What do you think?
Rate this book
Redesigning Life: How genome editing will transform the world
Since the birth of civilisation, human beings have manipulated other life-forms.We have selectively bred plants and animals for thousands of years to maximise agricultural production and cater to our taste in pets. The observation of the creation of artificial animal and plant variants was a key stimulant for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The ability to directly engineer the genomes of organisms first became possible in the 1970s, when the gene for human insulin was introduced into bacteria to produce this protein for diabetics. At the same time, mice weremodified to produce human growth hormone, and grew huge as a result. But these were only our first tottering steps into the possibilities of genetic engineering.In the past few years, the pace of progress has accelerated enormously. We can now cut and paste genes using molecular scissors with astonishing ease, and the new technology of genome editing can be applied to practically any species of plants or animals. 'Mutation chain reaction' can be used to alter the genes of a population of pests, such as flies; as the modified creatures breed, the mutation is spread through the population, so that within a few generations the organism is almostcompletely altered. At the same time, scientists are also beginning to synthesize new organisms from scratch.These new technologies hold much promise for improving lives. Genome editing has already been used clinically to treat AIDS patients, by genetically modifying their white blood cells to be resistant to HIV. In agriculture, genome editing could be used to engineer species with increased food output, and the ability to thrive in challenging climates. New bacterial forms may be used to generate energy. But these powerful new techniques also raise important ethical dilemmas and potential dangers,pressing issues that are already upon us given the speed of scientific developments. To what extent should parents be able to manipulate the genetics of their offspring — and would designer babies be limited to the rich? Can we effectively weigh up the risks from introducing synthetic lifeforms intocomplex ecosystems? In this extensively revised paperback edition, John Parrington explains the nature and possibilities of these new scientific developments, which could usher in a brave, new world. We must rapidly come to understand its implications if we are to direct its huge potential to the good of humanity and the planet.
368 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 18, 2016
17 people are currently reading
144 people want to read
About the author
John Parrington
15 books8 followersJohn Parrington is an Associate Professor in Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology at the University of Oxford.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
May 21, 2017
This book gives a detailed description of the following topics.
* Genome editing, gene drives, and CRISPR.
* Synthetic biology and XNA.
* Stem cell therapy and germ line vs. somatic cells.
* Optogenetics.
* Neoteny in dogs and humans.
This makes it worth a read. Be warned, the author exposes his blatantly unscientific opinions on the morality of the application of these technologies. The reader is constantly bombarded by what are essentially conspiracy theories and myths presented as though they were serious objections to potential use of genetic engineering in agriculture and medicine. They aren't serious objections. They're moronic ideas that don't belong in this book. I suspect the author may be relating them in some misguided attempt to share both sides of a controversy. If true, this is false balance and totally unacceptable. You don't put Intelligent Design in a book about evolution. You don't put alchemy in a book on chemistry. And you don't put anti-technology fear mongering in a book about genetics.
* The book opens by claiming that genetic engineering allows us to transform life "only limited by our imagination" which is obviously false. The limits to genetic engineering come from biology, and they are severe. We can't make flying pigs.
* Terminator genes are presented as a dastardly tactic to make money at the expense of farmers. In fact they were developed as a safety measure to assuage the unjustified fear that GM traits would enter wild plant populations. See the anti-GMO scam in action: (1) Make people afraid of contamination and demand the development of preventative measures. (2) Decry contamination-prevention technology as a greedy scheme. Pitiful.
* The author claims issues raised against development and use of GM traits are "not purely scientific". This is a deepity as it's obviously true for any technology, but certainly no more true for GMOs than for the printing press. Those "not purely scientific" (read: unscientific) issues raised against GMOs include incoherent ramblings about the "free market system", "public vs. private ownership", and "profit vs. sustainable agriculture". All of which are completely non sequitur to GM technology. GM traits are no challenge to the free market system. They do not change the status quo of public vs. private ownership, as non-GM seeds have been patented for over 100 years. They do nothing to change the tension between profit and sustainable agriculture. While this tension can exist, farmers don't generally manage their land for short-term gain. Of all people on Earth, farmers know the most about how to raise crops sustainably. It's their job.
