>   "Some people seem not to have grasped the significance
>    of moving genetic code between species, something
>    that could never happen in nature."
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong,

You are entirely correct as fas as you have gone but, as they say, the devil
is in the details. And it may be a VERY large devil :-)

I am not a biotech professional but I have been reading extensively in this
area. I have several contacts in the industry - one has been involved in GMO
production and another in vetting GMO applications. I am certainly not an
expert in this area (yet :-) ) but feel I know a reasonable amount. My
"study" has been directed specifically towards GM and the areas of likely
concern. There are no doubt some biotech professionals here who can fill in
the gaps.

> but I am of
> the impression that genetic science has discovered
> that a wide range of species possess similar,
> verily, common genes -

There is much genetic commonality both between creatures which are
apparently close by inspection and also a degree of commonality between
species which are apparently very far apart. For example, horses and
lettuces share some common genetic material. Primates and homo sapiens have
a lot of genetic material in common. AFAIR the figure is about 6% difference
in the non-garbage DNA. This may sound close but it can represent a vast
difference in end product. Note that there is vast amounts of APPARENTLY
unused materail in DNA. When scientists compare eg apes and mankind they
have tended to exclude this material in making comparisons. An examination
of the garbage DNA (which makes up typically around 90% of the total) shows
that it has charcteristics which are possessed by certain types of data. It
appears that there is more to it than meets the eye but as yet it is keeping
most of its secrets. This should not surprise us. The difference in the
garbage DNA between species may be a very significant factor in their real
differences. In some gene sequencing techniques it is found that some genes
are lost if the "garbage" is stripped during sequencing.

Note that we don't need to know HOW the arrangements that we see arose in
order to start to explore them. It MIGHT be wise to try to find out how but
that can be annother issue. But might not be. Key contenders (and how key
will depend on your world view) are evolution via natural selection from
scratch, Divine creation (source = "being" from outside system), and
"Panspermia" - seeded from somewhere else whether purposefully and with
alien involvement or by serendipitous act (source = being inside system).
Rejection out of hand of all but  one's favoured alternative may cost you
dearly in one way or another.

> although not all traits,
> characteristics, or facets of these genes manifest
> themselves in the formation of each creature or
> plant in each of the creatures/organisms in those
> so-called varied or different "species" (obviously).

This is true but it is far more complex than this. The complexity of the
system is beyond our present imagining. We are learning to crawl as it were,
but know how to make the machinery run by pulling levers and pressing
buttons, so we do. This is not too bad a metaphor. What we have discovered
is vastly complex interacting machinery. Real genuine machines. The very
simplest fully working self reproducing system (a cell) is complex beyond
belief. A common metaphor is that a cell contains as much complexity as a
large city. I don't find that useful enough and want to seek to find a
better image.

An apparently minor change can have results out of all proportion. Consider
a gene to be a sub-program.The subprogram typically results in the creation
of a machine - a protein, via some intermediate machines. Originally it was
thought that genes produced a single protein each but each gene can in fact
make a number of programs and thjerefore proteins. As stored in DNA the gene
contains extra "pieces" of code which are not part of the finished
sub-program. When the subprogram is copied out of the DNA (onto MRNA) to be
taken to the protein making machine the unwanted pieces of code are cut out
and the wanted fragments rejoin. Lo and behold - they can rejoin in
different ways. Each way of rejoining creates a different protein when they
are read. Imagine trying to write programs like that - chop out 6 segments
of unwanted code, join the pieces in various ways and get N useful working
programs with substantially different results. To make different proteins
that all work and are useful is a miracle. A protein is a series of
molecules which fold in an extremely  complex manner.  Designing such a
folding pattern to do something useful would be a major achievement, Making
a program that writes N such sequences when chopped up anmd recombined in
different ways beggars the imagination. (If it doesn't you need to try to
imagine harder :-) ).

