DescentBB

It would seem we are tip toeing into a area that holds more profound implications than stem cell research or cloning:


"The soft cell walls are made of fat molecules taken from egg white. The cell contents are an extract of the common gut bug E. coli, stripped of all its genetic material.

This essence of life contains ready-made much of the biological machinery needed to make proteins; the researchers also added an enzyme from a virus to allow the vesicle to translate DNA code.

When they added genes, the cell fluid started to make proteins, just like a normal cell would."

While only in it's infancy, seems like the end product may be both amazing and perhaps dangerous. Combine it with the science of nannotech and computor programing , perhaps we will someday need a real life terminator.

"This is rather philosophical," says Dr Libchaber.

"For me, life is just like a machine - a machine with a computer program. There's no more to it than that. But not everyone shares this point of view," he told the BBC.

He also stresses that there is no danger in the experiments. Not only are his cells artificial, they can function only in the nutrient medium he supplies them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4104483.stm

The cells are artificial but alive. If he stops giving this nutrient that they live off, does that mean he's killing them? Hmmmm!

A real life frankenstein, cool.

When will humanity ever learn that just because something is physically possible does not mean it should be attempted? The field of biotechnology is getting in way over its head, and I shudder to think about the rammifications of some current research. What type of tragedy will it take before science begins to listen to common sense once again?

Ignorance and fear work well together. They support each other. Thrive off each other. To defeat one, you must attack them both.

But seriously, what potential tragedy do you fear so much, TG, that it would be worth loosing the potential knowledge and benefits of such research?

To me, this news comes as no great surprise. I have no doubt "artificial" life is possible. I'm glad to finally see some progress in this area. Sure, it has potential for misuse. What doesn't? But the potential benefits far outweigh the risks, in my opinion.

wow that's really great what they are doing there.

small biological factorys have so many uses, a lot of places are doing experiements incorporating various arranged "sets" of bacteria that when working together can do all sorts of things, like produce a harvestable electricity source from glucose, or even kitchen rubbish, or poop. how's that for a fuel cell eh.

i too await top-gun's reasons. i'm expecting lameness .

you dont' have to wait roid, i can give you his answer

"the bible says it's wrong"

DNA is truly amazing - it's like a little Turing machine, an input-output processor that takes amino acids and generates proteins out of them.

Seems like all they did was provide an artificial container for the DNA do to its thing in. Unless they modify the DNA to do something else, they haven't created anything new.

Zuruck wrote:you dont' have to wait roid, i can give you his answer

"the bible says it's wrong"

Do you have any concept of what I believe, Zuruck? Do you know who I am? No. So shut the hell up and mind your own business. You too, roid.

You people amaze me. You see something new and jump all over it. Have you ever considered how technology like this can backfire. We're messing with billions of years of evolution, and we have absolutely no idea of what might happen. Have you ever considered that we could end up creating a lifeform that upsets the entire evolutionary balance, that we could be messing with forces beyond our control? Step away from your anti-religious bigotry for a second and open your eyes. You're speaking of benefits, but what possible benefit could an artificial cell provide? I can see plenty of risks myself, but absolutely no profit.

Top Gun

I can see plenty of risks myself, but absolutely no profit.

No profit? No problem then. If there is no profit to be made no one will invest the millions of dollars needed to advance this technology past the point of amusing lab work.
I suspect however that there is in fact enormous profit to be made in biotechnology and that fact alone will make preventing research of this kind impossible.
Live with it Top Gun. The world will change in ways you cannot imagine and cannot control.

No benefit? Think organ replacement for one. There are many more people waiting for replacement organs than there are donors. Better artificial organs would improve the quality of life for a great many people. Granted, this research is still very far from that level, but I imagine it will get there eventually.

A better understanding of cellular functions may help cure a myriad of diseases. In the past many "cures" have been discovered by trial and error or by accident. Understanding the complex chemical function of cells could help scientists engineer cures and treatments for specific problems, targeting the cause with far fewer side effects. The more they know, the less they have to guess.

We simply cannot advance our knowledge of the universe if we're afraid to explore and experiment. Of course we will make mistakes, but we will learn from them. This is what sets us apart from other species.

For the record, I'm not anti-religious, but I am anti-ignorance.

top-gun after reading my last post how can you say there would be no benefit?

i listed a few things that would be great, and obvious applications of this simple technology. like minature factorys that can convert something into somehting else, including generating electricity.
did you skim past these?

if i put a self perpetuating collection (community) of bacteria in a box, feed it underpants - and it produces electricity. i could sell you that, i'm sure you and others would want to buy it.