* The author describes efforts to produce human-transplantable organs from pigs. He asks us to consider the moral implications of having human genes in pigs. Like somehow they would be partially human in some essentialist spiritualist sense. This kind of prescientific worldview has no place in medicine today where people die waiting for transplants. Speaking of morality, isn't it pretty immoral to even bringing up such a bizarre fantasy in what is supposed to be a nonfiction book?
* He outright states that transgenic changes should be employed with "more caution" than cisgenic changes. There is absolutely no justification given for this assertion and I assume it can only arise from a demented, prescientific understanding of what genes are and how they work.
* He says "there is still much that remains backward about modern medicine" and gives the example of surgery and chemotherapy. This is a dangerous thing to say because people do use such arguments to justify foregoing surgery and ceasing chemotherapy. Then they die of cancer. He was trying to make a valid point that compared to the medicine of the distant future, ours is primitive. Well, duh. But he says it in a way which seems to be designed to win favor with people who believe Alternative Medicine is an alternative to medicine (it's not). I conclude he either believes this himself (in which case he's a dangerous person) or is just trying to appeal to a wider audience with lies (in which case he's also a dangerous person).
* He bizarrely claims that germ line editing is more controversial than gene therapy. I believe he's uses the word "controversial" as a code word. That curing disease is a good thing is generally not controversial. Curing diseases in children is also generally not controversial. The only objections raised against germ line editing are unscientific or totally illogical. For example, essentialist ideas about human genetics remaining pure or irrational fears. He alludes to fears of a slippery slope towards eugenics but this is fallacious because we're not talking about eugenics. He also uses the word "consent" but doesn't really explain how it's an argument against germ line editing. Children don't give consent for any attribute they inherit from their parents, so this argument is an obvious non-starter. It's valid to mention the popularity of this bad ideas. But it's unfathomable to stop at bare mention and not take the time to expose why these bad ideas are bad. I conclude he either doesn't understand why they are bad, or doesn't believe his readers care. He's misleading his readers either way.
* He says that we shouldn't release GM mosquitoes in the fight against malaria because it "could have unpredictable ecological consequences". This is special pleading as doing nothing could also have unpredictable ecological consequences. It's also an argument from ignorance as it may have no unpredictable ecological consequences whatsoever. What's more, it will certainly have the predicted consequence of eradicating one of the worst human diseases! I think that's worth some fucking risk!
* Another one of those "controversies" mentioned is about the practice of deriving human stem cell lines from embryos. The only objections to this research tool come from the morally and scientifically unjustified belief that its wrong to destroy a human blastocyst. This bizarre belief comes directly from the religious idea of a soul and has no place in science or regulatory policy. This is how ideological propaganda operates. It gives mention to a "controversy" without explaining that moral and scientific reasons why it's complete and total bullshit.
* He describes techniques which might allow same sex couples to have their own biological children. He shockingly describes this as counter to "the natural order of things". What is this, the 20th century? Hey asshole, fuck you, and fuck your natural order of things.
* No joke, this chump makes reference to Oryx and Crake like it's some cautionary tale of what might actually happen in our future. You do know that's a fiction book, right...? He also references Jurassic Park like it's some cautionary tale about bringing back extinct species. Um...?
* The single most infuriating and illogical argument was an argument against the use of genetic engineering in medicine. He said that advances in medicine "mean little with social inequality" i.e. if you're poor you can't benefit from scientific breakthroughs in medicine because their application is out of your price range. (I expect those advances still mean something to those who can afford them!) This simply isn't an argument against scientific research in medicine. Social inequality won't be fixed by grinding the gears of scientific discovery to a halt. I firmly believe only a horrible person can be capable of making such an inhumane, evil argument. Even if he doesn't himself believe it, why give voice to such putrid moral bankruptcy as "stop science because rich people benefit most from it"? Even if this were my only complaint in the entire book, it would still be a 1-star review.
* Genome editing, gene drives, and CRISPR.
* Synthetic biology and XNA.
* Stem cell therapy and germ line vs. somatic cells.
