic disorder (Kass). Additionally, by screening the viable children in this manner, the chance of the couple giving birth to a child with a genetic defect is significantly lowered, helping to prevent a threat to either the mother's or child's health, and lessening the need for prenatal care and possible abortion farther down the road (Kass). Thus, using preimplantation screening measures such as this only helps to increase the lifespan of the resulting child.

If we already have the technology to prenatally screen our children for genetic disorders, we can only wonder what advancements might arrive next. According to the President's Council on Bioethics, the next most foreseeable step is likely to be toward producing "better children" (Kass xiii). While it seems that invasive, genetic engineering procedures would be required to produce children with superior traits, the process is actually quite simple. By changing the objective of PGD from child screening to "baby improving," fetuses with beneficial traits would be selected, set aside, and presented to the parents as options for their next child (Kass 39). By the couple's decision, a fetus will be selected and implanted into the mother's womb through in vitro fertilization. This process is simply a form of natural selection; new traits are not introduced. On the contrary, we must ask ourselves whether choosing the characteristics of our children is both ethical and moral. Moreover, where should we draw the line between birthing children and manufacturing them?

The ethical and moral concerns of genetic engineering pose a serious problem to future research and development. Questions constantly arise in debates and test the resolve of scientists to continue with their research. For example, 'are there unforeseen consequences lying ahead of us?' Unfortunately, the answer could be yes. As seen in the movie GATTACA, after the genetic modification of humans, a new social order is created where the genetically superior preside over those of normal birth. Here, the job that you get depends not on your diploma but your DNA, and if you do not have the right genes, you are almost certain to fail in the working world (GATTACA). It is frightening how something as simple as the creation of a new social order might arise from the genetic engineering of humans.

Image by Vermin Inc.

The future of genetic engineering looks promising. Some believe that current research may take us far enough to even be on the doorstep of immortality. Although extreme, human immortality could theoretically exist with the combination of either "biotechnology, molecular nanotechnologies, artificial intelligence and other new types of cognitive tools" and the human body (Farrar). Though one problem does remain with immortality: over population. If no one dies, and people continue to have children, what happens when we run out of resources? Well, the world may begin to look somewhat like it does in M.T. Anderson's Feed, the forests will have been cut down; clouds will no longer drift in the sky; snow will come down in black clumps; the ocean will be polluted and absent of life; the Earth will be dead. Thus, while immortality may seem to be a beneficial step forward in the field of genetic engineering, in reality it will only cause destruction and loss of life.

By this point, it is obvious that genetic engineering has provided mankind with the means to increase life expectancy, whether it is through the biological improvement of crops to help prevent famines or the instillation of "molecular nanotechnologies" into the human body to decrease the possibility of disease (Farrar). Yet, who will be able to access these advancements? Will they be readily available for anyone's benefit, or will they be a prized commodity only available to the upper class? Unfortunately, the later is more likely; in order to continue innovating, companies need financial support, and the best way to obtain it is by charging for their services. Thus, we can predict that only the wealthy will be able to afford these new advancements, ensuring that they are the ones with the fastest increasing life expectancy. In a clip produced by BBC news, Hans Rosling, a global health expert, demonstrates this fact by explaining how humankind's lifespan has increased relative to each country's economic status.

By plotting life expectancy against economic status,

Hans shows that the world we live in is different from how we imagine

While watching this video it is important to note two trends. First, we see that larger countries such as China, India, and Pakistan tend to fall behind, remaining in the poorest and sickest corner, while smaller, more western countries such as Luxembourg and Sweden remain at the head of the pack as the wealthiest and healthiest. Although the reason behind this phenomenon is unknown, we can theorize that it may involve the countries location, as China, India, and Pakistan were fairly rural during the early 19th century, while Luxembourg and Sweden had booming cities. Second, it is apparent that all 200 countries are moving to the wealthier and healthier corner as the timeline approaches present day. This trend is understandable, because as newer technologies emerge, older ones become cheaper and more readily available to families of lower income, allowing people of the lower class to have a longer life as well. Furthermore, as Rosling describes, "I see a clear trend into the future, with age and trade, green technology and peace, it's fully possible that everyone can make it to the healthy, wealthy corner" (Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes...). Thus, this video demonstrates that since the Industrial Revolution, technological innovation has been increasing, ultimately leading to an increase in life expectancy that will continue to increase into the future.

