Slashdot Mirror
Evolution Machine Accelerates Genetic Engineering
chrb writes "New Scientist has an article about the Evolution Machine — a device which can accelerate directed artificial evolution to discover desirable DNA changes in days rather than years. One of the aims of these researchers is to create an organism that is genetically immune to all viruses."
Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!
( I for one welcome our new Dalek overlords )
I just hope it won't be immune to fire. That could cause problems.
Someone needs to introduce these researchers to Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
NO CARRIER
very doubtful. thats the beauty behind evolution - to every measure, there is a counter measure that eventually evolved.
sigo ergo sum
What a great plot "device" (ba da bash!) for a science fiction story!
Call it "Deus* Ex Machina"! (Or how about "Intelligent Design ex machina" for our evolutionarily clueless friends?)
*"Deus" in this context does not mean literally God but rather the blind forces of nature artificially sped up by this machine. Sort of like a blind watchmaker on steroids AND caffeine (with apologies to Richard Dawkins).
"One of the aims of these researchers is to create an organism that is genetically immune to all viruses."
Jesus, somebody stop them NOW. We don't even have a superhero to fight that thing yet, what the fuck are they thinking?
I wonder how easily it could be used to engineer the opposite case: a virus against which humans have no effective defenses.
Heck, just make on that takes out chickens, cows, and pigs, and humans all of a sudden have a major protein deficiency until alternatives (nuts, fish, etc.) could be ramped up, which would probably take at least 1-2 years.
Mr. Davros to the white courtesy telephone, please:
He built a machine that could advance evolution too. Made himself some insta-henchmen in the Savage Land, way back in the super-early X-Men comics. I don't remember it from when it was published, mind you... because that was the 1960s I think.
I read about it in a trade paperback collection years later. Also they brought the machine back a couple of times in the 1980s.
Whoever would have thought that modern science would re-create any of Magneto's schemes?
I see absolutely no reason why this could possibly be a bad idea.
Though maybe if I RTFA I'd get a better understanding of what's going on besides from the /. summary. =D
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
it was a nice species, while it lasted.
too bad they never really evolved that much from their simian ancestors. 200,000 years of evolution and they are still trying to prove whose dick is bigger.
ever since the dawn of modern agriculture, protein has come largely from beans.
especially in the America's where cows and pigs did not exist until circa 1500 AD when the europeans introduced them (along with their zoonotic diseases).
When you select for resistant bacteria growing in the presence of antibiotics, there is usually a fitness tradeoff for that resistance. Suppose now instead that we have some virus-resistant organism we've engineered. This means all the virus receptors on the surface of the cell no longer bind virus particles, and if you've done this for *many* virus receptors, then you've mutated a lot of cell-surface proteins. I can't imagine this would go without fitness cost.
On the other hand, from studying influenza I can say that viruses evolve much faster than we do and if a variant (maybe adapted to another host) or subtype emerges that can bind your receptor anyway, then in effect you've selected out variants but not stopped the virus. Getting regular vaccines are still the way to go on this, IMO.
eugenics was a real practice, taken to it's height in the Nazi "T4" program and "Genetic Health" program.
they were purposely trying to 'artificially select' the human race so as to 'improve' society.
and of course Magneto, according to one comic book series, grew up in Auschwitz, where his life was spared only because he found a job running the ovens.
i mean. here we are, intelligent creatures.
we are creating life. sure, we are using evolution as a tool to do it, but we have the final say in what lives and what dies.
This sounds perfect for making biological weapons. This process has one major weakness: Natural selection means adding random mutations, meaning there will probably be more than just the desired changes. So long as the corp doesn't see those mutations as harmful (tobacco is safe!) they will go ahead and sell it.
Marvel's High Evolutionary
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I, for one, welcome our new genetically immune overlords!
PS: Farewell mankind.
Or a virus that is genetically immune to all treatments.
Except ... it will kill off honey bees and Monarch butterflies.
(like some other perfectly "safe" genetic engineering)
This article is hyped up to the stars.
It's good work, but the ideas aren't "revolutionary" the way they are portrayed.
Lateral gene transfer in bacteria has been known for a long time. It's how resistance to antibiotics is spread among bacteria for example.
It's also been used a good deal already by microbiologists/biochem types (that line is getting a little blurred these days).
Church's group has found a way to automate this.
They can create large numbers of bacterial strains which have some or all of the desired characteristics in a short time.
The downside is the needle of the desired organism is in a haystack of partially successful or unsuccessful ones. In this case, it was linked to production of a bright red chemical. You could determine which was closer to the right one by color. That's easy to automate.
Most characteristics won't be that easy to screen or automate.
Church then goes into what's really an old idea. Encrypting the genome so that it's resistant to existing virus types. You then use a modified ribosome to translate that into proteins. I remember discussions of that in the late 80/early 90s on some of the transhumanist newsgroups (anyone remember usenet?).
The devil in the details here is that much of the information in the genome isn't for coding proteins directly, but for regulating gene expressions and other purposes. Much of that latter we still don't understand. It's hard to design an encryption to preserve a functionality you don't understand.
