The advent of (possible) new nucleotides & their implications
The following link is to a story concerning new synthetic forms of "nucleic acids" that are neither DNA-based nor RNA-based.
XNAs (Xenonucleic Acids)
This is an interesting breakthrough to say the least. It has potentially many implications. On one hand, this opens up the possibility of using these specialized XNAs (with their individual functionalities) for therapeutic and medicinal purposes. At the other extreme, this allows for an ethical discussion regarding "life"...its beginnings and its (possible) future evolutionary endeavors.
By answering/posting an intelligent, cogent response to this article, a student can replace EITHER one Organic lab final lab report grade OR one Biochem final lab report grade. The student will need to state which he or she would prefer to replace. Their post should contain the following:
XNAs (Xenonucleic Acids)
By answering/posting an intelligent, cogent response to this article, a student can replace EITHER one Organic lab final lab report grade OR one Biochem final lab report grade. The student will need to state which he or she would prefer to replace. Their post should contain the following:
- Their views on the possible uses (or future uses) of XNAs.
- What XNAs could possibly indicate to the advancement of science.
- A discussion of the ethical and/or theological issues concerning XNAs.
Organic Chemistry Post
ReplyDeleteThe authors of the article foresee XNA molecules being applied to various areas of science. Most importantly, because of the high stability of these compounds, relative to DNA and RNA, the authors suggest that they will be very useful in vivo. The example given was how a vaccine must be altered in order to function properly, which is often times difficult to do without changing the vaccine itself. XNA molecules wouldn't have to be altered as much, and would therefore be more useful. Aside from the stability, the authors say that XNAs would last longer in vivo because the body's natural degradation techniques of DNA or RNA wouldn't recognize the new molecules. This would be useful for making new drugs or other bio technological devices.
As for the advancement of science, it seems like XNAs would be able to do a lot. Obviously the abilities of these molecules have not been explored to their fullest extent, but what has been revealed seems promising. The stability of the molecules, in vivo, says a lot. DNA and RNA are fragile molecules, which tends to be an issue at times. It could be made possible to introduce new genes into a persons genome with XNA molecules. If someone has a mutation causing a disease, XNA molecules might be able to fix the mutation and cure the disease. Because of XNA's anti-biodegradable ability, it may be able to go places where DNA cannot go, but do the things that DNA can do!
The debate of whether these XNA molecules are ethical or night lies on a slippery slope, just like many other topics involving bioengineering. From the article, it seems like these molecules will be able to do great work in medicine, such as cure genetic diseases that have been thought to be untreatable. However, the resistance to be biodegradable may indeed be a downfall of these molecules. Maybe it would be possibly for a virus to have its genetic information based off of these XNA molecules. If this happens, and attacks a human system, who knows what might happen. It's possible that the movie "Contagion" actually becomes a reality, and a virus wipes out the planet. The article was not very specific about what types of synthetic life might be able to be formed, but what if some new organism developed from XNA molecules. The introduction of this organism into an environment may completely offset the balance of the environment. And then with the ability to create life comes the question: would we then be playing God by creating life ourselves? In the end, I personally think that XNA molecules used medicinally would be awesome. However, being used as a medium to create synthetic life may cause significant ethical debates and should probably be shied away from.
Seeing that I'm not in biochem, I suppose replacing an orgo lab is my only option!! Thanks!
James Goglia
Dr. Day-storms, I would like to replace my lowest Biochem final lab report grade with this response.
ReplyDeleteI was able to contact Phil Holliger, one of the authors of the original paper that appeared in Science, and get a pdf copy of the report since we don’t have access to it here at school. He agreed and sent me a copy which has greatly increased my knowledge of the subject.
