Scientists create the first synthetic lifeform

[Deluge Of Sound]

In contrast to that Prig quote, I might bring up some of the 20th century war atrocities. Its hard to think of something more damaging to the world than, say, the Holocaust,
Or the battles of World War I. That sort of scope seems to be untouchable.

And to rise to your bar, here's one quote I've always particularly liked that seems to apply to this conversation (though I must say I'm not using this to prove or disprove any particular point, its more to add some levity):

For monkeys to speak of truth is hubris of the highest degree. Where is it writ large that talking-monkeys should be able to model the cosmos? If a sea urchin or a racoon were to propose to you that it had a viable truth about the universe, the absurdity of that assertion would be self-evident, but in our case we make an exception.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I could have phrased that a bit better:

Obtaining knowledge for the mere sake of obtaining knowledge doesn't strike me as a particularly good attempt at enhancing the human condition. I see that as unhelpfully tangential, on the whole.

When the Laser was first discovered, there was no use for it. It was little more than science for the sake of science. It was a tool with no job.

Now, 50 years on, we all have several laser devices in our own homes and interact with them on some level daily, from buying shopping to using the internet.

Totally unhelpfull isnt it


Has anyone got a title of a paper for this yet?

If this hasn't been through peer review, and I expect something high end, Nature or Science, for something like this, then I'm not going to take it on the surface value. Heck, it's like the whole cold fusion thing 30 years back!

Also, it is more just a hobble of genes we already had. It's like claiming to have designed your own PC when all you've done is bought the parts and put it together. But maybe that's just the skeptic in me.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

When the Laser was first discovered, there was no use for it. It was little more than science for the sake of science. It was a tool with no job.

Now, 50 years on, we all have several laser devices in our own homes and interact with them on some level daily, from buying shopping to using the internet.

Totally unhelpfull isnt it

Depends on your definition of helpful.
Again, I'm not sure that these technological advances are bettering the human race as a whole. It all seems a little "bread & circuses" to me.

But that idea is clearly a point of friendly contention.

 

[chondro776]

Of course, that ball ends up in a lot of courts--the scientific, the philosophical, the religious, being three of the most example. I see science as doing the least of the three to address it.

I will continue the very respectful and civil tone, but that comment made my jaw drop. I will add myself to the 'emphatically disagree' camp.

And for the record, I am very much in the anarcho-primitivist camp (outside of the typical view of science and knowledge). We would be MUCH happier living in hunter gatherer societies. IMHO.

Second Point- I disagree that DNA is 'alive'. It is a component of living cells, which to my knowledge, are still considered the simplest form of life according to current definitions,(Viruses not withstanding).

 

[billjr]

While this is a remarkable scientific achievement, it falls way short of the hype most headlines have shouted about scientists creating life. They most certainly did not create life, they change a living cell's DNA without killing it. I'm sure there are more aplications than we can ever imagine for this process, but keep in mind that there will ALWAYS be unintended consequences, and the consequences of these genetic changes let out in nature will be completetly IRREVERSIBLE.

Just yesterday I saw a report on some problems with genetically modified corn that are being investigated. The problem is that the consequences of messing with this aspect of nature could be more devastating than anything any person can or ever will imagine.

Now just who do you put that kind of trust in?

 

[becker4567]

Please Mr. Scientist, develop a bass that plays by itself while I sit and watch. Maybe one that can make a good gin and tonic while it plays Dragon Attack!

 

[Tsal]

They most certainly did not create life, they change a living cell's DNA without killing it.

Yep, and the DNA was a hand-made almost exact copy of DNA of another bacteria, so they actually didn't create a new "artificial" strain. In the sense that this is remarkable, is that they actually made the whole sequence themselves at the lab - cut&paste operations with existing genomes are quite old, but they usually are quite slow and allow only editing of smaller parts. This could make editing larger sections a lot easier, and possibly more error-proof.

 

[Dr. Cheese]

I support the research. It definitely has risks, but I think it has a great potential of good and enhanced quality of life. My big problem is the issue of patents on organisms and DNA.

 

[becker4567]

I support the research. It definitely has risks, but I think it has a great potential of good and enhanced quality of life. My big problem is the issue of patents on organisms and DNA.

To be honest with you Doc, I think you have hit on the big issue! All the moral, ethical, and religious questions are moot as the research and development will continue regardless of anyones 'opinions'. But the question of who 'owns' the results and findings is the issue. Can DNA and living organisms actually be owned? If, as conservatives claim, a fetus is a 'human being' at the moment of conception, isn't 'owning' a living organism considered slavery? Can it (or its uses) be sold, can you take a patent out on an organism? Like I said, there are loads of moral and ethical questions and those will be debated by greater minds than us, but the legal ones are going to be the real killer.

 

[IconBasser]

I don't think that we're significantly happier than the primates who climbed down from the African canopy aeons ago. Or the more modern "humans" who existed for thousands of years before recorded history.
.

and how exactly do you know how happy they were? Talk to them often?

 

[ericw]

Please Mr. Scientist, develop a bass that plays by itself while I sit and watch. Maybe one that can make a good gin and tonic while it plays Dragon Attack!

The only thing of interest to me here is that this person doesn't want to play his bass....

 

[becker4567]

The only thing of interest to me here is that this person doesn't want to play his bass....

LOL, good point! Then how about just the gin and tonic part, and I'll do Dragon Attack myself.

 

[sloasdaylight]

I will continue the very respectful and civil tone, but that comment made my jaw drop. I will add myself to the 'emphatically disagree' camp.

And for the record, I am very much in the anarcho-primitivist camp (outside of the typical view of science and knowledge). We would be MUCH happier living in hunter gatherer societies. IMHO.

Second Point- I disagree that DNA is 'alive'. It is a component of living cells, which to my knowledge, are still considered the simplest form of life according to current definitions,(Viruses not withstanding).

You ever had to deal with high child mortality rates? Or a flood that wipes out everything you own or can eat? You ever step on a stick or sharp rock and wind up with an infection that, if it doesn't turn gangrenous because you have to work in a muddy farm from sunup to sundown to help feed your family, may leave you with a debilitating limp, forcing your friends and family to wonder if you're worth the extra food, since you can't do anything to contribute?

I'm willing to wager you haven't, like probably 99.99% of the members of this board.

I am obscenely happy with the fact that I don't have to toil outside all day to subsist, or that I don't have to go out and hunt, and risk lord knows what type of injuries or death even in pursuit of enough food to feed my family for a few days, if that, and then worry about scavengers coming in the middle of the night trying to steal my food, and having to go defend it against a pack of roaming wild dogs.

You have your opinion and you're welcome to it, but I don't really think you really know about what life was like for people in hunter/gatherer societies enough to make that statement. I mean, if humanity in general was happy with hunter/gatherer, we would have stayed that way.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Can DNA and living organisms actually be owned? If, as conservatives claim, a fetus is a 'human being' at the moment of conception, isn't 'owning' a living organism considered slavery? Can it (or its uses) be sold, can you take a patent out on an organism? Like I said, there are loads of moral and ethical questions and those will be debated by greater minds than us, but the legal ones are going to be the real killer.

What about owning a pet?

What about using yeast to produce alcohol?

Depends on your definition of helpful.
Again, I'm not sure that these technological advances are bettering the human race as a whole. It all seems a little "bread & circuses" to me.

But that idea is clearly a point of friendly contention.

I'm not quite sure I follow what you are trying to get at. Technological advances make life easier for us, allow us to live longer, healthier lives. What do you think would better us?

 

[coreyfyfe]

Can DNA and living organisms actually be owned?

If they can't the biotech industry is SOL. We are a long way away from creating anything (in terms of fully synthetic organisms) that could remotely be considered an ethical issue IMO. As is, nucleotide sequences and peptide sequences can be covered by patent protection. Creation of a fully synthetic organism, and to be honest I haven't read past the press release so I can't comment on their methods, could probably be covered under a process patent, but otherwise I think they might have a hard time proving novelty of the sequence itself, especially for genes that exist in nature.

 

[coreyfyfe]

Depends on your definition of helpful.
Again, I'm not sure that these technological advances are bettering the human race as a whole. It all seems a little "bread & circuses" to me.

But that idea is clearly a point of friendly contention.

