Author
|
Topic: First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell (Read 2311 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell
« on: 2010-05-20 19:08:16 » |
 |
[Blunderov] This is so hot I've got blisters on my eyeballs.
jcvi.org
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell
First Self-Replicating, Synthetic Bacterial Cell Constructed by J. Craig Venter Institute Researchers
ROCKVILLE, MD and San Diego, CA (May 20, 2010)— Researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI), a not-for-profit genomic research organization, published results today describing the successful construction of the first self-replicating, synthetic bacterial cell. The team synthesized the 1.08 million base pair chromosome of a modified Mycoplasma mycoides genome. The synthetic cell is called Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 and is the proof of principle that genomes can be designed in the computer, chemically made in the laboratory and transplanted into a recipient cell to produce a new self-replicating cell controlled only by the synthetic genome.
This research will be published by Daniel Gibson et al in the May 20th edition of Science Express and will appear in an upcoming print issue of Science.
“For nearly 15 years Ham Smith, Clyde Hutchison and the rest of our team have been working toward this publication today--the successful completion of our work to construct a bacterial cell that is fully controlled by a synthetic genome,” said J. Craig Venter, Ph.D., founder and president, JCVI and senior author on the paper. “We have been consumed by this research, but we have also been equally focused on addressing the societal implications of what we believe will be one of the most powerful technologies and industrial drivers for societal good. We look forward to continued review and dialogue about the important applications of this work to ensure that it is used for the benefit of all.”
According to Dr. Smith, “With this first synthetic bacterial cell and the new tools and technologies we developed to successfully complete this project, we now have the means to dissect the genetic instruction set of a bacterial cell to see and understand how it really works."
To complete this final stage in the nearly 15 year process to construct and boot up a synthetic cell, JCVI scientists began with the accurate, digitized genome of the bacterium, M. mycoides. The team designed 1,078 specific cassettes of DNA that were 1,080 base pairs long. These cassettes were designed so that the ends of each DNA cassette overlapped each of its neighbors by 80bp. The cassettes were made according to JCVI’s specifications by the DNA synthesis company, Blue Heron Biotechnology.
The JCVI team employed a three stage process using their previously described yeast assembly system to build the genome using the 1,078 cassettes. The first stage involved taking 10 cassettes of DNA at a time to build 110, 10,000 bp segments. In the second stage, these 10,000 bp segments are taken 10 at a time to produce eleven, 100,000 bp segments. In the final step, all 11, 100 kb segments were assembled into the complete synthetic genome in yeast cells and grown as a yeast artificial chromosome.
The complete synthetic M. mycoides genome was isolated from the yeast cell and transplanted into Mycoplasma capricolum recipient cells that have had the genes for its restriction enzyme removed. The synthetic genome DNA was transcribed into messenger RNA, which in turn was translated into new proteins. The M. capricolum genome was either destroyed by M. mycoides restriction enzymes or was lost during cell replication. After two days viable M. mycoides cells, which contained only synthetic DNA, were clearly visible on petri dishes containing bacterial growth medium.
The initial synthesis of the synthetic genome did not result in any viable cells so the JCVI team developed an error correction method to test that each cassette they constructed was biologically functional. They did this by using a combination of 100 kb natural and synthetic segments of DNA to produce semi-synthetic genomes. This approach allowed for the testing of each synthetic segment in combination with 10 natural segments for their capacity to be transplanted and form new cells. Ten out of 11 synthetic fragments resulted in viable cells; therefore the team narrowed the issue down to a single 100 kb cassette. DNA sequencing revealed that a single base pair deletion in an essential gene was responsible for the unsuccessful transplants. Once this one base pair error was corrected, the first viable synthetic cell was produced.
Dr. Gibson stated, “To produce a synthetic cell, our group had to learn how to sequence, synthesize, and transplant genomes. Many hurdles had to be overcome, but we are now able to combine all of these steps to produce synthetic cells in the laboratory.” He added, “We can now begin working on our ultimate objective of synthesizing a minimal cell containing only the genes necessary to sustain life in its simplest form. This will help us better understand how cells work.”
This publication represents the construction of the largest synthetic molecule of a defined structure; the genome is almost double the size of the previous Mycoplasma genitalium synthesis. With this successful proof of principle, the group will now work on creating a minimal genome, which has been a goal since 1995. They will do this by whittling away at the synthetic genome and repeating transplantation experiments until no more genes can be disrupted and the genome is as small as possible. This minimal cell will be a platform for analyzing the function of every essential gene in a cell.