* Optogenetics.
* Neoteny in dogs and humans.
This makes it worth a read. Be warned, the author exposes his blatantly unscientific opinions on the morality of the application of these technologies. The reader is constantly bombarded by what are essentially conspiracy theories and myths presented as though they were serious objections to potential use of genetic engineering in agriculture and medicine. They aren't serious objections. They're moronic ideas that don't belong in this book. I suspect the author may be relating them in some misguided attempt to share both sides of a controversy. If true, this is false balance and totally unacceptable. You don't put Intelligent Design in a book about evolution. You don't put alchemy in a book on chemistry. And you don't put anti-technology fear mongering in a book about genetics.
* The book opens by claiming that genetic engineering allows us to transform life "only limited by our imagination" which is obviously false. The limits to genetic engineering come from biology, and they are severe. We can't make flying pigs.
* Terminator genes are presented as a dastardly tactic to make money at the expense of farmers. In fact they were developed as a safety measure to assuage the unjustified fear that GM traits would enter wild plant populations. See the anti-GMO scam in action: (1) Make people afraid of contamination and demand the development of preventative measures. (2) Decry contamination-prevention technology as a greedy scheme. Pitiful.
* The author claims issues raised against development and use of GM traits are "not purely scientific". This is a deepity as it's obviously true for any technology, but certainly no more true for GMOs than for the printing press. Those "not purely scientific" (read: unscientific) issues raised against GMOs include incoherent ramblings about the "free market system", "public vs. private ownership", and "profit vs. sustainable agriculture". All of which are completely non sequitur to GM technology. GM traits are no challenge to the free market system. They do not change the status quo of public vs. private ownership, as non-GM seeds have been patented for over 100 years. They do nothing to change the tension between profit and sustainable agriculture. While this tension can exist, farmers don't generally manage their land for short-term gain. Of all people on Earth, farmers know the most about how to raise crops sustainably. It's their job.
* The author describes efforts to produce human-transplantable organs from pigs. He asks us to consider the moral implications of having human genes in pigs. Like somehow they would be partially human in some essentialist spiritualist sense. This kind of prescientific worldview has no place in medicine today where people die waiting for transplants. Speaking of morality, isn't it pretty immoral to even bringing up such a bizarre fantasy in what is supposed to be a nonfiction book?
* He outright states that transgenic changes should be employed with "more caution" than cisgenic changes. There is absolutely no justification given for this assertion and I assume it can only arise from a demented, prescientific understanding of what genes are and how they work.
* He says "there is still much that remains backward about modern medicine" and gives the example of surgery and chemotherapy. This is a dangerous thing to say because people do use such arguments to justify foregoing surgery and ceasing chemotherapy. Then they die of cancer. He was trying to make a valid point that compared to the medicine of the distant future, ours is primitive. Well, duh. But he says it in a way which seems to be designed to win favor with people who believe Alternative Medicine is an alternative to medicine (it's not). I conclude he either believes this himself (in which case he's a dangerous person) or is just trying to appeal to a wider audience with lies (in which case he's also a dangerous person).
* He bizarrely claims that germ line editing is more controversial than gene therapy. I believe he's uses the word "controversial" as a code word. That curing disease is a good thing is generally not controversial. Curing diseases in children is also generally not controversial. The only objections raised against germ line editing are unscientific or totally illogical. For example, essentialist ideas about human genetics remaining pure or irrational fears. He alludes to fears of a slippery slope towards eugenics but this is fallacious because we're not talking about eugenics. He also uses the word "consent" but doesn't really explain how it's an argument against germ line editing. Children don't give consent for any attribute they inherit from their parents, so this argument is an obvious non-starter. It's valid to mention the popularity of this bad ideas. But it's unfathomable to stop at bare mention and not take the time to expose why these bad ideas are bad. I conclude he either doesn't understand why they are bad, or doesn't believe his readers care. He's misleading his readers either way.
