Bwunsch and Lmcgrath Period 9

1. GENETICS PROJECT By: Brian Wunsch and Liam McGrath

2. Basic Principles of Heredity: 1. How are traits controlled by dominant and recessive alleles? Some traits are controlled by dominant alleles some traits are controlled by recessive alleles. When a dominant allele is present in a trait the dominant allele will always show the trait it is controlling, and it will mask the trait controlled by the recessive allele. If there is no dominant allele present then the recessive allele controlling a trait will always show up. 2. How are traits controlled by co-dominant alleles?Some traits are co-dominant traits controlled by co-dominant alleles. Co-dominant alleles are alleles that show neither dominant nor recessive traits. So as a result neither allele for that trait is shown directly, there might be a mixture. T 3. Explain how the alleles of two parents combine to express traits in offspring? Each parent when reproducing gives 1 allele for a trait to their offspring. The result of the offspring traits depends on the alleles given by the parents. Scientists use punnett squares to figure out all possible outcomes in offspring. For example: If two parents (one short, one tall) reproduced with one parent having a genotype of tt and one parent having a genotype of TT, the results would be all the same. All of the offspring would have genotypes (Tt). So therefore all of the offspring would be tall. Below this punett square shows you all of the possible outcomes.

3. Human Genome Project When did the project start and how did scientists hope to use this information (what were the goals in the beginning)? The human genome project started in the year 1990 and scientists planned to use the information by mapping out the estimated 80,000 genes in human DNA, the 3 billion chemical bases in human DNA, store all the information in different databases, and create tools for the data analysis. What are the implications of the Human Genome Project in regards to ethical, legal, and social implications (address each of these in your explanation)? The implications that arise legally are who should have access or who should own your genetic information. The social implications are: Can certain genes affect people’s social status? Lastly, the ethic implications are if it fair or not to use genetic information to create certain genes in offspring. How did the human genome project change current laws such as GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008)? The human genome project made it so that employers or insurance companies could not discriminate someone because of their genetic makeup. Just like they cannot discriminate race or religion.

4. Genetic Disorders A. Compare and contrast 3 different types of genetic disorders: Single gene disorders, chromosome abnormalities, and multifactorial disorders: A single gene disorder is a disorder caused by abnormality in one gene. A chromosome abnormality is a disorder where someone has an extra chromosome, or a chromosome missing. An example of this would be Down Syndrome. A multifactorial disorder is a disorder caused by mutations in multiple genes, which could interact with environmental factors. An example of this disorder would be Alzheimer's disease or Colon cancer. B. How can genetic counseling help perspective parents who have a disorder regarding future children? Genetic counselors help couples understand their chances or the probability that their child will have a particular genetic disorder. Genetic counselors use tools such as: karyotypes, pedigree charts, and punnett squares to help them in their work. How are karyotypes used to predict genetic disorders? A karyotype is a picture of all the chromosomes in a cell. In this picture, the chromosomes are arranged in pairs. A karyotype can reveal whether a developing baby has the correct number of chromosomes in its cells, and also whether it is a boy or a girl.

5. Scientific Advancements in Cloning In January 2011, it was reported by Yomiuri Shibum, that a team of scientistsheaded by Akira Iritani of Kyoto University, had built upon research of Dr. Wakayama saying that they will extract DNA from a mammoth carcass. This carcass had been preserved in a Russian laboratory and after they extracted the DNA they were going to insert it into the egg cells of an African Elephant, in hopes of producing a mammoth embryo. The researchers at Kyoto University say they hope to produce a baby embryo in 6 years. Samrupa was the first clone water buffalo it was born on February 6th, 2009 at India’s Karnal National Diary Research Institute but it died five days later due to lung infection. Injaz is the first, ever cloned camel he was cloned in 2009.

6. Controversial Issues on Human Cloning and Genetic Engineering One major controversial issue of Genetic Engineering is in the topic of food production. Genetically modified foods are a solution to the world population expanding and synthetic pesticides decreasing in effectiveness. Genetically modified foods can: increase the yields of many staple crops and thereby ward off starvation in many areas of the world; and allow plants to grow under adverse weather conditions or in poor soil, thereby increasing the amount of good land on the planet. Critics arguments centers on food consumption, and states that people with food allergies or dietary restrictions might by accident eat foods that contain a dangerous compound due to modification. The ethical status of cloning humans has been a hotly debated issue. Scientists and people for human cloning state that it is no more unnatural than binary fission. They also say that cloning is no more unethical than having twins. These people view that cloning is just another scientific topic, and will become another reproductive option, and those who wish to research cloning, and to be cloned should not be stopped. A large majority of people argue that cloning is unnatural and unethical. These people have fears that include: peoples individuality being ruined because of cloning technologies, nations creating armies of cloned soldiers to assault other nations, and overpopulation due to ease of reproduction. Many religious leaders, and religions believe this is “playing God”.

7. Brian’s Interview with a Genetic Scientist Brian interviewed a genetic scientist over Skype at SOMS in the library, there he asked a couple of questions, and learned some new things about cloning in general, and endangered and extinct species cloning. With the genetic scientists answering it did not seem like he would want to provide federal funding for extinct and endangered species cloning. How close are they to cloning an ice age mammal, such as the wooly mammoth? He replied: “We are really only 50% there with cloning species that are extinct from so long ago”. “To clone an animal you need to know its entire DNA sequence, we only really know 50% of a wooly mammoth’s DNA sequence because it was from such a long time period in the past”. What is the life expectancy of a cloned animal? He replied: “Usually cloned animals have shorter life expectancies, but you never know for sure what can happen with a clone”. He said: “The biggest problem of cloning is actually knowing the complete DNA sequence of an organism. He also said: “A disadvantage of finding out your whole DNA sequence is personal since you might see you have a pre- disposition for Cancer or Alzheimer's”. What would be the reason to clone an extinct species? He replied: To get information, and create biological diversities in the world”.

