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."

18 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 orangesquid · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm just waiting until the DEAMCA prohibits the transfer or publication of any DNA-code which is capable of producing controlled substances...

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    2. Re:Humans playing God? by IO+ERROR · · Score: 4, Funny
      whoo ha! finally.. i want a love-slave! can i grow one? ..hopefully they won't have the "human rights" that i do though! har har har!

      Well, you can have one, according to Isaac Asimov.

      The Clone Song
      By: Isaac Asimov
      Tune: Home On The Range

      Oh, give me a clone
      Of my own flesh and bone
      With its Y chromosome changed to X.
      And after it's grown,
      Then my own little clone
      Will be of the opposite sex.

      chorus:
      Clone, clone of my own,
      With its Y chromosome changed to X.
      And when I'm alone
      With my own little clone
      We will both think of nothing but sex.

      Read the full song by Isaac Asimov.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    3. Re:Humans playing God? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative
      There are efforts to construct living creatures (all prokaryotic) de novo from nothing but inert chemicals and information from sequence databases. If these efforts are successful in creating a viable organism from nonliving sources, it should rightly shake our thinking in a number of fundamental ways.
      • First of all, if we succeed in creating life from non-life (and only non-life), we demonstrate that a process of abiogenesis is physically (i.e. kinematically and thermodynamically) possible. Abiogenesis has never been directly observed, only inferred from our existence.
      • If we can demonstrate abiogenesis, we also demonstrate a weaker possibility- if it's possible to create life from chemicals, it's possible to create life from matter that is no longer alive (i.e. dead).
      • We also demonstrate that abiogenesis may have happened before. After all, if we can make a bacterium from scratch, it isn't as farfetched to suggest that bacteria might have arisen from natural processes. Our technology is constrained by nature.
      • There is also a large class of interesting biological questions one might finally answer. For example, your DNA is right-handed and your proteins are levorotary. This is common to all life on earth. Nobody knows if a biochemistry based on left-handed DNA and dextrorotary proteins is viable or not. Some people say things twist the way they do because of chance in the way they evolved; others say things have to be this way because of the weak nuclear force or something. If we can create a "normal" bacterium from dead chemicals off the shelf, we can create a mirror image version, and directly observe how well our mirror-image bacteria digest sugars of either chirality.
    4. 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. Ha by aendeuryu · · Score: 5, Funny

    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]

  3. BOFH on DNA by djupedal · · Score: 4, Funny

    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."

  4. BMI by halcyon1234 · · Score: 4, Funny
    You RTFA, nerds. At last, those extra pounds will come in handy. No longer is it a beer gut-- it's a new video card. It's not a fat ass-- it's a 200 GB Maxtor hard drive.

    On a side note: ew.

  5. 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

  6. food by twoes00 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bah, who needs drugs and treehouses. it should say: producing everything from novel sandwiches to seeds that sprout into cakes." :) Now thats an application!

  7. 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.
  8. Flattery'll only get you so far... by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    So - humans playing God, synthesizing life from its basic components. Hubris, or something better?

    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.

  9. finally! by binarybum · · Score: 3, Funny

    This should push stem cell research to the point where I can grow my own Shakey's right next to the existing one!

    --
    ôó
  10. 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.
  11. Re:I for one... by pchan- · · Score: 4, Funny

    MIT computers are made of people! PEOPLE!!!

  12. Carlson Curves by thedustbustr · · Score: 3, Funny
    From TFA:
    One of Endy's friends at MSI, Rob Carlson, charted the rates at which various biotechnologies were improving. The DNA-reading machines used by the Human Genome Project were doubling in efficiency every 18 months. DNA synthesis was accelerating even more quickly. If reality kept up with these "Carlson curves," then by 2010 a single lab worker would be able to synthesize a couple of human genomes from scratch every day.
    Moore's Law, anyone? I shall now generalize this concept, establishing TheDustbustr's theorem: The efficiency of the product of any emerging technology will double every 18 months, until fundamental theoretical limits in the technology are approached.
    --
    This sig is false.
    1. 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.

  13. nice first step, but... by ctalnh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.