Genetic engineering has been a topic of varying contention for years.

Recently, though, there

was new fuel thrown on the fire with a series of experiments done with Clustered Regularly
Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats or CRISPR. CRISPER is commonly used to refer to a
variety of systems that can target specific stretches of DNA allowing scientists to delete
particular portions of the genetic code or insert new genetic material into a previously existing
genome. The precision of CRISPR allows geneticists to permanently modify an organism’s
genetic code with previously unheard of accuracy. This technology is based on the naturally
occurring abilities of some bacteria.
Even though debate has surrounded genetically engineered crops and genetic experiments in
animals, for most people, the controversy surrounding genetic experimentation has been largely
ignored. The ethics of genetic engineering, however, are back in the spotlight.
Early this year, a team of scientists successfully performed genetic modification on a fertilized
human embryo using CRISPR. In vitro fertilization and gene therapy have involved elements of
genetic engineering nearly since their conception, but the CRISPR experiments are the first time
humanity has been confronted with human germline genetic modification. Germline
modification is used to refer to genetic changes that would be passed down to an organism’s
offspring. Any genetic alterations done to a parent would appear in children and grandchildren.
Naturally, this has once again raised the question of whether genetic engineering is ethical.
Books have been written on the ethics of all sorts of genetic engineering, but the controversy
reignited by the CRISPR studies focuses on genetic modification of humans. For decades,
accurate and feasible human genetic engineering was something out of a science fiction novel.
Depending on a person’s opinion on genetic modification, genetically engineered humans were a
distant fantasy or specter that loomed centuries down the road.
The CRISPR experiments did not use viable embryos and so no child has resulted from the
study, but the CRISPR team proved that genetically modified humans were possible. The ethics
of human genetic engineering is no longer a question to be dealt with in some remote future, but
a debate that is very relevant now. So, what are the benefits and dangers of human genetic
engineering?
Testing For Genetic Diseases
Genetic testing is not terribly new. Amniocentesis has been a staple of modern pregnancies for
many years, and many at-risk people choose to be tested for genetic diseases such as
Huntington’s disease. Improved genetic testing would lead to earlier diagnosis of such diseases.
Earlier diagnoses would allow people destined to develop genetic diseases to make the most of
their healthy years. Those who did not carry a genetic disease would be able to set their minds at
ease.
Human genetic engineering has the potential to do more than identify a faulty gene.
Improvements in technologies such as those used in CRISPR have the potential to correct the
genetic errors that cause genetic diseases in the first place. Furthermore, germline genetic
engineering could lead to the eradication of certain genetic diseases all-together.
Opponents of human genetic engineering argue that some faulty genes actually serve important
purposes. The classic example of a useful genetic “defect” is sickle cell disease. Sickle cell
disease, also known as sickle cell anemia, is caused by a genetic flaw that causes some red blood
cells to be sickle shaped. The sickle shaped cells are prone to causing blockages in the
circulatory system resulting in pain, stroke, cardiac arrest and death. Sickle cell disease, though,
only presents if a person carries two copies of the sickle cell gene. If a person only has one copy,
they have normal red blood cells and some protection against malaria. Were the sickle cell gene
to be universally corrected, malaria-related deaths would increase dramatically.
Critics of genetic modification in humans also point out that genetic engineering is still relatively
new. The potential long-term consequences of altering the human genome are still unknown.
Changes to the human genetic code could potentially create new genetic diseases or genetic
defects that, in the case of germline engineering, would persist for generations.

Designer Babies
The specter of designer babies is commonly raised by opponents of human genetic engineering.
Advancement in genetic modification techniques could allow parents to influence their child’s
eye color, hair color, height, intelligence and athleticism. It sounds like something out of a
dystopian sci-fi story, but the possibility of designer babies is not as far-fetched as it sounds.
Researchers have isolated genes that influence a person’s ability to gain muscle mass, and
professional athletic associations have struggled to control “gene-doping,” the non-therapeutic
use of cells, genes or genetic elements to enhance performance. Parents can already select the
sex of their child in certain areas of the world and, while the genetics of intelligence have not yet
been determined, they have long been a topic of interest in the scientific community. This ability
to “design” a child, genetic engineering critics argue, would lead to a generation of children
whose very make-up was shaped by parental whims, market forces, constantly shifting standards
of beauty and societal preferences. It could lead to a constantly deepening divide between those
who were genetically enhanced or improved and those who were not. This divide might follow
current class lines depending on the monetary cost of genetic engineering. This incorporation of
a genetic component to the “haves” and “have nots” could also lead to a new form of eugenics or
even the split of humanity into two distinct species.
Proponents of genetic engineering, however, argue that such claims have little basis in fact. Sex
is based entirely on the presence or absence of the Y chromosome while traits such as hair and
eye color are controlled by many different genes. Furthermore, the genetics of intelligence are
still something of a mystery.

