Scientists Hold A Secret Meeting To Consider Creating A Synthetic Human Genome (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via The New York Times, summarized by Gizmodo: Earlier this week, over a hundred scientists, lawyers, and entrepreneurs held a secret meeting to discuss the possibility of creating a synthetic human genome. Creating a synthetic human genome differs from gene editing as scientists would use chemicals to manufacture all the DNA contained in human chromosomes, instead of patching a gene here and there. Synthetic genomics, unlike genetic modifications, in that it doesn't use naturally occurring genes. Instead, it relies on the custom-designed base pair series. Currently, customers view synthetic genomics as a way to build novel microbes and animals, but with humans it raises the prospect of custom-designed humans, without any parents. George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School and one of the organizers of the proposed project, says the characterization was a misunderstanding, and that the project was aimed to generally improve the ability to synthesize long strands of DNA, which could be applied to various types of animals, plants and microbes. "They're painting a picture which I don't think represents the project," Dr. Church said in an interview. The project was initially called "HGP2: The Human Genome Synthesis Project." However, the name was later changed to "HGP-Write: Testing Large Synthetic Genomes In Cells." Why the change? Because the original headline was suppose to be headline-grabbing, or so they say.

Comments

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

There must have been one of their kind in the group since this secret meeting was exposed.

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans hate science unless it can be used as a weapon.

if it's on Slashdot

[phantomfive]

It's not a secret anymore.

Re:if it's on Slashdot

[Hognoxious]

It's still as close as makes any practical difference.

Re:if it's on Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

A meeting publicized and named at one point to draw attention to headlines isn't close to secret at all, even if it is a closed meeting that was difficult for public to get into.

Headline is known to be sensationalist...

[Anonymous Coward]

....and yet the useless piles of shit here posted it anyway. New trashdot editors, same as the old trashdot editors.

Re:Headline is known to be sensationalist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally. Plus, the comment section has dried up to mostly inane childish crap.

And the market research polls continue.

Pity.

iPhone-like Secret leak

[hcs_$reboot]

Sounds like adding "secret", "confidential" , "undisclosed" to [insert story or device here] is the trendy way to get something reaching the largest public..

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[Applehu Akbar]

Their kind hates science.

That's why all the people protesting nuclear projects, genetic engineering, and mountaintop telescopes are wearing business suits.

Designer Babe

[Tablizer]

The plot of Weird Science comes to mind. Bad dick; go to sleep!

Re: Designer Babe

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, we are gonna make a sex "toy" so good we will happily die of starvation, while fucking.

Re: Designer Babe

[Anonymous Coward]

Y-you, uh, didn't see Weird Science did you?

Re:This will piss off the republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like Hillary's paid internet trolls are still at it.

Why start there?

[sims 2]

Why not start small like with a squirrel? or anything else that won't be able to sue after it grows up...

Or we're they just talking about trying to get the DNA to assemble?

Either way are they planning to make use of the new letters?
https://science.slashdot.org/s...

Re:Why start there?

[Anonymous Coward]

!. mammalian genomes are all large, body size is a different issue, yeast (being simple single celled eukaryotes) would be a realistic first step then probably nematodes(simple multi celled eukaryotes), both are used heavily as experimental subjects. What next I do not know, but I suspect an insect, there are so many to pick from so finding a small genome would be possible and the ethics considerations are non existent compared to vertebrates. Only then would we be able to seriously consider something with a complex vertebrate genome, but using the end goal as the headline is basic the only way to make politicians cough up cash for the boring early bits. My guess is that being able to produce undamaged stem cells from aged/damage ingredients would be the true long term goal as our current tissue repair tricks (organ scaffolds etc) and all the ones currently in development are limited by the ability of the stem cells you can get, with this you get http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheAgeless rather than http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AgeWithoutYouth which is the current consequence....

2. no, it is not like we "found" them they where made from scratch you would have to redesign nearly every part of the cells fundamentals to cope, rather than just copy. This is more a sort of synthetic biology, your design requirements would be unbelievable and worse the larger the organism, might be worth it for very small bacteria but not for yeast even. Also as stated we only have four, adding two bases may have unknown detrimental side-effects in practice, or why don't we have them already?

Re:Why start there?

[Anonymous Coward]

Squirrels??? I think a real life Alvin and the Chipmunks would be better!!!

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[Tablizer]

So if we make a Claude Van Damme to belt ISIS, they're okay with it, but not if it's gay, brown, Muslim, from NY, and/or has no birth certificate?

Yes.

[penguinoid]

I'll be done soon enough, might as well get it over with.

Re:Yes.

[penandpaper]

be done soon enough,

That's not soon enough!

The road to hell is paved with...secrets.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, was it a "secret" for the same reason our legislator's riders to bills, are "secret"?

