Slashdot Mirror


8 Million Year Old Bacteria Thaws, Lives

Jamie found a New Scientist story about 8 million year old bacteria that scientists thawed out, and now it's alive. Also somehow they are sure that this is safe. The interesting bit is that since these samples came from ancient ice, it seems that the world will naturally be filled with these guys soon.

36 of 345 comments (clear)

  1. Welcome by amigabill · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one welcome our new microscopic overlords.

    1. Re:Welcome by lonechicken · · Score: 5, Funny

      I for one welcome our new microscopic overlords. You mean "old."
    2. Re:Welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      or would that be pre-pwn3d? No, pre-pwn3d is when someone sells you a 3 year old Windows box.
    3. Re:Welcome by bigdavesmith · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not so fast, buddy. This is how it all ends. Global warming causes the ice caps to melt, and it releases that neon-green buggy stuff that only gets active at night, like on that one x-files episode.

      I'm stocking up on flashlight batteries and fuel for the generator.

    4. Re:Welcome by xENoLocO · · Score: 4, Funny

      A dell with Windows ME on it came to my mind when I read "pre-pwn3d"

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    5. Re:Welcome by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm stocking up on flashlight batteries and fuel for the generator.
      Good. They like to eat those.
  2. Typical misleading summary... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...designed to get people up in arms.

    The summary ominously notes:

    [...] somehow they are sure that this is safe. The interesting bit is that since these samples came from ancient ice, it seems that the world will naturally be filled with these guys soon.

    ...filed, of course, under "gonna-need-more-antibiotics".

    Except the article says:

    This is nothing to worry about, say experts, because the process has been going on for billions of years and the bugs are unlikely to cause human disease.

    [...]

    Paul Falkowski of Rutgers University, who led the study, [...] does not believe this is cause for concern because marine bacteria and viruses are typically far less harmful to human health than, for instance, those found on land.

    Russell Vreeland of the Ancient Biomaterials Institute at West Chester University in Pennsylvania, US, agrees. "This has been happening probably for a long, long time. Ice freezes and melts, rocks sink and are eroded. Microbes have been involved with this process for almost 4 billion years," says Vreeland, who has resuscitated 250-million year-old bacteria found in salt crystals. "Earth acts as a gene bank for microbes."


    So, what's "new" here is that a researcher has actually intentionally taken frozen microbes from the oldest known ice and successfully resuscitated them in a laboratory setting. The Earth has been doing this on its own for billions of years.

    I'm sure this comments will be filled with the likes of:

    - By ignoring the undeniable truth that global warming is due to human behavior, we are toying with balances we can't possibly understand, and now may even be releasing ancient microbes into the environment whose dangers we don't yet know!

    - Even if the Earth has been doing this on its own, we are unnaturally accelerating it; therefore, the potential release of these microbes must be bad!

    - This may be a natural process, but humans may not have existed on Earth the last time this occurred, therefore we can't predict the possible harm to humanity!

    ...all tied in, of course, to the fact that we should be working on ways to "stop" climate change, predicated on the belief that any negative climate change is due exclusively to human activity beyond any shadow of scientific doubt, and that no climate change can ever be a net positive, especially when caused by human activity, when there are in truth far more factors involved, even if human activity is a large one. (Note: I am not saying global warming is "positive" or that human activity isn't a component; I am saying that it is inaccurate to cloak anything in self-serving absolutes.)

    The interesting intersection here is that such a transition may occur while humans are present on Earth. This is not necessarily a "good" or a "bad" thing...it just is. Humans have learned to manipulate and adapt to their environment for millennia, both on long and short term bases. Artificial change cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than natural change. Some of this change may have a negative impact on human existence on Earth; some may not.

    This does not mean that we should be raping the environment or ignoring any danger. But the single-mindedness of climate change activists is somewhat disturbing. They view climate change in a vacuum, separated from all other concerns, and that is simply a foolish and counterproductive position to take.

    Ever wonder why there are so many global warming deniers? It's because of the attitude taken by fanatic, self-righteous global warming alarmists. We'd be a lot better served by real discussions - which are, unfortunately, far too complex for most people on either side of the "political" global warming debate to understand - than one alarmist global warming story after another.

    The issues - social, economic, scientific, and so on - surrounding "climate change" deserve a far better treatment, even in slashdot comments, than berating Chevy Suburbans, Big Oil, and fat, lazy, greedy Americans.

