Slashdot Mirror


Genetically Engineered Silkworms Spin Spider Silk

disco_tracy writes "Silkworms have been modified to produce spider silk, creating a fabric that could be used in everything from bulletproof clothing to artificial tendons." For some reason, this is far less revolting to me than the idea of spider silk being milked out of goats.

188 comments

  1. Spider-Worm Spider-Worm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does whatever a spider, um...

    1. Re:Spider-Worm Spider-Worm... by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

      ...Forms?

      --
      Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    2. Re:Spider-Worm Spider-Worm... by neoshroom · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our new spider-worm overlords.

      --
      Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    3. Re:Spider-Worm Spider-Worm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Does whatever a spider, erm...

      FTFY.

  2. Don't start with the milk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone dear to me didn't survive the milk, you see.. the cow tipped over.. and..
    *runs*

  3. That's olds! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How it's made TV show already mentioned that in the Techno Flash segment, BACK IN SEASON 1!!!

  4. In another universe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...alien beings are harvesting silk from genetically-modified humans.

    1. Re:In another universe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it pleasurable for human? It was for me.

    2. Re:In another universe... by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Gulp down a long thread of dental floss, next day, you'll see how pleasurable it is :P

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  5. Cool by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

    I am usually very critical of GMO tech but even I have to say this is cool.

    1. Re:Cool by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why? It's the most cutting edge technology in the world.. I don't know how you can call yourself a geek and not be at least marginally interested in it.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Cool by c0lo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's the most cutting edge technology in the world..

      For this specific case, I reckon qualifying this as the "best-protection-against-cutting-edges technology" would apply.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:Cool by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why?

      For a lot of reasons. It's being pursued without any caution whatsoever. Look at the Nazi scientists at Monsanto. Nearly killed the Monarch butterflies and have actively researched and implemented "death codes" into their projects to protect intellectual property that should have never been granted. Technology aside, they are far more damaging than the entertainment Mafiaa to the world with their lawsuits, strong arm tactics, reduced seed diversity, and just plain extortion of farmers the world over.

      Cool technology to be sure, but the people that are involved in it certainly don't seem to have humanity's interests at heart.

      Not to mention I feel that not enough research is really conducted to determine if the GMO food they are producing is really healthy in the first place. What are the real affects to humans eating it? Animals eating it? Affect on the environment in which it is grown (Monarch Butterflies again)?

      BTW, the poster said critical of the technology, and did not indicate any level of disinterest. I am greatly interested in GMO technology, but pursued correctly and safely and absolutely without any ridiculous BS of the deathcodes being inside it..

      You don't have to be crazy or disinterested in GMO to be highly critical of companies like Monsanto. I am sure someone will claim that I am trolling, ignorant, and misinformed of GMO. Perhaps that is true. My statements regarding Monsanto though, stand on well-known facts. Just maybe, maybe, GMO might be more accepted if Monsanto had never been formed as a company.

    4. Re:Cool by Hylandr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Mithril vest could become a reality again! I can't wait. and I am really glad they didn't do the Spider - Goats. Had a hard enough time getting rid of those things with my faithful Sting...

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    5. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool technology to be sure, but the people that are involved in it certainly don't seem to have humanity's interests at heart.

      Greed *is* one of humanity's interests, and if you're going to play the, "Oh noes, bad people!" card, I'm going to have to ask what your opinion is on the space shuttle (military - aka, folks who kill other folks for a living), the Internet (again, military), GPS (yet again, military)...

    6. Re:Cool by EdIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. That is an incorrect analogy. I did not say I was not interested in GMO, in fact, I explicitly stated that I was interested. What I was responding to was a question of why somebody could be critical of GMO technology. There is a difference between criticism and disinterest.

      You also seem to be claiming that I am willing to completely write-off and demonize a technology simply because some people have done a bad thing with it. Not true. Once again, my post was clear about that.

      GMO is, to me, a clearly abused technology in the hands of dangerous people with questionable motives.

    7. Re:Cool by QuantumG · · Score: 0, Troll

      No.. what I'm implying is that you're too ignorant of the technology to understand why the scare mongering is not only blatantly wrong but also outright stupid.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    8. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More testing goes into GM food then organic food.

      How much research would you be happy with until we confirm GM food is fine? There is currently no empirical evidence to the contrary with extensive studies done.

      Your view seems more emotional then rational.

    9. Re:Cool by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The GP clearly hates the way Monstanto abuses GMO technology (and with good reason), equating this to hatred and/or ignorance of GMO technology is blatantly wrong.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    10. Re:Cool by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1, Troll

      Actually I'm very interested in GM and as a result I have done quite a bit of research on the subject.

      My criticism of it usually is in regards to how it is being applied with little, if any, real regard to its impact on the environment. Also a concern is the moral, legal and cultural ramifications of the technology. Particularly in situations where profit is being placed above responsible use. I mean come on, patents on a string of amino acids?

      And there are too many questions, to many inconclusive or questionable reports into the effects (good and bad) of the tech when introduced into the environment, for me to be the enthusiastic supporter I once was.

      I really don't think we know enough about it to use it safely and effectively, with continued research one day we will. Until then we need to be very, very, careful.

      Here is a near miss that didn't get much press. The modified K. Planticola would be considered a bio weapon if a terrorist had been found with it. And keep in mind the modified organism had been cleared through the "proper channels" for release into the wild. That and many other stories have made me advocate caution, next time we may not be so lucky.

      Indeed, our luck may already have run out, we just don't know it yet.

      _

    11. Re:Cool by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 4, Informative

      FYI, the Monarch butterfly report showing harm was discredited due to the concentrations of pollen placed on the milkweed. It was way more than would normally by found in the wild.

      And thank your for for the support.

      That said, here are some links you might find informative;

      Monsanto
      more Monsanto
      Yet more Monsanto (busy aren't they)
      intersting site
      Canola
      GM canola in the wild
      Possible wipe out of terrestrial plant life
      another one

      Have fun reading.

      _

    12. Re:Cool by YaHooL · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am usually very critical of GMO tech but even I have to say this is cool.

      With great GMO tech, comes great responsibility.

    13. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interested, sure. Terrified of what large amoral vested interested will do with certain varieties of GM technology? Also yes.

    14. Re:Cool by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      Indeed, hence my usual caution in regards to GMO.

      When you have the power to destroy something you have responsibility for it. Like it or not.

      I'm just glade this is not the sort of GMO that they would want to release into general environment. Considering the near wipe out of terrestrial plants back in 1992 I think letting this tech out of the lab is generally a very bed idea right now.

    15. Re:Cool by amorsen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Danish studies have shown clear correlation between how well informed people are about GMO and how positive their attitude is towards it. The correlation is negative.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    16. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wait, you criticize the lack of caution, and complain about death-codes that would act as a fail-safe in case a modified plant started to infest an ecosystem?

    17. Re:Cool by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Look at the Nazi scientists at Monsanto.

      To be fair, Monsanto has changed recently: wearing SS uniforms in the lab is no longer strictly mandatory.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    18. Re:Cool by digitig · · Score: 1

      When I'm cleaning the house it's hard for me to believe that there's not enough spider silk in the world already.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    19. Re:Cool by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is that what the death codes are there for? I thought they were there so farmers have to keep buying seed from Monsanto even if they treble the price once self-perpetuating varieties have gone the way of the dodo.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:Cool by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 2, Informative

      you must have missed the article we had a few months ago about the farmer that finally won his case against Monstanto. It included links to some *VERY* compelling evidence that GP's stance on Monstanto is not hot air and scare mongering.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    21. Re:Cool by mobby_6kl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Studies have also shown a clear correlation between making wild claims and citing sources. The correlation is negative.

