Slashdot Mirror
Bacteria Revived After 250 Million Years
Cruachan writes: "Reuters reports that scientists in the United States have revived a 250-million-year-old bacteria that is believed to be the oldest living creature ever discovered. (The story is no longer available on the Reuters Web site.) The bacterium that lived millions of years before the dinosaurs was in a state of suspended animation in an ancient salt crystal in an underground cavern near Carlsbad, New Mexico." This is one of the most amazing things I've heard in a long time. [Updated 19 Oct.14:00GMT by timothy:] Reuters has since pulled it; look below for more links :)
Links that work are tough to come by sometimes -- emmett sent one to to BBC Coverage (with pictures!), while several folks contributed others, including this unnamed correspondent, who writes: "An article in the L.A. Times has an interesting story about a revived microbe which might have been locked in a crystal of salt for 250 million years." Additionally, readers pointed to the Reuters story, hosted on yahoo! Thanks for the links, everyone.
99.9% of all bacteria in the world just hang out and metabolize whatever comes their way. Only a very small percentage are pathogenic, and the chances are that this one would be are miniscule. If it was, what would it be doing in a salt crystal? Most pathogenic bacteria live in organisms or ex-organisms. Even if it were pathogenic, it would be adapted to the organisms of 250 million years ago, not today's. And finally, microbiologists culture potentially pathogenic organisms all the time without a problem using simple common sense and caution. As long as those two are applied in this case as well, there's really nothing to worry about. Methinks you've been watching X-files too much.
I can already see the luddites shouting about how dangerous it can be and how science should let it rest. However, this kind of thing has undoubtedly happened many times by chance: an ancient salt deposit is flooded after an earthquake, awakening ancient bacteria. If these bacteria are dangerous they are probably already here anyway.
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Go to http://www.reuters.com/news.jhtml ?ty pe=science and click on the link
You mustn't think of bacteria as a 'disease'. They are self sufficient, independant organisms, and they are absolutely everywhere. Only a very small fraction of them is adapted to living inside the human body.
It is extremely unlikely that a bacterium adapted to survive in high saline conditions, and survive extremely long periods of being dead and desiccated can compete under normal conditions with the organisms already there.
It is no different with possible escaping herbicide resistance genes from genetically modified crop. The 'superweed' only has a competitive edge when sprayed with herbicide, and in the absence of that factor, it loses out over the centuries, because of the tiny amount of energy it wastes on synthesising the herbicide resistance proteins.
Or it could be a spermatozoid from Gozilla, and were it to enter in contact with an ovula from Gozillette, we would have a major catastrophe in Tokyo!
--
Unfrozen Caveman Bacterium!
"Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know much about your world. I look around and see steel beasts racing down the streets, growling and spitting smoke. I don't know how to operate your 'personal computers' or 'automatic teller machines'. Your ways frighten me! There is one thing I do know, however, and that is that we must outlaw all antibiotics immediately before any more of my harmless brothers are slaughtered. Thank you for your time."
Read my blog.
Has anyone noticed a striking resemblance between this story and the Amiga resurrection one posted below it?
A long-forgotten, primitive system is revived. A small population of geeks go "Wow". The rest of us go "Why the fuck?"
Naaah... it's already not there... they seem to change the URL each time. Nasty trick...
However, Yahoo doesn't do that. Story is here.
The BBC News this morning said that it was possibly extra-terrestrial. They've got the story on their site now at http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_9 78000/978774.stm
Interesting...
A quick search turns up this Science News article from June 1999, which appears to refer to work of the same researchers:3 .htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/6_12_99/fob
The article questions whether the organisms found in the salt are nearly as old as their discovers claim. It suggests that contamination from many sources could also account for the find.
Has any evidence turned up since 1999 that more conclusively supports these claims? This isn't clear from the Reuters story, and I don't think I'm going to believe it until I see some further proof.
Scientist #1: Hey Bill, I was thinking...we just aren't inventing enough stuff to wipe out humanity.
Scientist #2: What do you mean, James?
#1: Well, we have nanobots in the works and that Taco Bell genetically altered supercorn, but something is lacking...
#2: Hey I have an idea. Let's take some really old bacteria and try to give it life again!
#1: Wow, great idea! But do we know what it does to the ecosystem?
#2: Nope! But we're scientists so we can't be blamed!
#1: Perfect! Hey, how about after this we go over to that local supercollider and try to make a tiny black hole to play with?
#2: But isn't that dangerous?
#1: Of course it is, silly. But we're SCIENTISTS, remember?
THE END...(of life on Earth)
------
Let me give you the lowdown