Slashdot Mirror
Artificial Bases Added to DNA
holy_calamity writes "Researchers have successfully added two 'unnatural' DNA letters to the code of life. They created two artificial base pairs that are treated as normal by an enzyme that replicates and fixes DNA inside cells. This raises the prospect of engineering life forms with genetic code not possible within nature, allowing new kinds of genetic engineering."
All your artificial base are belong to these researchers.
Researchers from KFC (tm) ?
839*929
Why is it that every single article that references any scientific development in the fields of genetics or molecular biology gets the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag on Slashdot? What does this say about our society, since Slashdot members tend to represent the more educated and successful members to begin with? Have we really become such fat lazy luddites that we will reject anything we do not understand, on the basis of an infinitesmally-small risk to our (relatively) decadent and luxurious life?
Do we really only perceive biologists as madmen who want to do evil experients for the heck of it? I've seen this trend spiral out of control, and frankly, I am ASHAMED.
Sagtacy.
All your base are belong to us
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
We don't even fully understand the genome, and we're going to complicate it further.
Its much easier to spell things when you have more letters than just AGTC. However, for now we just have to guess what the new ones are as the article doesn't say.
For once, that tag seems appropriate.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
We know what happens with the 'natural' bases--they indicate which amino acids are selected to produce which proteins.
I'm curious as to whether this will result in new kinds of proteins, or whether new amino acids will be required to be built, or what other effects might crop up.
It's interesting, don't get me wrong--but how -practical- is it?
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
So they manage to build a pair of molecules that can be sucessfully copied when put in a DNA helix, that's something worth publishing in a biochemistery journal, but I don't see how those new molecules could be interpreted by the cell to build new man-designed proteins. Wouldn't it be easier to use man-designed regular DNA sequences that the cell know how to interpret?
My dream of having two wankers is here!
Table-ized A.I.
Great, we're one step closer to furries, someone call Lowtax.
This could be really useful in the long-term: if we could substitute replacement codons that work with most of our existing DNA, it's one step to building really tough DNA. Right now, there are a lot of damage mechanisms like adjacent thymines linking resulting from exposure to chemicals or shortwave radiation, and replacement codons engineered to not be suseptible to these could make, say, protracted exposure to radiation outside the Earth's protective atmosphere more viable. Of course, then we'd have to engineer a whole set of enzymes to synthesize those new codons, which is an extremely hard project, but finding things that work as replacement base pairs, now, gives us time to study how they might fail and figure out what the best candidates are.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Even if its banned in the US, *other* countries will eventually start experimenting and create a super-race that works 80-hour-weeks without fatigue. Then other countries are going to have to follow to compete, or be left in the dust.
Table-ized A.I.
Interesting. I'm no biologist but I suspect that the reason why these pairs don't exist naturally is that there's probably some sort of issue in the design that causes the living system to die. Evolution tends to favour things that work well and tends to eliminate things that don't
This is only 'not possible within nature' if you make some weird divide when defining nature between humans and everything else in the world. I realize that in the past this was a common thing to do, especially in many religions. But can someone explain what is 'not natural' about humans? Why are the structures we build in cities any 'less natural' than a bird building a nest?
Great movie, but the title.. Arg.. just ONE letter too many.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
- am sick and tired of that joke.
sudo ergo sum
This is in no way off-topic. Yet another attempt by the moderators to quell the opinions shared by many.
So when they patent the molecules, the newly formed DIAA will demand that you give back all those "illegally copied" patented molecules that are in your body, because their bacteria got loose and started generating strange new chemicals all over the landscape, which you illegally ingested.
As the keyword says, what could possibly go wrong?
U and S! Resulting in a viral spread of democracy throughout the world!
If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
"hey, I wonder where all this grey stuff came fro..."
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
As I don't even understand WTF they've done, I'm gunna go ahead and suggest that this isn't the technology I've been waiting for.
Problem: it is now possible for people to take the DNA sequence for a nasty virus off the web and send it into a DNA synthesis company, pay the $20,000 and get vials and vials of the virus sent to them in under a month. And next year the price will drop to $10,000.. and the year after it will drop to $5,000.. and the year after it will drop to $2500.. and the year after it will drop to $1250, etc.
