The problem is finding an approach to the problem that has a reasonable chance of success.

Again this was discussed on Telic Thoughts. It seems that you need a large area (island?) that is isolated from all entry and escape of mice. (A leak here or there won’t kill the data. Mice are hard to isolate.) Then, rather than using lab mice (it is suspected that they suffer from selective breeding) begin with wild mice. Knock out the conserved genes that you wish to test in 1/2 of the mice. Ideally, put in a genetic marker into all of the mice, a kind of barcode to confirm that all mice are part of the test rather than coming in from the outside. Run the experiment with around 1000 total mice 500 mutants, 500 controlls. Run the test for 5 years, doing regular statistical checks to see if the unmodified mice are dominating or not. If the modified mice continue to thrive in such an environment, then the modification can be reasonably labeled “unharmful”. If the deletion of highly conserved genes proves unharmful in a major study like this, then the theory the the genes are conserved by natural selection becomes highly suspect.

The science needs to be done.

It seems as if knocking out the conserved sequences, raising the GM progeny, and comparing them with their unmodified cousins is the way to go.

Yep. But what environment are you going to grow them in?

Bob

It seems as if knocking out the conserved sequences, raising the GM progeny, and comparing them with their unmodified cousins is the way to go. Just because that’s already been done with GM mice where a thousand highly conserved sequences were deleted and they couldn’t find any differences doesn’t mean there are no differences. Maybe they just didn’t look hard enough. Lack of evidence is not proof of lack. Just like lack of direct evidence of non-human intelligent agency doesn’t mean that there are no other intelligent agencies and therefore we must hold open the possibility that we just haven’t looked hard enough. I’m sure you’ll agree as I’m confident you’re honest enough not to impose a double standard when it comes to lack of evidence, right?

As such, if the scientific community is honest, it will output the bucks to do the heavy research to prove these conserved genes to be valuable.

I suspect they are doing. The selling point on the grant application is a no-brainer. The problem is finding an approach to the problem that has a reasonable chance of success. I can’t see one, but I don’t work in that area, so this is probably just my ignorance.

Bob

it will output the bucks to do the heavy research to prove these conserved genes to be valuable.

Silly boy. If DNA is conserved it has function. If DNA has function it is conserved. I believe Judge Jones in Dover proved this to be true science and ordered, through judicial fiat, that questioning it violates the first amendment of the United States constitution. Don’t make me turn you in to the authorities. Testing something that is known to be true is a waste of time. This stuff is as well tested as the law of gravity. No one needs to wonder if an apple is going to fall down from a tree or up into the sky. Similarly no one need wonder if conserved DNA has a function. It just does.

Further, I suggest that if these genes are unneccesary in some environments, we should see that some organisms drop genes that are highly and ultra-maintained in their cousins and ancestors. I have not seen reports of this being the case.

Bob