Slashdot Mirror


Amateurs Are Trying Genetic Engineering At Home

the_kanzure points out this AP story on amateur genetic engineering, excerpting: "The Apple computer was invented in a garage. Same with the Google search engine. Now, tinkerers are working at home with the basic building blocks of life itself. Using homemade lab equipment and the wealth of scientific knowledge available online, these hobbyists are trying to create new life forms through genetic engineering a field long dominated by Ph.D.s toiling in university and corporate laboratories." Reader resistant has a few ideas about how to use this sort of lab: "Personally, I'd like to whip up a reasonably long-lasting and durable paint made with dye based on squid genes that glows brightly enough to allow 'guide lines' to be daubed along hallway baseboards, powered by a very low trickle of electricity. Plus, a harmless glowing yogurt would make for a cool prank."

53 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Someone should do something useful and recreate this.

    1. Re:Hmm. by BSAtHome · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might just ask around on the internet to find out who received the seeds? Maybe some survived and you can get a piece of the juice. But, then again, you could try for yourself and make potatoes, salad and corn containing THC. Let them regulate the entire food chain.

    2. Re:Hmm. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Parent's groups concerned by the threat of the narcofood menace, a product of rogue genetic engineers aligned with a radical pro-legalization agenda, hailed the establishment of the new FDA SafeSeed(tm) program yesterday. Monsanto spokesman Mike Smith said 'We believe that Monsanto's line of CertifiedSafe(tm) seed and seed compliance solutions offers responsible producers a proven means to align with FDA SafeSeed(tm) regulations at the industry's lowest certification cost.'"

      They'd be happy to try, I'm sure.

    3. Re:Hmm. by ortholattice · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is almost certainly a joke. Hint: He is supposedly the John Chapman Professor of Biochemistry at FSU. John Chapman was the real name of Johnny Appleseed.

    4. Re:Hmm. by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... Let them regulate the entire food chain.

      I think they're working on that.

      --
      Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
    5. Re:Hmm. by Deagol · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't laugh, my friend.

      The USDA is already trying to force a livestock registry and ID program on private individuals: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/

      And I heard that they were contemplating a seed registration program, though I can't seem to track that down right now.

      With the invisible hand of the big agribusiness (Monsanto and the like), it may very well be illegal to propagate your own plants and animals in the future (or at least not without paying the fees to register your stock with The Man). From what I hear, Monsanto is actually buying up independent seed cleaners and shutting them down, so that farmers are forced to buy from the only large seed cleaner left: Monsanto with their illegal-to-save seeds. While the jury is still out on the safety of GMO foods, there is a thriving demand for non-GMO and hierloom varieties, and Monsanto is trying very hard to eliminate the suppliers of such.

      Scary world.

    6. Re:Hmm. by mweather · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you mean create, not recreate. That article is from a Florida satire paper called South To The Future.

    7. Re:Hmm. by philspear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I also found it suspicious that the source was "Supposedly the SFC but can't seem to find it." And a google search for the prof turns up empty aside from those stories. And accomplishing this would lead to a publication in a respected plant journal, not a shady internet buisness.

      Moreover, I seriously doubt that the 4 step plan could be accomplished by one guy as a side project in 14 years without either eating up all the funds for whatever it was he was supposed to be researching. Some of the steps sounded like they would be nobel-prize winning projects by themselves, let alone the wholesale import of a complex system to another species. Note that I am not claiming to be a biochemist here, especially not a plant biochemist, and I am also of course unfamiliar with the specifics of THC production.

      * Step One:

      Biochemically isolate all the required enzymes for the production of THC.

      Considering we're still pulling out required enzymes for very basic things with much greater importance, including from organisms that are much easier to obtain than pot, this is a tall order. Some of my fellow students are working on purifying yeast enzymes. It's easy to get gallons of yeast, people have been doing it for centuries. Purification of proteins from yeast is not easy. Getting purified proteins from plants is likely even more difficult. Purifying proteins from a plant that is illegal, without a permit... that's got to be expensive at least. If he's doing it from his home, which he would likely have to be in order not to get FSU in trouble, there are even more problems.

      Once purified, you would also have to develop an assay to make sure that you've actually isolated all the required components. You wouldn't want to go through steps 2-4 until you're sure you actually have it. That, again, seems like a monumental task.