One Solution: tag each strand of DNA that is synthesized with an "batch number" by incorporating a pattern of artificial bases that will be replicated each time the DNA sequence is replicated. So if someone gets a nasty virus synthesized and puts it in the subway or something then you can read the batch number and trace who bought the DNA.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Wasn't this in a Discover magazine article a decade ago? I think they also had the chemical layout printed there too for the two matching bases.
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
...sounds like they're making some kind of social progress.
Why don't they just add Chemical X? Worked for Dr. Utonium.
Wake me up when they invent me a bonsai elephant.
"There what you call a survivor?" "A few cells are still alive, it's more than I need." "Could you at least idenfity it?" "We tried. But the computer went off the charts. You see, normal human beings have 40 DNA memo groups, which is more than enough for any species to perpetuate itself. This has 200,000... The cell is for the lack of a better word... perfect." "This is a normal human DNA chain. Ok? You, me, anybody, right? Watch this... The compositional elements of this DNA chain are the same as ours. There's simply more of them, tightly packed with infinite genetic knowledge. Almost like this being was engineered."
WD40 was preceeded by 39 unsuccessful formulas, and Edison took a few thousand tries to get the light bulb right...
Blank until
You're right. The intention here is not to create new proteins, but to tag DNA and possibly create new DNA nanostructures. At the end of the day, mRNAs that are translated to proteins still will only have access to the same set of tRNAs, and therefore, the same 20 amino-acids.
The article can be found here. [PDF download requires a subscription]
A more interesting discovery (in my opinion) -- from the Scripps Institute -- was made about ~10-15 years ago (IIRC) by Pete Schultz's group. They modified tRNAs so that specific codons (DNA/RNA triplets) could incorporate chemically-modified amino-acids into a protein. Some of this has led to interesting work on protein tagging, functional studies as well as the study of molecular evolution. All this is done with in vitro translation, as far as I know.
So, not only will future parents be asked if they want a boy or a girl, but also if they want to "upgrade" to an extra head or just infra-red sight? Great.
Biologists aren't evil per say, but they will do almost anything for a grant;) Also keep in mind Risks can only be know with a large sample base. We don't know what the effect any drug is going to be on humans until we test it on statistically large enough groups. The same applies with these type of experiments. The tag is, for me just a reminder that we need to make sure that the proper ethical guidelines are followed and enough experimentation has been done to ensure that we have not invented a new courage for humans or organisms that we care about.
To put it in terms more slashdotters will understand: you don't add new code to a production system with out figuring out ahead of time what could possibly go wrong.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
DNA is NOT protein! So we have an additional two letters to the genomic alphabet. BFD! The most likely scenario is that DNA would either be non-sensical or just be alternate codings for amino acids. You would need to engineer some "regular" DNA to code for proteins that can handle exotic amino acids (ie proteins to get them inside cells, tag them for use, and proteins that have recognition sites for these things). Then you'll have a protein no one has seen before. Of course, regular genetic engineering already has the capability to make weird proteins no one has seen before.
These two "new bases" are basically nucleoside analogues...which have existed for years. Usually they are used in anti-viral applications. What happens, is that they are similar enough to existing bases to be incorporated into a growing DNA strand, but are different enough to be unreadable. This works to put a monkey wrench in the viral machinery. The article is very vague, but what Im taking from it is that these two new bases are readable, and that with a proper supply, DNA containing these bases can be properly replicated. What I'm interested in knowing, is how the new codons containing these bases will be interpreted.
All right, it's not that funny but come on, as soon as you read the headline you know somebody was going to say it. It's not "+5 funny" but it's certainly not "-1 offtopic".
Are you nuts? Do you get even a tenth of the ramifications of this? I'm all for progress and research and knowledge, but I just saw the headline, and immediately thought, "if there was EVER an article that deserved the 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' tag, this is it."
Basically the summary of the article can be boiled down to:
:)
Scientists: "Yay! We finally crammed a new pair of DNA molecules!"
Journalist: "What do they do?"
Scientists: "We don't know, but we're gonna study it! It was really hard to cram that thing in there, it's like hammering a piece of a jigsaw puzzle where it didn't belong. Now we're going to study how it will react and how the surroundings react to it."
