So the news came out yesterday that Craig Venter's crew has now synthesized an entire microbe's genome from scratch. This does not send a chill down my spine. Does that mean I'm missing a piece of my brain? Judge for yourself, in my new commentary for Wired. (Also, check out Rob Carlson's typically clear-eyed assessment.)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Some of the blogs that I find most interesting are also the most sporadic. Fortunately, RSS feeds mean their occasional utterances don't disappear off my radar. Rob Carlson's blog, synthesis, is an excellent, deeply considered blog on the rise of synthetic biology. (Full disclosure--I interviewed…
For the past few years, Craig Venter, the human genome pioneer, has been trying to build an organism from scratch. While Venter is no shrinking wallflower (see, for example, a recent interview in Newsweek), he has been keeping his synthetic-life cards pretty close to his vest. I spoke to Venter in…
In February I wrote an article in Science about what Craig Venter's up to these days. In the late 1990s Venter made his mark by challenging the government human genome project to a race, promising to beat them to the full sequence for a fraction of their budget. Ultimately the race was a tie, and…
The diagnosis we would all shudder to get. The below image is actually a joke (reprinted from an issue of Esquire in July of 2000)
But even in reality, Craig Venter is a piece of work. I mean it's perfect that he can be quoted as saying "People who are motivated by pure greed only get their…
I agree with you 100%. That is exactly how I feel about it, the difference being that you can actually put it in words just right...
I'm likely missing something in the article, but hasn't Venters project already taught us a few new things? For instance, that E. coli could only partially assemble the Mycoplasma genome but that a yeast can go the whole distance is, to me, an interesting tidbit that bears further examination.
And by stripping out genes and coming up with a bare-bones minimum for a living thing, at least in the future, don't we learn something new about the minimum genomic requirements for a viable cell and, in the process, gain an understanding of what the currently functionally unassigned genes do?
What makes this development interesting in my eyes isn't just what's been accomplished technically but the opportunities it opens up.
I wasn't as excited about this development as I might have been 10 years ago. Am I expecting too much from science these days? Have I just gotten used to reading about daily advancements? Or am I just impatient in waiting for cures for diseases or the solving of global problems?
Shauna
Excellent analysis, Carl. Just one more example of how the popular media often conflates, confuses, and basically muddies up the clear waters of science. I'm thankful for science writers like you, being on the spot with commentary that can put things in perspective, so that intelligent laypeople and scientists in other fields (redundent, I suppose) can keep up with what is really happening out there in sci-land. I know this is going to generate lots of discussion in genetics classes this semester, and as I'm lecturing on "genomics" myself in a few weeks, I think I'll quote your commentary as an example of "good" science writing/reporting.
I couldn't agree more with your analysis and other people's comments too.
I loved your analogy with gene cut&paste... that's how i started out programming too, by looking inside other people's code and cutting and pasting my way into it...
One day, Craig or some other human will figure out how to write a "Hello World!" genome completely of its own.
kagtı poşet kutu etiket ajanda pvc poşet karton çanta imalat
paper bags paper gift bags paper boxes
label date books note books promotion bags
manufacture