First Reproducing Artificial Virus Created

I for one... by RMH101 · 2003-11-14 04:39 · Score: 0, Offtopic

...salute our new

Oops, there goes another kitty.

Should we really be doing things like this? by Lawrence_Bird · 2003-11-14 04:40 · Score: 1

What kind of precautions do these people take?

Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Leroy_Brown242 · 2003-11-14 04:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

You would hope that they take great pains to make access to the virii as secure as possible.

But, things like this are very important in the fight to create vaccines to illnesses. Anyone who has taken apart and built a car, computer, or whatever will tell you that thier level of understanding is now MUCH greater than it was before they did it. Knowing how to assemble a virus, will hopefully allow us to defend ourselves against them.

--
Pretty Pictures!
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by B'Trey · 2003-11-14 04:54 · Score: 1, Funny

My first thought on reading the headline was 'Cue the Luddites.'

We're all going to die! Nanobot virus AIs created from stem cells and feeding on the bodies of Monarch butterflies slain by the pollen from genetically engineered corn are going to destroy the world!

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by oniony · 2003-11-14 04:54 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah, I agree -- these people really need to start wearing condoms.

--
Powered by onion juice.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:55 · Score: 0

That's like saying knowing how to assemble a computer will protect us from hackers and computer viruses.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by f97tosc · 2003-11-14 04:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Probably the same as in handling any other virus.

Which is perfectly reasonable. People seem to be exremely afraid of anything made in a lab, but fail to recognize that the greater danger (by far) is from natural evolution of new viruses.

By the same token, the dangers of bio-weapons seem to be greatly excaggerated, when compared to natural pathogens. Some anthrax letters that killed half a dozen people seemed to get more attention and resources than the flu and aids, which kill tens of thousands of people per year in the US alone.

Tor
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by alnapp · 2003-11-14 04:58 · Score: 1

And my second thought was - they could be right

panic panic etc

--
Get the EULA T-shirt
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by B'Trey · 2003-11-14 05:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Assembly is not necessarily the same as synthesis. Designing and building a computer (as oppossed to merely putting together what is essentially a kit created by someone else) certainly implies that you have enough knowledge to make intelligent decisions on how to go about protecting the computer.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Leroy_Brown242 · 2003-11-14 05:02 · Score: 0

If I had Mod points, I'd mod you up. :)

Thanks for illustrating my point better than I could.

--
Pretty Pictures!
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Daemonik · 2003-11-14 05:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

By the same token, the dangers of bio-weapons seem to be greatly excaggerated, when compared to natural pathogens. Some anthrax letters that killed half a dozen people seemed to get more attention and resources than the flu and aids, which kill tens of thousands of people per year in the US alone.

Perhaps bio weapons get more attention than natural viruses simply because if a natural virus kills you, it's an act of [insert deity here] and simply one of the risks of life, like getting hit by a bus.

Bio weapons on the other hand are purposely engineered to maximize the lethality of a disease for the intentional purpose of killing as many people as possible. In other words, it's the intent that matters.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

Not to mention SARS SARS SARS. What a joke. It only killed 1 in 10 people who were infected and it was old feeble types that kicked the bucket. Meanwhile the flu was killing thousands worldwide.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by B'Trey · 2003-11-14 05:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Anthrax is a natural pathogen, not an artifical one. It's only the vector by which it was spread that is artificial. And what makes it worthy of head lines is that it was malicious.

Right or wrong, an incident that is the result of deliberate intent is seen as much more heinous than an act of nature, even if it does much less danger. School shootings have killed only a handful of youngsers over several years. How many died from traffic incidents over the same time frame? Where is your child safer - sitting in school or sitting in the front seat of a car? You don't see parents panicking over the thought of their child riding in a car but you see huge discussions over how to make our schools safer.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by diersing · 2003-11-14 05:33 · Score: 4, Informative

Yesterday, NPR's All Things Considered did a nice piece on it, you can download it here
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Waffle+Iron · 2003-11-14 05:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

People seem to be exremely afraid of anything made in a lab, but fail to recognize that the greater danger (by far) is from natural evolution of new viruses.
Unless somebody figures out how to make an artificial microbe that takes advantage of chemical processes that just aren't found in natural evolution. For example, the human body might not even be capable of attacking a hypothetical microbe that has a teflon or silicone-enhanced outer membrane.
At any rate, natural evolution proceeds at a slow rate, so the defending species has time to adapt. Anthrax, for example, implements a tricky chemical hack to breach animal cells and destroy them. Most animals are pretty defenseless against the special back door that antrax uses, and without it the anthrax bacteria would be no more harmful than a pimple. However, anthrax is a rather obscure organism that mostly lives in the dirt. The reason that animals haven't evolved a defense against its chemical attack is that it just doesn't spread that easily in a natural setting. If anthrax were contagious like a cold, animals would have evolved a defense against it long ago.
Now, people may soon have the knowledge to install anthrax's chemical attack into something like a common cold virus. This short-ciruits the evolutionary process. Instead of just having to resist natural random improvemts in microbes, we may soon also face improvements that take advantage of god-like knowledge of the weaknesses of the defenders.
By simultaneously combining the best parts of various different microbes found in nature, then adding unnatural chemical improvements and using our newly available schematics of human cell defense design, we will certainly be able to create microbes far more dangerous than anything nature is likely to randomly come up with.
I doubt that trying to control this kind of technology is going to do any good, however. Somebody somewhere in the world is going to work on this stuff whether its banned or not. Our only hope is probably to develop means to quickly detect any new microbes, along with adaptive technology to create unnatural defenses to unnatural new organisms in real time.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by gorilla · 2003-11-14 05:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's not so much that it's malicious, but that it's unusual. An aircraft accident isn't malicious, but it's going to get headlines.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by k12linux · 2003-11-14 05:43 · Score: 1

People seem to be exremely afraid of anything made in a lab, but fail to recognize that the greater danger (by far) is from natural evolution of new viruses.

I'm not a luddite and not really affraid this new virus is going to do something horrible like download copyright music from the RIAA. But what makes this new man-made virus any less capable of mutating or evolving than any other virus?
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by f97tosc · 2003-11-14 05:52 · Score: 1

I'm not a luddite and not really affraid this new virus is going to do something horrible like download copyright music from the RIAA. But what makes this new man-made virus any less capable of mutating or evolving than any other virus?

Probably nothing. But my point was not that we should not be careful. My point was that there should be no need to be significantly more careful than we are with other viruses.

The original post questioned whether "we really should be doing this". My response is: are you equally concerned by the everyday handling of viruses in thousands of research labs? Why not?

Tor
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by mAineAc · 2003-11-14 05:52 · Score: 2, Informative

I am sure they take great pains to be very careful these are bacteriophages they attack bacteria. Just think they can work towards creating a virus that is hungry for cancer cells. We may be seeing the first signs of creating viruses that will eat oil spills or something equally great.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by kiatoa · 2003-11-14 06:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

There are two kinds of Luddites:

1. The "I don't understand it, we're all gonna die" crowd and...

2. The "I understand it, I don't trust those irresponsible buggers, if we don't do something we're all gonna die" crowd.

Large corporations (and some small ones) have repeated proven themselves to be untrustworthy and irresponsible. Crowd #2 have every reason to fear what they fear.

--
90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by DrFrob · 2003-11-14 06:12 · Score: 1

You would hope. But unfortunately a lot of scientists are dumbasses just like the rest of the population. In fact, there's a researcher at my university who wanted to study some aspect of HIV. So he ordered some of the virus and claimed that he was equipped to handle biohazard level 3 (or whatever is needed --- I don't know much about the levels). But the building he works for is not equipped for this and the company bought his story anyway without checking up on anything. I think he decided to finally trash the project after he found that none of his lab assistants would do the research without proper protection. But the fact is that if they had been dumb enough to be willing, it would have gone ahead without proper protection for the lab assistants or the other people in the building.
Basically he's an overconfident asstard who thinks that rules are for other people. Lot's of scientists are like this and it worries me that the system in place to prevent these types of incidents is totally ineffective.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Habbakukk · 2003-11-14 06:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Our only hope is probably to develop means to qucikly detect any new microbes, along with adaptive technology to create unnatural defenses to unnatural new orgainisms in real time.

Sort of gives the idea of keeping your virus definitions up-to-date a whole new meaning.

--
Habakkuk
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by buysse · 2003-11-14 06:23 · Score: 1

Ah. A common misunderstanding. AIDS and the flu didn't kill (or scare) any congresscritters, therefore they are much lower priority.

--
-30-
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-11-14 06:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Probably the same as handling any other virus
No, actually.
Natural viruses live with the constraint that if they kill their hosts outright they can't spread and quickly die out. (Read "The Andromeda Strain" for a great book on the subject.)
And don't think that complexity in virual structure is required to make something lethal. Ebola is a VERY simply virus. So simple that it kills it's host in weeks by rupturing all of its cells from virus production. Fortunately, Ebola generally strikes in isolated regions of Africa where an infected person only has the potential to infect a few dozen people before the outbreak is contained.
If you recall the mouse-killing viruse from a few weeks ago was actually an accident. They were working on something that would sterilize the rodents. What they ended up with is something increadibly lethal.
A simple-self replicating virus that works in human cells could be the deadliest thing we ever produce.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by su2ge · 2003-11-14 06:27 · Score: 1

Naturally we aren't going to know everything about the computer(or the virus) once we have managed to create one, but it is one of the first steps to gaining that understanding. The best way to learn something that there is no documentation on is to tinker with it until you find out how it works or what makes it tick. That's how most of us learned how computers work without having to go to school for it. It'll only get worse as the generations behind us grow even more curious than ourselves.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by twofidyKidd · 2003-11-14 06:34 · Score: 1

The quote is "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

--

Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:38 · Score: 0

None. They make deadly viruses in the afternoon, and then hand vials of it out on street corners after dinner. Also, they never wash their hands.

It's all true, I swear. I read it on Shlashdot.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by f97tosc · 2003-11-14 06:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

At any rate, natural evolution proceeds at a slow rate, so the defending species has time to adapt.

Natural evolution is not slow for viruses; their genetic code does not have the copy-protection mechanisms of say mammals. That is why we have a new flu pop up every other year, or a SARS for that matter.

Anthrax, for example, implements a tricky chemical hack to breach animal cells and destroy them. Most animals are pretty defenseless against the special back door that antrax uses, and without it the anthrax bacteria would be no more harmful than a pimple. However, anthrax is a rather obscure organism that mostly lives in the dirt. The reason that animals haven't evolved a defense against its chemical attack is that it just doesn't spread that easily in a natural setting. If anthrax were contagious like a cold, animals would have evolved a defense against it long ago.

With all due respect I think you are contradicting yourself. When a patheogen spreads for natural or not so natural reasons, people may die. Some survive, the resistant genes thus become more common. There may even be mutations of strong resistance that start to spread.

When this process happens for natural reasons, you label it "evolving a defense", or "defending species having time to adapt". When it happens by an act of man, you think of it as man being caught "defenseless". Of course, in both cases the species start out as (relatively) defenseless, and end up with a better defense.

My whole point was that there seem to be no lab-made pahtogen worse than anything evolved in nature. As for spreading it by man, well, anthrax did get an assist by man. But the extent of that "outbreak" was miniscule next to the natural outbreaks that happen every year.

Unless somebody figures out how to make an artificial microbe that takes advantage of chemical processes that just aren't found in natural evolution. For example, the human body might not even be capable of attacking a hypothetical microbe that has a teflon or silicone-enhanced outer membrane.

Possibly. But then again, if such mechanisms were very successful, why did they not evolve for 4 billion years on a planet surface covered in silicon compounds. In general, it is very difficult for people in labs to compete with the lab which is our planet, and time-scales of millions or billions of years.

Tor
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

In the US more than 95% of the privately held land is owned by only 3% of the population

They're called farmers...
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:48 · Score: 0

It's gonna be like The Stand by Stephen King. We're gonna be killed by Captain Tripps because of these "inventions". Oh joy.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Catbeller · 2003-11-14 06:51 · Score: 1

I don't believe that HIV can be transfered via the air. If the assistants had decided to inject themselves with a contaminated needle, there would be a very slim chance they could contract it. HIV is not easy to contract. I don't believe a BH level three is necessary. The scientist was right;there was little or no danger as long as you didn't inject it subcutaneously. The assistants were just scared of the word "AIDS".
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by cens0r · 2003-11-14 07:12 · Score: 1

If by farmers you mean monsanto and conagra...

--
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by jimsum · 2003-11-14 07:14 · Score: 5, Funny

Let's hope they use some sort of copy protection on these viruses so that they can only reproduce with the permission of the owner. That's DRM I have no trouble with.

--
-- Pot is safer than Beer
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by 2short · 2003-11-14 07:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

I agree that bio weapons get more attention than natural viruses because they involve someone doing something intentionally. But I don't think it makes sense. The way I see it the downside of my getting killed by an intentional attack is that I'm dead. The downside of my getting killed by a natural virus is that I'm dead. Whether or not anyone intended me to be dead doesn't modify that downside at all for me. If society is going to try to do some stuff to prevent me (and others) from becoming prematurely dead, it seems to me it would make sense to allocate more resources to things that are more likely to kill people.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by mcpkaaos · 2003-11-14 07:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Designing and building a computer...certainly implies that you have enough knowledge to make intelligent decisions on how to go about protecting the computer.

Not to flame you, but that is an arrogant and inherently dangerous presumption to make. Take for example Ted Kaczynski. Incredibly intelligent, incredibly crafty, incredibly deadly. And he's just one example. Sure, you could argue that he is insane. So take the invention of the atomic bomb as another example. Following your logic, the Unabomber would have seen the devastation of his ways and been deterred, and Einstein would have kept his findings closely guarded from government exploitation. No one needs to be reminded of the outcome of either scenario.

Intelligence does not imply wisdom, and quite often you'll find one without the other, especially in the race for discovery and/or acheivement.

--
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by mrscorpio · 2003-11-14 07:29 · Score: 1

Virii is NOT a word! The plural of virus is viruses!

Chris
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 07:32 · Score: 0

Dude, if you are going to flaunt your god-like intelligence and wit, you should take the time to fix your signature. You have nearly every word of the quote wrong.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by feronti · 2003-11-14 07:47 · Score: 1

If the lab wasn't equipped with goggles, paper masks, and rubber gloves, it shouldn't be doing _any_ kind of research.

(The only biohazard requirements for working with HIV are goggles, masks, and gloves... no fancy biosuits or anything like that. My mother worked in a hospital lab testing blood for hepatitis and HIV for years, and the only protection required were masks, gloves, and goggles.)
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 07:52 · Score: 0

"Chris" is not a name! The shortened form of "Christopher" is "Christ"! AC
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by ultranova · 2003-11-14 08:07 · Score: 1

It would probably make more sense to catalogue everything that should be in your body, and destroy everything that fails to identity itself. That would also take care of cancer cells...

And then the virus makers would find and exploit a bug in the defensive nanobots. "Immunity Chip v. 1.01: correct the bug that was causing us to fail to detect the boogieman virus. Updates available at our website at www.immunitychip.com. NOTE: Our public servers are currently experiencing heavy load and might not be available. Sign up now for access to our premium service."

Would you pay ?

Or would you be a commie hippie fascist and use the Linux version, despite FUD from Microbesoft ?-)

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Sgt+York · 2003-11-14 08:12 · Score: 1

Following your logic, the Unabomber would have seen the devastation of his ways and been deterred
Just because he had the knowldege and foresight to prevent catastrophe does not imply that he has the will or desire to do so. Kasczynski lacked the desire to prevent harm, he knew what would hurt someone and he favored it. This pertains to neither intelligence nor wisdom, but to morality or purpose.
As for the Bomb, they probably either lacked the will or foresight. It is hard to believe they lacked the foresight; anyone could figure it out. The problem was that in the frenzy of discovery, they blinded themseleves to all but the esoteric. Which goes along with:
and quite often you'll find one without the other, especially in the race for discovery and/or acheivement.

--

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Ella+the+Cat · 2003-11-14 08:14 · Score: 1

I love that quote. I can Google, but since this is /. would you happen to know who coined the phrase?
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by feronti · 2003-11-14 08:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Unfortunately, neither of your examples refute the original statement. While I agree to a certain extent that the original poster's implications are not entirely valid, your examples do nothing to refute his point.

Ted Kaczynski (not sure if either of us spelled that right, and I'm not going to take the time to look it up now:) was indeed highly intelligent. However, I don't think he works very well as an example that intelligence does not guarantee wisdom. In fact, I would argue that his success for many years implies that he was indeed "crafty" (often used as a synonym for wise, or clever). His failure was not in wisdom or intelligence but in the fact that his choices were immoral (some would argue evil) to the large majority of the society. The decision to commit evil acts does not preclude the wisdom of the decision maker. Sometimes evil acts can make more sense than good ones, given the proper moral outlook.

In the case of Einstein, he knew full well the implications of application of his theories. It was a letter signed by him that encouraged Roosevelt to devote resources to building the first atomic bombs. Granted the only reason he wrote the letter was because he believed the Nazis were very close to building their own nuclear weapons, and IIRC, he said later in life that he regretted that decision. But, he never regretted publishing his theories, and anyone who claims the world would have been a better place if he hadn't is a fool. First of all, they would have been eventually discovered by someone else. What if that someone else was someone who agreed with the Fascists, and therefore took the discovery directly to his government, who didn't release it publically, and instead used the research to create atomic weapons. Only this time, no one else in the world had even the theoretical groundwork to be able to develop their own weapons to counter. Also, Einstein's theories created a revolution in physics, allowing us to discover not only nuclear weapons but integrated circuits and other modern technologies. I think more benefits have come out of Einstein's work than bad, and that the wisest decision possible was to publish it and allow it to be referenced freely.

Does this mean that intelligent people are inherently wise? Not at all. There are countless examples of intelligent people doing stupid things--Maxim created his machine gun believing that the massive volume of fire would so frighten people that war would be impossible. Elia Kazan provided names, the names of many of his friends, no less, to McCarthy and the Un-American Activities Committee, names that were promptly blacklisted. These are far better examples of naivete and foolishness among the intelligentsia.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:22 · Score: 0

What's a Virii?

/dumbass
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by B'Trey · 2003-11-14 08:27 · Score: 1

I'm aware of the original quote. I think my version is better, as incompetence has a much wider range of application than stupidity. I'm not stupid but I'm completely incompetent in a number of areas, ranging from sweater knitting to brain surgery. All too often, the problem isn't really stupidity so much as it is people being completely out of their element.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by zecg · 2003-11-14 08:30 · Score: 1

Read this for more in-depth information about things that shouldn't be done:

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues1/2003/so03/so0 3t oc.html

--
.i lu doi ringos.star. xu do puku'aroroi dunli dopecaku leni virnu li'u
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by DrFrob · 2003-11-14 08:32 · Score: 1

You're probably not qualified to decide whether or not HIV should be classified biohazard level 3. The point is that he took it upon himself to disobey safety policies that are put in place for a reason and potentially put people into danger unknowingly (the other people in the building that don't know HIV research is being done).
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by B'Trey · 2003-11-14 08:34 · Score: 1

Not to flame you in return, but I made no such claim as you seem to be attributing to me. Having sufficient knowledge to build something implies a reasonably deep understanding of how it functions. I made no claim about that understanding having any effect on wisdom or on the desire to use that knowledge in any particular way.

Someone who has sufficient knowledge to build a functioning virus knows a great deal about how they work, and thus has information which is quite valuable in figuring out how to stop them from working. That person may use that knowledge to develop cures for disease, or he may use the knowledge to try to design a super bug that wipes out entier human race. How he uses the knowledge is completely independent of the fact that he has the knowledge.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:42 · Score: 0

I think a possible fear of lab vs nature is that your body's immune system has resistances to the everyday germs and viruses. If you take a flu virus into the lab, modify it to the point our bodys can't fight it then you have a serious problem.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by twofidyKidd · 2003-11-14 08:42 · Score: 1

I believe it's Hanlon's Razor.

--

Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Ella+the+Cat · 2003-11-14 08:51 · Score: 1

Thanks! Here's the #1 hit on Google http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/h/HanlonsRazor.ht ml
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Smallpond · 2003-11-14 08:51 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, this is not true. The downside of getting natural anthrax is that you get sick, the downside of getting weaponized anthrax is that you die very quickly. The 5 people who died in 2001 were the first confirmed deaths from anthrax in 20 years.

These first synthetic viruses may be OK, the problem will be who gets to use the new technology and what they decide to use it for.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Golias · 2003-11-14 08:54 · Score: 1

In the US more than 95% of the privately held land is owned by only 3% of the population.
Of course, you had to use the "privately held" qualifier, becuase the majority of the land in the US is owned by the public and managed by the government. Massive expanses of land throughout the west have been Federal land reserves since the TR administration, and the states all hold a lot of land themselves.
Such facts about the socialist ownership of resources in the US dispells the myth that America is a nation of chaotic free-market capitalism run wild, so I can see how a reactionary would want to factor them out before calculating percentages.
Steering back on to the topic of a virus created "from scratch". If it truely was a case of creating a virus (one of the simplest life-froms) from non-organic matter, that would be big news. Unfortunately, the article is very vague about what their starting materials were. If their "synthetic genome" was built using organic material, it would represent a much less signifigant feat.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by twofidyKidd · 2003-11-14 09:02 · Score: 1

What the quote tends to take aim at are competent individuals that lack the common sense to have done it correctly in the first place. So rather than to assume that someone fucked something up just to make your life hell, you should first realize that they probably weren't thinking much...

Since this IS slashdot, I can safely use MS products as an example. It's obvious that they were made by programmers, since they wouldn't work at all otherwise, but because their products cause really stupid things to happen, its safe to assume that the programmers themselves weren't out to make trying to piss you off, but probably were...well....stupid.

--

Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:05 · Score: 0

Fucking really? So if I accidentally hit your stupid ass with my bus it's OK?
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by rifter · 2003-11-14 09:05 · Score: 1

And of course the reverse was asserted in Ambrose Bierce's _The_Devil's_Dictionary_
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by 4of12 · 2003-11-14 09:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Knowing how to assemble a virus, will hopefully allow us to defend ourselves against them.

As long as the rate at which the virus reproduces and the level of devastation it causes is not too fast or too irreversible.

Consider the effects of some natural virus and other life forms that have been unleased.

A fungus from the Eastern hemisphere pretty well wiped out the American chestnut tree in short order.

Russian thistle, introduced to North America in the 19th century has likewise become endemic, to the point where tumbleweeds are considered an essential ingredient in any Western film set.

Rabbits in Australia, etc., provide some indication of how rapidly reproducing organisms can spread and how much change they can cause.

Do we trust our knowledge of virus mechanics enough to believe that an inadvertent release of "grey goo" can be undone?

To put it another way:
Even if I'm extremely knowledgeable about cars, have built them from scratch, repaired them, etc., is that sufficient assurance I will be able to stop a speeding car running straight at me in time?

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Johnny5000 · 2003-11-14 09:20 · Score: 1

"Possibly. But then again, if such mechanisms were very successful, why did they not evolve for 4 billion years on a planet surface covered in silicon compounds. In general, it is very difficult for people in labs to compete with the lab which is our planet, and time-scales of millions or billions of years. "

An artificially created virus created to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time would have a different 'life' cycle than a natural virus.
If a natural virus is too deadly, it won't allow the host to live long enough for the virus to reproduce and spread. If that happens, the cycle of infection will end as soon as the initial host dies.
In a weaponized virus, that would more likely be seen as a beneficial trait. Following a massive initial infection, everyone dies, and the infection cycle of the virus is finished.

--
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by B'Trey · 2003-11-14 09:39 · Score: 1

If my sig were a quote, it would be in quotation manrks and attributed.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by B'Trey · 2003-11-14 10:00 · Score: 1

Thanks for making my point for me. With the possible exception of an occasional idiot savant, I don't believe anyone who can learn to program a computer can be classified as "stupid." The fact that they produce poorly written software indicates that either they are incompetent themselves, or that they are not allowed to utilize their competence by incompetent managers. In either case, the problem is most definitely that they are stupid and incapable of learning safe programming practices.

Stupid means that they lack the intellignece to learn. Incompetent means they do not have the requisite knowledge or skill. What you described is not stupidity. It is incompetence.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by mcpkaaos · 2003-11-14 11:19 · Score: 1

Right on, thanks for the reply. I appreciate that you further clarified what you were saying. If I misinterpreted your point, I apologize. From the initial statement, it sounded like you were inferring wisdom from intelligence. My point really only was to cover that presumption, so if I was mistaken, I retract it.

I think I just broke a major /. tradition by this post, but what the hell, rules are made to be broken, right? ;)

Cheers.

--
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 12:33 · Score: 0

What you described is not stupidity. It is incompetence.

And is being incompetent a 'smart' thing to be?

No? Then it's a 'stupid' thing to be.

Duh.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 12:40 · Score: 0

Bio weapons on the other hand are purposely engineered to maximize the lethality of a disease for the intentional purpose of killing as many people as possible

This is directly opposed to the post you're responding to, which ays "Some anthrax letters that killed half a dozen people seemed to get more attention and resources than the flu and aids, which kill tens of thousands of people per year in the US alone."
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Quino · 2003-11-14 13:05 · Score: 1

It would probably make more sense to catalogue everything that should be in your body, and destroy everything that fails to identity itself

I think that's exactly how white blood cells work (my bio class was a while ago, maybe the details are all off), they recognize all the proteins that all your cells make, and destroy any cells that they encounter that are making stuff that's not recognized. I seem to remember that they are "trained" in the bone marrow, before they are let loose in your body to make sure they have a complete "catalog" of your bodily chemicals (proteins?) and don't go out and attack normal cells.

I'm not sure why this isn't effective with cancer cells (hmmm... are cancer cells completely normal cells, and thus not attacked as foreign, except that they are reproducing uncontrollably fast?).

As to your question, hmmm ..., I'm not sure that I'd trust MS with my immune system -- can you imagine? We would end up literally absorbed by the Collective then, looking like the Bill Gates icon on slashdot.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by __past__ · 2003-11-14 13:19 · Score: 1

Of course it is a word, what else should it be? You just used it in a normal sentence. You may not like this one, but it is as much a word as "blog", "burger" or "hexadecimal", and not even that much more stupid then them.

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by mrscorpio · 2003-11-14 13:57 · Score: 1

Ok, let's analyze...

"blog" and "burger" are shortened forms of "weblog" and "hamburger", that, while technically are not words in the English language, follow all conventions thereof. I'm not sure what your problem with Hexadecimal is, meaning a Base 16 number system, so I'm going to ignore that.

One of the reasons for a slang word to appear in general use is because it's easier or shorter to say than the word it is used in place of, or has some cultural reference. "Virii" fits none of these categories, nor does it follow the standard conventions of the English languages with its double i somehow signifying it as the plural form of "Virus". If it was supposed to follow the format set by words like "Octopus", the plural would be "viri" (like Octopi). However, the plural was set long ago, and it is "viruses", and it is not difficult to say, spell, or understand for anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the English language; or enough to know what "virus" means and what a plural is.

Finally, it's not even something like "ain't", a non-word that has been co-opted into speech and culture often enough to be accepted (somewhat begrudgingly) into dictionaries everywhere. As far as I know, the only place "virii" is used is Slashdot, and for some reason here otherwise intelligent people use this word when needing a plural form of the word "virus".

The end.

Chris
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by nounderscores · 2003-11-14 14:08 · Score: 1

Well, maybe not a car, but if you know the weak point is on the top and rear armour of a tank...
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 14:23 · Score: 0

"Should" is a stupid question to ask. Someone out there is going to be doing things like this sooner or later. The question is whether it will change our universe and whether or not the rest of us will be ready for it when they do.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 14:48 · Score: 0

Viruses don't metabolize. They can't be "hungry" or eat anything.

Perhaps we can use viruses to inject DNA/RNA into bacteria, and train them to eat oil, or make viruses that target a specific weakness cancer cells have in common, and KILL the cell (or weaken it to the immune system)... But viruses are'nt going to do these things on their own.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 15:21 · Score: 0

I always wanted to know if the plural of "octopus" was "octopuses" or "octopi".

Would that make the plural of "jesus" "jesi"?

P.S. I am well aware of the fact that I am misusing a proper noun.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 15:30 · Score: 0

Gee, I guess I should be more afraid of the nature-made gun powder and atomic bombs than the man-made ones.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 15:39 · Score: 0

incompetence.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by _xen · 2003-11-14 15:47 · Score: 1

I think my version is better

I agree. On the other hand I consider you an arrogant sod for saying so! ;)
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 15:53 · Score: 0

And is being incompetent a 'smart' thing to be?

And is being smart a 'graphic' thing to be?

The original poster was making the point that the concenpts of 'stupidity' and 'competence' are orthogonal. Which they are.

You are obviously too stupid to understand that, but doesn't mean you aren't a competent knitter of sweaters.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 17:19 · Score: 0

Well, look on the bright side. Once you're dead you probably won't care how it happened.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 20:04 · Score: 0

I think my version is better

It would be even better if you were to s/maliciousness/malice/
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 20:27 · Score: 0

If it truely was a case of creating a virus (one of the simplest life-froms) from non-organic matter, that would be big news.

How (and why) the hell are they supposed to create a virus from "non-organic matter"? You want them to fuse atoms to make their carbon? Or are you suggesting that they make a completely inorganic virus, i.e. one that contains no carbon-based molecules whatsoever? That would make it sort of tricky for it to co-opt the host cell's organic machinery to produce more copies of this inorganic virus. It's not clear how jumping though any of these hoops would lead to a greater understanding of how the viruses that infect us work, since they are made of organic material.

Maybe you're just mis-using the phrase "organic material." Please clarify exactly what you mean. Keep in mind that viruses are very small and simple, and are basically made up of a few proteins and some genetic material. If by "organic" you mean "derived from other life forms", the molecules that make up a virus are small and readily synthesized, so that is no big deal. The virus in this case was assembled from little commerically-available, chemically-synthesized bits of DNA.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by nusuth · 2003-11-14 20:31 · Score: 1

If you have a connection to the source, why not?

--
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by __past__ · 2003-11-15 00:02 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what your problem with Hexadecimal is, meaning a Base 16 number system, so I'm going to ignore that.
Pity. Given that the argument against "virii" usually is that it isn't correct latin (which nobody claimed anyway), it's rather funny that people claiming that don't have any problem with a crude mixture of greek and latin like "hexadecimal" (or even "automobile", which should either be an "ipsomobile" or an "autokines"). This isn't a valid word in any language than english (and the languages that adopted it from english) either.
Sure, "virii" is not the correct latin plural of the latin word "virus". In fact, the latin "virus" is a mass-word anyway and simply has no plural form, so even "viruses" would be strange if you would care about the latin roots that much. But we deal with an english word and an english plural form of it, no matter its etymological roots. Sure, "virii" is not that usual an english plural, but it's not the only word with a strange plural either (what kind of rule does "penny"-"pence" follow? Or "mouse"-"mice"?)
Note well, I fully agree that "virii" is pretty a stupid and needlessly unusual word, and certainly a slang word most often used at least half-joking, like "boxen". But it is still a word. Linguistics are empirical sciences.

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-15 00:45 · Score: 0

I think it would be viri (one i at the end). There is no -ii suffix in Latin that i'm aware of.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by B'Trey · 2003-11-15 02:20 · Score: 1

LOL! Thanks. I needed a good laugh.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by B'Trey · 2003-11-15 02:24 · Score: 1

There was a reason I did that originally, but I'm damned if I can remember now what it was.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by __past__ · 2003-11-15 03:04 · Score: 1

The plural of "radius" is "radii", for example. However, this hasn't much to do with "virus" (it would if it would be "virius" and actually had a plural form at all). But the point is that latin doesn't matter that much anyway, because we don't speak latin here - we just borrow some words, rather liberally.

--
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by crazylinux · 2003-11-15 04:42 · Score: 1

It sounds like Open Source
Biorganisms.
I wonder if the art of bioscience will take the same road as Open source and proprietary source code.

Vaccines that you pay for and vaccines that are Open Source and free of charge.
And good thing is that Open source sometime does better job than proprietary code.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Hentai · 2003-11-15 08:56 · Score: 1

Well, a virus can't eat oil - virii require biological entities to survive in. You could make a species of bacteria that eats oil, though.

--
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by 2short · 2003-11-17 07:55 · Score: 1

"Unfortunately, this is not true."

What's not true? I'm saying I think resources and attention should be allocated in proportion to how likely something is to kill me (or people in general). It is true; I do think this.

Yes, weaponized anthrax is a bigger problem than natural anthrax, because natural anthrax is essentialy not a problem at all. But I'm not arguing how resources dedicated to fighting anthrax should be allocated. I'm arguing how much resources should be allocated to anthrax at all. Other natural illnesses kill so many people that 5 deaths in 20 years does not begin to compete. 5 deaths in a month would not compete. It's silly to spend large amounts of resources trying to be prepared for just one very specific potential threat out of the basically limitless modes of attack terrorists could choose. Especially when it (inevitably) means you can't use those same resouces to address real threats that are killing a lot more people right now.

"These first synthetic viruses may be OK, the problem will be who gets to use the new technology and what they decide to use it for."

I agree with this but I think you could say: These first <any new scientific breakthrough examples> may be OK, the problem will be who gets to use the new technology and what they decide to use it for.
Re:Should we really be doing things like this? by Golias · 2003-11-17 20:14 · Score: 1

How (and why) the hell are they supposed to create a virus from "non-organic matter"? You want them to fuse atoms to make their carbon? Or are you suggesting that they make a completely inorganic virus, i.e. one that contains no carbon-based molecules whatsoever? ... Maybe you're just mis-using the phrase "organic material."Carbon is an element. Not all carbon compounds are organic. You are the one mis-using the phrase "organic material."
As for my comment that I'm only impressed if they started with non-organic matter, I mean exactly that. "Synthesized" DNA which comes from organic matter as the base materials is not nearly as impressive of a feat as creating a living organism from raw elements.
And no, it would not help us understand how viruses work necessarilly, but it would help us understand a little something called the origins of life on Earth. A field of study not without merit, unless you are from the "it's turtles all the way down" set.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

eesh by devphaeton · 2003-11-14 04:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Anymore these days, i have to re-read titles like this one to try to determine if it's a organism-disease virus, or a computer-disease virus.

heh.

These guys are writing fork bombs with DNA

--

do() || do_not(); // try();

Re:eesh by jon787 · 2003-11-14 04:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

Thinking on the computer virus side I like this Hawking quote:
"I think computer viruses should count as life. I think it says something about human nature that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. We've created life in our own image."
-- Stephen Hawking

--
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Re:eesh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:49 · Score: 0

Nothing is ever destroyed in the Universe, it is transformed into other forms, but not destroyed.

Hawking should know this before making ascinine comments such as this!
Re:eesh by B'Trey · 2003-11-14 04:58 · Score: 4, Informative

Horsefeathers. Matter is not the essence of a thing. Form and function usually (but not always) are. Transformation into another form may not destroy the mass but it most certainly destroys the thing that existed before.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:eesh by Lispy · 2003-11-14 05:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Agreed. If you look at a virus that writes zeroes all over your harddisk all it does is to increase entropy in the universe. Wich restores order. Bad luck if the files in question were your pr0n collection.
Re:eesh by Tim+C · 2003-11-14 05:19 · Score: 1

It may also destroy the mass, if you manage to create a nuclear reaction and convert some of it to energy.

Unlikely with a virus, I know...

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:eesh by Sgt+York · 2003-11-14 05:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Matter cannot be destroyed. Energy cannot be destroyed. Information can be destroyed. In fact, because of entropy, the destruction of information is a requirement of the universe. That is, if you see information as a form of order.

--

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.
Re:eesh by B'Trey · 2003-11-14 05:45 · Score: 1

That depends on your definition of "destroy" and "mass." Arguably, mass and energy are two forms of the same thing, and conversion from one form to another is no more an act of destruction than is melting an ice cube.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:eesh by Razor+Blades+are+Not · 2003-11-14 05:53 · Score: 1

To Destroy :

To ruin completely; spoil: The ancient manuscripts were destroyed by fire.

To tear down or break up; demolish. See Synonyms at ruin.

To do away with; put an end to: "In crowded populations, poverty destroys the possibility of cleanliness" (George Bernard Shaw).

To kill: destroy a rabid dog.

To subdue or defeat completely; crush: The rebel forces were destroyed in battle.

To render useless or ineffective: destroyed the testimony of the prosecution's chief witness.

I don't see any definition of "destroy" that is explicitly contrary to the conservation of energy.
Re:eesh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:12 · Score: 0

Spoken like a brilliant physicist talking about biology. Computer viruses are not life. They do not evolve.
Re:eesh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:13 · Score: 0

Hawking had his day. Can't be sure he is all there now. Most of his recent revelations are ramblings.
Re:eesh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:17 · Score: 1

You meant to say "decrease entropy".

But anyway, the processes on the level of say, data on a hard drive, are so far removed from any actual thermodynamic `order in the universe' that this is meaningless. Any and all personal computer operations increase entropy (until/unless reversible computing becomes normal). There is absolutely no order being restored unless the virus actually reverses the flow of time and restores the original particle states which once represented the blank HD.
Re:eesh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:35 · Score: 0

dill weed, he didn't say destroy matter, he said destructive, as in, perhaps, destruction of order, increasing entropy, not once did he say destroying matter. Pllllleeeeeaasssse girlfriend, work it out now.
Re:eesh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:43 · Score: 0

The disk write operations dissipate some heat into the surrounding environment, increasing disorder in the air of the computer room. This happens whether or not the written data has meaning to us.
Re:eesh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 07:19 · Score: 0

Like what, in particular?
In my opinion he's as sharp as ever. Maybe it's a problem with you.
Re:eesh by cayenne8 · 2003-11-14 08:27 · Score: 1

"These guys are writing fork bombs with DNA"
I thought a virus was RNA only??