So, instead of throwing up their hands, Church et al appeal to using the above automated method and the microbes to sort out something that works, but again we really won't understand. At least at first.
It's an interesting idea. Sounds like a lot of work even if automated.
But, as anyone who was caught up in the genetic algorithms craze in computers can attest, it's not a guaranteed solution.
Describing the application of this technique to humans :
anyone modified in this way would only be able to conceive children naturally with a partner whose genome had been altered in exactly the same way.
That would be creating a new human species, by definition. I must admit I find the idea fascinating, and I'm quite sure this is inevitable, but it's also worrying for us standard, non "enhanced" humans.
Does anyone really think they won't also secretly develop Bellerophon? Let's hope they do or this could turn out to be a REALLY stupid idea.
Korma: Good
You may be able to create immunity against most nucleic acid-based viruses this way. However, if you consider prions to be viruses, you won't be able to genetic engineer past them. Some prions take advantage of the protein misfolding response, which is not something you would want to engineer away.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If an organism is immune to all viruses, what vector will they use for gene therapy? Or, will such organisms just have to die of otherwise-curable genetic conditions?
Accelerate "/directed artificial evolution/"
In other words, Intelligent Design.
Do we really need to just HAND these people ammunition like this?
I wonder how long it will be before we have a genetically-engineered yeasts that produce THC, morphine, amphetamines, cocaine, etc., so that anyone could make what they want in a small Petri dish, starting from a microscopic amount of starter yeast. How would society deal with this?
Am I the only one who thought of Theodore Sturgeon? ...)
(note I've only skimmed the comments so
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
Meanwhile scientific research has revealed that GMOs are not as good as traditional breeding methods for producing improvements. GMOing typically costs $100,000,000 for a trait. Traditional methods cost $1,000,000 per trait and get better results.
What is good is that the advancements in genetic understandings are improving the traditional breeding methods. No need to GMO frankenmonsters.
and they declare that some other intelligent being designed them, then wont they be right?
" to create an organism that is genetically immune to all viruses."
And hungry. Very, very hungry. With the ability to smell neurons.
I wonder how someone who deals directly with evolutionary processes can be so sure of something like this never happening, or how fixing one genetic "woops" should be solved by creating yet another organism. Where did the inspiration from that come from, Jurassic Park? Still, the possibilities are interesting.
Sounds like interns are perfect material for spying on companies.
Just pay them something. How can they refuse when they are so poor and desperate?
(I worked on) Music: https://market.android.com/details?id=com.evojazz
3D plants: http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/PlantStudio/
Ultimately, what kind of effect will this have on employment as robotics and AI get more and more creative? See:
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/04/enter_adam_the_robot_scientist.php
Here is a 12 minute YouTube video I recently made that talks about a balance between five interwoven economies that shifts with cultural change and technological change:
"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY
So, I help provide evolutionary tools that will change the value of most paid human labor, but I also provide ideas about how to upgrade our society to accomodate that.
But so many people just make the tools and don't think about the human consequences yet. I hope more and more people start thinking about all this. My writings are just a place to start...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Is PlantStudio still being developed? I occasionally have to do botanical illustration and have stumbled across PlantStudio before, but never evaluated it. Cheers, Craig
First off, to make an organism that is impervious to virus is probably impossible. But assume that you could. WOuld that be a good thing? Nope. It stops evolution. Evolution is NOT single point genetic mutations, but is virus splicing/slicing in new sections, possibly even new genes. However, even if now sections, these will ultimately make it to the point of being a full gene.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's easier to list the things that could not possibly go wrong.
Thanks for asking. I ported part of it to Python (to try on the OLPC, which was slow), and part of the overall framework to Java (mostly for StoryHarp), but there has not been a new version in a long time, sorry. It still works under Windows emulators; use the zipped version as the later versions of Windows don't like the installer. A free registration code is on the site.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
I like your video. Is there a text version? It is often easier for me to use quotations that I can copy/paste from a web page, when arguing economics, than to link to a video. For example, I like the "Propping up an exchange-based system through make-work and artificial scarcity" slide at 8:30; I would like to be able to link to that, or copy from it...
I have been strongly influenced by your arguments and use them whenever I can in irc #politics and #economics rooms, as well as in various other online forums :)
Everytime you "beat/win/survive" vs. a virus, part of IT, I understand that parts of IT, becomes part of YOU (rather inside your DNA strand)
Sort of an "antivirus signature" your body makes vs. future occurences of it!
( & with that the ability to vive it or be immune to it, next time it tries to infest you! )
Neat eh?
