Slashdot Mirror
MIT Making Computer Parts from DNA
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."
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?
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.
[Slashdot user looks up from sketchpad] What's that? Seeds that sprout into treehouses? Yeah, I suppose that could be useful.
[Goes back to designing Angelina Jolie X7c]
You can't prove that I had any of the fruit or veg that has your IP in it!" the Boss blurts, placing his summons on my desk.
"You may be right," I say, "but I'm sure that a quick subpoena would sort everything out."
"Subpoena?" he asks. "What for?"
"Just a sample of your DNA - to prove that you now contain some of my IP."
"It won't show anything!"
"Oh, don't worry, I'd subpoena your tissue again if the first test was inconclusive."
"And keep on doing it until you find something I suppose?"
"Oh no. No, we only get two cracks at it - unless you've got three testicles"
"WHAT!"
"Yes, Well you realise that if you've absorbed my IP, any children you have would have to be licensed, and of course the only way I can prove absorption would be through your reproductive organs."
On a side note: ew.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
If you want to try this yourself, check out DNA Hack, the website for Amateur Genetic Engineering
Bah, who needs drugs and treehouses. it should say: producing everything from novel sandwiches to seeds that sprout into cakes." :) Now thats an application!
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.
Without stating a position either way on the existence (or nonexistence) of God, what better way to glorify a Creator than by showing Him we've learned some of His tricks?
(Allow me one assumption here: the assumption that if God exists, He's not a copyright lawyer, and will be flattered by our success, rather than whomping us with a Deistic Millenium Copyright Act violation notice in the form of a 20-mile-wide asteroid.)
God: I created you by breathing life into dirt.
Man: Cool trick, God. We've learned to do the same thing.
God: Cool trick. Now try it from first principles.
Man: What do you mean?
God: Well, next time, make your own dirt.
And before you point out - correctly - that with a sufficiently large energy input we could indeed synthesize all the components that make up "dirt" out of hydrogen, you haven't solved the problem. Ultimately, it comes down to this:
God: Look, I appreciate the flattery, and I encourage you to keep at it. But read the job description -- you qualify for My job when you derive a universe capable of evolving intelligent life based on the setting of a small number of physical constants, and you can have My job when your resume' includes experimental proof in the form of a portfolio that includes your worshippers.
We hairless apes still have a bit of work to do.
This should push stem cell research to the point where I can grow my own Shakey's right next to the existing one!
ôó
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.
MIT computers are made of people! PEOPLE!!!
Aren't "living computers" basically what we are?
This sig is false.
A practical consequence of "Playing God" is that you open the doors to a scary problem. It is the problem where if we can make replacements for humans we lose our humanity. Its more then just the philosophical question of where we lose our humanity. What if a group wants to replace the goverment leaders by clones which they control? ok, maybe it would be an improvement, but it is still a problem.
I read about DNA based computers about 10 years ago from a "Popular Science" type magazine here in Mexico.
:(
I thought they'd ALREADY be, at least, close to releasing one.
It's interesting how many technologies take so much, much longer to come about than we'd like.
Flying car, I miss you
Dude, get a clue. You mean mountain, not sky.
Their approach is pretty cool, where the activity of each gene corresponds to one bit (actually one analog "voltage", but I digress) that can be independently controlled. Unfortunately each cell in their "computer" is expected to behave similarly, so the approach won't scale. The problem is that each gene is gonna be at least 1000 base pairs, roughly. Compare that to a typical bacterial genome (~5,000,000 base pairs) or the human genome (~3,000,000,000 base pairs), keeping in mind that large portions of those genomes are there to, well, keep the organism alive. Right now they're not even talking about taking over whole entire genomes here, just plasmids and viruses. That'll get you in the ballpark of 100,000 base pairs, or 100 bits, at most. Oh yeah, for each transition in a circuit here you'll have to make a new batch of proteins. That'll take minutes to hours. Not exactly stellar clock speeds. Which of course begs the question of how nature gets anything done at all. It's still pretty mysterious actually, but part of it comes down to the fact that your cells use feedback in a much more nuanced way than just "on" and "off". There's also lots of parts re-use, but probably the most important thing of all is communication and coordination *between* your cells. Like the fact that each neuron in your head does something different, and all of them put together make up something interesting and useful (hopefully). Rudimentary cell-cell communication circuits are already being constructed, and I'd like to see these scientists incorporate some of that into their work.
The Slashdot post makes it seem like the people at MIT invented the idea of synthetic biology. Well, I'm sure the good guys over at MIT would agree that the hallmark papers that started the craze didn't originate from MIT...they came from Princeton & Berkeley and there's plenty of other institutions who are making major contributions (some greater than MIT's), especially on the science end.
That being said, their idea of Biobricks is very innovative and they did host the first conference on the topic. So the popular press can be easily misled.
Favorite
I spent a bit of time the last couple of weeks checking out the exibits at the Ontario Science Center on genetics which is probably one of the best exibits they have ever put together. In looking at the concepts of DNA/RNA/... A thought came to me - Why not build a programming language coding framework that is based on the strict constructs of genetics. The language/framework would implicitly have serializability of all structures and could allow for generation of truly extensible components. The basic concepts of highly structured data frameworks is growing (ie. http://nakedobjects.org) but why not pull these constructs one step away from the business data and bring it to the business logic or core application coding level.
