Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Synthetic Genome Drives Bacterial Cell

Posted by timothy on from the sharpen-your-pitchforks dept.

Dr. Eggman writes "Physorg.com brings us news of a synthetic genome, produced by the J. Craig Venter Institute, being used in an existing bacterial cell for the first time. Using a combination of biological hosts, the technique produces short strings of DNA by machine which are then inserted into yeast to be stitched together via DNA-repair enzymes. The medium sequences are passed into E. coli and back into yeast. After three rounds, a genome of three million base pairs was produced." (More below.) "Specifically, the genome of M. mycoides was synthesized from scratch. This synthetic genome was then inserted into the cells of a bacteria known as Mycoplasm capricolum. The result is a cell, driven by a synthetic genome, producing not the proteins of Mycoplasm capricolum, but of M. mycoides. The institute has far-reaching plans for its synthetic life program, including designing algae that can capture carbon dioxide, make new hydrocarbons for refineries, make new chemicals or food ingredients, and speed up vaccine production." The BBC has coverage of the hybrid cell as well.

174 comments

  1. What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    .... could possibly go wrong?

    1. Re:What... by Creedo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obvious troll, but I'll bite. How is this any different than the rampant and completely unsupervised genetic twiddling that has been happening in nature for the last few billion years?

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    2. Re:What... by drachenstern · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Shall we ask Monsanto?

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
    3. Re:What... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This sounds exactly like Jurassic Park, except replace Dinosaurs with Yeast and Frogs with E. Coli.

      Need I explain what happens next?

    4. Re:What... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      .... could possibly go wrong?

      You should write for Hollywood.

    5. Re:What... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obvious troll, but I'll bite. How is this any different than the rampant and completely unsupervised genetic twiddling that has been happening in nature for the last few billion years?

      FTFA

      "This becomes a very powerful tool for trying to design what we want biology to do. We have a wide range of applications [in mind]," he said.

      Perhaps there is a difference between random changes directed solely to furthering of DNA propagation ...

      and the short term goals of greedy men?

      whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:What... by UdoKeir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Beer that gives you the shits?

      Oh wait, that's already been invented.

    7. Re:What... by bcmm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Obvious troll, but I'll bite. How is this any different than the rampant and completely unsupervised genetic twiddling that has been happening in nature for the last few billion years?

      The genome was produced by machine (from a digital copy of a sequenced genome). Presumably, if somebody wrote a brand new genome, it could be inserted into a living organism by the same procedure.

      I guess we can now start finding out which genes are really necessary for an organism to function...

      (I am not a biologist.)

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    8. Re:What... by spun · · Score: 1

      Not a troll. "What could possibly go wrong" is a common meme used here at Slashdot for any sort of experiment with even the slightest possibility of catastrophic, world ending consequences. We've all seen the movies where the genetically engineered thingy eats everyone, so it's funny, not a troll. It does not generally indicate that the writer even believes something will go wrong.

      Now, that being said, selective breeding is not the same thing as genetic engineering. Not that I really think this sort of work will cause problems, but that is because I generally trust these scientists to know a bit more about the real dangers than we do, not because genetic engineering is anything like selective breeding or unsupervised evolution. A beaver damn is like hoover damn, but I don't think the first is as potentially dangerous as the second if they both sprung a leak.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    9. Re:What... by asukasoryu · · Score: 1

      Next we create the neo-sapien race to perform our labor. Genetically superior to humans, but unhappy with their sub-human status, they rise against us and we have to use our exo-frames to squash the rebellion. Who's old enough to remember that?

      --
      There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    10. Re:What... by virtualXTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

      People use to say the same thing about computers... and still do about robots. The question a rational person asks is "what is the risk vs possible return."

    11. Re:What... by Orga · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the help of the token traitor to their race who assists the humans :P I watched pretty much all of the show when I was younger and am reminded of it now and then by articles like this.

    12. Re:What... by cthulu_mt · · Score: 1

      You can watch it on Hulu now. Held up suprisingly well over time.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    13. Re:What... by redbeardcanada · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Damn straight - we need these bio-engineered life forms to protect us from the robots when they finally make their move...

      That's what you meant by risk vs. return right?

    14. Re:What... by asukasoryu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The question a rational person asks is "what is the risk vs possible return."

      The typical American asks "What is the possible return" and ignores the risk in pursuit of personal gain.

      --
      There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    15. Re:What... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Holy crap? Hulu? I thought it was only available on laser disc? I have a set of laser disc rips from a hell of a long time ago, but the audio was screwed up in half the episodes.

      It was my favorite cartoon when I was young. It was pretty edgy back then, the only cartoon that even attempted to deal with things like death and emotion.

    16. Re:What... by sjames · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We wish the programmer of the Therac-25 HAD asked himself whatcouldpossiblygowrong.

      At the same time, just like with computers, there are many potential benefits to be had. Perhaps more than computers. Of course, computers aren't free to roam the earth, multiply, and then colonize our bodies, so we need to make really sure the right questions are asked.

      This particular research was reasonably well thought out and probably couldn't produce anything viable that can't be produced through random mutation anyway. For some of the more advanced work coming up, it should probably be combined with some of the research already done on producing "kill switches", generally creating a dependence on something not available in the wild.

    17. Re:What... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh come on, the likely hood of an oil spill in the gulf is 1/10,000. Do we really want to block drilling based on the 1/10,000 chance of a 200 million barrel leak that could kill all life in the gulf and do substantial damage to most of the eastern seaboard and destroy the fishing industry in four states and potentially do a lot of damage to the atlantic ocean and carribean as well? Be reasonable.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    18. Re:What... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The typical American asks "What is the possible return" and ignores the risk in pursuit of personal gain.

      Given the amount of Luddism that is invariably displayed with respect to genetic engineering, I'd say that in this particular case the reverse is true. There's a level of ignorance driven fear on this topic that I haven't seen since the days when a lot of people genuinely believed that computers were malevolent "thinking machines" that would try to take the world away from their human creators.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    19. Re:What... by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is funny because I just bought The Windup Girl today, which takes a future Monsanto controlled dystopian future to an extreme. A little depressing, but a good read.

      But the funny part is that Monsanto would welcome any sort of biological catastrophe, as they're the only ones that would be capable of fighting it. Kind of like how my paranoid father thinks the majority of viruses are produced by Norton and McCafee on the side just to stir up business, Monsanto could produce a better fungus to drive up business.

      Evil, malicious, and a wonton disregard for human suffering, but massively profitable.

    20. Re:What... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      The natural genetic twiddling goes at a much slower rate. Completely new genomes don't just pop up out of nothing.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    21. Re:What... by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1. It would be directed, allowing it to create things that evolution just wouldn't.
      2. Nature doesn't have a great track record itself so adding yet more adds more risk. I'm sure all the life that did exist before cyanobacteria evolved and killed everything else buy spewing out toxic oxygen would have prefered a bit less unsupervised genetic twidling...

      But don't get me wrong, I think this is great stuff and we should keep on doing it.

    22. Re:What... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      But they were true. We are already living in the Matrix! Or what do you think why we have mobile phones? Exactly: So the phone booths can be removed.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    23. Re:What... by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      M-O-O-N, that spells wrong.

    24. Re:What... by Unequivocal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Computers and robots can't reproduce without our help. The same criticism (whatcouldpossiblygowrong) would hold when they can.

    25. Re:What... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      Humans create microbial park which goes horribly wrong, causing untold havoc as artificial E. Coli stalks innocent humans in the jungles of Mexico causing uncontrollable diarrhea.
      No, wait...

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    26. Re:What... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I don't think a kill switch is the right answer, I'm more in favor of creating a dependence. Design the things to require an amino acid not to be found in the wild, and don't design any of them to make it. I believe that there are only around 20 amino acids that exist in the natural world, but it would be easy enough to synthesize an additional one through normal chemical processes. (Use one of the 20 as a starter, and add a new side chain, e.g. Possibly one incorporating iron or cobalt. Things that are common enough to be cheap to create, yet not a part of the normal requirements. [Yeah, blood uses iron and B-12 uses cobalt. That's how I can be certain that the compounds could be bio-compatible. But those are rare occurrences.])

