Building Life In a Lab - Synthetic Biologists

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply
User avatar
LauraG
Redshirt
Posts: 39
Joined: 2005-07-25 01:42pm

Building Life In a Lab - Synthetic Biologists

Post by LauraG »

CBS News - Building Life A Molecule At A Time
(AP) They're called "synthetic biologists" and they boldly claim the ability to make never-before-seen living things, one genetic molecule at a time.

They're mixing, matching and stacking DNA's chemical components like microscopic Lego blocks in an effort to make biologically based computers, medicines and alternative energy sources. The rapidly expanding field is confounding the taxonomists' centuries-old system of classifying species and raising concerns about the new technology's potential for misuse.

Though scientists have been combining the genetic material of two species for 30 years now, their work has remained relatively simplistic.

Scientists might add one foreign gene to an organism to produce a drug like insulin. The technique is more art than science given the brute trial-and-error it takes to create cells that make drugs.

So a new breed of biologists is attempting to bring order to the hit-and-miss chaos of genetic engineering by bringing to biotechnology the same engineering strategies used to build computers, bridges and buildings.

The idea is to separate cells into their fundamental components and then rebuild new organisms, a much more complex way of genetic engineering.

The burgeoning movement is attracting big money and some of the biggest names in biology, many of whom are attending the "Life Engineering Symposium" that begins Friday in San Francisco.

"Synthetic biology is genetic engineering rethought," said Harvard Medical Center researcher George Church, a leader in the field. "It challenges the notion of what's natural and what's synthetic."

Already, synthetic biologists have created a polio virus and another smaller virus by stitching together individual genes purchased from biotechnology companies.

Now, researchers are getting closer to creating more complex living things with actual utility.

In Israel, scientists have created the world's smallest computer by engineering DNA to carry out mathematical functions.

J. Craig Venter, the entrepreneurial scientist who mapped the human genome, announced last month that he intends to string together genes to create from scratch novel organisms that can produce alternative fuels such as hydrogen and ethanol.

With a $42.6 million grant that originated at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Berkeley researchers are creating a new malaria drug by removing genetic material of the E. coli bacterium and replacing it with genes from wormwood and yeast.

"We're building parts that can be assembled into devices and devices that can be turned into systems," said Jay Keasling, head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Berkeley synthetic biology department, which was created last year.

Keasling, who doubles as a chemical engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, hopes to create never-before-seen living molecules by fusing genes from the three species — a new breed of bacteria capable of spitting out malaria-fighting artemisinin, a chemical now found only in small traces in the wormwood plant.

Artemisinin has been extracted from finely ground sweet wormwood for more than 2,000 years as a treatment for a variety of ailments, but the method is expensive, time consuming and limited by access to wormwood, which is found mainly in China and Vietnam.
Keasling has a similar project in the works to synthetically create a compound now found in Samoan trees, one that shows promise in fighting AIDS.

Such efforts are attracting more than grant money.

A group of topflight venture capitalists led by Vinod Khosla of the Menlo Park-based Perkins, Caufield & Byers invested $13 million in Codon Devices of Cambridge, Mass., which was co-founded by Keasling and Church. Keasling also co-founded Amyris Biotechnologies of Emeryville to build microbes that will produce novel or rare drugs.

Venter, meanwhile, has launched Synthetic Genomics Inc. with Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith and will compete with Codon and several other recent startups to commercialize the technology.

But with success also comes ethical questions.

For example, national security experts and even synthetic biologists themselves fret that rogue scientists or "biohackers" could create new biological weapons — like deadly viruses that lack natural foes. They also worry about innocent mistakes — organisms that could potentially create havoc if allowed to reproduce outside the lab.

"There are certainly a lot of national security implications with synthetic biology," said Gigi Kwik Gronvall, a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Biosecurity.

Researchers are casting about for ways to self-police the field before it really takes off. One solution could be to require the few companies that sell genetic material to register with some official entity and report biologists who order DNA strains with weapons potential.

The Arthur P. Sloan Foundation in June awarded the Venter Institute, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Center for Strategic and International Studies a $570,000 grant to study the social implications of the new field.

"There are a cascade of ecological issues," said Laurie Zoloth, a bioethics professor at Northwestern University. "Synthetic biology is like iron: You can make sewing needles and you can make spears. Of course, there is going to be dual use."
This would seem to be very troublesome for the creationists' views.

