DDL on 21/5/2010 at 18:17
Interesting stuff! Never really thought about the considerations from the other side, I just want to be able to construct my flying deathviruses clone genes without having to justify everything.
One thing that's always struck me is the incredibly poorly-defined (or poorly perceived) concept that is "A genetically modified organism". From the science side, this is technically ...well, fucking everything we work with.
A standard laboratory e.coli strain that we stick some DNA into purely so we can grow up lots of that e.coli, crush the shit out of it, and get our DNA back in large quantities? That's a GMO. What might exist as a hypothetical "scientist-generated nightmare creature" in the minds of the public exists as "a bog-standard, tedious but necessary DNA prep" in the minds of the scientists. It's not even an experiment: it's just preperative. It's like making sure you have enough bricks before you start building.
If scientists made more of an effort to point this out, and point out how many GMOs are already out there....maybe it would destigmatise the term. After all: Insulin? Made by GMOs. Antibiotics? Also frequently made by GMOs.
Not that there aren't legitimate concerns with many GMOs (such as pesticide/herbicide resistance genes in crops being transferred into the surrounding plants) but the message tends to get lost in the noise of OMG FISHPOTATO FRANKENFUUDS and so on.
Still, loving some of the talking heads in this story: some professor from Imperial was asked how long, in light of this 'momentous achievement', it would be until we see the first synthetic human. He said "uh...oh, at least decades."
Kinda like asking someone how long, in light of the invention of the wheel, it will be until we see the first death star.
Decades, I reckon.
Nicker on 21/5/2010 at 19:34
Quote Posted by DDL
First and foremost, bacterial/yeast strains used in GMO research are hopelessly inbred: they've been kept in sterile laboratory environments for millions of generations, each sucessive generation selecting for a genome that works best in a lab environment. They are good at accepting plasmid DNA via the brutal methods we use to stick it in, without dying (much), they are good at growing fast when fed EXACTLY what they need, and at forming nice little dots on plates. Challenge them in any significant way, and they die.
Sure, until they team up with the Robot Overlords and turn Earth into a vast petri dish.
TheCapedPillager on 21/5/2010 at 19:43
Quote Posted by Nicker
Sure, until they team up with the Robot Overlords and turn Earth into a vast petri dish.
This.
No one suspected tbe Zombie apocalypse would co-incide with machines turning on their masters at a technological singularity. The fools. The mad fools.
BRB, got an idea for a game/movie franchise...
TheCapedPillager on 21/5/2010 at 20:12
Shit.
Doesn't matter, this gives me an even better idea. A guy is happily living his life, only to learn that he's actually a synthetic life-form living in a computer game. Kinda like the movie 'The Thirteenth Floor' except that, wait... Shit. Well I'm all out of ideas.
SubJeff on 21/5/2010 at 20:48
Quote Posted by demagogue
... I guess you mean.
I honestly have NO idea wtf you are on about. Drunk post?
demagogue on 21/5/2010 at 22:53
Not exactly. I had no idea what you meant by "boro-fail", so like I always do I went to the usual places -- Google, Urban Dictionary, etc -- and the leading hit I got (really the only candidate that made any sense at all) was what I posted, which says that apparently "boro" is Brit for Middlesbrough and it apparently has the reputation of much of the population being failures in life (I don't know), hence "boro-fail" is some kind of in-joke that all UK people know, like an American saying "damn, that's like Cleveland-fail" (though I like Cleveland, so don't mean it). But like I said, I was just guessing, so feel free to correct me.
In retrospect, I realize that I should have quoted your use of "boro-fail" to give context, but just after reading that post I was under the impression that most Brits understand it as Middlesbrough and would get that (like most Americans know what The Big Easy refers to). All apologies.
That's the last time I trust Internet for information ! ! :mad:
SubJeff on 21/5/2010 at 23:20
I meant boring-fail. :sweat:
And I'll never own a BMW.
Brian The Dog on 22/5/2010 at 02:51
Am I right in thinking they just took a genetic-code from one bacteria, stored it in a computer, modified it on the computer, and then put that code on another set of bacteria? If so, I'll admit it's pretty impressive bio-engineering, but it's not creating life - the thing was living beforehand, they "just" changed what life it was.
Not saying it isn't mighty impressive mind you, just that our media was making it out to be "OMG someone made a LUMP OF ROCK ALIVE!!!!". Still, a good stepping-stone. Give it a hundred years or so and we'll be able to make the most incredible bio-weapons!
Tocky on 22/5/2010 at 03:14
Quote Posted by DDL
Coming at this from an actual GMO laboratory perspective, all the "OMG WHAT IF TEHY EXCAPE AND KILL US ALL!!11" hype is always amusing. I always think the scientists involved should state, and constantly reiterate, exactly how incredibly, incredibly crap these organisms would be at surviving in the wild.
Hey, no one expects the Spanish influenza. Every fuckup ever commited was done with complete confidence. Anyone need a used blowout preventer? I'm sure piggybacking genes could be just as devestating in a 12 Monkeys kind of way but allow us our built from scratch Pandora million to one life finds a way damn you sciencey man.
Your puny logic is no match for our paranoid fantasies of bone sucking horror.
Really though, reckon we could tweak that super resilient bugabear organism to live off of minerals and ice crystals on Mars? Plants first though right? Then Water Bears. Then Ice Weasels.