According to Dr. Hutchison, “To me the most remarkable thing about our synthetic cell is that its genome was designed in the computer and brought to life through chemical synthesis, without using any pieces of natural DNA. This involved developing many new and useful methods along the way. We have assembled an amazing group of scientists that have made this possible.”
As in the team’s 2008 publication in which they described the successful synthesis of the M. genitalium genome, they designed and inserted into the genome what they called watermarks. These are specifically designed segments of DNA that use the “alphabet” of genes and proteins that enable the researcher to spell out words and phrases. The watermarks are an essential means to prove that the genome is synthetic and not native, and to identify the laboratory of origin. Encoded in the watermarks is a new DNA code for writing words, sentences and numbers. In addition to the new code there is a web address to send emails to if you can successfully decode the new code, the names of 46 authors and other key contributors and three quotations: "TO LIVE, TO ERR, TO FALL, TO TRIUMPH, TO RECREATE LIFE OUT OF LIFE." - JAMES JOYCE; "SEE THINGS NOT AS THEY ARE, BUT AS THEY MIGHT BE.”-A quote from the book, “American Prometheus”; "WHAT I CANNOT BUILD, I CANNOT UNDERSTAND." - RICHARD FEYNMAN.
The JCVI scientists envision that the knowledge gained by constructing this first self-replicating synthetic cell, coupled with decreasing costs for DNA synthesis, will give rise to wider use of this powerful technology. This will undoubtedly lead to the development of many important applications and products including biofuels, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, clean water and food products. The group continues to drive and support ethical discussion and review to ensure a positive outcome for society.
Funding for this research came from Synthetic Genomics Inc., a company co-founded by Drs. Venter and Smith.
Background
The research published today was made possible by previous breakthroughs at JCVI. In 2007 the team published results from the transplantation of the native M. mycoides genome into the M. capricolum cell which resulted in the M. capricolum cell being transformed into M. mycoides. This work established the notion that DNA is the software of life and that DNA dictates the cell phenotype.
In 2008 the same team reported on the construction of the first synthetic bacterial genome by assembling DNA fragments made from the four chemicals of life—ACGT. The final assembly of DNA fragments into the whole genome was performed in yeast by making use of the yeast genetic systems. However, when the team attempted to transplant the synthetic bacterial genome out of yeast and into a recipient bacterial cell, viable transplants could not be recovered.
Ethical Considerations: Since the beginning of the quest to understand and build a synthetic genome, Dr. Venter and his team have been concerned with the societal issues surrounding the work. In 1995 while the team was doing the research on the minimal genome, the work underwent significant ethical review by a panel of experts at the University of Pennsylvania (Cho et al, Science December 1999:Vol. 286. no. 5447, pp. 2087 – 2090). The bioethical group's independent deliberations, published at the same time as the scientific minimal genome research, resulted in a unanimous decision that there were no strong ethical reasons why the work should not continue as long as the scientists involved continued to engage public discussion.
Dr. Venter and the team at JCVI continue to work with bioethicists, outside policy groups, legislative members and staff, and the public to encourage discussion and understanding about the societal implications of their work and the field of synthetic genomics generally. As such, the JCVI’s policy team, along with the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), were funded by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation for a 20-month study that explored the risks and benefits of this emerging technology, as well as possible safeguards to prevent abuse, including bioterrorism. After several workshops and public sessions the group published a report in October 2007 outlining options for the field and its researchers.
Most recently in December of 2008, JCVI received funding from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to examine ethical and societal concerns that are associated with the developing science of synthetic genomics. The ongoing research is intended to inform the scientific community as well as educate our policymakers and journalists so that they may engage in informed discussions on the topic.
About the J. Craig Venter Institute
The JCVI is a not-for-profit research institute in Rockville, MD and La Jolla, CA dedicated to the advancement of the science of genomics; the understanding of its implications for society; and communication of those results to the scientific community, the public, and policymakers. Founded by J. Craig Venter, Ph.D., the JCVI is home to approximately 400 scientists and staff with expertise in human and evolutionary biology, genetics, bioinformatics/informatics, information technology, high-throughput DNA sequencing, genomic and environmental policy research, and public education in science and science policy. The legacy organizations of the JCVI are: The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR), The Center for the Advancement of Genomics (TCAG), the Institute for Biological Energy Alternatives (IBEA), the Joint Technology Center (JTC), and the J. Craig Venter Science Foundation. The JCVI is a 501 (c) (3) organization. For additional information, please visit http://www.JCVI.org. Media Contact: Heather Kowalski, 301-943-8879, hkowalski(AT)jcvi.org
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.54
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell
« Reply #1 on: 2010-05-21 13:29:41 » |
|
Thanks for this Blunderov. I had a hard time finding a sufficiently detailed article amongst all the hype that google news was pulling up, and then I noticed your posting.  Here's my #virus IRC musings on it http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=;action=chatlog2;channel=%23virus;date=2010-05-21;time=10:;start=30;max=30
Quote:10:50:10 MoEnzyme Church warns cell scientists not to play God - ROME — Catholic Church officials said Friday that the recently created first synthetic cell could be a positive development if correctly used, but warned scientists that only God can create life.
