Ready for an ethics debate? DNA researcher Craig Venter (pictured right) "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."
The new species is made from an artificial chromosome constructed by a team of 20 leading scientists led by Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith. The chromosome is "381 genes long and contains 580,000 base pairs of genetic code."
It’s based on the DNA sequence for a bacterium known as "Mycoplasma genitalium" that’s been whittled down to its most basic form to include only what it needs to support life. The synthetic chromosome has been named "Mycoplasma laboratorium" and has been, get this, watermarked with ink so that it can be easily identified out in the real world.
The chromosome is transplanted into a living host cell where it then takes control of the cell, effectively changing it into a different species. So the life form itself isn’t completely 100% artificial, per se, but since its genetic makeup is based on an artificially created DNA structure that controls the cell, it can be categorized as man-made since DNA is the building block from which all life is created and maintained.
So what does this mean for you? That all depends.
Venter’s claim is that bacteria could be created to soak up carbon dioxide, which could help in the fight against global warming. Most people would agree that’s a good thing. New life-saving drugs could also be artificially created — a good thing as well. However, artificially-created bacteria could also be used to make things like biological weapons.
The sky’s the limit, actually, according to bioethics expert Pat Mooney. He claims that Venter has created a "chassis on which you could build almost anything. It could be a contribution to humanity such as new drugs or a huge threat to humanity such as bio-weapons."
While Craig Venter’s intentions seem benevolent at this point, something that might make people a bit nervous is that he’s applied to patent the synthetic bacterium. The idea that something that can be used to create just about anything else can be legally owned and controlled by a single human being is terrifying at best.
Patent reform, anyone?
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer [The Guardian] via FOX News
dogs are so 1.0
We’re all fucked.
WAF and then some!
Read “Next”
By Michael Crichton
http://nextgencode.com/
Wow, someone actually more dangerous than Monsato. If he is the only one who knows the process, well, perhaps he should be disposed of…
Ok, not really dispose of him, but keep him locked up until we learn how to erase his memory. Really, can anything good come out of this? New medicines, yeah. Remember, nuclear technology brings a powerful energy source, but wouldn’t we rather trade that in for a world without nuclear bombs? So, we’ll cure cancer, but just in time for a madman to release a bacterium that will transform all of humanity into his mindless zombies.
What a bunch of alarmist nonsense!
First of all, there are plenty of ways to do “chemical warfare” today as it is, secondly a patent expires in seven years or so — they will not own anything after the years pass.
This kind of fear of creating new life forms when there are much bigger threats existing just show how much we humans “think” with the reptilian part of the brain.
I agree with Alex. This is a brave new world and I’m excited to see it happen. So what. If we can develop synthetic life forms, like super warrior creatures to fight for our freedom in Iraq, then so be it.
Actually, Mr. Venter has not “created” anything; he has only taken already existing components, dropped them into his “blender” and then introduced the resulting mix into an already existing cell. So, the end result was to be expected from somebody eventually. This is not to denigrate his discovery and its potential for amazing results, good or bad. But, as noted in the article above, the highest encomium that one can use for this impressive discovery is that it is “man-made”– but certainly not “created”.
If, or should I say when these artificial forms of life escape and become free and uncontrollable, what are we going to do then? Have we been able to end the existence of even one form of bacteria on this planet, no matter how much Lysol (TM) we have sprayed? All that has to happen is that some of them get washed down a drain, then it is into the lakes and streams and then into the oceans. Perhaps this is why a great number of sea creatures die in the Bible (Revelation), and the waters become contaminated to where millions or even billions of men die (Revelation). We should be oh-so careful with this technology, it is not impossible that these artificial life forms could mutate with other bacteria and become super lethal creating new diseases and illnesses that man has no known way to control. We already have enough problems with naturally occurring bacteria, let’s not accidentally create and release something that is superior to our immune systems, uses us as a host and overpowers and destroys us utterly – that would be irony in its fullest.
While I don’t necessarily agree with everything stated in the article – I think some of the comments made by Alex aren’t quite that brilliant either.
7 years is a very long time in a world where technology changes so quickly. It’s too long for someone to have a patent on something so potentially important.
First of all, there’s plenty of ways to make bombs – but we still love our nukes right? You might say it’s a different case, because nuclear weapons are significantly more powerful than others. But I daresay this is similar in this situation. The potential to completely change an entire species? The possibilities are absolutely awe inspiring.
A new toy for the big boys to play around with. It’s got a lot of potential to do good – and thats how they’ll sell it to us. But that being said, is there really very many people who actually can profit from benevolance? We’ve got a race with a lot of stupid people and a lot of very self interested people.
What Ventner needs to do is to have some environmental microbiologists do some studies to show that this lab oranism would die in no time in the real world. Survival there takes a lot more genes than they have put into their “creation” which is really just a minimization of what is needed to function as a living thing.
Pete, you lost your freedom in Iraq? Sorry to hear.
Good thing we got artificial warrior drones that can retrieve it for you… because that’s exactly what this news story is about.
wow ! bigger than the first landing on the moon.
Hope they can control it to benefit the ailments of the world.
Mr. Crash thinks that seven years is “too long” for a patent — apparently he simply knows much more than those making the patent laws what should _really_ be the length of a patent.