In light of the recent discoveries of observed molecular processes in nucleic acids with foreign sugar and non-sugar backbones, it would seem to me that there are several immediate or future applications that can be derived from the technology. However, with the current understanding of xenobiotics that we have, I am not sure if the applications could be of use until more of a systems approach to the foundations of XNA is used. Right now, it is not of worth to find applications biologically for these molecules until a whole system can be assembled. Perhaps once more polymerases and specific transcription factors are engineered some of the following could be possible. DNA regulation may be affected by various mutations in enzymatic and transcriptional factor structure that cause the given coding region to be significantly downregulated, even in the event that the gene product is of high necessity. Such mutations could cause significant health problems to the individual depending on the nature of the gene and the product that it codes for. If the transcriptional factors necessary to make the mRNA are not functional, this may leave the individual in a tight spot.
XNA technology could be used to make a fully functional replacement gene that uses the HNA backbones instead, or another type of XNA with which the DNA Tfs would have no interaction with. Similarly, using the structure and coding sequences of the broken Tfs, it would be possible to make a family of genes that regulate specifically the target gene of interest. Polymerases would also have to be engineered. This may be a long shot, but if the whole family could be inserted into a chromosome, then the individual would have a complete system biologically specific for the XNA gene, yet functionally analogous to the broken system. You could have an XNA gene regulated by XNA specific Tfs that allow the binding of an XNA specific RNA polymerase which could synthesize the mRNA molecule from the XNA gene. This would then be able to go on to be translated into the needed protein or enzyme. Depending on the level of activity of the broken DNA system, say for instance 50% performance, the new XNA system could be tweaked to operate at 50% capacity as well, so that the gene product manufacturing would carry on as if no mutations had happened. Of course, this would bring up issues with reproduction and getting the XNA insert to coalesce well with chromosomal DNA.
A second possibility for this new technology would be through the production of non-biological polymers that could be used in the textile industry. If one could manipulate the backbones of the DNA molecule, as has been done, it would be possible to have polymers that exhibit varying levels of rigidity or flexibility depending on what the need is. This may have to be done using artificial or non-canonical bases as well. For instance, if some bases exhibit non-canonical binding between neighboring bases on the same strand, then not only would you have the strength of the phosphodiester bond on the backbone, but also the base pairing on the same strand. The sugar analogs could also be changed to different conformations in order to induce rigidity in the structural molecule. Since these molecules would not be recognized by any human polymerases, it may be that they could be spun into larger tertiary structures that may be used as synthetic fibers for ligaments and or tendon replacements.
Bo, could you go ahead and forward me the pdf file? I may try to incorporate it in future classes.
DeleteCertainly, regardless of the actual application of the XNA technology to mankind or the environment, this does mark a great advancement in the understanding of nucleotide science and heredity. I was surprised that the article did not make a bigger appearance in Science than it did. As it is, it was only mentioned as a 3 page report, not as a full article. I think that this could be the advent of a completely new era in the scientific world, perhaps moving us into post-biotechnology thought and experimentation. XNA has not marked the beginning of new forms of life, but it has certainly suggested that life, or at least the molecular functions of life are not limited solely to DNA and RNA. If it becomes possible to engineer whole systems that are XNA based and not DNA based, I believe that artificial life may not be too far around the corner. However, there are still limits on this technology as life as a process and a guiding force is still incredibly difficult to define in terms of the known. We can describe the processes of life in terms of DNA based life and it is entirely able to imagine processes being described in terms of HNA or CeNA since they could be used in analogous forms. But simply because the molecules are in order and the whole system for HNA based life is in place, does not mean that life will automatically begin or be manifested in the system. Accordingly, if life is defined, as some have put it, as a regulated chemical system capable of repairing itself and undergoing Darwinian evolution, then XNA technology could fit the bill, although I would doubt the autonomy of such systems that fit that definition in the most basic form. However, if XNA technology was able to create fully autonomous life form, capable of metabolism, reproduction, and maintenance, I believe that our descriptions of what life is would have to be changed. Not only that, but XNA would then allow us to further understand what causes life to occur, perhaps by reducing an organism down to its component parts until a necessary piece is found. I doubt that XNA will be able to accomplish this as I hold to the understanding that life as thing is of non-physical composition, passed down through offspring yes, but not tied directly to any component part, but is simply a characteristic of the whole. Defining life based upon a few characteristics only leads us to generalities and not specifics, however, I am not sure that the specifics are attainable solely by scientific methods. Regardless of what may come about, even the current achievements of XNA technology are astounding, that DNA could be used to make XNA and then made back into DNA with very high fidelity. It is absolutely unbelievable and will no doubt lead to greater understanding of molecular regulation of the cell and its genetic structure.
