Viral Growth...

[massingUP]

Not sure that the techniques described below are as "new" as the article suggests -- but this viral process is an example of the continued development of real, research-driven muscle growth technology. Check it out. And then start to dream about the future... <g>

http://www.wannabebig.com/article.php?articleid=157

-- J.

[brent]

Thank you for that great article. I keep dreaming of something very similar to this every time I get the flu!

Brent.

[ethernet_jock]

Wow,

Great article!!!!

But man, this is SOOOO wrong. I know that this opinion of mine isn't very popular on this message board as I have expressed it before.... but it's so wrong to f* with mother nature. Sadly - humans will try and do it, they'll even achieve something I'm sure.... but what comes with it.... well, it remains to be seen. I want my son to have every advantage in the world over the rest of humanity, as does any good parent, but using a virus to alter his genetic code for advanced muscle growth so that I can have a son as the next star quarterback - is just wrong. I wouldn't do it to him and I wouldn't do it to myself, no matter how bad I wanna be buff (and trust me, that's pretty bad).

So anyway - great article, very informative - horrible idea. Someone's going to do it tho, so it might as well be the controlled scientific establishment.

[muscleguardian]

I have to sorta agree with him on this one. As cool as instant muscles sound we have to think of what kind of concicuonces we're looking at here. i meen would the "virus" pass to the children and if it does will it get stronger or in the best case will it just stay with the parent not affecting the child thats what we need to look at. As cool and as bad as i'd love to try that stuff i think we need to try a few scenarios first, you know just in case.

[mewletter]

Alas, virus is as controlable as a cat; it's insane to tame it. Even if it can increase muscle mass, it might have a hefty pricetag on the organs. Remember, it is the causative agent of an infectious disease. It might make you sick while you swell up!!! Then again, we had steroids that have the same/similar effects...

[sexiscriptor]

Sorry to sound so patronizing, folks, but I couldn't resist it.
Anyway, this sort of research has been going on for decades. I believe the first example of introducing a foreign gene into another genome was when they made a tobacco plant glow-in-the-dark, sometime in the 1950s.
[ok, what the fuck is wrong with scientists? "I want some wacky tobacky!" "but that's illegal!" "well, we'll make our own tobacky!" i'm sorry, it's just so random...glowing tobacco?]
Anyway, that was done by introducing modified plasmids from bacteria to a germ cell (which would become a seed then in turn a plant; essentially a fertilized egg).
The problem with plasmids is that they're rings. Which is fine, except you can only add so much to them because there is a limit to the amount of genetic data each one plasmid can carry. This doesn't matter for simple stuff like making insulin, whose gene is very very small, but it does matter for bigger genes.
Viruses, and especially retroviruses, are the alternative. They can deliver much, much larger loads after the organism has gestated and been born (so you don't have to fuss with any germ cells).
Retroviruses have been around for millenia. All viruses basically attack a cell and inject some sort of genetic material and let the cells normal processes produce a fleet of new viruses--which eventually causes the cell to fill up and burst and send the copies of the virus everywhere, to continue infecting.
(I'm sure many, if not all, of us have seen those educational videos about HIV. same idea, except where HIV attacks certain white blood cells, other viruses may attack other, specific cells. Hepatitis attacks the cells of the liver, influenza attacks the cells of the respiratory system, and so on)
Retroviruses differ only in that what they inject is written directly into the DNA of the cell, whereas other viruses inject what's called RNA (like the sweet'n'lo of DNA).
Scientists are able to remove the part of the genetic material in a virus that says "make more of me" and replace it with "make more of this thing gene you already have" or "make this new thing;" essentially: whatever the scientists want it to do.
The scientists then introduce the viruses containing this gene to the organism's system. The virus then latches onto the type of cell it's supposed to infect, injects the genetic material, but instead of making new viruses, the cells make whatever the modified genes say to make.
You'll probably see therapies like this for the treatment of genetic disorders, like cystic fibrosis (sp?), before youselves swelling with bulk and size.
See? That wasn't too bad, now was it?
*note: i'm not really a professor

[massingUP]

Heh heh...thanks 'scriptor. I *am* a professor, but not of gene therapy or biochemistry, so I'm always happy to get a little more scientific background on these kinds of practices. Which is in fact what I liked about the original article -- that it was fairly detailed in laying out the hows and whys of this kind of genetic treatment.