The point, however, is that there is absolutely no reason why one should grant patents for computer processors but not for creating an artificial life-form.
It is only an unreflective “gut feeling” reaction, which doesn’t withstand rational scrutiny. It’s not like he will own the patent for ever.
It is probably true that some sort of regulatory oversight would be useful, but nothing completely paranoid — after all humans have done genetic engineering for centuries.
I want to clarify the situation with patents. In the US a patent is for up to 14 years. The way it works is that when a patent is granted it is for 7 years with an extension of 7 more years, 14 in total. The patent owner must pay an extension fee (of I think around $700) by a certain date to activate the extension. Obviously profitable patents are active for 14 years.
In addition its common in the bio-sciences industry to patent the discovery twice for a total of 28 years. This is done by first patenting the procedure and then patenting the results of the procedure or vice versa. US patent law allows this. In the past 3 years or so many universities have begun to play this cleaver game too.
There is no such thing as an international patent even though its generally possible to apply for patents in all WTO (World Trade Organization) member countries with one form. However each country has a different number of active patents so its virtually impossible for a patent to be active in every country. Different countries have from a few hundred to 60,000+ active patents.
Interestingly there’s no correlation between the number of patents and a country’s development. Both China and South Korea (a very developed country) have relatively few patents.
In any case, what it means is that any company that wants to use a given patent needs only establish a subsidiary company in a country where the impeding patent doesn’t exist. Patent law in most countries allows anyone (after a year) to patent any innovation regardless of whether they invented it or not so in all likelihood there will be at least a dozen companies patenting this same discovery around the world.
While I’m no expert in patent law, I’m fairly certain that the length of “seven years” being bandied about in earlier comments for a patent ONLY APPLIES TO NEW MEDICINES (only one of the nearly infinite possible uses for this technology). IIRC, most other patents (read “non-medicinal”) last a far longer period – something like 20 years.
While I won’t go extensively into this particular pet peeve of mine, I’ll just point out the fact that Big Money companies routinely pour money into congress attempting to get those times lengthened – knowing that from time to time they’ll succeed with the right congressional makeup. Just look at copyright law if you don’t believe me – Disney “bought” a 20 year extension over its hold on some of their earliest works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act). We all know the right amount of money can do it again…
@ Alex
7 years *is* a lot of time – and other people have pointed out it’s often even longer for many patents.
If you’re going to present this as a potential boon for humanity – which I would agree with – then surely you’d want it to advantage the most people possible, in the quickest timeframe.
If he patents it – even if he’s having research done, there’s many global organisations that could work on it all at once, were it not patented and available for them to work on. This would be quicker, and in the end, better for more people. I’m not saying he shouldn’t be adequately compensated, nor am I suggesting I know more than the law makers… Though often I wonder just how much those who legislate do really know.
But there’s lots of medicines out there that could do a lot of good. I’m from Australia here and here there’s an atypical antipsychotic drug that gets prescribed for schizophrenia, it’s based on a different chemical, works differently with neurotransmitters and holds some serious potential to help a lot of people…
Well it would be prescribed for it. Except it costs about AU$144000 (About US$115000) per year to stay medicated with. How many schizophrenics do you know that can afford that? Every comparable medication with generic forms available doesn’t even fall in the same kind of price league. As soon as there is competition, the price drops dramatically. A patent ensures there is no competition for a long time.
I realise the people want to recover research money etc… But big developments need to have someone (WHO maybe?) fork over some money straight away and basically say “we need this – it can help people” then get cracking on actually helping people.
117. (The Pagans), leaving Him, call but upon female deities: They call but upon satan the persistent rebel!
118. Allah did curse him, but he said: “I will take of Thy servants a portion Marked off;
119. “I will mislead them, and I will create in them false desires; I will order them to slit the ears of cattle, and to deface the (fair) nature created by Allah.” Whoever, forsaking Allah, takes satan for a friend, hath of a surety suffered a loss that is manifest.
120. Satan makes them promises, and creates in them false desires; but satan’s promises are nothing but deception.
THE HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 4, VERSES 117-120
Hmmm…interesting. I’d be more worried about that carbon dioxide thing mutating and deciding to eat more than it should – and out of us.
“the first new artificial life form on Earth”
Come back to me when you create something out of nothing (no hydrogen, no carbon, no heat, no DNA).
Then you can say you have created a new life form.
Otherwise its just re-adjusting the building blocks that some other dude created.
PS: keep up the good work though – sounds interesting
Adjust the time line a little, and this counld be the begining of the movie “12 Monkeys (1995)”.
Is this going to get me any closer to a Cherry 2000?
‘Cause thats what I’m looking for.
Go artificial life form researchers go!
(Just to clarify, I’m a different Alex than the Alex thats been posting previously, but I won’t clarify further by appending my name.)
So what’s new!! This is DNA transfection. INTO AN ALREADY LIVING CELL.. I can’t believe no one is seeing this.. Try starting from scratch Craig.. like building the cell from its individual components and then MAKE THAT COME TO LIFE.
Are you all brainwashed…
I guess his annoncement that was suppose to be in San Diego was postponed by fire. God Help Us!
No worries, all good things must have a consequence attached to it. Its part of life. I see many opportunities out of this; say goodbye to religion.
we go man me elephant are red australia
black bag red no no boat red english boat