      It's unlikely but possible. Especially if there is just one gene needed for THC production, although if there were and it were discovered, it would be common knowledge by now, and it doesn't seem to be. Likely because it's not. And that makes sense, who is funding research into the biochemistry of THC production?

      The next steps are more feasible, although that's not saying much

      * Step Two:

                  Perform N-terminal sequencing on isolated enzymes, design degenerate PCR (polymerase chain reaction) primers and amplify the genes.

      * Step Three:

                  Clone genes into an agrobacterial vector by introducing the desired piece of DNA into a plasmid containing a transfer or T-DNA. The mixture is transformed into Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a gram negative bacterium.
              * Step Four:

                  Use the Agrobacterium tumefaciens to infect citrus plants after wounding. The transfer DNA will proceed to host cells by a mechanism similar to conjugation. The DNA is randomly integrated into the host genome and will be inherited.

      Again, not a biochemist, but this sounds okay in principle. If you're talking about one enzyme, which has actually been discovered, that is a good way to do it. Most biochemical pathways involve dozens of genes, the difficulties associated with transfecting genes typically is multiplied by each gene you are transfecting. If the THC pathway involves something like 20 genes, I would guess (again, not an expert) that you're looking at something which is a project for a post-doc, not even a grad student. I'm not sure 14 years is enough time for that.

      All in all I'm extremely skeptical that one guy, even were he working for 14 years full time, could do this, though I am not about to say impossible, and could be way off on some of the above.

      What I do find impossible is that the guy did it in his spare time over a grudge and it only made shady internet news. This would be a monumental accomplishment. The guy would get several awards and would be a billionaire in Holland.

    8. Re:Hmm. by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      .anti-free market bullshit,

      paranoid much? he didn't say anthing "anti-free market". He criticised USDA for one thing and Monsato for another. He actually specifically criticised Monsato for interfering with a free market by using their money in order to destroy it.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    9. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A huge corporation buying legislation is anything but free market economics.

      In absolutely free market, even the market and the freedom are commodities.

      That fact is real and inevitable (although free market idealists consider it an intermittent and sporadic anomaly), it has nothing with human nature (and has everything with cybernetics) and it already provoked making of Marxism once.

      However, as much as Marxists' criticism of free market is founded in facts, their proposed solution of removing of power from money only made power more violent and more unchecked, because ... power (oppression, violation of others' will) is primary, money is only secondary.

      Money makes it possible and easy to conserve, store, save the power for later use. It facilitates and makes more economical the use (and brokerage) of power. Unlike rigid, static communist and feudal position-based distribution of power, money allows for almost effortless and instant changes in power landscapes.

      Now, what we need to understand is that high accumulation of money is endangering the democracy. Money is like oil, weapons or food. It can subdue you. It wants to subdue you. The essence of money is the debt: if you have the money, someone anonymous owes you to do something for you in exchange for it. A hoard of money wants to become larger (to be invested and bring back interest): it means the debt tends to expand and business is all about accumulating others' debts in their possession. Back to Monsato, we can see that it is exactly their course of action: to fetch more serfs, more indebted, more tied farmers, and through consolidated control over agricultural production, wide social control through food control.

      Unfortunately, I can't conclude this post with any firm recommendation for a solution to the problem.

      I guess we all should make some sort of own battle chest savings for the purpose of getting together and influencing the politics and legislation to act in our aggregated interest, to counter the similar actions of businesses, their own way. Because, supposedly, there is only so much money in circulation and in hoards, and we all generate more debt cancellation every day: we do something and then we get payed for it. We should place enough of it on the counter side of the balance of power, to make system do as originally intended: for the people, not for itself, not for someone else.

      Or, perhaps we should abolish the taxes completely and instead promote lobbying as voluntary tax: make it so that everyone votes with as much money as one pleases, with "vote" having attached a specific opinion that is being furthered. In present system, lobbying is used as "little force (donation money) steering the large force (tax-filled budget spendings)", it is just ... dorky!

    10. Re:Hmm. by danudwary · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, this is technology several years out of date. This is how we would have done it when I was in grad school, ten or so years ago. Nowadays, it would be amazingly trivial, *IF* the biosynthetic pathway has been elucidated, which is the first step above. A quick search on PubMed says it either hasn't been done (complex plant biosynthetic pathways is a tricky subject for study), or else it hasn't been reputably published. Or it's been repressed through regulatory mechanisms I'm not familiar with.

