Slashdot Mirror


New Advance Confines GMOs To the Lab Instead of Living In the Wild

BarbaraHudson (3785311) writes In Jurassic Park, scientists tweak dinosaur DNA so that the dinosaurs were lysine-deficient in order to keep them from spreading in the wild. Scientists have taken this one step further as a way to keep genetically modified E. coli from surviving outside the lab. In modifying the bacteria's DNA to thwart escape, two teams altered the genetic code to require amino acids not found in nature. One team modified the genes that coded for proteins crucial to cell functions so that that produced proteins required the presence of the synthetic amino acid in the protein itself. The other team focused on 22 genes deemed essential to a bacterial cell's functions and tied the genes' expression to the presence of synthetic amino acids. For the bacteria to survive, these synthetic amino acids had to be present in the medium on which the bacteria fed. In both cases, the number of escapees was so small as to be undetectable."

130 comments

  1. Jurassic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't this how they kept the dinosaurs from escaping in the first Jurassic Park book? And we all know how well that worked out... CHAOS THEORY!

    1. Re:Jurassic Park by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      The lysine contingency is intended to prevent the spread of the animals in case they ever get off the island. Dr. Wu inserted a gene that makes a single faulty enzyme in protein metabolism. The animals can't manufacture the amino acid lysine. Unless they're continually supplied with lysine by us, they'll slip into a coma and die.

    2. Re:Jurassic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mutations cooked in labs
      Money-mad experiments
      New food + medicine?
      New germs + accidents!
      Like Cubatao
      "World's most polluted town"
      Air melts your face
      Deformed children all around
      Bio-technology
      Ain't what's so bad
      Like all technology
      It's in the wrong hands

      Cut-throat corporations
      Don't give a damn
      When lots of people die
      From what they've made

      Biotech
      Biotech
      Biotech
      Is A.I.D.S.?

      Burma Shave

    3. Re:Jurassic Park by hawguy · · Score: 1

      The lysine contingency is intended to prevent the spread of the animals in case they ever get off the island. Dr. Wu inserted a gene that makes a single faulty enzyme in protein metabolism. The animals can't manufacture the amino acid lysine. Unless they're continually supplied with lysine by us, they'll slip into a coma and die.

      "...This spring, in the Ismaloya section, which is to the north, some unknown animals ate the crops in a very peculiar manner. They moved each day, in a straight line-almost as straight as an arrow-from the coast, into the mountains, into the jungle."
      Grant sat upright.
      "Like a migration," Guitierrez said. "Wouldn't you say?"
      "What crops?" Grant said.
      "Well, it was odd. They would only eat agama beans and soy, and sometimes chickens."
      Grant said, "Foods rich in lysine..."

    4. Re:Jurassic Park by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      Unless they're continually supplied with lysine by us, they'll slip into a coma and die.

      Life finds a way...

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    5. Re:Jurassic Park by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But Lysine IS found in nature. The extra security here is that they are dependant on something they cannot obtain because it is not found in nature.

    6. Re:Jurassic Park by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      The summary literally starts with "In Jurassic Park,"

    7. Re:Jurassic Park by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What, you want us to read summaries now? What is this, the 20th century?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Jurassic Park by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Henry Wu: Well, because all the animals in Jurassic Park are female. We've engineered them that way.
      Dr. Ian Malcolm: But again, how do you know they're all female? Does somebody go out into the park and pull up the dinosaurs' skirts?
      Henry Wu: We control their chromosomes. It's really not that difficult. All vertebrate embryos are inherently female anyway, they just require an extra hormone given at the right developmental stage to make them male. We simply deny them that.
      Dr. Ellie Sattler: Deny them that?
      Dr. Ian Malcolm: John, the kind of control you're attempting simply is... it's not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh... well, there it is.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:Jurassic Park by mjwx · · Score: 1

      But Lysine IS found in nature. The extra security here is that they are dependant on something they cannot obtain because it is not found in nature.

      I think this is more akin to the fact they kept the dinosaurs all female to prevent breeding, the problem with biological organisms is that they mutate and change. The current iteration of E.Coli they have cant survive outside of the lab, but what about the next generation or the generation after that? Why is it not possible they wont simply mutate around this and drop the dependence on something that it cant find in nature or receives in abundance? As Ian Malcom said in Jurassic Park (shouldn't it really be Late Cretaceous Park), "life finds a way".