1. steal underpants
2. feed to bacteria
3. make electricity
4. profit!

Pill, guys.

MehYam wrote:...all they did was provide an artificial container for the DNA do to its thing in. Unless they modify the DNA to do something else, they haven't created anything new.

Anything new? Unless someone's done that before, then they have created something new, no? Not a new "life" or even a new "cell" really, but it's interesting none the less. Maybe. At least a little?

roid wrote: 1. steal underpants
2. feed to bacteria
3. make electricity
4. profit!

Nice! I always wondered what Phase 2 was!

@ Top Gun, for someone with an apparent boner for military hardware, I'm not sure you're in a position to preach about the dangers of new technology. Remember Los Alamos?

A boner for military hardware? Just because my name is inspired by a military movie and I have an F-14 as an avatar? How puerile. If you must know, I am in agreement with the very scientists on the Manhattan Project itself, who took one look at the destruction they had unleashed and said, "My God, what have we done?" I feel that the atomic bomb represents a necessary evil, but an evil nontheless. The world would be infinitely better off if nuclear technology would have been confined to peaceful means. By the same token, the world would have been infinitely better off if Germany and Japan would not have started a world war. So there you go. Also, referring to my avatar, I would much rather have military fightercraft technology go toward building high-performance aircraft for the purpose of having fun with them, but as I said before, this isn't a perfect world.

This isn't what we're talking about, though. I recognize that research along these lines may have potential benefits, but I can also see a hell of a lot of risks that it doesn't seem that anyone's addressing. Let me just say this: if humanity wants to play around with creating artificial life, we'd better be damn sure that we know what we're dealing with, for our own sakes. If the proper precautions are taken, and if science recognizes that limits must be set, then I will support research. However, if some current trends are followed and scientists pursue means because they can, never taking into account if they should, then I see the potential for harm.

Top Gun wrote:When will humanity ever learn that just because something is physically possible does not mean it should be attempted?

After it builds Jurassic Park, of course.

I think the wise Uncle Ben (from Spider-Man foo, not the guy on the box of rice) said it best. "With great power comes great responsibilities." Biotechnology is a big deal with very significant benefits for curing disease and giving terminally ill patients another shot at life. But you are right to say that it also unleashes a slew of ethical as well as scientific ramifications. No technology is inheritently good or inheritently bad. It's all in how it is applied.

In 1912, years of shipbuilding prowess and evolution in constructing transoceanic vessels resulted in the Titanic. Sort of like the Tower of Babel, man got cocky. He figured that he could build an unsinkable, invulnerable ship. Then, he stupidly piloted it against an iceberg and killed 1,523 people. Certainly, it was a horrific tragedy, but not futile. If it had never happened, we would have invariably continued to build Titanics. Man's ego would only grow. And the disaster could have been far more devastating. Instead, man had to step back and re-evaluate his position. New safety protocols were instated. Ships were built to a higher standard. And all of this in the hopes that we never repeat the mistake.

Hindenburg. Our dreams of having giant airships populate the sky were shot down in a flaming, dying metal wreck. Maybe hydrogen fuel wasn't the smartest choice. Maybe zeppelins in general weren't the smartest choice.

Attribute it to whatever you will. God. Fate. Self-fulfilling prophecy. Pure accident. Our history is one of rising up and getting smacked down only to realize where we went wrong.

My point is, it's not uncommon for man, upon entering an exciting new field, to go hogwild with it. And some things will backfire. They have to, it's the nature of chaos. From our failures, though, do we achieve our greatest success. But just because we fear failure or some accident doesn't mean we throw aside the entire practice. We didn't stop building ships because the Titanic sunk because it would have paralyzed commerce. We didn't forego our dreams of flight because of the Hindenburg, we just created jetliners. We have to reach in, massage the data, and find the boundaries of this exciting new technology. We'll scrape against them, of course. We might even sink ourselves to some degree. Only then will we be able to harness it or learn anything valuable.

And, aside from that, I'd like to think we're smarter today. After all... no one tried to build a Titanic airplane.

Although I agree with the gist of your post Kyouryuu there is always the possiblity that the Titanic event with biotechnology could delete half of the population of the earth. Since all life is biological in nature all life is vunerable to some kind of error that releases a pathogen into the world.
The profit motive will always rule over common sense but let's hope there is enough noise about the dangers to keep most researchers cautious.
In other words. Keep squawking Top Gun, you may not get the amount of safeguards you want but you may keep the warning lights lit.

Well, at least that's something.