Miniaturized DNA Sewing Machines

Roland Piquepaille writes "Japanese researchers have found a way to build long threads of DNA using miniaturized hooks and bobbins. In fact, they've demonstrated how to manipulate delicate DNA chains without breaking them. They've designed these laser-directed microdevices to pick up and manipulate individual molecules of DNA. The scientists have used optical tweezers to catch and move these microdevices, which could be used in the future to detect genetic disorders such as Down syndrome." Here's a link to the journal article.

Comments

down syndrom, of all the possible examples

[quitte]

Down syndrome can be spotted under a microscope. Just count the chromosomes. If you find 3 of the 21. you spotted down syndrome.

If that is all this new technology can do it's hardly worth mentioning.

Re:Slippery Slope

[jd]

I'll agree. Many mutations have advantages as well as disadvantages, including the mutation known as "the average joe" - who is probably more disadvantaged than anyone else. In the same way that coders often use the maxim of "speed, size and simplicity - pick any two", the same is likely true of many of the variants found in human DNA. I would be extremely wary of allowing insurance agencies, jobs, or "social norms" to decide which variants were acceptable and which needed to be fixed.

(Many aspies hate and revile organizations who consider them to be lesser beings who should be "cured", whether we want it or not. Yes, some do advocate cures against the will of the one being "cured". I think such organizations and such attitudes are an abomination and far more in need of "curing" than Asperger's or Autism.)

Do we want human evolution - which has actually been accelerating over the past 10,000 years - to come to a complete stop? Are we willing to face the only possible consequence of such an event (extinction)? Are the fragile egos of a few corporate executives worth that much to us, as a species? The variation in human DNA is very close to the difference between the reference DNA of humans and the reference DNA of chimps. (The absolute percentage is of no consequence, if the variation means there is a potential of overlap, and I'm not interested here in whether such overlap exists or is merely approached.) If we start "fixing" DNA, how much of that variation do we condemn to oblivion? And can we be oh so amazingly certain that the variants we so condemn aren't exactly the variants we need?

(Think Black Death. The mutation that increased resistance to Bubonic Plague decreased resistance to other diseases that are now proving fatal today, such as Ebola and Marburg. Those most likely to survive the modern killers are least likely to survive those diseases we can now cure by other means. The "reference" DNA is now the broken copy, the unpatched version has better survival odds. But those obsessed with "fixing" those of us who are "broken" would have it the other way round. You MUST apply the patch, or suffer serious social consequences, even if it means you are at greater risk of dying or being a contributor to the death of many. Conformism is bloody dangerous and should be outlawed.)

Re:Slippery Slope

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have a view that I don't agree with. It is the "Mother's love is greater than anything" view and means that no matter how crippled, twisted or hard to take care of a child is, parents will always love them just as much. In real life, that doesn't always hold true.

There are parents that would be perfectly capable of taking care of a child but when child hs genetic disorders, becomes crippled at birth, might never be able to play basketball with his dad or even talk with his parents, it changes things. Someoneone could say "If you aren't ready to have any kind of crippled and retarded child who is nothing like what you expected when carrying him for 9 months and you don't want to take care of such untill your death, you should not have a child at all!". Yes, some could say that and I completely disagree there.

Not only that but there are many situations where this could help. Imagine a teen is raped (or just comes bregnant by accident). It is hard enought for a teen to take care of a child as it is but might be impossible if the child requires full time special care as some genetic disorders do. In these cases, it is a LOT better to find these out beforehand.

Deciding not to support new technologies just because someone could potentially use them in wrong ways if taking them too far is just... Idiotic, if I may say.

And what comes to parents wanting to engineer their children... Well, I don't think most would want to. However, I have no moral problems with the idea of parents being able to get a blue eyed and blonde haired child if they wish so. I don't think it hurts the child in any way and parents get to live their fantasy.

(Captcha is "Atheism" which is kind appropriate as a lot of people with views opposing those stated here get them from religion...)

Re:Slippery Slope

[Free the Cowards]

What is it about total random chance that makes it a superior mechanism for choosing the genetic component of a baby's personality, intelligence, or what have you?

Re:Lasers

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Well, in that case, call me when the scientists will discover something that won't work without phasers. (And, uhm, no, cosplaying at a Star Trek con does not count.)

Re:Slippery Slope

[Iamthecheese]

You, sir, are being extremely short-sighted. Diversity will hardly register as a concern when we get good at it. In the short term, many people will want the "perfect" baby. In the long run, why not eyes that can see at night? Why not muscles that are strong even without much exercise? How about a retractable third arm? Mock if you will, but we are going down that road. If we can understand what each part of the DNA does(getting there), and if we can make DNA (we can) then we can make improvements.I'm not judging whether its a good or bad thing. Don't discount this because it seems far-fetched. Its coming and we had best be ready.

The Many Forms of Autism

[jd]

Some - but not all - forms of autism have nothing to do with "not thinking". Rather, it has to do with thinking too much. There's an excellent autobiographical series, of which the second is "Somebody, Somewhere", which illustrates that certain forms of autism are caused by a collapse in the internal divisions in the brain, that by reducing sensory input to manageable levels, these people are perfectly fine. (And, yes, the example I'm thinking of would be what is commonly diagnosed as Low Functioning Autism.) If the data inputs are at "normal" background level, such minds are swamped and shut down from overload.

This would obviously not be good, if we expected everyone to be 100% independent, rather than interdependent. If you're interdependent, a highly specialized brain that is perfectly tuned to a narrow range of things will work. In these cases, such people will be able to excel at those things their brain is tuned for, much as a games machine and a supercomputer excel at their specialties but would fail totally at trying to do the other's tasks.

This is NOT the same as "idiot savant"-style gifts, where there is no real processing involved. but it is connected in that these are minds capable of greater attention to detail and greater precision than any "normal" person. And because the walls in the mind have collapsed, they should be capable of connecting data together well beyond what you or I could do.

But there are other forms. Autism from Fragile X will be different from autism from other causes, for example. Some of these forms of autism may very will shut down thinking totally, rather than just when there's too much data. These forms of autism would not offer any obvious advantage to the person as far as I can tell, but I am willing to accept that there is a possibility that they do, somehow, and will not allow my personal belief in the supremacy of the intellect to overrule the rather obvious fact that I can logically invalidate other people's just-as-strong beliefs in the supremacy of their ideals. If they can be wrong, then so can I, and I have no more right to inflict my values on others than they have to inflict their values on me.

Does that mean that if you can demonstrate - beyond any shadow of a doubt - that a person is suffering, that they would/do not want to suffer, and that they gain no benefit whatsoever from their condition, that I would insist that they continue to suffer? No. That would be stupid, malicious or both. That may well be the case for your cousin, and if so, I hope that that specific instance can be cured. The problem is, from just the vastly overused label of autism, I cannot possibly tell that.