INTELLIGENT CHIMPANZEES

I recently watched 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' again, and decided to write about the errors the writers made about the science in it. I like the movie, and that's why I'm bothered by its faults so much. Let's go directly to the problems. (spoiler alert)

GENE THERAPY

The whole movie revolved around an experimental drug that was designed to combat Alzheimer's disease. The prime investigator explained that it was meant to increase the brain's ability to regenerate. This does make sense. Brain damage (caused by toxic build-up of amyloid beta peptides) underlies the symptoms of Alzheimer's, and our brain is currently not good at healing itself. In fact, virtually none of our organs and limbs can grow back, only certain tissues that need to be replaced fairly frequently (like blood and skin).

There is evidence that our ability to regenerate is somehow repressed. During development in the womb we possess much stronger ability to regenerate, and gradually lose this, possibly due to scar formation (ref1, ref2). So it may very well be possible to reactivate this system. Researchers have shown that brain regeneration in mice restores cognitive functions even if the toxic amyloid plaques are left intact (ref). Of course, regeneration of the brain cannot restore lost memories, so it is best to use such a therapy in an early stage of the disease.

In the movie, the man suffering from dementia was cured by the gene therapy. Huzzah!

However, the man needed regular administration of the drug to keep the dementia at bay. That would have been the case for drugs that function only as long as they remain in the patient's body. Most present-day drugs work like that, and that's probably why the writers have made this error. But the main researcher developing the therapy explained that it was a virus-mediated gene therapy. In such a therapy the drug is a DNA-modifying agent (a virus in this case). The DNA code underlies cellular functions, and when it is changed, cellular functions are changed. So when this agent does its job, and you see a positive response (i.e. the person is has regained lost functions), there is no reason to take it again. The cells are already fixed. It could only make things worse, by adding too many copies of a certain gene.

Only when the previous administration of the virus did not work because there was too little of it to affect all the target cells, only then would it make sense to administer the virus again. 

IMMUNE SYSTEM

Eventually the therapy failed. The man's dementia came back.

This is possible, because the gene-therapy only made the brain create new brain cells, not remove the harmful amyloid plaques. Or prevent future accumulation. A therapy to truly cure dementia should couple enhanced regeneration with the expression of some enzymes that can break down the harmful substances in smaller bits that are safe.

It is also possible that the altering of the genetic code caused some disregulation in the long term. Especially when a drug like that hasn't been properly tested, unexpected side-effects may occur. One thing might be the formation of brain tumors, due to the fact that the gene therapy made the brain cells more likely to divide. Or perhaps brain cells that have one function (e.g. creating images) are suddenly growing in areas with other functions (e.g. making your limbs move).

In the movie it was neither of the above. The therapy failed because the immune system fought the virus. This is possible, though less of a problem for real-world gene therapies where you don't have to keep using the drug.

The problem is how the creators of the movie presented the immune system. For example, the researchers tested the drug on chimpanzees, and found that it worked. They commented that it was only logical because chimpanzees where known for their good immune system. As opposed to humans like the guy with Alzheimer's. This demonstrates some fundamental problem in understanding how the immune system works.

I have noticed the same thing when people talk about 'the ice-man' Wim Hof. Together with a science team it was tested how some techniques he used (meditation, certain breathing techniques and exposure to cold) could influence the immune system. One group of people performed the techniques for 10 days prior to the test, and the other group didn't. During the test, both groups received a bacterial protein, and the researchers examined the bodily responses. It was observed that the 'trained' group showed significantly lower levels of immune response-related proteins, as well as less flu-like symptoms than in the non-trained group (ref). Laymen then conclude that those techniques can improve your immune system. But of course, it is the other way round. That technique somehow inhibited the immune response. If the researchers replaced the bacterial protein with the actual pathogenic bacterium, the trained people would suffer more damage, and have a higher chance of dying.


SPEECH

The apes that received the gene therapy became smarter. It is possible that a genetic modification increasing the size of (certain parts) of the brain would increase intelligence. On the other hand, there has to be room in the skull for brain expansion. Young mammals have soft skulls which can expand if the brain requires room. But skulls of grown-up mammals are not so flexible, though I wouldn't say it's impossible. Bones are dynamic tissues, and so skulls might grow if the process of brain expansion doesn't happen too fast. Inheriting the modification from your mother (like Caesar did) would have solved that problem, but then the pelvis of the mother might be too small for the big head of the smart baby chimpanzee, and so it might not be able to exit the womb.

So the heads of the hairy apes should have become bigger, and something would probably have to be changed in the pelvis. But this does not diminish the fact that the increase in intelligence through genetic modification is really possible. And if, through some rare mutations or carelessness of the researchers the virus's replication ability was restored, it is possible to transmit this characteristic horizontally.

Stranger, to me, is the fact that the smartest chimpanzees get the ability to speak like humans. Real-life chimpanzees can be taught sign-language to a limited degree (e.g. Washoe, Kanzi). So they have some ability to understand language. A larger brain would make it possible to understand more complicated linguistic matters, but it would not make them speak like us. The reason is that their vocal tract does not allow it (ref). It would be very unlikely that the brain-growing virus would change the vocal tract when it hasn't been designed to do so.


