Man Creates Life

[Lev]

Watch Video (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form)

Scientists have created the world's first synthetic life form in a landmark experiment that paves the way for designer organisms that are built rather than evolved.

The controversial feat, which has occupied 20 scientists for more than 10 years at an estimated cost of $40m, was described by one researcher as "a defining moment in biology".

Craig Venter, the pioneering US geneticist behind the experiment, said the achievement heralds the dawn of a new era in which new life is made to benefit humanity, starting with bacteria that churn out biofuels, soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and even manufacture vaccines.

However critics, including some religious groups, condemned the work, with one organisation warning that artificial organisms could escape into the wild and cause environmental havoc or be turned into biological weapons. Others said Venter was playing God.

The new organism is based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.

The single-celled organism has four "watermarks" written into its DNA to identify it as synthetic and help trace its descendants back to their creator, should they go astray.

"We were ecstatic when the cells booted up with all the watermarks in place," Dr Venter told the Guardian. "It's a living species now, part of our planet's inventory of life."

Dr Venter's team developed a new code based on the four letters of the genetic code, G, T, C and A, that allowed them to draw on the whole alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks to write the watermarks. Anyone who cracks the code is invited to email an address written into the DNA.

The research is reported online today in the journal Science.

"This is an important step both scientifically and philosophically," Dr Venter told the journal. "It has certainly changed my views of definitions of life and how life works."

The team now plans to use the synthetic organism to work out the minimum number of genes needed for life to exist. From this, new microorganisms could be made by bolting on additional genes to produce useful chemicals, break down pollutants, or produce proteins for use in vaccines.

Julian Savulescu, professor of practical ethics at Oxford University, said: "Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny. He is not merely copying life artificially ... or modifying it radically by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally."

This is "a defining moment in the history of biology and biotechnology", Mark Bedau, a philosopher at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, told Science.

Dr Venter became a controversial figure in the 1990s when he pitted his former company, Celera Genomics, against the publicly funded effort to sequence the human genome, the Human Genome Project. Venter had already applied for patents on more than 300 genes, raising concerns that the company might claim intellectual rights to the building blocks of life.

[Maximum Zersk]

Neat, ain't it?

[Yarram]

YES! YYEEEAAAAHH!!!
Genetic engineering, here we come baby!

[Giggling Ghast]

Fascinating stuff. I wonder what implications this could have for the future.

[Totally Guy]

I thought this was another Pika thread. :smalltongue:

[Emperor Ing]

On one hand, I can't discuss it on these boards. On the other hand, I KNEW this would eventually happen, but not for another 5 years or so, heh, holy crap this is insane.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Woohoo! This is awesome :smile:

[thubby]

:smalleek: *picks jaw up off floor*
that's... wow. go science!

[SatyreIkon]

I wonder why everyone goes "Wheeee!" at the thought of man creating life from scrap and does not consider any of the possible negative implications. NPD turned up to eleven anyone ... ? :smallannoyed:

[Anuan]

...Next step better be making Pokemon. :smallannoyed:

[AstralFire]

I wonder why everyone goes "Wheeee!" at the thought of man creating life from scrap and does not consider any of the possible negative implications. NPD turned up to eleven anyone ... ? :smallannoyed:

Because there are tons of people who are going to do that for us, turned up to twelve.

[horngeek]

I wonder why everyone goes "Wheeee!" at the thought of man creating life from scrap and does not consider any of the possible negative implications. NPD turned up to eleven anyone ... ? :smallannoyed:

Yeah... I honestly think that while we may have the knowledge to do this, we don't have the wisdom to.

...and that's all I'm going to say on the matter, because I can't really go further into it on these boards.

[Manicotti]

Thanks to you, I have this song (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/sy-1720407257/alice_cooper_feed_my_frankenstein_official_music_v ideo/) stuck in my head. again.

[Gamerlord]

Woah woah woah, why all the cheering?
This is the biggest threat to our lives in years.
Does anyone consider the possibilities for weaponinaton?
Besides the gazillion ethical questions.

[Serpentine]

Coooooool.
But yeah, lets hope they advance with a lot of caution. Especially if that bit at the end of the article about that company trying to patent genes is true... :smalleek:

[Gamerlord]

Coooooool.
But yeah, lets hope they advance with a lot of caution. Especially if that bit at the end of the article about that company trying to patent genes is true... :smalleek:

It is, give me some time and I can fish a WSJ article about it out of their archives.

[Innis Cabal]

Woah woah woah, why all the cheering?
This is the biggest threat to our lives in years.
Does anyone consider the possibilities for weaponinaton?
Besides the gazillion ethical questions.

Yep. We also consider how ground breaking this is, how much it will improve our lives, and how this will advance human society in a short period of time. Net win for the human race.

[Gamerlord]

Yep. We also consider how ground breaking this is, how much it will improve our lives, and how this will advance human society in a short period of time. Net win for the human race.

Does "Evil super-soldiers" or "Flesh-devouring living bombs" advance human society?

[Innis Cabal]

To the finish line. Won't matter to me if I'm dead. Won't matter to you either when your dead to. If one is to flinch away out of fear, we shall never progress.

[Gamerlord]

To the finish line. Won't matter to me if I'm dead. Won't matter to you either when your dead to. If one is to flinch away out of fear, we shall never progress.

I think it will matter to my descendants, or my younger sisters' descendants.

I think it is flinching away out of caution myself.

But I'm no biologist, I can't really comment extensively on this.

[Serpentine]

No, but "cancer-eating bacteria" and "atmosphere-changing carbontrophs" can.
Getting hysterical over the risks at the expense of the benefits is not much better than espousing the benefits at the expense of the risk.

[AstralFire]

It is far too early to say where this road will lead, so flinching away is simply fear at this point, imo. Proceed, but with caution.

[CoffeeIncluded]

Of course, it all depends on how we use it. But this is amazing.

[Innis Cabal]

If its as truly terrible as you all make it out to be. You won't have kids. Or grandkids. And thus, it won't matter.

[Gamerlord]

If you guys say so, but I have a good feeling that we're all going to regret this in say, 70 years or so.

[Serpentine]

I hope so. Cuz then I'll have lived to 94 :smalltongue:
Really, I think we're more likely to see... no real application of it for, say, 15-20 years. Then we'll have a few tentative uses for 5-10 years, then probably someone will try something dumb, weaponization or similar, for... cuz humanity is dumb... 20-30 years. Not much will be done with it after that, because everyone will have lost trust in it, until its reputation starts to recover after a decade or three, depending on how badly they screwed up. Then the real, useful, applications will start to be developed, and we'll see the next stage of human progress.

So, if my prediction is correct, the regret will be in about... 40-60 years, and by 70 years we'll be working on real progress.
Remember this post, people, so you can mock me when I'm wrong be awe-inspired my my correctness.

[horngeek]

If its as truly terrible as you all make it out to be. You won't have kids. Or grandkids. And thus, it won't matter.

...what? :smallconfused:

[Ashen Lilies]

Quotes for you horngeek.


Does "Evil super-soldiers" or "Flesh-devouring living bombs" advance human society?

To the finish line. Won't matter to me if I'm dead. Won't matter to you either when your dead to. If one is to flinch away out of fear, we shall never progress.

I think it will matter to my descendants, or my younger sisters' descendants.

I think it is flinching away out of caution myself.

But I'm no biologist, I can't really comment extensively on this.

Innis is saying that if Gamerkid's doomsaying becomes reality, he need not worry about his descendants, because his descendants will be non-existent, or alternatively, never exist in the first place. :smallsmile:
Come, Clarification Boy! To the Explanationmobile!
*poofs away in a puff of Confusion*

[Innis Cabal]

Quotes for you horngeek.





Innis is saying that if Gamerkid's doomsaying becomes reality, he need not worry about his descendants, because his descendants will be non-existent, or alternatively, never exist in the first place. :smallsmile:
Come, Clarification Boy! To the Explanationmobile!
*poofs away in a puff of Confusion*

Thanks Clarification Boy! We couldn't have done it without you! :smallsmile:

But exactly that yes. It may sound selfish, but I don't care about 20-30 years from now. Its simply to far ahead to really plan out. Oh sure, we should make a better world then what we left it. But that won't happen unless we act -today-. Today, we the human species just took the first steps to eradicating all that which ails us. Today, we have made (In theory) a better world for our children 20-30 years from now. All it requires is the same attitude we took to airplanes, modern medicine, and any other slew of

Winston Churchill said about the weapons of war in WW2


We will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Here today, if we balk, if we back down merely because of outrage and disagreeable terms of ethics. We shall fall into not a Dark Age more protracted by the lights of perverted science, but instead, a Dark Age with no light at all, stagnated science, and shunned men of learning.

