Slashdot Mirror


Hacking With Synthetic Biology

blackbearnh writes "If you've gotten tired of hacking firewalls or cloud computing, maybe it's time to try your hand with DNA. That's what Reshma Shetty is doing with her Doctorate in Biological Engineering from MIT. Apart from her crowning achievement of getting bacteria to smell like mint and bananas, she's also active in the developing field of synthetic biology and has recently helped found a company called Gingko BioWorks which is developing enabling technologies to allow for rapid prototyping of biological systems. She talked to O'Reilly Radar recently about the benefits and potential dangers of easy biological design, why students should be hacking wetware, and what's involved in setting up your own lab to slice genes."

28 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Doesn't this sound like... by Rog-Mahal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A recipe for disaster? Sounds like a pretty easy way for people to start making some nasty superbugs. I know all scientific innovation has that kind of risk, but I don't think I want my neighbor hacking E. coli next door.

    1. Re:Doesn't this sound like... by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you kidding? This will revolutionize the world. Your neighbor (not mine), in an attempt to show that you can't even FORCE nature to make a crocoduck will inadvertently create an airborne strain of E. coli that is resistant to any cheap form of treatment: resulting in a solution to rising unemployment and illegal immigration in less than 38 hours. The resulting global changes will be heralded as Allah's revenge against the great satan and simultaneously on the GLBT communities for their crimes against god. In less than a week, big pharmaceutical industry will collapse with the announcement that a 15 year old Korean kid in S.California has created an antidote that can be distributed in the flavor coating on potato chips. Frito Lay purchases several Pharma companies and hires the kid to work on gene therapies to be distributed via Corn Chips. Monsanto sues to block genetically modified material being added to their corn........ sigh

    2. Re:Doesn't this sound like... by Ucklak · · Score: 3, Funny

      I want to see a cat with wings in active pursuit of prey.

      I would also like to see these http://www.genpets.com/index.php

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    3. Re:Doesn't this sound like... by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      all technology has a risk of being missued but if we didn't develop any of that tech because of that fear, then we'd never have developed fire out of fear that it could be used to burn down homes. The haber process which keeps 2 billion people fed and alive today was developed to produce nitrogen compounds used to make munitions to kill people. NO tech in of its self is evil, it is how it is used which is evil.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:Doesn't this sound like... by xplenumx · · Score: 5, Informative

      I can't say I'm terribly concerned about your proposed scenario. Unlike computer programming, bioengineering takes quite a bit more capital. Let's say you want to insert a protein into a bacteria - first you need to create the cDNA (you'll need a PCR machine or water baths (heh), expensive enzymes, the ability to pipette uL amounts, random primers, and a source of mRNA), then you'll need to isolate the protein's cDNA, next you'll have to clone out the gene (do you have access to a sequencer?), and put the gene in a plasmid that will express the protein (you'll have to buy one as you won't be able to reasonably make one). Let's see, you'll also need amp/kan, LB plates, a warm room, some media, and a shaker (unless you want to use sub-sub-optimum conditons). After this, you'll have to express your plasmid in the bacteria - did I mention that, typically, bacteria that express the protein will be at a selective disadvantage? Wait, you want to stably integrate your protein into the bacterial genome? That's a whole, more difficult, can of worms. So you want to modify a virus... where are you planning on getting the viral vector? What type of virus are you attempting to modify? Some are very difficult to work with. Making one can be a PhD thesis in and of itself. Infecting eukaryotic cells is not easy either - a lot of money is being spent on trying to increase the efficiency for anti-cancer therapy.

      Unlike computer programming, these aren't projects that people are (realistically) able to do in their basement. Often we give the simplest experiments (just the cloning part), where all the reagents are present and the knowledge base is easily available, to summer students - and often times they fail. I don't worry about the rogue 'biohacker' next door (all the more power to them - maybe they'll learn something about science). I worry about rogue governments - particulary ones that believe God will protect them.

    5. Re:Doesn't this sound like... by mehemiah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would also like to see these http://www.genpets.com/index.php

      That has to be the most shocking thing I have ever seen. I almost couldn't judge how serious it was until someone called my attention. Im sure its just a plot to get page hits but... WTF?? After the shock wheres off, you realize how fake it looks.