    22. Re:Cool by ByteSlicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You nead a reason why genetically modified food is bad? Well, let's see:

      They genetically altered a major food source (grain) without really knowing the long term consequences (the splicing and insertion of new genes basically occurs in random places of the target DNA).
      Because they 'enhanced' it (made it resistant to the weedkiller they sell), they made it very attractive to cultivate.
      This, combined with aggressive marketing lead to world-wide use of their altered grain varieties (which they control completely through patents).
      The genetically altered grain cross-breads with non-altered grains, so eventually the whole world will have GE grain.

      Now imagine that this altered grain turns out to be particulary vulnerable to some new strain of virus.
      These things happen, but with sufficient genetic variety, only a small part of the crops are affected.
      But since we basically created a grain monoculture, most of the crops will be lost. Sure there are some reserves, but not in sufficient quantities to prevent famine.
      And it would take years to turn the limited amount of unaltered grain (which btw people would want to eat) in sufficient starter seed for the whole world.

      That's why genetically modified food is a bad thing when controlled by mega corporations.

    23. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But - and I am only saying this because I care - there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.

    24. Re:Cool by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Mithril vest could become a reality again!

      This reminds me...can anyone explain how spider silk can be made into bullet-proof vests?

      When someone starts shooting at my house, I don't immediately think "Let me go find a spider-web to hide behind". At my house. When the shooting starts.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    25. Re:Cool by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You make some good points.

      It also occurs to me that there's been genetically modified products in the food supply in the US for years now. The "high-fructose corn syrup" that's in everything you can buy at a 7-11 is almost always from genetically modified corn (because that's the best way to sell it into the US food supply). And it's interesting that right about the time this started obesity went out of fucking control in America.

      I'm not saying there's a correlation, but I would not be surprised to find that there's a correlation. Whenever I think of the companies that control our food supply, I think of the companies that control our energy supply. And the companies that control our health care supply. And the companies that control our bandwidth supply. Have they proven they can be trusted with more responsibility?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    26. Re:Cool by imamac · · Score: 3, Informative

      Of course not. And a few fibers of kevlar won't either. Put together tightly makes a bit of difference, though.

    27. Re:Cool by morari · · Score: 1

      No shit more testing goes into GM food than organic food. GM food is a freakshow that has unknown long-term effects for humans, animals, and the environment. Organic food on the other hand is food that is simply grown without tampering, the way it has been done for thousands of years.

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    28. Re:Cool by soupforare · · Score: 1

      I'm completely indifferent about GMO food, but even before GMO corn, they were using cultivars that you would never use to eat for HFCS. It's not anything new and if there is a correlation I'd wager it with the HFCS, not the fact that it was sourced from GMO corn. Look at the refining process, the "corn" becomes not very quickly.

      --
      --- Do you believe in the day?
    29. Re:Cool by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Getting your science info from a site called "purefood.org" (which links to a "study" funded by the Green Party) is generally a bad idea. The modified strain of K. Planticola (SDF20) was shown to be unsuitable because the byproducts could not be used in the manner intended, not because it was going to cause Global Disaster(tm). The claims made in that article go way beyond what the actual studies showed, and aren't supported by the data.

      Scaremongering FUD != science.

    30. Re:Cool by spud603 · · Score: 1

      Do you *not* understand that you haven't contributed a single argument to this thread? Refutation of somebody's point should ideally include some counter-evidence, or at a bare minimum a logical claim. The statements "you're a moron" and "you don't know enough to be talking about this" don't count as refutations. They just make you sound like an angry high-school student arguing with his/her parents.

    31. Re:Cool by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      And a few fibers of kevlar won't either. Put together tightly makes a bit of difference, though.

      I wasn't trying to be a smart-ass, I was really curious.

      For that matter, I don't see how fibers of kevlar make a bulletproof vest, either. I've got to do a little reading, I guess...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    32. Re:Cool by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, thanks.

      There's got to be something. We're starting to see a different kind of fat people in the past few decades, the kind of fat that you can't get to just by eating too much.

      I know people who have gotten fat from eating too much, and it doesn't look like the kind of Jabba the Hut fat that you see if you walk around a Wal-Mart or ride the #20 Madison bus. And little kids. Hell, they haven't had enough time to eat enough to get as fat as they are.

      There's something happening in our food supply that wasn't happening 30 years ago. There's been white bread and mac and cheese on the shelves forever. Soda pop too. This new fatness is some lab-created mega-fatness, I bet.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    33. Re:Cool by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Common silk is reasonably bullet resistant. You can shoot a low caliber bullet at a silk hanky (held by the top) and the bullet will push the silk aside rather than penetrate it. Spider silk is much stronger, ergo, better for this sort of thing.

      Kevlar body armor is generally formed of kevlar cloth sewn in layers, backed by hard metal or ceramic plates. The bullet will absolutely penetrate, but (generally) won't go all the way through.

      A material with a higher tensile strength will offer better protection because the bullet will dissipate more energy punching through the layers. Ideally you could cut weight as well (which is the biggest problem with body armor).

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    34. Re:Cool by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Monsanto has NEVER been concerned about the environmental effects of their chemicals (or genetic engineering for that matter). I grew up 2 miles south of the Sauget plant, and before the Clean Air Act you literally could not breathe driving past; the air burned one's lungs. You had to have the windows rolled up driving past, even on a blistering hot day (and cars didn't have AC back then).

      Monsanto is a very, very evil company. They're worse than Sony, and after I was victimized by their XCP rootkit I hate Sony with a passion. But at least Sony isn't ruining the environment like Monsanto is.

    35. Re:Cool by operagost · · Score: 1

      I don't see how creating a "grain monoculture" is a necessary consequence of GMO. Some farmers are still going to use non-engineered grain unless the government makes them (which is far more likely than a company like Monsato getting an absolute monopoly). GMO and a lack of diversity are two different things. You can have a lack of genetic diversity without GMO.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    36. Re:Cool by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gram for gram, spider webs are stronger than steel (or at least have more tensils strength).

    37. Re:Cool by davev2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Citation Needed

      Honestly, you sound like a paranoid, Luddite, conspiracy theorist.

    38. Re:Cool by teslafreak · · Score: 1

      It works by causing the force to be spread over a wider area. The material just has to be tough enough to not let the bullet punch through, but deform the surface instead. You still take the force of the bullet, but since the force is spread out, it doesn't have enough energy in a small enough space to make a hole through you (I am told it still hurts a heck of a lot though).

    39. Re:Cool by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think he's a naive moron you might try educating him, if you do in fact know what you're talking about.

      Farmer A plants GM corn. Farmer B plants non-GM corn. Pollen from A's corn pollenates B's corn, which he uses part of as seed corn for the next season. B has now infringed Monsantos patent on the gene sequence of his crop. That's just evil on Monsanto's part.

      Now explain to me (or give a link) why Monsanto couldn't have possibly unknowingly introduced a genetic weakness that makes it suceptable to some plant disease? He's not talking about introducing a virus that will affect humans or animals, he's talking about unintentionally introducing a genetic weakness that could affect future corn crops. His argument was logical, your "argument" was worthless and your analogy idiotic.

    40. Re:Cool by SurlyJest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, what makes you think that we aren't (mostly) using monoculture strains now? I don't see this as a compelling argument for that reason - most large agriculture is already monoculture (http://bss.sfsu.edu/fischer/IR%20305/Readings/global.htm). Not that that's a good thing, but it's the way it is because, presumably, it is economically desirable - at least until the next rust fungus or whatever shows up that targets the favored strain(s).

    41. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps I'm just slow, but how could cross-pollination create a monoculture? Last I checked, all our monoculture-type food sources were, y'know, clones of the original plant. That's, erm, why their genome is identical leaving them vulnerable to parasites, whereas cross-pollination would only create more hybridization and _less_ of a monoculture.