Lowering Hazards For High Risk Parents

Some genetic diseases have a very high potential of being inherited. A person with Huntington’s
disease, for example, has a 50 percent chance of passing the faulty gene on to their child. In such
situations, parents may decide not to have children due to a fear of passing on the genetic
disorder regardless of how much they wish to have a child. Human genetic engineering has the
potential to lower the risks for such couples. Improvements in technology such as CRISPR could
allow scientists to correct a faulty gene. Genetic engineering could also be used to lower the
dangers of high-risk pregnancies by insuring the genetic health of the fetus.
Those who are against human genetic engineering argue that alternatives exist for parents with a
highly inheritable genetic disease. Surrogacy and adoption are options that do not involve
invasive changes to an embryos genome.

Testing For Socially Undesirable Traits

Opponents of human genetic engineering claim that genetic modification could eventually
become a tool of discrimination and prejudice. Researchers have long been curious what genetic
predispositions, if any, influence a person’s tendency toward anger, violence, hatred and
addiction. Genetic tests for such undesirable, but non-medical, traits could lead to discrimination
against a person who carried a “violence” gene, regardless of whether or not the person has ever
acted in a violent manner. Furthermore, if genes linked to such social undesirables were found in
higher concentrations in certain ethnic groups, racial prejudice would suddenly have a genetic
rationalization.
Proponents of human genetic modification argue that genetic testing could be kept confidential
to avoid discrimination against individuals. Genetic information would be part of a person’s
medical record and therefore privileged information.
Despite the potential abuses, those who favor genetic engineering argue that research into genetic
influences on violence and addiction should continue. Identifying genetic predispositions
towards addiction could help people with a high likelihood of developing a substance abuse
problem manage their risks more effectively. Studying genetic links to violence could also lead
to the identification of the gene pattern responsible for psychopathy as current research points to
the disorder having a hereditary component.

Lengthened Lifespan
Human genetic engineering has the potential to lead to a longer average lifespan. Researchers
have identified the portion of human chromosomes responsible for determining how many times
a cell can divide and, thus, how long an organism will live. Human genetic modification could
alter this portion of the chromosomes, extending a person’s lifespan.
Opponents of human genetic modification point out that the earth is already struggling to support
a population of 7.2 billion people. Lengthening the average human lifespan would place even
greater stress on an already overburdened planet.

Use of Human Embryos

This is one of the most expected controversies in human genetic research. Human genetic
experimentation requires the use of human DNA. As with stem cell research, that DNA is
usually found in donated eggs, sperm and embryos. This, naturally, runs headlong into the
explosive question that has kept the debate over abortion raging for years: when does human life
begin?
People who believe that human life begins at conception see the use of fertilized human embryos
in medical research, such as the CRISPR study, as abhorrent. To those who hold that life begins
at conception, experimentation on a fertilized human embryo is nothing short of sickening
violation if not torture.
The use of human embryos in genetic experiments is not universally supported by those who
believe that an embryo cannot be considered human until later in development. As of now,
embryos used in genetic research are destroyed when the study is complete. This is in part
because the scientists working on such research recognize that the long-term consequences of
genetic modification are not yet understood. The knowledge required for a woman to safely carry
a genetically engineered child to term simply does not exist yet. Still, the waste of human
embryos or donated eggs grates on people, especially those who struggle to conceive. Some who
rely on fertility treatments or in vitro fertilization see the use of embryos in medical research as a
waste of viable eggs.
Proponents of genetic research are quick to point out that the embryos used in the CRISPR
experiments were not truly viable. Had any one of the embryos been implanted in a woman’s
womb, the embryo would not have survived to term. Some scientists argue that healthy, viable
embryos would not be involved in such genetic modification research until closer to clinical
trials. The waste of some viable embryos would be inevitable but would not seriously begin until
science was preparing to implant a genetically modified embryo in a woman.

Playing God
This comes up in nearly every argument involving genetic engineering, regardless of whether it
is corn or cows or children being modified. Some people who believe that human beings
especially have a right to be “unmodified,” maintain that altering the human genome is
equivalent to “playing God.” “Playing God” has a different meaning to every individual with
some people claiming than any genetic modification involves a moral and spiritual trespass. On
the other side of the spectrum are religious authorities who claim that genetic experimentation is
within God’s gift to mankind of “dominion over the earth.” So far, few religious authorities see
the question of genetic engineering as black-and-white. Most allow for genetic engineering that
would preserve human life but frown upon the use of genetic modification for non-medically
necessary uses such as sex selection.

