4 ms·
How will you prevent people from using this technology to create DIY pathogens? If the answer is "I won't" or "it'll be open source, I won't be able to", consid
by PontifexMinimus 4y ago
How will you prevent people from using this technology to create DIY pathogens? If the answer is "I won't" or "it'll be open source, I won't be able to", consider doing something less harmful instead.
- algoatecorn 4y agoSynthesizing oligos is not the same thing as creating an infectious clone. This technology would be used to synthesize primers and custom promoter+gene fragments.
- thfuran 4y agoHow far down this road do you go? Someone engaged in bioweapons manufacturing probably uses laptops and chairs too.
- bqmjjx0kac 4y agoThe difference is that those already exist. I think concern about the development of new technology is valid. Suppose nuclear weapons did not exist and someone was concerned about the Manhattan project — would you say that chairs enable people to build regular bombs, so we shouldn't worry about nuclear bombs?
- f1shy 4y agoThe technology already exist. The OP stated, patents are over, and that is why (s)he is working on it. Even if it not exist, security by obscurity is no security... if anybody can do the tech, the bad guys are going to be as fast, or faster than the good guys... So I hope the good guys do the tech for everybody...
- EricMausler 4y agoYou are severely underplaying how chaotic people can be, and how valuable a barrier to entry is at deterring that chaos from causing damage.
- thfuran 4y agoNuclear bombs have very few uses other than blowing up cities or threatening to do so. DNA synthesis is both of considerable use outside of bioweapons production and not really a critical bottleneck in bioweapons, which is why I'd consider it more like laptops or chairs than like, say ICBM guidance systems or weapons grade enrichment programs.
- renewiltord 4y agoThis specific attitude is something that I have capitalized on in many ways in my life to do well: ad tech, location data, trading. There is massive alpha in not being like this. And if this DNA synthesis thing had some value to me I would gladly do it and may the terrorists breed superbugs from it if they will. Even if you convince him, you won't convince me. I will become even more convinced that I should build the building blocks for extinction weapons. Every time you make this argument, I will move closer to doing it. One day, I will do it just because I can and because you argued I shouldn't. Then your actions will be a proximate cause of the existence of the thing. Ideally, I would not be so controllable but a deep part of me loves the transgressive nature of fighting a puritan.
- FerociousTimes 4y agoAll talk, no action
- renewiltord 4y agoHahaha! Fair fair :D Upvotes for the bants
- throwawaymaths 4y agoPresumably the answer is "do exactly what is done now", which is to say offer the tech as a service (i.e. don't sell the hardware) and screen the uploaded sequence requests for dangerous sequences.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- koeng 4y agoHow about “oligo pool synthesis chips” != “dna synthesis machines” “Harmful” can also be seen the other way. From my view within the industry, it is harmful that the tech does not exist, and the idea of harmfulness is, largely, propaganda perpetuated by elites to maintain the status quo.