If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Humans create life
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Take that God. 
Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first synthetic living cell.
The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell.
The resulting microbe then looked and behaved like the species "dictated" by the synthetic DNA.
The advance, published in Science, has been hailed as a scientific landmark, but critics say there are dangers posed by synthetic organisms.
The researchers hope eventually to design bacterial cells that will produce medicines and fuels and even absorb greenhouse gases.
The team was led by Dr Craig Venter of the J Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in Maryland and California.
0
Comments
Which would be bother scary and fracking cool at the same time.
Awesome! :thumb:
Ah, but who dictates the DNA?
A computer.
"Humans create a living orgasm"
I don't necessarily agree with calling this "artificial life". All this group did was to start with the base sequence of a relatively simple bacterial genome, synthesise a copy in vitro, and transplant the completed genome into a recipient cell. This represents the first fully-synthesised bacterial genome, but it isn't really anything new. Whole genes have already been created and put into organisms - this was just done on a much larger scale.
If this is artificial life, where do we draw the line? Would we call an organism that has received one or several artificially-synthesised genes "semi-artificial"? For me this is more a proof-of-principle that shows it's possible to synthesise and construct genetic material on a large scale.
I personally think Venter's other work, which aims to isolate the minimal required genes for survival, and use them as building blocks to create a new organism, is more deserving than this work of the term "artificial life".
Oh, and the outraged responses make me chuckle, because you don't hear people complaining about "playing God" at crufts every year, or refusing to drink the milk of these "artificial" cows that produce it. Of course there are people who aren't best pleased with those things, but they don't tend to be the same ones that complain at every new scientific advancement.
There are so many good things that they could potentially do with this kind of science, from repairing some of the damage to the environment, to finding cures for diseases that are currently incurable.
Sure, they could go too far and create some kind of mutant species that take over Earth and wipe out the human race.... but at least everyone will be disease-free. Right?
We had an interesting conversation at work about the PR and media attention surrounding this work. For Venter any publicity is probably a good thing, which is why the study has been described in such extreme terms. From some of the news stories, it's clear the facts haven't really propagated through - either that, or the facts are ignored in favour of the agenda. It's annoying that for many people, the continuing media narrative, that scientists are evil and dangerous, will only be reinforced by this story.
What could go wrong ?
Remember to send me a postcard.