      With this kind of requirement, even if they did get loose, it would be possible to wipe them out of an area without damaging unmodified life.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    27. Re:What... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      This sounds exactly like Jurassic Park, except replace Dinosaurs with Yeast and Frogs with E. Coli.

      Need I explain what happens next?

      Newman steals the bacteria (WHICH IS NOT E.COLI FYI!!!) and then a velociraptor eats Samuel L Jackson?

    28. Re:What... by Antisyzygy · · Score: 1

      I like your signature.

      --
      That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
    29. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computers and robots can't reproduce without our help. The same criticism (whatcouldpossiblygowrong) would hold when they can.

      Yet.

    30. Re:What... by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could be dependant on lysine...

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    31. Re:What... by frieko · · Score: 1

      Ketracel White?

    32. Re:What... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      1/10000 what? - Oil rigs, barrels, gallons, years, days, milliseconds?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    33. Re:What... by Genda · · Score: 1

      So there are two completely separate issues to be addresses here. In this specific case if you read the article, these scientists went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that their work wouldn't lead to potential negative impact. Bioethicists were involved from the get go, and that is distinctly different than the unsupervised genetic twiddling that happens naturally.

      As for genetic experimentation as a whole, there are things happening in labs that are seriously more dangerous to humanity and life as we know it, than the genetic experimentation naturally occurring. You don't normally find monkey, octopuss, and corn DNA in the same cell naturally because these thing can't mate! There are genetic mutations that never occur in nature, that can produce viral or bacterial monstrosities. A weakened mousepox virus was manipulated in Australia, in an experiment to understand immunity in mouse populations. The virus which should have been relatively harmless was viciously lethal. The change that was made to it's genome is a change that would never occur in nature, but was easy to do in the lab, and could be done to human pathogens. In other words, it was relatively easy to make a human pathogen with a virtually 100% kill capability. Nature does this very infrequently because such a pathogen burns itself out of existence very quickly. There's a lot for bioethicists to deal with in the work of scientists rolling genetic dice.

    34. Re:What... by Modern+Primate · · Score: 1

      How is this any different than the rampant and completely unsupervised genetic twiddling that has been happening in nature for the last few billion years?

      It's very different. "Nature" takes existing sequences and changes them, seeing if they fit in with the rest of the existing organism and environment. The process is slow and competing sequences have an opportunity to try their own variations. Wholesale fabrication of an entire genome is several orders of magnitude more drastic.

    35. Re:What... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Choose your rate.

      Let's say 1/10,000 per year per rig.

      Let's say 1/10,000 per year per thousand rigs.

      Does it really make a difference?

      For low frequency events, we underweight the potential damage.

      The gulf should be fine by 2045. Life recovers pretty fast. All they have to do is stop fishing for 20-30 years and the gulf would be teaming with life.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    36. Re:What... by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Unsupervised? Anything genetically defective didn't really reach the next generation.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    37. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.
      We cannot replace the biological diversity left, we can try reducing consumption of oil so that we don't need to drill that much.

    38. Re:What... by MistrX · · Score: 1

      Something in me screams 'The Matrix' actually.

    39. Re:What... by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      But the funny part is that Monsanto would welcome any sort of biological catastrophe, as they're the only ones that would be capable of fighting it. Kind of like how my paranoid father thinks the majority of viruses are produced by Norton and McCafee on the side just to stir up business, Monsanto could produce a better fungus to drive up business.

      Unfortunately, monsanto's researchers, unlike you, are perfectly aware of how easy it is to compete against a billion years of evolution in the real world.

      They are -somewhat- capable of copying dna from one lifeform to another. That's it. Redesigning the inner workings of a living cell - that's about as far away as warp speed.

    40. Re:What... by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      I dunno, mate. You could genetically engineer some pretty big beavers.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    41. Re:What... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      the days when a lot of people genuinely believed that computers were malevolent "thinking machines" that would try to take the world away from their human creators.

      Interesting, your post does not have an origin IP address.
      It appears to come..... {DUM dum dum!} from the network itself.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    42. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think a kill switch is the right answer, I'm more in favor of creating a dependence. Design the things to require an amino acid not to be found in the wild, and don't design any of them to make it. I believe that there are only around 20 amino acids that exist in the natural world, but it would be easy enough to synthesize an additional one through normal chemical processes. (Use one of the 20 as a starter, and add a new side chain, e.g. Possibly one incorporating iron or cobalt. Things that are common enough to be cheap to create, yet not a part of the normal requirements. [Yeah, blood uses iron and B-12 uses cobalt. That's how I can be certain that the compounds could be bio-compatible. But those are rare occurrences.])

      With this kind of requirement, even if they did get loose, it would be possible to wipe them out of an area without damaging unmodified life.

      What worrys me is that the people who caall for controls of these engineered entities are always the ones showing such complete ignorance of living systems.

      If you engineer any organism to be in need of any one specialized substance then that organism will develop a way to manufacture that substance. This is not a question of "whether", merely of "when". Most of the time, these kind of production innovations occur all the time - these come and go and most of the time (given that the substance is available in abundance) they just die out since it is not economic to produce something you can get for free. If and when the substance in question is/becomes rare, you applying selective pressure that drives the survival of those innovators that produce the substance itself.

      So you give someone some genetically engineered bacterium that is supposed to eat some cancer, for example. Then, when the job is done, you stop giving the person the specially required iron-containing amino acid that keeps these bacteria alive. You are now rewarding those bacteria that figured out how to generate this amino acid by removing all their competitors from the playing field. There may be none of those. This time. But in the next patient there may be one.

      It only takes one. Once.

      That one bacterium gets the iron it requires for survival from ... the human blood. Congratulation: you have just bred a bacterium that destroys hemoglobin for its sheer survival.

      What could possibly go wrong, indeed.

    43. Re:What... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Redesigning the inner workings of a cell is at most 30 years away. Probably less. There are people making significant progress on this now. How far away do you think warp speed is?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    44. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US alone has over 500000 wells...

    45. Re:What... by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      of course it would be unlikely if they had standard safety measures in place, and didn't over-tax the system. Instead they basically did everything possible to cause it, whether they realize it or not. I am all for drilling in the US, but do it right, spend an extra 10k for some safety measures that will save your rig which is putting out millions worth every week or so. Not exactly asking them to get ass-raped by over-safety, just to do something, anything at all really.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    46. Re:What... by obliv!on · · Score: 1

      Numerous researchers in synthetic biology have been trying to do exactly that.

      Here is an example Open Wetware BioBricks

      Synthetic biology has two paradigms the first is the top down approach which deals with gene knock outs to look for minimal sets necessary for life that can then be tailored to suit specific needs/tasks. The other approach is the bottom up which have inspiration from the Miller-Urey experiments. They are trying to spontaneously generate a new biological system from scratch. Some researchers in this camp trying to create synthetic cellular components in hopes of putting all the synthetic parts together to create a functioning cell such as synthetic Golgi bodies

      There has been some promising results from both approaches. It is a pretty exciting time in Biology.

    47. Re:What... by dalani · · Score: 1

      Would nature accidently put viagra bacteria into your drinking water?

    48. Re:What... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Tretonin?

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  2. Take that, IDers! by oodaloop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know how many times I've heard the young earth creationists and intelligent designers say that since man can't make life, life must be special. Dear FSM, I wish I could send this article to all those IDiots on all the message boards to which I've posted over the years.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Take that, IDers! by Creedo · · Score: 1

      You think this will stop them? The same old stupid arguments are already popping up. ID proponents are amazingly dense as a whole.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    2. Re:Take that, IDers! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Due to a failsafe in the universe, if I were to get a girl pregnant the universe would cease to exist; however, due to a basic property of quantum mechanics, the probability of that happening is zero. Since a universe in which that outcome occurs cannot continue to exist, that outcome cannot occur; the universe continues to exist in the opposite state.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    3. Re:Take that, IDers! by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not that I disagree with your sentiments when it comes to ID proponents (they're morons) but I don't think this really counts as "making life." Not yet, anyway. It's a step in that direction, though.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    4. Re:Take that, IDers! by Anomalyx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Umm.. yeah, this is a far cry from creating life

      I may be a young-earth creationist, but arguing the concept to anyone who only wants to push their own view is 99% of the time pointless, so I won't elaborate any further besides just saying that modifying an existing life form (that's all this is, really) doesn't count as "creating life". Quite far from it, actually.

