The genetic modification of the existing birds to have abilities like remembering and repeating the conversations among humans will lead to creating organisms, such as jabber jay. The gene insertion of the desirable trait, electroporation, presence of transposable elements, etc., can be used for such genetic modifications. Moreover, when these genetically modified birds mate with normal un-engineered birds, they are bound to pass on these modifications to their offspring, who will have the same abilities via inheritance (Eckerstorfer et al. 220).
Sexual reproduction is the process that results in infinite possibilities of genetic variations. This is also a very well-alone thing. Even we can say that sexual reproduction results in genetically unique offspring. So, when two organisms of different species are made, they produce offspring; they are known as hybrids. The hybrids are healthy offspring. They are of mixed ancestry, but only 5% of the progeny produced. There foretell only 5% off the more fertile restaurant infertile in F one generation. That DNA received by these offspring is formed off complementary single DNA single-stranded from two different parental molecules. We also know very well about recombination and natural selection; this also plays a vital role in meeting offspring. Only the fittest parent is allowed to mate when the fittest can meet the fertility rate increase (“Genetic Engineering”).
DIY Biology is a movement for individuals and communities to study biology and life sciences using methods used by traditional research institutions. One example of DIY Biology is the DNA extraction experiment that you can do yourself at home. Bioengineering can be sued to refer to multiple types of experiments for animals and plants. One example is the GloFish, wherein bioluminescent genes were inserted into zebrafish, making them glow. These were created as ornamental pet fish (Keulartz and van den Belt 7; Landrain et al. 116).
The scientists behind the significant genetics breakthroughs of the last century couldn’t have imagined that, by 2014, extracting, sequencing, and modifying DNA would be simple and cheap enough to try at home. However, as techniques such as PCR (polymerase chain reaction) become less expensive, faster, and more refined, a growing number of DIY biologists and amateur labs are conducting increasingly sophisticated experiments, much-involving DNA profiling, and even basic genetic engineering. The movement is taking genetics out of research labs and into the hands of the public, from evening classes spent extracting strawberry DNA with rum (and drinking the excess reagents as cocktails) to so-called ‘biohackers’ making GM microorganisms in homemade labs. Even an artist uses DNA from discarded hair, chewing gum, and cigarette butts (Ormandy et al. 545).
National rules governing synthetic biology are frequently ambiguous and out-of-date, having been drafted decades ago for genetically engineered species. No one imagined that genetic manipulation would one day become a profession; synthetic biology necessitates more advanced laws than those created to manage altered crops. Several countries, including Singapore, are considering providing licences to biohackers who must pass ethics and security tests or face fines or imprisonment (Olmstead). Moreover, the DIY bio-movement and government regulation must be considered as the transgenic or genetically modified organisms can be potentially beneficial or harmful. Thus, the government must follow extreme measures and regulations before allowing people and researchers to carry out transgenic studies because it causes safety issues. These labs are not monitored for the safety of the individuals and the experiments performed. One man injected himself with CRISPR on a live stream, even later saying that he didn’t think it would work (U.S. Politics & Government).
Eckerstorfer, Michael F., et al. “Plants Developed by New Genetic Modification Techniques—Comparison of Existing Regulatory Frameworks in the EU and Non-EU Countries.” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, vol. 7, 2019, pp. 210–19. Frontiers, https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00026.
“Genetic Engineering.” Genome.Gov, https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Engineering. Accessed 5 Mar. 2022.
Keulartz, Jozef, and Henk van den Belt. “DIY-Bio – Economic, Epistemological and Ethical Implications and Ambivalences.” Life Sciences, Society and Policy, vol. 12, no. 1, May 2016, p. 7. BioMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-016-0039-1.
Landrain, Thomas, et al. “Do-It-Yourself Biology: Challenges and Promises for an Open Science and Technology Movement.” Systems and Synthetic Biology, vol. 7, no. 3, Sept. 2013, pp. 115–26. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11693-013-9116-4.
Olmstead, Molly. “The Fuzzy Regulations Surrounding DIY Synthetic Biology.” Slate, May 2017. slate.com, https://slate.com/technology/2017/05/the-fuzzy-regulations-surrounding-diy-synthetic-biology.html.
Ormandy, Elisabeth H., et al. “Genetic Engineering of Animals: Ethical Issues, Including Welfare Concerns.” The Canadian Veterinary Journal, vol. 52, no. 5, May 2011, pp. 544–50. PubMed Central, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078015/.
U.S. Politics & Government. https://www.brookings.edu/topic/u-s-politics-government/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2022.