View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
pkang0202

Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject: Scientist apply for patents on first synthetic life form |
|
|
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/scientists_appl.html
Scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute have applied for a U.S. patent on a minimal bacterial genome that they built themselves.
This is a bigger deal than cloning. Should we even be creating our own life forms? Granted, right now its only simple proteins however, the future implications could be monumental.
Scenario 1: Scientists can "construct" their own bacteria/viruses to combat life threatening disease. Also, these new life forms could help the human body repair and increase our lifespans.
Scenario 2: Scientists attempt to create a synthetic life form that ends up mutating/evolving to be extremely dangerous. Since it was synthetically created, there is nothing available to combat/destroy such a dangerous life form.
All I know is that this story opens up a whole new slew of sci-fi books. Hundreds of years down the road, will we be "designing" and "creating" new life forms?
This topic raises a lot of interesting "what ifs" |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Treefarmer

Joined: 29 May 2007
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the really scary thing is that just like the sci-fi predicted, we are developing al of these technologies at a time when the world is still so badly organised
it is still a long way off where the nightmare scenario of some sort of evil beast escapes from a lab and destroys the world is possible tho..... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We've invented and discovered a lot of things that can wipe out humans a billion times over. A hammer can kill or build a home. A bit of ricin can kill thousands. It can also be used to target cancer. I'm happy to bet anything with equal potential for good and evil will, given the complex balance we've created in western society, be overwhelming used for good. The public debate finds a way. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
pkang0202

Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think so. Slicing genes and DNA of biological life forms that already exist is one thing. Creating a new life form from scratch is something else altogether.
The techniques used may be essentially the same, but the semantics are completely different. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Cease and Desist: Your client has breeched our patents by making an unauthorized copy of our product when she gave birth to a counterfeit product.
|
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
the_beaver

Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:11 am Post subject: Re: Scientist apply for patents on first synthetic life form |
|
|
pkang0202 wrote: |
Scenario 2: Scientists attempt to create a synthetic life form that ends up mutating/evolving to be extremely dangerous. Since it was synthetically created, there is nothing available to combat/destroy such a dangerous life form. |
You watch too many sci-fi movies. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
pkang0202 wrote: |
I don't think so. Slicing genes and DNA of biological life forms that already exist is one thing. Creating a new life form from scratch is something else altogether.
The techniques used may be essentially the same, but the semantics are completely different. |
Not really. I won't bog you down with the details, but instead of splicing one gene into an existing DNA, they spliced several genes together to create a new DNA (and bacterial DNA is pretty darn simple...which is why it has been so studied). Think of splicing a gene into an existing DNA as splicing a big and a small piece together. They spliced many small pieces together to make a whole. So, no, they didn't create life (the parts were already 'alive') and aren't playing god. The article is actually more concerned with the patenting of the new bacteria and the legal precedents it sets. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|