10:50:14 MoEnzyme http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/7016138.html |
10:51:32 MoEnzyme * MoEnzyme wonders why this particular cell is "synthetic" where previous GM organisms are not.
10:51:51 MoEnzyme I guess its just a media hype thing.
11:01:32 MoEnzyme hmmm, I'm going to have to find a more technically detailed article on it. I suppose they are saying that he created the genome "from scratch", but I thought I heard on NPR that he included a lot of yeast DNA for filler.
11:04:11 MoEnzyme Ah Bluderov already posted something on it . . . http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=43393;start=0
Quote:11:08:33 MoEnzyme "To complete this final stage in the nearly 15 year process to construct and boot up a synthetic cell, JCVI scientists began with the accurate, digitized genome of the bacterium, M. mycoides. The team designed 1,078 specific cassettes of DNA that were 1,080 base pairs long.
11:08:35 MoEnzyme These cassettes were designed so that the ends of each DNA cassette overlapped each of its neighbors by 80bp. The cassettes were made according to JCVI’s specifications by the DNA synthesis company, Blue Heron Biotechnology. " |
11:09:54 MoEnzyme I see, it seems that they more or less borrowed the structure/organization scheme of the original DNA and just plugged in their own sequences into that pattern.
11:10:56 MoEnzyme So the cell would still "know" what adresses to start reading from only the content at those addresses would be different.
11:14:49 MoEnzyme That way they don't have to come up with a completely different soup of M-RNA, just use what the cell already has, and since the DNA is organized the same way if otherwise different content, the cell still "knows" where to start.
11:15:56 MoEnzyme It seems that a completely synthetic cell would start with a synthetic M-RNA soup too . . . but perhaps that's a bit too much nitpicking.
Quote:| 11:18:41 MoEnzyme “We can now begin working on our ultimate objective of synthesizing a minimal cell containing only the genes necessary to sustain life in its simplest form. This will help us better understand how cells work.” |
11:19:37 MoEnzyme THAT would be a truly synthetic cell IMO.
11:20:40 MoEnzyme however lacking the redundancy of more "natural" cells, its ability to endlessly replicate without assistance may be somewhat limited.
11:21:17 MoEnzyme However that would seem to solve the "grey goo" problem posed by nanotech skeptics.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.91
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell
« Reply #2 on: 2010-05-21 14:41:47 » |
|
[Blunderov] <snip>...warned scientists that only God can create life.</snip>
Isn't that interesting? If only God can create life then why should it be neccessary to warn scientists not to do so? Surely that advice is, by definition, redundant? Methinks the Vatican has it's knickers in twist about all this and I can easily see why: if it turns out that scientsts can in fact create life it follows that the creation of life might quite possibly have come about by means other than those described in Genesis. Awkward, that.
It seems to me that what the Vatican would like to say is that only God should create life. Trouble is, if one says this, then it strongly implies that agencies other than God could create life which is not admissable. And so it is that we have the splendid spectacle of the Vatican scurrying for whatever cover it can find behind a hastily constructed 'ethical considerations' barricade. What fun!
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell
« Reply #3 on: 2010-05-22 16:48:35 » |
|
source: The Economist
TO CREATE life is the prerogative of gods. Deep in the human psyche, whatever the rational pleadings of physics and chemistry, there exists a sense that biology is different, is more than just the sum of atoms moving about and reacting with one another, is somehow infused with a divine spark, a vital essence. It may come as a shock, then, that mere mortals have now made artificial life.
Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith, the two American biologists who unravelled the first DNA sequence of a living organism (a bacterium) in 1995, have made a bacterium that has an artificial genome—creating a living creature with no ancestor (see article). Pedants may quibble that only the DNA of the new beast was actually manufactured in a laboratory; the researchers had to use the shell of an existing bug to get that DNA to do its stuff. Nevertheless, a Rubicon has been crossed. It is now possible to conceive of a world in which new bacteria (and eventually, new animals and plants) are designed on a computer and then grown to order.
