Comments:Genetically altered mice are "superathletes"

Next question: What this would mean to humans? Jaime Saldarriaga.


 * At this point, who knows, but in my opinion it would be exceedingly unethical not to use genetic engineering to improve the lives of people. 72.153.9.105 21:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The impact of this technology will need careful consideration. I am very hopeful that some method can be devised to activate the natural copy of PEPCK-C in the skeletal muscle of human beings without the need for germline transformation or full-scale gene therapy, such as by using drugs or substituted oligonucleotides to influence the interaction of transcription factors with PEPCK-C regulatory sequences or one another.  High throughput methods could blindly test hundreds of thousands of agents to find those that increase PEPCK-C transcription in muscle cell lines, and then the most effective substances could be formulated into a treatment.


 * Unfortunately, we are not in such a different position from the wild mouse, whose evolution has not favored the indiscriminate waste of food with PEPCK in muscle. For any one American a 60% increase in food consumption seems a small price to pay, if not a fringe benefit.  But if everyone in the world were altered this way, we would need a 60% increase in global food production.  Even if famine can be averted by production improvements, that still means a tremendous amount of ecosystem destroyed to build new farms.


 * Then we also need to consider what we would do with all this physical endurance. The mice in their cages were five times more active and also more frequently aggressive.  One can only imagine the horror of prison guards contemplating such a change progressing among their charges...  But even in the larger world, how would people adapt?  Would they get arthritis from running at all hours?  Would domestic relations collapse from the extra energy and aggression?


 * On the other hand, it might be very interesting to see what PEPCK overexpression does for the brain...


 * There are also fundamental economic questions to consider. In general, what would PEPCK treatment increase more, supply or demand?  Most work is done by machine, after all, and while physical endurance would surely be a help to workers, would it make up for the extracurricular activities of people no longer exhausted after a day at the office?  More broadly, in an age no longer dominated by agriculture, is the purpose of work truly to produce necessities for survival, or is it more of a complex game by which a discriminatory international society excuses the culling of people it finds to be unfit?  My gut feeling is that in this society the extra work provided by PEPCK might largely end up being used in military conflicts and the guarding of prisons, and the main motive to use it would be an economy that would refuse to permit the survival of those who do not.


 * Despite all these worries, we cannot ignore the potential for our understanding of this biochemical pathway to solve major health problems such as type II diabetes and obesity. We cannot idly reject the chance to extend and improve all human life.  It is necessary to pursue this technology while making sure that it doesn't become more of a curse than a blessing. Mike Serfas 22:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the news is too optimistic. Dont tell me that these mice are perfect, wont there be any side effects from such a genetic mutations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.39.230 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)