Comments on: Science Is Sexy: What’s The Big Deal About Synthetic Life?

By: Lamiastrix

Lamiastrix — Thu, 12 May 2011 04:08:00 +0000

As soon as i hear that old nonsense of "going beyond what nature intended" or, an even bigger "favorite" that we are "playing God" I just wanna grind my teeth. It is our NATURE to be "unnatural!" Stop playing God by building houses! Go sleep under a bush as nature intended! And don't even THINK about going near a computer so you can share your foolish babble with the rest of the "unnatural" world! SHEESH! People make me sooooo grumpy!

By: Otacon

Otacon — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:55:00 +0000

FOXDIE!!!

By: Otacon

Otacon — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 02:55:00 +0000

FOXDIE!!!

By: Jimmy Rogers

Jimmy Rogers — Sat, 29 May 2010 04:49:00 +0000

I think you're giving this new method a TAD more credit than it deserves. While some of your points are valid ones, THIS method doesn't generally give us that much more or less ability to accomplish those things. The corn thing, for instance, was the result of a poor understanding of selection. Modern farmers and scientists are aware of how corn populations work and already work to prevent genetically modified crops from overwhelming wild-type crops. I don't see how Venter's new method will necessarily have any effect on that practice.

Also, just to clarify, these are "synthetic bacteria" not "artificial bactieria." The former are bacteria that are no different from those in nature, but we have hand-stamped their genomes. Artificial bacteria would probably be more like what people now call nanobots…organisms that we specifically designed and manufactured from the ground up. I'm sure there will be some blurring of the lines in the years to come, but we're not quite there yet.

Thanks for the lengthy comment though!

By: Jimmy Rogers

Jimmy Rogers — Sat, 29 May 2010 04:49:00 +0000

I think you’re giving this new method a TAD more credit than it deserves. While some of your points are valid ones, THIS method doesn’t generally give us that much more or less ability to accomplish those things. The corn thing, for instance, was the result of a poor understanding of selection. Modern farmers and scientists are aware of how corn populations work and already work to prevent genetically modified crops from overwhelming wild-type crops. I don’t see how Venter’s new method will necessarily have any effect on that practice.

Also, just to clarify, these are “synthetic bacteria” not “artificial bactieria.” The former are bacteria that are no different from those in nature, but we have hand-stamped their genomes. Artificial bacteria would probably be more like what people now call nanobots…organisms that we specifically designed and manufactured from the ground up. I’m sure there will be some blurring of the lines in the years to come, but we’re not quite there yet.

Thanks for the lengthy comment though!

By: Jimmy Rogers

Jimmy Rogers — Mon, 24 May 2010 18:06:00 +0000

Essentially it is the former example. They took a cell with a genome already in it…hand-wrote and synthesized a new genome…and put that new genome into the cell in such a way that the old genome was degraded. I don't know much about the process, but that last part was essentially the "big news" a year or two ago, so I know that's what they did.

The other alternative is something other people ARE working on, but it's a lot harder to just invent something as stable as a product of evolution.

By: Jimmy Rogers

Jimmy Rogers — Mon, 24 May 2010 18:06:00 +0000

Essentially it is the former example. They took a cell with a genome already in it…hand-wrote and synthesized a new genome…and put that new genome into the cell in such a way that the old genome was degraded. I don’t know much about the process, but that last part was essentially the “big news” a year or two ago, so I know that’s what they did.

The other alternative is something other people ARE working on, but it’s a lot harder to just invent something as stable as a product of evolution.

By: Jimmy Rogers

Jimmy Rogers — Mon, 24 May 2010 00:22:00 +0000

Definitely the right thought about that. While chloroplasts and mitochondria are relatively simple (though I honestly don't know TOO much about their structure), full-on eukaroytes are probably a ways away. Not only do they have a lot LARGER genomes, but those genomes are packed away in a much more complex way. Think histone proteins and the like. It seems like science will probably go the regulation route when it comes to eukaryotes (though maybe we'll figure it out with yeast, who knows).

By: Jimmy Rogers

Jimmy Rogers — Mon, 24 May 2010 00:22:00 +0000

Definitely the right thought about that. While chloroplasts and mitochondria are relatively simple (though I honestly don’t know TOO much about their structure), full-on eukaroytes are probably a ways away. Not only do they have a lot LARGER genomes, but those genomes are packed away in a much more complex way. Think histone proteins and the like. It seems like science will probably go the regulation route when it comes to eukaryotes (though maybe we’ll figure it out with yeast, who knows).

By: renaissanceriss

renaissanceriss — Sun, 23 May 2010 20:54:00 +0000

Revisiting corn for a minute, as a geeky historian, I know that one of the theories to explain the demise of the Mayans is that they were too good at selecting their corn. Allow me to explain:

When Mayans selected which corn they would plant each year, they picked grain from stalks and ears which had produced high quantities of corn, meaning they could plant less and yield more.

However, this backfired when they eventually were using all corn from only one strain. A strain that happened to be particularly susceptible to a certain disease which attacks corn.

My point here is that, with genetically modified corn and with possible applications of this new method, we could be locking ourselves into the same trap as the Mayans. Heck, the disease that attacks all corn could even be one of those potential "wrong-doing" applications of the method.

As to the extinction of bananas, this is actually a great example of how Humankind rather screwed ourselves over in mucking with "nature." See this article from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2664373…

But don't get me wrong, I think this technology has amazing potential. I just feel (cynically) that it will ultimately do more harm than good. What's the point in being able to program/create an artificial bacteria to eat certain types of cancer cells (or however they eventually go about using this method for diseases which can be cured) when, at the same time, someone's using the same method to create a new disease which effects all children of a certain mitochondrial type and destroys a third of a generation? Responsibility isn't something the Human Race has really proven ourselves capable of.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 23 May 2010 20:35:00 +0000

It's definitely a step in an interesting direction. I wonder how long it will be before similar techniques are developed for genomes of eukaryotic organisms–or at least chloroplasts and mitochondria.

By: Jackie

Jackie — Sun, 23 May 2010 20:35:00 +0000

Is this a synthetic "blueprint" inserted into an already-functioning cell, or is it a collection of entirely synthesized/nonliving pieces assembled into something that functions as a living thing?

The second possibility is slightly brain-shattering to me, my first question is definitely not "Why should I care?" haha…