Seems to me you have the same damned 'hundreds of
thousands' problem with the new-gene-in-the-monkey
route--in this case, all of the genes which are not
human and which might (or might not) somehow affect
response (or lack of response). The obvious solution
is, of course, hardly a prospect.
--- xgl <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > John Marlow <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote,
> > >Why not try to figure out why the monkeys DON'T
> > >the symptoms and try to apply THAT to humans?
> > I think this makes a lot more sense! Instead of
> putting human genes
> > that cause disease into monkeys, we should be
> putting monkey genes
> > that prevent disease into humans! (And maybe a
> little of that
> > glow-juice, too!)
> i'm not so sure. intuitively, it seems to me that
> studying why an
> organism *doesn't* get a disease is much more
> difficule than studying why
> it *does*. for one thing, putting a gene in and
> seeing what changes makes
> for easily controled experiments, whereas studying
> why it *doesn't* do
> something requires investigating the entire system
> -- hundreds of
> thousands of genes, emergent properties, etc.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:19 MDT