Genetic Diversity Concerns

The ability to select for or against specific traits could affect the genetic diversity of the human
species. Opponents of genetic modification argue that germline human genetic engineering
would decrease the genetic diversity of the human species as certain traits would be seen as more
desirable than others. This decrease in biodiversity would leave the population as a whole more
vulnerable to diseases and changes in the environment.
Supporters of human genetic modification argue that genetic engineering could be used to
increase genetic diversity. Geneticists could select for traits that would normally be lost in the
random shuffle of genes. Human genetic engineering could also theoretically be used to create
entirely new traits thus increasing genetic diversity beyond its original starting point.

Safe Usage of the Technology

Regardless of whether human genetic engineering is a marvel or an abomination, the technology
to achieve it exists. Human genetic modification is possible and the world knows it. Proponents
of human genetic engineering argue that human genetic modification is now inevitable.
Someone, somewhere will improve and use the technology. Banning further research, testing and
eventual usage would keep the technology from being done in a safe environment. Genetic
modification would be driven underground and sold on the black market. Permitting human
genetic engineering would also allow organizations to regulate the technology’s usage rather
than leaving it to become part of the medical tourism industry. Men and women already travel
internationally to receive risky surgeries, cheaper pharmaceuticals or procedures illegal in their
home countries. The same thing would happen to human genetic modification.

Expanded Understanding of Human Genetics

Experiments involving the human genetic modification have revealed information about the
human genome that would not have otherwise been discovered. The CRISPR studies, for
example, revealed that a human embryo can sometimes repair its own faulty DNA without
medical intervention. This phenomenon had never been observed before and scientists had not
imagined it was possible. Such discoveries increase geneticists’ understanding of the human
species and genetics as a whole. Further studies of the phenomenon of self-repaired DNA alone
could lead to revolutionary treatments for diseases such as Huntington’s, Tay-Sachs and dozens
of types of cancer. For proponents of genetic engineering, the information gained through human
genetic research is invaluable. Opponents of human genetic modification, however, argue that
the ends do not always justify the means.
Both opponents and proponents of human genetic engineering have valid points and strong
arguments defending their position. There is a great deal of good to be gained from research into
human genetic engineering, but there is also enormous potential for abuse. A genetically
engineered human being is not yet safely possible, but the CRISPR studies have taken the
concept out of science fiction and planted it squarely in today’s reality. What society will decide
to do with the potential to modify the human species at its fundamental level has yet to be
determined, but the debate over genetic engineering has been reignited, and it suddenly has far
more personal consequences for mankind.
As genetics allows us to turn the tide on human disease, it's also granting the power to engineer
desirable traits into humans. What limits should we create as this technology develops?