      Personally, I'd probably just go ahead a sequence the cannabis genome. Today, you could probably do this for less then $150,000. Which sounds like a lot, but a few years ago this was a magnitude more expensive. A few more years and who knows? If you're able to do a $1000 human genome at some point in the next few years, you could do a plant for a similar price. Then you conduct bioinformatic analysis of the sequence to find the right genes. Difficult, but FAR easier and less expensive than protein purification.

      If the pathway genes were known, it would only take a few thousand dollars to synthesize DNA that encodes the pathway, which could be tailored to whatever organism you want to express the pathway in. I'd try baker's yeast first. The organism is well understood, and you could make beer or bread.

      All of this could be done today with a computer if you had the bioinformatics knowledge to do the analysis, and the sequencing and synthesis through commercial companies with a credit card. How do I know? I do this with antibiotic pathways.

  2. Garage Credibility by moniker127 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just because a few computer companies started out as projects, that does not mean that everything someone starts in their garage is bound to be wildly successfull. I dont get why they must draw the parallels.

    1. Re:Garage Credibility by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your point is valid, in that most garage startups fail. For that matter, most startups fail, and a nontrivial percentage of the activity of large enterprises also fails.

      However, it is still important to remember that some tiny garage startups do succeed, dramatically in certain cases. Obviously, being a garage startup isn't the golden road to riches; but garage startups, as a genre, are valuable. Particularly in our era of regulation, where concerns over liability, meth, terrorism, and whatever the fear of the moment happens to be, often lead to laws that assume that R&D only happens under the auspices of universities and corporations, and homes are just for consuming, this is important to keep in mind.

      That said, though, the economic argument is not the only, or even the most important, argument in favor of garage based tinkering. The onus is not on garage based tinkerers to prove that they are valuable. Tinkering is their right, unless it can be demonstrated to be an infringement on somebody else's rights.

    2. Re:Garage Credibility by Arancaytar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey now, some of the best zombie apocalypses started out as garage or backyard projects!

    3. Re:Garage Credibility by madsenj37 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here is an interesting article about garage economies and why they may become popular again.

      --
      Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
  3. Is this legal? by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, I love the idea behind it. But isn't there regulation on doing this type of research?

    --
    Restore the madness of youth's lechery
    1. Re:Is this legal? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I mean, I love the idea behind it. But isn't there regulation on doing this type of research?

      Do you think that DIY genetic engineering will be more harmful than that which is conducted for profit by companies that care only for making money?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Is this legal? by geek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would there be? It's not like they're creating super warriors in their garages.

      All the hysteria over genetic engineering is ridiculous. Quit trying to regulate everything.

    3. Re:Is this legal? by thepyro1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Only problem that I could foresee would be if pollen from a modified plant were to get out into the open it could screw up a lot of our food supply if people were to try and create super plants.

    4. Re:Is this legal? by conrad_halling · · Score: 3, Informative

      In Cambridge, Massachusetts, home of Harvard, MIT, and more than 50 biotech companies, you must have a recombinant DNA permit before you can manipulate genetic material. Here's the link if you want to apply: http://www.cambridgepublichealth.org/services/regulatory-activities/rdna/overview.php

    5. Re:Is this legal? by geek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That "super plant" is still subject to natural selection and would have to be selected for. Regardless, genetic engineering is not easy and doing so in your garage will only get you so far. Bacteria etc is doable, any multi-cell organisms will be quite difficult.

      Doing what these people are doing in their garages is no different from what nature does itself every day. If pollen went astray, it would still need to be selected for in some way. Even the genetically engineered crops we use today are "forced" to grow under special circumstances, most wouldn't survive without a crapload of human intervention.

    6. Re:Is this legal? by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you think that DIY genetic engineering will be more harmful than that which is conducted for profit by companies that care only for making money?

      Not necessarily, but you are 100% assured that the safety controls involved will be vastly inferior.

      The only true genetically engineered mess to spread in the recent past, as far as I can recall, is GM vegetables. And that isn't at all what I mean by "safety controls".