    6. Re:Doesn't this sound like... by cd.rubysocks · · Score: 4, Informative

      I like how she responded to this issue with the word 'democratization'. She doesn't seem to be so worried about some crazy terrorist getting access to this technology, as governments monopolizing it for biowarfare development. And I'm inclined to agree that we should be just as worried about the latter as the former. A few links about this scientist/entrepeneur:
      Her Bio
      Forbes article - DIY Life
      MIT TechTV Video - DIY Biology

    7. Re:Doesn't this sound like... by shipbrick · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're making it sound quite difficult and expensive, but I don't think it's really that expensive or difficult. You laugh at water baths, but that would work just fine for PCR, and Taq Polymerase really isn't that expensive (~$100 for lots of rxns). Sure all the kits us biologists use are easy and expensive, but if someone is doing it for a hobby, they can bypass kits and do things "old school" style (where one actually knows what they are doing instead of adding reagent A to reagent B). Also, if someone knew that they are able to this, they could just ask a lab for a plasmid, which the lab might gladly send for shipping cost only (they may have to pretend or imply they have a PhD and lab though). A sequencer is not needed for cloning, you could simply use agarose gels and go by size for cloning (agarose=cheap and a power source could be made easy). You can get pipettes (ul) on ebay for not too expensive (few hundred). Bacteria do NOT need to be shaken either, or even grown at 37C... I've commonly grown e.coli at room temp without shaking (sometimes even to *optimally* express a protein), they just won't grow as fast. Ampicillin and LB isn't very expensive... My university has a surplus store where old or broken equipment goes to be sold for pretty cheap. One could get a fair amount of specialty equipment there, especially if another hobby was fixing equipment. I would guess you could do a cloning for less than $2000 easy (which is cheaper then some computers)...

    8. Re:Doesn't this sound like... by olddotter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you even think about reading the article? The ultimate goal of this is to make sure that people can do it for little cost. I listen to researchers in the area complain that they can't get grad students to work on a project if there isn't an easy off the shelf kit you can buy to do the work.

      A few $1000, eBay, and you can equip a basement lab. This time is to bioscience what the 1970's were to Steve Jobs and Woz. See this ebay search: http://shop.ebay.com/items/_W0QQ_nkwZsequencerQ20dnaQQ_armrsZ1QQ_fromZR40QQ_mdoZ

    9. Re:Doesn't this sound like... by mick129 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gel electrophoresis using drinking straws:
      http://maradydd.livejournal.com/417631.html

      DiYBio Club:
      http://io9.com/5014059/a-homebrew-club-for-biogeeks

      Home-brew science is becoming more possible.

      --
      Move along, no sig to see here.
  2. Fine, I'll think of the children by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Biological tinkering has me concerned because we're talking about self-replicating systems. Realistically, we're not going to see nanite swarms or grey goo eating the whole planet as is feared in science fiction. Nanites have to operate within the same laws of physics as anything else and are unlikely to be spectacularly and magically more robust than organics. Hell, at such a small scale they would be more likely to be custom-designed organics.

    That being said, organics ranging from viruses to bacteria to algae can cause quite a bit of trouble in our ecosystem. My only concern is that we might create some sort of blight in the lab that gets out. Now I'm not saying she's deliberately working with stuff that's intentionally meant to be lethal like the biological warfare guys in Russia but even those guys who knew they were messing with absolutely lethal bugs still made mistakes and had accidental releases.

    Given that we won't know that something is really bad for us in the environment until after it gets out and starts doing terrible things, I would like to suggest we operate with an abundance of caution here. It wouldn't take an accidental flesh-eating bacteria to ruin everyone's day. The next corn smut or citrus canker could not kill a single person and cost the economy billions.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:Fine, I'll think of the children by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My only concern is that we might create some sort of blight in the lab that gets out.

      we can also delete/disable genes required for growth outside the lab. As an example, knocking out multiple genes involved in synthesizing nutrients that are not common outside of a lab setting. stack several of these together and the chance the bacteria has of adapting quickly is roughly zero. synthetic biology also allows us to incorporate unnatural amino acids that if not present in the medium, cause protein synthesis to halt at the point missing the correct amino acid. without the amino acid, only smaller snippets of amino acids form rather than the protein and if it is important to the cell, it's going to die.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Fine, I'll think of the children by rts008 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Two girls, one cob!"

