Creation of Synthetic Life

[Mr. Tickle]

Didn't see this mentioned yet so from the Guardian

Scientists have created the world's first synthetic life form in a landmark experiment that paves the way for designer organisms that are built rather than evolved.

The controversial feat, which has occupied 20 scientists for more than 10 years at an estimated cost of $40m, was described by one researcher as "a defining moment in biology".

Craig Venter, the pioneering US geneticist behind the experiment, said the achievement heralds the dawn of a new era in which new life is made to benefit humanity, starting with bacteria that churn out biofuels, soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and even manufacture vaccines.

However critics, including some religious groups, condemned the work, with one organisation warning that artificial organisms could escape into the wild and cause environmental havoc or be turned into biological weapons. Others said Venter was playing God.

The new organism is based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.

The single-celled organism has four "watermarks" written into its DNA to identify it as synthetic and help trace its descendants back to their creator, should they go astray.

"We were ecstatic when the cells booted up with all the watermarks in place," Dr Venter told the Guardian. "It's a living species now, part of our planet's inventory of life."

Dr Venter's team developed a new code based on the four letters of the genetic code, G, T, C and A, that allowed them to draw on the whole alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks to write the watermarks. Anyone who cracks the code is invited to email an address written into the DNA.

The research is reported online today in the journal Science.

"This is an important step both scientifically and philosophically," Dr Venter told the journal. "It has certainly changed my views of definitions of life and how life works."

The team now plans to use the synthetic organism to work out the minimum number of genes needed for life to exist. From this, new microorganisms could be made by bolting on additional genes to produce useful chemicals, break down pollutants, or produce proteins for use in vaccines.

Julian Savulescu, professor of practical ethics at Oxford University, said: "Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny. He is not merely copying life artificially ... or modifying it radically by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally."

This is "a defining moment in the history of biology and biotechnology", Mark Bedau, a philosopher at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, told Science.

Dr Venter became a controversial figure in the 1990s when he pitted his former company, Celera Genomics, against the publicly funded effort to sequence the human genome, the Human Genome Project. Venter had already applied for patents on more than 300 genes, raising concerns that the company might claim intellectual rights to the building blocks of life.

I thought that this wasn't too far away from my biochem days a few years ago but if this technology goes onto do a tenth of what is claimed could then this is big news indeed.

edit: Fixed spelling error in subject, whoops

[Formless]

Others said Venter was playing God.

Good. The sooner people realize that we have always played "god," that indeed it is the purpose of the human species to play "god," and that all the beings we once imagined and called "gods" were but reflections of ourselves, the better off this world will be. I see no hubris in that view. Merely a statement of our true worth.

[Eleas]

I thought that this wasn't too far away from my biochem days a few years ago but if this technology goes onto do a tenth of what is claimed could then this is big news indeed.

Pikachu, I patent you!

Quite exciting. Of course, everything they mention as possible is going to require bioengineering, but it looks like they're closing in on making it a practical process.

Oh, and this "playing God" shit intrigues me. I wonder, do they oppose it on the grounds that we, being "made in the image of God," should stick to following His example? The article above covers the "create new life to be your servant" bit quite nicely, I should think, but we may have omitted the "breathe life into a new creature so you can have fun torturing it" phase. So the experiments here may rest on a doctrinally unsound foundation.

Then again, I live at a comfortable distance from the US and Poland, so what do I know?


EDIT: Edited the shit out of the post. Sorry, all.

[Lagmonster]

I think my 'JOY!' moment was when they said they'd written an email address and a message into the thing's DNA. That's fucking spectacular. "So, we had some leeway here, so we jotted in a few lines of hardcore erotica to this new bird we came up with. Fucking crazy."

[Serafina]

Finally! Evidence for Creationism!

That was actually my first tought - after all, there IS evidence inside the genetic code that it is created.
Now i only have to find a creationist and throw it in his face

[Spectre_nz]

Oh fuck, they've pulled it off have they? This is motherfucking awesome win on a stick. All previous claims that scientists were 'playing god' pale in comparison to this one...