      --
      No, there is no "-1 I'LL NEVER ADMIT BEING WRONG!!!" mod.
    5. Re:Take that, IDers! by virtualXTC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Lets not get a head of our selves here, they've only re-programmed a cell, not created artificial life. If you are looking for a fully artificial cell you should focus on what's going on in George Church's lab.

    6. Re:Take that, IDers! by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's hard to argue that it will never happen now.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    7. Re:Take that, IDers! by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's hard to argue that it will never happen now.

      Agreed.

      Now, whether that's a good thing or not is somewhat debatable. I can come up with arguments on both sides of that one.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    8. Re:Take that, IDers! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 0, Troll

      Let me see if I follow your argument. The fact that some intelligent people were able to "create" life proves that those who think that it takes intelligence to create life are wrong. Is that the point you were trying to make?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:Take that, IDers! by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The grandparent post was modded as flamebait, but the religious flame war is in real life. From the parent's article:

      However, with this step forward comes a new set of ethical considerations, say experts. “We need to be critically aware of the profound implications of creating synthetic life,” said Karl Giberson, director of the Forum on Faith and Science at Gordon College in Wenham. “I don’t think this is something to be scared of. I don’t think Mother Nature is being violated in some egregious way. But this is an area of science with important ethical considerations, and religious sensibilities and higher priorities need to be on the table, under discussion.”

      It's a pretty moderate response, but even so, it conflates ethics and religion, implying that the ethical decisions should be based on theology. The grandparent is right - this is going to be a culture war thing.

      --

      Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

    10. Re:Take that, IDers! by domatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would prove that it doesn't require a divinity to create life. That doesn't demolish the stated premise of ID but it is a blow to the implied premise of ID, namely "We all know that it was Yahweh but came up with this as a roundabout way of not actually saying it."

    11. Re:Take that, IDers! by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd say it may well be creating life. It's not exactly designing life (and not exactly NOT designing life either...).

      Consider:

      1) The cell they injected the new DNA into had the old DNA removed first - hence it has dead.

      2) The new DNA started out as chemicals in a bottle - certainly dead too.

      3) The new DNA put into the cell "rebooted" / reanimated it so that it started dividing again. Certainly back alive now!

      This experiment may not LOOK that impressive, but consider that the exact same technique can be used to computer modify any type of life you want in any way. Want a hen with teeth - no problem. Replace the feathers with scales ... just a matter of computer programming, then "print" the DNA and animate it.

      Note also that while it's "only" the DNA that's being created, not the INITIAL cell, that the copies the cell it makes of itself as it divides are of course made under control of this synthetic DNA, so the 2nd, 3rd, etc generation cells could be considered themselves synthetic.

    12. Re:Take that, IDers! by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 1

      "Creating life" needs to be clearly defined before having this discussion. There are a lot of steps on this ladder between "understanding basic genetics" and "synthesis of arbitrary living cell from raw materials". Which step is the earliest that counts as "creating life" to you? Can you at least agree that synthesizing an arbitrary genome, then placing it inside a functioning cell, is notably closer to "creating life" than breeding dogs or pea plants is?

    13. Re:Take that, IDers! by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 1

      You have a good point, but if the argument was ever "humans will never create life", then he is right to claim this as a victory. I think the "intelligence" in intelligent design is generally understood to refer to some higher power, not the human intelligence we know.

    14. Re:Take that, IDers! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      What would count as creating life?
      How much does one need to synthesize?
      How much needs to be totally original?

      You can get to the point where I would think that even if we can do it, we shouldn't. Because it would be impossible to predict with surety how dangerous it would be.

      (OTOH, if you're really a young Earth creationist... Sorry. I can't believe that. You can write a coherent paragraph.

      But postulating that you were, would anything count as creating life where the atoms weren't synthetic as well as the molecules?)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:Take that, IDers! by HiThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think you're an artist, a writer, or a programmer. If you are, you need to turn around an look at yourself.

      This is a first step into the grey area. Creation isn't an area of sharp divisions. Almost everything worthwhile is based on extensive predecessors. This is taking one kind of cell, and converting it into another (closely related) kind. This *IS* creation. It's not creating all that much, but it's creating a new species. (Whatever that means at the level of yeasts.) The new species has the DNA of one old species, and the support system (prions, etc.) of the other one. We know a lot more about the DNA level than we do about the prion level, but prions are in charge of ensuring that proteins fold properly. Change the folding properties, and the proteins act differently. Which means the cell acts differently.

      Another step is the insertion of newly designed genes into an existing system. Another step is trying to build a minimal system from scratch. (These are all being worked on simultaneously.)

      So this is another step into the area between selective breeding and creating life de novo. (Although even there I'm not implying that the atoms were synthesized. But one could require that step, too. It's just that I don't see any reason anyone would ever bother.)

      The categories we think in don't have sharp edges, though we usually pretend they do. This is the creation of life, but it's just barely into the fuzzy area. Even so, it's ended up with a new species, and that wasn't the goal.

      (OTOH, I'm not a biologist. It's possible that yeasts don't have prions acting as chaperones for protein folding. In which case I may be wrong about it being a new species, unless they made an error in their DNA synthesis.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    16. Re:Take that, IDers! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I love people who argue, "See, we created life, that proves that life doesn't need a creator."

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    17. Re:Take that, IDers! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are several proponents of ID who believe that the "intelligence" was some sort of alien.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    18. Re:Take that, IDers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't prove anything. Animals already create life all the time, it's part of the reproductive cycle. If you mean new life of a form that did not exist previously, this is still a long long way from that. In any case, there are many of us creationists who see nothing in this that contradicts the existence of God. It might undermine one particular theory of Intelligent Design but there are many creationists who don't really believe ID as defined by some people.

      Further, stuff like this provides additional evidence of God's existence. If we humans are progressing to the point where eventually we can create new life, why could we not at some point in the distant future be able to create worlds and populate them with life? Maybe one of these future people will have all the characteristics that many of us prescribe to God. Anyway, I don't have time to explain more than that but people being able to create life in no way disproves God. I know that's not quite what you meant with your post but it amounts to much the same thing.

    19. Re:Take that, IDers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is intelligent design!

    20. Re:Take that, IDers! by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1
      This is not a new species. In fact they had to work their butts off making sure that what they were looking at was what they thought they were looking at because it easily bred. This is not creation of life in any sense of the word, photocopy maybe, but creation? No. The 'Gene Machine' has been out there for a long long while. That they might have made a whole DNA is really not that surprising or impressive. This has been in the works for years and not really a first step anywhere. That said as a scientist I automatically distrust any science that comes from a guy whose institute bears his own name. Nobel Laureates withstanding of course.

      This is the creation of life, but it's just barely into the fuzzy area.

      Not really no. We have been injecting cells with viable DNA for years now. He didnt make a cell, he made DNA. Two very different things. Compared to a cell wall DNA is easy to make.

      Sera

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    21. Re:Take that, IDers! by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This experiment may not LOOK that impressive, but consider that the exact same technique can be used to computer modify any type of life you want in any way. Want a hen with teeth - no problem. Replace the feathers with scales ... just a matter of computer programming, then "print" the DNA and animate it.

      Except of course they blindly programmed. They copied the DNA, no more no less. All that they did was prove that a DNA photocopy machine can work. Yup, we knew that years ago. We could make DNA years ago, maybe I am missing something, but I am not surprised by this at all.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    22. Re:Take that, IDers! by WillDraven · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they left out the word supernatural before creator.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    23. Re:Take that, IDers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This looks remarkably like Intelligent Design to me.

      Or did I miss something?

    24. Re:Take that, IDers! by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      I'm not surprised by it either, but it's :

      1) A necessary step on one path to creating more interesting types of designer life (from oil producing microbes all the way up to whatever your imagination can conjure up - chickens turned back into dinosaurs, etc)

      2) Certainly significant to those who do think that life is something magical and not merely a systems property.