That is not a world I wish to give to the youth of tomorrow. That is no world I wish to give anyone.

[H. Zee]

Does "Evil super-soldiers" or "Flesh-devouring living bombs" advance human society?

Neither of these are even nearly as scary than a technology mankind has had access to for over 60 years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon) And we ain't dead yet.


So, if my prediction is correct, the regret will be in about... 40-60 years, and by 70 years we'll be working on real progress.
Remember this post, people, so you can mock me when I'm wrong be awe-inspired my my correctness.

Given the current, exponentially-growing rate of human development, I actually wouldn't be surprised if you were over-estimating the time scales here!

[bluewind95]

This is amazing, truly. Now... amazing things can be either very good or very bad. We don't know where this will lead. But amazing it is, either way.

[Axolotl]

10 years of research. 40 million dollars. One cell.

Seems kind of a waste to be honest.

[Green Bean]

Here today, if we balk, if we back down merely because of outrage and disagreeable terms of ethics. We shall fall into not a Dark Age more protracted by the lights of perverted science, but instead, a Dark Age with no light at all, stagnated science, and shunned men of learning.

That is not a world I wish to give to the youth of tomorrow. That is no world I wish to give anyone.

Or, we fall into a non-dark age, where scientists work on the incredibly wide field of science that doesn't risk the destruction of everything alive. You can close one door without closing every other.


Personally, though, I'm not worried. This is the grey goo scenario all over again. Scientists were all worried about artificial organisms run amok but they realized that the natural world works better than anything we can cook up in a lab.

[Adumbration]

Eh, from what I've heard, the current applications for this are no better - and in ways, more inefficient - to our other methods of genemanipulation.

But we'll see. The funny thing is, whatever comes, it won't be long until we're used to that, too. Miracles become commonplace, threat of armageddon a vague shadow over us. (This is true in past tense, present tense as well as future tense.)

[Tengu_temp]

10 years of research. 40 million dollars. One cell.

Seems kind of a waste to be honest.

I bet someone said the same thing about the first computer.

[Dragon queen]

No offense but the idea of creating new life scares me so much I might as well hide under my bed for the rest of my life . You see sooner or later one of them is going to say "Hmmm...Lets make an animal! I know a flying T-rex!"' Then I am going to live on the moon. I feel very sorry for those of you left on earth when Mr. T-rex is created.:smalleek: I think were are very much better sticking to 1 celled organisms. But lets try not to do that either. You see we evolved from 1 celled organisms even if its 4 million years till they become human-like...I don't wanna share the Earth with stuff that evolved from yeast.:smalleek:

[Serpentine]

...you know everything evolved from yeast*, right :smallconfused:


*not actually yeast, but in the spirit.

[AstralFire]

I don't understand what's inherently so scary about creating life. But that might tie into how one views life.

[Dragon queen]

...you know everything evolved from yeast*, right :smallconfused:


*not actually yeast, but in the spirit.

...Really? Oh, that just plain stinks.:smallannoyed: I thought I at least evolved from rats.

[Mathis]

Many people are going to ask themselves what positive sides there are to the manufactoring of cells with a synthetic gene-pool, and if we have enough control on this to develop the technology further which is what people are afraid of we don't have.

But today we are already using micro-organisms for a wide range of purposes, like medicinal purposes to create antiobiotics, vaccines etc. In all these processes we're working on a basis that nature itself has created. These designs are never optimal when you look at our needs. This will, in principle, change radically when we can design organisms to meet our very specific needs like this Craig Venter now has the basic means to do. The positive outcome of this will be, well near limitless.

Craig Venter for example is very much into bioenergy, so the perspectives here are near endless aswell. However, no matter how afraid people will get of this it's important to understand how long it will take until real results are found, because what we know now is how to make a micro-organism after one specific "recipe". We don't however know which recipe to use to achieve the end-results we want, and though this is where we want our scientists to get to it's quite a bit into the future still. Personally I think it's perfectly safe to continue the research on this field, IF international regulations come into place quickly. Though, the debate around those regulations are going to be one massive can of worms.

[Serpentine]

There is, indeed, a "small rodent-like mammal" somewhere in our ancestry, but long before that there's single-cell organisms.

[AslanCross]

Yeah... I honestly think that while we may have the knowledge to do this, we don't have the wisdom to.

...and that's all I'm going to say on the matter, because I can't really go further into it on these boards.

+1. I'm a bit underwhelmed too, since it's more of a genetic copy-paste than anything.

Either way, I still think that these things always have consequences.

[lesser_minion]

I don't understand what's inherently so scary about creating life. But that might tie into how one views life.

Used responsibly, genetic engineering does have the potential to do some amazing things.

I'm not too worried about custom biological weapons of mass destruction, because one idiot can destroy the world already.

The big issue is the politics surrounding it. Nobody's totally sure what is fair game when you've just expanded the game this far.

As an example, take the idea of engineering a seed so that the plant that grows from it doesn't produce further seeds or pollen. Is that reasonable, or is it reprehensible?

Bear in mind that the same piece of engineering could have positive applications -for example, there's a possibility that whatever species we modify could pollinate or be pollinated by our variant. That could be less than good.

In the end, I think genetic engineering is a can of worms at best, and a danger at worst. However, I agree that this specific case is only special because it's a newspaper-selling result from the field.

[Makensha]

Hate to burst the bubble, but creating requires to come from nothing or to make by non-ordinary processes. We construct things all the time, is that really so non-ordinary? "Built" or "Made" might be a better term here.

[AstralFire]

Used responsibly, genetic engineering does have the potential to do some amazing things.

Used irresponsibly, we get all kinds of horrible things. Biological weapons of mass destruction aren't really an issue - one idiot can destroy the world already.

But if politicians aren't careful, then there could be some horrible consequences. The most well-known exploitative use of genetic engineering, for example, is the "terminator seed" (which doesn't yield new seeds for the next planting).

As for patenting of genes, that is an incredibly tricky issue. If you're really concerned about it, I'm sure your local political representation will be at least semi-willing to discuss it with you.

I understand the fear of genetic engineering. It was specifically fear of creation of life that confused me.


Hate to burst the bubble, but creating requires to come from nothing or to make by non-ordinary processes. We construct things all the time, is that really so non-ordinary? "Built" or "Made" might be a better term here.

1) This is non-ordinary or it wouldn't be breaking news, chum.
2) Synonyms for make: 1. form; build; produce; fabricate, create, fashion, mold.

You'd be looking for 'construct', but even in that case, feels like hairsplitting. This is momentous.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Given the current, exponentially-growing rate of human development, I actually wouldn't be surprised if you were over-estimating the time scales here!

I'll admit I'm far out of my area of expertise, but isn't that rate supposed to slow eventually, being impossible to sustain?


I understand the fear of genetic engineering. It was specifically fear of creation of life that confused me.

Probably a 'dabbling in things mortals were never meant to' thing.

[Eon]

Hmm... I really don't have a take on this right now... :smallannoyed:

Right now I see a fork in the road. On one side is negative outcome and the other a positive outcome. There will be scientists going on both paths, hopefully one more than the other. Of course there will be other forks in the road, other lessons learned, other discoveries. Some will lead farther down the negative path and some down the positive path. There will be paths connecting the others. As more scientists go along more paths will be made but no two exactly alike. Some will end and some will be carried on.

Take what you will, but I'll wait before my judgement.

[lesser_minion]

I understand the fear of genetic engineering. It was specifically fear of creation of life that confused me.

It's still the field that's being discussed - it's just that this is a result that sounds exciting enough to sell newspapers.

Most newspapers don't really see science as something that sells. Perhaps that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and I know it's becoming more popular, but that seems to be the way these things work.


Bear in mind that genetic engineering still takes a lot of skill and expertise to apply successfully, and it certainly isn't some phlebotinum that can easily and quickly do whatever we want, any more than nanotechnology will be.

[Prime32]

You're overreacting. Scientists could do this stuff aleady, they're just using smaller building blocks now. :smalltongue:

For some reason people think

Cow bred to have a certain genetic makeup = not scary
Cow modified to have a certain genetic makeup = kinda scary
Cow built to have a certain genetic makeup = WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!

Even though in the end they're the same cow. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature) :smalltongue:

[Erts]

You're overreacting. Scientists could do this stuff aleady, they're just using smaller building blocks now. :smalltongue:

For some reason people think

Cow bred to have a certain genetic makeup = not scary
Cow modified to have a certain genetic makeup = kinda scary
Cow built to have a certain genetic makeup = WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!

Even though in the end they're the same cow. :smalltongue:

So true.

This isn't really that amazing. I mean, sure, yeah, they made the first synthetic life form. But it can't really do anything yet, and is indistinguishable from another bacteria which they based it on. So, yeah.

[bluewind95]

So true.

