Slashdot Mirror
Life Made to Order
Roland Piquepaille writes "When he was president of Celera Genomics, Craig Venter was the leader of the private project which deciphered the human genome. Now, he has another goal: create custom-made organisms -- one DNA letter at a time. 'Venter's objective is not merely to tweak existing life forms by inserting genes that confer specific traits -- the main tactic in conventional genetic engineering. Instead he wants to assemble an entire genome, DNA letter by DNA letter, putting together only the genes he wants: those necessary for an organism's survival and those that will allow it to carry out a desired task.' If successful, maybe in a decade, this could yield new sources of energy or novel drugs. Venter is not alone in this quest. Other institutions, private companies or universities, have similar efforts under development. Check this column for a summary of this eye-opening -- but quite long -- Technology Review article."
This is the real nano-technology. First we bio-engineer the tools we need to create whole genomes quickly. At that point, we can make designer bacteria or other organisms. The potential of that sort of technology is nearly unlimited.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
I heard about scientists trying to create a new type of organism a little while ago... It scared me then and it scares me now.
However, I would think that it would be totally possible to generate TONS of energy and other useful things from something like this. It might be possible to generate oil from sunlight. Huge tanks of stuff making food, energy, whatever.
The ethical complications are interesting.
If you create a new life form, do you have the right to destroy it? Maybe. If you can re-create it at a whim, why not? But then, what about existing life forms? Eventually scientists might be able to re-create just about any species in a petri dish. Can they then justifiably destroy a species, since they can re-create it at any time?
Cool sci-fi... or more accurately, cool sci-soon-to-be-not-fi.
There will always be fanatics whose fear of divine wrath keeps them back in the muck and mire. That's their right, and their business. But when they stand in the way of progress that will immeasurable improve my life and the lives of my children
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Craig Venter is propounding the vision. But the real science/engineering described in that article seems to be the following:
In mid-2002, researchers at SUNY-Stony Brook synthesized a 7,500-letter long Polio DNA sequence, converted it to RNA, then "combined that RNA with enzymes and other molecules in a test tube, and watched as whole polio viruses assembled spontaneously."
The complicated chemical steps used to synthesize the DNA are error-prone; errors grow linearly with the number of steps "so researchers typically limit fragments to fewer than 80 letters."
The Stony-brook researchers thus took two years.
A company called Egea Biosciences has a prototype machine, the device makes a mistake only once for every 10,000 DNA letters, or bases, a 100-fold improvement over conventional techniques that typically have an error rate of one in 100.
The CEO of that company "says the technology could be extended to yield in a matter of weeks highly accurate strands 100,000 bases in length--long enough to make a very simple bacterial genome."
That's what I got out of the article. And a recognition that there is a loose analogy to semiconductor manufacturing in there. The Venter name is useful mostly for hype as far as I can tell. Actually, setting a vision is really important so I should cut him some slack, but I more appreciated the tech details above which were buried in the middle of the article.
--LP
"If successful, maybe in a decade, this could yield new sources of energy or novel drugs."
Or perhaps biological weapons or a killer virus? It's amazing to me how people only discuss the upside of things like this without mentioning the bad that can come of it as well.
Bart: "How would I go about creating a half-man, half-monkey-type creature?"
Mrs. Krebopple: "I'm sorry, that would be playing God."
Bart: "God shmod! I want my monkey-man!"
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
I would like:
1. A turkey that grows with a stomach full of stuffing.
2. A small monkey-like creature that keeps the shower water at a constant temperature.
3. A virus that makes just one of my "enlarge your penis" spams true, but then then another one that brings it back down for easy storage.
4. A tiny giraffe. All the convenience of a small dog but you wouldn't have to bend all the way down to pet it.
Please let me know when I can pick these up. Thank you.
---------
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
...involved in the creation of a living thing. An astonishing array of proteins, complex sugars, and lipids are all necessary for even a unicellular organisms to be viable. These aren't as easily assembled as nucleic acids, but they are just as requisite. The public focus inevitably tends toward DNA and RNA, especially by marketers such as Craig Venter, and especially when the story is being told to a non-scientific readership. The real story in biology is always more complex than the headlines would have us believe. Why can't these people make a real contribution to the world of medicine and figure out how SARS works.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Most all natural viruses are in a stalemate with higer lifeforms. Have co-oexisted for a long time and the higher lifeforms have internal memories for defense against these familiar enemies. A fabricated virus would be a novel thing to immune systems used to dealing with very specific attackers.