      Let me be clear, I'm in favour of GMO and think that the anti-GMO crowd are scaremongers who are completely full of shit, but making such absolute statements is not helping.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    10. Re:Jurassic Park by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. GMO v2 has DRM...doesn't matter if you keep the seeds for next years crop, you still need to buy our "fertilizer" for it to work...and you'll still have to pay for the seeds again.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    11. Re:Jurassic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Too long;
      Didn't read.
      Burma Shave

    12. Re:Jurassic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr. Ian Malcolm: John, the kind of control you're attempting simply is... it's not possible.

      Don't be a hater.

    13. Re:Jurassic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd imagine it's more of a second layer of defense than anything else.

      Randomly test to make sure they're not able to survive without it, and then the odds of any accidental escapes through the current defenses are that much less likely to be able to make it.

    14. Re:Jurassic Park by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      They could mutate to stop being dependent on it or mutate to produce it by themselves. It would not be the first time something like that happened.

    15. Re:Jurassic Park by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      The ability to change sex wasn't something they evolved in the movie. It was something they either had all along, inherited from a common ancestor or got from the frog DNA that was used to fill in the gaps in their genome.

      Why wouldn't these E. Coli be expected to evolve independance from the artificial stuff? Because it takes generations to evolve something.. and.. there is no selection pressure to do so until it is already too late. They don't evolve because they die.

    16. Re:Jurassic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an ex-Biologist, and I've been on enough papers to know a bit. Used to do some heavy structure-function relationship genetic engineering back in the day.

      There's this thing called mutation, and while it typically acts in many other ways, it can knock out a whole gene. Given enough time, this strain could mutate into not needing it's genetically induced ball and chain.

      When that happens, it's all about the other stuff they put into it, and how it changes the population's genetic makeup.

  2. yea well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we all know how well that worked out

  3. Until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A mutation in the DNA undoes the genetic engineering and we've got a new strain of e. coli in the wild.

    1. Re:Until... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Funny

      A mutation in the DNA undoes the genetic engineering and we've got a new strain of e. coli in the wild.

      Heresy!! How dare you suggest the people who make GMOs haven't solved all these problems?

      In the absence of evidence this is risky, we have to conclude this is safe. Because that's how we've been doing it all along.

      Why do you hate progress so much?

      I, for one, welcome our new mutated GMO e. coli overlords.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Until... by Sowelu · · Score: 4, Informative

      C'mon guys, read the thing. They modified a LOT of genes, to the point where even several mutations wouldn't make it viable. Statistics really is in our favor on this one.

    3. Re:Until... by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new mutated GMO e. coli overlords.

      You gonna regret that shitty decision.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    4. Re:Until... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Funny

      A mutation in the DNA undoes the genetic engineering and we've got a new strain of e. coli in the wild.

      No, that could never happen. Just like those Monsanto strains that can't pollinate other crops.

      As Jurassic Park taught us, we're perfectly safe as long as they didn't splice in any frog DNA.

    5. Re:Until... by ichthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Righto -- statistics is in favor of evolution not happening. Gotcha.

      --
      sig: sauer
    6. Re:Until... by AaronLS · · Score: 3, Funny

      He didn't say the statistics favored no evolution. You have the reading comprehension of a blind squirrel.

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

      You're very arrogant for a stupid person.

    8. Re: Until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about that fancy new science your preaching sonny, but back in my days statistical evidence was used to show events were improbable not impossible. So get off my lawn you damn hippy with your fancy new science.

    9. Re:Until... by Chikungunya · · Score: 1

      Evolution would not (realistically) happen because bacterial leaks would have too little time to undo all the changes and re-adapt to natural-only aminoacid environments, the adaptive pressure against synthetic aminoacids would go from zero in the lab to 100 in the wild immediately.
      The possibility would had to be taken account if there was a natural way to keep the bacteria in gradually decreasing concentrations of synthetic aminoacids, you would then give a chance for the reversion to take place slowly and over many generations.

    10. Re:Until... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      No, that could never happen. Just like those Monsanto strains that can't pollinate other crops.

      Monsanto has never sold seeds designed not to cross pollinate. They developed seeds with that capability, but were pressured into not selling them.

    11. Re:Until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't new strains of e. coli naturally occur fairly frequently?

    12. Re:Until... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, with a few lucky mutations, he could get the reading comprehension of a sighted squirrel.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:Until... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Arrogance and intelligence are not positively correlated traits, no matter how much the arrogant people would like to think they are.

