Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
:) At some point I suspect scientists will realize it's impossible to keep tinkering at things on the gene-by-gene level.
:)
So ok, first 3 steps were:
1. figure out there's such a thing as "genetic code"
2. read genetic code
3. write genetic code
There are two more steps:
4. write some genetic code that results in something sensible
5. write some genetic code that results in something sensible, and that's useful for us
Arguably steps 4 and 5 are the hardest possible steps for us to conquer
We'll see "genetic frameworks" with reusable piece that have well known behavior, and genetical development kits that simulate assemblies' features and behavior much faster than doing full-blown atom-by-atom simulation.
Genetical programming will be born
But, oh damn, forget my wild dreams, back to Earth: let's make some drugs and bio-weapons!
This is a highly philosphical topic. While I am not a creationalist, being able to biochemically construct a DNA pattern isn't what I'd really call life. If he can build an amoeba 100% from raw material, then that is pretty close. Looks like they're at the beginning stages though, so the field is definitely alive. :)
with the writing of this post!
From just a fast read of the article, I think the claim "creating" a new life is a bit exaggerated.
It's pared down from the genome of a pre-existing species and probably permuted the organisation of the genes on the chromosomes, therefore not much "creation" was involved, they just figured out what genes are not essentially for cell/organism viability and removed them. Granted, a LOT of work had to have been done to stitch together the final artificial chromosome, but still, I think it would be more correct to say it's an artificially _modified_ chromosome rather than created.
Gene therapy labs often play with the HIV virus, by taking out the nasty bits and put in replacement genes, to study whether it is an effective delivery system.
Scientists have difficulty predicting function and structure of known/natural proteins/genes, let alone making new ones. However, gene modification is very common, for example, GFP (green fluorescent protein) is commonly modified to fluoresce other colours. And genome paring is also pretty common, there was a group that removed 5 MB (megabases) from mouse genome and the mice still looked and behaved normally _in_the_lab_, can you claim that they were a new species of mouse?
Last I heard, the Mayo lab (http://www.mayo.caltech.edu/research.html) has created a completely novel gene which produced a protein that folded as they predicted it would. I haven't followed up on the progress since then.
Sure, it took tremendously amount of effort, but it's still exaggeration. An example, perhaps a bit unfair, but it's like saying people who pared down Windows installations by removing non-essential files are "creating" new operating systems.
DNA science is a Pandoras' Box.
How long until someone accidentally or willfully creates a pandemic plague?
During my life I have heard enough misanthropes announce opinions that we are all a scourge on the poor planet and that it would be better if we all dropped dead. I don't hold it for impossible that such a person with the right skills and tools might succeed doing it.
Apparently it is up to the operating system implementation to provide real time conversions to DNA code bocks from the file stream.
Humorous or not, I consider this one of the most insightful comments I've read on Slashdot in quite a long time. If you hadn't posted as AC, I even have mod points at the moment, but, so it goes.
Kudos!
Already a problem in farming, where unintentional pollination of non-GE crops by GE varieties results in the non-GE farmer losing his/her shirt to lawsuits by Monsanto et al. The "patent reform" we have on hand is completely biased toward the biotech companies. It used to be that the non-GE farmer could claim unintentional pollination as a defense; now the farmer is liable regardless of how the genes got into his/her field. I can only imagine the fallout when we start patenting human genetic sequences. Will people have to buy their children now?
First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd have to say yes. Maybe one day it will be necessary for celebrities to patent their genomes so people don't make unauthorized clones of them for fun and profit.
It is only 4 letters. Has anyone thought that perhaps DNA code is actually similar to Brainfuck? Here is the Hello World program in Brainfuck.
Brainfuck has six commands: '+', '-', '[', '.', '>', and '<' while DNA only has four codes. Perhaps '+', '-', '[', '.', '>', and '<' can be coded as aa, gg, cc, tt, ag, and ac. Then the code would be:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaccagaaaaaaaa
aaaaaaagaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaagaa
aaaaagaaacacacac ggccagaaaattagaa
ttaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ttttaaaaaattagaa
aattacacaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
aaaaaattagttaaaa aattgggggggggggg
ttgggggggggggggg ggttagaattagtt
And if they created something like DNA, we'd hear that they didn't create the proteins from scratch. If they created proteins, we'd here that they didn't create the still more basic building blocks, down to matter itself. Then we'd hear that they didn't create the universe, or the physical constants by which existence is possible, or whatever. No, I'm not saying that he created artificial life. But I've heard the "and God said, 'get your own dirt'" joke before, and as funny as it was at the time, I don't really like the smug we're-smarter-than-those scientists mentality I see behind it. When anti-intellectual populism shows its value in antibiotic research or in any other field of science, I may respect it more. Until then, I'm down with the science.