6 ms·

Scientists Hold Secret Meeting to Consider Creating a Synthetic Human Genome

66 points by hackuser 10y ago

a3n 10y ago
Maybe this is where "AI" will come from, particularly military AI. If the genome were synthesized, then some people could convince themselves that what grew wasn't human and could therefore be shaped and enslaved.
- fiblye 10y ago
  So basically Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep/Blade Runner is going from scifi to a WIP.
  - a3n 10y ago
    I was thinking more like Minority Report.
- grondilu 10y ago
  Even if the technique for synthesizing a human genome was available literally tomorrow, it would still take a few decades for the first genetically synthesized human to be born, to grow up and to get an education before it becomes useful to anything. That would leave lots of time for non-biological AI to catch up.
notliketherest 10y ago
Interesting ethical issues arise when talking about "writing genomes" and essentially creating a designer human synthetically. Now let's say the scientific community decides against doing this based on ethical reasons. What's to stop rogue scientists from going ahead with the research and going around the global community? Would they need the protection of a nation state to move forward? What could be done to stop them? We're getting into cloners from Kamino territory here...
- brianbarker 10y ago
  Orphan Black neolution territory. Other actors will do it. Scientists who want to do it will find a place where they can.
- hackuser 10y ago
  Good questions. * One thing that can stop them is the law; it could be made illegal, which does stop a lot of behavior. International treaties often work too. * Also, if it's considered out-of-bounds by the scientific community then it could ruin the scientists' career; that's probably not a risk that a talented scientist with a promising career would take. They couldn't even publish a paper, publish in arXiv, get feedback on their work, or participate in any online discussion. They couldn't go to a conference (there wouldn't be one in their field) or even tell anyone what they are working on. What a life to choose. * Significant progress likely requires more resources than could be mustered covertly, including financial, technological (where do you buy equipment and supplies?), and especially labor: Not only do they need talented PhD students and postdocs, but progress in most fields requires a whole community of scientists who build on each other's work, not one who discovers it all themself.
  - visarga 10y ago
    The technology advances when it can advance, no matter what. The raise of surveillance would have happened even without NSA. The Deep Learning advancements happened because of faster computers, even though humans have discovered some of the best ideas 20+ years ago. <rant> There is potential for achieving superhuman intelligence by genetic selection. By scanning millions of people's DNA and their personal traits (predicting phenotype characteristics from genotype), they want to build a classifier that would rate a DNA before it got developed. Then they would be able to select embryos before IVF. This is done today too, but only to filter out some simple genetic defects. A selection of 1:2 gives a 5 IQ point boost. A selection of 1:1000 embryos gives a boost of 40 IQ points. If we repeat this over a few generations, humanity will evolve much faster. This iterative improvement by AI rating of genomes could be sped up by creating sperm and ova directly from embryo stem cells. This way we don't need to wait for a generation to pass to have the kids become parents. In a few years many DNA selection -> embryo iterations could be tested and selected and evolution would be sped up even more. In the short run, 40 to 80 years, we face the appearance of AGI and human-computer interfaces. We will evolve together with it, and this kind of DNA synthesis would be an essential tool for the future. Even if a few people have been enhanced, when they have kids with non-enhanced people the new genetic advancements could be passed to the whole population in a few generations. The final aim is to extend life, intelligence and perhaps gain immortality and become much more than we were before. Even if we don't do AI based DNA enhancement, we still need to prepare for the possible catastrophe at the point of singularity. We need to create databases of human embryos so we could create humanity back in case it is destroyed. I'd also put in these databases a copy of all the human produced data and culture, just in case they need to start from scratch. These databases would have to be hidden and remain incommunicado for long enough to make sure we didn't get wiped out. They could even be cared for by robots for millions of years before opening up, as an insurance ticket that we survive. </rant> My point is that we don't really control the evolution of these technologies. They will be developed because they can be developed. In the past they weren't developed because it was impossible. We, humans, created even the a-bomb immediately after we understood nuclear physics. We spied on people as soon as the internet (and even telephone) was available. Why would we be able to stop from making synthetic DNA? The temptation to prolong life or to enhance future children exists, the means also exist.
brianbarker 10y ago
While the US debates such efforts in fear what could happen, other nations who don't see it as a problem will do this. It has always been a matter of time.
hackuser 10y ago
This foolish move could seriously damage legitimate genetics research and applications, and other science, in the public eye, affecting funding and even legality. The reality may be different than first glance, but we live in a world of first impressions and the people invovled should know that. The participants must have some sense of where the lines are and also respect that the public has a right to make decisions for their own society.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
  Well at least it's a secret meeting.
  - tremulant 10y ago
    Phew. "secret"!
kruhft 10y ago
My first thought was "Wierd Science"[1]. [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090305/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090305/
Houshalter 10y ago
Such a process could create humans who have multiple times greater IQs than the smartest humans who have ever lived. Perhaps as high as 1,000, by some estimates. See: http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-are-coming http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-ar... Truly a terrifying possibility.