CONCLUSION

This is but one example of movies that could have been great if they got the science right. If only they consulted a (life) scientist to check the script for errors. It doesn't even have to cost anything, I know I'd do it free of charge. I'm sure others would do too.


Update 22-02-15: researchers identified the genetic change that makes our brains bigger compared to our chimpanzee cousins. It is a 16-letter change in an enhancer of the FZD8 gene. They inserted the human enhancer + FZD8 gene into mice using pronuclear injection, and saw that it made the mice brains bigger compared to the normal (wt) mice, and compared to mice that received the chimpanzee enhancer + FZD8 gene.  Awesome!

EDUCATION FOR THE FUTURE

The Dutch government started a campaign to improve the Dutch education system: "onderwijs2032". It's a nice chance to write down some ideas that were crawling around in the back of my head, and it's also nice to know that some of them might be actually used. Or at least considered to be used.

The text below is mainly about the secondary education system VWO (preparatory scientific education), except for the last paragraph, which is about Dutch education in general.

LONGER CLASSES

In the current system, high school students get 1-hour classes and move from classroom to classroom up to 8 times a day. This is inefficient, as time is wasted by walking, installing yourself and your books at your seat, and trying to get into the right mindset. I would suggest to have only 2 subjects per day. This allows students to dig deeper into the subject, and gives teachers more freedom to switch between passive and active teaching methods.

Additionally, students usually receive an unreasonable high amount of assignments for the next day, which might be reduced with only 2 subjects per day. I have noticed that teachers overestimate the amount of time students have after school, or underestimate the time required for the assignments they give the students. Or perhaps they know it's too much, but have to give them so much in order to reach certain 'teaching' quota. Whatever the reason, the 8-fold work load causes over-working and sleep deprivation, or a lack of understanding for courses entirely revolved around doing assignments. I have noticed both happening to me and my former fellow students. For this reason I think it is valuable to only have 2 subjects each day, to reduce workload after school.

And if this isn't enough, there should be some rule limiting the mandatory home work. Children should not have to work for more than 8 hours per day on school assignments. Time after school should be reserved for people that are slow, to catch up. Working 12 hours each day should not be the baseline.

NO CULTURAL CLASSES

I do not despise culture. I am a great admirer of painted art, of stone reliefs and statues, and various music styles. And of course literature. However, I do not think that the cultural classes provided in the VWO contribute to a more cultural nation.

Musicians need to learn how to play, sure. Though this usually happens at special private musical schools, or at home, not at the high school. Visual artists are primarily trained at home, usually by themselves. And if they need outside help there is a lot of that on Youtube for free. Nevertheless, I would keep one or two classrooms available for creative purposes, for people that are short in means. In these classrooms children can try out different things, under supervision. It should not be mandatory, and after regular school hours. Apart from this there should be no more cultural courses (the Dutch names: drama, muziek, beeldende vorming, CKV, KCV). Writing stories or poetry should remain part of the language subjects, as it directly improves proficiency in those languages.

The only problem I can see is that a number of teachers will become jobless. But this cannot be a reason to continue with the time wasting classes. Instead, provide these people with government-funded re-schooling.

GYMNASTICS

Personally, I hated Gymnastics courses. I do not care one iota about soccer or basket ball or american football or whatever the sports teachers demanded us to do. Why would you need to learn these sports? There is no reason. The only reason why a sports course is valuable is because it demands physical exercise, and that is beneficial for your health. So let the children exercise, but let them choose what to do.

LANGUAGES

Dutch and English are the only languages that students need to be fluent in. Other languages like German, French, and Spanish are already a waste of time, and become increasingly wasteful. Most people either do not come into contact with foreigners, and most that do speak English with them. Some people might benefit from learning other foreign languages, sure, but one should look at the big picture. If it's a waste for most, than it's a waste. The few people that want to migrate, or study languages at the university can study a related language in their spare time.

Having said that, I do have an idea to make people generally more language-compatible. Latin and Ancient Greek are studied by a part of the students that are exceptionally good at learning, and I think learning about those languages is valuable. Only to a certain degree, though. Why are these languages handy? Firstly, because scientific terminology is usually derived from Latin or Ancient Greek in a fairly straight-forward manner. Secondly, knowledge of a mother language helps you learn daughter languages. Instead of Latin of Greek I therefore propose the class 'History of Language'. It will contain elements of Latin and Ancient Greek, but also various medieval languages that form the links between the modern languages and the classical (middle Dutch, middle English, Old Norse, Breton, Gothic, Yiddish). Also teach them about the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language, the mother language to Latin, Ancient Greek, and Sanskrit. Make the students learn words and concepts, but do not try to make them fluent in those dead languages. The students have more important things to do.

ICT

Learning to work with computers is obvious, and many have already stated that children should also learn programming languages. I couldn't agree more. And put the focus on the internet. A great deal of our lives are already online, and that can only increase with time.

NATURE / SOCIETY

Current high school students have to decide between different profiles: culture and society, nature and health, economy and society, and nature and technique. The nature profiles are scientific, and the society profiles are less so. The people that want to become important decision makers would choose a society path, while I think that surely decision makers should have a good scientific understanding. See a RELATED POST. And I do not think that scientific people should have a reduced understanding of society. For they might also become advisors, or perhaps aspire to found a (technological) company. Furthermore, children at that age usually do not know that they want, or, because their brains are still very much developing, their desires might change in the course of some years. You should keep their options open; do not restrict them at that stage. Remove the profiles.