    14. Re:Until... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Evolution would not (realistically) happen because bacterial leaks would have too little time to undo all the changes and re-adapt to natural-only aminoacid environments, the adaptive pressure against synthetic aminoacids would go from zero in the lab to 100 in the wild immediately.
      The possibility would had to be taken account if there was a natural way to keep the bacteria in gradually decreasing concentrations of synthetic aminoacids, you would then give a chance for the reversion to take place slowly and over many generations.

      You're assuming the lab is perfectly clean and the modified bacteria and synthetic amino acids are perfectly contained.
      None of those things are true. They are all false.
      And such changes don't take place "slowly" in bacteria because bacteria churn through "many generations" rapidly.

    15. Re:Until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dog barks, the caravan walks, and water is wet. And women love cock. That's the way it is.

    16. Re:Until... by thunderclap · · Score: 1
      Not to feed the troll but

      unlike the Bible Exodus across the divided Red Sea running away from the big dark Egyptian cock your women find resistible and can't stop sucking

      Fellatio didn't start until the Roman Empire (thats when public baths started) and ancient Egyptians weren't dark. They are the same pigment a tanned Caucasian is. Now Nubians, they were dark.

    17. Re:Until... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Ancient Sumeria the hookers who specialized in fellatio wore lipstick. Before public baths there were rivers, creeks, lakes and oceans to bath in.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    18. Re:Until... by quenda · · Score: 1

      Righto -- statistics is in favor of evolution not happening. Gotcha.

      Yes, like statistics favour mice not evolving functional wings in the next few thousand years.

    19. Re:Until... by fxsoap · · Score: 1

      Fellatio didn't start until the Roman Empire (thats when public baths started) and ancient Egyptians weren't dark. They are the same pigment a tanned Caucasian is. Now Nubians, they were dark.

      IS that true? Or is that just when it was recorded? I had never heard that before!

    20. Re:Until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that even some animals engage in fellatio I'd be surprised if it didn't occur amongst humans well before recorded history started. The best historians could do is find the earliest evidence for it, I don't see how anyone could reasonably say it didn't happen earlier though.

    21. Re:Until... by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      And this was written in Sanskrit? As for the before public baths

    22. Re:Until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistics are in favor of evolution around this particular problem not happening on a timescale that we care about.

      Also, it's just E. coli. It's everywhere. It's occasionally pathogenic, but usually not.

  4. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What happens when the human body naturally evolves to depend on this amino acid itself? I guess if you keep eating such GMO's you'll be okay? Win-Win for the corporations again (and a few decades to late to try and contain their absolutely ridiculous public testing).

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

      Then a very few people might need to eat supplements; however, the chances that such a thing would happen are so tiny as to be effectively non-existent. And we do not naturally evolve to depend on a new amino acid, we have our set and have kept it for a very long time, to do so in a span that isn't longer than the whole of our existence would be hugely unlikely(not to mention selected against)

    2. Re:So... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      We use bacteria like E. coli to make stuff, not to eat. One example is human insulin.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  5. Mutations and natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All it takes is one mutation and the microbe is ready to survive in the wild and potentially fall into the wrong hands. What the hell is wrong with people that they think they are smarter than mother nature? This is what microbes do. This is how the have survived billions of years in wildly varying conditions. Our arrogance will kill us all someday.

    1. Re:Mutations and natural selection by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      It would take a LOT more than 1 mutation. They modified over 1% of the DNA.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Mutations and natural selection by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      . What the hell is wrong with people that they think they are smarter than mother nature?

      Mother nature wants us all dead and does her damnedest to make that so we better be smarter than her or we are goners.

      Our arrogance will kill us all someday.

      There are things man was not meant to know MUAHAHAHA. Why is it greens always sound like the bad endings of horror movies from the 50s ?

    3. Re:Mutations and natural selection by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      the ingenuity of random chance is pretty fucking terrifying though. do they know that they caught all the redundancies? and we're not talking about 1 generation a year either, we're talking about 1 generation every 30 minutes. we've got bacteria that can survive fucking boiling. we really think a thing like... crippling protein production is going to stop bacteria?

    4. Re:Mutations and natural selection by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to mention that bacteria have been known to transfer genes between bacterium near them. (Bacteria: The original file sharers!) Say one of these gets out and encounters a similar bacteria without the "confinement genes". Could it laterally transfer genes that would help it survive without the "lab required environment"?

      I'm not saying we should never experiment on anything (we should) or that building in safeties like this isn't a good idea (it is), but we should never let our guard down and say "We've thought of everything! This has fully secured us against any possible problem!"