* He says that we shouldn't release GM mosquitoes in the fight against malaria because it "could have unpredictable ecological consequences". This is special pleading as doing nothing could also have unpredictable ecological consequences. It's also an argument from ignorance as it may have no unpredictable ecological consequences whatsoever. What's more, it will certainly have the predicted consequence of eradicating one of the worst human diseases! I think that's worth some fucking risk!
* Another one of those "controversies" mentioned is about the practice of deriving human stem cell lines from embryos. The only objections to this research tool come from the morally and scientifically unjustified belief that its wrong to destroy a human blastocyst. This bizarre belief comes directly from the religious idea of a soul and has no place in science or regulatory policy. This is how ideological propaganda operates. It gives mention to a "controversy" without explaining that moral and scientific reasons why it's complete and total bullshit.
* He describes techniques which might allow same sex couples to have their own biological children. He shockingly describes this as counter to "the natural order of things". What is this, the 20th century? Hey asshole, fuck you, and fuck your natural order of things.
* No joke, this chump makes reference to Oryx and Crake like it's some cautionary tale of what might actually happen in our future. You do know that's a fiction book, right...? He also references Jurassic Park like it's some cautionary tale about bringing back extinct species. Um...?
* The single most infuriating and illogical argument was an argument against the use of genetic engineering in medicine. He said that advances in medicine "mean little with social inequality" i.e. if you're poor you can't benefit from scientific breakthroughs in medicine because their application is out of your price range. (I expect those advances still mean something to those who can afford them!) This simply isn't an argument against scientific research in medicine. Social inequality won't be fixed by grinding the gears of scientific discovery to a halt. I firmly believe only a horrible person can be capable of making such an inhumane, evil argument. Even if he doesn't himself believe it, why give voice to such putrid moral bankruptcy as "stop science because rich people benefit most from it"? Even if this were my only complaint in the entire book, it would still be a 1-star review.
July 14, 2024
مدخل رائع لفهم تطور التعامل مع الجينوم تاريخيا و أغلب التقنيات الحديثة وصولا إلى المستقبل .. أين ممكن أن نذهب.
الأمثلة مفصلة بلغة سلسلة تجمع بين القوام العلمي و الفهم المتاح لغير المتخصص بشكل دقيق بعلوم الجينات .
ربما أحببت أن يكون الطرح الفلسفي و الأخلاقي لجميع هذه التقنيات و آثارها أكثر حضورا و استفاضةً مما هو موجود في الكتاب .
الأمثلة مفصلة بلغة سلسلة تجمع بين القوام العلمي و الفهم المتاح لغير المتخصص بشكل دقيق بعلوم الجينات .
ربما أحببت أن يكون الطرح الفلسفي و الأخلاقي لجميع هذه التقنيات و آثارها أكثر حضورا و استفاضةً مما هو موجود في الكتاب .
March 7, 2018
A must-read for every aspiring biologist!
September 8, 2017
Technical but very insightful. Discusses four main technologies:
1. Gene editing
2. Stem Cell Theory
3. Opogenetics
4. Sythetic Biology
1. Gene editing
2. Stem Cell Theory
3. Opogenetics
4. Sythetic Biology
January 27, 2020
Really inetresting book, worth the read!
May 8, 2020
tons of recent biotechnology breakthroughs
July 26, 2024
كتاب عميق المؤلف ملم و متمكن اسلوب سلس مترابط والترجمة مبهرة
September 21, 2024
كتاب عميق ومتخصص جدا كعادة كتب السلسلة
جايب الوراثة من جذورها
وتأثيرها علي حياة الإنسان في مستقبله
موضوعات شهيرة أصبحت معروفة مثل الطعام المهندس وراثيا هو واحد من موضاعات الكتاب
جايب الوراثة من جذورها
وتأثيرها علي حياة الإنسان في مستقبله
موضوعات شهيرة أصبحت معروفة مثل الطعام المهندس وراثيا هو واحد من موضاعات الكتاب
March 28, 2017
An interesting and mostly accessibly-written book about the cutting edge of genetic engineering. See my full review here: https://questionableevolution.com/201...
January 28, 2018
Many interesting examples, and correct as far as I can tell. But somehow the overall story did not really come together. I suspect that I will not remember this book very well.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews