Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DNA So Dangerous It Doesn't Exist

Posted by samzenpus on from the scramble-your-genes dept.

Panaqqa writes "A group of researchers at Boise State University is investigating the theory that there are genome sequences so dangerous they are incompatible with life. Greg Hampikian, a professor of genetics, and his team are comparing all possible short sequences of nucleotides to databases of gene sequences to determine which ones don't exist in nature. The New Scientist reports that the US Department of Defense is interested enough in their work to have awarded them a $1 million grant. I for one am not sure I like the possible directions this research could take."

6 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. DoD ? by skahshah · · Score: 1, Troll

    Given (most of ?) the research made by the DoD, maybe it should change its name to Department of Attack ? Or Murder Inc. ?

    1. Re:DoD ? by db32 · · Score: 0, Troll

      I can't believe this trite got modded up as insightful. Quit crying. Turn off your computer. Stop using your car. Don't ever fly commercial flight. You had better not ever check the weather channel. And you had absolutely better not ever go to a doctor for anything, definitely any sort of trauma injury. Because your little Department of Attack mindless left crybaby nonsense is who brought major advances in all of those areas. In fact, it wasn't to long ago that there was a story here about medicine and how the pharm companies just develop symptom treatments to bleed everyone for money, while the military research develops cures and vaccines because they are more interested in fixing the problem quickly.

      I swear to God, its every few stories someone makes some moronic comment about the military on here and the sheep flock to it. If you want to cry about a group cry about the elected body that controls the military. Once again I would like to thank you for helping to stop progress and allow the far right to keep a tight grip by making anyone left of their agenda look stupid.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    2. Re:DoD ? by indifferent+children · · Score: 0, Troll
      Because your little Department of Attack mindless left crybaby nonsense is who brought major advances in all of those areas.

      And why was it the DoD that researched those advances? Is it because lefty crybabies didn't want those advances researched, while jingoist fascists did? No. Lefty crybabies support spending tax dollars for beneficial research. But the only way to get a right-wing nutcase to agree to let the government spend tax dollars on research is by promising to kill lots and lots of 'bad people'.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    3. Re:DoD ? by db32 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Thank you. I think its funny I got modded down so harshly. I mean DARPAnet was a jingoistic plot to destroy the world right? This is why the ultra left/right piss me off so much, they use the same stupid blind and moronic crap every time, flinging stupid shit back and forth and making anyone that doesn't agree 100% look like a loony from the other camp.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  2. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by indifferent+children · · Score: 0, Troll
    Science is science man

    And pseudoscience is pseudoscience. Guess which tool "religious groups" tend to use?

    --
    Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
  3. Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID by Ingolfke · · Score: 0, Troll

    the rest of your post seems to all be about the fact that you don't seem to understand the phrase "statistically speaking".

    No... statistics of the population of scientist have absolutely no bearing on whether or not the science presented is accurate or not. The measure of science is wether or not it's testable in the real world, not the % of scientists who believe one thing or another. If all of the scientists converted to FSMism and began to argue the world is flat it doens't make it true.

    1. "macro-evolution" is a term used by fundamentalists, not scientists, and
    Oh I'm sorry... what terms do you use to differentiate between mutations that are caused due to genes that exist within a species genome and mutations that occur by creating new genes that did not exist in the species before?

    2. no scientist would describe evolution as "randomly caused".
    Oh right... because the first protiens that formed life willed it. Give me a fucking break man.

    Really your just picking apart semantics. The point stands. The science is good or it's not. If you have to rely on the source to validate the science then you've stepped into the realm of belief and that's not scientific.