(Bolds and underlines are mine)
User avatar
Vendetta
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10895
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:57pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Post by Vendetta »

Not really.

This is just playing at lego with genes, funky to be sure, but not the thing that will hammer the nails into creationism's cross.

That will be when we manage to replicate the conditions that caused inorganic matter to reorganise into simple recognisable organic forms.
User avatar
LauraG
Redshirt
Posts: 39
Joined: 2005-07-25 01:42pm

The problem...

Post by LauraG »

Vendetta wrote:Not really.

This is just playing at lego with genes, funky to be sure, but not the thing that will hammer the nails into creationism's cross.

That will be when we manage to replicate the conditions that caused inorganic matter to reorganise into simple recognisable organic forms.
The problem I'm thinking it gives creationists is that life is being created without a divine entity involved. When someone says "Life can only be created by god" or something equally sweeping, just one living thing created by a guy in a lab coat puts a pretty big crimp of the truthfulness of that statement.
User avatar
DrkHelmet
Social Butterfly
Posts: 604
Joined: 2005-06-22 11:02am
Location: Your closet, behind the coats.

Re: The problem...

Post by DrkHelmet »

LauraG wrote: The problem I'm thinking it gives creationists is that life is being created without a divine entity involved. When someone says "Life can only be created by god" or something equally sweeping, just one living thing created by a guy in a lab coat puts a pretty big crimp of the truthfulness of that statement.
I think most of them simply state that life can "only be created." Whether it is by scientists in a lab or by God, it's still creation. Therefore, no problems.
User avatar
LauraG
Redshirt
Posts: 39
Joined: 2005-07-25 01:42pm

Re: The problem...

Post by LauraG »

DrkHelmet wrote:I think most of them simply state that life can "only be created." Whether it is by scientists in a lab or by God, it's still creation. Therefore, no problems.
According to the bible, humans are supposed to have been specially created by god in his own image. Why are we to think this very new science won't, some time down the line, work its way up to producing human DNA from either bits and pieces of genetic code or from the building blocks on up, resulting in a creature indistinguishable from and for all intents and purposes equal to a human?

Pretty intelligent design, don't you think? (pun intended). 8)
User avatar
DrkHelmet
Social Butterfly
Posts: 604
Joined: 2005-06-22 11:02am
Location: Your closet, behind the coats.

Re: The problem...

Post by DrkHelmet »

LauraG wrote:
DrkHelmet wrote:I think most of them simply state that life can "only be created." Whether it is by scientists in a lab or by God, it's still creation. Therefore, no problems.
According to the bible, humans are supposed to have been specially created by god in his own image. Why are we to think this very new science won't, some time down the line, work its way up to producing human DNA from either bits and pieces of genetic code or from the building blocks on up, resulting in a creature indistinguishable from and for all intents and purposes equal to a human?

Pretty intelligent design, don't you think? (pun intended). 8)
Doesn't matter whether man created it or God created it, it's still a form of life which did not evolve. It was still engineered. It was still created by an intelligent being. Therefore, there is no conflict.
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

It was also still created from a pick 'n'mix bag of assorted genes. The synthetic biologists are aiming to create something from scratch (read: write their own genes from base pairs) as their ultimate goal that will evolve over time into whatever they want, or maybe as a surprise, anything but that. There is a nice big competition going on now to rival the X-Prize in aeronautics based on who will be the first to make a truly new species of organism and not a chimaera.
User avatar
kheegster
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2397
Joined: 2002-09-14 02:29am
Location: An oasis in the wastelands of NJ

Post by kheegster »

There was a feature article in the February 2005 issue of New Scientist on scientists working to create new forms of life from inanimate matter...
Alive! The race to create life from scratch

* 12 February 2005
* Bob Holmes
* Magazine issue 2486

What are the ingredients needed to create life? Meet the people who claim they are about to find out

YOU might think Norman Packard is playing God. Or you might see him as the ultimate entrepreneur. As founder and CEO of Venice-based company ProtoLife, Packard is one of the leaders of an ambitious project that has in its sights the lofty goal of life itself. His team is attempting what no one else has done before: to create a new form of living being from non-living chemicals in the lab.