This isn't really that amazing. I mean, sure, yeah, they made the first synthetic life form. But it can't really do anything yet, and is indistinguishable from another bacteria which they based it on. So, yeah.

Ah, but see, it IS distinguishable from the other bacteria. It has a watermark! If you decode its DNA, it even invites you to write to some email address. Pretty amazing.

[Axolotl]

I bet someone said the same thing about the first computer.But computers can actually do something (and yeah the first ever computer did have it's funding cut before it was finished).

This on the other hand doesn't really have any advantage over simply manipulating naturally occuring organisms. It may prove useful some point in the future but at the momen there simply isn't enough progress done to be able to put this to good use.

[The Dark Fiddler]

But computers can actually do something (and yeah the first ever computer did have it's funding cut before it was finished).

To be fair, most of what early computers did was a lot of stuff we could already do, wasn't it? (computing, writing, etc.)

[Prime32]

Ah, but see, it IS distinguishable from the other bacteria. It has a watermark! If you decode its DNA, it even invites you to write to some email address. Pretty amazing.Except that they could just put that watermark into an existing bacterium.

[lesser_minion]

You're overreacting. Scientists could do this stuff aleady, they're just using smaller building blocks now. :smalltongue:

For some reason people think

Cow bred to have a certain genetic makeup = not scary
Cow modified to have a certain genetic makeup = kinda scary
Cow built to have a certain genetic makeup = WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!

Even though in the end they're the same cow. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature) :smalltongue:

I believe wikipedia may have something to say about that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

No, building a cow from the ground up to have a particular genetic makeup that already exists is not likely to be an issue.

But we aren't talking about making synthetic versions of existing life, we're talking about creating arbitrary life forms, and the potential for exploitation that exists when a lot of the pre-existing limits are removed.

In essence, the problem is that the cow can be very different when built from the ground up - infertile cows that can only be produced by a vat, anyone? (n.b. this is, in fact, rather exagerrated itself).

[Tengu_temp]

But computers can actually do something (and yeah the first ever computer did have it's funding cut before it was finished).

This on the other hand doesn't really have any advantage over simply manipulating naturally occuring organisms. It may prove useful some point in the future but at the momen there simply isn't enough progress done to be able to put this to good use.

And that's exactly how it was with computers too. Most scientific projects require tremendous amount of effort, time and money before they create something that has any practical use. Scientists making a breakthrough and immediately using it to create teleporters/flying cars/time travel is something that happens only in fiction.

[bluewind95]

Except that they could just put that watermark into an existing bacterium.

Yes. But they didn't.

At any rate, the whole thing is pretty awesome in my eyes. Building a cell from scratch really can't be so easy. They did take ages with this, didn't they?

[Serpentine]

"The first development in the harnessing of electricity was a waste of time and money. It couldn't even do anything. Everyone's stupid for thinking Tesla's a big deal."

:confused:

[Teddy]

Hmm... I really don't have a take on this right now... :smallannoyed:

Right now I see a fork in the road. On one side is negative outcome and the other a positive outcome. There will be scientists going on both paths, hopefully one more than the other. Of course there will be other forks in the road, other lessons learned, other discoveries. Some will lead farther down the negative path and some down the positive path. There will be paths connecting the others. As more scientists go along more paths will be made but no two exactly alike. Some will end and some will be carried on.

Take what you will, but I'll wait before my judgement.

No, there isn't any Good fork, or any Evil fork for that matter either. They are two sides of the same coin. Whatever you chose to delve deeper into, there will always be both good and bad uses of the newfound knowledge. Some paths are more dangerous than others, but just because a field of knowledge sounds alien and complicated to us doesn't mean that it's inherently bad.

[lesser_minion]

I bet someone said the same thing about the first computer.

The first computer was designed to produce logarithm tables - it was found that quite a few shipping accidents wouldn't have happened if it weren't for mistakes in the table.

While it did get its funding cut, wikipedia seems to think that a later version was made and sold to the British government.

By 1914, simple mechanical computers were being used in the Royal Navy to co-ordinate gunnery. In the 30's, the Poles began using simple mechanical computers to retrieve Enigma keys from messages.

During the second World War, the British developed this technology into something that could be used against later generations of the Enigma cipher.

At the same time, systems such as ENIAC began development.


However, computing is a very different kind of advance to genetics. Before computers were developed, the uses were more obvious, but the effects on the game were less obvious.


It took a while for people to think of all of the things that can be done with genetics, and there's no real guarantee that anyone will successfully apply any of the things that are "theoretically" possible. As with any scientific advance, there are wrinkles that will have to be ironed out before it can really be put to use.

[Serpentine]

Alright, if you're going to break down the analogy to such a degree, then let's use the steam engine. The very first one built was dismissed as a novelty - absolutely no use aside from entertainment was detected in it. Then (much later), it drove the Industrial Revolution. Presumably, this new technology will be much quicker to go from prototype to practical application. Nonetheless, it went from "so what?" to "running the world!"

[Prodan]

To be fair, most of what early computers did was a lot of stuff we could already do, wasn't it? (computing, writing, etc.)

Crashing, hangups, starting fires...

[Recaiden]

Probably a 'dabbling in things mortals were never meant to' thing.

We're not meant to do this? We already have other methods of genetic engineering. This is just directly making the DNA rather than assembling little pieces.

[Lord Raziere]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!!!!!!!

and at exactly the right time to! 2010, the start of a new decade, and a new groundbreaking level of science! lets hear it for 2010, biotechnology and science!

[averagejoe]

This is, unarguably, awesome. (Well, this is the internet, so nothing is unarguable. But it's close enough.)

Even if this destroys everything (it won't) it is still awesome. It's like a ninja punching you into the sun. Yeah, you'd probably prefer to be alive, but one must still admit that it was pretty frigging awesome.

And, like pretty much everything ever, it will probably end up being not that big a deal.

[lesser_minion]

Alright, if you're going to break down the analogy to such a degree, then let's use the steam engine. The very first one built was dismissed as a novelty - absolutely no use aside from entertainment was detected in it. Then (much later), it drove the Industrial Revolution. Presumably, this new technology will be much quicker to go from prototype to practical application. Nonetheless, it went from "so what?" to "running the world!"

The first steam engine was made by one guy in Alexandria. Most of the world never found out about it, and I suspect that people with the expertise needed to make additional ones weren't exactly common.

It's kind of easier to dismiss something when it's too far ahead of its time to show any signs of ever being useful.

Another possibility is that people were much more prepared to dismiss technology they didn't have as 'sorcery' - I don't know what people thought of Archimedes' reflector, but it took a while for the idea to catch on again.


This experiment is certainly worthwhile, but it's not really significant in real terms - it's just something for the papers.

[Serpentine]

I know, that's the one I'm talking about. This experiment is no more "not really significant in real terms" than that one was, or the first modern one - especially as there have already been discussions about the potential for this technology.

[lesser_minion]

I know, that's the one I'm talking about. This experiment is no more "not really significant in real terms" than that one was, or the first modern one - especially as there have already been discussions about the potential for this technology.

The thing is, there are plenty of experiments that are likely to be more significant, but which have gone unreported because they weren't obvious paper-sellers.

It will take a while for genetic engineering to become widespread, and while it's certainly getting closer, this project is just a tiny part of that. It's far more interesting in symbolic terms than it is in real terms.


Also, happy birthday. :smallsmile:

[Zevox]

Cool. Now to wait a few decades for them to reach the point where this has actual practical, common applications...

Zevox

[Serpentine]

Heh, thanks.

No arguments on that score *shrug*

[Froogleyboy]

It seems most people are thinking ''OH NOEZ! THE WORLD IS OVER!'' I really don't see how this means anything negative. I couldn't care less about any of y'alls ethics, this is amazing. Stopping this program because your afraid of it doing bad is like getting an abortion because your not sure if your child will be a good person [/rant]

[Serpentine]

Couldn't care less. Couldn't. COULDN'T. COULDN'T! :furious:
>rampages around the countryside<

[Cobalt]

*ignores everything that's been said, all trains of thought and all ethicical ways*

Ah, sweet, I can finally get a little sister.


But no, this is awesomely awesome. Can't wait till a terrorist-scientist gets his hands on this and holds the world for ransom, 'cause God knows I'm signing on to be a Mook.

[WalkingTarget]

Couldn't care less. Couldn't. COULDN'T. COULDN'T! :furious:
>rampages around the countryside<

I knew there was a reason I liked you, Serps.

Also: birthdays, hope you have a good one, etc.

[lesser_minion]

It seems most people are thinking ''OH NOEZ! THE WORLD IS OVER!'' I really don't see how this means anything negative. I couldn't care less about any of y'alls ethics, this is amazing. Stopping this program because your afraid of it doing bad is like getting an abortion because your not sure if your child will be a good person [/rant]

To a point, you're right. The potential for abuse is not a good reason to eschew any technology.