CLASS LIST

I propose that in the future VWO students have the following classses:

- Dutch Language

- English Language

- History of Language
- ICT

- Biology

- Chemistry

- Physics

- Mathematics

- History

- Geography

- Philosophy

I assume in this list that the 'nature' subjects: biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics are designed so that students have a clear idea about the practicability. Especially physics and mathematics can sometimes become quite 'academic', very disconnected with reality. Some courses ('Algemene natuurwetenschappen' and 'Natuur, leven en technologie') are designed to link the subjects with applications, but I do not like the idea of additional courses. With different courses you have different teachers, different classrooms, different books. Such a separate course may have been handy to test for it's usefulness. If that test succeeded, I suggest to integrate it with the main courses.

This list is compatible with the 2-course-a-day idea. Philosophy and ICT are smaller courses, as perhaps History of language is too. 8 full courses + 3 small courses = more or less 10 full courses.

NO RELIGION

Finally I want to address the obvious flaw in our education system in general: the presence of religious teachings. I wholeheartedly advocate the mandatory secularization of all religious educational institutions. It's the 21st century for goodness' sake!

Let me be clear: I want children to have free, inquiring, critical minds. These minds are the most adaptive because they are the most in touch with reality, and so these have the highest chance of succeeding in life. In general religious teachings increase susceptibility to quackery and aversion towards the scientific.

People are allowed to believe whatever they want. That's the whole point, because religious primary schools do not promote freedom of thinking in children, but limit them to the religious affiliation of their parents. Parents are also allowed to teach their children whatever they want. And are allowed to send them to the church, mosque, or whatever brainwashing place they want to send them. But please offer them some freedom, and provide secular primary education to all. Think about integration. Think about blunting of strong ideologies. When the children make contact with people outside of their parents religious circle, they will become better people. More tolerant.

Something about the law: the Dutch law is supposed to defend religious schools. I dare to disagree. The article 23 of the constitution clearly speaks about equal standards, about good education for all. Whether special or public education. The 'inspectie van het onderwijs' checks whether schools provide good education, and may punish the school when the national standard is not met. Still, religious subjects are not banned by this authority. Obviously, teaching children that angels and devils exist, or that people after their death will go to a place of fire and eternal suffering, is on equal footing with teaching them that lightning is created by a dwarven-forged hammer, that age-related death is inflicted by a bearded man with a scythe, and that newborns are delivered by storks. Yes, everybody is allowed to create an educational institutions. But that does not mean there's unlimited freedom. It never did. Religious education fails the quality criteria, and should not be allowed to exist any longer.

Secondly, article 6 of the constitution clearly demands freedom of religion, beliefs, convictions. To preserve this freedom, we cannot allow parents to send their children to a religious school. Christian parents send their children to a Christian school. Muslims send their offspring to a Islamic school. Et cetera. It's never a choice of the children. And that's because they cannot make that choice when they are 4 years old.

Finally I want to state that if it is morality you are concerned for, think about all the cases of immorality by the most religious people around. The protestant parents denying their children medical access, Catholic priests raping young boys, the civil war in Israel, the assault on the world trade centre and other locations in the western world, et cetera. These immoral acts do not exist despite the religious belief, but because of it. Morality is a subject of  philosophy and neurology. Teach children some basic elements of these scientific subjects. Give them thought games, so that moral rules are based on calculations of the children themselves, and not because the teacher says so. And show them that the world is not divided in good versus evil. And that death is not a punishment to the person that dies, but to the friends and family of that person. Things like that. Give them the tools so that they may make good moral decisions themselves in the future.

For the sake of the children I demand secularization.

PERFECT FOOD

Do you sometimes wonder whether you are getting all the nutrients your body needs? You require different kinds of minerals, vitamins and amino acids. You also need fats (triglycerides), carbohydrates, and fibres. The simple idea I present here can remove all your nutrition-related worries.

TOXICITY

Dosis sola venenum facit

But first, something about toxicity. Many people have a wrong idea about toxicity. They think that the world is divided into good, healthy substances, and bad, toxic substances. This is a wrong assumption. EVERY SUBSTANCE IS TOXIC. Or can be toxic, to be more precise. Every substance has a toxicity threshold of amount consumed per unit of time. Below that the substance is harmless, but above that it's damaging. Generally the higher you go, the more damaging it is. But the toxicity dynamics differ between substances. Some substances might be damaging in very low doses, but lethal only in extremely high doses. For others this 'zone' between the damaging and lethal doses might be very small. Things you regularly consume in large quantities (like water or starch) have a very high toxicity threshold.

So to call a substance a toxin or poison is misleading. To call a substance 'carcinogenic' is equally misleading. A lot of substances nowadays are called carcinogenic by ignorant popular science writers. You might have thought for yourself that you can't eat anything without eating cancer-inducing stuff. And you're right. But each of the so-called carcinogenics, has a carcinogenic threshold. Below that you're fine, above that you have a higher chance of getting cancer. Avoiding cancer is not possible anyway, because the things most commonly causing cancer are reactive oxygen species (superoxide, hydrogen peroxide), UV-radiation, and sugars (glycation), which are part of every day life.

