Artificial DNA

My main concern is that they may create something useful, but it gets loose and mutates into something else, a la "The Andromeda Strain." That scares the hell out of me. Since I'm a devout atheist, the god-playing aspect doesn't worry me in the least. But the human frailty aspect does worry me. Even absent the terrorism ideas, the fact remains that some one involved in this project may utter the most fearsome word in the language: Oops.

Can't anyone see what a major breakthrough this is and how this new discovery could be applied. Yes there is risk when creating engineered lifeforms. However it doesn't mean we could not use this new artificial DNA to enhance the Human genome itself. We could make humans immune to all disease and thus make biological threats a non-issue.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." I agree completely with Andy in that scientists know enough about the subject to get themselves in trouble in their creation of synthetic organisms, but not enough to get themselves out of trouble if something went terribly wrong. I look forward to the bioethics panel's recommendations, if, for no other reason, to see how they view the creation of synthetic life and all of its implications.

Tongue firmly in cheek!
..but can we make it so that it evolves?

Make humans immune to disease to thwart biological threats? Sounds like the same cat and mouse game we already have with computers. Hmm, monthly immune system virus patches, I'm seeing a money machine.
I'd rather just do with less humans.

LOL. I agree with dougcp. That is, of course, the answer to most of our problems. The more of us there are, the more mischief we have to commit to support us. We've already got 6.6 billion egos pulling at us. We don't need more.

Andy Clark: I doubt you could make it so that it doesn't evolve.

That's all we need is a rogue man-made bacteria. ...and at this guy's suggestion, there is likely somebody working on a "synthetic" version of anthrax right now. How can someone work so hard at being so backwards in their thinking?

My biggest concern is not knowing all the potential risks; then one day, a diligent scientist discovers that it was this experiment that lead to the near extinction of Mankind by sterilizing men or women. We still dont know all we need to know about viruses and bacterium; too many variations of exo-conditions affect their reproduction and lifecycles. They change regularly on their own mutating/evolving to survive. I hardly think giving them a push is a good idea. Its almost like kids and their chemistry sets: "Lets do it and see what happens."

We need to address problems as they arise, not look for problems to create. So many things that could happen, don't happen when we don't worry about them happening. We cause so many needless problems that we create ourselves.

The Bible speaks of various "plagues" that will come in the end times. Most of our problems are self inflicted.

My suggestion is to work with the set of problems and issues that we already have. We hardly have enough time for these issues that we now face. We don't need more problems than we can handle.

I agree, this can have potentially deadly reprocussions. I would advise caution. Like the bicycle warnings say: You can lose control, fall, and die. I hope we don't lose control, fall, and die doing this. God only knows all the other stuff that kills us, including bicycles.

Our "knowledge" has become our curse.

Everyone should know that our economy is so bad because of the uncertainty of what could happen because of our "knowledge" getting into the wrong hands. Our "knowledge" was supposed to save us and look what it has done to us!

...and does anyone have time for the knowledge of the Lord? Could it be that we are "knowing" all of the wrong things? ...that our knowledge is of evil rather than of good? ...that we are in the flesh rather than in the Spirit? ...that we know of the temporal and not the eternal?

If we don't keep at least up-to-date with knowledge about this subject, we will be left completely defenseless when someone with willingness to experiment but no inconvenient ethical scruples (the North Koreans? China? Iran?) launches a custom virus against us.

We need this research for ourselves, conducted in the light of day and with appropriate public safeguards, to ensure that we have enough knowledge about the subject to deal with the possibility that someone else, developing the technology in secret, chooses to use it as a weapon against us.

And yes, to the earlier poster, this is very much like the situation with computers. Specifically, it makes no sense to ban computer security research on the grounds that it might encourage hackers. Hackers don't need encouragement -- they are capable of developing their skills on their own, in secret. Security research is what protects the rest of us from them.

People keeping asking why we should invest in space travel, lunar bases, space stations, etc... The point is so we don't kill ourselves off with a bio "oops". Bio development and testing should be moved outside earth's atmosphere. Let scientists go crazy "playing god" in their own isolated world. Too much risk of a containment breach here on earth.
I really look forward to what the research produces. Just want proper precautions.

It is futile to be looking for problems that may never materialize. There are so many things that could happen that never do happen. We need to focus on the problems that we now have. In other words, it does no good to worry about things that we have no control over.

We need to learn as much as we can about DNA so that if the need arises, we can address only those needs that we have. The problem is if we cause more harm than we do good.

Ethics and politics may delay science until a suitable justification for the advancement is found (financial, protective/destructive, betterment of society or simple curiousity), but it will not stop it.

What will happen next? Artificial politicians? Oops! Too late. We already have them.

Andy Clark
The question you need to ask is "do we want it to evolve and if so, how do we maintain control?"

Ed

If this turns out to be life then it must be capable of reproducing itself. As soon as that happens there is the possibility of mutation in its genes just as there is in the genes of anything else living on this planet.

So, Bgascan is probably right and we won't be able to stop it from evolving.

If we somehow stop it from reproducing then is it still "alive" or will it be like a virus or virus particle?

From this and the other articles on this press release I gathered that the material in question is a synthetic bacterium based on Mycoplasma genitalium. It isn't clear as to whether they actually made it or just figured out how to. But using the same code the synthetic will have the same properties as the original and be subject to the same mutations. The key here will be in control of the mutations as they have done in fruit flies. As for the danger, it is the same as it is for the original but with control can be less than for the original. This combined with new nanotechnology should be interesting.