It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Scientists create the first living synthetic organism!(44 posts)(44 posts)
(44 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Posted May 21, 2010
Will "All your base pairs are belong to us!" give anybody else a nerdgasm.
Posted May 21, 2010
avatar
Themock: Will "All your base pairs are belong to us!" give anybody else a nerdgasm.

GOOD one.
Posted May 21, 2010
avatar
Mnemon: The "not just field of medicine" part is the worrying one, in the long run. Military projects are the ones that really push innovation (and where the funds are). But then, this is a long long way off from being "useful".

The one example they provided of "not just the field of medicine" was developing an algae-like organism that "eats" greenhouse gases and produces hydrocarbon fuels. Exxon Mobil is a major investor in this aspect of the research and they have more money than God right now.
Posted May 21, 2010
Oh boy, oh boy! Bring on the Replicants! And Lt. Cmdr. Data! ;P
Posted May 21, 2010
avatar
cogadh: The one example they provided of "not just the field of medicine" was developing an algae-like organism that "eats" greenhouse gases and produces hydrocarbon fuels. Exxon Mobil is a major investor in this aspect of the research and they have more money than God right now.

Big companies mean big money. Exxon just wants a new source of energy to sell. good thing in this would be that no new greenhouse gasses, those that will be eaten will be recycled back to athmosphere and then back to backtery farms to produce more fuel. All it takes is some sunlight. When the end product is finished, it will be "free" energy. -the research and transporting expenses.
Sadly this will probably lead to patents on "genes" or sequences. Then they can claim they own you. Literally.
Do these patents become invalid then if they are found occuring in nature?
Posted May 21, 2010
avatar
cogadh: Man-made life is real, folks; you may commence with the requisite ethical, moral and theological debates at your leisure.

I don't see any major theological debates except those wrapped up in ethics and morals.
I'm not sure that there are many theists whose beliefs rely on the premise that it is impossible to synthesize life (not even proponents of Intelligent Design).
Post edited May 21, 2010 by domgrief
Posted May 21, 2010
avatar
cogadh: The one example they provided of "not just the field of medicine" was developing an algae-like organism that "eats" greenhouse gases and produces hydrocarbon fuels. Exxon Mobil is a major investor in this aspect of the research and they have more money than God right now.
avatar
Themock: Big companies mean big money. Exxon just wants a new source of energy to sell. good thing in this would be that no new greenhouse gasses, those that will be eaten will be recycled back to athmosphere and then back to backtery farms to produce more fuel. All it takes is some sunlight. When the end product is finished, it will be "free" energy. -the research and transporting expenses.
Sadly this will probably lead to patents on "genes" or sequences. Then they can claim they own you. Literally.
Do these patents become invalid then if they are found occuring in nature?

Uh, genes are already being patented and have been for several years now. The major drug companies all have patents on portions of the human genome as it relates to genetic therapies they have developed, food manufacturers have patented the genetic modifications they have made to fruits and vegetables to make them stay fresh and pest-free longer... I even read of one genetic researcher trying to patent his entire DNA profile in an effort to protect it from future infringements by big business. I'm not saying that being able to patent a genome is a good thing or we shouldn't be upset about it, but you're a bit late to the party on the "what ifs".
Posted May 21, 2010
Fuck science and everything it stands for.
Posted May 21, 2010
avatar
domgrief: I don't see any major theological debates except those wrapped up in ethics and morals.
I'm not sure that there are many theists whose beliefs rely on the premise that it is impossible to synthesize life (not even proponents of Intelligent Design).

You might not see any theological debate here, and for that matter, neither do I, but every time someone does something new in the field of genetic research, inevitably, somebody somewhere will find it to be an offense against their god, their religion, "the natural order of things", whatever and will do everything in their power to turn it into a debate over religion and theology, rather than a rational discussion of the science and ethics of it.
Posted May 21, 2010
You can be damn sure of one thing:
An anime no this topic is already being drawn as we speak.
Posted May 21, 2010
avatar
cogadh: Uh, genes are already being patented and have been for several years now. The major drug companies all have patents on portions of the human genome as it relates to genetic therapies they have developed, food manufacturers have patented the genetic modifications they have made to fruits and vegetables to make them stay fresh and pest-free longer... I even read of one genetic researcher trying to patent his entire DNA profile in an effort to protect it from future infringements by big business. I'm not saying that being able to patent a genome is a good thing or we shouldn't be upset about it, but you're a bit late to the party on the "what ifs".