That ability would prove mankind’s mastery over nature in a way more profound than even the detonation of the first atomic bomb. The bomb, however justified in the context of the second world war, was purely destructive. Biology is about nurturing and growth. Synthetic biology, as the technology that this and myriad less eye-catching advances are ushering in has been dubbed, promises much. In the short term it promises better drugs, less thirsty crops (see article), greener fuels and even a rejuvenated chemical industry. In the longer term who knows what marvels could be designed and grown?
On the face of it, then, artificial life looks like a wonderful thing. Yet that is not how many will view the announcement. For them, a better word than “creation” is “tampering”. Have scientists got too big for their boots? Will their hubris bring Nemesis in due course? What horrors will come creeping out of the flask on the laboratory bench?
Such questions are not misplaced—and should give pause even to those, including this newspaper, who normally embrace advances in science with enthusiasm. The new biological science does have the potential to do great harm, as well as good. “Predator” and “disease” are just as much part of the biological vocabulary as “nurturing” and “growth”. But for good or ill it is here. Creating life is no longer the prerogative of gods.
Children of a lesser god
It will be a while, yet, before lifeforms are routinely designed on a laptop. But this will come. The past decade, since the completion of the Human Genome Project, has seen two related developments that make it almost inevitable. One is an extraordinary rise in the speed, and fall in the cost, of analysing the DNA sequences that encode the natural “software” of life. What once took years and cost millions now takes days and costs thousands. Databases are filling up with the genomes of everything from the tiniest virus to the tallest tree.
These genomes are the raw material for synthetic biology. First, they will provide an understanding of how biology works right down to the atomic level. That can then be modelled in human-designed software so that synthetic biologists will be able to assemble new constellations of genes with a reasonable presumption that they will work in a predictable way. Second, the genome databases are a warehouse that can be raided for whatever part a synthetic biologist requires.
The other development is faster and cheaper DNA synthesis. This has lagged a few years behind DNA analysis, but seems to be heading in the same direction. That means it will soon be possible for almost anybody to make DNA to order, and dabble in synthetic biology.
That is good, up to a point. Innovation works best when it is a game that anyone can play. The more ideas there are, the better the chance some will prosper. Unfortunately and inevitably, some of those ideas will be malicious. And the problem with malicious biological inventions—unlike, say, guns and explosives—is that once released, they can breed by themselves.
Biology really is different
The Home Brew computing club launched Steve Jobs and Apple, but similar ventures produced a thousand computer viruses. What if a home-brew synthetic-biology club were accidentally to launch a real virus or bacterium? What if a terrorist were to do the same deliberately?
The risk of accidentally creating something bad is probably low. Most bacteria opt for an easy life breaking down organic material that is already dead. It doesn’t fight back. Living hosts do. Creating something bad deliberately, whether the creator is a teenage hacker, a terrorist or a rogue state, is a different matter. No one now knows how easy it would be to turbo-charge an existing human pathogen, or take one that infects another type of animal and assist its passage over the species barrier. We will soon find out, though.
It is hard to know how to address this threat. The reflex, to restrict and ban, has worked (albeit far from perfectly) for more traditional sorts of biological weapons. Those, though, have been in the hands of states. The ubiquity of computer viruses shows what can happen when technology gets distributed.
Thoughtful observers of synthetic biology favour a different approach: openness. This avoids shutting out the good in a belated attempt to prevent the bad. Knowledge cannot be unlearned, so the best way to oppose the villains is to have lots of heroes on your side. Then, when a problem arises, an answer can be found quickly. If pathogens can be designed by laptop, vaccines can be, too. And, just as “open source” software lets white-hat computer nerds work against the black-hats, so open-source biology would encourage white-hat geneticists.
Regulation—and, especially, vigilance—will still be needed. Keeping an eye out for novel diseases is sensible even when such diseases are natural. Monitoring needs to be redoubled and co-ordinated. Then, whether natural or artificial, the full weight of synthetic biology can be brought to bear on the problem. Encourage the good to outwit the bad and, with luck, you keep Nemesis at bay.
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell
« Reply #4 on: 2010-05-22 20:27:44 » |
|
Yes!
Pit these against the coming crude oil march-grass vinaigrette!
Walter takes his vitamins......