And don't forget, guys, that although the idea of using this stuff to build bigger/stronger athletes may be a lot of fun and possibly appealing to people here on this board, the whole POINT of the research is to help people with severe degenerative and/or wasting muscle conditions, like muscular dystrophy, advanced AIDS, etc. And that seems a rather worthy cause...

We can get into questions about "fucking with mother nature" if we really want, but I always wonder where we draw the line. Isn't producing antibiotics fucking with mother nature? Or producing electricity? And while I'd hardly say that those things are without their own problems and difficulties, I'd say that the benefits seem to have outweighed the detrminents, thus far. And then there's that pesky stem cell research...

Any thoughts?

-- J.

Originally Posted by ethernet_jock

Wow,

Great article!!!!

But man, this is SOOOO wrong. I know that this opinion of mine isn't very popular on this message board as I have expressed it before.... but it's so wrong to f* with mother nature...

I haven't seen the argument about this topic here so perhaps I'm duplicating an idea. I've thought about this a bit and in the part of me that was indoctrinated with religion I almost agree. However a part of me that thinks a bit out of the box asks "what is so damn special about human beings" and what is so f'n sacred about Mother Nature? We are just another random element in the course of evolution. The next asteroid to hit the Earth will do far more damage that we could ever achieve. Bang! Story over! But something will survive and start again, perhaps resulting in something better than educated, vicious monkeys. Who knows? Perhaps our f'n with mother nature will be important in the next cycle after the asteroid.

Yes, we should preserve our environment (don't shit where you live), but to attempt to ban research only forces it underground and we all know what happens when anything is forced underground, it's like a fungus ready to pop up anywhere exposing vast areas of rot.

I'm for keeping ideas in the light, for keeping an open mind about all research. Perhaps we'll need the ability to geneticly change ourselves to survive in an atmosphere of 50% carbon dioxide and hydrocarbon fumes.

Perhaps we can even geneticly engineer politicians with brains.

[brent]

As other members have been giving great detailed responses, that show their thoughtfulness, and maturity, my last post is looking mighty stupid. So although I know very little on this subject, other than the great article, I will try to express my full opinion:

I really enjoy growing bigger. I used to hate the fact that it is a gradual process, but now I love that because I can enjoy the changes over time. Although I am making the effort to get as big as I can, as quickly as I can, naturally (and as a vegetarian) I don't want to rush it with steroids and the like (ask me if I still feel that way when I am no longer growing naturally ). However, for the moment, I love the pace at which humans naturally develop since it gives you time to appreciate each change (and share it here.) When the day comes that I am no longer growing naturally, then I will be much more susceptible to artificial growth measures. Also, I don't like people speaking critically of measures like that (ie. steroids) although I might not use them, there are members here who do, and I'm sure they made a well reasoned decision. As someone who owns the movie Gattaca, I am concerned about the social repercussions of such a science, but it has to happen for people with degenerative diseases. I hope this is a more thoughtful post.
Brent.

[ethernet_jock]

So perhaps I should clarify and be more specific on my stand.

I'm not backing down on this, but I should explain...

1.) I DO believe in the merits of research just for the sake of research because many an incredible discovery came out of research for something else entirely. Should research ever be banned for perceived social ramifications? Hell no. Bring on the stem cells baby.

2.) Should this type of therapy be developed for the people who really need it? Yeah, I think so. This is an awesome idea for those with muscular dystrophy and the like... will it be kept to that? I doubt it. Am I opposed to developing it because I know it won't be kept to that? no - the gains probably outweigh the losses in the end.

[rant] - warning - don't read any further if you're easily offended by contrasting viewpoints.