ReplyDeleteAside from the fascination at the possibility of new life, the ethical implications of such a technology have just as much, if not more, authority in guiding how we should continue (or if we should continue at all) down this newly found road. Perhaps the context under which XNA research is conducted should be of most consideration when approaching this topic, for context is everything. I do not think that it is inherently wrong to create new nucleotides or sugar analogs for the nucleotides. If this was wrong, then all of chemical science would have to be intrinsically wrong on accord of its own nature. However, we know this not to be the case since man and all of life depends on the chemical interactions for the continuation of existence as autonomous living beings. This is analogous to saying that the chemical constituents of a bomb are not intrinsically wrong by simply reacting according to how they are wont to act, but for a human being to place the constituents of a bomb together in order to kill someone else may seem as an abuse of intrinsic properties of matter. In a similar way, it would be erroneous to condemn XNA on ethical terms of intrinsic evil, when the molecules are only operating according to what they naturally do.
ReplyDeleteSome might bring objection to the fact that such molecules are unnatural, synthetic chemicals created by man, and therefore intrinsically contain an element of the exploitation of matter. But this argument falls through readily with the understanding that many of the household objects used by the person of objection also contain synthetic chemicals, formulated by mankind for easing his daily life. Certainly, he cannot object to these? However uranium must also be changed in form in order for it to be of use to mankind. This can take two forms: one is for the production of energy and the other is for the manufacturing of nuclear weapons. One is made to provide and the other to deprive. Yet both are dependent on a chemical that has been altered from its natural form. Many will axiomatically say that one is good and the other is bad, without further explanation. So, this leads us to the idea that ethics pertaining to the formulation of chemical compounds must be context based and with the intent of the maker at the forefront.
But what then could we possibly say are acceptable uses for XNA technology and what are the unacceptable ones? Are certain uses of XNA axiomatic or are the lines blurred much more than, say, a nuclear bomb. Perhaps the idea comes with knowledge and experience. We know that nuclear weapons have the power to kill people; we have seen it with our own eyes. But XNA is a recent discovery and the lines are not that easily drawn. For instance, the intent with nuclear weapons and chemical manufacturing were for killing others. I would be absolutely ashamed and appalled if XNA technology was developed with that same end in mind. In fact, I would argue exactly opposite, that the makers of this new molecule have nothing but the good of humankind in mind as they work on discovering the nuances of this novelty. But without real experience, it is very difficult to say what the outcome of such a novelty could be, especially in the medical sciences. Does it have potential? Absolutely, but that does not mean that it is safe under all conditions. So what should be a guiding principle in establishing the contexts under which XNA manipulation is appropriate or not? If we follow a utilitarian approach, we could say that whenever the pros for the human race outweigh the cons for the rest of the world, then action is permissible. To follow such a logical path is to end at a humanistic view of the world where mankind has sole domination over the earth and can make decisions that affect the environment and ecologically sensitive areas. Such an idea lies in sharp contrast with the idea of dominion given to mankind in the book of Genesis.
ReplyDeleteThe use of XNA is sure to spark debate within both the religious and ethical worlds alike and there is good reason for it. I think that the best approach to take is one of extreme caution. Work with lower bacteria and animals first. Experience will be able to dictate what works and what doesn’t. Intent of the mind will certainly be of help in determining appropriate courses of action, as will past experience. We may end up getting it wrong, but we may end up stumbling upon the essence of being, or maybe even something greater than ourselves. But caution should always guide our next steps.
Very well-written in making your argument(s). It gives one much to think about when reading over these discoveries. I do not want to say too much here since it may sway people's opinions one way or another and the goal of this is to have students formulate their own ideas (and, hopefully, be able to back them up). Thanks again!