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:eesh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:02 · Score: 0

Yeah what-the-fuck-ever Stephen Wacko Hawking.
Re:eesh by Hatta · 2003-11-14 09:06 · Score: 1

Why is evolution necessary for life? If we could produce an android like Data with self consciousness, but didn't reproduce or evolve, I think it would still be clear that it was alive.

Or more fundamentally, every class of living objects we know of evolves. Yet, no single instance does. Still, we refer to individual organisms as alive. Even if they are incapable of reproduction, as so many sterile people (or slashdot readers, hehehe) are.

I think he's right to equate computer viruses with physical viruses. Though I'm not sure it's right to call either of them "alive".

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:eesh by devphaeton · 2003-11-14 09:30 · Score: 1

I thought a virus was RNA only??

Crap, you're right. I totally forgot about that.

Use it or lose it.... :-(

--

do() || do_not(); // try();
Re:eesh by cpeterso · 2003-11-14 09:51 · Score: 1

just because he can rap doesn't mean he knows everything about biology or computers.

Anyways, I think the destructive nature of computer virsues is vastly overhyped. What percentage of computer viruses and worms actually format your hard disk? Very few, I think. Most just propogate themselves and annoy. If virus writers were truly malicious, they could easily add a "format c:" feature to their viruses. But they don't. Why not? This is what makes me think that many viruses are actually written by the virus scanner companies. Job security, you know. :-)

--
cpeterso
Re:eesh by B'Trey · 2003-11-14 09:52 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what you mean by "...explicitly contrary to the conservation of energy." Are you saying that converting mass to energy is or is not an act of destruction?

If you have an ice sculpture in the shape of a swan that that melts, was that an act of destruction? If you think in terms of the swan, then the answer was yes - the swan was destroyed. If you think in terms of the water, no destruction occurred. The water was ice, it's now liquid. It changed form but it still exitsts.

I'm quite certain that a physicist would tell you that a reaction which converts mass to energy does not destroy that mass. However, there was some object who's essential identity was tied into the form of that mass, and that object will have been destroyed.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:eesh by nikkipolya · 2003-11-14 10:23 · Score: 1

I would say any process that is _not_ *reversible* entails destruction. well, you might say conversion of ice to water is reversible. But, can all of the *information* that can be ascribed to the ice prior to its melting away be restored?
Re:eesh by B'Trey · 2003-11-14 11:38 · Score: 1

I certainly wouldn't argue with that, but I would point out that no process is completely reversible. We decide what aspects are important in any particular form, and tend to ignore other aspects of that form. If we can reverse the changes which affect the aspects we decide are important, we call the process "reversable" and blissfully overlook the fact that there are other changes which were not reversed. At a sufficient level of detail, not only is no process reversable but no form is sustainable. Entropy increases. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Re:eesh by colmore · 2003-11-14 18:12 · Score: 1

I'm not quite up to date on the information theory definition of entropy. Would all zeros be less ordered than random bits?

--
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Re:eesh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 20:59 · Score: 0

Anymore these days

Augh! You "positive anymore" freaks!
Re:eesh by Razor+Blades+are+Not · 2003-11-18 10:46 · Score: 1

I'm replying to the anal-retentive coward who claimed "nothing is ever destroyed in the Universe, it is transformed into other forms, but not destroyed."

So effectively, I think we agree. Mr Anon.Moron seems to think that the only definition of "destroy" is one that seems to contravene the conservation of energy. I was merely providing a suite of alternative definitions which are not so limited.

A physicist (such as Hawking) might well use the word "destruction" to describe the total conversion of a mass into energy, depending on his frame of reference at the time he made the statement, and his abililty to turn a phrase.

Resident Evil anyone? by Orien · 2003-11-14 04:40 · Score: 2, Funny

Are we sure this wasn't put out by the Umbrella corporation?

--

SCO.com uses Linux

Re:Resident Evil anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:45 · Score: 0

I'm sure the Canopy Group would have a bit of interest in it.
Re:Resident Evil anyone? by John+Courtland · 2003-11-14 05:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, no silly, it was the Majestic 12.

--
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Re:Resident Evil anyone? by mahdi13 · 2003-11-14 06:38 · Score: 1

As long as Bob Page and Walter Simmons stays out of it I'll be content...

--
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson

Scared now by Daikiki · 2003-11-14 04:41 · Score: 5, Funny

Well, not really terrified I guess, but the whole "We've created life and it's procreating" thing is something that doesn't exactly make me feel warm and fuzzy,. And why did it have to be a virus. Why not a cute little kitten or something?

--
I want the fire back.

Re:Scared now by Feyr · 2003-11-14 04:42 · Score: 3, Funny

why not a cute little virus? nothing wrong with em
Re:Scared now by Lord+Omlette · 2003-11-14 04:45 · Score: 1

Because "the T-Kitten" doesn't sound nearly as interesting to venture capitalists.

--
[o]_O
Re:Scared now by monadicIO · 2003-11-14 04:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why not a cute little kitten or something?
All cute kittens have a fair number of virii inside their bodies. I guess they are just starting with those. Then they'll make the bacteria in their guts, the ticks/germs on their fur, and finally the kitten.

--
The law of excluded middle : Either I'm foo or I'm foobar
Re:Scared now by Councilor+Hart · 2003-11-14 04:47 · Score: 1

Just wait until they evolve into a humanoid-like species.
You do know what we did to the Neanderthals?
Re:Scared now by Java+Pimp · 2003-11-14 04:48 · Score: 1

And why did it have to be a virus. Why not a cute little kitten or something?

Do we have another candidate for the Darwin Awards perhaps?

--
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!
Re:Scared now by mrtroy · 2003-11-14 04:49 · Score: 1

I think they should try and make some new organic stuff.

Now that we have created some procreating life, lets go a little bigger here.

What about making some mini-human race, so we can use them as slaves. I would like about 20 little guys running around doing everything for me. And I could make them , cuz im bigger! Also, make them eat old tires or garbage or something, so they dont steal my pretzels. If you have any more questions regarding this mini race, please email me at god@slashdot thnx.

PS> They can also be used for entertainment...like cock fighting. And you can gamble on these little guys over just about anything they do. "20$" says he humps my secretary's leg in under 5 minutes!

--
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:50 · Score: 0

the whole "We've created life and it's procreating" thing is something that doesn't exactly make me feel warm and fuzzy
Most grandparents would not agree with you.
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:55 · Score: 0

Do we have another candidate for the Darwin Awards perhaps?

The entire human race?
Re:Scared now by SmallFurryCreature · 2003-11-14 04:58 · Score: 1

Yah, so the terrorist unleash a cloud of "Cute little kittens" tm. Not going to be exactly a red alert situation now is it?
Anyway smuggling kittens is hard as they set off the sniffer dogs.
Remember weapons of war must look hard and menacing, not cute and fluffy.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Re:Scared now by greechneb · 2003-11-14 04:58 · Score: 5, Funny

Because you have to start simple. Viruses first, then ameoba, then lawyers....

No, wait, that's viruses, lawyers, ameoba..
Re:Scared now by Plug1 · 2003-11-14 05:03 · Score: 1

Technically it's not life. There is still a bit of dispute as to whether virused are alive or not. They contain genetic material, but are not necessarily living organisms. Or that is what some bio major told me once.
Re:Scared now by DrEldarion · 2003-11-14 05:04 · Score: 1

I shall call him... "Mini-me".
Re:Scared now by pmz · 2003-11-14 05:05 · Score: 3, Funny

Worse, they could have created real-life Tribbles but didn't. How can they call themselves scientists yet not pursue the future laid out before us by Gene Roddenberry?

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Scared now by Saige · 2003-11-14 05:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

All they actually did was to take commercially available DNA, link it together to duplicate the DNA of an existing bacteriophage, and pop it inside a cell, and watch it go on. They just demonstrated that they have the technology to make a copy of the DNA of an existing virus.

As anyone can tell you, learning how to copy something that already exists doesn't really mean you know that much more about how it works. Just because I could write out a copy of a Chinese story doesn't mean I know anything more about what the story says, just that I can duplicate the writing correctly.

Creating NEW life forms, not just copying existing ones, is still a ways off.

Theoretically, they should be able to do this with a mammal like a feline. Sequence the DNA, build a copy, and replace the DNA in a freshly fertilized egg, and it should grow up just fine. Though the complexity of the animal would add issues that I'm not educated enough to be aware of, certainly.

--
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Re:Scared now by Jooly+Rodney · 2003-11-14 05:08 · Score: 1

Yeah -- as I understand it, it's more like a bunch of protein that knows how to get itself replicated.
Re:Scared now by Deflagro · 2003-11-14 05:15 · Score: 1

Silly...viruses and lawyers are the same thing...Ameobas do come next though.

--
Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

dominUS -> domini
radiUS -> radii
virUS -> viri

If you're gonna be pseudo-latin-like instead of using the correct ``virusses'', at least get rid of ONE FRIGGIN `i'!
Re:Scared now by Rorschach1 · 2003-11-14 05:22 · Score: 1

Just wait. The warm and fuzzy feeling comes after the flushed and nauseated feeling, and just before the vomiting and burning feeling.
Re:Scared now by bubblewrapgrl · 2003-11-14 05:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

A virus can't self-replicate. It's a bit like a parasite in that it needs a host. Basically, all that composes a virus is a piece of DNA encapsulated by some protein. It can't reproduce because it doesn't contain the necessary organelles, such as ribosomes to make proteins and mitochondria to provide energy, that a cell has. So, when a virus infects a cell, it incorporates itself into the host's DNA. Then, when the host DNA gets replicated, the virus DNA gets replicated along with it. From there, the DNA will either get turned into more DNA (to make new cells that have the virus DNA) or make proteins (which can cause infection by making toxins and more viruses). The virus DNA can also be dormant in the host for awhile by not incoporating itself into the host DNA.

In regards to this synthetic virus, my main question is whether or not the researchers have looked what happens to cells that get infected by the virus. You can't kill a virus like you can a bacterial cell. Basically, your body has to recognize the virus as foreign and make antibodies to kill it, which is why we have to get immunizations. That's a little frightening to me - the possibility that they've created somthing horrible lytic that no one has ever been exposed to.
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:29 · Score: 0

>> Why not a cute little kitten or something?

Well, duh...cause the cute kitten was already created!
Re:Scared now by f97tosc · 2003-11-14 05:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Technically it's not life. There is still a bit of dispute as to whether virused are alive or not. They contain genetic material, but are not necessarily living organisms. Or that is what some bio major told me once.

Whether virus is life or not depends on the definition of life. There is no consensus on this defintion, so debates on the matter are rather meaningless, it is really disputes over the definition of a word.

What makes viruses controversial is that they cannot reproduce by themselves; they need to infect antoher cell. But then again, many parasites cannot live without some other organism, and they are usuually considered alive.

Tor
Re:Scared now by lildogie · 2003-11-14 05:35 · Score: 1

> And why did it have to be a virus. Why not a cute little kitten or something?

Because PETA won't tar and feather you for killing a virus.
Re:Scared now by lordmetroid · 2003-11-14 05:35 · Score: 1

Actually a virus is not life... You should regard is as a bunch nasty molecules instead... The definition today on what life is, is that it needs a seperate enviornement screened from it's soroundings with metabolic activitiy, and hence virus is not life.
Re:Scared now by RogueProtoKol · 2003-11-14 05:39 · Score: 1

It's viruses, there is a very good page about it, but I can't find the link, so you'll just have to say viruses
Re:Scared now by Theatetus · 2003-11-14 05:51 · Score: 1

Aren't our mitochondria pretty much viruses?

--
All's true that is mistrusted
Re:Scared now by El_Smack · 2003-11-14 05:53 · Score: 1

Best one yet. You get 1 virtual mod point.

--

There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:05 · Score: 0

I for one welcome our newly created Virus Overlords.
Re:Scared now by JamesP · 2003-11-14 06:11 · Score: 1

Because you have to start simple. Viruses first, then ameoba, then lawyers....

You forgot McBride, right before viruses...

--
how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:12 · Score: 0

No, he's already been created many times, basically anytime someone goes to the bathroom....
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:13 · Score: 1, Informative

The whole bit of the immune system isn't that it needs to know exactly what it's fighting [although that helps] -- it just needs to know it's *different*.
Re:Scared now by Mr.+Sketch · 2003-11-14 06:15 · Score: 2, Funny

It would actually take quite a bit of extra work to make lawyers, after all, you would first have to figure out how to make creatures un-dead.

--
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Re:Scared now by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-11-14 06:32 · Score: 1

The problem with lawyers is that they accumulate in the food chain. Predators don't eat them out of professional courtesy.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:34 · Score: 0

Gollum, is it you?
Re:Scared now by plugger · 2003-11-14 06:55 · Score: 1

A parasite taken away from its host can survive for some time, however short. A virion outside a cell is just some RNA and proteins, incapable of any life processes.
Re:Scared now by clambake · 2003-11-14 07:01 · Score: 2, Funny

No, wait, that's viruses, lawyers, ameoba..

I thought you said life... The undead don't count.
Re:Scared now by jdavidb · 2003-11-14 07:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

Theoretically, they should be able to do this with a mammal like a feline. Sequence the DNA, build a copy, and replace the DNA in a freshly fertilized egg, and it should grow up just fine. Though the complexity of the animal would add issues that I'm not educated enough to be aware of, certainly.

One interesting issue with this approach that was only recently brought to my attention is mitochondrial DNA. Mitochondria in cells carry their own DNA inherited from the organism's mother (they are descended from the mitochondria in the egg). Currently, it's not known what if any dependencies there might be between the organism's genetic makeup and the mitochondrial DNA. It's conceivable an organism with mismatched mitochondrial DNA might have severe flaws. Or it might not have any effect at all.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:Scared now by jdavidb · 2003-11-14 07:04 · Score: 1

IIRC, some high school biology textbooks actually add "6) and are made up of cells" to the five other criteria for life in order to rule out viruses.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:Scared now by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-11-14 07:08 · Score: 1

A parasite simply obtains it's food source from a host. It reproduces either sexually or asexually like any other organism.
Viruses are RNA or DNA with a protein skin. They don't even metabolize. They simply hijack cells and reprogram them to be virus factories.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 07:38 · Score: 0

Aren't our mitochondria pretty much viruses?

Nope. They're more like bacteria.
Re:Scared now by daeley · 2003-11-14 08:18 · Score: 1

Is that the future with the green dancing girls? I like that one!

--
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Re:Scared now by pmz · 2003-11-14 08:46 · Score: 1

Yes, most especially the one with the green dancing girls. And don't forget the changlings from DS9! They can become anything.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:51 · Score: 0

I know you're joking, but viruses aren't alive in the same sense that cells are.
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:56 · Score: 0

Well, as long as it's not any cute and fuzzy bunnies or rabbits with nasty pointy teeth, then I'd be scared shitless.
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:57 · Score: 0

Virii don't have a metabolism, they don't transform energy, which is one of the criteria for life.
Re:Scared now by ghislain_leblanc · 2003-11-14 09:13 · Score: 1

Another common criteria in the biological definition of life is the presence of a metabolism. That would mean things like breathing, eating, producing waste, etc...

I eared it was the biggest concern as to wheter viruses are living organisms or not. Most current biology books consider viruses as non-living.

Viruses are basicly just some DNA or RNA in a shell, linking to bacterium with specific proteins.
Re:Scared now by drinkypoo · 2003-11-14 09:17 · Score: 1

Also, if they took commercially available DNA, then it didn't just take them a few days as suggested by the story; It took them a few days, plus the amount of research that went into producing the materials which they used; those giants in turn stood on the shoulders of others...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:46 · Score: 0

Yeah! All that cute membranes and pili make a kitten look like Gargamel.
Re:Scared now by zonker · 2003-11-14 10:20 · Score: 0

i'm keeping my eye out for signs of the 12 monkeys... how about you?

--
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
Re:Scared now by Lodragandraoidh · 2003-11-14 10:23 · Score: 1

I thought virii were non-reproducing outside of a host cell?

If these things reproduce, and do damage to host cells, then we have a serious problem if they get into the wrong hands... (hot zone X 10).

--

Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Re:Scared now by tho+1234 · 2003-11-14 10:36 · Score: 1

Cloned animals like dolly the sheep have mismatched mitochondrial DNA- the DNA in the nucleus comes from the cloned animal, which is injected into a donor egg from a different animal. The mitochondrial DNA in the organism all come from the donor cell. (so i guess technically none of those animals are 100% clones, unless mitochondrial DNA has little overall effect)

There have been reports of numerous defects and health problems in cloned animals, but there are a billion possible reasons (such as shortened telomers resulting in early aging) of which mismatched mitochondrial DNA could be one possible explanation.... But since cloning has been possible, this would suggest that any dependencies are very small....
Re:Scared now by mabhatter654 · 2003-11-14 10:49 · Score: 1

Now we all have to learn "bianary" DNA language [just 4 letters, 2 combos, a helix, and a final 3D shape...it's actually simpler than most C++ programs]! After all, computer programmers that spend all day working in assembly or binary code could probably kick the pace of virus development up several notches once a sutable sumulator is developed. I'd venture that computer virus writers are more adept at this type of cut-n-paste than most of the skilled biologists!
Now what happens when the tools go public and these people start using the web to transfer files? As soon as a couple cracks get their hands on the code, the potentially could modify it before it gets to the "building" process lab. Then the lab would unknowingly create stuff described in the file that was order-of-maginitude worse than they think they know!
Re:Scared now by Wraithlyn · 2003-11-14 11:14 · Score: 2, Funny

"What makes viruses controversial is that they cannot reproduce by themselves; they need to infect another cell."

Hmm, I shall have to double check when I get off work, but I'm fairly certain that: I cannot reproduce by myself; I need to infect another human. :)

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:Scared now by owlstead · 2003-11-14 11:26 · Score: 1

Well, not really terrified I guess, but the whole "We've created life and it's procreating" thing is something that doesn't exactly make me feel warm and fuzzy,. And why did it have to be a virus. Why not a cute little kitten or something?

We tried that, it was called a "Furby" and it spread like hell. We should never try that again.

I want the fire back.

That's a can-do. My nephew created a central heating unit for in the living room.
http://www.designvormgeving.nl/fotopagina/gshow15. htm

Maarten
Re:Scared now by StikyPad · 2003-11-14 11:45 · Score: 1

I believe the breakthrough was not in creating the virus from synthesized DNA, but in creating that DNA in just two weeks. It's logical to establish that a manufacturing process is sound before you go about changing what that process manufacturers. The fact that they didn't alter the DNA is irrelevant. The ability to synthesize DNA is the issue, and is somewhat more complicated than creating kanji with a few brush strokes.

Since they've made this project "open source," I'm sure we'll learn much more about the specifics in the near future.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Scared now by panxerox · 2003-11-14 13:06 · Score: 0

Trust me viri are alive, its just that we are bowls of soup for them.

--
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Re:Scared now by csguy314 · 2003-11-14 18:11 · Score: 1

[pedant]
While that's true, not all viruses work this way. Not all viruses have DNA. RNA viruses infect cells and just take over the cell's resources to reproduce their RNA. Or retro-viruses infect cells and then reverse-transcript their RNA into the cell's DNA. They then take over the cell's resources to produce more RNA viruses. AIDS is a retrovirus...
[/pedant]

--
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 21:05 · Score: 0

I cannot reproduce by myself; I need to infect another human.

I think I speak for all of /. when I say: "I hope one of us gets the chance to do that someday."
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 21:34 · Score: 0

Just because I could write out a copy of a Chinese story doesn't mean I know anything more about what the story says, just that I can duplicate the writing correctly.

But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be an accomplishment in its own right, and it would probably teach you a thing or two about chinese characters.

You've got to start somewhere. Don't criticise every step of a journey just because it isn't the last one.
Re:Scared now by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 22:37 · Score: 0

No, you really can't compare the complexity of DNA to the complexity of typical computer programs. They are "interpreted" in an entirely different way. Computer programs are easy to understand and create because they are interpreted in a more or less sequential manner (or if there is concurrency, it is well-defined and understood).

The evolution of a sequence of DNA instructions is entirely different from computer programming. They behave more like cellular automata, so it's difficult to determine what one does except by going through the entire sequence of steps involved in executing it. In fact, Stephen Wolfram argues in A New Kind Of Science that it may be impossible (that the behavior of many instances of such systems can't be reduced to anything simpler and more easily understood).
Re:Scared now by Saige · 2003-11-15 10:52 · Score: 1

It wasn't a criticism - just pointing out to the person I replied to that this was not nearly the type of thing he seemed to be so scared of. I was quite impressed with what they've done here, but understand that this alone doesn't mean rogue biologists can start unleashing custom viruses into the world.

--
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."

Chilling by Space+cowboy · 2003-11-14 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah I know. Luddite reaction. Yadda yadda yadda.

I still don't really think the benefits (gene expression research, gene therapy in general) are good enough, considering the potential problems.

I'd like to know who's funding them. Is it civilian or military?

As if there weren't enough virii on the planet already, we have to go making more. Fantastic academic achievement, but wish they hadn't done it. A bit like a nuclear bomb, in its own way...

Simon.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!

Re:Chilling by PhoenixFlare · 2003-11-14 04:44 · Score: 1

I'd like to know who's funding them. Is it civilian or military?

I know it's too much to ask around here sometimes, but maybe you could at least glance at the article?

- The project was funded in part by the Department of Energy
Re:Chilling by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:46 · Score: 1, Informative

Maybe.

It's funded by Dept of Energy,
One of the things they're hoping to do is produce improved versions of the bacteria which eat nuclear waste.
Re:Chilling by gujju · 2003-11-14 04:48 · Score: 1

If the virus could be designed to attack cancer cells, there might be an enormous benefit to it. Though, how they are going to invent a virus that does that, I don't know...
Maybe this is "One small step for "a virus-developer " but one giant leap for "cancer eating virus kind" "
Re:Chilling by TomV · 2003-11-14 04:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Can't remember where I found it, but there's a lovely quote about Nikola Tesla's idea for a resonator capable of splitting the planet: "The scary thing isn't that he was crazy enough to think of it, the really scary thing is that he was smart enough that it might well have worked".

Sometimes it feels like this might apply to Craig Venter. I mean his intellectual achievements are staggering, world-class, unimpeachably brilliant. but his choice of topics is sometimes very unnerving.
Re:Chilling by Space+cowboy · 2003-11-14 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

There is a very very small difference between a cancerous cell and a normal cell. They're identical except the cancerous one keeps on dividing. Just how much did you want that cancer-eating virus ? Given how often virii mutate ?

Simon.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!
Re:Chilling by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:07 · Score: 0

For a group that professes to be the "smartest group of computer users," you sure are fighting progress tooth and nail. And uneducated, too. Virii is not a word.
Re:Chilling by pmz · 2003-11-14 05:08 · Score: 1

the potential problems

Actually, they are potentially exponential problems. I'd worry more about a new virus getting loose than any amount of unaccounted-for plutonium in the world.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Chilling by atomic-penguin · 2003-11-14 05:12 · Score: 0

Funded by the Department of energy. They are hoping for the ability of capturing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Read the article.

--
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
Re:Chilling by mikerich · 2003-11-14 05:21 · Score: 2, Funny

You can practically smell the plea for more research money can't you?
I think the full case goes:
'Our new virus could help society meet its energy needs, clean up pollution, bring about World peace, reunite the cast of 'Friends', immunise the World's population against the threat of Jennifer Lopez movies and produce a Starbucks espresso that tastes faintly of coffee.'
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Chilling by Abcd1234 · 2003-11-14 05:26 · Score: 1

No benefits? You mention gene therapy (the only promise for people with certain types of inherited disorders). But did you realize that some of the most promising cancer research these days involves using bacteria to destroy cancer cells? These techniques are showing *amazing* results in animal models (we're talking complete remission). Imagine if we could custom-build a virus that would latch onto cancer cells and destroy them?

And these kinds of techniques could easily be extended to other areas. Imagine a virus which was designed to only infect malaria parasites? Or a bacteriophage that would wipe out salmonella?

Of course, that's not to say that ethical and safety concerns shouldn't be part of the debate. But don't discount this research just because *you* don't see any benefit. Because, trust me, cancer patients all over the world would probably disagree with you.
Re:Chilling by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:29 · Score: 0

Not trying to be offensive, but virii is not a word.

Seriously.

Look up Virus and look as hard as you can for the plural version. I bet you don't find virii listed anywhere. Its viruses. It always has been, always will be.

Promise.
Re:Chilling by BasilBibi · 2003-11-14 05:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

The biosphere probably creates billions of harmless 'new' (as in never-seen-before) self-replicating species/entities every day. The chances are vanishingly small this one would become life threatening if released into the wild.

As for the technology, what should we expect? It was only a matter of time before this happened. Big-Pharm & Big-Chem have been funding this kind of research for decades and it's led to really useful technology like um... GM. At the end of the day all we have to fear is the majority vote of their shareholders - our new overlords.
Re:Chilling by crush · 2003-11-14 05:33 · Score: 1

Craig Venter's funding is private and commercial. When he first started TIGR (The Institute for Genome Research) he got a lot of flack from scientists that worked for research sponsored by society through taxes being used to pay for NSF and NIH grants. The accusations were that he (and his speculative commerical backers) were leeching off publically funded science and not sharing their data back rapidly with the rest of the scientific community. This hiding of results is a big no-no in scientific academia -- both culturally and historically. So your worries about military vs. civilian might be extended to military vs. private_company vs. public. Venter's new virus is owned and controlled by civilians that aren't controlled by you and me.
Re:Chilling by Abcd1234 · 2003-11-14 05:34 · Score: 1

Actually, what you're talking about, virotherapy for cancer, is being researched right now, as we speak. See this Scientific American article.
Re:Chilling by Chris+Burke · 2003-11-14 05:43 · Score: 1

That's stupid. It's VIRUSES, now please stop using that insane bastardization.

Oh, and it's stupid to say that the only difference between cancerous and non cancerous cell is that one divides endlessly and one doesn't. Unless you think that there's no reason that one is dividing endlessly and one not, which would contradict what we already know about cancer. And would be pretty stupid. So yeah, that comes up again.

Not that you're stupid. Just what you said was stupid. :)

P.S. Please never use the non-word virii again.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Chilling by chef_raekwon · 2003-11-14 05:43 · Score: 1

Virii is not a word.

i beg to differ. if enough people use this word, and it means 'plural of virus' to all of those people, it will infact force it into the language. amazing how democratic a language can be...

and as for your flamebait comments on fighting progress....well my friend, ever heard of AIDS - a little nasty that came from a monkey(??) yeah right. manufactured. SARS? oh yes, from an apartment building in China (what??).

put that in your crake pipe and smoke it.

--
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
Re:Chilling by Space+cowboy · 2003-11-14 05:53 · Score: 1

I didn't say there were no benefits. I said "I don't think the benefits outweigh the potential problems".

I have no problem with sick people getting better, none at all.

I didn't discount the research ("fantastic academic acheivement"), and I have just as much right to my *opinion* as anyone else does to theirs, that's what the post was about.

My cousin died of cancer last year, we were very close. She was diagnosed and dead from a brain tumour in 4 days. I know something of the grief that cancer can bring. I can fully understand that cancer patients would love a cure, but we were talking about ethics, not individuals.

Nothing in what you said (apart from wrongfully accusing me of seeing no benefit) addresses what I wrote. I don't think the risk is worth the reward. Hey, I've been wrong before, and I will be again, I'd love to be wrong this time too.

That said, since we're talking about bio-engineering something designed to attack human cells (of a particular type, and I take on-board what another poster said about different gene expressions on the cell membrane), and that the mutation rate of virii in the wild is pretty high, and that we'll be making them by the billion then injecting them into an uncontrolled and uncontrollable environment (someone's body), I think there's room for a shed-load of caution. And that may not be sufficient.

There's just so much that can go wrong. Catastrophically (used technically) wrong.

Simon.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!
Re:Chilling by the_consumer · 2003-11-14 06:05 · Score: 1

Nature beat us to it.

--
"If you're thinking what I'm thinking, you're right." -
Re:Chilling by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:38 · Score: 0

IIRC one of the ways the cancer cells keep dividing is to turn off certain gene duplication controls. This results in a much higher vulnerability to viruses. :)
Re:Chilling by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-11-14 06:40 · Score: 1

Well you answer a question with a question. The Department of Energy does bith Military and Civilian research.
The DOE does nuclear testing amoung other things. And I don't mean scantron sheets for plant operators. They used to blow things up with nuclear weapons. Since the test ban treaty they have been blowing up simulated thing with simulated nuclear bombs inside of massive clustered computing arrays.
The array runs Linux, BTW. Remember that the next time someone calls Linux a religion^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Operating System for beatnicks and hippies.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Chilling by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-11-14 06:50 · Score: 1

Well except that Ebola by itself is a "harmless" virus that produces copies of itself by the billions. It just so happens to do so inside of mammalian cells.
Once a cell is infected with a virus, it is hijacked and reprogrammed to produce new copies of the virus until the cell literally explodes.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Chilling by Linux+Ate+My+Dog! · 2003-11-14 06:51 · Score: 1

No! It can't be done! You madman! Nothing can stop Jennifer Lopez movies!
Re:Chilling by plugger · 2003-11-14 06:58 · Score: 1

If existing viruses can be altered to exhibit different effects, then the creation of completely novel viruses doesn't really make things any worse.
Re:Chilling by PhoenixFlare · 2003-11-14 07:59 · Score: 1

Well you answer a question with a question. The Department of Energy does bith Military and Civilian research.

Well, seeing as the person that's heading the project they're funding is president of a civilian biotech firm, and it states right in the article that they're hoping to get microbes that can clean the environment or produce hydrogen...I would lean toward the research being largely, if not completely, for civilian purposes.

The DOE does nuclear testing amoung other things. And I don't mean scantron sheets for plant operators. They used to blow things up with nuclear weapons. Since the test ban treaty they have been blowing up simulated thing with simulated nuclear bombs inside of massive clustered computing arrays.

So? What does this have to do with the question at hand? Simulating bomb blasts and creating microbes for environmental cleanup/fuel generation have nothing to do with eachother.

The array runs Linux, BTW. Remember that the next time someone calls Linux a religion^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Operating System for beatnicks and hippies.

That's real cool and all, but again, it has absolutely no relevance to this thread. Save the evangelizing for another time.

If you're going to reply again, please at least try to make it relevant beyond the first sentence.
Re:Chilling by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:34 · Score: 0

Actually, there are several unique differences between cancerous cells and normal cells (that we know of). I reference "Genome" and the author's description of the (at least three) transcription errors that must happen to allow unlimited division.

As for "how much did you want that cancer-eating virus? Given how often viruses mutate?". Well, how different is that risk from the one we take every day? Where viruses that don't do anything at all useful (to us, anyway) mutate into deadly viruses. In all our meddling so far, we haven't managed to come up with anything as damaging as the common flu or cold.
Re:Chilling by seanadams.com · 2003-11-14 09:16 · Score: 1

There is a very very small difference between a cancerous cell and a normal cell.

So, what you're saying is that neither of them is a tiger?
Re:Chilling by Corpus_Callosum · 2003-11-14 09:59 · Score: 1

A bit like a nuclear bomb, in its own way...

Well, a nuclear weapon can kill at most, what, 30 million people? 60? What is the most populated geographic region in the world that a nuke could take out? I am reasonably certain that it couldn't happen by acciedent, however...

A bad virus could kill, what, almost all of us? And it could be an accident... (The movie Andromeda strain comes to mind)... hmmm....

There is a high cost of progress here. However, it is progress. It may be the only way to combat certain viral diseases and deliver gene therepy (introducing custom viruses)...

Chilling is right...

--
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
Re:Chilling by efflux · 2003-11-14 11:19 · Score: 1

As if there weren't enough virii on the planet already, we have to go making more. Umm... as far as I understand, this wasn't a "new virus", but merely a clone developed from scratch.

--
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
Re:Chilling by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 12:31 · Score: 0

Already have cancer-eating virus

http://science.slashdot.org/science/03/11/04/181 62 27.shtml?tid=134&tid=191
Re:Chilling by atomic-penguin · 2003-11-14 14:13 · Score: 0

Hilarious comment. I just noticed the random weekly spam blocking implies: "Hey, I am no Einstein". Does this have any implications on slashdotters?

(luser@EINSTEINdomain.net minus physicist)

--
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
Re:Chilling by UserGoogol · 2003-11-14 14:20 · Score: 1

Hacker hacker hacker hacker. :)

Yes, language is flexible, and if enough people use Virii, it will become acceptable, but its etymology is still based on ignorance, and you're an idiot for using the word. Also, it's really not an accepted word yet, as shown by all the people calling you an idiot.

And HIV and SARS are not manmade.

--
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Re:Chilling by Cincinnatus1984 · 2003-11-15 12:51 · Score: 1

This is blatantly not true. The cellular processes that regulate the proper division of cells are simple individually, but the effect of them is a cascade, and their interactions are so complicated they are still not properly understood, if they were so similar to regular cells, there would only be one kind of cancer in many different places. (well not exactly but this is slashdot)
Re:Chilling by jpop32 · 2003-11-16 10:11 · Score: 1

That's stupid. It's VIRUSES, now please stop using that insane bastardization.

But, it is 'fungii', right? ;-) Sorry, couldn't help myself.

An software anecdote by h4rm0ny · 2003-11-14 04:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just to find a metaphor that will bring this home to some of us...

I once had a prolonged discussion on the pros and cons of GM food and the mixing of seperate genetic organisms (as has produced this virus) with a Phd in Computer Science. Eventually I grabbed a textbook on UML from his desk and waved it at him. "Look," I cried, "they're breaking encapsulation!" My friend immediately reversed his stance on Genetic Engineering and wanted more testing.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.

Re:An software anecdote by NanoGator · 2003-11-14 06:32 · Score: 1

"My friend immediately reversed his stance on Genetic Engineering and wanted more testing."

My kingdom for a babel fish!

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:An software anecdote by ahdeoz · 2003-11-14 07:20 · Score: 0

I hate IBM Websphere Rational Rose too, but what is your friend's stance, pro or anti genetic food? Does more testing mean more genetic engineering or does it mean banning foods? I'm not up with the political euphamisms on the topic.

Oh no! by wo1verin3 · 2003-11-14 04:42 · Score: 5, Funny

Quick! Lets blacken the skies, they won't be able to live without light!

Re:Oh no! by Gettin'_Fatter · 2003-11-14 04:53 · Score: 3, Funny

If we blacken the skies they'll just figure out a way to use us as an source of energy and food...oh wait- that's what virii do.

--
Surely, we don't need instructions on shampoo bottles, do we?.
Re:Oh no! by sketerpot · 2003-11-14 05:07 · Score: 1

Somehow I doubt that these viruses are adapted well enough to survive as our pathogens. Our immune systems would crush them like bugs unless they have quite a bit of evolution outside their controlled clinical environment.
Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:12 · Score: 0

As a representative for Canon systems I would like to recommend our sky blackening system to you over our competitors at HP.

While HP might sell you the sky blackening distributor units for less, their sky blackening ink costs more per refil, and they also disallow secondary competition in the ink market by blocking refills.

If you crunch the numbers, I am sure you will find that the contract for world-sky blackening to save us from the virus should naturally come to us.

yours sincerly,

marketroid
Re:Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:34 · Score: 0

Virii is NOT a word.

Get educated, before its too late...
Re:Oh no! by wo1verin3 · 2003-11-14 05:38 · Score: 1

>> As a representative for Canon systems I would
>> like to recommend our sky blackening system

Dear Sirs.

Please cease and desist manufacturing, product, and marketing of said 'sky blackening system'. This product is in violation of US Patent 6,254,254 titled 'Skin light exposure control methods'.
Re:Oh no! by Soul-Burn666 · 2003-11-14 06:22 · Score: 1

Naaa... that's what robots do :)
(The Second Renaissance)

--
^_^
Re:Oh no! by ross.w · 2003-11-14 07:30 · Score: 1

You do realise that you've just created another joke for the /. trolls to wear out?

By the way, I for one etc, etc, etc

--
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?

Its ALIVE! by mekkab · 2003-11-14 04:42 · Score: 1

Great! Now lets make this barbie doll "bio-active" in the shape of Kelly Le Brock!

nah, screw that. Let's just get Kelly Le Brock!

--
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.

Re:Its ALIVE! by Hayzeus · 2003-11-14 04:50 · Score: 1

Let's just get Kelly Le Brock!
Not to burst your bubble, but I think she's like 70 years old by now and likely incontinent. I know I am.

--

Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot

wow by satanicat · 2003-11-14 04:43 · Score: 0, Redundant

Thats actually pretty neat.
imagine all the possibilities with this type of technology. The article refered to things like cleaning the environment.

. . . though I wonder what types of biological weapons could come from this. .
its both scary and exciting at the same time.=)

--
How Now Brown Cow

Re:wow by AnonymousNoMore · 2003-11-14 05:06 · Score: 1

I remember dicussions (maybe 15 years ago) about engineered bacteria that would eat toxic waste and produce nontoxic by-products. They would be used to clean toxic spills and were to be self regulating in that when the toxic "food" was all gone, the organism population would starve and be gone. Among the problems with this included the possibility that the organisms would evolve to consume other than the toxic target. Another issue, as you suggest, is terrorism. If the organisms were designed to consume an oil spill, they could be easily introduced to an oil field and potentially eliminate the resource.
Re:wow by ce110ut · 2003-11-14 05:11 · Score: 1

The project was funded in part by the Department of Energy, which hopes to create microbes that would capture carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, produce hydrogen or clean the environment.
append: ...or invade human blood cells, hijack and multiply until resources are completely exhausted. being that in some respects, humans can be perceived as a force that perpetually pollutes the environment.

if it isn't a virus, it'll be the machines!

Now.... by Terov · 2003-11-14 04:43 · Score: 3, Funny

If they can get it down to seven days then we'll have something ;)

--

---
All your old jokes are belong to sigs.

