USDA should restrict commercial production of genetically modified eucalyptus. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay Firstly, the technology involved is not mature enough at this stage, so, if production takes place on a large scale, of serious consequences can occur. Genetics is the result of adaptation to the environment in order to survive, otherwise known as evolution. This therefore means that such genetic engineering may be unnatural. Indeed, genes are originally supposed to ensure the balance of nature, for example by allowing only biological populations to survive in certain areas, in order to avoid the invasion of other species which could cause extinction of certain species, or to facilitate the formation of a sustainable food chain. However, such genetic modification can be dangerous in the sense that it could modify the biological behavior of this eucalyptus. For example, changing genes so that they become frost tolerant can cause them to grow out of control in all parts of the world, which is dangerous. This can make it difficult for other plants to grow, because an area's nutrients and water are not unlimited, posing a threat to other biological populations that consume these plants as food. This could potentially disrupt the natural environment. In fact, human interference has often been found to disrupt the environment, such as deforestation. Therefore, any other actions that may result in a change in the environment must be carefully considered. However, this technology is not yet mature enough. Scientists still do not have a complete understanding of genes, and changing them can lead to undesirable behaviors in the long term. Therefore, before the technology involved in genetic engineering is sufficiently mature, such commercial production of genetically modified eucalyptus should be restricted. Second, the benefits of such production might not be able to outweigh the drawbacks, in other words, the approval costs. this commercial production will probably exceed profits. The main motivation for such commercial production is that eucalyptus trees would become antifreeze, allowing them to survive in colder regions, and because they grow quickly, they can be used as biofuel while growing back quickly. However, this involves the removal of large areas of original plantations. As this disposal usually involves burning them, this releases large amounts of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, which would further worsen global warming and are difficult to offset. Additionally, eucalyptus trees grow quickly, but also consume large amounts of water. As a result, groundwater could be depleted, as nature may not be ready for such drastic use of natural water. This makes it difficult for plants to grow. On the other hand, eucalyptus trees burn quickly. Thus, if a forest fire breaks out, eucalyptus trees could accelerate the spread of these forest fires, not only by harming the investments made, but also by releasing significant quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is not not feasible. Therefore, even though it is true that more logs can be supplied to satisfy the growing global needs due to the rapid regeneration property of eucalyptus trees, possible consequences could arise that makeprofits would disappear if such commercial production were carried out on a large scale. . Therefore, such commercial production of genetically modified eucalyptus should be restricted. In conclusion, the USDA should restrict the commercial production of genetically modified eucalyptus. No, I don't believe Mitalipov and his team repaired the mutated paternal gene using CRISPR. First, if such an action could cause unwanted side effects later, such a gene should not be considered repaired, since repairing should mean making the gene free of any problems. However, Mitalipov's method results in the deletion of a large proportion of genes. Since human genes are complex and cannot serve only one purpose, removing parts of genes and then letting cells fix the genes using other parts of the genetic sequence as templates can result in the loss of certain functions of the deleted genes. For example, genes may lack mutation because the mutated part was removed, but since CRISPR did not provide healthy genes as templates, cells may have genes directly connected together, or by duplicating genes, and both can result in more or fewer genes. than usual, which can lead to disastrous results. Therefore, before Mitalipov and his team can prove that the method they are using would not correct the mutations in exchange for another problem, one should not believe that Mitalipov and his team fixed the mutated paternal gene at the help of CRISPR. Second, absence of mutation might not be possible. be due to the use of CRISPR. Since the repaired genes did not exhibit specific patterns used by Mitalipov and his team, it can be concluded that Mitalipov and his team failed to repair the mutated paternal genes in the exact way they might have desired. Thus, it is possible that the lack of mutations is due to effects unknown at that time, or that the mutations are simply not accounted for due to chance, or perhaps that the sperm genes n 'did not affect the final genes much. in this experience. In fact, Mitalipov and his team claimed to have fixed the mutations by performing CRISPR earlier, but at present it is speculated that the sperm and egg genes may not be close enough to each other , and therefore, although CRISPR can If parts of the sperm gene have been removed, it is likely that sperm cannot provide a good model for recreating the removed parts of the gene, because the sperm itself is not not free from mutations and the egg may be too far from production. any solution in the genes. Given this, the likelihood that CRISPR is the main cause of the lack of mutations is low, because CRISPR has not provided a template for repairing genes. As such, it's hard to believe that Mitalipov and his team repaired the mutated paternal gene using CRISPR. On the other hand, it is obvious that Mitalipov and his team's result was that the mutated genes were not present after the experiment. Therefore, it must be true that the experience triggered some mechanism, whether intentional, unintentional, or unknown, to correct the genetics. Although it is not easy to believe that Mitalipov and his team actually repaired the mutated paternal gene using CRISPR, it is true that thanks to their use of CRISPR, an apparently positive result, namely the absence of mutations, is obtained. In other words, Mitalipov and his team have at least partially, if not completely, repaired the mutated paternal genes, although this may not be a direct result of CRISPR. The problem,.