Slashdot Mirror
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."
Just like the Monty Python sketch "the Funniest Joke in the World", developing something that kills itself too quickly isn't going to get propagated far without a lot of effort!
Suicide genes that can be activated at a later date?
I - am - not - a - machi --*Boom*
I, for one, welcome our new incompatible non-existing overlords.
DoD - Dudes of Death
:)
Why change a working slogan?
I for one am not sure I like the possible directions this research could take.
Well, quite. Gene replacement therapy with ones that aren't compatible with life. At all. A project run by the US DOD. "Bound to end in tears" doesn't even start to cover it. Great.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
When I first read the title I though it was about a new theory of some religious group trying to say that DNA is dangerous because it proves the theory of evolution so some school board declared that it does not exist.
Maybe there is some DNA that codes for 666 or that translates to "Hell freezes over".
But I know that DNA is really coding 42.
It used to be called the Department of War. It was changed after WW II.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Especially stupid are searches for amino-acid sequences. Some of the sequences do not make structural sense, obviously.
And what about "dangerous"? Obviously, if the sequence is so crappy that it makes the working conformation of every structural RNA or protein disfunctional then it won't be reproduced. Never.
More interesting would be to find out why some sequences are not encountered also in non-coding areas. But "danger"???
Give me a break. This is as stupid as stupid goes.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I hope they are very careful with their experiments.
Indeed,we wouldn't want a petri dish to catch cold.
KFG
"Doctor Jones? We'd like you to find the lost macguffin of death that kills anything with DNA before the Nazis find it. Oh, and the French Dr. Sneeringfart, your longterm rival, is already on the trail."
A few scenes from the movie:
Dr S: "Fine wine - too bad you won't live to enjoy it, Jones!"
Indy: "Snakes on a plane? Why does it always have to be snakes on a plane!?"
Indy: "There was an ancient legend that the Aztecs put this in the cocoa of their enemies. DNA incompatible with human life! It's like a bad dream of science!"
Explorer babe: "Oh, Indy, ignore that tiny bottle of deadly DNA and pay some attention to MY DNA!!"
Er, I expect the title will be, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Lost Biowarfare.
First of all, I am doing research in computational biology. I just read the paper linked from his webpage at http://biology.boisestate.edu/hampikian and I have to say that this is one of the worse papers I have ever read. First of all, I can literally write a program to do all that he proposed in about 10 minutes. Give me the $1 mil, I'll do the research. Although the idea of systematically finding nullomers can have practical applications, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence that they are incompatible with life. And wow, isn't this the eye catching title that we see on /. The numbers of nullomers that he found in the human genome, for example, looks like they are in line with expectation given a genome genome that is AT rich (more A and T nucleotides than G / C nucleotide). Because the human genome is finite (only about 3 billion nucleotides), of course you are going to find DNA sequence even at only 11 bases long that do not exist in the human genome. Just do the math! 4^11 = 4.2 billion. It makes me so furious that our government wastes so much money on useless stuff.
There may also be some that are lethal in some species, but not others. We're looking for those sequences.
This article reminds me of a doomsday hypothesis I once read. Daniel Pouzzner [mega.nu] posted this some time ago on his website:
It is quite likely that the Endangered Species Act and similar policies will continue to be enforced, setting large areas of land (and associated natural resources) out of the reach of interested industries. Corporations in these industries will create a demand for black market genetic bullet engineering, by which obstacle species can be purged, freeing the land for industrial exploitation. The profit motive is overwhelming; the resources at issue are worth trillions of today's dollars annually. An engineer who can target species on demand can obviously target humans, or even subsets of humans, if he wants to. Black markets by definition are not subject to regulatory scrutiny, and of course tend to be populated by unsavory and low characters. The environmentalist extremists (many of whom are well-financed or independently wealthy) will retain the services of some of these black market operators, to "fight back" (as they see it) on behalf of the species being targeted for/by the corporations. This will probably culminate in a doomsday bug.
Um, actually no. At a certain point it becomes more fit for an organism to die. The gene pool and species as a whole evolve, not the individuals. There is a reason old people tend to stop healing, and more so when they aren't needed. Taking up resources and dragging down your family is a bad thing, so at a certain age genes tend to help kill off individuals rather than help them live longer.
Genes which kill you off when you are a drain on the gene pool are more fit. They tend to help the other individuals in the larger group, many with that same gene. So the gene helps itself by helping others... and killing its possessor.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
I'd consider it more likely that a lab "accident" causes it to kill off the Palestinian population, or possibly even the majority of the Arab world. All it takes is one wrong person in the right place at the right time. And the majority of current leaders in Israel fit every criterion but "right time" at the moment.