Viruses and weapons by Fux+the+Penguin · 2003-11-14 04:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think the wonder of any scientific advance should be tempered by a clear-headed analysis of the dangers it might create.

I don't think anybody should be making any new life forms or modifying any existing life forms, at least until we've had a serious societal discussion regarding its possible role and impact on terrorism and biowarfare.

Imagine a scenario where terrorists could alter a disease or organic biological weapon gene by gene to make it immune to current antidotes. Beyond that, I worry that the US itself might use it for its own cache of new-age weapons.

If WE convert it to a weapon, what's the difference? We can claim we're the good guys and we won't use it. But we can look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I hope I'm not fear-mongering here, but, I worry.

Re:Viruses and weapons by Sheetrock · 2003-11-14 04:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're not. This is a valid point that is all but ignored by scientists seeking continual funding and rationalizing that if they don't do it someone else will.
However, I think this sort of research is as or more likely to radically benefit society as it is to create catastrophe. Look at the genie released when we first split the atom; I'd argue that the current and future benefits from nuclear power alone outweigh the concern about the misuse of this knowledge. But I feel that ethical concerns must become a stronger part of scientific research and funding, not only because of this breakthrough but because of the ones we're about to make (nanotechnology will present similar worrying potential...)

--

Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Re:Viruses and weapons by herrvinny · 2003-11-14 04:55 · Score: 1

Not to be a troll or flamebait, but look at Pearl Harbor.

If any country had to be in possession of these things, it should be the US. You don't want it to be the US? Well, let's look at the alternatives:

1. Middle Eastern countries? Yeah, right. Entire place is a hellhole.

2. Russia? If that place is secure, then a kid holding a slingshot and a stone is wielding a WMD.

3. Asia? Countries like Pakistan, India and China? Malaysia? Forget it. Pakistan or India would likely use the bioweapon against each other. China? Not the most friendly to human rights.

4. European countries? Well, maybe, but I'm not terribly happy with that idea.

5. Any country in Africa/South America? You must be joking, right?
Re:Viruses and weapons by mrtroy · 2003-11-14 04:57 · Score: 0, Troll

You mean virii and weapons?

Sorry, could not resist!

--
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Re:Viruses and weapons by maomoondog · 2003-11-14 05:05 · Score: 1

Lots of new research that's affecting our lives has to do with leveraging the power of "network effects". Peer-to-peer sharing, distributed processing, dna sequencing, nano-fabrication, and countless other technologies depend on systems that harness new resources without the operator putting in extra effort. This is the next "simple machine" for us to master -- the use of self replicating systems. And it's going on in many feelds besides virology.

What's crucial is that the same effort be applied to the study of replication-resistant systems -- Biological, chemical, social and informational barriers that have sufficient functional diversity to resist infections that take advantage of systematic weakness.

This probably sounds like a crackpot unification theory, but I think a lot of the same types of analyses could be applied to studying all of these systems.
Re:Viruses and weapons by igaborf · 2003-11-14 05:08 · Score: 1

I think the wonder of any scientific advance should be tempered by a clear-headed analysis of the dangers it might create.
Agreed. But even with the most benign intent and the strictest controls, it's the liklihood of unintended consequences that worries me most. The automobile was a great boon to mankind. Back in the early part of the 20th century when it was new technology, who knew it would befoul the air and skew the world political landscape like it has?
I'm not saying we should halt all progress for lack of ability to foretell the future, but some technologies appear inherently susceptible to future problems, and this is one of them.
I hope I'm not fear-mongering here, but, I worry.
You've got a lot of company.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Dixie_Flatline · 2003-11-14 05:09 · Score: 1

I agree. This is a dangerous thing to have in the hands of the wrong people.

HOWEVER, I really think that we should be celebrating that we can do this at all. A virus is pretty much the simplest form of life (and it has been argued that it's pretty close to not actually being life at all) and that's probably why they started with that, rather than kittens.

But for a moment, put aside your fears and realize what a tremendous accomplishment this is. Creating life, from scratch. This is something creationists have largely claimed wasn't possible, and was God's domain. Anything that humans can do, nature can do, on its own, with no intervention. This is just another piece of information that allows us to claim that life DID spring up spontaneously one day, unaided by any guiding hand. (It's not PROOF, just evidence, of course.)

Exciting times, and exciting to know that we can do it. It doesn't mean that we SHOULD, but it's good to know that we CAN.
Re:Viruses and weapons by lobsterGun · 2003-11-14 05:10 · Score: 1

Bio warefare is a lot older than that.
LINK
Re:Viruses and weapons by Major_Small · 2003-11-14 05:11 · Score: 1

I think the wonder of any scientific advance should be tempered by a clear-headed analysis of the dangers it might create.
so your saying we shouldn't go forward with science at all? apply that term to the renaissance where if people asked that, we would all still think god did everything for us.
Imagine a scenario where terrorists could alter a disease or organic biological weapon gene by gene to make it immune to current antidotes. Beyond that, I worry that the US itself might use it for its own cache of new-age weapons.
and what makes you think they're not already doing that?
If WE convert it to a weapon, what's the difference?
just because it's a virus doesn't mean it's deadly... a cold is a virus... read this from the article:
Venter cautioned that the creation of artificial human or animal life is a long way off because the synthetic bacteriophage -- the virus that was created -- is a much simpler life form. Bacteriophages are viruses that infect bacteria.
The project was funded in part by the Department of Energy, which hopes to create microbes that would capture carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, produce hydrogen or clean the environment.
Re:Viruses and weapons by pmz · 2003-11-14 05:13 · Score: 1

at least until we've had a serious societal discussion regarding its possible role and impact on terrorism and biowarfare.

This is probably a case of science getting ahead of society. There is too much religious fanaticism in the world, right now, and, unfortunately, there will be religous fanaticism for pretty much all of the future, too. In every large group of people, there will be a small group that hates it, and it is getting easier for the small group to wipe out the entire large group with one motion.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Viruses and weapons by radish · 2003-11-14 05:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're american right? Doesn't it strike you as kind of an odd coincidence that you come up with the US as the only "responsible" country in the world? Whilst you may be right (you actually missed out an entire continent) I'd hardly call your analysis objective.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Viruses and weapons by glgraca · 2003-11-14 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

If those countries are so terrible,
why do you keep selling them weapons??

Who sold Saddam chemical and biological weapons?

The US insists on a monopoly on WMD technology
not for the safety of the world, but for
its own economic interests and to maintain
its power.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Grech · 2003-11-14 05:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is a very easy position to take. However, it falls down on a couple of important points.
Ethics are not the same the world over. If X can be discovered with current technology, then someone somewhere (probably several someones in several somewheres) are busily discovering X as we speak. If X can be used as a weapon, then you can be doubly sure of this. You cannot halt the progress of science. In a 'best case', you can halt the progress of science by law-abiding and well-intentioned people. This is worse than the alternative.
Yes, new technologies do pose threats to our way of life. Usually, these disruptions are for the good. In the case where they are for ill, then it behooves us to understand them, rather than to intentionally blind ourselves to them.
Imagine a scenario where terrorists could alter a disease or organic biological weapon gene by gene to make it immune to current antidotes. Imagine further a victim nation whose biologists shrug their collective shoulders and say, "We know nothing about plague engineering. Try next door, it's legal there."

--
It may not be just, but it is fair, and that is more important.
Re:Viruses and weapons by jrumney · 2003-11-14 05:15 · Score: 1

Not to be a troll or flamebait, but look at Pearl Harbor.
Yeah, I'm looking. How does a strategic attack on a military base compare with the total devastation of two whole cities?
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:21 · Score: 0

virii is incorrect.

viruses is correct.

Look it up, retard.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Kjella · 2003-11-14 05:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

Imagine a scenario where terrorists could alter a disease or organic biological weapon gene by gene to make it immune to current antidotes. Beyond that, I worry that the US itself might use it for its own cache of new-age weapons.

Except that with bio-weapons, there's a big problem... There's no "safe haven" for those that release it. Even the wackiest of terrorists want their people to survive. If you ram a couple planes in a building (US), gas the subway (Japan) or even nuke a city off the map (Nowhere... yet), you know where the damage is. But if you release a bio-weapon anywhere in the world, you can suddenly find it in your own back-yard in a week.

Releasing a reproducing bio-weapon with no known antidote requires a level of insanity unmatched in human history. Never before could anything truly endanger the entire human race, not even in the worst nuclear holocaust scenarios of the Cold War. Think something like the black plague, except 100% lethal, air-borne and spreading at 800km/hr by plane until someone realizes just how deep shit we're all in. And yes, I mean all, friends and foes alike.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Viruses and weapons by DCowern · 2003-11-14 05:28 · Score: 1

I personally think that research like this should only be allowed on the moon colony... oh... wait... nevermind.
Re:Viruses and weapons by MKalus · 2003-11-14 05:28 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm looking. How does a strategic attack on a military base compare with the total devastation of two whole cities?

Because otherwise so many brave americans might have died on the beaches of Japan if they attacked.

The idea to blow up an uninhabitat island was brought up but easily forgotten, after all nobody would have taken the US seriously by doing this.

You think I am kidding, right? But that was an argument that was brought forth by some people who still think it was just a great idea to reduce to cities to rubble.

However "good" the US might be, they are still so far the only country in the world who has used Nuclear Weapons in a war time scenario, and let's not forget things like the Firebombing of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo, just to stay in the second world war.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Re:Viruses and weapons by TGK · 2003-11-14 05:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Gotta clear up a few things here.

1 - Terrorism isn't generaly a R&D effort. The act of terrorism isn't anything new, contrary to what GW Bush Inc. seems to belive. For centuries people have been committing acts of terrorism, but these are not the organizations that develop the new and frightening weapons of war.

Terrorism is, by it's very nature, a low budget enterprise. Until Mr and Mrs Smith can grow little Susie a custom built kitten with neon pink fur by hitting some buttons on the Recombinator (tm) you won't see gene level modifications as something available to terrorists.

2 - We've been making viruses resistance to treatment/immunization for years now. Read Ken Alblik's autobiography on his roll in the Soviet Bioweapons program. Until the 1970s the United States was engaged in offensive biological warfare . Today we still research defensive biowarfare, which means that we use developing treatments as an excuse to weaponize deadly organisims.

The former Soviet Union (according to most sources) weaponized the small pox virus. Weaponization, for the unaware, is a process of making a virus resistant to treatment and immunization techniques while increasing it's kill rate.

As was pointed out elsewhere in this thread, if you have something insanely dangerous and you want to it to fall into the wrong hands, the best thing you can do with it it hand it to the Russian Army to guard.

I have the utmost respsect for the scientific community. The work they do is amazing and valuable research, but this isn't something I'm worried about. Somehow, I doubt that a bunch of PhDs in a lab can come up with anything (much) more deadly than billions of years of evolution and 50 years of cold war has produced.

--
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Lord+Ender · 2003-11-14 05:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Life is quite common throughout the universe, however, the reason we have not contacted other life is that technology naturally advances until a discovery is reached which causes a planet-destroying chain reaction.

I can't prove it is right, but you can't prove it is wrong.

--
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Gettin'_Fatter · 2003-11-14 05:31 · Score: 1

"I'd argue that the current and future benefits from nuclear power alone outweigh the concern about the misuse of this knowledge"
Yes, but how many atom-splitting advances can we pile up before we wipe ourselves out? I'd argue that the threat level goes up exponentionally with each "advance". Sooner or later we're going to stumble across something that spins way out of control and devastates the human race with unintended consequences. It's really only a matter of time.

--
Surely, we don't need instructions on shampoo bottles, do we?.
Re:Viruses and weapons by herrvinny · 2003-11-14 05:33 · Score: 1

Well, let's start with the almost complete destruction of Battleship Row and go from there. Let's try the fact that we never attacked Japan before Pearl Harbor, no state of war was announced, no nothing. Fortunately, the USS Enterprise, an aircraft carrier, was away at the time of the attack.

Let's also keep in mind that General Curtis LeMay's 21st Bomber Command killed more people with firestorms than the nuclear weapons. Here's a quick timeline of firebombing in Europe, A good picture describing firebombing, Wiki of how Tokyo was firebombed, and the wonderful bomber that made this all possible.

I can't find the link now, but do you know why those cities were picked? Because they had manufacturing facilities. Heard of Mitsubishi? They built planes, and engines, and bombs. They had factories in/near those cities. Those were also military targets, as much so as Pearl Harbor. Or do you not know that a lot of civilians lived in Pearl Harbor as well?
Re:Viruses and weapons by TGK · 2003-11-14 05:35 · Score: 1

God I suck.

That should be the United States was engaged in offensive [biological weapons research].

--
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:39 · Score: 0

I agree to a point. These are extremely dangerous things, but why do we only fear "technological marvels" when so much damage can be done the old-fashioned way?

Example: You said Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bad. They were. But so was Dresden. The difference was Hiroshima and Nagasaki had one bomb apiece. We dropped about 250,000 on Dresden (if you include "incendiary devices", which I do). How can you really say one is worse than the other if the effect is the same?

Another example: We're scared of "weapons of mass destruction" (even if we made them up). So we spend billions to track down some fictional megalomaniacal Blofeld-character. Meanwhile, the only actual, proven threat can be purchased at a hardware store for a few bucks (a box cutter).

Technological marvels distract us from the real horror of their purpose--and that purpose can be (and has been) achieved in many ways.
Re:Viruses and weapons by ishark · 2003-11-14 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

If any country had to be in possession of these things, it should be the US. You don't want it to be the US?

Considering the recent record of the US of bombing and invading countries on purely imaginary perceived threats and very real economic reasons, I'd rather NOT have the US be the only one with such a weapon. I'd like a lot of different people to have it. Balance of terror is bad, but I've come to appreciate the advantages of unstable equilibrium compared to a (albeit very stable) death.
Re:Viruses and weapons by glgraca · 2003-11-14 05:43 · Score: 1

Recent? How many years of peace has
the US had since WWII?
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:44 · Score: 0

"Societal discussion" only applies to publicly funded scientific research. Craig Vetner's work is privately funded.

Of course this work should be done because if we don't do it, the bad people will. Our health and well-being depends on us always being one step ahead of the "bad" people.

Thats why I advocate open source biology and open source nanotech. Open source confers additional benefits. Open source promotes decentralized development of these technologies, thus preventing the rise of monopolistic entities. the decentralized development of these technologies also ensures that development cannot be derailed by people with political agendas (such as religious dweebs or left-wing luddites).
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:48 · Score: 1, Interesting

Not very many. Rioting in the streets almost every year, incessant and absurdly high death tolls from gang warfare, government agents deciding they own your land, and killing you when you defend it from them. The USA is never at peace. Except in the FOX News "everthing is okay now take your soma!" way.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Dr+Caleb · 2003-11-14 05:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

Not to be a troll or flamebait,
In the same light, the US has never created a weapon it has not used.

--
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Re:Viruses and weapons by Chris+Burke · 2003-11-14 05:55 · Score: 1

even nuke a city off the map (Nowhere... yet)

It's happened twice. What, it only counts if terrorists do it?

But anyway, insightful post.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Viruses and weapons by bigberk · 2003-11-14 06:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Imagine a scenario where terrorists
Oh geez, terrorists, terrorists, terrorists, we're all so afraid of terrorists. You may be a terrorist, your neighbor might be a terrorist, and I'm petrified by fear. I'm so paralyzed by fear that I think we should pull the plug on any project that might be potentially used by terrorists. Whether it's technological, or medical... hell, who cares that we might be coming up with new biological agents to help fight cancer... throw that research out the window! The terrorists might somehow morph the results of the research and create an Osama-superbug that's even wors that SARS and anthrax!!!
Re:Viruses and weapons by jemfinch · 2003-11-14 06:12 · Score: 0

We can claim we're the good guys and we won't use it. But we can look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima saved millions of lives by ending the war without an invasion of Japan. Had we not dropped those bombs, we would have been forced to do the same thing on the island of Japan that we did in Europe, and that would've cost millions of lives on both sides of the war.

Jeremy

--
Looking for a Python IRC bot?
Re:Viruses and weapons by mesocyclone · 2003-11-14 06:15 · Score: 3, Informative

In the same light, the US has never created a weapon it has not used.

This is absolutely not true. The US created many chemical weapons which it did not use (I don't know if we used chem weapons in WW-I, but we enver used them since then).

The US has NEVER used biological weapons (even the recorded use of smallpox against Indians was done by the British before the American Revolution).

The US has never used a hydrogen bomb.

--
The only good weather is bad weather.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:17 · Score: 0

"Killing their civilians saves our soldiers"

Who said that? Was it Truman or bin Laden? I always get them confused.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:22 · Score: 0

Who have we dropped a hydrogen bomb on? The claims that the US used sarin in Vietnam have also been pretty much demolished. That's two biggies right there. You can also get a large list of trivial weapons that were developed but never used.
Re:Viruses and weapons by SlashDread · 2003-11-14 06:46 · Score: 1

Bulldroppings.

Thats stupid and dangerous thinking.
A scientist should consider NOT the consequences of science as a matter of MUST. For a scientist only Science is a MUST.
ALL science has good and potentially bad consequences. Trying to "debate" Science into a "less dangerous" direction is both a fallacy and censor invoking mind control device.

"/Dread"
Re:Viruses and weapons by Jheaden · 2003-11-14 06:58 · Score: 1
I don't see the proof or the evidence here.
1. They didn't create life from scratch, they copied an existing virus
2. How could this possibly be evidence that life sprang up spontaneously unaided by any guiding hand when by definition the virus they copied was copied by a human (i.e. a guiding hand)
While I will agree that many creationist believe only God could do this, I'm not one of them. My belief is that he gave us the intellect to learn, understand, and manipulate our environment for good or ill. Just my two cents.
Re:Viruses and weapons by elmegil · 2003-11-14 07:02 · Score: 1

Releasing a reproducing bio-weapon with no known antidote requires a level of insanity unmatched in human history.
I think you underestimate the power of human insanity.

--
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Re:Viruses and weapons by dillon_rinker · 2003-11-14 07:02 · Score: 1

Last time I checked, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both still on the map. I believe what the previous poster was referring to was a blast so deadly it renders the area uninhabitable.
Re:Viruses and weapons by plugger · 2003-11-14 07:12 · Score: 1

5. Any country in Africa/South America? You must be joking, right?

Why, because they might decide to turn the tables on the people who have historically exploited African people and then allowed them to be ruled by whichever regime was most convenient during the cold war?

I wouldn't want to see WMD in the hands of many African governments either, but don't just dismiss them as a bunch of nutters, the white man hasn't exactly gone out of his way to help the place get sorted out (me included).
Re:Viruses and weapons by Performer+Guy · 2003-11-14 07:12 · Score: 1

Yea the US should just wait for the perceived threat to kill untold thousands or even millions of their citizens and countless others. That way they can live up to glorious European record of permitting and nurturing genocide while ignoring obvious threats even in the face of blatant provocation and agression. How dare they defend themselves against naked agression, clear threats asymmetric warfare and odious govenrments with no redeeming features.

Get over the propaganda and bullshit you're being fed. Get a sense of history and try and be a bit less sanctimonious.

The U.S. deserves a lot more credit for their conduct than you or your puppet masters would give them.
Re:Viruses and weapons by canineK9 · 2003-11-14 07:16 · Score: 1

Newsflash. The Soviet biowarfare program in years past already made more than one bioweapon that did not have a currently available vaccine. The primary mover in the Soviet program is now in the USA working for a defense contractor (i.e. CIA/NSA). This may be the first step over the brink but it is a baby step. This virus will only infect specific bacteria. In fact, natually occuring bacterial viruses have been used as an antibiotic in some infections. (The problem with silver linings is they always come attached to a cloud).
Re:Viruses and weapons by cheetah · 2003-11-14 07:18 · Score: 1

You can say that if you wish. But in the 40's EVERONE thought that bombing cities was a good way to "break the will of the enemy" and thus end wars. But as WWII showed if anything bombing cities only strengthens the will to fight. Also as Germany proved it is possible to increase total produdction even during city bombing campains. The thing that I also always like to point out when people talk about the Atom bomb's in Japan is the fact that the fire bombing raid of Tokyo a few weeks before hand killed more people than BOTH of the Atom bombs put together.

It is clear that the Japanese were ready to give up before the bombs. I don't buy that dropping the bombs saved our troops from landing in Japan. But I don't see it as being that much worse that the fire bombing of Tokyo... I know that some people might say that I am wrong because of the effects of radation years later... but Dead is dead and the fire bombing killed more people even after the fact. Japan would have given up before we invaded without us using the Bombs. But who knows how many more people would have been killed before they gave up. I don't know and I don't think anyone can say for sure...

If you want to talk about something that was totaly wrong that we did during WWII just look at the bombing raid on Dresden(sp?). That was just to show-off to the Russians what power the we had before the end of the war. All of those people died just becuase they got in the middle of the pissing match between the USA+BG vs the SU...
Re:Viruses and weapons by Lumpy · 2003-11-14 07:32 · Score: 1

I don't think anybody should be making any new life forms or modifying any existing life forms, at least until we've had a serious societal discussion regarding its possible role and impact on terrorism and biowarfare....Imagine a scenario where terrorists could alter a disease or organic biological weapon gene...

see you have the same wierd logic that the gun control nuts have.... Make it illegal and it goes away.

sorry, the terrorists and evildo-ers will still do nasty things. no matter what anyone says is right or wrong.

same as how criminals can get guns, grenades, and rocket launchers.. they dont OBEY LAWS!

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Viruses and weapons by GlassHeart · 2003-11-14 07:33 · Score: 1

Releasing a reproducing bio-weapon with no known antidote requires a level of insanity unmatched in human history. Never before could anything truly endanger the entire human race, not even in the worst nuclear holocaust scenarios of the Cold War.
You are wrong. The prevailing nuclear doctrine of the Cold War was known as "Mutually Assured Destruction", in which both powers knew that escalated use of nuclear weapons will lead to doom for all. A hypothetical unstoppable virus has the same effect, so a doomsday virus to ward off attacks is terrifying, but not insane. That's what nuclear weapons aimed at other nuclear states have been for decades.
Re:Viruses and weapons by gilgongo · 2003-11-14 07:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

> I don't think anybody should be making any new > life forms or modifying any existing life forms

My grandfather bred chickens. His father corresponded with Charles Darwin about it (my aunt has the letters). Breeding animals to enhance or supress certain traits has been going on for ages.

> Imagine a scenario where terrorists could

I can imagine any scenario "where terrorists could.." do just about anything (brainwash my children into blowing up their schools... putting poison in the water supply... the list is frickin endless). But that is not a good reason not to conduct this research. If it was, the world WOULD be run by terrorists.

> I hope I'm not fear-mongering here, but, I worry.

Don't worry - you're just being ridiculous, that's all. We can all be ridiculous occasionally :-)

--
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Re:Viruses and weapons by cens0r · 2003-11-14 07:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

korea, vietnam, cambodia, libya, panama, columbia (ongoing), iraq, bosnia, iraq again. Sure some of these may be justified. And they weren't technically wars... but try telling that to the people who died.

--
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Re:Viruses and weapons by ross.w · 2003-11-14 07:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Do you, perchance, work for Fox news?

Because you sure sound like them.

--
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Re:Viruses and weapons by Dixie_Flatline · 2003-11-14 07:53 · Score: 1

Yeah, the article wasn't entirely clear on this, and I read what they actually did LATER. Still, quite an accomplishment.

However, humans as a guiding hand are pretty primitive. In a Universe as vast as ours, it's generally accepted that there isn't anything that we can do that the Universe cannot also do on its own. (This comes up especially in physics, when we try to see if we can circumvent or manipulate physical laws to our advantage. Or theorize about it, at least.)

Alas. I'll curb my enthusiasm for when they manage to create life outright.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:06 · Score: 0

Dude! Sarcasm alert! Of course intentionally killing civilians is always bad!

(hint--that quote wasn't real! it was a joke about the mentality that creates crazy justifications for terrorism)
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:13 · Score: 0

It is clear that the Japanese were ready to give up before the bombs. I don't buy that dropping the bombs saved our troops from landing in Japan.

Are you nuts? Read up on some of the fighting in the Pacific (Wake Island, Midway, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, etc...). These were some of the most violent and hard fought battles in the war. If the Japanese were ready to give up they had a funny way of showing it.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:15 · Score: 0

I'd argue that the current and future benefits from nuclear power alone outweigh the concern about the misuse of this knowledge.
There are a lot of people who would probably argue against that. If they were still alive to argue, that is.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Paradise+Pete · 2003-11-14 08:16 · Score: 1

The idea to blow up an uninhabitat island was brought up but easily forgotten, after all nobody would have taken the US seriously by doing this.
Well, since they didn't give up when the first actual city was hit, then probably not. Also, they didn't exactly have a huge supply of bombs.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:28 · Score: 0

>> I think you underestimate the power of human insanity.

The really scary thought-- the one we don't want to even consider-- is the idea that somebody who is perfectly sane could do this.
Re:Viruses and weapons by soft_guy · 2003-11-14 08:36 · Score: 1

You are thinking of the world from a zenophobic perspective AND indulging in what "ought to be" rather than what is.

The US is not "more responsible" than Australia, Iceland, Sweden, the UK, or Japan. In fact, the US is the most likely to actually use a new super weapon in war. The US is the only country so far to use an atomic weapon in a war.

Plus, the guy in power right now in the US is a warmonger.

--
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:36 · Score: 0

I'd argue that the current and future benefits from nuclear power alone outweigh the concern about the misuse of this knowledge.

Yes, and my favorite benefit of nuclear power is the nuclear waste. When you can produce waste that is still toxic after thousands of years, then you have really accomplished something.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:40 · Score: 0

I am not trying to be pedantic, but some of your definitions need some clarification.

Today we still research defensive biowarfare, which means that we use developing treatments as an excuse to weaponize deadly organisims.

You stated that exactly backwards. Defensive biowarfare means deadly organisms are developed *so that* treatments for them can, in turn, be developed. No, the treatments aren't needed right now, but the theory is that we should have them on -hand in the event that someone else develops such an organism.

Better to be first than to be sorry.

This goes for chemical weapons also. The U.S. military has chem suits, autoinjectors, and various procedures for dealing with chemical attacks that would not be in place if we were not aware of nerve agents like VX or other cholinesterase uptake inhibitors.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a gun-toting war mongering freak. I still think there's no excuse for stockpiling the amount of VX that we have. I was happy to see them finally start incinerating it recently.

Weaponization, for the unaware, is a process of making a virus resistant to treatment and immunization techniques while increasing it's kill rate.

Actually that's a pretty narrow definition, and usually not what is meant. Weaponization means refining a biological agent into something that is easily dispersable. A jar of anthrax containing liquid isn't much good. A fine-grained powder that is charged so the particles don't stick together, is very very dangerous, say - if a plane "crop dusts" a populated with it.

Genetic modifications to make a pathogen resistant to treatment are not usually included in the definition of weaponization.

"Weaponization" usually isn't spoken of with chemical weapons because they are often suitable to the task already, often as gases or very volatile liquids. VX is sticky and persistent which makes it difficult to clean up before treatment can even begin in the first place.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:42 · Score: 0

I think the wonder of any scientific advance should be tempered by a clear-headed analysis of the dangers it might create.

I don't think anybody should be making any new fires or sustaining any existing ones, at least until we've had a serious societal discussion regarding its possible role and impact on terrorism, arson and forest fires.

Imagine a scenario where terrorists could ignite a fire and make it immune to fire retardants. Beyond that, I worry that the US itself might use it for its own cache of vertical free-fall incediary weapons.

If WE convert it to a weapon, what's the difference? We can claim we're the good guys and we won't use it. But we can look at Tokyo and Dresden.

I hope I'm not fear-mongering here, but, I worry.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:47 · Score: 0

You're right, I think he's off-base with that assertion. I think it's pretty clear we A-bombed them because civilians don't fight back as hard as soldiers, as you indicated. It's a war crime, but hey, it works.
Re:Viruses and weapons by djneko · 2003-11-14 08:58 · Score: 1

This is absolutely not true. The US created many chemical weapons which it did not use (I don't know if we used chem weapons in WW-I, but we enver used them since then).

Agent Orange?

--
`/\/\
(^.^)
(")(")
not quite an analog pussy, just a cat that plays with vinyl
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:08 · Score: 0

hell yeah! if i had a monopoly on WMD technology, i would do my best to keep it that way as well!

the human race is selfcentered by nature...i care more about my/my mates/my childrens survival than i care about anyone elses, and if annihilating the rest of the world is required to help me out then so be it.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:09 · Score: 0

"way they can live up to glorious European record of permitting and nurturing genocide while ignoring obvious threats even in the face of blatant provocation and agression."

you mean kind of like how every intelligence agency in the world warned the CIA that there was goign to be an attack involving jetliners as much as a year before hand? or maybe you mean all the provocation that the usa gave countries by raping them of their resources, exploiting the populace and installing dictators left right and center.

the real tragedy of sept 11th was that americans didnt, for even half a second think that it might be their fault they were attacked.

you beat, rape and torture the rest of the world and act surprised when one day it hits you back.
Re:Viruses and weapons by mesocyclone · 2003-11-14 09:15 · Score: 1

Not a weapon.

Agent Orange was a defoliant, not intended to hurt people or destroy property, and to this day there is no solid scientific evidence that Agent Orange is dangerous, in spite of vast numbers of people exposed and many, many studies.

--
The only good weather is bad weather.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:19 · Score: 0

agent orange?

what about aids? whitey just trying to keep africa down so they can turn it into a tourist trap for lazy rich americans...

and i supposed you think sars is a 'natural' virus? that came along at just the right time to hit the candian economy when it was poised to overtake the usa...

you really think the usa would admit to using biological weapons?
Q: how does the usa know sadam has bio terror weapons?

A: they kept the receipts.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Chris+Burke · 2003-11-14 09:20 · Score: 1

You see what those places looked like after the bomb dropped? "On the map" was pretty much the only place they were. Maybe they rebuilt in the last 50 years, ya think?

Uninhabitable is relative to your tolerance for increased cancer rates.

And it's just silly to say it doesn't count because the fallout wasn't so bad that people couldn't potentially live there again. Would it not count if whatever biological weapon he was talking about only killed 85% of the people in a city? Yeah.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Viruses and weapons by HBI · 2003-11-14 09:26 · Score: 1

The artillery the US Army used in WWI was primarily of French manufacture, the 75mm gun being a very common one in US use. The issue was ammunition supply for actual US guns. Well, also that most US artillery sucked at the time.

Some data about one US Field Artillery regiment.

Any war gas used during WWI by Americans would have been supplied by Britain or France - US chemical weapon manufacturing capacity was near nil during the war. However, tests with war gases were conducted in the US during and after the war. Some gas-filled WW1 vintage shells were found at a former test firing range located in the Meadowlands, very near to Giants Stadium in NJ (and about 10 miles from NYC).

Can't find a web link - this happened in the early 90's. Fun stuff - the shells had phosgene, mustard and Lewisite, from what I understand. Mostly were still intact, even given the swampy environment.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:31 · Score: 0

hmm. i bet you would also claim that the holocaust didnt really happen either... its the same thinking. theres nothing but tonnes of eye witneses, medical studies, and historical records that validte both these claims. thats clearly no proof at all because the usa maintains still it was safe. oh incidently the usa won the war in vietnam right?

why dont you stick a clue stick up your arse and read something. i mean it even killed americans and still you dont care. you must love being puppeted by your spoon feeding masters.

"The earliest health concerns about Agent Orange were about the product's contamination with TCDD, or dioxin. TCDD is one of a family of dioxins, some found in nature, and are cousins of the dibenzofurans and pcb's.

The TCDD found in Agent Orange is thought to be harmful to man. In laboratory tests on animals, TCDD has caused a wide variety of diseases, many of them fatal. TCDD is not found in nature, but rather is a man-made and always unwanted byproduct of the chemical manufacturing process. The Agent Orange used in Vietnam was later found to be extremely contaminated with TCDD."
Re:Viruses and weapons by MKalus · 2003-11-14 09:36 · Score: 1

Well, since they didn't give up when the first actual city was hit, then probably not. Also, they didn't exactly have a huge supply of bombs.

I am not sure they had time, it was what? Three days between the bombs? They could also have tried to find a military target instead of a city, no?

M.

--
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Re:Viruses and weapons by HeghmoH · 2003-11-14 09:37 · Score: 1

The best kind of research is research where the result is not known. If you already know the result, then it's not that interesting. It can still be useful, to round out our knowledge or whatever, but all the truly great research is, almost by definition, going into uncharted territory.

In that case, how exactly do you consider the ethics of something that nobody has ever seen, has never been built, and nobody even knows what it can do? It's all very easy to look back and say, well, this group should have considered ethics more carefully when they came up with what they made. But it's all hindsight; the scientists working in the Manhattan Engineering District didn't forsee MAD, they were just building a big bomb. This big bomb does kill lots of people, but that was happening already; just look at Dresden, or the Tokyo firebombing, or dozens of other examples during that war.

It's all well and good to say that ethics should be a bigger part of it, but it's not something that ultimately makes sense. You may as well require scientists to file environmental impact statements for their basic research as well.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:Viruses and weapons by HeghmoH · 2003-11-14 09:43 · Score: 1

MAD never would have lead to doom for all, only for the countries participating in it, some of their various allies, and certain unfortunates. Even in the US and Russia, in a MAD scenario, not everybody would die. Civilization in those countries would certainly be wrecked, and a vast number of people would die, but not all of them. As far as the world goes, for most people it would be a horrible, sad event, and probably lead to a great deal of disruption, but life would go on. The popular SF idea of nuclear war making the planet uninhabitable was never anywhere close to being true.

--
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:Viruses and weapons by Nucleon500 · 2003-11-14 10:13 · Score: 1

I'm not worried - I've got my duct tape!

--
Litigious bastards
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 10:17 · Score: 0

I think the wonder of any scientific advance should be tempered by a clear-headed analysis of the dangers it might create.
But you don't understand what the worrisome advancement is. It isn't a particular organism. It is the cheap, easy, clever techniques for culturing and altering living things.
Imagine a scenario where terrorists could alter a disease or organic biological weapon gene by gene to make it immune to current antidotes.
Imagine a scenario where gene synthesizers get really cheap. Right now, today, it would only cost a few million dollars to synthesize smallpox from scratch and use a common poxvirus to bootstrap it back to life. Usama Bin Laden could have already done it if he didn't have the strategic faculties of an armadillo in the middle of an eight-lane freeway. In a few years your average upper-crust private high school biology lab will have the capability. At that point every person with a few thousand dollars and a stated interest in terrorism will become a deadly threat to the whole human race.
Beyond that, I worry that the US itself might use it for its own cache of new-age weapons. If WE convert it to a weapon, what's the difference? We can claim we're the good guys and we won't use it. But we can look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Screw Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The Nips went out looking for war, raped and pillaged to make sure everybody knew it, and thereby earned the bombings and then some. The unprecedented thing was the US magnamity after the conquest. Most earlier victors would have erased the Nips as a prophylactic measure. Even then it was a close thing: a single militant demagogue would have doomed the US reconstruction.
The proper analogy is to the strategic bomber, sub, and missile fleets that followed later. I.e., the sober guys who swore to the motto "Peace is our profession" and meant it. The US biowarfare people largely come from those ranks. What should scare you are the Arab warrior types who have built a cult of nobility around death and destruction. If we can't civilize them (and other militant groups) before biosynthesizers become cheap, prophylactic nuclear strikes will start to look better and better, especially after the US loses a couple of cities to germs.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Performer+Guy · 2003-11-14 10:34 · Score: 1

No. But they can't be all bad. Anythings better than listening to Peter Jennings and other socialist nuts masquerading as enlightened internationalists.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 10:56 · Score: 0

Yeah, it's a little-known fact that the entire civilian population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were personally involved in bombing Pearl Harbor. Look it up. For example, that little kid whose lunchbox melted in the explosion? That so-called child actually slammed a zero into the Arizona, killing several US soldiers. It's all well documented.

Attacking civilians who aren't even involved in the actions of their government and military would have been a war crime. Luckily, our clear-thinking military saw through the ruse and could trace the Japanese so-called "newborn babies" back to the crimes they committed years earlier.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 10:57 · Score: 0

I don't know if we used chem weapons in WW-I, but we enver used them since then
Chem weapons, as in weapons that target the molecular level? Or did you mean biological, because that's what the article tangent is about? Or do you mean any weapons in general that sicken or poison people? DU in the middle east. Fallout chemicals in Japan. Bio weapons in the Korean War. Agent Orange in Vietnam.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Performer+Guy · 2003-11-14 11:00 · Score: 1

This just illustrates how bullshit gets repeated until some dopes think it's fact. "Every" intelligence agency in the world warned the US? That's is a lie. Moreover, there were some vague warnings without specifics, including internally in the US from its own agencies. Heck anyone who's read Tom Clancy is aware of similar predictions, but a vague generalization is completely useless except to propagandists filling the heads of fools like you with bullshit. You can warn of any number of things, but without concrete facts nothing's going to prevent them. You don't consider the thousands of warnings of dire events where nothing ever happens. What credence do you put in a warning with no specifics scant evidence and no means to prevent it?

Now, let's look at the context of this discussion, someone is complaining about preemptive action. So the U.S. actually does something in anticipation of preventing future even worse calamities from a known funder of terrorism and still gets bashed for it. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

As for the rest of your demented diatribe, it just illustrates how sick your mind is. This wasn't the US' fault by any stretch of the imagination, but it's clear you'd like to see more of the same or at least see the US prevented from doing anything about it. In your sick Anonymous Coward mind you blame the US for doing nothing, then blame the US for deserving to be attacked because they bestow the bounty of foreign trade upon others. Doubtless you also blame the US for arming Iraq first like the other morons of your ilk, when you're to dumb to realize that it was T72 tanks, BMPs, Russian RPGs & SAMs, Chinese radar, & sundry Russian & French weapons of various types etc they were facing in Iraq, hardly US armaments.

