Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

Posted

Very cool!

 

I liked this passage in the article:

 

Dr Helen Wallace from Genewatch UK, an organisation that monitors developments in genetic technologies, told BBC News that synthetic bacteria could be dangerous.

 

"If you release new organisms into the environment, you can do more harm than good," she said.

 

"By releasing them into areas of pollution, [with the aim of cleaning it up], you're actually releasing a new kind of pollution.

 

"We don't know how these organisms will behave in the environment."

 

Dr Wallace accused Dr Venter of playing down the potential drawbacks.

 

"He isn't God," she said

 

 

LOL.

 

 

CC

Posted

I tend to think the general press release is misleading. This is not artificial life, just synthetic DNA. IMO, this is a remarkable achievement and has great potential. The news media should not make things out to be more than they are though.

 

This research is a direct blow in the face of religion.

 

IMO that's a good thing...

Posted

I wonder if they used the water suloble magnetic squish laser evaporate tequnique

 

besides that, I think this should stick to changing skin to stem cells for the moment, so you can fix severed spines and stuff, otherwise we create a misrobe that can infest a cell and change the entire human body, after many generations

 

althoght the idea of programming a finite amount of replications isn't bad, it still leaves room for evolving past that concept

 

plus if we start doing his manipulation to humans to advance ourselves we may get to smart for our own good, like being able to make atomic bullets that explode on impact, but not realizing we would kill ourselves in the process of it's use

Posted
I tend to think the general press release is misleading. This is not artificial life, just synthetic DNA. IMO, this is a remarkable achievement and has great potential. The news media should not make things out to be more than they are though.

 

Agreed, that's why I used "synthetic." There's nothing "artificial" about this. This isn't a Frankenstein microbe. Most or all of the tech and knowledge has been there for a couple years. Now that Venter has succeeded, he's shown what was theoretically possible is actually possible. Proof of concept. And that is an achievement in its own right.

 

IMO that's a good thing...

 

"It's the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine)." (Stealing from REM.)

Posted

Safety is paramount. I think there should be a few changes to synthetic species to provide peace of mind for those afraid of the implications when these organisms are used in the wider world.

 

eg: Removing the genes responsible for transormation and conjugation of prokaryotes. Provided artificial cells reproduce via binary fission there is no real cause for alarm as the nth generation should still be the same as the first.

 

Of course, then there's mutation. Transfer of genes responsible for DNA editing could help reduce occurence.

 

As for plasmid and virus vectors - I don't know.

 

The papers a good read. It proves what I suspected all along - ideas for utilising biotechnology are rather simple to come up with but the actual practise takes a lot of time and hard work.

 

15 years for Craig Venter to pull this off, worth every minute.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...