    1. Re:Typical misleading summary... by AndersOSU · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Furthermore, the bacteria in question is almost certainly safe because it evolved 4 mya, in the ocean, in the absence of humans, and likely in absence of a dense population of mammals of any kind. Now ask yourself, how many bacteria are there, and how many are harmful to humans. Further, probe how the few harmful strains became that way, and you'll find that they almost all developed as a result of centuries to millennia of interaction with dense populations of humans and other domesticated animals. The likelihood of a bacteria isolated from humans that is harmful to humans is so small as to be negligible. We might as well be worried about pushing asteroids off course...

    2. Re:Typical misleading summary... by DataBroker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow! Did you realize that you wrote more words (660) than were in the whole of TFA (610)?

      And you still missed the fact that the article is obviously all lies since the world simply may not contain 8 million year-old bacteria since it is 6,000 years old.

    3. Re:Typical misleading summary... by Kamots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "We'd be a lot better served by real discussions"

      Indeed.

      But there is no possibility of real discussions so long as one party to the discussions refuses to acknowledge that there is a potential problem. The preponderance of evidence says that global warming is happening and that it is anthropogenic.

      What should be done about that? Anything?

      Who knows... there hasn't been an opportunity to discuss that. Instead, all of the efforts made by the non-fanatics has been focused on attempting to educate the large proportion of the population who are sadly actively working at remaining ignorant in an attempt to completely ignore the issue by denying that there is an issue.

      If you really want real discussion, then work at getting people to admit that global warming exists. Until that happens there can't be any discussion of what actions to take, or even if we should take any action at all.

    4. Re:Typical misleading summary... by greg_barton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Artificial change cannot intrinsically be defined as better or worse than natural change.

      So, by the same token, murder is no worse than someone falling off a ladder.

      Should we let the murderer go free, then?
    5. Re:Typical misleading summary... by goldspider · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But there is no possibility of real discussions so long as one party to the discussions refuses to acknowledge that there is a potential problem.

      And I think that what you said there supports his whole point, that one party refuses to acknowledge that there may not be a problem.

      He never denied that climate change is hapening, nor that we aren't contributing to it. Enough with the strawmen, and respond to what he actually said next time.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    6. Re:Typical misleading summary... by TheMeuge · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Furthermore, the bacteria in question is almost certainly safe because it evolved 4 mya, in the ocean, in the absence of humans
      On the other hand, you can also assume that our immune system isn't prepared to deal with this bacteria, which may be the more insidious problem in this case. Even if the bacteria WASN'T a human pathogen, doesn't mean it ISN'T going to become one, if given the opportunity.
      I don't think these bugs are the Andromeda Strain, but I'd be pretty careful to use sterile technique with them, at least until I put them into mice and saw what happened.
    7. Re:Typical misleading summary... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ever wonder why there are so many global warming deniers? It's because of the attitude taken by fanatic, self-righteous global warming alarmists. We'd be a lot better served by real discussions - which are, unfortunately, far too complex for most people on either side of the "political" global warming debate to understand - than one alarmist global warming story after another.
      First of all, I'd say there are two types of global warming deniers. There are the oil industry shills, whose job it is to make sure that the industrialized world continues to use oil as long as possible so that their already extraordinary profits keep rising. Then there are the pseudo-skeptics, who just want to feel special by seeming to take a contrary position.

      I don't give a shit about politics, about Al Gore, about Green Peace or a pack of greasy university kids marching to save the planet. What I do care about is that the vast majority of climatologists, while rejecting some of the doomsday notions of the activists, state very clearly that the evidence for climate change being caused by human activities is compelling and growing. To call these scientists "political" is nothing more than an invokation of a conspiracy theory.
      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Typical misleading summary... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know what would also help with the problem? If people argued for action on global warming as if it weren't "just another excuse to get the laws we'd want anyway". Maybe if each offered solution didn't specifically target those environmentalists hate without regard to actual environmental damage?

      There's a very simple solution: carbon tax + apply proceeds (in transparent process) to carbon sinks and to legitimate warming harm-abatement.

      That allows everyone to adapt in the least inconvenient way for them. No bureaucracy to decide what uses you "really" need. No bizarre incentive structure that rewards people for being wasteful in the most efficient way possible.

      The "problems" with such a proposal are:

      -It doesn't require visible, vengeance-satisfying sacrifice.
      -Most conspicuous consumption would still happen because rich people would rather pay for the sink/abatement than quit driving the SUV.
      -It would snare the phonies who drive hybrids quite a lot, and not the hated SUV drivers who arrange their lives so that they don't have to drive very far.
      -Most adaptation people make wouldn't be visible and thus wouldn't show how much they "care".
      -Big evil corporations would figure out an efficient carbon sink method (since it's now profitable) and thus get a lot of money.
      -Any result that didn't equate with environmentalists' real goals would be derided as a failure of the system.

      So, the idea doesn't get a lot of play.

