Genetic Engineering: Should we be creating 'synthetic life'?

[Sam]

Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009FCA4-1A8F-1085-94F483414B7F0000


Synthetic Life

Biologists are crafting libraries of interchangeable DNA parts and assembling them inside microbes to create programmable, living machines

REDESIGNED VIRUSES will help biologists learn how to build reliable genetic machines...

Evolution is a wellspring of creativity; 3.6 billion years of mutation and competition have endowed living things with an impressive range of useful skills. But there is still plenty of room for improvement. Certain microbes can digest the explosive and carcinogenic chemical TNT, for example--but wouldn't it be handy if they glowed as they did so, highlighting the location of buried land mines or contaminated soil? Wormwood shrubs generate a potent medicine against malaria but only in trace quantities that are expensive to extract. How many millions of lives could be saved if the compound, artemisinin, could instead be synthesized cheaply by vats of bacteria? And although many cancer researchers would trade their eyeteeth for a cell with a built-in, easy-to-read counter that ticks over reliably each time it divides, nature apparently has not deemed such a thing fit enough to survive in the wild.
It may seem a simple matter of genetic engineering to rewire cells to glow in the presence of a particular toxin, to manufacture an intricate drug, or to keep track of the cells' age. But creating such biological devices is far from easy. Biologists have been transplanting genes from one species to another for 30 years, yet genetic engineering is still more of a craft than a mature engineering discipline.

"Say I want to modify a plant so that it changes color in the presence of TNT," posits Drew Endy, a biologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "I can start tweaking genetic pathways in the plant to do that, and if I am lucky, then after a year or two I may get a 'device'--one system. But doing that once doesn't help me build a cell that swims around and eats plaque from artery walls. It doesn't help me grow a little microlens. Basically the current practice produces pieces of art."

...They are designing and building living systems that behave in predictable ways, that use interchangeable parts, and in some cases that operate with an expanded genetic code, which allows them to do things that no natural organism can.

...Each is a piece of DNA that performs a well-characterized function and interacts well with other genetic parts.
This nascent field has three major goals: One, learn about life by building it, rather than by tearing it apart. Two, make genetic engineering worthy of its name--a discipline that continuously improves by standardizing its previous creations and recombining them to make new and more sophisticated systems. And three, stretch the boundaries of life and of machines until the two overlap to yield truly programmable organisms. Already TNT-detecting and artemisinin-producing microbes seem within reach. The current prototypes are relatively primitive, but the vision is undeniably grandthink of it as Life, version 2.0....


Scientific American
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009FCA4-1A8F-1085-94F483414B7F0000

[Sam]

Quite a long article, however it is interesting to read.

'...stretch the boundaries of life and of machines until the two overlap to yield truly programmable organisms'. Quite a scary but exciting idea.

Genetic Engineering can allow so many opportunities for us, however is it right for us to be altering living organisms genes? Or for us to be creating new microbes that can be 'programmed' to do just about waht ever we need them for? Are we playing god? if we continue to alter genes in organisms, does this mean that it could lead to altering genes in humans?

What are peoples views on genetic engineering, should we allow it to happen???

[Guest]

call me clue. Now what's so wrong with genetic enhancements? The only problem is that its a question of immorality.There are very few disadvantages. I think ! In any case think of no more diseases The body could finally surpass many limits. as one person stated. Truly progammable organisms. If u think its not right,ask Yourself didnt God give us brains to better ourselves Just something to think about

[kerry]

However if u are not a christian then u say 'our bodies only evolved to last 40-50yrs our continuing efforts to have longer lives, which ever way we try to do it, will mean that we discover yet another part of our bodies that detiriorate with age and will have to be genetically engineered to last longer. Im no specialist but in my opinion tampering with nature is never a good idea because all of the laws of nature have a purpose. Even disease is there to stop us from having a weak population by 'picking out' those of us not strong enough to survive. We can make ourselves resistant to these diseases but then what do we do about superbugs such as sars? Nature always finds a way no matter what we do we are not invincible, which i supose is the ultimate aim of genetic engineering - to make us invincible, why else change your genes? Therefore what is the point in trying to become invincible (or even immortal) if we know it will never happen?
sorry about the wandering of thought there!

[DolphinDude]

People will grab anything that can waylay their latent fear of death Kerry...its like greed in its most potent form.

Onto the debate...

only problem is that its a question of immorality.

ok Clue, a programmable virus. You can be sure in today's world if the medical profession is using a technology - the military will have been using it AT LEAST five year before hand. A programmable virus could be a weapon of such incredible power that we would *immediately* enter a new Cold War - no pun intended.

What of these terrorist groups whose shadow we seem to be expected to live in mortal fear of these days? Aum Shinrikyo's aim was the avowed destruction of humanity...programmable viruses? yes please.

Anyway I just think you should be aware that an advance in science is always an advance into the partially unknown, and this brings with it inherrant danger - even if the technology stays in the 'right' hands.

My own view is that man cheated nature by needing to live outside his own means to survive. The question for me is "Can we instate a new equilibrium by the continued advancment of technology?" i.e. can we cheat nature so much that we can once again live in harmony with it as any species that is to survive evolution must.

I personally think it is more a question of "is it safe?" at this point than "is it right?" to be playing with genes. The answer is an unnequivacable "no" to it being safe - so the question remains "are we desperate enough to take the risk yet?"...