      Stupid facts with their informative nature....

    42. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of the ills you list are not limited to gene splicing. Geneticists are doing what cultivators have done for thousands of years: propagate favorable characteristics (and the genes which cause them) to later generations. One difference, though, is that direct genetic modification causes evolution (change in the genetic composition of a population) within a single generation instead of a much more gradual change.

      In either case, if we get to the point of a monoculture, we run the risks of inbreeding - undesirable recessive genes become more and more manifest, or all individuals of the population share a common susceptibility. This is why we need to reintroduce older, wild genes back into the population from time to time.

      Speaking of genetically modifying foods, what do you know of Canola oil? Corn oil is derived from corn; sesame seed oil from sesame seeds; olive oil from olives. What is a canola? Canola is a brand name awarded to a Canadian company for their genetically modified rape seed.

    43. Re:Cool by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 1

      While I'm not saying the high fructose this and partially hydrogenated that isn't a component...people are less active now than they were in years past, especially kids. The portions of food sold are larger, and more economic if you buy in bulk. Coke originally came in 8 oz. bottles, then the primary seller became 12 oz cans, now it's a 20 oz or 600ml bottles. This is purely anecdotal, but as a kid (I'm over 30) it was pretty much a treat to eat out, even fast food. Now, people eat regularly at fast food restaurants. Bottom line: people now stuff their face with much more food, and are much less active. Net result is a lot of fat people.

    44. Re:Cool by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      There are other things to worry about -- the mechanism of the anti-propagation gene, for example. If it is not a makes-no-pollen gene (natural mutations like this exist, useful in cut flowers to prevent messy pollen drops), then it can escape into the wild. What does that do to the fertility of the open-crossed corn?

      OR, suppose you had a recessive makes-no-pollen gene, crossed some regular corn onto it (have to, to make corn) and then some of the resulting corn crop makes it into the seed stream? Those seeds will grow and make corn, but 1/4 of their children will make no pollen. Problem? Maybe, maybe not (there will be other pollinators).

    45. Re:Cool by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah but were those studies Danish?

    46. Re:Cool by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      What is a canola? Canola is a brand name awarded to a Canadian company for their genetically modified rape seed.

      "Rape seed" sounds like japanese porn.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    47. Re:Cool by jgostling · · Score: 1

      So a study funded by Big Megacorp would be more reliable than a study funded by the Green Party? Maybe, maybe not. The money-driven science argument cuts both ways. The way the world seems to be going, we mere mortals might as well flip a coin on this and many other really important issues.

      Cheers!

    48. Re:Cool by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Other posters have covered the concept of spreading the force and deformation, for a quick example imagine this:

      Pick up a piece standard letter paper. Stretch it out and you could easily punch through it, or even just poke a hole through it with your finger (ie: bullet). Now take an entire ream of paper (200-400 sheets?) and attempt to do the same.

      Kevlar has the advantage that it has longer fibers than paper, and is stronger. Therefore you don't need an entire ream-thick stack of kevlar, but only several dozen layers to achieve the same effect.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    49. Re:Cool by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      But at least Sony isn't ruining the environment like Monsanto is.

      Well, they might be ruining the environment, but it's a side effect, not the business model. ;)

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    50. Re:Cool by VolciMaster · · Score: 1

      Common silk is reasonably bullet resistant. You can shoot a low caliber bullet at a silk hanky (held by the top) and the bullet will push the silk aside rather than penetrate it.

      That's true of a cotton handkerchief as well. Being "pushed aside" but the shockwave off the bullet is NOT equivalent to "bullet resistant". If you're standing behind the "hanky" while the bullet is pushing it aside, you're still going to get hit.

    51. Re:Cool by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Canola is a brand name awarded to a Canadian company for their genetically modified rape seed.

      You fail to mention that non-GM rape seed and its oil are poisonous.

      By genetically modifying the rape seed, Canola substantially increased the world's food supply.

      But GM is evil right?

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    52. Re:Cool by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      It probably is, try punching in Raipu Sheedo in Google and find out!

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    53. Re:Cool by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Wait it's probably "Reipu Sheedo", or maybe Sheedu, give them all a try.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    54. Re:Cool by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mmmmmmm... Daaaaanishhh....

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    55. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This particular line of thinking is covered very well in the book titled "The Windup Girl", essentially covering mega-corporations producing diseases to kill off their opponents engineered grain, and vice-versa. Very good read indeed.

    56. Re:Cool by AI0867 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ceramic (or metal) plates are only used when you need to go up against rifle rounds. Standard vests that can protect against handguns typically consist of many layers of kevlar bonded together with resin to provide stiffness. (so it actually stops the bullet, rather than being dragged along with it into your body)

    57. Re:Cool by tibman · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that a bullet could puncture a silk cloth if it was held in a frame. But i have heard that it's possible that if someone is shot/stabbed while wearing a silk shirt, the knife will still pass into their body.. just not puncture the silk. So the victim will still have a deep hole in them but no hole in the silk shirt.

      There is a similar effect with bullet proof vests (w/o plates).. the vest will usually deform and push an inch or two into the body (possibly cracking ribs and severely brusing) but no actual penetration occured of the vest.. in this scenerio the person "wasn't shot" but still sustained a minor injury.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    58. Re:Cool by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Farmer A plants GM corn. Farmer B plants non-GM corn. Pollen from A's corn pollenates B's corn, which he uses part of as seed corn for the next season. B has now infringed Monsantos patent on the gene sequence of his crop. That's just evil on Monsanto's part.

      Wrong.

      See, this is what annoys me. Are you being naive or deliberately deceptive?

      Here's how it really goes: Farmer B is buying Round Up - a pesticide - from Monsanto. Monsanto finds this odd as Farmer B doesn't seem to have a contract for Round Up Ready seed. Suspecting that Farmer B may be cleaning seed - an activity prohibited under Monsanto seed contracts to prevent passing on mutations which may reduce the effectiveness of Round Up Ready seed - they send out an investigator. He discovers that Farmer B is indeed using Monsanto Round Up Ready seed with Round Up, that is, he is knowingly violating Monsanto's patent. When asked where he got the seed from, he claims he doesn't know and it must have been cross-pollination.

      The drooling public latch onto the last claim and ignore the rest. They go on to claim that Farmer B was using Monsanto seed without using Round Up - FALSE. They go on to claim that Farmer B was ignorant that he had been using Monsanto seed - FALSE, he was using Round Up on his crops, that'd be stupid if he didn't know his crops were Round Up Ready. They go on to claim that Farmer B never signed a contract for seed so he can't be bound by the patent - FALSE. They go on to claim that Monsanto is evil - fucking childish non-legal argument.

      Oh, and then there's the seed cleaners.. independent contractors who aid farmers to violate their signed agreements with Monsanto by preparing the seed for replanting. Monsanto provides them with kits to test the seed to ensure it is not Round Up Ready, they refuse to use them because it reduces their business.

      And look above in this thread for all the stupid arguments that have been presented over the years which NEVER DIE regardless of how easily they are discredited by just seconds of critical thought and getting your information from IMPARTIAL SOURCES.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    59. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I had more time to show you just how wrong you are, but here's the short version.

      They genetically altered a major food source (grain) without really knowing the long term consequences (the splicing and insertion of new genes basically occurs in random places of the target DNA).

      Bullshit. Those things go through years of rigorous study. NEVER has any commercially available GMO been found to produce something harmful, or in lab tests, have negative effects.

      Because they 'enhanced' it (made it resistant to the weedkiller they sell), they made it very attractive to cultivate.

      Google 'no till agriculture.'

      This, combined with aggressive marketing lead to world-wide use of their altered grain varieties (which they control completely through patents).

      That's like saying that music is bad because the RIAA are pricks.