Your nonsense about the US raping other countries seems to revolve around the us showering it's dollars upon people through free trade which they turn round and buy goods back from the world with. You complain about the US installing dictators (which they don't in general they merely work with the incumbent) but then also complain when at last they remove a dictator and try to install a democracy. You hypocrite. The economics is simple trade relations and it's the only reason a dumb son of a bitch like you can pollute the internet with your sick ramblings about the death of 3000 innocent civilians in the US. Like most other dopes you aren't even smart enough to realize that the impact of that or similar attacks on the US could be one of the worst things to happen to your miserable existence merely through the economic ripples it sends throughout the world.

Your metaphors about beating raping and torturing the world are a childish fantasy. There were real men women and children having this inflicted on them in Iraq yet you don't give a shit about that, you'd rather spout crap about the US and imagined ficticious slights. Prosperity and rejuvenation invariably accompany American influence in the world.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Dr+Caleb · 2003-11-14 11:07 · Score: 1

So where did they test these biological weapons again? Where did they test H-Bombs again?
You can't test if you don't use.

--
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
Re:Viruses and weapons by mesocyclone · 2003-11-14 11:08 · Score: 1

I'm a Vietnam Veteran, I'm just not too scared of the whole thing. TCDD is very deadly to rats, there is no question about that. If I were a rat I would be very scared (of course, I would also be long dead).

However, there is no good epidemiological evidence that it is significantly harmful to man. It is still treated in the US as a horribly deadly carcinogen, in spite of the lack of evidence. Go look closely at your own links and read the *scientific* report from the National Academies instead of all the propaganda.

To give you an idea of research on the subject, consider that there was an accident in a industrial plant in Seveso which released 5 kg of dioxin into the atmosphere. People received the highest doses ever recorded, and many developed chloracne (unlike those in Vietnam). Many small animals died. And yet, here is a quote from Medical and Toxicological Informion Review: "The Serveso 15-year update has been published. The findings, surprising many, including IARC, concluded there were no statistically significant reports of cancer for individuals exposed to Dioxin in 1976. See Epidemiology 8 (1997): 646-652"

There is an entire industry devoted to getting money for Vietnam Veterans because their health problems were "caused by Agent Orange." There are a number of cancers, which, if I get them, I can get compensation for as "Agent Orange" service connected health problem.

The communist government of Vietnam of course blames all birth defects on it.

As far as eye witnesses, that claim is utterly absurd. The ONLY known short term harm of extremely high dosages of dioxins is a non-fatal skin condition known as chloracne. Thats at HIGH DOSAGES, not the trace dosages Americans, Australians and Vietnamese got from the defoliation.

Cancer mortality among Vietnam Veterans is INVERSELY proportional to Agent Orange exposure.

If you carefully read the National Academies reports, they are able to find some associations between *pesticides* and an increased cancer risk - among farmers who use the pesticides a lot for a long time.

They have been unable to find any statistically significant evidence of Agent Orange damage to Vietnam Veterans. Go read the report.

Now, when you consider all the other things going on in Vietnam at the time, and the high level of violence, and the risk level which is so low that it has yet to be reasonably measurable after 35 years, calling AO a chemical weapon is utterly and completely absurd. That's like calling a bulldozer a weapon because it clears jungle.

Notice your own quote "TCDD's are thought to be harmful to man." If there were scientifically valid evidence, that statement would read: "TCDD's are known to be harmful humans." In fact, many of the chemicals we used in our aviation work were more dangerous that AO.

All the evidence indicates that AO was less dangerous than gasoline or oil or many of the other chemicals used by people in their daily lives. Furthermore, the evidence from those who got vastly higher doses than anyone in 'nam is that the slight risk observed is more likely due to the pesticide than the TCDD.

Furthermore, significant amounts of dioxins are produced in nature. One dioxin scare in the US was traced to the clay used in a food processing phase... clay from a many millenia old stratum.

If you have the ability to read scientific reports, try: Birth Outcomes of Women Exposed to Dioxin in Seveso Italy

The obvious conclusion is that dioxins may be slightly toxic in low doses, with possibly a very small risk of future cancers, but this has not been proven. They also have known effects, at high dosages, on sex ratios in human births.

This is hardly a chemical weapon!

As to your offensive attitude, mate, I suppose it's what to expect th

--
The only good weather is bad weather.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 11:26 · Score: 0

The act of terrorism isn't anything new, contrary to what GW Bush Inc. seems to beli(e)ve.

Wrong. The Bush Administration acknowledges that terrorism has been around for a long time. The difference is that when the USA was hit by terrorists on his watch, he decided to respond.

Terrorism is, by it's very nature, a low budget enterprise.

The terrorist organization does not need to develop its weapons from scratch. As we have seen from the european-designed weapons found in Iraq, all you need is someone to sell it at the right price, and the weapon is yours.
Re:Viruses and weapons by mesocyclone · 2003-11-14 11:27 · Score: 1

Chemical weapons meaning chemicals produced to kill or seriously injure people quickly. That's pretty much the standard definition. Quickly because that's all that counts on the battlefield. The last known use of chemical weapons was by Saddam Hussein. Before that, it was the Italians in Ethiopia prior to WW-II. Chemical weapons were commonplace in WW-I, although nerve agents were not developed until WW-II, by the Germans, who didn't use them except in their extermination camps.

Biological weapons are normally pathogenic microbial life forms or their natural toxins (such as Botulin toxin, although personally I think of as a chemical weapon, since it isn't alive). We have never used biological weapons, although we did develop them. We destroyed our stocks of them in 1969. The last known use of biological weapons was by the Japanese in China before and during WW-II. The greatest amount of biological weapons were produced by the Soviet Union under Gorbachev by the Vector organization, and were put in ICBM warheads. These included smallpox, anthrax and several others.

DU, if you look at any scientific literature, has no harmful effects unless you are in the tank that gets hit with it.

There was NO fallout in Japan. Those weapons were not planned to cause fallout, and the phenomenon was not known or considered to be harmful until tests injured some people in the Marshall Islands in the '50s (which was, obviously, not a weapons use, but a test).

We used no bio weapons in the Korean war. There was a North Korean propaganda campaign to the effect that we had, and many American prisoners were tortured to elicit confessions of such use (a few were obtained). If you choose to believe the Stalinist regime of (at that time) Kim Il Sung, that's pretty sad.

Re: Agent Orange...See my other article in this thread. It was not a chemical weapon, but an herbicide. It was not designed to kill people, and was sprayed on our own troops, often at their request.

I started this subthread to refute an offhanded (and rather offensive) comment that the US had never produced a weapon that was not subsequently used, which is utter nonsense.

--
The only good weather is bad weather.
Re:Viruses and weapons by mesocyclone · 2003-11-14 11:33 · Score: 1

You've got it backwards. You usually don't use unless you test, although one type of bomb dropped on Japan (enriched Uranium) was never tested before use.

The biological weapons were tested on ANIMALS at Fort Detrick in Maryland and Dugway Proving Grounds (Utah), and maybe other locations. No doubt they were also tested against human cell lines at Ft. Detrick. Harmless microbial agents were released in San Francisco and I think New York City to analyze the spread of the agents under city and subway conditions.

The H-bombs were tested in the South Pacific. They were not used, just tested.

If you wish to assert that thest test *was* a use, at it appears, I suggest you try a more reasonable line of reasoning, because that is purely idiotic.

--
The only good weather is bad weather.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Wraithlyn · 2003-11-14 11:33 · Score: 1

I can however, assert a very strong probability that some races will get off their planet before they destroy it.

After all, we have... not sustainably of course, but there's no reason to think a self-sustaining extraterrestrial colony is impossible before the homeworld is wiped out by virus|nuclear winter|Dubya's general stupidity|asteroid|zombies|other.

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:Viruses and weapons by efflux · 2003-11-14 11:46 · Score: 1

Sanctimonious? Who the hell is being sanctimonious, and in what way?

--
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
Re:Viruses and weapons by dillon_rinker · 2003-11-14 11:54 · Score: 1

You see what most German cities looked like in May of 1945? "On the map" was pretty much the only place they were. Maybe they rebuilt in the last 50 years, ya think? Granted, radiation is bad. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very bad. "Bombed off the map" is worse. If your vocabulary for destruction ends with "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" then may I suggest you invest some mental capital in a study of the current arsenal?
Re:Viruses and weapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 12:11 · Score: 0

The US insists on a monopoly on WMD technology
not for the safety of the world

The US doesn't have a monopoly (after all, nukes are WMDs too, and the Russians had a pretty developed bioweapons program), but what they are being pretty heavy on is the non-proliferation stuff.

Plus, it makes a useful excuse when you want to ensure that your oil supply from the Middle East isn't going to be interrupted when fundamentalist nuts take over in Saudi Arabia.
Re:Viruses and weapons by Performer+Guy · 2003-11-14 13:21 · Score: 1

Read this, 'nuff said.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Art ic les/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
Re:Viruses and weapons by tyler_larson · 2003-11-14 15:24 · Score: 1

From the article:
But the questions ethicists have raised about such work are numerous: Should we be playing God?
Man has been playing God for over 3000 years. We build our own fires and water our own crops. We've made lightning, hail, thunder and rain. We've built boats, airplanes, televisions, refrigerators, and all sorts of devices allowing us all to be gods in our own right.
Shold man be playing God? The very question itself is just a declaration of one's own ignorance and fear.
So what, then, if some evil terrorist uses our new technology to kill us all? It's possible, sure, but that's not our decision to make. The technology already exists for any one determined man to destroy the world. Perhaps tomorrows invention will do us all in, but then perhaps it will end up saving us from certain destruction.
In history, technology has saved us more often than it's killed us. We didn't lose one third of our population during the last viral outbreak like we did a few hundred years ago. Our own survival is due almost entirely to a few men "playing God" as blatantly as possible when they created various medicines and vaccines. Scientists could just as likely kill us all by avoiding an important discovery that would save us as they could by creating the device that would destroy us.
Nature has caused more death and destruction than man alone has ever done, or could ever do. Yet we rarely curse the volcano or say mother nature screwed it all up when she created the hurricane. The latest scientific progressions are just as much a part of nature as anything else out there, because we are just as much a part of nature as anything else.
We cannot destroy the ultimate course of nature because we are part of nature. We're an evolving species now, just as much as ever, just like any other on the planet. Our technology doesn't hinder or advance evolution: our technology is evolution.
A lot of people died at Heroshima, just like a lot of innocent people died at Pompei. Both events demonstrated the awsome and potentially destructive power of nature.
Our race is driven to progress and evolve by our own instinct--by nature itself. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't stop it from happening. We can control ourselves, but we cannot control our species. Perhaps mankind will progress indefinately, scattered across myriad worlds, as far as immagination can propel us. Or perhaps we'll all find an end in a blaze of glorious descruction. That's not our decision. We simply have to watch and let nature run its course.

--
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
Re:Viruses and weapons by StikyPad · 2003-11-14 15:51 · Score: 1

Pretty funny, but even more funny when you replace "terrorist" with "communist." Same paranoia, different era.

Oh geez, communists, communists, communists, we're all so afraid of communists. You may be a communist, your neighbor might be a communist, and I'm petrified by fear. I'm so paralyzed by fear that I think we should pull the plug on any project that might be potentially used by communists. Whether it's technological, or medical... hell, who cares that we might be coming up with new biological agents to help fight cancer... throw that research out the window! The communists might somehow morph the results of the research and create an Osama-superbug that's even wors that SARS and anthrax!!!

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Viruses and weapons by jrumney · 2003-11-14 23:45 · Score: 1

Or do you not know that a lot of civilians lived in Pearl Harbor as well?
Perhaps your image of Pearl Harbor comes from the movie.
There were 68 civilians killed or missing after the Pearl Harbor Attack, compared with 2500 military personnel. I don't think the US has EVER had such a record in war.
The comparisons made immediately after 9/11 by US politicians to Pearl Harbor made me sick. However, Pearl Harbor was similar to 9/11 in one very important way. In both cases the US government did not act on intelligence information that was readily available, and in both cases that cost American lives. It is fairly certain that Roosevelt failed to act deliberately, in order to sway public opinion in favour of war. I hope it does not turn out that Bush did the same.
Re:Viruses and weapons by efflux · 2003-11-15 05:03 · Score: 1

Read this, 'nuff said. Not really, especially consindering the page is missing (and yes, I removed the space).
At any rate, you were calling the now great-grandparent poster sanctimonious. I want to know how he was "affecting piousness : hypocritically devout". If this describes anyone, it describes GWB.

--
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
Re:Viruses and weapons by Chris+Burke · 2003-11-15 05:18 · Score: 1

You see what most German cities looked like in May of 1945?

If your point was that it is possible to conventionally bomb cities off the map, then you wasted your keystrokes.

If your vocabulary for destruction ends with "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" then may I suggest you invest some mental capital in a study of the current arsenal?

Oh, please. Is that really what you thought I was saying? That nothing could be worse than Hiroshima?

If a terrorist took a Hiroshima-sized bomb and blew it up in a Hiroshima-sized city and blew it Hiroshima-off-the-fucking-map, would it not fucking count?! Is that not enough of a bad thing for you? "What? Oakland, California was destroyed by nuclear weapons; terrorists blamed? What was the yield of the bomb? They're estimating 30 kilotons? Oh... *yawn* Okay..." Yeah, right.

My point is and still remains: Two cities already have been "nuked off the map", and that's still true even if we later made bigger bombs.

And yeah, it could be worse.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Viruses and weapons by bigberk · 2003-11-15 10:47 · Score: 1

Pretty funny, but even more funny when you replace "terrorist" with "communist." Same paranoia, different era.

Good call! People need to be afraid of something (clearly somebody in power believes this). Look how much network television news broadcasts are about fear mongering.
What me worry?
Re:Viruses and weapons by Performer+Guy · 2003-11-17 06:37 · Score: 1

GWB? Ha ha, just keep throwing the mud, you only demonstrate your bias. It's the same old tosh, "he's a moron", "he's arrogant" "he's.... whatever.....

You're conceited attack on GWB does not excuse anothers sanctimonious garbage. It's pretty clear what was sanctimonious, your only problem is you agree with his sermon, so you don't see it.

For the article if it's missing pop up a level & look, ain't my fault they don't provide persistent URLs (pretty lame of them really, some publications just don't 'get' the web).
Re:Viruses and weapons by Performer+Guy · 2003-11-17 06:42 · Score: 1

For that link, Go here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/

And select the "Case Closed" link.
Re:Viruses and weapons by efflux · 2003-11-17 08:47 · Score: 1

I did "pop up a leve & look", and was denied access. BTW: I called GWB sanctimonious because he invokes religion. The fact that I find him somewhat hypocritical *is* a value judgement on my part... but that does excuse your usage of the word. Why don't you find out what it means to be sanctimonious first (and consequently pious), before speaking out of your ass. here's a dictionary if you need help.

--
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
Re:Viruses and weapons by Performer+Guy · 2003-11-17 12:23 · Score: 1

It's one thing to be a pedantic, smarmy smart ass and play the grammar police but you look like an uneducated shit for brains when you attempt it with no clue about what you're criticizing your respondent over.

I know what it means, I don't need your your patronizing ill conceived link to a dictionary, your post was sanctimonious. That you don't understand plain English or it's use is your problem. That you went to a dictionary looking for the narrowest definition you could informs me that you're a clueless fool who doesn't understand the use of the word or English in general.

Since you just don't get it read here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sanctim on ious

The most appropriate interpretation would be "feigning ... righteousness", (with a touch of hypocricy in there too especially in the following sentence). Since YOU also insist in being a sanctimonious horses arse it looks like it's a common characted flaw. Please don't look up horses arse in an encyclopedia then ask me in which way you are a horses arse. If the description confuses you just move along, or maybe study some English interpretation before posting again.

See my other reply for that article link.

Perhaps this is a good thing... by LegendOfLink · 2003-11-14 04:44 · Score: 1

Think about it, if you can build a virus (kind of like coding it like you code a computer program) could you then be able to set it to beneficially help the human body instead of harm it?

Maybe this could be used to create a kind of "police" virus that will destroy the HIV virus in infected patients. I dunno, people scorn new technology, but in my opinion, this might be a step in the right direction for cures of current diseases that are only treatable.

--
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!

Re:Perhaps this is a good thing... by glassesmonkey · 2003-11-14 04:54 · Score: 1

Sure, the number one thing scientist will is make 'helpful' viruses.. Maybe YOU should review the US annual expenditures in the areas of research..
Re:Perhaps this is a good thing... by krin · 2003-11-14 04:58 · Score: 1

As a living organism could it not mutate into something harmful?
I definitely see the pros to what they have done. Man made viruses could help us fight diseases we don't know how to otherwise.
But really, how do you control something like this once it's released into the wild (human body)? Send more man made viruses after it?

--
There is no spork.
Re:Perhaps this is a good thing... by SmallFurryCreature · 2003-11-14 05:06 · Score: 1

Not a completly stupid idea this. One of the ways in fighting virusses is to get the body adjusted to a lesser variant of the virus you want to fight against. It is called innoculation (or something) and it is extremly widely used. Problem with the aids virus is that there doesn't seem to be a lesser variant around we can use to prepare our imune system. Meaning the innoculation will kill you. Not good.
Perhaps an artificial virus can come close enough to build up our defence system but not actually kill you in the process.
Of course the bad news is that people tend to screw up so we might end up with an aids virus that spreads through the air.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

We're all gonna die! by raider_red · 2003-11-14 04:44 · Score: 1

Okay, probably not, but I do worry over the implications that this kind of breakthrough will have on us. I'm sure that there are lots of beneficial appliccations yada yada, blah blah blah, but the unintended consequences have the potential to be devastating.

--
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.

Re:We're all gonna die! by fr2asbury · 2003-11-14 05:12 · Score: 1

"Okay, probably not, but . . ."

Eh, I'd say most certainly.
Re:We're all gonna die! by raider_red · 2003-11-14 06:16 · Score: 1

Okay, let's not get too picky. You know what I meant.

--
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.

how long will it be before... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:45 · Score: 0

time to update your norton bio-antivirus,

this new virus will make you spout out something like news and carry the virus via your bad breath. ...

this new virus will make you remember peoples CC numbers and report them to a hard coded phone number for no apparent reason. ...
will make you say what you type, even when typoing your password/passphrase. ...
will make you want to use irc alot more and do what the user 'M11110nD011arMan' tells you to do, no matter how dumb it would seem to an observer.

Re:how long will it be before... by Daniel_Staal · 2003-11-14 05:21 · Score: 1

Actually, I would suspect it would take a while. A long while.

The human body is incredibly good at resisting viri. It needs to be: natural viri are incredibly good at getting past the defenses. Mutating armor, adaptive camouflage, site-specific intrusion points, are all common in the virus world. Building a working virus that can actually infect a human is a lot harder than just getting it to replicate in ideal conditions. Natural viri have to work very hard, just to get us to sneeze once or twice. Specifically modifying brain connections to obtain a certain result would be (nearly?) impossible. (Especially since we don't understand how the brain works yet...)

I'll trust our natural defenses against any made-from-scratch virus. I'd even take even odds on a modified-from-natural virus. Now, bred-for-leathality I'll worry about...

--
'Sensible' is a curse word.

I thought bill gates and co. by bushboy · 2003-11-14 04:45 · Score: 1

... had cornered that field of research ?

--
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !

Re:I thought bill gates and co. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:05 · Score: 0

Oh... I though you said "cornholed that field of research" Silly me.

Is this REALLY the first? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:48 · Score: 0

I was always told that AIDS was created in a Lab!

You know, an accident in some US chemical warfare program.

Cue X-Files music...

Re:Is this REALLY the first? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:43 · Score: 0

You can modify a virus to make a variant of it, but this one is constructed from scratch (ie from simple materials)

duh.. I guess humans will do it themselves by glassesmonkey · 2003-11-14 04:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

What is wrong with people!!?!

I saw a news report on goats the made to have genetic information of silk spinning spiders.. They are milking the goats to extract commericial production levels of silk!!!!

What happens when they engineer a virus and design it to only activate (attack) a specific genetic sequence (or genetic defect common in certain races).. tinfoil hat people are right, the Nazi's didn't disappear.. they are just working for the US military.

Re:duh.. I guess humans will do it themselves by SlashdotLemming · 2003-11-14 05:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

We're at the top of the food chain, so we must come up with new and creative ways to eat ourselves.
Its all part of Nature's master plan.
Re:duh.. I guess humans will do it themselves by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:05 · Score: 0

the Nazi's didn't disappear.. they are just working for the US military.

That's more correct than you will ever know, or would ever want to know.
Re:duh.. I guess humans will do it themselves by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:12 · Score: 0

"What happens when they engineer a virus and design it to only activate (attack) a specific genetic sequence?"

They cure cancer.
Re:duh.. I guess humans will do it themselves by joephish · 2003-11-14 05:17 · Score: 1

It would be pretty hard to do...
Viruses mutate quickly and there's no guarantee they would remain specific to the product of a single allele of a gene.
i.e. the virus would most likely evolve to be able to infect everybody.

--
for n = 0 to 2 those were the days next n
Re:duh.. I guess humans will do it themselves by TheSync · 2003-11-14 05:20 · Score: 2, Informative

The challenge here is that you can't have a genetically-targetted race-killer, because race is a social concept and not really a genetic one. Besides the vagueness of race (such as "white" or "black" when both are full of incredible genetic differentiation), even "racial" phenotypes do not always stem from identical genotypes.

There are plenty of examples of people from different races who are closer genetically to each other than to many others of the same race.

Now an individual or family target, that is a different matter...
Re:duh.. I guess humans will do it themselves by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:41 · Score: 0

That leads to a interesting type of weapon. Imagine engineering cold viruses that kill a particular individual. Governments wouldn't have to hunt people down, just release the cold into the general area.
Re:duh.. I guess humans will do it themselves by Griim · 2003-11-14 06:22 · Score: 1

Actually, I've thought of this before, and thought it would interesting to engineer and release into thw wild, viruses that "turn off" weak genetic traits...I really don't know enough about this to say which conditions are genetic, and by "turn off" I just mean to either surpress them or remove them from a person's DNA makeup so they don't get passed along...for instance Cistic Fibrosis (again I'm not sure if this is a genetic disease that is passed along)...perhaps a better example would be something like genetic heart disease.

Of course the problem with using technology like this is, at what point do we draw the line? What if something we remove now, later on becomes something that actually helps survive?
Re:duh.. I guess humans will do it themselves by glassesmonkey · 2003-11-14 06:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Umm, strictly a social concept eh?

There are a great number of genetic markers which are overwhelmingly present in certain populations. This obviously doesn't apply to every individual, but say when 80% of what we call a race has a specific genetic condition, that is probably good enough for the next Hitler.

There are clearly different races (genetically) and until very recently humans were not as mobile as they currently are. Breeding was once a tribal concept and we live in a much different world than we were genetically created in. I hate to be the one to break this to you but people's appearance and the social concepts you speak of are based on their genetics. That's what makes some one 'black' and someone else 'white'.. it's the genes that dictate what social concept is applied. (or more exactly, our obserations about genetics that we have put names to)
Re:duh.. I guess humans will do it themselves by TheSync · 2003-11-19 08:48 · Score: 1

"Black" in the minds of most Americans is "of African descent." There are plenty of people from South Asia who also have dark skin, yet would not be considered "black" by most Americans. That is the problem with trying to define a race by genetics.

Show me a genetic marker that applies to 80% of a "race."

I can think of a few markers that are highly concentrated in a few races (Sickle cell ~10% of Africans, Tay Sachs in ~30% of Ashkenazi Jewish), but none that are found in 80% of a "racial" population.

Moreover if you went after something like Tay Sachs, it would also take out a large number of Arabs as well as Jews. Of course, I suppose that didn't stop Al Quaeda in Turkey...

Re:yes, but does it run Linux? by Robotech_Master · 2003-11-14 04:49 · Score: 1

When they get to the stage of building multicellular organisms from scratch, would it count as a Beowulf cluster?

--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org

Nanotechnology + Artifical Virii merging... by scovetta · 2003-11-14 04:49 · Score: 1

I think that this is actually a Good Thing. Sure, there are dangers of creating super-viruses, but then we can make super-anti-viruses to beat up the super-viruses, ya know? Imagine injecting AIDS-infected people with a virus that targets infected cells and destroys the cell, or even replaces the DNA with "good" DNA. The possibilities really ARE endless. As soon as we can create a Thing that you put in your body and you can manipulate your cells at the genetic or even molecular level, things open up. You've got SoftICE running on the human body.

--
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche

Re:Nanotechnology + Artifical Virii merging... by Threni · 2003-11-14 04:58 · Score: 1

>Imagine injecting AIDS-infected people with a virus that targets infected cells and
>destroys the cell, or even replaces the DNA with "good" DNA.

Imagine infecting non-AIDS infected peopel with a virus called AIDS.

Wait, that's been done. Check out "A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret Story of Chemical and Biological Warfare" by R. Harris and J. Paxman (Yes, *that* Paxman, if you're from the UK).

At a House Appropriations hearing in 1969, the Defense Department's Biological Warfare (BW) division requested funds to develop through gene-splicing a new disease that would both resist and break down a victim's immune system. "Within the next 5 to 10 years it would probably be possible to make a new infective micro-organism which could differ in certain important respects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious diseases." The funds were approved.

AIDS appeared within the requested time frame, and has the exact characteristics specified.

Playing God by jetkust · 2003-11-14 04:49 · Score: 1

Should we be playing God? Does the potential for good that new life forms may have outweigh the harm they could do?

Well, you can stop yourself from doing it. But can you stop your enemies?

Re:Playing God by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:58 · Score: 0

sure, just need to code something to destroy the X chomosome, because all my enemies are pussies.

(yes i know at least one flaw in the logic, its an attempt at humor.)

Global death fun by pubjames · 2003-11-14 04:50 · Score: 1

I studied biology and one of the lecturers was an expert in viruses. He is convinced that there is a high probability of a global, deadly flu-like virus sometime in the near-term future. (I remember one of his memorable phrases - be thankful that the HIV virus is so difficult to catch, you have to have sex with the carrier. Imagine if they just had to sneeze near you...)

Anyway, what do you do when this deadly virus breaks out? Apparently the thing to do is head for the hills - take a caravan somewhere remote, for instance, and live there for six months or so. With a shotgun, just in case things get really desperate.

Just so you know. Although perhaps I'm going to regret posting this on Slashdot. I'm not sure living in a world in which only the nerds survive would be worth it...

Envoke the DMCA! by Ridgelift · 2003-11-14 04:50 · Score: 1

"It's a very important technical advance," says Gerald Rubin, a molecular geneticist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. "You can envision the day when one could sit down at a computer, design a genome and then build it. We're still inventing the tools to make that happen, and this is an important one."

Now imagine the parallels between modern computing and modern genetics & biology. I'm sure there will be DMCA-like legislation put in place to thwart attempts to infringe on corporate interests.

The problem with guarding knowledge is it prevents being able to "build on the shoulders of giants", like Linus Torvalds and others have done. Copyright laws need to change to not only protect the short-term financial gains that are necessary for companies to invest in new ideas, but release those ideas back into the public so that they can be built back upon.

Hopefully our lawmakers will understand this.

--
Ruby on Rails Screencast

mod parent up by glassesmonkey · 2003-11-14 04:50 · Score: 0

this is astute

throwing it all away by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:50 · Score: 0

We are regarded as the generation "that had it all, but threw it away".

John Titor is becoming more plausible every day.

Not really new by wes33 · 2003-11-14 04:51 · Score: 3, Informative

More than a year ago live polio virus was constructed from component DNA. This is not a "artificial" virus but a working copy of phi X bacteriophage. Note that this is an infringement of God's copyrights and patents and trade secrets!

(from NY times, July 2002: Scientists construct virus from scratch for first time, synthesizing live polio virus from chemicals and publicly available genetic information; work was conducted by scientists at State University of New York at Stony Brook and financed by Defense Department as part of program to develop biowarfare) countermeasures ... )

Re:Not really new by Jubedgy · 2003-11-14 04:56 · Score: 1

This was in the article, they mentioned that the polio attempt took 3 years (for 7500 base pairs I believe) while phi X was created in only 2 weeks (containing 5000 base pairs).

--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
Re:Not really new by Saige · 2003-11-14 05:17 · Score: 1

What do you think you're doing, reading the article and commenting intelligently on it? Don't you know this is Slashdot, and that type of thing is not allowed? Your comment is the first one I've seen that actually recognizes that the headline here, while not incorrect, is misleading. That the virus is not new, just a copy.

I would say that it is artificial in a way, since the virus copy they created had it's genome pieced together out of DNA from other sources.

This does mean that the technology they're using to assemble DNA sequences has gotten really quick and accurate, compared to even a year ago with the polio virus. It does seem to have the potential to open the opportunity to learn about genes by piecing them together and seeing the results. Let's hope if that route is taken, that a LOT of safety precautions are followed to prevent against the possible dangerous virus being constructed.

--
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Re:Not really new by pmz · 2003-11-14 05:45 · Score: 1

This is not a "artificial" virus but a working copy of phi X bacteriophage. Note that this is an infringement of God's copyrights and patents and trade secrets!

While I am wary of these artificial viruses, I have to say that if God didn't "want" us to discover the elemental aspects of the universe, we wouldn't have the brains that we do. Nor would Buddhism have been allowed to develop. Thus, we have "free will."

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Re:Not really new by pcraven · 2003-11-14 06:11 · Score: 1

>Note that this is an infringement of God's copyrights and patents and trade secrets!

And we all know what happens when you infringe on God's IP:
http://www2.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/24 /gibs on.passion/
Re:Not really new by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:05 · Score: 0

Haven't you read Genesis? God may be omnipotent, but according to the bible, he's not omniscient. He does stuff all the time which he can't control. I guess we're just like him in that respect.
Re:Not really new by pmz · 2003-11-14 10:09 · Score: 1

He does stuff all the time which he can't control.

Or that "free will" is simply a part of the little toy called Earth.

--
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin

Re:I thought all viruses were artificial by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:51 · Score: 0

A nice article on this can be found here: Uncle Sam is trying to Kill You.

Plenty of good references to fuel your conspiracy theories...

Stop saying 'From Scratch' by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:51 · Score: 0

Okay, this is cool, but not 'from scratch.' They sequenced a bacteriophage's genome and injected it into a bacterium. The bacteria still deserves credit. When we know enough to build a payload and cobble a viral shell around it, then we can say 'from scratch.' It is also a leap to mammalian cell types as our genetic structure has a complicated run-time environment composed of epigenetic states stored as DNA methylation and in states preserved in the chromatin. We still have much to learn in this area, as cloning and stem cells have shown us.

Finding a host . . . by Varitek · 2003-11-14 04:51 · Score: 1

Has it attacked Windows yet?

bill gates and co. by bushboy · 2003-11-14 04:52 · Score: 1

Cornered this artificial virus thing a long time ago - old news !

--
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !

Re:bill gates and co. by ViolentGreen · 2003-11-14 06:26 · Score: 1

Oooh...Oooh...Mod this guy up for originality!

--
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.

Re:Interesting thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:52 · Score: 0

Science: Truth is unknowable. Therefore, we should eternally strive to attempt to create a worldview which, while a mere approximation, is as close to Truth as humanly possible.

Religion: Truth is unknowable. Therefore, we should not think about it, and instead select some thesis which is inherently neither provable nor disprovable, eternally believe in it blindly, and then try to use it to explain *everything*.

-----

Please explain to me how the intelligent design theory is predictive? If it is not predictive, what use is it from a scientific standpoint?

-- Super Ugly Ultraman

Sensationalist reporting again by MSBob · 2003-11-14 04:52 · Score: 1

While this is significant in its own way the life form created is not artificial in that it was made from a pre-existing virus. Build one from basic chemicals and I'll be impressed. Calling this artificial life is a stretch.

--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.

Re:Sensationalist reporting again by ponxx · 2003-11-14 05:37 · Score: 1

> Build one from basic chemicals and I'll be impressed

that's what they did.

It is a copy of a well-known virus, but it was made from entirely from basic chemicals.

Are you impressed now?

Ponxx

Journal Science link, NOT life by mfago · 2003-11-14 04:52 · Score: 2, Informative

The article starts out:
It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The creation of artificial life.

A virus can reproduce, but does not consume energy -> they are not alive in a technical sense.

Also see this news from Science.

Incredibly cool.

Re:Journal Science link, NOT life by zhenlin · 2003-11-14 05:51 · Score: 1

Virii don't even self-reproduce. They hijack the machinery of another cell (bacteria even) in order to make more of themselves.

And you can guess the origins of the terminology for computer virii. Computer virii require humans to do their reproductive bidding.
Re:Journal Science link, NOT life by MagnaMark · 2003-11-14 05:56 · Score: 1

Actually, viruses do consume energy; they require energy to reproduce. They just don't produce energy on their own. They steal energy and raw materials from their "host" cells.

I'd argue that viruses are alive. They reproduce. They have DNA or RNA genomes. They're just primitive life forms that depend on their hosts.

Re:Interesting thoughts... by 47F0 · 2003-11-14 04:53 · Score: 1

Sigh, Do you people ever get tired. Here's an idea - Maybe evolution IS intelligent design. At it's heart, these creation so-called science arguments have one fundamental flaw - because we cannot comprehend anything more complex than ourselves, we make our creator as dumb as we are. Evolution happens all around you - it's real, it works, get over it. "Man is certainly stark mad: He cannot make a flea, yet he makes gods by the dozens." - Montaigne

Full Article by dannyelfman · 2003-11-14 04:53 · Score: 1

Scientists create a virus that reproduces By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY It is the stuff of science fiction and bioethical debates: The creation of artificial life. Up until now, it's largely been just that.

But an important technical bridge towards the creation of such life was crossed Thursday when genomics pioneer Craig Venter announced that his research group created an artificial virus based on a real one in just two weeks' time.

When researchers created a synthetic genome (genetic map) of the virus and implanted it into a cell, the virus became "biologically active," meaning it went to work reproducing itself.

Venter cautioned that the creation of artificial human or animal life is a long way off because the synthetic bacteriophage -- the virus that was created -- is a much simpler life form. Bacteriophages are viruses that infect bacteria.

The project was funded in part by the Department of Energy, which hopes to create microbes that would capture carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, produce hydrogen or clean the environment.

But the questions ethicists have raised about such work are numerous: Should we be playing God? Does the potential for good that new life forms may have outweigh the harm they could do?

Arthur Caplan, who heads the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics, says yes. This technology "is impressive. It's powerful and it should be treated with humility and caution," Caplan says, "But we should do it."

A genome is made up of DNA "letters," or base pairs, that combine to "spell" an individual's chromosomes. The human genome project was completed in April.

This summer, researchers at Venter's Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives bought commercially available strands of DNA and, using a new technology, coaxed them together to form a duplicate of the genome of a bacteriophage called phi X.

"It's a very important technical advance," says Gerald Rubin, a molecular geneticist at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. "You can envision the day when one could sit down at a computer, design a genome and then build it. We're still inventing the tools to make that happen, and this is an important one."

Venter notes the synthetic bacteriophage has 5,000 base pairs in its genome. The human genome has 3 billion, so similar work in human form probably won't happen in this decade, he says.

To date, the largest genome that was synthesized was the 7,500-base-pair polio virus. But that was only semi-functional and took three years to complete.

The researchers chose to put the new technology into the public domain for all scientists to use. It will appear in the next few weeks on the Web site of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The technology raises safety issues, says David Magnus of Stanford's Center for Biomedical Ethics. Even putting it in the public domain is "a double-edged sword," he says. That presumes that allowing everyone access will keep the good guys ahead of the bad guys. "It's a gamble. ... It's a bet that everyone has a stake in," he says.

Re:Full Article by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:19 · Score: 0

If ya have to Karma whore, at least do it as AC :-)

Not the first time by Brahmastra · 2003-11-14 04:54 · Score: 3, Informative

This story indicates that it was done more than a year ago.

heh by alexandre · 2003-11-14 04:54 · Score: 1

Good to know that some people are preparing for the next genocide...
</sarcasm>

"irreducibly complex"? not accordin to talk.origin by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:55 · Score: 1, Informative

Claim CB200.1:

Bacterial flagella and cilia are irreducibly complex, indicating that they must have been designed.

Source:

Behe, Michael, 1996. Darwin's Black Box, The Free Press, New York, pp. 59-73.

Response:

This is an example of argument from incredulity, because irreducible complexity can evolve naturally. Many of the proteins in the flagellum are similar to each other and/or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplications, which obviates irreducible complexity's challenge to evolution.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following steps:

A secretory system evolved. The type III secretory system forms a structure identical to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum [Hueck, 1998].
A proto-flagellar filament arose as part of the protein secretion structure.
An ion pump with another function in the cell fortuitously became associated with the structure, giving it some mobility.
Further refinements make the flagellum more efficient for motility.

The flagellum is not irreducible. One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function [Kuwajima, 1988]. Behe claims that 240 proteins are necessary for the flagellum to function, yet only 256 genes are necessary to produce an entire survivable bacterium [ref. in Ussery, 1998]. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only 33 proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so the particular example which Behe considers might be reducible [Ussery, 1998]. Behe himself suggests (pg. 72) that taking 40 of the 240 proteins out of a flagellum leaves a working cilium.

Eubacterial flagella, archebacterial flagella, cilia, and undulopodia use entirely different designs for the same function. That is to be expected if they evolved seperately, but it makes no sense if they were the work of the same designer.

Links:

Dunkelberg, Pete, 2003. Irreducible Complexity Demystified http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.htm l

Musgrave, Ian, 2000. Evolution of the Bacterial Flagella. http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/e ssays/flagella.htm

References:

Hueck, C.J., 1998. Type III Protein Secretion Systems in Bacterial Pathogens of Animals and Plants. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 62: 379-433.
Kuwajima, G, 1988. Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli. Journal of Bacteriology 170: 3305-3309.
Ussery, D. (see below)

Further Reading:

Ussery, David, 1998. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios (July 1998). http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

--------------

Re:Interesting thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:56 · Score: 0

"Intelligent design" is just another way of saying "we have no idea what's going on."

