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."
This type of biological research convinces me firmly that
the intelligent design (ID) is just another horse crap
made up by humans. The base of ID's claim lies on the belief
that the design of some rudimentary living organisms are
just too complex to be built by accident. Hence
some higher intelligence -- beyond human intelligence --
must be involved in creating such organisms. But now, we
are stepping closer to make one on our own. What does that
say about humans? Are we becoming a god?
No. It's all about perception. From our point of view, some
things may look too complex to be formed accidentally. But
as science advances, our perception does evolve (or should).
If our society continues to exist (not sure if that happens
in Kansas or in Bill Frist's home, but let's not go there),
then what it seems an impossible task may not be so impossible
any more.
Well, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Why have these scientists not heeded the dire warnings of Jeff Goldblum? You cannot control your creations! Life finds a way!
Their "science" and "bacteria" are going to cause random plot-convenient sex changes and bloody dismemberment of lawyers!!!
...well okay actually maybe this isn't going to be so bad
FYI, the title is incorrect. There is no "from scratch" component to the life. What they're doing is building custom DNA, then injecting it into a living cell.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Scientist #1: I am teh l33t bi0hax0R!!!!1111!lol!!!
Scientist #2: LOL j00 r bi -- ur teh ghey!!!
Scientist #1: STFU, n00b!111!
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
I hold rights to all life and I will see you in court.
God
As I understand it, it's trying to make it into more of a science, where previously it had lacked order and had merely been creative guessing which genes to put where. Seems like a much better method to me - start from the most basic (well, almost most basic... genes -> nucleotides -> atoms -> quarks... but you get the gist) elements and put them together building-block style. Go modern science.
Combining the genetic material of different species, I think we can all agree, is hardly creating life from scratch.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Are they using the intelligent design method, or the waiting around to see what happens on its own method?
in fact, my job is to record all the data from hundreds, well tens of thousands, of such mutations, sometimes only in one small section of the exact same original organism or protein.
....).
and then we crank out thousands of colonies for each of these, or at least we hope we do.
So, from my viewpoint, the concept of manufacturing an organism to crank out oil needs to be thought thru quite a bit - what if it harvests not just the biowaste of corn husks but starts eating grasses and other plant life? what if it hybridizes or mutates (there is solar radiation and chemical interference and ingestion) and loses its species-specific behavior - as bioengineered rice did in China and India when it hybridized with nearby "wild" rice crops due to their farming practices and this thing called nature (wind, storms, excessive rainfall, seeds falling out during transport
Be careful what you wish for - sure you may be able to make a plant that creates oil, but it may end up turning your front yard from grass into sludge, or attack your food crops.
It's happened before, and that's one of the joys of biochemistry - biological processes change and adapt and mutate and it's always fascinating in this multiply interdependent bio system we live in.
Now, if you want to experiment on Mars or in space colonies inside large asteroids, be my guest. But we live here. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you need to do something right now...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Creating life from scratch? Who do they think they are? Darth Plagueis perhaps?
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Making stuff is the big deal. Most chemicals are made from petrol nowadays and the chemical companies are searching for a way out of this dependency on petrol. One way is plants (as raw material) + bacteria(for their enzymatic reactions). Quite a few microbiology labs are now working in discovery, selection and bio-engeneering of bacteria for this very purpose. Personally, I think the discovery part is very important since we know close to nothing about the biodiversity of bacteria. A number I heard recently is that 70% of the biomass of this planet is made of bacteria, and most of them live in the ground and are very difficult to isolate and study and thus mostly unknown. Look up metagenomic in google for more info.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
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
Not quite -- Miller-Urey succeeded in making organic molecules
While necessary for life, molecules are not living organisms.
Oro's experiment created the base adenine, which is one of 4 nitrogen bases in DNA. Again, not life.
Ignorance is not a crime; neither should it be a way of life
Congress control $ = inmates run the asylum
Hillbillies have been doing this for years.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
bioengineering organisms to do specific tasks such as produce hydrogen or ethenol
Isn't this a form of slavery?
They risk making the Flying Spaghetti Monster furiously angry and being strangled by His Noodly Appendage. We should recognies that there are things man was not meant to do, and leave it firmly in the realm of pasta.
http://www.venganza.org/
Maybe they can creat a bionic spell checker.
Also, the obligatory:
I'd like to see a Biowulf cluster of these.
All your biohacks are belong to us!
Molecular biologists have been cloning genes in prokaryotes and eukaryotes for tens of years. It's not a new idea to clone a series of genes that work cooperatively to change biochemical behaviour of an organism.
Something I find more note-worthy, as a biological chemist, is a new trend to expand the amino-acid table (past 20). Many of the codons (DNA or RNA triplets) are degenerate or they are stop codons. The idea is to add synthetic amino-acids to specific tRNAs. Chemically modified amino-acids are incorporated at the desire of the molecular biologist. This technology has already been developed, and the scientists in this field (not myself) are discussing using directed evolution with organisms with an expanded codon base. Very interesting.
Until what they create has a brain and is capable of rational thought I don't see where the moral implications of this differ from material science.
-
Yeah typical,
"oh lets invent something because the free nature stuff cannot be patented and sold for profits"
Any one can clone natures best, cloning plants is trivial.
So - http://www.hempcar.org/
So if the damn politicans and christian nut cases would just die of cancers overnight, we could have some real prople with brains running the show to everyones benefit not just the corporate elites nutjobs.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
God created the Universe, Earth, and everything in it.
"Science" is the word we use to describe the Study of God's Creation. Hence, science is the study of God himself by witness of His Creation.
I will NOT tell you who God is. Or what He wants. I do not know. And it is my firmest belief no one else does either.
We are trying to understand how we came to be.
I have to take as a given that if I was created with a sense of curiousity, my Creator intended me to use it to try to find Him, wherever and whatever He is.
He may even be another set of completely natural processes following laws of probablity... how am I to know until we study, contemplate, and hopefully finally understand?
I believe the the worst we can do is to do nothing.
If God had wanted Sheep, he would have left it at that.
Our Creator has already also provided us with all sorts of tools we can adapt and use as we see fit. We have already known about the atoms that make us up for some time... now we are learning more about actually how to assemble them in other ways. How is this any more wrong learning how to ignite wood so we can warm ourselves on a cold night?
To sum up, from all I have seen and understand, Science is the truest study of God possible, as the basic tenents of the Scientific Methods rely on observations and reproducible phenomena, not hearsay. This observable phenomena was authored by God himself, using God's laws ( aka "Laws of Physics" ) that no man can put asunder.
I will not say I am "religious" because I believe "religion" is the word we use to describe how Man creates God in his image.
It is my strongest belief that Religion has very little to do with God and a helluva lot to do with maintaining hierarchical authority and obedience in the religious organization.
In those cases, a God was created to give an illusion of authority so the "middlemen" who know how to play the game can use their God to claim authority over the masses.
Read Stanley Milgram's research on "Obedience to Authority" if you need any reason to question just how prone to subordination we are. It all goes back to basic economics, as it requires a lot less effort on our part to follow than to lead, but if you can get enough followers, its worth your while to lead.
If I am wrong, may God have mercy on my soul.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Comment removed based on user account deletion