      The genetically altered grain cross-breads with non-altered grains, so eventually the whole world will have GE grain.

      Luckily, there are genetic use restriction technology to prevent this. Unfortunately, the anit-GMO lot will go bonkers if you ever implement it, 'cause GMOs are bad if they can spread, they're bad if they can't. Facepalm.

      Now imagine that this altered grain turns out to be particulary vulnerable to some new strain of virus.

      ...now imagine that vaccines cause autism.

      These things happen, but with sufficient genetic variety, only a small part of the crops are affected.
      But since we basically created a grain monoculture, most of the crops will be lost. Sure there are some reserves, but not in sufficient quantities to prevent famine.

      We've had monoculture for years. Irish potato famine. 70's corn failure. Fall of the Gros Michael banana. It's bad. But GMOs are as much to blame as tractors. Sure, they're not being used as well as they should, but that isn't an argument against them.

    60. Re:Cool by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      So a study funded by Big Megacorp would be more reliable than a study funded by the Green Party?

      False Dichotomy

      The way the world seems to be going, we mere mortals might as well flip a coin on this and many other really important issues.

      I'm not sure what your definition of "mere mortal" is, but if your conclusion is inherent in the definition then your "we" doesn't include me. You're more than welcome to go around flipping coins - I prefer a more scientific approach.

    61. Re:Cool by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

      Getting your science info from a site called "purefood.org" (which links to a "study" funded by the Green Party) is generally a bad idea.

      So getting all my information from sites run by bio-tech firms would be better? I do read their sites to get their side of the issue. Its always good to consider all sides of an argument don't you think?

      The modified strain of K. Planticola (SDF20) was shown to be unsuitable because the byproducts could not be used in the manner intended, not because it was going to cause Global Disaster(tm).

      Ah, yes. The "Official" excuse is always the real one.

      The claims made in that article go way beyond what the actual studies showed, and aren't supported by the data.

      A valid point. The original researcher never claimed a global disaster, he just raised the point in his Ph.D thesis (he got it by the way) that wheat plants died when the modified K.planticola was present and they didn't when the unmodified strain was present.

      You can read the original paper if you wish: Holmes, M.T., E.R. Ingham, J.D. Doyle and C.W. Hendricks. 1999. Effects of Klebsiella planticola SDF20 on soil biota and wheat growth in sandy soil. Applied Soil Ecology 11: 67-78.

      It was the journalist who wrote the article who hyped it up.

      But lets consider some facts;
      this modified bacterium generates alcohol from cellulose
      the unmodified strain is found on the roots of pretty much every terrestrial plant on the planet
      cellulose is found in the roots of plants
      plants die when their roots are exposed to alcohol at the levels this modified bacterium could generate on their roots

      From these facts, and these are facts, you can draw a logically valid conclusion that there was a risk that the modified strain of K.Planticola could have had unexpected and undesired effects on the environment if it was released.

      Even if it wasn't a "Global Disaster"(TM) it still could have been very, very, bad. Note I didn't say would, I said could, if you can't grasp the subtleties of the that distinction then maybe you should take a refresher course in English.

      One thing I want to make perfectly clear. I do not advocate the discontinuation of research into genetically modifying organisms. I advocate caution, until such time that science has a better understanding of the techniques and effects of the technology.

      _

    62. Re:Cool by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      So I'm a moron just because you say so? Oh please! What are you, a five year old?

    63. Re:Cool by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      It isn't. Nor did I say it is.
      Western agriculture is heavily subsidized by the government (both in the US and in Europe). This makes farming certain crops more attractive than others.
      In large parts of India the ground water levels are dropping because the water is being used to grow huge fields of lettuce, which is grown for global corporations like McDonald's and others.
      Local farmers are strongly discouraged by their governments to cultivate anything else.
      The governments in turn are strongly 'persuaded' by the mega corporations.
      Even in the USA/Europe these corporations have a lot of influence on the government, so the government tends to subsidize those crops that are most profitable for the corporations. Local farmers earn most by cultivating these crops, hence encouraging mono cultures.
      In itself, GM food isn't bad. But replacing all our old crop strains with GM species that are not yet genetically stable and might turn out inedible in a few generations might not be the smartest move man can make. So it is the combination of the two that makes it bad.

    64. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the hybrids they already use?

    65. Re:Cool by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      Well we are (using monuculture strains). In part thanks to corporations like Monsanto.
      My point is that if you replace a whole generation of annual crops like grain with a GM variety, then this new generation will be even more vulnerable than the old monoculture, due to unknown genetic defects. At least the old strains evolved naturally (albeit selected by man), and proved their genetic stability for many generations.
      And since grain is grown from previous year's harvest, it will be very costly if the next generation turns out nonviable.
      So while monocultures are bad, GM monocultures are even worse.

    66. Re:Cool by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      Because they aggressively enforce their patents, Monsanto will destroy the hybrids when they find out. They basically just spray your field with Roundup to check this. Anything that survives has their IP and cannot be replicated.
      So then the farmer isn't allowed to use seeds from that generation to grow the next one. And so his cultivar (which may be many generations old) is lost and has to be replaced with new seeds.
      Which seeds does he get? Probably the Monsanto variety, since otherwise he'd risk cross-pollination and starting over again.

    67. Re:Cool by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      NEVER has any commercially available GMO been found to produce something harmful

      I think the Monarch butterfly would disagree (if it could speak for itself).
      But I was mainly speaking of genetic defects that would make the crops inedible or inviable within a few generations.
      I'm not against GM food per se, I'm just arguing that it might not be smart to bet the future of mankind on monocultures of genetically not-proven-stable food crops.

    68. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the Monarch, that was never proven conclusive, mostly because it was shown false, but even if we assume it's true, the Bt crops in question would still be worth it, because it's pretty much universally accepted at this point that the reduced need for pesticides is beneficial to non-target insect biodiversity.

      As for genetic instability, that's a new one on me. It sounds extremely unlikely, unlikely to the level that it doesn't merit much concern. All they're doing is inserting a few genes in most cases. I've never read so much of a shred of evidence, credible or otherwise, suggesting such a thing as a result of genetic engineering. Hell, everything already has foreign genes in it (humans DNA is at least 3% virus). If anything was going to fall apart because of that, it already would have eons ago. Or look at corn; if it was going to become unstable at the genetic level I think the jumping genes would have done that by now.

      As for monocultures, well, I can't argue with that. I'd love to see more variety in both the species and varieties of species grown for food. Substitute some of the food supply; apples with jujubes, oranges with cherimoya, wheat with teff, potatoes with oca, lettuce with chaya. Add in old time heirloom varieties of tomato, or breed in new genes to bananas from wild populations. That's a good thing.

      But at the moment, monoculture is what we have, and it's going to stay that way until people start to pay more attention to their food and create a demand for biodiverse crops, and in the meantime, there isn't much reason not to use genetic engineering. At least, no legitimate, science based reason anyway. Most of the arguments against GMOs are based the anti-GE side's poor understanding for the subject, and most, if not all, the arguments people hear against GMOs are rooted in ignorance, even if they are dressed up to look reasonable. We've already been tinkering with the genes for hundreds of years (for example, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, kohlrabi, and kale are all the same species, altered through years of human breeding, and corn didn't even exist before humans came along). Genetic engineering is just one step further, more precise, altering less genes at the time of transformation. And given the benefits we've already gotten out of genetic modification (modification as opposed to engineering) I would say it is far riskier to do nothing.

    69. Re:Cool by paleryder57 · · Score: 1

      You say: "When someone starts shooting at my house." If that happens anywhere near your house I would move!" (unless, of course, you live next to a shooting range)

  6. A few more techs to go for Silksteel by rsborg · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From the Alpha Centauri archives:

    "Until quite recently, spider silk had the highest tensile strength of any substance known to man, and the name Silksteel pays homage to the arachnid for good reason."