Of course, I'd hate for them to pick up this idea, but they've probably thought about it already:
If they are willing to sacrifice the majority of their population as well, they could create a biological weapon that targets everyone except the Ashkenazi jews. That particular group is probably one of the most studied groups out there because they almost never breed with outsiders, so tons of interesting stuff can be found from their DNA. (Note that I'm using the word "breed" as a technical, not derogatory, term here)
I'd like a grant to theorise about a few things:
1) the "Rabbit that is so dangerous it can cut your head off"
- I believe most of my research will be around the castle Aaaaaargh.
2) The "Chuck Norris move that's so dangerous that it doesn't exist"
- Even chuck norris would perhaps have to spend more than 20 minutes researching it.
3) the "solution to the iraq war which is so useful it doesn't exist"
- and now I've passed from the plausible to the ridiculous, sorry about that.
K.
Well that's just stupid. "Race" isn't really anything. There are very few genes which actually differ between such groups. You'd think maybe Asians have genes for their eyes but that same gene exists elsewhere... take a look at Bjork. You'd really be shooting yourself in the foot. As for the difference between Jews and Arabs, there aren't many. As in none, genetically you can't tell them apart.
Let's say you wanted to kill all blonds. You make a virus that becomes active when it contacts the sequence for blond hair. Assuming you did something to make sure the recessive gene didn't just strike carriers too, you'd end killing blonds and gingers. Ginger is simply red-red, blond-blond genes, whereas blonds are Not-red-* blond-blond. Not-red is a dominate gene, whereas red is recessive.
Really, you'd want to do the old death camp method. You need to sort them out based on a rather non-existent grouping... that is something only racists can do, not viruses.
You think there is some gene that defines a race... there really isn't. There are certain genes which exist in varied frequency but none that are that isolated. You might be able to wipe out a village with some rare mutation but, otherwise you're going to create something that just starts killing people off pretty much at random.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Nature generally selects proteins that fold well, because it leads to some stable function. Nature therefore selects DNA sequences that code for such proteins. Rare/nonexistant DNA sequences code for rare/nonexistant proteins that are unlikely to have a stable fold. It is probably worth investigating just in case a few of those have interesting function. The research equivalent of going through someone's garbage. $1 million doesn't go very far these days, so it sounds about right. Why is this in the headlines, again?
``I for one am not sure I like the possible directions this research could take.''
You mean that it could be used to manufacture new weapons? I don't know if having n+1 ways to kill is really much worse than having n ways, given that n is already as large as it is.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Just like in DNA, there are words so dangerous that they don't exist. Here's one of them: sdlnfnerooij. Use it with care and send me the check. Most DNA does something, or is a slightly mutated version of a sequence that does something (like endogenous retroviruses). So its like a language with some spelling mistakes - of course there are lots of sequences that won't be there. And if you look at long enough strings, there have to be some missing.
"Slapping lipstick on a pig does NOT make it Natalie Portman. Paris Hilton, maybe, but not Portman." - UncleTogie
Could this be used to attack cancer cells?
What are the DoD going to do; shoot me with a bullet impregnated with a mutagen?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I have to agree with another child post. Let me give you some non-violent and important examples of the DoD's research.
1. The Internet. You are using it now. It was originally created by ARPA, now DARPA, which is part of the DoD. You can thank the need for a interconnected, wired (and unwired) network for computer systems the military was using for the "Birth of the Internet."
2. GPS. Another advance that came from a military need.
3. Computers. Not entirely DoD based, but ENIAC was built for calculating artillery firing tables for the US Army, which falls under what is now the DoD.
Those are just three I can think of pretty readily without having to go digging for information. Do they do other research into weapons? Yes. Is it all to make things more deadly? Not necessarily. It is really to make them more effective and efficient. A lot of these researches are done in an attempt to save soldiers' lives and to prevent civilian casualties. A lot of their medical research is along the same vein. If not for some dumb laws (created by the US government), I wouldn't be surprised if the DoD was dumping tons of money into stem-cell research too. Trust me, it isn't all bad.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Other favourites include (but are not limited too) :-
Indian Jones and the Raiders of the Pension Fund
Indian Jones and the Sanatogen of Doom
Indian Jones and the Lost Slippers
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
Does that mean that God is a good programmer? Quite a dreadful one, actually. Sure, he wrote this terraforming application in just six days, but a bit more planning would have been wise. Just look at the amount of bugs it has! He's been busy 'fixing' them them ever since, but for every bug eliminated, another was introduced... it's not strange that things haven't evolved since. It's an unmaintainable legacy application by now, a rewrite from scratch would be best.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Did someone say "Eugenic Wars?" You know where that leads,"KKKKKKhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaann nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn"
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
But you could also say that the elders, by helping taking care of the village children and teaching their wisdom can still be usefull to the community, so maybe ageing is a way to have a longer (but less active) life by reducing the constraints on the body (and perhaps the risk of cancer). Maybe at a certain age you don't heal anymore simply because the needed effort would otherwise kill you.