Aa Aa Aa

Genes influence health and disease, as well as human traits and behavior. Researchers are just
beginning to use genetic technology to unravel the genomic contributions to these different
phenotypes, and as they do so, they are also discovering a variety of other potential applications
for this technology. For instance, ongoing advances make it increasingly likely that scientists
will someday be able to genetically engineer humans to possess certain desired traits. Of course,
the possibility of human genetic engineering raises numerous ethical and legal questions.
Although such questions rarely have clear and definite answers, the expertise and research of
bioethicists, sociologists, anthropologists, and other social scientists can inform us about how
different individuals, cultures, and religions view the ethical boundaries for the uses of genomics.
Moreover, such insights can assist in the development of guidelines and policies.
Testing for Traits Unrelated to Disease
Much of what we currently know about the ramifications of genetic self-knowledge comes from
testing for diseases. Once disease genes were identified, it became much easier to make a
molecular or cytogenetic diagnosis for many genetic conditions. Diagnostic testing supplies the
technical ability to test presymptomatic, at-risk individuals and/or carriers to determine whether
they will develop a specific condition. This sort of testing is a particularly attractive choice for
individuals who are at risk for diseases that have available preventative measures or treatments,
as well as people who might carry genes that have significant reproductive recurrence risks.
Indeed, thanks to advances in single-cell diagnostics and fertilization technology, embryos can
now be created in vitro; then, only those embryos that are not affected by a specific genetic
illness can be selected and implanted in a woman's uterus. This process is referred to
as preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
For adult-onset conditions, ethical concerns have been raised regarding whether genetic testing
should be performed if there is no cure for the disease in question. Many people wonder whether
positive diagnosis of an impending untreatable disease will harm the at-risk individual by
creating undue stress and anxiety. Interestingly, social science research has demonstrated that the
answer to this question is both yes and no. It seems that if genetic testing shows that an
individual is a carrier for a recessive disease, such as Tay-Sachs disease or sickle-cell anemia,
this knowledge may have a negative impact on the individual's well-being, at least in the short
term (Marteau et al., 1992; Woolridge & Murray, 1988). On the other hand, if predictive testing
for an adult-onset genetic disorder such as Huntington's disease reveals that an at-risk individual
will develop the disorder later in life, most patients report less preoccupation with the disease
and a relief from the anxiety of the unknown (Taylor & Myers, 1997). For many people who
choose to have predictive testing, gaining a locus of control by having a definitive answer is
helpful. Some people are grateful for the opportunity to make life changes—for instance,
traveling more, changing jobs, or retiring early—in anticipation of developing a debilitating
condition later in their lives.
Of course, as genetic research advances, tests are continually being developed for traits and
behaviors that are not related to disease. Most of these traits and behaviors are inherited as
complex conditions, meaning that multiple genes and environmental, behavioral, or nutritional
factors may contribute to the phenotype. Currently, available tests include those for eye color,
handedness, addictive behavior, "nutritional" background, and athleticism. But does knowing
whether one has the genetic background for these nondisease traits negatively affect one's self-
concept or health perception? Studies are now beginning to address this question. For example,
one group of scientists performed genetic testing for muscle traits on a group of volunteers
enrolled in a resistance-training program (Gordon et al., 2005). These tests looked for single-
nucleotide polymorphisms that would tell whether an individual had a genetic predisposition for
muscle strength, size, and performance. The investigators found that if the individuals did not
receive affirmative genetic information regarding muscle traits, they credited the positive effects
of the exercise program to their own abilities. However, those study participants who did receive
positive test results were more likely to view the beneficial changes as out of their control,
attributing any such changes to their genetic makeup. Thus, a lack of genetic predisposition for
muscle traits actually gave subjects a sense of empowerment.
The results of the aforementioned study may be surprising to many people, as one major concern
associated with testing for nondisease traits is the fear that those people who do not possess the
genes for a positive trait may develop a negative self-image and/or inferiority complex. Another
matter bioethicists often consider is that people may discover that they carry some genes
associated with physiological or behavioral traits that are frequently perceived as negative.
Moreover, many critics fear that the prevalence of these traits in certain ethnic populations could
lead to prejudice and other societal problems. Thus, rigorous social science research by
individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds is crucial to understanding people's perceptions
and establishing appropriate boundaries.

Building Better Athletes with Gene Doping

Figure 1: The double-muscled Belgian blue cow breed.

Double muscled animals have an increase in muscle mass of up to 20% greater than normal
animals. The increased muscle is due to the fact that these animals have a mutation in a specific
gene that normally is involved in muscular hypertrophy.
© 1997 Nature Publishing Group Grobet, L. et al. A deletion in the bovine myostatin gene
cuases the double-mustard phenotype in cattle. Nature Genetics 17, 71 (1997). All rights
reserved.

Over the years, the desire for better sports performance has driven many trainers and athletes to
abuse scientific research in an attempt to gain an unjust advantage over their competitors.
Historically, such efforts have involved the use of performance-enhancing drugs that were
originally meant to treat people with disease. This practice is called doping, and it frequently
involved such substances as erythropoietin, steroids, and growth hormones (Filipp, 2007). To
control this drive for an unfair competitive edge, in 1999, the International Olympic Committee
created the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which prohibits the use of performance-
enhancing drugs by athletes. WADA also conducts various testing programs in an attempt to
catch those athletes who violate the anti-doping rules.