That doesn't mean it's not worth talking about, however. It does change the game quite a bit, and the way the politics surrounding it goes will be pretty decisive. Not thinking it through completely would be less than wise.

[Prodan]

But no, this is awesomely awesome. Can't wait till a terrorist-scientist gets his hands on this and holds the world for ransom, 'cause God knows I'm signing on to be a Mook.

The world is likely to laugh at his demands for... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!


Putting this into practice without understanding what kind of impact it will have and without having a fair idea of how it can be abused is like jumping from 40,000 feet without a parachute.
What's the matter, not man enough? (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/sports/othersports/10flying.html) :smallwink:

[lesser_minion]

What's the matter, not man enough? (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/sports/othersports/10flying.html)

Clarified for you.

[Gorgondantess]

Goddammit. It's just another hoax. This guy didn't create life: he modified it.
What I'm saying is, he didn't put a bunch of chemicals together, zap it with an electrical charge, and make a living thing: what he did is he took a pre existing cell, that he did not create, took the DNA out of it and injected his own, synthetic DNA. Watch the movie: he specifically said he replaced the DNA.
I'm sure this is a great stride in modern science, but he "created life" the same way your 3 year old sibling "didn't eat all the cookies" when he/she left a few crumbs left.

[Prodan]

Clarified for you.

Clarification by deletion?:smalleek:

[lesser_minion]

Clarification by deletion?:smalleek:

Well, my clarification was going to be "... into a hydrogen fluoride tank filled with mutant piranhas that shouldn't be able to survive there but do anyway".

I decided something less extreme would be better.

[Zevox]

Goddammit. It's just another hoax. This guy didn't create life: he modified it.
What I'm saying is, he didn't put a bunch of chemicals together, zap it with an electrical charge, and make a living thing: what he did is he took a pre existing cell, that he did not create, took the DNA out of it and injected his own, synthetic DNA. Watch the movie: he specifically said he replaced the DNA.
I'm sure this is a great stride in modern science, but he "created life" the same way your 3 year old sibling "didn't eat all the cookies" when he/she left a few crumbs left.
Ah, phooey. That'll teach me to listen to the media about scientific advancements rather than watch the video of the guy actually doing the science.

Zevox

[Gorgondantess]

Ah, phooey. That'll teach me to listen to the media about scientific advancements rather than watch the video of the guy actually doing the science.

Zevox

Yeah, pretty much. There was another guy a few years back who essentially did the same thing. It's all good science, but it's more fooling around with cells than actually making anything. Really depressing, actually.:smallsigh:

[Recaiden]

Yeah, pretty much. There was another guy a few years back who essentially did the same thing. It's all good science, but it's more fooling around with cells than actually making anything. Really depressing, actually.:smallsigh:

Well, the breakthrough here is the synthetic nature of the DNA, not the cell. I guess it's not that efficient (or yet possible) to build the whole ell from scratch when they can just use an existing one.

[Green Bean]

To a point, you're right. The potential for abuse is not a good reason to eschew any technology.

I think it really depends on the specific technology derived from this. Using artificial organisms to clean the atmosphere or cure diseases is great, but I don't see a problem with denying grant money to Project: Build An Unstoppable Death Virus because of its potential for abuse.

[Flickerdart]

Goddammit. It's just another hoax. This guy didn't create life: he modified it.
What I'm saying is, he didn't put a bunch of chemicals together, zap it with an electrical charge, and make a living thing: what he did is he took a pre existing cell, that he did not create, took the DNA out of it and injected his own, synthetic DNA. Watch the movie: he specifically said he replaced the DNA.
I'm sure this is a great stride in modern science, but he "created life" the same way your 3 year old sibling "didn't eat all the cookies" when he/she left a few crumbs left.
And that isn't impressive or ground-breaking because?

[Gorgondantess]

Because it's all been done before. People have been grafting synthetic DNA on to cells for a while now: not on this scale, but it's all been done before.
The point is, he claims he's created life. He hasn't. He's only modifying it.
Impressive? Yes. Godly? No.

[Recaiden]

"Create": to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

He used pre-existing things (Admittedly, the entire rest of the cell, and some yeast, and tools I'm sure.) to create the new ones. Perfectly valid creation of new life.
It is incredibly derivative and rather useless, but still. Creation.

[lesser_minion]

Yeah, pretty much. There was another guy a few years back who essentially did the same thing. It's all good science, but it's more fooling around with cells than actually making anything. Really depressing, actually.:smallsigh:

Dolly was made by splicing DNA into an embryo. Insulin is produced by bacteria that are modified using DNA taken from another organism.

Recaiden has a point - the breakthrough is the use of synthetic DNA. Where it leads onto is custom proteins, which are a lot more interesting.


I think it really depends on the specific technology derived from this. Using artificial organisms to clean the atmosphere or cure diseases is great, but I don't see a problem with denying grant money to Project: Build An Unstoppable Death Virus because of its potential for abuse.

I was sort of referring to the field as a whole - certainly, we'd want to be careful about specific applications of genetic engineering.

It's the field as a whole that we shouldn't be avoiding because of the potential for abuse.

Also, an unstoppable death protein is more likely than an unstoppable death virus -- it's easier to control something that can only be produced by your weapons factories, as opposed to something that can piggy-back on other cells to reproduce.

[PhoeKun]

I think it really depends on the specific technology derived from this. Using artificial organisms to clean the atmosphere or cure diseases is great, but I don't see a problem with denying grant money to Project: Build An Unstoppable Death Virus because of its potential for abuse.

I think that's a very narrow-minded view to take. At this stage of the process, we can only think in terms of generalities. There is a possibility that this breakthrough will lead to more and better biological weapons than we've managed before, but there are so many beneficial uses of this (with a lot more time and effort before we get there) that it would be a mistake to seriously consider pulling the plug on it. There is no Project: Build an Unstoppable Death Virus to veto.

The argument isn't that Science can do no wrong and should be allowed to do whatever it wants with no oversight. But there's a big difference between being prudent going forward a demanding the impossible by saying that only progress without potential for abuse is acceptable.

[Gorgondantess]

"Create": to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

He used pre-existing things (Admittedly, the entire rest of the cell, and some yeast, and tools I'm sure.) to create the new ones. Perfectly valid creation of new life.
It is incredibly derivative and rather useless, but still. Creation.

He's created a new form of life, but to insinuate that he's created life is going waaaaaay overboard.
The implications of "to create life" is to cobble a bunch of inert materials together and make them animate. Now, you may be asking, what's the difference?
Well, the difference is huge. Consider this: by using the same process you used to make inert materials animate, you could make until-recently animated materials animate.

I'm sure he's made quite a stride in genetic engineering. But what he hasn't done is "create life". There's no practical difference between what he's done and what "naturally evolves" over millions of years.

[SurlySeraph]

Because it's all been done before. People have been grafting synthetic DNA on to cells for a while now: not on this scale, but it's all been done before.
The point is, he claims he's created life. He hasn't. He's only modifying it.
Impressive? Yes. Godly? No.

Grafting it on, yes. Not an entire genome. The breakthrough is taking a cell with no DNA, putting synthetic DNA in it, and having it function. This is the first time someone has created a living being whose heritable material is entirely synthetic, a being with no ancestors. Sure it would be more impressive to build the entire cell from scratch, but the DNA is the important bit.

[Gorgondantess]

Grafting it on, yes. Not an entire genome. The breakthrough is taking a cell with no DNA, putting synthetic DNA in it, and having it function. This is the first time someone has created a living being whose heritable material is entirely synthetic, a being with no ancestors. Sure it would be more impressive to build the entire cell from scratch, but the DNA is the important bit.

Oh, I agree. It's a breakthrough.
He still hasn't created life, which is much more impressive, and groundbreaking, and it's what he (or at least the media) is claiming he's done.:smallannoyed:

[lesser_minion]

He's created a new form of life, but to insinuate that he's created life is going waaaaaay overboard.
The implications of "to create life" is to cobble a bunch of inert materials together and make them animate. Now, you may be asking, what's the difference?

The conditions needed for life to arise from a combination of different chemicals aren't that easy to replicate. We don't even know what they are. And if you did make a living thing out of some ammonia and water, you would never know.

And the processes needed to create life from a few chemicals are not something that can be applied to resurrect someone.

There is a reason why dinosaurs don't pop into existence every time there's a thunderstorm.

[Eldan]

Ah. Venter actually came over to Zurich a few months ago to give a presentation on this. Nice that he has managed it now.

I'm joining the "what's all the fuzz about how horrible it is" crowd, though. If we couldn't make flesh-eating monster bacteria before this, we can't make them now. Because if we knew a gene to do that, we could just graft it into one of the many flesh-eating bacteria already out there.

