Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MIT Making Computer Parts from DNA

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the growing-more-storage dept.

Rei writes "Following in the footsteps of Lynn Conway's pioneering work on VLSI that allowed ordinary students to create their own processors, a group of MIT professors have almost completed doing the same thing using DNA, known as synthetic biology. While not all of the components of a basic computer are working yet, there is hope that some day ordinary students may be able to design living computers, producing everything from novel drugs to seeds that sprout into treehouses."

6 of 243 comments (clear)

  1. Humans playing God? by IO+ERROR · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This has been on /. twice before.

    Anyway, it appears that they're actually trying to create synthetic living things, which is way beyond computer parts. If they can pull this off, it will be one hell of a hack. Humans playing God, creating life. Theology may well be shaken to its very foundations.

    --
    How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    1. Re:Humans playing God? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What if we create a bacteria that is toxic to us?

      The problem that I have with 'creating life' is that how do we know that what we do is going to be something that doesn't create a plauge?

      I guess that the modivation of most people over there at MIT is that they want to patent something and then live off of it for the rest of their lives. They don't seem to me to actually be concerned about anything more than their next grant or getting tenure and being shown as being so clever.

      So, if the profit motive is all that is driving them than why should society have to face the consequences of what they do if they do it wrong?

      If they do it wrong are they going to be able to clean up the mess?

      I think that we are at a point where the acedemics at these very large universities are parasitic on the rest of us. They are out of control and they don't work so much for the public benifit as they do for their own selfish ends. They are like a form of fuedalism for hte modern age.

      I would like to see the for profit parts of all of these large schools be taxed. If they collect rents from dorms, then they should pay tax. They don't even pay that much to the City of
      Cambridge for police. They are out of control and should be taxed. And maybe then they would stop trying to play God.

      Oh, and if they want to play god, then don't do it from a tax-free organization. Also, if they are tax free then all of their patents should be in the public domain.

  2. Doing DNA at home... by TheSync · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you want to try this yourself, check out DNA Hack, the website for Amateur Genetic Engineering

  3. Re:A Lil' Dangerous? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    yeah. just like normal chemistry does(think about all the easy to mix poisons and drugs!).

    or mechanics, or the two combined(whaaat? GUNS). so yeah, let's just dump it. let's not go there, let's put all scientific progress on statis.

    or maybe gerbils are dangerous, they multiply(hell, rabbits have/are "dangerous" for some eco systems).

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  4. Imagine the greater system possibilities! by theblacksun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Integrate these biological components into a electrical/electronical/mechanical system and you can get some neat toys.

    How about a tree designed specifically to hide wireless cameras/microphones?

    Home biological garbage disposals, like a fast-paced compost pile.

    How about some easily controlled flying insectoid? You could tap into its optical system and save yourself the power of the cameras, just have the transmitter.

    Of course I am ignoring the possibilities of abuse. They are both endless and quite horrifying.

    --
    Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
  5. Re:Carlson Curves by Rob+Carlson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As the Carlson in question, let me add the following thoughts.

    First, to what physical limits are you referring? It's worth considering what the physical limits of biological technology might be. I don't think the answer is simple.

    Second, a note on "Carlson Curves" (this is Oliver Morton's phrase, not mine): The plots were meant to provide a sense of how changes in technology are bringing about improvements in productivity in the lab, rather than to provide a quantitative prediction of the future. I am not suggesting there will be a "Moore's Law" for biological technologies. Although it may be possible to extract doubling rates for some aspect of this technology, I don't know whether this analysis is very interesting. I prefer to keep it simple. As I explain in the paper, the time scale of changes in transistor density are set by planning and finance considerations for multi-billion dollar integrated circuit fabs. Biology, on the other hand, is cheap, and change should come much faster.

    The paper, which was slashdotted when it came out last yeaer, and related writings, are available at www.synthesis.cc.