The concept of genetically modifying an organism to better suit the needs of humans has been around for thousands of years, and only recently have technological advancements allowed mankind to develop more practical recombinant DNA techniques. Using these techniques we have bioengineered crops to be resistant to harsh environments, found ways to prenatally screen for genetic disorders, and derived the basis for the future selection of a child's genes by his or her parents. These developments have all lead to an increase in human life expectancy, an increase that has and will continue into the foreseeable future. But in the end we must question 'Is it right for us to meddle with the fabric of life?' 'Is it right for us to play God?'

Works Cited

• Anderson, M. T. Feed. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick, 2002. Print.

• Ballantyne, Coco. Life from Scratch? Digital image. Scientific American. Scientific American, 24 Jan. 2008. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4hfaa9r>.

• Bruening G., and J. M. Lyons. Research to control the ripening of tomatoes continues. At UC Berkley, Athanasios Theologis and colleagues have identified and blocked a gene responsible for ripening. Digital image. California Agriculture. University of California, July-Aug. 2000. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/6cddoow>

• Bruening, G., and J. M. Lyons. "The Case of the FLAVR SAVR Tomato." California Agriculture. University of California, July-Aug. 2000. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/475j7f3>.

• Brasher, Philip. "Return of the Flavr Savr Tomato." Organic Consumers Association. Organic Valley, Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, Botani Organic, Aloha Bay, Eden Foods, Frey Vineyards, Intelligent Nutrients. Web. 4 Apr. 2011 <http://tinyurl.com/3rlf95z>.

• Farrar, Lara. "Scientists: Humans and Machines Will Merge in Future." CNN Tech. CNN, 15 Jan. 2008. Web. 15 Mar. 2011 <http://tinyurl.com/5u2azya>.

• GATTACA. Dir. Andrew Niccol. By Andrew Niccol. Perf. Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman, and Jude Law.Columbia Pictures Corporation, 1997. DVD.

• "Genetically Modified Organism." Environmental Encyclopedia. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context, 21 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4z59zpt>.

• Genetics & IVF Institute. "What Is PGD?" Genetics & IVF Institute. Genetics & IVF Institute, 2011. Web. 4 Apr. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/3z9c2ca>.

• Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four. Dir. Dan Hillman. Prod. Dan Hillman and Archie Baron. Perf. Hans Rosling. YouTube. BBC, 26 Nov. 2010. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/23dt9kn>.

• Kass M.D., Leon R. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Rep. LSU Law Center. Oct. 2003. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/45lhjy9>.

• National Council of the Churches of Christ/USA. Genetic Engineering: Social and Ethical Consequences. New York: Pilgrim, 1984. Print.

• Nicholl, Desmond S. T. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.

• Scientific American. "Life Expectancy." Scientific American. Scientific American, 13 May 2002. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4lz4uzt>.

• Vermin Inc. The Carbon Economy. Digital image. Flickr. Yahoo! Inc., 19 May 2009. Web. 4 Apr. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/3hmnh5b>.

Project 4 Narrative

My footsteps echoed down the dark hallway, the padded shoe soles doing little to mask the reverberating sound. I heard a muffled scuff somewhere behind me, followed by the familiar click of the safety being switched. I knew they were close behind.

My pace quickened, and I was soon sprinting, desperately trying to find a way out. Turning the next corner, I muttered a curse under my breath as I stared at the dead end before me. I tried the small doors on either side, but they were locked. Peering around the corner, and back down the dark hallway, two shadows quietly walked towards me, their backs snug against the wall to minimize their silhouette. They were still a ways off, but making a run for it was certainly out of the question. I was trapped; I needed to hide.

Looking over the small corridor, I noticed a grate positioned in the back corner. I ran to it, and my fingers easily slid into the slim crack between the metal cover and the cold concrete floor. The steel grate lifted without a sound, and I slipped into the darkness bellow, waited for my pursuers to pass. The fading of their footsteps signified the success of my escape.