But it probably won't be long until some creationist cites this as proof of creation since, the only life forms we've seen spring out of no where are the ones we've designed ourselves, the same must be true of all life.
Hopefully this will prompt ID advocates to waste their time and money searching the genome of the rest of the tree of life for god's contact details.

[Serafina]

This brings this comic to fruition!
http://www.angryflower.com/goinaf.gif

Holy crap...that STILL makes more sense than creationism, even tough it involves timetravel (and a talking flower, of course).
Luckily, we still have a perfectly valid (if not yet perfected) explanation for abiogenesis.


More seriously tough, are there any estaminates how long it will take to actually engineer something usefull?
And how does it compare to just modding an existing genome?

[Starglider]

Creating a working, reproducing cell from a fully synthesised genome is an impressive technical achievement and a major landmark. However that doesn't mean we have a full understanding of cell function, much less growth in multicellular organisms; the genome itself was constructed by combining evolved sequences. Future iterations will get closer and closer to the ideal of picking desired features, designing and verifying the organism in simulation, then pressing 'print gamete' to start your new species.

Anyway this is great stuff for biotech, but there is a dark side; the technology is really useful for bioweapon creation as well.

[Formless]

Anyway this is great stuff for biotech, but there is a dark side; the technology is really useful for bioweapon creation as well.

...which is why its good that this technology was created by people who have more interest in medicine than weapons. Medical tech makes it easier to combat disease all around, including artificial ones. Besides, bioweapons have been possible for a loooooooong time now, and yet the world hasn't ended (mostly because nukes were where it was at 'till recently, but still).

[Starglider]

...which is why its good that this technology was created by people who have more interest in medicine than weapons.

It only takes one to catch a case of fundie or just sell out for money. Or rather, every one who does is a serious risk.

Besides, bioweapons have been possible for a loooooooong time now, and yet the world hasn't ended (mostly because nukes were where it was at 'till recently, but still).

This class of technology is a risk multiplier; it will put more sophisticated bioweapons (including eventually ethnically targetted ones) into reach of progressively smaller groups. While this isn't my field, I don't think genome synthesis is as useful for the defense as the offense. Maybe it would help with making vaccines faster.

[Formless]

...which is why its good that this technology was created by people who have more interest in medicine than weapons.

It only takes one to catch a case of fundie or just sell out for money. Or rather, every one who does is a serious risk.

Because its not like we have ethics committees and courts for this kind of thing.

Oh, yeah, that's right--- we've already got several safeguards in place, we just need to use them. Sure, they aren't perfect, but I think its too soon to worry about the weaponization of this technology just yet.

Besides, bioweapons have been possible for a loooooooong time now, and yet the world hasn't ended (mostly because nukes were where it was at 'till recently, but still).

This class of technology is a risk multiplier; it will put more sophisticated bioweapons (including eventually ethnically targetted ones) into reach of progressively smaller groups. While this isn't my field, I don't think genome synthesis is as useful for the defense as the offense. Maybe it would help with making vaccines faster.

It will also make it easier to make pharmaceuticals. IIRC they already use similar techniques to make things like penicillin. The more we understand about how life works, the more we will figure out how to fix problems when they appear. Plus, it has many of the same potential uses that nano-tech has-- imagine creating an artificial strain of bacteria that eats viruses for lunch that you can inject into the blood stream to supplement the immune system. Not to mention the possibilities of using similar techniques to do genetic engineering and all that jazz.

[Starglider]

Because its not like we have ethics committees and courts for this kind of thing.

Oh of course. Why didn't I think of that. Bio-terrorism is impossible because before the lab in northern Iran can start operating it must be approved by a blue-ribbon panel of bio-ethicists from Connecticut. One stern risk report and those pesky jihadists will no choice but to give up.

Sure, they aren't perfect, but I think its too soon to worry about the weaponization of this technology just yet.

Oh really? When should we start worrying about it?

Back in reality, it's never 'too soon' to start examining risks. Of course, massive analysis of bioterror risks has taken place and is ongoing, in both the public and classified domains.

It will also make it easier to make pharmaceuticals.

Which is great but won't help against novel engineered viruses, or even novel bacteria with genes for resistance to every known antibiotic spliced in.

The more we understand about how life works, the more we will figure out how to fix problems when they appear.

Generally true but this particular technique has more utility to applied biotechnology than it does to investigating cell biochemistry.

Plus, it has many of the same potential uses that nano-tech has-- imagine creating an artificial strain of bacteria that eats viruses for lunch that you can inject into the blood stream to supplement the immune system.

As I said, to do that kind of custom design we'd have to have a much more thorough understanding of cell function, not to mention much better simulation tools (and even getting permission to do clinical trials would still be a bitch, for anything that self-replicates). It is actually the opposite situation for nanotechnology; for nanotech we have lots of designs for things we can't build yet, whereas here we have an effectively unbounded means of production but only a very limited design capability.

[spartasman]

I for one welcome our new Drakensis overlords.

but in all seriousness, how far away could we be to actually genetically modifying humans? I think that the possibility of eliminating all genetic diseases, increasing brain size and capacity, and increasing our resistance to poisons, radiation, disease ect... is a very interesting prospect. That is of course if that has anything to do with this.

[Formless]

Because its not like we have ethics committees and courts for this kind of thing.

Oh of course. Why didn't I think of that. Bio-terrorism is impossible because before the lab in northern Iran can start operating it must be approved by a blue-ribbon panel of bio-ethicists from Connecticut. One stern risk report and those pesky jihadists will no choice but to give up.

Right, because biotech is cheap. Not. Didn't you notice the $40m pricetag that this project had? I don't buy the scaremongering that terrorists are going to be able to make designer bioweapons on the cheap, especially once you factor in the issue of designing a decent delivery system. It takes expertise that I don't think they have. Bioterrorism is much more likely to involve weaponizing existing diseases because that is what is easy, and terrorists are nothing if not efficient. And even that isn't so easy to create.

Sure, they aren't perfect, but I think its too soon to worry about the weaponization of this technology just yet.

Oh really? When should we start worrying about it?

When someone starts showing interest in using this technology for destructive purposes who ISN'T one of the very doomsayers warning against it?

Have you ever considered the possibility that the more people talk about how dangerous biotech could be (or any technology for that matter), the more likely it is someone will make a bioweapon precisely because people made them sound so dangerous? The more the destructive uses of the technology get harped on the more the constructive uses get forgotten. Nuclear technology for example had just as much potential to remake the world in a positive manner; but because everyone was scared shitless of the Bomb it didn't happen that way, did it? And yet, the only people who had access to nuclear technology for most of this century were ALSO the countries most worried about it. In effect, we manufactured a threat to humanity. A SERIOUS threat to humanity, no less. I think that it says more about you that one of the first things you imagine this technology being used for is weapons, whereas everyone else is more interested in its positive uses.

So: show me that it is credible threat, and that you aren't just creating demons by passing on this ridiculous meme.

Back in reality, it's never 'too soon' to start examining risks. Of course, massive analysis of bioterror risks has taken place and is ongoing, in both the public and classified domains.

Speaking of reality, when have the terrorists actually shown any real interest in WMD's outside of the fantasies of right wing lunatics who watch 24?

It will also make it easier to make pharmaceuticals.

Which is great but won't help against novel engineered viruses, or even novel bacteria with genes for resistance to every known antibiotic spliced in.

Then you can create a counter-bug that's engineered specifically to attack it and use that to treat the infected. If its possible to create "ethnically targetable" diseases, it should be equally possible to create bugs that target those diseases using the exact same techniques. You aren't being very imaginative here.

Plus, it has many of the same potential uses that nano-tech has-- imagine creating an artificial strain of bacteria that eats viruses for lunch that you can inject into the blood stream to supplement the immune system.

As I said, to do that kind of custom design we'd have to have a much more thorough understanding of cell function, not to mention much better simulation tools (and even getting permission to do clinical trials would still be a bitch, for anything that self-replicates).

Excuse me, but if you don't think we have the right tools to make designer bugs for non-destructive purposes, why the hell are you worried about terrorists in third world countries making designer bugs that can attack specific ethnicities? You aren't being very consistent here, Starglider. The exact same tools are needed to tackle both problems.

[adam_grif]

Why is this any worse than preexisting biotech anyway? Creating completely new things isn't really that much more threatening than modifying existing ones to be resistant to treatment and making them tougher to kill etc.