Don't misconstrue a lack of evidence as indicative of some larger, 'intelligent', sentient force.

All that it is indicative of is our own ignorance.

Uh Oh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:56 · Score: 0

Just wait until this thing gets loose. And then... ...MMMMMWAH! BRAAAAAINS!

Life? by Izago909 · 2003-11-14 04:56 · Score: 2, Informative

I thought the general agreement was that viruses aren't considered life because can't metabolize energy. A virus looks like a simple lego block compared to the complex architecture of a single bacterium.

Re:Life? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:14 · Score: 0

Actually, they're not considered life because they cannot self-replicate. But still, a virus is a far more complex machine than anything else we've made, so building one from scratch, even using a natural virus for a model, is a major accomplishment towards the goal of creating life. Note that the article didn't say we have created life - it says we've taken a very important step towards creating life. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Re:Life? by Saige · 2003-11-14 05:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

That may be the case, but I have never been comfortable with classifying viruses that way. They reproduce, evolve, and are definitely not inert. If they're not "life", then they're dead things doing a fairly convincing imitation of life.

--
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
Re:Life? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:18 · Score: 0

>> But still, a virus is a far more complex machine than anything else we've made

I don't think so. The virus has 5000 base pairs, each made up of about 80 atoms, so it comes in at less than half a million "parts."

The space shuttle, by comparison, has over 2.5 million parts.

Holy Troll, Batman by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:56 · Score: 0

Funny Sheetrock, I would have thought that you had your question answered in this thread.

Coming back for more?

Re:Sometimes... by AKAImBatman · 2003-11-14 04:58 · Score: 1

What is up with Mods these days? Apparently EVERY FRIGGIN THING is offtopic! Anyone else notice that?

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Re:Interesting thoughts... by TheCrazyFinn · 2003-11-14 04:58 · Score: 1

Except that non-detrimental mutations tend to stick around, if useless. Witness Human Hair.

So, the necessary mutations don't have to happen at the same time, merely in sequence, as long as the individual mutations do not adversely affect survival.

Inteligent Design is merely a pseudo-scientific handwaving over Creationism.

--
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya

Ibola Anyone? by drosoph · 2003-11-14 04:58 · Score: 1

How many base-pairs are in the ibola virus ?

Re:Ibola Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:02 · Score: 0

None, but I think the Ebola virus might have a few.
Re:Ibola Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:23 · Score: 0

NONE, FUCKER! BECAUSE THERE IS NO IBOLA VIRUS! UNLESS APPLE GETS INTO BIOWARFARE!

now, if you are talking about the ebola virus, it has 18959 base pairs. see the details on the ebola zaire genome
Re:Ibola Anyone? by iggymanz · 2003-11-14 05:35 · Score: 1

first was e-business, then i-business...now we have e-bola and i-bola. These marketing droids are so lame.....
Re:Ibola Anyone? by drosoph · 2003-11-14 06:24 · Score: 1

Wow, and I even did a google on EBOLA/IBOLA before posting .... I guess the internet is again WRONG !

Re:Sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:58 · Score: 0

Oh my god, does it ever just hurt sometimes, realizing that you are so fucking smart?

Intelligent Design? Don't think so by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:58 · Score: 0

Yes I have heard of ID. It is a claim that since we don't understand something right now, GodDidit. Which IMO is a horrible place to put god. Also known as God of the Gaps.
As for you're example,
You point to flagella, not irreducibly complex, do some research. eye's, not irreducibly complex, do the research, wings, not irreducibly complex, do the research.

if you're interested in actual mainstream scientific views go to talkorigins. They have actual archeologists/anthropologists/biologists etc. to help explain things to you. I still find it interesting that most proponents of ID are usually Engineer's or some other profession with zero background in biology.

http://talkorigins.org/

89 comments... by TheMidget · 2003-11-14 04:58 · Score: 0, Offtopic

... and not a single one containing the word Outlook... Slashdotters, I am disappointed!

Re:Interesting thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:59 · Score: 0

Saying that something must be the product of a magical higher power simply on the grounds that we don't currently understand it is hubris in the extreme. Throughout history people have said the same of weather, reproduction, disease, and any number of other natural phenomena. It didn't make them right, either.

Re:Interesting thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 04:59 · Score: 0

This "intelligent designer" is also responsible for AIDS, adaptive cancer cells, aging, ebola, and malaria, am I correct?

What they did, why it is hard by sam_handelman · 2003-11-14 04:59 · Score: 5, Informative

The human genome (which is DNA), contained in each of your cells, contains the instructions needed to make a cell (much like a computer program.)

However, in order to use these instructions to make a cell, you need a cell of the same kind to read them.

Analogy: You have a computer program that tells you how to manufacture computers but this doesn't do any good unless you already have a computer OF THE SAME KIND on which to execute it.

So, even if I assemble an entire human genome, I can't use it to make a person unless I already have a human cell. Kapish?

A VIRUS, which is what was made here, is NOT A CELL. It is a parasitic piece of DNA that hijacks an existing cell and contains the instructions to make viruses. The DNA that the virus contains is, in the best case, sufficient to hijack the cell all by itself, and convert the cell into a factory for making viruses. Viruses CANNOT make more viruses by themselves. The similarity to a computer virus, I assume, is obvious.

So, if you can make VIRAL DNA, this will be sufficient to make the virus, if you have cells that the virus can infect.

Even making the genome of a virus is very difficult. The "commercially available" DNA mentioned in the article is made chemically. DNA is made up of a chain of monomers; each monomer has a 5' end and a 3' end that can attach together to form a chain. In order to add monomer n+1 to a growing chain, this is what you do (description meant to be accessible to people who don't know a lot of chemistry): ...(Monomer n-1) 3' - 5' (Monomer n) 3'(BLOCKED)
-> **add reagent to unblock**
-> wash ...(Monomer n) 3'
-> add 5' (Monomer n) 3' {BLOCKED}
-> add reagent to attach 5' and 3' together ...(Monomer n) 3' - 5' (Monomer n+1) 3' {BLOCKED}
and repeat for Monomer n+2. Recursion is good.

Now, this is done in parallel in thousands of molecules of DNA (the 5' end of each molecule is fixed to a plate.)

Every time you add the reagent to remove the BLOCKS, it has a percentage chance, which can be very small, of failing.

So, for example, if, on one paritcular molecule, it fails at position 10, then instead of:
ACGTACGTACGT
you will get,
ACGTACGTAGT.

DNA that makes proteins has something called a "reading frame", consisting of codons which are three monomers long. If you shift the reading frame over by 1 monomer, it completely changes the meaning of the message.

So, a single nucleotide deletion, which I describe above, is disastrous - the synthetic DNA becomes useless.

Even if the chance of failing to remove a block is small - typically about 0.1% - if your DNA molecule is thousands of bases long, the chance of successfully adding every base to any individual molecule is slight.

Of course, you can make two different 100-base long molecules by the above technique and then ligate them together (recursion by splitting the task in half) which is, I believe, what's been done here. This has technical difficulties of it's own, of course, but with refinements it woud allow you to make useful DNA of length n*2^m instead of DNA of length n.

This is a frightening prospect because it would allow you to make ebola "from scratch", or just from the the string of letters that represent the genome (which is so short I could write it out by hand on a stack of cocktail napkins.) We're not to that point yet but it is a scary possibility.

--
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.

Re:What they did, why it is hard by ponxx · 2003-11-14 05:10 · Score: 1

> This is a frightening prospect because it would allow you to make ebola "from scratch", or
> just from the the string of letters that represent the genome

I don't think it's possible for all viruses. In this case i believe just adding the DNA to the cell was sufficient to create an infected cell. Other virii might need some of their own proteins to start the process. I'm not a virologist, but i don't think it's always as easy as this...

Ponxx
Re:What they did, why it is hard by maomoondog · 2003-11-14 05:24 · Score: 1

Right... most viruses include a special reverse transcriptase to turn their RNA from a form that can be turned into proteins into a more stable form DNA that can be copied multipled times and duplicated in the nucleus.

Also, most viruses need to create proteins that act as shells for their DNA, which allow them to bind to the outside of a host cell and inject their DNA. The researchers could escape this in the first generation, since they injected the DNA manually.

At that point, the virus could reproduce itself, but if its code doesn't create that structure, it would not be able to infect other cells. It's not clear from the article whether the replicated viruses were capable of infecting new cells without assistance.
Re:What they did, why it is hard by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:25 · Score: 0

I know I'm going to catch hell for this hence why I'm going AC, but here goes...

So, even if I assemble an entire human genome, I can't use it to make a person unless I already have a human cell. Kapish?

Kapish, what is that polish? If you intend to use the conjugated italian verb for to understand in third person singular, it is 'capisce'.
Re:What they did, why it is hard by Necromancyr · 2003-11-14 05:37 · Score: 1

Similar methods to this - altering existing genomes, creating DNA genomes from RNA viruses, etc. - have been done and is actually very easy. It doesn't actually say in the USA Today article (big surprise) WHAT they did that was so amazing. We make viruses that are not 'natural' as a matter of course - all you need to do is take some genetic material, modify it, toss it into a cell line and blamo. Mutated/altered virus you 'created'. If what you say is true (that they created the DNA 'from scratch') it's really not all that amazing to me. It's hard from a technical standpoint, but from it's analogous to not using the xerox machine and instead having ultra realistic artists recreate 1" square pieces then shrinking them down, taping them all together, and producing a finished copy. Basically, the roundabout way to get something done. In other words, time consuming != amazing. The work is something that amazes the masses, and is just 'Oh, thats nice' for many scientists in the field I believe. If anything, just making DNA that large from scratch is the big thing. I, personally, would be much more amazed if they took multiple viruses, amplified out certain genes and actually recreated a replication and infection strategy. For example, create a single stranded DNA version of single stranded RNA virus that uses proteins from a single stranded RNA to replicate and work but uses the protein coding for structure from a single stranded RNA virus. (Ignoring protein binding issues related to binding the genome would make it insanely hard, but it would still be amazing.)
Re:What they did, why it is hard by Eosha · 2003-11-14 06:08 · Score: 1

>This is a frightening prospect because it would allow you to make ebola "from scratch", or just from the the string of letters that represent the genome (which is so short I could write it out by hand on a stack of cocktail napkins.) We're not to that point yet but it is a scary possibility.

Think of the implications of this. If this technology became at all widespread, then a string of characters (CD, book, radio transmission, etc) would be all that's necessary for someone (terrorist, etc.) to acquire some of the deadliest things our world has ever produced.

The legislation this idea could produce is terrifying. Every possible medium of communication could be used to carry Ebola into terrorist hands, and therefore must be restricted...

It'll be interesting to see what effects this technology has in the future, if any.

--
I have a girlfriend whose name doesn't end in .JPG
Re:What they did, why it is hard by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:18 · Score: 0

What happened to freedom and open source? You are suggesting security through obscurity. Am I reading CNN or something?

The best security is for everyone to have access to it.

*chuckle*
Re:What they did, why it is hard by ghettocat · 2003-11-14 08:48 · Score: 1

Take this from a practicing biochemist: Really this is nothing that we could not do, even 10 years ago, using recombinant DNA technology. The fact that they chemically synthesized the sequence is technically challenging, but nothing really new, either. [micro]injection into cells is a non trivial technique, and quite demanding, but again has been done for years. NOTHING SCARY HERE, MOVE ALONG!
Re:What they did, why it is hard by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 12:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

Isn't there an enzyme or some other chemical in the cell that has the function of going up and down the newly synthesized DNA strand and correcting errors?

I could imagine a machine into which:

You type the letters of a desired DNA sequence.

It attempts to make a certain number of copies of the DNA sequence. The number is such that statiscallly at least some of them are without errors.

***This is the hard part*****
You determine which is the good copy. I don't know how.
***This is the hard part*****

You use this good string of DNA as a template to produce mass quantities. The mass quantities are checked against the original and known good copies of the original. You do the checking with the same mechanism real cells use.

The end result are thousands, millions of copies of the original virus.

If such a machine could work, you are basically at where computers were when people programmed them in machine language, typing in hexadecimal code.

By analogy, assemblers could be written. Programmers type in amino acids instead of individual letters.

Compilers might allow you to just input the component proteins. (Fortran).

If we ever learn enough about how proteins are made from DNA and how they fold etc. We may be able to create languages that describe features of an simple creature. We could reverse engineer an existing simple organism and write patches, and then recompile the code to produce a nucleus that could be implanted into a zygote using cloning techniques. (Simple Organism == C.elegans??)

Eventually, people who are good at patching existing organisms might develope tools and libraries that would let them be able to write new creatures from scratch, basing them on an existing creature, sort of like Linux is based on Unix.

People could trade the codes for making purple frogs and flying pigs on the Internet.

The downside is that someone is going to come up with DRM for this sort of thing the day after someone invents it.
Re:What they did, why it is hard by Saeger · 2003-11-14 12:21 · Score: 1

Not even a totalitarian world government could prevent the inevitability of increasingly advanced tech from falling into psychopaths' hands.
So no, our best hope isn't in trying to relinquish or limit the technology, but rather in coming up with equally advanced defenses. i.e. we'll need molecular nanotechnology in order to create artificial immune systems for both bio-based humans, AND as an active shield for the planet as a whole. Hopefully these all-encompassing systems are under democratic control, otherwise government could actually prevent drugs from reaching your brain, etc.
--

--
Power to the Peaceful
Re:What they did, why it is hard by sam_handelman · 2003-11-14 15:05 · Score: 1

That is effectively what they did, and more.

When they "infected" the cells with synthetic phage DNA, only working phage DNA replicated. This is how you identify the "good" copies of the DNA. So, in the bacteria you already have a system that replicates only the good copies of the DNA.

This phage DNA, when it is replicated, actually benefits from (many) of the processes that check quality of DNA duplication in the bacterium.

So, tada.

Now, the problem is that one molecule of phage DNA isn't enough - the odds of any particular molecule successfully infecting a bacterium are small (they go up "in the wild" because the phage has something called a protein coat, that helps it to infect cells, in the lab with purely synthetic DNA you must use cruder methods.) Upshot: you need not one but a LOT of "good copies". More than previous groups were able to manufacture.

For this reason, until this work, no-one had ever gotten a synthetic molecule of this size to infect cells and produce viable virus offspring.

--
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Re:What they did, why it is hard by Cincinnatus1984 · 2003-11-15 12:59 · Score: 1

DNA never makes protiens, it must first go through mRNA, this is not trivial. There are more types of viruses than DNA viruses, mRNA viruses are common and important, (AIDS, etc.) The problem with the second approach, the SCARY possibility that ebola could be made from scratch relies on a known sequence from ebola before you can even start to make a "copy", and every virus known contains the same AGTC (U) as we do, not really a scary possiblity, it relies on the same technology as we would need for biotech crops.

You Must Be Thinking of Canopy by Myriad · 2003-11-14 05:00 · Score: 1

Are we sure this wasn't put out by the Umbrella corporation?

You must be thinking of Canopy. Easy mistake though.

Blockwars: a free multiplayer game

--
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'

Virus that eats cancer by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:00 · Score: 0

I've read that they are working on a virus that only eats cancerous cells. I don't know if it was made from scratch, but I think it was a genetically altered virus that already exists. There are benign applications for this type of research. The faster they can get the cancer eating virus out the door the better. I don't know anyone that hasn't had a family member deal with cancer. Most of us probably will have to deal with cancer at some time too.

Re:Interesting thoughts... by al_fruitbat · 2003-11-14 05:00 · Score: 1

"irreducibly complex" is probably a void concept.

A half-working flagellum is still better than no flagellum for all sorts of things (e.g. it might not allow properly directional movement, but it enables some movement).

I admit, the article you've linked to does have some impressive pseudoscience, but the basic arguments are not well thought out.
What the proponents of 'Intelligent Design' (I'll call 'em creationists from now on in, cos that's what they are) usually conveniently forget is that part of the evolutionary system is to evolve 'down' the complexity ladder, to produce gorgeously efficient systems.

You begin with something clunky (but effective), and over time small perfections are evolved, flaws are ironed out and efficiency and beauty is refined. Creationists then trot out this perfect system and say "how could this perfection spring out of random chance?", which is an invalid question in a single step.

Would you care to play a game? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:00 · Score: 0

How's about: World-wide Ecological Disaster

Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:01 · Score: 0

Craig Venter's research group takes credit for work done by bacteria!

Re:Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:20 · Score: 0

That's like saying that the people who invented the elevator are just taking credit for work done my gravity. The bacteria could not take a stack of plasmid DNA and make a virus out of it in any decent amount of time (I'm talking hundreds of years, assuming it continues to repilcate useless plasmids in the meantime). The accomplishment is the creation of a genome that, while not the same as the natural viral genome, it contains all the functional parts of the natural viral genome, and operates identically when they stick it into a bacteria.

Re:Interesting thoughts... by jokerghost · 2003-11-14 05:01 · Score: 1

Pascal's Wager "probabisitically" explains this? Riiiiiiiiight. Are you sure you know what the hell you're talking about?

Read the following before you make another illogical, appeal to authority, point:

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.ht ml
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

-jokerghost

Anyone else... by xaoslaad · 2003-11-14 05:01 · Score: 1

have a flash back to 12 monkies?

Jeffrey Goines: You know what crazy is? Crazy is majority rules. Take germs for example. James Cole: Germs? Jeffrey Goines: Uh-huh. Eighteenth century, no such thing, nada, nothing. No one ever imagined such a thing. No sane person. Along comes this doctor, uh, Semmelweis, Semmelweis. Semmelweis comes along. He's trying to convince people, other doctors mainly, that's there's these teeny tiny invisible bad things called germs that get into your body and make you sick. He's trying to get doctors to wash their hands. What is this guy? Crazy? Teeny, tiny, invisible? What do they call it? Uh-uh, germs? Huh? What? Now, up to the 20th century, last week, as a matter of fact, before I got dragged into this hellhole. I go in to order a burger at this fast food joint, and the guy drops it on the floor. James, he picks it up, he wipes it off, he hands it to me like it's all OK. "What about the germs?" I say. He says, "I don't believe in germs. Germs is a plot made up so they could sell disinfectants and soaps." Now he's crazy, right?

Re:Interesting thoughts... by barjam · 2003-11-14 05:01 · Score: 1

Intelligent design isn't a valid scientific theory. It can't be tested or observed, it is no better than creationism in that respect.

It is not science to say "because we can't explain it today, it must be intelligent design". At one point we couldn't explain feather evolution (and people cried "Intelligent design!!"), now we can explain it fully (or nearly) with the fossil record. (Consequently, it looks like dinasaurs had feathers, and even flight type feathers long before birds).

The only reason why we have the "theory" of intelligent design is so that the more "able minded" creationists would have a theory to cling to that wasn't as full of holes as creationism. ID also doesn't suffer the possibility of being proved wrong, it can't be proved or disproved, a much easier position for the religious to defend.

ID = Creationism + spin.

Political intervention required.. by peterdguru · 2003-11-14 05:02 · Score: 1

Current legislators are so overwhelmed with the whole human-cloning, stem-cell and abortion debate which centres on individual rights that they have completely ignored an important avenue of bio-research that affects EVERYONE. No person should be allowed to create a self-replicating virus that could infect all of humanity without some sort of licensing and bureaucractic oversight. Politicians have their priorities skewed in the current bio-research debate. This should be a wake-up call. We hope...

Re:Interesting thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:02 · Score: 0

What is with the brain dead mods modding everything Troll or Offtopic? Morons. The /. mod system must be screwed up... maybe all the people at Terrible Karma got moderating power.... Someone kick the current mods, and get us a new batch of mods already.

Re:Interesting thoughts... by EddWo · 2003-11-14 05:03 · Score: 1

The usual argument for intelligent design is that "There is no such thing as half an eye." That the eye is too complex to have evolved naturally. I tend to believe that the eye could have evolved over time, first as a patch of photosensitive skin, then perhaps a lump filled with fluid and on to the lens and the complexity we have today.

I don't know the whole story of this flagellum but I suspect a similar thing may have happened. Is it now also possible that a creature could have mutated drastically in a few generations as a result of being exposed to a DNA altering agent such as a virus?

--
"Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "

Press release, what this is to be used for by mfago · 2003-11-14 05:03 · Score: 1

Here is the press release from Craig Ventner's 'Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives.'

What an odd name: reading about IBEA at the site's homepage, it seems that their goal is to create fuel using designer microbes to extract carbon from the atmosphere.

MMMmmmm carbon!

A virus can have very compact codebase by G4from128k · 2003-11-14 05:03 · Score: 1

This feat is not that hard because a virus can have such a simple, compact codebase. I remember studying a biological retrovirus that had only 4000 nucleotide bases (equivalent of only 1 kilobyte of data) and only 4 genes total. Gene 1 encoded a reverse transcriptase to convert the virus' RNA into DNA that could be replicated by the host. Genes 2 and 3 encoded two self-asssembling capsule proteins that make the shell of the virus. And gene 4 was actually a corrupted dud (so the real code base was actually smaller than 1 kB).

For better or for worse, it does nto take much to construct a virus.

--
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

Re:A virus can have very compact codebase by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:28 · Score: 0

You may not think it's a major feat, but many MANY attempts to build the genome without just PCR'ing an existing copy have been done, and they have all failed. The polio example in the article is one of the most successful. It took years, and the resultant product could not replicate.

Morals Schmorals by Pedrito · 2003-11-14 05:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't really care about the morality of this. Frankly, from a scientific point of view: Cool! On the other hand, what does concern me was this quote:

The project was funded in part by the Department of Energy, which hopes to create microbes that would capture carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, produce hydrogen or clean the environment.

Okay, so let's assume we do something like this, with the perfectly innocent intention of cleaning up some level of carbon dioxide. Okay, well you're counting on the virus to reproduce, but what if it gets out of control? It eats up ALL the carbon dioxide. All the trees and plants suffocate and die, but that might not happen before the atmosphere goes up in flames since that carbon dioxide is being turned into hydrogen.

Maybe not a likely event, but my concerns are a bit more on the practical side. Frankly, I'm all for creating new forms of life and bringing back extinct ones, just for the coolness of it. I just hope we don't go doing something foolish, which we always seem to manage to do.

Re:Morals Schmorals by HarveyBirdman · 2003-11-14 05:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

It eats up ALL the carbon dioxide. All the trees and plants suffocate and die,
Of course, the microbe would presumably die as well, and much more quickly than the plants, while the CO2 is replenished by mammal activity.
but that might not happen before the atmosphere goes up in flames since that carbon dioxide is being turned into hydrogen.
Well, if they can create a microbe that can transmute a carbon and two oxygens into hydrogen, color *me* impressed.
Hmm... would that require or release energy? Forget about going up in flames, the atmosphere might undergo spontaneous nuclear fission. :-o Hey, wasn't that in Battlefield Earth? :-P
How about a microbe than can split water into hydrogen and oxygen?

--
--- Ban humanity.
Re:Morals Schmorals by Pedrito · 2003-11-14 05:17 · Score: 1

I would guess since it's biological that the hydrogen would be the result of breaking down the carbon dioxide using some sort of hydrocarbon which would release hydrogen as part of the byproduct. I doubt it converts the oxygen or the carbon directly into hydrogen. That would be quite a feat.
Re:Morals Schmorals by IgnorantSavage · 2003-11-14 05:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually, there is no plan to convert carbon dioxide to hydrogen with any kind of organism. That would require nuclear transmutation, which so far as I know has never been done in a biological organism.

I think the plans are for a bacteria or virus that traps carbon dioxide or uses photosynthesis to convert it to carbon and oxygen (lots of stuff that already does this, of course). There are also known bacteria that can split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Sorry, I have not tracked down any references...

The problem with 'eating up all the CO2' is certainly a consideration, but likely not as big a deal as it may sound since the organism would be designed (like existing ones) to reach a balance at an appropriate level, possibly related to an inability to survive with less than a certain amount of CO2 in its environment.
Re:Morals Schmorals by Superfreaker · 2003-11-14 05:21 · Score: 1

Well, what we can do is this,
We engineer the virus without the ability to synthesize l-lysine on its own. We will ahve to provide it for them. If we take the supplement away, then they will die in three days (unless of course some crazy mutation occurs- nature finds a way! Chaos theory)

Copyright Steven Spielberg
Re:Morals Schmorals by KieranElby · 2003-11-14 05:30 · Score: 1

Actually, there is no plan to convert carbon dioxide to hydrogen with any kind of organism. That would require nuclear transmutation, which so far as I know has never been done in a biological organism.

You'd certainly think not, but incredibly it does seem likely that a natural nuclear reactor was constructed by bacteria some 1.8 billion years ago in Africa - see e.g. NATURAL NUCLEAR REACTORS (OKLO).
Re:Morals Schmorals by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:41 · Score: 0

Copyright Steven Spielberg
And probably Michael Crichton, too.
Re:Morals Schmorals by freeweed · 2003-11-14 05:43 · Score: 1

All the trees and plants suffocate and die, but that might not happen before the atmosphere goes up in flames since that carbon dioxide is being turned into hydrogen.

1. As other posters have already pointed out, you can't convert CO2 into H2, short of nuclear transmutation, ie: alchemy. We can hardly do this in labs to any great extent, so I doubt someone is going to create a virus that can. (If anyone knows of actual commercial element transmutation on a large scale, and NOT radioactive, please correct me. And no, you can't have radioactive hydrogen :)

2. Even if this were possible, hydrogen released into the atmosphere doesn't tend to stick around very long. It either escapes into space (gravity just isn't strong enough on Earth to maintain a hydrogen atmosphere), or quickly combines with ambient oxygen. You'll never get any siginificant build-up of hydrogen, which would be required in order for the atmosphere to "go up in flames".

3. They aren't planning on a bug that does all three of these things at once. Check the sentence, and remember your boolean logic: capture carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, produce hydrogen or clean the environment. OR != AND.

Your concerns are the furthest thing from practical that I've ever seen, as introductory high school chemistry/physics pretty much negates them.

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Re:Morals Schmorals by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:59 · Score: 0

Which hydrocarbon? Where is it coming from?
Re:Morals Schmorals by grassy_knoll · 2003-11-14 06:03 · Score: 1

You might want to check out Zodiac, by Neil Stevenson:
Amazon Link
I dont want to give any spoilers, but the plot covers your concerns.

--
A Human Right
Re:Morals Schmorals by Dunark · 2003-11-14 06:13 · Score: 1

...And no, you can't have radioactive hydrogen :)

Yes, you can. It's called Tritium, and it's a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that has two neutrons.
Re:Morals Schmorals by spankalee · 2003-11-14 06:35 · Score: 1

How about a microbe than can split water into hydrogen and oxygen?

Ok, there's a scary thought. Don't let that one go down the drain! Who needs Ice-9 when you have a microbe that can destroy all the water on the planet while making the atmosphere quite flammable?
Re:Morals Schmorals by Random832 · 2003-11-14 06:40 · Score: 1

If you know a way to turn carbon dioxide into hydrogen, your skills would be better put turning lead into gold

--
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
Re:Morals Schmorals by freeweed · 2003-11-14 07:13 · Score: 1

/me slaps head.

Duh.

Thanks :)

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Re:Morals Schmorals by ryanvm · 2003-11-14 07:19 · Score: 1

but that might not happen before the atmosphere goes up in flames since that carbon dioxide is being turned into hydrogen.

Not to nitpick or anything (gawd - what a disgusting phrase), but no microbe is going to be able to turn carbon dioxide into hydrogen. That would require fission and that's going to require a lot more "tools" than any microbe can carry.

The DoE quote was giving three different scenarios, not a chain of processes.
Re:Morals Schmorals by drooling-dog · 2003-11-14 08:14 · Score: 1

Well, if they can create a microbe that can transmute a carbon and two oxygens into hydrogen, color *me* impressed.
Heh heh. That's the Slashdot funny of the day...
Re:Morals Schmorals by drooling-dog · 2003-11-14 08:22 · Score: 1

The project was funded in part by the Department of Energy, which hopes to create microbes that would capture carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, produce hydrogen or clean the environment.
Well, you have to realize that all research grant proposals are required to promise to (a) lead to cures of dreaded diseases (especially cancer), (b) reduce our dependence on foreign petroleum, or (c) shed light on the Origin of the Universe. Or, at least that's what you're supposed to tell the public!
Anyway, viruses can't do any of the metabolic stuff you mention; you need a whole cell system for that!
Re:Morals Schmorals by michael_cain · 2003-11-14 08:33 · Score: 1

I just hope we don't go doing something foolish, which we always seem to manage to do.

I am much more scared that SOME of us will manage to do something foolish ON PURPOSE. I don't want to be a Luddite -- I like many of the ways that technology improves my life. But I am scared that in the next 30 or so years, some people will manage to perform BIG-TIME EVIL with the technology that is at their disposal. It seems inevitable that, within that time frame, $100M will make it possible for you to buy a "designer" disease. Too many people will know how to do it. The raw materials and basic technology will be too readily available (unlike the raw materials for building a nuke, which are relatively scarce and easy to track). Some nut case will come up with the money, build the disease, and release it. Evolution is cool with the idea of killing off 98% of the population in order to gain resistance to a particular disease, but I'm really unhappy about that prospect.
I'm old enough now that I may not live to see it, but I'm seriously concerned about what things my children may have to live through.
Re:Morals Schmorals by kavau · 2003-11-14 09:00 · Score: 1

...the atmosphere goes up in flames since that carbon dioxide is being turned into hydrogen.
Umm... and exactly how would the virus turn carbon dioxide into hydrogen? A virus that triggers nuclear fission - cool!
Re:Morals Schmorals by dave1g · 2003-11-14 11:09 · Score: 1

"The project was funded in part by the Department of Energy, which hopes to create microbes that would capture carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, produce hydrogen or clean the environment.

Okay, so let's assume we do something like this, with the perfectly innocent intention of cleaning up some level of carbon dioxide. Okay, well you're counting on the virus to reproduce, but what if it gets out of control? It eats up ALL the carbon dioxide. All the trees and plants suffocate and die, but that might not happen before the atmosphere goes up in flames since that carbon dioxide is being turned into hydrogen."

Um that was a "this,this, or this" statement not an "and" statement so there would be no carbon dioxide to hydrogen conversion going on.... instead it might be one OR the other
Re:Morals Schmorals by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 14:18 · Score: 0

> but that might not happen before the atmosphere goes up in flames since that carbon dioxide is being turned into hydrogen.

That would be a good trick...
Re:Morals Schmorals by PsiPsiStar · 2003-11-15 03:36 · Score: 1

>The project was funded in part by the >Department of Energy, which hopes to create >microbes that would capture carbon dioxide in >the atmosphere... ... ya mean, like plants do?
I had a plant once. I developed it from a seed. But I was careful not to let it go outside or it might reproduce and DESTROY THE PLANET. AHHHH!!!

Microbes are already plentiful. They're not going to take over unless they have some tremendous advantage. One characteristic of life that has been cultivated by human beings is that it's usually more adapted to serving humans than it is to surviving by itself in the wild. Most of the plants that people harvest don't do well if they're left to their own devices. It isn't until you start making plants resistant to pesticides or pests that those genes pose a danger, because they escape and integrate themselves into weeds and give those plants an advantage ( a serious problem with plants of the mustard family which have weedy relatives ).

But things like bioremediation, where a plant can remove toxic lead from the soil, is not somthing that's going to spread like wildfire and take over the planet. There isn't such an amazing selective advantage to the trait that would make other plants survive longer if they had it. The traits we're discussing help us, the life forms that will be altered.

--

___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.

History by johnmrowe · 2003-11-14 05:03 · Score: 1

This is not the end, it is not the beginning of the end, but perhaps it is the end of the beginning.

Re:Interesting thoughts... by Planesdragon · 2003-11-14 05:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Note: I'm a firm Christian who believes in God, and that He intented our world to look exactly as it did when sentient life first looked at it, AND that He has a stated goal of hiding Himself from us.

That said:

evolution/natural selection is the natural effect when beings are subjected to adversity: only the strong surviveI

Evolution doesn't say that the "strong" survive. Evolution is the simple observation that in any given environment, the creatures most fit for that environment will thrive the most--and, ergo, creatures that thrive the most will be those most likely to survive.

The odds of a mutation creating all parts simultaneously are astronomical, and consequently, the only accepted theory that can sanely describe such a thing is intelligent design,

We don't know what the odds are of any mutation--though we do know that, just in the last 10,000 years, there have been 3,652,500 days. So if the odds are one in a million that a one-day generational organism will evolve a certain set of traits are one in a million, it will have happened three times just since the Neolithic revolution began. And, of course, science believes that Earth is several orders of magnitude older than 10,000 years.

which has been hinted at in many different real-life examples as well as probabistically explained by Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager has nothing to do with evolution, and as a mathematical statement it is flawed based on its treatment of faith as a binary equation. (What if you worship the wrong diety?) God intended there to be doubt in the world, and He is perfectly capable of remedying said doubt when He sees fit.

So as skeptical as I am of intelligent design, I can't help but notice how much of our biological model it predicts.

Intelligent design, like most theories, is little more than untestable conjecture about the past. The uncertainty that must be applied to theroums about archeological past are so great that competetly opposite theories (ID and Evolution) can exist based on the exact same evidence.

Re:Ebola Anyone? by Jeremy+Erwin · 2003-11-14 05:05 · Score: 2, Informative

Ebola Zaire: 18959 base pairs
Ebola Reston: 18891 base pairs

Marburg: 19112 base pairs

Re:Sometimes... by AKAImBatman · 2003-11-14 05:05 · Score: 1

And BTW, my original post was speaking to the point of the work being completed in a very short time, thus showing up a lot of other scientists. It was merely a comment on how amusing that is. But it seems that the mods have a vendetta to kill any and every post that doesn't fit the "SlashBorg" collective mind. Next thing you know, we'll see trolls getting modded up.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Uh... From scratch? by stienman · 2003-11-14 05:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

Please note that when they say, "From scratch" they mean that they created a synthetic genome (probably from portions of other genomes - I doubt they know enough about the base pair sequences to actually have done it base pair by base pair) and inserted it in a 'living' cell.

The cell then started reproducing. They didn't create the cell. They probably didn't design the genome as much as patch one together from other genomes (though they may have 'created' it - physically manufactured it)

They say it's safe because it only infects batceria. Unfortunately, humans depend on bacteria to survive, so it's not nearly as innocuous as one might like to think.

However, these are nano-machines that might do real work safely (cleaning up chemical toxins, etc) - I'm just worried about mutations and how they will develop. You can't create life and expect it to reproduce itself without change over time. Pretty soon it'll discover that human skin is much more plentiful than the chemical toxins it was eating, and it'll change its diet.

-Adam

Re:Uh... From scratch? by freeweed · 2003-11-14 05:47 · Score: 1

The cell then started reproducing. They didn't create the cell.

You're right, they didn't create any cells at all. Viruses are acellular organisms.

I'm just worried about mutations and how they will develop. You can't create life and expect it to reproduce itself without change over time. Pretty soon it'll discover that human skin is much more plentiful than the chemical toxins it was eating, and it'll change its diet.

Well, we've had viruses on the planet for as long as we've been around, and they mutate constantly. Yet, we're still here. Our immune system might have some small part to play in this. Besides, there's nothing inherent in a man-made virus that would make it accquire a taste for human flesh any more than natural viruses do.

Yikes, what's with all the Luddites who never took a biology/chemistry class popping up whenever one of these stories comes along? You didn't ALL just take computer science, right?

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Re:Uh... From scratch? by stienman · 2003-11-14 06:05 · Score: 1

Well, we've had viruses on the planet for as long as we've been around, and they mutate constantly. Yet, we're still here. Our immune system might have some small part to play in this. Besides, there's nothing inherent in a man-made virus that would make it accquire a taste for human flesh any more than natural viruses do.

I just like doing a cost/benefit and risk analysis before deploying something. If that's a luddite, then I suspect you may have a very broad definition of that term.

Your sentence says, in essence, "Mann can create nothing worse than what nature has already created." and "Man can control it's creations once let loose."

I suspect that this re-wording puts your position in a new perspective for you. Nature created radioactive materials, man made them explode. Nature created viruses, man made vaccines stronger than the virus (with the help of the natural immune system) Nature creates bacteria and modifies it all the time - man creates tragetted antibiotics.

Man creates a bacteria that would not have evolved naturally. He does so before he really understands exactly how what he created operates.

Now you say, "If it mutates, it will be as innocuous as anything else mutated by nature up until now." No, it will mutate differently, and since it was not naturally created, it will not mutate according to the mutations seen up until now.

Sure. It's unlikely that anything we create is going to be dangerous to us now or in the future. Like DDT.

Go ahead. Create your bacteria, get it to do what you want, but don't assume that just because we created it that it's safe.

Life is a tricky thing to play games with.

-Adam
Re:Uh... From scratch? by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-11-14 07:03 · Score: 1

You're right, they didn't create any cells at all. Viruses are acellular organisms.
I hate to bust your bubble. Viruses are bundles of protiens that hijack living cells. They lack the means to do anything on their own. That is their M.O. It is what they do.
From Dictionary.com:
Virus: pl. viruses 1. a) Any of various simple submicroscopic parasites of plants, animals, and bacteria that often cause disease and that mostly consist of a core RNA or DNA surrounded by a protein coat. Unable to replicate without a host cell, viruses are typically not considered living organisms. b) A disease caused by a virus. 2. Something that poisens one's sole or mind. Ex. The pernicious virus of racism. 3. (Computer Science) A Computer Virus

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:Uh... From scratch? by 110010001000 · 2003-11-14 07:06 · Score: 1

2. Something that poisens one's sole or mind. Ex. The pernicious virus of racism.

God, that was from dictionary.com??? "sole"? "poisens"? Who maintains that site - CmdrTaco??? :-)
Re:Uh... From scratch? by freeweed · 2003-11-14 08:33 · Score: 1

Actually viruses are [D/R]NA strands which often have a protein coat, like your definition 1.

