So, Ventner is something of a cowboy celebrity, and has done some really cool stuff. However, this particular accomplishment has been overstated by USAToday. Near the end of the article they mention that the virus in question was an exact duplicate of an already existant one. In other words, no genes were designed or combined in new ways. The technical feat centers on stitching together such a long strand of DNA in the appropriate orientation, and then getting a bacterium to express it. Many people reacted as if someone had designed an organism from scratch, which Ventner's team did not do, although this is their stated goal. If you want something ethically horrifying to debate, try this wonderful piece of work, in which a researcher actually created a 100% lethal mousepox virus and intends to publish how he did it.
Speaking as a biochemist, I will say that I have some serious doubts about GM foods. I think we need to deal with two separate issues, though.
Genetic manipulation for scientific purposes
Genetic manipulation for commercial/agro purposes
When messing around with genetic engineering in the lab, it is possible to have good protocols that prevent the release of GM organisms into the biosphere. For this reason, I do not think that genetic manipulation should be restricted in science (except maybe for modifying humans).
However, once you begin making GM organisms for release into the biosphere, there are many potential dangers.
GM crops can threaten local biodiversity. Genes which give GM crops advantages against weeds or pests make these plants more competitive. They can choke out all sorts of natural vegetation. Also, herbicide/pesticide resistance genes can cross into weeds, making weed strains that are resistant to herbicides and pesticides.
GM crops strengthen corporate agribusiness. GM agribuisness owns the patents on the crops they sell, which means they can fix food prices by adjusting seed prices.
I am not saying that there is NO place for GM foods in our fields, but we need to think carefully about the potential effect on the biosphere.
What you say is fact - making GFP fusion proteins is not scientifically novel or interesting. However, the original post is notable because this would be the first direct access the general public would have to such organisms. Society at large doesn't really care about recombinant engineering for scientific purposes, but people will take notice if they see glowing fish at the petstore. Even more than GM foods, prevalence of this organism in fishtanks across the world will spark arguments.
Although I am not one of your constituents, I was sufficiently shocked by your comments regarding music piracy that I feel compelled to write you personally. The "eye for an eye" ideology of justice died several hundred years ago, and has absolutely no place in the United States. Destruction of private property is an absolutely abhorrent way to deal with crime of any kind, especially copyright infringement.
While I sympathize with the RIAA executives and agree that copyrights must be respected, I believe that the US government has a fundamentally flawed perception of the problem. The rampant copyright infringement occuring presently is a direct result of the failure of the companies RIAA represents to respond to market demands. People want digital music that can be traded easily, and as citizens of a free, capitalist society they have the right to expect digital music. There is absolutely no reason that the free market cannot satisfy this demand and make a fair profit.
What is truly horrific is that the US government has decided to side with RIAA and support their unprofitable, inefficient monopoly on music distribution. Senator, please remember that this is a free market economy and the government has no place propping up a failing industry. Other companies with fresh, forwardthinking approaches have stepped in to fill the void. They will eventually succeed in ensuring that people pay their fair share for the music they enjoy.
Here are a few issues I wanted to address in this discussion.
1. DNA computers â" There has been a lot of hype about DNA computing and how it will revolutionize everything. I think this is never going to happen for several reasons. DNA is a fragile molecule and requires active maintenance by cells to retain its fidelity. Components made out of plastic, metal, and composite inorganic materials are much stronger, tougher, and long-lasting. Also, there has been a big trend towards solid-state electronics (of all kinds) because they are so much more reliable and sturdy. A DNA-based computer belies this trend and is therefore unlikely.
2. Genetic Algorithms â" The concept of using evolutionary principles to find solutions to complex problems is a good one. Generating a random array of solutions is not difficult, and optimizing through successive rounds of competition, selection, and mutation is feasible
3. Manipulating the environment â" You asked how biology will affect computing. The realization that biology works so well because it has evolved precise, molecular control of virtually every biochemical variable has profound implications for technology. Nanoscience is trying to realize this level of molecular control in technology. Computers will obviously be needed to realize this goal, and will also be profoundly affected by it.
4. The bottom line â" systems theory. Biology and bioinformatics have given us a lot to think about, especially in the context of complicated, self-referencing systems. I believe that the major effects of both disciplines on each other will be theoretical and âoebig pictureâ in scale. The fact is that microchips and enzymes have vastly different operating parameters and wonâ(TM)t likely be integrated directly. However, the concepts illuminated by studying biology (massively parallel processing, highly redundant systems, programmed mutation) have had and will continue to have a big effect on how we design computers.
5. Ethical implications â" I envision some big ethical issues as biology and technology become further integrated. As it stands, there is a fairly well-defined dividing line between what is biological and what is technological. When we are able to design cybernetic dogs that actually act like dogs, or when people can replace their eyes with broad-spectrum CCD detectors then that line will begin to blur. As nanotechnology and biotechnology advance, we will likely gain complete control over all life processes. Obviously, that has some wonderful and frightening implications. I guess weâ(TM)ll just have to keep our eyes and minds openâ¦.