    9. Re:Typical misleading summary... by Jaeph · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm one of them thar "denier" types. More seriously, I'm one of those uneducated types who looked at the evidence in the 80s/90s, and found it lacking, but worthy of further study.

      I've watched the debate unfold over recent years, and just recently picked up a scientific american which tried to summarize the case at a layman's level. If I understood correctly:

      a) temperatures are rising. Lots of hard data to support this, and everything looks statistically significant.

      b) greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are rising. There is more debate here, but mankind has most certainly contributed and the question is simply about narrowing down "how much".

      c) a & b are linked. This is shown recently to be true by ever more sophisticated computer models, which are serving as the basis for scientists elevating their statement to "highly likely" (that a & b are linked).

      The problem I have is that like many here on slashdot I do happen to know a thing or two about computers. To put it plainly, when your big evidence is a computer model, then I will continue to wait until the evidence is something more substantial. ....

      There is the other question of attitude; both sides seek to demonize the other said. "Fanatics", "radicals", etc.

      What I do see very clearly is that all suggested solutions seek to punish the united states while leaving some other areas of the world untouched. I pick "punish" deliberately; it's as if the US has been "bad" and now everyone wants their ounce of vengeance.

      So not only do I choose to wait, but my attitude is now skeptical - this seems like a typical "america bad" attitude on the side of the global warming proponents. I'll wait for a more reasoned attitude with better data to back them up.

      Finally, I recognize that all of this could be rendered moot by a continued rise in temperatures and the catastrophes that causes. But I've seen predictions of catastrophes all my life, and at this point I'm a bit jaded with all the "we're doomed" scenarios.

      -Jeff

      --
      Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
    10. Re:Typical misleading summary... by Hardhead_7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The preponderance of evidence in the 1400's said that the world was flat and that sea monsters ate you if you took your boat too close to the edge.


      No, that was the popular opinion. In the 1400s, most scientists believed the Earth was round. I think you unintentionally drew a parallel.
    11. Re:Typical misleading summary... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

      The preponderance of evidence in the 1400's said that the world was flat and that sea monsters ate you if you took your boat too close to the edge.
      Man, but I wish this particularly claim would die. It's false. Maybe some ignorant hicks in the backwoods of Austria believed that, but damn near every person with any degree of education since Classical times has known the Earth is a sphere. Eratosthenes made an estimate, that while out, is still pretty accurate for the time, and Posidonius got an estimate that was damn near spot on. Oh, and these guys lived a couple of centuries before Christ was alleged to have been born.
      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:Typical misleading summary... by HeavyAl · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know that this was meant in fun, and to be totally honest it WAS funny! Creationists who think the earth was made in a literal 6-7 day period are complete whack jobs that don't look at the evidence.

      Some fundamentalists claim that creationism rather than evolution explains pre-human history. They assert that all physical creation was produced in just six days of 24 hours each sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. But in doing so, they promote an unscriptural teaching that has caused many to ridicule the Bible.

      Is a day in the Bible always literally 24 hours in length? Genesis 2:4 speaks of "the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." This one day encompasses all six of the creative days of Genesis chapter 1. According to Bible usage, a day is a measured period of time and can be a thousand years or many thousands of years. The Bible's creative days allow for thousands of years of time each. Further, the earth was already in existence before the creative days began. (Genesis 1:1) On this point, therefore, the Bible account is compatible with true science.--2 Peter 3:8.

      Commenting on claims that the creative days were only 24 literal hours in length, molecular biologist Francis Collins remarks: "Creationism has done more harm to serious notions of belief than anything in modern history."

      So the bottom line is that the days mentioned in the Bible are figurative, not literal. Anyone who says otherwise is ignoring the evidence which is ironic considering most of those advocating this stance are trying to promote Bible teaching.

  3. Tons of ice thaw naturally all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...which is why this is safe. Same reason particle physics experiments are safe: even higher-energetic particles hit the earth all the time.

  4. Summary dies, needs resusitation. by lottameez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, that was a terrible summary. The reason the scientists think it's okay and not dangerous is because the process of old ice melting and bacteria being reintroduced happens all the time.

    Nothing to see here, move along.

    --
    Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
  5. Mars! by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If bacteria can survive that long, and I'm sure longer, this means there is a good chance that there may be life on planets with ice in our solar system. All we have to do is go find it!

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  6. Let me be the first.... by martyb · · Score: 4, Funny
    I know it's been a LONG time, so let me be the first:

    Happy Birthday to you,
    Happy Birthday to You,
    Happy Birthday dear bacteria,
    Happy Birthday to You!

