Recombinat technology came in about 10-20 years now, but no critical side effect has been announced, but bear in mind that any thing good has a side effect due to some uncertainties and inefficiencies by the technologist.

See in hay days of RDNA technology, a conference was held for its broader outlook. Then these committees came into being for ethical clearance. When situation is to save urself or save ur neighbour. Save urself first.

I am not sure what you mean by side effects. THere have certainly been issues that came up in teh anmals, for examples the original growth hormone pigs and sheep had serious problems due to the over-expression of GH. However, if you mean unintended consequences for the consumer, there is no evidence on htose lines being considered for use in agriculture that there is any isuue either for the animasl or for the intended consumer.

Every technology can have side effects. As far as transgenic animals are concerned, I speculate that the side effects are minimal at best. All we are trying to do is to create an animal that over expresses a molecule that is found in nature. Mostly, growth hormones and antibiotics would be of concern. How would it differ from the current situation where animals are injected with growth hormones and fed antibiotics? Meat and milk products that we consume these days have one supplementation or other. If that is acceptable, transgenic animals should be equally acceptable.

My response was meant for a different post, so I've removed it.

While those things might be true they have nothing to do with animal transgenesis, except that the judicious use of GE technology might lead to reduction in the use of such compounds.

In response to Sakthikumar Ambady: I'm not sure I follow your argument, given that, I don't agree with what I think you're saying.

Firstly you suggest that "all we are trying to do is overexpress a molecule that is found in nature"; I'm pretty sure that's not true. By manipulation of genetic material we can introduce a "designer gene". You then suggest that transgene technology is in effect no different to feeding an animal with the product of a gene that has been expressed in another animal. I don't think this is correct either for a number of reasons. When you introduce a gene in to a eukaryotic system the regulation of that gene becomes integrated within the new system. The potential for epigenetic alterations is introduced as well alteration in RNA processing, splicing for example, as well as acquisition of the ploy a tail and the guanosine triphosphate cap The protein is then produced in the host ribosome before being subjected to post-translational modifications. We know that the latter differs between cells in the same organism never mind between different organisms.

Transgenics have a role but let's not be simplistic about this, scientists have responsibilities; there is much we have to learn.

mark,

I was discussing what the current status is. Sure, one can develop designer genes. I am sure that the FDA will comb through every aspect of that kind of a product before authorizing its release to the public. To your point of gene expression in different tissues, may I point out that most of the research that has occurred uses tissue specific promoters? Ideally, for modified genes, if one used the knock-in technology, all of those concerns can be addressed.

[Update]

I visited this question after 10 years and, albeit unclear how the question was phrased, you all provided great answers. I have since updated the question. Thank you all!