Today, WADA has a new hurdle to overcome—that of gene doping. This practice is defined as
the nontherapeutic use of cells, genes, or genetic elements to enhance athletic performance. Gene
doping takes advantage of cutting-edge research in gene therapy that involves the transfer of
genetic material to human cells to treat or prevent disease (Well, 2008). Because gene doping
increases the amount of proteins and hormones that cells normally make, testing for genetic
performance enhancers will be very difficult, and a new race is on to develop ways to detect this
form of doping (Baoutina et al., 2008).
The potential to alter genes to build better athletes was immediately realized with the invention
of so-called "Schwarzenegger mice" in the late 1990s. These mice were given this nickname
because they were genetically engineered to have increased muscle growth and strength
(McPherron et al., 1997; Barton-Davis et al., 1998). The goal in developing these mice was to
study muscle disease and reverse the decreased muscle mass that occurs with aging.
Interestingly, the Schwarzenegger mice were not the first animals of their kind; that title belongs
to Belgian Blue cattle (Figure 1), an exceptional breed known for its enormous muscle mass.
These animals, which arose via selective breeding, have a mutated and nonfunctional copy of the
myostatin gene, which normally controls muscular development. Without this control, the cows'
muscles never stop growing (Grobet et al., 1997). In fact, Belgian Blue cattle get so large that
most females of the breed cannot give natural birth, so their offspring have to be delivered by
cesarean section. Schwarzenegger mice differ from these cattle in that they highlight scientists'
newfound ability to induce muscle development through genetic engineering, which brings up
the evident advantages for athletes. But does conferring one desirable trait create other, more
harmful consequences? Are gene doping and other forms of genetic engineering something
worth exploring, or should we, as a society, decide that manipulation of genes for nondisease
purposes is unethical?
Creating Designer Babies
Genetic testing also harbors the potential for yet another scientific strategy to be applied in the
area of eugenics, or the social philosophy of promoting the improvement of inherited human
traits through intervention. In the past, eugenics was used to justify practices including
involuntary sterilization and euthanasia. Today, many people fear that preimplantation genetic
diagnosis may be perfected and could technically be applied to select specific nondisease traits
(rather than eliminate severe disease, as it is currently used) in implanted embryos, thus
amounting to a form of eugenics. In the media, this possibility has been sensationalized and is
frequently referred to as creation of so-called "designer babies," an expression that has even been
included in the Oxford English Dictionary. Although possible, this genetic technology has not
yet been implemented; nonetheless, it continues to bring up many heated ethical issues.
Trait selection and enhancement in embryos raises moral issues involving both individuals and
society. First, does selecting for particular traits pose health risks that would not have existed
otherwise? The safety of the procedures used for preimplantation genetic diagnosis is currently
under investigation, and because this is a relatively new form of reproductive technology, there is
by nature a lack of long-term data and adequate numbers of research subjects. Still, one safety
concern often raised involves the fact that most genes have more than one effect. For example, in
the late 1990s, scientists discovered a gene that is linked to memory (Tang et al., 1999).
Modifying this gene in mice greatly improved learning and memory, but it also caused increased
sensitivity to pain (Wei et al., 2001), which is obviously not a desirable trait. Beyond questions
of safety, issues of individual liberties also arise. For instance, should parents be allowed to
manipulate the genes of their children to select for certain traits when the children themselves
cannot give consent? Suppose a mother and father select an embryo based on its supposed
genetic predisposition to musicality, but the child grows up to dislike music. Will this alter the
way the child feels about its parents, and vice versa? Finally, in terms of society, it is not feasible
for everyone to have access to this type of expensive technology. Thus, perhaps only the most
privileged members of society will be able to have "designer children" that possess greater
intelligence or physical attractiveness. This may create a genetic aristocracy and lead to new
forms of inequality.
At present, these questions and conjectures are purely hypothetical, because the technology
needed for trait selection is not yet available. In fact, such technology may be impossible,
considering that most traits are complex and involve numerous genes. Still, contemplation of
these and other issues related to genetic engineering is important should the ability to create
genetically enhanced humans ever arise.

References and Recommended Reading

Baoutina, A., et al. Developing strategies for detection of gene doping. Journal of Gene
Medicine 10, 3–20 (2008)
Barton-Davis, E. R., et al. Viral mediated expression of insulin-like growth factor I blocks the
aging-related loss of skeletal muscle function. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 95, 15603–15607 (1998)
Filipp, F. Is science killing sport? European Molecular Biology Organization Reports 8, 433–
435 (2007)
Gordon, E. S., et al. Nondisease genetic testing: Reporting of muscle SNPs shows effects on self-
concept and health orientation scales. European Journal of Human Genetics 13, 1047–1054
(2005) doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201449
Grobet, L., et al. A deletion in the bovine myostatin gene causes the double-muscled phenotype
in cattle. Nature Genetics 17, 71-74 (1997) (link to article)
Marteau, T. M., Van Duijn, M., & Ellis, I. Effects of genetic screening on perceptions of health:
A pilot study. Journal of Medical Genetics 29, 24–26 (1992)
McPherron, A. C., et al. Regulation of skeletal muscle mass in mice by a new TGF-beta
superfamily member. Nature 387, 83–90 (1997) doi:10.1038/387083a0 (link to article)
Tang, Y. P., et al. Genetic enhancement of learning and memory in mice. Nature 401, 63–69
(1999) doi:10.1038/43432 (link to article)
Taylor, C. A., & Myers, R. Long-term impact of Huntington disease linkage testing. American
Journal of Medical Genetics 70, 365–370 (1997)
Wei, F., et al. Genetic enhancement of inflammatory pain by forebrain NR2B
overexpression. Nature Neuroscience 4, 164–169 (2001) doi:10.1038/83993
Well, D. J. Gene doping: The hype and the reality. British Journal of Pharmacology 154, 623–
631 (2008) doi:10.1038/bjp.2008.144
Woolridge, E. Q., & Murray, R. The health orientation scale: A measure of feeling about sickle
cell trait. Social Biology 35, 123–136 (1988)

