Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
New Code Of Life
Scientists have gone one step further in their project adding two new base letters to the DNA codes of life. They now have incorporated the new codes into the chromosomes of living bacteria.
The extra codes should allow 152 new artificial amino acids in addition to the twenty natural ones that make up the proteins of life.
This could ultimately enable countless number of new proteins to be synthesised by organisms. The potential for bioengineered substances is phenomenal.
Those who disagree with genetic engineering would surely be horrified.
http://
The extra codes should allow 152 new artificial amino acids in addition to the twenty natural ones that make up the proteins of life.
This could ultimately enable countless number of new proteins to be synthesised by organisms. The potential for bioengineered substances is phenomenal.
Those who disagree with genetic engineering would surely be horrified.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by beso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm thinking pretty much all of them, really. Certainly some of the more hands-on ones involving chemistry would, you'd have thought, have been rather less likely to happen were people more aware of the risks involved (although maybe the world would have benefited from people like Karl Scheele not deciding to taste poisons so often).
At any rate, while being blind to risk is obviously not a good thing, being blinded by risks is not much better either.
At any rate, while being blind to risk is obviously not a good thing, being blinded by risks is not much better either.
Jim,
If you read my earlier posts you will see me move from "very risky" to "crazily dangerous" for this synthetic biology without using those precise words.
Ths is because, having recognised the stereochemical unlikelihood of translation into new proteins and the numerous molecular factors involved I still classed it as very risky (global pandemic).
Then I moved to "crazily dangerous" as I realised that the new bases ALONE posed a threat as they can integrate into bacterial DNA and e.g. delete genetic full-stops.
If these bases can penetrate the animal cell nucleus then the natural controls of DNA expression would go completely awry and kill the recipient.
Is there no experiment which to which you would say "no"?
Kind regards,
SIQ.
If you read my earlier posts you will see me move from "very risky" to "crazily dangerous" for this synthetic biology without using those precise words.
Ths is because, having recognised the stereochemical unlikelihood of translation into new proteins and the numerous molecular factors involved I still classed it as very risky (global pandemic).
Then I moved to "crazily dangerous" as I realised that the new bases ALONE posed a threat as they can integrate into bacterial DNA and e.g. delete genetic full-stops.
If these bases can penetrate the animal cell nucleus then the natural controls of DNA expression would go completely awry and kill the recipient.
Is there no experiment which to which you would say "no"?
Kind regards,
SIQ.
Khandro,
Your example of thalidomide is a poor one insofar as the research was high quality. The drug itself was seen as a non-addictive anti-anxiety breakthrough. This was better than the still common anxiolytic, diazepam, which has been described as more addictive than heroin although that's certainly unlikely (OTT).
Thalidomide WAS tested on pregnant rabbits and they gave birth to normal offspring. Unfortunately the rabbit was a uniquely resistant species unlike humans and other species.
The episode was tragic, not blind bungling like the project being discussed here.
I was never involved with the project or the company involved. My research was more mundane but safe.
Kind regards,
SIQ.
Your example of thalidomide is a poor one insofar as the research was high quality. The drug itself was seen as a non-addictive anti-anxiety breakthrough. This was better than the still common anxiolytic, diazepam, which has been described as more addictive than heroin although that's certainly unlikely (OTT).
Thalidomide WAS tested on pregnant rabbits and they gave birth to normal offspring. Unfortunately the rabbit was a uniquely resistant species unlike humans and other species.
The episode was tragic, not blind bungling like the project being discussed here.
I was never involved with the project or the company involved. My research was more mundane but safe.
Kind regards,
SIQ.
It seems to me that the scientists, by choosing a six (not four) base code have gone out of their way to create genes that ex-lab life would be unable to interact with or interpret in any way. This suggests a huge potential resource for the safe production of vital medicines.
I'm sure their confinement procedures, well regulated as they are (unlike banks and oil drilling rigs), will ensure no harm comes to evolved life on Earth.
I'm sure their confinement procedures, well regulated as they are (unlike banks and oil drilling rigs), will ensure no harm comes to evolved life on Earth.
Dear Colmc54,
How do you know that ex-lab the "new genes" could not not interact in any way (with what by the way?). E.g, Ex-lab what about acidic breadown in the stomach or other digestive process in the intestine. This would potentially release the new bases into the animal blood stream and possible incorporation into our DNA.
I wish I had your faith in lab security but I don't because there is too much evidence against. Have faith in every experiment carried out and continue dreaming on Colmc.
Particularly as it's almost certainly doomed to fail but the risks are real it should be pulled herewith. I still challenge the project leaders to intavenously inject the two new bases.
Relax everyone I've finished my specific critique of this particular project - I've said more than enough.
Kind regards,
SIQ.
How do you know that ex-lab the "new genes" could not not interact in any way (with what by the way?). E.g, Ex-lab what about acidic breadown in the stomach or other digestive process in the intestine. This would potentially release the new bases into the animal blood stream and possible incorporation into our DNA.
I wish I had your faith in lab security but I don't because there is too much evidence against. Have faith in every experiment carried out and continue dreaming on Colmc.
Particularly as it's almost certainly doomed to fail but the risks are real it should be pulled herewith. I still challenge the project leaders to intavenously inject the two new bases.
Relax everyone I've finished my specific critique of this particular project - I've said more than enough.
Kind regards,
SIQ.
This subject has highlighted a danger in society with which we have all been exposed for very many decades: disenfranchisement in our having a say in major risk-carrying policies.
This is the fault of politicians, not scientists or other specialists.
It's the policy of "Don't tell the public the truth or they will panic". So we are often told lies. Windscale, now Sellafield (see earlier) was sold as being an eventual source of free electricity! Result: a radioactive Irish Sea and massive electricity bills but we did get the atomic and hydrogen bombs.
So let's know about the likelihood of e.g. an asteroid/meteorite strike or near-miss in REGULAR updates. In that way we could decide whether our money be spent on averting the effects or not.
Poor jim360 would be against this proposed openness as the LHC would have been (wrongly) cancelled at the drawing board stage for fear of creating a fusion branching-chain-reaction (a new sun) or even a black hole.
"Don't panic!" A useful political ploy and interesting I believe.
SIQ.
This is the fault of politicians, not scientists or other specialists.
It's the policy of "Don't tell the public the truth or they will panic". So we are often told lies. Windscale, now Sellafield (see earlier) was sold as being an eventual source of free electricity! Result: a radioactive Irish Sea and massive electricity bills but we did get the atomic and hydrogen bombs.
So let's know about the likelihood of e.g. an asteroid/meteorite strike or near-miss in REGULAR updates. In that way we could decide whether our money be spent on averting the effects or not.
Poor jim360 would be against this proposed openness as the LHC would have been (wrongly) cancelled at the drawing board stage for fear of creating a fusion branching-chain-reaction (a new sun) or even a black hole.
"Don't panic!" A useful political ploy and interesting I believe.
SIQ.
I believe in relativity. I believe it explains a lot. But in this case relativity means that it is legal for humans to abuse their bodies with mutagens such as booze and fags (I am one such) while getting hysterical about highly speculative threats to whatever it is the critics of this potentially vital research they feel concerned about.
I believe this research is RELATIVELY inconsequential in comparison to the risk human overpopulation and massive biodiversity loss presents. I can see us fornicating our way to extinction if we don't stop abusing our home planet. And I mean stop! NOW!
I believe this research is RELATIVELY inconsequential in comparison to the risk human overpopulation and massive biodiversity loss presents. I can see us fornicating our way to extinction if we don't stop abusing our home planet. And I mean stop! NOW!
I really don't think that's at all relevant and it seems bizarre to link it in to this at all.
That said, obviously we don't want this work to go unregulated, or unchecked. The problem is that the risk assessment seems to be very difficult if not impossible for outsiders to the field, myself included, to estimate to any degree of certainty. We don't want a situation, either, where (potentially) important work is hampered or blocked because of unjustified paranoia. I don't know if that's really the case here -- as I've said I'm not really sure that my assessment of the risk is accurate -- but whoever the regulator/ risk assessor is, surely you would agree that it ought to be someone who understands the work that's going on in some considerable detail? When non-experts start to interfere in matters they don't fully understand, or make use of ideas that they haven't actually appreciated properly, the results can be almost as bad as people running off and doing unregulated experiments.
I suppose what I'm trying to say, not all that effectively perhaps, is that I'm glad that no-one here is in charge of the decision as to whether this research takes place or not. Not sure that anyone has really offered a convincing reason why it should, or should not, continue. I'm speaking about, basically, trust that these people know what they are doing -- and while that's usually a safe bet, it's not 100% guaranteed to be. And I don't think I'll ever be able to do much better than that, really. Oh, well.
I look forward to seeing where this goes, if anywhere. At least I think I do.
That said, obviously we don't want this work to go unregulated, or unchecked. The problem is that the risk assessment seems to be very difficult if not impossible for outsiders to the field, myself included, to estimate to any degree of certainty. We don't want a situation, either, where (potentially) important work is hampered or blocked because of unjustified paranoia. I don't know if that's really the case here -- as I've said I'm not really sure that my assessment of the risk is accurate -- but whoever the regulator/ risk assessor is, surely you would agree that it ought to be someone who understands the work that's going on in some considerable detail? When non-experts start to interfere in matters they don't fully understand, or make use of ideas that they haven't actually appreciated properly, the results can be almost as bad as people running off and doing unregulated experiments.
I suppose what I'm trying to say, not all that effectively perhaps, is that I'm glad that no-one here is in charge of the decision as to whether this research takes place or not. Not sure that anyone has really offered a convincing reason why it should, or should not, continue. I'm speaking about, basically, trust that these people know what they are doing -- and while that's usually a safe bet, it's not 100% guaranteed to be. And I don't think I'll ever be able to do much better than that, really. Oh, well.
I look forward to seeing where this goes, if anywhere. At least I think I do.
Take a music file at 48Khz/24res and try and play it on a CD player that is only able to work with 44.1/16. What do you get- nothing.
The biggest thing we know about life is the molecular biology of DNA and it's transcription. It is so vital to avoiding ignorance and superstition about who we are and why I think it should be taught at primary school.
But then I think the intelligentsia of this country like us to be as thick as bricks and try very hard to keep as many of us as they can the way they want us.
I believe the UK is turning into the most deliberately dumbed down and scientifically ignorant (non-Islamic or post-communist/colonial dictatorship)country on the planet.
Remember- the UK is the place where you are educated to be completely ignorant, and thus gullible and malleable.
Hat's off to the 'welfare state'. We'll be back in the middle ages in no time!
The biggest thing we know about life is the molecular biology of DNA and it's transcription. It is so vital to avoiding ignorance and superstition about who we are and why I think it should be taught at primary school.
But then I think the intelligentsia of this country like us to be as thick as bricks and try very hard to keep as many of us as they can the way they want us.
I believe the UK is turning into the most deliberately dumbed down and scientifically ignorant (non-Islamic or post-communist/colonial dictatorship)country on the planet.
Remember- the UK is the place where you are educated to be completely ignorant, and thus gullible and malleable.
Hat's off to the 'welfare state'. We'll be back in the middle ages in no time!
Fritz Haber won the Nobel prize in chemistry for his invention of synthesizing ammonia which had, used in connection of fertiliser, enormous beneficial effects for mankind, but unfortunately his work also led to the use of ziklon b gas, the subsequent use of which was something he didn't nor couldn't foresee.
I'm not sure what the moral is here, but I happen to know one of his family who finds this difficult to live with, all the more intensified by the fact that they are Jewish. Innocent research can lead in the wrong hands to disastrous consequences. I have tried to point out that gas, in itself, didn't kill anyone, it was its application by evil people that did that.
I admit that I do not understand the implications of the addition of base letters to the DNA structure, but it sounds as though it could unleash consequences which, unlike the gas, are beyond our control.
I'm not sure what the moral is here, but I happen to know one of his family who finds this difficult to live with, all the more intensified by the fact that they are Jewish. Innocent research can lead in the wrong hands to disastrous consequences. I have tried to point out that gas, in itself, didn't kill anyone, it was its application by evil people that did that.
I admit that I do not understand the implications of the addition of base letters to the DNA structure, but it sounds as though it could unleash consequences which, unlike the gas, are beyond our control.
OK if the risk assessment by the self-appointed Guardians of humanity is that they believe using a six base synthetic life-form to create drugs that could benefit mankind, when all of life on Earth is based on a four base system, then obviously they know more than the scientists do.
Perhaps we should abandon science and reason and go back to the good-old pre-enlightenment days. Given that I care more for this possibly unique planet more than I have come to care for the human race, I say let's abandon science completely and let the human global population righteously fall to it's pre-civilization level.
I'd be happy with that if I hadn't found myself to be a grandfather;
https:/
As her grandfather I will do what I can, I hope it will be enough!
Perhaps we should abandon science and reason and go back to the good-old pre-enlightenment days. Given that I care more for this possibly unique planet more than I have come to care for the human race, I say let's abandon science completely and let the human global population righteously fall to it's pre-civilization level.
I'd be happy with that if I hadn't found myself to be a grandfather;
https:/
As her grandfather I will do what I can, I hope it will be enough!
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Quite An Achievement In 5 Months.....
News24 mins ago
Could All Help With Signing My Petition
Seasonal31 mins ago