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Is this legal? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Humans have been doing genetic engineering as long as we've been civilized. Plants, animals, etc. Both were bred for certain traits. Before garages were even invented.

    8. Re:Is this legal? by calmofthestorm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ideally, yes, but not all GM crops are sterile. I've grown several varieties of GM tomatoes and bird peppers, and while their seeds have terrible germination rates, they do produce plants that produce fruit. It's similar to what you see with hybridized crops.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
  4. Laugh now, but by unassimilatible · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have a plan and you all will soon bow down before me:

    1) Create perfect woman in petri dish
    2) First /.'er to lose virginity
    3) Patent troll
    4) ?
    5) Profit

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:Laugh now, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) Create perfect woman in petri dish
      2) First /.'er to lose virginity ...
      5) Profit

      Sounds you just discovered the worlds second oldest profession.

    2. Re:Laugh now, but by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can't patent trolls, there's too much prior art.

      Also, I'm fairly sure 'trying genetic engineering at home' is a euphemism for something...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Minature pandas by pomegranatesix · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I could get my hands on some panda DNA, I'd genetically engineer a mini-panda about the size of a guinea pig or hamster for the pet market.
    In one fell swoop, I will have saved a species from extinction AND become a billionaire!

    1. Re:Minature pandas by pomegranatesix · · Score: 2, Funny

      What do pandas eat?
      Bamboo.
      What does bamboo have a lot of?
      Fiber.
      There's your reason for why you don't want a panda with 6 asses. You don't want them running around your house, shitting 6 times as efficiently.

    2. Re:Minature pandas by pomegranatesix · · Score: 2, Funny

      I get the uneasy feeling that this is how the whole Pokemon saga started...

  6. What could possibly go wrong? by vtcodger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm reminded of the breeders who purportedly tried to create a more sweet natured camel by incorporating lama genes in the camel genotype. The story is that they ended up with a vile tempered lama. Of course nothing like that could possibly cause my neighbor's attempt to produce vegetarian pit-bull to create a man-eating rabbit. Of course not.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm reminded of the breeders who purportedly tried to create a more sweet natured camel by incorporating lama genes in the camel genotype. The story is that they ended up with a vile tempered lama.

      Thank you for that short biography on Osama bin Laden.

  7. Looks like Stephen King got it wrong... by letchhausen · · Score: 2, Funny

    The basis for his book The Stand will come out of someone's garage and not a military lab. Unfortunately, people like these probably won't have good documentation for the Hazmat team to use after the "incident". The good side is that the opportunities to get rid of surplus population has risen. There are an awful lot of people on this planet.

    --
    Hey, you think your house is cool?
    1. Re:Looks like Stephen King got it wrong... by geek · · Score: 2, Informative

      Viruses aren't easy to engineer, most (like 99.999%) would never survive the process. The viruses we see today evolved over thousands and millions of years to survive our environment. If you think any old scientist can create something better than mother nature did in their garage then you need to take some science classes.

    2. Re:Looks like Stephen King got it wrong... by jftitan · · Score: 2, Funny

      I had an ant farm, and those fuckers didn't grow shit! -Mitch

      --
      "Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
  8. Garages changed our life by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "The Apple computer was invented in a garage. Same with the Google search engine", and the Doomsday virus. Now the remains of humanity crawls in caves waiting for scientist to develop a cure

  9. Been doing it for years by eggman9713 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have been doing genetic engineering for years and am quite an expert at it. Anyone can do it! Just stand on the streetcorner in a revealing getup and ask for money.

    1. Re:Been doing it for years by houghi · · Score: 3, Funny

      You are aware that at least one of you has to be female, right?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  10. What does Bart have to say about this? by Gocho · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bart: "How would I go about creating a half-man, half-monkey-type creature?"
    Mrs. Krabappel: "I'm sorry, that would be playing God."
    Bart: "God-schmod, I want my monkey man."

  11. Lecture at the 24C3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At the 24th Chaos Communication Congress there was a lecture about this topic: Programming DNA http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2329.en.html (links to torrents on the page).

