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

Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong"

[gnick]

Do we really only perceive biologists as madmen who want to do evil experients [sic] for the heck of it? No. But, even though I think that it's enormously cool what these folks did, the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag seems appropriate here. While reading TFA, I couldn't help but think: "Scientists have created an unnatural but successfully replicating new genetic code? Did we just re-invent cancer?" Followed soon after by: "Cool!"

engineer tougher DNA

[smellsofbikes]

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.

The Audience is a Harsh Mistress

[Valdrax]

The real question is when did the slashdot audience turn to such un-comical jackasses who feel the need to take everything so seriously? I get it, you're well off, you like science, you like to stay on slashdot because in your opinion it represents the more "successful" members of society. But then, maybe you're just an arrogant prick, and maybe we're just having fun. I think the real problem here, as Mannie taught Mike, is the difference between "Funny," "Not Funny," and "Funny Once." Like much geek humor, it seems that all the humor in the use of the tag on this article come from mindless repetition, and the joke has officially been beaten into the ground.

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.