2. Genetic Engineering is a technique of controlled manipulation of genes to change the genetic

makeup of cells and move genes across species boundaries to produce novel organisms.
Advancements in Genetic Engineering journal provide an opportunity to share the information
on Genetic engineering techniques and its application to numerous fields of research,
biotechnology, and medicine among scientists and researchers.

The journal includes a wide range of fields in its discipline to create a platform for the authors to
make their contribution towards the journal and the editorial office promises a peer review
process for the submitted manuscripts for the quality of publishing. Advancements in Genetic
Engineering focused on the areas such as Mutant organisms, DNA Replication, Recombinant
DNA, Genetic linkage analysis, Genetically Modified Plants, Genetically Modified Animals,
DNA Microarray, Green Fluorescent Protein, Protein Sequencing, Genetic Probes, RNA
Splicing, Functional Genomics, Antisense RNA, RFLP, Biosafety of GMO, GMO Ethics ,
Genetically Engineered Microorganism, Computational genomics Advancements in Genetic
Engineering is an Open Access journal and aims to publish most complete and reliable source of
information on the discoveries and current developments in the mode of original articles, review
articles, case reports, short communications, etc. in all areas of the field and making them freely
available through online without any restrictions or any other subscriptions to researchers
worldwide.

Genetically engineering foods

Genetic engineering modifies the DNA of crops to display specific traits, such as a resistance to
pesticides and herbicides. Genetically engineered (GE) crops are often also referred to as
genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or biotech crops. In recent years, the Food and Drug
Administration began paving the way for approval of GM animals, such as salmon. The first
genetically modified animal approved for human consumption, supporters of GM salmon claim
it grows at twice the normal rate.

Related journals of Genetically engineering foods

Clinical & Medical Genomics, Fertilization: In Vitro - IVF-Worldwide, Reproductive

Medicine, Genetics & Stem Cell Biology, Cereal Foods World, Healthcare foodservice, Journal
of Functional Foods, Journal of Muscle Foods, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, Plant
Foods for Human Nutrition, Quality Assurance and Safety of Crops and Foods.
Genetic Probes
Genetic Probes is a fragment of DNA or RNA of variable length (usually 100-1000 bases long)
which is radioactively labelled used in DNA or RNA samples to detect the presence of
nucleotide sequences (the DNA target) that are complementary to the sequence in the probe. The
probe thereby hybridizes to single-stranded nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) whose base sequence
allows probe-target base pairing due to complementarity between the probe and target.

Related journals of Genetic Probes

Molecular and Genetic Medicine, Molecular Biology, Molecular Biomarkers & Diagnosis,
Recombination Hybrid European Journal of Medical Genetics, Forensic Science
International: Genetics, Genes and Genetic Systems, Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution,
Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers, International Journal of Immunogenetics, Journal of
Animal Breeding and Genetics.

Gene cloning
Gene cloning is the process in which a gene of interest is located and copied (cloned) out of
DNA extracted from an organism? When DNA is extracted from an organism, all of its genes are
extracted at one time. This DNA, which contains thousands of different genes.

The step following DNA extraction of an organism is the construction of a library to organize the
DNA. A gene library can be defined as a collection of living bacteria colonies that have been
transformed with different pieces of DNA from the organism that is the source of the gene of
interest. If a library is to have a colony of bacteria for every gene, it will consist of tens of
thousands of colonies or clones.

Related journals of Gene cloning

Advances in Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology Hybrid, Advances in Molecular Diagnostics,

Biotechnology & Biomaterials, Gene Expression Patterns, General Relativity and
Gravitation, Genes and Genetic Systems, Genes, Brain and Behavior, Genetic Resources and
Crop Evolution, Genetica, Genetical Research, Genetics Selection Evolution.

RFLP
RFLP (often pronounced "rif lip", as if it were a word) is a method used by molecular biologists
to follow a particular sequence of DNA as it is passed on to other cells. RFLPs can be used in
many different settings to accomplish different objectives.