- jhartmann 10y ago
  I'm just curious, why is it terrifying? Would a super intelligent human being produced by science be any more terrifying then one that occurred naturally? Couldn't we be creating a being that could push us forward collectively? Think about the contribution to modern life Einstein, John Von Neumann, and Bohr had. If we had a way to make very intelligent designer humans, there could be a chance they could push us collectively forward in a similar way. I imagine that an Einstein born now, with access to the whole worlds information could be much more impactful (or maybe he would just succumb to liking cat videos.) All humans designer or not can be terrifying, beautiful, impactful, and other worldly. You don't have to be unnatural to be an evil bastard, and maybe an engineered human could be like Gandhi. Don't prejudge, just because its unnatural doesn't mean it is not good. Just like GMO doesn't mean bad (I eat organic food by the way), a lot of this goes to intent. If science wants to push us forward and make us better. I'm all for it. If they want to engineer us to be resistant to industrial chemicals or pollution so that companies can pollute more, or make super soldiers that is when you have to be terrified . Not just because we have something artificial.
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    I don't know. A lot of people agree with you, that creating superintelligent humans is necessary. I'm scared of being replaced. I'm also worried such humans would be so different than us, they wouldn't identify with us. Maybe even come to despise us. They would form their own ingroup and view us as enemies even. I've met someone that had high IQ, and identified with high IQ like some people identify with their country. He legitimately hated low IQ people, was ok with exterminating them, and said he would prefer to die or commit suicide than lose his intelligence. It was such an alien way of looking at the world to me.
Tycho 10y ago
I kind of feel relieved that I'll probably be dead before this kind of thing irrevocably destroys the relative equality of the human race.
- grondilu 10y ago
  People are already different in terms of capabilities. Yet they are equals in terms of rights, and there is no reason that should change, even with this kind of things.
  - cgriswald 10y ago
    That change of equality is more or less inevitable. Imagine a line of humans as far ahead of us as we are of dogs. They're certainly going to have their own ideas on how to use the resources of the world and will almost certainly think they know what is best for the rest of us. (Hell, there are plenty of modern day humans who already think that about their peers.)
    - grondilu 10y ago
      As you said that's a mentality that exists already among many people. It's more of a political issue than a technological one. I personally believe that smart people don't feel any need to get privileges of any kind, since they are by definition more capable to attain their goals anyway. You may not give a dog lots of rights, but you don't see it as a threat or a competitor either.
      - solotronics 10y ago
        I wouldn't mind being the man pet of a god-woman. She would probably have really good food and neat stuff to talk about.
    - golergka 10y ago
      > They're certainly going to have their own ideas on how to use the resources of the world and will almost certainly think they know what is best for the rest of us. And nothing will stop them from pursuing political and business careers at equal terms with the rest of us. Of course, their superior genes will let them get ahead, but regardless, that's what already is happening - more genetically smart and charismatic people can get into positions of power easier than others, and we seem to be quite OK with it.
grondilu 10y ago
Why focusing so early on a human target? Animals and plants physiology is still capable of doing things we're not nearly capable of reproducing in laboratory. Plants and insects production are still used in pharmacology so it seems to me there would be a huge commercial potential for plant and animal organisms made from scratch, just as there is currently for organisms just barely modified. The human case will always be made difficult by ethicists and other party poopers, anyway.
WhoBeI 10y ago
I beheld the wretch — the miserable monster whom I had created. He held up the curtain of the bed; and his eyes, if eyes they may be called, were fixed on me. His jaws opened, and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did not hear; one hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped and rushed downstairs. I took refuge in the courtyard belonging to the house which I inhabited, where I remained during the rest of the night, walking up and down in the greatest agitation, listening attentively, catching and fearing each sound as if it were to announce the approach of the demoniacal corpse to which I had so miserably given life.
- krapp 10y ago
  Of course, Frankenstein's creation wasn't the monster in that story, at least not at first. The monster was the human too wound up in his own bigotry and religiosity to accept the consequences of science on its own terms, Frankenstein himself.
maxander 10y ago
> “Our ability to understand what to build is so far behind what we can build,’’ said Dr. Minshull, who was invited to the meeting at Harvard but did not attend. “I just don’t think that being able to make more and more and more and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper is going to get us the understanding we need.’’ As point of comparison, consider how well any of us would understand software engineering if it cost thousands of dollars to compile a program. That is the potential impact of this technology- talk about using this to create super-humans or whatever is pure hype and/or scaremongering.
peter303 10y ago
Humans/mammals have 50 times more coding DNA than simple fungi they've syntesized so far. Plus natural mammal DNA is usually subdivided into multiple pieces on a chromosome called introns. It is unclear how important the non-coding inbetween DNA is. Homever nearly the entire lab mouse genome has been purified into single pieces called coding DNA and can be purchased from labs. Maybe they'll try synthezing a mouse first. The human case shouldnt be more difficult.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  As eukaryotes, fungi also have introns.

