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.