Journalist: "So what will this do for the future?"
Scientists: "More generally, Romesberg notes that DNA and RNA are now being used for hundreds of purposes: for example, to build complex shapes, build complex nanostructures, silence disease genes, or even perform calculations. A new, unnatural, base pair could multiply and diversify these applications."
Journalist: "Cool"
Scientists: "Word! Oh and we're not sure of the tools we can do with it, I'm sure they'll be cool and awesome when we discover the tools we can make with this. It HAS to be cool, we used genetic engineering!"
And that's that.
Now go home and watch Resident Evil. I wonder if someone will start a business and call it "The Umbrella Corporation"
A black cat crossing your path signifies that the animal is going somewhere. -- Groucho Marx
It's probably because you're in the "too active" segment of the Slashdot population. Do most of your browsing while logged out and let many of your comments stay anon and after a long enough "retirement" you'll probably slip into the mod pool like I eventually did.
Of course, being as active as you are, I don't know how long that'll take...
Go through ANY Slashdot discussion and you'll see the highest percentage of posts with +4 and +5 moderation are those that do exactly what you say, that is, display a pessimistic/sarcastic attitude, often in relation to a seemingly trivial fault.
The arrogance necessary to place yourself in a position where something is seemingly obvious to you, but not to professionals who have devoted their lives to the study of the subject, amazes me.
Ultimately, it's much easier to find fault for small minds. The "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag is a sign that says "I have a small mind" as loudly as if you had a bullhorn.
There is a place for fear, uncertainty, and doubt when it comes to new science and new technology. Let me rephrase that: There is a place for respect for and investigation of the unknown when it comes to new science and new technology.
Take nanotechnology for example. There is no place for sky-is-falling panic over "new asbestosis" and other possibilities, but researchers seriously should look into things like this to put a real, hard, risk assessment on these possibilities. Let's suppose that by 2015 there will be X amount of this or that nanotech in use. What can we predict about the rate of lung disease and how much, if any, of this will be attributable to nanotech? Is this amount acceptable? If not, what if anything can or should be done to reduce the risk?
Likewise, people doing research in genetic engineering, particularly with totally novel life forms, need to ask themselves "what could possibly go wrong," "what is the likelihood of that happening," "how can the risk be reduced or mitigated," and "should we go to the effort to reduce or mitigate the risk." In many cases, the risk is low, the consequences are minor, and/or the cost of mitigation or prevention is high and the logical choice is to accept the new technology and live with the acceptable risks.
In other cases, the risk is high, the consequences are dire, and/or the cost of mitigation or prevention is low and it makes sense to prevent or mitigate the risks.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Plus, let's face it -- there are articles where the tag is wonderfully appropriate as ironic snark, but this one isn't it. I mean, it's great for articles like this one about mass production of micro fission reactors or this one about the proposed future of military robots. Sometimes, it's funny when the very proposition of something going wrong is itself funny like with an article on a robot controlled by a monkey's brain.
However, dangers and recklessness involved in this project are next to nil. There's no irony and clever cynicism here. There's just the mindless misapplication of an overdone meme in a manner that makes Slashdot look like a bunch of technology fearing idiots. So yeah. While I don't think it's worth getting so worked up about, it is a stupidly applied tag and a failed attempt at humor.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
n/t
This was the subject of a short story by Greg Egan, entitled "The Moat". In it, it is discovered that an unknown group of people are genetically engineering themselves to have different DNA bases, presumably so as to be immune to all viruses. He uses the concept again in his novel Distress.
If gene sequencing is like programming and intelligence design is real, is God somewhere trying to decipher this new DNA and muttering obscenities under his breath?
It's GATTACA with a silent 'P' and 'K'... so like... PGATTACKA I guess.
Shit, are you kidding? The U.S. already has a race like this. They wear chains, and work all day long in the cotton fields, while they sing!
Are all our bases belong to them?
X-files :)
I think you deserved at least a funny for that.
;-)
Hopefully someone will come along and give it underrated to get your karma back
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
"since Slashdot members tend to represent the more educated and successful members to begin with?"