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.54
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell
« Reply #6 on: 2010-05-24 10:41:45 » |
|
There is currently a discussion on the Diane Rehm show about this, with a panel discussion including Craig Venter. You can listen to it live here http://thedianerehmshow.org/ right now. After the show is over, later today I'll find and paste the permalink to the archived show, although you'll be able find it @ http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows.
ps - This is the link to that one hour segment of the show on this topic - thehttp://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=12520
The second hour was about the future of commercial whaling which you find if you go to the main show link. I think this hasn't really been archived yet as its the same day show, but I'll check back and update later this week. Until then if these links stop working, its always easy enough to go to the main show website and search for it.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.54
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell
« Reply #7 on: 2010-05-24 20:28:11 » |
|
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-05-24/synthetic-biology
In this program the other panelists really bring this down to its nano-tech implications. Craig Venter seems reluctant to make that proclamation himself, but the other panelists seem ready to make that connection for him.
He does go to some length to say why this isn't "artificial life", however he doesn't make any effort to discount the nanotech claims for this breakthrough. I think this is a wise middle path for him to take. Much of the program seems dedicated all-'round to refuting a lot of the "mad scientist" concerns which have been voiced lately, although I think the implications for nanotech get shorter shrift here. Really, however given the latest media hype, now is a good idea to address these kind of technophobic concerns and Venter seems relatively patient in dealing with them.
-Mo
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell
« Reply #8 on: 2010-05-26 10:32:29 » |
|
Check out Edge for some interesting commentary from the usual suspects.
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.54
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell
« Reply #9 on: 2010-05-26 17:41:30 » |
|
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2010-05-26 10:32:29 Check out Edge for some interesting commentary from the usual suspects.
|
[Mo] Much initial reaction seems to focus a bit too much on ethical thoughts both pro and con, but I think that's putting the cart before the horse. We need to collectively understand what we have first before we can really put this in any ethical light. Right now I'm much more interested in good layman's descriptions of what Venter has technically achieved with this, both in actuality and potentiality. From Lucifer's offered link, I found Richard Dawkins thoughts most helpful.
-Mo
Quote:RICHARD DAWKINS
Evolutionary Biologist; Emeritus Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, Oxford; Author, The Greatest Show on Earth
Craig Venter’s Brave New World
Craig Venter's artificial bacterium debuted almost simultaneously with Svante Pääbo's publication of the greater part of the Neanderthal genome. Put the two together and ask whether we could — or should — recreate a living, breathing Neanderthal. Of the technologies that would be required, the Venter team has proofed an important component. Dolly was cloned from an entire diploid genome of an adult sheep's udder cell, dropped into an enucleated ovum. The Venter equivalent of Ian Wilmut's achievement would be to go to the library (or in this case the Internet), take down the book labelled 'Sheep Genome Project' (or rather download the data files), and synthesize a complete set of sheep chromosomes from four bottles of chemicals labelled A, T, C and G. The synthetic genome would then be dropped into an enucleated sheep cell, as per Dolly.
While they were about it, the team might improve on the genome of any one donor sheep by substituting, say, wool-growing genes from The Champion Merino Genome Project and hardiness genes from The Soay Genome Project. Maybe some code from the Goat Genome Project to broaden the creature's preferred diet, or from the Chamois Genome Project to give it a better head for heights? Perhaps even a Cut and Paste job from the Otter Genome Project, to give the über-sheep a taste for water sports.
We'd need to do something similar to re-grow a Neanderthal from Svante Pääbo's data. Or, later, a computed intermediate between the chimpanzee and human genomes to re-create the 6-million-year-old common ancestor. And then, might a born-again Lucy split the difference again?
The technical difficulties would be formidable, but present progress suggests that they will be overcome. I leave the speciesist ethical difficulties on one side, except to note that ethical thinking, too, has a way of progressing as the decades go by. There is the harder problem that Pääbo's Neanderthal sequence is only 60 percent complete, and 100 percent may be unattainable. Presumably the residue would be coloured in from the H. sapiens genome, and that could create technical problems as well as compromise the authenticity of the clone as a 'true' Neanderthal.
But Neanderthal bones are tens of thousands of years old. Should we disinter Charles Darwin's bones from Westminster Abbey with the same insouciance as the Roman Catholic Church is now displaying toward the remains of his contemporary, Cardinal Newman? Might a new identical twin brother of the great naturalist ride shotgun to Craig Venter's future twin, on a round-the-world DNA-harvesting voyage? Could Darwin Junior be mathematically enhanced by a few judicious splicings from the Albert Einstein Genome Project? Or get a head-start in molecular genetics by strategic borrowing from the Francis Crick Genome Project? The Jeremy Bentham Genome Project might suffer utilitarian doubts over whether the taxidermic curiosity in the Entrance Hall of University College, London still contains any of his authentic remains.