If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[Anonymous Coward]

trust them to build a human from the molecules up? This will not end well.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[AK Marc]

Sounds like fun. Build the ideal human, including genetic resistance to all known diseases, building in an ideal weight, and heart rate that's lower, and eliminating as many issues of aging as possible. Maximum intellect, earliest possible puberty, and maximize the utility of the person. The design goals are obvious enough.

But building a person one molecule at a time in committee? If it took them one minute per molecule, and they worked 8 hour days, 5 days a week, it's take them 24,000 years to assemble a human. If they worked 24/7, it'd take them only 6000 years. So they'd only need 24,000 committees working in parallel to complete this in one year (8 by 5) So far, leaking at 100% from meetings, it'd likely not be secret for long.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many would it take if they were to complete it in just six days?

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the ideal human is not so different from the common human due to the constrains of biology and physics but
We could built people with superior abilities for use in hard environments, space, soldiers...
Even if they break and die due to the trade-offs in lets say, 4 or 5 years it may be economically worthy

If you could see what my eyes have seen....

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[AK Marc]

If we could engineer humans, we could make them disease resistant. HIV attacks certain cells in certain ways. We could engineer a human that's incompatible with it. A couple generations of that, and we've wiped out that disease. Tweaks like that for all targeted diseases, and we'd eliminate many of the vulnerabilities. They may mutate, but we can engineer around mutations. It takes longer, as the human generation is longer than a vrius's, but it can be done.

It wouldn't be hard to engineer night vision. The hardest part to that is engineeerin the changes to the lense to allow in UV. We've evolved to block UV in the lense, so as to protect our cornea, but engineering humans to be penta-chromats (we already have tetra-chromats, just rare), and have the 5th be in the UV spectrum. You'd need to have sunglasses, or UV blocking contact lenses, but at night, the glow in the atmosphere would give a pretty reasonable night vision.

Hundreds of small changes like that would be what makes a super soldier. Not the sci-fi ideas of super strong, invulnerable soldiers, but increased senses, tweaks to strength, and perhaps re-deisgn of weaknesses (especially in the joints). My orthopedic surgeon said he has proof we weren't "intelligently designed". You couldn't make a worse joint than the human knee. If we were designed, it wasn't by anything with intelligence.

We'll start with tweaks to the brain. Intelligence, screening out brain defects, and a uniformity to intelligence that will leave humans soulless. That's my prediction when we actually start playing with the genome beyond looking for know errors and aborting them. Remove dyslexia, ADD, ADHD, autism, and everything else that's a "learning" disorder linked to higher intelligence will kill some types of creativity. The ability to build a better human doesn't mean we ever will.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[Anonymous Coward]

Hundreds of small changes like that would be what makes a super soldier.

Ah, you've just re-invented slavery for the millionth time.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of that makes sense with the exception of puberty. Here in the united states we already have a teen pregnancy problem if we pushed puberty later that would be pretty much eliminated but making it happen earlier would likely turn our teen pregnancy problem into a child pregnancy problem. Or am I missing something?

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[CrimsonAvenger]

Because, after all, we could do a much better job of designing a human than evolution did. I mean, what's 100KY+ of field experience when compared to SCIENCE! ?

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't be hard to engineer night vision. The hardest part to that is engineeerin the changes to the lense to allow in UV. We've evolved to block UV in the lense, so as to protect our cornea, but engineering humans to be penta-chromats (we already have tetra-chromats, just rare), and have the 5th be in the UV spectrum. You'd need to have sunglasses, or UV blocking contact lenses, but at night, the glow in the atmosphere would give a pretty reasonable night vision.

Night vision has nothing to do with UV light perception. (UV comes from the sun, just like most of the rest of light. There isn't an atmospheric night-glow of UV, but there might be some UV from starlight.) Our cornea is on the outside and blocks UV, so that it isn't absorbed in the lens (which makes it become cloudy and you blind).

As a side note, you can already see UV light. You just see it as an uncolored brightness instead of a specific color.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[ColdWetDog]

Na, all you would would make is a gooey mess. The reason that we aren't seven feet tall, have proportions of a Greek god(dess)**, live forever, are immune to radiation, disease, pop under ads and Internet Trolls is because life is a compromise. What works in one environment doesn't work in others.

You might get an ADD, autism, depression and psychosis resistant brain and find you ended up with a clone of Pee Wee Herman.

Careful what you ask for, you might get it.

** Or whatever your ideal body form might be. And no, we don't really want the specifics.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It's basically a fight against entropy, but we still take advantage of cultivated varieties of plants, for example.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[hierofalcon]

The 6 day time frame was just to restore Earth to a habitable state again and repopulate it after He wiped out Lucifer's kingdom by a flood. That said, not having a committee to deal with or regulations to adhere to was probably a time saver. The next judgment is also going to be apocalyptic.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[AK Marc]

Right, like we shouldn't shield ourselves from the elements with things like clothes and houses. After all, if evolution couldn't solve the problem, it'd be pure hubris for us to address it directly ourselves.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[AK Marc]

The assumption was a rational populous, not just unleashing the new people into the current society. If the "mature enough to drink" line were reached 10 years earlier, then move the drinking age to 11. Puberty being earlier wasn't just for procreation, but to reach peak physical condition as quickly as practical, so we can lower the age of manual labor to 10. Not to promote child labor, but to eliminate it by making them un-child sooner.

We have a teen pregnancy problem because we have extended "childhood" long past the age when children are adults. Why is a 19 year old having a child a "problem"? After all, that's a (literal) teen pregnancy

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[khallow]

Because, after all, we could do a much better job of designing a human than evolution did.

Of course, we could. The obvious rebuttal here is twofold: evolution is vastly slower than human efforts and we're not solving the same problems. Evolution solved the problem of human survival in a world of virtually no technology or human organization beyond the small tribe. Meanwhile, we are willing to compromise on human survival in a pre-civilization environment in exchange for significant advantages in our current anad future civilization environment.

As to the first point, how will we expect evolution to keep up with the next century of change? At best, there will be only 5 human generations. That's just not enough time for any significant survival adaptation to take root, especially in the absence of significant selection pressure.

But human bioengineering doesn't have that restriction and can adapt as fast as humanity and its civilizations change.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[ChrisMaple]

...earliest possible puberty, and maximize the utility of the person. The design goals are obvious enough.

You'd make a really poor god and a very bad dictator.
We already have enough problems caused by puberty coming before emotional maturity.
Utility --- UTILITY!!! Utility to whom? To you, the big boss, who decides how people should be? A person's sole reason for existence is his own well-being, not utility. Go hold Jeremy Bentham's hand on the way to hell.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[ChrisMaple]

The primary UV blocking element of the eye is the lens. Some people who have had their lenses replaced (due to cataracts) with a plastic that doesn't block UV suddenly are able to see in the UV range http://petapixel.com/2012/04/17/the-human-eye-can-see-in-ultraviolet-when-the-lens-is-removed/.

The lens cuts off at about 350 nm (although that varies a great deal with age). The cornea cuts off at about 280 nm.

Near UV (350-400 nm) for normal people is sensed as violet, and it's hard to focus.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[ChrisMaple]

I've read that the reason most people aren't 7 feet tall is that when a person that tall slips and hits his head, he gets brain damage. It is an evolutionary disadvantage in most circumstances.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[gzuckier]

Sounds like fun. Build the ideal human, including genetic resistance to all known diseases, building in an ideal weight, and heart rate that's lower, and eliminating as many issues of aging as possible. Maximum intellect, earliest possible puberty, and maximize the utility of the person. The design goals are obvious enough. But building a person one molecule at a time in committee? If it took them one minute per molecule, and they worked 8 hour days, 5 days a week, it's take them 24,000 years to assemble a human. If they worked 24/7, it'd take them only 6000 years. So they'd only need 24,000 committees working in parallel to complete this in one year (8 by 5) So far, leaking at 100% from meetings, it'd likely not be secret for long.

And when it's done..... it turns out to be Donald Trump! AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[gzuckier]

The 6 day time frame was just to restore Earth to a habitable state again and repopulate it after He wiped out Lucifer's kingdom by a flood. That said, not having a committee to deal with or regulations to adhere to was probably a time saver. The next judgment is also going to be apocalyptic.

Pretty clear when He was getting towards the end, creating humans, He was pretty much just cutting corners and trying to get it wrapped up before the weekend.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[gzuckier]

Right, like we shouldn't shield ourselves from the elements with things like clothes and houses. After all, if evolution couldn't solve the problem, it'd be pure hubris for us to address it directly ourselves.

Fix all evolution's mistakes. Give us a furry coat to shield us from the elements. Have us use all 4 limbs to reduce the strain on our spines. Eliminate the modifications to our throat which allow us to modify our vocalizations, but at the cost of higher rate of choking on food. Reduce the size of the brain so that cranial size can be smaller and all that trouble with giving birth is eliminated. Maybe add a tail for counterbalancing to improve our rapid mobility.

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[gzuckier]

It wouldn't be hard to engineer night vision. The hardest part to that is engineeerin the changes to the lense to allow in UV. We've evolved to block UV in the lense, so as to protect our cornea, but engineering humans to be penta-chromats (we already have tetra-chromats, just rare), and have the 5th be in the UV spectrum. You'd need to have sunglasses, or UV blocking contact lenses, but at night, the glow in the atmosphere would give a pretty reasonable night vision.

Night vision has nothing to do with UV light perception. (UV comes from the sun, just like most of the rest of light. There isn't an atmospheric night-glow of UV, but there might be some UV from starlight.) Our cornea is on the outside and blocks UV, so that it isn't absorbed in the lens (which makes it become cloudy and you blind).