    Commissioner Pravin Lal
    "U.N. Scientific Survey"

    Some of the best (sometimes prophetic) fictional quotes ever.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:A few more techs to go for Silksteel by Dyinobal · · Score: 1

      Alpha Centauri was great and it was the small things that made it so great.

    2. Re:A few more techs to go for Silksteel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what do you mean was .. ;-)

    3. Re:A few more techs to go for Silksteel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've just shot straight through a spider web with a pellet gun. The fucking pellet didn't even slow down!

    4. Re:A few more techs to go for Silksteel by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      "Remember, genes are NOT blueprints. This means you can't, for example, insert "the genes for an elephant's trunk" into a giraffe and get a giraffe with a trunk. There are no genes for trunks. What you CAN do with genes is chemistry, since DNA codes for chemicals. For instance, we can in theory splice the native plants' talent for nitrogen fixation into a terran plant."

      Academician Prokhor Zakharov
      "Nonlinear Genetics"

    5. Re:A few more techs to go for Silksteel by BobisOnlyBob · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tensile_strength#Typical_tensile_strengths

      Note on spider silk strength: The strength of spider silk is highly variable. It depends on many factors including type of silk (every spider can produce several different types for different purposes), the particular species, the age of the silk, the temperature, the humidity, the rate at which stress is applied during testing, the length of time the stress is applied and the way the silk is collected (forced silking or natural spinning). The value shown in the table, 1000 MPa, is roughly representative of the results from a few studies involving several different species of spider however specific results varied greatly.

      Of course, the Darwin's Bark Spider has silk with an ultimate tensile strength of 27,600 MPa, contested only by Carbon Nanotubes...

      Also, respect to Alpha Centauri. I love that game and all its beautiful little quotes. I especially like the already-posted "Nonlinear Genetics" one.

    6. Re:A few more techs to go for Silksteel by mike2R · · Score: 1

      "We hold life to be sacred, but we also know the foundation of life consists in a stream of codes not so different from the successive frames of a watchvid. Why then cannot we cut one code short here, and start another there? Is life so fragile that it can withstand no tampering? Does the sacred brook no improvement?"

      Chairman Sheng-ji Yang
      Dynamics of Mind

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    7. Re:A few more techs to go for Silksteel by laron · · Score: 1

      *points to sig*

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
  7. Almost there by Entropy98 · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Compared to normal spider silk, it's not as strong," said Malcolm Fraser, a scientist from the University of Notre Dame. "But we are confident that, this being our first attempt, that we will be able to tweak the system to bring the system closer to the strength of true spider silk."
    --
    windows media codec pack

    1. Re:Almost there by c0lo · · Score: 1

      "Compared to normal spider silk, it's not as strong," said Malcolm Fraser, a scientist from the University of Notre Dame. "But we are confident that, this being our first attempt, that we will be able to tweak the system to bring the system closer to the strength of true spider silk.">

      Double the points if the silk worms will start catching flies instead of eating 104 kg of mulberry leaves for each kilo of silk.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Almost there by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I'm wondering is how long it will be before they can get something working that is *stronger* than spider silk.

    3. Re:Almost there by KingFrog · · Score: 1

      Right now, I'd settle for "As strong" as spider silk. Cross-sectional wise, it's one of the strongest materials out there. If we could cable bridges with the stuff, we'd need a LOT less cable than we do with steel.

    4. Re:Almost there by ultranova · · Score: 5, Funny

      Double the points if the silk worms will start catching flies instead of eating 104 kg of mulberry leaves for each kilo of silk.

      Triple the points if the worms escape, block the doors to the laboratory with unbreakable spider silk sheet, then eat the scientists.

      Quadruple them if they somehow mutate into an army of Shelobs and terrorize the general population.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Almost there by Keerok · · Score: 1

      No mod points, but that was funny!

    6. Re:Almost there by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      We can already make several substances that are stronger than spider silk, but it is very expensive.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    7. Re:Almost there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please be a kind netizen and put your signature in as a signature so that we who do not want to see them can disable the option.

  8. Spider Worms? by nofx_3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "They're takin our jerbs!"

    -The Spider Goats

    --
    Visualize Whirled Peas
    1. Re:Spider Worms? by ooshna · · Score: 2, Funny

      took er jerbs!

    2. Re:Spider Worms? by aiht · · Score: 1

      Visualize Whirled Peas

      *imagines green legumes in pods being spun around*
      ... I don't get it.
      Is that another way of making the spider silk?

    3. Re:Spider Worms? by stms · · Score: 2, Funny

      derber derrr!!!

    4. Re:Spider Worms? by freeworldtech · · Score: 0

      Spider Goat, Spider Goat, does whatever Spider Goat does.

    5. Re:Spider Worms? by HybridST · · Score: 1

      ddrrrrUUUUgggHHerrRRRrrrr....!!

      --
      Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
    6. Re:Spider Worms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's his sig, not part of the comment

    7. Re:Spider Worms? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      ... I don't get it.

      It's a pun, youngster, now get off my lawn.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    8. Re:Spider Worms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dey durkur durr!

    9. Re:Spider Worms? by Stupid+McStupidson · · Score: 1

      Pretty funny. Already commented on this article so you miss a 5 for funny.

    10. Re:Spider Worms? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Whirled Peas! Whirled Peas man! Everybody wishes for whirled peas. It's the human thing to do!

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  9. Just one client, but... by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Funny

    Using that silk should produce extra-sharp scytes...maybe you could even skip a lot of the required steps and sharpen them next directly with moonlight.

    1. Re:Just one client, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there's nothing like the light of dawn for sharpening scythes, or at least a certain Bill Door tells me so.

    2. Re:Just one client, but... by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      I wonder what ever happened to that nice Bill Door fellow anyway?

  10. Re:anyone got an Athlon II X4, please test it! by some_guy_88 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I agree, genetically engineered silkworms *are* cool.

  11. Relief by dark+grep · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well that's a relief. I much prefer the idea of a Really Big Silk Worm than a Really Big Spider to spin the cable for the space elevator. I for one welcome our new silk moth overlords.

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

      The Silk Must Flow.

    2. Re:Relief by osgeek · · Score: 1

      I came here just to see who would first mention "space elevator". Thanks.

    3. Re:Relief by sjames · · Score: 1

      The problem is right there in your post. One mistake and it's Mothra all over again!

  12. Brainless Scientists ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are doing the thing in reverse !!!

    Instead of inventing silkworms spitting out spider silk they should invent spiders that spitting out SILKWORM SILK that are very useful in making silk fabric !!

  13. Oh Great .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kimono Robes made with Spider silk, now you'll never get away from her, scary.

  14. Just wait until... by poly_pusher · · Score: 2, Funny

    somebody tries to tape these things to their wrists and jump out of a window in a leotard...

    1. Re:Just wait until... by Keerok · · Score: 1

      silk worms are quite plump, If said individual does try this, and tapes enough of them on, perhaps the worms could break the persons fall. if each Silkworm (Sw) has a force absorption of ..........( lots of pseudo math and physics and bogus assumptions)... then approximately 64k of them should be enough for anyone to safely try it :)

  15. Meanwhile in China by PatPending · · Score: 1

    Somewhere in China, a general is pleading, "Mr. President, we must not allow a silkworm spider silk gap! "

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    1. Re:Meanwhile in China by BergZ · · Score: 1

      Do they also make ironic comments such as: "Gentlemen! You can't fight in here: This is the war room!"