[spartasman]

I don't buy the scaremongering that terrorists are going to be able to make designer bioweapons on the cheap

you seem to be forgetting what Tony Stark built in a cave...

especially once you factor in the issue of designing a decent delivery system

All you have to do is infect some crazy suicidal Jihadist (of which there are plenty if the numbers of suicide bombings are anything to go by) with it and have him cough on people.

Nuclear technology for example had just as much potential to remake the world in a positive manner; but because everyone was scared shitless of the Bomb it didn't happen that way, did it?

So if everyone had simply built nuclear reactors instead of bombs, there would be no harmful effects right?

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident

Seriously, the invention of gunpowder could have just as easily been used simply for mining and demolition, but instead people built guns.

Your thinking is on par with that of the inventor of the Gatling gun, in that just because you perceive something to be so horrible that it will scare people into not using it, that will keep said something from being used. There is ALWAYS someone out there who is willing to use scientific advancements for their purposes, its just that most of them don't have the ability to turn the available science into something useful.

Speaking of reality, when have the terrorists actually shown any real interest in WMD's outside of the fantasies of right wing lunatics who watch 24?

I believe North Korea has nuclear weapons, and Iran is not far away from making their own if they aren't already. Just because it's not some guy sitting in a mud hut somewhere in Durka-Durkastan doesn't mean someone with bad intentions isn't going to try to use this to their advantage.

Then you can create a counter-bug that's engineered specifically to attack it and use that to treat the infected. If its possible to create "ethnically targetable" diseases, it should be equally possible to create bugs that target those diseases using the exact same techniques. You aren't being very imaginative here.

I don't see creating a counter-virus as being as simple as "ding, cures done" any time in the near future. You would need to first get your hands on a sample of the disease, and then break it down into all of its genetic components in order to create something that could counter it. In the time it would take to do that (even if it only took a few days), hundreds of thousands of people could be killed given the designed lethality of the disease.

[adam_grif]

So if everyone had simply built nuclear reactors instead of bombs, there would be no harmful effects right?

So of all the things you mentioned, two of them had fatalities, and one of those wasn't even a nuclear reactor accident at all, but a source of radioactivity getting passed around by people who didn't realize what they were handling.

Most industries would kill to have a safety record like the nuclear one.

[Formless]

I don't buy the scaremongering that terrorists are going to be able to make designer bioweapons on the cheap

you seem to be forgetting what Tony Stark built in a cave...

This isn't the Fantasy forum, you goddamn retard. If you think that's a valid argument, you must be completely nuts.

especially once you factor in the issue of designing a decent delivery system

All you have to do is infect some crazy suicidal Jihadist (of which there are plenty if the numbers of suicide bombings are anything to go by) with it and have him cough on people.

I would like to see the evidence that that is actually an effective delivery method. I'm not saying its not, although I would find it epically hilarious if the terrorists managed to cause an epidemic only to have everyone dismiss the "terror attack theory" as Truther insanity.

Nuclear technology for example had just as much potential to remake the world in a positive manner; but because everyone was scared shitless of the Bomb it didn't happen that way, did it?

So if everyone had simply built nuclear reactors instead of bombs, there would be no harmful effects right?

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident

Seriously, the invention of gunpowder could have just as easily been used simply for mining and demolition, but instead people built guns.

Your thinking is on par with that of the inventor of the Gatling gun, in that just because you perceive something to be so horrible that it will scare people into not using it, that will keep said something from being used. There is ALWAYS someone out there who is willing to use scientific advancements for their purposes, its just that most of them don't have the ability to turn the available science into something useful.

What I'm trying to say is that because our society invented this technology first, and because of the economic/infrastructure requirements needed to do even the most basic research in the field, we have the opportunity to set the precedent for how this technology is used. The difference between this and gunpowder (which IS used for civilian purposes now, you realize) is that gunpowder is not that technologically sophisticated: any dumbass with the right ingredients can make the shit. ON the other hand, if it turned out tomorrow that the LHC can be weaponized, no sane person would worry about it because of the fact that not just any country can make a particle collider. They need money and infrastructure and shit.

