Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Step Closer to Creating Artificial Life

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the absolutely-glowing-with-happiness dept.

slick_shoes writes to mention that Italian researcher Giovanni Murtas has taken another step towards creating life in a test tube. "To the untrained eye, the tiny, misshapen, fatty blobs on Giovanni Murtas's microscope slide would not look very impressive. But when the Italian scientist saw their telltale green fluorescent glint he knew he had achieved something remarkable — and taken a vital step towards building a living organism from scratch. The green glow was proof that his fragile creations were capable of making their own proteins, a crucial ability of all living things and vital for carrying out all other aspects of life."

25 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. My recipe for artificial life! by tjstork · · Score: 4, Funny

    I create artificial life with a 12 pack of Genny Cream Ales and a Dominos Pizza!

    --
    This is my sig.
  2. There is life by eclectro · · Score: 4, Funny

    The green glow was proof that his fragile creations were capable of making their own proteins Or that they were reading slashdot.
    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  3. Re:Great, exciting and all, but ... by Grr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If this technique (as mentioned in the article) can be used to artificially create fuel it can eliminate oilspills, because fuel can be produced where it is needed. Saves lots of coastal birds.
    If this can be used to create artificial meat (now I'm extrapolating) there's no more need to have hurdes of hamburgers grazing away at acres of former rainforest. Saves many of those endangered but unknown species you're talking about. Maybe it can even be used to grow artifical hardwood.

    Sounds to me this is exactly the sort of research that eliminates the impact of human consumption on the environment by making it more efficient.

  4. Matter knowing it's own existence by TheBearBear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The concept of matter ending up as human beings, and then being aware of its own existence, is mind blowing! Is there a scientific definition for life? I don't mean the using energy and waste - has dna - reproduces - want to will to survive stuff. I hope you understand what I am trying to ask. Like a clump of matter one day, then aware of its own existence the next day, what a transition!!

    I've read that some say it just might be that it's all just a bunch of chemical/electrical interactions, but to get to the point where matter contemplates its own existence is just on a different level. So it's big bang heat explosion stars planets...then human beings (albeit much much later). Is that something you can say is a property of matter? That at some point it will know of its own existence?

    What's/where's the threshold between a blob of carbon+goo, and me? Or at least, are there any theories? Or is all of this stuff discussed only in the philosphical realm?

    1. Re:Matter knowing it's own existence by m0ns00n · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, an emerging thought is that consciousness is a property of matter, OR it is a symbiotic twin to matter: matter resonating with consciousness. At one point the resonating brings fruit in the form of memories and thoughts in a capable matter-structure. So in theory, if you manage to put material pieces together in a certain combination, it will end up being self-aware. Also; all matter becomes potentially conscious, and it also means that everything is one in a much more profound way. Now you might also understand concepts like the over-self, "God" and a self aware universe. I'm sure all you religious people will have a field day on this :-) but at the end of the day, the idea that matter has potent consciousness in itself really explains how life is possible at all, and must exist, and it can perhaps lead to a more down to earth view on existence than that there has been a omnipotent master designing the universe as an architect would a house. My thoughts on this anyhow..

    2. Re:Matter knowing it's own existence by BarneyL · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's/where's the threshold between a blob of carbon+goo, and me? Or at least, are there any theories? Or is all of this stuff discussed only in the philosphical realm?
      You are assuming that self awareness is an all or nothing situation.
      More realistically all living things could be placed on a scale with carbon and goo at the bottom end perhaps small mammals next, then moving up through apes to us.
      And of course finally to dolphins and the white mice who are secretly running the whole experiment.
    3. Re:Matter knowing it's own existence by nyekulturniy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have thought about this, and I wouldn't agree that consciousness is strictly a property of matter; if you have a sufficiently stable substrate with differences in energy potential, it is possible for an organized system to have quasi-nervous action, which leads to thought. (I was thinking of the nature of thought because I was answering my own hypothetical question, "How do angels or other immaterial creatures think?")

      Matter doesn't have consciousness unless it's organized into life, which in turn must have a nervous system. It's an emergent property that depends on this organization. So, the question becomes not "Is matter sufficient to create consciousness" to "What sort of organization or system is required for consciousness?"

      There the question becomes interesting. Is organization inevitable? Or does it require a first impulse, a Prime Mover?

      To address a second point in your post, the knowledge of God:

      Those of us who are of faith realize that revealed knowledge is not the same as the common knowledge given to all of us; it is productive to try to fuse the two sorts of knowledge for the mental exercise, but it is fruitless. As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, all truth points to the same source, so in the long run there is a resolution of the apparent paradoxes.

      Philosophy only gets us so far, as to either accept a First Mover or to deny all causality when a chain of thought is extended long enough. I accept a First Mover, because I believe in causality. (Note: this is not meant to be a rigorous analysis.)

      Is the universe God? That depends on the definition of the universe and God. Is the universe merely all we can detect through the senses, or does it include concepts? Is God a Person, or an impersonal force, or is God everything? If God is everything, that means that either God is not good, or there is no evil. And so we go on for hours and hours, illuminating our sources of thought, but not solving the issue.