As a side note, you can already see UV light. You just see it as an uncolored brightness instead of a specific color.

wouldn't IR be better?

Re:If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can we

[AK Marc]

You want to turn us into pangolins?

Not much of a secret

[SlithyMagister]

It even appeared on /.

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[AK Marc]

They don't protest, they just block it with lawsuits. Suts block with lawsuits. Seems obvious, right?

Why in secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this being done in secret? Why not be open about your plans? What is there to hide about science?

Re:Why in secret?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's often (especially in controversial cases like this) easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

Re:Why in secret?

[gzuckier]

Why is this being done in secret? Why not be open about your plans? What is there to hide about science?

They were meeting with the Climatologists' Cartel.

Re:Why in secret?

[gzuckier]

It's often (especially in controversial cases like this) easier to ask forgiveness than permission.

That's how religion works.

I just invested heavily in popcorn

[hyades1]

The Right To Life types will go absolutely berserk over this. The whole religious underpinning of the movement...the one they never like to talk about...will have to decide whether a human created by man should enjoy the same protection as a human created by their god.

And when there's no sperm and egg union to enshrine as the moment when life begins, where will they draw the line? At what point during the assembly process does the thing in the dish deserve to be called human? A chimp shares all but 4% of our DNA, after all.

This should be fun!

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[I'm New Around Here]

You say this as if they are going to engineer a human being in our lifetime. Maybe your naturally conceived grand children can use your "Popcorn stock" before they die of old age at 400+ years old,but I don't think even they will see the glorious immaculate conception you are hoping for..

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

I have serious doubts that this will have anything resembling life. At best it might be a brain dead shell, but most likely they will find that there is something quintessential about life that will prevent a truely synthetic organism from ever having that "spark" we call life. Last I checked we can't even make a single cell from scratch that "act like life".

My guess is the religious types will view it like they do people who play with dead bodies.

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Empiric]

will have to decide whether a human created by man should enjoy the same protection as a human created by their god

What protection do you think you have now, and why?

Since I know you won't invoke a "soul", show me your "has rights" DNA sequence in contrast to other animals' "does not have rights" sequence.

Bonus points if you are a vegetarian, and thus not a total lifelong hypocrite.

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[mark-t]

The Right To Life types will go absolutely berserk over this. The whole religious underpinning of the movement...the one they never like to talk about...will have to decide whether a human created by man should enjoy the same protection as a human created by their god.

Only if the resulting creation actually seems to exhibit a sufficient number of traits that are distinctly human-like. Does a synthetic person have a theory of mind once they get old enough? Can they question the universe around them and try to create an explanation for their observations based on not only the knowledge they have communicated so far, but also the ability to image. Can they learn to read, and in particular once they have apparently learned how to read, can they then use that skill to learn new skills from books that nobody else has taught them before?

If the answers to a sufficient number of these questions is yes, then I'd agree it that what you are saying will become an issue. If not, however, synthetic humans are unlikely to ever legally gain such rights as what ordinary humans enjoy.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Frankzy]

Read again.. He is not the one who thinks us "genuine" humans have any more rights than some lab grown flesh..

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[davide marney]

I don't think right to lifers are shy about talking about religion, where do you get that? The idea of human life being "sacred" -- a religious term, meaning set apart/dedicated to God -- is common in the movement. As to whether or not it is possible to create "synthetic" life, I would point out that it that isn't at all what is being discussed here. What the scientists will be doing is more like "directed" life, using the framework of existing biological systems to manipulate and direct growth. Manipulating growth is something mankind has been doing since the dawn of history, although obviously not so directly at the cellular level. God created everything the scientists are using, including the scientists themselves, so there's not really a religious question that has to be answered.

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

You say this as if they are going to engineer a human being in our lifetime. Maybe your naturally conceived grand children can use your "Popcorn stock" before they die of old age at 400+ years old,but I don't think even they will see the glorious immaculate conception you are hoping for..

Rule of thumb: If they've started talking openly about something, then someone, somewhere has already started doing this, and this is the start of the 'breaking the news gently' phase..

That sound you hear faintly in the future distance is our new jackboot wearing Human 2.0 Übermensch coming to wipe out us mehums using a nasty new bioweapon that only targets poor old Human 1.0...

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

And when there's no sperm and egg union to enshrine as the moment when life begins, where will they draw the line?

They're just building DNA strands here... DNA doesn't generate animals on its own. Go back and take Bio 101, would ya?

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

Last you checked was before they actually did it.

http://jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/synthetic-bacterial-genome/press-release/

Oh, "That's not from scratch.", you say? Well neither is what the main discussion is talking about.

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[mark_reh]

And all this time I thought that the scientist's parents created the scientist. Freakin' biology class! Nothing but a pack of lies!

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

Not created. copied by human

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

The Right To Life types will go absolutely berserk over this.

This will stir up some interesting conversations at the hallways of the Vatican city, I'm sure.

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[HiThere]

HEY! That's marvelous. They're going to create a human without original sin! And therefore no need for salvation.

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[HiThere]

Umnh...they're just talking about building DNA strands here.

If they tried to do that this decade they'd just end up with a mess. And mitochondria should be easier to synthesize than a complete genome. (Admittedly, even that's beyond current state of the art.)

When they first do this it will be for something economically important. Cows, sheep, chickens, fish, soybeans, something. Plants are a bit tricky, but they tolerate small changes well. And they're easy to clone. People are tricky...in fact primates are tricky as a whole, but if you botch creating a person you've got potential legal troubles.

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[khallow]

At best it might be a brain dead shell, but most likely they will find that there is something quintessential about life that will prevent a truely synthetic organism from ever having that "spark" we call life.

Cool, I saw that movie too, bro.

OTOH, if nature can do it via evolution, nature can do it via human bioengineering.

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[ChrisMaple]

Rights come from the responsibility of an individual to support himself, and from the type of beings that we are (who use our rational faculty to consciously direct our lives.) There is also an element of rights that identifies rights-holders as "being on our team", i.e. not destroying humans and not being utterly alien. (We can deal with the Jell-o creatures from Zorblatz-7 some other time, that's not the issue here.)
Your vegetarian bias is just silly.

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Empiric]

Oh. So, you have something entirely made-up to suggest.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Empiric]

More consequential is that you read again.

He said, "O Lord, there are many around the drinking trough, but there is nothing in the cistern."

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[gzuckier]

The Right To Life types will go absolutely berserk over this. The whole religious underpinning of the movement...the one they never like to talk about...will have to decide whether a human created by man should enjoy the same protection as a human created by their god.

And when there's no sperm and egg union to enshrine as the moment when life begins, where will they draw the line? At what point during the assembly process does the thing in the dish deserve to be called human? A chimp shares all but 4% of our DNA, after all.

This should be fun!

As Dr. Frankenstein said to Igor, "If this thing works we won't need women any more".

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[gzuckier]

At best it might be a brain dead shell, but most likely they will find that there is something quintessential about life that will prevent a truely synthetic organism from ever having that "spark" we call life.

Cool, I saw that movie too, bro. OTOH, if nature can do it via evolution, nature can do it via human bioengineering.

Gonna change the nature of biology graduate school, totally.

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[gzuckier]

HEY! That's marvelous. They're going to create a human without original sin! And therefore no need for salvation.

Not thinking forwards enough. Artificial person; no parents; no inheritance; another damn welfare brat!!! President Trump, outlaw this!!

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[hyades1]

Well played, sir. Well played indeed!

If I was allowed to give mod points on a thread I posted in, I'd give one to you...more if I could get away with it.

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[hyades1]

Congratulations. You get an A+ for sophistry. They most certainly argue that their efforts aren't based in religion...because then they'd have to watch out about mixing church and state, and maybe getting their freeloading asses taxed.

Amazing how many of Right to Lifers are in favour of capital punishment, though.

And unless you can come up with some concrete proof that god even exists, insisting he made anything at all is simply ridiculous.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[hyades1]

Great...does this mean I now get to quote from a more important book...like one of the Harry Potter volumes, or maybe "Letters From The Earth"?

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[hyades1]

Sure they will. I bet it won't even take 10 years.

Re:I just invested heavily in popcorn

[hyades1]

I agree with you, but I think it will prove to be easier than you believe. They've already sequenced the genome of a lot of mammals, and that's a long first step.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Empiric]

Sure.

In fact, we should even then restudy your quote, say, in 150 years.

Pencil you in? Bring friends.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[hyades1]

You think you'll be around then? LOL. The only hope of an afterlife is if we figure out how to do it ourselves...maybe by downloading our mind into some kind of computer.

And then, yet again, humans will have stuffed god into an even smaller box, and made believers look even more foolish.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Empiric]

You have what you believe, I have what I know.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[hyades1]

No, you have what you believe. I have what I can prove.

This is why so many religious people are worthy of nothing more than the pity of rational humans. Contempt and disgust are also options, when religious fanatics engage in the kind of dishonest nonsense that seems to be your meat and bread.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Empiric]

And what can you "prove"?

And do be aware that for anyone but an utter neophyte on the subject, nothing is "provable" outside of mathematics.

As I'm sure you have the typical profound ignorance of science as the one domain you can even poseur having worthwhile understanding of, typical of those with your worldview, understand that a "theory" is indeed just that. A provisional model permanently open to revision based on new evidence.

Show me what you can "prove".

