Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Life

[FVZA_Colonel]

Source: Wired

Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life
By Alexis Madrigal

A team of biologists and chemists is closing in on bringing non-living matter to life.

It's not as Frankensteinian as it sounds. Instead, a lab led by Jack Szostak, a molecular biologist at Harvard Medical School, is building simple cell models that can almost be called life.

Szostak's protocells are built from fatty molecules that can trap bits of nucleic acids that contain the source code for replication. Combined with a process that harnesses external energy from the sun or chemical reactions, they could form a self-replicating, evolving system that satisfies the conditions of life, but isn't anything like life on earth now, but might represent life as it began or could exist elsewhere in the universe.

While his latest work remains unpublished, Szostak described preliminary new success in getting protocells with genetic information inside them to replicate at the XV International Conference on the Origin of Life in Florence, Italy, last week. The replication isn't wholly autonomous, so it's not quite artificial life yet, but it is as close as anyone has ever come to turning chemicals into biological organisms.

Read more: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/biologists-on-t.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp

[On the Road]

1. This is Really Amazing

I don't understand how they're doing this, but it's impressive it can be done at all.

[TrogL]

2. I wish they wouldn't waste time on this.

We need molecules to fix existing problems, such as organ replacement. How about a more efficient kidney or pancreas.

[4lbs]

3. That's what embryonic stem cells are for.

Or.....

* gasp *

limited human cloning.

[bitchkitty]

11. If they can create life itself, then

they can use that knowledge to create new organs.

Technology can sink us, or save us. This is an example of the potential for the latter.

[JonQ]

12. Most of science is a waste of time

if you only look at the immediate, real world applications. But it tends to add up and pay off later down the road.

Nothing that Einstein came up with had direct real world applications. He didn't cure cancer or discover atomic energy (even though he does tend to get the credit) but I'd hardly call his work a waste of time.

[physioex]

27. Are you serious?

Without the theory of relativity, our GPS systems would not work. The clock on earth does not go at the same rate as the clock on the satellite.

[JonQ]

28. Like I said

if you only look at the direct, real world applications. Einstein wasn't designing clocks for satellites, his theory didn't cure cancer or solve any of the major problems, at that moment. But in the future it paid off, which is exactly the point I was making.

[Occulus]

30. True, but Einstein's work only *enabled* those things

He didn't invent the GPS, or the telecommunications satellite, or the design of nuclear reactors- or nuclear bombs. Einstein only unlocked the ability to produce those technologies.

Lots and lots of scientists stand on the shoulders of giants to do what they do. There's nothing wrong with that! It's just how things are done and, while I wouldn't go so far as to say that much of science is exactly a waste of time, the fruits of scientists' labors are often seen many years down the road. That's just the nature of the beast.

[JonQ]

33. I think there has been some misunderstanding

as to the intent of my first comment. I am not coming out against this research, I think it's a great idea and we ought to pursue it. I was refuting the notion one person had that this won't yield any obvious, immediate benefit, so it should be ignored.

Many lines of research don't yield any obvious, immediate benefit, but do pay off down the line. So it's still worthwhile pursuing it, even if this instance does turn out to be a dead end. That was my point.

[sudopod]

18. *Facepalm* nt

[slackmaster]

21. Thank you, Major Buzzkill

:argh:

[Occulus]

29. How about an artificial symbiotic bacterium

that takes cholesterol into itself, enters the digestive system, and exits the body?

How about artificial life that helps boost the human immune system by manufacturing additional antibodies, or one that excretes insulin by chemically altering a substance in the blood?

The applications of such biotechnology as in the OP are as endless as the problems we all have in our bodies at some point. Applied nanotechnology combined with artificial life would- not could- usher in a Golden Age of human biology (which would also, by the way, make manned space exploration and colonization absolutely necessary as the human population exploded).

[Regret My New Name]

4. Yeah right.. Biologists don't have sex...

[ozu]

32. ha

This needs to get some love. (Even if biologists don't)

[cobalt1999]

5. So cool. There will go one more talking point creationist use.

I can't wait.

[kayell]

14. No, they'll go rabidly insane because scientists are USURPING the

rights of almighty GAWD. And then comes the backlash to protect their almighty, omniscient, all-powerful, omnipotent, poor little GAWD. No one actually said fundamentalists had to be consistent or rational did they?