DeleteJames left a comment that somehow got deleted or removed. I thought that it was well-written, too, so I am copying his original post below:
ReplyDeleteJames Goglia has left a new comment on your post "The advent of (possible) new nucleotides & their i...":
Organic Chemistry Post
The authors of the article foresee XNA molecules being applied to various areas of science. Most importantly, because of the high stability of these compounds, relative to DNA and RNA, the authors suggest that they will be very useful in vivo. The example given was how a vaccine must be altered in order to function properly, which is often times difficult to do without changing the vaccine itself. XNA molecules wouldn't have to be altered as much, and would therefore be more useful. Aside from the stability, the authors say that XNAs would last longer in vivo because the body's natural degradation techniques of DNA or RNA wouldn't recognize the new molecules. This would be useful for making new drugs or other bio technological devices.
As for the advancement of science, it seems like XNAs would be able to do a lot. Obviously the abilities of these molecules have not been explored to their fullest extent, but what has been revealed seems promising. The stability of the molecules, in vivo, says a lot. DNA and RNA are fragile molecules, which tends to be an issue at times. It could be made possible to introduce new genes into a persons genome with XNA molecules. If someone has a mutation causing a disease, XNA molecules might be able to fix the mutation and cure the disease. Because of XNA's anti-biodegradable ability, it may be able to go places where DNA cannot go, but do the things that DNA can do!
The debate of whether these XNA molecules are ethical or night lies on a slippery slope, just like many other topics involving bioengineering. From the article, it seems like these molecules will be able to do great work in medicine, such as cure genetic diseases that have been thought to be untreatable. However, the resistance to be biodegradable may indeed be a downfall of these molecules. Maybe it would be possibly for a virus to have its genetic information based off of these XNA molecules. If this happens, and attacks a human system, who knows what might happen. It's possible that the movie "Contagion" actually becomes a reality, and a virus wipes out the planet. The article was not very specific about what types of synthetic life might be able to be formed, but what if some new organism developed from XNA molecules. The introduction of this organism into an environment may completely offset the balance of the environment. And then with the ability to create life comes the question: would we then be playing God by creating life ourselves? In the end, I personally think that XNA molecules used medicinally would be awesome. However, being used as a medium to create synthetic life may cause significant ethical debates and should probably be shied away from.
Seeing that I'm not in biochem, I suppose replacing an orgo lab is my only option!! Thanks!
James Goglia
Stephanie Lanham sent in the following:
ReplyDeleteThe blog won't let me post my response to your most recent post for some reason. I've tried several times and as soon as i hit publish it deletes my comment so I'm just going to email you my response and hope that's okay.
I would like to replace an orgo lab :)
I think that XNAs could be used to make great advances in science because of their ability to be used in information storage in a way similar to DNA and RNA. XNAs could possibly be used in vaccines because of their increased stability. Using XNAs instead of DNA and RNA could cut down on some of the negative connotations associated with vaccines. I see some problems with creating these XNAs. I kind of think that these scientists are trying to play God by creating a DNA-like molecule. If these XNAs were able to code for new life forms, then I feel like it takes away from God's power as the sole giver of life.
Dr. Day-Storms, I would like to replace the lowest Biochem lab report grade for this response.
ReplyDeleteThere are many possible uses for XNA’s, but few can be used at this time since no one knows how it could affect organic life. I could be wrong since I do not have the journal article in hand like Bo does, but it seems that there are not many things that could be used currently. I would agree with Bo that it does require more research in order to determine how XNA’s affect organic life. One possible use could be to make new synthetic life, but until it is tested it could never be determined as a possibility. Synthetic life could be a major breakthrough since humanity has always thought of synthetic life in science-fiction movies or books, but has never found a way to make synthetic life. I believe that it could possibly be used to somehow integrate organic life with synthetic life, which would make humanity’s life easier. Organic life has always used things that are synthetic, but if there was a way to integrate both then we could possibly have a way to make new material that are “hard-wired” to organic life. I am referring to things of science fiction such as having a “tool” that is in our brain to call out things that are of necessity in our daily lives. It is probably possible to even search the Internet while we are thinking about a certain thing. Indeed, I have contemplated the many uses of these XNA’s because synthetic “DNA” could possibly allow for future uses of such integration between organic and synthetic things. These integrations could allow people who are handi-capable or possibly handicapped to do normal functions on a daily basis without having to move. They would need to think (which is not hard) about what they need since their body is not able. Also, XNA’s could be used to possibly do gene therapy if the correct enzymes and transcription factors are found to possibly do what this journal article has done. The possible enzymes could be reversing the sugar XNA molecules into DNA or RNA molecules. Furthermore, XNA’s could possibly help in medicinal uses to possibly target diseases or disorders that have not been cured before. However, much further research is needed in order to determine these possible uses.