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[hyades1]

Do you speak English? Clearly you don't write it very well. No doubt this is part-and-parcel with your inability to understand science, mathematics or just about anything else having to do with rational thought.

Just for starters, you might want to review your understanding of the word "theory" as it applies to science. And poseur is a noun, not a verb, moron.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Empiric]

So, nothing you claim you can "prove". Nothing citing where I've exhibited any dishonesty whatsoever. Just empty claims of my lack of understanding of science or "rational thought". I assure you, as a professional software developer, I demonstrate my understanding of both daily. Your parroted overextension of the domains to which "proof" applies, though, is neither novel nor scientifically sound.

Any time you want to back up anything you've said, feel free. It's optional for now.

And no, your inability to comprehend informal usage of terms will not save you. Lawyer your way out, if you can.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[hyades1]

A "professional software developer"???

ROFL

Yeah, that makes you a real, live scientist.

And I've forgotten more about language than you'll ever know. What you attempt to define as "informal usage", rational people call "blatant inaccuracy for the purpose of misdirection".

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your pointless trolling has gone on long enough now.

I leave you to your preference of getting naturally deselected and wholly irrelevant.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[hyades1]

In other words, you finally figured out that your attempt at an argument is stupid, illogical and dishonest.

Like you.

Thus, your attempt to label me a troll.

Nice try. And Bravo for replying as an AC, as though your manner of expression isn't recognizable. Like so many religious types, you remain your dedication to lies and deception right to the end.

Never mind pity. You have earned my disgust.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Empiric]

Your opinion on me or the topics you presume to address, cluelessly, means nothing, and has no effect anywhere other than as a typical time-wasting internet troll. Obviously, and even you are not too stupid to know this clearly while you state otherwise, I was posting AC due to device convenience, and absoluely obviously not an attempt to conceal who was responding.

Your goalless, pointless trolling cannot mean anything or have any consequence, even theoretically. According to either of our worldviews. If you are wrong, you are wrong. If you were right, then--nothing.

Lie on about my dishonesty you've yet to cite a single example of. Lie on about how science works.

Get deselected, troll. Preferably sooner rather than later.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[hyades1]

"I was posting AC due to device convenience, and absoluely obviously not an attempt to conceal who was responding."

Yes, of course. A soi disant "professional software developer" with a "device inconvenience", not a religious fanatic with a penchant for deception. No doubt you're also a chemist...one who's never heard of the Periodic Table.

"Lie on about my dishonesty you've yet to cite a single example of.

See above. Who are you going to sign in as next time? Jesus? Mother Teresa?

What you really are is a joke.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Empiric]

(waits)

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[hyades1]

Your failure to address your dishonesty speaks louder than any words.

Re: I just invested heavily in popcorn

[Empiric]

There is no dishonesty, and you know it, idiot.

It's natural, and you're already clear that it's to absolutely everyone's benefit. Let evolution work. Soon.

This is why was secret

[Anonymous Coward]

To limit the opportunities for funding to the insiders who were invited.
Government sponsored research is big business and has characteristics of underworld control.

Scariest Words In Future Human History

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ladies and Gentlemen: I present you the Master Race!"

Re:Scariest Words In Future Human History

[Anonymous Coward]

The scary part is that the presenter works for the corporation that owns the Master Race -product and can sell you one for any desired purpose. Termination fees are included in the life cycle maintenance plan, which comes as standard issue with their 'Silver' package.

The Devil is at work ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely nothing good will come out of this.

Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

The best thing about synthetic genes is that they're patentable, unlike naturally occurring genes. I, for one, welcome our gene synthesizing corporate overlords.

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

But, wouldn't the patent run out before most people start making copies?

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe its a bizarre attempt at reducing teen pregnancy as the patents wont have expired....

Re:Patents

[ChrisMaple]

Human 2.0 will have a corporate trademark glowing on the forehead. Trademarks don't expire.

Good

[Al3s]

They are going to create The Emperor Of Mankind. It's about time.was

HIP

[3LP]

THE INSTRUMENTALITY BEGINS http://evangelion.wikia.com/wi...

Re:HIP

[HiThere]

IIRC, the Instrumentality didn't begin with the creation of the under-people, though I'm not sure. Wasn't the Instrumentality a part of "The Game of Rat and Dragon" or "The Lady Who Sailed the Soul"? (Admittedly they both have sort of proto-underpeople.) Or possibly "Mark Elf", though they could have existed without being visible in that one, and it's really out of the straight line history, as normal humans had nearly disappeared.

Milestone.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take note of it.

YOU live in the age that will see the first bronie fuck a lab created MLP life form.

Re:Milestone.

[gzuckier]

Take note of it.

YOU live in the age that will see the first bronie fuck a lab created MLP life form.

and it will be an artificial white rat.

naah, it'll only take about a month for a team

[karlandtanya]

of 9 women

I was there...