3.) f*n with mother nature for the general perceived gain of humanity. This is where I stand up and say NO. I'm not saying "no" on a research level, I'm not saying "no" to making it happen, I'm saying NO on an individual selection basis... it's your choice. But before you make up your mind, listen to this:

Our bodies, our world, our universe - everything around us is a beautifully complex matrix of interrelated objects and trends. This matrix spans dimension - well beyond 3 - and time itself. Coming back to conceptual reality - this includes biology and the human body.... and in a sense, what I like to call "the way things are meant to be". How arrogant of us to assume that doing this to our bodies is good! How cocky are we to think that we know so much about biology that we can create a man-made retrovirus to propel our silly self-serving desires for more personal strenth in the cases of those who otherwise would function just fine in society without any assistance anyway. How ridiculously egotistical is it to ASSUME that there won't be ramifications of these actions beyond our limited human perception and scope of understanding as we sit here today. It's just obscene in the most true definition of obscenity.

If you wanna sit back and pretend like all this stuff isn't related somewhere in the end - down the road - where you'll have to pay for your shortcuts. That's fine, go right on ahead and take your express tollway. I'm taking the long way around. When we both meet up at the end - in the same place - assuming you didn't fall through a soft spot in the road that nobody saw coming or crash into a barrier because you were driving too fast, if you're actually there and you beat me there - I will still at least know in my heart that I earned it all. I did it all with my hands, my determination, my hard work, my perseverance, and my love for the beauty of the matrix that is the universe. And that - in my VERY humble opinion - my good friends, is where true enlightenment lives.

[/rant]

*whew* thanks for that... That was 12 sets of madness, 30 reps a set. I need a rest now. goodnight.

[mewletter]

Originally Posted by LeatherGryphon

Perhaps we can even geneticly engineer politicians with brains.

Anyone who have the brains and sanity might NOT choose to become a politican. It's too crazy!

Anyway, I wonder creating there's "good" virus. It's like claiming the sun raises at the West. Are you positive these engineered viruses are 100% destructive-free? Sounds too good to be true. All I know that practical world really hates theory.

[brent]

EJ,
Your argument has me thinking about the possible consequences of genetically modified food, and the like. The repercussions could be awful, and the scary thing is that we have no idea what they might be! Since this is scary, depressing, and their is nothing I can do to change it (already wrote my senators, and voted for labeling, years ago) I choose to think about it in the fantasy world of my mind. For now.

[Mdlftr]

Guys,

I've been reading this thread and am impressed by all the well-reasoned comments here.

My thoughts on this are as follows:

I generally agree that scientific research, as a search for knowledge is almost never a bad thing.

The problems that come up relate to three areas:

1. Verification of results
How is an initial experiment, done on animal or plant subjects, verified? Sooner or later it must be tested or tried on human to verify the results. If the human participation is voluntary and fully informed, that is generally considered within the parameters of acceptable scientific and moral behavior.

Example: participants in clinical research studies. The first users of anti-viral medication in studies against AIDS are one example.

Counter example: The Scottsboro boys, who were a group of African-American men who were used, without their knowledge or consent, as research subjects on the long-term effects of syphillis. In the 1930s, the Scottsboro Boys, as they were known, were determined to be infected with syphillis. Without telling them what was happening, the researchers involved in the project observed them over a period of many years, as the effects of the syphillis progressed, leading to dementia, and eventual death. The immoral part of this "experiment" is that the participants were NOT told that they were not actually receiving any medical treatment. They were under the impression that the "doctors"were "helping" them, and they were not informed about the known, long-term effects of failure to treat syphillis. It's not as if this "experiment" revealed anything new or groundbreaking--the effects of syphillis (from which Henry VIII died c. 1558 (he of the 6 wives))are well-known and long-documented.

Counter example number 2: Josef Mengele at Auschwitz used live human twins to test his theories, using one twin as a control, while the other was the test subject. Clearly the participants had no choice. The experiments, generally conducted without anethesia (to better assess the results) all ended in the death of the participants. Their participation merely delayed their inevitable death, and made their remaining lives painful.