      Incidently, what Craig Venter is really working is a minimal organism whose DNA started out as that of some simple bacteria (from a venereal disease if I remember correctly!), and which he's much more extensively modified by cutting out large swathes of it that hhe's discovered are not essential for life. He's created this DNA via traditional gene splicing techniques, with the next step being to synthesize it from scratch as he's done here.

      So, while the DNA in this current experiment is merely a (synthesized) cpoy with a few markers inserted into it, it's really just a step on the way to inserting the synthesized version of his real (much more heavily modified - new species) DNA into a cell.

    25. Re:Take that, IDers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.) Did Mr. Ventor and his team "evolve" that artificial cell or did they use intelligent design to make it? Do computer engineers "evolve" computers, or do they use ID to make them? Are these people intelligent? Are these people designers? Does Intel have schematics showing the intelligent design of its processors, which employ an irreducibly complex (i.e., non-linear and instantaneously co-dependent) design structure? Is the object-oriented programming paradigm the result of technological evolution to the exclusion of any and all ID?

      What's the probability of life designs and creation processes happening as a result of evolution? Remember, every time you consider a new attribute in the life design and creation process, you must multiply its probability with the probability of all previous attributes, which will quickly approach 0% as the number of attributes increases, under the evolution hypothesis.

      Besides this simple mathematical proof against evolution, how much more sophisticated is the human brain as compared to Mr. Ventor's stupid little cell? How much more sophisticated was God in His ID of the human brain over this cell and over computers and over anything human beings have every created?! The more people use ID to attempt to create life, the more it proves the reality of ID behind the creation of people and the universe.

      Fess up - there is an intelligent being who designed you!

      2.) Just wait - if we discover God used quantum physics to make genetics, we're getting ourselves in big trouble by making artificial life without first knowing much more about quantum genetics! But that's what we get for trusting random people, such as Mr. Venter, whom we don't even know personally!

      3.) Creationists and IDists don't require that humans can't use ID to make life. Read Gen. 6:11, which indicates that mankind has the potential - with one language - to create life, even as God created life (just to a much lesser potential). And what one language is there worldwide? I'll give you a hint: it has 2 letters in its alphabit.

    26. Re:Take that, IDers! by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I agree that it is unsurprising in that it has long been obvious that we could and eventually would be able to create synthetic life passing any arbitrary bar anyone wanted to set on defining "creating synthetic life". Or at least, it has long been obvious to anyone familiar with science and who is not blinded by some ideology that life involves some magik essence beyond the reach of science.

      This story is both a trivial step and enormous progress. It reminds me of Neil Armstrong's "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind" line when stepping onto the moon. Or at least that was supposed to be the quote. Armstrong either flubbed the word "a" or the transmission dropped out for a moment :D

      Scientists have demonstrated that they can write arbitrary "DNA text" at will and assemble it into a functioning DNA molecule, and that that manufactured DNA is completely successful at establishing living and reproducing life defined by that DNA when it placed into an effectively "dead" cell membrane and cytoplasm.

      In this case, yes just proved they could do it and work out the kinks by strictly copying the genetic text from an existing species. However we have also long proven that we are perfectly capable of designing things like artificial enzymes and other molecules and writing entirely new DNA code to make those new molecules, and we have in fact inserted that entirely novel DNA into living cells and proven that it does work and does produce what we designed it to produce.

      Any reasonable person can immediately see that the above two paragraphs logically combine like 2+2 and establish 4, that we can obviously code and manufacture novel synthetic DNA and insert it into a non-living cell membrane+cytoplasm producing novel synthetic life. Obviously the next thing they are going to do is copy the full working DNA from existing life and insert just a chunk of novel DNA. And of course they will then tackle the task piece by piece writing new DNA chunk by chunk replacing an increasing percentage of novel DNA involved. It is obvious that we are eventually going to be able to be able to do it with 100% synthetic code.

      We are also already able to create completely synthetic cell membranes. And while I'm no expert on cell cytoplasm, that too is just a bunch of molecules that we are obviously going to be able to manufacture. It is obvious that synthetic genetics will work equally well whether you insert them into a "dead" natural cell or if you insert them into an identical manufactured membrane and cytoplasm. And it is again obvious that we can and will start rewriting the makeup of the cytoplasm and cell membrane too.

      This story is a small but important step in the fact that we will fairly soon be able to dig up some cold dead rocks and manufacture them into a purely synthetic living organism.

      To anyone with an interest in science is cool (but expected) news. To anyone who views God as the Creator of the Universe and who views science as a fully compatible exploration into how God's universe works, this is pretty much irrelevant news. And to certain religious fundamentalists who believe themselves infallible, who believe themselves to have perfect infallible understanding of how the universe was created and how God did things, who are waging a war against science, who are busy presuming to tell God how He is and is-not permitted to run His universe, well this story is about the twelve billionth hole punched in their nonsense, and they will of course either completely ignore it or they will engage in yet more ludicrous mental gymnastics trying to deny it.

      So, really, nothing new. Science progresses, exactly as expected. Most people say "cool". And a couple of people continue on their illiterate anti-science crusade.

      Welcome to tomorrow. Exactly the same as yesterday, plus the standard assortment of cool new toys.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    27. Re:Take that, IDers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While not subscribing to the silliness of creationism and ID I would contend that the life process is quite cleary something special. My book "Unusual Perspectives", which is available for free download from the eponymous website, argues from an evidential basis that there is a clearly discernible pattern that extends from stellar and supernoval synthesis, planetary accretion, genetic evolution and technical evolution right through to the next phase of the process which would appear to be the the self-assembly of our internet into a new inorganic manifestation.
      Ventner's group's work is both interesting and perhaps may be useful but, on the other hand, is essentially a "copy, edit and paste" job on DNA which is very predictable and in no way justifies the "life creation" hype.
        I find the media's description of the generation of DNA from "chemicals"( Ventner actually uses this term himself in an interview) particularly irritating. What the fuck do they think "natural" DNA is made from?

    28. Re:Take that, IDers! by DMiax · · Score: 1

      I think the reasoning ends with "life does not need a creator with superhuman powers".

    29. Re:Take that, IDers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not even an ID proponent and I see the problem here: this isn't artificial life, this is artificial genetic code. They used an existing cell

      I was hoping for something like what the first life might have been: a simple self-replicating protein, only this time created wholly in a lab...something that would eventually lead to creating more and more complex life forms without having to use preexisting components. This is like saying "We built a computer!" after reinstalling the OS.

    30. Re:Take that, IDers! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      And that proves what? If life requires a creator, how did the first life come to be? If life doesn't require a creator, why has no one ever seen life appear from non-life (there are many possible explanations, but until someone shows it, we have no scientific explanation for the origin of life)?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    31. Re:Take that, IDers! by Surt · · Score: 1

      I think it would be ridiculous to discredit 'creating life' if 100% were original material, synthesized from raw elements. Personally, I'd probably even grant you the use of relatively complex molecules (let's say nothing over 1k atoms).
      But no, I wouldn't go any higher than that. You certainly can't use anything which has had its complexity increased by anything but a human and his mechanical, non-living, tools.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    32. Re:Take that, IDers! by plastbox · · Score: 1

      I don't think you really thought that through.. If we (being intelligent) create life, the ID'ers will just start screaming "AHA! Told you so! Life had to have an intelligent designer, it didn't just pop out of thin air now did it?". Effing morons.. =(

    33. Re:Take that, IDers! by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Further, stuff like this provides additional evidence of God's existence.

      No it doesn't. God is, according to all the priests and dead priests and the things they wrote, divine. If you don't believe what is written in the bible you're a heretic, so we will then assume you're either a heretic and can discount your point of view, or we assume you believe God is divine. The priests tell us that only God can create new species of life, and only God can create life from unliving material, although He was unable to create women without a rib.

      One of the key points of this exercise which the religious types find so offensive is that it is yet another exercise in proof denying faith. The priests told us that the earth was flat. Wrong. The priests told us that the earth was the center of the universe. Wrong. The priests told us that only the divine can create life... wrong? Time will tell.

      What I want to know is, just how much do we have to prove about our understanding of the universe before the religious types will pack it in and stop causing so much harm to the world?