[Gravis Zero]

and I can confirm the meeting was held at a secret base, located underneath a volcano.

Catgirls!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, so much yes, a million times yes.

Now we can finally have real life catgirls.

Re: Catgirls!

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been nagging me for days. Really gnawing at me. I knew something was missing but I just couldn't put my finger on it. I could kick myself now, of course, but then everything is much clearer in hindsight. To be honest, I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned it. Really, it would be the icing on the cake. That final touch. The last detail.

D.Va would look cute as fuck with a tail.

Re:Catgirls!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Zen Gun is here!

Re:Catgirls!

[HiThere]

Ah, but which version? My favorite, I must admit, is C'Mell.

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, is AK Marc the Republican hate troll? Did he accidentally log in to reply? Is this his Doc Ruby moment?

What's the first rule of fight club?

[Anonymous Coward]

And for a secret meeting to have a headline-grabbing name after discovery is too convenient.
So he then breaks the second rule of fight club.

Prior Art

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Fifth Element did it! /SouthParkReference

Re:Prior Art

[Anonymous Coward]

Combine this with an AI gene sequencer/splicer and you have the tools for direct panspermia. Seed starships that genetically engineer a human hybrid that might be able to survive on planets that are near or in the "Goldilocks" zone and adjusted to live within the target planet's atmosphere. Maybe even go so far as to build a Human/Methanotroph. Never mind the ethical implications of taking over another planet's ecosystem.

Secret?

[aglider]

It's everywhere in the press and the news. We call it "the Pulcinella Secret". Ah!

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

How? They are funding science, that they like. Not general knowledge, but that interests them. The latest algorithm to make a dollar. Better bullets, better tanks, summer humans. And as private research, they do not have to report the results. For all you know, they may be making a new updated flu virus, or "angels".

Scientists.

[Dunbal]

Scientists Hold A Secret Meeting

This is the first hint that perhaps your research will not pass the ethics committee review.

Re:Scientists.

[Anonymous Coward]

My first thought was that, "You heard about it within a week, thus it wasn't secret."

Re:Scientists.

[ColdWetDog]

That was the "ethics review committee". It actually had a number of ethicists in it. (Why is Firefox trying to change this to 'theists'? Does it know something?)

Re:Scientists.

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the "ethics review committee". It actually had a number of ethicists in it. (Why is Firefox trying to change this to 'theists'? Does it know something?)

Although perhaps ethicists where selected who would be agreeble with the goals rather than question them?

Re:Scientists.

[EnsilZah]

More like the first hint that some asshole decided to write a sensationalist headline and misrepresent anything that might have actually transpired, so at most I'd be willing to take from anything they wrote would be 'some people met to discuss genetics'

Re:This will piss off the republicans!

[LifesABeach]

Poor A/C, 2 things you haven't grasped. 1, what makes you think RINO's weren't directly involved in this trillion dollar scheme, and 2. Synthetic humans are people to.

Private vs. Secret

[paxprobellum]

Every time a scientist calls another scientist is a secret meeting now? There's a difference between 'private' and 'secret', folks.

Re: Private vs. Secret

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. They're just upset because they weren't invited.

Re:Private vs. Secret

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time a scientist calls another scientist is a secret meeting now?

There's a difference between 'private' and 'secret', folks.

100 people isn't private.

Re: If they can't keep a meeting secret, how can w

[Chewbacon]

What could possible go wrong? Oh, wait...

KHAAAAAAAAN!

Those sneaky scientists!

[mark_reh]

They're always up to something weird!

I'm going to tell my kid to stay away from science and become a lawyer.

Headline grabbing?

[sir-gold]

Why would you give your meeting a "headline grabbing" (but supposedly inaccurate) title, and then ban the press from attending? Why manipulate the title for the sake of sensationalism, and then keep it all secret?

Someone is lying about something, I just can't tell which part is the lie. Are they lying about the title change? Are they lying about the true purpose of the meeting? Did the press lie about not being invited? When you have multiple "facts" that contradict each other, it's a sure sign that something is being covered up.

Re:Headline grabbing?

[HiThere]

That's only one possibility. Another is that there were different small groups setting things up, and they weren't communicating very well. So when everyone got together a lot of things got changed.

OTOH, they did leave the name starting with HG... (They should have changed it to be "Huge Genome..." if they wanted to keep the initials.

Kaaaaaahn!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the beginning of the Eugenics program foretold in Star Trek.
"A race of genetically engineered supermen whose egos drove them to worldwide domination."

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[ShanghaiBill]

There must have been one of their kind in the group since this secret meeting was exposed.

Sure. The "secret" meeting that was designed to be "headline-grabbing". Whatever.

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[Anonymous Coward]

AK Marc is a fucking faggot; wouldn't surprise me.