So, informed consent and voluntary participation are key.

2. Application of results

This is where I see EJ and Brent and a few others objecting. They raise valid points. Once the "genie" is out of the bottle, it's impossible to predict how it will be used.

Example: Nuclear energy. The most famous practical application of the controlled fission of atoms was the atomic bomb. Two of these bombs were detonated over two major cities to end a World War, the thought being that a cataclysmic blow to the enemy would convince them to surrender earlier rather than later, ultimately saving lives in the long run.

Note: people can, and do, argue to this day whether or not this was a "good" decision by President Truman to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The point of mentioning it here is that the newly developed technology was used for its destructive capabilities.

Example #2: Nuclear energy (again). Controlled nuclear fission (in the form of nuclear power plants, which are used to run turbines to generate electricity) is an extremely efficient method of power generation. Many states in the U.S. (Washington, New Hampshire, Tennesse) have nuclear power plants which have safely generated power for decades without incident. (Three Mile Island, the notorious incident that made the Jane Fonda movie a big hit in the 1970s, ultimately proved that the safeguards employed in U.S. nuclear plants, worked.)

Note: People argue whether or not nuclear power is "safe" [think Chernobyl--but no one thinks about the flagrant disregard of basic safety precautions in the design of that plant and the failure of maintenance on the part of the Russians, which all but guaranteed a disaster in the making.] The point is that the techology CAN be used peacefully for the benefit of humanity in providing a safe, reliable energy source.

3. Law of unintended consequences:

Again, this is something that has been touched upon. What do you do when a product or technology or organism has been discovered/designed/developed for a particular purpose, and then turns out to have other, unexpected, unintended uses/consequences?

Example #1: "Off-label" use of prescription drugs. Easiest example is the use of anabolic steroids by otherwise healthy individuals to build extraordinary ("slurpalicious" to quote arpeejay's great word) muscle mass, instead of using it to treat muscle-wasting diseases. Other off-label uses include the use of ritalin to grow hair (I forget what the original prescribed use was--blood thinner?) and Phen-fen (combination of two drugs used for fat loss. Again, the original use escapes me.)

Example #2: Introduction of non-native species into an enviroment. The non-native species may take over the new environment, crowding out native species and decimating them. Benign example: dandilions. Malignant example: hydrilla (underwater aquatic plant that grows prodigiously in rivers and bodies of water. Imported into the U.S. Results in oxygen starvation in the water, algae growth, fish kills, and Republican Presidents (just kidding))

So, point here is that the off-label uses can have both "good" and "bad" applications.

Conclusion (bet you thought this was never coming)

It's not the development or knowledge developed from research that is in and of itself harmful. It is how:
1. Research results are verified
2. How the results are applied
3. What precautions should be put in place to handle the inevitable "unintended consequences?'

The development of our moral-ethical systems have not kept pace with our scientific discoveries. In many instances our traditional moral-ethical systems are trying to resolve a 21st century situation using 15th century tools.

Example: Stem cell research
Using stem cells as an example: Stem cells are derived from human embryos. Some people believe that a human "person" as that term is understood, morally and legally "exists" from the moment of conception. They believe, based on moral and ethical grounds, that it is "immoral" to use a "human being" as a subject for medical research.

Others argue that human embryos, since they are not "viable" (capable of independent existance and self-sustance outside the womb) are merely tissue which can be used as "real persons" see fit.

The moral and ethical basis for the determination of "when life begins" rests on many foundations: scientific, religious, cultural and ethical. What is the answer? There is no general agreement--and that's where the root of this conflict lies.



We tend, in everyday life to have a "fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants" approach to such questions. We generally synthesize our life experience, our early religious, cultural, familial, ethical training, and our understanding of societal norms into a "gut" feeling that tells us whether something is "right" or "wrong".

[As Americans (to indulge a little cultural chest beating here) we believe that we are "open-minded" believe in "fair play" and are "accepting" of new ideas. Therefore, the argument flows, we weigh everything equally and arrive at a fair and balanced conclusion--Bullsh*t! Our culturally preconceived notions bias our decisions as much as any fundametalist society.]