The above statement deserves a +1 funny
I can't help to think back to my high school lab tech days and watching kids blindly trying out any hacking tools they found on the net without fully understanding the potential implications of their actions. Hopefully, all of my superbug fears are irrational.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
All your artificial bases are belong to US!
These synthetic base pairs are not found in nature, and need to be synthesized.
DNA molecules altered to include these synthetic base pairs can only be replicated if you supply these synthetic base pairs, it doesn't suddenly start producing these base pairs all by itself. That would require another few dozen revolutionary breakthroughs in cellular biology.
It's not even clear from the article whether these artificial base pair molecules could even be synthesized under the conditions inside a cell. It's not unlikely it requires synthetic precursors and a high temperature.
What could possibly go wrong?
the movie I am Legend?
Why was this modded Flamebait rather than Insightful? The points are valid.
TFA does not mention what environment is being used for these experiments. Some things should be done in high level containment environments until their effects are known.
When experiments in recombinant DNA were first starting in the mid-70s, the main result of the conference at Asilomar was to take serious precautions until the impact of the technology was known. The conference went so far as to prohibit some experiments because the potential biohazards could not be contained by the technology of the time.
The results of this research could be very useful, but it is common sense to take precautions until you know what you are dealing with.
Never let reality temper imagination
Never let reality temper imagination
Mankind has been manipulating genes for thousands of years. Every time two plants are cross polinated or two animals are chosen for breeding based on desirable characteristics we are deliberately selecting what genes are to be passed on. When I see stories like "Is genetically engineered beef safe to eat?" I think are people that stupid? Are you affraid to eat Angus beef? Are you affraid to eat eggs with white shells? Everything you eat has been genetically engineered from what it was in the wild to what it is now. The only fear of genetic engineering is if some undesirable trait gets released into the wild and whipes out those with good traits.
"We don't even fully understand the genome, and we're going to complicate it further."
We should ban all DNA research until we know enough about it to know what is safe or not
Silly question: If this is the first time this has been done, how can you determine just what "the most likely scenario" might be?
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
I have to wonder if it wouldn't be possible using this or other advances to create strains of plants that couldn't interbreed with natural ones. One of the big fears of genetic engineering crops is that the changes will get out into the wild and produce hybrids, putting those genes into the wild. Would it be possible to leverage these new pairs to create a self destruct sequence in cross breeds?
Stories sectioned Science.
Best Slashdot Co
This is not off-topic. Just because the editors don't want this to be seen and the GroupThink Moderator club is happy covering up this topic doesn't mean it should be.
MOD UP!
There is an old saying not to fix what isn't broken.
/. crowd is all about adopting new technologies, they are also quick to rain derision upon useless and dangerous tech as well. Look at the stance on DRM for instance.
There are many subtleties to the natural world which we as humans don't understand. While we uncover more and more every day, we can never know enough to make me comfortable with the idea of significantly altering life on our planet (beyond basic low tech breeding of course).
For instance, long ago we considered exceedingly pure refined nutrients to be the best for us, but it turns out our bodies actually depend on certain "impurities" to properly absorb them.
While depression and pessimism are viewed by the majority to be counterproductive, eliminating them through genetic engineering in all likelihood would remove a necessary sobering influence on our society.
Overspecializing in physical strength, altering our neuro-structure, or adding new "features" may very well lead to overspecialization and extinction.
This is nothing to laugh about, and while the
Then again people rated your post funny. Maybe this post is the sound of a joke whooshing high above my head?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Clicking the triangle next to the tags magically drops down a box so you can add your own!
Who knew!
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
To all the hand-wringers or "hurr hurr hurr I can has two willys nao" types:
This doesn't change much of anything. At least not in terms of the expression of these new nucleotides in any meaningful fashion.
Genes for the creation of a tRNA molecule that can interface with these new base pairs would have to be created. While you're at it, these "unnatural" tRNA carriers would have to also be able to interface with an amino acid of some kind. This could be any one of the AAs we already use in our bodies. So in essence...you've recreated what already exists, and done it the long way.
It CAN open the door to new and exciting things, but it's like saying "We invented two new letters in the alphabet". This is meaningless unless there are words in which you can put those letters, and even then, those words are useless unless you alter the entire grammatical structure of the language to accomdate them.
So get cracking.
