Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Pace and Proliferation of Biological Technologies

Posted by michael on from the it'll-be-on-you-before-you-know-it dept.

bio-droid writes "Several years ago Slashdot covered an essay in Spectrum about Open Source Biology. Here is a follow on academic paper entitled The Pace and Proliferation of Biological Technologies in the new journal Biosecurity and Bioterrorism ."

4 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. Can't put a genie back... by citabjockey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Synthesize polio with mail order components? egads! One would expect that this genie can't be put back into a bottle.

    This being the case we better figure out how to minimize incentives to build weapons. Thus far we in the good'ol USofA have a rotten track record in this regard.

  2. Sequence != Understand by enkidu · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The basic idea behind this article seems to assume that as sequencing and synthesis technology and skills become widely available, there will be a parallel increase in the danger from the misuse of this technology. I beg to differ. Sequencing DNA does not give you that much insight into how things really work. Nor does tweaking out protein structure. That's the easy step. But the dynamic equilibrium of a cell is maintained by the DNA, the RNA and the proteins, all simultaneous interacting in an essentially stabilized chaotic system. Sure we can "knock-out" a gene here and there, replace one protein with another, but doing so is no more a display of knowledge then is pruning a tree. We're still a long (long long long) way from designing trees from scratch or people developing the new "super-bug" in the garage or even university lab.

    That said, there is a real danger from people using the techniques described above to create hybrid strains (SARS+influenza etc.) to create new virulent strains based on existing virii and bacteria. Of course, even that is much harder than said, primarily because the only way to test which strains work, is to infect people. Any failure and your subject will develop resistance and be useless for future testing. So, you'd need a large number of subjects, or you'd need to develop on a disease which infects both humans and rats (or something) and then hope that the virulence will be analogous for humans. Fortunately, this is rarely the case, what kills rats like, well rats, often doesn't even faze humans and vice versa.

    Hmm, I wonder if I should worry about men in dark suits showing up at my door now...

    --

    There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
    -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
  3. I don't get it... by Ieshan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All published science is "Open Source". You publish your methods, your statistical tests - you're even required by most Journals to submit your data to anyone who asks.

    Everything you use is referenced. The only thing that's closed is your thought process - and that's supposed to be described thoroughly in your Introduction and Discussion.

    So as long as we're talking about Published Science, I have no idea what you're all talking about.

  4. GNU, BSD and Mozilla. by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    OSS would be without BSD, (developed at a university) without Mozilla, (spawned from a really old web browser I can't quite recall the name of), and without GNU (quite a bit of which came from BSD).

    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)