Genetic entrepreneur Craig Venter creates first synthetic life form / General Science and Electronics / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Science and Electronics

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Genetic entrepreneur Craig Venter creates first synthetic life form

1 2 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Proud Mary

Thu May 20 2010, 06:07PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Craig Venter creates synthetic life form

The Guardian
20th May 2010

Scientists have created the world's first synthetic life form in a landmark experiment that paves the way for designer organisms that are built rather than evolved.

The controversial feat, which has occupied 20 scientists for more than 10 years at an estimated cost of $40m, was described by one researcher as "a defining moment in biology".

Craig Venter, the pioneering US geneticist behind the experiment, said the achievement heralds the dawn of a new era in which new life is made to benefit humanity, starting with bacteria that churn out biofuels, soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and even manufacture vaccines.

However critics, including some religious groups, condemned the work, with one organisation warning that artificial organisms could escape into the wild and cause environmental havoc or be turned into biological weapons. Others said Venter was playing God.

The new organism is based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.

The single-celled organism has four "watermarks" written into its DNA to identify it as synthetic and help trace its descendants back to their creator, should they go astray.

"We were ecstatic when the cells booted up with all the watermarks in place," Dr Venter told the Guardian. "It's a living species now, part of our planet's inventory of life."

Dr Venter's team developed a new code based on the four letters of the genetic code, G, T, C and A, that allowed them to draw on the whole alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks to write the watermarks. Anyone who cracks the code is invited to email an address written into the DNA.

The research is reported online today in the journal Science.

"This is an important step both scientifically and philosophically," Dr Venter told the journal. "It has certainly changed my views of definitions of life and how life works."

The team now plans to use the synthetic organism to work out the minimum number of genes needed for life to exist. From this, new microorganisms could be made by bolting on additional genes to produce useful chemicals, break down pollutants, or produce proteins for use in vaccines.

Julian Savulescu, professor of practical ethics at Oxford University, said: "Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny. He is not merely copying life artificially ... or modifying it radically by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally."

This is "a defining moment in the history of biology and biotechnology", Mark Bedau, a philosopher at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, told Science.

Dr Venter became a controversial figure in the 1990s when he pitted his former company, Celera Genomics, against the publicly funded effort to sequence the human genome, the Human Genome Project. Venter had already applied for patents on more than 300 genes, raising concerns that the company might claim intellectual rights to the building blocks of life.

MinorityCarrier

Thu May 20 2010, 10:54PM

Registered Member #2123 Joined: Sat May 16 2009, 03:10AM
Location: Bend, Oregon
Posts: 312

I'll go on record as expressing the opinion that this is very dangerous science.

Creation of a microbe, that no existing organisms immune system can recognize, could be a disaster for the greater biota. Every living thing co-evolved with every other living thing, and immune system mutual checks and balances evolved along with them.

Something essentially as simple as bread mold, artificially created, that no organisms immune system could recognize and fight off, could in theory devastate complex life.

Just my thoughts.

IntraWinding

Thu May 20 2010, 11:17PM

Registered Member #2261 Joined: Mon Aug 03 2009, 01:19AM
Location: London, UK
Posts: 581

"Anyone who cracks the code is invited to email an address written into the DNA."

OMV! *

Alan

* Oh my Venter!

WaveRider

Fri May 21 2010, 05:40AM

Registered Member #29 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 09:00AM
Location: Hasselt, Belgium
Posts: 500

Like any other scientific discovery, this can either help or hinder humanity. The problem, as I see it, is Dr. Venter's desire to tap into the massive cash opportunities of his discovery... this is quite likely to be bad (bio weapons, unintentional bad effects from willy-nilly commercial development of organisms, etc.) but, with some effort and ethical consideration, could be good (bio fuel production, agricultural pest control, etc.)

Proud Mary

Fri May 21 2010, 08:51AM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Strikes me as a bridge too far.

IntraWinding

Fri May 21 2010, 02:41PM

Registered Member #2261 Joined: Mon Aug 03 2009, 01:19AM
Location: London, UK
Posts: 581

My main worry is I'm not sure how much I trust Venter. I think he wants a place in history as a famous scientist, but his huge spending power hasn't been enough to get him into the top ranks , yet. I hope he doesn't get worse than 'a bit disingenuous'. I find the preparations for the bug escaping into the environment suspicious rather than reassuring. But perhaps he just wanted the coolness of putting an email address in an organisms dna and came up with a sensible sounding justification for his 'genomic graffiti'!

I feel torn between the pros and cons of genetic engineering - it's exactly like a rerun of nuclear power.

Hopefully the main consequence of this step will be to raise awareness of the issues and generate debate.

Alan

Conundrum

Sat May 22 2010, 12:20PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4061

Hmm.
Actually, this is closer to removing Windows from a PC (leaving the base hardware intact) and reinstalling it, than creating a cell.
the functionality remains the same but there may be a few minor changes such as different drivers.
In all cases you need another machine (the other cells) to generate and assemble the genome, without this step it would be non-living DNA similar to a virus.

Now had he written a genome *from scratch* using base principles and had it synthesize its own ribosomes from base amino acids (similar to a boot disk on a PC) which then assembled the rest of the cell, that would indeed be "creating life"

in this context the computer equivalent would be an operating system that "writes itself" by exploring the hardware of the machine.

-A

"Bother" said Pooh, as he read the latest battery recall notice...

IntraWinding

Sat May 22 2010, 12:51PM

Registered Member #2261 Joined: Mon Aug 03 2009, 01:19AM
Location: London, UK
Posts: 581

Venter video

I have to say that one of my dreams is a an efficient photosynthesising bug that can split water.

In other areas of Genetic Engineering, how long until we can regrow damaged body parts like a lizard grows a new tail? And plenty of room to improve on the lizard method. It would be nice if a generally worn out body part could be gradually replaced by a new version so you don't have the hassle of having to chop it off to get the new part to grow. Then it would be better labelled 'Rejuvination' rather than regrowth. And then why not rejuvenate the entire body (the brain and immune system are probably special cases)? Or just build in a better constant repair system from birth - tampering with the human genome would certainly be another scary step.

Scary, but exciting.

So soon what we really need is to populate several planets far enough apart to be 'isolated' so Humans can continue even if we screw up a few planets!

Proud Mary

Sat May 22 2010, 01:03PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Isn't a venter the distal surface of an ammonite whorl?

IntraWinding

Sat May 22 2010, 01:11PM

Registered Member #2261 Joined: Mon Aug 03 2009, 01:19AM
Location: London, UK
Posts: 581

Proud Mary wrote ...

Isn't a venter the distal surface of an ammonite whorl?

Is that an insult?

1 2 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob