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."

34 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. He looked down on his creating and... by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... saw that it was a "frist!" poster :(

  2. Hello... by Chairboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    So what exactly does 'Hello world' look like in DNA?

    AGTCA
            TCGCT "WORLD"
    ?

    1. Re:Hello... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least it is easier to read than Perl.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Hello... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      We have gone from fscanf() to fprintf(), so I guess it would look like:

      char str[] = "Hello World\n";
      FILE * out;
      if(out=fopen("/dev/chromosome", "w")) fprintf(out,str);


      Apparently it is up to the operating system implementation to provide real time conversions to DNA code bocks from the file stream.

    3. Re:Hello... by TarPitt · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think that particular nucleic acid sequence translates to:

      "All your base are belong to us"

      --
      If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  3. There are few more steps by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    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 :) At some point I suspect scientists will realize it's impossible to keep tinkering at things on the gene-by-gene level.

    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!

  4. Grossly misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Grossly misleading by mc+moss · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think a bigger challenge for scientists is for them to insert their DNA into a cell naturally made by women

    2. Re:Grossly misleading by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Grossly misleading by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Grossly misleading by SpinyNorman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Everybody gets hung up on "life" as if it's something so fundamental, but really it's by definition nothing more than a set of characteristics (ability to reproduce, etc, etc).

      Do you consider a virus to be alive? It's a borderline case, but some people at least would say yes.

      The Polio virus has already been synthesized from scratch from raw chemicals - feed chemicals into a machine and get a virus out the other end. No need to sprinkle any magic "life" pixie dust on it.

    5. Re:Grossly misleading by justin12345 · · Score: 3, Funny

      whoosh!

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
  5. not quite .... by Kristoph · · Score: 5, Informative

    1) He has not announced this. He is expected to annouce it. It's not actually been done yet, according to the article, although Venter is '100% confident'.

    2) It was not him but his team.

    3) His team has not actually created the life form in question, it's just a stripped down copy of an existing life form.

    4) His team has only made a copy of the chromosome, the other parts of cellular machinary come from an existing organism.

    So the summary should read ...

    Craig Venter is expected to announce that his team has created an artificial copy of a bacterium chomosome. The arficial chromosome, if all goes well, will be installed in a cell, and will take over its machinery, and effectivelly begin living.

    ]{

  6. Is this the best use we can think of? by janrinok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "....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?

    --
    Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
  7. fork! by Kristoph · · Score: 4, Funny

    So this is open source at it's best ...
    He took the source for a bacterium, he forked it, and made a newer, cleaner version. He is about to start testing. His version does not yet actually do anything, but if all goes well it will be a great foundation for new and usefull stuff.
    ]{

  8. Re:Life... by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Since I love being pedantic by Captain+Vittles · · Score: 5, Informative

    The summary's use of the term 'genetic code' actually plays down the enormity of what's written about in TFA. We've been able to assemble 'genetic code' for a long time now - designer oligomers are a very useful tool for researchers, especially with regards to techniques like PCR, which requires a primer to really get started. The accomplishment written about in the article is that a chromosome was constructed. This isn't merely a snippet of code, but hundreds of genes (composed of hundreds of thousands of base pairs), arranged appropriately on the necessary protein structures. When the article says it was painstakingly assembled, I don't doubt it. That kind of synthesis is remarkably difficult, time-consuming and prone to error if careful attention isn't given to every detail.

    Also note that this isn't actually synthetic life, just a synthetic genome. The components which translate that genome into a functional organism (i.e. the cell and it's structures) were not created. But this is none the less a great leap forward, and I'm sure the resulting findings and work to come from this will unlock vast possibilities, as well as elucidate some currently unknown processes and problems in molecular biology.

    Speaking of possibilities, let's also try not to get too caught up in the nonsense here. This stuff about combating global warming and building drugs and/or bioweapons is just idle speculation, and could be applied to pretty much any kind of molecular biology research. This is just one step, albeit a big one, towards a possible larger goal.

    1. Re:Since I love being pedantic by lbbros · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
  10. Global Warming??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  11. Super-Bacteria by Nymz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  12. and I am creating a new work of literature by semiotec · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:life by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wrong hole. Biology fails you.

  14. Re:Quite an Important Question by BlueGecko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Life... by AgentPaper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  16. This would only be a hack. by Flying+pig · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:This would only be a hack. by Teancum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  17. He didn't create it... by Assassin+bug · · Score: 3, Funny

    He followed a template from Mycoplasma genitalium . Venter calls his sexy little chimera Mycoplasma laboritorium. I, for one, feel suspicious about our new genital-disease-derived overlords.

  18. IT'S NOT A CHROMOSOME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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...

  19. Re:Life... by yuriks · · Score: 3, Funny

    No, we will create deadly killers to end the lawyer menace once and for all. I really mean it.

  20. This isn't artificial life. by Ingenium13 · · Score: 3, Informative

    While it would technically be considered a different species (though perhaps in the same genus as the parent species), I wouldn't consider it artificial life. All they did was repeatedly remove genes and see if the organism was viable. They still have no idea how most of the genes and regulation actually work. Simply modifying an organism doesn't constitute artificial life unless you consider dog breeds or other things we've created by breeding. By the same notion, it's not considered artificial life when a new custom chromosome (called a plasmid) is inserted into a bacteria or eukaryotic cell. It's done all the time and has been since the 80s. All they did was get rid of "extraneous" genes that they don't deem necessary. They're trying to make a designer organism to synthesize/produce compounds. This is one step in achieving that, though it was arguably unnecessary. The hard part is creating genes/proteins to make it do what you actually want. This involves creating a new biochemical pathway (or modifying an existing one), probably creating new enzymes to recognize your intermediates, designing ER and golgi receptors to recognize their finished product and target it for excretion from the cell, creating proper regulation of this pathway, etc, etc. As you can see, it's very complicated. No one has successfully created their own enzyme or protein yet, let alone an entire biochemical pathway of them.

  21. MRS GREN by GoddessOfDeath · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone else remember sitting in high school bio and learning about MRS GREN (Movement; Respiration; Sensitivity; Growth; Reproduction; Excretion; Nutrition)? By this definition of life, a virus would not be considered.

  22. Re:MOD PARENT UP by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mod up someone who knows what they're talking about? You must be new here...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  23. Reminds me of the old creationist joke by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 3, Funny

    One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

    The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

    God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

    But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

    The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

    God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

    --
    No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  24. Re:I disagree by arminw · · Score: 3, Funny

    ......genetic programming will do the same.......

    So if humans do genetic programming, it's obviously designed. Otherwise it's random, mindless mutations, that just somehow happened over the course of billions of years. What useful code for computers has ever come about by any other means beside a human mind? So now human minds contemplate writing genetic code, yet those same human minds try to make themselves and the rest of us believe that the original genetic code did not originate in someone's mind, God's mind. Indeed, God expressing Himself through the Apostle Paul gives us His assessment in Chapter 1 of the Letter to the Romans:

    "But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools"

    In other news:

    Along with the "Creation of Life" some other patents were issued recently for "Cold Fusion", "Anti-Gravity" and a "Time-Travel" device dubbed "Stargate". Patents are also pending for "Eternal Youth" and "Perpetual Motion".

    --
    All theory is gray