Seeing as DNA bases are neither self-replicating nor viral, I don't think there is a big safety hazard, unless one of the researchers suddenly decides to see what happens when he puts some of them into a retrovirus.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Many things done by research science come in handy when at 1st they seem to be a waste of time.
The problems are not in the science; it is the engineers, businessmen, politicians who apply science in horrible ways. The knowledge will come by some indirect method if you prohibit the direct methods.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If what I was taught two semesters ago is still correct, synthesizing DNA strands past a certain length is problematic as the strands tend to become unstable*. Thus, DNA computing is limited in that you have a limited number of disparate computational steps because you can only have so many combinations per strand. With more bases, that number would increase, enabling more complex calculations.
Of course I have no idea whether this limit is commonly reached, but still, these new bases might be very useful for DNA computing.
* Note: It was a course on DNA computing in the context of formal languages, not about current DNA synthesis technologies. Thus this bit might be outdated.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Didn't UAC try this on Mars already?
"Don't do anything for the first time."
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Amusingly, the addition of new bases for terrestrial DNA could be used to defend our home world in a case brought against mankind by aliens who met our first expedition to Mars in a short story I wrote called "Site License". It starts like this...
* * *
"Yes sir, Mr. Nagle," I told the debriefing officer, "that's what they said when they handed us the papers."
The five of us had just returned from what was supposed to have been the first stage of a long-delayed Mars colonization project. Had everything gone as planned, we were to have stayed for five years, helping groups of volunteer colonists set up their habitats and showing them how to use all of the special equipment. Unfortunately, it didn't quite work out that way.
* * *
You can read the whole story at http://klurgsheld.wordpress.com/2007/06/05/site-license/
P. Orin Zack
I've already started!
It didn't end well for the last race who attempted it. If mankind does this it will surely be our DOOM!
Followed by our DOOM II, III, & DOOM IV!!!!
Work of this sort was pioneered by U. Florida professor Steve Benner in the last century and subsequently commercialized by Eragen Biosciences under the Trademark "Multicode".
There are some "don't care" inputs that result in some undefined opcodes. Let's execute 'em and see what they do!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I, for one, welcome our new previously-genetically-impossible overlords.
Vital papers will demonstrate their vitality by moving to where you can't find them.
The reason why arsenic so poisonous is that its chemical behavior is very similar to phosphorous- a unbiquitous element in your body. Yet it is just off enough to mess up lots of reactions.
I wonder if faux-DNA would posses similar limitations.
The largest ramification I can think of is that using artifical base-pairs for DNA would lead to easier identification of engineered life in "the wild". This could be something as simple as a repeated "NOP" sequence that identifies the part and manufacturuer like a serial number, by way of frequency and sequence of these artifical protiens.
Things could even go as far as to impose government controls on engineered organisms, forcing such identification mechanisms for forensics purposes. This would be handy since you'd never mistake the engineered protiens for anything natural. It would also have serious patent control implications, as tracing the linage of a "pirated hybrid organism" would be possible.
Artifical base pairs could also help with more exotic DNA-based tools that only communicate in and amongst themselves, thereby side-stepping any natural DNA machinery about. This would be useful for medical purposes, or even to harden the engineered organism against swapping DNA with it's wild/natural ancestor types. For instance: any swap with a wild bacterium could be set to have a high likelyhood of killing both would-be hybrids.
Another set of possibilities is along the lines of bettering mother nature: to have a set of DNA-like building blocks that are more robust and capable than the natural ones. Better radiation endurance, for one, sticks out in my mind as a potentially useful attribute. I'm sure there's other tricks protiens can be taught.
As for side-effects: who knows. We might get another branch off the tree of life out of this, or sound the march towards post-humanism, or we might just get a bunch of really fragile microbes suitable for only the most niche of engineering and science tasks.
That sounds more expensive than operating sweatshops and murdering labor rights activists. Corporations are already profiting from 80-hour-weeks and fatigue/injury/death are really non-issues when the labor pool is limitless. Oh, and 'countries' are obsolete.
Ultimately, if this did come to pass, the US could maintain it's high morals without suffering any loss: bombs away!
"All right kids, I need you to keep an eye out for ManBearPig droppings."
