Talk:CH391L/S12/Introduction

In regards to the debate over genetically engineered food, the vehement protests against it are intriguing considering the fact that we've been naturally altering the content of our food since the beginning of domestic agriculture. I wonder how it would change if people actually understood the benefits of the genetically engineered foods rather than dismissing all genetically modified food as evil regardless of its purpose. Midhat Patel 14:20, 26 January 2012 (EST)

With regards to the introduction, why has this field not progressed as quickly as others like computer technology or polymers? Is it due to the complexity of the basic parts and our lack of total understanding, or could it be that experiments involving synthetic biology are very sensitive to human error, making it difficult to reproduce and/or scale up? Jeremy McLain 12:01 p.m. January 28, 2012

Commenting on Midhat’s statement, I was entirely against genetic modification of food before I read more about it and learned how common it is in crops and food we eat every day. I believe that by educating ourselves people can see the benefit of genetically engineered foods, but at the same time it should be regarded with caution when considering possible environmental impact. "Razan Alnahhas 18:49, 29 January 2012 (EST)"

Razan makes a very good point. For example, Monsanto's Roundup Ready technology is incorporated in over half of all crops grown in the US. Effectively, Monsanto engineered their plants to resist Glyphosate, the active ingredient of their trademark herbicide, Roundup. One of the potentially damaging side-effects of the widespread adoption of Roundup thanks to this genetic modification is that at least 19 invasive weeds have developed Glyphosate resistance. Genetic engineering is a fantastic field, but as the saying goes: "With great power, comes great responsibility." As future members of this field, we should take into account the repercussions of our work. *Peter Otoupal 23:21, 29 January 2012 (EST):

Relating to Jeremy's questions, I found it very interesting to view synthetic biology as more or less competing against evolution since it's so difficult to connect natural and synthetic modules. These processes have been refined over and over for an amazing long time and it is feat for science to be able to replicate such complexity in only a few decades. I think that using these evolutionary pathways as templates for advancement will be the best way to make progression in this field. I am looking forward to trying to connect the vast amount of natural modules and make a functioning organism. Logan Bachman 01:36, 30 January 2012 (EST)