[Green Bean]

I think that's a very narrow-minded view to take. At this stage of the process, we can only think in terms of generalities. There is a possibility that this breakthrough will lead to more and better biological weapons than we've managed before, but there are so many beneficial uses of this (with a lot more time and effort before we get there) that it would be a mistake to seriously consider pulling the plug on it. There is no Project: Build an Unstoppable Death Virus to veto.

The argument isn't that Science can do no wrong and should be allowed to do whatever it wants with no oversight. But there's a big difference between being prudent going forward a demanding the impossible by saying that only progress without potential for abuse is acceptable.

I agree with you on this; I was merely disagreeing with the idea that potential abuse is never a good reason to avoid certain technologies.

[Prime32]

The conditions needed for life to arise from a combination of different chemicals aren't that easy to replicate. We don't even know what they are. And if you did make a living thing out of some ammonia and water, you would never know.

And the processes needed to create life from a few chemicals are not something that can be applied to resurrect someone.

There is a reason why dinosaurs don't pop into existence every time there's a thunderstorm.I'm pretty sure scientists managed to create amino acids by zapping a bottle of primordial gases repeatedly.


No, there isn't any Good fork, or any Evil fork for that matter either. They are two sides of the same coin. Whatever you chose to delve deeper into, there will always be both good and bad uses of the newfound knowledge. Some paths are more dangerous than others, but just because a field of knowledge sounds alien and complicated to us doesn't mean that it's inherently bad.Use the forks, Luke.
Sorry... :smallredface:

[hamishspence]

The hard part is getting from amino acids, to self-replicating proteins.

[lesser_minion]

I'm pretty sure they managed to create amino acids by zapping a belljar of gases repeatedly.

Amino acids aren't alive. Alanine doesn't walk up to a load of ammonia, methane, and water; go "hey, I want to reproduce"; and then re-assemble them into another alanine molecule.

It would take ages to get an actual self-replicating unit, although I guess you're right that the whole lightning thing isn't necessarily the only way to do it.

[Faceist]

Does "Evil super-soldiers" or "Flesh-devouring living bombs" advance human society?
HELL YES it does! Granted, said advances would be horrifying, but it's always nice to see advances in technology. Bring on the Resident Evil-esque supersoldiers!

[Eldan]

So far, we haven't managed to do any truly self-replicating units from scratch. Though one idea which got pretty far involved self-replicating RNA. No proteins or DNA involved.

[Deth Muncher]

Man, why did this have to happen AFTER my Bioethics class?

[mikeejimbo]

I hope all this genetic engineering eventually leads to uplifting dolphins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplift_Universe).

[Lev]

The future is going to be very scary. I mean come on people, look at all the junk floating around the internet-- viruses and malware everywhere.

[Syka]

I haven't read the last 2 pages so forgive me if this has been said but...

Did anyone else think Frankenstein? Maybe it's just that I'm reading the book right now, but when I think of creating life out of nothing I think Frankenstein and his monster...

[Adumbration]

The future is going to be very scary. I mean come on people, look at all the junk floating around the internet-- viruses and malware everywhere.

Well, most of that junk can be kept at bay with a proper antivir/firewall. And if something get's in, well, these days it's just as likely to just use you as a spam machine or steal your credit info. Very rare these days to get a "lethal" virus, so to speak.

Extrapolate.

[Gorgondantess]

The conditions needed for life to arise from a combination of different chemicals aren't that easy to replicate. We don't even know what they are. And if you did make a living thing out of some ammonia and water, you would never know.

And the processes needed to create life from a few chemicals are not something that can be applied to resurrect someone.

There is a reason why dinosaurs don't pop into existence every time there's a thunderstorm.
Well, all of that is very unscientific means of creating life. Uncontrolled, random, etc.
It isn't science if it can't be replicated. When someone scientifically creates life, they can scientifically reanimate life.

@Syka: I read Frankenstein. It was terrible. And the only reason any bad came out of it is because Frankenstein was too shallow to treat his creation with any kindness. The monster was, inherently, a decent being.

[hamishspence]

When treated badly, the monster started doing evil things though- taking its rage and resentment of Frankenstein out on innocents- like the little boy, and later, Frankenstein's wife.

Probably makes more sense to say the monster started out "neutral" so to speak, and eventually moved toward "evil" in its vengefulness.

[Fawkes]

Ah, but see, it IS distinguishable from the other bacteria. It has a watermark! If you decode its DNA, it even invites you to write to some email address. Pretty amazing.

If you decode my DNA, it directs you to this website (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0).

[Lev]

Well, most of that junk can be kept at bay with a proper antivir/firewall. And if something get's in, well, these days it's just as likely to just use you as a spam machine or steal your credit info. Very rare these days to get a "lethal" virus, so to speak.

Extrapolate.
Thats because we have such a huge capacity to disconnect one machine from another and impersonalize all the steps needed to safeguard our networking.

It's not that we will all be killed in a bioviral outbreak, it's just that we will need to either develop wide spread anti-virus genetic software so to speak or build firmware steps and quarantines... and you can't just save a backup of a city or country.

[Flickerdart]

I hope all this genetic engineering eventually leads to uplifting dolphins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplift_Universe).
Sod the dolphins, the monkeys were better.

[Reinboom]

I'm not sure what the fuss is here.
Everything that can be done in short time and with limited resources... is no worse than the threats that already exist.

Personally, I'm excited.

This man just encoded complex information on to something replicable and at a compression down to the size of molecules and able to have it hold that state.
Imagine if we had a routine to quickly read and write acids.

Acid-based data storage. Wonderful.

[Maximum Zersk]

Sod the dolphins, the monkeys were better.

Screw both. Armadillos are the way to go. :smallwink:

[Flickerdart]

I don't think armadillos were ever uplifted. Only monkeys, gorillas, dogs and dolphins.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

The second Monsanto gets anywhere near this, everything is ****ed forever. Just sayin'.

[Force]

*pokes head in, looks around*

Get back to me when we have anthropomorphic creatures.

*disappears*

[Tar Palantir]

Oh, this is just amazing. This is fantastic! I mean, on the one hand, it's a terribly risky and, to some extent, stupid thing to do, but then again, so is climbing the world's tallest mountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Messner) without any oxygen tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Habeler), or spending several billion dollars to plant a flag on a big grey rock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program), or going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Princess_Bride), and look how those turned out. Hell, the best part of human nature is that we do amazing, brilliant, utterly stupid things for no better reason than to see if we can, or to stick it to some jerk who says we can't. It's just incredible. Congratulations, Dr. Venter, and welcome to humanity.

[mikeejimbo]

I don't think armadillos were ever uplifted. Only monkeys, gorillas, dogs and dolphins.

And elephants, to a similar extent as the dogs, though, not quite up to par with the chimpanzees, dolphins or gorillas. They weren't being considered as a client species in the near future.

Anyway, I liked the uplifting of dolphins better than the chimpanzees because chimpanzees seem too easy to me. :smalltongue:

[littlebottom]

im just waiting for them to make a t-rex embryo from scratch using only the chemicals for the first cell, and letting it multiply. (under the correct conditions of course) yay for real life jurassic park!

look out for any fat men running around in the rain with shaving foam though...

[Prodan]

HELL YES it does! Granted, said advances would be horrifying, but it's always nice to see advances in technology. Bring on the Resident Evil-esque supersoldiers!

With weak spots prominently advertised and everything...

[PersonMan]

Well, of course. We don't want to make practical supersoldiers until we know we can control them!

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

So, gentlemen, how long will it take you to whip up the Ultradeath Virus from Hell? Two weeks? Jolly good, we'll have eradicated those bounders in no time. Croquet?


@Syka: I read Frankenstein. It was terrible. And the only reason any bad came out of it is because Frankenstein was too shallow to treat his creation with any kindness. The monster was, inherently, a decent being.

There's a bit more to Frankenstein, and interpretations of it, than that. :smalltongue:

[Serpentine]

Goddammit. It's just another hoax. This guy didn't create life: he modified it.
What I'm saying is, he didn't put a bunch of chemicals together, zap it with an electrical charge, and make a living thing: what he did is he took a pre existing cell, that he did not create, took the DNA out of it and injected his own, synthetic DNA. Watch the movie: he specifically said he replaced the DNA.
I'm sure this is a great stride in modern science, but he "created life" the same way your 3 year old sibling "didn't eat all the cookies" when he/she left a few crumbs left.The first post states loud and clear that the genetics was made from scratch and inserted into a bacterium cell. It's not a HOAX. Possibly a slight misunderstanding, but seriously. He created a whole genotype from scratch. Genetics is the most important part of life by far. Stop belittling his achievement, just because he used an extra tool that was available to him. The bacteria was a shell, he added entirely new content and made a whole new species. That is a big deal, and I'm sorry it's not enough to impress you.