XNA’s could possibly indicate new advancements in gene therapy, and new ways to address biotechnology. Although I may still be suggesting more possible uses, XNA’s could be the beginning of a new way of looking at genetic information. If we used these XNA’s for gene therapy, we could possibly test the new ways of gene therapy in vitro to determine if XNA’s would react to them before we harm an animal. XNA’s could help with future uses in biotechnology to possibly find ways to make crops better since there are some XNA’s that are more stable than DNA. XNA’s could also help in the pharmaceutical industry to develop possibly a more stable drug to use in humans that will be more effective. XNA’s allow the advancement of science to flourish with new ideas as it moves towards finding cures, and developing new methods to finding these cures.
The only ethical issue that I could possibly find with this newfound advancement is the question of developing synthetic life forms. If we were to develop synthetic life forms, would they be considered our new “mice or guinea pigs”? The development of making synthetic life forms has always been postulated since they could possibly help organic life with future advancements. However, it should be carefully thought out because movies such as “I, Robot” & “Terminator” would tell us that making such synthetic life forms could turn out for the worse. Consequently, much debate must be considered before we ever think of developing such life forms. I find nothing wrong with possibly making synthetic life forms, if anything, it further proves that there is a Creator of the universe. The Teleological Argument would then be further verified since it has been used throughout centuries to prove the existence of God. One should not be worried about whether or not this further proves evolution. Microevolution does exist in the world, but this does not prove that Macroevolution exists. The scientists themselves proved that they had to play with these XNA’s in order to make sure that they would be stable. Furthermore, they still needed DNA and RNA to make XNA’s. Can someone please tell me what this means? It further proves that God does exist, and we still need His original creation in order to find the cures that scientists are trying to research. It could be said that XNA’s are derivatives of DNA and RNA. Thus, I believe that these XNA molecules will allow future research to be done for the betterment of plants, animals, and humanity.
ReplyDeleteInteresting points...plus, you reference Terminator!
DeleteTerminator is one of my favorite movies. It must be referenced!!
DeleteThe discovery of these synthetic nucleic acids truly is amazing; however, I do think that there is more important implications in this study that gaining a better understanding of possible life in the cosmos. In my opinion, proving or disproving the existence of life on other planets is of the least importance. This article briefly touches on those possible findings, but to me that is an ethical dilemma in itself. As future physicians, health care professionals, and scientist, I would think the overwhelming concern would be to develop benefits for humanity and life on earth instead of trying to find support for a theory. The article talks about the possible uses of XNA in drugs. It tells us that some drugs today utilize DNA and RNA, but they present challenges because they must be made more stable. Something that I thought could be advancement in biotechnology is the development of transplant organs. I know that this would require stem cell technology and many other things, but maybe if we were able to use these more stable nucleic acids it would be easier to facilitate the growth of essentially synthetic organs. This idea may only be possible further into the future, but I think it has potential. Whether used in medicines or transplant organs XNAs hold promising opportunities for scientific researchers in the near future.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that we must choose between an organic lab report grade OR a biochem lab report, I guess I’ll choose the Biochem lab report. However, a nice early birthday present would be for both labs!
ReplyDeleteBack to the article! Granted the article was published VERY recently (April 19th according to the site), it promotes an alternative to DNA and RNA that has been researched in terms of substitution of the sugar for alternatives with better stability. As James highlighted, this would allow for better and stronger vaccines to be developed. XNA wouldn’t denature as quickly as DNA or RNA, allowing for proper storage and transport. XNA could be used in studies where DNA extraction may become difficult when collecting samples, considering XNA can lead to the production of DNA. Safer drugs can be developed for conditions where concentrations are the different between effective and ineffective.