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
  3. Where's my nobel? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    sudo dd if=genome.helix of=/dev/nucleus0

    1. Re:Where's my nobel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 for use of sudo.

    2. Re:Where's my nobel? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Only root (and members of the 'gamete' group) have access to the nucleus0 device...

    3. Re:Where's my nobel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sudo dd if=genome.helix of=/dev/nucleus0

      Okay.

  4. Waits for... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... the first fully patented life forms. I'm really curious how that would work.... let's say an egg gets a fully artificial set of chromosomes that include patented genes for fixing Thyroid diseases, preventing breast cancer, and purple hair with green skin. Let's also say that that egg develops into a regular person. Is that person property? What happens if they have kids? Do they need to pay royalties?

    I can't wait for this stuff, because it will allow for some truly awesome fixes to truly terrible diseases. But I'm also pretty sure that this will result in legal messes of epic proportions. Monsanto will be a side show compared to that.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    1. Re:Waits for... by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      legal messes of epic proportions

      Only in America.

      Though it will spawn the new industry of genetic engineering tourism.

    2. Re:Waits for... by Anomalyx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to be the party pooper here, but I do doubt this will get expanded to humans. Messing with Human DNA would take massive amounts of experimentation (since we don't really know squat about how it works, when you compare what we do know to what we don't know), with massive amounts of harmful effects (and deaths) on said test subjects. Without even debating the ethics of it here, I highly doubt that such experimentation would be welcomed by society.

      --
      No, there is no "-1 I'LL NEVER ADMIT BEING WRONG!!!" mod.
    3. Re:Waits for... by nashv · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. It works by the parents who want to procure a 'fixed' egg licensing the right to duplicate the patented genes. It doesn't work by ownership, it works by license. Obviously, multiplication of the gene for use through out the body is fair use for the lifetime of the organism. It works in the same way software licensing does. After all, genes are software, DNA is the medium. I realise though that in general, its not a pretty thought.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    4. Re:Waits for... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It can be done, and that means it will be done. The first applications will be medical; synthetic gene therapy could offer cures for many diseases we currently have no way to treat, and only "it's bad 'cause it's got DNA in it!!!" Luddites will object. Yes, there will be harmful side effects, including death, but people with terminal cancer, or parents of children with terrible birth defects, will be willing to take the risk. Once the therapeutic principles are established, we'll inevitably see more frivolous applications. And at that point, whether or not it's "welcomed by society" will be irrelevant -- as long as there are people with the money to pay for it, someone will do it.

      That being said, we're a long way from that point. There's a hell of a lot of difference between building a bacterial genome and modifying a human one at will.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:Waits for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I patent you!

    6. Re:Waits for... by HeckRuler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, that's what secret labs are for. Haven't you ever seen the mad scientists trope?

    7. Re:Waits for... by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I dunno, the military types are the ones willing to dive head first into unknown and questionable territory without regard to life, limb, and cost to taxpayers.

      I'm kinda surprised that our special forces don't have cyber eyes with natural night-vision and HUDs yet. Of course, super-soldiers take time to grow.

    8. Re:Waits for... by domatic · · Score: 1

      So what about descendants of children created this way?

    9. Re:Waits for... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "Is that person property? What happens if they have kids? Do they need to pay royalties?"

      This is just silly. "Parents" will probably pay through the nose, but not the person or his kids.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    10. Re:Waits for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I patent you!

    11. Re:Waits for... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      legal messes of epic proportions

      Only in America.

      Though it will spawn the new industry of genetic engineering tourism.

      Yeah, only in America because other countries don't do stupid shit with their legal system.

      --

      Enigma

    12. Re:Waits for... by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Current court cases have made farmers pay if GM crops pollinate their crops, even unknowingly, so making the kids pay is just a few steps away.

      --
      SSC
    13. Re:Waits for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think north Korea is still around, they need somewhere for the mad scientists to hide.

    14. Re:Waits for... by nashv · · Score: 1
      Mostly likely something akin to Terminator technology will be developed before such a service is made available to the consumer.

      Examples of genes being present during birth but lost in adults are not unknown. The genes could also be programmed to be epigentically inactivated in the progenies sperm/eggs. Plenty of ways to maintain control, until someone breaks that D(G)RM, anyway.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    15. Re:Waits for... by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      What happens if they have kids? Do they need to pay royalties?

      Well, at least for now the term on patents (in the U.S.) is about 20 years. Assuming it's patented right at the time of conception you'd still only have to wait until you're just over 18 years old (assuming infringement happens at birth) to have a royalty free kid.

    16. Re:Waits for... by bazorg · · Score: 1

      Is that person property? What happens if they have kids? Do they need to pay royalties?

      if we take a look at the universal declaration of human rights I think it's clear that no special rules need to be made to protect the interests on individuals according to the kind of birth or technique involved in their conception. Taking the example of clones, after they're born it really is not possible to say that they are different from anyone else and therefore should have special status. right?

      Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

    17. Re:Waits for... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      In the only cases I'm aware of, the defendant claimed their crops were pollinated from the wind, etc. But at trial it was revealed the defendant had bags of the plaintiff's seed.

      (insert Bevis-and-Butthead style joke here)

    18. Re:Waits for... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      In which world? In the world where the laws about humans and plants are generally the same?

      How do you imagine this argument in court?

      "Your honor, the corn plant seeds are subject to this regulation, babies are nothing more than human seeds, so they should be subject to it to".

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    19. Re:Waits for... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      purple hair with green skin

      You really shouldn't say things like that on Slashdot.
      Now a whole bunch of slashdotters are going to have to go wash off their sticky keyboards.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  5. Awesome & aweinspiring by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

    Pandora's box has been opened. I'm excited to see what pours out over the next decades. We all know we need radical new technology to fix the energy crisis and reduce climate gas emissions. Hopefully, we can engineer more efficient organisms, providing clean(er) energy and food for the world's ever-growing population.

    --

    Stop the brainwash

    1. Re:Awesome & aweinspiring by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pandora's box has been opened. I'm excited to see what pours out over the next decades.

      Uh, I think you need to read up on your Greek mythology a bit more. Opening Pandora's Box was not such a good thing.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    2. Re:Awesome & aweinspiring by mollog · · Score: 1

      We all know we need radical new technology to fix the energy crisis and reduce climate gas emissions.

      Let's see, we create a problem with misguided policies and practices. Now we fix said problem with a new, complex technology. What could possibly go wrong?

      This planet will become a barren desert and mankind will vanish. Rightfully so.

      --
      Best regards.
    3. Re:Awesome & aweinspiring by vxice · · Score: 1

      Maybe he is the type who thinks horror movies are too fake looking and wants to see it in real life. I mean once Pandora's box is open you can't close it, or at least the cat is out of the bag so you can't fix the problem so why worry about it? Enjoy the ride because you are getting a front row seat to something of spectacular, destruction you know what ever your thing is, why waste such a good gift.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    4. Re:Awesome & aweinspiring by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or maybe he was being so subtly ironic that I missed the point entirely.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    5. Re:Awesome & aweinspiring by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

      I enjoy being ambiguous. It makes people think harder.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    6. Re:Awesome & aweinspiring by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      I enjoy being ambiguous. It makes people think harder.

      Yeah, but thinking hard makes my head hurt, so stop it!

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    7. Re:Awesome & aweinspiring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hooray!

      signed, Everyone Else

      Wait... desert??

    8. Re:Awesome & aweinspiring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's profit to be made, isn't that exciting?

      Plan A:
      1. Patent organisms.
      2. Release into wild.
      3. File lawsuit upon unlucky sap that has organisms infect whatever. (Crop fields, yeast vats, yogurt, etc.)
      4 ????
      5. Profit!!!

      Plan B:
      1 & 2. See Plan A.
      3. Wait for metabolic diseases and allergies to show up in humans and their associated animals (ie:pets/livestock) caused by your new creations.
      4. Come up with pharmacology that only treats symtpoms. (like insulin for diabeetus)
      5. ????
      6. Profit!!!

      Plan C:
      1 & 2. See plan A.
      3. Wait for your released organisms to act directly as destructive pathogens.
      4. Produce vaccine/antiviral/antibody already tailor engineered for your "product".
      5. ????
      6. Profit!!!