      Eww, no thanks, I'll pass.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  3. OpenWetWare.org by ForexCoder · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://openwetware.org/wiki/Main_Page

    This is the info sharing site for bio-hackers. Has everything from courses for the gene-script kiddies to protocols and other neat stuff. It's a better resource then the corporate site for those who want to know about it.

  4. Uber Geekery by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now that's what I call Uber Geekery. Instead of the tiring work of brushing your teeth, you get minty fresh breath by hacking the smell of the bacteria in your mouth.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  5. Brainy Indian girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ok, I know this is a bit off topic, but brainy indian girls are just oh so hot!

  6. Re:I think she's on to something by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Interesting

    or produce the needed vitamins for the human body. it's been tried with limited success... the probelm seems to be getting the bacteria to take hold in the gut rather than just expelled from the body. the field is called probiotics but requires some engineering so it's a bit of both fields. imagine making enough vitamin D not to ever have rickets or vitamin C to prevent scurvy or even destroying toxins like Melamine. Which by the way is why cows can do ok with melamine in their diet, their gut bacteria breakdown melamine and produce useful nitrogen containing molecules using it as a nitrogen source.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  7. Re:This doesn't give me warm fuzzies by djp928 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wait, now we're using that made-up plural form of virus as the SINGULAR form? Great.

  8. Why we need more female scientists by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...getting bacteria to smell like mint and bananas... I think her real hidden agenda was to get the bacteria that favor warm, moist regions of the human anatomy to smell like anything other than sushi... a male scientist would never have thought of this approach.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Why we need more female scientists by Zerth · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course not. A male scientist would look for a urinary tract infection that made salt & vinegar dressing taste like chocolate.

  9. Enough with the doom saying, i want my cures. by physburn · · Score: 2, Interesting
    With all the doom saying here anything would think nature designed prefect disease free humans, and genetics could only worsen things. Fact is human are not built to last, and have million of seperate dieaases all needing cures.

    Rapid prototyping of biological systems, if it could be done as easier as a prototyping plastic, would be wonderful. Imagine a new disease discovered and resistant human cell/DNA, being manufactured within a couple of weeks. Doubt we'll get that though. What we might get at best is a new economy segment based on brewing, with genetically engineered yeasts be produce pharmaceuticals and other chemicals cheaply. Yeast is the ideal for the purpose because is grows so quickly, and is used in enclosed environments.

  10. It's less about "evil" as about "safeguards" by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't think anyone cringes at exploring technology per se, but at doing so without much safeguards if any. The potential for mass harm is great, and while nobody proposes to outlaw it as such, it would be nice if it stayed only in proper labs and you at least had to tell someone your idea before even starting on it. You know, sorta like the XKCD idea of having your comment read out loud to you so you get a second chance to spot if it sounds bloody stupid.

    Basically the same as: I'm not against electricity or nuclear power, but if the neighbour's kid managed to buy ten kilos of plutonium for his science experiment... I'd _worry_.

    And here we're talking about something which has historically caused more harm than a nuke before. E.g.,

    - repeated smallpox outbreaks seem to have been what weakened the Roman empire in the first centuries AD, to the point of near collapse of its economy and army. (Not to mention making everyone disillusioned with the old gods and ways.) There are outbreaks that are estimated to have killed up to 30% of the empire's total population. _Thousands_ of people died daily in Rome alone, for decades straight. (Though later Justinian's Plague killed about ten thousands a day in Constantinople.)

    - ask the american indians how well smallpox worked for them later

    - bubonic plague outbursts killed a majority of Europe's population back then, with mortality as high as 75% per outbreak in some cities (though not all.)

    - we had a killer flu as late as after the first world war

    Knowing that everyone can concoct their own cross between flu and aids with just a couple of relevant genes from the noro-virus for extra flavour, doesn't exactly make me sleep easier.

    And before someone goes, "omg, but now we have antibiotics": yeah, but curing viruses is still where we suck. Royally.

