O Me! O Life! Of the Questions of These Recurring

Synthetic DNA could soon yield entirely new life forms

Posted at 7:02 AM on 17 Dec 2007

For opponents of genetically modified crops, the possibility that scientists could soon create entirely new life forms out of synthetic DNA may provoke similar worries and safety concerns. Recent improvements in technology have made the lab creation of complex DNA strands possible, and some researchers intend to use them to manufacture new life forms -- in one case as early as next year. Synthetic DNA has already been used to modify existing life forms to create high-tech fabrics from cornstarch and turn food into biofuels more efficiently. But the pending creation of totally new life forms has caused quite a stir in some circles. While philosophers and ethicists opine on the implications, others are worried about new bacteria and other potential creations. "Ultimately synthetic biology means cheaper and widely accessible tools to build bioweapons, virulent pathogens, and artificial organisms that could pose grave threats to people and the planet," said a concerned Canada-based advocacy group. "The danger is not just bio-terror but bio-error."

source: The Washington Post

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (4 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

No One Can Predict the Future

The number of variables possible in trying to predict the consequences in the future of such manipulations makes such attempts a literal roll of the dice (a good read on this subject is "The Black Swan").

Taking risks is fine if the (Murphy's Law : If it can happen, it will) worse case scenario is an inconvenience but when innocent life forms may suffer from what is (with all the PR bullshit removed) a quest for money, it should not be allowed.

"We Have Found the Enemy and It Is Us" ... Pogo

by rrecroc at 11:50 AM on 17 Dec 2007

No One Can Predict the Future

Predicting the consequences of NOT engaging in such manipulations make prohibition of such activity also a roll of the dice.

New technology does not always lead to the worse case scenario. Were that the case, the Earth would be a radioactive cinder. New technology often solves a problem created by earlier choices. It might be better to discuss what sort of synthetic life should be created, when it is permitted, effecive safe guards, et cetera, rather than entirely prohibit it.

The decision to not pursue a goal does not mean one can rest assured that he did not harm the environment. He made a decision and is responsible for the outcome... if he decides to ban a certain technology, he is then responsible for harm to the environment that might have been PREVENTED by the new technology.

Suppose we ban all synthetic life right now. Suppose we celebrate and feel good about making sure no one uses it to create bioweapons. I guess this would be reasonable if it was inevitable that synthetic life would have led to bioweapons.

But what if such technology was more likely to result in efficient collection of solar energy or degradation a rather durable toxic chemical left over from the 1950s? What if blocking THAT technology resulted in further global warming or the deaths of millions of innocent beings. The person who decided to ban synthetic life would also be responsible for the results of not using the technology.

I think it is better to discuss how technology should be used vs. whether it should be used.

by wiscidea at 12:33 PM on 17 Dec 2007

No One Can Predict The future

I certainly have nothing against technology per se.

When reason is employed to consider risk/benefit, proper arguments can take place in the public/scientific forums.

I certainly believe in using technology to save lives but am not totally persuaded to using technology to solve problems created by other technologies due to human weakness ..... ie, selfishness, greed, desire for riches and power, etc, etc.

Therefore, the wild card of human weaknesses prevent this from being a simple discussion of the scientific merits of a given technology.

The warmongers will use the technology to create weapons ...... and there is little we can do about it unfortunately.

Our species is irrational and is full of members who are insane.

Science has and can be corrupted by big money.

Risk/benefit ensures a reasonable use of the technology but there are those who will care less about risk/benefit than stuffing their pockets with money and they don't care about exposing others to risks or even known harm in the process (witness industrial pollution dumping in this country).

This leaves us with the unfortunate statement, that in a country which bows to the dollar, if a technology can be corrupted and misused, it will be, despite the fact that there are concurrent rational uses of that technology.

"We Have Found the Enemy and It Is Us" ... Pogo

by rrecroc at 4:12 PM on 17 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

As a side note...

One of the scientists working on creating a synthetic life form is actually hoping to develop something that removes greenhouse gases from the air.

I read something about this in BBC News a couple of months ago; I can dig up the article if anyone is interested, although the thing about greenhouse gases was more or less a side note.

And yes, synthetic life may be used to generate biological weapons. Fire and the wheel have been instrumental in countless weapons over the millenia--in fact, the jet that dropped the nuke on Hiroshima could never have existed without both of them--but that doesn't mean their creation was a bad thing in and of itself.

And for all we know, synthetic life may prove less efficient for developing bioweapons than however they currently do it, and may cost the government hundreds of millions from their bioweapons budget while they figure that out. In the words of a great contemporary writer whose name escapes me, no one can predict the future. :)

by Pathos at 9:49 PM on 18 Dec 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?