On Frankenstein: If I recall correctly, it was partly inspired by an experiment in which a guy had a dish of stuff, zapped it (or something), and supposedly found signs of life that wasn't there before. Other people tried to replicate the experiment, but couldn't produce the results. They concluded his sample was contaminated.

[Eldan]

I thought that Frankenstein was mostly inspired by those early experiments where they zapped dead animals, making them twitch?

[Serpentine]

That's definitely part of it, without at doubt. But this one's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Crosse) a litte more obscure, so I thought it was worth mentioning. Although the association may not be correct.

[Kobold-Bard]

Well this is interesting, we just took our next step into our future looking like Star Trek, which I think is something we can all be grateful for.

And I'm thoroughly impressed by this guy because he did something that may well change the world forever for $40 million, rather than $40 billion or doing something that just failed or was never going to work in the first place. That kind of money would only buy two decent footballers contracts, not even the best ones. Good for you, fiscally sound science man.

[Eldan]

Oh, if Venter's ever been good at anything, it was self-promotion and getting money going.

The presentation he did at our university? First slide read something along the lines of

Dr. Craig Venter
Craig Venter Institute
Winner of the Craig Venter Prize

He managed to get his own name at least twice on every slide.

[Prodan]

Well this is interesting, we just took our next step into our future looking like Star Trek, which I think is something we can all be grateful for.
World War 3 is a bit overdue then, but I might make it to the Eugenics Wars...

[Kobold-Bard]

World War 3 is a bit overdue then, but I might make it to the Eugenics Wars...

We're making an homage, not a recreation. We may be a little late, but don't worry you'll get your apocalyptic wars eventually :smallwink:

[thorgrim29]

Bravo sir. This is amazing. If he can follow through with his promises, anything is possible.

The BP thing in Louisiana? Fixed by bacterium who poop refined oil.
Climate changed? Fixed by carbon eating bacteria (who possible poop refined oil)
Disease? Fixed by near instant vaccines.

What's next? Surgery via engineered micro-organisms? Bacteria who eat fat, poop brown fat and die within a few hours? And then what, eternal life? I'm telling you people, with any luck all of us still around in 50 or so years will be immortal.

[Flickerdart]

What's next? Surgery via engineered micro-organisms? Bacteria who eat fat, poop brown fat and die within a few hours? And then what, eternal life? I'm telling you people, with any luck all of us still around in 50 or so years will be immortal poop refined oil.

:smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

Rather unlikely. We would have to eat such enormous amounts of stuff to actually poop oil, we'd probably starve ourselves.

Though algae producing oil through photosynthesis isn't that far off. We already have oil-producing algae, Venter is mostly refining the process.

[mikeejimbo]

refining the process.

*rimshot*


(Emphasis mine)

[Cobalt]

After reading the past two pages, I feel inclinded to point out that just because it doesn't work the same way they say it does in science fiction doesn't mean it doesn't work at all.

Also,



*rimshot*


(Emphasis mine)

Ha.

[hamishspence]

That's definitely part of it, without at doubt. But this one's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Crosse) a litte more obscure, so I thought it was worth mentioning. Although the association may not be correct.

There was an interesting little short story (Death of a Professor), published in 1946 by Michael Hervey, that drew heavily on the Andrew Crosse reports.

It was republished in The Frankenstein Collection- which included various versions of the Frankenstein story, as well as stories with a Frankensteinian flavour.

The creatures escape the lab, and turn out to have a thirst for calcium- attacking living things and digesting their bones.

In the commentary, it mentions that Percy Shelley, and Mary (would she have been Mary Godwin then?) attended one of Andrew Crosse's lectures on December 28, 1814, and Mary noted it in her diary.

[Eldan]

*rimshot*


(Emphasis mine)

Yes! My very first internet rimshot!

[Cealocanth]

That was the most amazing thing I have ever heard of. It's unbelievable that we've actually unlocked the most basic mystery of life and created a living, synthetic cell. Imagine, 1 century into the future. We may be able to find out how life began on earth. We may be able to replace extinct species. Me could even make human embryos from scratch, all that would be needed would
be a DNA sample. The possibilities are endless.

I am going to find out more on this subject. This is unbelievably intriguing.

[Superglucose]

It sounds like what they did was little more than cloning. It sounds like they took a bacterium and replaced its genetic code with a new genetic code, which is honestly something we've been doing either on large-scale (cloning) or small-scale (genetic engineering of things like E. Coli, something most freshman college biology courses do as a practical lab) for a while now. This (like most of the scientific "breakthroughs") isn't as huge a deal as I think the media is making it out to be.

It's a significant step, yes. It is an important step, yes. But it's not super awesome, super special, or even shocking that they managed it. It's kind of the "We put a man in space!" of biology: great, but there was a monkey up there just last week. Call me when we reach the moon (which in this case would be the organisms producing biofuels and scrubbing carbon dioxide).

[Cealocanth]

It sounds like what they did was little more than cloning. It sounds like they took a bacterium and replaced its genetic code with a new genetic code, which is honestly something we've been doing either on large-scale (cloning) or small-scale (genetic engineering of things like E. Coli, something most freshman college biology courses do as a practical lab) for a while now. This (like most of the scientific "breakthroughs") isn't as huge a deal as I think the media is making it out to be.

It's a significant step, yes. It is an important step, yes. But it's not super awesome, super special, or even shocking that they managed it. It's kind of the "We put a man in space!" of biology: great, but there was a monkey up there just last week. Call me when we reach the moon (which in this case would be the organisms producing biofuels and scrubbing carbon dioxide).

Good point.

[Recaiden]

Me could even make human embryos from scratch.

I'm thought they could make humans from just a DNA sample and some cells right now.

[Maximum Zersk]

Bravo sir. This is amazing. If he can follow through with his promises, anything is possible.

The BP thing in Louisiana? Fixed by bacterium who poop refined oil.
Climate changed? Fixed by carbon eating bacteria (who possible poop refined oil)
Disease? Fixed by near instant vaccines.

What's next? Surgery via engineered micro-organisms? Bacteria who eat fat, poop brown fat and die within a few hours? And then what, eternal life? I'm telling you people, with any luck all of us still around in 50 or so years will be immortal.

Eh, I could live without all the problems of being immortal, thank you.

Of course, an immortal society might help the problem. Or make it worse, who knows.

[Serpentine]

It sounds like what they did was little more than cloning. It sounds like they took a bacterium and replaced its genetic code with a new genetic code, which is honestly something we've been doing either on large-scale (cloning) or small-scale (genetic engineering of things like E. Coli, something most freshman college biology courses do as a practical lab) for a while now. This (like most of the scientific "breakthroughs") isn't as huge a deal as I think the media is making it out to be.

It's a significant step, yes. It is an important step, yes. But it's not super awesome, super special, or even shocking that they managed it. It's kind of the "We put a man in space!" of biology: great, but there was a monkey up there just last week. Call me when we reach the moon (which in this case would be the organisms producing biofuels and scrubbing carbon dioxide).Still not getting it. They're not saying "we took a whole lot of lipids and things and built a cell, its organelles, mitochondria and nucleus up totally from scratch!" (which would, itself, be totally awesome). They're saying, "we took the raw materials for genes, one of the most important defining features of life as we know it and the entire foundation of species and speciation, and created an entire new genome from scratch, and we put it in an empty cell shell to create an entire new species of our own making."
It is absolutely nothing like cloning, except that cloning is probably a precurser for the techniques and technology they used. The part about putting the genes in an empty bacteria that everyone is so fixated on is not the important bit. The important bit is that they made the genes that were inserted.

[ForzaFiori]

This is... Interesting. It has some potentially great uses (the oil and carbon eating, along with disease eating ones) and some rather scary ones (bad guys get a hold on something like this... bad stuff would happen). In addition, I imagine many world religions will be... less than pleased, if not straight up outraged at this. I honestly am not sure myself if we are going almost too far in our bioengineering. It's one thing to modify a species. It's still E.Coli, or a fruit fly. A cloned sheep is still a sheep. If we ever get this past single cells, or even lots of single cells, picture what could happen to our biosphere. It has no natural killers. Nothing to stop its growth. We send several up to clear the carbon out of our atmosphere, what happens when they run out of carbon up there, and start eating coal, diamonds, animals and plants? With nothing to stop them, they is the threat of them growing immense populations and needing new food sources, and who knows where they will find it? Especially ones that eat carbon, which is the MAIN BUILDING BLOCK OF LIFE. IE, all living things are mainly carbon, the food of the main thing you want to create.

[averagejoe]

But it's not super awesome

Science is pretty much always super awesome.