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Mutations and natural selection by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      That is not possible, because it's not a "confinement gene." They did a wholesale replacement of genes to make the bacteria dependent on an amino acid not found in nature:

      One line of defense against breakouts are the tanks and vats used to house heavily modified microbes. But these can leak, with microbes hitching rides off-site on workers' clothing, for instance.

      Researchers have come up with other ways of controlling the spread of modified organisms, such as introducing biological kill switches. But these still offer organisms biological escape hatches, at least in principle. The organism can randomly mutate in ways that blunt control efforts. It can mooch a replacement for the synthetic compound it needs from natural analogues in the environment. Or it can incorporate DNA from other wild organisms into its own genome, allowing it to use nutrients found in the wild.

      The two teams involved with the new studies applied complementary approaches to overhauling the genetic structure of a strain of E. coli bacteria that Dr. Church’s lab had altered to enhance virus resistance.

      These were not merely genetically modified organisms; they had become genomically recoded organisms, or GROs. The changes to the bacteria's genome involved one out of every 64 segments along the entire length of the organism's DNA that corresponds to a specific amino acid needed to produce protein. DNA carries the coding for 20 types of amino acids.

      In modifying the bacteria's DNA to thwart escape, the two teams altered the genetic code to include information for producing amino acids not found in nature but created in the lab.

      One team focused on genes that coded for proteins crucial to cell functions, modifying them in ways that produced proteins that required the presence of the synthetic amino acid in the protein itself. The other team focused on 22 genes deemed essential to a bacterial cell's functions and tied the genes' expression to the presence of synthetic amino acids.

      For the bacteria to survive, these synthetic amino acids had to be present in the medium on which the bacteria fed.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    6. Re:Mutations and natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All it takes is one mutation and the microbe is ready to survive in the wild and potentially fall into the wrong hands. What the hell is wrong with people that they think they are smarter than mother nature? This is what microbes do. This is how the have survived billions of years in wildly varying conditions. Our arrogance will kill us all someday.

      This is not for things that are just going to be let loose in the wild. This is for bacteria that are already intended to be confined in the lab, or in vats for commercial production, as a safeguard against release. If you read the article you will see it would take multiple mutations, and the researchers are fully aware that the technique doesn't provide absolute assurance.

    7. Re:Mutations and natural selection by paul.hatchman · · Score: 2

      I know it's too much to expect people to RTFA, but as others have pointed out it would take much more than 1 mutation. The main point the "doom and gloomers" are missing is that these modifications are designed to complement existing containment techniques.

      Think of it as a potential way for researchers to more safely work with deadly bacterium such as anthrax. They would still use all of the traditional containment methods, but have an additional fail-safe built in. Ultimately these researchers hope to come up with multiple overlapping safeguards to provide even better safety.

      It's beyond me, how anyone could object to making it harder for bacteria to escape from the lab!!

    8. Re:Mutations and natural selection by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i'm not concerned if they survive or not, i'm concerned if wild bacteria can pick over their corpses and get weird.

    9. Re:Mutations and natural selection by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      They can't, because if they incorporate the modified DNA, they will die because they too will be dependent on an amino acid not found in nature.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    10. Re:Mutations and natural selection by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      they won't die, that's what redundancy is for. a living bacteria that incorporates an extra chunk of genetic material won't die simply because the extra chunk requires something else to function. It'll just be non-functional, which doesn't mean it won't mutate within wild-type.

      also, i was under the impression that the things that only the control mechanisms required the nifty amino acids, but the nifty bits probably wouldn't.

    11. Re:Mutations and natural selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      E. coli can't survive boiling. There's a reason we biologists autoclave things to make sure there aren't any bacteria alive in there.

      And yes, crippling protein production absolutely stops bacteria. If you can't make protein, you can't reproduce. Period.

      These particular mutations are also really hard to overcome individually, never mind that you'd need to bypass all of them to survive without the synthetic amino acids. So no, it's not "just one mutation".

      Lastly, one generation per 30 minutes is only in ideal conditions, which rarely happen in the wild.

  6. God Creates Dinosaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    God Kills Dinosaur
    Got Creates Man
    Man Kills God
    Man Creates Dinosaur
    Dinosaur Kills Man

    1. Re:God Creates Dinosaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rock paper scissors lizard spock
      rock paper scissors lizard spock
      rock paper scissors lizard spock

    2. Re:God Creates Dinosaur by necro81 · · Score: 2

      Turn in your geek card. It actually goes...

