Wow ... it was in the field of Biotechnology (which had circulumn basis or focus if I can recall on Genetics) in the early 1990's where I live in our educational institutions. Thinking why it was considered a field of biology (tissue and cell cultures stages for studies of animal/humans ... makes sense). I went through a Biological Sciences Laboratory and Research studies and ended up a lab tech for a few years and switched fields of work. Had then the option to go into the Biotechnology program and did not.

I have not worked as a lab tech since the mid 1990's. Things have come a long way in a short time I can see by this utube link you gave, thank you. This technology placed in the engineering field would make some sense being it is now a definite proven process and the experimentation completed. Its has wings to fly now so to speak and can be set free to go where it will and that can be danagerous if it gets out of hand and into the wrong hands.

An interesting take on the discovery indeed!

Thanks for sparking an old interest with your sharing. Like I shared in an early post, I have only kept in touch with what is going on in cloning through reading an odd article here and there or a tv documentary ... utube is loaded with info, thanks! Never thought to check it out from there.

I watched a documentary that included the team of scientists who were explaining what they were doing on PBS(I think) a while back - but within the least year or so. Your summary sounds about right, from my memory. Again the focus was on the ethical considerations after the brute achievement was basically explained.

Many stand opposed to the notion.

So, rather than focus upon whether or not it's capable of homeostasis or where along the lin of progress it is, would you care to discuss the ethical aspects, such as briefly discussed in the fox news video?

I suppose the fear is the potential for unknown consequences. Realistically, what - on your view - could those be?

WholesomeWoman,

I doubt if you can show me where I have made this topic about me. I simply disagreed with Metalwing's outlandish predictions for the future and I have stated that it will never happen. The articles he posted don't support his opinions. He has not shown me how they do.

But now YOU are making this topic about me.

I don't need to be a scientist to understand the information he posted which was just a news article written for the lay person -- and any lay person can understand it.

All it takes is a little common sense to see that he is giving his predictions for a future event. That is only his OPINION.

I say his prediction is outlandish and is never going to happen.
The news articles he posted does not support his personal opinions.

It is not about me at all, but now you have joined him in making it about me. So kindly stop talking about me. Drop it.

Forum rule number one, You can discuss the message or topic, but not the messenger - NO EXCEPTIONS.

p.s. now you too are presuming to know what "I understand."

Metalwing stated:




Why do you think so? And who will make this declaration?

(Scientists patting themselves on the back I suspect. )





Anything could be the end of mankind. I doubt that synthetic biology will be the winner in that race.

The ethical aspects were brought up in the first post and are probably the most important aspects of this discovery. There are around 120 organizations who strongly oppose where this technology is going.

The ability to design, from scratch, a microbe to eat oil spills or grow diesel from sunlight and carbon dioxide has been proven. The step to creating a totally synthetic human may be a few years away but the process really isn't any different.

The step from a microbe that eats oil to a microbe that eats humans is practically no step at all. The only part of the genome that needs to be "created" is the part that handles the lethality.

Unfortunately, the major powers have studied this issue for many years in the development of biological weapons. So the step for flu or smallpox to being 100% infectious and 100% lethal may be as easy and typing in the genome.

You can't build an atomic bomb in your garage because you can't get weapons grade fissile material. This tech doesn't need any.

Some comments on the ethics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRzrYNVXF28&feature=fvwp

You know more about the topic than the vast hordes of humanity. Your input is appreciated!

Gattaca?

That's it! I saw the movie but couldn't remember what it was called. It's a story about the ethical considerations of controlling human dna by outlawing "defective" genes.

You are welcome and I appreciate the info in the topic you shared.
I'll have to check out the movie.

This reminds me of something. I remember in the PBS documentary, that the scientists made mention of their ability to 'encode'(for lack of a better word) some sort default mechanism, by which they could control the organism's existence in such a way that the ability to sytematically annihilate it is possible, if the need arises. I suppose my question is if it is possible to stop such synthetic organisms from spontaneuosly evolving/adapting. Life aims to survive afterall.

God save us from mad scientists.

For sure.

No. Unfortunately, all life mutates over time ... which has now left us with super bugs which are not affected by known antibiotics. You could stop them for awhile, but eventually all forms of life turn into slightly different forms of life.

However, one of the promises of this new technology is the ability to customize the genome at will as desired to create new antibiotics to kill old bugs. It could also be used to kill new bugs if there are any of us left to work the machinery.

DNA mutates at a known rate.

Does anyone have any idea WHY DNA mutates?

I found this on line:

Mutations in DNA sequences generally occur through one of two processes:

1. DNA damage from environmental agents such as ultraviolet light (sunshine), nuclear radiation or certain chemicals

2. Mistakes that occur when a cell copies its DNA in preparation for cell division.

So regarding #2, according to how this synthetic cell was created, was it a "mistake?"

I pulled out an old movie this weekend. "Blade Runner" is about a world seeped in Synthetic Biology. From the synthetic owl to the soldiers designed to fight, the movie delves deeply into the ethics of creating life.

The US at that time of the future had been bought by Asia and severely damaged by Global Warming and pollution. The beings created by man were asking the deeper questions once asked by man.

"I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life - anybody's life; my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die. "

I liked Blade runner. It was sort of a sad movie though.

I think about this all the time, and if I'm in open minded (or scientifically literate) company, make seemingly outlandish casual comments about what might be coming our way.

The limitations will be cultural, not scientific.

Some of the less outlandish prospects include programming non-human animals to serve humanity... birds that clean litter from hiking trails, rats inspect the sewage system and report problems, monkeys that harvest fruit and operate machinery...until they protest and demand basic sentient rights.

If culture permits, humans will also engineer themselves (their children) in pursuit of various notions of perfection or excellence in appearance, intelligence, health, athletic prowess...

Volant, occasionally you and I are in such surprising agreement.
This won't happen in the US or in western europe (not anytime soon, anyway), but it could very well happen in any nation in which extreme nationalism, emperor-worship, or theocracy has a grip.

A year ago I read about the identification of genes that influence a persons political leanings. Consider the interest some political movements have in influencing reproductive freedom. Consider that China already exercise an astounding level of control over the reproduction of their citizens. This has scary implications.