      --
      Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
  16. Spider Worm, Spider Worm, does whatever a... by __aatirs3925 · · Score: 0

    Spider Worm, Spider Worm, does whatever a Spider Worm does, can it swing, from a web, yes it can, because its a Spider Silk Worm, look out, here comes the Spider Wuuuuurm~~~

  17. That's amazing! by jcr · · Score: 1

    Hats off to the people who made this happen. I can't wait to buy shirts made out of spider silk.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:That's amazing! by tempest69 · · Score: 1

      I cant wait to buy ligaments and tendons at wholesale prices. Though spider-meniscus might be a while in making it through FDA trials.
      But it's Wyoming, so the real goal was to make something super expensive in the fly-fishing isle, because tourists love to equip with the expensive stuff.

  18. Stronger.. soon.. but stronger isnt the only point by tempest69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Spectra cable is right on par strengthwise, but it's a chemical nightmare to make compared to silk. You don't have to truck away thousands of gallons of spent sulfuric acid. Silk isn't rejected by the body. And if it can be made in the right organisms it can be pretty cheap. Goats or plants would make the fiber at a very reasonable price point, silkworms are still orders of magnitude better than spiders. As spiders eat the silk and each other.

  19. Opening cocoons by LongearedBat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, when silk worms finally do make silk as strong as spiders' silk, then will those silk moths be able to open their own cocoons?

    1. Re:Opening cocoons by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, when silk worms finally do make silk as strong as spiders' silk, then will those silk moths be able to open their own cocoons?

      That's a good thing. It's literally embedding a natural limiter for a genetic experiment. The stronger the silk, the less probable the organism will be able to escape and reproduce outside. If the thing does reproduce, I expect the offspring that will make it will be the ones with weaker silk, bringing balance to nature again. Unless, of course, stronger silk gives them an unknown reproductive advantage, which I really hope doesn't happen. (Crap, now I really got scared).

    2. Re:Opening cocoons by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Hopefully not, as that inability will keep them from spreading in the wild :-)

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    3. Re:Opening cocoons by jgostling · · Score: 1

      ...I expect the offspring that will make it will be the ones with weaker silk...

      or the higher strength.

      Cheers!

    4. Re:Opening cocoons by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      So, when silk worms finally do make silk as strong as spiders' silk, then will those silk moths be able to open their own cocoons?

      It's usually easier to cultivate silkworms because after the cocoon is made you want to collect them before they escape (and ruin the cocoon - you want unbroken thread). The process of silk making is you basically boil the cocoon to kill the worm inside, then you very varefully find the end of it and unwind the cocoon. It's a pretty manual process, but when they spin silk they often have 10-15 cocoons spinning in a vat of water being unwound with the threads being spun together. Yes, it also means near the end you have a carcass that drops out. Like little thread bobbins floating in water, except instead of the bobbin at the end you get a dead silkworm.

      But if the silk is too strong for them to get out, then they die in the cocoon without reproducing, which seems like a good idea to prevent spread (though you'd probably have to toss the cocoon as well - too much broken thread).

    5. Re:Opening cocoons by RancidPeanutOil · · Score: 3, Informative

      fwiw, silk is actually harvested before the worms break out of their cocoons by boiling the whole thing to melt the worm inside and loosen up the silk. But the actual process of breaking out of the cocoon isn't a strength issue, it's a chemical process where they secrete an enzyme to break down the thread. If the thread is chemically similar, then it wouldn't be a problem.

      If the enzyme does still work, they should manufacture that stuff in spray cans - it would make cleaning the corners of my room a hell of a lot easier.

    6. Re:Opening cocoons by excelsior_gr · · Score: 2, Informative

      The cocoons need to be intact in order for silk of any kind to be produced. The silk moths are not supposed to open their cocoons in the first place. Usually the silkworm pupae are killed while still inside the intact cocoon by heating them.

    7. Re:Opening cocoons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what use is a silk moth?

  20. Spider Silk Carpets by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Spider silk is already on the world market. I got a nice carpet on the living room floor - made in Belgium.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Spider Silk Carpets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice, you stole the only rug ever made out of spider silk? Shouldn't you have posted AC though?

  21. Re:anyone got an Athlon II X4, please test it! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    True. But how do you overclock them?

  22. FEH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am tired of the ridiculous "ten times stronger than Kevlar" or "ten times stronger than steel" and such garbage.

    For the record: Kevlar is not particularly strong, compared to other high-end materials. What it is though, is ductile - that is, absorbs a nice amount of energy while being plastically deformed. Spider silk does this even better.

    Steel can be had in strengths that vary between as low as 200 MPa (bad cast iron) to 3000 MPa (piano wire).
    Kevlar is somewhere at 800 MPa or so - stronger than regular construction steel (235-420 MPa) but weaker than hardened sheet steel (900-1300 MPa).
    The strongest material you may encounter outside of a laboratory is glass fiber, which can reach strengths of up to 5000 MPa.
    Carbon fiber is weaker (~2000 MPa) than glass fiber, but it is more rigid - which is the sought after property most of the time.
    Titanium, while having some nice properties, isn't incredibly strong either - around 1000 MPa at best.

    Even when considering density, steel usually holds its own quite well - especially when designing things that are supposed to have a certain rigidity, where steel really shines - and while exotic materials may have advantages they are never along the line of "ten times", more like "two times" at best.

    I'm a mechanical design engineer and I am really not amused when people show me their titanium golf clubs and claim that it is ten times stronger than steel an cost a hundred times more than gold, or other preposterous claims like that. Titanium is $100/kg, tops.

    1. Re:FEH by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Another good example of this is aluminium or titanium bike frames vs steel bike frames. Because rigidity is rather important in bikes, steel frames hold their own extremely well against the more exotic materials. The weight benefits of aluminium and titanium are offset by the fact that they have to make the tubes far thicker.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    2. Re:FEH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a lot of people don't understand how important elastic modulus is to a material, hell most people probably don't know what it is.

      a nice material to look out for is TWIP steel. It has some very very interesting properties basically very high strength and also very high ductility. It sits way out on it's own on a ductility v strength curve for steels.

    3. Re:FEH by Timmmm · · Score: 1

      Titanium is $100/kg, tops.

      Yeah but how much does it cost to machine?

    4. Re:FEH by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Similar thing with compressed gas cylinders (specifically scuba tanks). The wall thickness is *much* thinner for a steel tank than an aluminum one of similar pressures, so for the same mass of air and you can get away with a smaller tank and/or lower pressure. The resulting vessels end up being very close to the same mass despite aluminum's on-paper advantage in strength-to-weight ratio, which is killed by the maximum outer diameter that people are comfortable with handling.

      I'm still trying to figure out why steel scuba tanks cost *more* than aluminum ones, though, looking at the spot prices for each of those metals.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:FEH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention that spider silk is so elastic that, yes, it might catch a bullet if you made a vest. But not until after it is stretched enough that the bullet (and vest) are deep in your chest.

    6. Re:FEH by Churnits · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But to make a steel frame lighter than those made out of aluminium, titanium and carbon fibre the tube walls need to be so thin that they can be crushed between two fingers.

    7. Re:FEH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually steel makes for a more forgiving ride. too much rigidity isnt a good thing.

    8. Re:FEH by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      That's it, I'm getting a bullet proof vest out of knitted piano wire!

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    9. Re:FEH by Jartan · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I understand your argument. When we discuss strength in this context we obviously mean "suitability for a bulletproof vest" or "suitability to make a space elevator" etc. Strength does not equal MPa.

    10. Re:FEH by Creedo · · Score: 1

      What I find amusing is how many shops won't touch well maintained steel 72 SCUBA tanks. Ah, well, cheaper tanks for me.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    11. Re:FEH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either supply and demand or because aluminum is easier to process (softer metal).

    12. Re:FEH by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Well suitability to make an space elevator is tensile strenght, isn't it? That is measured in MPa. Anyway, the GP didn't care to clarify what kind of strength he was talking about, and I guess mixed all of them up.

