New life forms in a test tube might not be science fiction anymore now that Craig Venter has created a synthetic chromosome... but breakthrough or threat to humanity?
This article in the Guardian hints at both potential for solutions to climate change and new weapons for bio-terrorism. Sounds like a topic we'll be hearing more about with regard to political oversight on this kind of research akin to stem cell research and attack of the clones.
Craig Venter, the controversial DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth.
I'll have to learn more before I develop an informed opinion, but this may have tremendous implications across disciplines. What do readers think?
- Log in to post comments
If someone was really on the verge of creating artificial life there'd be a press conference with elephants and dancing girls, not some off-the-cuff throw away remark to a British hack. In fact what Venter seems to have done is remove (that would be the opposite of 'build', then) one-fifth of the chromosome and transplant it into another bacterium, and he doesn't even know if the technique's going to work yet. When you see a sensationalist headline in a UK newspaper, learn to roll your eyes and turn the page.
I disagree Jonathan. Venter has come up with some impressive research in the past and it will be interesting to watch as this unfolds. Thanks for pointing this potential discovery out to us Sheril. The implications may be astronomical. We'll know soon.
True that this is not 'life', but sounds like some impressive biochem none the less.
Though I really wish they would use cooler examples of potential (pretty far) future applications. Yeah, we could build some bugs for bioreactors to produce all sorts of useful things (including fuels), but I want to grow a spaceship (Tinman, Vorlons, you know).
Seriously though, the next 'big thing' for humanity (if we don't fall into a new dark-age) is probably industrial biotech, especially producing new materials by growing them. Materials are what really defines human epochs when you think about it. Then we move on to transhumanism and all bets are off ;)
He's going to do it. The hardest parts are done - cranking out a 400kb piece of DNA is semi-routine now, and while the design may still have flaws, the question is not whether but when they will be fixed.
The question, then, is what the critter's good for. It's not quite convincing as artificial life. The DNA is new, but it needs to be transplanted into an existing cell, leaving quite a gap for vitalism to slink into.
What this effort does show is the possibility of genetic engineering on the genome scale. (Venter's not the only one in this category, for the record - there's a group at MIT which has been making synthetic, redesigned bacteriophages, and a group at Hopkins now going after yeast.) The field is already moving from single genes to gene clusters and full metabolic pathways. If we can swap those pathways around freely - and ultimately, specify the genetic background for the cell they're going into - that would make a real difference.
Despite what you may read in British tabloids, there is more to fixing global warming (or waging bioterror) than waving a shiny new bacterium around. And there's more to knowing what to put into a genome than sheer ability to make the DNA and make it go. But this is one heck of a technical achievement - and you've got to start somewhere.
I'm looking forward to finding out whose open-source work he was competing with...ahem...ripping off for this one.
Chris,
I recommend Redesigning Humans by Gregory Stock as a good place to start your further education. You might also try some of the other titles I mention (or have added to links to) in my online version of a science book column I had published in the Dallas Morning News in 2002.
Click my name for the column.
Thanks Fred, I'm sure Chris will be interested... and since I composed this post, may check out Stock's book as well ;)
Sheril...hope you realize you're using the "Pandora's Box" frame....