The oddest question you have (probably) heard today.

[Aegrus]

So, I'm curious about viruses and such. I know that some ancient viruses are present in our DNA- that is, they altered our DNA to a small, benign degree.

As genetic engineering becomes more widespread, (a good thing, in my opinion, what with all the medical benefits), could terrorists/governments/idealists create a virus which would actually alter the DNA of a fetus to make it inhuman when born?

I ask about fetuses because it seems to me that an adult infected by this virus could simply die due to the immense changes- whereas a fetus might develope along new lines.

If this is possible, it could mean that entire groups of people could be altered after several generations into one group's idea of perfect. Imagine the ability to make any populace completely Christian with a virus. Extremist Muslim.
Or a furry.

[Shell B]

Inhuman in what way? If you mean another species, I would say no. I would think it would take more than a virus, which really alters cells more than our genetic makeup, to make a person able to produce the spawn of another species. Besides, most viruses that can alter a person drastically are more harmful to fetuses than to the person who bears them. For example, hemorrhagic fevers produced by some viruses cause spontaneous abortion. They also pass the virus on to the fetus. It just seems to me that anything that could genetically alter a fetus to the point of it being another species would do the same to the mother simultaneously. That being said, I don't think DNA can be altered that drastically, that quickly and I also think something like that would have devastating consequences. You can't make a person a horse without it being a horribly gory occurrence, if you could do it at all.

Of course, you may not have meant that at all. Sorry for the spiel.

Oh, and viruses are quite simple, which is why they are so dangerous. They replicate themselves and destroy their hosts by replacing host cells with virus cells, essentially. I cannot imagine one like that which you describe. It just doesn't fit the virus picture.

---

I ask about fetuses because it seems to me that an adult infected by this virus could simply die due to the immense changes- whereas a fetus might develope along new lines.

Oh, and this in itself answers your question. Immense changes that kill the mother will also kill the child. Without a womb, the fetus cannot survive. Even if the mother was infected at the last minute, the idea would not work. The child would not have had time to change in the womb. Honestly, even a layperson like myself could think of many reasons why this isn't likely. I am sure a professional would find the idea laughable.

[Aegrus]

You're right about natural viruses, though keep in mind I was referring to an engineered virus. Engineered viruses would have some of the limitations of an ordinary viruses which has evolved in nature.

Still, it seems highly unlikely that what I described is possible, so there's probably no mutant apocalypse in the near future.

[Shell B]

Engineered viruses would still be viruses. I mean, what could they possibly do to such a simple organism that would make it genetically mutate a fetus without killing it? Viruses don't really do much. They produce complications in hosts who are not asymptomatic, much of the time. However, a virus, genetically engineered or not, is just a virus.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

As genetic engineering becomes more widespread, (a good thing, in my opinion, what with all the medical benefits),

The concept is called 'eugenics'


I recommend the 1997 film 'Gattaca' for an alternate view.

Gattaca is a 1997 science fiction film written and directed by Andrew Niccol. It stars Ethan Hawke, Uma Thurman and Jude Law with supporting roles played by Loren Dean, Ernest Borgnine, Gore Vidal and Alan Arkin.

The film presents a biopunk vision of a society driven by liberal eugenics where potential children are selected through preimplantation genetic diagnosis to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents.[1] A genetic registry database uses biometrics to instantly identify and classify those so created as "valids" while those conceived by traditional means are derisively known as "in-valids". While genetic discrimination is forbidden by law, in practice it is easy to profile a person's genotype resulting in the valids qualifying for professional employment while the in-valids—considered more susceptible to disease, educational dysfunction and shorter lifespans—are relegated to menial jobs.

The movie draws on concerns over reproductive technologies which facilitate eugenics, and the possible consequences of such technological developments for society. It also explores the idea of destiny and the ways in which it can and does govern lives. Characters in Gattaca continually battle both with the society and with themselves to find their place in the world and who they are destined to be according to their genes. The title is based on the initial letters of the four DNA nitrogenous bases (adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine). During the credits the letters G, A, T, and C are all highlighted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattica

[popeyespappy]

Inhuman in what way? If you mean another species, I would say no. I would think it would take more than a virus, which really alters cells more than our genetic makeup, to make a person able to produce the spawn of another species. Besides, most viruses that can alter a person drastically are more harmful to fetuses than to the person who bears them. For example, hemorrhagic fevers produced by some viruses cause spontaneous abortion. They also pass the virus on to the fetus. It just seems to me that anything that could genetically alter a fetus to the point of it being another species would do the same to the mother simultaneously. That being said, I don't think DNA can be altered that drastically, that quickly and I also think something like that would have devastating consequences. You can't make a person a horse without it being a horribly gory occurrence, if you could do it at all.

