I must say that I agree that this is an important advance, but that it is far from fully artificial life. The question remains as to whether the quote "I am creating artificial life" came as a direct quote or as the attention-grabbing headline that the reporter got from the interview (I haven't seen it as a direct quote yet, but correct me if I missed it). The importance of the advance is that the chromosome that was created will be taking control of the basic functions of the cell, which is much more ambitious than any current projects have been that add only a small number of genes to modify a particular response or character.
A small correction to Teancum's reading of the article, the next step would be to create an artificial *prokaryote* or bacteria, not a eukaryote. The goal of eukaryotic life being made in the lab is quite a ways away, since it would require the ability to create a working nucleus/nuclear-pore system for moving mRNA to the rest of the cell, as well as the creation of many membrane bound organelles (mitochodria, chloroplasts -- if it is a plant, endoplasmic reticulum, golgi apparatus, etc) which are functionally important to the cell. The goal of prokaryotic artificial life is much closer as the DNA is translated to mRNA in the cytoplasm, and all processes are conducted without the more sophisticated organelles. In fact, Mycoplasma genitalium, the bacteria used, follows this line of thought, and his new 'species' is called Mycoplasma laboratorium (a very creative name). Other than that, you are right on your points Teancum.
The good news on this goal is that much of the technology needed is available. We can currently create artificially plasma membranes (though the bilayer specific phospholipids found in living cells tend to be mixed into both of the bilayers), and as shown by Ventor, we can create the necessary chromosomes. Much remains to do, but we are getting closer.
Unfortunately, our current understanding of protein structure and function as based on the raw DNA code is still lacking, and so any chromosome, including Ventors, would not be original in the genetic coding, but would rather be a spliced together collection of genes that we know the function of (I believe his goal was the minimum necessary genome). To be truly artificial life, it would need to be a base by base creation.
Many people are against this kind of work, out of fears of it harming humans or intermixing with natural bacteria. One solution to this, which can only take place once we have the knowledge to design every protein and base pair of a cell, would be to create a new genetic code. I believe Dr. James Watson (who proved that DNA was the heritable material of all life) proposed a scheme that he thought was the real one (before we actually determined it). I am fairly certain it is in his book "DNA: the Secret of Life" and it is so far off of what we have now, if we gave it to artificial bacteria and it was transferred to other natural bacteria, they would only see junk in the code. It might even prevent the bacteria from becoming virulent to humans, but this might not be guaranteed.
Talk of greater applications of these evolutionary algorithms has often been accompanied by fears that they will replace engineers, however, this is not the case. Most of the concerns come in the following two forms: it removes engineers from the design process and that since they didn't design it, it may not work as they expect it to.
While engineers are not actively designing the product, their jobs are still secure as the companies will always need someone to design the algorithms and to study the product goal to know what parameters to set for the algorithms.
The second concern is irrelevant, as engineers would still follow through with rigorous product testing to determine all the possible outcomes of the design, thus avoiding any unplanned problems.
The great value of these algorithms in producing ten to a hundred fold more efficient, faster, or longer lasting products will guarentee that their use will increase, creating a great demand for engineers who can work with them and who can expect high salary bonuses for such amazing results.
Evolution would have gotten rid of it if this part were useless.
It is not exactly true that evolution would get rid of a part that has become useless. Evolution through natural selection would tend to remove mainly deleterous (harmful) structures, but structures that are neither harmful nor helpful are masked from natural selection. To explain the loss of the vestigial structures, we must realize that the individual organism has only so many resources (energy, molecules, etc) with which to survive. This causes natural selection to select against structures that use up the organism's resources without contributing to its survival (for example in whales, who still have vestigial hips and leg bones, which serve no function and are much reduced in size).
This leads to the question of why the structure is still present. There are two major reasons why we would still observe the structure today: time and cost.
If natural selection only started working on removing the structure in recent time (geologically speaking), it would not be finished instantly in one generation, as natural selection works by tiny modifications that are build on generation after generation. Hence the canon of natural history: Natura non facit saltum (nature makes no leap). A second possibility for its continued presence is that further reduction in its size or its total absence would be more disadvantageous the organism's fitness than its presence. This seems to be what the study is suggesting, that even though it is not used to the full extent it once was, there is some tiny function that is still useful enough to justify the resources the organism spends on it.
