# “It's alive!” The implications of the world's first truly synthetic organism. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 7, 2007, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802 "2007-10-07T00:03:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/1 "2007-10-07T00:03:49Z")
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) > **[I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange)** > > Craig Venter, the controversial DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial life form on... > [@](#): > > I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer > > Craig Venter, the controversial DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth. > The announcement, which is expected within weeks and could come as early as Monday at the annual meeting of his scientific institute in San Diego, California, will herald a giant leap forward in the development of designer genomes. It is certain to provoke heated debate about the ethics of creating new species and could unlock the door to new energy sources and techniques to combat global warming. > Mr Venter told the Guardian he thought this landmark would be “a very important philosophical step in the history of our species. We are going from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it. That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before”. > The Guardian can reveal that a team of 20 top scientists assembled by Mr Venter, led by the Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith, has already constructed a synthetic chromosome, a feat of virtuoso bio-engineering never previously achieved. Using lab-made chemicals, they have painstakingly stitched together a chromosome that is 381 genes long and contains 580,000 base pairs of genetic code. > The DNA sequence is based on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium which the team pared down to the bare essentials needed to support life, removing a fifth of its genetic make-up. The wholly synthetically reconstructed chromosome, which the team have christened Mycoplasma laboratorium, has been watermarked with inks for easy recognition. > … > Mr Venter said he had carried out an ethical review before completing the experiment. “We feel that this is good science,” he said. He has further heightened the controversy surrounding his potential breakthrough by applying for a patent for the synthetic bacterium. 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. > [@](#): > > Pat Mooney, director of a Canadian bioethics organization, ETC group, said the move was an enormous challenge to society to debate the risks involved. “Governments, and society in general, is way behind the ball. This is a wake-up call - what does it mean to create new life forms in a test-tube?” 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? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/2 "2007-10-07T00:17:29Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Another subject: Will religious people still insist that Only God Can Make a Tree? Or that only God can make life? [/QUOTE] 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 ? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/3 "2007-10-07T02:13:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Harmonix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Harmonix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harmonix)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/4 "2007-10-07T02:34:01Z")
Cool. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/5 "2007-10-07T13:42:44Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] 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? [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![kitemaker\_chuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a88e4f/32.png) [@kitemaker\_chuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kitemaker_chuck)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/6 "2007-10-07T16:37:12Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/7 "2007-10-07T18:53:27Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] Indeed, what does it mean? [/QUOTE] 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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/8 "2007-10-07T18:59:50Z")
[QUOTE=kitemaker\_chuck] 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? [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/9 "2007-10-07T19:23:27Z")
[QUOTE=chappachula] How is this different from traditional biological research,such as cross-breeding? [/quote] 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. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/10 "2007-10-07T19:52:52Z")
[QUOTE=GIGObuster] I would expect if crossbreeders had this synthetic capability in the past that they would had made sure that the mules could reproduce. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/11 "2007-10-07T21:57:16Z")
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!” ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/12 "2007-10-07T23:14:20Z")
FTR, let it be known that I find this development a little scary. But I predict that in five years time I’ll be used to it. It won’t even merit a shrug. Others may take a while longer to come around. But talk of medical breakthroughs will in the end calm the populace (and myself). ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2007, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/13 "2007-10-07T23:53:02Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] 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 ? [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/14 "2007-10-08T01:36:47Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 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!” [/QUOTE] 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.” [QUOTE=Mangetout] 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. [/QUOTE] Quite possible. Or even more likely, different groups will come up with different reasons why it doesn’t count. ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/15 "2007-10-08T01:54:36Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Slypork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@Slypork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slypork)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/16 "2007-10-08T14:21:56Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/17 "2007-10-08T14:24:31Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. “Clones are made by fools like me But only God can make a Tree.” – extreme apologies to JK ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2007, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-alive-the-implications-of-the-worlds-first-truly-synthetic-organism/421802/18 "2007-10-08T15:22:03Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 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!” [/QUOTE] Thanks, I got a great laugh over that, and it does show show the futility of the threat to faith this has.