I looked around, and saw that I had landed in a drainage tunnel. A breeze flowed through and danced on my cheek. I followed its source and began to see a glint in the distance. I heard a soft roar at the end. The air was filled with salt, and when I exited, I was bathed in light, standing on a cliff. I was free.

My name is Erik Brunet. To society, I and those like me are "God children." We are different than the others, because we were conceived naturally. Instead of putting faith in a geneticist, our parents trusted the natural way. With new technology, genetically engineering a child had become easy. Parents can ask for a son or daughter, can ensure that their child will be smart, fast, good looking, and more. They are genetically superior. They are the new race.

For the naturally born, we are the minority. We are only able to hold certain jobs, are herded into densely populated slums on the south side of town, and are separated from the superior class. We have tried rebelling before, only to be met with fierce defeat and humiliation. Thousands have attempted escape; only a few before me have succeeded.

The Problem with "Feednet"

Having a computer implanted into our brains sounds kinda cool. Cool in the sense that we would have something there to help us think, something there to give us access to the internet wherever and whenever we need it. In a world driven by competition, having a neural implant would certainly give the user a leg up on those around them. Without having to study, school would be easier; without having to know a trade, work would be a breeze. But as I've found in the first few chapters of Feed, having a direct connection to the "Feednet" has several downsides—loss of intelligence and privacy, to name two.

Having something there to answer all of our questions prevents us from learning. It's sort of like being young and asking our parents the meaning of a word. Mine usually told me to find out the old fashion way—dust off a dictionary and look it up. If they did tell me, I might remember it for the remainder of the day, but I would be lucky to recall it down the road. Somehow, the physical action of flipping through the pages of a dictionary and finding a word forces our brains to store the information away. For Titus, who's had access to Feednet since birth, functioning without a feed is difficult; when he wakes up in the hospital without access to Feednet, he can't even identify the action of a boat's rudder when examining the painting of a sailboat.

But there are more downsides than simply loosing intelligence; as Titus's and his friends trip the moon shows, with access to Feednet brings a loss of privacy. As soon as they step off of the shuttle, they are blasted by advertising from local stores. The ads, however, aren't intended for a mass audience. Instead, they are directed at an individual based on his or her particular interests. As Violet explains, companies gather statistics on what each user searches for, what they buy, what they bookmark, etc., and then sell the information to local stores, who then spam users with recommendations on future purchases. This massive loop leads to the overall loss of one's privacy.

Feed has shown us that the future of technology brings many detriments to humanity, including a loss intelligence and privacy. If society envisions the use of such neural implants, it is almost a sure bet we will end up like the characters in the novel. Hopefully this will not be the case.

Project 3 Rough Draft:The Affect of Genetic Engineering on Human Life Expectancy

The human body is fascinating. It is physically strong, chemically efficient, ultimately dependable, and is designed by a polymer comprised of four different compounds. This polymer, known as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), is the blueprint for every cell inside of us, and after the discovery of its molecular structure in 1953, the scientific community scrambled to unravel the answer behind its eccentric, trait coding capabilities (Nicholl 6). Since then multiple fields, the most important being genetic engineering, have emerged and provided promising developments for mankind. In fact, since 1900 we have seen a 30 year increase in human life expectancy alone (Scientific American). This statistic affirms the significance of developments made in the field of genetic engineering, and suggests that the further development of genetic engineering practices will influence an increase in human longevity.

DNA
 Image: iStockPhoto

Although the molecular structure of DNA was discovered in the early 1950s, progress toward developing techniques for gene manipulation was hindered until the early 1970s (Nicholl 6). According to Nicholl, the cause was a lack of technological advancement, and only after breakthroughs were made could progression toward these developments resume (6). To scientists relief, the breakthroughs arrived through the isolation of DNA Ligase and a restriction enzyme (Nicholl 6). While both molecules have separate functions in the grand scheme of recombinant DNA production—Ligase binds two separate DNA strands together, while the restriction enzyme specializes in cutting DNA at designated positions like a pair of scissors—together they make up the foundation of recombinant DNA technology, the splicing of one organism's DNA into a new host (Nicholl 6). As Jackson and Stich describe, "molecular biologists learned how to remove bits of genetic material (DNA) from various organisms and insert them into bacteria" (xiii). As the bacterial cells divided, the newly incorporated segment of DNA would be replicated along with the original bacterial genome, and could possibly be expressed depending on the type of gene inserted. "Recombinant DNA technology...provided scientists with a singularly powerful tool for studying the basic mechanisms of genetics in all organisms" (Jackson and Stich xiii).

