بائیو ٹیکنالوجی اور اس کے اثرات، دینی و اخلاقی پہلو

Biotechnology has helped to improve the quality of people’s lives over ten thousand years. Today’s biotechnologies vary in application and over the last century, the number and range of biotechnologies have rapidly increased. A key to this increase was the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, leading to numerous applications, particularly in forensics, medicine and agriculture. There are some strong religious and ethical views and observations regarding the advancement of this technology. Biotechnology involving practices such as organ transplants, manipulating human embryos and using animal in research may be particularly offensive to some groups of people, while the fundamental aim of this technology is to meet human needs or demands to improve the quality of life. Ethics and Xenotransplantation, Ethics and Zebrafish, Ethics and organ donation and Designer Babies have become today’s controversial issues. This article aims to explore these issues and analyze as per religious ethical values and standards.  

Biosafety Assessment of Transgenic Maize Containing Cemb Antifreeze Afp Gene

Many genetically modified crops have been developed and made available for human and animal use since 1990s. The technology permits cross-species modifications, consequently, it allows an enormous selection of new characters. The utilization of genetically modified crops for animal and human consumption is likely to grow in the future. However, reception of genetically modified crops is often met with criticism and debate in the society. The issue that whether the genetic alteration can lead to unintentional consequences in terms of feed quality or nutrient composition of the grain is of great importance. The present research aimed to investigate the effects of feeding a GM-maize diet to broiler chicken at different doses. A total of 40 chickens were procured, vaccinated and acclimatized to the environment. In this feeding study of 60 days, chickens were randomly divided into four groups with 10 replicates in each group. Diet of control group labeled as D1 contained 50% non-transgenic maize and 50% commercial diet. Second group labeled as D2 was fed 50% transgenic maize and 50% commercial diet. Third group was labeled as D3. Its diet contained a low dosage of transgenic maize i.e. 40% transgenic maize and 50% commercially available diet and 10% of non-transgenic maize. Group four was termed as D4 and its diet was a mixture of 30% transgenic maize, 50% commercial diet and 20% non-transgenic maize. Feed consumption and animal body weight increased normally throughout the trial. At the end of the trial, samples were collected for morphological, biochemical, histopathological and molecular tests and the results showed no significant difference among the groups. Transgene detection in the tissue samples of vital organs showed absence of transgene fragment. Expression profiling of growth-related genes showed no difference in the relative expression among different dietary groups. All these diagnostic tests demonstrate that use of transgenic maize does not have any unintended consequences.