    And at least theoretically it would be possible to concoct even bacterias which don't respond to antibiotics that well. The easy to explain version is to just start from VISA/VRSA (think MRSA with extra resistances) and give it a gene so it multiplies faster. But for something more advanced for true gurus, why not swap out the proteins attacked by the antibiotics in the first place? E.g., give it the ribosome from an animal cell, and you just rendered a whole class of antibiotics impotent at a more fundamental level than normal bacterial resistances. Might need to recode a couple of other proteins for it to work, but that's why I've said it's for gurus only.

    Or get creative. Make a bacteria or virus that can live equally well on plants _and_ animals. Now that'll be a royal pain in the arse to completely root out, and it can safely kill its hosts without making itself extinct.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:It's less about "evil" as about "safeguards" by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think anyone cringes at exploring technology per se, but at doing so without much safeguards if any. The potential for mass harm is great, and while nobody proposes to outlaw it as such, it would be nice if it stayed only in proper labs and you at least had to tell someone your idea before even starting on it. You know, sorta like the XKCD idea of having your comment read out loud to you so you get a second chance to spot if it sounds bloody stupid.

      If you work in a lab, you obviously have to tell your boss what you're up to. If you have your own lab, you're too busy telling the NIH what you've done and why they need to give you more money, to be doing this on the side. If you run into a problem you can't solve, the first thing you do is ask your colleagues for advice. In other words, people know what you're working on, we already talk to each other and hopefully would be able to tell if our colleagues were about to create a supervirus (which, by the way, is unlikely to happen by accident, although it's always good for a horror/scifi movie).

      And here we're talking about something which has historically caused more harm than a nuke before.

      All the examples you provided were diseases that had natural origins (the smallpox was intentionally spread, but was not created or spread by scientists), which highlights something key here: if there is going to be a killer virus, it's going to be natural. If someone catches an airborn form of ebola and is infectious while in a major international airport... goodnight. Don't worry about the amateurs, the most dangerous and evil biologist is nature itself.

    2. Re:It's less about "evil" as about "safeguards" by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All the examples you provided were diseases that had natural origins (the smallpox was intentionally spread, but was not created or spread by scientists), which highlights something key here: if there is going to be a killer virus, it's going to be natural. If someone catches an airborn form of ebola and is infectious while in a major international airport... goodnight. Don't worry about the amateurs, the most dangerous and evil biologist is nature itself.

      That's a bit irrelevant, since the capability of genetically engineering a virus was missing until very recently. Even the cold-war era research into it was basically little more than selecting and breeding existing strains.

      So, yes, _of_ _course_ the Roman smallpox outbreaks weren't manufactured, because nobody in the world was capable of manufacturing it. Heck, they didn't even know exactly _what_ it is, since it would be another millennium and a half (or so) before anyone even had a microscope.

      So basically saying "if there is going to be a killer virus, it's going to be natural" at this point, is a bit like being in the 40's in Japan and saying "if anything's going to destroy half a city, it's going to be a natural disaster. Don't worry, all historical examples have been earthquakes, floods and volcanoes."

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  11. Re:Hacking Life Danger by MarkvW · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Gunpowder and fire are not likely to wipe out the human race.

    Nuclear weapons can wipe out the human race, but only if unleashed in massive quantities or in quantities sufficient to cause devastating climate change like nuclear winter. Someday, some whackjob is going to detonate a nuclear device, but the whackjob won't wipe out the whole human race in the process. Biological weapons can do just that.

    Many people can't keep their hands off weapons. They love them. And what gets made eventually gets used.

  12. In Forbes months ago by olddotter · · Score: 2, Informative

    She was in Forbes magazine months ago (unless I get Forbes and Wired confused). Nope, google confirms it was Forbes and it was Aug. of 2008.

    Yea I find this both scary and REALLY cool. To read more about these technologies, read this blog post of links to similar stories.

  13. More than smells by TimmyDee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was just at the AAAS conference in Chicago, and there was an entire session on synthetic biology and programming with DNA and RNA. Quite fascinating. Perhaps most intriguing (and promising) is the ability to add logic to RNA sequences, giving clinicians control over cell therapies. I wrote a summary of the session over at Ars if anyone is interested.

    --
    Per Square Mile, a blog about density
  14. Mint and Banana, eh? by jockeys · · Score: 2, Funny

    So she's invented Shetty mint and Shetty banana. Pretty sweet.

    But will she ever bioengineer a Shetty wall? Will the goddamn Mongorians break down her Shetty wall?

    --

    In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.