      God creates Dinosaurs
      God destroys Dinosaurs
      God creates Man
      Man destroys God
      Man creates Dinosaurs.
      Dinosaurs eat Man, Woman inherits the Earth.

    3. Re:God Creates Dinosaur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then...

      The constant bickering and bitching about who wore what clothes and other womanly retardations ended woman.
      Then, cat ladies take over.

      If a man talks in the forest and there's no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?

      Captcha: balances

    4. Re:God Creates Dinosaur by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      God Kills Dinosaur
      GoD Creates Man
      Man Kills God
      Man Creates Dinosaur
      Dinosaur Kills Man

      Dinosaur ascends to oneness with the universe.
      Universe creates man
      Man ascends to become God.
      Universe ends God escapes and creates new unending universe
      God creates immoral man.
      Man fucks up by eating forbidden fruit
      God saves man from stupidity but requires him to declare alligence
      Most men refuse.
      Those that refuse are killed in apocalypse of their own making.
      Those that swore allegiance escaped.
      Man rebuilds earth and eliminates the idiocy that caused the apocalypse.
      Man and God live forever. Dinosaurs remain a dream of the fallen universe.

  7. I`ll be the pessimist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ``the number of escapees was so small as to be undetectable``.

    This doesn`t exactly sound encouraging. Even one escapee out of trillions of bacteria, through the wonder of exponential clonal replication, will result in escape. This method might buy a day or two. And I haven`t even mentioned natural selections proclivity to ruin even the most well thought out containment schemes. And that messing with the basic cell machinery will greatly reduce the viability (and economic productivity) of these bugs.

    1. Re:I`ll be the pessimist by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      ``the number of escapees was so small as to be undetectable``.

      This doesn`t exactly sound encouraging.

      It means no one had died yet, as far as they know.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:I`ll be the pessimist by sirlark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole idea is that the escapees won't survive long enough to reproduce, as being without their essential amino acids, their growth would be limited, and bacterial reproduction rates are tied to growth rates. Also, consider that as long as they're provided with the non-native amino acids, they're under no selective pressure to revert to the wild type. Yes, it's possible, but very very unlikely.

    3. Re:I`ll be the pessimist by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      And, by induction it's perfectly safe until proven otherwise.

      Because Monsanto et al paid off the right people, so their stuff is presumed to be safe as a default.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:I`ll be the pessimist by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      ... and as we know

      http://www.the-scientist.com/?...

      doesn't ever happen.

      they better bathe every fucking thing in sterilizing UV going into and out of that negative pressure clean room.

  8. Dont make me say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Life uhh finds a way uhh" - Jeff Goldblum

  9. Lest we Forget.. by Bonzoli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://news.firedoglake.com/20...
    The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation in the face of health risks and has thus been dubbed the “Monsanto Protection Act” by activists who oppose the biotech giant. President Barack Obama signed the spending bill, including the provision, into law on Tuesday
    Since the act’s passing, more than 250,000 people have signed a petition opposing the provision and a rally, consisting largely of farmers organized by the Food Democracy Now network, protested outside the White House Wednesday. Not only has anger been directed at the Monsanto Protection Act’s content, but the way in which the provision was passed through Congress without appropriate review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The biotech rider instead was introduced anonymously as the larger bill progressed — little wonder food activists are accusing lobbyists and Congress members of backroom dealings.

    1. Re:Lest we Forget.. by Bonzoli · · Score: 1

      Amazing Modded to 0 right away with no response, very nice!!!

    2. Re:Lest we Forget.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have been /diced

    3. Re:Lest we Forget.. by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Except you're wrong. That was not protecting Monsanto, it was protecting farmers from having to destroy their crops (conditional on regulatory approval) in the event a lawsuit challenged the deregulation of an already planted crop, as happened in the case of glyphosate resistant sugar beets. Of course, the GMO denialists, for whom everything is about the Monsanto conspiracy, decided to give that a clever and misleading name, Monsanto Protection Act, because they know bugger about the agricultural issues it centered around. But I'm sure Monsanto is so big and bad that lying to make you're wrong point is totally justified.

    4. Re:Lest we Forget.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His UID is lower than yours. Your UID is over 1 million. Therefore, he is right and you are a shill. QED.

