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.
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 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.
I eagerly await proper human-animal hybrids, albeit only for the opportunity to make a joke about the right to bear arms.
If you haven't made a developer cry, you've wasted a day.
...sounds like they're making some kind of social progress.
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.
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").
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.
Your reference to 'the moderators' as if they are some secret organisation with a nefarious agenda is clueless.
Well done, boy. Our secret is safe again. You will be rewarded by our leadership. B-)