They're not cells, hence acellular, which is how I described them.

If by "burst your bubble" you're referring to my use of the term "organisms", note that at no time did I use the word "living" - even though we still have no consensus on what life is, nor whether or not we should describe viruses as "alive". Contrary to some online dictionary, this issue is still being debated in scientific circles. To me it's semantics anyway.

Thanks, I almost Mastered in Virology. Considering the source you're quoting (note the spelling of poison and soul), don't be too cocky when you try to correct people. Especially when they're already correct :)

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Re:Uh... From scratch? by Inuchance · 2003-11-14 08:41 · Score: 1

Actually, with the way biology works, it'll be more like it changes its diet, and THEN discovers human skin is much more plentiful. =P
Re:Uh... From scratch? by rtaylor · 2003-11-14 15:29 · Score: 1

Just like when you create an strawberry pie from scratch.

It's not like you go out and start planting wheat for flour, etc. wait 6 months harvest your goods, make the flour, churn the butter, etc. then bake the pie. The components have been premade, but you still need to select them in the right quantities, mix them at the right time and a fair number of other steps.

--
Rod Taylor
Re:Uh... From scratch? by EvilTwinSkippy · 2003-11-15 01:26 · Score: 1

Mea Culpa.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming

True, but... by www.sorehands.com · 2003-11-14 05:06 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Aids and flu happens naturally, it is not created by man. It may or may not be more or less dangerous than any virus created by man. But, that does not mean that when creating something that is potentially dangerous you need to be very very careful, since you do have control over the creation.

Just because natural fires occur in the forest, it does not mean that we should not put out our own camp fires.

--
Fight Spammers!

Re:Interesting thoughts... by Wumpus · 2003-11-14 05:06 · Score: 1

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Can I play God? by geekmetal · 2003-11-14 05:06 · Score: 1

But the questions ethicists have raised about such work are numerous: Should we be playing God? Does the potential for good that new life forms may have outweigh the harm they could do?

Can I play God? Oh wait a minute I AM GOD! and who thinks I haven't created life forms whose bad has outwieghed the good (for humans)?

--
There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us

human interference.... by mtrupe · 2003-11-14 05:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

with nature seems to work so well, why not? I live in Illinois and each fall we are swarmed by millions upon millions of Japanese Lady-Bug-Like Orange Beatles. They were put here to fight Aphids, but they have no predators (birds won't even eat them because they emit this foul stench). They area all over the place and nothing can stop them.

So, what kind of checks and balances will there be on man-made viruses? None- you just cannot introduce anything into nature so quickly. I think the possible outcome is clear. This is downright frightening. I think I'll go rent The Stand this weekend.

--
[FromTheMorning]

Huh? by Jasonv · 2003-11-14 05:06 · Score: 1

Some scientests take two weeks to create a self-replicating virus? Big deal. Like this Hasn't been done before. Heck, I could manage it in a couple of hours, and I hardn't know how to program. Why the hell is this news?

<RTFA>

Oh. You mean a *biological* virus.

Nevermind.

</RTFA>

This is called the "argument from incredulity" by roystgnr · 2003-11-14 05:08 · Score: 1

It goes roughly like: "I can't imagine how biological feature X could have evolved; therefore it couldn't have evolved." The only novelty is that it's now being advanced by people who aren't ignorant of biology, so we get examples like flagella where it is harder to find surviving intermediate forms, instead of examples like the eyeball where you can simply look at smaller and simpler creatures to see viable intermediate stages.

In this particular case, apparantly there is a large subset of the flagellum that is homologous to a secretory system in other bacteria. Of course, this isn't a problem for creationists (oops - I mean "Intelligent Design Advocates") who can simply switch their arguments from "The flagellum is irreduceably complex!" to "The flagellum is made of two parts each of which is irreduceably complex!" without batting an eyelash, but hopefully if you're still on the fence you'll be able to see the logical flaws.

Re:This is called the "argument from incredulity" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:35 · Score: 0

So, do you not believe in a higher being at all?

Why is it by bigjnsa500 · 2003-11-14 05:08 · Score: 1

Why is it some of the greatest minds on the planet can create a virus, but they still can't cure the common cold?

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.

This is strange... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:10 · Score: 0

Not *one* soviet russia, overlord, natalie portman or profit post so far! Where have the idiots gone ?

More Articles by maomoondog · 2003-11-14 05:10 · Score: 1

Google News rocks! Here's some better articles about the same thing:

New Scientist
Nature
The Economist

Not exactly first time. by photonic · 2003-11-14 05:10 · Score: 1

This looks very similar to a story one year ago. Seems that they did it in two weeks this time, instead of in 3 years.

--
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]

Dibs! Already reported'em to Microsoft for $250K! by tstoneman · 2003-11-14 05:10 · Score: 1

I've already reported him to Microsoft.... waiting for the check any day now!

I wonder if I report every single researcher that I can collect $250K per researcher?

1. Turn in virus researcher
2. ???
3. Profit!!!

Intelligent design fails to impress... by OmniGeek · 2003-11-14 05:10 · Score: 1

The odds of a mutation creating all parts simultaneously are astronomical, and consequently, the only accepted theory that can sanely describe such a thing is intelligent design, which has been hinted at in many different real-life examples as well as probabistically explained by Pascal's Wager.

Alas, the Intelligent Design theory is based on an intuitive misunderstanding of how long a few hundred million years is, and how much mutation can occur in that time. Hundreds of million years is unimaginably long in terms of a human lifetime, and is EASILY long enough to lead to so-called "irreducably complex" systems like the modern eye through a series of successive approximations and evolutionary refinements, many of them taking place in parallel. Given an astronomically long period of time, the astronomically unlikely will happen.

--

"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."

Re:Intelligent design fails to impress... by mummers · 2003-11-14 05:20 · Score: 0

Given an astronomically long period of time, the astronomically unlikely will happen.

Someone in a Slashdot article being involved in biological reproduction, for example.

--
--This isn't a man who is leaving with his head between his legs.

Open Source... by 47F0 · 2003-11-14 05:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ok, this is the Craig Venter of Celera fame. Remember the great Human Genome race? Celera wanted "to patent those parts of the genome it thinks are important and useful, charging researchers who want access to the sequences. Celera has already filed preliminary patents for 6,500 genes."

But the knowledge to produce viruses for whatever purpose goes open source. Bizarre - this guy wants to patent the air we breath and then make fusion weapons technology open to everyone, on the theory that white hats will always prevail.

Problem is, some things are not readily defended against, and viruses have to be one of the things we are least effective in blocking. Sorry Craig, I'm not sure we need to turn a thousand tigers loose before we've REALLY learned to tame the ones that are out there already.

"The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents."

Re:Open Source... by Samrobb · 2003-11-14 07:04 · Score: 1

<cynicism>
Oh, no - it makes perfect sense.

Really!

See, it's a probability thing - if they make it common knowledge abotu how to create new viruses, what are the chances that someone will create a new virus that can only be cured using one of their 6,500 patents?
</cynicism>

--
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9

And what about a Bush brain eating virus? by TheMidget · 2003-11-14 05:11 · Score: 1

No, bad idea. It would starve.

(And if any Secret Service goon is reading this: it's a frigging joke!)

I for one... by Hard_Code · 2003-11-14 05:11 · Score: 1

...welcome our new "grey goo" overlords.

NOT

--

It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?

It's "viruses" by ifwm · 2003-11-14 05:11 · Score: 1

according to dictionary.com

"virus P Pronunciation Key (vrs)
n. pl. viruses "

and encarta online

"virus (plural viruses)"

and Wikipedia

"Despite frequent claims to the contrary, the only correct English plural of the word for any of these senses is viruses. The Latin word does not appear to have had a plural. Virii would be the plural of the word virius, and viri was the plural of the word vir, meaning man. See [1] for more on this."

So please stop. It's viruses.

Re:It's "viruses" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:24 · Score: 0

"So please stop. It's viruses."

ok, so the plural for "octupus" can be octopuses or octopii.

The people who write up our dictionaries need to get their acts together and create one damn standard for the words already.

The rules of spelling words in English are too convoluted in their current state.
Re:It's "viruses" by BagOBones · 2003-11-14 05:32 · Score: 1

Go look up router, according to the dictionary most geeks pronounce it wrong.

www.onelook.com to meta search almost all on-line dictionaries.

--
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
Re:It's "viruses" by cdrudge · 2003-11-14 06:32 · Score: 1

And the dictionary would be wrong. Look up router at Merriam-Webster. (link)

An example of one that is wrong is MSN's Encarta Dictionary. (link) Of course they also mispronounce the other from of router (the woodworking variety) as well. Go into any woodcraftsman store and ask for a "root-er" and they are going to look at you funny.
Re:It's "viruses" by plugger · 2003-11-14 06:51 · Score: 1

Depends where you are. Go into a hardware store here in the UK and ask for a 'R-ow-ter' (as in 'ow, that hurt'), the man behind the counter is going to look at you funny. So it depends for whom the dictionary was written.

The 'ou' sound is a can of worms anyway, consider:

plough, rough, thought, through.
Re:It's "viruses" by Lars+T. · 2003-11-14 06:58 · Score: 1

Argh! Octopi, not octopii.

--
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Re:It's "viruses" by BagOBones · 2003-11-14 07:18 · Score: 1

Your Link is not relevent because THAT dictionary does not contain the word in the context of the computer device. Context of a word is very important.

The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language
Dictionary.com

--
EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
Re:It's "viruses" by rwise2112 · 2003-11-14 07:26 · Score: 1

I thought it was octopodes.

What are the plurals of 'octopus', 'hippopotamus', 'syllabus'?
Why octopuses instead of 'octopi' 'octopodes' or 'dem theayr things'?

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Re:It's "viruses" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 07:29 · Score: 0

Sorrii.
Re:It's "viruses" by CAIMLAS · 2003-11-14 07:36 · Score: 1

Depends on where in the country|world you are.

I know that out here in the Midwest US, it's pronounced, "r-oot-er". I'm apt to pronounce it "r-ow-ter" because I'm silly, I guess - though I try and pronounce it 'r-oot-er' so I don't get any confused looks. If I recall correctly, "r-ow-ter" is how it's pronounced on some parts of the East Coast. I don't know where else I'd pick it up (being as that's where I grew up).

It's like the difference between "route 66" and "route 66". Different dialects pronounce it differently. "garage" and "garage", etc.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Re:It's "viruses" by geoffspear · 2003-11-14 08:15 · Score: 1

Melvil Dewey (or, as he spelled it, "Dui"), inventor of the Dewey Decimal system, tried this. Basically everyone agreed that he was a nutcase and should stick to library science.
It has about as much chance of being adopted as the metric system, of which he was also a big supporter, does in the US.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:It's "viruses" by Migrant+Programmer · 2003-11-14 08:20 · Score: 1

Homer: Hmm. I wonder why he's so eager to go to the garage?
Moe: The "garage"? Hey fellas, the "garage"! Well, ooh la di da, Mr. French Man.
Homer: Well what do _you_ call it?
Moe: A car hole!

--
Bitchslapped. Neat.
Re:It's "viruses" by at_18 · 2003-11-14 09:32 · Score: 1

The Latin word does not appear to have had a plural

And dictionary.com is wrong. The Latin plural of virus is virus. There's a class of Latin words that just don't change when used in the plural sense (as long as they are used as the verb's subject), and you have to derive it from context.
Since this is unworkable in English, you get viruses.
Re:It's "viruses" by silicon+not+in+the+v · 2003-11-14 09:55 · Score: 1

Regional pronunciation differences have been a hobby curiosity of mine. I finally found a web site from a linguistics survey done by Harvard. They got survey results from around the country and turned up some cool results of what words people use for stuff and how they say them.
Here is the link to the study.
It has great stuff like soda/pop/coke as the term for a soft drink, how do you pronounce crayon, coupon, mischevous, etc. Really cool stuff.

--
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
Re:It's "viruses" by monadicIO · 2003-11-14 10:24 · Score: 1

So please stop. It's viruses. Hey, I had spelt it right. I guess "viruses" just mutated to "virii" somewhere along the way to the /. site. Anyway, I stand corrected. Thanks.

--
The law of excluded middle : Either I'm foo or I'm foobar
Re:It's "viruses" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 11:08 · Score: 0

Dictionaries don't "create" a language, they catalogue it. That is the reason I hate fucking wordnazis (hah!) who keep the OED on hand just catch others out.
Re:It's "viruses" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 21:13 · Score: 0

Hey, I had spelt it right

While we're correcting your spelling, that should be "spelled," not "spelt." Some rather loose dictionaries may list "spelt" as acceptable, but it's pretty low-prestige.
Re:It's "viruses" by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 21:27 · Score: 0

Dictionaries don't "create" a language, they catalogue it.

Yes, and what the dictionaries are cataloguing in this case is that people in the know say "viruses", and that when someone says "virii", he sounds like an uneducated fool, and his opinions are likely to be taken less seriously. Others, when reading text containing this silly plural form, may find themselves momentarily distracted from the meaning that the text is attempting to convey as they attempt to decipher a nonsensical jumble of letters. These effects may not always be conscious, but they are nevertheless real.

So, go ahead and make up whatever spellings you like. Make up your own jibberish language, even, and the next time someone tells you that you sound like a moron, call them a "wordnazi." Just don't expect the rest of the world to take you seriously.

One of the advantages... by Kjella · 2003-11-14 05:12 · Score: 1

There is a very very small difference between a cancerous cell and a normal cell. They're identical except the cancerous one keeps on dividing. Just how much did you want that cancer-eating virus ? Given how often virii mutate ?

...of creating an artifical virus is that we can also create artificial "checksums" to prevent it from mutating. Unlike natural viruses that must evolve, there doesn't have to be any "mutation path" leading to or from an artifical virus.

Quite simply, a self-integrity check on the gene level. Of course, there's always the issue of who checks the self-integrity check, but I suspect that with sufficient computing power we can create some form of "pairing", A checks B (data + checksum code), B checks A (data + checksum code), and if either fails it won't reproduce. That way, it'll only fail if both mutate to remove the checksum code simultaniously.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:One of the advantages... by Tiroth · 2003-11-14 05:33 · Score: 1

Most life does have some form of quality-control built in. If your cells go haywire they are supposed to self-destruct. Obviously, this is not always successful, despite millions of years of evolution.

Simple organisms like bacteria and viruses have poor or no checks during reproduction, so they mutate a lot faster.
Re:One of the advantages... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:24 · Score: 0

You never saw "Jurassic Park" did you?
Re:One of the advantages... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 10:47 · Score: 0

Quality control is NOT built in. Cells are suppose to mutate -- it's how we evolve in the first place. I learned that in 7th grade.
Re:One of the advantages... by UserGoogol · 2003-11-14 14:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ehh... no.

Yes, cells mutate, and this is how they evolve. But genes don't "want" to mutate. (Well, genes don't really want anything, they're just complex molecules, but bear with me.)

Lets say you have a piece of DNA. A gene. Now, evolution says that genes which promote their existance will be more common than genes which do not. Obviously. This means that genes which promote their own existance will be more common.

Now, genes typically have many side effects. They might make a person a little taller, but at the same time it might increase the odds of cavities. It's a very chaotic system. Now, let's say you have two genes which are identical except for one difference: one prevents mutation of the gene, where the other one does not. Obviously, the one which prevents mutation will be more successful, because the other one will be changed to god-knows-what.

So evolution tends to favor genes which prevent mutation, although we still get enough for there to be new variation.

--
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor

Good use for the US goverment by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:12 · Score: 0

hopefully they can come up with some super-sickle cell viriii

Just by sheer coincidence... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:13 · Score: 0

...I was listening to Depeche Mode's "New Life" when this article popped up.

Completely Irresponsible by Ryouga3 · 2003-11-14 05:13 · Score: 1

Now that they've satisfied their scientific curiosity, they'd do well to destroy the virus, destroy the lab, and destroy any and all documents recording the techniques they used. We don't have enough control over microscopic materials to provide adequate protection or security for something like this. All it takes is for 1 virus out of millions in a culture to escape the lab, and we may find that we've architected our own destruction. Call me a luddite, but I seriously believe that there has been a lapse in ethics in the biological and medical sciences these days that hurts us all.

Uh, kittens don't fit under microscopes.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:15 · Score: 0

At least that is what I found during lab class

Re:Interesting thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:16 · Score: 0

Look up the books by Richard Dawkins, he's a leading proponet of evolution...and was a friend of Douglas Adams, if that means anything ;)

"Irreducible complexity" is certainly an interesting problem. One of the ways evolutionists have of dealt with it is to explain it as such:

The individually useless parts which make up the "complex" system were originally simple parts with immediate benefits. Later, the simple parts began working together to perform some function which provided other benefits. The benefit of this cooperation was such that the benefits of the individual systems were marginalized.

This means that genes that disrupt the original purpose of the individual parts but did not interfere with the cooperation of that part with other parts were not necessarily a disadvantage to the organism. So we should not necessarily be surprised that we cannot find the original individual functions in the modern organism.

Anyway, this is only one explanation and whether or not it fits the case of the flagellum I do not know.

I'd also like to point out that evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive.

Not even close to "from scratch" by b-baggins · 2003-11-14 05:16 · Score: 1

Don't submitters even review the articles they submit?

From the first paragraph: ...created an artificial virus based on a real one in just two weeks' time.

The time is kind of cool, but this isn't even close to from scratch. Come back and talk to me when you create a virus from some elemental atoms (carbon, hydrogen, etc.)

--
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.

Not the first, and is identical to a natural virus by Noren · 2003-11-14 05:17 · Score: 3, Informative

The first reproducing artificial virus was the Polio virus by Wimmer and colleagues.

Ventner's new virus is artificial in the sense that it was created from chemicals- but it is identical to a known natural virus.

Venter's team cobbled together the virus, called phi-X174, following its published genetic sequence.

Uh-oh by clausiam · 2003-11-14 05:17 · Score: 1

I immediately thought of this Gary Larson strip (sorry I couldn't find a link with a decent version):
http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/fs.htm

/Claus

It's probably not a very effective virus by iabervon · 2003-11-14 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

Considering that this virus was synthesized from scratch, it's probably not something very effective. It's a long way from building a virus that works at all to building a virus that targets a particular organism or overcomes natural defenses.

Just because it's man-made doesn't make it more advanced than naturally-occurring viruses. It's been possible for a long time to build viruses from collected stocks, and these are generally much more frightening. What will be scary is when we have some clue as to how to design proteins, and could construct a virus with specific properties. Until then, we're not likely to create anything that doesn't arise in nature.

(Genetically modified foods are a slightly different issue; just because it might arise in nature doesn't mean we'd eat it if it did. Also, most of the organisms involved are much more resistant to mutation and genetic mixing than viruses and bacteria)

Not first but by zymano · 2003-11-14 05:18 · Score: 1

this is the second man made virus.

This is a demonstration of technical skills.

I think this is positive unlike other messages here.

A virus that will cure cancer ? Technique used to create nano machines ?

Tumor-busting viruses by poszi · 2003-11-14 05:18 · Score: 1

There is a very very small difference between a cancerous cell and a normal cell.

Cancerous cells different from normal cells. Most of them are killed by our immunological systems and only those more "clever" can form tumors.

The cancer attacking viruses may exploit different receptors on the cancer cells.

Article in Scientific American.

--

Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!

Re:Tumor-busting viruses by Sgt+York · 2003-11-14 05:34 · Score: 1

The problem is that a cancerous liver cell may differ from a normal liver cell by expressing a surface marker that is expressed in normal intestinal epithelial cells.
Our immune system tries to recognize cells that have volunteered the information that they have gone rogue. There are checking mechanisms in our cells that make sure they don't divide when they aren't supposed to. When the snitches get mutated away, you have a cancer prone cell. You can't just look for the absence of snitches, either. For one thing, viruses don't work that way, and for another, there are some cells that are supposed to divide like crazy, and therefore have the snitches turned off.

--

There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

No synth virus needed as weaon by SysKoll · 2003-11-14 05:18 · Score: 1

I don't really think that a synthetic virus would make a difference as a biological weapon.

One often-heard argument is that bacteriological weapons are the perfect terrorist weapon. Well, I don't know. As a terrorist, I want people to push their government into making hasty, irrational decisions, but I also want free circulation. If I have to stay put and if I cannot move around, I cannot coordinate (telecoms are unsecure), I cannot meet contacts, I cannot plan actions. In clandestine action, to be holed up is to be impotent. That's why, among intelligence agents, a very obvious "tail" following your every move is a powerful means for effectively paralyzing an enemy agent.

The SRAS epidemic showed that the first thing that happens when an outbreak is noticed is a strong restriction on travel. Not good for a terrorist organization. Sure, the operation would kill a few people, but terrs would lose so much due to tightened security that it would probably not be worth the trouble.

Which explain why no terrorist has ever come up with the idea of spraying some bodily bluid of an Ebola victim in the subway. While such a deed would provide entertaining news reports, it would also make free movement impossible.

-- SysKoll

--

--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

Viruses, not virii by koreth · 2003-11-14 05:18 · Score: 4, Informative

This will probably get modded down as flamebait, but someone has to say it: the plural of "virus" is "viruses." It is not "virii" because that isn't an actual English word.

Re:Viruses, not virii by xinot · 2003-11-14 05:37 · Score: 3, Informative

No, not flamebait. Just ignorance on your part. You misunderstand how the english language grows and expands. It's not like the French or German or Italian which have their own institutions to determine the specifics of the words that are allowed. With English we expand the vocabulary as it is used. See email. Or many other words. You may not like virii, but if enough people use it, it is a word.

Deal with it.
Re:Viruses, not virii by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:44 · Score: 0

Many people confuse "their" and "they're", "its" and "it's", and other problem words. Just because a lot of people do it, does that make it "right"?

Of course not.
Re:Viruses, not virii by greygent · 2003-11-14 05:46 · Score: 1

No, not flamebait. Just ignorance on your part.

No, it is ignorance on the offender's part for not knowing proper English.

With English we expand the vocabulary as it is used.

That should be "mis-used".

See email.

The term "e-mail" and variants is different. It was a term created to describe an invention. It was not an ignorant mis-use of grammar, such as "your" for "you're", etc.

if enough people use it, it is a word.

True enough, but a word founded on ignorance and/or lack of education.

virii

Virii is not proper English. However, it is an accepted slang term in the computer underground.
Re:Viruses, not virii by freeweed · 2003-11-14 05:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Excuseth me, but I have to go visit the Olde Shoppe now.

I'm all for literacy and correct grammar/spelling, but anyone who doesn't think English is a constantly evolving language obviously has never read a book more than 20 years olde.

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Re:Viruses, not virii by koreth · 2003-11-14 05:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

And until enough people use it, it's still wrong. English changes, but it doesn't change just because a few people can't be bothered to crack open a dictionary. Otherwise "lose" and "loose" would be synonyms, because a hell of a lot more people mistake those than choose a bogus pluralization of "virus."
And since you're clearly an authority on the history of English, you're no doubt already aware that the trend over at least the last century has been toward stricter disciplines of spelling and grammar, not looser. Thanks to mass publication, we're no longer in the era of Andrew Jackson's "It's a damn poor mind that can think of only one way to spell a word!"
The rules change over time, it's true, but that doesn't mean there aren't any rules.
Deal with it.
Re:Viruses, not virii by greygent · 2003-11-14 06:14 · Score: 1

Maybe you should read a comment before you reply to it. Here, let me reproduce the portion relevant to yours:

if enough people use it, it is a word.

True enough, but a word founded on ignorance and/or lack of education.
Re:Viruses, not virii by jemfinch · 2003-11-14 06:16 · Score: 1

You may not like virii, but if enough people use it, it is a word.

No, if enough people use it, it just lowers the average intelligence of English speakers.

I don't give one rat's ass about your linguistic mumbo-jumbo. Some people are just retarded, and the ones who continually use the word "virii" because they think they're cool happen to be among them.

Jeremy

--
Looking for a Python IRC bot?
Re:Viruses, not virii by Craig3010 · 2003-11-14 06:19 · Score: 1

I would say kiss our assii
Re:Viruses, not virii by Dirtside · 2003-11-14 06:37 · Score: 1

You must think that Shakespeare was a severe retard, then. After all, he spelled plenty of words differently. Shit, he flat-out invented several hundred words.

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Re:Viruses, not virii by Random832 · 2003-11-14 06:44 · Score: 1

Just because a lot of people do it, does that make it "right"?

yes.

--
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
Re:Viruses, not virii by Mr+Smidge · 2003-11-14 06:48 · Score: 1

You may not like virii, but if enough people use it, it is a word.

This is in fact a very bad and ignorant attitude to take. Popularity breeds new words, and we often invent new words (email, etc.) when we need an entirely new term.

However, it isn't right (no, really, it isn't) to change words for marginal gain of convenience (I wonder whether the intellectuals of the past weren't too happy with the "olde" to "old" change either), and especially when it is delibarate misuse of regular grammar and an introduction of yet another irregular word into a language that already has plenty.

Likewise, "Quote" is NOT A NOUN, "a lot" is two words, and anybody who says "you" instead of "your" (it does happen) really is bending the rules. If a new word that only came about through laziness and propagated through popularity, without necessarily being correct (olde -> old, for example), then I think that only represents how a lack of grammatical knowledge in the average person can drown out the minority (and correct) version of the word.

Is there any reason why you would say virii over viruses? I personally think not.
Re:Viruses, not virii by Dirtside · 2003-11-14 06:48 · Score: 1

If usage defines the language, then a quick Googlefight shows how well "virii" fares:

viruses
(5 800 000 results)

versus

virii
( 123 000 results)

The reason that "virii" is so scorned by those of us interested in grammatical correctness is because its usage is almost invariably due to ignorance of how the common rules of English are applied. When a hacker says "boxen" instead of "boxes" it's usually a playful overapplication of the "ox" -> "oxen" rule -- the hacker knows that what he's doing is "wrong," but does it anyway for the entertainment value (even if he's the only one who's entertained). As a matter of practice, people use the word "virii" because they think that it's the actual common plural of "virus".

I don't think I'd personally object to the use of "virii" to mean "computer viruses", but then we end up in a situation where we have a specific jargon word for "computer viruses" but no specific jargon word for the singular form, "computer virus". The asymmetry bothers me, and since the context usually is adequate to determine which kind of virus we're talking about, there's not really need for the word.

And writing off "virii" as "just another evolution of English, deal with it" is also a bad idea because it encourages people to misapply grammatical rules, which is not going to improve the level of our communications. Some things are worth fighting for, such as clarity of language. English could use a lot more of it, but muddying the waters by misapplying rules from other languages isn't going to help.

Of course, there's always the fact that I can use someone's usage of "virii" as an indicator that they're probably not worth listening to :)

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Re:Viruses, not virii by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:50 · Score: 0

It's not like the French or German or Italian which have their own institutions to determine the specifics of the words that are allowed.

No...it's ignorance on your part. The Oxford English Dictionary is the institution in charge of following the evolution of the english language. It has for the past millenium. See???
Re:Viruses, not virii by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 07:12 · Score: 0

Let's see. By that answer, the following are "right":

- World War I
- World War II
- Voting Bush into Office
- Smoking
- Mob Rule
- Double Parking
- Driving under the Influence
- Murder
- Theft
- Monopolies.

And the list could go on and on...
Re:Viruses, not virii by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 07:15 · Score: 0

This is correct you lameiod script kiddie! Only a moron would glom on to the term virii. It is a uneducated attempt to Latinize and it fails miserably. While it is true that the language evolves, THOSE OF US INTELLIGENT ENOUGH, resist easy bastardizations to the language. Brainless people, the same morons who think changing viruses to virii is a legitimate method of coining a term, will always be brainless. They end up, in fact, reading Slashdot. And they do not know what the /. represents. Ergo , Script Kiddies. Ipso Facto.
Re:Viruses, not virii by freeweed · 2003-11-14 07:16 · Score: 1

Then that would be the bulk of the english language, because almost none of what we use currently was "correct" english if you back more than a few centuries.

It's not like some scholars sat around one day and thought "hey, we should make a language. Let's set up the rules for it" (well, unless you're Tolkein :)

ALL languages are founded on ignorance and/or lack of education, except when the "educated" create brand new ones - and even these generally fall into common use and change over time.

--
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Re:Viruses, not virii by Necromancyr · 2003-11-14 07:22 · Score: 1

Considering the entire community of viral researchers utilizes VIRUSES and not virii it's not going to change anytime soon. Try to submit something to be published in the field of virology using virii. The only thing worse then the comments you would get from editors/reviewers would be the loss in reputation you garnered if it did get published.
Re:Viruses, not virii by Valdrax · 2003-11-14 07:23 · Score: 1

You may not like virii, but if enough people use it, it is a word.

Fo' shizzle! Ain't dat tru!

--
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Re:Viruses, not virii by elohim · 2003-11-14 08:02 · Score: 1

But using virii is just plain wrong. If enough people use virii, it's not just a word, it's just ignorance.
Re:Viruses, not virii by Cyno · 2003-11-14 08:05 · Score: 1

A word founded on ignorance?

Must be in the US..

Is Ebonics a dialect of English? I'd like to think so.

Pop Quiz: What causes the lack of intelligence in the US, genetics or money?

Remember your environment and most of the experiences throughout your life are directly dependant on money.
Re:Viruses, not virii by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:51 · Score: 0

True enough, but a word founded on ignorance and/or lack of education.

why should we all speak the same english? you understand that virii/viruses means the same thing. just like i learned that, in western pennsylvania, "red up" means "ready up" or "clean up." i don't see anything wrong with un-grammatical or whatever the fuck you want to call it (un-educated) english as long as the message is conveyed.
Re:Viruses, not virii by Idarubicin · 2003-11-14 09:18 · Score: 1

Strictly speaking, the OED is not an official institution for managing the English language. When they say that they are the "accepted authority" that's not entrenched anywhere in law; it is a de facto state of affairs. They are an authority on the English language in the same way that the Encyclopedia Britannica is considered an authority on...everything else. Thorough, detailed, voluminous--but not the only source on the issue.
Compare and contrast with French, to which words may be officially admitted only by l'Academie Francaise. (This has been official policy for centuries.) Even with French, the language tends to be quite flexible. In Montreal, French is a very different language than in Paris. Officially, the word 'email' is verboten in French; the accepted term is courriel electronique...and yet, somehow, one still finds 'email' in France.
Still, I have to agree-the notion that the word 'virii' or 'viri' is a proper plural is absurd, and founded in laziness.

--
~Idarubicin
Re:Viruses, not virii by ammie · 2003-11-14 09:24 · Score: 1

English isn't a language. It's a conglomeration of buzwords and derivatives. Anyone who's familiar with the south knows exactly what the word 'yun-to? is asking. But I dare you to find THAT in a dictionary.

Old languages reflect their old countries, and the ignorance isn't theirs, it's ours. We're still reducing love to a four letter word. How many times have you caught yourself saying "I can't say this the right way..." or "I dont know how to put it..."

In case you dont actually KNOW any german, french, or italian, we still can't figure out how to interpret the german line "to pull ones nose long" or the french phrase "l'evangile du Mal", but both have a meaning beyond just the translation. I call my loved ones "Anna Moya". It means "my water", seems a funny way of expressing endearment. My water? But, consider the source. It's arabic...water is a precious, rare, and life-sustaining thing. There is no higher praise.

Put yourself in his shoes for a moment, and take a look from the outside in.
And try not to be quite so assenine about it in the future...We have an uncultured and bullish appearance enough as it is.

--
{...reality is wrong, Dreams are for real...}
Re:Viruses, not virii by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:31 · Score: 0

Well, I dunno about you, but if I ever open the Oxford Classical Dictionary, and see "l33t" staring up at me, I'm outta here.
Re:Viruses, not virii by Yunzil · 2003-11-14 09:33 · Score: 1

You may not like virii, but if enough people use it, it is a word.

It might be a word, in the sense that it's a bunch of letters strung together, but it's still incorrect and makes you look bad.

Deal with it.
Re:Viruses, not virii by stmfreak · 2003-11-14 09:40 · Score: 1

Actually, all languages grow and expand through usage. It's only when an agency is successful at controlling it and prohibiting new words and creative adaptations that a languages begins to die. People will say "virii" or "alot" or "email" if that helps them communicate. If you forbid it in one language, they'll say it in another.

--
These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
Re:Viruses, not virii by panaceaa · 2003-11-14 09:57 · Score: 1

you're clearly an authority on the history of English, ... looser.

Geez, show some respect. Just because he disagrees with you doesn't make him a loser.

--
my blog
Re:Viruses, not virii by panaceaa · 2003-11-14 10:02 · Score: 1

Quote sure seems like a noun to me...

quote n. 1. A quotation (Informal). 2. A quotation mark. 3. Used by a speaker to indicate the beginning of a quotation. 4. A dictum; a saying.

--
my blog
Re:Viruses, not virii by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 10:15 · Score: 0

You're very funny.
Re:Viruses, not virii by Jack9 · 2003-11-14 10:17 · Score: 1

So if are you all for correct grammar spelling, why didn't you make the correction?

Using 'Virii' in place of 'Viruses' is incorrect spelling. I am not the spelling bee's drone, but I am interested in what you think.

I do not concede it's futile to stop a language from changing (not improving). See most ANY programming language. There is no moral reason I can divine that I should ignore the baseline syntax of a language when given the opportunity because it will be seen as acceptable within the community I am affiliating with. Perhaps is fulfills your psychological need to be different or recognized as such? Are you seeking approval and the ancilliary authority that might convey, being "in the know"?

Let me know when you recognize your hypocrisy, have a well thought out reason for your behavior, or have revised your stance.

Fucking around for your own personal entertainment is a good enough reason for most anything, of course.

--

Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Re:Viruses, not virii by gotih · 2003-11-14 10:24 · Score: 1

taken from a post above: Pop Quiz: What causes the lack of intelligence in the US, genetics or money?

Remember your environment and most of the experiences throughout your life are directly dependant on money.

your language is owned by the universities who have people on staff to determine what the correct way to convey a message will be.

my language (i call it english) is generated by the masses of people. it changes locally every generation and free to those exposed to the culture that produced it. it doesn't have money or institutions to produce documentation (dictionaries) but that doesn't make it any less legitimate to me.

--

fear is the mind killer
Re:Viruses, not virii by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 12:00 · Score: 0

>> Quote sure seems like a noun to me...

I think it started out as a mistake, being used instead of the proper "quotation." But don't quotate me on that.
Re:Viruses, not virii by MasonMcD · 2003-11-14 12:34 · Score: 1

Irregardless, I think he has a point.
Re:Viruses, not virii by Mr+Smidge · 2003-11-14 13:19 · Score: 1

In that case, it looks like another word that has been propagated through popular use. In this case I can see why though, as 'quotation' is significantly more to say/spell compared to the one-syllable 'quote'.

'Quote' was certainly not originally a noun.
Re:Viruses, not virii by greygent · 2003-11-15 08:11 · Score: 1

zo we shud excep'd speling like dis? becuz al langwudge iz bast on ignurince?

eye dunt theenk zo
Re:Viruses, not virii by Jack9 · 2003-11-21 20:21 · Score: 1

jack9.....your absolutely amazing

from your secret admirer....OnS|aught

--

Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.

Interesting, but.. by brulman · 2003-11-14 05:18 · Score: 1

virii can be built out of RNA as well. Though in the instance of the article they did use DNA. But both types exist, don't know if anyone has synthesised an RNA virus yet though.

--
"the best safety of the frontier...will be secured by total annihilation of the few remaining indians" L Frank Baum 1890

Re:Interesting, but.. by J0eKewl · 2003-11-14 05:41 · Score: 1

It is much easier to synthesize DNA than RNA. This is because a DNA molecule is much more stable than an RNA molecule. It is for this same reason that cells store long term information in DNA while RNA is normally used only for temperal storage.
Strands of RNA often only have a half life of a couple of minutes, depending upon the length, sequence, higher order structure, enviornmental factors and associated protiens. I think that this is part of the reason why HIV does not survive too long outside of the body, as it is a retorvirus with RNA.

I guess we'll see.... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:18 · Score: 1, Funny

how we feel about this 28 Days from now.

good (scary) sci-fi book on the topic by dcavens · 2003-11-14 05:19 · Score: 1

I just finished reading a very good dystopian novel on this subject - Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood (runner up for Booker and Giller, if I'm not mistaken.) It describes a world where genetic manipulation has moved a bit beyond current technology, and its somewhat nasty consequences. I suspect it could be another '1984' type classic.

I was still in a state of horror from the book, thinking that what it described couldn't really happen, until I read the news this morning.

Shudder.

just a kitten? by muyuubyou · 2003-11-14 05:19 · Score: 1

The thing has to be Open Source.

I mean, a virus is friendlier than a kitten if the virus is Open Source and the kitten is closed source and therefore evil and willing to take over the world.
You should know that already as a slashdotter. You are new around here aren't you?

Imagine a beowulf cluster of closed source kittens. The horror!

Whatever it is, it should be named Agent Smith... by Aikido+Al · 2003-11-14 05:23 · Score: 1

That's my vote anyway.

Bioactive in only two weeks! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:24 · Score: 0

Many Slashdot readers strive for years to find that special someone and become 'bioactive'...

The Geek shall inherit the earth by taff^2 · 2003-11-14 05:26 · Score: 0

"I'm not sure living in a world in which only the nerds survive would be worth it...".

Get used to it, it's gonna happen. It's true, The geek SHALL inherit the earth! My RE teacher taught me as much at school.

--
Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)

Re:The Geek shall inherit the earth by heironymouscoward · 2003-11-14 05:34 · Score: 1

No, no, no, what he meant was the greeks shall inherit the earth. But it applies to all mediterrainian peoples in general.

--
Ceci n'est pas une signature

Not Chilling by zero+time+ghost · 2003-11-14 05:27 · Score: 1

Just how much did you want that cancer-eating virus ? Given how often virii mutate ?