Now that was a good slap on my face. There were dots I couldn't connect... Dots I should have connected. Genefood etc... Thanks for waking me up.
Now I'm not sure anymore if those patents are good or bad. They are bad in the same sense that IP-patents are bad. Good the same way cause it makes money and therefore generate interest in investors who in the end pay for the research. Not everybody can be doing research at universities.
Now we'll have to wait for GRM. You didn't pay for for the gene that makes your muscles grow. ZIIP, it's not working anymore. And if you want to be able produce insulin you have to be connected to our servers...
Edit. Gotta mention that I know that making your crop sterilized is sort of GRM.
Post edited May 21, 2010 by Themock
Posted May 21, 2010
avatar
Wishbone: Do they know enough about exactly which genes do what to make sure that they don't create a superbacteria by mistake or by random mutation?

-I would hope so. In my limited experience, most lab bacteria strains have been modified significantly to the point where survival outside of a lab environment is unlikely. Also, unlike more complex animals, many bacterial genomes are very well understood. The article sounds like they used a sequencer to replicate known bacterial genes and slapped them together in a big chromosome. Its a bunch of very well known techniques, just, the combination of them on that scale is incredibly impressive.
avatar
Wishbone: Natural genes have all sort of failsafes built in, such as genes whose job it is to check, and if necessary correct, the sequence of other genes.

-ehhhhh....kinda... There are genes that code for proteins that maintain DNA. However, in most cases you are talking about eukaryotes. This is a prokayrote they are talking about here. The most they have is the error checking of DNA polymerase
avatar
Wishbone: There are long sequences of DNA that don't actually do anything, but ensure that a mutation is more likely to occur in one of the "nonsense" sequences than in an important gene.

-Interesting theory. Non-coding sequences are eukaryotic. The prokaryote does not have long non-coding sequences as its is incapable of excising them during RNA transcription.
Also, the belief the non-coding regions "Don't actually do anything" is a mis-conception. That's why they are generally referred to as non-coding as opposed to "junk DNA". These regions have some interesting significance. They contain a number of interesting sequences, from enhancers, to suppressors to LTR/STR's (which are used in DNA typing). In human DNA there are even weirder non-coding sections, from partial code for capsid proteins to sequences that actually physically "jump" to different locations (That's how they can track migrations over the millennia). I can't remember the proper term, and I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment - dinner time :-)
Posted May 21, 2010
Yeah, I think something like 20% of the human genome has actually been copyrighted! Recent cases have actually been questioning the validity of gene patenting on the basis of genes being created by nature and not man-made (there are strong counter-arguments, though), so we may be seeing a turnaround in that area of policy soon.
Patents are a tricky business in the US. It's the only way things get done in an expedient fashion, and without them investors would never waste money on research. However, in the case of gene-patenting some research is actually being hindered by companies like Monsanto (which is irrevocably evil. seriously.) who make researchers jump through prohibitive hoops in order to acquire rights to the genes they need to research--which goes against the purpose of patents (to stimulate innovation).
As to the original post: HOLY FUCK. Gentlemen, this is history, watch it closely.
Post edited May 21, 2010 by captfitz
Posted May 21, 2010
well said Capfitz;
I totally disagree with the idea of patenting/copywriting genes. Its a natural product. On the other hand, I'm totally ok with a patent or copywrite on a modified gene/product.
If someone tweaks a gene to work better, I see no reason why a researcher could't profit from that.
Posted May 21, 2010
avatar
Wishbone: There are long sequences of DNA that don't actually do anything, but ensure that a mutation is more likely to occur in one of the "nonsense" sequences than in an important gene.
avatar
denyasis: -Interesting theory. Non-coding sequences are eukaryotic. The prokaryote does not have long non-coding sequences as its is incapable of excising them during RNA transcription.
Also, the belief the non-coding regions "Don't actually do anything" is a mis-conception. That's why they are generally referred to as non-coding as opposed to "junk DNA". These regions have some interesting significance. They contain a number of interesting sequences, from enhancers, to suppressors to LTR/STR's (which are used in DNA typing). In human DNA there are even weirder non-coding sections, from partial code for capsid proteins to sequences that actually physically "jump" to different locations (That's how they can track migrations over the millennia). I can't remember the proper term, and I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment - dinner time :-)

Certainly there are genes that have a function other than protein synthesis, but if I remember correctly, human DNA at least (and I know that this is far from what has been created) does contain large portions of sequences that do not actually have a function. I believe the theory is that much of it is viral DNA that has been spliced naturally into our genes over time (evolutionary time, that is).
From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense to limit, or at any rate balance mutation. Too little mutation means no evolution, and hence no adaptability, whereas too much means chaos and death. Evolution favours mechanisms that can keep mutation close to the optimum rate. Unused DNA sequences may be one such mechanism.
I'm no geneticist, but I've read quite a bit on the subject, and I do enjoy philosophizing about it ;-)
Pages:
1
2
3
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Scientists create the first living synthetic organism!(44 posts)(44 posts)
(44 posts)