66 points by hackuser 10y ago

a3n 10y ago

Maybe this is where "AI" will come from, particularly military AI. If the genome were synthesized, then some people could convince themselves that what grew wasn't human and could therefore be shaped and enslaved.

fiblye 10y ago
So basically Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep/Blade Runner is going from scifi to a WIP.
- a3n 10y ago
  I was thinking more like Minority Report.
grondilu 10y ago
Even if the technique for synthesizing a human genome was available literally tomorrow, it would still take a few decades for the first genetically synthesized human to be born, to grow up and to get an education before it becomes useful to anything. That would leave lots of time for non-biological AI to catch up.

notliketherest 10y ago

Interesting ethical issues arise when talking about "writing genomes" and essentially creating a designer human synthetically. Now let's say the scientific community decides against doing this based on ethical reasons. What's to stop rogue scientists from going ahead with the research and going around the global community? Would they need the protection of a nation state to move forward? What could be done to stop them? We're getting into cloners from Kamino territory here...

brianbarker 10y ago
Orphan Black neolution territory. Other actors will do it. Scientists who want to do it will find a place where they can.
hackuser 10y ago
Good questions. * One thing that can stop them is the law; it could be made illegal, which does stop a lot of behavior. International treaties often work too. * Also, if it's considered out-of-bounds by the scientific community then it could ruin the scientists' career; that's probably not a risk that a talented scientist with a promising career would take. They couldn't even publish a paper, publish in arXiv, get feedback on their work, or participate in any online discussion. They couldn't go to a conference (there wouldn't be one in their field) or even tell anyone what they are working on. What a life to choose. * Significant progress likely requires more resources than could be mustered covertly, including financial, technological (where do you buy equipment and supplies?), and especially labor: Not only do they need talented PhD students and postdocs, but progress in most fields requires a whole community of scientists who build on each other's work, not one who discovers it all themself.
- visarga 10y ago
  The technology advances when it can advance, no matter what. The raise of surveillance would have happened even without NSA. The Deep Learning advancements happened because of faster computers, even though humans have discovered some of the best ideas 20+ years ago. <rant> There is potential for achieving superhuman intelligence by genetic selection. By scanning millions of people's DNA and their personal traits (predicting phenotype characteristics from genotype), they want to build a classifier that would rate a DNA before it got developed. Then they would be able to select embryos before IVF. This is done today too, but only to filter out some simple genetic defects. A selection of 1:2 gives a 5 IQ point boost. A selection of 1:1000 embryos gives a boost of 40 IQ points. If we repeat this over a few generations, humanity will evolve much faster. This iterative improvement by AI rating of genomes could be sped up by creating sperm and ova directly from embryo stem cells. This way we don't need to wait for a generation to pass to have the kids become parents. In a few years many DNA selection -> embryo iterations could be tested and selected and evolution would be sped up even more. In the short run, 40 to 80 years, we face the appearance of AGI and human-computer interfaces. We will evolve together with it, and this kind of DNA synthesis would be an essential tool for the future. Even if a few people have been enhanced, when they have kids with non-enhanced people the new genetic advancements could be passed to the whole population in a few generations. The final aim is to extend life, intelligence and perhaps gain immortality and become much more than we were before. Even if we don't do AI based DNA enhancement, we still need to prepare for the possible catastrophe at the point