I'm no more scared of how an artificial virus can mutate than I am of how a natural virus mutates. It's extremely unlikely that any mutation will make a virus more deadly. Most mutations just break the little machine.

Also, I doubt an artifical virus has a higher chance of becoming an Evil Plague Virus than any of the kazillion non-pathological virii that are floating around us every day. We're swimming in the little critters all the time, and our immune systems can handle almost every of those rare, evil mutations. Bring on the cancer eaters, I say.

Compare Viral Genome Data at NIH by Mr.Sharpy · 2003-11-14 05:28 · Score: 1

You can compare compiled genome data on various viruses at the NIH Viral Genomes Resource

You can look at the genome lengths in basepairs and compare them.

If I turn in Craig Venter... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:29 · Score: 0

...will Microsoft pay me that bounty?

Name? by El_Smack · 2003-11-14 05:29 · Score: 1

If they name it "Smith", it will go a long to clearing up my confusion after watching Revolutions.

--

There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.

Well, I guess it's time to... by (eternal_software) · 2003-11-14 05:30 · Score: 1

Repent!

Re:doesn't anyone remember? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:31 · Score: 0

The plural of "virus" is "viruses".

looks like a penquin by HomerJayS · 2003-11-14 05:32 · Score: 1

Would the Open Source equivilent to a kitten be a penquin?

"Discussion"? by AdamHaun · 2003-11-14 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think anybody should be making any new life forms or modifying any existing life forms, at least until we've had a serious societal discussion regarding its possible role and impact on terrorism and biowarfare.

But the problem is that we're not *going* to have a serious societal discussion because that phrase means nothing. Who's talking with whom? Who makes decisions? Who gets input?

When I hear "societal discussion", I get an image in my head of the entire country sitting at a great big table having a little chat about what to do. But in real life, that sort of thing doesn't happen. You have kooks who think that anything that looks like "playing God" is evil, you have people who think that every new invention must immediately be used to aid/fight terrorism, you have people who don't even understand the basic science behind what's going on(like Slashdot...oops, did I say that out loud?). And in the end, after all of these people have "had their say"(who are they talking to?), who decides what will be done? You want the government to say "Sorry, no more research on microorganisms"? Because that's about all it could do. What right does "society" have to control science? Most people will tell you that they don't even understand what "science" is! Who is qualified to do cost/benefit analysis of this sort of thing? Does anybody even *care* about cost/benefit analysis?

I understand(and sympathize with) your concerns, but no amount of talking is going to do anything about this situation. We can't halt our understanding of the world where it is just because a few people might cause problems with it. Hell, if we had taken that attitude to begin with, we'd be lucky to have fire by now!

--
Visit the

Re:"Discussion"? by jimsum · 2003-11-14 06:56 · Score: 1

An additional factor is that politicians never talk about hypothetical situations. That is their favorite excuse for not giving an opinion and thereby letting all voters think the politician agrees with them.

Unfortunately, politicians are not rewarded for worrying about the future or telling the truth. "Societal discussions" will always be put off until the last minute, if not forever.

It is a sad truth of our society that the average person doesn't want to inform themself about an issue; they'd rather believe the politician that gives a comforting answer and then blame the politician if things don't work out as promised.

--
-- Pot is safer than Beer
Re:"Discussion"? by Dirtside · 2003-11-14 07:02 · Score: 1

When I hear "societal discussion", I get an image in my head of the entire country sitting at a great big table having a little chat about what to do. But in real life, that sort of thing doesn't happen.
It does happen, you're just apparently incapable of visualizing how it really happens. :) What he's referring to is the society-wide process of discussion, information dissemination, more discussion, controlled experimentation, etc. In other words, the general social development of an ethical system regarding the topic. Instead of coming up with a new technology, throwing it out into society and saying "let the chips fall where they may," instead we're saying something like, "Hey, this new technology could be incredibly dangerous if mishandled -- maybe we should take it slowly and try to avoid the worst of the problems that could come out of it."
You want the government to say "Sorry, no more research on microorganisms"? Because that's about all it could do.
That's approximately what they should do -- more along the lines of what I said above: "Genetic engineering can be very, very dangerous with long-term, widespread repercussions. We should take this slowly and think about it a lot before we do anything drastic. Yes, that may slow down progress, but let's keep in mind how many really, really bad things might happen if we move forward too quickly." The trick is in figuring out how much discussion you really need before you're just treading water and blocking progress to no good end.
Nothing personal in this, but you're really acting like someone who's never considered that maybe other people have thought about all this before. :)
The big problem, of course, is that there are so many short-sighted people out there, that it's nearly impossible to convince everyone that we should take it a little slower. My wife's fond of pointing out that virtually every bad decision or ill-informed belief that people have stems from not thinking far enough ahead. It behooves us, as a society, to encourage long-term thinking as much as possible.

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
Re:"Discussion"? by CoolToddHunter · 2003-11-14 07:16 · Score: 1

I think that "societal discussion" is real, but as you indicate, not everyone sitting at a big table talking rationally. Think more along the lines of Slashdot, letters to the editor, that sort of thing. People air their opinions, hear others, and most people come to a rough consensus. There will always be the trolls on the right and left, those who will always be vocal and not representative.

I think that most people accept the amount of gun control we have. Not all weapons are allowed, but most are. There is a limited amount of public debate on this issue, which is largely confined to those who would ban all weapons or those who want fewer restrictions.

Public debate or "societal discussion" is necessary for a society to come to a consensus. No two people will have exactly the same opinion, but most will be close (or tolerated). This comes from reasonable people willing to bend and be influenced by reasonable argument. After a period of time, the discussion will reach a societally acceptable conclusion.
Re:"Discussion"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 07:55 · Score: 0

You want the government to say "Sorry, no more research on microorganisms"?

That's what G.W. did with stem cell research in the U.S., even though stem cells can be harvested from umbilical cords, thereby avoiding moral concerns from the Christian fanatics in this country. Don't expect rational decision making when the government is led by a right wing bible thumper.
Re:"Discussion"? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:05 · Score: 0

What right does "society" have to control science? Most people will tell you that they don't even understand what "science" is!
Excellent points! Easily 90%+ of western society and damn near 100% of non-industrialized society has no hope of even understanding the basic issues, let alone participating in the discussion. I used to work in sickle cell research, and made a transgene for implantation into a mouse to create an animal model for the disease. When my grandmother heard that I was cloning the gene for human hemoglobin, she immediately thought of two-headed babies. Funny, but before you laugh to hard, look at the discussion from a bunch of techies here. It ranges from mildly confused to wildly ignorant. There are very few even in this hightly educated forum who are remotely equipped to have this discussion in a meaningful way. Should society have a discussion before "science" progresses? No way!! Scientists think the implications of their work a lot more than most other sectors of society and the water gets real deep, real fast.
Re:"Discussion"? by AdamHaun · 2003-11-14 10:02 · Score: 1

Good points, but I was getting at something a little different.

It does happen, you're just apparently incapable of visualizing how it really happens. :) What he's referring to is the society-wide process of discussion, information dissemination, more discussion, controlled experimentation, etc. In other words, the general social development of an ethical system regarding the topic. Instead of coming up with a new technology, throwing it out into society and saying "let the chips fall where they may," instead we're saying something like, "Hey, this new technology could be incredibly dangerous if mishandled -- maybe we should take it slowly and try to avoid the worst of the problems that could come out of it."

But who is "we"? As I pointed out before, the overwhelming majority of "society" is not even informed about the realities of issues like these, much less qualified to make a decision. Furthermore, even among those who are experts in the field you have no guarantee of a consensus. I agree that biological research can have nasty consequences, but I don't think that any sort of non-obvious ethical guidelines are going to come out of waiting. Take, for instance, everyone's favorite example -- the atomic bomb. Aside from the obvious "hey, this can kill people" point, what new ethical principles would have come out of delaying atomic research?

Ethics basically boils down to one principle: hurt other people as little as possible. I'm at a loss to think how something like creating an artificial virus complicates that issue.

Good: Using virus research to help people
Bad: Using virus research to hurt people

So what is helping and what is hurting? Some issues, like abortion, you're never going to get agreement on.

Don't forget that people also have an irrational fear of certain things that tends to cloud their judgement(see nuclear vs. coal power, for example).

The trick is in figuring out how much discussion you really need before you're just treading water and blocking progress to no good end.

This is what kills your idea dead in the water. There are *always* going to be large risks associated with powerful technology. Technology gives people power, and power is a double-edged sword. No amount of ethical discussion will remove the fundamental danger that knowledge presents.

If you want to reduce risk, it is often better to worry about social problems rather than technological problems. Which will create less risk of terrorism? Taking away the terrorist's weapons, or removing their desire to become terrorists?

People can worry all day about the danger's of technology, but some things are too useful to give up on.

Nothing personal in this, but you're really acting like someone who's never considered that maybe other people have thought about all this before. :)

Of course people have thought about it before. But I've never seen any substance come out of it. When has waiting prevented some sort of ethical catastrophe? Who can even agree on what an ethical catastrophe is? We're waiting on human cloning, but I haven't heard anything about any actual dangers associated with it. Stem cell reasearch was possibly one of the most useful things to come out of biology in recent history, and it's been flushed down the toiler for silly political reasons.

It seems to me that the people who want to decide whether or not something is ethically questionable have the least sense of all.

Until we have one unified set of ethics for everyone in the world that covers every possible act, there will be no societal discussion of anything.

--
Visit the
Re:"Discussion"? by RobertB-DC · 2003-11-14 11:38 · Score: 1

Don't forget that people also have an irrational fear of certain things that tends to cloud their judgement (see nuclear vs. coal power, for example).

Even more apropos to the original discussion -- artificially created viruses and their possible evolution -- is the debate over Evolution vs. Creationism. Here in Texas, we have a state board that approves or disapproves textbooks for the entire state. No textbook publisher is willing to give up the Texas market, so what they do to appease the conservatives here is what goes out to the entire country.

I'm a dedicated Christian, and I see no conflict between my faith-based belief in a higher power and my scientific "belief" in evolution. "Creationists", to me, simply have too little faith -- they limit God's ability to what could be explained to illiterate shepherds 4000 years ago! "Moses, go tell the people that they decended from apes." Yeah, like that's going to keep them from going back to Egypt.

This topic came up on NPR's Diane Rehm show last week. One of her panelists pointed out that when teachers avoid teaching evolution (out of fear of parent complaints), students don't learn some of the basics of biology. As a result, they are not grounded in enough of the basics to offer an opinion based on anything but fear and conjecture.

--
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Re:"Discussion"? by Dirtside · 2003-11-14 12:04 · Score: 1

But who is "we"? As I pointed out before, the overwhelming majority of "society" is not even informed about the realities of issues like these, much less qualified to make a decision.

The type of discussion I refer to is among those A) who are well-informed about the subject, and B) with the authority to make decisions about the future of the subject. Ideally, we should be encouraging everyone to be in group A for as many topics as is feasible.

Furthermore, even among those who are experts in the field you have no guarantee of a consensus.

That's exactly *why* you encourage debate on the subject -- to try and reach a consensus :) If we already have a complete consensus, nobody's going to think we need debate.

I agree that biological research can have nasty consequences, but I don't think that any sort of non-obvious ethical guidelines are going to come out of waiting.

I don't know if you've ever taken an ethics course, or read any books specifically about professional ethics, but there are a lot of elements to ethical systems that are emphatically nonobvious.

Take, for instance, everyone's favorite example -- the atomic bomb. Aside from the obvious "hey, this can kill people" point, what new ethical principles would have come out of delaying atomic research?

Well, you're unfairly simplifying the issue by assuming that atomic bombs are the only thing that came out of atomic research. :) Nuclear medicine and nuclear power are two entire other fields that stem from it, and both fields are fraught with issues of how nuclear energy can affect people, both positively and negatively. E.g., what do we do with the waste that results from nuclear power plants? That's an issue that's still not decided, 49 years after the first nuclear power plant went online -- and the waste continues to mount while we figure out a solution. In this particular case, it turns out that we probably will come to a solution well before the waste starts being a severe problem -- but in retrospect, did we really spend enough time looking at that fact before we decided to start building nuclear power plants? It's not just ethical specifics that need working out -- it's practical decisions, as well.

Ethics basically boils down to one principle: hurt other people as little as possible. I'm at a loss to think how something like creating an artificial virus complicates that issue.

It's obvious that the goal (well, if you want to oversimplify) is to avoid hurting people -- but the questions I'm talking about are things like, "Given this new technology, and all the wondrous things it can do, in what ways can it be used safely, without hurting people? In what ways should we allow ourselves to use it, so as to avoid hurting people?" THAT'S what we're trying to figure out. How the technology will interact with the real world is not always obvious, despite your insistence that it is.

If you want to reduce risk, it is often better to worry about social problems rather than technological problems. Which will create less risk of terrorism? Taking away the terrorist's weapons, or removing their desire to become terrorists?

That's exactly what I'm talking about! The discussion at hand is one of societal responsibility, not technological or engineering challenges. If I, as a private individual, can genetically engineer a new kind of plant and start selling it without any outside testing to make sure it doesn't have hidden, long-term harmful effects, should I start doing so? What responsibility do I have to society to undertake that testing of my own accord, without being forced to by the government? Given that most corporate entities are inherently amoral, how much should the government interfere in their operations? These are the ki

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased

Leave it to mankind... by UncleBiggims · 2003-11-14 05:33 · Score: 1

Leave it to us to create life and then anxiously wait to watch it "reproduce". I bet Larry Flynt already has pictures.

What did they call it? by crashnbur · 2003-11-14 05:34 · Score: 1

I hope they didn't name it "Smith".

(I'm ignoring the article to make a silly Matrix joke. Go about your business as usual.)

"Two weeks to build, rather than several years..." by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:36 · Score: 0

They probably programmed it in Forth!

This is vital research... by BlabberMouth · 2003-11-14 05:36 · Score: 1

it is very possible that the potential cure for cancer will involve the use of viruses. Current research is allowing scientists to find out what proteins in our DNA are different in cancer cells and lead to a cancer cell's uncontrolled reproduction. Such proteins could be targeted by drugs, but also by viruses, which are able to change the DNA of cells they attack. It is unlikely that we will find naturally occurring viruses to attack all of the different types of cancer cells and artificial viruses will be vital to find the cure. Obviously, caution is warranted, but caution is warranted in all scientific research.

Virus != life by vlad_petric · 2003-11-14 05:38 · Score: 1

A virus is pretty much just genetic material (DNA). I'll be really impressed when they manage to create a cell (bacterium) from scratch.

--

The Raven

This is not a new virus by Mablung · 2003-11-14 05:41 · Score: 1

Venter did not create a new virus. He created a copy of a well known virus (the first genome to be sequenced, I think). It's just that he did it from scratch, i.e., outside of a cell, using man-made (well, machine-made) pieces of DNA.

Re:Viruses and weapons and tools by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:44 · Score: 0

Viruses can be used as a weapon, but they can also help. Viral agents are used to insert usefull genes into cells. The genes that are inserted can then function so we can give someone an injection and have them produce insulin or cloting factors. Really we can use it to replace any gene that creates a faulty product. We can also use created viruses as vaccines. How about a virus with HIV like protiens on the outer shell that can't spread in mammals? We can use the viruses to inject spider silk producing genes and have spider silk ropes.

We need to weigh the good versus the bad, not ban the entire field. Have an ethics council over seeing the individual applications and the theoretical research.

Virus = Latin word for poison by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:46 · Score: 0

Nope.

Etymology: Latin, venom, poisonous emanation; akin to Greek ios poison, Sanskrit visa; in senses 2 & 4, from New Latin, from Latin
Date: 1599

RTFA by TrekkieGod · 2003-11-14 05:47 · Score: 1

From the article:

To date, the largest genome that was synthesized was the 7,500-base-pair polio virus. But that was only semi-functional and took three years to complete

So, the one you refer to more than a year ago, was NOT a fully functional virus.

--

Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

viral catastrophe by bob_jenkins · 2003-11-14 05:48 · Score: 1

I'm curious. When a really bad virus gets out of hand, does it kill 100% of the target population? Or only 99.99%? What are examples of species with large populations that have been 100% wiped out by disease?

Also, if there are usually some survivors, why? Is it because they weren't exposed to it, or because there's usually someone who is immune to it?

Re:viral catastrophe by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:01 · Score: 0

Wiping out the hosts is probably not the smartest thing for a virus to do. It's anthropomorphising by attributing some sort of intelligence to a sliver of dna in a protein coat, I know, but a virus requires a host to propagate. If you completely eliminate all the hosts you eliminate the virus.

There's usually a handful of individuals that are immune. They'll survive and spread their genes. Monocultures are at risk of being completely obliterated. Groups in geographically/genetically isolated areas are very vulnerable to introduction of new virii. Look at the populations of the New World when Spanish conquistadors arrived -- thousands upon thousands died from disease. Then there are things like plants that haven't developed anti-fungal properties that succumb to microbes from South American jungles....
Re:viral catastrophe by bob_jenkins · 2003-11-14 07:09 · Score: 1

As species go, humans don't have much genetic variability. The biggest differences seem to be in Ethiopia and Australia.

A google for "virus bird extinction" suggests that many endangered bird species may go extinct due to West Nile killing off enough for them not to have a viable breeding population left. Hawaii, which was isolated from diseases until very recently, is very hard hit because all the world's bird diseases are striking it at once.

Googling for "virus mammal extinction" I got:

But it was not until 1951 that the Australian government scored its first major victory with the introduction of a virus called myxomatosis, which cut back the rabbit population by as much as 95 percent in some regions and 25 percent in others.

So, all the examples I could see, some percentage of the population has survived, although it isn't clear why.

Re:IRAQ soon cleaned from USA faggot troops by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:48 · Score: 0

Go away frenchie. We know Saddam owes you billions and you would have been more than glad to see countless Iraqis tortured daily if that's what it would have taken to maintain your profitable business.

Too bad. We're going to liberate the people of Iraq. You made a deal with a dictator and now you're paying for it. Too bad you didn't learn from WWII that you don't deal with tyrants. You squash them.

This makes me uncomortable by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:51 · Score: 0

Playing with genes, dolly,creating viruses, i can see what can go wrong in less that a 100 years..

Re:IRAQ soon cleaned from USA faggot troops by gantrep · 2003-11-14 05:52 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"liberate"

Was I the only one who thought... by kabocox · 2003-11-14 05:55 · Score: 1

Was I the only one who read the head line and thought that some researchers made a new type of self adapting computer virsus?

Could help stop biowarfare as well by mercuryresearch · 2003-11-14 05:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

One of the arguments for not destroying the current stock of smallpox is that it might be needed at some future time for research.

With a proven and consistent ability to recreate a virus from its known DNA sequence, the actual viruses themselves could be safely destroyed without impacting the ability to resurrect them in the future. As well, it's probably considerably harder to recreate a virus this way than to steal existing stock.

So while this opens the door to manufacturing viruses for biowarfare, it also makes it possible to destroy current stocks that might be stolen and used for such purposes.

Re:you mean naturally occurring? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 05:56 · Score: 0

What if time didn't really flow forward at all? What if it jumped around unsequentially with no pattern. Just events occuring for us to put a time stamp onto, to make us feel like something in this world is happening, when nothing is happening at all. What if we just moved around without the hindrance of what we call "time". All time seems to be is a rationalization of immense movement of the universe and its assets, based on a loose interpretation of a pattern being formed that it follows. This pattern called time. What if there was no pattern? Just things happening. Religion would say it's God that makes things happen, and makes it so. We cannot understand it because our minds are bound to a pattern that all things we experience must be sifted through, called rationalization. But what if we simply threw away this pattern. Just simply look at the events occurring around you, knowing that God had a reason or maybe that things just happen for no reason at all. You cannot ever put a halter on water. Time is a weak attempt at this. The truth is, that the real time, is un-harnessable and incomprehensible. We must only swim through the water, and not try to put a halter on it, to control it. Time is infinite, and unbounded. The true time, that is. Not the time in our minds. When we think time is always the same speed, that is true. One second is always 1.0 seconds long, and so on, but if we are simply interpretting events like I said, who says the events we assume to be happening at an exact predictable constant interval, are not slowing or accelerating in relation to the next system of time? Maybethat is called a dimension. But dimensions in that case would only be division of the universe and all average out to be a single value. Maybe this calue is the interval at which time flows at in our, and every dimension, based on our interpretation of events happening within out dimension. Therefore I think it would caused the destruction of all dimensions if one dimension collided with another, by attempting to rationalize each other's frame of reference. Maybe this is what Einstein meant when he said the universe would be destroyed if we were to break the lightspeed barrier. The light barrier, I reason then, must be the edge of our dimension, and if we attempted to break out of this dimension, the second dimension would either be destroyed trying to find an equilibrium between each other for event frame of references, which could occur, then this change in the two dimensions would set off a change in the next dimension, because the dimensions would stabilize each other and be interconnected to other dimensions. But if this would be so, then dimension would be infinite because TIME is based on events happening at a set interval and since events do not occur at the same interval, infinite dimensions would be created to rationalize this imperfection of vent intervals and therefore extending the universe made up of dimensions to infinity. Bu if there were infinite dimensions and an infinately expanding universe ... no the universe would not be expanding at all the universe is set and will always be the same in property. So this would mean the dimensions are infinately dividing dimensions in the whole universe, because the universe started with onle one dimension that was split infinately time, make them all infinately smaller yet equal, and when these two dimensions would not split, but meld, then they would be the only dimension that is different causing an imbalance, and then the dimension that is different causing an imbalance, and the other dimensions to collide and cause negative infinity on the dimensions shrinking and shrinking the total amount of dimensions down until there is only one dimension in the universe and this would be the standard. The utter perfections of rationality and predictability. It would therefore be perfect within itself. But we know that our dimension is exactly the same as this. So what says that these two entities are exactly the same? Simply another infinite division of an infi

Rainbow Six future scenario? by StandardCell · 2003-11-14 05:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

For those of you who have read Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six, you will know that Tom goes into detail not only about what certain individuals will do to bioengineer fatal viruses. Obviously this particular virus isn't much, but what about the radical elements in humanity? There are individuals willing to kill everything on earth in order to advance their political or religious ideology. If someone can engineer viruses this easily, what will happen when someone disgruntled and who doesn't care about himself, much less others, decide to design and manufacture a virus like this?

Thinking about it in slightly different terms, all societies attempt to limit the proliferation of highly destructive weapons among their populace because the arbitrary nature of people would guarantee their arbitrary misuse. Imagine a world where people could obtain nuclear weapons as easily as a box of ammunition. We'd already all be dead.

This is what makes this particular story quite fear-inducing. When we arrive at the point where we can easily contruct very deadly weapons, particularly with the subtlety of viruses, there should be very strict regulation and government supervision. I can only hope there will be a worldwide treaty to that effect. After all, would you want someone engineering a virulent strain of airborne type 4 Ebola because he or she has a beef with a government's ideology?

Re:Rainbow Six future scenario? by k12linux · 2003-11-14 07:16 · Score: 1

If someone can engineer viruses this easily, what will happen when someone disgruntled and who doesn't care about himself, much less others, decide to design and manufacture a virus like this?

Fortunately we are nowhere near that point right now. The work needed to design a virus which actually can do something beyond reproduce is likely many magnatudes more difficult.
I'm not a scientist, but I suspect that the virus would have to generate it's own protiens to be able to infect cells. It probably would have to generate other protines to do other types of damage to the host. It likely would have to have a balance between incubation time and killing power (less the first infect person drop dead before infecting someone else.) And it would probably have to be very complex so that our immune system or a simple vacine wouldn't eradicate it immediately.
I have a feeling that this is about as close to making an evil super-virus as filling a pipe with black powder is to building a nuclear ICBM.
I'm less worried about terrorists making their own killer viruses than I am about an unintended virus which might get released. I'm the most concerned that it's structure could be so different from natural viruses that other organisms might have no immune defense at all. But in a list of things to worry about I have to admit I don't this one rank very high.
Re:Rainbow Six future scenario? by Zirtix · 2003-11-14 10:00 · Score: 1

I'm less worried about terrorists making their own killer viruses than I am about an unintended virus which might get released...
Vide (if you haven't already).
Re:Rainbow Six future scenario? by danila · 2003-11-15 12:23 · Score: 1

When we arrive at the point where we can easily contruct very deadly weapons, particularly with the subtlety of viruses, there should be very strict regulation and government supervision.

No, there should be very good education and instruction. People should be raised to be smart, caring, kind, inquisitve and compassionate. A normal healthy person would not create a virus to cause harm and a sick person should be treated. There will be no terrorism once we create a global society of abundance and freedom (to a large extent by using nanotech, AI and biotech). And other people would be happy to follow simple precautions.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

SCO claims infringement of code? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:00 · Score: 0

The virus makers must pay the license fee to SCO, oh wait - I mean GOD.

(We have the evidence, but can't show you the exact lines of DNA copied!)

Next time use GNU DNA...

Bid Deal by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:01 · Score: 0

The leader in inovations, Microsoft, has been sponsoring the research of replicating virii for years. Can you say sobig.f, iloveyou, ...?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Were Best Option Available by KnarfO · 2003-11-14 06:03 · Score: 1

I recommend you spend more time studying history. When Japan attacked us in 1941, they did so without any declaration of hostilities prior. We had not attacked them. Our soldiers and sailors in Pearl Harbor were not in a state of alert. It's one of the biggest cheap shots in the anals of civilization.

In 1945, Japan had been beaten. Their millitary forces were smashed, our air force was dropping incendiary bombs on anything that would burn on the main islands, and yet the warlords that ran the country refused to surrender, electing instead to fight a bloody war of attrition that meant the countless slaughter of their own innocent civillian population.

We saw this happen on Okinawa -- civilians told to fight to the death, or die at the hands of their own government. Civilians who where so scared by official millitary propoganda, they preferred to jump to their deaths from the cliffs overhanging the ocean, rather than surrender to an enemy they'd been told would do unspeakable things to them if they surrendered.

On the Japanese home islands, we were slaughtering civillians from the air already, but still no surrender. Our country was faced with the prospect of having to invade with a force of up to a million men, and casualty rates likely to be in the range of 250,00.

If you read history and understand it, you see how dropping the bomb was the best and most humane way of bringing that bloody war to as quick an end as possible.

--

"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams

obligatory joke by cygnus · 2003-11-14 06:04 · Score: 4, Funny

i, for one, would like to *welcome* our virus-creating overlords...

/me looks around nervously, and dons a N100 mask.

--
Just raise the taxes on crack.

Virus = floppy disk with a kernal patch installer by G4from128k · 2003-11-14 06:12 · Score: 1

And why did it have to be a virus. Why not a cute little kitten or something?

They created an artificial virus because viruses are excellent for getting genetic code installed in other organisms. Instead of creating a complex organism from scratch, you create a virus that installs a patch on your favorite organism. People could then create and install patches that give plants the ability to directly use nitrogen from the air (avoiding costly, polluting fertilizers), fix genetic diseases in people), make glow-in-the dark cats, or craft new microbes that generate hydrogen from sunlight (the reason the Dept of Energy funded the research).

--
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.

The End? by Doc+Squidly · 2003-11-14 06:14 · Score: 1

I guess this mean the end of the world. It wasn't that great anyways.

--
I think I think, therefore I think I am.

Re:The End? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:53 · Score: 0

No, Doc, this isn't the end. We aren't that lucky.

How to make a virus by JamesP · 2003-11-14 06:14 · Score: 1

Particularly interesting is that it only took them two weeks to build

So it's just unzipping, ./configure then make???

And 2 weeks to make, that's like way slower than rebuilding the kernel...

--
how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?

Meh... by JFMulder · 2003-11-14 06:22 · Score: 1

Everyone knows that with enough alcool and some kinky music you can get anything to reproduce. They should have tried that years ago. It would have saved them so much time and money.

Star Trek by caldroun · 2003-11-14 06:25 · Score: 1

I know that these guys have seen it..but they didn't learn that YOU JUST CAN'T DO THAT without consequences.

--
"If you have done 6 impossible things this morning, why not round it off with breakfast at Milliways" -- hhgg

The bizzare genome of Phi X 174 by MagnaMark · 2003-11-14 06:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

The specific virus that Venter et al synthesized is called Bacteriophage phiX174. They probably chose it because it has such a short genome.

In fact, it's genome is so short that at first it confused researchers. It's genome is shorter than it should be. That is, there are fewer codons in the genome than there are amino acids in the virus's proteins. Normally, there would need to be a 1:1 codon:amino-acid ratio.

This lead researchers to the amazing discovery that phiX174 contains "genes within genes" and "overlapping genes". (Link to Genetic Map of phiX174) In several instances, one gene is entirely contained within another gene. In another, there are two genes (A and A*) that overlap with "reading frames" that are off by one.

This discovery challenges notions of what a gene is. With this knowledge, you can't say that a gene is simply a particular region of DNA.

These overlapping genes also call attention to the improbability of the evolution of phiX174. Commonly when a genetic mutation occurs, one base changes. This could affect one amino-acid in the protein for which the gene codes. In phiX174's case, a single base mutation could change 2 amino-acids in 2 proteins. This means that the evolution of these proteins is interdependent. That two functional proteins evolved in this manner is absolutely extraordinary.

Of course, now that it has evolved that way, it gives phiX174 an advantage of genetic economy. It takes less energy to maintain and reproduce a shorter genome. So phiX174 gets more bang for it's genetic buck by overlapping genes in this way.

Re:The bizzare genome of Phi X 174 by danila · 2003-11-15 12:28 · Score: 1

Genome configuration is invalid. Cross-linked genes detected. Scangene will be run now to repair the genome.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

Obligatory Lawyer Joke by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:29 · Score: 0

Q: How is a lawyer like a sperm cell?

A: They both have a 1,000,000,000:1 chance of becoming a human being.

Re:IRAQ soon cleaned from USA faggot troops by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:31 · Score: 0

Yes, liberate.

As in: the French were liberated from the Nazi-German occupation in 1940s.

You seriously think that the Iraqis would rather live under Saddams rule of terror?

reverse transcriptase isn't general... by rbird76 · 2003-11-14 06:31 · Score: 1

I believe that most virus species use DNA rather than RNA to replicate - this is why AIDS was (is) difficult to deal with at first, because RNA viruses aren't as common, and so people weren't as familiar with their behavior. Reverse transcriptase isn't present in most viruses because they use DNA, rather than RNA, to carry information - once the DNA gets into the cell, the virus uses the cell to reproduce (DNA is copied to DNA, RNA read from the DNA is read to generate proteins) just as in the cell normally. Retroviruses use reverse transcriptase to copy RNA to DNA - the cell can then integrate the DNA into its own DNA and replicate the virus. Reverse transcriptase in HIV is a target for inhibitors because most species don't read from RNA to DNA, but only the reverse (DNA --> RNA ---> protein) - thus inhibiting RT wouldn't kill normal cells (or most viruses), only HIV (and other retroviruses).

I think that most viruses contain proteins to gain entry into the cell as part of the output from their DNA. If the virus is duplicated, the protein controlling entry into the cell must also be duplicated. I didn't RTA. but the authors may have left that protein out so that it couldn't reproduce in the wild - if it can't infect cells, it will replicate only slowly (as fast as its DNA is naturally taken up by cells) and thus not mutate very fast (so that it can't overcome its inability to enter cells). The ability of the assembled DNA to form a coherent package would in itself be significant.

Hoo-ray!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:45 · Score: 0

Oh no.. malaria and AIDS aren't bad enough, we gotta make our own insidiously evil strains of virii. Now that we can create them from scratch, we don't need nukes and soldiers.. we can just poison our enemies! Nuclear winter was scaaary.. but a biological apocalypse is SO much more tasteful! Think of the possibilities! Just think!

Ummmm, I don't know if you realize this, but by RCO · 2003-11-14 06:45 · Score: 1

anthrax is naturally occuring...

not trolling, or anything, just thought I'd point that out for those reading that may not realize it.

--
'And all the monkeys aren't in the zoo Every day you meet quite a few...'

Not quite "From Scratch" by 110010001000 · 2003-11-14 06:47 · Score: 1

This is a bit sensationalistic. What they did was construct an artificial genome and inject into an already existing cell (that presumably had its genetic material removed).

Impressive though.

so much for god by aldousd666 · 2003-11-14 06:48 · Score: 1

Well that settles it then. You don't have to be an omnipotent spirit to create a living being. Huh. What's next on the list?

I expect to see sometime in the near future: Post Foods successfully recreates pop-tarts in the lab.. Cautions that Frosted Flakes are still a few decades off

--
Speak for yourself.

eurotrash by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:52 · Score: 0

VIRUSES!

Not as worrisome as it seems by localman · 2003-11-14 06:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think people get mega worried about this because they think that we'll create some unstoppable supervirus. But that would mean that we humans were better designers than nature itself, which is not the case (witness our inability to improve on our own bodies in any meaningful way).

It is likely that any "supervirus" that could exist would have come into existence on it's own anyways. And some have; the bubonic plague, 1918 influenza, and to a lesser extent, aids. But the competition between viruses and hosts goes on and on in a cycle, with no final victor.

In fact, I would guess that any virus we could make would be a weakling compared to the viruses that evolve in the wild.

Cheers

Gully Foyle is my name... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 06:56 · Score: 0

and death my destination.

Physicians call them Viruses by shking · 2003-11-14 07:00 · Score: 1

I asked a friend who's an MD if we should use "virii" for the plural of "virus". Her response was "We've been calling them viruses for 60 years"

--
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994

Re:Physicians call them Viruses by Leroy_Brown242 · 2003-11-14 07:13 · Score: 0, Troll

I asked my friend if we should should call then African Americans or blacks. Be said he's been calling them Niggers for 60 years.

Your point is mushy. Try again.

--
Pretty Pictures!
Re:Physicians call them Viruses by ajensen · 2003-11-14 08:32 · Score: 1

I'm not sure how your friend's credibility stands in terms of social dynamics and culture, but the grandparent post was asking someone with extensive education in the medical field. If such a person says that "viruses" is the preferred spelling, then I'd be inclined to trust him or her. Distasteful names have no place in a discussion like this.
--a
Re:Physicians call them Viruses by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:38 · Score: 0

We don't say "Virii" because we think it's right or don't know it should be "viruses." We use it because it's kind of amusing.
Do you take time out of your day to point out that the plural of box is "boxes" and not "boxen"? If so, visiting Slashdot must be a source of endless frustration for you. HAND
Re:Physicians call them Viruses by Leroy_Brown242 · 2003-11-14 08:39 · Score: 1

First of all, I have no friends like this. I can't imagine wanting either.

Point being is that just because an "expert" says it's true, does not make it so.

--
Pretty Pictures!
Re:Physicians call them Viruses by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:47 · Score: 0

Yep, but in this specific case, it actually is true.
Re:Physicians call them Viruses by Leroy_Brown242 · 2003-11-14 08:58 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Since when did /. reflect truth?

--
Pretty Pictures!
Re:Physicians call them Viruses by ajensen · 2003-11-14 09:12 · Score: 1

Slashdot doesn't necessarily reflect the truth (if there is such a thing), but it is to our experts that we look in situations like this. The Slashdot community has been debating the "viruses vs. virii" idea for a long time -- it's nice to see that someone finally asked a medical expert.
Now the problem is that sometimes technological terms differ from the other sciences. For example, "antennae" is correct when used to discuss the appendages that come out of the head of a creature; antennas, however, are metallic objects that are used to send/receive signals. So in the case of viruses and virii, it's certainly possible that virii may manifest itself in our language simply because it's used frequently. That's the nature of language in many cases.
--a
Re:Physicians call them Viruses by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 12:36 · Score: 0

We've been calling them viruses for 60 years

Really? Computers have been around for 60 years??
Re:Physicians call them Viruses by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 13:08 · Score: 0

>> Really? Computers have been around for 60 years??

Yes.

one more obligatory joke by CleverNickName · 2003-11-14 07:03 · Score: 1

When the researchers presented their findings: We have made this virus. It is our first effort. We wish you would like it!

Ho-hum. Big deal... by praedor · 2003-11-14 07:08 · Score: 2, Informative

This isn't amazing at all. It isn't even wondrous or frightening. It is merely the synthesis of enough DNA, duplicated in sequence from an extant bacteriophage, to paste together into a full phage genome. So what? Chemical DNA synthesis (as opposed to enzymatic/biological) is old news and an everyday occurrance. If you wish (and have the money) you could order "oligos" (short stretches of DNA sequence) of ANY sequence and paste them together into an ever lengthening string.

I have pasted together 6 complementary pairs of DNA oligos, each 120 bases in length and designed to have "complementary" ends. First anneal the DNA together (Heat the single strand DNAs to ~95 C in a nice buffer, paired with their complement, and then cool to just below the melting temperature of the base-paired oligos for about 30 seconds to a minute). Next, you mix together the annealed oligo pairs and incubate at room temp (or 16 C for slower reaction) with the addition of ligase (enzyme that glues DNAs together, end-to-end) for about 1 hour (or 4hrs to overnight at 16 C). If properly designed, you end up (as I did) with a long DNA sequence made up of end-to-end glued-together DNAs. In my case, the DNA sequence encoded the gene for HIV integrase, the enzyme that HIV uses to insert itself into and infected individual's DNA. Totally synthetic. Big whup.

What would have been interesting? If I had designed oligos to encode a new protein or enzyme of my own design, unique in the world, that actually functioned at doing something. All I did was produce a copy of a DNA sequence that exists already in nature. You do the same thing when you PCR DNA, fer gawd's sake. The difference is PCR is much easier and faster (yet it requires the chemical synthesis of "artificial" DNA oligos for use as primers). Now extending what I just said to the Ventner virus (phage), he didn't do anything woundrous, he did something difficult and that's it. It is difficult (more a pain in the ass) to synthesis long oligos, anneal them, ligate/glue them together, and in enough volume, to have something to work with. In my personal case, the amount of artificial gene (I changed the way the gene encodes the amino acids that make up integrase so the actual DNA sequence was ~40% different from natural HIV integrase sequence) was miniscule after the above-mentioned process. So I made lots of it by doing a...PCR on it. Simple. The PCR takes a VERY few complete, full-length sequences and copies it into a LOT of copies. At 7500 basepair, this would also be very doable with the "artificial" phage genome. You make what turns out to be very few complete genomes in a mix of mishmash and use PCR to generate lots of the complete genome. Stock molecular biology.