Slashdot Mirror
So, Ventner is something of a cowboy celebrity, and has done some really cool stuff. However, this particular accomplishment has been overstated by USAToday. Near the end of the article they mention that the virus in question was an exact duplicate of an already existant one. In other words, no genes were designed or combined in new ways. The technical feat centers on stitching together such a long strand of DNA in the appropriate orientation, and then getting a bacterium to express it. Many people reacted as if someone had designed an organism from scratch, which Ventner's team did not do, although this is their stated goal. If you want something ethically horrifying to debate, try this wonderful piece of work, in which a researcher actually created a 100% lethal mousepox virus and intends to publish how he did it.
Speaking as a biochemist, I will say that I have some serious doubts about GM foods. I think we need to deal with two separate issues, though.
When messing around with genetic engineering in the lab, it is possible to have good protocols that prevent the release of GM organisms into the biosphere. For this reason, I do not think that genetic manipulation should be restricted in science (except maybe for modifying humans).
However, once you begin making GM organisms for release into the biosphere, there are many potential dangers.
I am not saying that there is NO place for GM foods in our fields, but we need to think carefully about the potential effect on the biosphere.
What you say is fact - making GFP fusion proteins is not scientifically novel or interesting. However, the original post is notable because this would be the first direct access the general public would have to such organisms. Society at large doesn't really care about recombinant engineering for scientific purposes, but people will take notice if they see glowing fish at the petstore. Even more than GM foods, prevalence of this organism in fishtanks across the world will spark arguments.
Senator Hatch,
Although I am not one of your constituents, I was sufficiently shocked by your comments regarding music piracy that I feel compelled to write you personally. The "eye for an eye" ideology of justice died several hundred years ago, and has absolutely no place in the United States. Destruction of private property is an absolutely abhorrent way to deal with crime of any kind, especially copyright infringement.
While I sympathize with the RIAA executives and agree that copyrights must be respected, I believe that the US government has a fundamentally flawed perception of the problem. The rampant copyright infringement occuring presently is a direct result of the failure of the companies RIAA represents to respond to market demands. People want digital music that can be traded easily, and as citizens of a free, capitalist society they have the right to expect digital music. There is absolutely no reason that the free market cannot satisfy this demand and make a fair profit.
What is truly horrific is that the US government has decided to side with RIAA and support their unprofitable, inefficient monopoly on music distribution. Senator, please remember that this is a free market economy and the government has no place propping up a failing industry. Other companies with fresh, forwardthinking approaches have stepped in to fill the void. They will eventually succeed in ensuring that people pay their fair share for the music they enjoy.
Here are a few issues I wanted to address in this discussion.
1. DNA computers â" There has been a lot of hype about DNA computing and how it will revolutionize everything. I think this is never going to happen for several reasons. DNA is a fragile molecule and requires active maintenance by cells to retain its fidelity. Components made out of plastic, metal, and composite inorganic materials are much stronger, tougher, and long-lasting. Also, there has been a big trend towards solid-state electronics (of all kinds) because they are so much more reliable and sturdy. A DNA-based computer belies this trend and is therefore unlikely.
2. Genetic Algorithms â" The concept of using evolutionary principles to find solutions to complex problems is a good one. Generating a random array of solutions is not difficult, and optimizing through successive rounds of competition, selection, and mutation is feasible
3. Manipulating the environment â" You asked how biology will affect computing. The realization that biology works so well because it has evolved precise, molecular control of virtually every biochemical variable has profound implications for technology. Nanoscience is trying to realize this level of molecular control in technology. Computers will obviously be needed to realize this goal, and will also be profoundly affected by it.
4. The bottom line â" systems theory. Biology and bioinformatics have given us a lot to think about, especially in the context of complicated, self-referencing systems. I believe that the major effects of both disciplines on each other will be theoretical and âoebig pictureâ in scale. The fact is that microchips and enzymes have vastly different operating parameters and wonâ(TM)t likely be integrated directly. However, the concepts illuminated by studying biology (massively parallel processing, highly redundant systems, programmed mutation) have had and will continue to have a big effect on how we design computers.
5. Ethical implications â" I envision some big ethical issues as biology and technology become further integrated. As it stands, there is a fairly well-defined dividing line between what is biological and what is technological. When we are able to design cybernetic dogs that actually act like dogs, or when people can replace their eyes with broad-spectrum CCD detectors then that line will begin to blur. As nanotechnology and biotechnology advance, we will likely gain complete control over all life processes. Obviously, that has some wonderful and frightening implications. I guess weâ(TM)ll just have to keep our eyes and minds openâ¦.