of singularity. We need to create databases of human embryos so we could create humanity back in case it is destroyed. I'd also put in these databases a copy of all the human produced data and culture, just in case they need to start from scratch. These databases would have to be hidden and remain incommunicado for long enough to make sure we didn't get wiped out. They could even be cared for by robots for millions of years before opening up, as an insurance ticket that we survive. </rant> My point is that we don't really control the evolution of these technologies. They will be developed because they can be developed. In the past they weren't developed because it was impossible. We, humans, created even the a-bomb immediately after we understood nuclear physics. We spied on people as soon as the internet (and even telephone) was available. Why would we be able to stop from making synthetic DNA? The temptation to prolong life or to enhance future children exists, the means also exist.

brianbarker 10y ago

While the US debates such efforts in fear what could happen, other nations who don't see it as a problem will do this. It has always been a matter of time.

hackuser 10y ago

This foolish move could seriously damage legitimate genetics research and applications, and other science, in the public eye, affecting funding and even legality. The reality may be different than first glance, but we live in a world of first impressions and the people invovled should know that. The participants must have some sense of where the lines are and also respect that the public has a right to make decisions for their own society.

0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
Well at least it's a secret meeting.
- tremulant 10y ago
  Phew. "secret"!

kruhft 10y ago

My first thought was "Wierd Science"[1]. [1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090305/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090305/

Houshalter 10y ago

Such a process could create humans who have multiple times greater IQs than the smartest humans who have ever lived. Perhaps as high as 1,000, by some estimates. See: http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-are-coming http://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-ar... Truly a terrifying possibility.

jhartmann 10y ago
I'm just curious, why is it terrifying? Would a super intelligent human being produced by science be any more terrifying then one that occurred naturally? Couldn't we be creating a being that could push us forward collectively? Think about the contribution to modern life Einstein, John Von Neumann, and Bohr had. If we had a way to make very intelligent designer humans, there could be a chance they could push us collectively forward in a similar way. I imagine that an Einstein born now, with access to the whole worlds information could be much more impactful (or maybe he would just succumb to liking cat videos.) All humans designer or not can be terrifying, beautiful, impactful, and other worldly. You don't have to be unnatural to be an evil bastard, and maybe an engineered human could be like Gandhi. Don't prejudge, just because its unnatural doesn't mean it is not good. Just like GMO doesn't mean bad (I eat organic food by the way), a lot of this goes to intent. If science wants to push us forward and make us better. I'm all for it. If they want to engineer us to be resistant to industrial chemicals or pollution so that companies can pollute more, or make super soldiers that is when you have to be terrified . Not just because we have something artificial.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  I don't know. A lot of people agree with you, that creating superintelligent humans is necessary. I'm scared of being replaced. I'm also worried such humans would be so different than us, they wouldn't identify with us. Maybe even come to despise us. They would form their own ingroup and view us as enemies even. I've met someone that had high IQ, and identified with high IQ like some people identify with their country. He legitimately hated low IQ people, was ok with exterminating them, and said he would prefer to die or commit suicide than lose his intelligence. It was such an alien way of looking at the world to me.

