From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Tue Apr 22 2003 - 14:52:05 MDT
--- "Robert J. Bradbury" <bradbury@aeiveos.com> wrote:
> This is one of the reasons one needs to make genetic
> engineering
> cheap. If one could drop the costs of fixing this
> to the "no-brainer"
> level (which I think one can). Then people would be
> more inclined
> to test various solutions.
Out of curiosity, what are all the costs of genetic
engineering at this time? There is specialized labor,
of course, but even with widespread competition (as a
result of widespread training in the techniques), this
would still be skilled labor by modern standards, and
thus the cost of labor would still be a factor. But
what other costs are there, and how could one minimize
or eliminate them?
> Then one extracts the most primitive stem cells one
> can find
> in the body, infects them with the anti-aging
> EBV-based therapy
> vector then amplifies the # you have and puts the
> modified stem
> cells back into the body.
Might it not be simpler just to design a virus to do
this infection, but not replicate (beyond normal
cell division, et cetera), then flood the body with
a lot of this virus? That would put the extra code
into most of the cells in the body (aside from the
brain). One challenge would be how to make sure the
virus does not needlessly overwrite the edit on a cell
that has already been modified, or at least that such
an overwrite would be harmless.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 22 2003 - 15:03:08 MDT