[mad_scientist]

I agree with dolphin_dude. Thepotential costs of the abuse of these genetically enhanced bacteria or viruses far outweighs the gain of their use in the right hands. Let's face it, if the technology is developed, the military of any country wealthy enough will make some devastating weapon out of it, in the name of national security.

Nevertheless, the fact that such important research must be in any way inhibited for fear of misuse is indeed a shame.However we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that such technology, if it were developed, could be controlled. What with nuclear material capable of making a dirty bomb going missing in Iraq, under the collective noses of the most powerful country, i cannot believe there is a safe way to carry out genetic research. Genetic engineering of micro-organisms is a game that should be played by God alone, as God is the only one who would play by the rules.

[GENEius]

I believe advancements in gene technology will indeed bring problems, some that we may not even realise yet. But if you really do look at all of the benefits that will come out of these advancements, you will realise they far outweigh any theoretical drawbacks.

There will always be people developing drugs and new techniques, whether or not it is banned. Surely it is actually safer to be developing alongside them, so we are aware of the potential damage and any possible cures that these new advancements yield?

I have a friend suffering from EB, the same condition as 'the boy whose skin fell off'. How amazing would it to be able to tell him that he no longer has to live in agony and pain everyday of his life? We now have the information available to us to find a cure, thanks to the human genome project. It would be morally wrong to turn our backs on it.

[Dominus Illuminatio Mea]

There will always be people developing drugs and new techniques, whether or not it is banned. Surely it is actually safer to be developing alongside them, so we are aware of the potential damage and any possible cures that these new advancements yield?

There are always going to be people who kill other people so why not kill people alongside them?

What if you told your friend that in order to save him, another human being was killed? Would he really be happy?

God gave us a conscience so that we would know right from wrong. By playing God we turn are backs on him and say, "No I know what's best for me." God is all knowing and all loving so why try to go against him? It's like spitting in your mother's face.

[chlorine]

I think that there is a natural cure to everything in life (this is true because if God has created diseases he has also created the cures alongside them). Also, instead of scientists wasting their time on genetic engineering they could be discovering natural cures to cancer. HIV/AIDS and so on! In fact there are scientists which have found cures to HIV/AIDS but they do not want to use them. If they do, then the pharmacuetical/medical companies will lose money due to everyone being cured! so no one will obtain the cheap low-down medicine from those chaep pharmacuetical/medical companies.
And... in my opinion (there was a huge debate about this) that the people who are taking part in creating 'synthetic life' by using genetic engineering is all somehow related to free masonary! This is because unfortunatley they want to recreate god's creations themselves!

[Dominus Illuminatio Mea]

Also, instead of scientists wasting their time on genetic engineering they could be discovering natural cures to cancer. HIV/AIDS and so on!

I agree!

[GENEius]

[quote]By playing God we turn are backs on him and say, "No I know what's best for me." God is all knowing and all loving so why try to go against him? It's like spitting in your mother's face.

Why is wanting to help someone going against God's will?! He gave us brains, and He knew exactly what we could and would do with them.

Anyway, surely developing cures for diseases is not going to help terrorists or aid warfare? In fact, its doing the opposite.

I do see your point of view, and I have to say I used to agree. But since doing some work experience at a small company who were trying to find a new way to detect and cure disease, I have radically changed my views. The methods they were using and developing could have no other implications than to help the sick. Sure, some new technology may somehow be used by terrorists, but not all new developments are bad.

[Dominus Illuminatio Mea]

The end doesn't justify the means. Good cannot come from evil. Basic principal. Yes he gave us brains and knew what we would do with them but that doesn't mean everything we do is good. He knew we would kill people as well but th important thing is he gave us free will. God loves us infinitely and if he made us all robots which couldn't do anything but good that wouldn't be loving. He let us choose whether or not to be good.

Some way or another terrorists will get a hold on the research and use it to achieve their ends.

Not all genetic research is bad of course. It's like any other tool it can be manipulated for good or bad. Like the Internet. Some use it for studying others to download **** but the tool itself is neither good nor bad. What Sam is talking about is altering the genetic code to create "super" organisms. If carried out on humans this would turn our view of ourselves as machines with a finite value, degrading us and lead us to sort the "productive" from the "unproductive". Plus it's playing God as stated which is always dangerous as we can't control it.

[DolphinDude]

Some way or another terrorists will get a hold on the research and use it to achieve their ends.

This eternal fear of terrorists is starting to bug me. We are so afraid of ourselves. I wish people would show so much abject fear towards matter of environmental damage; maybe then we'd get something done.

If carried out on humans this would turn our view of ourselves as machines with a finite value, degrading us and lead us to sort the "productive" from the "unproductive".

I swear we are already viewed in this way.

Nano-technology is still in its infancy, and there are so many projections of its eventual use, that pigeon-holing it into either "could be a terrorist weapon" or "could clone humans" is not a very productive approach.

[Dominus Illuminatio Mea]

This eternal fear of terrorists is starting to bug me. We are so afraid of ourselves. I wish people would show so much abject fear towards matter of environmental damage; maybe then we'd get something done.

Because man has been tempted since his very existence. There's a reason to be afraid.

You're saying environmental issues are more important than ethical ones?

[DolphinDude]

Your saying environmental issues are more important than ethical ones?

I assume that was a "you're" question. What I said was that we spend so long chasing shadows that don't exist we end up blundering into yawning chasms.

Sure there is some terrorism in the world, but we cannot ignore everything else to indulge our own feelings of social and moral superiority, well founded or not.