Moral and ethical structures are still evolving to deal with situations which were unheard of a generation ago-- test tube babies, biogenetic engineering for plants for increased food production, viral cocktails to allow people with terminal illnesses to live a long, high-quality life (think AIDS, think cancer). How do we figure out what's "right"?

Answer: We do the best we can with what we have at the time.

My two (very) long-winded cents on this fascinating topic,

Mdlftr

[falseyedee]

: : RNA (like the sweet'n'lo of DNA) : :

lol!

[sexiscriptor]

Well, I'd point out that every human development is "fucking with nature" (clothes as insulation, homes for protection, fire to cook food and kill diseases, medicine to save lives, cars/planes/boats to cross huge distances and obstacles) but at the same time I could point out how every human development is also the product of nature (we have the capacity, by nature, to create these things, but, more importantly, also to pass them on to future generations, and so we have and look where we are today).
It's all vague and indefinable except by a personal-perspective basis, just like how god means everything to one person and nothing to another. It's ironic that the very bases (plural of basis, people), like religion and science, for these indefinable, individual feelings on these issues are all also products of our universally held against-nature-nature.
Anyway, peace!
PS: that's just the way RNA is, m'friend: lite but with same great taste!

[mewletter]

No wonder we called ourselves as the World's 'Superpredator'. We use our greatest weapon, the brain, so well, that we had been shapely the world for thousands of years...

Anyway, I'm quite convinced about it. But I can't stand a slight bad feeling that some idiots or evil organization might abuse this "viral mutation thingie". (I'm a robotics engineer, not a biotech engineer)

Are our generation or future generations are safe from these brave new worlds? (Including nanotech, tachyon-controlled etc) The crazy years are indeed here. LOL

[ottomun6]

Phew!
You guys are doing some major philosophical exercises in here!

I'll just throw in my 2 cents and go to bed before I get wrapped up in it.

I have to agree that mankind can do some wonderous things when a need arises.
Unfortunately there are many people that just seem to focus on what can they do to use to cause chaos. The internet was and is a wonderful idea, but as soon as it got rolling, people thought it would be fun to create viruses worms and hack into systems. Now we have to spend time /money to keep our systems running. Some bad guys take it to a level of destroying hard drives altogether. Other viruses have developed into hybrid viruses all by themselves.

It really makes me think of how the world seems to work. I know we are beginning to sound like preachers here, but it seems there will always be a good and bad side to everything that happens. I would love to see a virus delivered muscle growth serum, BUT I would hope the development includes some common sense research (like what happens after it leaves the body -human waste or mosquitos).

Lets hope the scientists will be smart enough to think ahead, not just what they have in their hands.

[nnnrg]

Originally Posted by Mdlftr

...
Example #1: "Off-label" use of prescription drugs. Easiest example is the use of anabolic steroids by otherwise healthy individuals to build extraordinary ("slurpalicious" to quote arpeejay's great word) muscle mass, instead of using it to treat muscle-wasting diseases. Other off-label uses include the use of ritalin to grow hair (I forget what the original prescribed use was--blood thinner?) and Phen-fen (combination of two drugs used for fat loss. Again, the original use escapes me.)

...

Minor correction: Ritalin is an amphetamin-like stimulant. What you're thinking of is Finasteride (marketed as Minoxidil) - the blood pressure medication which causes follicles to go wild.

Phen-fen was a combination that was deliberately created for diet/fat loss, stacking the known side effects of these stimulants.

[Mdlftr]

nnnrg,
Thanks for the correction- ritalin is for hyperactive children, not baldies!

Re: PHen-Fen> Point was that these two drugs were not intended for fat loss. Someone discovered that when you stack them, they make a potent weight-loss "supplement". The resulting deaths and the lawsuits for damages have hopefully put a big brake on this practice.

It was astounding to me that once a drug is approved by the FDA, there is very little to stop "off label" use. Scary!

Mdlftr