US Military Funds Geneticist Searching for DNA "So Dangerous It Does Not Exist"

The hunt is on to find hidden sequences in the human genetic code that have been selected out, because they are so dangerous they are "not compatible with life." Professor Greg Hampikian, a geneticist at Boise State University in Idaho, is leading the project - and already has received a $1 million grant from the US Department of Defense.




Why "look" for DNA dangerous to life unless the intent is to sequence it for military use?

www.checkbiotech.org

Related News Links:

www.huliq.com...

www.eurekalert.org...

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:

The DNA so dangerous it does not exist

Human Trials Begin for Experimental DNA-Based Bird Flu Vaccine

[edit on 5-1-2007 by soficrow]


[edit on 5/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]

[edit on 5/1/2007 by Mirthful Me]

Good question:


Why "look" for DNA dangerous to life unless the intent is to sequence it for military use?


This from Spirit India:

DNA :: The bumper book of DNA no-no's

Most genome sequencers are looking for genes inside living species to understand their function. But one genome project is deliberately searching for DNA sequences that are absent from species -- perhaps because they are too dangerous to life to exist. The US team have developed software that calculates all the possible sequences of nucleotides and then scans sequence databases to identify sequences that aren't present. They believe their results will have far-reaching applications.

Whether these sequences have any biological significance in living organisms is not yet known – the next step is to test...

Further down the line there is the possibility of constructing a "suicide gene" to code for deadlyamino acid primes. It could be attached to genetically modified organisms and activated to destroy them at a later date if they turned out to be dangerous, Hampikian suggests.

WHA-HOOOOO!

Playtime!




I sure hope these guys get called in for dinner soon.

So now our government is wasting tax payer money to look for something that perhaps don't even exist.

But hey what a good biological weapon it could make when cloning in hiding is done in case the clones will no do as programed to do.

Or just use it to control population, by race.

What else this people will be using our hard earned tax dollars for.

No kidding marg.

But what REALLY worries me is that these guys only think they can control this stuff. They can't really.

But they create microbes, prions and 'stuff' anyway. Sometimes they use it on purpose, sometimes it escapes.

Now - we have world wide chronic disease epidemics - flesh-eating disease, hemorraghic bird flu, ...new - deadly and scary - diseases appearing every time we turn around.

Our world's diseases are evolving away at breakneck speed - we know our agricultural methods and biotech are factors - but do any of these guys take any responsibility?

Not a chance.

Back to the original question:

Why "look" for DNA dangerous to life unless the intent is to sequence it for military use?

Anyone here have any answers? Speculations?

I still think Sofi that this people are into cloning and perhaps for military purposes.

Clone a military force and when they have outlive their purposes have their own bodies kill them.

That "suicide gene" reference really got you, huh?

...But what other purposes might there be for this kind of technology> And is it worth the risk?

Great, so the army is out to create a genocide gene that can lay dormant but be activated later?

As in, you use a gene therapy vector such as flu to proliferate it unnoticed, then you can smash everyone in one stroke and they never knew they had anything to protect themselves from? Great.

The "some species and not in others" thing bothers me too. Is species really the word they are looking for? There have been projects on racially selective bioweapons before afterall.

You know this remind me of a book I read about area 51 in which government was doing secret research to find ways to create serums to target particular races.

I will not be surprise that some countries with less ethical guidelines may do that.

But the US being so into life strike me as hypocrite when the defense department may be involve in some kind of weird DNA stuff that is not for the preservation of lives.

Ok, so in a matter of a few posts about DNA research, we have arrived at the military is doing this for disposable clone armies, the targeting of specific races, genocide genes, population control, etc..... without ANY basis for such wild assertions. You do realize that folks at USAMRID do all sorts of research on harmful viruses/diseases, so that they can then work on countermeasures in the event they are used against us. Of course that's not nearly as interesting as military bashing.

Originally posted by GT100FV

folks at USAMRID do all sorts of research on harmful viruses/diseases, so that they can then work on countermeasures in the event they are used against us.

I posed 3 key questions:

Why "look" for DNA dangerous to life unless the intent is to sequence it for military use?

What other purposes might there be for this kind of technology?

And is it worth the risk?


Do you have any answers? Anything else to contribute? Besides pseudo-skeptical distractions, deflections, and bashing others' contributions?

Your original question wasn't what I was taking exception with. My response about research for countermeasures would be an example of why the military might be interested. As for whether research is worth the risk- penicillin, polio and small pox vaccines, etc.. would be other examples of where research brought useful/beneficial products to us. My problem was with wild speculation, and what appeared to be conclusions being derived from this speculation.

Originally posted by GT100FV

Your original question wasn't what I was taking exception with.

I know.

I was encouraging you to contribute in a positive way.

By getting back to the questions:

I posed 3 key questions:

Why "look" for DNA dangerous to life unless the intent is to sequence it for military use?

What other purposes might there be for this kind of technology?

And is it worth the risk?

My response about research for countermeasures would be an example of why the military might be interested.

Which got me thinking about whether or not the "First Strike" argument might be used as a legitimate defense in Criminal Court.

As for whether research is worth the risk- penicillin, polio and small pox vaccines, etc.. would be other examples of where research brought useful/beneficial products to us.