      What sociopathic individual or corporation lacking in anything resembling ethics wouldn't be excited by certain applications of genetic engineering?

  6. Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Dr Venter likened the advance to making new software for the cell."

    Can I install Linux on it then?

    1. Re:Linux by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sony says no Linux on the Cell.

      --
      No sig? Sigh...
    2. Re:Linux by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it's Windows only. They were required to place a limiter on it, so it wouldn't stay alive forever, and Windows just seemed a natural fit.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    3. Re:Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      once you install linux on it it stops reproducing

    4. Re:Linux by Alien1024 · · Score: 1

      Well, that specific requirement can be met with other operating systems. For example, I don't think the Nexus series (and I don't mean the Google Phone) will run under Windows.

    5. Re:Linux by izomiac · · Score: 1

      It'd never work. A bacteria has enough redundancy so that DNA polymerase's error rate usually won't cause any issues. Linux is built with the assumption that data replication is flawless. Therefore, the two differ dramatically in regulatory strategies.

      (Even though you jest, there is some debate as to whether DNA and its enzymes are Turning-complete or not. Obviously, at one extreme, a human can function as a Turing machine, but at the other, DNA & protein synthesis don't quite work that way.)

  7. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...want to welcome our synthetic yeast-e. coli-yeast overlords

  8. Zombie movie all the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just sounds like the beginning of every zombie movie ever made. I, for one, can't wait to baseball bat some zombie skull!

    1. Re:Zombie movie all the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      head down to your local apple store bro!!!

      strike a blow for web freedom and get stuck in!!!

  9. You forgot the quote by rutledjw · · Score: 1

    God creates dinosaurs.
    God destroys dinosaurs.
    God creates man.
    Man destroys God.
    Man creates dinosaurs...

    --

    Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
    1. Re:You forgot the quote by theIsovist · · Score: 1

      ... Dinosaurs kill man
      Women inherit the earth.

  10. Did the institute "make" it and is this "life"? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess we should wait until the actual Science article comes out, but it looks like they basically synthesized an entire bacterial genome, as opposed to the normal way of having a bacteria copy it's own genome with it's own enzymes, and then they put it into a different bacterial strain.

    Is that "making" a cell artificially? They didn't make most of the bacterial cell themselves, the bacteria did that. They didn't design the genome from scratch, they just copied an existing one that nature made and modified it a bit. I'm not sure that constitutes actually making a cell artificially. If you buy a mac at a store, print out the ones and zeros to make windows vista, manually retype them, make a boot disk, and install that on the mac and it worked, that would be an impressive feat, sure, but did you "make a completely new computer?" (Best comparison I could come up with, sorry about that in advance). I don't think this can be considered making life yet.

    Second, is this "life?" Life seems to be impossible to define, but it's pretty certain that "genome was stitched together in a lab and inserted into a dummy cell" is unique to this thing, nothing else we'd call life has that feature. Does that disqualify it as life and make it something else?

    To their credit, Venter doesn't seem to be claiming they made new life, but they are aiming for that eventually, and I'm curious as to what slashdot thinks about when we can actually say we've created artificial life.

    1. Re:Did the institute "make" it and is this "life"? by hallucinogen · · Score: 1

      It's more like that they made a .iso image of some cd and then burned that to another cd and it played just fine in the cd-player.

    2. Re:Did the institute "make" it and is this "life"? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To their credit, Venter doesn't seem to be claiming they made new life, but they are aiming for that eventually, and I'm curious as to what slashdot thinks about when we can actually say we've created artificial life.

      I'd say it's life once the constructed bacteria show that they're able to reproduce, and keep doing so for a number of generations (which can take place pretty quickly for bacteria.) Until then it's an interesting piece of machinery.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Did the institute "make" it and is this "life"? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That would be a good readout that it is functional, and undoubtedly they did that already. Working with a single bacterium is I guess possible, but pretty much everyone just works with whole colonies.

      They wouldn't have had much to screen from to see if they got the genome in had they not gotten a colony rather than a single cell.

      Anyway, the reason "reproducing" isn't a good standard for defining life is there are many live things, such as mules, which aren't capable of reproducing, and some non-living things which are capable of reproducing to various degrees. For example fire spreads by catching other things on fire, and it's questionable whether prions are alive or not though they can reproduce.

    4. Re:Did the institute "make" it and is this "life"? by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Personally, I would prefer to wait until we produce a novel self-replicating "machine" (biological or otherwise) before we call it artificial life. Synthetic life, however, yes I would qualify this as. At least, in the sense that it is the artificial construction of a known quantity/concept through synthesis between related assets. That is to say, this and its project, like much of genetic engineering, is a cut and paste job. This achievement is the latest in a reduction of the cut and paste; the latest in a process of producing successively more fine grained reassembly jobs towards any of the goals of a the development of a novel mechanism (directed evolution or generative engineering which I like to call "gengineering"), a synthesis of of existing mechanisms in a singular form (recombinant and splicing GM), or imitation of an existing form. We're not to artificial life yet, but somewhere down the row of increasing granularity lies an invisible line which, when crossed, will I be satisfied in calling it such.

      As an aside, I really was conflicted whether to state my opinion here or mod you up to increase the chances of getting more opinions. Ultimately, I decided yours is strong enough to stand on its own. Good luck in getting to 5!

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    5. Re:Did the institute "make" it and is this "life"? by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "The new bacteria replicated over a billion times, producing copies that contained and were controlled by the constructed, synthetic DNA." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

      Yes, it really is life.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    6. Re:Did the institute "make" it and is this "life"? by Flambergius · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is it life? Yes. It's true that life is somewhat difficult to define, but bacteria lies well within any definition I've heard.

      Did they make it? Well, that's a bit more complex.

      Bacteria is basically a self-replicating machine that has software to encode it's own building instructions. Its software gets replaced, so it won't any more build copies of itself, but rather a different machine. That new machine is also a self-replicating machine, just a different one (down to protein level). Now both machines build new machines based on the same software. Add several generations and death of the earlies generation. (I think the change is gradual.) Result is a colony of self-replicating machines that are not like the original machine but are like each other. No trace of the original remains.

      Also note that the exact type of the original bacteria isn't important. They used the ones they did because they are practical, but they could have used different ones and would have ended up with the same end result. Software/genome determines the composition of the end result.

      Is that making? I think it is. An intentional act, using the original bacteria to bootstrap a process, that determines the end result and produces something that would not otherwise exist. One could, I guess, define making to exclude bootstrapping techniques, but I think there are several programmers of silicon-based computers that would disagree with that definition.

       

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
    7. Re:Did the institute "make" it and is this "life"? by priegog · · Score: 1

      Personally I'll call it "synthetic life" when they design the genes from scratch. Otherwise, they're infringing on nature's patents. And that's just not cool, specially considering how they're likely to make the lawsuits rain on anyone who even thinks about using one of their "patented" "artificial" life forms. This whole "patenting living organisms" (natural, modified or completely synthetic) is a wonderful debate to be had, but I won't touch it today.
      I'll conform to defining "creating synthetic life".
      As I said, we already know a shitton about biology, and I do think we have the knowledge to be able to create an organism that is able to feed and reproduce, completely from scratch. The thing is, it would be a COLLOSAL effort, trying to model and simulate how completely new proteins are supposed to arrange themselves intro primary, secondary, terciary and even cuaternary structures, and how they are supposed to interact with their medium and other proteins... etc. AFAIK (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there aren't really any truly NEW molecules us humans have DESIGNED from scratch to be used as medicines. They are all based, derived, and sometimes even still being extracted from natural sources like plants, animals, hormones, bacteria...
      This is the new frontier we as humans need to conquer technology-wise in order to keep advancing us into the space age, IMHO.
      So those are MY requirements... heck, I'll give them extra kudos if they use another molecule completely unrelated to DNA/RNA, or at the very least change the genetic code. About the first host "shell" I don't really care, since it's just a technicallity that can be easily overcome, at that. I think.

    8. Re:Did the institute "make" it and is this "life"? by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 1

      I don't want to be prejudiced against yet undiscovered beings of pure energy, but I object to fire being considered "alive" due to it's lack of self-organized physical form.

