First DNA Molecule Constructed from Mostly Synthetic Components

ScienceDaily is reporting that Japanese chemists have created the world's first DNA molecule comprised of almost entirely artificial components. The breakthrough could lead to advances in both medicine and technology, possibly utilizing the massive storage capacity of DNA. "In the new study, Masahiko Inouye and colleagues point out that scientists have tried for years to develop artificial versions of DNA in order to extend its amazing information storage capabilities. As the genetic blueprint of all life forms, DNA uses the same set of four basic building blocks, known as bases, to code for a variety of proteins used in cell functioning and development. Until now, scientists have only been able to craft DNA molecules with one or a few artificial parts, including certain bases."

Comments

Entertaining Theological question...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

We have a sequence of a human genome and are likely to produce more in the future.
We can, albeit presently with difficulty, construct DNA sequences from artificial materials.
We can, in principle, produce viable eggs by nucleus transfer from one egg to another.

If a "human" embryo is produced from synthesized DNA and by nuclear transfer into an egg from artificial or animal sources, the resulting organism will be structurally equivalent to human, without any physical connection to the human race.

Does this organism have a soul? Is it subject to original sin?


Angels and heads of pins aside; this is pretty cool. There is, though, a slightly unpleasant possible outcome of being able to synthesize DNA sequences. Certain viral pathogens, smallpox comes to mind, are very, very hard to get ones hands on. Samples are tightly controlled and generally not allowed out to play. This is a Good Thing. Genetic sequences, however, are public knowledge. In principle, with sufficient expertise in DNA synthesis(and some protein coating wizardry) one could just "compile" some smallpox from source and then go have a smallpox party with the nearest population center. Happy times.

Re:Whoopee!

[xigxag]

Unfortunetly, Slashdot lack of imagination and narrowmindedness when it comes to anything has lead to an automatic acceptance of everything as "neat."

It seems to me that you are the one being narrowminded here. Clearly you are knowledgeable on the subject. But to utterly dismiss a research project on the grounds that it seems vaguely like something you did 20 years ago, and you can't see any immediate right-away 2008 benefits forthcoming, I don't know. Do you really believe with such certainly that this research project was a waste or did you argue yourself into a corner and now don't wish to back off from your absolutism?

Frankly, even if this project is derivative and doesn't advance the science in any great measure, I still think it qualifies as "neat." Just as neat as another Firefox nightly or a new version of Ubuntu or some home-brew programming language. Does everything have to advance the sciences to be interesting? Well then, how about this: "Furthermore, the artificial DNA may be a superior building scaffold for constructing nanostructures of materials interest because of the stable C-nucleosides against ubiquitous naturally occurring enzymes such as DNase." Isn't that reason enough?