I have to agree with another child post. Let me give you some non-violent and important examples of the DoD's research.
There's nothing necessarily wrong with the DoD researching new technologies. Sure, they come up with great new inventions for both military and civilian use. It just says something about our national priorities that the only way a lot of these things could get researched is if they have some sort of potential military application.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Jeez, don't be an idiot.
The DOD funds many pieces of research without the idea that it wouold kill people.
Yes, they also fund research that kills people.
If You have been paying attention you would note that the DoD focuses on smaller strategic strikes with maximum impact.
What's the DoD hoping to find? I way to rearange someones genetic structure so the magically turn to goo? There are better, faster, cheaper, and realistic ways of actually killing someone.
You people knee jerk reaction to these articles is making me sick.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Why do that? Govs can just stop being stupidly trying to ban people from smoking and just keep taxing tobacco heavily.
They should still keep educating them on the dangers of smoking and make it illegal for kids to start or be sold cigs to.
But other than that, if you know the dangers and you still like to smoke a few packs a day: "Thank you citizen for your contribution and sacrifice!"
If you die soon after your productive years or retirement, you are no longer a drag to healthcare - while there's your last 3 or so years where you'd be taking some money out, but your 30-50 years of tobacco tax should have paid for that and a lot more.
If you don't die soon after retirement but keep smoking, hey thanks for continuing to pay extra taxes after retirement!
I'm not a smoker, but I find it strange that so many Governments worry about aging populations on one hand but keep trying to stop smokers from smoking. No need to spend so much money preventing them from smoking. Heck, we'd be able to afford to give the long time smokers a special "Patriot" carton every year as a sign of appreciation.
I'm sure there are plenty of other similar ways to prop up the healthcare/social security system.
Since 90% of DNA is useless junk (warning: figure pulled out of ass, but it's a big number I believe) ...
The percentage isn't too important (and varies for different species), but there's growing evidence that the "junk DNA" isn't necessarily useless. The phrase really just means DNA that doesn't seem to code for any proteins via any mechanism that we know. But this doesn't mean that it has no function. A few instances of "noncoding" DNA functioning as a regulator of nearby genes have been found, for example.
An interesting thing came out of the recent sequencing of the DNA of the domestic chicken. It seems that the researchers found a "junk" sequence of around 20,000 base pairs that are identical with a section of human DNA. The common ancestor was around 200 million years ago, and if this DNA weren't useful, random mutations and crossover events would have long since wiped it out. For such a long sequence to be preserved for 200 million years, it has to have a useful function in both species, and will probably be found in most other birds and mammals. Either that, or it's a retrovirus that has colonized both species' genomes. We have no idea what it is, but future research will probably explain it.
Anyway, researchers are starting to suspect that not all of that "junk DNA" is useless. But we're a long way from understanding it all.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Woohoo! New Poll!
Indiana Jones and the Lost:
-Breasts
-Wii
-Coyboy Neal
As a rule, I never trust dark brown ketchup.
I wonder if anybody has done a "hunter gatherer" typical old person stuff analysis of fitness for the group.
For example, behavior of young males being aggressive, reckless, and willing to charge ahead to a fight, vs mature adults that tend to be conservative and stay with the group has a purpose. Young males are tougher and heal better and faster, and are also somewhat expendable.
Take the same concept and apply it to the oldsters. Eyesight problems keeps them close to home, rabid love for the grandchildren to the point of spoiling, erratic sleep patterns of waking up super early and sleeping when the youngsters are out running about... the exact opposite of them almost as if they were designed to sit around the fire doing small stuff and watching for hyenas when others sleep.
Stuff like that.
Oh I'm well aware of the fact that they research things that aren't used for killing. You're using the fruits of some of that research right now to attack me. ;P (RAR!!!) I'm not saying the D.O.D. is evil. I'm saying that there are some very warped people who work at various levels of our government who are very interested in the ultimate killing technologies. Especially solutions that would exterminate all life on Earth if necessary just to win an ideological argument. Considering how you went off on me, I suspect that you might be one of them. Cheers!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o