    9. Re:Did the institute "make" it and is this "life"? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      but it looks like they basically synthesized an entire bacterial genome

      They didn't really synthesize the DNA; they just cut'n'pasted a bunch of existing DNA and inserted it into a new cell. This is like grafting 100 trees together and calling the conglomeration a synthetic tree.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    10. Re:Did the institute "make" it and is this "life"? by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      "The new bacteria replicated over a billion times, producing copies that contained and were controlled by the constructed, synthetic DNA." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

      Yes, it really is life.

      Or we Pluto it :)

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    11. Re:Did the institute "make" it and is this "life"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Jim, but not as we know it.

      Sorry...

  11. What happens next is by Stunning+Tard · · Score: 4, Funny

    Uruk-hai

  12. How is this different: let me count the ways by Yergle143 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's different for a a lot of reasons. I'll just focus on three. The bio-weapon fear: the viruses and bacteria that we harbor have co-evolved with us. Viruses and bacteria shape evolution in a myriad of subtle ways but one way to look at even the most pathogenic forms is that their habitat is you and me. So despite the suffering inflicted by TB, Ebola, HIV etc. fundamentally it is not in the best interest of the microbe to cause the extinction of its habitat -- although it probably happens. The bio-weapon fear is that pathogens can now be created whose long term interest is not in the "cruel but fair" hands of Darwinian Evolution but in the possibly malevolent (or hopefully beneficent) hands of a bona-fide "CREATOR/DESTROYER". Let's hope Venter is nice. The second: the lateral gene transfer mechanism has been shown to play a role on evolution. However now it is possible to accelerate this "artificial sex" to rates that far exceed the norm. Plant-Animal hybrids here we come -- and let's use our imagination. Plant a seed, up grows the plant, a flower fruits, a butterfly emerges which lays -- seeds. Pretty kewl huh. Three: Genetic twiddling -- there are some parts of the cell that evolution just doesn't take a chance in messing around with. It is now possible to mess around.
    My two cents: weeds win...the reason algae for fuel doesn't work is weeds. If you go to Indiana you don't see the Monsanto soybeans growing wild in a ditch. And there are no wild packs of Shih Tzus. I'm not sharpening the pitchfork yet.

    1. Re:How is this different: let me count the ways by HeckRuler · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you go to Indiana you don't see the Monsanto soybeans growing wild in a ditch.

      That's because Monsanto seeds are sterile. You can't simply buy once and plant some of the seeds from that crop, you have to buy from Monsanto each year. Seriously, this is basic bio-tech information from the 90's.

    2. Re:How is this different: let me count the ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not just that though, field crops are adapted to grow quickly and use lots of water and nutrients which we provide. In the wild they tend to grow quickly, use up the local water and nutrients, and die quickly. And in order to be resistant to roundup and other things they have to essentially armor their metabolic processes. This makes those processes less efficient, so they are often outcompeted by other plants when there is no poison.

    3. Re:How is this different: let me count the ways by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      That's because Monsanto seeds are sterile.

      Not true. Turns out nobody would buy the "sterile" seeds when they were introduced by another firm.

      Who would have thought that farmers know more about farming than geeks in their parent's basements?

    4. Re:How is this different: let me count the ways by Alsee · · Score: 1

      However now it is possible to accelerate this "artificial sex" to rates that far exceed the norm. Plant-Animal hybrids here we come -- and let's use our imagination. Plant a seed, up grows the plant, a flower fruits, a butterfly emerges which lays -- seeds. Pretty kewl huh.

      Pfffft!

      Plant a seed and out pops a horny green babe with three tits.
      Just let her lie in the sun all day, water her twice a week, and as you said "it is possible to accelerate this 'artificial sex' to rates that far exceed the norm".

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  13. What is the function of the E. coli? by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 2, Informative
    Article is unclear on this.

    Because current machines can only assemble relatively short strings of DNA letters at a time, the researchers inserted the shorter sequences into yeast, whose DNA-repair enzymes linked the strings together. They then transferred the medium-sized strings into E. coli and back into yeast. After three rounds of assembly, the researchers had produced a genome over a million base pairs long.

    I read this as:

    Sequencer-> Yeast -> E. coli -> Yeast -> Repeat
    Short segments-> Merged segment -> ? -> ??? -> Full M. mycoides Genome

    1. Re:What is the function of the E. coli? by comm2k · · Score: 1

      Probably amplification of the larger DNA fragments.

    2. Re:What is the function of the E. coli? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      They always include E. Coli. Shit happens, you know.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:What is the function of the E. coli? by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      Yahknow, I tried to figure this one out myself when I was writing the submission. Physorg doesn't elaborate, but their article has since been updated with the release of an official press release by JCVI Curiously, E. coli doesn't appear to be mentioned anywhere on their release. Nor is it on the project's site, at least at casual glance. Perhaps additional information on the process may be found in one of their fact sheets (PDF WARNING!)

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    4. Re:What is the function of the E. coli? by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 2, Informative
      Ah, thanks for that. From the PDF:

      1. The JCVI team designed specific cassettes of DNA that were 1,080 base pairs long with overlaps of 80 base pairs (bp) at their ends to aid in building the longer stretches of DNA. These were made according to JCVI’s specifications by the DNA synthesis company, Blue Heron Biotechnology.

      2. Then the team employed a three stage process using yeast to build the genome using 1,078 cassettes that are 1,080 bp in length. The first stage involves taking 10 cassettes of DNA at a time to build 10,000 bp long segments. In the second stage, these 10,000 bp segments are taken 10 at a time to produce eleven 100,000 bp long segments. Finally, all 11 segments are assembled into a complete synthetic genome as an extra chromosome in a

      yeast cell, by using yeast genetic systems. 3. The complete synthetic M. mycoides genome is then released from the yeast cell and transplanted into M. capricolum recipient cells that have had the gene for a restriction enzyme removed. Following incubation, viable M. mycoides cells are produced in which the only DNA present is the synthetic genome. These cells are controlled only by that synthetic genome.

      Which then makes sense of the chart which states the sequence as:

      1. Oligonucleotide Synthesizer
      2. Yeast
      3. ?
      4. Extract Complete Genome from Yeast

      1. Oligonucleotides in 1,080 bp cassettes (1,078)
      (Assemble109X)

      2. 10,080 bp assemblies (109)
      (Assemble 11X)

      3. 100,000 bp assemblies (11)
      (Assemble 1X)

      4. 1,077,947 bp

      So I guess the ?? in step 3 is the E. coli, which assembles the 10,000bp segments into 100,000 bp segments, which are finally stitched together back in the yeast as an extra genome.

    5. Re:What is the function of the E. coli? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

      Which also happens to make the point that most of the players in the game were existing organisms.

      While it is quite likely that these stages will be by-passable fairly soon (although not, perhaps, the requirement for an initial host), we must not forget that Ventner and his crew are also naturally occurring organisms.

  14. That's new? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    including designing algae that can capture carbon dioxide

    The natural algae already do this. Even more, they produce oxygen at the same time!

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  15. Story I heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am not a 'young-earth' creationist, but I do believe in a creator (we have creation, thus there is a creator QED). I heard a related story once:

    One day man discovers that he can create life. He tells God that since he can create life he doesn't need God anymore. God tells him to give it a try. Man goes about pushing dirt into the form of life to which God replies, 'Get your own dirt.'

    Now I don't doubt that as we use science to unravel the mysteries of life that we will be capable of creating life from organic matter, (this barely counts as they just sequenced an existing genome and copied it) and do so in novel and interesting ways. However, I also know that science will never explain the universe, the number of mysteries we unlock with each discovery is greater than one, thus with increased knowledge comes the knowledge of increased ignorance. And science is only ever an approximation to the truth, it doesn't try to be anything else (though people try to make it more than it is).

    1. Re:Story I heard by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I came up with the "Cosmic Garbageman" theory of the creation of life on Earth when I was in high school ... but I never believed it seriously.

      Still, here it goes:

      There's this alien spaceship passing by, and they think that Sol III would be a good place to hold a picnic, so they do. And they're careless about how they dispose of their garbage.

