Scientists expect to create life in next 10 years

For some reason this REALLY scares me...How about you all?


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/

I think it's really awesome and has the potential to show us a lot about how our own form of life may have gotten its start, beyond any practical applications. I don't see any reason to be afraid of this technology, beyond the possibility that an artificial cell might become a pathogen of some sort. The likelihood of producing artificial animals or anything like that is beyond anything that's remotely plausible. It would be difficult enough to get one artificial cell to survive for any amount of time at all, much less get it to divide, achieve any kind of multi-cellularity, tissue formation, etc. That took a few billion years for natural selection to come up with, and I doubt we're going to figure it out any time soon.

I'm curious about the group that wants to add new nitrogenous bases to the DNA molecule. What exactly would they code for? It seems unnecessary to have so many bases, because the DNA code is already so redundant, but perhaps there are amino acids we don't know about that could possibly be produced. It's hard to get my head around that. I could see it making the cells less likely to interact with any natural cells, though.

I think its great! What scares me are not the scientists who can envision the potential positive outcomes from such a profound understanding and application of the process of life, but those who's first thought would be "How do we capitalize on this?" But I say more power to the academicians!! Go Science!!

This scares me...

it just does.

I'm not religious at all, but something just does not sit right with me to be meddling with 'life' this way.

something just does not sit right with me to be meddling with 'life' this way.
I'm not sure if it would make you feel better, but try to remember that all we're talking about here are nucleotides, proteins, and fatty acids. They should really organize themselves, if they're present in adequate amounts and in particular conditions. That's all life is, just molecules that "figure out" how to organize themselves, obtain enough energy to prevent entropy, and divide. Natural cells are monumentally more complex than anything any scientist could ever hope to create in a lab, and probably more destructive to complex organisms than any artificial cell could ever be.


On a related note, here's a story I saw about non-carbon-based molecules that can divide and evolve. Life is not limited to our preconceptions of what it should be.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/iop-mb081007.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/iop-mb081007.php)

Headline: Scientists expect to create life in next 10 years.

Response: Call me when they can create intelligent life.




:p

For some reason I am more scared of human cloning.

I'm also very pro-science, but this actually does freak me out somewhat. So you introduce new base pairs, you create new one celled organisms akin to bacteria, some of these somehow become infectious, one infects a human or animal from the lab, and now you've unwittingly created bugs to which we have no innate immunity.

Hopefully, with our HLA system we would recognize these as completely foreign and destroy them before they could infect us. But worst case scenerio, it could look like the Native American decimation from European diseases.

Fascinatingly, one of the researchers in the article says something like, "We're not smart enough to regulate this, so we'll just let evolution take its course." So what happens then when there are unintended consequences? Will we be smart enough to head it off at the pass?

I don't think it means we shouldn't be exploring such things, but I do think the ethics committees of the world should be thinking long and hard about this. Just food for thought...

I'm also very pro-science, but this actually does freak me out somewhat. So you introduce new base pairs, you create new one celled organisms akin to bacteria, some of these somehow become infectious, one infects a human or animal from the lab, and now you've unwittingly created bugs to which we have no innate immunity.

Hopefully, with our HLA system we would recognize these as completely foreign and destroy them before they could infect us. But worst case scenario, it could look like the Native American decimation from European diseases.

Fascinatingly, one of the researchers in the article says something like, "We're not smart enough to regulate this, so we'll just let evolution take its course." So what happens then when there are unintended consequences? Will we be smart enough to head it off at the pass?

I don't think it means we shouldn't be exploring such things, but I do think the ethics committees of the world should be thinking long and hard about this. Just food for thought...

This SCARES ME TO!! Great points. I thought about this last night. How easy would it be to create something that would wipe us all out? I don't mean a little at time I mean MASS amounts. Black plague type ones.

His statement you brought up about We will let evolution take its course. This is the one that bothers me the most. Evolution has a way to adapt or go against what the world is doing. I do not think we are intelligent enough for that outcome at all.

Science has its purpose..so why not find something to cure all these diseases, cancer and so on. But to creat life this way REALLY worries me.

Some person or group of people wants to be god to a new life form...

