'gene-cloning' means gene-copy, natch
does your physique cause nightmares?
stemcells won't help-see GENE-CULTURE
OFF LIMITS
*
KINDLY LEAVE THIS SITE ALONE - IT'S UNDER REVIEW
PARALLEL PLOTLINE:
the website is on 'virtual' genes - see blog under 'epigenomes' - the way the body 'programs' genes can be related to environment
'Human-oriented' includes iPS reprogramming of adult skin cells, adult stemcells from bone-marrow & population-sampling for gene-variants. 'Non-human-oriented' comes down to 'breeding genes' from embryonic stemcells (ESC).
It may strike you as odd to classify ESCs 'non-human-oriented' research but similarities with hybrid-cloning (breeding human genes in non-human cells -see next page) makes it apparent both are ways of 'breeding genes'
As we know, genes are distressingly similar - what the website's dealing in is the way genes are 'programmed' by the body. In other words, it's bio-centric as opposed to techno-centric
iPS is the common name for stem cells which are 'reprogrammed' from adult body-cells - this is what we mean by 'virtual'.
Our website takes that concept & applies it more generally: the info in genes becomes 'real' when matched to (normal) human physique.
A slightly broader use is to include population-sampling.
Hence you basically treat genes as 'virtual' & everything else as human-oriented or 'real'.
GET YOUR JARGON HERE
ESC* - EMBRYONIC STEMCELLS
iPSC - INDUCED PLURIPOTENT STEMCELLS
(reprogrammed genetically from adult skin cells)
piPS -PROTEIN-INDUCED PLURIPOTENT STEMCELLS
(the very latest and potentially safest technology - see link on left)
ADULT STEMCELLS -from bone marrow that grow into blood-types
HYBRID-CLONES* -breeding human genes in non-human cells (abandoned following protest in UK - see this link!)
* THESE 2 ARE NON-HUMAN-ORIENTED RESEARCH
Relating these 2 together makes a point that both are a type of technology for breeding of genes - using a host as a type of 'factory breeding', whatever technical term you care to give it. Since this website is talking genes, both carry human genes & in that respect are identical regardless of the 'host'.
The idea of 'virtual' genes is it is half of the equation. This is why ESC is classified here 'non-human-oriented' research - you're only looking at genes & not how they relate to human physique. If you read on, what we're dealing in is how ultra-precise that type of human-oriented research can be!
ease of 'reprogramming'
SC BLOGS:
Pragmatically, how much genetic-info is in ESCs as opposed to iPSCs which have gene-identity?
iPS is an in vivo protocol that uses adult skin cells: you already know how the genes will grow in nerve & muscle, so you know the disease profile (this is in addition to well-advertized downsides to ESC - auto-immune rejection-response to foreign cells).
Though claims are made for ESC, many more genuine advances & therapies are made with the other types of research listed. There are 2 problems: lack of gene-identity means immuno-suppresants may always be necessary for transplants to counter rejection. The second factor is even more vital to future studies: at this early stage there are no diseases so there are no disease-gene profiles to study!
The idea of the website is you can regard genes as 'virtual' which become animated only when key control-sequences are 'programmed' & a stemcell grows into nerve or muscle. Basically, the program is what counts & we know it affects only a very few control-genes.
We also know genes are easy to program - here by proteins (piPS).
CONSERVATIVE BLOGS:
(all these are opposed to ESC. I reckon there's a wider issue: 'transhumanism' & what you might call a biotech 'takeover' of the human. This might also go in 'non-human-oriented' research - see blog)
PRINT TEXT: EXOGENETIC, GENE-CULTURE, CUTTING-EDGE, POPULATIONS