Although genetic engineering hinges on the advancement of modern technology, it is important to note that its concepts have been around for thousands of years (Genetically Modified Organism). Sure, while it's obvious that medieval Europe did not possess the capabilities to splice together DNA from two separate organisms, they did understand that by breeding two animals together (both with a desired trait) they could produce offspring that would likely posses the desired trait as well.

In nature, this occurs even more readily and without human interference. Known more commonly as natural selection, an animal with a beneficial trait is more likely to survive and reproduce than one without the trait. Imagine a species of drab colored and white colored moths. In order to avoid predators, the moth must be able to blend in with its surroundings. For the drab colored moth, this is a simple task, yet for the white colored moth, it is much more difficult. Because of their lack of camouflage, the white colored moths will be eaten more frequently, while the drab colored will survive longer and consequently have a greater opportunity to reproduce. In the end, the drab colored trait will grow to dominate the moth species.  

Research on "Flavr Savr" tomatoes at UC Berkley

While natural selection plays a large role in the selection of a species traits, current human intervention through genetic engineering has allowed a species to almost evolve independently of its environment. The key difference here is that in nature, an organism can only reproduce with another organism of the same or a closely related species. In the hands of a geneticist, however, any desirable trait can be taken and inserted into another individual. In 1994 the "Flavr Savr" Tomato was the first genetically modified product to be tested by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (Genetically Modified Organism). It was soon after released for commercial consumption, and because the modified tomatoes were resistant to "fruit softening," they could be transported more easily and were thus in high demand (Bruening and Lyons). The idea began when engineers at Calgene Inc. noticed that from the time ripened tomatoes were picked and transported to stores across the country, many had had become soft (Genetically Modified Organism). The protein known as polygalacturonase (PG), was identified as the compound responsible for dissolving pectin, a protein responsible for the structural strength in tomato cell walls. After making this discovery, the Calgene Inc. engineers worked on developing a way to silence the gene that produced PG (Genetically Modified Organism). They eventually came up with a PG-antisense gene and inserted it into a line of waiting tomatoes (Bruening and Lyons). Some tomatoes were detected to produce as little as 1% of the original levels of PG, and lasted significantly longer from farm to shelf (Bruening and Lyons). Though while the "Flavr Savr" tomato succeeded in proving that genetically modified plants could be marketed commercially, due to high production and distribution costs, the tomatoes never became a profitable product (Bruening and Lyons).

Although an organism may be modified by invasive genetic modification to produce a desired result, less invasive procedures may be used when choosing traits for our children. As Leon Kass M.D. describes, "this approach, less radical or complete in its power to control, would not introduce new genes, but would merely select positively among those that occur naturally." The process depends on in vitro fertilization (IVF) and screens unborn babies for desirable or undesirable traits (Kass). Known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), twelve eggs are fertilized and allowed to grow until they reach the four-cell or ten-cell stage. Then, one or two cells are withdrawn, and the DNA extracted is amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and then analyzed for several genetic disorders. Only those embryos that are not found to have genetic disorders are allowed to be transplanted into the mother. From here, the fetus will mature and will be delivered in due time as a regular baby.

Though the intentional examination of a fetus for genetic disorders may sound grotesque, the practice is generally limited to couples who have a higher chance of giving birth to a child with a genetic disorder (Kass). By screening the viable children in this manner, the chance that a child with a birth defect will get through is minuscule, which will help to prevent the need for prenatal care and possible abortion (Kass).

