Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Creating Life From Scratch
Rubberbando writes "MSNBC is running a story about bioengineering organisms to do specific tasks such as produce hydrogen or ethenol. It also goes into the risks and ethical issues of playing with this sort of science. Some of the scientists involved are saying it's more of an art instead of a science due to its 'biohacking' style of experimentation."
Yes, but now they're going beyond that. They're trying to synthetically combine nucleotides of genetic material together in new ways. No more simple two species transactions, but a genuine "synthetic" approach to creating NEW genes.
It's only an ethical problem if scientists create something that has free will. That is, something that can make decisions using a "mind" as well as a brain. If someone succeeded in doing that, then they would have to treat the life as a person, not an animal. The mind (by definition) cannot be explained by science, and I doubt we will ever be able to create that, no matter how perfectly a brain could be developed or free thought mimicked.
Of course, some people believe that animals deserve the same treatment as humans, but that's another topic.
My whole theory is, if there was an intelligent designer who created us, which I doubt, then he created us with the capability to do such things as this. If he did not want us doing stuff like this, wouldn't he have designed us so as it was impossible for us to do such things? Perhaps God didn't create us to be his children, perhaps he is old and tired and created us to be his replacement
Some of the scientists involved are saying its more of an art instead of a science due to its 'biohacking' style of experimentation.
Much of biological science consists hacking, trial and error, dubious statistics, and manipulating life with cheap tricks and without deep understanding. I'm glad to hear scientists call as such. Given the daunting complexity of the subject matter, it is not surprising. But I wonder if there is there a deeper 'theory' of biology analogous to least action principles in physics, that could be illuminated by mathematics? Any biochemists or geneticists care to comment?
an ill wind that blows no good
a more reasonable plan might be the a hybrid between the Euro model of lower consumption and increased non-fossil fuel usage - where they are moving to 20 percent wind/solar/biofuel usage by 2012 (and half way there) and expanding use of lower energy cost high speed trains instead of planes and better transit - and the US model of expanding energy supply.
We could easily migrate to expanding wind farms and solar farms and biofuel usage - storing stored energy via catalysis (H20 to H2 and O2) in fuel cells for some vehicle usage, maybe thru a farm electrification process where they put up wind turbines or solar arrays and use that to fill up fuel cells, with existing hydro and fission nuclear as well [note coal to fuel cell transfer ratios are much worse than the ones i mentioned so i skipped them - use coal for direct electricity or heat instead]. Then phase in hybrids and fuel cell trucks/SUVs/etc over time, removing current inefficient tax credits for inefficient vehicles - allowing the market to shape demand by not subsidizing dead-end technology that gets lousy mpg too.
But that would be smart.
Fusion is underway in France. But it's always 10-20 years in the future for commercial usage - and has been since I was born in 1960.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I mean, if we can create an organism, why couldn't some higher being?
Well, because we have hands and whatnot, as opposed to imaginary magical, worshipper-fueled, fantasy Santa-Clause-like mythological constructions that are easier to dream up than complex biology is for a lot of people to understand. Pretty much that's why. I think it's a lot like wondering why the breakfast you're eating, as just made by your mom, isn't an indication (or proof, even) that the Easter Bunny could also have made breakfast. Someone who is comforted by the image of the Easter Bunny making them breakfast is always goint to be able to say that maybe, just maybe Mom was sidelined while the rabbit scrambled the eggs. Never mind that Mom can stand right there and show breakfast being made, and even point out how that goes a long way to explaining how lunch will be made later in the day... there's no point explaining any of that to the True Believers.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Tangent: Personally, I've never understood why science and religion must be at odds. Why can't one's deity be the one who caused these scientific laws and phenomena, and either nudged evolution a little bit here and there or maybe just planned it all in the beginning (like writing a program, or planning a chess game ahead) and set it loose?
Science helps us understand how God did it. I believe God will never break a law of the Universe. Why should He?
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON