Slashdot Mirror
Synthetic DNA About To Yield New Life Forms
mlimber sends along a Washington Post story about the immanence of completely artificial life: "The cobbling together of life from synthetic DNA, scientists and philosophers agree, will be a watershed event, blurring the line between biological and artificial — and forcing a rethinking of what it means for a thing to be alive... Some experts are worried that a few maverick companies are already gaining monopoly control over the core 'operating system' for artificial life and are poised to become the Microsofts of synthetic biology. That could stifle competition, they say, and place enormous power in a few people's hands."
I for one, welcome our Artificial Overlords.
The cobbling together of life from synthetic DNA, scientists and philosophers agree, will be a watershed event, blurring the line between biological and artificial
Yeah, but this will only become a problem in the year 2019, and probably only in Los Angeles.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
That is _imminence_, or the quality of being imminent...
Immanence is almost another entirely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanence
What kinds of organisms will scientists, terrorists and other creative individuals make?
[broken image]
Figure I. SCHEMATIC.
Modified design for a low-pH respiratory engine. 1) monobasic phosphate buffer tank. 2) ADP-GDP reservoir. 3) primary ADP-GDP feed line. 4) NAD/FAD reservoir. 5) pyruvate feed line. 6) Deinococcus culture chamber. 7) ADP-GDP return line. 8) NADH-FADH2 return line. 9) pasteurizer. 10) sodium-potassium pump. 11) NaCl/KCl reservoir. 12) actin filament membrane. 13) myosin-hydroxyapetite cylinder. 14) axle. 15) flywheel. 16) dilute H3PO4 reservoir. 17) intake port. 18) myosin generator. 19) proton pump. 20) ATPase membrane. 21) secondary ATP feed line. 22) electrophoresis cartridge. 23) pH regulator. 24) UV sterilizer. 25) transmission. 26) +12VDC battery. 27) radiator coil assembly. 28) CO2 exhaust vent. 29) fan. 30) phosphate return line. 31) brake assembly. 32) generator. 33) amylase generator. 34) glycolysis chamber. 35) fibrolytic culture chamber array. 36) microcontroller. 37) compost chamber. 38) thresher. 39) lid. Cit. L. Xu et al, Cellulosic Artificial Muscle Engines (2057), Biomech. Eng. Letts. 21 599-612
SPORE hype...
Anything still based on DNA is re-using nature's building blocks. It's like in Photoshop, using the clone tool vs. drawing a photorealistic texture freehand - there's a huge difference. Nature has been searching the space of DNA recombinations for a long time.
Okay it's a crappy knock off of a classic novel but don't they see the potential for turning us all into a bunch of lame CG vampires?
How exactly does this blur the boundaries of life? I could see some people questioning if a virus was really alive, but adding more things like viruses wouldn't *further* blur the line, and anything as complex as bacteria would be life regardless of if they were natural or not.
I suppose if you let religion define "life" for you this might cause trouble, but definitions shouldn't be the job of religion.
Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
How we know is more important than what we know.
They're worried about competition? As in BUSINESS competition? This kind of tech makes me worry more about competition in the true Darwinian sense of the word. What happens when "the Microsoft of DNA" codes an airborn AIDS virus into the system? Kinda puts all that Wall Street crap into perspective, doesn't it?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Just be glad that God hasn't invoked the DMCA on reverse-engineering his DNA Code yet.
who says artificial life needs to be based on DNA? The earliest forms of life probably used RNA instead or one of its cousins like TNA, GNA, PNA or LNA. DNA is only special in the fact that it is missing a key hydroxyl group in the 2 position. this makes DNA more stable because there's no nucleophillic group there toi assist in self-cleavage of the phosphodiester bond. GNA has a backbone of glycerol rather than ribose [RNA] or deoxyribose [DNA]. PNA uses a reperating serine polypeptide backbone and because the whole thing has no charge like DNA does it has a much higher melting temperature [can withstand more heat] which may make it superior to DNA or RNA in some applications in biology. TNA on the other hand, has a synthetic polymerase enzyme that has to my knowledge, been able to create strands 1000 bases long. then there's alternative nucleotide bases, there are similar molecules to the naturally occuring 5 that also can encode for proteins and act in genetic systems. there's a lot that can be done with this, it's just a pity that it will probably be encumbered in patents if and when any of it is realized.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Would you prefer that we place enormous power in everybody's hands? Regardless of their level of skill or ethics?
I am not a manual I am a human being! - The distress call of the TechSupport Badger
What is it with you losers showing up lately, spamming every forum in creation with your pathetic, viral attempts at tricking people into clicking on your useless damned links? You people are internet parasites, gaining momentary whizzing contest bragging rights at the expense of the wasted time and disappointment of everyone who think that you might have had something interesting to see at the end of that link.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
That could stifle competition, they say, and place enormous power in a few people's hands
Only if they allow these companies to patent the technology so broadly as to stifle competition. By 'only' I of course mean 'when'.
It's crazy talk anyway. The 'Microsoft of DNA'? To Paraphrase Paul Graham, only if there's someone to bend over and be the IBM of DNA.
Seriously though, that's highly unlikely at this stage unless effective monopolies are granted via patent and maintained in perpetuity so as to prevent any competition from establishing.
Also, right at this moment there's not even agreement in science as to what is required to describe a Core Promoter in all cases, and most definitely no clear idea as to how we should best describe some of the conserved sequences which form it, they're pretty darned variable, and that's just one component of a gene. This is like saying you can build a car but you haven't actually discovered how to make a wheel.
Given that so few people will actually understand any of this shit... isn't that pretty much a given?
If I figure out how to give people super powers, you better bet your ass I'm going to be the first person getting them.
Within thirty years biochemistry students might have to buy "chemistry sets" at the campus bookstore for their home lab work. And some of those students will surely feel the urge to initiate global epidemics with modified viruses. That kind of evolution will likely be far too fast for the vaccination developers to keep up.
School shooters and airplane hijackers will look amiable compared to these demigods that wipe out hundreds of millions of people in each exploit.
"...a few maverick companies are already gaining monopoly control over the core 'operating system' for artificial life ..."
Roman Catholic Church cites Genesis in Prior Art claim.....
No doubt our good friends at Monsanto would kill to be the main maverick company in question.
It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
Would you prefer that we place enormous power in everybody's hands? Regardless of their level of skill or ethics?
That's effectively the same thing.
What you describe is similar to "security through obscurity," the hope that not enough people will have the knowledge and information needed to cause damage. As soon as one person has the knowledge and power, you have compromised security. The whole point is to design a system that is resistant to knowledge and power.
Unfortunately, since we didn't design the system (biology), there's not much we can do to make it hack-proof. I believe we're still dozens of years away from synthetic life, but once it happens, it might as well be in the power of all people. This isn't something like The Bomb that you can control with access to scarce resources.
I'm not as pessimistic as Bill Joy (ironic last name when he goes off on his "the world is doomed" tear), but I definitely think it doesn't matter whether everybody gets this tech, or only a few get this tech. We're pretty much equally screwed either way.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Considering that many people choose to apply their programming skills in writing computer viruses, should we expect like-minded people to disseminate real synthetic viruses once the technology becomes sufficiently mainstream?
Right. Off topic.
This is probably the funniest damned post in the entire thread, spot on-topic for both patents and artificial life forms, and you get modded "offtopic."
See, here's the deal, mods: *I'm* offtopic. The parent post was *funny.* See the difference? His was filled with relevant, smart, funny information. Mine is mere whining about mods and the way they waste their points. HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE!
Mr. MillionthMonkey, Sir, you may not have writ the works of Shakespeare, but your post made me throw up laughing.
Thank you.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
If these companies pop up in California, we know Arni can save us.
Hold it, hold it! We're not quite there yet. It was only yesterday, on the historical timescale, that we discovered DNA and now we are beginning to get some vague ideas about how some of the things actually work. We can even theorize about correcting errors in people's genetic code, but creating a living cell from scratch? Not even the best biologists know more than a tiny fraction of what goes into making a living cell function. IOW, we are far, far out in the world of science fiction here nobody is just on the threshold to discovering how to create living cells from scratch, or even mostly from scratch.
/. will be around. The problem with absurd, sweeping patents will have solved itself by collapsing completely, capitalism is likely to have been left behind as yet another temporary absurdity in human culture, the climate change crisis will have run its course and found its solution, and if humanity is still around, we will have found a role as the guardians and preservers of the planets.
If and when that ever happens, I don't think any of the readers of
with my real doll and make cylon babies? ...yeah I went there...
Ave Molech Setting
If many hundreds of thousands or millions of years from now when humanity is a thing of the past, descendants of the synthetic DNA creatures start debating about whether or not they evolved naturally, or were created by a long-forgotten designer? Of course the former would obviously be a more acceptable conclusion, since the latter creates additional complexity.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It should be pointed out that the technology described is largely fictitious. The best labs haven't even managed to create a single artificial cell, and those technologies ALL use cobbled-together bits stolen from other lifeforms - nothing truly from scratch. There are a few good examples of proteins being engineered to specific functions (mostly DNA binding specificity), but we're ages away from being able to say, "Okay, I want to synthesize a protein that does this random function; here's how I would do it." And as for more complex lifeforms? Forget it. We don't even understand the development process of any multicellular organism in any detail, never mind being able to manufacture our own. So, on the whole, I think this story is akin to worrying about who is going to get control of, say, shrink-ray technology. Scary when it happens, but it ain't happening any time soon.
I think the problem here may be that you have to dumb it down a bit.
/.
I'd give you an example involving a car analogy, but... err, well you seem to be the master in that subject.
Its a sad day in
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
Yes! Biological patents! Twenty years closer to the realization of Jurassic Park!
Touche. If only I hadn't just used up my mod points.
Coming soon to a search engine near you: Search the Google database of life forms that have been successfully created in the lab to find the one that fits your biotech industrial needs. All open source, will full RNA patterns necessary to generate the cDNA from PCRs.
Does this mean the end of disease? Or a new host of plagues?
I hope they saw the movie.
Stem cell research is banned because we have to *sit* and *think* about it... Is it good, is it bad... Hmmm... We are not sure so, uhm, let's ban it. Done.
Meanwhile, artificial DNA yields artificial lifeforms, with totally unknown consequences. This is fun! More dangerous than stem cells, but it's fun, sounds like a creppy sci-fi movie! So why ban it?
There may be a "patent troll" of artificial life, but there will be no Microsoft. DNA is, by definition, open source.
-ellie
As soon as one could create a lifeform using artifical DNA, they could bypass many ethical arguments for using these organisms as AI control systems because their DNA is not of "natural origin".
Imagine, we probably do not just wire frog or dog brains to robot bodies because of ethical concerns... but if the frog or dog or primate brain came from an artifical DNA starting point, one could argue that there is no ethical challenge.
And given that plasticity of brains, it would be easier to just wire organisms to robot bodies then to create a computer brain from scratch. (See research on speech and robotic/remote controls to paraplegics).
Of course, if there are no ethical limitations for using animals in this way now.... well... the pandora's box might well be opened now.
(I wonder if something like that might end up as an instructable?... Frog-brain controlled robotic model tanks.)
"Life" is a system that transduces energy to maintain local entropy reductions that perpetuate its operation: homeostasis. Recognizable life replicates itself, or is replicated, from identical or nearly identical instances: reproduction.
FWIW, "intelligence" is an information model of the physical world at least minimally accurate and at least minimally inclusive (perhaps solely at initialization) of new information that it adds to itself, and that includes representation of itself in its model.
--
make install -not war
First, it's imminent, not immanent. Rather Freudian slip.
And again, this doesn't appear to me to be synthetic life any more than putting an artificial heart into a person and starting it up is giving them "artificial life". We're taking pieces (important ones), creating them synthetically, and sticking them into a living creature.
And this is a non-trivial distinction. The real question about life is a more metaphysical one: if we come to the point where we can move molecules on large scales like Legos, putting them all exactly where they should be compared to a model single-celled creature (for example), and when we can simultaneously 'insert' all the necessary electrochemical charges in the right places in the right proportions....will that creature 'pop' into living? I guess it goes to one's deep beliefs about whether "life" is something unique and non-physical, something essentially tangential to the chemistry and physics. In a sense it's a question fundamentally about God and the soul.
-Styopa
They could, for example, educate themselves in the fields of biology and genetics, and be the first to discover this. They could then publish the information freely, making it prior art.
Or, the experts could invest their money into paying the salaries and laboratories of other people with said degrees, and when they make the discoveries, do the same thing.
Provided that they do not wish to do either of the above, they might find that for a limited time, certain individuals and companies who do invest their time and/or resources will indeed have monopoly control of what they find out. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see how they would disprove that for a patent duration of X years, then the companies not being in existence would not have added more than X years to to the overall discovery process.
When I first saw the title, I read it as "Synthetic DNA About To Yield to New Life Forms".
I guess that's about the only time the "overlords" joke really is called for ... and funny! :-)
Uh why don't we first get there before we pat ourselves on the backs about the sheer awesomeness of having gotten there? If I had a nickle for every scientist whose next experiment may very well change mankind and science itself, I'd be a very rich skeptic.
None of the people playing with novel gene coding has the slightest idea how to make anything beyond single-purpose machines with it - no schemes for anything remotely resembling us, our dogs, or the squirrel in the yard. So this whole article's image of mad scientists "composing" new life forms like symphonies is just bad sci-fi, especially in the near to mid-term future. Can we pervert a life form into a machine? Sure. That's what happens when we put a horse before a cart. And perverting a microbe to make oil? Sure. But at that point we've reduced life to machinery, not created life.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Not a pleasant thought...
Am I the only one here who is seeing parallels between the early stages of synthetic life creation, and the emergence of software in computers. Both started in education, with the "source code" as it were, freely available to everyone. As time went on, software became more commercialized and we ended up with the widespread usage of closed source and intellectual property we have today.
I sure hope there's a Richard Stallman out there to stand up for open source genetics, or a branch of science that can change the course of history will probably end up getting bogged down in lawsuits and patents.
This is how the loudness war is killing music.
Hmm is this life imitating art or what? I am all for learning about DNA. There's a lot to learn that could possibly
help with many cures for genetic diseases along the way. But... to take DNA and sequence it to produce a life form?
We are going to produce monsters along the way. Who knows.. possibly something harmful. I am sure they would start at sequencing bacteria. And we know where this will lead. Some government agency will fund the research, scientists will take
the funding and possibly design a super bacteria. Good can come out of the research as well, such as hydrogen producing bacteria..but heck we all know what happens... look at how the atomic bomb was developed.
Has anyone ever watched the SciFi series Surface???? Ok it's SciFi but the super lizard amphibian creatures were created by
testing synthetic DNA building blocks.
Oh great, just f-ing great!
Imagine creating a special virus that can be passed from person to person. But, when it reaches its intended target (specific genetic code), it assassinates!
I'm just another lowly Slashdotter. You all know damn well I'm not the first one to think of this. I'm sure it's been on the drawing board for quite some time in both the US and Russia. Who knows, maybe such viral assassinations have already taken place.
Life is not for the lazy.
One more question. You're watching a stage play. A banquet is in progress. The guests are enjoying an appetizer of raw oysters. The entree consists of boiled dog...
Don't worry, if it is like the show it will get cancelled after one short season and we will all be safe!
Whoops... I changed my story to say serial killer since that sounded more dramatic rather than a bank robber half way through, but you get the point ;)
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
It will be a long time before there are radical changes in synthetic life. The early wrok will be tinking: combing proteins from different existing lifeforms, changing an amino there, etc.
... "the praying mantis routine" with a bug-woman-hybrid that looks like Natasha Henstridge may be a really good deal!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
> That could stifle competition, they say, and place enormous power in a few people's hands.
You'll pardon me if I don't get excited about the alternative: placing enormous power in the hands of a few people whose primary skill is in generating fear in the masses.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
...is already in the hands of a few people. Nukes can wipe out the life on this planet. With capitalism, it always happens that power goes into the hands of few. What did you expect, something like Blade Runner where even the guy down at the corner in chinatown makes artificial animals?
..."spare faring world nation"... I meant to say "space faring world nation". Apologies.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
So what exactly are you saying - that we were created by dinosaurs?
Well, at least that solves our little problem. Everyone gets guns but you, as your inability to stick to one story clearly mark you as the robber/killer.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
About life, well, I believe the best definition of life so far, is the replicator definition. Basically, if it replicates, it is alive. Viruses (carbon based) would, under this definition, be living creatures. And, honestly, I don't see why wouldn't they... They seem pretty alive to me.. As for computer viruses I would put them in a zombie state. This is because, although they do replicate, they basically clone themselves which is not exactly the same thing at least for life as we know it. The problem resides in the fact that carbon viruses infect other phenotypes replicating machinery with their own genotype. Computer viruses don't. The analogous thing would be, I believe, for a computer virus to somehow inject it's source code into a victim compiler and make it compile it and execute it. I don't know if there is already something like this. I remember of code injection on forms and similar attacks secure-code guys are always worried about and I wonder if it possible... Anyway I'm not a specialist, and everything I said here is from what I've learned in college and from reading... But for anyone interested I seriously recommend Richard Dawkins's books, especially The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and The Extended Phenotype. They're written in fairly common language and, with a couple exceptions, can be easily understood by anyone minimally intelligent (I like to believe that that applies to everyone that reads /.). Well, if you're a creationist you'll probably not going to like them.. But then again, you're not minimally intelligent...
For CS guys well take a course on AI and your life will change... You'll start wondering what's the point of actually program something... Why not evolve the damn thing?..
Lintilla.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Mankind isn't smart enough to predict every possible effect of this kind of thing.
Name me one case where mankind has meddled with nature and it hasn't become a total screw-up.
This technology can only lead to trouble. Probably waay more trouble than any previous meddling with nature that mankind has so far done as it the first technology to directly manipulate our core mechanisms in a unreversible and potentially uncontrollable way as genetically modified people also have a right to have kids, so passing genetic modifications on.
Why aren't governments strictly enforcing a complete ban on this technology?
To all you short-sighted do-gooders arguing that this will find cures for every possible disease, PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE of something.
Get over it.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
look into the zone diet.
http://drsears.com/ZoneandChronicDisorders/Diabetes/tabid/389/Default.aspx
listen to Dr. Sears' video and then click on the Testimonials link toward the bottom side of the page.
i don't have diabetes and the zone has changed my life - lost 25 lbs of fat, gained 5 lbs of muscle at the same time (6.5 months), lost my lifelong allergy problem, feel fantastic and eat very well.
while my results sound good, they are nothing compared to Manuel Uribe - 1230 lbs to 780 lbs and he lost his hunger and depression.
Dara Torres, a long time Zoner and the holder of more olympic medals than any other american woman save one, recently set the American record in the 50m free swimming event - at the age of 40. it was the 2nd fastest time in the world this year. if you know *anything* about swimming, your jaw just dropped to your basement floor... you know you are in the basement... ha ha.
you'll see Dara compete int he 2008 olympics at the age of 41 - and competing against teenagers and early twenty-somethings. i bet nobody else is even in their 30s.
seriously, invest a little time and learn the ropes. you will be amazed at what a moderate protein, moderate carb, moderate fat diet will do to your level of wellness.
Terry Pratchett has in the Discworld-series in 'The Last Continent' a small god playing with these ideas. Leads to an unexpected result, though...
...'And the flaming cows?' said Ridcully.
(quote)
'The what?' said the god, sunk in misery.
'The more inflammable cow,' said Ponder.
'Oh yes. Another good idea that didn't work. I just thought, you know, that if you could find the bit in, say, an oak tree which says "Be inflammable" and glue it into the bit of the cow which says "Be soggy" it'd save a lot of trouble. Unfortunately, that produced a sort of bush that made distressing noises and squirted milk, but I could see the principle was sound...'
(end quote)
First time I read it I just could not stop laughing! Sorry for the spoiler to future readers, but this quote came up so strong that I wonder why noone else has posted it.
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
Nothing else could explain our current crop of Presidential candidates.
On the same day of the re-re-re-re-release of blade runner, now in the super duper uber funpack version?
All kidding aside, this is really scary, we really arent far enough down the road of understanding to start mucking around with this.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Watch my lips!
Uppity REPLICANTS!
RR