The one thing that seemed to be missing in this article was an explanation of some of the possible forms the cure may take. Recent advances in other areas of medicine offer some new tricks for combating this disease. Of course, as mentioned often throughout this discussion, diet and exercise are the best ways to prevent it in the first place, and is ultimately the best solution for the individual. While the cure would enable people to continue living unhealthy lifestyles, it would also reduce the risks of death while the people who will change alter their lifestyles to eliminate the problem.
As for the possible forms of the cure, it would most likely come as either a signaling molecule or a RNAi treatment.
The signaling molecule will work similarly to aspirin, as it would bind to the cells, but unlike aspirin, it would cause gene regulation to change, reducing the insulin inhibiting protein's rate of production. This has the benefit to the drug companies of requiring long term dosing requirements (hopefully to be used by the customer as a risk reducer until they change their own lifestyle), which would make it a profitable path that companies are likely to pursue. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it would require the identification of receptor sites that would trigger this effect (which may not exist) and then, if they did exist, the signal molecule would have to be determined, and a synthetic pathway found before it be produced on the needed scale.
The second alternative of RNAi treatment is showing real promise as a more permanent solution, as it would be able to eliminate or severely reduce production of the inhibitor protein. In a recent advance, David Bumcrot and Daniel Anderson of MIT announced that they had found away around reported toxic effects of RNAi, a major hurdle to this emerging technique. The use of a different type of RNAi made the difference, as Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26235373 recently explained. This would also be profitable to drug companies even thought it would consist of only one, or at most a few, treatments, as it would likely be an expensive procedure. It would likely be applicable only to the most life-threatening cases due to the cost, but it does provide another possibility for a cure.
Re:Beyond the Moon, Looking Toward Mars
on
The New Moon Race
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You make an excellent point, a moon base would be a much better launch platform than the ISS, and would indeed be capable of large scale expansion on a stable surface. In regards to the production of fuel on the moon, if sufficient water were found in the craters, a simple solar array could produce enough energy to electrolyze the water into oxygen and hydrogen gas, which then could be compressed to the commonly used liquid fuels liquid oxygen (LOX) and liquid hydrogen. The main problem with the moon base would be that you would not be able to make the base from the moon, and all of the materials for such a base would have to be expensively shipped from earth.
With the current Google X-prize competitions, the goal of development on the moon is opening up more to commercial enterprises. This means that it will not be exclusively a governmental goal, allowing the US to keep prospects for future use of the moon, while NASA can wisely spend its limited budget pushing the envelope of space exploration by trying for the untested ground of Mars. By allowing the commercial entities to work toward the moon, which will very likely lead to a profit-driven moon base arising, NASA can continue its most important task of advancing science and furthering space exploration, without the risk of being surpassed by other governments or by commercial entities.
The Mars plan that I outlined would be an ideal candidate for this task, as it is possible within the same time window as the current moon mission, and its price tag of $55 billion dollars is about half of the moon missions projected $100 billion cost. This savings will allow NASA to finance and plan even more future missions in other areas, studying Titan more thoroughly, for example, which will allow it to keep the enthusiasm for exploration that has so often been lost.
Beyond the Moon, Looking Toward Mars
on
The New Moon Race
·
· Score: 5, Informative
With the world currently racing to return to the moon, a goal which the US has already accomplished years ago, I think it would be wise to turn our sights instead to Mars. It would be a far greater test of our ability to expand into the universe, being the first possible human habitation on another PLANET.
Unfortunately, with the current emphasis on returning to the moon, funding for possible Mars missions has been siphoned off (since NASA's budget is definitely not large enough to work toward both goals at once). The Mars mission would also be of great value scientifically, since the rovers currently exploring the planet cannot accomplish as much as a actual human in the same timespan, and being the first country to set foot on another planet would be an event worthy of space history books.
Robert Zubrin and David Baker have already outlined an inexpessive, easy to prepare mission plan, which also minimizes the risk to the astronauts [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct]. The plan calls for Earth Return Vehicles (ERVs) to be launched unmanned with rockets no larger than were needed for Apollo, followed by a second with astronauts onboard. The ERVs would then make fuel for the return trip out of the martian atmosphere, saving payload costs from earth. If anything went wrong, we would also only lose the machines, not any astronauts, which should be a major selling point for NASA in light of recent tragedies.
The pricetag: $55 billion for an 18 month stay on the planet, and it would leave one ERV on the planet's surface, enabling a continuous cycling of astronauts to and from Mars, a truly worthwhile investment.