Of course, you may not have meant that at all. Sorry for the spiel.

Oh, and viruses are quite simple, which is why they are so dangerous. They replicate themselves and destroy their hosts by replacing host cells with virus cells, essentially. I cannot imagine one like that which you describe. It just doesn't fit the virus picture.

---

I ask about fetuses because it seems to me that an adult infected by this virus could simply die due to the immense changes- whereas a fetus might develope along new lines.

Oh, and this in itself answers your question. Immense changes that kill the mother will also kill the child. Without a womb, the fetus cannot survive. Even if the mother was infected at the last minute, the idea would not work. The child would not have had time to change in the womb. Honestly, even a layperson like myself could think of many reasons why this isn't likely. I am sure a professional would find the idea laughable.

I don’t think the concept is nearly as farfetched as you’d like to believe Shell. We are already using viruses in recombinant DNA techniques as biological vectors to carry foreign genes into cells for genetic engineering. The viruses used in this method are disabled so that they do not redirect the host cells genetic machinery to copy the host virus.

Technologically speaking it wouldn’t be an insurmountable challenge to engineer a human embryo to grow a tail or perhaps even gills. This could be done without affecting the mother at all. Once there passing the new genetic material to the next generation would be a process we’ve already got covered.

[Shell B]

I don’t think the concept is nearly as farfetched as you’d like to believe Shell.

Sure it is. We're talking about making a virus that changes a fetus into an entirely different species in the mother's womb.

We are already using viruses in recombinant DNA techniques as biological vectors to carry foreign genes into cells for genetic engineering. The viruses used in this method are disabled so that they do not redirect the host cells genetic machinery to copy the host virus.

Honestly, I don't see what any of that has to do with changing a fetus into another species whilst in the mother's womb, using a virus. I'm trying to see it.

Technologically speaking it wouldn’t be an insurmountable challenge to engineer a human embryo to grow a tail or perhaps even gills.

I assume you mean producing an embryo with a tail or gills outside of the mother's body. Even if you're not, you are talking about adding or subtracting a step in human evolution in a single swoop, not changing the species of a fetus. Adding a feature is different than changing the species of a fetus, though I would argue that giving a human being gills with a virus is, at this time, insurmountable.

This could be done without affecting the mother at all. Once there passing the new genetic material to the next generation would be a process we’ve already got covered.

He is talking about a biological weapon, if I remember correctly. The virus would, if it could change anything, affect the mother. There is no way a virus could tell the difference between a fetus and a mother by us telling it to. Therefore, a biological weapon that exposes a mother to a virus would affect both the mother and fetus or neither.

[popeyespappy]

---

I don’t think the concept is nearly as farfetched as you’d like to believe Shell.

Sure it is. We're talking about making a virus that changes a fetus into an entirely different species in the mother's womb.

We are already using viruses in recombinant DNA techniques as biological vectors to carry foreign genes into cells for genetic engineering. The viruses used in this method are disabled so that they do not redirect the host cells genetic machinery to copy the host virus.

Honestly, I don't see what any of that has to do with changing a fetus into another species whilst in the mother's womb, using a virus. I'm trying to see it.

Technologically speaking it wouldn’t be an insurmountable challenge to engineer a human embryo to grow a tail or perhaps even gills.

I assume you mean producing an embryo with a tail or gills outside of the mother's body. Even if you're not, you are talking about adding or subtracting a step in human evolution in a single swoop, not changing the species of a fetus. Adding a feature is different than changing the species of a fetus, though I would argue that giving a human being gills with a virus is, at this time, insurmountable.

This could be done without affecting the mother at all. Once there passing the new genetic material to the next generation would be a process we’ve already got covered.

