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."

Comments

Rational FUD vs. irrational FUD

[davidwr]

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.

Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong"

[riseoftheindividual]

In other words, you are buying into to all the anti-science propaganda.

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. The second you stop questioning the possible ramifications of any given advance, is the second you become an unthinking true believer.

Wouldn't it have been nice if someone way back would have stopped and asked "what could possibly go wrong" when they began exploiting crude oil? Or we could go down the list of medications that have been pulled off the market by the FDA because "what could possibly go wrong" wasn't a question seriously considered early on.

Few people here who tag it are even being serious in the first place, but in humor there is terrible truth and the terrible truth is, we have to be very careful how we proceed with new developments and technologies and it needs to be done with the recognition that they can and often have had unintended consequences. That's not anti-science or irrational, that's being a realist.