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Well, the closest thing to it that Wikipedia is that he's bi-polar. Does that count?

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[K. S. Kyosuke]

(Huh, "that Wikipedia mentions"... Damn fast fingers.)

Not a secret

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists Hold A Secret Meeting To Consider Creating A Synthetic Human Genome

It's not a secret if people know about it, just sayin'.

Let's Call Them What They Really Are...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mutants.

Yes, here was the announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Gentlemen, I give you KHAN!

Primordial Soup

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF, why not just create life from primordial soup and lightning bolts, like they teach us in schools?

I mean, it must work, it's how we all got here, right?

You'd be able to make anything, wouldn't you?

Or was it just a scam?

Re: Primordial Soup

[Anonymous Coward]

You got a few billion years to conduct experiments and monitor the evolution of cell lines?

Has George Church lost his moral compass?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have worked in molecular genetics for many years. I used to admire George Church as someone who developed clever, useful, and perhaps, even, exciting, molecular technologies. However, in recent years, he and other big guns in molecular biology have shown little evidence of a properly-set moral compasses. Somehow pushing the technological envelope has become more important than careful study of the associated ethical considerations. Take for example, last year's flap about another summit meeting held in NYC, organized to discussed using CRISPR/Cas90 to perform germ-line editing of human genomes. When the outcry arose, Church's defense for the meeting was that we could extend human life-spans. There comes a point where that rather simplistic desire, plus cries for academic freedom, cannot be considered as sufficient justification for some activities. One can only wonder how much yearning for fame, and especially for fortune, is providing the driving force for the heavy push to genetically modify ourselves. As the rate of our technological progress has accelerated, is it not reasonable to ask if we have started "driving" beyond the reach of our ethical headlights.

Re:Has George Church lost his moral compass?

[Anonymous Coward]

No: it's money. Church already has fame (such as it is in the scientific world).

Can you imagine how much the greedheads can make on this genetic technology?

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[interkin3tic]

"Secret" here has a different meaning. Geochurch is fond of media attention, he's been on Colbert, does big interviews, he promotes himself. I wouldn't be surprised if he contacted news himself afterward. Not knocking him here, this stuff isn't like a sex scandal, it doesn't exactly promote itself without effort, and I think people should be informed about this stuff.

I do doubt that he made it "secret" though specifically to make it more headline grabbing. I expect he made it closed so it woudln't be public disclosure and wouldn't prevent him from patenting stuff. IIRC, he's peripherally involved in the CRISPR patent that will likely generate billions. The technology reported here undoubtedly has a giant amount of potential if patented as well.

I have also heard statements that they made it closed so when published it would get into better journals and be more novel. I'm skeptical about this, as the top journals are still going to gobble it up, and also Church could practically record himself farting and it would be considered for "Science."

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[Plus1Entropy]

summer humans

Oh, my sweet summer child...

Certain failure

[manu0601]

Creating a human from all synthetic DNA would be a certain failure.

There are huge parts of the genome we do not fully understand. For instance we have ancient viruses incorporated in an harmless form. Removing that sequences cause vulnerability more diseases.

The synthetic human will quickly die from a random disease that everyone else can cope with.

Aw, maybe they found one of my old threads...

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not even remember where it is, no usenet group was like the best so I posted in some sci.bio available one with few posts... Basically, the proposal was to use a ring helicoidal structure akin to how spiders weave their webs to organize genetic material, rather than the ladder DNA structure of Life. No wonder they go through secrecy and then gossip here, not very serious people while they do not acknowledge my proposals are introductory and well informed. The **synthetic Human** part sounds hype, but then there are some advantages when building from the start the more complex structure rather than starting with simple ones. The matter is of course what chemicals to use instead of Life s bases, which does not seem to be a really big problem given the underlying structural ida, possibly benzene-like accruable rather than self-assembly. And no problem with contaminating our genetic pools, chemicals would differ. Oh, I do not think they would confess if they read my thread, maybe somebody ought to confess them and the organizer exposed as not crediting his sources, if... - djb

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[gzuckier]

Republicans hate science unless it can be used as a weapon.

Corollary: you can use anything as a weapon if you try hard enough.

Re: This will piss off the republicans!

[gzuckier]

Well, the closest thing to it that Wikipedia is that he's bi-polar. Does that count?

Even better; imagine a genetically engineered Jean Claude Van Damme bipolar bear! Awesome!

Human divergence

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't go through the trouble of amassing billions and getting a better score than everyone else, just to take a chance on producing an heir that could be an embarrassment to me and possibly bring my dynasty to an end. No, I demand the best and I get the best: smarter, doesn't get fat, doesn't get sick, lives longer, and optimized for implants. I'm better than the pathetic corporate drones I squeeze every last bit of life out of till they are just a husk to be discarded, and I expect my kid will be too. Hell, he might even rule the world someday.