      I am really interested in this research. If one can create cellular life, then what an accomplishment! Cells are life, the rest of it is commentary.

      --
      Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
    4. Re:Matter knowing it's own existence by ockegheim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Any universe in which particles appear at random and with a lot of time on its hands will eventually produce large numbers of Boltzmann Brains (randomly appearing objects capable of observation). The observations that the universe's expansion is accelerating and that there may be no end of time allows this. This article states that if we (ie. evolved sentience) are typical observers then the universe is more likely than not to end within 19 billion years. This is a bit like the theory that if I am a typical human, then the human race doesn't have much of a future, because if there are many more billions of humans in the future it makes me special, not typical.

      But it doesn't take a cosmologist to look at me and fear for the human race.

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    5. Re:Matter knowing it's own existence by ajs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The concept of matter ending up as human beings, and then being aware of its own existence, is mind blowing! Well, most of the matter that makes up human beings has no awareness whatsoever. Only those portions that take part in the higher-order neurological functions are part of that process. Your fingernails are not aware, which is why you feel no sympathy for those parts of your body when you mercilessly cut them off and throw them away, unceremoniously in the trash. Awareness is a feedback loop which exists in anything with a spinal cord. This feedback loop is increasingly complex in more evolved species, culminating in... man? Perhaps. Perhaps marine mammals have a more complex awareness. We're not sure. Certainly we combine awareness and a drive to manipulate our environment to an extent which is unrivaled.

      Is there a scientific definition for life? I don't mean the using energy and waste - has dna - reproduces - want to will to survive stuff. You're confused. That's life. You're looking for a definition of intelligence, and frankly, no. There's no universally agreed upon definition of intelligence. Part of the problem is that we have only one example of what we consider to be "an intelligent species," and it's that species that is trying to produce the definition. Does the spectrum of intelligence continue past our point of development? Would a more intelligent species have a very different definition? Do we process information in ways that make it impossible to objectively define intelligence? We don't know.

      Like a clump of matter one day, then aware of its own existence the next day, what a transition!! This is a gross oversimplification, on par with "a trickle of water one day, and the grand canyon the next day, what a transition!!" No, it took *billions* of years to reach the stage of simple bacterial life forms on Earth. Just moving from ape-like creatures to humans as we see them today took over a million years (think of it as 50,000 repetitions of "great" before the phrase "grand monkey"). Now look back at Europe in the middle ages, just handfulls of generations ago when humans were about 80% of our current average height. Imagine the possible changes in humanity over 100-1000 times that span of time. Now, multiply that amount of change times 1,000-2,000 and you have roughly the period that it took life on Earth to evolve from microbes. This is not "matter one day, then aware of its own existence the next day." Even when measured against the development of the entire universe, this is a very substantial period of time. Think about that. Galaxies formed in about the time than it took Earth to go from lifeless rock to our home.

    6. Re:Matter knowing it's own existence by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Matter doesn't have consciousness unless it's organized into life, which in turn must have a nervous system. So, plants aren't "life"? Fungi? What about bacteria? None of those have nervous systems. Those of you "of faith" should consider informing yourselves before stating retarded pseudo-scientific bullshit. This shouldn't be "+5 Interesting", it should be "-1 Talking out of ass"
      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    7. Re:Matter knowing it's own existence by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... if you have a sufficiently stable substrate with differences in energy potential, it is possible for an organized system to have quasi-nervous action, which leads to thought. (I was thinking of the nature of thought because I was answering my own hypothetical question, "How do angels or other immaterial creatures think?")

      Meaningless. Energy is part of the materialist universe, and in any case the existence of immaterial substances has never been demonstrated--any speculation on the quasi-physical properties of immaterial substances is simply fiction spun out of whole cloth.

      Philosophy only gets us so far, as to either accept a First Mover or to deny all causality when a chain of thought is extended long enough. I accept a First Mover, because I believe in causality. (Note: this is not meant to be a rigorous analysis.)

      That's good, because there's no sufficiently rigorous analysis that would have gotten you to that conclusion. (Hint: what caused the prime mover?) The only thing I can suggest to you is a more thorough study of philosophy.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    8. Re:Matter knowing it's own existence by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The purpose of science is to achieve scientific understanding, not to learn truth. This is good because it's difficult to rigorously identify truth outside of logic and mathematics--a consistent scientific understanding may not be provably true, but it is consistent with all of our experiences as of yet, and that's the best we can do for the external world. If we believe in the second law of thermodynamics and understand it accurately, our observations of the external world will make more sense, and be more predictable.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
  5. For those with Academic Paper subscriptions by starseeker · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those who want more meat, these look like places to start:

    Pier Luigi Luisi, Francesca Ferri and Pasquale Stano Approaches to semi-synthetic minimal cells: a review
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/y218jk71n1k407 85/

    Giovanni Murtas Question 7: Construction of a Semi-Synthetic Minimal Cell: A Model for Early Living Cells
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/9p404l8247968n 72/

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
  6. Re:Great, exciting and all, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This new Bioshock game is pretty nice and all, but really does nothing to help those kids living with AIDS in South Africa. What the fuck.