ARTIFICIALITY

Soylent drink

Rob Rhinehart was on to something when he designed the drink Soylent. It contains everything you need, and is not expensive. You don't have to worry about cooking again. But the problem with Soylent is that it tastes like "homemade nontoxic Play-Doh". OK, I don't know whether that's true. I haven't tried it myself. But I sure would not like to eat the same thing 24/7/365. To most people food is not a necessity, food is fun. People like to eat all kinds of different tasty things, myself included. So logically, we need a variety of food that contains everything we need, but that also tastes good.

These food products have to contain all the things we need in the right relative amounts, in order to not get a deficiency, but also not be poisoned. On top of this we will need a large range of non-nutritious substances that alter the taste, texture, look, and smell. For example, if you want a very sweet food, you should not add a lot of sugar. This will disrupt the balance of all the nutrients. You will either get too much sugar, or too little of the rest. That's where artificial sweeteners come in handy. They provide a sweet flavour, but do not count towards the carbohydrate content. For example, aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sucrose (sugar), so you have to add 200 times less to the food. Aspartame is broken down in a few different substances, among which two amino acids. So you have to adjust the amino acid content a bit of the food you want to produce, though because of the small amount of aspartame needed, this difference will also be minimal.

Additives like aspartame have received a lot of unjustified negative attention. Because they are termed artificial, people get alarmed, and demand investigation of toxicity. When people find evidence of toxicity, even if it is 30.000 times higher than the amount you'd normally intake, ignorant people still label it as fundamentally toxic. And they are labelled artificial, as if these substances aren't made with the regular set of 118 chemical elements, but with elements from a different, evil universe. And as if all natural products can be consumed without negative consequences. Try eating a salad of belladonna, fox gloves, and monkshood leaves.

In fact, to produce these super-foods, I would consider not using natural products at all. Plant and animal matter contains many different substances, most of which have been never tested for food safety. It is well possible that people nowadays are slightly poisoned by some regularly consumed plant without their knowledge. To avoid such accidental poisonings, I would only use substances in the food that has been tested for safety.

LABELS

Chocolate cake

I hope to see upgraded versions of all kinds of food: pizzas, cakes, pies, pastas, you name it. These have to be modified so that you can eat whichever you like, without having to worry about deficiencies or toxicities. For example, a chocolate cake might have reduced sugar and fat content, and their flavours reproduced by non-nutritious additives. And we know that some things in chocolate are bad for you, if you eat it every day. These things can be removed, and a potential change in flavour can again be compensated by using artificial flavourers. And we can add things like vitamin C so that you don't suffer from scurvy on your cake-diet.

People also eat non-processed foods like fruits, seeds, and leaves. To enhance these we can genetically modify the plants, so that they stop producing the things we do not want (things that are toxic in low concentrations, and things that induce allergies), and add things they lack. Of course, making these things optimal for consumption is more difficult, because plants are living organisms. Adding or removing parts might result in lower disease resistance, or lower growth rate. We have to find a balance between plant health and human health here.

Pizza

Two problems remain, though they can be solved by proper labelling. First, when these super-foods are made, you can still eat too little or too much. The solution is to add labels that tell you how much to eat of it. For example, we might create an indicator similar to that for calories. Perhaps we set the daily intake level at 100, and each superfood gets a value showing how much it contributes to that number.

Second, all people are not the same. I expect most of the differences between people due to differences in size or activity, which are easily solved by eating more or less. If you feel a little weak when eating 100 food points, perhaps you should up that to 110 points per day. Other differences need to be solved differently. Some muscle-building activities might require extra protein. And climate has an effect too. Colder climates require a higher energy intake, and warmer climates a higher salt consumption. To solve this, we can make several versions of our products, and use a simple labelling system to distinguish them. Extra energy content may be indicated by lightning bolt symbol. Extra salt indicated by a sun symbol, and extra protein by a brick symbol.

You should be able to eat whatever you want. With perfect food you never again have to face the choice between living healthy and living comfortably.

BABY FROM THE LAB

 EXTRACORPOREAL PREGNANCY

Artificial Wombs

In the near future women will be delivered from the burden of pregnancy. We will grow our babies entirely in the lab, in some kind of artificial womb. We are becoming increasingly proficient at keeping premature babies alive, the earliest at 21 weeks and 5 days, as opposed to the regular 37 weeks (ref). We have already grown a number of different organs by growing (stem) cells over a scaffold. Probably the biggest problem technically is to get the dosage and timing of growth regulators exactly right. But to find out we need to overcome a bigger hurdle, which is explaining to religious people that the world is not going to end if we grow people outside of the womb.

The option of getting a child from an artificial womb, as opposed to the traditional way, has great advantages. Pregnancies are very demanding, causing all manners of severe physical discomfort and often cause ugly deformations. These are common symptoms of a pregnancy according to the wiki page: tiredness, constipation, pelvic girdle pain, back pain, Braxton Hicks contractions, edema, increased urinary frequency, urinary tract infection, varicose veins, haemorrhoids, regurgitation, heartburn, nausea, and stretch marks. And that's only the regular stuff. There is also a chance of all manners of dangerous and painful complications. In rare occasions childbirth can even lead to the death of the mother.

