I think the disturbing take-home message of the article is that high school students (and their teachers who submit the “top” essays!!!) are full of gross misperceptions.

For example, take the camel example cited. Of course, there is no “water conservation” gene. Rather, it’s a large set of adaptations that allow camels to go long periods of time without water consumption. Large nostrils to trap/recycle exhaled water vapor, modified red blood cells that can flow under conditions of dehydration, ability to withstand very high body temperatures without sweating, etc. In short, a human that can go months without drinking water is not a human, but a very different chimera that would unlikely be able to mate with humans, thus rendering it a truly new species. Not to mention the complexities of doing such a thing that would in reality push it beyond what is feasible with current technology.

The ethical dilemma is another issue entirely.

Nick

It’s better to admit that this kind of thing will happen, and try to deal with it, then to think we can put our finger in the crack and hold the dam together.

As for the camel example, it’s pretty simplistic but the basis is sound. We’re already transferring genes from one species to another to get specific traits. Eg: Round up ready plants, etc. Heck, maybe one day we’ll be able to learn from the crabs and engineer humans to grow back mangled limbs. Or is it more ethical for amputees to remain as they are?