  7. It all seems fine by fishthegeek · · Score: 4, Funny

    It all seems fine and well, what with creating life artificially but, speaking for all the red blooded American, European, African, and Asian males in the world there is just no substitute for doing it the old fashioned way.

    At least that's what I hear.

    --
    load "$",8,1
    1. Re:It all seems fine by slurry47 · · Score: 4, Funny

      What do the Australians know that we don't?

      --


      Dirt doesn't need luck.
  8. In a galaxy far away by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Funny
    Mouse1: Hi Dormie, look! The life we created in this test tube is capable of making its own life!

    Mouse2: No Way! Get out of here! Lemme look! Darn it, looks like they have done it. What did you call them?

    Mouse1: Humans.

    Mouse2: What do we do now?

    Mouse1: First we need to redraw the plans for the highway, we can no longer run it through Earth. It would be unethical to destroy such an advanced form of life. I never thought they will survive this long though, truth be told.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  9. Re:Great, exciting and all, but ... by gibbdog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That is a very close minded comment. By the same token I guess everybody working on computer science is wasting their time as they should be studying cancer research and trying to find a cure (and just running folding@home doesn't count).

    The fact is, different people are good at different fields. Just because someone is a biologist or scientist in general does not mean that they studying all fields of biology. It is a highly specialized field with many different niches. Sure, the niches that some fill may not *seem* to be cutting edge high profile making the headlines ground breaking research. However, every bit of info that is documented may be useful someday.

    And by the way... I think being able to build something from scratch is a pretty damn good way of learning out something works and how to help it.

  10. Re:Great, exciting and all, but ... by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hey! It's called natural selection, and it's been going on for millions of years.

    Natural selection, damn right, more like mass extinction. Calling it natural selection would be like saying that the dinosaurs died due to natural selection. Plus, how is that natural selection when elephants are getting killed for their ivory? If that's natural selection than I guess genocides are natural selection too and so maybe jews and darfurians are unfit to live on Earth..

    Life moves on indeed!

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  11. Re:Great, exciting and all, but ... by Elemenope · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, it is Natural Selection, which only goes to show how insufficient an excuse natural selection is. Humans are a natural selection pressure force (unless you believe that we were placed here by divine or other supernatural powers...pleh) just like any other species. Humans are unlike most in that we can, if we choose, attempt to gain awareness of what our effects are, and modulate some of them with a bit of effort. That we can change things to accord to some moral conception of proper living within an ecology or not is a different issue, quite beyond the notion that it is, at base natural selection at work.

    The problem here is you are identifying a normative impulse in the phrase Natural Selection (natural=good, artifical=bad...roughly) and then complaining that the normative meanings being assigned are insufficient to describe the actual moral consequences of the situation. I'd say it would be better to read "natural selection" as a descriptive term only, and take moral considerations where they belong, which is in identifying when and how human actions can be good or bad.

    --
    All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
  12. Re:From scratch? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Know what they say....

    "In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
    ~ Carl Sagan That's not true. You just have to type:

    cd scratch
    make apple_pie
    See? No make universe needed.
    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  13. Fuel producing organisms. by EddyPearson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "In an interview with Newsweek magazine earlier this year, Dr Venter claimed that a fuel-producing microbe could become the first billion- or trillion-dollar organism. The institute has already patented a set of genes for creating such a stripped-down creature." A fantastic money making idea. However, do we really need an unlimited supply or carbon positive fossil fuels? I can just see the motorways jammed with Stretch Humvees of all shapes and sizes, gracefully spewing that grayish black smoke into our already pissed off atmosphere. With cheaper fuel prices, why walk? why cycle? Everybody will drive. We'll need more and more roads to cope, how will we manage? Bulldose the already thinning vegetation on this planet to build that new bypass we all REALLY need. Shit, it'll be fine, they'll probably come up with an organism that can take carbon dioxide and produce oxygen! Now what a feat that would be, modern science today hey...

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
  14. Re:Great, exciting and all, but ... by Tomthemage · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I for one am glad people don't spend more time trying to preserve nature. "The balance of nature" is a false term, and such a situation where everything lives in harmony simply doesn't exist. Nature is wild, crazy, unpredictable, and I honestly don't think humanity has the capability to "preserve" it. Don't believe me? Just take a look at the disaster that is Yellowstone National Park, if you don't believe me.

  15. Belgian Blue!? by joshzweig · · Score: 3, Funny

    Real men eat soylent green.

  16. Re:Great, exciting and all, but ... by PMBjornerud · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Extinction is great!

    Gotta make some room for new species! Or would you like to keep the dinosaurs around as well as giant ferns and various animals that cannot even survive in today's atmosphere? Fact is, pretty much anything that have ever lived on earth is extinct. That's life.

    Now, you need to focus on the real problem: Too damn many humans. Sure, redundancy is good, but this is fucking crazy.

    --
    I lost my sig.