* That's assuming I really AM correct here that is, not an expert in genetics (though I did coursework in it), nor a virologist either... so, if I am wrong? PLEASE - "set me straight/correct me" (as it's been YEARS since I did the coursework in GENETICS alone (GATTACA - Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine, Adenine etc.)/
APK
P.S.=> Sounds like these guys are hitting DNA with a LOT of "retroviruses" to "inject" these signature into a person/a person's DNA strand, before you even GET the damned things... allowing your body to have PROACTIVE DEFENSES in place, beforehand (no, I haven't read the article yet, but... I'd wager it's a LOT like that & based on the same principles)
... apk
An analogy would be that they are building a Z80 processor, in a world all viruses run on Intel. None of the opcodes from the virus would work.
i love all of the sort-of-complete quasi-scientific statements that are made in support of pursuing such a venture.
the article is extremely one-sided in its presentation of the ramifications of genetic engineering: "The first generation of engineered organisms has been a huge hit with farmers and manufacturers - if not consumers." ... well, not really, now that the majority of the world's food supply is essentially patent protected and has no long-term sustainable means of production, we've sort of screwed ourselves. it's been a huge hit for "big science" and the profit motives therein, but not for any reason associated with the advancement of humanity or the state of the world. "oh well we're feeding the hungry!"...not really.
in creating synthesized genomes, we are bypassing the immeasurable and vitally infinite variables that come with the passage of time and which in turn have all had effects on the development of each stable, functioning genome of every life form on this planet. believing that the process of evolution can be recreated through computational mechanization shows a remarkably glib understanding for what actually occurs during the evolutionary process.
oh but i'm sure this will all end well, just like genetically modified foods haven't made the world dumber and/or less fertile.
best of luck, chaps, at least you'll continue to get funding.
in theory, the operator of a computer is
1. omniscient
2. effectively immortal, considering the life cycle of milliseconds vs a life cycle of 90 years
3. there could be a command called 'hell' and 'heaven', both programmed in various ways
4. loves them? yes, even that is possible.
still havent figure out how jesus fits into the picture.
in kansas?
One of the best short stories from the master himself -- Theodore Sturgeon. This article reminds me of it. I should read it again.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
OOPS, I was WRONG (it's been TOO LONG since I studied genetics!)
I read up some more @ Wikipedia and OTHER sites & "figured it out"/corrected myself/understand it now. My "bad"!
( It's SO EASY to find things out on the INTERNET nowdays/nowadays/now! )
* I should REALLY research/study things more BEFORE I post, but sometimes I just get too EXCITED about a topic/subject & I "CAN'T resist"! (especially when it's about a tech topic/subject)
APK
P.S.=> I "win/am victorious" EVEN when I reply to MYSELF! As always, I just gotta say it: "too, Too, TOO EASY... '2EZ'"...lol ... apk
What we have learned so far from all the sci fi movies, if anything, is that when you develop something that is immune to viruses, you develop a Frankenstein, and then you will suffer even greater then the good it could have provided...please stop searching for immunity, that is the whole reason why life is precious, by making everyone immune to everything, then life becomes taken for granted....
Thanks for the kind words. Here is a PDF file with the presentation on "Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft".
http://www.pdfernhout.net/media/FiveInterwovenEconomies.pdf
I hope you can build further on those ideas in your own way, like I built on the ideas of many others. I have a long (but still incomplete) list of inspirations (as well as more text related to that presentation) on my site here:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
"The following is informed by insights from people like Marshall Brain, James Albus, Martin Ford, Jane Jacobs, Charles Fourier, Richard Wolff, Richard Stallman, Albert Einstein, Morton Deutsch, Alfie Kohn, John Holt, Joan Roeloffs, John Taylor Gatto, Steven Slaby, Ursula K. Le Guin, James P. Hogan, Elizabeth Warren, Amelia Tyagi, Ivan Illich, Michael Mahoney, Freeman Dyson, Ted Taylor, Douglas Lisle, David Goodstein, Michel Bauwens, Eric Hunting, Kevin Carson, P.M. Lawrence, Iain Banks, Harvey Cox, G. William Domhoff, E.F. Schumacher, Jacque Fresco, Stewart Brand, Buckminster Fuller, Dee Hock, Michael Phillips, Amory Lovins, Hunter Lovins, John Todd, Nancy Jack Todd, Manuel De Landa, Kenneth Rogoff, Carmen Reinhart, Gerard K. O'Neill, Frances Moore Lappe, David Brin, K. Eric Drexler, Hans Moravec, Victor Serebriakoff, Noam Chomsky, Herbert Simon, Robert Steele, Julian Simon, Larry Slobodkin, Patrick Grim, Philip Zimbardo, Slavoj Zizek, Dan Pink, Alan Kay, George A. Miller, Lev R. Ginzburg, Norman Spinrad, Gene Roddenberry, Alvin Toffler, James R. Beniger, James T. Liu, Alain Kornhauser, Jennifer Morgan, Juliet B. Schor, Marshall Sahlins, Suniya S. Luthar, as well as all the authors of the 1964 Triple Revolution Memorandum, and many, many others. If I can see so far, it is from "standing on the shoulders of giants", none of whom should be blamed for any errors in the following that are solely my own."
I just found some new interesting reading, including by economist Brad DeLong, by googling on: "slouching towards post-scarcity".
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
we can end the debate right now it mine