Twitching & Birdwatching10 mins ago
New Code Of Life
Scientists have gone one step further in their project adding two new base letters to the DNA codes of life. They now have incorporated the new codes into the chromosomes of living bacteria.
The extra codes should allow 152 new artificial amino acids in addition to the twenty natural ones that make up the proteins of life.
This could ultimately enable countless number of new proteins to be synthesised by organisms. The potential for bioengineered substances is phenomenal.
Those who disagree with genetic engineering would surely be horrified.
http://
The extra codes should allow 152 new artificial amino acids in addition to the twenty natural ones that make up the proteins of life.
This could ultimately enable countless number of new proteins to be synthesised by organisms. The potential for bioengineered substances is phenomenal.
Those who disagree with genetic engineering would surely be horrified.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by beso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"I bet you love this one....scientists disagreeing indeed debating its limits:). "
Actually surely the fact that there is a disagreement is significant and a good thing. Often in the past Scientists have been described as being something of a united front -- that's just not true, and a debate like this shows it. Even in the mainstream there are heated arguments... I've borne witness to some of them, and in the end it's not unlike watching an argument over anything else people care about passionately. Scientists too have human nature. Having the debate is important.
"...scientists do not have licence to carry out experiments whose outcome could wipe out mankind via an unstoppable pandemic. "
I think this is surely an exaggeration. It reminds me just a little of the, utterly unfounded, fears surrounding the start-up of the LHC. Oh, it will create a Black Hole and end the world, said some people. Or, if not a Black Hole, then some equally terrifying Doomsday scenario. Never mind the fact that on the Start-up day itself precisely nothing happened over than accelerating a few protons that didn't even hit each other up to energies rather lower than had been achieved at the Tevatron for years. Still, presumably we had "no right" even then to, according to the same people, to play with the very fabric of the Universe while we didn't understand fully things at a lower energy scale. I didn't buy the argument then; I don't now.
Nor are such experiments anything to do with thinking of ourselves as "Masters of the Universe" as Khandro puts it. It's just curiosity taking its natural course. "What if there were no need to stick to the ACGT alphabet of life?" they ask. Perhaps far sooner than anyone could possibly have imagined, we might know the answer. This is curiosity and imagination at its most profound. And potentially scary, perhaps, although on the face of it something that is merely self-replicating but carries no protein-coding information has no potential to be anything other than a lab curiosity for a very long time.
Actually surely the fact that there is a disagreement is significant and a good thing. Often in the past Scientists have been described as being something of a united front -- that's just not true, and a debate like this shows it. Even in the mainstream there are heated arguments... I've borne witness to some of them, and in the end it's not unlike watching an argument over anything else people care about passionately. Scientists too have human nature. Having the debate is important.
"...scientists do not have licence to carry out experiments whose outcome could wipe out mankind via an unstoppable pandemic. "
I think this is surely an exaggeration. It reminds me just a little of the, utterly unfounded, fears surrounding the start-up of the LHC. Oh, it will create a Black Hole and end the world, said some people. Or, if not a Black Hole, then some equally terrifying Doomsday scenario. Never mind the fact that on the Start-up day itself precisely nothing happened over than accelerating a few protons that didn't even hit each other up to energies rather lower than had been achieved at the Tevatron for years. Still, presumably we had "no right" even then to, according to the same people, to play with the very fabric of the Universe while we didn't understand fully things at a lower energy scale. I didn't buy the argument then; I don't now.
Nor are such experiments anything to do with thinking of ourselves as "Masters of the Universe" as Khandro puts it. It's just curiosity taking its natural course. "What if there were no need to stick to the ACGT alphabet of life?" they ask. Perhaps far sooner than anyone could possibly have imagined, we might know the answer. This is curiosity and imagination at its most profound. And potentially scary, perhaps, although on the face of it something that is merely self-replicating but carries no protein-coding information has no potential to be anything other than a lab curiosity for a very long time.