Tycho 10y ago

I kind of feel relieved that I'll probably be dead before this kind of thing irrevocably destroys the relative equality of the human race.

grondilu 10y ago
People are already different in terms of capabilities. Yet they are equals in terms of rights, and there is no reason that should change, even with this kind of things.
- cgriswald 10y ago
  That change of equality is more or less inevitable. Imagine a line of humans as far ahead of us as we are of dogs. They're certainly going to have their own ideas on how to use the resources of the world and will almost certainly think they know what is best for the rest of us. (Hell, there are plenty of modern day humans who already think that about their peers.)
  - grondilu 10y ago
    As you said that's a mentality that exists already among many people. It's more of a political issue than a technological one. I personally believe that smart people don't feel any need to get privileges of any kind, since they are by definition more capable to attain their goals anyway. You may not give a dog lots of rights, but you don't see it as a threat or a competitor either.
    - solotronics 10y ago
      I wouldn't mind being the man pet of a god-woman. She would probably have really good food and neat stuff to talk about.
  - golergka 10y ago
    > They're certainly going to have their own ideas on how to use the resources of the world and will almost certainly think they know what is best for the rest of us. And nothing will stop them from pursuing political and business careers at equal terms with the rest of us. Of course, their superior genes will let them get ahead, but regardless, that's what already is happening - more genetically smart and charismatic people can get into positions of power easier than others, and we seem to be quite OK with it.

grondilu 10y ago

Why focusing so early on a human target? Animals and plants physiology is still capable of doing things we're not nearly capable of reproducing in laboratory. Plants and insects production are still used in pharmacology so it seems to me there would be a huge commercial potential for plant and animal organisms made from scratch, just as there is currently for organisms just barely modified. The human case will always be made difficult by ethicists and other party poopers, anyway.

WhoBeI 10y ago

I beheld the wretch — the miserable monster whom I had created. He held up the curtain of the bed; and his eyes, if eyes they may be called, were fixed on me. His jaws opened, and he muttered some inarticulate sounds, while a grin wrinkled his cheeks. He might have spoken, but I did not hear; one hand was stretched out, seemingly to detain me, but I escaped and rushed downstairs. I took refuge in the courtyard belonging to the house which I inhabited, where I remained during the rest of the night, walking up and down in the greatest agitation, listening attentively, catching and fearing each sound as if it were to announce the approach of the demoniacal corpse to which I had so miserably given life.

krapp 10y ago
Of course, Frankenstein's creation wasn't the monster in that story, at least not at first. The monster was the human too wound up in his own bigotry and religiosity to accept the consequences of science on its own terms, Frankenstein himself.

maxander 10y ago

> “Our ability to understand what to build is so far behind what we can build,’’ said Dr. Minshull, who was invited to the meeting at Harvard but did not attend. “I just don’t think that being able to make more and more and more and cheaper and cheaper and cheaper is going to get us the understanding we need.’’ As point of comparison, consider how well any of us would understand software engineering if it cost thousands of dollars to compile a program. That is the potential impact of this technology- talk about using this to create super-humans or whatever is pure hype and/or scaremongering.

peter303 10y ago

Humans/mammals have 50 times more coding DNA than simple fungi they've syntesized so far. Plus natural mammal DNA is usually subdivided into multiple pieces on a chromosome called introns. It is unclear how important the non-coding inbetween DNA is. Homever nearly the entire lab mouse genome has been purified into single pieces called coding DNA and can be purchased from labs. Maybe they'll try synthezing a mouse first. The human case shouldnt be more difficult.

GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
As eukaryotes, fungi also have introns.