    5. Re:Lest we Forget.. by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Who remembers the Alar scare? When the news broke panicked mothers rushed to schools to pull apples out of their child's lunch. The FDA had pulled Alar's registration but allowed all remaining stocks on hand to be used. Unfortunately most orchards had already been sprayed and with the panic no one was buying. Many farmers lost their orchards.

  10. Good morning sunshine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is exactly how the first genetically modified bacteria were designed in ('60s-'70s). Look up the Berg moratorium and thereabouts. Oh, wait... there was no internet in those times...

  11. amazing by sameersan · · Score: 1

    i like dinosaurs .i wish they were real :)

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

      Dinosaurs are real. Its just that they are all dead now.

    2. Re:amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about Jesus Christ himself road around Israel on the back of a dinosaur until he decided that man would need oil to spread the word and then turned all the dino's to oil like the water to wine. Or at least I think that's what they were talking about at the Creation Park I went to. I'm not sure I was really drunk and high.

    3. Re:amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dinosaurs aren't all dead -- they just occasionally become McNuggets.

  12. Distressing summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It is unfortunate that the summary author needed to toss in the remark about Jurassic Park. It's not a meaningful comparison (and is, indeed, based on a technical mistake in the book), and it doesn't appear in the linked article. As the earlier comments suggest, it does generate interest based on the pop culture reference. It's sad to see that Slashdot and its contributors resort to that kind of cheap chicanery to grab eyeballs, just like all the other loud, integrity-free, "journalism" outlets that seem to pervade the internet.

    1. Re:Distressing summary by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It's meaningful enough: it describes the problem being tackled by describing a familiar, similar problem. Study how memory and communication work.

    2. Re:Distressing summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that's the intention, and it's observably not the result here. People latch onto the reference and use it as a point of departure for jokes and baseless extrapolation. It's not an aid to recollection of a complex subject (and I'd be willing to bet very few people recall that detail from the referent), it's a distraction designed to make an easy connection to a familiar media franchise.

    3. Re:Distressing summary by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You pretty much nailed my thinking. If I had wanted to go for "a clickbait" headline, I would have done something like "Jurassic Park coming to a lab near you" or "FrankenBacteria use amino acids never seen in living things." Instead, I went with "New Advance Confines GMOs To the Lab Instead of Living In the Wild" because that pretty much sums it up.

      I put the Jurassic Park reference at the beginning of the text because the technique in the article reminded me of the book and the movie. Immediately following, I included "Scientists have taken this one step further as a way to keep genetically modified E. coli from surviving outside the lab" to convey that this is not exactly the same procedure - it's better.

      I don't do clickbait, or if I do, it's purely unintentional.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Distressing summary by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Write an audiobook review for Moonwalking with Einstein.

    5. Re:Distressing summary by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      it's also literally the most obvious comparison that springs to mind for anybody who has been alive for the past 20 years.

      i'm pretty sure the researchers working on this must have been thinking to themselves. please don't "find a way" please don't "find a way".

  13. They said the same thing about in Jurassic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They said the same thing about the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.

    Dr. Alan Grant: [finding egg shells] Oh my God. Do you know what this is? This is a dinosaur egg. The dinosaurs are breeding.
    Tim: But Grandpa said all the dinosaurs were girls.
    Dr. Alan Grant: Amphibian DNA.
    Lex: What's that?
    Dr. Alan Grant: Well, on the tour, the film said they used frog DNA to fill in the gene sequence gaps. They mutated the dinosaur genetic code and blended it with that of a frog's. Now, some West African frogs have been known to spontaneously change sex from male to female in a single sex environment. Malcolm was right. Look...
    [we see a trail of baby dinosaur footprints]
    Dr. Alan Grant: Life found a way

    1. Re:They said the same thing about in Jurassic Park by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      "Life found a way."

      Well that sounds science-y enough to be plausible!

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  14. Wait...escapess undetectable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So they are letting modified E.Coli out into the wild. And they can't detect it, and who honestly knows if some mutation is or is not going to allow the bacteria to still live and thrive.

    1. Re:Wait...escapess undetectable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An escape of lab ecoli isn't really a big deal. They are noninfectus and without the right growth conditions, won't even survive in the wild for long. Without the selective pressure of anti-biotics, they will lose their resistance and other special plasmid properties. It's ecoli, not super AIDS.

  15. Mutations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How to they propose to prevent these lab E. coli from mutating the ability to survive in the wild?

    1. Re:Mutations by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      If they escape, they won't have time. If they don't escape, there won't be any pressure on them to do so. And it sounds like they've crossed-wired things so any chance mutations that might remove the dependency will result in non-viability.