By the way, bringing up Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as examples of the risks of civilian nuclear power is another moronic move not just because its completely red herring to my point, but because Chernobyl was an example of MASSIVE incompetence and negligence at EVERY level (basically the idiots in charge were outright ignoring every safety measure in the books as an EXPERIMENT), while Three Mile Island is a perfect demonstration of how effective the safety measures of modern nuclear power plants are.

I believe North Korea has nuclear weapons, and Iran is not far away from making their own if they aren't already. Just because it's not some guy sitting in a mud hut somewhere in Durka-Durkastan doesn't mean someone with bad intentions isn't going to try to use this to their advantage.

Last I checked North Korea's attempts to test their launch vehicle was a disaster, and I have seen no credible evidence that Iran is anything but blowing smoke about the state of their nuclear program. If anything, those two examples only serve to strengthen my point that a serious WMD program is harder and more expensive to pull off than some people think.

I don't see creating a counter-virus as being as simple as "ding, cures done" any time in the near future.

And I don't see people creating super bugs that are resistant to every anti-biotic known to man or can target specific ethnic groups in the near future. But if you can do one, you can do the other using the exact same technology. And we are the ones who have a head start on making the former.

You would need to first get your hands on a sample of the disease, and then break it down into all of its genetic components in order to create something that could counter it. In the time it would take to do that (even if it only took a few days), hundreds of thousands of people could be killed given the designed lethality of the disease.

Do you know how outbreaks actually work? If the bug is too deadly, you could end up creating a self-containing outbreak due to everyone dying before they can pass on the virus. That means that an effective bioweapon has to move slowly in order to stay in the environment long enough to do damage. That buys the target population time with which to develop a cure or vaccine.

[spartasman]

This isn't the Fantasy forum, you goddamn retard. If you think that's a valid argument, you must be completely nuts.

Firstly, that was an obvious joke, and your rather heated response goes more towards proving that you yourself are retarded.

I would like to see the evidence that that is actually an effective delivery method. I'm not saying its not, although I would find it epically hilarious if the terrorists managed to cause an epidemic only to have everyone dismiss the "terror attack theory" as Truther insanity.

The 2009 H1N1 epidemic is a prime example of how a disease can easily be commuted by nothing more than the infected persons traveling about.

Last I checked North Korea's attempts to test their launch vehicle was a disaster, and I have seen no credible evidence that Iran is anything but blowing smoke about the state of their nuclear program. If anything, those two examples only serve to strengthen my point that a serious WMD program is harder and more expensive to pull off than some people think.

Regardless of North Koreas ability to project their devices outside their own borders, they have built them. Iran may very well be boasting about their ability to manufacture nuclear weapons, but that does not diminish from the fact that they have the ability to enrich Uranium to possible weapons-grade.

And I don't see people creating super bugs that are resistant to every anti-biotic known to man or can target specific ethnic groups in the near future. But if you can do one, you can do the other using the exact same technology. And we are the ones who have a head start on making the former.

All that would need to be done would be to take a strain of an existing disease, say, the common cold, and beef it up with enough genetic potency to kill. Likewise, slowing down the Ebola Virus' infection rate and releasing it into a city would have just the same effect as creating an entirely new designer disease, and could be done much quicker and with simpler equipment.

[Formless]

This isn't the Fantasy forum, you goddamn retard. If you think that's a valid argument, you must be completely nuts.

Firstly, that was an obvious joke, and your rather heated response goes more towards proving that you yourself are retarded.

Yeah... its not as obvious as you might think given the rest of your post.

I would like to see the evidence that that is actually an effective delivery method. I'm not saying its not, although I would find it epically hilarious if the terrorists managed to cause an epidemic only to have everyone dismiss the "terror attack theory" as Truther insanity.

The 2009 H1N1 epidemic is a prime example of how a disease can easily be commuted by nothing more than the infected persons traveling about.