[_Zoot_]

Huh. Life is going to be interesting.

[Teddy]

This is... Interesting. It has some potentially great uses (the oil and carbon eating, along with disease eating ones) and some rather scary ones (bad guys get a hold on something like this... bad stuff would happen). In addition, I imagine many world religions will be... less than pleased, if not straight up outraged at this. I honestly am not sure myself if we are going almost too far in our bioengineering. It's one thing to modify a species. It's still E.Coli, or a fruit fly. A cloned sheep is still a sheep. If we ever get this past single cells, or even lots of single cells, picture what could happen to our biosphere. It has no natural killers. Nothing to stop its growth. We send several up to clear the carbon out of our atmosphere, what happens when they run out of carbon up there, and start eating coal, diamonds, animals and plants? With nothing to stop them, they is the threat of them growing immense populations and needing new food sources, and who knows where they will find it? Especially ones that eat carbon, which is the MAIN BUILDING BLOCK OF LIFE. IE, all living things are mainly carbon, the food of the main thing you want to create.

I think you've missunderstood how organisms living on carbon dioxide works. The photosynthesis, which is the main process utilized by carbon doxide-consuming organisms, is an anabolic process where carbon dioxide, water and light energy is transformed into carbonhydrates. This process is energy consuming, but it yealds energy rich molecules fit for the catabolism, which is what keeps the organism alive. If the organism runs out of carbon dioxide (which is highly unlikely), then it would die out, because it would lose it's only source of energy. It wouldn't spontaneously evolve a mouth and start eating flesh.

And, come on, think of it. Carbon is (one of the) main building block(s) of life, so everything is based on it and consumes it for energy. One more organism doing so won't destroy the echo system, because if that would be the case, it would already have been done. Remember that it will take a long time before we're capable of creating organisms that are better at surviving than already living ones.

[Eldan]

This is... Interesting. It has some potentially great uses (the oil and carbon eating, along with disease eating ones) and some rather scary ones (bad guys get a hold on something like this... bad stuff would happen). In addition, I imagine many world religions will be... less than pleased, if not straight up outraged at this. I honestly am not sure myself if we are going almost too far in our bioengineering. It's one thing to modify a species. It's still E.Coli, or a fruit fly. A cloned sheep is still a sheep. If we ever get this past single cells, or even lots of single cells, picture what could happen to our biosphere. It has no natural killers. Nothing to stop its growth. We send several up to clear the carbon out of our atmosphere, what happens when they run out of carbon up there, and start eating coal, diamonds, animals and plants? With nothing to stop them, they is the threat of them growing immense populations and needing new food sources, and who knows where they will find it? Especially ones that eat carbon, which is the MAIN BUILDING BLOCK OF LIFE. IE, all living things are mainly carbon, the food of the main thing you want to create.

I think you had, well, a long list of misunderstandings and misinformation there, sorry.
Let's go through the list.
Bad guys get a hold of this: so far, every use that could be done with this technology could just as well be done by grafting the same genes on an existing bacterium.
It has no natural killers: yes it has. So far, it's the same cell with a new, very similar genome. It has the same surface proteins, the same cell wall (or maybe not, I don't remember which kind of bacterium it was) composition. Antibodies dock to surface proteins, antibiotics interfere with the cell wall. There are hundred thousand molecules in there a bacteriophage could interfere with.
Eating carbon: in the atmosphere, we have carbon dioxide, which is currently a problem since it traps heat (simplified version). The bacteria would eat that. Know what else "eats" CO2? Plants. So far, we don't have any plants running amok and eating diamonds. Different carbon compounds are very different chemically. Other carbon compounds commonly eaten include fat, sugar and other carbohydrates, proteins... basically, all the stuff most heterotrophs already ieat.

[Maximum Zersk]

Science is pretty much always super awesome.

I believe you mean "Super Special Awesome."

[Closak]

Oh great, just what we need.

Next thing we know some crazy-ass scientist get's the idea to create some sort of chimera like super predator by taking all the strongest traits from various animals and putting them together to make a new animal.

Cue disaster as the new species get's into the wild and promptly wipes out the whole ecosystem as a result of being TOO good at the hunting and predator thing.

Then watch as they look for another source of food as they have now eaten all the other local animals.
Humans equals lunch.
OH CRAP!
SOMEONE GET THE DAMN MILITARY OVER HERE PRONTO!

Oh crud, the bastard who made them seems to have given them enough intelligence to adapt to military tactics, they have now figured out how to dig trenches and take cover...did they just flank that squadron of soldiers over there? :smalleek:

[Teddy]

Oh great, just what we need.

Next thing we know some crazy-ass scientist get's the idea to create some sort of chimera like super predator by taking all the strongest traits from various animals and putting them together to make a new animal.

Cue disaster as the new species get's into the wild and promptly wipes out the whole ecosystem as a result of being TOO good at the hunting and predator thing.

Then watch as they look for another source of food as they have now eaten all the other local animals.
Humans equals lunch.
OH CRAP!
SOMEONE GET THE DAMN MILITARY OVER HERE PRONTO!

Oh crud, the bastard who made them seems to have given them enough intelligence to adapt to military tactics, they have now figured out how to dig trenches and take cover...did they just flank that squadron of soldiers over there? :smalleek:

The hillarity of doomsday scenarios aside - no, that's not going to happen the way you're suggesting. To do that, we need to isolate the genes that do all the good stuff, make sure that they don't overlap or create disasterous (for the organism) synergy effects and finally write a complete functioning genome for the new and rather complex (to say the least) organism.

And even if we manage to make a lifeform which both is über and avoids all the unforseen negative side-effects, and it actually manages to survive nature and exterminate all of its food sources, it still won't be a match for any modern army of today, even less so within a few decades.

No, if there will be a lifeform-of-doom, it'll be a small organism in great numbers, the size of an insect at its largest.

[Eldan]

I'll just quote the (fictional) professor Zakharov:

Remember, genes are NOT blueprints. This means you can't, for example, insert "the genes for an elephant's trunk" into a giraffe and get a giraffe with a trunk. There are no genes for trunks. What you CAN do with genes is chemistry, since DNA codes for chemicals. For instance, we can in theory splice the native plants' talent for nitrogen fixation into a terran plant.
Academician Prokhor Zakharov


and:

The genetic code does not, and cannot, specify the nature and position of every capillary in the body or every neuron in the brain. What it {can} do is describe the underlying fractal pattern which creates them.

Academician Prokhor Zakharov
"Nonlinear Genetics"

[Prodan]

To continue the trend...

We hold life to be sacred, but we also know the foundation of life consists in a stream of codes not so different from the successive frames of a watchvid. Why then cannot we cut one code short here, and start another there? Is life so fragile that it can withstand no tampering? Does the sacred brook no improvement?
-Chairman Sheng-ji Yang
"Dynamics of Mind"

Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.
-Chairman Sheng-ji Yang
"Looking God in the Eye"

[Johel]

To continue the trend...

We hold life to be sacred, but we also know the foundation of life consists in a stream of codes not so different from the successive frames of a watchvid. Why then cannot we cut one code short here, and start another there? Is life so fragile that it can withstand no tampering? Does the sacred brook no improvement?
-Chairman Sheng-ji Yang
"Dynamics of Mind"

Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.
-Chairman Sheng-ji Yang
"Looking God in the Eye"

...have an Internet
This is worth a thousand debates.:smallsmile:

My take would be :
"-Grey Goo incoming."
After all, it is said in the article that the "cell" will reproduce, isn't it ?

[Flickerdart]

The cell can't exist outside of lab conditions or goats, so unless you envision Goat-Infested commoner abuse as part of the apocalypse, that's not happening.

[Moose Fisher]

There will be careers titled "Genomic Programming" and "Biological Engineering" in the future.


A lot of people in this thread have covered the reasons why we're not going to speed off into doomsday. We keep archives of infectious diseases; there are likely hundreds of protocols that have been created to contain anything that gets loose.

[Johel]

The cell can't exist outside of lab conditions or goats, so unless you envision Goat-Infested commoner abuse as part of the apocalypse, that's not happening.

Missing the point but never mind.:smallconfused:

This first prototype might be harmless because it was design based on a bacteria that needed a living host.
But bacterias don't always need living hosts. What prevent us to try to create a bacteria that feed, say, on polymers to help recycle them but accidentally end up as an air-born, fast-reproducing bacteria that feeds on all organic matter ?

[Destro_Yersul]

Because Science does not work that way.

[Moose Fisher]

Missing the point but never mind.:smallconfused:

This first prototype might be harmless because it was design based on a bacteria that needed a living host.
But bacterias don't always need living hosts. What prevent us to try to create a bacteria that feed, say, on polymers to help recycle them but accidentally end up as an air-born, fast-reproducing bacteria that feeds on all organic matter ?