Do you want to know what would have been REALLY newsworthy? If the phage produced was truly artificial. That is, if it was not merely an exact copy of an already extant phage but a new, never before existing phage. Truly "life" generated artificially. As it is, they just did a lot of common molecular biology to generate a short, complete genome for a phage and, low and behold, since it is identical to the natural phage, it reproduces. Expecting otherwise would be like thinking that somehow synthetic vitamin C is different than natural vitamin C (it isn't). The chemical bonds are identical, the actual molecules in it are not different in any way, etc. Same for this phage example.

I could do something simpler. I could cut and paste a bunch of HIV DNA sequences (different strains if you wish) together into a full-length HIV DNA genome, suspend it in a buffer with DMSO and have you apply it to the skin on the inner side of either arm. There is a good chance that this will result in you contracting an HIV infection. MAGIC! If I wanted to spend the time and money to generate all the DNA oligos needed, I could anneal and paste them together and generate an HIV genome (10,000 basepairs of DNA) identical to whatever strain I chose and it would be infectious. Big deal.

--
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.

Re:Interesting thoughts... by bottlerocket · 2003-11-14 07:08 · Score: 1

The question that first pops into my mind when people say, "God must exist, how else was the world created?" is "Who created god?"

--
where the comment ends and sig begins

Coming soon...artifical girlfriends; geeks rejoice by GNUCyberKat · 2003-11-14 07:12 · Score: 1

And coming within the next 50 years...designer girlfiends for those geeks who cannot get a real one. Just code in your preferences and a mental picture that you are the hottest thing on the planet and awaaaaaaaay you go. Geekdom will never be the same again.

The only solution then. by Derek+Pomery · 2003-11-14 07:16 · Score: 1

Ban cocktail napkins!

--
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.

I have a word for you: by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 07:22 · Score: 0

Fucktard. Usage: Your mom told me you were a fucktard.

This isn't YOUR language. The teeming masses own it. If this is an issue, learn esperanto, as I'm sure you already know elvish and klingon.

patents by OglinTatas · 2003-11-14 07:25 · Score: 1

The biological danger inherant in genetic engineering has not changed with this new milestone. The capability to engineer more virulent strains of pathogens is not enhanced by the ability to synthesize viable DNA chemically.

I think a major ramification of pure chemical synthesis of a living organism is in the area of patents.
GE has patented some modified microbes, and Monsanto (IIRC) has patented some genetically modified food lines. There are no doubt others.
But there is some question about whether living organisms can be patented at all, since so far it is 100% "prior art," and the companies in question are merely inserting one preexisting gene into the genetic code of another preexisting organism.
Then there is the question of derivative works, since these organisms are normally able to go about reproducing naturally, and even fertilizing non-modified organisms.

With a living organism that has been completely manufactured, there is no question about the origin, authorship or ownership if such a creation, and petent issues are somewhat simplified (not that they aren't a rubber stamp now).

Interestingly, there would still be the problem of derivative works. While this creation is a virus, microbes such as bacteria have plasmid DNA and non-chromosomal nuclear DNA, both of which are quite easily shared between microbes of the same, and even different species. (Bacteria reproduce asexually, but they share DNA during other phases of their life cycle. This is one of the reasons antibiotic resistance is so dangerous.)

--
More music, fewer hits

Re:SWEET! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 07:26 · Score: 0

But do you keep your bacteria in aquaria near the stadia?

Read the fine print by mulescent · 2003-11-14 07:27 · Score: 1

So, Ventner is something of a cowboy celebrity, and has done some really cool stuff. However, this particular accomplishment has been overstated by USAToday. Near the end of the article they mention that the virus in question was an exact duplicate of an already existant one. In other words, no genes were designed or combined in new ways. The technical feat centers on stitching together such a long strand of DNA in the appropriate orientation, and then getting a bacterium to express it. Many people reacted as if someone had designed an organism from scratch, which Ventner's team did not do, although this is their stated goal. If you want something ethically horrifying to debate, try this wonderful piece of work, in which a researcher actually created a 100% lethal mousepox virus and intends to publish how he did it.

This isn't that big a deal by RealProgrammer · 2003-11-14 07:27 · Score: 1

Not to belittle this research, which is amazing, but it isn't creating life, nor is it playing God.

They took DNA from something and combined it to make something else. That's not creating life; that's breeding.

Lemme know when they take dirt and make a man, or when they take a man's rib and make a woman.

That will be playing God.
--

--
sigs, as if you care.

Epideme virus by Zapdos · 2003-11-14 07:29 · Score: 1

I wonder how far off is the Epideme virus from Red Dwarf Season 7 episode 7.

--
Get a free ipod.

I find it interesting by dtfinch · 2003-11-14 07:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

That this biological virus is only 1250 bytes (5000 basepairs) while most of the email viruses I see are in excess of 100k.

Re:I find it interesting by grimani · 2003-11-14 12:57 · Score: 1

This is a faulty comparison.

Each base pair can encapsulate a huge amount of information by virtue of its chemical properties. In other words, the virus DNA is only half of the picture; you have to look at the information encoded in whatever else it interacts with.

Take it to the extreme, and the email virus equivalent of this would be to wrap it's entire code into a system API call...which our virus simply calls.

So again, not a fair comparison.
Re:I find it interesting by ketamine-bp · 2003-11-14 16:45 · Score: 1

I, for one, support the original poster on that. this is because the biological virus uses the cell machinary (ribosomes, phospholipids, etc.) of the host just as the email viruses use the system API calls (Windows API calls, scripting host, etc.)

It is length of the distinct sequence that allows things to be executed that matters.

However, it should be noted that there are many computer viruses that have lengths comparable, or less than the synthesized virus... and that the original author seems to be pretending to be funny...

Someone had to say it.... by pablo_max · 2003-11-14 07:44 · Score: 0

Any chance of making a Beowulf cluster?

Hooray! by gilgongo · 2003-11-14 07:47 · Score: 1

> If any country had to be in possession of these
> things, it should be the US. You don't want it
> to be the US? Well, let's look at the
> alternatives:

You have just perfectly illustrated why a large part of the world's population hates America. If you find it odd that people should go out of their way to fly aeroplanes into the World Trade Centre, then think about what you have said - and then you'll understand!

Hooray! I'm mod this guy up! I'm *really* glad he posted!

--
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"

Smallpox by jonhuang · 2003-11-14 07:56 · Score: 1

Is sequenced and is on its way to being sequenced. This will probably be placed in the public domain too... Crap.

30,000 versus 60,000 mouse genes by peter303 · 2003-11-14 07:57 · Score: 1

Brute force sequencing of mouse genome finds about 30,000 mouse genes- the same as humans. However, bottom up DNA manufacture from proteins finds about 60,000 coding genes (cDNA). Not as simple as thought.

Re:30,000 versus 60,000 mouse genes by MagnaMark · 2003-11-14 08:20 · Score: 1

Things are undoubtedly stranger than the original simple models.

Take the examples of alternate splicing of exons, or RNA editing.

Or, my favorite is in the immune system. The immune system must generate lymphocytes that can recognize the something like 10e14 different pathogens that we encounter. There are obviously not enough genes in our genome to individually code for these. So, our immune system shuffles and recombines thousands of "gene segments" to achieve this. This might explain it better.

All of these lead to more gene products than genes, if you use a simple definition of a gene.

I've been infected!! by RedA$$edMonkey · 2003-11-14 07:59 · Score: 1

I've been infected by an artificial virus! Losing Controlll ... say, does anyone want to buy a penis enlarger or help me transfer $50 million dollars from Nigeria?

societal discussion==Rush Limbaugh by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:00 · Score: 0

You're missing the point: asking for a "societal discussion" before continuing research means asking Rush Limbaugh what scientists should do next.

I agree that this is a deep issue that needs serious debate, but government and "society" at large won't give you what you want. Any "societal debate" will be dominated by self-interested parties who have societal power. Take global warming as an example, and ask yourself how today's "societal debate"--controlled largely by the Bush administration, energy companies, and talk radio--has helped clarify the situation.

I think it's best to let the scientists sort this one out. Please don't let Mr. Limbaugh make the decisions!

Tailored Virus by gujju · 2003-11-14 08:05 · Score: 1

This is exactly what I am talking about in my post (#7474597) earlier. Instead of changing an existing virus, create a custom virus and have it do the job. Being a CS major, I haven't a clue how they would do it, but, I'll leave that up to the Biochemists etc...They need a job too ;)

Re:IRAQ soon cleaned from USA faggot troops by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:14 · Score: 0

A dictator created by CNN and the white house.

Re:Interesting thoughts... by Planesdragon · 2003-11-14 08:16 · Score: 1

Good point.

However, the current popular theorum about the universe's creation (Big Bang) has a simliar problem--how did the "metaverse" in which the Big Bang happen arise? What happened before the Big Bang?

Why not Do it on the moon? by kalieaire · 2003-11-14 08:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think if anyone was really worried about catastrophic release of deadly viral infections on the world, they should just move the labs to the moon or something. That way in an airless environment where it is constantly bombarded by UV radiation from the Sun, Any viral infection that leaves the airlocks of the facility would be erradicated, anyone infected and leaving the facility despeartely can be interecepted. If anyone from the moon facility gets infected, just nuke it and kill everything that's there. Isn't that real efficient? The Moon is pock marked enough as it is, no one else is gonna notice another zit being popped. ---sounds like a case of DOOM(TM), but on Earth's moon instead of Phobos.

Two weeks to build, and then... by TheVidiot · 2003-11-14 08:19 · Score: 1

28 Days Later...

Didn't Microsoft Already Do This? by Perlguy · 2003-11-14 08:21 · Score: 1

It's called Windows.

--
-- Windows security? Sure, which ONE would you like? -me

Virus R Us here we come by jafiwam · 2003-11-14 08:31 · Score: 0, Redundant

I for one welcome our new Reproducing Artificial Virus Overlords!

A low-probability scenario by lysium · 2003-11-14 08:36 · Score: 1

There is a limiting factor on this kind of threat. You see, society takes pains to give power only to those who earn it -- either through intelligence, dilligence, cleverness, and what have you. For a 'mad scientist' to have access to the advanced equipment necessary to build DNA, he or she would need to pretend normalcy pretty damn well. The Unibomber was a brilliant and capable madman, but he was building letter-bombs primitive enough to be constructed in a mountain cabin.

The President of the United States might have the authority to launch a nuclear strike -- and how likely is it for a madman to be a pretend politician long enough to get elected? Similiarly, a wealthy industrialist has the resources to buy an island fortress and a private army to ransom the world, James Bond style.....why has it not happened yet?

==============

--
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.

Re:A low-probability scenario by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 10:12 · Score: 0

" and how likely is it for a madman to be a pretend politician long enough to get elected?"

bush seems to be doign quiet well. he just acts more humanely around election time.

oh what am i saying, he was never elected...

you think he couldnt rationalize and brainwash the american people into launching a nuke? what about a small one in the kill-o-tonne range? call it something different like freedom plow or humanity pacifier... then all you need is somethign to make the americans fear. you could have him ask the cia.

Re:Interesting thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:46 · Score: 0

Maybe the designer doesn't play favorites... you've got to admit, plasmodium malariae is a very successful organism! :)

umm... no by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 08:52 · Score: 1, Insightful

How is this news?

The title says "first artificial...", but the blurb says "...previous attempts had taken". Can we please have a logic consistency check?

So then the gist of the article becomes Craig Venter having gobs of money and equipment to throw at doing *exactly* the same thing as reported before, gobs of connections to use in making a huge hullabaloo about it, and an even larger head than I previously thought. And this is the guy that used his *own* DNA in a large (>$1bn) investor-funded human genome sequencing effort.

And the previous virus to be synthesized? That was friggin *polio*! And the polio genome is about 50% longer than phi-X174. So these guys did something which is technically easier than before, with a less dangerous virus, and somehow I'm supposed to be impressed? Oh yeah, the original effort for polio was widely derided (in my lab at least) as being incredibly derivative anyway: they used existing DNA synthesis technologies to make fragments of the genome (probably bought it from a company), and then use an existing technique (PCR) to assemble it. And it's not like assembling stuff with PCR is that innovative either: people have been doing it for years when they had a DNA sequence and wanted to randomly reshuffle it. So they cut the sequence up with enzymes and then run PCR on that mix, and call it "PCR recombination".

Besides which, this whole thing about "artificial", "from scratch", etc... is utter bullsh*t. All they've done is use synthetic chemistry to make short (100 basepair or less) segments and then use biological enzymes to assemble those fragments into the full length genome. And that genome is copied base-for-base from an existing virus. So they've just spend a huge amount of money and manpower to get in a few weeks what I can buy from Sigma and have here tomorrow. I'm, like, incredibly underwhelmed. And don't give me that crap about "arbitrary control over the sequence", yadayadaya. We're a long way off from designing our own viruses, especially of the phi-X174 ilk with coding sequences on both strands of the DNA double helix (think segments of machine code that still work when you shift the whole string by like 4 bits). So all we'd be doing anyway is either making small changes in existing viruses, or taking larger segments of different viruses and piecing them together. It's *all* doable, with much less work, using other molecular techniques.

(deep breath)
I feel better now. Now to do some real work...

I used to do this for a living by Choco-man · 2003-11-14 08:56 · Score: 1

Used to be a molecular biologist/geneticist. Made all sorts of critters in the lab. What you are seeing as news today has been done in private industry and government for literally decades, only went unpublished. I tell you this scares the hell out of me. So much that I no longer am in that line of work, and now make chocolate for a living. Everything that was done in my trait and technology lab was for commercial agricultural purposes, but the methods used are clearly open to dual use, and the safety protocols in place in private industry (or lack thereof) are similiarly frightening. All the private facilities I was a part of didn't have their own dedicated waste water handling facilities or air scrubbers. Think of that for a moment. All waste water goes to the same public treatment facilties as does the material that flows from your house. Air vents and handling systems vent to ambient external conditions from laboratories. Material is autoclaved, however, some material is placed in sinks as a holding area prior to autoclaving. Of course none of the materials we worked on were weaponized , but the effects of releasing some of these materials into open uncontrolled environments are simply unknown. And if private industry was doing this 20 years ago for commercial purposes, think what obelinsk, lab 12, dietrick, and biopreparat have done (i'd certainly hope their environmental systems were more evolved than private industry...)

Any coders want to write a live virus? by jmanning · 2003-11-14 08:57 · Score: 1

I think the point that most people are missing here, is this:
This test was able to create a viable virus from scratch, simply copying the existing pieces. What they created was merely a synthetic copy of an existing virus. They did not create a new virus, or anything harmful.

But, what if those pieces were modified before they were reassembled?

This is dangerous/powerful because you could write your own virus from scratch just like writing a computer virus. Take virulence from one virus, infection from another, write your own specificity rules (this is the scariest - only attack people with a certain genetic profile), add some harmful effects, and you've got something dangerous.

For terrorism, this could be big. Write a virus that causes genocide. Kill everyone with a certain genetic trait.

But this can also be used for good. Write a virus that delivers chemotherapy to cancer cells. Or infects AIDS patients with an anti-aids virus. Or an anti-bacterial agent for infections. You could add a built in self-destruct so it couldn't over-replicate.

From an ethics standpoint, I would compare it to nuclear energy. You could generate electricity for millions, or wipe out entire cities. The technology isn't inherently evil, but it needs lots of research and a great deal of control.

That's where the analogy fails though. It's hard to build a lab capable of building nuclear bombs. It's relatively easy to build a lab capable of synthesizing viruses.

Scary. Yet promising.

Re:Any coders want to write a live virus? by pkhuong · 2003-11-14 10:54 · Score: 1

Or build a computer! I'm sure we'll see MEMS-based logic one of these days; what's stopping us from using cells to make them?

--
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar

DoE by ajs · 2003-11-14 09:00 · Score: 1

Your concerns are well placed (yeah, you misread a bit, but I'm not the nit-picker others are). However, you missed the biggest worry of all.

Guess what the DoE's primary job is...

Power? Nope. Um... "energy something"? Nope.

The DoE's biggest job is maintaining the U.S. nuclear stockpile. They're the ones who contract with companies like G.E. to build nukes.

So, with that bit of info in your head, go back and look at this and ask yourself: "what OTHER purpose could building an oganism be put to that the DoE might have an interest in, and which would make it a justified expense?"

Yeah, I'm worried too.

None. It's a bacteriophage. by wirelessbuzzers · 2003-11-14 09:00 · Score: 1

The virus doesn't attack people. It attacks bacteria. You can't just jump species from a bacterium to a human. And it's based on an existing virus, so it's not like it's entirely new either...

--
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.

Re:Hiroshima and Nagasaki Were Best Option Availab by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:02 · Score: 0

"you see how dropping the bomb was the best and most humane way of bringing that bloody war to as quick an end as possible."

nothing compares to the humanity of nuclear weapons!

only in america... do you really think if the japanese had done that to america (because as you probably know, it takes two sides to fight a fair war) dropped a bomb i mean, that you would be so happy about brining the war to an end?

but because america won, they can rationalize their winning any way they see fit.

Re:Interesting thoughts... by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:16 · Score: 0

Actually, human hair is far from useless. Would a guy be more or less likely to get a girl if he were bald, all other thing being equal? And vice versa? Perhaps a more relevant example would be the appendix, which as stuck around even though it is potentially detrimental.

Mitochondrial Viruses by shadow_slicer · 2003-11-14 09:19 · Score: 1

Are there any mitochondrial viruses?

The way I would see a mitochondrial virus would be a capsule in a capsule virus.

Viruses consist of a protein coat, and DNA/RNA inside, that they inject into cells. A mitochondrial virus might consist of a protein outer coating that injects a protein-coated DNA section, that could then infect the mitochondria.

I can't say I've ever heard of any, but since mitochondria are more genetically between species than even cells are, could a mitochondrial virus be engineered to destroy all life on earth? (or do I not need to worry about this...)

Re:Mitochondrial Viruses by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 09:44 · Score: 0

Mitochondria are tiny, don't have much to hijack inside them, and are easy to disrupt which causes the whole cell to commit suicide in short order. Mitochondria don't provide much additional shielding against the immune system anyway, so there isn't much benefit. For a parasite to try taking over mitochondria would be like a hijacker trying to hide inside a jet engine.
Re:Mitochondrial Viruses by jdavidb · 2003-11-14 09:58 · Score: 1

Fascinating questions.

I don't really know what mitochondrial DNA does. Cellular DNA is used to build proteins; the nucleus is more or less a protein factory (more complicated than that; I think it's a little machine shop that builds proteins and then builds little machines out of them; can't remember much, though). I'm not sure if mitochondria ever manufacture proteins or not.

The viruses basically take over the construction machinery of the cell and provide a new "template" (their DNA) for the protein making process, which results in building new viruses. I don't know if a similar process exists to hijack in mitochondria or not.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:Mitochondrial Viruses by pkhuong · 2003-11-14 10:46 · Score: 1

It's been a while since i covered this in bio, but here's what i remember. Mitochondria actually replicate by themselves in our cells. They would therefore have all the machinery needed to replicate mitochondria (and thus proteins, membranes, et, ie a basic living cell), or virus.

The nucleus is only the part where DNA is stored in eukaryotes, and transcripted in RNA; all the translation into a polypeptide is made in the cytosol (inside the cell, but outside any organelle), by ribosomes. Mitochondria, eukaryotes and prokaryotes (OK, so mitochondria might be prokaryotes :) have these ribosomes, and they all obey the same encoding, afaik (very surprising, yes).

I can see a few problems with mitochondrial virus. The zone between the two membranes of mitochondria is very acid (relatively); there ARE two more membranes to go through before getting inside it; there are just as many membranes to go through to disperse and infect, making infecting mitochondria in a single cell this pretty hard, let alone other cells. So, i guess it might work with a virus that isn't too virulent. If it infected an egg cell, it would get an incredible free ride, though :) Spread through whole organisms for generations, while only having to infect, go through the immune system, etc of a single cell.

Keep in mind, IANAB(b=biologist; i'm just a student, and bio isn't my major or anything).

--
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar

But still a first... by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2003-11-14 09:40 · Score: 1

The first reproducing artificial virus was the Polio virus by Wimmer and colleagues.

Ventner's new virus is artificial in the sense that it was created from chemicals- but it is identical to a known natural virus.

Unfortunately, Wimmer et. al.'s polio virus was a defective copy.

What Ventner's group did was construct a fully-functional instance of a known virus from only data and raw materials.

This is a first. It proves that the technology to construct a lifeform from the genetic code is in place. It also proves that (at least in this virus' case) there's no undiscovered mechanism necessary for its life.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Next Related Story by use_compress · 2003-11-14 09:49 · Score: 1

First Instance of Reproducing Male Slashdot Reader

Favorite quote by bobdotorg · 2003-11-14 10:04 · Score: 1

One researcher, who would speak only on the condition on anonymity, stated, "Well, even we were a bit surprised that Windows XP and Outlook are susceptible to this new virus. I mean, here we were drinking our morning coffee and we started to get all of these emails from bacteriophages about movie reviews and what not. It was unrelenting, and we didn't have a Petri dish version of Norton, so we just had to endure it until some intern Lysol'ed the whole operation."

--
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.

need to see the data by bikerguy99 · 2003-11-14 10:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Let's wait for the paper to come out before we make any conclusions. Craig Venter's commertial interests and huge ego are well known - he has announced "completing" human, mouse and now dog genomes which is far from being complete. And find a diff mod to deal with molecular biology and genomics/genetics and such - reading idiotic statements marked as insightful makes slashdot look like FOX news.

obligatory shut the fuck up by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 10:50 · Score: 0

that's so old and stupid.

Re:obligatory shut the fuck up by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-15 11:37 · Score: 0

not as old and as stupid as your mother!
burn!

Patent question by El · 2003-11-14 10:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Can they now patent this virus, or does God's work count as prior art?

--

"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

Re:Patent question by m1chael · 2003-11-14 13:08 · Score: 0, Funny

well until god challenges said patent...

--
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.

Oh the irony! by FallLine · 2003-11-14 11:07 · Score: 1

Get educated, before its too late...

You were saying...?

ITS = the possessive form of the pronoun "it"

IT'S = the contraction of "it" and "is"

If you are going to split linguistic hairs here, then do yourself a favor and make sure that you are actually a competent user of the written language while you are chiding others.

Welcome to Slashdot by Sir+Brialliance · 2003-11-14 11:56 · Score: 1

Welcome to Slashdot, where you can insult lawyers on one story, and on another story give out Lawyer-style advice. :-)

--
I didn't do it! Unless I was supposed to do it. . . (hmm. . .)

i hope... by thegnu · 2003-11-14 12:03 · Score: 1

...it infects our genitals. that's the best kind of virus.

--
Please stop stalking me, bro.

You're not educated enough to comment here by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 12:16 · Score: 0

"Natural evolution is not slow for viruses; their genetic code does not have the copy-protection mechanisms of say mammals"

As Mamalian viruses use Mamalian cells and cellular machinery to replicate, what you said there was very silly...

Further, please learn the difference between "Genetic Code" and "Genome." You meant "Genome," but said "Genetic Code."

first self-replicating virus by eegad · 2003-11-14 13:03 · Score: 1

while(1) {
fork();
}

The beginning of the apocalypse by popo · 2003-11-14 13:51 · Score: 1

..will most likely sound like this: "Oops..."

--
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )

Oh Good by Gillies · 2003-11-14 14:09 · Score: 0

i so love these scientists who feel it's their duty to develop better ways for everyone to die. why, without these brilliant ppl, we wouldnt have wonderful inventions like the atomic bomb or biological weapons. why dont these ppl concern themselves with curing diseases and destroying viruses instead of making new ones.

Re:Interesting thoughts... by TheCrazyFinn · 2003-11-14 14:16 · Score: 1

Considering the popularity of Vin Diesel amongst the female set, you don't have a point.

--
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya

Fascinating but spooky by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 14:19 · Score: 1, Insightful

Is it virulent, i.e. dangerous? How easy would it be to create a new virus that could kill body cells? The times they are a' changin.

Fear may be inappropriate say "legitimate concern" by sam_handelman · 2003-11-14 14:58 · Score: 1

Note: I do not favor censorship of scientific research in any sense, case or circumstance. The actions of.... it was the NSF, wasn't it?... anyway, the movement towards "self-censorship" in potentially dangerous biology research is counterproductive as well as spineless. A previous poster made an excellent analogy to closed source computer security - hiding your head in the sand will not protect you.

I'm doing computational biology right now, but I was a practicing biochemist in the past (I am the author of the root of this thread.)

If I wanted ebola, I could not get it. Well, *I* probably could if I had a legitimate reason to want some, but most people can't.

The possibility that, in 20 years time, you could mail order a kit that would enable you to make ebola (you'd need to do some cute cell biology to make the stuff actually infect your cell culture, it is true) "from scratch" is a legitimate cause for concern. Is this critically more dangerous than what you could do with late 1980s techniques? Maybe not. But, perhaps the societal or organizational structures (or dumb luck) which have prevented existing techniques from being widely used to make bioweapons might not apply to this new technology. Who can say? I'm concerned about the prospect, certainly. Does this mean I'm opposed to the research or favor censorship? NO NO NO NO. No some more. But, it is a possibility of which we should be aware.

--
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.

C++... no, more like... by HiggsBison · 2003-11-14 15:41 · Score: 1

Now we all have to learn "bianary" DNA language [just 4 letters, 2 combos, a helix, and a final 3D shape...it's actually simpler than most C++ programs]!

In genetic code there are a bunch of exceptions to every rule. There are rare 3rd and 4th combos, at least 3 forms of helix as well as metahelix forms.

Anyhow, I think it's more like Perl. :-)

--
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.

Bioweapons by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 16:28 · Score: 0

We should make a bioweapon that spews out flu, then it will get its deserved attention

Scared? RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 16:37 · Score: 0

RTFA -- they just chopped up a virus and put it back together again, from what I gathered. Commercially available

This summer, researchers at Venter's Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives bought commercially available strands of DNA and, using a new technology, coaxed them together to form a duplicate of the genome of a bacteriophage called phi X.

Re:IRAQ soon cleaned from USA faggot troops by gantrep · 2003-11-14 19:37 · Score: 1

I think the Iraqis would rather live under no rule of terror, neither Saddam's nor the US's, but rather under their own government.

There is no singular form of virii! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 20:29 · Score: 0

But since a computer virus is defined by its ability to replicate ...

And since a virus is really only considered a virus if it is "in the wild" (as opposed to a proof of concept, or lab virus) ...

There is no singular form of virii !

OK, lame joke.

Alternatively the spelling 'viri' could be used to designate a computer virus.

Another thought: Is virii or some variation Trademarked? Trademarks can become "real" words (Kleenex, Xerox, aspirin, etc.). Also - are words like "creme", "low-fat", "low-carb" words or what? Dictionaries list many "words" like this.

There is a website at http://virii.com/, although it is registered to what looks like an outfit trying to resell domain names:

virii.com resolves to 209.163.234.174

www.virii.com resolves to 209.163.234.174

whois -h magic virii.com
virii.com is registered with BULKREGISTER, LLC. - redirecting to whois.bulkregister.com

Cells are already slippery by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 20:51 · Score: 0

For example, the human body might not even be capable of attacking a hypothetical microbe that has a teflon or silicone-enhanced outer membrane.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that your understanding of the macro world extends to the micro world. A microbe expressing either one of those chemicals on its surface would be taken down by an immune reaction with no problem.

At its simplest, the a cell is just a lipid bilayer containing some liquid. It's already pretty much a greaseball. But the lipid bilayer itself is not an antigen. So, hypothetically, the best way to avoid an immune response would be to express nothing on the outside of that layer.

Unfortunately, you can't really do much if all you are is a lipid bilayer containing some salt water. You need proteins and carbohydrates and other lipids and such embedded in the membrane in order to interact with the outside world and control your internal chemistry. Also, the lipid bilayer is pretty flexible, so if you're a bacterium, you probably have a cell wall (basically a polymer scaffolding) outside your membrane to give yourself some structure.

So, sure, maybe you could make a cell out of a ball of teflon. But you're going to need some other molecules on the surface with which to interact with the extracellular space.

It is by these molecules that the pathogen is attacked. Your immune system doesn't try to grab it like a bar of soap in the tub and get flummoxed if it's slippery.

Eastern hemisphere?? by Quizo69 · 2003-11-14 22:14 · Score: 1

I'm not normally pedantic about this sort of thing, but common convention has it that it's either the Northern or Southern hemisphere.

The reasons for this are varied, but among them - weather patterns are aligned this way, we have a North and South pole (no East or West Pole I know of unless you are referring to Polish people) and the lines of longitude are all of equal length, while latitudes vary, giving rise to a top and bottom so to speak.

This Eastern/Western hemisphere crap (whilst technically correct in a strict physics sense, and only if you use the Greenwich Line as the middle) is one which has its origins firmly in the United States, which obviously felt that the propaganda value of having themselves in the "Westernest" hemisphere (thanks Simpsons) outweighed international convention on these sorts of things.

OK, that said, nothing detracts from your post itself which is correctly marked IMHO as Insightful. I just felt the need to clarify an error I see being used more each day.

Quizo69

--

Visceral Psyche Films

Philosophical implications of this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-14 23:39 · Score: 0

Have I missed something? Practically all of the discussion on this so far seems to be "Oh, yes, science is great, but what about the terrorists and the virus bombs that will surely kill us all?". It seems the first thing that occured to everybody was the potential for abuse and stuff...am I the only one who immediately thought "holy crap, think of the philosophical implications of this?"

I'm a physicist, not a biologist, so I'll admit that maybe I have the wrong idea here because I don't understand just what's been done, but the impression I get from the /. headline and the article is that we synthesised something that could be considered alive out of parts that weren't alive. Doesn't this have some pretty serious philosophical implications?

Doesn't this shatter the argument of anyone who has ever argued against evolution using something like "Oh but something as complicated and wonderful as life couldn't possible arrise from non-alive matter without divine intervention"? Haven't we just shown there is not anything "magical" about life, and that we can create it without some sort of intangible life force? These things might seem obvious to the average cold hearted science geek slashdotter, but these are serious issues for some people. Think of Creationism, of evolution, of extraterrestrial life, of artificial intelligence...the idea that life and the properties of advanced life rely on some sort of "magic" that regular science or people couldn't create is central to people's opinions on a lot of these things. If what has happened is what I think it is, then doesn't this have serious implications for all these beliefs?

Or maybe I've completely lost the plot...

Re:Philosophical implications of this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-15 03:38 · Score: 0

da philosophical implications of this is prolly
that we (humas) and the rest are just maschines
like descarte said ...

i for one will be a good maschine helping other
maschine lead a nice/happy, long live and future
sustainable life.
i will try to stay clean (like my car and house)
and be honest (so the univers may smile down upon
me, and not waste its time correcting my
mistakes).

a side note: looking down on this blue planet
with humans and animals etc.they seem to be soft
crystals made from carbon-nirogen-phosphore-oxygen ...

"gee i'm a crystal?"
Re:Philosophical implications of this by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-15 08:41 · Score: 0

Haven't we just shown there is not anything "magical" about life, and that we can create it without some sort of intangible life force?

Finally! Thanks for making a comment that actually addresses the significance of the article, instead of spewing about whether 'virii' is a word, or whether terrorists could exploit this technology.

Ever since Wohler synthesized urea, the argument has raged over whether we are purely physical beings or imbued with something more, a hypothetical "life force" that no one has been able to identify beyond the chemistry of metabolism.

The final nail in animism's coffin will come when a complete living cell is constructed "from scratch." Of course, the ID crowd will point out that it still required a "designer" to make life from non-living materials, but at least it will settle the question of whether abiogenesis is possible within the laws of physics.

Re:Hiroshima and Nagasaki Were Best Option Availab by jrumney · 2003-11-15 01:09 · Score: 1

I recommend YOU spend more time studying history, from a non-American point of view. All countries slant their history lessons, the only way to get an unbiased education is to see both sides, and the point of view of neutral parties.

As to why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen, they were chosen because of their vastly different geography, so the nuclear bomb could be tested in real circumstances. The Americans had to act quickly, as they knew that Japanese surrender was inevitable, and they wanted to demonstrate their military superiority to the world. When cloud cover obscured the target in Kokura, rather than wait for more favorable weather they diverted to Nagasaki, which has similar hilly terrain, so would offer the same conditions for their test.

OMG! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-15 03:19 · Score: 0

i hope they make one virus that infects
mushrooms. that would be cool.
no more mold! yeah!

correction by PsiPsiStar · 2003-11-15 03:40 · Score: 1

The above post should read;

The traits we're discussing help us, The traits we're discussing help us, not the life forms that will be altered.

--

___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.

IANAFAS, but ... by Dlugar · 2003-11-15 09:25 · Score: 1

Doesn't "ana moya" mean "I am water"? "Moyati" would mean "my water". Just curious.

Dlugar

--
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go

Re:IANAFAS, but ... by ammie · 2003-11-17 02:58 · Score: 1

I dont think so...While *in* Saudi, I had a lot of contact with the local contractors. "Ana moya" was explained to me as "my water". (Forgive my spelling here, but everything I learned was verbal)
I believe the phrase "Ana ibatha moya" was "I want water" and "Anta ibatha moya" was a question..."Do you want water?"
I could be mis-informed on this, if you have more background than I...then, well, I suppose you win this one! I may stand corrected on this one...

--
{...reality is wrong, Dreams are for real...}

yes-n-no by mabhatter654 · 2003-11-15 13:33 · Score: 1

The evolution of computer programming is heading into a DNA-like form. Computer programming is evolving into reusable modules and cross platform operation. It's only a matter of time, maybe even already for something like legacy Cobol, before the complexity of software systems is akin to studying DNA.

The state of DNA research like described in the article are bringing DNA complexity down into the relm of highest end computer sci...and the comp sci guys are more agressive and flexible than biologists in adapting to new changes. They actively seek them out. As this moves down the food chain, you'll see more software start to immitate life.

O, I see! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-17 04:21 · Score: 0

So, if Sadam DID had nukes and had blown up some USA cities, it would have been a good thing, because, heck, it would have been the most humane way to end the war as quick as possible!

Debunking by Anonymous Coward · 2003-11-17 06:12 · Score: 0

As a general statement, I agree with your first paragraph. The question remains, however, how (un)specific the information was, of course.

But then you are beginning to hurt the truth:

"So the U.S. actually does something in anticipation of preventing future even worse calamities from a known funder of terrorism and still gets bashed for it."

What the USA did was not sanctionned by the UN, but an unilateral invasion of another country that, contrary to the USA media-misinformation was NOT an immediate threat to the USA and DIDN'T have WMD anymore...and NOT because they wanted to prevent future calamities (the 9/11 attackers were all Saoudi's for your information, and even the CIA has acknowledged it hasn't found any link to Al quada and Sadam). It was mainly for geo-political and economic purposes.

"Doubtless you also blame the US for arming Iraq first like the other morons of your ilk, when you're to dumb to realize that it was T72 tanks, BMPs, Russian RPGs & SAMs, Chinese radar, & sundry Russian & French weapons of various types etc they were facing in Iraq, hardly US armaments."

No doubt, but you blissfully forget to mention that it was the USA that provided all the chemicals, well knowing what they were used for (but Iran was the big foe then, so ethics or WMD weren't a problem then), which they later used as a reason to invade Iraq. Iraq, after all, let's not forget, wasn't invaded because it had T-71s or French machineguns.

"You complain about the US installing dictators (which they don't in general they merely work with the incumbent) but then also complain when at last they remove a dictator and try to install a democracy. You hypocrite."

You, again, blissfully seem to dilute what the USA has actually done. Apart from 'merely work' they have actively supported dictators, and even toppled and/or killed democratic elected leaders and installed ruthless dictators in their place. Thus, when they 'at last' remove a dictator, it only shows that the US supports and helps them in the sadle as long as it suits their needs, and topple or drop them the moment they think their interest are best served doing so. Now, doing this, and meanwhile talking about how they (the USA) is such a benevolent force that supports democracy as their main goal, now, THAT is being hypocrite.

"Prosperity and rejuvenation invariably accompany American influence in the world."

The thousands of civilians killed and tortured by the dictators that the USA helped come to power and actively support, might disagree.

Re:Hiroshima and Nagasaki Were Best Option Availab by KnarfO · 2003-11-18 07:04 · Score: 1

What a load of horse crap!

We didn't want to wait because people were dying every day the war dragged on. Who was your history teacher, Osama Bin Laden?

--

"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams

i snd you this file in order to have your advice by B3ryllium · 2003-11-18 11:47 · Score: 1

Er, your sig gets cut off. "Will work for" what? :)

010011010110010100101100001000000100100100100000 01 11011101101001011011000110110000100000011101110110 11110111001001101011001000000110011001101111011100 10001000000010010000110010001100000010111101101000 01110010001011100010000001000011011000010110111001 10000101100100011010010110000101101110001011100010 00000100100101110100001001110111001100100000011000 01001000000110110101101001011100100110000101100011 01101100011001010010000001001001001001110110110100 10000001101110011011110111010000100000011000010010 00000110011001110101011011000110110001110100011010 01011011010110010100100000011001010110110101110000 01101100011011110111100101100101011001010010111000 10000001000100011000010111001001101110001000000110 00110110111101101100011011000110010101100111011001 01001000000110011101100101011101000111010001101001 01101110011001110010000001101001011011100010000001 11010001101000011001010010000001110111011000010111 100100101110

Slashdot Mirror

First Reproducing Artificial Virus Created

741 comments