Hence why I used the word "effective" and my joke about it being dismissed as "truther insanity." Terror tactics are supposed to create lots of publicity for a cause. That's why they usually try to make as much of a spectacle as possible. This method generally can't be traced back to the terror group, which makes it not very good for spreading publicity. The other measure of "effective" is by how much damage it can do (being that it is, after all, a WMD). Again, I doubt that this would actually be a good way to infect a lot of people very quickly. You wouldn't be able to cough on that many people and airports are easily quarantined. If you aren't stopped by airport security measures, your outbreak will be even slower than normal.

Last I checked North Korea's attempts to test their launch vehicle was a disaster, and I have seen no credible evidence that Iran is anything but blowing smoke about the state of their nuclear program. If anything, those two examples only serve to strengthen my point that a serious WMD program is harder and more expensive to pull off than some people think.

Regardless of North Koreas ability to project their devices outside their own borders, they have built them. Iran may very well be boasting about their ability to manufacture nuclear weapons, but that does not diminish from the fact that they have the ability to enrich Uranium to possible weapons-grade.

Fact? FACT? Aren't you paying attention? That is EXACTLY the bullshit I'm talking about. I see NO EVIDENCE that Iran can make weapons grade uranium. Simply repeating yourself is not a good way to convince me. All I've seen are a pack of lies and BS by both the fascist Right and bluffs on the part of Iran.

And I don't see people creating super bugs that are resistant to every anti-biotic known to man or can target specific ethnic groups in the near future. But if you can do one, you can do the other using the exact same technology. And we are the ones who have a head start on making the former.

All that would need to be done would be to take a strain of an existing disease, say, the common cold, and beef it up with enough genetic potency to kill. Likewise, slowing down the Ebola Virus' infection rate and releasing it into a city would have just the same effect as creating an entirely new designer disease, and could be done much quicker and with simpler equipment.

Agreed, it is far easier to manipulate an existing disease than it is to make one from scratch, and likely no less effective a way to kill people. However, I still don't think that its as easy as people think, and its inherently riskier to the people who make it as well. Firstly because you have to get your hands on the disease (ebola isn't everywhere, you know), secondly because of the risk of blowback or causing a pandemic which hurts you as much as everyone else, and of course because you have to be able to handle it safely and not make your own people manufacturing it sick. No one is going to sing your praises if you cause an outbreak in your OWN country. This means that to make this kind of bioweapon you have to either be stupid enough to take those risks, or well funded enough to pay for half decent safety equipment and the ability to make vaccines for your own people.

[Sarevok]

It took only 40 million dollars for the first demonstration of synthetic life. Thats pocket change for nations like Iran. A high end 4th generation fighter aircraft can cost more than that. The lure of a very powerful weapon for a very low investment is too great to resist.

[Shroom Man 777]

And why would they want bioweapons? Not only are pathogens difficult to control, so that they'll just as easily end up diseasing Iranian people, but in destroying actual enemy militaries it's total shit in that application. Certainly it's not difficult to fabricate bioweapons, but what's their utility as a weapon and as a deterrent?

[Serafina]

And why would they want bioweapons? Not only are pathogens difficult to control, so that they'll just as easily end up diseasing Iranian people, but in destroying actual enemy militaries it's total shit in that application. Certainly it's not difficult to fabricate bioweapons, but what's their utility as a weapon and as a deterrent?

You know, they have leaders who think that Allah will protect them from nukes - such insane thinking can easily be applied to pathogens.

[Eleas]

And why would they want bioweapons? Not only are pathogens difficult to control, so that they'll just as easily end up diseasing Iranian people, but in destroying actual enemy militaries it's total shit in that application. Certainly it's not difficult to fabricate bioweapons, but what's their utility as a weapon and as a deterrent?

You know, they have leaders who think that Allah will protect them from nukes - such insane thinking can easily be applied to pathogens.

You don't even need that, when racism so easily lends itself to the same purpose.

"What can I do for you, Most Magnificent General?"
"Oh, nothing much. Our most Exalted Leader has asked you to create a virus that will kill only the inferior races and not affect real humans like us."
"But sir, genetically speaking, they are not sufficiently different from you or I...-"
"What did you just say?"
"...I said we'll work double shifts."

[mr friendly guy]

No doubt the Cretinists would be jumping up and down that it proves life is designed. However this will be followed up by others telling them it doesn't require divine intervention since humans just did it with non divine technology.