Good day, for the time being, Homo Sapiens’s deeply respected representatives!
Man is a curious being, and he has always been interested in us,
what will happen to us in the future, what will we do,
what do we think we are going to look at?
The “how are we going to look at it?” it is not wise to question in recent years,
because of the last twenty thousand years
physically mankind has not changed at all.
As we were at the end of the ice age, we are still today.
So it was in the past, but the situation has changed somewhat today.
II. Swedish King Adolf Gustav in the 17th century wanted to rule the Baltic,
and ordered the construction of Vasa, the largest warship of the time.
The king personally took part in the planning and he decided that,
where, how many cannons, what the ship’s outlines would look like.
A brilliant ship was born.
In 1628, at the port of Stockholm, the ship was thrown into the water.
Half an hour later, a side wind rose, the ship creaking and sinking.
The king did not understand the design of the ship, but we can not impose this on him,
since at that time no one understood it.
Everyone was built on experience, on a perceptual basis.
Pascal was five years old and Newton was born only 14 years later.
They laid the foundations of hydrostatic and mechanical,
and today the engineers are boldly building ships that do not sink themselves,
bridges, which do not omit itself.
In the science of living systems now
we go somewhat after the age of Adolf Gusztáv,
because now we’re starting to crack down on how to build live systems,
cells, organisms to function as we would like.
Not at all, but in some cases this is the case.
Here’s an idea …
this is a three-eyed ebihal; his third eye is on his tail.
Such remarkable whips have been created in the 1930s.
From a frog embryo – not even from ebihah, but from the surface of the skin –
a piece can be transposed to the tail,
which then evolves there.
Totally normal, nice eye, but you will not see it,
because there are no nerves connecting the brain.
In 2017, we learned how to create a visionary eye on the ebihal’s tail,
and even if there are no two eyes on her head,
he swims with the dang on his tail and finds out
and creates a conditional reflex for some visual stimulation.
The example illustrates this if we understand it well
the construction and operation of our biological system.
More importantly, in many cases we do not only understand our system,
but we also understand what we do not understand.
Easy medicine like aspirin, 100 years ago,
well known at molecular level, at atomic level,
which molecules are linked to the target tissues in the body.
But until now we do not know how binding of aspirin reduces fever.
However, we know that if we take an aspiration tablet, our fever goes down,
and the intake of tablets has an insignificant risk,
which can be fully controlled.
This controlled incomprehension is the technology of living organisms
and its design is even more important than knowledge.
So, “how do we look in the future?” answer the question
basically depends on the consistency of our wishes and opportunities.
I want a goat or a house and which one I can afford;
the “what does science offer?”
and “what do we accept as a society as a society?” between.
I begin with what science offers?
Very much because of the last 10-15 years
two revolutions took place: in genes and cells.
The genetic revolution – the human genome, of course,
but many other species have been calculated –
that very efficient systems have been discovered, genome construction.
It was accidentally discovered;
one in bacteria that cause citrus disease, the other in yogurt.
Now we have tools,
with the exception of the technology of the earlier terrible GMO generations
we can make definite changes completely
On our DNA, on our genome, and so on before the man,
to cure virtually all genetic diseases.
But for humans this is done at the cellular level for the time being,
in a test tube or Petri dish.
Because we can not work, it is forbidden to work with human embryos.
But the method is well developed for farm animals.
Hypoallergenic milk cows,
pigs protected from African swine fever have been produced.
Also immunologically related pigs,
whose organs can be directly transposed into humans.
They also produced tbc-free cows.
I could list for three hours what was happening.
If we also get official approval for these technologies for human applications,
which we have already thoroughly developed on animals,
we can indeed heal all hereditary illnesses.
Now we can handle the cells well.
It was about this.
Some human cells can be transformed into other types.
For example, fat cells can easily be converted to neurons.
Outside an organization we can edit them, we can print organs from them …
will soon be …
and can be implanted into humans as a cell or organ.
By combining the two technologies, it is already under laboratory conditions
healing such terrible diseases as AIDS,
such as hereditary immunodeficiency disorders.
In this case, the child is forced to be born from birth
living in a completely isolated room because your body has no immunity.
But it is a simple disorder like paradontosis,
can be cured with modified stem cells.
By combining the two methods
we can cure hereditary problems in parents.
We know how to edit the male’s genital wart,
to remove the mutation causing the genetic tract,
we return it to the body; then the other natural way is done.
Get immune cells from the body
we can teach them to recognize any pathogen.
We can teach the immune system to recognize the patient’s own tumor,
then these cells in the patient’s body will be crippled with the tumor.
There are plenty of biology
technology linking two evolutions in recent years.
Question what does humanity accept from them?
There is a long history of mankind self-alteration.
I think there are two dams,
which people take into account in the case of new technology.
The first dam: will we change forever or not forever?
For example, the spectacles are: we have it, we have taken it.
From a biological point of view, the glasses have a strong influence on our body,
because it is equivalent to stretching or compressing the eyeball.
But when the glasses are approx. published in the 12th century,
spread very quickly.
Hugues de Saint-Cher Cardinal of the 13th century, Apostolic Penitentiary,
the head of the supreme ethics body of the Catholic Church
using the new technology has no problem.
If we change forever, this is, of course, a bit scarier.
In the case of technologies like vaccination, we know that if, for example, vaccine,
our genetic stock in the immune cells is partially changed forever,
until the end of our life.
But some of the scenes depicted cows into vaccinated people.
But when the man at the time saw that he was his neighbors
and the three children of their neighbors die,
and suddenly the disease is no longer a problem,
Of course, he soon became vaccinated.
