Slashdot Mirror


Computing Inside a Living Cell

First time accepted submitter Rozanne writes "The new issue of Stanford Medicine magazine has a story on Stanford professor Drew Endy's creation of microscopic computers out of biological components for use inside living cells. His work is a mash-up of molecular biology and computer engineering: Instead of a computer made of silicon, metal and plastic, it's a computer made of DNA, RNA and enzymes. Endy says biologists are typically confounded at first when he explains how the computers work and how they could be used."

4 of 41 comments (clear)

  1. Re:My feeling by anubi · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you want some more detailed explanation, I would suggest reading about what Craig Venter's take on it is. He is one of the principal researchers on the Human Genome Project, and has taken the time to write a book for the layman to grasp the magnificence of what he has found.

    http://www.amazon.com/Life-Speed-Light-Double-Digital/dp/0670025402

    This book was released October 17, just a few days ago...

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  2. Re:Mutation by sqrt(2) · · Score: 4, Informative

    At its lowest level, the hardware we use today to store data is prone to errors. Your HDD functions perfectly well misreading data hundreds of times a second. You don't even notice until it becomes especially bad; when the errors overwhelm the ability to check and correct the data. A certain amount of errors are expected, and correctable. The simplest method is a simple checksum. Report the intended length of the message you're sending and the receipient then checks to make sure at least the length is correct. Then you can build in redundancy and error correction through more sophisticated means. These problems have largely been solved in the abstract, so they're not dependent on any particular media.

    --
    If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  3. Re:Endy is no longer the leader in this field by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    His analogies to computer engineering are mostly false, as biology operates according to physical and chemical rules. Not Ohm's Law. Not digital logic. You can engineer biology to mimic digital logic, but it's truly analog governed by biomolecular interactions and stochastic dynamical processes.

    (human) brains are both analog and digital simultaneously.

    even if you argue it's really all analog, the fact that you can mentally process digital logic means that you are digital computer... with lots of extra features. :)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  4. Re:Endy is no longer the leader in this field by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah. I don't know enough about his work to comment, but when I read the part about how all this computational stuff is just too confusing for those poor biologists, my bullshit alarms went off. Speaking as a bioinformaticist, whose job it is to bridge the bio/CS gap all the time, I've observed that computer scientists often have at least as hard a time grasping biology as biologists have grasping computer science. Endy's kind of smugness does no one any good.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.