"What do ManBearPig droppings look like?"
"Similar to pig droppings but more manbear-like."
This is all well and good, but if you don't design new DNA transcription and mRNA translation machinery (tRNA) to deal with these new bases, your body will have no way to create new proteins with the new DNA bases. No new proteins = useless new DNA.
This is the scariest statement ever made.
This is too "on topic" and it's HILARIOUS. It's called topical humor. Don't know what makes it insightful though. WTF, idiots?!?
Doesn't this sound like the start of a scifi show? We discover how to manipulate DNA. Then, all of a sudden, scientist get thrown back in time and find out that there are no humans. They find out they have to create the human society from scratch by manipulating the DNA of monkeys. All of the conspiracys about aliens creating the human race are correct only they aren't aliens they're humans.
I can see it now. Not even M. Night Shyamalan can create a better story than this.
I don't know about anyone else but... this scares the heck out of me. The potential for mistakes and destruction of the biosphere is tremendous. It's meat for sci-fi thrillers like nothing before. Makes radiation experiments look tame in comparison. We could be planting the seeds of our own destruction.
I think they aught to build a base on the Moon or Mars and do their playing God there.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
"No, in other words he's being a rational open minded person who isn't treating science like a holy can't-do-no-wrong religion."
Really? So when he says "Did we just re-invent cancer?" He's not being an irrational luddite? To automatically assume this is in some way related to cancer speaks directly to his state of mind, and rational it ain't. Nice try though.
Then there's this
"Few people here who tag it are even being serious in the first place"
HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY FUCKING KNOW THAT?
See, where I come from, when someone makes a statement that they can't possibly know to be true, but then pretends that it is, they are a liar. I suspect it's the same where you come from, so you, are in fact, lying.
As someone else said, this has ZERO to do with logic and reason and everything to do with the same stupid, infantile pessimism that people in their late teens and early twenties seem to think sets them apart from the crowd.
Then they grow up and realize they were being idiots. You will too, I hope.
"That's not anti-science or irrational, that's being a realist."
NO IT ISN'T. Again, your opinion is worthless. Being a REALIST is understanding that there will ALWAYS be unintended consequences, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO TO MITIGATE THEM. Attempting to make yourself look smarter than the other guy by coming up with some stupid, inconsequential objection isn't realism by any definition, it's just pathetic.
The tag is stupid, not funny, clever, or even useful. It's just ANOTHER attempt by the crowd here to find something they can glom onto, and be temporarily important by association, like "first post" or "in soviet russia" etc.
I don't need tired memes and second hand humor. I certainly don't need some armchair researcher with no more qualifications than a ficus to spout off about "whatcouldpossiblygowrong". They CAN'T know and the speculation is invariably simplistic to the point of uselessness.
Guess what losers, you're not clever if you appropriate someone else's humor. You're exactly what those of you using this tag are IRL, humorless dorks with no chance of saying or doing anything of import, unless it's regurgitating something someone with some real insight and humor came up with long ago.
The potential for mistakes and destruction of the biosphere is tremendous. It's meat for sci-fi thrillers like nothing before.
I have to ask -- do you actually know anything about this subject, or are you just reacting because you've seen so many cheap sci-fi thrillers that tell you that flipping a bit in a strand of DNA can create unstoppable mutant viruses? Do you have any actual scientific reason to believe that there is any potential for destruction at all here?
Nice job moderators....or should I say morons....
Check related articles - you'll see them discussing the creation of unique proteins using these bases. Why make the bases if you don't plan to use them to create proteins?
Oh right. They'll just make these new base pairs and then...do nothing with them. That will make the people providing the funding VERY happy.
Yes, look. We took your money, did some random experiments and made these new base pairs. Any questions?
What do you mean, what can we do with it? We aren't going to do anything with it. We didn't plan any sort of next phase. We just wanted to get published.
Right....
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
This was sort of my point....you can do this stuff without any real regulation. You can genetically modify "harmless" bacteria, create new viruses from inert or "safe" viruses and create entirely new proteins - with no regulation at all...you don't even need level 2 labs for a lot of this stuff....
How long before something really, really bad happens.
And to the asshole moderator who modded me flamebait - thanks - I did have excellent karma before - now it's back to "good".
