US Scientists Close to Creating Artificial Life: Study

Carcharodon

Avenger
Joined
Apr 14, 2001
Messages
14,844
Reaction score
0
Points
31
LINK: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080125/ts_alt_afp/sciencebiotechusresearch_080125001832

US scientists close to creating artificial life: study by Jean-Louis Santini




WASHINGTON (AFP) - US scientists have taken a major step toward creating the first ever artificial life form by synthetically reproducing the DNA of a bacteria, according to a study published Thursday.

The move, which comes after five years of research, is seen as the penultimate stage in the endeavour to create an artificial life form based entirely on a man-made DNA genome -- something which has tantalised scientists and sci-fi writers for years.

"Through dedicated teamwork we have shown that building large genomes is now feasible and scalable so that important applications such as biofuels can be developed," said Hamilton Smith, from the J. Craig Venter Institute, in the study published in Science.

The research has been carried out at the laboratories of the controversial celebrity US scientist Craig Venter, who has hailed artificial life forms as a potential remedy to illness and global warming.

However, the prospect of engineering artificial life forms is highly controversial and is likely to arouse heated debate over the ethics and potential ramifications of such an advance.

It is one of the Holy Grails of science, but also one that stirs deep fears as forseen in Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel "Brave New World" in which natural human reproduction is eschewed in favor of babies grown artificially in laboratories.

Venter said in a statement: "This extraordinary accomplishment is a technological marvel that was only made possible because of the unique and accomplished ... team."

His researchers had "dedicated the last several years to designing and perfecting new methods and techniques that we believe will become widely used to advance the field of synthetic genomics," he added.

Lead author Dan Gibson said the team had completed the second step in a three-step process to create a synthetic organism.

In the final stage of their research which they are already working on, the Maryland-based team will attempt to create a bacteria based purely on the synthetic genome sequence of the Mycoplasma genitalium bacteria.

The bacteria, which causes certain sexually transmitted diseases, has one of the least complex DNA structures of any life form, composed of just 580 genes.

In contrast, the human genome has some 30,000.

The chromosome which Venter and his team has created is known as Mycoplasma laboratorium and, in the final step of the process, will be transplanted into a living cell where it should "take control," effectively becoming a new life form.

The new bacteria will therefore be largely artificial, though not entirely, because it is composed of building blocks from already existing organisms.

"When we started this work several years ago, we knew it was going to be difficult because we were treading into unknown territory," said Smith.

But other scientists remain cautious, saying Venter and his team are still a long way from being able to create artificial life. They point to a tell-tale footnote in the study which details a problem in slotting in one of the cloned genes.

Eckard Wimmer, professor of molecular biology at New York University, said it was clear from Venter's study that the team had not yet created artificial life.

He said he was left with "the unpleasant feeling whether or not the synthetic DNA was indeed proper and able for biological function."

His fears were echoed by Helen Wallace, a biologist and spokesperson for GeneWatch UK, who said that while Venter's team has managed a technical feat, it is some way from being artificial life.

"Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life," she told AFP.

"It's a type of genetic engineering which would allow people to make much bigger genetic changes, which means that in the future you could create organisms with new gene sequences."
 
They're going to end up accidentally making either zombies, a super virus that will kill 90% of the population, or a giant monster. Why are scientists the only people who dont watch and learn from sci-fi?
 
They're going to end up accidentally making either zombies, a super virus that will kill 90% of the population, or a giant monster. Why are scientists the only people who dont watch and learn from sci-fi?

Because, to paraphrase Ian Malcom, they're too preoccupied with whether or not they could that they never stop to think if they should.
 
Because, to paraphrase Ian Malcom, they're too preoccupied with whether or not they could that they never stop to think if they should.
Yeah. It's not like there could be any sort of useful outcome from these advances.



:whatever:
 
Yeah. It's not like there could be any sort of useful outcome from these advances.



:whatever:

There couldn't. Why should humanity create artificial life when we can't even responsibly care for pre-existing life?
 
There couldn't. Why should humanity create artificial life when we can't even responsibly care for pre-existing life?
Apparently you have no idea what they've done, even in context. They've synthesized a genome, dude. They're not trying to create an army of complex organisms. They're not cloning dinosaurs, for Christ's sake. The significance and potential of what's just been done seems to be lost on you.

Let me put this in terms of your argument: this will help pre-existing life. Can you really not see the potential medical benefits this can have? Do you know what a genome is, or what it does? Do you have any idea how this has the potential to help us understand pre-existing life around us today on a broad scale?
 
There couldn't. Why should humanity create artificial life when we can't even responsibly care for pre-existing life?