      As a side note, I'd be quite suspicious of a suspension bridge made of fiberglass...

    13. Re:FEH by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

      Scuba tanks are not made of simple steel, they are an especially tough alloy that can handle the pressure cycles well. That factors into the cost.

    14. Re:FEH by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm still trying to figure out why steel scuba tanks cost *more* than aluminum ones, though, looking at the spot prices for each of those metals.

      Aluminum is easier to work with. Lower melting point, it's less demanding for machining, and a few other factors.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    15. Re:FEH by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      But to make a steel frame lighter than those made out of aluminium, titanium and carbon fibre the tube walls need to be so thin that they can be crushed between two fingers.

      Well... the thing is, there are two different goals in bike frame design: light weight and stiffness. (I'm presuming we don't care about durability.) Stiffness is, for the sake of this argument, a function of the cube of the diameter of the tubing and the specific modulus of elasticity of the material being used. The revolutionary idea Gary Klein had was that by using aluminum, with 1/3 the specific modulus of elasticity of steel, you only had increase the tubing diameter by the cube root of three, to get the same frame stiffness as a steel frame, while the frame weight was only a bit more than 1/3 as much as the steel bike, by using *really* thin aluminum tubing. As soon as he made that leap, titanium frames also made sense for the same general reason. But they both necessarily have very thin tubing, especially compared to steel, because a steel frame with an acceptable stiffness can be made with smaller-diameter tubing. So modern ultra-light-weigh steel bikes, made with True Temper S3, Reynolds 953, or Columbus OCx, can be built under 1300 grams, comparable, if not quite as light, as the lightest aluminum or titanium bikes, and only about 500 grams heavier than lightweight carbon frames. But at the same time, they're mechanically stronger because the ratio of the steel thickness to the tube diameter is *much* higher than a comparable aluminum tube. I've seen sub-1000 gram steel frames: Brent Steelman makes one, and I believe Rodriguez does as well. I can tell you for certain that the Indy Fab SSR and the Pegorotti Responsorium, which are both sub-1300-gram steel frames, are *markedly* more resistant to denting than a Cannondale aluminum downtube, because they're made from steel tubing that at its thinnest is still 0.3mm thick, and only 28mm in diameter, so it's much less suseptible to Euler column buckling than someone using, say, Easton Ultralight 7005 for a downtube, which is 1mm thick mid-tube but 60 mm in diameter. As a rule of thumb you start getting nervous when your tubing thickness is less than 1/20th of your tubing diameter, because past that it's getting quite suseptible to bucking, particularly if you have a dent.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    16. Re:FEH by Jartan · · Score: 1

      No it's tensile strength AND weight along with at least some attention to actual volume. It doesn't matter what unit the GP intended because there isn't a single unit that determines "strength" in this context period.

    17. Re:FEH by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's odd, according to Wikipedia steel tops out around 2700 MPa (similar to what you claim), but spider silk tops out around 27,000 MPa, or 10 times that of steel, though your run-of-the-mill spider will only produce around 1,000 MPa silk. Kevlar is about the same as the strongest steel (around 2,700 MPa), UHMDWPE fibers (Spectra) are a bit stronger. Piano wire only hits about 2500 MPa (pretty good for steel, but not the best).

      Titanium is as strong as low-grade steel (430-ish MPa), but is 45% lighter. In other words, you need a much higher grade steel (at least 800 MPa) to match the characteristics of titanium, and as you said titanium is cheep. High grade steel is not. That's why steel scuba tanks are more expensive. The bonus is as you mentioned though - they are about half as thick, though not any lighter (unless you go for even higher grade steel), so tanks can be a little smaller and still hold the same volume of air at the same pressure, or be the same size and hold the same volume of air at slightly lower pressure. Not a bad deal, but it's going to cost you some extra cash.

      Carbon fiber tops out at 6,370 MPa, more than twice that of steel. Pure silica glass fiber tops out at 4,000 MPa, but mono-crystalline silicon hits up to 7,000 MPa.

      The strongest material yet measured is multi-walled carbon nanotubes, with a tensile strength of 63 GPa, though theoretically they should be able to hit 300 GPa.

      In other words, I think you need to hit the books again man, your figures are way, way off.

      Why the hell would we use exotic materials if they were weaker and heavier than steel? Steel can only do so much, and it has been far, far surpassed by new materials.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    18. Re:FEH by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Sorry the scuba portion was directed at a poster below, my bad.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    19. Re:FEH by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Nah, you just make the frame out of very high strength steel.

      Of course, that steel is more expensive than titanium or aluminum, is more difficult to machine, and will therefore cost you quite a bit more for something that will give you something that is just as good as a titanium or aluminum bike.

      But steel is what we should be using for everything, right? :P

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    20. Re:FEH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps steel of the appropriate strength is harder to cast and mill, compared to aluminium?

    21. Re:FEH by tibman · · Score: 1

      BobisOnlyBob pointed out that "Darwin's Bark Spider has silk with an ultimate tensile strength of 27,600 MPa" and cited his source as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tensile_strength#Typical_tensile_strengths

      27,600 MPa is very close to 10x the highest number for steel that you put down. Easily more than 10x kevlar too.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    22. Re:FEH by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Not half as much as a steel that is strong enough to have the same strength to weight ratio.

      You need 700 MPa steel to match the strength to weight ratio of 400 MPa titanium (not quite pure). If you go with a titanium alloy the strength to weight is even better (it tops out at 1400 MPa in alloy form, while maintaining the very low density). You need steel around 2500 MPa to match that strength to weight ratio, and that's about as good as steel is going to get. The reason titanium is so difficult to work with is because of its high tensile strength. Iron is about half as strong, and much easier to work with, same with aluminum. So now you're going to replace it with something that has twice the tensile strength and is probably more expensive in bar form to boot?

      Yeah, that's going to save you a ton of money.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    23. Re:FEH by Timmmm · · Score: 1

      No, stuff is hard to machine due it its hardness, not tensile strength. Even stainless steel, which is bloody hard to machine has a lower hardness than titanium.

      Besides, I was refuting your implication that using titanium is cheap. I said nothing about steel, or strength to weight ratios.

    24. Re:FEH by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The alloy is stamped on the top of the tanks. Since I only actually own an aluminum pony bottle I'll have to dig through some product websites to check it out.

      IIRC, though, the last time I actually inspected one, it was one of the "standard alloys" printed on the back cover of my materials science book, so it can't be too economically non-competetive.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    25. Re:FEH by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      by smellsofbikes (890263)

      Ahh, that explains it ;D

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    26. Re:FEH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just outright rigidity, but the right amount of rigidity. Steel bike frames flex somewhat do absorb and rebound the pedalling action, aluminium is so rigid it doesn't do this. Same when they're designing cars/motorbikes, a certain amount of flex is desirable and steel can provide this unlike more exotic materials. Carbon fiber is probably closer to steel in this respect too.

  23. Re:anyone got an Athlon II X4, please test it! by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

    I think they even meet the criteria as well if you're careful when unwrapping the cocoons.

    Rough handling may cause them to go multi-threaded.

  24. ignorant and misinformed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    good god, the noun you want is effect.
    maybe you know as little about plant chromosomes as you do about english spelling?
    i won't even touch the godwin invocation
    shame on you, mods. if Monsanto is evil, wee need more than FUD for insight
    r.i.p. rational discussion on slashdot, it was good knowing you

  25. Electrospinning = automatic spider by fonske · · Score: 1

    Electrospinning is another way to obtain small fibers (nanometer order).
    In our lab experiments are setup around spinning polycaprolactone (proteins (spider silk) are also amides). The choice was made in function of the surface modification possibilities for medical purposes.
    Look up electrospinning in wikipedia.
    They are very brief on the applications but they got the theory right.
    It's a great way of testing basic knowledge of electricity.

