无聊小站

Coursemate们都在讨论这我们应该比较注重classical biotechnology还是modern biotechnology。我们正如火如荼的讨论着，而我也已经把我写blog的时间转移到那里。该次，当那个讨论结束时，我会把所有的讨论过程在这里贴出。不过在整个过程当中，我只是一个捣乱的人。有些人写得就是好啊，例如这位朋友Matthew:

Hi guys.
The core issue may be divided into two parts, so allow me my two cents for each. Firstly, should more effort into research, development, progress be directed towards classical biotechnological methods or not? Secondly, has classical biotechnology made more significant contributions to general societal welfare at large than modern biotechnology?

Addressing the second question first, classical biotechnology has obviously, at present, had a bigger impact – it has been around for centuries, whereas our definition of “modern biotechnology” developed only in the 1970’s (Agromedia, 2006). The applicability and intellectual progress of modern biotech has only begun to scratch the surface; yet from its expectations and predicted potential, it is bound to revolutionise the way we live, what we do, and even who we are. Already we can see the progress made in its line (ending extinction, eradicating once-permanent genetically linked diseases, mass cloning in the shortest time, bioinformatics and computing technology, etc.) Agreed? That is not to say that classical biotech’s contributions are inferior to what modern biotech is capable of – to each era its own pace. However as we continue living into the future, the significance of modern biotech would become much more relevant than classical, and will eventually be outdated by the next evolution of humanity.

To the meat of the discussion, “giving less attention” tends to be equated with “neglected”. Of course, the crux is in the emphasis provided to the respective fields, not in totally ignoring one over the other. Classical biotech lives through modern biotech; we do not forget it as it forms the origin of the discipline. How can flowers develop if the plant’s roots have been forgotten? The nutrients provided by these roots are akin to the knowledge that can be tapped from reflecting back upon our past. They both carry out the same broad functions: ensure the plant’s survival. But their approaches are different. Roots absorb terrestrial nutrients for growth. Flowers ensure the survivability of the species through fertilization. And so it is with both aspects of biotechnology: they are different methods of approaching and responding to an objective, which is to enhance the quality of life via utilization of biological organisms and processes using technology.

Classical biotech is the necessary precursor to its modern counterpart. And though it is true that there is still much we can learn from it, I feel that the current global development demands more efficiency, more innovation, and newer challenges which modern biotech appears to be more suited for. Furthermore, modern biotechnology developed through knowledge gained about DNA and genes: the very molecules that differentiate living organisms from abiotic factors. Its application is through alteration of genes and organism DNA, as compared to the classical methods of using the natural biological processes of the organisms. Why not expand the biotech field based on the knowledge we have worked so hard to obtain; why waste this potential through de-emphasis? Again, I am not discrediting classical biotech, but take the example of the oil palm industry. Classical biotech methods would involve cross pollinating different specimens with different desired traits to obtain an individual which has all the traits in it, and then letting it propagate naturally. The oil palm takes 18 years alone to reach maturity, and be able to breed. Fungal or insect attacks on it would have to be treated with pesticides, fungicides etc, which will then give rise to more complexity through treatment-resistant pests, pollution, toxicity of the pesticide/fungicide used, and so forth. Through the modern approach, how about obtaining the desired genes from these different traits, add in resistant genes to pests and fungi attacks, and modify its gene expression so that it would be able to produce yield in less time? The quality of the product obtained would be superior, it would naturally be resistant to a host of organism attacks, and it would be able to increase the revenue of the country due to decreased yield time or through mass cloning, and meet the economic demand for it. Due to this increasing applicability, we would then have more resources of it and can opt to diversify, for example to be more able to venture into bio-fuel. Practical, isn’t it? Of course, to research on producing such a species requires time, trials and definitely many errors. But don’t we learn from our mistakes? Why should we be hesitant to spend our resources for fear of erroneous results? Do you think Thomas Alva Edison would have invented the lightbulb, and brought artificial light to the world if he feared making 2000+ errors in the process of creating it?

As another example, shall we consider the issue of, say, the treatment of cystic fibrosis? Are classical biotechnology methods applicable, or practical, in treating this genetic disorder? Say we are able to discover a microorganism that produces the enzymes to digest the excessive fat passed into the pancreas. That is just solving one of the many complications caused by cystic fibrosis. Shall we need to discover multiple microorganisms to produce enzymes to digest the lung’s excessive mucus, eradicate bowel meconium, counteract lung pneumonia, and prevent polyp development on the nose? And how do you solve the problem that, despite these treatments, the disease can still be passed down to your progeny, who may either develop it or be a carrier? With our knowledge of how this disease originates from, we can conduct gene therapy to correct the defective gene resulting in this disease. This is a clear-cut case of which modern biotechnology’s approach of manipulating genes has greater feasibility.

Having gone through responses in the forum, it appears that there are ethical concerns about modern biotechnology, i.e. the issue about ‘designer babies’. Notwithstanding that yes, modern biotech does raise such conscience-pricking situations, it must be remembered that so do many other things. The invention of the knife was a double-edged sword; it was used to cook and to build, but also to kill. Inventing the computer made life easier (or harder, it depends) for millions of lives, but it contributes to global warming, deterioration of eyesight, moral degradation through pornography, and electrical fatalities. In the same way, we can use or abuse modern biotech, i.e. to eradicate genetic disorders or discriminate human physical characteristics. Thus, the issue of the ethical dilemmas produced really depends on how such knowledge is used, whether responsibly or otherwise.

Also, there are other views that the world is not ready for modern biotech to become part of our lives, and should focus on expanding classical biotech. Question: how do we judge if we are “ready” for it? What criteria do we use; how do we know what, and why, we judge? How do we know we are ready to improve on classical biotech itself? If the mentality is that it should be saved for use in the “future”, then when is that future? How do we not know that modern biotech will, in fact, shape the future? I do not think the Wright brothers asked themselves: “Is now the right time to invent the aeroplane?” They had the idea; they prepared for it; they did it. And thanks to them, the whole world is now accessible.

Hope this hasn’t bored you, I know it is very long. But yes, I have paid Monash to use this system, and I intend to make my every two cents worth it.

P.S. I’m sure Dr. Omar would be proud of our responses to this discussion…teehee. 200+ posts, and still counting!

Oh, and it is Matthew Huan, not “Yew Huan”. Goodness, can’t they get a thing as simple as a name right?!! Grrrr

Reference:
Agromedia. 2006. Historical Review. http://collections.ic.gc.ca/highway/english/biotech/history.html. Date accessed: 27 July 2006.