Incubator

For people that cannot get children through traditional means this is also a solution. Think about sterility due to genetic defects, or due to injury, or age-related disease. Or because both parents are of the same sex. Of course children can be adopted, but I would only choose adoption if the child has very recently exited the womb of the biological mother. Children that are older often have behavioural problems due to mistreatment by their previous parents, or due to the changing of parents. And sometimes the original parents try to get 'their' children back, sometimes even successfully (ref). And there's always the psychological thing about adopted children: "why did my mommy give me away? What didn't she like about me?" I think it's pretty handy if we can create children without stains or ties.

Also important is the fact that inside the artificial womb, the baby can be monitored 24/7. If anything bad happens we can respond quickly. We can design the artificial womb so that the baby is very accessible to doctors. And if the baby sustains irreversible damage, we will notice that, and can easily abort the pregnancy without spending a lot of time and money to find out at birth that the child has only half a brain. We also reduce the possibility that the mother becomes too attached to the unfinished person, and decides to keep it.

No longer will the mother's diet be a problem for the child. Normally if the mother consumes a lot of alcohol, the baby will suffer from a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which includes serious brain defects (ref). Malnutrition might also cause negative epigenetic changes in the baby (ref).

We know that the unborn child can learn things, like language basics, and taste preference. With the artificial wombs you can highly regulate what you want the child to learn. This can be done automatically, and with involvement of the parents.

If these advantages weren't enough, there are even more things that will greatly improve our future society. 

EUGENICS

Let's first get the nasty things out of the way. Eugenics has a very bad name, mainly due to practices starting in the early 1900s to 1945. People at that time had extremely simplistic ideas about heredity, and even about modern society. People thought, for instance, that criminal behaviour and poverty were both strongly genetically determined. If you just prevent criminals and poor people to reproduce, you create a 'race' with only lawful, rich people. Everybody happy, <ahem>. And don't think that the 'evil' German Nazis were the only ones involved in this. It was a common practice in the whole of the civilized world. Civilized indeed. People that were thought to carry genes that benefited society were encouraged to reproduce, and people with 'bad blood' were discouraged (this sometimes included sterilization, incarceration, or murder). 

Transhumanism Logo

The principle of eugenics, the belief and practice of improving the human species genetically, is not per definition bad. If you made people more intelligent and rational, you would prevent a lot of conflicts. Technological improvements will also go much faster, allowing for a generally higher standard of living. The bad aspect of traditional eugenics is allowing some people to have children, and others not. But with artificial production of children, we can improve the genetics of our species, ànd allow people with defects to have children. For being a parent is not sharing half of your DNA with your child. Being a parent is to provide resources (food, shelter), to teach it to deal with the world, and -most importantly- to show it your love. The degree of genetic similarity between parent and child does not matter.

I certainly do not advocate sterilization of certain people that happen to have genetic defects. No, that would be unfair (they are punished without having committed a crime) and unequal (people ought to have equal rights).

When we have created human artificial breeding centres around the world, we ought to sterilize all human beings.

GENOME BUILDING

Scientists are able to synthesize chromosomes artificially, though it's difficult to create long chromosomes like those of humans. I expect a quick evolution of DNA synthesizing techniques, because it's so useful for molecular biologists. Think about how fast sequencing techniques have changed. When synthesizing large chromosomes becomes commonplace, genetic manipulation will be so much faster and easier.

Human Chromosomes

Each human being has two sets of chromosomes in their somatic cells, and therefore two copies of each (autosomal) gene. These copies are called alleles, and are rarely completely the same. One human being only has two (different) alleles of a specific gene, but in a population many different alleles exist. Differences between alleles may have (almost) no effect on a person's phenotype. Some alleles, however, have a significant negative effect. If there's an error in a critical component of a gene's promoter, the protein might not be produced. Changes in the coding region might alter the shape of the gene product into a dysfunctional protein, or even a highly toxic one. Variants that improve the functioning of a gene are also possible. For example, the allele CCR5-Δ32 provides 100% protection against HIV-1. Some MSTN alleles strongly increase muscularity, and consequently increase physical strength.

Sorting out all variants of all genes is an extremely laborious task. We possess about 25.000 (protein-coding) genes, and hundreds or thousands of alleles can exist per gene. Some differences between alleles may not matter, but some do. Therefore we need a good computer with software that chooses among alleles, and assembles the genomes.

Some alleles give 100% chance of a specific disease. Such alleles need to be absent from all artificial genomes. However, most alleles will only provide a certain chance of getting a certain disease (or certain benefits). For example, oncogenes increase the likelihood of getting cancer. Cancer requires X specific mutations in one particular cell, but with 1 oncogene that number becomes X-1. Other alleles may even be less clearly associated with a disease, just because we do not yet know all the details of every process in our bodies. That's why we need the program to work with chances of 'inheritance'.

Piece of genetic code

We can study a group of humans with the same disease and a group of otherwise similar humans without that disease, and inspect the genetic code. One particular variation in a gene might be present in 80% of those diseased people, and in 30% of non-diseased people. If this difference is significant, the computer should decrease the chance of selecting that particular allele. But because it's not 100%/ 0%, that chance should not be 0. That's because a correlation is not the same as a causal relation. And we do not want to remove all variability from our genomes. We wouldn't want to create identical clones.