Dear Khandro,
It was often said, rightly, science indeed all types of research, should be about "how" not "why". This was to avoid getting into barren research/debates as to the reason for our existence. "Why" is now acceptable if restricted to e.g. why do evening primroses open at dusk.
However I agree on the thrust of your main argument that mankind will be finished by 3000 A.D.
We could avoid the population growth disaster by enforced birth control and the inevitable wars. However combined with loss of fuel supplies population growth makes a deadly mix.
I am less concerned about our effect on the environment (I'm anti-green but support re-cycling).
We messed up fuel supplies by throwing up primitive nuclear power-plants for making fission/fusion bombs and left our only hope with a bad name - the Irish Sea is the most radioactive sea in the world thanks to Sellafield (formerly Windscale). The U.K. should have built our nuclear plants by now, not thinking about it. In my back-yard? Yes - let the French build them for us.
But overall I agree with you Khandro: mankind gone by 3000 A.D. as fuel depletion will cause wars of suvival as the growing population fight in vain to survive. First to go is Africa by benign neglect allowing the population to starve.
SIQ.
It was often said, rightly, science indeed all types of research, should be about "how" not "why". This was to avoid getting into barren research/debates as to the reason for our existence. "Why" is now acceptable if restricted to e.g. why do evening primroses open at dusk.
However I agree on the thrust of your main argument that mankind will be finished by 3000 A.D.
We could avoid the population growth disaster by enforced birth control and the inevitable wars. However combined with loss of fuel supplies population growth makes a deadly mix.
I am less concerned about our effect on the environment (I'm anti-green but support re-cycling).
We messed up fuel supplies by throwing up primitive nuclear power-plants for making fission/fusion bombs and left our only hope with a bad name - the Irish Sea is the most radioactive sea in the world thanks to Sellafield (formerly Windscale). The U.K. should have built our nuclear plants by now, not thinking about it. In my back-yard? Yes - let the French build them for us.
But overall I agree with you Khandro: mankind gone by 3000 A.D. as fuel depletion will cause wars of suvival as the growing population fight in vain to survive. First to go is Africa by benign neglect allowing the population to starve.
SIQ.
Dear Jim360,
Of course scientists should disagree. That's the key to the success of the method. I hope I quoted Naomi's enjoyment at such "arguments" correctly or I'm for the high-jump. She had a valid stance from her viewpoint but I forget what it was - maybe one part of science inhibiting another. Anyway I hope my joke does not backfire.
As you will see from my note to Khandro, I am pessimistic about the
long-term survival of mankind and don't think science can help.
I'd like to chat further and will do so but have to get these messages off before AB crashes on me again (no probs with any other web-site).
SIQ.
Of course scientists should disagree. That's the key to the success of the method. I hope I quoted Naomi's enjoyment at such "arguments" correctly or I'm for the high-jump. She had a valid stance from her viewpoint but I forget what it was - maybe one part of science inhibiting another. Anyway I hope my joke does not backfire.
As you will see from my note to Khandro, I am pessimistic about the
long-term survival of mankind and don't think science can help.
I'd like to chat further and will do so but have to get these messages off before AB crashes on me again (no probs with any other web-site).
SIQ.
Dear Peter Pedant,
Ty for your reference to papers in Nature. I haven't got easy access to the journal now but have thought of a big "no-no" to THIS synthetic biology (or pseudo-scientific roulette as I prefer to call it).
My first consolation was the likely impossibility of translation of the new gene into protein. A long process: unzipping the "right" bit of DNA; transcription into mRNA; assembly of polysomes from mRNA and ribosomes: the carrying of the right amino acid to the slot in the ribosome by the transfer RNA. And all of this requiring a myriad of structural and catalytic proteins!
HOWEVER, what if these bases are distributed all by themselves by accident? Without the above protein synthetic scenario they appear to be able to interject into DNA's sequential reading. What if they can indeed penetrate the animal nucleus? Then that's death, irrespective of the translation scenario.
The scientists themselves should be prepared to inject the bases into themselves intavenously! There are many precedents for this approach of scientists testing treatments on themselves.
