Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucla-cs!news
From: MACGYVER%INDYCMS.BITNET@oac.ucla.edu (MacGyver)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: (2805) Molecular Biology vs. AIDS Genome
Message-ID: <1990Dec11.201901.25778@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 11 Dec 90 19:19:23 GMT
Sender: news@cs.ucla.edu (Mr. News)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Lines: 28
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note: non-commercial reproduction.
Nntp-Posting-Host: squid.cs.ucla.edu
Archive-Number: 2807

On Tue, 11 Dec 90 04:27:13 pst Support Account for SCI.MED.AIDS said:
>
>So, why doesn't someone use modern molecular biology techniques to create
>a nice little "beasty" that infects every cell in the body and "snips out"
>some sequestered genetic material essential for propagation of the virus?
>
>This question may seem somewhat naive -- however, given the miracles which
>can be accomplished in the molecular biology lab, how much more difficult
>would it be to accomplish this goal in the living human body?
>

As I have said before, I'm not a _____, nor do I play one on TV.

Naive is correct.  What is known about genetics seems like a lot, but
it is also the tip of the iceberg.  There are also too many things
that can go wrong because of unexpected or unplanned results.

Think about this (which is similar to what you are describing):
"why doesn't someone come up with some little bug that eats oil and
gets rid of oil slicks when a ship spills, like in Valdez?" -- and
what happens if that bug gets into the world's oil supply?

What if it turns out that the snippet of DNA that would be modified in
the human body is similar to or identical to some component necessary
for normal function?

There are too, too many 'ifs' to simply say "why doesn't someone just
give me a pill" or "why can't someone just invent a button to push"