These are entirely helpful. If we can completely synthesize a yeast strain or other eukaryotic cell line whose genome contains human sequences for glycosylation* patterns, fully humanized protein folding pathways, specifically inserted sequences for expression of a therapeutic protein, and engineer the t-rna protfiles for humanized codon usage we would have the ideal organism for production of biotech drugs. Current methods require a ton of work to build a cell bank which contributes hugely to the cost of biotherapeutics. If synthetic technology could get us to that point at a lower cost that could result in huge cost savings for companies/patients/healthcare industry/etc.

*A company that created a yeast strain containing a humanized glycosylation system through regular genetic modification methods was bought up by one of the big pharma companies earlier this year/late last year for big bucks. I can't recall the name of the company (either purchaser or purchasee) at the moment.

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Oh man, lots of posts to respond to after a long day of work.

I will continue the very respectful and civil tone, but that comment made my jaw drop. I will add myself to the 'emphatically disagree' camp.

And for the record, I am very much in the anarcho-primitivist camp (outside of the typical view of science and knowledge). We would be MUCH happier living in hunter gatherer societies. IMHO.

Second Point- I disagree that DNA is 'alive'. It is a component of living cells, which to my knowledge, are still considered the simplest form of life according to current definitions,(Viruses not withstanding).

Fine by me. Feel free to disagree. At least you're being nice about it. I would simply say that none of these things contribute to making human beings intrinsically happier.

and how exactly do you know how happy they were? Talk to them often?

I'd wager that humanity's overall happiness quotient hasn't
changed much from back then. Which leads me to...

I'm not quite sure I follow what you are trying to get at. Technological advances make life easier for us, allow us to live longer, healthier lives. What do you think would better us?

Longer & Healther =/= happier, more enriched lives.
Look at the vaccum cleaner. All technology that has, on paper, been designed to reduce time for work has instead allowed the work day/week/lifetime to be filled with more things being accomplished in a day.


As for what would be better, I'm not entirely sure. I'm just pointing out something I perceive. Feel free to correct me.

You have your opinion and you're welcome to it, but I don't really think you really know about what life was like for people in hunter/gatherer societies enough to make that statement. I mean, if humanity in general was happy with hunter/gatherer, we would have stayed that way.

I quoted this for brevity (though your original post was quite well thought out), but I would say that societal evolution & devolution doesn't occur due to the wants of the people involved.

These are entirely helpful. If we can completely synthesize a yeast strain or other eukaryotic cell line whose genome contains human sequences for glycosylation* patterns, fully humanized protein folding pathways, specifically inserted sequences for expression of a therapeutic protein, and engineer the t-rna protfiles for humanized codon usage we would have the ideal organism for production of biotech drugs. Current methods require a ton of work to build a cell bank which contributes hugely to the cost of biotherapeutics. If synthetic technology could get us to that point at a lower cost that could result in huge cost savings for companies/patients/healthcare industry/etc.

*A company that created a yeast strain containing a humanized glycosylation system through regular genetic modification methods was bought up by one of the big pharma companies earlier this year/late last year for big bucks. I can't recall the name of the company (either purchaser or purchasee) at the moment.

Again, it depends on your definition of helpful. This discovery will lead to the promotion of human life, and the sustaining of that life. Might be a good thing, but will it really answer any of the big questions?

 

[BassyBill]

^^^ What big questions?

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Longer & Healther =/= happier, more enriched lives.
Look at the vaccum cleaner. All technology that has, on paper, been designed to reduce time for work has instead allowed the work day/week/lifetime to be filled with more things being accomplished in a day.

Yes, things are designed with specific purposes to assist us, but that doesn't mean other devices which had no purpose at first dont help.

And you're right. Longer & Healther isn't the same as having happier, more enriched lives. But the quality of life, in the sense you are getting at, is down to the individual. Having longer and less time with illness increases the time with which we have to make life happier and whatnot!

And heck, without lasers, without modern communications and without the internet, you wouldn't be able to post here on TB. Now seriously, how much more enrichment could you want in life

 

[Chupacabra]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Vid of the press release, explaining they took time out while the ethics were being discussed; what applications it could be used for; some of the safeguards in place, etc.