Unfortunately, the 30% decrease mentioned in the news article is not a decrease in the total size of the ozone hole, but a decrease in the amount of ozone lost in September. The decrease was from the record loss last year of 35 megatons of ozone to a loss of about 25 megatons this year, which is still a very strong loss, but one which is about average over the last 15 years: [http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/EarthObservation/ozone/average_ozone_loss_H.jpg].
The main good news about the ozone hole loss, is that it has not increased beyond the 35 megaton/month maximum that it has been at for the last 15 years, which hopefully implies that it is at least not getting worse. The decrease in the loss per month, however, is well within the variation we have seen in the past few years, as between 2001 and 2002 there was a ~85% drop in the loss, down to a loss of only 5 megatons/month, and the ~50% drop from 2003 to 2004. In this respect the 30% decrease can be said to be only "somewhat decreased." In all likelihood it will increase again next year, and if it just goes back to last year's level, the news will be filled with reports of a 40% increase in ozone loss.
Slashdot Mirror
A small correction to Teancum's reading of the article, the next step would be to create an artificial *prokaryote* or bacteria, not a eukaryote. The goal of eukaryotic life being made in the lab is quite a ways away, since it would require the ability to create a working nucleus/nuclear-pore system for moving mRNA to the rest of the cell, as well as the creation of many membrane bound organelles (mitochodria, chloroplasts -- if it is a plant, endoplasmic reticulum, golgi apparatus, etc) which are functionally important to the cell. The goal of prokaryotic artificial life is much closer as the DNA is translated to mRNA in the cytoplasm, and all processes are conducted without the more sophisticated organelles. In fact, Mycoplasma genitalium, the bacteria used, follows this line of thought, and his new 'species' is called Mycoplasma laboratorium (a very creative name). Other than that, you are right on your points Teancum.
The good news on this goal is that much of the technology needed is available. We can currently create artificially plasma membranes (though the bilayer specific phospholipids found in living cells tend to be mixed into both of the bilayers), and as shown by Ventor, we can create the necessary chromosomes. Much remains to do, but we are getting closer.
Unfortunately, our current understanding of protein structure and function as based on the raw DNA code is still lacking, and so any chromosome, including Ventors, would not be original in the genetic coding, but would rather be a spliced together collection of genes that we know the function of (I believe his goal was the minimum necessary genome). To be truly artificial life, it would need to be a base by base creation.
Many people are against this kind of work, out of fears of it harming humans or intermixing with natural bacteria. One solution to this, which can only take place once we have the knowledge to design every protein and base pair of a cell, would be to create a new genetic code. I believe Dr. James Watson (who proved that DNA was the heritable material of all life) proposed a scheme that he thought was the real one (before we actually determined it). I am fairly certain it is in his book "DNA: the Secret of Life" and it is so far off of what we have now, if we gave it to artificial bacteria and it was transferred to other natural bacteria, they would only see junk in the code. It might even prevent the bacteria from becoming virulent to humans, but this might not be guaranteed.
While engineers are not actively designing the product, their jobs are still secure as the companies will always need someone to design the algorithms and to study the product goal to know what parameters to set for the algorithms.
The second concern is irrelevant, as engineers would still follow through with rigorous product testing to determine all the possible outcomes of the design, thus avoiding any unplanned problems.
The great value of these algorithms in producing ten to a hundred fold more efficient, faster, or longer lasting products will guarentee that their use will increase, creating a great demand for engineers who can work with them and who can expect high salary bonuses for such amazing results.
Evolution would have gotten rid of it if this part were useless.
It is not exactly true that evolution would get rid of a part that has become useless. Evolution through natural selection would tend to remove mainly deleterous (harmful) structures, but structures that are neither harmful nor helpful are masked from natural selection. To explain the loss of the vestigial structures, we must realize that the individual organism has only so many resources (energy, molecules, etc) with which to survive. This causes natural selection to select against structures that use up the organism's resources without contributing to its survival (for example in whales, who still have vestigial hips and leg bones, which serve no function and are much reduced in size).
This leads to the question of why the structure is still present. There are two major reasons why we would still observe the structure today: time and cost.
If natural selection only started working on removing the structure in recent time (geologically speaking), it would not be finished instantly in one generation, as natural selection works by tiny modifications that are build on generation after generation. Hence the canon of natural history: Natura non facit saltum (nature makes no leap).
