Factory of Life (bioengineering article)

[travis_baker]

does this mean u can save files in dna?

[Phigure]

does this mean u can save files in dna?

already did it

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1346 ... ingle-gram

cant imagine the read/write speed ever coming into the realm of practical usability though

[Sexual_Chocolate]

why not jus save files on your computer m8

seems like a hassle

[travis_baker]

maye its a good format for music, strait into the soul. i still dont get it do i?

[kay]

Factory of Life
Synthetic biologists reinvent nature with parts, circuits

Synthetic biology was born a little more than a decade ago, an offshoot of traditional genetic engineering but distinct in its ambitions, precision and mind-set. Instead of randomly tweaking the genetic blueprints of living organisms and then working backward to identify a cell with a desirable trait, the new field offered the power of designing and building cells with novel functions. Its pioneers dreamed of making armies of organisms that could produce alternative fuels, churn out drugs to battle disease or fill every stomach on the planet by squeezing more food out of each crop acre.

Now, synthetic biologists have laid the groundwork for that radical new future, by building biology’s version of Silicon Valley. One research team has created a new and more complex set of biological building blocks that snap together like Legos, bringing large-scale production of engineered organisms closer to reality. Other scientists have hooked those parts up in a complex living analog of an electrical circuit and programmed it, much like programming a computer. Researchers are now writing code to make cells do things never before thought possible, like hunt down and kill cancer cells.

“This is not just — oh, we’re going to go build something that’s able to make pieces of DNA better,” says Knight, one of the field’s top visionaries. “This is — we’re going to go create a technology infrastructure in the same way that the semiconductor infrastructure was developed.”

Original article: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature ... ry_of_Life

We`all be dead by are own hand in the next 100 years, I reckon.

Pity about the pointless derailments, could've been an interesting discussion. The field is still very much in its infancy. There is also work being done on the synthesis of non-naturally-occuring amino acid building blocks as well.

There are other more likely ways we'll kill ourselves in the 100 years though.

[test_recordings]

I`d rather see work on utilising existing organisms rather than fucking around with stuff we won`t understand until it`s too late.

[Terpit]

This is so scary, I don't think I can properly comprehend what it means or the implications.

[nowaysj]

There are other more likely ways we'll kill ourselves in the 100 years though.

You really think so? Not just inflict pain, but full scale extinction? NY, LA, Chitown, SF, Seattle could get glassed out and we'd all still be fine... Lez hear it.

[test_recordings]

Anything that affects those places would affect the rest of us, no?

[nowaysj]

Affect yes, exterminate no.

[test_recordings]

Depends what it was though?

Starbucks is doing a pretty good job of fucking the world up and that came from Seattle...

[kay]

There are other more likely ways we'll kill ourselves in the 100 years though.

You really think so? Not just inflict pain, but full scale extinction? NY, LA, Chitown, SF, Seattle could get glassed out and we'd all still be fine... Lez hear it.

Re-parse the context it was written in. I was simply suggesting in response to test recording's assertion that we would kill ourselves in the next 100 years that there would be other more likely ways than through synthetic biology. Poor management of genetic engineering (which we can already achieve) where we accidentally excise a portion of the genome that eventually turns out to be useful. Some idiot could decide to kick off nuclear armageddon. Runaway nanotech grey goo. Bioengineered bacterial/viral weapons. Release of an aerosolised toxin that works very slowly to sterilise people. Self-aware killer robots (probably unlikely). Global mass hysteria in relation to something or other. Creation of a black hole. Geoengineering goes horribly wrong. Extermination of key foodchain fish stocks.

An extinction event does not necessarily need to wipe out all of humanity at once, it only needs to isolate humanity into populations that have too little genetic diversity. A hundred years is a long time. Scientific progress will be exponential. Plenty of new ways to kill ourselves off will always be discovered.

[knell]

Scientific progress will be exponential.

but not necessarily exponentially bad... imo it's far more important to keep corporations in check than science.

[kay]

Scientific progress will be exponential.

but not necessarily exponentially bad... imo it's far more important to keep corporations in check than science.

Oh yeah, I didn't mean exponentially bad. Science is non-moralistic - it's up to us whether we want to use it for good or for bad.

[nowaysj]

it's up to us whether we want to use it for good or for bad.

Is it though? I personally doubt if we have that choice.

[knell]

it's up to us whether we want to use it for good or for bad.

Is it though? I personally doubt if we have that choice.

sounds like you dont know just how rigorously genetic studies are regulated and controlled.

this year, peanuts go into their twentieth year of study to even be considered for genetic modification and introduction into the food supply. why? because the risks involved are still not fully understood, although the first line of GM peanuts would be to counteract allergies and give increases resistance to fungal infections.

if it weren't for GMOs, everyone you know who is type 1 diabetic would be dead or worse off, type 2 wouldnt be that far behind.

i dont even want to open the door for this debate, but the point is, is that unless financial greed intermingles with the trials, genetic studies are safer and more cautious than you could ever even begin to imagine. here's how it goes down in South Africa (US is even more strict), and keep in mind that's just the red tape, the field trials are where most of the churning comes into play (the twenty year peanut delay i mentioned above, for instance)

[hugh]

[test_recordings]

it's up to us whether we want to use it for good or for bad.

Is it though? I personally doubt if we have that choice.

sounds like you dont know just how rigorously genetic studies are regulated and controlled.

this year, peanuts go into their twentieth year of study to even be considered for genetic modification and introduction into the food supply. why? because the risks involved are still not fully understood, although the first line of GM peanuts would be to counteract allergies and give increases resistance to fungal infections.

if it weren't for GMOs, everyone you know who is type 1 diabetic would be dead or worse off, type 2 wouldnt be that far behind.

i dont even want to open the door for this debate, but the point is, is that unless financial greed intermingles with the trials, genetic studies are safer and more cautious than you could ever even begin to imagine. here's how it goes down in South Africa (US is even more strict), and keep in mind that's just the red tape, the field trials are where most of the churning comes into play (the twenty year peanut delay i mentioned above, for instance)

Man, the US is not strict... the GM lobby has it`s fingers well around many Senator`s balls! They were trying to do the same in the UK and Europe but people really, really do not want it.

Why would GMO have any effect on diabetics though? I`m just curious, didn`t know there was anything to do with GM in there treatment.

[knell]

That is a very ignorant and misleading statement. The testing phase concerning GMO certification in the US is insanely strict (and open to review by multiple peer panels, not just the primary testers), as is every phase involved prior and post testing (including public access). It's certainly not perfect, but I have to ask you to please list a (credible) source if you're going to make a claim like that. (Edit: I would actually argue that since there is no "official" regulatory body, that the overlapping balances err on the side of over-regulation).

Insulin for diabetic patients was initially extracted from slaughtered animals and was tedious and expensive, and had a chance for very nasty allergic reactions. It's now made by GM microbes in a controlled environment and is much more stable and effective. Here's some more information if you're interested.

[Terpit]

Isnt cabbage, or lettuce or one of those things man made? from mixing genes and stuff together?