4 ms·

Call for 'artificial life' DNA ban

15 points by mattmaroon 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
nostromo 16y ago
Well, on a positive note, if they ban the research in the UK, it'll mean more biotech jobs for everyone else. :)
younata 16y ago
While this could potentially lead to very bad things, it could just as likely lead to a betterment of humanity. I think that, in a few years or so, the kidney-growth pill McCoy gave to the old lady in The Voyage Home could be possible.
- nostromo 16y ago
  I can imagine an organism that eats oil and poops something enviro-neutral would come in quite handy right now.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Let's hope that neutrality extends to fish-oil.
  - Scriptor 16y ago
    The problem is that those organisms will grow very quickly and are prone to mutations. You'd end up with a huge population of rapidly evolving critters, something you can never predict.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      We have this problem without any DNA manipulation. Ever heard of MRSA?
      - Scriptor 16y ago
        They're not really equivalent. MRSA evolved in hospitals from whatever strains were resistant to drugs. Otherwise it's been in the environment for a while and there's not really an ecological risk. On the other hand, we have no idea how a completely synthetic life-form will end up in the environment. They could be just like other organisms, or we might unwittingly give them a huge advantage in some way that causes them to outcompete others.
  - stellar678 16y ago
    We already have that - it's called mycoremediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoremediation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoremediation Oyster mushrooms (yep, the ones you can buy in the store) do a great job.
- pjscott 16y ago
  Kidneys are actually more likely to be grown in vitro from your stem cells, using some sort of scaffolding material, and then implanted into you. They're one of the simpler organs, so I think they'll be one of the earlier spectacular applications of tissue engineering.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    Still, I'd prefer swallowing a pill to an operation.
RevRal 16y ago
Whenever I see something like this, I ask myself: "should we have banned the use of fossil fuel when it was first being harnessed?" The answer to myself is always: no.
- ericd 16y ago
  I think the more apt question is: "should we have banned the use of nuclear tech when it was first being harnessed". Also no, at least for me, since I think it's one of the few viable alternative energy sources, but we wouldn't have needed a doomsday clock if we hadn't.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    I'm pretty sure that we could kill off the human race with plenty of other weapons. Conventional explosives are not too nice to the human body. Neither are swords or pointy sticks, for that matter. (The problem is not nuclear weapons, the problem is people that want to kill other people.)
    - electromagnetic 16y ago
      Nuclear weapons are simply a shortcut, genocide and scorched earth tactics have always been prevalent in warfare - you just couldn't do both at once on such a grand scale. The game changer that was nuclear weapons likely saved the planet. Instead of dropping real bombs, causing real fires, spreading real land mines and chemical agents, etc, that we had been building for a half-century . . . suddenly we stopped. There weren't any grand wars and there hasn't been since the end of WW2, the planet is truly quiet. Nuclear weapons was almost like someone pulling a knife in a brawl and everyone backing away. We saw what the end result was and we didn't want it. I love all the doomsday stuff, but really nuclear weapons are the greatest invention because by and large they ended warfare on the global scale.
      - jrockway 16y ago
        For rational actors, nuclear weapons are great. The problem is, the irrational actors are starting to get them, and then mutually assured destruction doesn't buy us anything. There is no enemy to destroy.
edj 16y ago
The more we know the better. Research should not be banned. That said, caution should be present with the application of radical new technologies. The nuclear test ban treaty seems like a net-win, for example.
sown 16y ago
Banning it in one country simply guarantees that another country achieves supremacy first, leaving the UK behind.
- jrockway 16y ago
  At least the UK will always be ahead of the world in TV Detector Van innovation.
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    Yeah, except all those hippies who can't afford their TV license fee also happen to have lava and fiberoptic lamps making that whole 'looking through your window to watch the reflected colour patterns' creepy shit kind of pointless.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
      I'm not in the UK, but I think they just scan for the intermediate frequency used by TV receivers. The receiver combines the TV signal with another signal that's something like 10 or 16 MHz away from the broadcast frequency, in a way that results in the TV signal being shifted down to ~10-16MHz, where it is easier to decode. Some of that additional signal leaks back through the antenna, or is otherwise emitted by the equipment. For example, to see if you're watching a station at 87MHz, they'd scan for emissions at 77 or 97MHz. No window spying necessary. Corrections by those better versed than I in RF electronics and antenna theory are welcome.