XNA’s are one example of the small advancements made in science that over time can accumulate into some remarkable achievements. At a glance, it may seem like something insignificant or easily overlooked. Over time, however, the presence of XNAs can be a piece to discoveries in various genomic fields. The stability can allow for experimentation yielding more accurate results and clearer insight into different conditions.
One of the ethical arguments is simply scientists trying to “Play God”. What if we made a better DNA? A better RNA? We can cure cancer! Granted the medical advancements would be extremely beneficial to society, arguably one of the greatest discoveries of all time. This promotes another problem: availability. Who deserves the vaccine? Should everyone receive it? If so, who pays the scientists to do it? Should it be marketed so that only those that can afford it become healthier? The mindset of society is shifted intensely as well; promoting more political dilemmas and changing the thinking of the average American. One becomes less conscious and cognitive of the possible outcomes because a safety net is already in place. With more vaccines and advancements, you’re flirting with more problems. It’s great to have new medical breakthroughs and such, but the proper steps need to be taken.
The discovery of these new information storage molecules, XNAs, can lead to the development of a variety of new biotechnologies. The XNAs provide an alternate to the previously used DNA and RNA who are easily broken down by different conditions. XNAs have proven to be significantly more stable and their implications in the future can thus be considered to be extremely valuable.
ReplyDeleteAs the XNAs can with stand many different conditions their use in future drug development is the most probable choice. As previously mentioned, vaccines or intravenous injections could be administered in cases where DNA or RNA would be ineffective. It will also allow the development of the drug to be done with out as many precautions that are normally required for work with DNA or RNA. The most prominent are for the use of this new technology will be in the area of gene therapy and gene repair. However, because the body cannot naturally break down these molecules, clinical studies could quickly turn into massive death tolls if the XNAs ever mutated into harmful strands.
The ethical issues associated with this new development are quite apparent, but many more are possible if the development in this area of XNAs and synthetic heredity molecules continues. The authors state, “Thus, heredity and evolution, two hallmarks of life, are not limited to DNA and RNA but are likely to be emergent properties of polymers capable of information storage.” If these molecules are used on a bigger scale and are capable of creating some type of life form, then do we consider them alive? Does this allow the humanity to create life? If we agree with these two statements then it must be carefully considered what rights these “created” forms will have. Will they be equal to other life forms or because we created them will they be considered as property for their makers?
Further research is highly important before any more speculation can be applied onto these dynamic discoveries.
First if this comment adheres to the guidelines I would like replace an Organic FInal Lab report......because I'm not in BioChem.
ReplyDeleteNow XNAs and their possible uses. It said in the article that the XNAs can evolve and to me that sounds like it could be used for bacterial strains that are antibiotic resistant. One could expose these XNAs to the bacterial strains and have them evolve based on what could kill or render the bacteria useless. Forgive me for possibly/probably being ignorant of certain information as am I still learning but one could determine which of the five XNAs negatively reacts with the bacteria and create an antibiotic or bacterial treatment regime that contains these XNAs, which is - if i understand this correctly - fantastic. This and other possiblitlies that people before me have mentioned open multiple doors into future science. This could work on bacteria, viruses, mutated human/mammalian DNA/RNA strands for cancer, down syndrome, etc. This is seemingly a 'good' thing.
however like many scientific 'breakthroughs' there is a bad side. Since these XNAs are still brand new and there is not much scientific data on them yet these could have extremely negative effects. What if these XNAs actually create more antibiotic resistance bacterial strains? Then we would really be in even deeper trouble with the fight against bacteria resistance. Or it is used on cancer cells what if it causes the cancer to grow in greater amounts and at a faster pace? Generally speaking when humans start messing with nature things end badly. It's different if we discover what God has placed for us to find - that's God's perfect design. But these XNAs require enzymes that the scientists had to create - meaning that God didn't, meaning that these do not carry God's perfect design, meaning that these most likely have a heavier bad side than a good side.