      Not exactly "Intelligent Design", but definitely not "life evolved naturally in the seas of earth" either.

      There are lots of reasonable possibilities. There aren't many that it's reasonable to assign a high probability. One that *WOULD* qualify as "intelligent design" and has a reasonable possibility is directed panspermia:
      Long ago and far away an intelligent life form desired to spread it's descendents throughout the galaxy, but they couldn't figure out an FTL drive. So the whipped up a mix of primitive life forms that would have at least one survive in a mix of environments, wrapped them in a bunch of preservative capsules (designed to protect the contents from cosmic rays, etc., and to give the mass driver something to hold onto, and shot them out at every reasonable target they could find. LOTS of them.

      OK. That's "Intelligent Design". I can't prove it was wrong. It actually seems to have a reasonable probability. We might have come from something like that. But do note that that's intelligent design of life, not of humans. I can't think of anything plausible that yields "intelligent design of humans" except the "The Universe is a Simulation" hypotheses. (No way to disprove that one, or estimate it's probability, either. Some variants say "Historical Simulation", others say "Video Game". They're all unfalsifiable.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Story I heard by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And science is only ever an approximation to the truth, it doesn't try to be anything else (though people try to make it more than it is).

      The only people who try to make science into more than it is are religious people. Scientists are keenly aware of the approximations in their search for truth.

      BTW, how nice of your God to keep moving the goal posts. It used to be: you can't create life out of dirt. Now you have to create dirt, too? And I presume that the goal posts will keep moving until they arrive at "Use your own space/time continuum."

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:Story I heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't say it's continually moving the goal post. In American Football terms, creating life would be more like the first down from your own 20 yard line. Creating your own space/time continuum would be the real, scoring goal.

      </devil's advocate> (or God's advocate? I don't know... either way, me posting this has nothing to do with my actual beliefs)

  16. fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but can we get back to talking about the ipad please?

  17. synthetic? ya right by hyperion2010 · · Score: 1

    I love the complete bullshit rhetoric that is in use here. This is about as "synthetic" as a plagiarized paper is original. Hacking up a bunch of real genomes is easypeasy compared to actually making life from scratch. The way this was done you dont even have to know the rules, you just put it all together and hope it works.

    Life can never be "synthetic." Life is a process, and maybe we will one day be able to stick some genetic code into a cell composed of protiens and lipids and carbohydrates that were all synthesized in a lab, but until then we will always have to steal and cheat our way by taking what evolution has given us.

  18. Completely false. by base_chakra · · Score: 2, Informative

    This article on monsanto.com makes it very plain:

    "Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product. Sharing many of the concerns of small landholder farmers, Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile seed technology in food crops. We stand firmly by this commitment. We have no plans or research that would violate this commitment in any way."

    In spite of this reassurance, one can't rule out the possibility that Monsanto will decide later that it's in their own best interest to market a sterile seed technology.

    Monsanto has persecuted many farmers for allegedly saving the seeds of their GM plants (corn, soybeans, and cotton) for planting. See http://www.monsanto.com/seedpatentprotection/monsantos_position.asp for one of the several Monsanto resources that discusses this practice. There's very little a farmer can do to protect his business when Monsanto makes such an accusation. The legal battles can last years, and are devastating.

    1. Re:Completely false. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      It has been literally a decade since I last talked to uncle Mike the farmer about this. I have since been under the false assumption that Monsanto went through with it. But thanks dude, it's not every day I find myself refreshingly wrong.

      Here's the best article I could find on the topic. You have to get all the way to the bottom before hearing how Monsanto backed off due to political pressure.
      Of course, the wiki page also spells it out. And apparently some people simply get it wrong.
      I believe that this would approach an urban legend against a megacorp.

    2. Re:Completely false. by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      If only Monsanto had stuck with F-1 hybrids, we'd be okay. They problem is now the genes that Monsanto put into their soybeans have found there way into other non Monsanto soybean stocks, which they've claimed as their own.

      What's worse, these genes are showing up in weeds... There's now a whole class of round up ready weeds. Also I've heard there's a strain of poppy out there that's also round up resistant as well...

      Just wait until the BT gene starts jumping to weeds (if it hasn't already)

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  19. Ugh by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am not learning to program in DNA. That's like the assembly language of the molecular biology world. Could someone come up with a nice ruby module so I can just mixin the traits I want?

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not learning to program in DNA. That's like the assembly language of the molecular biology world. Could someone come up with a nice ruby module so I can just mixin the traits I want?

      Working on it!

  20. Asimov will be pleased by Anonymous+Squonk · · Score: 1

    This will really help when we finally get around to terraforming the galaxy. Instead of sending off a huge Noah's Ark to each one, we'll just ship whatever raw materials can't be found on the new planet and build the lifeforms onsite.

  21. Phew, in 1830 we did better... by fonske · · Score: 1

    ... in Belgium: a completely artificial country was synthesized by joining the Southern Netherlands and a Northern piece of what was once France.
    A latin world and a germanic world joined without LHC.
    Only kept together by utter latin arrogance: " La Belgique sera latine où elle ne sera pas." (dixit Cardinal Mercier).

  22. Intelligent Designer? by shikaisi · · Score: 1

    So, an intelligent designer has created life. No surprises here then.

    --
    No left turn unstoned.
  23. Son of Frankenstein's monster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds“

    - J. Robert Oppenheimer (July, 16th 1945)

    (I AM a molecular and cellular Biologist)

    Think the atom bomb had some potential for misuse? Well that's small potatoes now...

  24. Patents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait! isn't that illegal? doesn't God have the patent of creating life from scratch? I smell a law suite

  25. Religious sensibilities in science == epic fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But this is an area of science with important ethical considerations, and religious sensibilities and higher priorities need to be on the table, under discussion."

    No. If there's one thing that doesn't need to be on the table in an area of science, it's religious sensibilities.

    In fact, if you bring religious sensibilities to the table then you no longer have science at all.

  26. "designing algae" by Corson · · Score: 1

    Genetic design != patching up a genome using DNA fragments of known function. It is not possible at this time to design a gene that can perform a given biological function. So basically, what they have done is, they have engineered a 3 Mbp plasmid using genes that exist in nature. That in itself is an accomplisment but I would not call the result a "synthetic genome". The concept of genome implies a consistent and complete biological function set and that, nobody has managed to "synthesize" yet.

  27. seems to agree to me by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    The word `God` has limited connotations in English. If it just means creator then the creator is god to this form of life.

    If alien life plants us a long time ago then would that alien life be god?

    What if that alien life views not only out reality but knows much more than we do, such as operating through other dimensions... and the only way to communicate this at the time was through genetic knowledge of a creator and the concept of `god` that the meaning of which has changed over time.

    If that is so, then does the relationship between the bacteria and the scientist mirror religious legend? (allowing for variation in the passed down knowledge by averaging what all the religions say).

    Remember, most disagreements are misunderstandings on what a word means. God means different things to different people.
    Every time we witness disagreement, examine the meaning of the words involved and develop agreement on what the words mean.

    --
    A blog I run for the wealth
  28. ETC patent challenge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone have any information on the status of the ETC Group's challenge to the patent on Synthia? I find this issue fascinating -- in part because in the future, biotech companies could potentially find a way around the "naturally occurring" limitations on patenting organisms by creating synthetic versions of the organisms, instead. This could have far-reaching effects on patent law in general, the Myriad case in particular, and many other biotech issues ... not to mention bioethics, the future of humankind, etc. Please keep us informed on further developments!

  29. Bacteria evolve faster... by micromuncher · · Score: 1

    Students of genetics know that organisms with short life spans and simpler structures evolve much quicker that complex organisms.

    A while back I had an idea to modify saccharomyces cerevisiae to include code for generating ligninase, xylanase, and cellulase. This would allow me to brew alcohol from wood etc. Presently the enzymes are harvested from aspergillus niger. Production and recovery are expensive.

    So in comes a brewing bacteria that can "liquify wood." Wait. What if this bacteria were released into the environment in an uncontrolled fasion? What if it mutates? Wouldn't the result be catastrophic?

    --
    /\/\icro/\/\uncher