DNA So Dangerous It Doesn't Exist

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."

Comments

DoD ?

[skahshah]

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

Re:DoD ?

[db32]

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.

Re:DoD ?

[indifferent children]

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'.

Re:DoD ?

[db32]

No. Lefty crybabies support crying about how the only way jingoistic right-wingers will spend money is promising to kill people and how lefties only support beneficial research. Sane indivudals who are largely responsible for the actual research are generally much more middle minded and see the benefits of doing the research in more aspects than some stupid political mudslinging fest. Just FYI, in reality there are people who lean left and lean right who are able to disagree and compromise without resorting to stupid shit like crying about how the military is a bunch of evil murders and only want to kill people. The problem is the ultra left and ultra right do such a wonderful job of screwing things up something fierce to prevent anything meaningful from getting done, because if you disagree with anything from either camp you are obviously a loonatic from the other camp.

In the meantime you can go on about how all the humanitarian aid stuff the military does is just a plot to cover up mass murders. There were significant advances in aviation from the whole Berlin airlift thing which was an unprecedented feat of aviation and saved lots of lives. Being first responders to tsunamis, hurricanes, etc, etc...its all just secret training we got by bombing levies and setting off underwater nuclear bombs right?

Re:DoD ?

[db32]

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.

Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been thinking about the same thing.

Imagine how easily we could get rid of all the niggers, kikes and ragheads.

tphis FP f0r GNAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Tired arguments devel0pme8t. BSD

yuo ufail it

[Anonymous Coward]

are She ha3 taken

Hopefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully Israel will be successful so we can finally be rid of the dune coons. The world would be much better without those camel jockey sandniggers blowing things up.

Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID

[indifferent children]

Science is science man

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

Re:I though it was an other 'idea' like ID

[Ingolfke]

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.