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

Lasers

[Bovius]

Filed under the ever growing folder labeled "It works because of lasers".

Re:Lasers

[pushing-robot]

Agreed; the world is starting to sound entirely too much like Star Trek.
 
...Actually, scratch that: The real world can never be too much like Star Trek.

Slippery Slope

[negRo_slim]

which could be used in the future to detect genetic disorders such as Down's syndrome.

But doesn't that in turn just open up a whole 'nother can of worms? There are people out there opposed to such screening, especially parents of children with downs syndrome... This article seems to put it in a good perspective.

I'm all for using the tools we have created to better our lot but at some point we might be screening for gentic markers that effect personality and help to create the individual. Just as no one is wise enough (IMHO) to take another's life for any reason, I don't think we are wise enough to be scanning our dna for anything but the most flagrant of errors. The kind of problems that wouldn't allow such a person to live a normal and fufilling life... Instead we move one step closer to designer children.

Today it's Downs Syndrome free, tomarrow it's, "Can I get a medium #1 with blond hair blue eyes, here's 1 egg and a table spoon of semen" "Thank you, your order number is 42".

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

[Xzzy]

As someone who's had to live with a bum set of genes for all of his life, I fully support genetic screening if the parents desire it.

Way I see it, the "we shouldn't play god!" argument breaks down really fast when the end result is a child who has to suffer a diminished quality of life. I couldn't imagine a more cruel thing to do than let myself reproduce and force a child to live with a disease that I was fully aware they could inherit.

Give me a test to filter out embryos that have asthma, down's, diabetes, migraines, or whatever defect you can name, and I'd do it in a second.

Re:This is really exciting stuff

[zappepcs]

That was funny.... just wait till there is a PERL mod for that API. Freakenstein, here we come.

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.