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."
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.
We don't even fully understand the genome, and we're going to complicate it further.
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?
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?
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.
Yes what could possibly go wrong? I'm really wracking my brains and I'm having a job
Since these Bases are not synthesized in the wild there is no chance of the altered DNA getting propagated in somethings genome and since there (presumably) not recognized by tRNA they can't affect translation
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.
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.
'the places on DNA where viruses normally bind'
Your forgot your 'IANABiologist'.
Stories sectioned Science.
Best Slashdot Co
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!!
If you make a lot of comments, you probably are very opinionated and would take one side in an argument.
If you don't make a lot of comments, you probably have not shot your mouth off about a given topic (remember the duplicates and the topics that are similar). If you have not already committed yourself in writing then you are more likely to moderate on the substance of the discussion rather than your own feelings.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
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.
Your reference to 'the moderators' as if they are some secret organisation with a nefarious agenda is clueless. Moderators are randomly selected readers acting independently who when posting comments or meta-moderating have managed to act objectively and with restraint, or at least have had the sense to post anonymously when trolling. The GPs attitude, even the fact that he is whining about not getting points, probably reflects the reason he doesn't get points.
However, dangers and recklessness involved in this project are next to nil.
So there is absolutely zero danger of such artifical DNA escaping the lab and getting into the environment cause goodness knows what damage? I can accept that this danger will be minimal but you would have to do some convincing to suggest that it is zero. For a start the new base pair were generated by trying many different random combinations until they found one that replicated. Clearly this suggests that they do not know exactly what this random combination will do when added to a cell, particularly since this is there next research project!
The usual best defence against "what could possibly go wrong" is to say that this already happens in nature so it can't be dangerous. This is the main argument we use against the nay-sayers of the LHC creating a black hole which will swallow the Earth. Cosmic rays striking the upper atmosphere are far more energetic and so if that were a danger we would not be here to discuss it! However the whole point of this experiment is to create something which nature has not done before (to our knowledge).
So the only argument I can see which is left is that the safe guards in effect to prevent this getting into the environment are so good that the risk is minimal and/or the chance that this new DNA pair creating a dangerous organism are zero. Since nobody knows what this pair will do yet I can't see how you can be certain of the latter (although I accept the risk may be incredibly small) and no containment procedure is fool proof since it involves humans (e.g. foot and mouth virus escape last year from a UK lab).
So the question we have to ask is whether the value of the research is worth the risk? As a scientist, though not a biologist, I would be inclined to say yes since it seems that this will help you guys understand some of the fundamentals of DNA plus it sounds really cool. Of course I'm a physicist so there may well be some very valid reason I know nothing about as to why there is no danger at all. So the best way to educate me is to explain why there is zero risk. Telling me that I'm stupid for even questioning that something could possibly go wrong, without telling me why I'm stupid, does not inspire confidence!