Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Store Entire Textbook In DNA

Posted by timothy on from the ok-but-where-are-the-tiny-spectacles? dept.

sciencehabit writes with this mind-boggling bit from Science Magazine: "When it comes to storing information, hard drives don't hold a candle to DNA. Our genetic code packs billions of gigabytes into a single gram. A mere milligram of the molecule could encode the complete text of every book in the Library of Congress and have plenty of room to spare. All of this has been mostly theoretical—until now. In a new study, researchers stored an entire genetics textbook in less than a picogram of DNA — one trillionth of a gram — an advance that could revolutionize our ability to save data."

11 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Take it one step further by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Store data in DNA, then figure out a way for our brains to interpret it as knowledge. Imagine being born with the combined understanding of all of the major fields of science, history, languages, crafts, trades, from day one.

    1. Re:Take it one step further by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Knowledge but not understanding. I think it is important to remember that those are two different things. Still it would be pretty neat.

    2. Re:Take it one step further by DigiShaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At what point would individuality be replaced with fabrication?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Take it one step further by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Knowledge with no understanding = Memorization. I can memorize the parts of the brain with no understanding of how they work. To do anything useful with the information you have to be able to apply it.

    4. Re:Take it one step further by jader3rd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imagine being born with the combined understanding of all of the major fields of science, history, languages, crafts, trades, from day one.

      Isn't that what made the goa'uld so evil?

    5. Re:Take it one step further by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > What's it like to have knowledge that you don't understand? That concept doesn't make sense to me.

      That would be like if someone told you about a concept, so you knew it existed, but it didn't make sense to you.

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
  2. Re:backups? by sourcerror · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, but then you have to pay child support.

  3. Just in time by arielCo · · Score: 3, Funny
    The answer to the last Ask Slashdot: Protecting Data From a Carrington Event?:

    I've been wondering: is it actually possible to store or protect data in such a way that if such an event occurred, data survives and is recoverable in a useful form? Optical and magnetic media would probably be rendered useless by a large enough solar flare, and storing source code/graphics in paper format would be impractical to recover, so Slashdot, short of building a Faraday cage 100 km below the surface of the Moon, how could you protect data to survive a modern day Carrington event?"

    So, kactusotp, there you have it: splice it into as many mice / E. coli as needed, release into the wild.

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  4. Re:How fast? by coldandcalculating · · Score: 5, Informative

    The fastest DNA polymerases can copy a template at around 250 bases/sec. Chemical DNA synthesis is much slower.

    As for read speeds, DNA sequencing can be done serially (500-800 bases in a matter of hours - 1 cent per base) or massively parallel (100-200 bases per read; 100 million reads; overnight - $1000 per chip by year's end?)

    Tools allowing for rapid synthesis (write) and sequencing (read) of DNA would enable a biotech revolution similar in scope and impact to the computing revolution of the last century. As far as I know, this technology is still incredibly far away, but definitely merits relentless R&D.

  5. Re:At a gaga act. by bmo · · Score: 3, Informative

    What sort of textbook can you write with nothing but G, A, T, and C?

    The same sort of textbook you can write in zeroes and ones, but in base 4 instead of base 2.

    Happy now?

    --
    BMO

  6. Re:Brewster you've screwed us all! by butalearner · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am disappointed that nobody has pointed out that we can now measure human mass in terms of Libraries of Congress. For example: Americans can now proudly proclaim that we carry, on average, at least ten million more Libraries of Congress than citizens of any other country. Or: I really shouldn't have eaten those atomic wings, I just dropped two million Libraries of Congress from spending so much time in the bathroom.