Studies for positive traits can be performed too. You can do IQ tests, for instance, and link the result of those tests to the genetic variation. The higher the linkage between a particular sequence and a positive result on the test, the higher the chance should be of getting that piece into the artificial genome.

After we have tested lots of people for all manners of traits, we will probably find that some alleles have a positive effect on one trait, and a negative effect on another. We need to provide some mechanism for the computer to choose which trait is preferred over which other. For this I can imagine we give our future parents a questionnaire with questions about their future child. Each question compares two traits, and the parents have to decide which they deem more important. When they're done we can give that information to the computer, and the computer can do its magic.

Perhaps we can even allow a neutral option, which the computer interprets as choosing the one or the other at random.


BIRTH CONTROL

Did I mention mandatory sterilization somewhere? Yes I did. Well, in the first of the solutions you do have two options. You either choose to get medical care from your government with sterilization, or no sterilization and no medical care. That'll make most of the people enthusiastic about sterilization :P. Or perhaps not. It'll only work in developed, western countries. And only when you've educated the people about it. And when the choice has been made democratically. Especially Islamic countries will be strongly opposed no matter what you'll tell them. Every time you produce a vaccine against some dreadful disease for free, ignorant Muslims see it as part of some grand conspiracy by Amereeka and other nations to sterilize them. Perhaps it's better if we design a virus that sterilizes everybody. The 'pathogen' spreads, all will get mild flu-like symptoms, and only after a while will they find out that they cannot get kids anymore.

Of course, we should only do this when we already have birth centres around the world. And when the world is ready for such an intervention. We do not want to cause a third world war, or create total anarchy.

Oh, God why on earth do you want to sterilize everybody? Are you thinking this? Well, the answer is that I think it's very beneficial to society, and the individual, that the size of the population is highly controlled. Big fluctuations cause problems with supply and demand. If  the population size shrinks, there aren't enough teachers, and doctors, etc. If the population explodes, society suffers from unemployment and resource shortages. If the population size is constant, or if the growth rate is constant,  we can much better anticipate what the resource demand and worker supply is going to be. We can adjust the number of houses we build, and we can provide better vocational counselling.

There are other advantages too. Crime often stems from some trauma during childhood. Raising a child is very important and should not be taken lightly. Therefore, I propose we get mandatory parenting courses. The first course and exam are free. If you fail the exam, you have to pay for subsequent courses and exams. This will prevent some accidents for uneducated but otherwise good parents, and prevents bad people from abusing their children. Not only should we get tests, we also should check whether the parents can support their children. Do they have a job? Own a house? If either of these questions is 'no', they should not be allowed to get a child until they do. Again, this is to ensure child welfare. Thirdly, we should check for their criminal background. Some past offences like (child) rape and murder are not very compatible with proper parenting, in my opinion. Such people are also excluded.

Of course I'm not saying we will prevent all child-abuse this way. But it will help a lot. I do want that the procedure is standardized, and all decisions accessible, so that we don't create powerful bureaucrats.


FINAL REMARKS

First, I want to say that without the sterilization part, the artificial human breeding is still a good idea. We'll get healthier and smarter people, which is a big thing already. And with proper education human population growth is already reduced a lot. And before we can control human population growth, we need societies that are designed to minimize corruption. Baby breeding should not become a big money-making business. The current world is not ready for it yet.

LAB GROWN MONSTER: THE ZOMBIE

Usually when I watch movies or read stories or play games that are set on earth, in the present, I want them to be realistic. I do like fantasy/ science fiction, but if you bring it to our world, it has to adhere to our rules. Because I'm a biologist, I get especially annoyed if writers use the words like cells, genes and mutations wrongly to create an explanation for a supernatural phenomenon that does not make sense. In some cases it's the explanation for the myth that is inconsistent with the world, not necessarily the thing itself. Therefore I'm starting with this series of posts in which I try to provide good scientific explanations of mythological creatures by showing how they could be created in a lab. Board up your windows and stockpile supplies, because the first lab grown monster is the zombie!

Nazi zombies from the movie 'Død snø' (Dead snow).

INTRODUCTION

Originally, zombies were corpses reanimated by voodoo sorcerers to do their bidding. In popular culture, these mindless creatures are driven only by hunger for manflesh, and are often very difficult to kill. While not extremely dangerous as a single individual, they tend to form deadly hordes, because 'zombieness' is often contagious.

CONTAGIOUS TRANSFORMATION

Let's start with the contagious transformation, a recurrent feature in many movies and games. In the movie 'Last man on earth', an air-borne infectious agent causes people to become zombies. In Dawn of the dead those who are bitten by zombies will share their fate. The T-virus of resident evil is transmitted by contact (blood, saliva, etc.). Corprus is contracted after contact with an infected, and also rarely with 'infected' air.

Transformation of the body is possible, and occurs pretty frequently in reality. Various parasites alter the shape and or function of its host' body. The Toxoplasma gondii protozoan changes the brain of its host, so that its behaviour becomes more risk-seeking. The flatworm Leucochloridium paradoxum changes the appearance of the tentacles of its snail host, so that they resemble caterpillars. The roundworm Myrmeconema neotropicum changes the abdomen of its ant host so that it resembles a red berry.