  12. Disclaimer: IAAMB by imneverwrong · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, I am a molecular biologist by training. This won't work. The reason genetic engineering is carried out in labs is because it requires expert knowledge of protocols, and expensive equipment. In TFA, one of the people interviewed is trying to insert a targeted florescent marker, and struggling. This is fairly trivial to do in the lab, but only with good understanding of basic principles, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear and consumables, and tested/documented protocols. You can't build a space shuttle in your backyard, neither can you successfully build a recombinant bacterium that meets spec in your garage. Just because cells are squishy does not make this equivalent to software development!

    1. Re:Disclaimer: IAAMB by rk · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And do you think it will always be that way? I recall a lot of professional computer people saying these sorts of things about computers 35 and 40 years ago. I also remember a musician friend of mine from 20 years ago hating CDs and preferring vinyl because it was cheaper for him and his band to get vinyl presses than CD presses. How's that math working now?

      Sure, they're not doing much today. Next year it probably won't be much different. Let's talk about 2038, though. Sure, a small garage lab still won't be able to make what a big lab can then, either. But 30 years ago, PCR didn't even exist and you couldn't do the work you do routinely today at a lab of any size. Do you really think that trend will stop now? It has been the nature of all technology to become cheaper and doable by a smaller groups as time marches on (computer systems being one of the most radical examples). Absent a very strong regulatory regime that curbs garage molecular biology and relegates it to a black market, I can only agree with you for now, but disagree in the long term. :-)

    2. Re:Disclaimer: IAAMB by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I recall a lot of professional computer people saying these sorts of things about computers 35 and 40 years ago

      Yeah, whereas these days, anyone can have a processor manufacturing plant in their garage!

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    3. Re:Disclaimer: IAAMB by Thing+1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, whereas these days, anyone can have a processor manufacturing plant in their garage!

      Although I think you left off the sarcasm tag, I do agree with you:

      The people working on the RepRap project are currently working on the second generation 3D printer. The first generation prints in silicone. The second generation will print that as well as a conducting material, which has a melting point lower than the silicone; that way the silicone can be formed with grooves and channels, then the conducting material laid in them as traces to produce electronics.

      Sure, the initial results will be clunky and seem very old-tech, likely not even the equivalent of the 8086. However, as others mentioned, technology tends to become both cheaper and doable by smaller and smaller groups of people.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  13. Terrorism by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It will soon be banned, much as anything else remotely scientific at home is in the process of becoming.

    Next, just having the knowledge will get you on a watched list.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Terrorism by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 2

      How is the parent a troll? All it takes is for one politician or insufficiently otherwise occupied celebrity to figure out they can get attention by bringing this "disturbing trend" to light, and you've got the makings of a ban.

      Maybe it won't be labeled as terrorism, but it can be used to make people afraid, and that's bleeping golden for the kind of public figures that want attention.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
  14. thoughts from someone in the community by rritterson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Normally I have to preface my posts with "I am not a XXXX, but". However, in this case, I actually am a molecular biologist deeply involved in the synthetic biology community. Here are a few thoughts:

    First, the amount of ignorance regarding genetic engineering and it's facets (such as GMO food) is astounding. Anecdotally, I've heard that a significant fraction of British folks polled said they would prefer DNA-free food. (Think about it until you realize the ridiculousness). People typically imagine we are trying to create hybrid organisms or bizarre clone armies or something, when it reality, it's just mixing DNA that encodes for a series of proteins you would find useful in combination. To make glow in the dark yogurt that responds to melamine would be fairly simple if you had the right set of genes: a melamine sensor that, when bound to melamine, binds to a specific DNA sequence (a promoter) that drives expression of a fluorescent protein such as green fluorescent protein ("GFP", a widely used fluorescent marker derived from a jellyfish). It's not difficult, and it's not unsafe. The vast majority of DNA and proteins are degraded rapidly in your stomache, so they are safe to eat (toxins, parasites, and infectious agents excluded).

    Second, people underestimate how difficult it is to accomplish something genetically. Yes, the circuit logic above is fairly simple. Unlike electrical circuits, though, where you can control electron flow with wires there is no such spatial regulation of biological parts. It's very stochastic. One has to tune the concentrations such that the melamine sensor will strongly bind to DNA at the concentrations of melamine likely to be in food, without prematurely activating and freaking people out, while also avoiding being sued because it didn't activate when it should have and someone died. Once you get the sensor right, you have to then tune the promoter so that you get expression of GFP the same way-- no leaky expression causing permanently green yogurt, but enough expression when activated such that you can see it. I can build a simple circuit to drive GFP in the presence of melamine, but getting it commercially relevant is extremely difficult.