Of course no steps were taken to preserve the DNA of any of these great men. Today's equivalents don't need to be cryogenically preserved for the Craig Venters of the future. Nothing so messy or expensive. Give or take some epigenetic mark-ups, a simple computer disk is all it takes: just miles and miles of A, T, C, G.
And the J Craig Venter Genome Project is already on line ... |
http://www.edge.org/discourse/creation/creation_index.html
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.54
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell
« Reply #10 on: 2010-05-26 17:54:22 » |
|
While I'm currently less interested in the ethics and regulation of "synthetic biology" (the phrase apparently coined for this media story) I think PZ Meyers does a good job of deflating the alarmism by putting it in a much larger context that we often cognitively discount as background noise. Really his argument can be well used against any sort of technophobic alarmism although he's fashioned it very well for this current example.
-Mo
http://www.edge.org/discourse/creation/creation_index.html
Quote:PZ MYERS
Biologist, University of Minnesota; blogger, Pharyngula
I have to address one narrow point that is being discussed in the popular press and here on Edge: is Venter's technological tour de force a threat to humanity, another atom bomb in the hands of children?
No.
There is a threat, but this isn't it. If you want to worry, think about the teeming swarms of viruses, bacteria, fungi, and parasites that all want to eat you, that are aided (as we are defended) by the powers of natural selection — we are a delectable feast, and nature will inevitably lead to opportunistic dining. That is a far, far bigger threat to Homo sapiens, since they are the product of a few billion years of evolutionary refinement, not a brief tinkering probe into creation.
Nature's constant attempts to kill us are often neglected in these kinds of discussions as a kind of omnipresent background noise. Technology sometimes seems more dangerous because it moves fast and creates novelty at an amazing pace, but again, Venter's technology isn't the big worry. It's much easier and much cheaper to take an existing, ecologically successful bug and splice in a few new genes than to create a whole new creature from scratch…and unlike the de novo synthesis of life, that's a technology that's almost within the reach of garage-bound bio-hackers, and is definitely within the capacity of many foreign and domestic institutions. Frankenstein bacteria are harmless compared to the possibilities of hijacking E. coli or a flu virus to nefarious ends.
The promise and the long-term peril of the ability to synthesize new life is that it will lead to deeper understanding of basic biology. That, to me, is the real potential here: the ability to experimentally reduce the chemistry of life to a minimum, and use it as a reductionist platform to tease apart the poorly understood substrates of life. It's a poor strategy for building a bioweapon, but a great one for understanding how biochemistry and biology work. That is the grand hope that we believe will give humanity an edge in its ongoing struggle with a dangerous nature: that we can bring forethought and deliberate, directed opposition to our fellow organisms that bring harm to us, and assistance to those that benefit us. And we need greater knowledge to do that.
Of course more knowledge brings more power, and more possibility of catastrophe. But to worry over a development that is far less immediately dangerous than, say, site-directed mutagenesis, is to have misplaced priorities and to be basically recoiling from the progress of science. We either embrace the forward rush to greater knowledge, or we stand still and die. Alea iacta est; I look forward to decades of revolutionary new ideas and discoveries and technologies. May we have many more refinements of Venter's innovation, a flowering of novel life forms, and deeper analyses of the genome. |
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Fritz
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 8.85
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell
« Reply #11 on: 2010-05-28 01:34:57 » |
|
This is gold guys ... thx !
I just got my Economist and the issue is dedicated to this, as Lucifer's posted lead indicates.
Cheers
Fritz
PS: Walter maybe a cocktail rather then a salad dressing, since the alcohol would blend the swamp grass and crude oil better :-) .... call it the "Caribbean Blowout"
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.54
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell
« Reply #12 on: 2010-06-08 17:19:24 » |
|
Currently the US leads the pack in governments spending research and development funds on synthetic biology. That might seem like a good thing except that most of that funding is related to defense industry interests.
U.S. Leading Charge on Synthetic Biology Funding
excerpt:
Quote:| Though synthetic biology support is growing, it’s far from a major research area for any government. The U.S. government alone spends almost $150 billion on R&D, the majority of which goes to “defense,” broadly construed. The largest part of the civilian science budget, about $30 billion, goes to “health,” which includes biomedical research. |
full article: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/synthetic-biology-money/
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