    (P.S. please don't tell the RIAA I sent this or there might be a fine. ;-)

  7. truly amazing by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 5, Funny

    you typed all that in under 4 minutes. (story posted at 11:01, comment posted at 11:05)

    want to document my code for me? shouldn't take you long

    1. Re:truly amazing by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      /*
      you typed all that in under 4 minutes. (story posted at 11:01, comment posted at 11:05)
      want to document my code for me? shouldn't take you long
      */
      You're right- that was fast!

    2. Re:truly amazing by eno2001 · · Score: 4, Funny

      He does what I do. You write and write and write all over the net. Sometimes as a troll, sometimes honestly, sometimes just to take the piss. Then you archive everything you write waiting for the right article to post in. But, if it would make you happy, I have a ton of documentation I've written for applications that may at some time in the future exist. If you have an app that matched, I'd be happy to send you a copy. :)

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    3. Re:truly amazing by djupedal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Remember - subscribers can see articles in the future. What seemed like 4 minutes to your disconnected asse was actually 2 hours to his connected asse.

      Ok, everyone laugh and point at #537955 so he can complete his initiation and we can move on to the next chodderhead.

    4. Re:truly amazing by pseudorand · · Score: 3, Funny

      Considering the number of ./ articles are repeats of old ./ articles, you don't have to subscribe to see articles in the future, you just have to search the archives. :)

      Posts (probably including this one) are even easier. Just scroll up.

    5. Re:truly amazing by Charles+W+Griswold · · Score: 4, Funny

      He does what I do. You write and write and write all over the net. Sometimes as a troll, sometimes honestly, sometimes just to take the piss. Then you archive everything you write waiting for the right article to post in. But, if it would make you happy, I have a ton of documentation I've written for applications that may at some time in the future exist. If you have an app that matched, I'd be happy to send you a copy. :) Awesome! I have an app that automagically filters out the B.S. from political speeches. I've been over the algorithm several times and it really should work, but for some reason I never get any output. Oh, well; better luck next time, I guess.
      --
      "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber" -- Plato
  8. Lawyers? by iknownuttin · · Score: 5, Funny
    The Bacteria, named Cirroc, have said that they plan to attend law school and embark on a new career as a personal injury lawyer.

    The article said they were parasitic bacteria?

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
  9. Re:You're right by pete-classic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Did it really not occur to you that by being a smug, self-righteous, arrogant prick in your response you were validating his point of view? Or was that what you were trying to do?

    -Peter

  10. Wrong Focus by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think posters are getting too hung up on the "prehistoric killer bacteria" story and not the fact that something frozen for 8 million years can be thawed and live again (not sure how new this news is). So, we could potentially have a solar system filled with seeder asteroids (meteoroids?) from massive impacts with Earth or an older life-bearing Mars.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  11. War of the Worlds by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Before the early 21st Century, Earth experienced a scourge of humans. Common bacteria from ancient ice stopped the humans, but it didn't destroy them. Instead they lapsed into a state of deep hibernation. Now, the humans are resurrected, more destructive than ever before. Before the early 21st Century humans had taken over the world. Now, they're taking over our colonists' bodies!

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  12. Re:You're right by pohl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Exactly, because no point is ever valid if it came from an asshole.

    Sorry, just joining the dogpile.

    --

    The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

  13. Why not? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also somehow they are sure that this is safe.

    Everything to which the bacteria had adapted is 8 million years dead.

    Poor little feller... :(

  14. Not that easily by Moraelin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes and no, mostly no.

    AFAIK the immune system isn't set to kill known bacteria, it's set to kill any unknown cell. Your own cells have a "self" marker, meaning "it's mine". Anything identified as lacking this marker is instantly marked for termination with extreme prejudice.

    The bacteria that kill you have had millions of years to learn to cope with that big problem, precisely _because_ they had to deal with mammals all the time. Some fake the marker (with different degrees of success, usually not too well), some do the reverse peroxide kiss of death on any immune system cell trying to do it to them, some just kill you faster than your immune system can do much about it, etc. And, even so, most actually are actually pretty easily kept in check unless your immune system is already compromised.

    A bacterium which is so completely foreign that it never had to live in a mammal, well, won't live too long in there. There are layers upon layers upon layers of defenses to which they have no answer whatsoever.

    Now with _viruses_ it's exactly the other way around, as the immune system pretty much has to figure out an antibody and remember it. So a new one _can_ fuck you up badly. That's why flu and smallpox nearly wiped out the american indians: those were viruses.

    Of course, even then the assumption is that it knows how to modify your DNA code. Flu and smallpox already had to deal with the Europeans, so they were already well tuned for humans. A completely alien virus (a la Andromeda Strain), while it would probably get past your immune system easily, it also probably wouldn't even know where to start to reprogram your cells.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.