Anybody know of such coding or at least theortical hacks out there?
JsD
What is up with you God hating Atheists?
No idea sorry, I'm agnostic myself. God would have to exist before I could hate him anyhow. A child can even prove that they exist, so why can't god manage to do such a small thing?
If you have no proof for God, maybe it is because God doesn't think that you deserve the proof.
Equally so, we have no proof for Santa Claus. Perhaps his elves have made him an invisible cloak too and we don't deserve proof from him. It's much more likely that you're just wishing.
The kind of proof that the faithful have can not be shared with others. That is why it is called faith.
Certainly, but faith and belief are merely that. They have no grounds in reality whatsoever and can never be facts. They're a conclusion without the evidence. It's cetainly possible that God exists, but no more likely than Santa Claus in actual facts.
Oh, and by the way, if you can't prove something, that doesn't mean that it isn't so.
True indeed, but if your god is so afraid of showing himself, then why all the miracles in the past? God may exist but He certainly hasn't parted any Red Seas recently or raised any dead, which is quite suspicious considering he was up to all sorts of tricks a while back. It's safer to infer that God is fiction just like any other fiction one is likely to cook up in ones head.
theology and science used to be the same thing in ancient times. Now people like you have your science and you also have a lot of hubris.
Actually, it was the occult (magic) and science that used to be one - Alchemy, astrology etc. Christianity hated and persecuted that too. Deep down I guess you Christians knew that it was only a mater of time before people realised that there is no disernible god or gods.
Humility is a much better trait than intelligence as far as I can see. I would rather spend a day with a down-syndrome patient than some MIT drone who wants to play at being god.
Humility to what? Truth isn't a matter of taste you see regardless of your personal preferences. Your elusive god isn't impressive enough for my tastes anyhow.
If you had seen Yahweh, you certainly wouldn't be spreading your Atheist nonsense.
I agree. If he corrected my denial of him, I'd gladly repent. If you see him, tell him to pop by and tell me off ASAP. I'd gladly be proven wrong, because I would prefer that there was indeed a benevolent creator looking over us. Unfortunately however, this just isn't likely.
Also, you seem to treat science as an idol.
Generally I see Christians treating their own silly opinions about God as idols. Nonethless, I don't believe that science is the panacea to mankind, but certainly rationality and beliefs based on what can be seen to be true is indeed my guiding light. The alternative is to believe in any number of unprovable fairy stories made by foolish men pretending to be or know god.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
Being able to re-create life from dead things does not mean making them alive again... it just means you create a new life from the remains (inert) of another life form. Let's not get into "Pet Cemetary" like arguments here =)
IMHO, abiogenesis is inevitably possible. But I also think that that raises another point which you did not:
What is life worth if it can actually be created from inert matter? My personal belief is that life isn't actually worth that much, but the consciousness that it implements is priceless. I also happen to think that life is not the only medium possible for consciousness, and that there *has* to be conscious systems out there that are not based on living organisms. (Computers maybe in the distant future)
I also happen to think that consciousness is very fundamentally linked with quantum physics and how nothing is deterministic. But that's just really far out there, and people are going to call me crazy...
You guys are really hyper-paranoid for no reason at all. While the original post says "While not all of the components of a basic computer are working yet," it would be more accurate to say, "We hope that in a year or so, we may be able to build a full-adder*." Seriously, the only parts that work reliably are NOT and OR gates, and you can only use about three of each in your system before cumulative stochastic error makes it fail. (Not to mention that you can't use the same gate twice -- if you've got two NOT gates, but need three in your system, you've got to go back and design a whole new gate from more basic parts.) We're not anywhere near "playing God;" we're not even at the "playing Electrical Engineers" stage of being able to design and build systems. Yes, the long-term goal is to create a seed which grows into whatever we want, but at the moment, we can barely make E. coli fluoresce in response to a complex input. I know you fear slippery-slope effects, but really, when we get into eukaryotes, never mind multicellular organisms, then you may have some justification to worry.
* I was trying to use MIT's paradigm to design a full adder this past summer, and realized that even a half-adder would require parts which had not yet been characterized or even synthesized. The best system which has actually been built can direct a cell to secrete a specific chemical when bright light shines on it. Really.
That's what I would do as a young student with a DNA machine.
-- thinkyhead software and media
...if I downloaded Britney Spears' DNA?
Would they consider that stealing if someone just happened to be sharing it with me?
The critical thing to understand is that this is OPEN SOURCE BIOLOGY ... bringing the same resources, intellectual curiosity and viewpoint fostered by the open source software community. There's not a biological GPL yet, but I believe there will be.
On the Dark Side, open source software's Darth Vader -- Bill Gates -- is an early player in synthetic biology. Check out that, the MIT story and a lot of other information at: taqdot. taqdot proudly runs Slash Code.
about -7 years.
Iceland, DeCode. Google it.
Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)