The USDA should limit commercial production of the genetically modified eucalyptus tree. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Firstly, the technology involved is not mature enough at this stage, so if production takes place on a large scale, there could be serious consequences. Genetics is the result of adapting to the environment to survive, otherwise known as evolution. This therefore means that such genetic engineering could be unnatural. This is because originally genes should provide balance to nature, for example by allowing biological populations to survive only in certain areas, so as to avoid the invasion of other species that could cause the extinction of some species, or facilitate the formation of a sustainable food chain. However, such genetic engineering could be dangerous in the sense that it could change the biological behavior of such a eucalyptus tree. For example, modifying genes to become tolerant to freezing can cause them to grow uncontrollably in all parts of the world, which is dangerous. This can increase the difficulty of growing other plants, since a region's nutrients and water are not unlimited, which poses a threat to other biological populations that take these plants as food. This could disturb the natural environment. Indeed, human interference has often proven to be as harmful to the environment as deforestation. Consequently, any further actions that may cause a change in the environment should be carefully considered. However, the technology involved is not yet mature enough. Scientists do not yet have a complete understanding of genes, and modifying them can cause unwanted behavior in the long term. Therefore, before the technology involved in genetic engineering is sufficiently mature, such commercial production of the genetically modified eucalyptus tree should be limited. Second, the benefits of such production may not be able to outweigh the disadvantages, in other words, the costs of approving such commercial production will likely exceed the benefits. The main incentive for such commercial production is that eucalyptus trees would become frost-free, allowing them to survive in colder regions, and, because they grow quickly, they could be used as biofuel but regrow quickly. However, this involves the removal of large areas of the original plantations. Since such removal usually involves burning them, large amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are released, which would further worsen global warming and is difficult to offset. Additionally, eucalyptus trees grow quickly, but they also use large amounts of water. As a result, groundwater may be depleted as nature may not be ready for such a drastic increase in natural water use. This makes further growth of the plants difficult. On the other hand, eucalyptus trees burn quickly. So, if a fire were to break out, eucalyptus trees could accelerate its spread, not only damaging investments made, but also releasing significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is not feasible. Therefore, while it is true that it is possible to supply more logs to meet growing global needs due to the rapidly regenerating property of eucalyptus trees, consequences are likely to arise and benefits to vanish, if such commercial production is carried out on large scale. . Therefore, theCommercial production of the genetically modified eucalyptus tree should be limited. Finally, the USDA should limit the commercial production of the genetically modified eucalyptus tree. No, I don't think Mitalipov and his team repaired the mutated paternal gene using CRISPR. First, if such an action could cause unwanted side effects later, that gene should not be considered repaired, since repair should mean ridding the gene of any trace problems. However, Mitalipov's method causes the removal of most genes. Because human genes are complex and may not serve only one purpose as such, removing parts of genes and then letting cells fix the genes using other parts of the genetic sequence as templates can cause the removed genes to lose some function . For example, the genes may not have mutated because the mutated part was deleted, but since CRISPR did not bring healthy genes as templates, the cells may have directly linked the genes to each other or by duplicating the genes, both of which can result in more genes or fewer genes than usual, which could lead to disastrous results. Therefore, before Mitalipov and his team can demonstrate that the method they are using would not solve the mutations in exchange for another problem, one should not believe that Mitalipov and his team repaired the mutated paternal gene using CRISPR. Second, the absence of mutation may not be correct. be due to the use of CRISPR. Since the repaired genes did not have specific templates used by Mitalipov and his team, it can be concluded that Mitalipov and his team were unable to successfully repair the mutated paternal genes in exactly the way they might have wanted. So, there is the possibility that the absence of the mutations was due to some unknown effects at that time, or that the mutations were simply not detected due to randomness, or perhaps that the sperm genes did not influence the sperm genes much finals. in this experiment. Indeed, Mitalipov and his team claimed to have repaired the mutations by performing CRISPR at an earlier time, but at this time it is assumed that the sperm and egg genes may not be close enough to each other and so, although CRISPR can have removed some parts of the sperm gene, it is likely that the sperm cannot provide a good model to recreate the removed parts of the gene since the sperm itself is not free from mutations and the egg may be too far from forming any corrections in the genes . Considering this, the possibility that CRISPR is the root cause of the absence of mutations is low, since CRISPR did not provide the blueprint for repairing genes. Therefore, it is hard to believe that Mitalipov and his team repaired the mutated paternal gene using CRISPR. On the other hand, it is obvious that the result of Mitalipov and his team was that the mutated genes were not present after the experiment. Therefore, it must be true that the experiment triggered a mechanism, intentional or unintentional or unknown, to correct the genetics. Although it is not easy to believe that Mitalipov and his team repaired the mutated paternal gene using CRISPR, it is true that thanks to their actions of using CRISPR, a seemingly positive result is obtained, namely the absence of mutations. In other words, Mitalipov and his team have at least partially, if not completely, repaired the mutated paternal genes, even though it may not be the direct result of CRISPR. The problem is that this result has not been achieved before, nor often predicted or expected, nor repeated elsewhere. Therefore, in conditions of such uncertainty, for example, in case of errors occurring in the medium, one should not believe that,.