4 ms·
> If you can get access to the sequence data, that’s really all you need. I call bullshit. It appears they are arguing to restrict access to gene sequencing d
by jcoffland 10y ago
> If you can get access to the sequence data, that’s really all you need.
I call bullshit. It appears they are arguing to restrict access to gene sequencing data. If you have the equipment and knowledge to do CRISPR based gene editing then you can likely also do your own sequencing.
- T-A 10y agoIf you are able to acquire and isolate what you're trying to copy. How would you go about recreating smallpox, or a synthetic virus engineered to only affect a specific ethnicity? Conversely, if you're interested in a common pathogen, why bother sequencing it?
- throwanem 10y agoI got the impression that's a claim about identifying engineered attacks, rather than about making them easier to perform. Granted it's been a while since I closely followed the field, but to the best of my knowledge, no one's made significant headway in synthetic organisms since JCVI's initial "hey we invented a prokaryote" splash a few years back. I doubt anyone actually in the field would make a claim to a news organization that access to sequence data would be the highest bar to clear in producing novel engineered pathogens. On the other hand, also to the best of my knowledge, gene editing techniques leave behind traces which are pretty readily identifiable in sequencing results. So the statement makes a lot more sense in that direction. It's just that the article is poorly edited in a way that produces semantic ambiguity.