One of the current rages in present day science is the mapping of the DNA molecule. We still don't know what it means and we are not really sure how it can be used. However there is certainty that by the knowing, great things can be done. My personal opinion is that if most people can not read a road map, which has a direct bearing on our activities, then what are we going to do with a DNA map? Who is going to fold it when we are through?

There is, of course, the tremendous pride and superior attitude that accompanies this accomplishment. But is it really appropriate to be so smug? This is only the latest step in the accrual of knowledge. There was a step - the first step - that was much more important, much more difficult and much more profound. It was mankind's first dabbling in genetic engineering and manipulation. The breeding of dogs is what I have in mind.

Let us consider "primitive man" at a time of thirty to forty thousand years ago. The dog had already been domesticated, not yet made into a pet. It was an animal with a variety of uses: protection, carrying burdens, and as a walking food basket.

So where along the way did the thought come to actively pick two parents with the hope of controlling the traits or characteristics of the offspring? It could have started with choosing animals for coloration. How ever it began we now see dozens of breeds adapted for all kinds of hunting and protection. In fact there are separate breeds within breeds. The terrier is a good example with at least a dozen different styles, all for different types of hunting and protection. But these changes are relatively recent happenings.

That dog had been domesticated by the time of our migration from Africa I'm fairly certain. How long after did canine husbandry take place? In other words, was there an exchange between people in passing or adjoining groups? (Can we call them tribes?) These of course are the mechanics of the genetic engineering of dogs. The thought and cognizant act is what bears examination; the abstract vision of transforming something into another thing more useful.

The dissection of that thought process would most surely exhibit the transformation of dog to be a more complex but similar adaptation of a stick used to probe a termite mound. Both have the end result of being emerging technology. The technology of the stick was that of an immediate tool. It was more of an exhibition of tool use serving to familiarize "us" with the use of things outside of us.

The emerging technology of the dog enlarged and exercised our abstract thoughts to see past an immediate need. The end result being the earliest works of genetic engineering. Moreover I believe it was the work of those first practical scientists that led to the genetic manipulation of the earliest grains that were, a mere ten thousands years ago, only grass

Ultimately our knowledge of DNA may be more refined. Yet consider that it is all built upon those early experiments, carried like a child on the back of a dog.