A second possibility for its continued presence is that further reduction in its size or its total absence would be more disadvantageous the organism's fitness than its presence. This seems to be what the study is suggesting, that even though it is not used to the full extent it once was, there is some tiny function that is still useful enough to justify the resources the organism spends on it.
As for the possible forms of the cure, it would most likely come as either a signaling molecule or a RNAi treatment.
The signaling molecule will work similarly to aspirin, as it would bind to the cells, but unlike aspirin, it would cause gene regulation to change, reducing the insulin inhibiting protein's rate of production. This has the benefit to the drug companies of requiring long term dosing requirements (hopefully to be used by the customer as a risk reducer until they change their own lifestyle), which would make it a profitable path that companies are likely to pursue. The main disadvantage of this approach is that it would require the identification of receptor sites that would trigger this effect (which may not exist) and then, if they did exist, the signal molecule would have to be determined, and a synthetic pathway found before it be produced on the needed scale.
The second alternative of RNAi treatment is showing real promise as a more permanent solution, as it would be able to eliminate or severely reduce production of the inhibitor protein. In a recent advance, David Bumcrot and Daniel Anderson of MIT announced that they had found away around reported toxic effects of RNAi, a major hurdle to this emerging technique. The use of a different type of RNAi made the difference, as Reuters http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN26235373 recently explained. This would also be profitable to drug companies even thought it would consist of only one, or at most a few, treatments, as it would likely be an expensive procedure. It would likely be applicable only to the most life-threatening cases due to the cost, but it does provide another possibility for a cure.
With the current Google X-prize competitions, the goal of development on the moon is opening up more to commercial enterprises. This means that it will not be exclusively a governmental goal, allowing the US to keep prospects for future use of the moon, while NASA can wisely spend its limited budget pushing the envelope of space exploration by trying for the untested ground of Mars. By allowing the commercial entities to work toward the moon, which will very likely lead to a profit-driven moon base arising, NASA can continue its most important task of advancing science and furthering space exploration, without the risk of being surpassed by other governments or by commercial entities.
The Mars plan that I outlined would be an ideal candidate for this task, as it is possible within the same time window as the current moon mission, and its price tag of $55 billion dollars is about half of the moon missions projected $100 billion cost. This savings will allow NASA to finance and plan even more future missions in other areas, studying Titan more thoroughly, for example, which will allow it to keep the enthusiasm for exploration that has so often been lost.
Unfortunately, with the current emphasis on returning to the moon, funding for possible Mars missions has been siphoned off (since NASA's budget is definitely not large enough to work toward both goals at once). The Mars mission would also be of great value scientifically, since the rovers currently exploring the planet cannot accomplish as much as a actual human in the same timespan, and being the first country to set foot on another planet would be an event worthy of space history books.
Robert Zubrin and David Baker have already outlined an inexpessive, easy to prepare mission plan, which also minimizes the risk to the astronauts [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct]. The plan calls for Earth Return Vehicles (ERVs) to be launched unmanned with rockets no larger than were needed for Apollo, followed by a second with astronauts onboard. The ERVs would then make fuel for the return trip out of the martian atmosphere, saving payload costs from earth. If anything went wrong, we would also only lose the machines, not any astronauts, which should be a major selling point for NASA in light of recent tragedies.
The pricetag: $55 billion for an 18 month stay on the planet, and it would leave one ERV on the planet's surface, enabling a continuous cycling of astronauts to and from Mars, a truly worthwhile investment.
Unfortunately, the 30% decrease mentioned in the news article is not a decrease in the total size of the ozone hole, but a decrease in the amount of ozone lost in September. The decrease was from the record loss last year of 35 megatons of ozone to a loss of about 25 megatons this year, which is still a very strong loss, but one which is about average over the last 15 years: [http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/EarthObservation/ozone/average_ozone_loss_H.jpg]. The main good news about the ozone hole loss, is that it has not increased beyond the 35 megaton/month maximum that it has been at for the last 15 years, which hopefully implies that it is at least not getting worse. The decrease in the loss per month, however, is well within the variation we have seen in the past few years, as between 2001 and 2002 there was a ~85% drop in the loss, down to a loss of only 5 megatons/month, and the ~50% drop from 2003 to 2004. In this respect the 30% decrease can be said to be only "somewhat decreased." In all likelihood it will increase again next year, and if it just goes back to last year's level, the news will be filled with reports of a 40% increase in ozone loss.