Beyond the obvious theological issue of playing God - which let's face it no-one can even though many try - there is the ethical issue. Messing with natural genetic variation. It said that XNA now means that 'heredity and evolution are not limited to DNA and RNA,' meaning that life itself can be made better. Let me explain. We already have gene therapy for couples who want a specific kind of child - that is already changing the genetic variety of the human genepool. But now these XNAs are adding 'more' genetic variation and that may seem like a good thing but what if a regular DNA human has sex with a XNA modified human? What if in the exchange of fluids the XNA and DNA don't mesh? We would have mutants, beyond the wonderful human beings with mutated DNA such as Down syndrome, etc. I'm thinking we might end up with mutants like the X-Men and granted that would be super cool to have real-life X-Men (that is purely the comic nerd in me coming out) I don't think it would work at all. Ethically I don't if messing with DNA and RNA is the best way to go about.
As negative as I am towards messing with God's perfect design, this is still a magnificent discovery if one wishes to call it that. For us as scientists to be able to come this far in the world of science is mind boggling. I am in awe of the brilliance God has alloted to us as humans. For me I would keep the use of XNAs to bacterial and viral uses and I would stay away from using them in humans and mammals. But I am not the one studying/generating/fiddling with these XNAs. I just plan on staying away from them if they ever offer these XNAs as treatment for mutated DNA or as cancer treatment, etc. If God tests me through cancer I plan on taking it the way he intended. But anyway like I said this is still an amazing discovery and as before I am awed and slightly frightened by the possible extent of these XNAs.
Thanks Dr. Day-Storms for bringing this cool topic to our attention :)
Nice job, Robyn! Yes, it will replace an Organic lab. Have a great summer.
DeleteI find this topic interesting. Its interesting to see what new ideas evolutionists have in trying to falsify the creation story. It's a bit bothersome to read that these scientists are basically saying that life is not that complex and can be easily made by man. this new idea is their missing link.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the idea at a purely scientific standpoint, the new technology looks rather believable and interesting. Is it a good thing or a bad thing to create a change in the central dogma of molecular biology? If the central dogma is how life could occur, then would this new technology be messing with the creation of life or life itself?
The new XNAs look like a good idea. It's cool to see that they are so stable. That would be a good addition to the medical world when trying to discover treatments and cures. It would also be interesting if this could actually lead to another form of life; however, I feel as though Earth is special in having life and that the known type of life with DNA and RNA is how God intended things to be.
What if I'm being too critical of this topic? Could this be an amazing breakthrough in life that God wanted us to eventually figure out in hopes to cure people's diseases? The Bible says that only in Heaven will all sickness and disease be taken away forever. So maybe the prior hypothesis is not correct.
I am a full believer in life being precious and that we should not mess with how God created things to be. This technology seems to have many promising points to it, but it is also a little scary. If this becomes in use, will there become greater genetic diseases that out way the benefits of XNAs? Will people actually be able to keep the XNAs in the body instead of rejecting them as the scientists say?
This idea is interesting and could be helpful, but before I can 100% make a decision on my thoughts, I would like to see more research done. It seems quite risky.
As I am sure is obvious, I would like to replace my lab score in Organic
DeleteI would like to replace a biochem lab grade :)
ReplyDeleteXeno nucleic acids (XNA) have a variety of possibilities in the future. Just like any other biological finding, XNA’s can either work for or against what we want them to. There is not enough information or research to backup exactly what kind of advancements XNA’s could have for the future, but it is something to look into. Seeing that they are more stable, maybe one day they will make for better vaccines. Our issues today however are not necessarily to look for new vaccines. We need to better understand our body as it was created and to make something synthetic wouldn’t help to fix the problem. If viruses, cancer, and infections attack natural cells we need to find natural ways to cure that. Just like any other scientific finding there are many theological and ethical issues for XNA’s. I am a firm believer that we are given all that we need to survive and modifying our DNA or deleting this genome and inserting that one is extremely unnatural.