About 5 years ago, I predicted to a fellow (I’m not 100% sure if it was here on the Dope) that was upset at cloning for religious reasons that: “do you think cloning is bad? Wait until scientists come with artificial life! Looking at the reports, it is clear to me biologists are close to achieving that.”
IIRC the context of that discussion was that for all that man can do, still only god can make life, I mentioned then that that was not a good point to use for it would blow up soon in the face of that believer.
So it came sooner than I expected: the “it’s alive” moment is here (or almost here)
This bit is to me the most puzzling item. AFAIR the controversy in patenting was that biology and Pharma companies are patenting genes, bacteria and even animals for items that have been the result of using or modifying what nature already provided. What do you mean the genes in my family do not belong to me or to humanity?
In the case of artificial life, patenting should not be a big deal IMO.
Indeed, what does it mean? Will we see yet another scientific item that will be politicized or lysenkoed? Do I even have to guess what will be the political party in America that most likely will butt in to stop science?
Another subject: Will religious people still insist that Only God Can Make a Tree? Or that only God can make life?
They’ll claim that it’s not “real” life or a “real” tree, that it lacks something or other subtle that only those as enlightened as themselves understand. People did that with compact discs ( “they lack the essential microbes of sound” ); why not do it with life ?
The religious will accept that God doesn’t necessarily have a monopoly on the life-creation business, but still go about being religious as ever, possibly claiming that it was never their argument to begin with. Sort of like discovering the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth.
Although I’d like to point out that he’s closer to having created a glorified virus then a true synthetic organism. Still. Cool. This is the kind of bioengineering i’d like to do when I get my PhD. It has great potential to advance biotechnology.
The term “patenting genes” is misleading. If I discover that gene X is involved in disease Y, I have to, first of all, provide some pretty good evidence that this is the case. I then have to outline a specific method of how gene X could be of therapeutic or diagnostic value for the disease.
So, I would have to provide a detailed account of how I would block gene X (with specific small molecule inhibitors or antibodies or siRNA, etc) or how I would use the gene to diagnose the disease.
What is patented then, is these methods and products, not the gene itself. So, there can be innumerable patents on a given gene by different people if someone else comes up with something else that can be done with the gene that isn’t covered by the first patent.
That being said, these patents can be disgustingly vague and include everything that you can think of, just in case.
Won’t the religious just claim that even though humankind has created artificial life, that it is actually God who created that life, just using humans as a “tool” to do the work?
How is this different from traditional biological research,such as cross-breeding?
These scientists “created” life by copying the DNA of another living organism, and then removing one fifth of the genes–(i.e. the ones unique to that organism.) What they are left with is a new creature, a new form of life.
But nature performs pretty much the same process, doesn’t it?The first farmer who cross-bred a horse with a donkey to create a mule created a new form of life .
In 1931, scientists created a new fruit called a tangelo by crossbreeding a tangerine with a grapefruit.This was long before DNA’s structure was discovered, but even without understanding all the details, it was still possible to combine the genetic material in the seed of of fruit with the genes in the pollen of another species, and to “create life”.
Philosophically, is the creation of the tangelo or the mule different than the creation of a single-celled organism?
Of course, this new method is exciting, because it gives us greater control in the laboratory over the biological processes. But the excitement is only because of the technology, not the philosophy.
Of course they can, the problem to me (and I think very religious people will ignore) is that it is very likely then that we are not really the end result of creation, instead we are a stepping stone to something better, of course this train of thought leads one to then doubt even more the idea of salvation and the basis many Christians and other faiths have.
Evolutionary speaking, this and other future big steps in bioengineering show to me that we also have to get rid of the idea that we are the ultimate result of evolution or that we will remain the same for a long time.*
As I remember reading of how biologists found that the genetic code had many flaws or junk DNA and genes. What this research will show is that there is so much room for improvement that many in the future will wonder why some had the idea we are so special or that we were designed intelligently.
*Relatively speaking, one has to remember that when something succeeds in surviving well, than then very little change takes place, some species of dinosaurs lasted hundreds of millions of years with basically the same shape.
Well, you do answer that yourself on the post. In crossbreeding you still copy all the previous junk, not so in this method, just there we have a big difference.
Another difference is that this does open the door to add new processes or properties to the new organism with expected results, something crossbreeders had to do with trial and error and persistence and still even after all this time they do not get it quite right.
I would expect if crossbreeders had this synthetic capability in the past that they would had made sure that the mules could reproduce.
That’s why I stated that this is not such a revolutionary philosphical change. It is just better technology. Instead of trial-and-error, we can manipulate genes more precisely. But the end result is the same–a totally new creature never seen before on earth.
A thousand years ago–the mule (an improved beast of burden)
In 1931–the tangelo (an improved fruit)
Today–a string of 381 genes named Mycoplasma laboratorium. ( an improved,…well… what ???)
The technology is new and exciting. The philosophy is old and unchanged.
A delegation of scientists called and God and said he should retire. “We don’t need you any more. We can do anything you can do now – even create life. Look, we’ll prove it! We challenge you to a man-making contest!”
God said, “OK, but I’m an old-fashioned guy and we’ll have to do it the old-fashioned way – starting with nothing but dirt.”
The scientists went into a huddle. Finally the spokesman said, “We can handle that!” He bent down to grab a handful of dirt.
God said, “Oh, no! Oh, no! You have to get your own dirt!”
I think it’s more likely that those inclined to argue about it would insist that it demonstrates that life can’t arise without deliberate intelligent action - In fact, I’ve seen examples of that argument being prepared in readiness for any news that test tube life looks possible.
Scientist : “But then we’d have to fire up GOD. 2.0 to do that, and He’s still a beta version. All, you know, wrathy and jealous and prone to smiting. My supervisor’s a Wiccan, and his eyebrows still haven’t grown back from the last time.”
Quite possible. Or even more likely, different groups will come up with different reasons why it doesn’t count.
This is a technically interesting but far from revolutionary advancement.
To say that he’s a created a completely synthetic form of life is a huge stretch, and based on the reporting, I can’t figure out if it’s the fault of Dr. Venter’s slight tendency towards hyperbolic self-promotion or half-brained science reporters.
All he’s done is created an entirely synthetic chromosome which can be used to transform an already existing (and completely non-synthetic in origin) bacterium. Again, technically interesting, but far from even Nobel Prize winning stuff. Perhaps not even the biotech event of the month, let alone year.
The religious people will now say, “Great! You have just proven our point of Intelligent Design! A totally original life form was created, based on your design. It did not just come into being based on random events, the way you atheists insist it had to happen.”
Sorry, folks, you’ve just given the Kansas School Board more ammo.