Test them inside inorganic containers?

The precautionary principle is key here. If there is a chance such creations would cause irreversible damage, then the scientists and those funding the project need to prove such an event will not happen.

[Johel]

Because Science does not work that way.

Define "that way", please ?
Said like that, it sounds just like a cheap shot by quoting TV trope.

Mutation among bacterias is already a problem for most antibiotic.
There are aerobic bacterias which feed on various organic matters, among which are the hydrocarbons used to make polymers.

The jump from "eat polymers and produce X" to "eat everything organic and produce X" is a big one, I agree, but since we will be creating life rather than letting it evolves, the length of such jump can be shortened, if only accidentally.

@Moose :
...That's actually smart.

[IonDragon]

Obligatory quote:

God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.

[Destro_Yersul]

Define "that way", please ?
Said like that, it sounds just like a cheap shot by quoting TV trope.

Mutation among bacterias is already a problem for most antibiotic.
There are aerobic bacterias which feed on various organic matters, among which are the hydrocarbons used to make polymers.

The jump from "eat polymers and produce X" to "eat everything organic and produce X" is a big one, I agree, but since we will be creating life rather than letting it evolves, the length of such jump can be shortened, if only accidentally.

They're building the things gene by gene, from what I understand. Therefore, they control exactly what it is and what it does. Everything is coded into that structure. They can't try to make something that eats polymers and accidentally make something that eats everything, because that would make no sense by the physical laws of our universe.

Also, evolution is an adaption process. Why would it evolve to eat all organic life? There's certainly nothing stopping it from doing so, but neither does it have any reason to do so. If, say, we stopped feeding it polymers and put it in a tank with nothing to eat but kittens or something then yeah, but that's just asking for trouble to begin with.

As for mutation, that's a risk, but I don't think it's a very big one. It could even be considered evolution, given that your example is antibiotics. They are adapting to something that kills them. Without a reason to adapt, why would they waste the energy on doing so?

[Maximum Zersk]

Obligatory quote:

Dinosaurs kill man. Dinosaurs go on to create Interstellar travel. Dinosaurs become the leaders of an alliance of armadillo-based and chicken-based alien lifeforms.

Dinosaurs try to create more dinosaurs. Starts giant, Inter-stellar war. Dinosaurs create spore-based creatures to fight. Dinosaurs die out.

Man appears. Man reaches stars. Man starts colonizing other planets. Something happens. Man loses contact on all planets. War starts with space elves, spore-based lifeforms, mech-skellingtons, alien planet-eaters, demons, and traitors.

In the far future, there is only war.

[Eldan]

You forgot blue-skinned caste-based commie-nazis fighting for the greater good.

[Teddy]

Also, evolution is an adaption process. Why would it evolve to eat all organic life? There's certainly nothing stopping it from doing so, but neither does it have any reason to do so. If, say, we stopped feeding it polymers and put it in a tank with nothing to eat but kittens or something then yeah, but that's just asking for trouble to begin with.

As for mutation, that's a risk, but I don't think it's a very big one. It could even be considered evolution, given that your example is antibiotics. They are adapting to something that kills them. Without a reason to adapt, why would they waste the energy on doing so?

I notice that there are a lot of missconceptions about evolution here. Evolution is NOT an adaption process, it's purely random what genes mutate, and then the natural selection decides which individuals survive, and which don't. Mutations never appear as reactions to the environment, so an organism exposed to, lets say, a lethal toxin, will die, unless it already posess a gene which helps it resist said toxin. In large populations, there will usually be a few individuals who survive a chemical attack (be it drugs or pesticides), and are able to spread their genes, but practically the entire population will be wiped out before the resistent individuals can rebuild it again.

[Johel]

You forgot blue-skinned caste-based commie-nazis fighting for the greater good.

"-For the Greater Good !!" (http://api.ning.com/files/*Hi3h-FsIS2hCgJTNbRwwi9nt1Vcb*htF0qoKRi8ItQ55L11KK8*yZNB D2hoqsANdMZE4XT5j*OCS3cU*UtdhLFyS-x7w6z5/tau_poster03.jpg)
Alternatively and more on topic :
"-For Science !!"

[Destro_Yersul]

I notice that there are a lot of missconceptions about evolution here. Evolution is NOT an adaption process, it's purely random what genes mutate, and then the natural selection decides which individuals survive, and which don't. Mutations never appear as reactions to the environment, so an organism exposed to, lets say, a lethal toxin, will die, unless it already posess a gene which helps it resist said toxin. In large populations, there will usually be a few individuals who survive a chemical attack (be it drugs or pesticides), and are able to spread their genes, but practically the entire population will be wiped out before the resistent individuals can rebuild it again.

I blame my mind for being tired. Stupid lack of sleep makes Destro stupid. I also blame the Tyranids, for combining evolution and adaption.

That said, why would a bacteria that eats everything be more likely to survive than one that eats polymers? Aside from the obvious overabundance of food.

[The Watchman]

That said, why would a bacteria that eats everything be more likely to survive than one that eats polymers? Aside from the obvious overabundance of food.

Uh... so the question is "Why would an organism that has an advantage be more likely to survive? Aside from the fact that it has an advantage."

Am I the only one that sees a problem here? :smallconfused:

Get some sleep, dude. :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

Doesn't have to be advantageous, really. Some organic matter is really, really tough to digest. Like the outer layers of a pollen grain. Or even just cellulose. That would need a host of complex digestive enzymes, all of which are complicated and energy-intensive to produce. And since most of the stuff it could eat wouldn't be near it at any given time, it would be a lot of wasted energy. Specialists would probably outcompete it at any given food source since they don't have to invest in unnecessary enzymes. And even if the bacterium doesn't always translate these enzymes, it's still carrying around a lot of mostly superfluous genetic information, which will not only slow down it's cell division, but also make that process more expensive in nutrients and energy.

All in all, doesn't work. It's not called the Darwinian Demon for nothing.

[ForzaFiori]

I think you had, well, a long list of misunderstandings and misinformation there, sorry.
Let's go through the list.
Bad guys get a hold of this: so far, every use that could be done with this technology could just as well be done by grafting the same genes on an existing bacterium.
It has no natural killers: yes it has. So far, it's the same cell with a new, very similar genome. It has the same surface proteins, the same cell wall (or maybe not, I don't remember which kind of bacterium it was) composition. Antibodies dock to surface proteins, antibiotics interfere with the cell wall. There are hundred thousand molecules in there a bacteriophage could interfere with.

I'll admit the others were wrong. I was tired, and didn't do to great in bio. However, the two things pointed out here are true only for a little while longer. If someone who wanted to got the tech for this, all of the sudden they get to CREATE a disease. Not make an uber TB, or bring back Smallpox. They get to make whatever they want to. They can also almost certainly rewrite parts of the genome to change the cell wall and surface proteins. Certainly not every single organism has the EXACT same things there, or any antibody would destroy every cell, rather than just specific ones. They could make their own disease, and then make it appear to our antibodies as if it were part of us. This is taking all of the current fears about biological warfare, and increasing them exponentially. No, it may not happen now, but the more we screw around with this stuff, the more likely it becomes.

[Prodan]

I am reminded of Chicken Little.

[katans]

This is indeed a breakthrough discovery, yet as everything else in fundamental research, it is still very far from any form of practical application. So, wait and see...

Food for thought: Science is amoral in nature. It does not mean that it is bad, or good; it merely means that it is beyond the concept of good and bad. Science is a tool, a process, a behaviour. What makes it good or bad is conditioned by other factors.
On the other hand, we should be wary of the possible misuse of technological wonders. Technology has this wonderful ability that it can be used by anyone, as long as you're smart enough to follow the user's manual (which contains solely behavioral instructions). This means it can also be used by people who did not yet undergo the process of moral and cultural evolution needed to implement/develop scientific thinking in the first place, and those individuals are likely to misuse scientific wonders for much less grand purposes than those they were designed for.

To quote Ken Wilber, what good is it if Nazis have the Internet? (No Godwin intended, really. But the quote illustrates the problem extremely well).


Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.
-Chairman Sheng-ji Yang
"Looking God in the Eye"

The highlighted sentence hurts my eyes. Baaaaadly. That's precisely the kind of mindset that creates all of our modern paradigm's problems. And when I say all, I mean all.

[Prodan]

The highlighted sentence hurts my eyes. Baaaaadly. That's precisely the kind of mindset that creates all of our modern paradigm's problems. And when I say all, I mean all.

Feel free to address your concerns to:

Sheng-ji Yang
Chairman, the Human Hive
P.O. Box 1, The Hive,
Planet, Alpha Centauri system

[paddyfool]

This guy pretty much says it for me. (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/first_round_of_ill-informed_ob.php)