Someone please mod parent up...it really was nice posting at +2....
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
SCULLY: What exactly did you find?
CARPENTER: A fifth and sixth DNA nucleotide. A new base pair. Agent Scully, what are you looking at... it exists nowhere in nature. IT would have to be, by definition... extraterrestrial.
I guess this means that Romesberg (the researcher) is an alien.
These new gene codes are specifically human designed, so does copyright law apply?
People are already addicted to MMO games, do they really need more genes to reinforce that?
Anyone who has seen that movie probably isn't all that optimistic about genetic experiments anymore. We still only know a fraction of the functions of the genetic code, but scientists have no problems tinkering around with it already... In increasingly disturbing ways.
Don't worry about a lighter, just upgrade your DNA with these base pairs. You'll be able to shoot fire from your fingertips!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
THIS is the most insightful post I've seen on slashdot so far and I mean it. You are right flynt, by propagation humans are natural and what we do is natural when we build skyscrapers and cell phones today these are completely natural objects just like when you compare them to nests birds build. I can't really think of anything unnatural... because there really exists no such thing, even an object made by matter composed of strange quarks would still be natural.
The terminology "natural"/"unnatural" and all the eco-socialist / green movement fornication about it is nothing but culture programming, towards ends that do not benefit us.
As far as adding "unnatural" bases to a dna sequence, I wouldn't call that unnatural at all but simply a human-made modification.
... just not nerdy enough to get into the main list on this site.
Perfect case for a tag, no?
Choice #1 might warrant the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag. That would be unfortunate.
Anyway, apart from my attempt at Funny above (now buried between pages or subsequent pages due to excessive metadiscussion over the tag whatcouldpossiblygowrong), I might as well try to be Informative now. (It still won't be found.)
Despite claims to the contrary, The Fine Article does name these two new letters. They are "d5SICS" and "dMMO2", and apparently the bolding is part of their names as the article is consistent about that.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Now for the clincher. They create some really hideous diseases and patent them. So that when the bug escapes the lab, all the victims are sued for 'theft of intellectual property', and all attempts at curing the plague are put down by the US Secret Police, who charge the doctors with felony 'attempting to discover a security system'!
Maybe, but I didn't make it. They exclude the (10%?) most and least active folks from moderation, not to mention anyone who has too high a UID (lowest 60%? 80%? I don't recall, but I read about it in the FAQs somewhere).
:] Oh, and read the FAQs sometime. You've had 10 years. Oh well, at least you didn't submit your question as an "Ask Slashdot" ... :]
I didn't get a single mod point for years, even when my UID became "low" compared to the new ones. But then I stopped logging in so much, posting and submitting stories anonymously from work, only logging in once in a while to check on things. After a while, I started getting mod points all the time. This was before tags, so I think I've almost always been able to add and edit tags. I actually find them useful even if you find them annoying. They summarize the comments for me nicely, even if I disagree with them.
As for the new discussion system, yeah, it's pretty badly broken. I like the old one much better, although collapsing entire worthless threads can be nice. Then again, the old one helped you find the interesting tidbits in those worthless threads. At least you can still turn it off, though. Especially if you spend enough time logged in.
My advice? Don't log in so much. It's way more satisfying to see your comment go up to +5 when you're a lowly AC
Been there, Done that.
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
We already have more codon possibilities than we need with 4 bases. 64 possible codons to 20 usable amino acids. To get new genetic possibilities you really need new tRNA's and new Amino Acids, not new nucleotides to add to the redundancy of the genetic code. What do you really think DNA does? It's not magic it just builds proteins. Sorry no superpowers or crimefighting yet.
This is potentially catastrophic. Remember that the cause of mad cow disease is a mirror-reflected protein that can self-replicate. What's the implication of new DNA codons? Single-celled organisms that have no natural enemy, and maybe can't even be detected by the immune system? AIDS or cancer on steroids?
"This raises the prospect of engineering life forms with genetic code not possible within nature, allowing new kinds of genetic engineering."
Assuming that Nature here on Earth has not allowed such a code to exist.
In other words, SETI and the field of astrobiology may have to modify its methods.
This has profound implications obviously.
All science is either physics or stamp-collecting.