Today, vaccination – to say anything about it –
one of the least dangerous existing medical procedures.
The question of the other dam is when we think of ourselves
modify or take responsibility for someone else?
In this mankind is less experienced, though everyone suffers the child.
In vitro fertilization, the fluticabic technology
In 2018 he will be 40 years old.
Louise Brown, born in 1978, is visible on the hands of her parents.
At that time, they did not know what effect it would have on humans for decades.
Louise Brown today is a happy married mother of four.
Huga was born the same way a few years later.
Louise was the first born of fertilization in a born flask.
She was born naturally by her children.
Technology has been granted the right and has helped millions of women around the world.
So much about current technology.
But before I go on, I’d have a question.
Imagine they want a kid;
not yet, they are only planning.
They learn that there is new technology,
the prospective mother receives an injection,
the risk is just as good as normal interventions – low,
but their children, their children, and their children
they will be protected from all the diseases we are receiving today with vaccine.
If you accept the offer, raise your hand.
Good. Now the antecedents, conditions are the same,
but their daughters, their daughters, and so on. they will be blond.
Who agrees that bouquet is good and beautiful?
Yeah, few people agree with that. Even the same antecedents,
but their children, their children will live for 150 years. Who agrees?
Oh, long life is more popular than bragging!
What technologies do not cause ethical doubts?
Of course, they are related to healing,
except for the genetic diseases I’ve been talking about.
Recently, articles have appeared in the press. three-year-old children.
This is surprising because the oldest child is 17 to 20 years old.
In the photo Alana Saarinen; some do not avoid the public.
Technology is a way of overcoming female infertility,
which is due to the mitochondrial error in the mother’s DNA.
Mitochondria are energy-producing small cellular organs.
If there is little energy, the fetus does not develop.
If some mitochondria of a healthy woman are transplanted
the patient’s egg in the patient who wants a baby,
then the fetus will develop.
She has a second mother, at the cellular level,
but he usually remains anonymous.
From an ethical point of view approx. the same situation as with blood donation.
After passing some of our body we helped somebody.
On the other hand, we know that DNA has been altered in one place,
changing a letter
that person will be blond.
Do we agree with it as we please
to change our child or our own hair color?
For ourselves – weighing stone, will we do it all, but our children, genetically?
Because not only are purely aesthetic aspects,
but aesthetics plus some health.
Genetically, eg. at least they have already been done in mice,
obesity can be eliminated.
In addition to the experimental mouse, the common mouse.
It can be approached this state,
which today is not typical for all our people on the planet.
For example, the greater part of humanity is lactose-sensitive.
The Cults. Leonard has the same problem in TV series.
But Europeans still break milk lactose well,
but, say, the Chinese are very bad.
The solution seems to be quite simple:
do not drink raw milk or sleep, and we do not care.
Are we prepared to cure this non-lethal feature by genetic modification?
5% of the Earth’s population carry a mutation that is against AIDS
protected them; this mutation can be introduced into anyone’s genome.
Are we ready to prevent such an AIDS, or are we pushing for further action?
to find vaccine against it or to develop other methods?
We can target special things from a practical point of view,
which are very few.
For example, there is a mutation called tetrakromas,
in which the four types of eyes of the eye see much more hues.
Picture of an American artist suffering from such a disorder.
Obviously, the color scale is completely unusual.
Are we ready to change the genome of our children,
to make this seemingly useless ability?
You can fire absolutely fantastic goals as well.
Modern data prove that the rate of aging
and cognitive ability can be genetically influenced.
Mice with artificial genetics are more intelligent than their peers.
They found people who, in 10 years – between two measuring points –
at least biochemically, they did not grow old, but younger.
Will our society accept it if we introduce this into genetic engineering?
Acceptance depends on what people see as norms.
For example, until the beginning of the 20th century, the family was completely in order
the 5-7 children, women practically all their adult lives burdensome
or breastfeeding.
Today is 1 to 2 children the norm, and no one thinks about it,
that this is not a biological norm,
and not the evolution of Homo sapiens as a norm.
Today it is a social norm, at least in many communities.
It can be seen in other societies as it gradually becomes a norm
the revaluation of the gender concept,
and regardless of what we think about it,
in fact mankind is not divided into two sharply expressed gender.
There are degrees between them, and many of them do not know this either.
In 2013, a passionate case was published.
A seventy-year-old Indian grandpa, father of four children, lots of grandchildren,
he had a soft tissue in the surgery.
His breasts were repaired, but it turned out to be his grandfather
XY is a chromosome and has a normal bee.
His genetic modifier created an unnecessary organ during development.
If society is ready to accept gender surgical change,
will you accept the modification with the genetic method?
This can be summarized as follows: recognize the morphological freedom of man,
the man is the owner of the body, if he wishes to modify it,
or if society sets up constraints, what are they?
In the next 20 to 30 years we are unlikely to see any cardinal changes,
even though the fruits of the biomedical revolution can be enjoyed by some of us
to improve your inner health.
Most importantly, in the next 20-30 years
people grasp the concept of morphological freedom,
and they decide on what is acceptable and what is not.
And in about 50 years, it is very likely that we can live with that freedom.
I do not ask you to believe in those beautiful photographers,
because they do not believe anyone, they always demand evidence.
I just ask that they keep their interest awake, because they will have the knowledge,
and knowledge is based on a thoughtful decision,
it will ultimately depend on our joint decision,
as we will look at 50 years later.
Thanks.
(Applause)
”
Be First to Comment