  26. Anyone else see... by CeruleanDragon · · Score: 1

    A made-for-TV horror/sci-fi movie coming soon to the SyFy network? Megaspider Silkworm Invasion!

    --
    ad astra per alia porci
  27. Welcome new Overlords! by Greg01851 · · Score: 1

    I for one, welcome our new Spider Worm Overlords.

  28. Goats aren't the same by Woogiemonger · · Score: 1

    Silkworms are looking more promising than goats because they have the body parts to actually spin the silk. With goats, the silk gets filtered from the milk (which hopefully is disposed of) and then has to be spun via some post-processing technology. The best this has resulted in are threads that are around an order of magnitude thicker than spiders can manage, according to the highly-esteemed Wikipedia.

  29. Glowing red mutant eyes - awesome! by mbourgon · · Score: 1

    I read another article on this. To make sure the gene mutation took, they tied it to another one that makes the silkworms themselves glow when hit with a black light, and their eyes glow red. At least there's a reason these mutants have glowing red eyes!

    --
    "Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
  30. Spiders make different silks by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 1

    Some of it is stronger that other. As far as I know there are only a few examples of spider textiles -- http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/spider-silk/.

  31. What I Want by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    What I want is bulletproof tendons and artificial clothing. How about it, science?

    --
    -kgj
  32. Super-strong tonsils! by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    (or at least have more tensils strength)

    I realize you meant "tensile strength", but my brain produced some pretty weird imagery from my initial mis-parsing of this as "tonsils strength". :)

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  33. You're forgetting one thing . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are agruing (Y2K) with scientists (killer bees) about a scientific issue (Hubble Space Telescope) on a scientific website (STS Challenger). What makes you thing you can win (Thalidomide)?

    Scientists never make mistakes (Chernoby). They're too smart for us (Mars Polar Lander). Slashdot polls say so (Vioxx).

    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe." ~ Albert Einstein

  34. Half-right - canola actually not GM by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1
    From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

    Canola was originally naturally bred from rapeseed in Canada by Keith Downey and Baldur R. Stefansson in the early 1970s, but it has a very different nutritional profile in addition to much less erucic acid. The name "canola" was derived from "Canadian oil, low acid" in 1978. A product known as LEAR (for low erucic acid rapeseed) derived from cross-breeding of multiple lines of Brassica juncea is also referred to as canola oil and is considered safe for consumption.

    For clarity's sake and to make sure we're all using agreed vocabulary here, GM = genetically modified = developed using recombinant technology that splices in DNA from other species, families, phyla, even kingdoms. Naturally bred = developed using traditional cross-breeding of variants of the same or very close species, usually (but not always) producing viable (fertile) offspring.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  35. Japanese Lesson by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Modern Japanese has only five vowel sounds: a like American English "father", i like Am Eng "eeek!", u like Am Eng "oo, that's cool", e like Am Eng "editor", and o as an unrounded "oh" sound, which doesn't happen so much in standard American English, but is awful close to Minnesotan English "oh sure".

    Certain sound combinations don't exist in Japanese phonetics, such as du, di, tu, ti, si, f + anything other than u, anything with v, etc. Such sounds can be expressed in either of the two kana syllabaries (more below), but these are innovations to render sounds that have no inherent place in the Japanese language, and folks older than maybe 50 might not be able to pronounce them properly.

    Words written in Japanese using the hiragana syllabary use the i for long e and i, the u for long o and u, and the a for long a. Romanizations of hiragana would thus either use a macron (horizontal bar; this post uses circumflexes instead of macrons since Slashdot eats the macron entities) over the long vowel or include the additional extending vowel.

    Foreign words are generally written in Japanese using the katakana syllabary. Stressed syllables in English generally become lengthened vowels in Japanese, and long vowels in katakana are rendered using the nobashi (i.e. "lengthener" - that horizontal line that looks like the kanji for "one"). Romanizations of katakana thus either use a macron over the long vowel or just duplicate long vowels.

    Japanese is a moraic language rather than a stressed language. This is a very foreign concept for English: a mora is a unit of time in speaking, rather than volume or pitch. Where English uses stress, with the speaker's voice increasing and decreasing in volume and (to a lesser extent) pitch, Japanese uses morae (or moras), with a vowel (or stop) taking a set amount of time. Much as certain words in English are differentiated by stress (such as "record" as a noun versus "record" as a verb), many more word pairs in Japanese are differentiated by how many morae they include. The word shugo has two morae and means "(grammatical) subject", while shûgô has four morae and means "gathering, assembly". The word jiko has two morae and means "accident", while jikkô has four morae and means "execution, carrying something out". The word judô has three morae and means "passive", while jûdô has four morae and means "flexible way", or more more familiarly, the martial art that's also an Olympic event.

    Putting all this together, "rape seed" simply transliterated into katakana (as foreign words would be) and then transliterated back into rômaji ("Roman characters", i.e. the alphabet) would come out as either rêpu shîdo or reepu shiido.

    And that's all for today's Beginner Japanese lesson! :)

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  36. US spread of GMO soy = rise in US soy allergies? by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    Another possible point to research is the apparent correlation between the spread of GMO soy in the US food chain and the rise in soy allergies. These allergies also seem to be restricted to the US population, from what little I've read about it.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  37. Critical != Luddite by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    The GP is a statement of opinion, in which case the statement itself is all the citation needed. And saying "the tech looks quite promising, but we need more research" (which sounds to me like the GP's main point) does not a Luddite make.

    Or was there something else you were reacting to? Maybe I've missed your point.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:Critical != Luddite by davev2.0 · · Score: 1

      The GPP was not stating his opinion but rather stating what he believes to be the facts. His main point is that the tech is wrong and we should be afraid of it.

    2. Re:Critical != Luddite by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we're discussing a different post? I'm responding with regard to EdIII's post, which includes:

      Cool technology to be sure, but the people that are involved in it certainly don't seem to have humanity's interests at heart...

      ...I feel that not enough research is really conducted to determine if the GMO food they are producing is really healthy in the first place...

      ...I am greatly interested in GMO technology, but pursued correctly and safely...

      Indeed, some of what EdIII says are statements of what he (?) believes to be facts, but all the examples above (which, in my reading anyway, are more the core of his intent) are clearly statements of opinion. Moreover, he doesn't seem to me to be saying that the tech itself is wrong (which would be Luddite-ish), but rather that it is being applied in potentially dangerous ways by potentially dangerous people.

      But that's just my interpretation.

      Cheers,

      --
      "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
      "A four-foot prune."
  38. Physical failure by zooblethorpe · · Score: 1

    From all I've read on research into spider silk, one of the key components that we continue to fail to reproduce is the physical spinning of the extracted protein mix. That's why goatmilk silk failed -- no spinning at all. And that's why silkworm spidersilk has achieved some level of useful production, since the silkworms do produce a fiber and not just the raw protein mixed up in a liquid, but also why it will probably fail to be stronger than regular spidersilk -- the spinning process most likely isn't what a spider would use to produce its strongest silk.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
  39. The only 100% spider silk item by Khopesh · · Score: 1

    As reported by Wired on 2009-09-23 in the story 1 Million Spiders Make Golden Silk for Rare Cloth. Fascinating read, especially if you're like me and wholly entranced by the concept of a super-fiber like spider silk.

    --
    Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
  40. It's a trivial line in the sand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What's the difference between GM and naturally bred?
    Not much. Humans have been dinking around with DNA for a long time, but even because it has "natural" in the term doesn't make it a "good" thing. All natural snake venom will kill you just as sure as cyanide.

  41. There goes another mulberry plant. by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    Black widow silk was considered the ideal material for cross hairs on telescopes. The difference from silk to Darwins bark spider silk is astounding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tensile_strength

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.