An interesting study, no? It has potential, but I don't really see it as a real breakthrough. It's more of a culmination of the research that's been going on in molecular genetics. For one, molecular geneticists have been transferring DNA in between cells for quite some time now through processes like transformation. We've mapped genomes and found what parts of DNA are noncoding. We've studied the interaction between biology, chemistry, and physics.
Any opinions or interpretations for what this might mean for the future?
Its an amazing step forward! We can create artificial life, even if simple. This will be able to one day create human clones, cattle, as well as the bacteria for decomposing and oil spills mentioned in the article. And it means more religious idiots will attempt to stop valuable research, as usual...
Any opinions or interpretations for what this might mean for the future?
All of the things mentioned in the article, of course. I would like mention the possiblity of creating human cells that normally are not regenerated (IE nerve cells). That could work wonders for paralyzed patients. But they seem to be focused on prokaryotes now, so that might be a long time off.
It's a stepping stone for sure. It won't be big until they make complex multicellular organisms.
But the fact they created artificial life is rather disturbing to me. Brilliant, but disturbing. It also means that they can easily create extremely lethal biological weapons from scratch, given proper resources.
They need to keep this under the extremely watchful eye of the world's governments, or just hand it over. We need to know who can do this at all times.
But the fact they created artificial life is rather disturbing to me. Brilliant, but disturbing. It also means that they can easily create extremely lethal biological weapons from scratch, given proper resources.
Infector comes to mind.
You have given me another idea, they could be used to fight virus and bacterium. If one can be made to harm human, one can be made to harm it. Microbe war anyone?
Technically speaking we have been able to do this for years. However there is about a one in a million survival rate so we don't even try.
On to the main topic, this is a great leap forward that can be used to help humanity. This could make the world a much better place, however it has some negative possibilities. For all the good it could do, a little tweaking or a mistake could case a horrible disaster.
If one can be made to harm human, one can be made to harm it. Microbe war anyone?
When dealing with billions of people and the fact it takes a while to isolate the strain, especially after evolution of it, it wouldn't work this way. Tens of millions would be dead before help ever came. Biological war is a far more dangerous possibility than all the worlds nukes.
From a religious standpoint, I don't think it affects the argument at all. It doesn't do a whole lot to address the problem of how life came to being without some sort of agent to sort through the complexity.
Ethically, I think a great deal of thought needs to be put into this before anything should be done with it. If large corporations already have patents over genetically modified coding strands, how will they find ways to commercialize entire genomes? Methinks that if the physical action of unfettered genetic tampering does not find some way to harm us, the commercialization will.
When dealing with billions of people and the fact it takes a while to isolate the strain, especially after evolution of it, it wouldn't work this way. Tens of millions would be dead before help ever came. Biological war is a far more dangerous possibility than all the worlds nukes.
True, but all observed antigens can not live long from a host. It would take a HUGE slip to create a functional virus. If someone attempted to use it in biological warfare, logically they would have a vaccine ready, unless they were suicidal for there entire species.
It's not really artifical life. They just took synthetic DNA and put it into existing life forms that didn't have DNA. That's not exactly what I'd call artificial life, since the original life form was already having been created naturally.
True, but in this fashion we can recreate a human, without the need of a parent DNA. It can improve on human DNA, if we do it good enough.
Can we really though? Unless I have missed something, conscious thought is current beyond our understanding. As in we have no idea how it happened or why. If that is still true(please correct me if I'm wrong) then creating a human could lead to something without conscious thought and who knows what would happen then.
From a religious standpoint, I don't think it affects the argument at all. It doesn't do a whole lot to address the problem of how life came to being without some sort of agent to sort through the complexity.
It may not effect the argument, but even the article stated that it is under fire from religious dolts.
Ethically, I think a great deal of thought needs to be put into this before anything should be done with it. If large corporations already have patents over genetically modified coding strands, how will they find ways to commercialize entire genomes? Methinks that if the physical action of unfettered genetic tampering does not find some way to harm us, the commercialization will.
Research isn't cheap, 40 mil and ten years for this. I think if they make a prophet it will actually help, don't computer companies have to come out with something new every year to face competition? Capitalism lets ingenuity thrive.
Can we really though? Unless I have missed something, conscious thought is current beyond our understanding. As in we have no idea how it happened or why. If that is still true(please correct me if I'm wrong) then creating a human could lead to something without conscious thought and who knows what would happen then.
Yes, concise thought current is out of our understanding, as a current is all it is. If we can copy human DNA, witch has the code for the brain, then thought would come with it.
If someone attempted to use it in biological warfare, logically they would have a vaccine ready, unless they were suicidal for there entire species.
Which many people are. Lets not forget suicidal jihadists of the various religions. They already kill themselves to make their points, a little virus or bacteria isn't anything.
A vaccine would come, just don't think that the perps are going to just hand it over. The ringleaders would have them, but we probably would never find them. We'd be on our own.
If we can copy human DNA, witch has the code for the brain, then thought would come with it.
Copying is simply cloning though, you were talking about changing the DNA. If we don't know where conscious thought comes from we might mess it up while changing the DNA.
