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."
One of the biggest arguments of the folks who promote biodiversity is that we may find organisms that produce pharmaceuticals that we can use to do important things. That way biodiversity seems more commercially appealing (I'm not saying it is or isn't true, I'm just restating the argument.)
So now we've got folks complaining because we're trying to exploit some of the organisms to produce pharmaceuticals. The priniciples of biodiversity are playing out as the advocates expected, and now a faction of those advocates are crying foul because somebody's actually exploiting the organisms for commercial gain.
If you're going to use the biodiversity for exploitation argument, you can't complain when someone actually starts exploiting.
This is the sort of story that illustrates the risk inherent in a proprietary approach to knowledge. The first duty of a proprietary interest is to secure a financial return on investment. There's a built-in incentive to discount other competing interests, like stifling innovative software or, as in this case, damaging the environment.
I'm laughing at clouds.
Do we really need these extremophiles? Only if we have no other means of obtaining novel biological and pharmcological materials.
Biological and medical science has come a long way from the "lets eat this herb and see if it does anything" mode of experimentation. Genomics, proteomics, combinatorial chemistry, and high throughput screening are all means for engineering new chemicals rather than waiting to discover some organism that happens to produce some useful compound. Advances in simulation, protein folding, in silico pharmacodynamics & pharmacokinetics mean that scientists and engineers can design new chemical species that do what we need them to do.
My point is that although these extremophiles do offer an interesting source of innovation, they are not the only means for finding cures for cancer or novel materials. Although we may have much to learn from nature, we approach the day when no longer need this haphazard ancient dataset.
Soon we will design drugs, rather than find drugs.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
They are a literal gold mine for biotech companies.
I don't often pick nits, but this one always bothers me...
Unless the extremophiles are actually an "excavation in the earth from which gold can be extracted" they are not literally a gold mine. They are figuratively a gold mine.
Anyway...
These organisms are not going to be "harvested" in Antartica for any commercial purpose, and I can't see further research in this area creating anymore disturbance to the ecosystem than the research already carried out in Antartica since the first explorers
I have to disagree. It's just not cost effective to do so now -- if there was a fish in antartica that could be ground up into an AIDS cure or cancer cure, you can be sure someone would fish it clean, ecosystem be damned.
Any one who thinks that taking a shovel and bucket to antartica to collect organisms growing in the ice and snow is an econoically viable option is insane. The pin head sized colony of bacteria that they bring back to start production sized cultures in controlled fermeters will never affect the environment.
Rice University Department of Biochemistry and Cell Biology- "Engineering the freaks of tomorrow"
Of course we need extremophiles. As of yet, no, or very few drugs been synthesised "de novo". The methods you mention are mainly used to examine compounds found in nature and then to improve these. The only only method with a bit of hope of creating completely new drugs is "Combinatorial Chemistry", but is more of a exhaustive search of several thousand random compounds. As of today, no or very few scientists try to create completely new proteins. Why create new when you can use those which have evovled for millenia?
Soon we might design drugs, rather than find drugs, but not yet. Not yet. I personally believe it won't happen in my lifetime, and this is based on the belief that we won't have AI in my lifetime either.
Beware. Someone might be watching.
One of the critical issues is the chemical diversity space of the zillions of screened compounds. The more diverse the chemical space, the more likely you'll fine some promising leads. Broadly, there are two ways that high diversity are generated: 1) by organic synthesis, combining lots of organic chemical groups, in lots of ways (combinatorial chemistry), or, 2) by harvesting natural compounds, which are just plants and animals liquified by a Waring Blender. It turns out that natural compounds tend to represent a larger chemical diversity space, and, therefore, may be more likely to contain novel pharmaceuticals. (The details and reasons are way beyond the scope this post. Take an organic chem course, followed by a biochem course, and you'll understand.)
Here's a pretty readable article that explains more.
You don't harvest extremophiles for these substances. You model the substance and find a synthetic analog
.Potential discoveries include glycoprotein, which prevents Antarctic fish from freezing...
I wonder if this sort of thing could ever have application in cryogenics of human beings. Right now, my understanding is that cryogenics is a crock because the freezing process causes the cells in the body to, for lack of a better word, explode. I doubt we'll ever encounter technology to undo that. If you could somehow protect the integrity of the cells during the freezing process however, reanimation should be feasible at some point.
Of course, I don't know if the whole cryogenics thing is worthwhile as is. But for space travel, even within our own solar system, it could come in quite handy by reducing the need for perishables (food, water, oxygen) as well as being easier to shield the astronauts from radiation by only having to provide serious shielding in a very confined space.
Anyway, that just seems like a cool possibility some day.
erm... "reenergize" ?
Is this based upon that magic belief some people have that there is a vital force without which there is no life?
Freezing and unfreezing embryos is routine. Cells can be frozen and their chemistry just start up again.
More complex things need to be warmed evenly, and other complications, but it isn't as insurmountable as your average vitalist would think.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'