3 ms·

Scaling up the a new product to suddenly feed everyone on Earth based on its current low-volume tech seems like a pointless analysis. The only interesting thin

Scaling up the a new product to suddenly feed everyone on Earth based on its current low-volume tech seems like a pointless analysis. The only interesting thing about the article is going to be how the headline will probably compel HNers to go into the same old hobby horse rant against lab-grown meat.

falcor84 3y ago
Why pointless? The authors ran a detailed analysis, identified a bottleneck (the endotoxin purification) and made a recommendation that effort be made to tackle that bottleneck by engineering cell lines that can withstand higher amounts of endotoxins. To me this sounds as useful as science can be.
- ausbah 3y ago
  emphasis on "the headline" as they will literally only "read the headline"
- yannyu 3y ago
  The study may be good, but the headline and the obvious slant of the article are as unscientific as you can get. Pop science journalism is abysmal, and this is a good example of it.
- TSiege 3y ago
  Maybe I don't understand this statment, but wouldn't it be bad to have endotoxins in your food anyways?
  - ImHereToVote 3y ago
    It might be very good for the environment.
jofer 3y ago
It is very fair to point out that synthetic processes often have significant side effects. Biodiesel made from corn is a great example of "right intent, wrong overall effect" (though arguably the goal of biodiesel from corn was always more focused on energy independence than on any environment benefits). Back to the topic at hand, though. Purely from a climate perspective, does it actually make sense to target lab grown chicken? Chickens are something that can be raised with a much lower carbon footprint than beef. Are things like an impossible burger simply a better substitute right now? Should we be focused on culturing cells or on "faking" it with plant proteins? I'm not saying I have answers, and I'm not opposed to lab-grown meat in principle (I think it's damned cool), but it's fair to ask whether or not it makes sense to try to scale up a process that may be worse than "business as usual". The article also gives very useful feedback on scaling things up, as well. It's pretty damned interesting.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Also, could we grow feed for cows in more efficient manner maybe in areas where there are plentiful resources and other type of agriculture don't make as much sense? And could we with some process eliminate part of effective emissions like methane? Somehow it feels weird that beef gets attacked in ways let's say vegan food as worst case doesn't. Should we brand all vegan food bad if some of it is grown with desalinated water in article circle with artificial lighting and heating during winter?

falcor84 3y ago

Why pointless? The authors ran a detailed analysis, identified a bottleneck (the endotoxin purification) and made a recommendation that effort be made to tackle that bottleneck by engineering cell lines that can withstand higher amounts of endotoxins. To me this sounds as useful as science can be.

ausbah 3y ago
emphasis on "the headline" as they will literally only "read the headline"
yannyu 3y ago
The study may be good, but the headline and the obvious slant of the article are as unscientific as you can get. Pop science journalism is abysmal, and this is a good example of it.
TSiege 3y ago
Maybe I don't understand this statment, but wouldn't it be bad to have endotoxins in your food anyways?
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  It might be very good for the environment.

jofer 3y ago

It is very fair to point out that synthetic processes often have significant side effects. Biodiesel made from corn is a great example of "right intent, wrong overall effect" (though arguably the goal of biodiesel from corn was always more focused on energy independence than on any environment benefits). Back to the topic at hand, though. Purely from a climate perspective, does it actually make sense to target lab grown chicken? Chickens are something that can be raised with a much lower carbon footprint than beef. Are things like an impossible burger simply a better substitute right now? Should we be focused on culturing cells or on "faking" it with plant proteins? I'm not saying I have answers, and I'm not opposed to lab-grown meat in principle (I think it's damned cool), but it's fair to ask whether or not it makes sense to try to scale up a process that may be worse than "business as usual". The article also gives very useful feedback on scaling things up, as well. It's pretty damned interesting.

Ekaros 3y ago
Also, could we grow feed for cows in more efficient manner maybe in areas where there are plentiful resources and other type of agriculture don't make as much sense? And could we with some process eliminate part of effective emissions like methane? Somehow it feels weird that beef gets attacked in ways let's say vegan food as worst case doesn't. Should we brand all vegan food bad if some of it is grown with desalinated water in article circle with artificial lighting and heating during winter?