    Finally, and most importantly, the regulations of these types of technologies are, well, 2 steps from insane. There are no regulations on the transport of DNA encoding some severe toxin, to list one example. Take botulism toxin: the DNA encoding it is well known, and short enough that one could order it directly from a DNA synthesis company. From there you can use PCR to make as many copies of it as you need. Then, put it in your bacterium of choice, produce a whole bunch, and purify it out. That entire process could be done with someone with basic college level biology and about $5k. Anybody can find the botulism toxin DNA on, say, NBCI (run by the NIH) and get to work. And there are NO regulations on any of the steps required to produce it. A person with practical experience could do it much faster. I could produce enough to kill my entire university, starting from scratch, in about 2 weeks, give or take, maybe faster

    A second example is the definition of 'natural' when it comes to food. Any chemical produced in a flask, chemically, is considered artificial, even if it's molecularly identical to the natural flavor molecule. On the other hand, any synthetic flavor produced by bacteria in a vat is considered natural, as long as the sugar used to feed the bacteria is also natural. The food industry is spending billions trying to engineer bacteria to produce flavors in large quantities, because the average person will think 'all natural' means healthier or better for me.

    A third example involves regulation of the types of bacteria used to produce flavors: if I randomly mutagenize bacteria with UV light until I find one I like, that's considered safe, even though I probably have no idea what mutations I've actually made. On the other hand, if I go in and, with ultra-precision, make a single, target

    --
    -Ryan
    AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
    1. Re:thoughts from someone in the community by rritterson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, the missing word at the end of my post was supposed to be a link to Synberc. I munged the HTML, even though I previewed my post.

      --
      -Ryan
      AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
    2. Re:thoughts from someone in the community by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What, you think it's a good thing that UV-radiated wildly-mutated bacteria are being used to produce "natural" flavors, while carefully-engineered processes to produce only known chemicals are shunned as artificial?

      Because if you do, I don't know what to say to you, and if you don't, then you might want to go read his post again.

      Also, you should read the post again anyway - the first chunk of "insane regulations" he mentions are actually the [i]lack of regulations[/i]. So being glad that someone could, with $5k, produce enough botulism to kill his entire university . . .

      . . . well, you really need to read that over, carefully, and this time with your brain engaged.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
  15. Obligatory quote... by Vexler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Pris: Must get lonely here J. F.

    Sebastian: Mmm... Not really. I make friends. They're toys. My friends are toys. I make them. It's a hobby. I'm a genetic designer. Do you know what that is?

    Pris: No.

    Sebastian: Yoo-hoo, home again.

    Toys: Home again, home again, jiggity jig. Good evening J. F.

  16. Stoners do Genetic Engineering all the Time... by Khyber · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've created a few new strains of plants. I have a near-blue catnip that took four generations to produce reliably. I've got thai peppers smaller than your pinky fingernail that'll bite your ass off, took ten generations to get that down. Haven't tried pot, yet, but since I have my medical script and card for it I just might try making my own strain of cannabis. Will probably take twenty generations for that, though.

    Amateurs have been doing GE for a long time,e specially the stoners.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  17. The Future Doesn't Need Us by misanthrope101 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just like Bill Joy wrote in Wired ever so long ago. I have thar article printed out here somewhere, and I force it on everyone who will read it. I really think biotech will kill us all, or at least enough of us where the distinction is academic. I'm not worried about nuclear winter, or overcrowding, but the dang microbes. All it takes is one pissed-off bacterium or virus, and we get Stephen King's The Stand. No, I'm not a microbiologist, so I can't tell you, using the correct terminology, why we're all doomed, but I can't help but think that tinkering with life is bad. It might be an accident, but there are also quite a few well-heeled doomsday cults on the planet. Couple that with normal evil and quasi-evil government biowar research, and this freelance crap isn't going to help the situation. We're just too convinced that nothing bad can happen to little old us. The bacteria will win, I tell you.

  18. Re:Actually, chips CAN be built in a garage, by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, so in other words it's nothing like making a chip, just programming one. Anyone can indeed do that in their garage...

    --
    You just got troll'd!