With the screening of human fetuses through PGD already a current development of genetic engineering, we wonder what new advancements will be next to develop. According to the President's Council on Bioethics, the next most foreseeable step is to develop a way to produce "better children" (Kass). While it seems that invasive, genetic engineering procedures would be required to produce children with superior traits, the process is actually quite simple. By changing the objective of PGD from child screening to "baby improving," fetuses with beneficial traits would be selected. This process is simply a form of natural selection, though we must ask ourselves 'are we going to far in allowing parents to choose from a list of several possibilities what their children will look like?'

With the possibility of choosing genetically superior children imminent, we should also ask ourselves if such improvements to the human body will lead to immortality. Though this would be considered an extreme form of genetic engineering, human immortality could theoretically be possible with the combination of "biotechnology, molecular nanotechnologies, artificial inteligence and other new types of cognitive tools" (Farrar).

Works Cited

Ballantyne, Coco. Life From Scratch? Digital image. Scientific American. Scientific American, 24 Jan. 2008. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4hfaa9r>.

Bruening G., and J. M. Lyons. Research to control the ripening of tomatoes continues. At UC Berkley, Athanasios Theologis and colleagues have identified and blocked a gene responsible for ripening. Digital image. California Agriculture. University of California, July-Aug. 2000. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/6cddoow>

Bruening, G., and J. M. Lyons. "The Case of the FLAVR SAVR Tomato." California Agriculture. University of California, July-Aug. 2000. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/475j7f3>.

Farrar, Lara. "Scientists: Humans and Machines Will Merge in Future." CNN Tech. CNN, 15 Jan. 2008. Web. 15 Mar. 2011 <http://tinyurl.com/5u2azya>

"Genetically Modified Organism." Environmental Encylopedia. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context, 21 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4z59zpt>.

Hans Rosling's 200 Contries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four. Dir. Dan Hillman. Prod. Dan Hillman and Archie Baron. Perf. Hans Rosling. YouTube. BBC, 26 Nov. 2010. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/23dt9kn>.

Jackson, David A., and Stephen P. Stich, eds. The Recombinant DNA Debate. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1979. Print

Kass M.D., Leon R. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Rep. LSU Law Center. Oct. 2003. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/45lhjy9>.

National Council of the Churches of Christ/USA. Genetic Engineering: Social and Ethical Consequences. New York: Pilgrim, 1984. Print.

Nicholl, Desmond S. T. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2008. Print.

Scientific American. "Life Expectancy." Scientific American. Scientific American, 13 May 2002. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4lz4uzt>.

"Welcome to the desert of the real"

It had been quite a while since I had last seen The Matrix so, with it assigned for next class' discussion, I thought it would be best to refresh my memory and watch it again. What a great idea that was! At first, I thought that I would recall everything: what the matrix was, why the resistance was fighting, and so on. Yet as I continued, it was evident that I was missing large pieces of the storyline (probably because my eight-year-old brain couldn't contemplate them at the time).  So, now more attune to the actions and reasoning of each character, I picked up on a good deal of information with this second run through.

The desert of the real; Photo from Tala Oszkay

What I learned, however, only frightened me. In this futuristic, Terminator-like story line, a battle is being waged between humans and machines over the freedom of human kind. And freedom from what? Well, for those of you who haven't seen the trilogy, it's freedom from slavery. Here, after the surface world was destroyed, humans were either driven underground or captured. Those that were captured were stored in pods and used as, for lack of a better word, batteries—their body's naturally produced electrical currents absorbed to power the machines. While in these pods, they are connected to a virtual reality known as the matrix. Here, their lives are kept under control by "agents," giving the seemingly picturesque world a prison-like feel. Yet, even under the oversight of the agents, life progresses as normal, and few suspect that the world they inhabit is little more than a dream. On the contrary, scenes like this make us question the world we live in. Are the things we feel, taste, and smell existent, or are they simply signals fed to and then interpreted by our brains? For all we know, we could be hooked up at this very moment, and not even realize it. Disturbing, don't you think?