Each organism inherits its DNA from its parents. Since DNA is replicated with each generation,
any given sequence can be passed on to the next generation. An RFLP is a sequence of DNA that
has a restriction site on each end with a "target" sequence in between. A target sequence is any
segment of DNA that bind to a probe by forming complementary base pairs. A probe is a
sequence of single-stranded DNA that has been tagged with radioactivity or an enzyme so that
the probe can be detected. When a probe base pairs to its target, the investigator can detect this
binding and know where the target sequence is since the probe is detectable. RFLP produces a
series of bands when a Southern blot is performed with a particular combination of restriction
enzyme and probe sequence.

Related journals of RFLP

Gene Technology, Genetic Disorders & Genetic Reports Hybrid,Genetic Syndromes & Gene
Therapy, Hereditary Genetics: Current Research, Epigenetics and Human Health, European
journal of genetics in society : an ethical approach to genetics, Genetics and Breeding, Genetics
and EpiGenetics, Human Ontogenetics, Immunology and Immunogenetics Insights.

Trans-Genesis
Transgenes is the process of introducing an exogenous gene — called a transgene — into a living
organism so that the organism will exhibit a new property and transmit that property to its
offspring. Transgenes can be facilitated by liposomes, plasmid vectors, viral vectors, pronuclear
injection, protoplast fusion, and ballistic DNA injection. Transgenesis is the process of
introducing an exogenous gene — called a transgene — into a living organism so that the
organism will exhibit a new property and transmit that property to its offspring.

Related journals of Trans-Genesis

Advances in Molecular Diagnostics, Biotechnology & Biomaterials, Cell Biology: Research &
Therapy Hybrid, Angiogenesis, Carcinogenesis Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis,
Genesis, Molecular Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis.

Insulin genetics
The Insulin genetics provides instructions for producing the hormone insulin, which is necessary
for the control of glucose levels in the blood. Glucose is a simple sugar and the primary energy
source for most cells in the body.
Insulin is produced in a precursor form called proinsulin, which consists of a single chain of
protein building blocks (amino acids). The proinsulin chain is cut (cleaved) to form individual
pieces called the A and B chains, which are joined together by connections called disulfide bonds
to form insulin.

Related journals of Insulin genetics

Gene Technology, Genetic Disorders & Genetic Reports Hybrid, Genetic Syndromes & Gene
Therapy, Hereditary Genetics: Current Research, Human Genetics & Embryology, Advances
in Genetics, BMC Medical Genetics, BMC Genetics, Conservation Genetics, Epigenetics,
Infection, Genetics and Evolution, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics,
Neurogenetics, Psychiatric Genetics.

DNA Replication
DNA replication is the process of producing two identical replicas from one original DNA
molecule. This biological process occurs in all living organisms and is the basis
for biological inheritance.
DNA replication is the process by which DNA makes a copy of itself during cell division.

The first step in DNA replication is to ‘unzip’ the double helix structure of the DNA? molecule.
This is carried out by an enzyme? called helicase which breaks the hydrogen bonds? holding the
complementary? bases? of DNA together (A with T, C with G).
The separation of the two single strands of DNA creates a ‘Y’ shape called a replication ‘fork’.
The two separated strands will act as templates for making the new strands of DNA.
One of the strands is oriented in the 3’ to 5’ direction (towards the replication fork), this is the
leading strand?. The other strand is oriented in the 5’ to 3’ direction (away from the replication
fork), this is the lagging strand?.

Related journals of DNA Replication

Single Cell Biology, Stem Cell Research & Therapy, Tissue Science &
Engineering, DNA Repair, DNA Research, Mitochondrial DNA, Mobile DNA, Mutation
Research - DNA Repair.

Ethics in genetic engineering

Ethical issues, including concerns for animal welfare, can arise at all stages in the generation and
life span of an individual genetically engineered animal. The following sections detail some of
the issues that have arisen during the peer-driven guidelines development process and associated
impact analysis consultations carried out by the CCAC. The CCAC works to an accepted ethic of
animal use in science. However, despite the steps taken to minimize pain and distress, there is
evidence of public concerns that go beyond the Three Rs and animal welfare regarding the
creation and use of genetically engineered animals.

Related journals of Ethics in genetic engineering

Current Synthetic and Systems Biology, Gene Technology, Genetic Disorders & Genetic
Reports Hybrid, Advances in Genetics, BMC Medical Genetics, BMC Genetics, Conservation
Genetics, Epigenetics, Infection, Genetics and Evolution, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and
Genetics, Neurogenetics, Psychiatric Genetics.

Recombinant DNA
Recombinant DNA (rDNA) molecules are DNAmolecules formed by laboratory methods of
genetic recombination (such as molecular cloning) to bring together genetic material from
multiple sources, creating sequences that would not otherwise be found in biological organisms.