Breathing the spark of life into inanimate matter was once regarded as a divine prerogative. But now several serious and well-funded research groups are working hard on doing it themselves. If one of them succeeds, the world will have met alien life just as surely as if we had encountered it on Mars or Europa. That first alien meeting will help scientists get a better handle on what life really is, how it began, what it means to be ...
You need to be a subscriber to access the stuff online, but the opening paragraphs give the gist of it...
Articles, opinions and rants from an astrophysicist: Cosmic Journeys
User avatar
Admiral Valdemar
Outside Context Problem
Posts: 31572
Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
Location: UK

Post by Admiral Valdemar »

I have that one, though I have every NS issue from every week since around 2002. If I can find it again, I'll try and type up the full article.
User avatar
wolveraptor
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4042
Joined: 2004-12-18 06:09pm

Re: The problem...

Post by wolveraptor »

LauraG wrote:According to the bible, humans are supposed to have been specially created by god in his own image. Why are we to think this very new science won't, some time down the line, work its way up to producing human DNA from either bits and pieces of genetic code or from the building blocks on up, resulting in a creature indistinguishable from and for all intents and purposes equal to a human?
Why the hell would they go to all that trouble if they could just clone a human, genetically modifying it in the womb to have X hair color and Y dick size? Unless you mean creating a totally different animal with capabilities equal to humans. Kick ass dude.
"If one needed proof that a guitar was more than wood and string, that a song was more than notes and words, and that a man could be more than a name and a few faded pictures, then Robert Johnson’s recordings were all one could ask for."

- Herb Bowie, Reason to Rock
User avatar
LauraG
Redshirt
Posts: 39
Joined: 2005-07-25 01:42pm

Re: The problem...

Post by LauraG »

wolveraptor wrote:Unless you mean creating a totally different animal with capabilities equal to humans. Kick ass dude.
That's the basic idea as I understand it... to eventually design and build new living creatures from the basic building blocks of DNA. They might even have a super-size option on it, too. 8)
User avatar
LauraG
Redshirt
Posts: 39
Joined: 2005-07-25 01:42pm

Specially created...

Post by LauraG »

DrkHelmet wrote:Doesn't matter whether man created it or God created it, it's still a form of life which did not evolve. It was still engineered. It was still created by an intelligent being. Therefore, there is no conflict.
Not as I understand it. Again, creationists don't argue just that humans were created. They argue that we were specially created by god in his own image. They're also pretty sure every single creature other than humans was created by the same god. They can't leave the christian god out of it or replace him with a guy in a lab coat without running into loads of problems.

In a way, that's the same problem creationists have with IDers (not to mention pretty much every other religion). Since IDers say they make no claims as to the indentity of the designer, creationists say ID is taking their god, the christian god, out of the equation... and they don't like that.

Also, IDers insist the designer is supernatural, taking the very natural lab coat guy out of their scope of acceptability, too.
User avatar
DrkHelmet
Social Butterfly
Posts: 604
Joined: 2005-06-22 11:02am
Location: Your closet, behind the coats.

Re: Specially created...

Post by DrkHelmet »

LauraG wrote: Not as I understand it. Again, creationists don't argue just that humans were created. They argue that we were specially created by god in his own image. They're also pretty sure every single creature other than humans was created by the same god. They can't leave the christian god out of it or replace him with a guy in a lab coat without running into loads of problems.
My bad. You did say creationists, not IDers. I was thinking IDers. I guess I've been reading too many discussions about ID.
In a way, that's the same problem creationists have with IDers (not to mention pretty much every other religion). Since IDers say they make no claims as to the indentity of the designer, creationists say ID is taking their god, the christian god, out of the equation... and they don't like that.
Uhh... I guess that depends on the creationist. Some are less rabid than others.
Also, IDers insist the designer is supernatural, taking the very natural lab coat guy out of their scope of acceptability, too.
Now this I have never read from an official source. I've noticed alot of people refer to ID as a "christian" theory, but the definition doesn't specify a creator, like you said. I believe it only specifies that it specifies that life had an "intelligent designer." It doesn't specify natural or supernatural to my knowledge. Now, some (if not all) practitioners or ID believe in a supernatural being, but the theory doesn't say that, per se.

Anyway, about creationists not having a problem with that, I can't say one way or another.
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

Dude, ID is just a way for creationism to look more scientific and less bullshitic.
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
Post Reply