He is talking about a biological weapon, if I remember correctly. The virus would, if it could change anything, affect the mother. There is no way a virus could tell the difference between a fetus and a mother by us telling it to. Therefore, a biological weapon that exposes a mother to a virus would affect both the mother and fetus or neither.

---

[Shell B]

The technology already exists to make the required changes via recombinant DNA techniques using viruses as biological vectors to carry foreign genes into cells. Not only can the viruses be engineered to carry the new genetic material into the target cells, but they can also be fixed so that once introduced into the host they do not reproduce in an uncontrolled fashion harming the host.

Much of our DNA is dedicated to controlling growth during prenatal development. It does this by controlling the timing and production of proteins during gestation. This in turn controls the development and growth of each and every part of us. Organs, skeletal structure, muscles the whole nine yards. Many of these processes are only active during gestation. They turn on, run for a given period of time, then turn off never to be heard from again. What this means is that there are many changes that could be made to our DNA that would result in children developing differently than their parents that would not affect the parent at all.

Right now our knowledge of our DNA is not sufficient for us to engineer a new designer species. With a little bit of experimentation we could however easily control for some of the simple things we do understand like eye color. With a little more experimentation growing tails or developing gills is not out of the question. As our knowledge of our DNA grows the only thing from stopping us from making even bigger changes in the future are ethical considerations.

Weaponizing the process is another issue. A problem that’s solution could be as simple as introducing the engineered viruses into the food supply. Although I suspect there would probably be more to it than that. As I’ve already tried to explain if we understood the changes we wanted to make well enough, we could make changes to an adult’s DNA that would only affect any future children that person might have. While the OP’s original hypothesis currently resides firmly in the realm of science fiction, the technology exists to make it happen already. We lack only the detailed knowledge of which developmental processes are controlled by what parts of the DNA to make it possible.

I'm not arguing that we can't do some wonderful things, but what you describe is not nearly enough to do what is suggested in the OP. You say "target cells" and talk about introducing viruses that do not replicate into a host. Therein lies one of countless problems with the premise. He's talking about a mother passing on a virus to a fetus in her body -- a virus that would change the fetus into a different species, after having moved through the mother's body into the womb. Yes, the virus is genetically engineered, but he spoke of no intricate introduction process, though I stand by the fact that intricate introduction into the fetus or no, it is not possible to change a monkey to a whale in the womb. On top of all of this, how do we know that a human body would not reject an inhuman body as a foreign object, if such a change actually took place? Really, just because something could hypothetically work on a cellular level does not mean it will work in the womb, with no fiddling done before insemination -- meaning natural reproduction.

[popeyespappy]

I'm not arguing that we can't do some wonderful things, but what you describe is not nearly enough to do what is suggested in the OP. You say "target cells" and talk about introducing viruses that do not replicate into a host. Therein lies one of countless problems with the premise. He's talking about a mother passing on a virus to a fetus in her body -- a virus that would change the fetus into a different species, after having moved through the mother's body into the womb. Yes, the virus is genetically engineered, but he spoke of no intricate introduction process, though I stand by the fact that intricate introduction into the fetus or no, it is not possible to change a monkey to a whale in the womb. On top of all of this, how do we know that a human body would not reject an inhuman body as a foreign object, if such a change actually took place? Really, just because something could hypothetically work on a cellular level does not mean it will work in the womb, with no fiddling done before insemination -- meaning natural reproduction.

I think one of the points I’m having difficulty trying to make is this. The mother doesn’t have to pass the virus to her children. If an engineered virus was introduced into the mother that targeted the germ cells that are embedded in the substance of the ovaries from which eggs cells are formed, all the genetic changes could be made to the mother. If the genetic changes only affected gestational processes they would have no effect on the well being of the mother. She could then pass the modified DNA as opposed to the virus to any offspring via natural processes.

As far as monkeys to whales goes try thinking more along the lines of lions to tigers. Different species don’t have to be that different. Lions and tigers are separate species. However they are not that different. They are capable of interbreeding. Some ligers are even capable of producing viable offspring.

The main point of my first post in this thread was just that we already have some of the technology required for such an undertaking available to us now. While there are many obstacles remaining they are not insurmountable. The solutions too many of them could possibly be available within our lifetime. The solutions to most of them probably will be available within a few generations. That is if we can manage to keep from sending ourselves back to living in the Stone Age before then.