On the other hand most naturally occuring viruses already have a complete bag of tricks for dealing with immune systems. If you start from scratch you can be sure to leave all of that stuff out. After all the down side of tweaking an existing virus is that you never really know what you are going to get - you don't know what all that extra genetic code actually does now, let alone what it will do after you mess around with it.
There was a recent slashdot story about a controversy over using genetic screening in conjunction with IVF[/URL], which got me thinking. They are going to raise a new perfectly healthy baby, for the purpose of donating the umbilical cord blood to their sick child in order to save his life. So what if they're using IVF to screen out genetically defective embryos? The sole effect of this treatment, when allowed to go ahead, is a benefit to all parties concerned and does harm to no one. (For those of you who believe that the destruction of embryos is immoral because the embryos are people, all I have to say is that one mindless ball of flesh is not any closer to personhood than any other, because the sole characteristic that makes one a person or makes one capable of having a "soul" (if such things exist) is having a mind capable of thought and emotion, which is obviously not a characteristic of anything that has not yet developed any sort of nervous system) But I digress. The whole slippery slope argument about "Designer Babies" is completely bunk because sliding "down" that slope would be nothing but benefit to mankind. The world would, unquestionably, be a better place if genetically-based diseases were eradicated and people had more of a genetic predisposition to be healthy, fit, and intelligent. So what if the benefit only applies to those who can afford it; the same can be said of ALL expensive medical treatments, and yet we don't see anyone advocating banning chemotherapy for that reason. One of the other arguments against so-called "Designer Babies" is that genetic screening will, in many cases, be applied very narrowly (for example, to enhance physical attractiveness) neglecting more important things and actually making the person-to-be less healthy overall. So, hypothetically, the technology could be misused in harmful ways. Big deal. Antibiotics have been and are still being misused resulting in the creation of dangerous antibiotic-resistant diseases that are taking a great toll in some areas, such as Russia's problem with MDR Tuberculosis. Nevertheless, that has never been a good reason to ban antibiotics altogether, and this situation is hardly any different. The industry could be regulated to avoid abuses and malpractice, the same way other medical procedures and prescription drugs are handled today. The difference between this and other medical resources that are legal but regulated is grossly insufficient to warrant the double standard of banning genetic screening/improvement altogether. The third objection to so-called "Designer Babies" is an (IMO irrational) fear, spawned from science fiction, of creating a "super race" of genetically engineered humans, raising the standards for everyone and harming those whose parents couldn't afford the genetic improvement technology. Let me ask you, how is that sort of economic divide any different from the current situation? Rich people can afford to send their students to better schools, and provide them with a more advantageous upbringing in general. This results in a situation where the children of middle class and rich parents have more of a chance to succeed than the children of poor parents, regardless of their innate potential. Does this mean that all private/rich-public schools should be disbanded, and everyone, should be condemned to a crappy education and a disadvantaged upbringing? Heck no. That would certainly satisfy the resentment of the poor, without really helping them, but it would harm everyone else. That is analogous to the issue at hand: Banning genetic screening/improvement would simply hold back part of society from improving themselves, without providing any concrete benefit except satisfying paranoia and class envy. Such a ban would do nothing to serve the common good. Sure, there may be bugs to be worked out, as with all experimental medical treatments. So federal regulation, similar to the function of the FDA for drugs, is probably a goo
Repeal the DMCA!
Anybody who claims they can do this in a decate (if at all) is either very naive or not thinking straight.
We don't even know 0.1 % of how viruses function let alone cells. It's really laughable to hear things like these.
One fundermental question that is still far from being solved and will benefit mankind more is the 'folding problem' --- That is, given an unknown DNA sequence (gene), what is the 3D structure of the protein it produces?
Once we know that, the next problem is the 'function problem' --- Given the 3D-structure of an unknown protein, what is its function?
Current attempts at solutions to these problems are merely AdHoc devices which are far from suitable in unique situations.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."