But it gets worse (or better).  The relative location of genes to each other
and the proximity of other "things" up and downstream in the DNA alter how
the gene works. The presence of various "chemicals" in the nucleus of the
cell (where the DNA is stored) or in the outer courtyards (where the Ribosme
protein making machinery waits to read the mRNA and create proteins) will
alter / turn on / turn off what DNA is read. The "chemicals" can be
environmental or can have been produced (and typically are) by the prior
processes which have occurred. Talk about program complexity! The amount of
interleaving, overlapping and interaction is beyond reasonable belief. We
know vast amounts about how it all works - but I'd bet that if we sat a
how-it-works-101 exam set by the creator/alien/blind-watchmaker we'd not yet
rate more than a few % on the test.

Stick any new gene into DNA and you can have a fair bet about what it will
do. But certainty is absolutely unassured. The very best techniques
available allow you to insert genes quite accurately into the target genome.
But not always. It is not currently possible to always be CERTAIN where an
inserted gene will end up. In practice, insertions go to unexpected
locations, multiple copies occur and strange results can happen at any time.
Even if we get what we want where we want it and it does what we expected
there is absolutely no guarantee that something unexpected wil not make
things change. The "machinery" can be affected by new chemicals, heat or
cold, failure to get enough water or light, or too much and much much more.
When we play we can NEVER (so far) be certain of what the results will be.
The further we get away from what nature "allows" the more probable it is
that the results will not be typical of what we have experienced previously.

A single human Interlukin 4 expressing gene was inserted in mousepox. MP is
a mild mouse disease. IL4 is a commion human body product useful in allergy
and infection applications. Added to mousepox it produced a highly lethal
mouse disease that killed all exposed mice in short order. The result was
entirely unexpected by the reserachers.

> What has been discovered is that a wide range of
> what we call "life" possesses remarkable similarity
> at the *genetic* level. Various 'things' are turned
> on or enabled to be developed depending on the
> "species"

Yes - whether by evolution or the use of a common toolkit.

> (remember, the concept of different "species"
> predates genetic-level science
> - I liken it to early
> claims that the world is *flat* before disproval
> occurred and the true nature of the earth was
> discovered).

Species is a very specific concept. It means that naturally fertilisation is
not observed to occur. You can in fact breed inter-group sterility between
creatures of the same species by artificial crossing. There are some gulls
which vary little by little around the world until having gone right round
you find they cannot breed with each other. The compatability has been
"selected out".

Species are nature's way of saying no :-)

Regardless of WHY it is this way, nature has a set of barriers which are not
crossed by normal means. It seems highly likely that the more dangerous
paths which lead to major catastrophe have been blocked in nature. All 3
models (evolution, God, Alien) would lead us to expect this would probably
be so. Where we do find interspecies crossover we usually find  disaster.
AIDS, BSE/CJD, Rabies, and others. A few cross species infecters convey
benefit. Cowpox (actually ratpox transferred via cows!) conveys immunity to
smallpox! Which might lead one to worry about the risk to humans from
mosuepox with interleukin 4 expression added.

> We aren't all as different as we *think* we area,
> therefore, I am going to extrapolate that inter-species
> gene splicing doesn't carry the risks that some leap
> to conclude.

The quantitative differences are relatively known. The human genome has been
entirely sequenced. What they mean is very largely unknown. We are 95% or 5%
like chimpanees (depending on garbage inclusion or not). Horses contain
lettuce genes. Those who seek to explain such things "to the masses" make
vaaaaaast leaps of faith which alas they often seek to hide with
blandishments. I am just completing "Climbing Mt Improbable" by Dawkins. A
more dishonest book with the facade of open revelation is harder to imagine.

We don't know anything! Almost.
We can push the buttons and watch the flashing lights.
We can make it perform many of its tricks. We often enough have no idea of
what other tricks it MIGHT do. We can be certain that we are increasing the
probability of doing new and novel things when we do things that nature has
"decided" not to let itself do. We don't know if the new and novel things
will be dangerous BUT we have had a crystal clear demonstration that a very
simple change can be. We know that we can make dangerous new designer
tailored diseases. Stumbling upon utter disaster is clearly a possibility.
Our present approach is an extremely good way to maximise our chances of
doing so.

If we fall off the edge of the world it will not be because we didn't know
that it might vcry possibly be possible !


                    Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads