Worlds first genome transplant turns one species into another

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
Scientists have apparently converted one species of micro-organism into another by transplanting DNA.

It is claimed that this will lead to the ability to design new organisms which could be used to generate new “green” fuels.

However, it is also feared that the process could be used to create new biological weapons.

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday June 29, 2007
The Guardian

Scientists have converted an organism into an entirely different species by performing the world's first genome transplant, a breakthrough that paves the way for the creation of synthetic forms of life.

The team, led by Craig Venter, the man who raced to sequence the human genome, wants to build new microbes to produce environmentally friendly fuels.

The group's study, details of which were revealed in the US journal Science yesterday, proves it is possible to transplant a complete set of genetic instructions into an organism, in effect turning it into the same species the DNA was taken from.

The proof of principle experiment solves the first of two big difficulties which have hindered the creation of artificial life. The team, based at Dr Venter's not-for-profit institute in Rockville, Maryland, now hopes to overcome the second hurdle, by designing new genetic codes on computers and transplanting them into organisms to produce new life forms.

The team is focusing on creating micro-organisms which produce green fuels as natural waste products. "One of the goals we have is trying to see if we could design cells to manufacture new types of fuel to break our dependency on oil and coal and try to do something about carbon dioxide," Dr Venter said. "We look forward to trying to have the first fuels from genetically modified and even synthetic organisms, certainly within the decade."

The work is at the cutting edge of synthetic biology, which is rapidly becoming one of the most contentious fields in science. Researchers have developed the tools to recreate the devastating 1918 flu virus, and are working on ways to genetically modify human cells and understand the most fundamental mechanisms of life.

But critics fear the field is progressing too fast for society to grasp. Some are concerned that artificial organisms could escape and damage the environment, or that maverick scientists or terrorist groups could create powerful new bioweapons.

Dr Venter's team commissioned an 18-month study into the bioethics of their research, which gave strong approval but echoed concerns about the dangers.

In the experiment, researchers extracted the whole genetic code from a simple bacterium, Mycoplasma mycoides. They squirted the DNA into a test tube containing a related species, Mycoplasma capricolum. They found that some of the bacteria absorbed the new genome and ditched their own. These microbes grew and behaved exactly like the donor.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2114428,00.html
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#3
The next step is synthesizing an organism from scratch. SynBio will be the next big thing and Ventner's company will be the Microbesoft of biology, he already got the patents....

It will be done sooner than you think, whether it is right to patent organisms and genes is a different story....
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#5
SynBio itself is a very good thing, don't get me wrong; SynBio in the world we live in is potentially disastrous but that doesn't mean we don't have to develop it
 
Dec 13, 2003
2,058
3
0
44
#9
i will not go as far to say we are playing god...im far from religious...but we are definitely fucking with nature. that shit is delicate system of seeming infinate checks and balances...we have already reeked havoc killing off species...we really dont need to be introducing new ones. we should be working on why the bee population is dying off (our fault, of course) and correcting that.
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#10
we will not be introducing new species in the wild, these will be kept in the lab

it is not much different from transgenic organisms, something routinely done these days and, in fact you can look at it as part of evolution
 
Dec 13, 2003
2,058
3
0
44
#11
things dont stay in labs for long. cats unning around with super TB cause that shit did not stay in a lab. just saying. it wont be an intentional introduction.

we should let nature deal with evolution. its has billions of years of experience on us. as matter of fact....we have impeded on evolution
 

ThaG

Sicc OG
Jun 30, 2005
9,597
1,687
113
#12
this shit will hardly be able to cause any disease...

we're speaking about a minimal expression system that will:

1. prove life can be synthesized artificially (which should convince the hard-headed that there is nothing really "divine" in life)

2. be used to synthesize products that are hard to obtain using traditional expression systems

if all it has is what is necessary to replicate and grow in culture plus several enzymes to produce certain compounds, it can hardly cause any disease, period
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#13
GMOs have been known to fuck up the natural environment somethin serious. I remain skeptical aobut this. I support the science, but I sincerely hope it is kept on a very short leash.
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#14
ThaG said:
this shit will hardly be able to cause any disease...

we're speaking about a minimal expression system that will:

1. prove life can be synthesized artificially (which should convince the hard-headed that there is nothing really "divine" in life)

2. be used to synthesize products that are hard to obtain using traditional expression systems

if all it has is what is necessary to replicate and grow in culture plus several enzymes to produce certain compounds, it can hardly cause any disease, period
How can synthesizing life artificially convince anyone of anything, let alone dent their faith and rationale for a creator? You make no sense sir, this is wishful thinking on your part as you are still searching for the holy grail that will "disprove" God. It's not going to happen..:cool:
 

B-San

Sicc OG
Apr 7, 2006
2,328
173
63
46
#16
Huh... a lizard wit the brain similar to a dog perhaps? "Lizard, sit!"
*Proceeds to sell of Bearded and Water Dragon*
 
Aug 6, 2006
2,010
0
0
39
#18
WHITE DEVIL said:
You motherfuckers both pro and con are a trip. It seriously vexes me as to why you are all on such a mission to prove/disprove God.
Ask the people who make threads about it every other day, besides that, people are entitled to their opinions as they respond to claims made in such threads..
 
May 13, 2002
8,039
858
0
37
montyslaw.blogspot.com
#19
WHITE DEVIL said:
You motherfuckers both pro and con are a trip. It seriously vexes me as to why you are all on such a mission to prove/disprove God.
It all really comes down to the individual and his/her relationship to "God." Arguing about who is right and who is wrong is just retarded, simply because one system of beliefs work for one person, while a complete different set of beliefs work for another. As long as you have an understanding of things that leaves you happy and doesn't make you a robot, than it's all good...