Slashdot Mirror


Learning (And Harvesting) from Extremophiles

kudyadi writes "BBC News has an article on the threat posed to extremophiles by anxious prospectors ready to exploit their unique nature. Potential discoveries include glycoprotein, which prevents Antarctic fish from freezing, and an extract from green algae for use in cosmetic skin treatment, and anti-tumour properties in a strain of yeast. This article explains the issue more lucidly, but in the end, one must consider the environmental ramifications of this biological exploitation before moving ahead full scale. So how is Tux in danger? Let me remind you of a thing called the food chain and then read this."

14 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. It's not like its strip mining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is some great white hunter scientist with a cotton swab and a sequencer really going to be a threat to Antarctica?

  2. Brilliant. by musingmelpomene · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's just stop ALL science until we're absolutely sure of every ramification of every single thing we do. It's a good thing these people weren't in charge in cavemen times; the first man to create fire would have been stoned to death for creating smoke, and the first one to create the wheel would have been burned at the stake for making something that could roll over grass.

    1. Re:Brilliant. by localman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually it's a great thing that we have these extremists worrying about the ramifications of every single thing we do. It nicely balances out the other extremists who are prone to plunge ahead without considering the ramifications at all. If either side was given free reign we'd be in big trouble fast. Thankfully they seem to balance out over time.

      It's the same in many fields. Politics comes to mind. If you find yourself not able to stand the folks on the other end of the spectrum, keep in mind that you have just placed yourself in another extreme group and be thankful for the balance.

      It is balance that keeps us moving forward surely but safely.

      More or less :)

      Cheers.

    2. Re:Brilliant. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But the use of the science often is stopped by the aforementioned chickens. Nuclear power for example. You can tell an activist that coal puts more radioactive materials into the atmosphere every year than all the nuclear accidents ever, and they'll just come back and tell you that coal is bad too and we should all put up solar panels, twine flowers in our hair, join hands, and dance around the maypole. Well, dance around my maypole, you bastards, because in the meantime the coal plants are running day and night and pumping out all kinds of wonderful toxic crap which will haunt us for generations to come.

      Granted, the hyperactive ecowankers need to exist, they just need to not have quite so much power. The problem is that the court of public opinion weighs emotions and not facts. We tend to agree with people and not points, and the winner is whoever comes off as being more charismatic. It's easy to paint those who develop or utilize scientific advancement for profit as greedy, selfish bastards, because they stand to gain something. Every lie is more powerful when it contains some truth.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Brilliant. by the+gnat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two points:

      - The same complaint can be made about the resistance to GMOs. Many of the bioengineered crops being developed today have the potential to save millions of lives, but there are some environmentalists who would literally rather see the Third World starve than see it utilize genetically engineered corn. (Actually, they'd probably rather see our tax rates go up to 50% so we can feed the Third World - which simply prolongs the problem rather than fixing it.)

      (Side point 1: some of the reading I've done indicates that there's also some anti-Americanism involved, since many of the GMOs come from the USA and are seen as a threat to European farmers. The US's ridiculous agricultural policies don't help. Side point 2: yes, there's some IP issues involved with biotech crops, but this is less of an obstacle to deployment.)

      - Many of the environmentalists do not actually believe in a modern industrial society. This is true of many animal-rights or anti-globalization activists as well. Many of the people protesting globalization have started to advocate a return to subsistence farming, because that's all that the Third World will be left with if we stick to ultra-protectionist policies. Without our modern agricultural system, sophisticated medicine, and advanced economy, however, they'd all be so sick from random (curable) diseases and weak from malnutrition that they wouldn't have time to protest fashionable causes and trash Starbucks franchises.

      I don't call myself an environmentalist, because it now comes with so many negative connotations, but working in the natural sciences and growing up in the western USA has given me good reason to support environmentally friendly policies. I would call myself a "conservationist", because I have no problem with sensible and sustainable exploitation of resources, but I don't want to see them plundered due to lack of regulations or desperation. I'd love to see us coexist perfectly with large amounts of undiluted Nature, and the only way that'll happen is with more technology, not less.

  3. Invitrogen by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Invitrogen patented the harvesting of the polymerase enzyme from the extremophile bacteria thermophiles aquarticus. It's a shame that one company can overcharge researchers by patenting something nature created!

    1. Re:Invitrogen by Azghoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The company comes up with one way to GET the "polymerase enzyme". Why should they be forced to just give away their methods?

      That's a fair patent, if you ask me. Sure nature might have created the stuff, but getting at it is another question altogether!

    2. Re:Invitrogen by Lehk228 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      did they patent a METHOD for harvesting polymerase enzyme or just the harvesting, if they patented a method then good for them, the invent something and should make money off it, if they patened all forms of extraction then they can burn in hell

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:Invitrogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Newsflash: No one is deploying 100,000 nazi scientist stormtroopers to Anarctica with syringes to extract bacteria from 1,000,000 fish and kill them off. Research is all about finding ways to artificially synthesize these organisms & their byproducts in a lab.

  4. Re:The human race is doomed by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah. I remember vacuum tube compters. I personally scratch built one. While it's abilities were somewhat limited compared to those of today I'd note that it was functionally superiour to those commonly in use today.

    It didn't do much, but it did what it did.

    Today's computers are still immature, but complicated enough that they fail regularly in ordinary usage.

    In martial arts it isn't the white belt or the black belt who is dangerous. It's the brown belt, who has developed certain skills and possesses real power, but who as yet has no deep understanding or control.

    KFG

  5. Not much bias there, eh? by Aumaden · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This seems like typical overreaction. The concern expressed in the article is that there are no regulations on bio-prospecting. Heck, they even admit, "We're not saying there's much danger of environmental damage."

    And "bio-prospecting" is such a loaded term. "Prospector" evokes images of an old, grizzled prospector wearing filthy clothes, leading an overburdened pack mule and "lookin' fer gold in them thar hills." We don't label physicists "particle-prospectors", after all.

  6. Not accurate by CXI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Um, what? Food chain, environmental ramifications???

    If the submitter had RTFA, he would have read the quote from the co-author:

    "We're not saying there's much danger of environmental damage, but it does pose a challenge."

    The challenge is simply one of patents and scientific sharing, not the extremist (ironic no?) view described above.

  7. Re:You can't have it both ways.... by DdJ · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you're going to use the biodiversity for exploitation argument, you can't complain when someone actually starts exploiting.
    Yes, we can. It all depends on how people exploit.

    If the exploitation is done by taking a small sample of the organism and then figuring out what compounds it produces that are so useful, and why they're so useful, and then reproducing those compounds and/or effects via an industrial process, that's a fine thing.

    Even if the exploitation is done by taking a gene sequence from a creature, throwing it on a plasmid, shoving that into a friendly bacterial culture, and growing the shit in a vat, that's a pretty decent thing.

    But if the exploitation is done by harvesting enough of the organism to pose a threat to its continued existence in the wild, then that's something that needs to be stopped (or we may have no more Truffula Trees, for example).
  8. this is not like clearcutting rainforests. by caino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Harvesting a couple of specimens for characterization will not disrupt the antarctic food chain, particularly with the bacterial species. It will just be a matter of creating the appropriate "extreme" habitat/culture conditions, and these organisms can be studied anywhere. There's no way that pfizer or someone else is going to go set up shop down there. Researchers will take a handful of antarctic specimens and study their function elsewhere.