Problem is, it's been a few years since I took biology and I'm not sure about the plausibilty of it so here goes...
The basic story concept is to look at the possible applications and consequences if we could produce test-tube babies without donor sperm or eggs.
The process, as I concieve it would be like this:
A DNA sample is provided: sample could be from hair, saliva, blood, etc. Anything that contains DNA.
The DNA is extracted from the sample.
DNA is inserted into a "blank" genetic cell (an egg or sperm that has been stripped of its DNA and distinguishing characteristics). The DNA in the blank cell is used to code chromosomes and create a gamete (egg or sprem) that can be used for reproductive purposes. -- Heavy use of Handwavium pellets here...
So essentially, as long as you have a DNA sample, you could have anyones baby. You want to have Brad Pitt's child, all you need is a hair with an intact folicle or a discarded bandaid...
So my question to those who know more about these things than me, with the right amount of handwavium, does this sound remotely plausible?
posted
I don't want to do it as cloning. I want the application to be that you only get a gamete which would be a part of artificial insemination with your own gamete and then implanted in either yours or a serogate womb (if you are man who wants the child).
Posts: 1473 | Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted
Not sure how much I'm worth as a source of information, since my biology classes are at least two-three years old. I'll do some review of cloning first. You "blank" the egg. I think it's done by ultraviolet light, but I'm not sure. You then insert the foreign DNA into the blank egg, and coax it to split into cells by an electrical shock. I think the problem you need to get past in order to use your theory is that currently the only method that works is electrical shock, and that fuses the foreign nucleus and the empty egg, but also causes the now-complete egg to split into more cells and basically grow into a foetus. So all you would require for your idea to work is something that inserts the DNA into the empty cell WITHOUT causing it to split. Then you could use it as an ordinary gamete and do artificial fecundation. Bear in mind that a current problem of cloning is that we can't produce any viable combined eggs, so I'd also expect some explanation as to why there is such a high success rate for an operation that has a lot in common with cloning. I hope that doesn't come across as too muddled. Any more recent biologists than me can raise their hands and correct me on state-of-the-art cloning.
[This message has been edited by Silver3 (edited August 18, 2005).]
You might need to give us some info on why this needs to happen:
quote:I want the application to be that you only get a gamete which would be a part of artificial insemination with your own gamete and then implanted in either yours or a serogate womb (if you are man who wants the child).
Cloning would do the same thing with one less step.
posted
When I saw the title of this thread, I thought, "Me too -- but isn't this the wrong board?"
Anyway, Robyn, I think you've got something you won't need much handwavium for. Just take the new cell with Brad Pitt's DNA and make it undergo meiosis (cell division that doesn't duplicate the chromosomes), and get a gamete that's like a regular human one. I remember from biology the process for forming eggs from an initial egg that's got all the chromosomes; I assume sperm are similar.
posted
Yeah, the critical thing is to persuade your cell (either the original or the synthetic one) to undergo meiosis.
I can see room in that for using a synthetic cell, since most other types of cells aren't properly set up for meiosis. You also have to "reset" the DNA so that it isn't doing anything else (i.e. trying to make proteins) when you trigger meiosis. You'll have to handwavium those bits a little, but as long as you say things like "meiosis induction", people will think that it's close enough.
Your spouse dies before the two of you can have children. Using a DNA sample from a hair folicle from his/her brush, a gamete is created and combined with your own so you can have a baby.
Animal breeding. Race horses, pure-bred pets. A horse could still be used as a stud even after it is dead.
Celebrity merchandising. Instead of having to give a sperm sample or have eggs harvested, all that's needed is a hair or saliva sample. For the right price you could buy the right to use a celebrities gamete to create your own baby. In essence you would be having their child
Of course that could open up a black market, too. People who go to extremes to acquire samples for their own use; people who acquire illegal samples and sell them (i.e. maid steals Jennifer Lopez's hairbrush and sells the DNA on E-bay); paternity issues (people suing for child support becasue they had so-and-so's love-child when in reallity it was a child created from an illegally produced gamete).
If I can sort things around enough in my mind, what I want the story to focus on is some of the ethics and consequences involved if you could have anyone's baby with relative ease.
posted
Thanks for all the feedback. It's good to know that at least the science could work (even if I have to gloss over things with some handwavium). I don't really want to focus on the science as much as on the social ramifications of the science. However, I also don't want readers to throw out the story because the science is too much of a stretch.
I think I'm rambling...
Oh well, now to see if I have a story that will work with this...
posted
One thing to remember, what we've suggested can only work if the original cell is viable and is of the right type to contain complete DNA. If you want to use the scraps of DNA that are sufficient for identification purposes, you'll need a whole lot more handwavium.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