So they can responsibly care for the life that we can't duhhhhhh. :o
 
Apparently you have no idea what they've done, even in context. They've synthesized a genome, dude. They're not trying to create an army of complex organisms. The significance and potential of what's just been done seems to be lost on you.

Let me put this in terms of your argument: this will help pre-existing life. Can you really not see the potential medical benefits this can have? Do you know what a genome is, or what it does? Do you have any idea how this has the potential to help us understand pre-existing life around us today on a broad scale?

A genome? Just a genome? Really? Not specifically a human genome, or even an ape genome, just a random artificial genome? And one based off of a venereal disease at that? And you think that they'll stop there?

Take this for example:

"It's a type of genetic engineering which would allow people to make much bigger genetic changes, which means that in the future you could create organisms with new gene sequences."

That's the last line in the article you posted. Created organisms with new gene sequences. Such as what exactly? Curing disease? That'll never happen, and the only result of that is worse diseases. Modern medicine has that funny little side-effect of slowing our development and expediting the development of diseases.

I see this as the same as artificial intelligence and full human cloning, it's a claim for the collective human ego, not some benevolent goal that will bring humanity into a utopia, or even a better world. Call me a pessimist, but I see only bad things coming from this.
 
Apparently you have no idea what they've done, even in context. They've synthesized a genome, dude. They're not trying to create an army of complex organisms. They're not cloning dinosaurs, for Christ's sake. The significance and potential of what's just been done seems to be lost on you.
But seriously, they need to get on top of that.
 
A genome? Just a genome? Really? Not specifically a human genome, or even an ape genome, just a random artificial genome? And one based off of a venereal disease at that? And you think that they'll stop there?
I should hope not. This is merely a first, simple step. It's what science is based on.

SuperFerret said:
Take this for example:



That's the last line in the article you posted. Created organisms with new gene sequences. Such as what exactly? Curing disease? That'll never happen, and the only result of that is worse diseases. Modern medicine has that funny little side-effect of slowing our development and expediting the development of diseases.

I see this as the same as artificial intelligence and full human cloning, it's a claim for the collective human ego, not some benevolent goal that will bring humanity into a utopia, or even a better world. Call me a pessimist, but I see only bad things coming from this.
Do you have any genetic understanding of why those diseases get worse? It's more or less unavoidable with the prevalence of antibiotics. This is something else entirely.

What if those new organisms serve as a super-effective carrier host for some life-saving biogenic substance? With enough understanding, we can biologically engineer countless cures. We could engineer substances too complex to form in a lab and mass-produce them. We could lower the cost of medicines and create some great new ones.

Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of gene translation can see that. For you to say it'll, "never happen," is ridiculous, to be perfectly honest. There are endless medical possibilities here, as well as purely scientific possibilities.

Of course it can be abused, and mistakes could (and probably will) be made. That's true of any scientific discovery, so your argument is sort of silly in that regard.
 
Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of gene translation can see that. For you to say it'll, "never happen," is ridiculous, to be perfectly honest. There are endless medical possibilities here, as well as purely scientific possibilities.

Two things real quick;

1) When I said it'll never happen, I meant that disease will never stop, and that the chances of something like this being used for medicine first when most advances in technology and science are originally used to hurt rather than help.

2)I find the term "purely scientific possibilities" to be bull. If science isn't being used to benefit the populace then it's useless in my eyes. Science for science's sake is pointless.


Honestly, I've stopped caring about this. It happens when I don't really feel strongly about something, and I just speak up because no one else is, and someone who knows more about the topic makes me feel like a fool. Regardless, I still have a bad feeling in my gut when I consider these things, and I still wish that science would slow down it's advancement. Ultimately, I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, so I'm not arguing anymore.
 
Two things real quick;

1) When I said it'll never happen, I meant that disease will never stop, and that the chances of something like this being used for medicine first when most advances in technology and science are originally used to hurt rather than help.

2)I find the term "purely scientific possibilities" to be bull. If science isn't being used to benefit the populace then it's useless in my eyes. Science for science's sake is pointless.


Honestly, I've stopped caring about this. It happens when I don't really feel strongly about something, and I just speak up because no one else is, and someone who knows more about the topic makes me feel like a fool. Regardless, I still have a bad feeling in my gut when I consider these things, and I still wish that science would slow down it's advancement. Ultimately, I won't change your mind and you won't change mine, so I'm not arguing anymore.
I'm sorry, dude...I wasn't trying to make you feel like a fool. Guess I'm a little too passionate about this sort of thing. I'm done.
 
I'm sorry, dude...I wasn't trying to make you feel like a fool. Guess I'm a little too passionate about this sort of thing. I'm done.

Nah, it's not your fault. I've just lost the head for science that I used to have.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"