Viruses can change the genetic material of the host, allowing for changes that remain even after disappearance of the transforming agent. Viruses are used regularly by (mainly medical) scientists. And a virus is most contagious of all contagious agents, because of its small size, and low survival requirements. For those reasons I think that the virus would be the best tool for creating infectious zombies. From this point onward it is assumed that we have adult human subjects available, and use a virus to change them into zombies.

CANNIBALISM

The strong appetite by zombies for flesh is not very difficult to realize, but the specificity for humans could be problematic. While most people wouldn't consider eating other people, and don't find humans particularly appetizing, sane people have been observed eating people during a period of extreme famine. So when people are really hungry, the inhibition to eating humans disappears. We can increase the appetite of our subjects by increasing the production of a positive regulator for appetite. One of such regulators is the Agouti-related peptide. Mice in which this protein is overexpressed (produced in higher amounts than in normal individuals), suffer from hyperphagia; extreme eating.

But we want more specificity. We know that an unlearned specific appetite for proteins exists, and the increased production of a regulator stimulating this appetite will increase appetite for meat. Our virus can easily add copies of the gene coding for that regulator, resulting in increased production of that regulator. We could edit the gene in such a way that the regulator will not be inhibited after food consumption, to have a permanently high activity. After eating, our zombies should remain frenzied.

The focus on (eating) humans could come from increased sexual desire. While zombies are not often sexually active, this drive might give the increased appetite a direction. I think that it is not a coincidence that cannibalism (or vore) is a sexual fetish. Substances that increase the dopamine activity in the brain (like crystal meth, or medication for Parkinson's disease) can cause hypersexuality and obsessive eating. This might be something that we're looking for, although such drugs often affect a lot of other things, as dopamine is such an important molecule in the brain. Perhaps some substance downstream of the dopamine system exists, one that increases libido more specifically.

MINDLESSNESS

Mindlessness is a true hallmark of zombies. People that act mindless are often called zombies for that reason only. Mindlessness can be explained as the absence of intelligence. In zombies, this is apparent through their completely instinct-driven behaviour, you cannot talk a zombie out of eating you. The increased appetites for protein and sex will already reduce the rationality of the subject. See instinct and the rational mind as two opposing forces, each competing for power in the cranium. When the instinct gets stronger, the ratio loses ground.

Because our virus needs to infect the brain, it will probably cause inflammation of the brain (encephalitis). Especially if our virus is based on say the rabies virus (which is known to infect the brain). The mental problems associated with encephalitis reduces both the rationality as the instincts of the brain, resulting in a greater degree of absentmindedness.

UNDEATH

Zombies are difficult to kill. According to virtually all sources this is caused by their undead state. In reality no such alternative state exists, so our zombies have to be perfectly alive. You can, however, increase our subject's 'death resistance' in a few different ways. The easiest way is removing all pain sensation. When a person does not feel pain, he is not immobilized by relative minor injuries, and continues going until incapacitated by some major injury. People that have a mutation in the SCN9A gene cannot feel pain at all. The mutation prevents the pain nerve cells from propagating the signals after sensing pain. Ssm6a, a substance derived from centipede venom, specifically inhibits SCN9A, causing the same effect. If our virus were to insert the Ssm6a gene in cells throughout the body, our subjects would be completely resistant to pain. We could also use some other method that is commonly used to switch off genes, such as RNAi.

With a lot of effort, we might also enhance our zombies' (long term) resistance by removing the inhibition on our regeneration system. We know that many animals can regenerate (regrow) lost body parts, but only do so when not yet born, or only in certain tissues. Only some creatures like urodele salamanders can regenerate virtually all parts of their bodies. Instead of regeneration, our bodies produce scar tissue, which only really functions as a cork to stop the blood from leaking out of the body. The production of scar tissue is thought to inhibit the regeneration process. Most likely the inactivation of the regeneration system evolved because people without it developed cancer sooner. When every cell can potentially become a stem cell again (a cell with unlimited dividing potential), every cell has a much higher chance of becoming a cancer cell. For this reason it might be a lot of work to change the system so that we get increased regenerative potential without the increased risk of cancer. But this is not an issue for us now, because we do not care if the zombies die of cancer after some years. Most of the zombies will have died much sooner anyway.

CONCLUSION

Is it possible to produce a virus that transforms people into unstoppable cannibalistic psychopaths? Yes. Will they be immortal? No. But even undead creatures can often be killed in most stories. Our zombies also need water and food like regular living human beings. And if the bullets do not kill them, then perhaps a secondary infection would. Our zombies will seem like undead in the short term, but in the long term they will show their mortality. No headless zombies will ever chase you. No severed limb will ever grab you when you least expect it. Furthermore, our zombies will attack and eat other zombies. A true zombie apocalypse is possible. But after spending a few years in a zombieproof bunker, you will not have to face hordes of zombies, but only the immense desolation and ruin.

FUNDING RESEARCH

The need to find an academic job position has made me more critical of the system that finances research in the Netherlands. Because of the financial crisis, jobs are bound to be scarce. The low amount of funds limits the selection of available research projects to those of top priority only. Excellent research with most benefits to Dutch citizens and the world in general. Well, that's how it should be.