[cobalt1999]

20. That might be even more fun.

Just the entertainment value of watching the fundamentalists go crazy will be worth it all.

[kayell]

35. I'll bring the popcorn

Can you bring the beer?

[slackmaster]

22. That sounds pretty entertaining to me

Bring it on!

[Zhade]

25. How can things that don't even exist (as far as we know due to the lack of evidence) have rights?

Those people are mentally lacking.

[Occulus]

31. We could always throw it right back into their faces

If we were created in God's image, then we were ourselves created to be creators.

Thus, the creation of artificial life is a step on the road to becoming gods ourselves, which is what was always intended for us from the beginning.

If we were to somehow create an artificial universe in which life would eventually develop, we could truthfully say that we are gods as far as that life would be concerned.

Hilarity would ensue as those people tried to wrap their minds around it.

[kayell]

36. But of course GAWD exists

The Bible says so. And we know it's the inerrant work of GAWD. So it must be true. So GAWD exists.

You just have to think about these things logically.

[hunter]

6. Old life will have it for breakfast.

The ultimate Frankenfood for Bacteria and Fungi.

[magellan]

7. Way cool. From what I read about this

...somewhere else (SciAm?) they can get the genetic material to replicate within the protocell, but haven't figured out how to make the cell divide and replicate itself. Yet.

[Pale Blue Dot]

8. There goes one of the last holes you could fill with "God".

Contrary to what others may try to argue, science IS the death of religion, and rightly so.

[pipi_k]

17. If not the death of religion, then hopefully at least

a crippling blow against the crazy fundamentalists.

I mean, I do know some people who call themselves Christians who are able to hold conflicting thoughts in their heads at one time and still be able to function. They're able to connect the dots, so to speak, between Science and Religion and live with a fair compromise.

But the crazies....the ones who go rooting through the Bible looking for parts and pieces to string together to bolster their own beliefs...they're the ones whose brains get fried to a crisp when they're given two opposing viewpoints to consider. Crazy ass fundies and their ilk...

I'm a big believer in Science, but I'm not sure I would totally write off religion...if only just the Spiritual aspect of it.

Although if all religion died right this minute, I would not exactly mourn for it, either...

:evilgrin:

[Zhade]

26. Connecting the dots that way, despite the lack of evidence (and justification) to do so, IS crazy.

I know they're probably nice people, but it's still unsupported irrational thinking.

[tribeofdot]

9. Hmmmm hopefully this doesn't go all "I am Legend" on us.

I believe that and several other movies whose names I can't remember come to mind.

best to keep whatever they cook up well contained.

[Posteritatis]

34. If movies' portrayal of science was anything close to reality

We'd already be extinct.

I prefer to base my evaluation of science and technology in the real world, not in the increasingly-luddite "science fiction" pumped out of Hollywood these days.

[dawgmom]

37. Bravo -- well said

The fear of science in this country truly reflects the lack of good science education in the schools, and it's only getting worse. Hell, look at the post-doc population in most of the labs in this country. A HUGE proportion of them are Chinese, Japanese, Indian. Just another area where we're lagging behind the world.

[happygoluckytoyou]

10. IF IT HAS NO BRAIN... what is the use of another REPUBLICAN life form ?

[ElboRuum]

13. Slashdot tag: whatcouldpossiblygowrong

[fascisthunter]

15. So When it is Alive, will the Anti-choicers Embrace it

and come to its defense???? Afterall, it's life.

[kayell]

16. Only if it is implanted in a uterus whose owner the thugs would like to

oppress. Born life doesn't count until it's old enough to enlist. And then only because it's expendable.

[pipi_k]

19. Yeah, I suspect they don't call 'em

embryos or fetuses in private...

they call 'em Little Unborn Soldiers



maybe they even have ecstatic daydreams of tiny little ovum dressed up in desert or jungle camo complete with microscopic rifles slung over their little round ovum shoulders


scary!

[damntexdem]

23. I thought McCain already did that with Palin. `

But maybe the biologists can create a non-virulent form of life.

[borelord]

24. WE ARE GODS!!!!!!!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!




neat.