In the movie, the war between humans and machines began after the creation of AI, and with current computer intelligence increasing exponentially, it seems to be only a matter of time before computers will be able to think freely and generate complex thoughts. Some predict that this event, known as the singularity, may occur in 2029 or maybe even sooner. Personally, I believe that the singularity is right around the corner, and I am quite concerned. Alongside Sven Birkerts, let me also warn of the dangers of artificial intelligence; we should be careful with what we create. Yet with the new age of AI already underway, all we can hope is that our world isn't brought to ruin.

Sources Cited

• The Matrix. Dir. Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski. Perf. Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, and Carrie-Anne Moss. Warner Home Video, 1999. DVD.
• Oszkay, Tala. Desert of the Real. Digital image. Miss Electric. Miss Electric, 31 Jan. 2011. Web. 22 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/48tq9a6>.

Project 3 Proposal: The Affects of Genetic Engineering on Human Life Expectancy

As a pre-medical student, I know a good deal about the human body, and take its efficiency, durability, and strength for granted. What has truly fascinated me, however, is how a complex organism like Homo sapiens only requires a simple mechanism to keep track of all of its physical traits.

When examining DNA, it is important to note that it consists of four different compounds arranged along two separate strands. To the untrained viewer, the sequence in which the compounds appear may seem arbitrary, yet as we have all learned—whether you are a science major or not—there is nothing arbitrary about the human body. Everything happens for a reason. As it turns out, the sequence in which the compounds are bound together is the secret to DNA's coding properties. With this discovery in the twentieth century, a new scientific field emerged—genetic engineering—and showed great promise. Soon after, researchers from around the globe all began innovating, and the modern practice of genetic engineering was born.

During this research project, I aim to explain how genetic engineering has affected human life expectancy. This will involve answering questions such as can genetic engineering influence life expectancy in the first place? Were there genetic engineering methods before the advent of modern technology? What are the ethical and moral concerns of this practice? Will our innovation reach a point where we can become immortal? Are there alternative means that will similarly affect life expectancy? Overall, these questions will help to develop my thoughts on genetic engineering and lead me to formulate a conclusion, yet I should say beforehand that I am already biased in my prediction of the end result. Having done research in similar areas before, I expect to see that there will be an increase in life expectancy, corresponding to the use of genetic engineering. Based on the little research I have done thus far, my prediction holds true, and it can assumed that progressive use of genetic engineering will lead to an exponential increase in human life expectancy.

As a final note, I don't expect to run into many problems during my research. In fact, unless I come across a shortage in data, I don't believe there are any other possible problems. Of course, if I do stumble upon one, I believe it will be beneficial for me to describe it in the final paper.

Annotated Bibliography

• Benetos, Athanase et. al. "Telomere Length as an Indicator of Biological Aging: The Gender Effect and Relation With Pulse Pressure and Pulse Wave Velocity." Hypertension 37.2 (2001): 381-85. Hypertension. American Heart Association, Feb. 2001. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4epk32o>.

In this scientific study, Athanase Benetos and his team examined telomere length as a possible indicator of a human's age. It was found that telomere length is inversely correlated with a subject's age, indicating that the longer the telomere segment, the younger and perhaps even the healthier a person is. While this article includes little, if any information on genetic engineering, it does provide valuable background information on the aging process, which as noted in Leon Kass's report, is an important factor when evaluating life span.

• Farrar, Lara. "Scientists: Humans and Machines Will Merge In Future." CNN Tech. CNN, 15 Jan. 2008. Web. 15 Mar. 2011 <http://tinyurl.com/5u2azya>.

Written by Lara Farrar, this article matches one of the points that I wish to investigate during my research: the possibility of man becoming immortal by merging with machines. On the contrary, the article is fairly short and only discusses the possibility of a Gibsonian style human-computer combination in the last two paragraphs. So, while I may be able to pull some information out, it may be wise for me to find another article.

• "Genetically Modified Organism." Environmental Encyclopedia. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context, 21 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/4z59zpt>.

This article explains genetic engineering at a basic level, and shows how it is used in various fields (pharmaceuticals, agriculture, etc.) Furthermore, it discusses the use of genetic engineering before the advent of modern science, which may prove to be a useful discussion point later on. Most importantly, however, it illustrates several pros and cons of genetic engineering. I believe that I will draw upon this article a lot when drafting my paper.

