US Scientist Creates Artificial Life

Joshocar writes "The sometimes-controversial US scientist Craig Venter has announced that he has created artificial life. Venter stated that it is 'a very important philosophical step in the history of our species ... We are going from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it. That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before.' In the lab, Venter was able to construct and write genetic code from laboratory chemicals. The next step is to insert this code into a cell, which has already been demonstrated in the past. This ability to write genetic code could result in new ways to combat global warming and new drugs, but it could also lead to new bio-weapons."

Comments

Grossly misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

Venter was able to construct and write genetic code from laboratory chemicals. The next step is to insert this code into a cell, which has already been demonstrated in the past.

None of the above is creating "artificial life". DNA is the life created by someone or something else. Inserting a DNA into a cell is not creating "artificial life". The cell is already a life -- it is the life created by someone or something else. He only modifies the life. He didn't create it.

Re:Grossly misleading

[suv4x4]

Call me when they create the cell to which the artificially created DNA will be inserted to, from scratch.

You'll be waiting for this call forever. The structure even of a single cell is immensely complex. I mean, we share over 50% DNA with *plants*. Half of our DNA is just the "core OS" for running a live organism. It's not a small thing.

Scientists won't start building cells from scratch, they'll just tweak existing ones more and more while they understand the exact mechanisms completely.

You'll be long dead before we see fully artificial, rebuilt from scratch cells.

I gotta ask you though. What % of code rewrite would you accept on an existing organism, before you call it artificial life.

1%? That amount of changes could turn a monkey into man, or man into monkey.

5%? They could start with a cat, and end with a dolphin.

Name your numbers.

Re:Grossly misleading

[pla]

But you can't claim you've "Created Life" by modifying an existing instance.

So did Netscape or the Mozilla Foundation "create" FireFox 2? ;-)



I agree, we haven't reached the point where we can fairly call it "created life". But this one step, more than anything since Pasteur, represents a major step forward. The ability to invoke a breakpoint on a running cell, replace its code with a custom gene sequence, and continue execution, means we can now probe the rest of the cellular machinery with unprecedented efficiency.

The GP's point aside, I think this one step means we'll see a fully artificial cell within a decade or two - Certainly within our lifetimes... Presuming, of course, that the military doesn't create and release (accidentally or deliberately doesn't matter) the "perfect bug" before then.

Is this the best use we can think of?

[janrinok]

"....but it could also lead to new bio-weapons."

What a pity that one of the first things that we think of when making such a step forward is 'How can we use this to kill our fellow man?'. OK, so global warming and new drugs are also in there, but which one would you bet on will receive the big government funding?

Re:Life...

[suv4x4]

Patent Pending.

Interesting question. If a genetic sequence is invented and patented by scientist, could a natural mutation in a human being leading to the same sequence lead to patent infringement?

I guess the answer is pending, and so is the patent reform to shape it.

Global Warming???

[Anonymous Coward]

"This ability to write genetic code could result in new ways to combat global warming..."

That's the kind of claim that tells me that he's fishing for funding, nothing more.

Super-Bacteria

[Nymz]

FTA - Bacteria could be created, he speculates, that could help mop up excessive carbon dioxide

Hmm, this reminds me of the all too common science-fiction storyline of the perfect plan going to hell. I doubt other bacteria, grass, trees, flowers, and plants consider the current levels of carbon dioxide to be 'excessive'. And if this super-bacteria does such a good job, that it starves out those other organisms for food, then there could be some serious global problems.

Bah, why am I so worried, I'm sure they will keep it safely contained like they have for rice

Re:Quite an Important Question

[BlueGecko]

Every technology has both good and bad applications. Nuclear reactions can provide an almost limitless supply of energy, far beyond what we as a species need for the foreseeable future. It also lets us make massive atomic bombs, and even doomsday weapons that could wipe out all life on Earth. I think we've done a passable job using that technology thus far.

What about electricity itself? Electricity gave us the electric chair and modern mechanized warfare, It also has given us massive advances in medicine and technology.

This discovery will be no different. It furthers our understanding of our entire biology, getting us closer, inch-by-inch, to being able to cure all diseases, bring back extinct organisms, and likely usher in molecular computers and nano-machines that can self-replicate and help us fix the damage we've done to earth. I've no doubt it can also be used to kill all humans. I'm confident that we as a species will have matured enough by the time this technology becomes useful that our imminent demise won't be our top concern.

This would only be a hack.

[Flying pig]

Basically he is trying to demonstrate that you can write biological code onto a delivery vehicle and insert it into a functioning cell. It's the equivalent of writing the "Hello world" program from scratch and having it compile and run. It is intended to confirm what we already believe - i.e. that if you arrange DNA bases in the correct sequence, no additional magic is needed for a cell to decode it. So why do I find this annoying?

I don't know if Venter made the overhyped claim but it will surely come back to bite science. Creationists and other voodoo merchants will surely seize on this as an example of scientists claiming far too much, and use it as ammunition to discredit science in the eyes of their followers (I started by typing "foolowers" but how many people nowadays know what it means when you write [stet] after a happy mistype?).

Nobody can claim to create artificial life until there is a complete self-reproducing unit built from inorganic chemicals from the ground up. I don't know how long it will be before that happens, (diminishing resources may mean it never happens - we may have much more urgent tasks for scientists over the next 50 years or so.) but this isn't it. It looks like it is an important technical advance, but it is on a level with, say, the development of the CNC machine, and the claims in the media are about as accurate as if someone had written "With the development of the CNC workstation, we have created self-reproducing robots in the laboratory.

Re:This would only be a hack.

[Teancum]

I would have to agree with you on a general principle that A-life through biological means would mean using chemical processes like a biological laboratory or perhaps something akin to an oil refinery, and taking raw elements in the form of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen, and assembling those elements as a living thing that can self-replicate, given some basic nutrients.

I have heard of an eventual goal of creating a completely artificial eukaryote by some bio-researchers. The idea here is to try and figure out what the absolute minimum requirements would be necessary in terms of a genetic sequence that would still allow for self-replication. Sort of a biological equivalent of a RISC processor or perhaps even something of a biological equivalent of the Brainf*** programming language. Such an organism would have profound implications and even value in terms of biological research, where you could test different genetic sequences in a simple but known environment that wouldn't be fighting with billions of years of genetic evolution. In "the wild", such a simple organism would also face incredible competition and would likely be killed by nearly everything it would encounter, so mad monsters from a lab experiment would not likely cause many problems... at least with the basic A-life eukaroyte.

I agree that this is something that is decades away from being developed, but things such as writing a genetic sequence is certainly an important step to creating such living things.

Re:Since I love being pedantic

[lbbros]

Well, at least in the name, BACs (Bacterial Artificial Chromosome) and YACs (Yeast Artificial Chromosome) have been used for years. Granted, they're mostly used for cloning (IIRC), but by concept, they already exist.

Has someone got a link to a more scientific-oriented explanation? Current details are a bit scarce to me.

IT'S NOT A CHROMOSOME

[Anonymous Coward]

IT'S A GIANT PLASMID!!!
WHERE ARE MY BIOCHEM GEEKS???
They just stitched together a giant friggin plasmid, that's it.

If they made a chromosome, great, that would be awesome because no one can do that yet, but it's a plasmid, sure, a fully working one, but still just a loop of DNA.

They educated people writing these articles...