15 points by mattmaroon 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

nostromo 16y ago

Well, on a positive note, if they ban the research in the UK, it'll mean more biotech jobs for everyone else. :)

younata 16y ago

While this could potentially lead to very bad things, it could just as likely lead to a betterment of humanity. I think that, in a few years or so, the kidney-growth pill McCoy gave to the old lady in The Voyage Home could be possible.

nostromo 16y ago
I can imagine an organism that eats oil and poops something enviro-neutral would come in quite handy right now.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Let's hope that neutrality extends to fish-oil.
- Scriptor 16y ago
  The problem is that those organisms will grow very quickly and are prone to mutations. You'd end up with a huge population of rapidly evolving critters, something you can never predict.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    We have this problem without any DNA manipulation. Ever heard of MRSA?
    - Scriptor 16y ago
      They're not really equivalent. MRSA evolved in hospitals from whatever strains were resistant to drugs. Otherwise it's been in the environment for a while and there's not really an ecological risk. On the other hand, we have no idea how a completely synthetic life-form will end up in the environment. They could be just like other organisms, or we might unwittingly give them a huge advantage in some way that causes them to outcompete others.
- stellar678 16y ago
  We already have that - it's called mycoremediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoremediation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycoremediation Oyster mushrooms (yep, the ones you can buy in the store) do a great job.
pjscott 16y ago
Kidneys are actually more likely to be grown in vitro from your stem cells, using some sort of scaffolding material, and then implanted into you. They're one of the simpler organs, so I think they'll be one of the earlier spectacular applications of tissue engineering.
- Tichy 16y ago
  Still, I'd prefer swallowing a pill to an operation.

RevRal 16y ago

Whenever I see something like this, I ask myself: "should we have banned the use of fossil fuel when it was first being harnessed?" The answer to myself is always: no.

ericd 16y ago
I think the more apt question is: "should we have banned the use of nuclear tech when it was first being harnessed". Also no, at least for me, since I think it's one of the few viable alternative energy sources, but we wouldn't have needed a doomsday clock if we hadn't.
- jrockway 16y ago
  I'm pretty sure that we could kill off the human race with plenty of other weapons. Conventional explosives are not too nice to the human body. Neither are swords or pointy sticks, for that matter. (The problem is not nuclear weapons, the problem is people that want to kill other people.)
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    Nuclear weapons are simply a shortcut, genocide and scorched earth tactics have always been prevalent in warfare - you just couldn't do both at once on such a grand scale. The game changer that was nuclear weapons likely saved the planet. Instead of dropping real bombs, causing real fires, spreading real land mines and chemical agents, etc, that we had been building for a half-century . . . suddenly we stopped. There weren't any grand wars and there hasn't been since the end of WW2, the planet is truly quiet. Nuclear weapons was almost like someone pulling a knife in a brawl and everyone backing away. We saw what the end result was and we didn't want it. I love all the doomsday stuff, but really nuclear weapons are the greatest invention because by and large they ended warfare on the global scale.
    - jrockway 16y ago
      For rational actors, nuclear weapons are great. The problem is, the irrational actors are starting to get them, and then mutually assured destruction doesn't buy us anything. There is no enemy to destroy.

edj 16y ago

The more we know the better. Research should not be banned. That said, caution should be present with the application of radical new technologies. The nuclear test ban treaty seems like a net-win, for example.

sown 16y ago

Banning it in one country simply guarantees that another country achieves supremacy first, leaving the UK behind.

jrockway 16y ago
At least the UK will always be ahead of the world in TV Detector Van innovation.
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  Yeah, except all those hippies who can't afford their TV license fee also happen to have lava and fiberoptic lamps making that whole 'looking through your window to watch the reflected colour patterns' creepy shit kind of pointless.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    I'm not in the UK, but I think they just scan for the intermediate frequency used by TV receivers. The receiver combines the TV signal with another signal that's something like 10 or 16 MHz away from the broadcast frequency, in a way that results in the TV signal being shifted down to ~10-16MHz, where it is easier to decode. Some of that additional signal leaks back through the antenna, or is otherwise emitted by the equipment. For example, to see if you're watching a station at 87MHz, they'd scan for emissions at 77 or 97MHz. No window spying necessary. Corrections by those better versed than I in RF electronics and antenna theory are welcome.