A series of procedures that are used to join together (recombine) DNA segments. A recombinant
DNA molecule is constructed from segments of two or more different DNA molecules. Under
certain conditions, a recombinant DNA molecule can enter a cell and replicate there, either on its
own or after it has been integrated into a chromosome.

Related journals of Recombinant DNA

Down Syndrome & Chromosome Abnormalities, Fungal Genomics & Biology, Gene
Technology, Genetic Disorders & Genetic Reports Hybrid, Genetic Syndromes & Gene Therapy,
Advances in DNA Sequence-Specific Agents, Artificial DNA: PNA and XNA, DNA Reporter.

RNA Splicing
In molecular biology and genetics, splicing is a modification of the nascent pre-messenger RNA
(pre-mRNA) transcript in which introns are removed and exons are joined. For nuclear encoded
genes, splicing takes place within the nucleus after or concurrently with transcription.

Related Journals of RNA Splicing

Gene Technology, Fungal Genomics & Biology, Advancements in Genetic

Engineering, Advances in Genetics, BMC
Medical Genetics, BMC Genetics, Conservation Genetics, Epigenetics Infection, Genetics and
Evolution, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, Neurogenetics, Psychiatric Genetics.

Green genetic engineering

Green genetic engineering as it is used in agriculture and the food industry is all about creating
new species of plants that are highly resistant to pests and pesticides or contain higher levels of
nutrients than traditional plants. The idea is not new; in fact, farmers have been doing this for
thousands of years, crossing and breeding plants to produce new and stronger species.The
application of genetic engineering to plant breeding (so-called “green genetic engineering”) has
been the subject of controversial debate for many years. Which benefits and risks would be
linked to the cultivation of genetically modified crops in Switzerland? How should research and
cultivation be regulated? Which ethical questions have to be considered? The Forum for Genetic
Research promotes fact-based dialogue based on science.

Related Journals of Green genetic engineering

Cell Science & Therapy, Cellular and Molecular Biology, Clinical & Medical
Genomics, Cloning & Transgenesis, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, Genetic
engineering, Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Journal, Genetic Engineering and
Biotechnology News.

Genetic engineering crops

Genetically engineering crops, biotech crops are plants used in agriculture, the DNA of which
has been modified using genetic Engineering techniques In most cases the aim is to introduce a
new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in the species. Examples in food crops
include resistance to certain pests, diseases, or environmental conditions, reduction of spoilage,
or resistance to chemical treatments (e.g. resistance to a herbicide), or improving the nutrient
profile of the crop. Examples in non-food crops include production of pharmaceutical agents,
biofuels, and other industrially useful goods, as well as for bioremediation.

Related Journals of Genetic engineering crops

Cell Biology: Research & Therapy Hybrid, Cloning & Transgenesis, Current Synthetic and
Systems Biology, Down Syndrome & Chromosome Abnormalities, Fungal Genomics &
Biology, GM crops, GM crops & food, Industrial Crops and Products, Quality Assurance and
Safety of Crops and Foods, Research on Crops, Turkish Journal of Field Crops,
Vegetable Crops Research Bulletin, Field Crops Research.

Functional Genomics
Functional genomics is a field of molecular biology that attempts to make use of the vast wealth
of data produced by genomic and transcriptomic projects (such as genome sequencing projects
and RNA-seq) to describe gene (and protein) functions and interactions.

The aim of functional genomics studies is to understand the complex relationship between
genotype and phenotype on a global (genome-wide) scale. Studies investigate a range of
processes such as transcription, translation and epigenetic regulation.

Related Journals of Functional Genomics

Molecular Biomarkers & Diagnosis,Genetic Disorders & Genetic Reports, Nanomedicine &
Biotherapeutic Discovery, Phylogenetics & Evolutionary Biology, Single Cell Biology, Briefings
in Functional Genomics, Briefings in Functional Genomics and Proteomics, Comparative and
Functional Genomics, Journal of Structural and Functional Genomics.

Advancement in Genetic Engineering is associated with “4th International conference on

Clinical Microbiology & Microbial Genomics” (Clinical Microbiology-2015) during October 05-
07, 2015 at Philadelphia, USA. with a theme "Analyzing The Innovation & Future Trends In
Clinical Microbiology ". We are particularly interested in Genetics research in the areas of
genomics, Mutant organisms, DNA Replication, Recombinant DNA, Genetic linkage analysis,
Genetically Modified Plants, Genetically Modified Animals, DNA Microarray, Green
Fluorescent Protein, Protein Sequencing, and Genetic Probes. We encourage articles involving
genome-wide DNA methylation mapping and gene expression including histone replacement,
messenger RNA interference (miRNA) as well any other epigenetic studies.