'Biology Will Be the Next Big Computing Platform' (wired.com)

An anonymous reader writes: "Amazon, but for Crispr." It's a notion that may sound far-fetched -- but it's exactly what Synthego, a Silicon Valley biotech startup, wants to be. Synthego's first product let scientists order a custom Crispr kit and have it delivered within a week; in the next few weeks, the startup will add custom Crispr'd human cell lines to its on-demand offerings, which will help scientists working on potentially life-saving medicines. Crispr, as this WIRED guide explains, "is a new class of molecular tools that scientists can use to precisely target and cut any kind of genetic material." It's revolutionizing biology -- but neither of Synthego's founders is a biologist. Turns out, in the ever-expanding industry around genome engineering, that's hardly a disqualifier.

Across the country, companies are trying to snag a seat on the fast-moving Crispr train. There's Inscripta, which is gunning to be the Apple of gene-editing by building the biological equivalent of the personal computer. In theory, that hardware will make gene editing as easy as pushing a button. And then there's Twist Biosciences, which can print out a powerful Crispr guide (the tool that identifies the bits of genetic code a scientist is hoping to target) on a single semiconductor chip -- the Intel of genome engineering, if you will. As Megan Molteni writes, "all these analogies to the computing industry are more than just wordplay." Rather, they offer a language for understanding the complex world of Crispr. "Crispr is making biology more programmable than ever before," Molteni writes. "And the biotech execs staking their claims in Crispr's backend systems have read their Silicon Valley history. They're betting biology will be the next great computing platform, DNA will be the code that runs it, and Crispr will be the programming language."

Comments

My startup

[110010001000]

My startup is planning on being the next "Uber for Crispr". Our current valuation is $54.3B but we are looking at a $3T market. If you are interested in learning more, just message me.

Re:I don't care about computing.

[ranton]

Once everyone is tall and smart then no one will be. See how that works?

That is kind of the point. Taking away at least some of peoples' built in disadvantages that is.

Re:Fucacima kamakrazee

[ranton]

We need a moratorium on CRISPR pronto

Damn right. If you are fat, dumb, slow, short, near-sighted, a high cancer risk, etc. then your kids better damn well be cursed with the same afflictions. Only those lucky enough to be born beautiful, healthy, and smart should have beautiful, healthy, and smart babies. As God intended.

Re:Fucacima kamakrazee

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't work that way, what you're hoping for is still sci-fi. I have successfully engineered cell lines and mice by permanently altering their genomes using "classic" homologous recombination, which is less efficient than CRISPR but still works. This is not microelectronics or software development. The odds are still too high that any current genetic engineering method will result in a monster rather than a viable, healthy human. But I'm worried about is that Asia will not give a damn about any moratorium. Clinical tests will be conducted, people will die, and freaks will be born.

DNA computing is fun

[macklin01]

We taught a little of this in some of our engineering courses this Spring. Suppose gene A down-regulates gene B, and gene B down-regulates gene A. Then if (A,B) is your network state, (1,0) and (0,1) are stable states, and all intermediate states go back to one of these. This is a bistable toggle. It's a way to write a bit of data to a cell.

Now, add two more genes: A promotes P which blocks A. B promotes Q which blocks B. This turns the system into a biological oscillator. Now you have a system click with tics (A up and B down) and tocs (A down and B up). Fun stuff.

It was the first

[Hognoxious]

Darwin: Actually, biology was the original computing platform.

Wallace: I said it first!

Mendel: No, it was me!

[whispered] shove your peas up your butt

Mendel: Who said that? I'll smash his fucking face in!

Darwin & Wallace, in unison: Lamarck, like always.

God: Play nice, or I'll send you all back as tapeworms.

Crispr = Blockchain

[pesho]

I have worked with Crispr/Cas9 for the past two years and have used the very nice product of one of the companies cited in the article (Synthego). This article makes no sense whatsoever. You can replace every instance of Crispr in the article with Blockchain and it will make exactly as much sense and be even better clickbait. Two of the companies offer cheap DNA/RNA synthesis service. The third one has cloned yet another Cas9 related enzyme, but still needs to show that the enzyme is of any use. Where does the "computing platform" come from is a mystery to me.

Re:Crispr = Blockchain

[HiThere]

It doesn't take much to have a Turing Complete system. DNA in a cell *is* such a system. So the problem here isn't that they are lying. But I suspect the only new thing here is the kind of hype they are using.

OTOH, so far I haven't been very impressed by the demonstrations I've heard of. Most of them sound like they work, but they don't look very controllable, and control is the difficult part of a Turing Complete system. (Actually, most of the systems aren't actually Turing Complete, but only recursively Turing Complete. But that suffices for almost all possible uses. And again, the problem is control.)

Re:I don't care about computing.

[ShanghaiBill]

It's another to have designer genetics, carefully controlling height, eye color, hair color, whatever

So because you "feel" this is wrong, you want to impose your morality on others? Look, if you want to have a baby the old fashioned way, and just randomly mix your DNA with someone you met on OkCupid.com, that is your right. But those of us preferring a more scientific method should have equal reproductive rights.