SIQ.
Ty for your reference to papers in Nature. I haven't got easy access to the journal now but have thought of a big "no-no" to THIS synthetic biology (or pseudo-scientific roulette as I prefer to call it).
My first consolation was the likely impossibility of translation of the new gene into protein. A long process: unzipping the "right" bit of DNA; transcription into mRNA; assembly of polysomes from mRNA and ribosomes: the carrying of the right amino acid to the slot in the ribosome by the transfer RNA. And all of this requiring a myriad of structural and catalytic proteins!
HOWEVER, what if these bases are distributed all by themselves by accident? Without the above protein synthetic scenario they appear to be able to interject into DNA's sequential reading. What if they can indeed penetrate the animal nucleus? Then that's death, irrespective of the translation scenario.
The scientists themselves should be prepared to inject the bases into themselves intavenously! There are many precedents for this approach of scientists testing treatments on themselves.
SIQ.
Dear Jim,
Just a few words to continue our mini-debate.
"Scientists do not have licence...unstoppable pandemic". Certainly some exaggeration, yes, but I maintain that the principal is correct. All research actions should be scrutinised by the scientist and his/her governing body prior to any action being authorised.
Curiosity is a driving force in science of course but is not justification for any haphazard experiment by some nutter. You know that there are certain people in science, as everywhere else, who are crazy loners - typified in fiction by Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
Suposing you heard of a modern real-life Frankenstein, would you justify his actions?
As regards Khandro's "Masters of the Universe", this reminds me of Watson's address to students in which he justified genetic engineering by saying "If we don't play god, who will?".
We are not as far apart as might appear as regards the philosophy and methodology of science. Indeed we basically agree, I hope. It's just who does what, where, when and why that we debate and great fun it is.
Enough for now.
SIQ.
Just a few words to continue our mini-debate.
"Scientists do not have licence...unstoppable pandemic". Certainly some exaggeration, yes, but I maintain that the principal is correct. All research actions should be scrutinised by the scientist and his/her governing body prior to any action being authorised.
Curiosity is a driving force in science of course but is not justification for any haphazard experiment by some nutter. You know that there are certain people in science, as everywhere else, who are crazy loners - typified in fiction by Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.
Suposing you heard of a modern real-life Frankenstein, would you justify his actions?
As regards Khandro's "Masters of the Universe", this reminds me of Watson's address to students in which he justified genetic engineering by saying "If we don't play god, who will?".
We are not as far apart as might appear as regards the philosophy and methodology of science. Indeed we basically agree, I hope. It's just who does what, where, when and why that we debate and great fun it is.
Enough for now.
SIQ.
I don't think I've ever said that Science is above criticism. In this particular case, the consequences could be horrifying I suppose. I don't see any compelling reason to believe that this is all that likely, though. For a start, the work is still in its very early stages. We've established the principle that more than just the usual ACGT base pairs can be self-replicating, but the new alphabet isn't, I don't think, doing anything yet. So all of the voices of concern seem as best premature, although I accept that there may be risks involved in creating a new code of life in the long-term. On balance, though, the people best-placed to recognise and (you would hope) deal with those risks are the scientists doing this work.
I suppose we could shut down the research altogether, but if you did that for every scientific project that might have risks progress would be a lot slower and probably would have come to a halt decades ago.
I suppose we could shut down the research altogether, but if you did that for every scientific project that might have risks progress would be a lot slower and probably would have come to a halt decades ago.
//............... project that might have risks would be a lot slower and probably would have come to a halt decades ago. //
Which projects are you thinking of jim? Having watched a documentary on last night's television about the Apollo space programme I'd say THAT certainly should have progressed slower (and probably not taken place at all).
Which projects are you thinking of jim? Having watched a documentary on last night's television about the Apollo space programme I'd say THAT certainly should have progressed slower (and probably not taken place at all).
Latest Posts
News19 mins ago
Home & Garden22 mins ago
Will Blasphemy Laws Be Reintroduced?
News22 mins ago
News27 mins ago
