What are some negatives on DNA research?

Answer 1

It can easily be tainted

Answer 2

1. There is an ethical challenge - what if you can tell what genetic defects someone might hand down to their children - as a result they don't have any, but there is some significant positive trait they could also have that disappears as a result... What if companies test people for gene disorders and make hiring decisions based on that? Should they?
2. It is possible to release modified genes 'in the wild' that might be very detrimental - an unintended consequence - thorough testing might not be able to test all the possible cross-species interactions - some gene that might prevent a plant disease might actually also cause a lethal reaction when injested by people or animals - e.g. we use some gene from a peanut plant,modify it and use it in corn - suddenly all those people who have a known allergy to peanuts now are allergic to corn - which they find the hard way...
3. Who 'owns' the gene - does isolation of a gene and it's functions consitute the grounds for ownership? Should research firms that do that have patent rights to the gene? What if they use a human gene from you to make some hormone via a bacteria - is the gene itself 'owned' or is the process to put it into bacteria the 'intellectual property'? What if you are unique in the universe and have the only gene (from perhaps a mutation) - do you 'own' it or does the research company?
3. What if the gene research is used to create the 'super' human - faster,smarter... than the rest of us- what if this new subspecies of homo sapiens starts to displace us like we displaced neanderthals? Should we attempt that? (what if some rogue state decides to make an army of such beings?)
All this not withstanding - as long as we have good controls in place for issues like this, I think we need to proceed with research, as the benefits are hugh...

Answer 3

That's a really general question, maybe you should be more specific. But some negative aspects of genetic research involve messing with things that might be better off being left alone, like changing the genetic makeup of embryos (or giving them different mitochondria, which have a separate genetic code). This is usually to try to cure genetic diseases, but it can have some bad consequences since the human genome isn't completely understood. Only about 1% of DNA codes for proteins that we know about, and research is being done to find what the rest of it does.

Answer 4

Carpel Tunnel Syndrome & other repetitive strain injuries are a major complaint from lab work, especially from using mechanical pipettes. Although now minipreps can be done with robots and there are motorized pipettes the basic bench work is still done with an old pipetman often screening hundreds of samples a day.

I have no qualms about doing research into genomics and proteomics in itself just inappropriate, illthought applications of the research. I can't remember how many times I've heard the question "Aren't you worried about being infected or something escaping?" The answer is no. None of the bacteriophage, E. coli or cell lines are able to infect humans. Bacteriophage infect bacteria not humans. Cell lines and nutrient dependent lab strains of E. coli can't survive outside their growth media. Could the bacteriophage infect wild type E. coli? No, there are multiple mutations in the bacteriophage genome ensuring containment. Risk in the lab comes more from chemical spills than biological contamination.
People are worried about genes getting into the wild but there is nothing new about genes transferring between species. Lateral gene transference may be one the the strongest evolutionary forces. Dr Mae-Wan Ho has stated horizontal gene transfer occurs in essentially the entire biosphere, with bacteria and viruses serving both as intermediaries for gene trafficking and as reservoirs.
Deliberately genetically modifying ourselves or our food is very new to us but genetic modification is an old phenomena in evolutionary biology. Our main difficulty is we want only beneficial changes with no immediate or long term detrimental effects. That will require far more knowledge than we currently have to work through all possible repercussions.

Answer 5

No negatives I can think of on the research.

I do get nervous about some of the possible applications of the results though.

Answer 6

As a career? The housr may be long, especially if working in a research facility. This was my major 20 yrs ago...

Answer 7

There are none. Increased knowledge is good unless you are Pat Robertson.