Can you imagine if that's how we got here? And someone is sitting there going, "What the F did I do?" If only I stuck with the 2 base pairs we were already using. Dangit!

This SCARES ME TO!! Great points. I thought about this last night. How easy would it be to create something that would wipe us all out? I don't mean a little at time I mean MASS amounts. Black plague type ones.

His statement you brought up about We will let evolution take its course. This is the one that bothers me the most. Evolution has a way to adapt or go against what the world is doing. I do not think we are intelligent enough for that outcome at all.

Science has its purpose..so why not find something to cure all these diseases, cancer and so on. But to creat life this way REALLY worries me.

Now youre getting into horror movie scenarios. Like 28 days later...Outbreak...what other movies are based on science gone mad themes?

Now youre getting into horror movie scenarios. Like 28 days later...Outbreak...what other movies are based on science gone mad themes?


The Stand

by Stephen King


did i win?

The Stand

by Stephen King


did i win?

Stand by your Man

by Tammy Winnette

Stand by your Man

by Tammy Winnette


I'll take "chaotic cataclysms" for $300 Hillary

I'll take "chaotic cataclysms" for $300 Hillary


Are we playing Six Degrees to Kevin Costner?

I'm not sure if it would make you feel better, but try to remember that all we're talking about here are nucleotides, proteins, and fatty acids. They should really organize themselves, if they're present in adequate amounts and in particular conditions. That's all life is, just molecules that "figure out" how to organize themselves, obtain enough energy to prevent entropy, and divide. Natural cells are monumentally more complex than anything any scientist could ever hope to create in a lab, and probably more destructive to complex organisms than any artificial cell could ever be.


Yes, but it's the scope for what could go wrong that worries me, and I think Zolie expressed that feeling well. Also, they're not doing it just to stop at this stage, are they?

The Stand

by Stephen King


did i win?

Was the stand a man manufactored bug? I thought it was a superflu bug that got everyone...like the up and coming bird flu :eek:

Science has its purpose..so why not find something to cure all these diseases, cancer and so on. But to creat life this way REALLY worries me.
That's actually one of the potential uses for this technology. A cell could be produced that intelligently targets specific pathogens for which we have nothing to combat currently. Everyone automatically thinks of the worst case scenarios, but this could have tremendous potential to save lives.

That's actually one of the potential uses for this technology. A cell could be produced that intelligently targets specific pathogens for which we have nothing to combat currently. Everyone automatically thinks of the worst case scenarios, but this could have tremendous potential to save lives.

But if you don't think of the worst case scenerio, how can you prepare for and prevent it?

As scientists we are compelled to think of the worst case scenerio, as we will be held responsible for any and all intended and unintended outcomes.

But if you don't think of the worst case scenerio, how can you prepare for and prevent it?

As scientists we are compelled to think of the worst case scenerio, as we will be held responsible for any and all intended and unintended outcomes.

agreed Look at Aids and that...Scary huh?



okay movies with science
OUTBREAK 1995

But if you don't think of the worst case scenerio, how can you prepare for and prevent it?

As scientists we are compelled to think of the worst case scenerio, as we will be held responsible for any and all intended and unintended outcomes.
I was thinking more of the general public's initial response (and particularly that of the mass media), not that of scientists, for whom it's definitely their responsibility to be concerned with the full gamut of potential outcomes.

The difference between a lay person and a scientist thinking about worst possible outcomes, is that a scientist understands far more about the mechanisms behind the technology and the potential ways to prevent or mitigate any problems, and is less likely to base their overall opinion on far-fetched scenarios that could be entirely unrealistic. And those kinds of scenarios, which are very popular among people who don't really understand the technologies involved (like when people confuse therapeutic cloning with reproductive cloning, for example), can have seriously negative effects on scientific research and the development of new medical treatments. So I just like to encourage people to keep some perspective and think of potential positive outcomes as well. And obviously you shouldn't trust someone just because they're a scientist, but the people working on this don't want to produce any kind of superbug either. There are scientists already working with incredibly virulent pathogens for which most people have no immunity, and they're very well contained due to a plethora of regulations and safety procedures. Could they get out? Yes, they could. But we have the means to contain them and it works pretty well. And I still think the potential good of this kind of research outweighs the potential bad in almost every case.