      Beats me why they don't just only use girl bacteria.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Mutations by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      bacteria trade DNA all the time. and there's tons of redundancy. they pick it up just randomly, deposit it randomly, swap at the drop of a hat etc etc. we've got bacterial dna that just got swapped into us, somewhere down the line. it's like one giant gene swapping orgy.

    3. Re:Mutations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They pain stakingly modified one of the STOP codons to code for the novel amino acid. Then they pain stakingly removed all instances of this STOP codon in the genome. If these bugs swap DNA with other bugs, they will be swapping malformed genes that prematurely STOP, because these natural bugs will read the synthetic amino acid as STOP. It would be like someone who rewrote a C compiler to make return() do some kind of string copy routine. Compiling the code on a non-modified C compiler will fail.

    4. Re:Mutations by sexconker · · Score: 1

      If they escape, they won't have time. If they don't escape, there won't be any pressure on them to do so.

      When they escape, they'll have plenty of time as they'll be escaping along with chunkettes of their growth medium, containing the synthetic amino acids they need. As the bacteria grows the concentration of synthetic amino acids will decrease relative to population, creating the pressure to adapt to not need it. Further, no pressure is necessary for an effective change to come about - all specialization is random, and it sticks around if it is not detrimental.

  16. They want us all to be dependent on them by cjonslashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And now they can sell farmers the missing ingredient!

    1. Re:They want us all to be dependent on them by halivar · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is GOOD. Farmers that don't buy the missing ingredient won't have to pay Monsanto for cross-pollinated crops. Their own harvests won't be contaminated by unlicensed GMO.

    2. Re:They want us all to be dependent on them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're quite right. Scientists have been using something called oxotrophy for a long time to contain bugs. Basically you knock out their ability to synthesize an essential ingredient. A nucleic acid, for example. Nucleic acids are common in the environment, but they tend to be caught up in living things. The bug could scavange some, but that's no way to make a living without major digestive enzymes. It's a great way to contain bugs without requiring a $10,000/Kg synthetic amino acid.

    3. Re:They want us all to be dependent on them by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      People will say GE crops are bad if they can cross pollinate, bad if they can survive in the wild, bad if they can't cross pollinate, and bad if they can't survive on their own. Yay double standards.

    4. Re:They want us all to be dependent on them by cjonslashdot · · Score: 1

      True. It is a difference of philosophy: those who trust science and corporations and those who don't.

    5. Re:They want us all to be dependent on them by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      I'd say its more like those who trust science and those who think science is a corporate conspiracy (see anti-vaxxers for reference). Just because a corporation uses something does not make that thing corporate in nature. Companies that sell GPS devices use relativity, but no one would ever bring up those companies in a physics discussion, unlike when the topic of genetic engineering and the related manufactroversy comes up.

    6. Re:They want us all to be dependent on them by cjonslashdot · · Score: 1

      Yes, agree. It is just that corporations try to use science for their own ends. Sometimes that aligns with what is good for the public, and sometimes it doesn't. If the drug companies could have their way, we all would be permanently addicted to expensive drug treatments - they are pretty close to achieving that already, and that is why they invest so little money in finding cures - they don't want cures: they want us to be dependent on them. The agribusiness industry wants the same thing. But of course, the science itself is not evil. And government misuses science as well - all groups that have power try to, when it is in their interest.

  17. Life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    finds a way

  18. E. Coli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they just cut their legs off so they can't run away ?

  19. Quick history lesson by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Way back in the 1970s, a scientist named Roy Curtiss engineered Chi-1776: a strain of E. Coli for precisely these purposes. It was unable to synthesize d-amino pimelic acid, it couldn't exchange plasmids(*) with other bacteria, it was killed by detergents and UV radiation, and so on.

    It was subsequently discovered that the survival of Chi-1776 was greatly enhanced when a plasmid commonly used for research was added.

    Chi-1776 was also found difficult to work with. The very safeguards that made it safe for experimental use also made it difficult to grow. In fermentors it was outcompeted by just about everything else in the environment, so absolutely sterile environments were required, and this turns out to be very difficult in practice.

    In response, researchers turned to a strain labelled K-12 which had a higher survival rate than Chi-1776, but couldn't infect the digestive tract and also couldn't survive in the wild.

    ...until it was found to infect mouse digestive tracts after the mice had been given certain antibiotics.

    Also, despite strict procedures in place for chemical or physical disinfection, K-12 was subsequently found in the sewer systems supporting the University of Texas.

    Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it, or so they say. Does that statement apply to the current situation?

    (*) A plasmid is a "loop" of DNA that is sometimes exchanged between bacteria. It's a method of propagating useful survival traits without going through the full reproductive cycle.

    1. Re:Quick history lesson by Art+Challenor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, this time it's totally different. For starters, there's much more money to be made by simply ignoring all the possible problems.

    2. Re:Quick history lesson by Yergle143 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it, or so they say."

      That's why they call it RE-SEARCH.

    3. Re:Quick history lesson by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      Yep, right away it is clear, this is capitalism's fault.

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    4. Re:Quick history lesson by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      /sarcasm

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    5. Re:Quick history lesson by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Yes, accusing researchers of all being in a plot to make money. I've never heard anyone do that before. By the way, did you know that vaccination and climate change are also plots to make money?

    6. Re:Quick history lesson by JBMcB · · Score: 1

      You're right - all those researchers are like "I'm not going to run this experiment with this deadly bacteria in a hermetically sealed safety chamber because I'll make so much more money if I don't use one..."

      I work with companies that do these sorts of experiments - every last one of them is PARANOID about safety.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  20. Speaking of Jurassic Park by Dega704 · · Score: 1

    Uh... uh... Life.... Uh... Finds a way.

  21. ARE WE THIS DUMB!!! by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    So what happens....

    It always escapes, adapts, finds alternatives, worse IT MUTATES, MATES, MORPHS with existing E. Coli, and slowly eradicates E. Coli.

    Oh that's great you say, NO IT'S NOT!!!! Believe it not you NEED E. Coli bacteria. There are numerous varietes, many are beneficial to the digestive track. Some are bad, but many facilitate digestion.

    1. Re:ARE WE THIS DUMB!!! by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      Are we this dumb? Yes, apparently we are. We haven't grasped the idea of just because we can do something doesn't mean that we have to do it.

    2. Re:ARE WE THIS DUMB!!! by RichMan · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry you have been attacked by the terminator virus you will need daily pills to survive for the rest of your life. These pills are available at the low low cost of $10 each.

  22. "They should all be destroyed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mate

  23. Was hoping for Warp 1 before Ketracel-white by i+work+on+computers · · Score: 2

    the end is near

  24. You can add all the very you want by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Yes, it's possible, but very very unlikely.

    That means over a long enough time, it will happen.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You can add all the very you want by sirlark · · Score: 1

      Yes ... but over a long enough time (a shorter time probably) those same mutations might occur naturally. And if the mutations are not beneficial to the organism (as opposed to beneficial to humans), then they are very likely to lost again. Look, if they create an e. coli strain that produces something amazing, for instance, a viable crude oil substitute, but it also happens to be highly effective at out-competing wild type e. coli in the human gut as a side effect, and coincidently killing us because we've basically swallowed litres of crude oil, I'd say it might still be worth the risk. If they're producing vanillain, or insulin, then definitely. The problem with the crude oil scenario, is that an escapee colony would start producing a never ending oil slick. But again, the mutations would likely be lost because the organism won't need them.

    2. Re:You can add all the very you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with the crude oil scenario, is that an escapee colony would start producing a never ending oil slick.

      Eh, 'Murica has a way to deal with that. It's called the "SUV".

      From Urban Dictionary: Sport Utility Vehicle. Neither a sport vehicle nor a utility vehicle. A whack, fakeass (and successful) attempt by the motor vehicle industry to lure in overpaid middle class workaholic moms who think that they need a 3 ton vehicle to carry their stupid kids to soccer practice.

  25. humans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next step: human trials

  26. I'm thinking bigger; like Jem Hadar soldiers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So this was ketrelcel white. An artificial amino acid their bodies needed but could not find in nature. What a way to make slave soldiers.

  27. Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scary when ppl start thinking they are as smart as nature

  28. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.

  29. Roy Batty would be proud by RichMan · · Score: 1

    - blade runner reference

  30. The facts of life... by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    ...to make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  31. The fly in the ointment ... by stevez67 · · Score: 1

    " ... the number of escapees was so small as to be undetectable." Until the undetectable escapees start multiplying and sudeenly they're detectable.

  32. Ketracel White by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Ketracel-white

  33. Yeah but nature by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    uh, uh, finds a way...

  34. Has anybody not seen Jurrasic Park? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before you know it the microbes will escape and we will all be dead.