• Hodge, Russ. Genetic Engineering: Manipulating the Mechanisms of Life. New York: Facts on File, 2009. EBook.

Russ Hodge's Book begins with a broad discussion of several theories associated with genetics—Mendelian inheritance, natural selection, and evolution. While these first chapters may be useful for small amounts of research, I doubt that I will use them for broad support. In fact, I am only interested in the preceding chapters which cover genetic engineering, along with ethics and chronology. For the most part, however, the information covered in this book seems to only reiterate what Leon Kass's said in his report. So, I may replace this source during the actual drafting of the paper.

• Kass M.D., Leon R. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness. Rep. LSU Law Center. Oct. 2003. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/45lhjy9>.

Leon Kass outlines many ways in which a human can be modified, whether it is through invasive "genetic manipulation" or the non-invasive selection of embryos. Although the report doesn't seem to propose any new aspects of genetic engineering to write from, it instead deeply describes topics such as the aging process—perhaps the most critical element to understand when examining life expectancy. Additionally, it analyzes the moral and ethical aspects of genetic engineering that other literature may not cover.

• Thompson, Tamara. "Social Implications Of Life Extension Debated." How Far Should Science Extend the Human Lifespan? Greenhaven, 2009. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 15 Mar. 2011. <http://tinyurl.com/68wg8zk>.

This article begins with the announcement that life expectancy may increase by several decades in the near future. Yet, after this dissertation Tamara Thompson begins to describe the affects that could arise from a lengthened lifespan, including living in a world where the generation gaps were almost nonexistent and children could "be born 40 to 50 years apart." By listing all the downsides of an increase in life expectancy, this article will provide the opportunity to seek out counterpoints to discuss in my paper.

The Unabomber

Having just finished spring break, I must say that the flight back to Richmond was unbearable. It wasn't the unclean airports, mediocre food, or even the jarring turbulence that annoyed me. Frankly, being cooped up in a small seat for two hours, jostling with my neighbor for control of the arm rest, and all the while refrained from making any comfortable adjustments was enough to drive me mad. I'm sure that most of you would agree. So how does a sensible person cope during the flight? Most choose to sleep or read, or both. So sleep and read I did, slowly working my way through the unjustly assigned homework assignments until I came to "The Unabomber's Manifesto," which, due to length, I saved for last.

As mentioned above, the first thing that caught my eye was the sheer size of the document—roughly 250 paragraphs—which rivals that of most short stories. Yet, buried in the sea of words, "Ted" Kaczynski makes numerous well-thought-out points, primarily focusing on technology's detrimental affects on mankind. For instance, he claims that "drastic changes in technology...inevitably break down traditional values," which in turn lead to "the disintegration of small scale social groups." In my opinion, he is correct in coming to this assertion, because while each new communicative innovation (say texting) brings the capability of carrying on ten times the number of conversations, in the process our individuality that played such an important role in small social groups is lost. This in fact reminds me of Sven Birkert's article "Into the Electronic Millennium," where he similarly argues that through continued technological usage, we will see a "Waning of the private self."

What Birkerts and Kaczynski differ on, however, is the way in which they wish to accomplish and maintain their anti-technological revolutions. While Birkerts believes that stopping cold turkey is the best solution, Kaczynski says that in order to maintain the movement, technology must be used—primarily for communicative purposes—to a small extent. Either way, both believe that their ideas will be influential, and will bring a stop to the widespread usage of technology.

Towards the end of the manifesto, I was intrigued to look at the Unabomber's Wikipedia page. What I found shocked me. Born in '92, I was maybe 2 during the height of the bombings, and up until today, except for the occasional mention of his name, I had no idea who the Unabomber was, what his/her motives were, or how many people he/she had killed. So, looking through the paragraphs, I was shocked to see that he had killed 3 and injured 23 more. What still nags me, however, is what drove him to become a domestic terrorist? Why did he quit his job at Berkley to live in a cabin and make bombs? I suppose I will never know, but after finishing, I was glad to stand up, grab my things, and disembark from the plane.