Synthetic Life

[Joey]

What do you think? Major breakthrough? Will the Vatican go wild?

[Ryan]

um, details?

[thekmatheory]

I have no idea what Synthetic Life is.

[Joey]

Basic info: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10134341.stm

[tulae]

i don't think there's anything any organization can really say against it. the benifits of the testability of genomes are obvious and awesome. they're not getting unpredictably complex from the getgo, so there's no chance of a t-virus. i mean really, it's not much different than the genentic engineering we've been doing for the past few thousand years since farming began, it's just we've figured out a cooler way to go about it.

[KipEnyan]

Yeah, this isn't true "synthetic life", at least not in the same vein as things like nanobots. This is simply the next logical step in genetic engineering.

[Ryan]

Ok, so, what about this does not scream T-cell? I mean, a human-made (i.e. slightly flawed) genetic strand, in the body of a cell (capable of reproduction) screams the spread of a disease to me. If this form of genetic engineering becomes more mainstream, imagine what kind of bacteria people could produce. There are definitely risks involved with this step of genetic engineering, I just hope that it doesn't get too far out of hand.

I'll stick with nano-technology, it's a little safer in my book.

[KipEnyan]

Nano-technology is in no way inherently safer. SEE: Grey goo theory.
And what makes a natural genome any less flawed than a human-made genome? They're all imperfect systems. And if you disagree with this, then you're essentially disagreeing with all genetic engineering on a fundamental level, which is a different argument entirely.

[Ryan]

The problem with a human-made error vs a natural error is that if a human were to slightly encode DNA correctly - you can completely change the purpose of the cell, whereas in nature, such defects are more rare, and natural errors result in the dying out of the cell via natural selection.

And thank you for showing me the grey goo theory - I am now equally dis-satisfied with nano-technology.


I really think that if we want to clean up our world, we should leave it to big things that are easy to control, and not little things that can self-replicate. Now, using nano-technology on a smaller scale and without self-replication, is much safer and has better uses (imo) such as effective cancer treatments, skin-grafting/burn cleaning, and other medical uses.

[KipEnyan]

The problem with a human-made error vs a natural error is that if a human were to slightly encode DNA correctly - you can completely change the purpose of the cell, whereas in nature, such defects are more rare, and natural errors result in the dying out of the cell via natural selection.

Changes in cells are not more rare, they're damn near constant, and don't usually result in the death of the organism. These "defects" are how natural selection works. When a transposon moves a DNA sequence to the wrong place, or when a point mutation occurs during replication (both VERY common events, by the way), the resulting changes can potentially produce different amino acids, which produce different proteins, which can affect the organism in an infinite number of different ways. This system is how variability results in species, and how speciation eventually occurs. Humans are significantly less likely to have these errors than natural biological processes Machine creating DNA is significantly more accurate and has more safeguards than that which occurs in nature. If a tiny human error were to be capable of creating an endemic disease, than these errors would've inevitably already occurred tenfold in nature, and we wouldn't be here.

[Ryan]

I think the bigger problem will not be in replicating cells (which is what the article describes), but more so in designing them. If I make a bacteria that feeds on carbon dioxide, and has a set lifespan, and does all these things: X, Y, and Z, but if I as a human put a T where I should put a G in my coding, then the product of the different proteins, could lead the synthetic organism to do something different than its purpose. Since no organism has had similar genetic makeup (if it did, why would we need to synthesize one), then this new mistake would never have been introduced in history, and the effects would be unknown, despite all that natural selection has shown us.

The error doesn't come from humans physically making the DNA, so much as a human designing the DNA. Natural selection has not created all of the different possible combinations, and so we have no idea what the implications could be if a design flaw were to occur.

[Cortney]

I like it. I think it's awesome.

If we hesitated every time a breakthrough in science had risks, we'd still be reading by candlelight in our little wooden huts.

[jaw]

We need to keep doing this. What if they invent some virus that attacks cancer cells? This can be such a great thing, but i guarantee that the church will want to get this illegal and all that other bullshit about their "Morals" and "not playing god"

[earth]

yep i agree with cortney on this one. although scientists should be careful, they shouldn't just stop.

[Ryan]

I agree as well, I'm not saying (nor have I ever said) a line should be drawn, but I think that sometimes its better to tiptoe than run full speed ahead into an area that could be so controversial (ok, jogging is fine)

[KipEnyan]

I don't think there's any danger in human error here. The only danger is this technology in the wrong hands. Imagine a terrorist with the ability to design a virus of infinite lethality and virulence.

[krzych32]

This is where zombies will come from!

[Ryan]

so long as this technology remains with cells, we need not worry about zombies. But I agree - this technology in the wrong hands could prove incredibly lethal.

[The Doctor]

Gianormous breakthorugh, seriously, its as big as stemcells and growing human tissue on rats, this is gonna revolutionize how medicine works. Unless religious people gets in the way. In that case, our hope is left with the swiss...

[thequirkyduo]

Jun 3, 2010 20:48:06 GMT -5 krzych32 said:

This is where zombies will come from!

THIS!