Certainly much is asked of the graduates, often very specific experience is required. Even though such techniques and protocols are easily picked up by people with related experience. Such positions are called 'studentships' for a reason. But ok, if you have hundreds of applicants, you can and should choose the ones that match the best with the position. I suppose I would have done the same thing.

I do not doubt the skills of the researchers, I'm sure that excellent research is conducted in most cases. But I am convinced that a lot of projects miss the focus that make them truly useful.

What research do you think is useful? It is a good question to ask, since it is your money that is being spent. Most of the money for research comes from tax and from charity funds. I think it is only fair that research projects should aim to do something in return for the people. Most people agree medical research is useful, especially research on common diseases like cancer. Physics and mathematics pave the way for future technologies. And many people are interested in answers to big questions like "what is everything composed of?" and "how did the universe came to be?". Of course, there are also practical technological projects that result more directly in tangible technological advancements. Of economic research I cannot say much, because I haven't read much about it. Though I think the way economists predicted and solved the economic crisis speaks for itself. On the other hand, it might be that the field of economics is on the verge of changing from divination to science. The field of history is useful I think, in general. Historical research does not lead to new technologies, but we certainly can learn from the past. Wise men learn from other people's mistakes. The only field of 'research' that I consider utterly useless is the field of theology. Theology is just plain hogwash and poppycock. To name it a science is an insult. Religion has nothing to do with science. Religion is antiscience.

Theology is not the subject of this rant. While every cent spent on it is utterly wasted, it is not the big sink of most funding money. Much more money is wasted in the field of medicine. I will explain this using two examples of research projects. The first is a project that touches both the fields of history and medicine (1). It is about the role of family in survival since 1812. The aim of the project is to find both genetic and socio-economic factors that play a role in early child deaths, and exceptional longevity. Maybe you will think that this is valuable. That this might help reduce child deaths, and extend our lives. But then you would be quite naive.

Firstly, we cannot be sure of all factors that influence longevity, because only a small fraction of it is documented. We know where people lived and when they died. We might find out what jobs they had, and for isolated cases what diseases they suffered from. But we do not know the exact diet of all the studied individuals. We do not know about accidents, infections, poisoning. Because we do not know the details we cannot distinguish between effects of the environment and of the genes, both are expected to be similar for individuals of the same family. Conversely, family members are not clones, and only some members might suffer from rare diseases when two defective recessive alleles of the same locus happen to converge. New mutations can also occur and can also die out quickly if they are detrimental enough. Correlations that are made will not be very valuable, because of so many unknown factors. Because these factors are not accounted for, randomness increases, plausibly removing the possibility of making correlations at all. Secondly, we know what kills people. I think you agree that if correlations arise between short lifespan and a polluting factory, or the presence of some infection, it will be hardly surprising. Perhaps you are not so sure about ageing, but I can tell you that it is not some vague, unknown process. A magical drain of energy that culminates in the appearance of the grim reaper happens only in fairy stories. In real life, our bodies get damaged in multiple ways, which appears as well known diseases: atherosclerosis, alzheimers, cancer, various heart diseases, susceptibility to infections, etc. When the body sustains too much damage it dies. There are two positions on this project for a period of four years, so probably about 400.000 euros are transmutated into vague correlations that at most tell us what we already know. Nowadays ageing is popular, which is definitely a good thing, but the projects that aim to investigate it are poorly designed.

The second example is a project aimed at understanding the development of a certain disease that has its origin in defective mitochondria (which are the power plants of the cell) (2). It is an example of many current research projects, where the development rather than the source of the pathology is the subject of the research. In this particular case, the mitochondrial genes ought to be the subject of the research. The mitochondria are like small cells within the cell (they were once bacteria), and possess their own DNA. The main DNA of the cell is located in a protective shelter called the nucleus, protected from damaging molecules. The mitochondrial DNA is at the worst place that DNA could be, at the position where damaging molecules are produced. Therefore it tends to accumulate mutations much more quickly than the DNA in the nucleus. If we could transfer this DNA to the nucleus, it will both solve problems caused by current mutations, and prevent accumulation of new mutations. There is some work to be done in recoding the genes so that they function from out of the nucleus, but that's where such research projects are for. The transfer of the recoded mitochondrial genes to the nucleus will be both a cure for people that suffer from mitochondrial diseases, and a preventive measure to counter future mitochondrial problems. If you want to read more about this, you should visit this website (3).

We shouldn't want to find out every detail of every disease, but rather focus on curing those diseases. If a computer's RAM gets damaged, we should not investigate how exactly the operating system (OS) gets corrupted when you continue to use the computer. How exactly one error will lead to another, what all the possible routes towards a complete defective OS are. We simply replace the damaged RAM module. And if it is necessary replace damaged parts of the OS, or reinstall the OS altogether. All this research into the exact development of the diseases will not help cure the diseases, but will actually help the diseases survive. Such distracting research 'steals' funding away from really important research that is neccessary for curing important diseases.

If we want to remove important age-related diseases like cancer and alzheimers, we truly need to focus on curing diseases rather than simply discovering things. Currently, that focus is lacking in many labs.

References:

1: https://www.academictransfer.com/employer/RUN/vacancy/22055/lang/nl/

2: https://www.academictransfer.com/employer/UMCR/vacancy/17698/lang/en/

3: http://sens.org/research/introduction-to-sens-research/mitochondrial-mutations