You may not know, but most drugs can be considered poisons. And one of the most common "side-effects" is "vascular lesions."

...The propensity for vascular lesions to evolve into diseases that bypass the immune system are fairly well documented - and are linked to the current chronic disease epidemic. Notably cardiovascular disease and stroke - the links to cancer are there too.

FYI - these are the most common causes of disability and death in the USA today.

"Risk-benefit analyses" say the benefits outweigh the risks.

I don't agree.

My problem was with wild speculation, and what appeared to be conclusions being derived from this speculation.

It's not purely speculation, and not so wild, imo.

Feel free to offer specific alternative interpretations.

It's one thing to speculate, but quite another when it more a case of, "aha, I knew it, those bastards!"

With regards to things being poisons- everything is toxic at some dosage level. It's the dosage that determines whether it's a poison or not.

Originally posted by GT100FV

With regards to things being poisons- everything is toxic at some dosage level. It's the dosage that determines whether it's a poison or not.

That's old science.

Current science recognizes context, and biochemical processes are best understood as complex, dynamic systems - that are part of larger complex, dynamic systems.

In this context, focusing exclusively on single cause-and-effect relationships is misleading at the very least.

For example, in the case of medications causing "vascular lesions" as a "side-effect" :

In a healthy exterior and cellular environment, the body might quickly overcome this effect.

But our exterior and cellular environments are incredibly polluted and contaminated.

So ...Vascular lesions tend often to evolve into diseases - many that bypass the immune system - all are fairly well documented - and are linked to the current chronic disease epidemic. Notably cardiovascular disease and stroke - the links to cancer are there too.

FYI - these are the most common causes of disability and death in the USA today.


More info at: Environmental Health Perspectives


...With respect to this thread's topic - DNA that is incompatible with life:

Authorities already have proven that they are unable to deal with current levels and kinds of -far less dangerous, although horrific- contamination.

But they are looking to add another, unbelievably deadly, factor into the mix?

Go figure.

These links posted recently by Long Lance on another thread:

2003: News that the army would conduct bio-terrorism tests in central Oklahoma sent a near panic through some communities.

Human medical experimentation on children: The exploitation of poor children by Big Pharma


Where there's smoke...

It seems like a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. This type of research without question poses a grave danger to human life, but remaining ignorant and doing nothing poses equally as grave a danger if this research is being conducted elsewhere. And we have no way of knowing with any certainty whether some corporation or government is already five years into this type of research program or not.

How do you propose policing this type of research?

Does this set stage for invading countries because they are developing DNA of mass destruction?

Give me a viable solution. I just don't see any, but I do see an increasing number of threats of an equal or greater magnitude on the horizon.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by df1]

Can you give me some good links for Vascular lesions, in terms of the context of side effects. Nothing I've read about has any mention of medications, or them being side effects.

With regards to dosage and toxicity, I still stand by that. At certain concentrations, then one can certainly state unequivocally- this is poisonous. At lower dosages/exposure levels, it isn't necessarily the case.
That's why research is important, so we know what the thresholds are, to minimize the dangers.

Originally posted by soficrow
Back to the original question:

Why "look" for DNA dangerous to life unless the intent is to sequence it for military use?

Anyone here have any answers? Speculations?

Easy actually, it would an excelent thing against germs for instance. You could use a virus, carrying your DNA/RNA/protein, that is specific for a short range of bacteria for instance.

The same could be used against cancer-cells, although it would be a much harder job getting a method to get them to uptake the 'product'..

You might want to look into RNA interference, its quite a bit of what they are working with.

First, we are in conspiracy forum, all conspiracies go unless somebody can prove them wrong.

From the source.

Further, down the line there is the possibility of constructing a "suicide gene" to code for deadly amino acid primes. It could be attached to genetically modified organisms and activated to destroy them at a later date if they turned out to be dangerous, Hampikian suggests.

While it looks like a good research to benefit humanity or else, I find very suspicious that behind he original topic is the possibility of finding something that is not to preserve life but to destroyed.

Now why the government of let say the Defense department wants this research done.

It is because of the possibilities of what is stated before as to be used in criminal cases or for further benefits to the military industry as a possible biological weapon.

Or because already this scientist Hampikian already has found something that was not seen before in DNA?

He is considered an expert in his field and he is in charge of the innocent initiative project to prove the innocent through DNA of accused subjects.

Now is a fact that the defense department has funded many other researches mostly link to protein and DNA as in tumors for breast cancer patients.

U.S. Department of Defense funds five breast cancer research projects at Chicago

In half of high-grade breast cancer cases, these genes are not mutated but are “silenced.” Since these genes repair DNA damage, tumors with silenced genes could be more sensitive to DNA-damaging chemotherapy agents.

chronicle.uchicago.edu...

It seems that our defense department has a liking for DNA research after all.

Also from the source.

Hampikian's team is deliberately searching for the shortest absent sequences in order to minimise the possibility that absent sequences are missing simply due to chance. So far, they have found 86 sequences of 11 nucleotides long that have never been reported in humans.

The defense department would not be pouring funding for something like this if is not because is some future in it be either for the good of humanity or for military purposes.

That is the question here.

Also we most not forget that is other nations in the world that have less than ethical purposes that would not be afraid to start some research of their own if they are no already do it, and they answer to nobody.