8. Argument #1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service argues to support cloning and endangered species. Right now they argue that most of our medicines come from plants and animals. They also argue that probably most of our future medicines and cures will be found in animals and plants too. They say what if the species of animals and plants that we use for medicine and cures all disappear? What if an animal that disappears next is the one that would lead to a cure for cancer or AIDS? They also add can we afford to take this chance and not clone animals that could provide major help for us in the future?

9. Counter Argument for Argument #1 The Center for Genetics and Society are not completely against cloning, and they see points made by organizations like, The USWFS but they still see problems with points made like that. They argue that it is possible that cures and medicines could be gotten from extinct animals, and endangered animals but you never know for sure. They go on to argue that you can clone an animal that you think could be the solution to a medical reason, but it ends up not being a solution, there you have a bunch of wasted precious money and information on something that might not even work. The clone can also die before you even get precious information from it, and then still all of that work and resources are for nothing.

10. Argument #2 Another important argument for endangered and extinct species cloning is again made by The Center for Genetics and Society. They say: “Don’t we owe future generations the same resources that we have today.” “Don’t we owe future generations, opportunities in the field of science, and other fields.” “If we continue to keep on using our resources, irresponsibly, like with cloning projects that sometimes don’t even work, then future generations won’t even be able to use this knowledge to make the world even better then it is today.” “If future generations have better technology then us (most likely they will) and we use up all of our resources then future generations brilliant minds will go to waste.”

11. Counter- Argument to Argument #2 The Endangered and the Nongame Species Program (ENSP) disagree. The ENSP works to help to maintain biological diversity and have endangered animals in healthy ecosystems, for the state of New Jersey. They argue that programs like theirs will help maintain animals to be healthy for future generations. In doing so they say, this will provide plenty of opportunities for future generations to have to discover in the field of cloning. “If we watch our resources now we will have plenty of resources and with resources, opportunities to give to future generations.”

12. Argument #3 Dr. Stuart Pimm from The University of Texas said that scientific evidence strongly suggests that the current rate of extinction is much higher than the natural rate of extinction. The current rate of extinction is about 1,000 times greater than before we ever existed. He totally supports funding for creating extinct and endangered species because he says most endangered species protection concentrates on fixing problems that humans caused, not stopping natural extinctions.

13. Counter- Argument for Argument #3 The New Jersey Department of Fish and Game say that extinction is part of the natural order of Earth. Species have always disappeared because of natural changes in the environment or biological changes (like diseases). They also say why should we clone old species if we can breed or reproduce new ones? They say it would be less money to reproduce or breed new species, then it would be to clone species exactly. They say they don’t think cloning should be considered because who knows what the consequences of cloning are? “If we already have technology to make new animals without cloning them, then why do we need to clone animals?”

14. Argument #4 Japan’s Kyoto University is enthusiastic about cloning in general, but they are mainly excited about the wooly mammoth, and its possibility of being cloned. Alongside, with it being a media sensation, a live mammoth would help scientists answer many burning questions about “The Ice Age” period of time. A live mammoth they say could also provide information to many organizations about DNA, and maybe animals in general.

15. Counter-Argument for Argument #4 The New Jersey Department of Fish and Game sees points made, by people who support cloning extinct/ and endangered species. They think yes the wooly mammoth could lead to a big jump in the science field of the world. But, cloning will never be a solution to the problem of extinction, they say. They also say that the process of cloning extinct/ and endangered species takes a lot of technology and medical expertise, and is way too expensive to even produce a modest number of animals. They go on to say that successful populations of wild animals need a certain amount of genetic diversity in order to prevent from all the animals getting wiped out. “The world’s main cause of animal extinction is loss of habitat and cloning cannot solve this problem.” “If we really want to keep species from going endangered or extinct, people should stop destroying their habitats and instead conserve them.”

16. The Pyrenean Ibex -This animal on the right is The Pyrenean Ibex it was an extinct species that went extinct in 2000, scientists cloned it in 2003 but the clone died seven minutes after birth.

17. The Gaur At 7:30 pm on 8 January 2001, the first successful birth of a cloned animal that is a member of an endangered species occurred, a gaur. While healthy at birth, he died within 48 hours of a common dysentery, likely unrelated to cloning

18. Graph

19. Conclusion Brian and Liam think that cloning extinct and endangered species should be done and should be funded. We think this because we don’t want animals to die out, without animals we would not be here today. For example: Animals give us food, medicine advancements, scientific advancements, and even historical advancements. We also support cloning extinct and endangered species cloning because imagine all of the scientific advancements and new technology that can come from just cloning one animal. For example: One day if scientists create a cloned animal, and it was healthy, scientists could examine healthy cloned animals and unhealthy cloned animals and find out how to keep cloned animals to stay healthy and live longer. If we keep species around by cloning them, then we could get major advances in the medicine field as well. For example: If a poisonous snake dies out, if we clone that snake we could get some type of anti-venom that can stop people from dying quicker from venom, since sometimes people die of snake bites since they don’t get medical attention in time. If we clone animals historians could get advancements as well. For example: If scientists are successful in cloning the wooly mammoth, then historians could answer questions maybe about “The Ice Age”. With cloning extinct and endangered species yes there are pro and cons but there are so many more good things about cloning extinct or endangered animal species, than bad things about cloning extinct or endangered animal species. The Earth is running out of resources, and cloning could be the only way to bring some of those resources back into this world. Those are the reasons why Brian and Liam think cloning extinct and endangered species should be funded.