OT; Brave New World

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

What with this and the Large Hadron Collider I feel that it's only a matter
of time before some arrogant tinkering twat creates something akin to Ice 9.

 

That would be good if you like skiing but don't like cold weather.

 

While this is a big step, it doesn't really seem quite as big as
everyone is making out.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

It's got the God Botherers all...err...bothered though, so it must be A
Good Thing.

 

Well it has me a bit worried, but that's simply cos I see the potential
for human error creeping into the DNA creation process letting something
nasty out into the wild.

What they have done is more akin to creating a virus IMHHHO.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

I'm glad it's not just me then. It's been a long time since my degree.
BBC's Pallarb Ghosh (sp) [1] seemed to think it was some sort of divine act.

[1] I could go look up his name, but CBA.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

A virus is a very different animal ITYWF.

It is a safer process than genetic modification. GM can generate uncertainty
where an extensive DNA strand is changed. This is the construction of a
very simple DNA strand that only does the designed for tasks.

It could be coded to (for instance) die when the DNA is damaged by chemical
attack or ionising radiation rather than mutate. Or the efficient self
regenerating gene code could be inserted.

Many scientists think you are watching the beginning of the 3rd industrial
revolution, after the mechanical and electronic. It is rather exciting IMHO.

As any Babylon 5 watcher will tell you this is the first step towards
organic trans galactic transport.

 

Hence *akin*.

The similarity being (AIUI) the new DNA subverts the existing cell's
replication and creation mechanism. Of course, it's not coding for new
self assembling virions, and the cell can reperoduce.

Until someone screws up and some un-intentional data gets in. Also, they
are making it sound like the entire genome is being artificially
created. Is this not the case?

I wouldn't argue.

Ah well, I'm not


--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

There is no DNA present fromn the original cell

<gives up>

 

Coded breakdown and rebuilding. Pah, child's play.

 

Hog wrote:

So not really a *simple* DNA strand. It must code for every protein
produced by the organism.

Sorry, just didn't get into it.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

Simple in that it is carrying out only the basics required and has no
extraneous code. I expect what they have done is produce DNA that is the
lowest denominator for a self replicating bacterium. In itself as simple as
possible of course with no nucleus or organelles. To replicate one assumes
it has both that single molecule of DNA and strands of RNA.

 

That's not possible, unless you consider introns to not be extraneous.

While I accept 'as simple as possible' that's hardly 'simple' in my book.

Apparently the simplest genome so far sequenced is

NANOARCHAEUM EQUITANS, which is technically an Archaea so may not be
relevant. That has some 500,000 pairs, and is unlikely to be what
Cynthia is based on.

CANDIDATUS PELAGIBACTER UBIQUE is said to have the smallest genome so
far sequenced of a bacterium, something like 1.3 million pairs.

Of course, so be useful, I'd suspect we'd need rather more complex
organisms. Everyone's favourite lab organism ESCHERICHIA COLI has
between roughly 4.5 and 5 million base pairs, depending on species.

You'd probably need to add some for coding for (for example) insulin
production.

Although it's not really a fair comparison, in the spirit of UKRM that's
about as complex as NT 3.1, or half of Wales





--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

Ah but how much of the DNA code is actually needed to operate the basic
essentials of life and reproduction.

I expect they are keeping the details rather secret. Although developed by a
not for profit organisation the patents are owned by a private equity firm
according to the interview on R4 last night. One would "only" have to
develop a bacterial strain that synthesized sunlight and co2 into a useful
hydrocarbon to eclipse Mr Gates.

In turn I'm sure the fossil fuel lobby would pay dearly for something that
bloomed like an algae in a mass of fresh water and fixed the world's excess
CO2 into calcium carbonate or somesuch.

 

Werll that's an interesting question. The snap answer is 'all of it' cos
without the junk it doesn't fold up properly, but you have a valid
point about the absolute complexity. The relative complexity still seems
to be increasing by an order of magnitude before we even get above
bacterium levels of sophistication.

Also, even if you define the areas that you want to be 'junk' on the
strand, you want to make damned sure they are junk IYSWIM

That's probably one of the riskier propositions. AFAIK such an enzyme,
or enzyme to create such a pathway do not naturally exist. So it would
have to be created from scratch which one could imagine[1] could involve
all sorts of trial and error.

Until all the trees die cos the bloom has metabolised all the CO2 you
mean?

It would be super, you're correct, but as a race we have a lamentable
[2] track record of dealing with risks before they become issues.
Particularly where such high profits are at stake.

[1] No, I have no evidence that it would, but I would guess that no one
has a protein / enzyme modler that can reliably create such an enzyme,
or we'd be working out a far simpler way of making said protein.

[2] This is probably not true. We have made some pretty big mistakes,
though.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

**** all the green bollocks, my main worry is a bug which escapes or
mutates into a plastic-eater and devours all the worlds good shiny
things.

 

Heh. I was going to throw that one in at some point.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

If it made plastic an equivalent of iron in degradeable terms that would be
a fairly good thing.

 

Once again I observe we mostly seem to be the same age around here.

 

Not if it made *all* plastic[1] into that ITYF

[1] Or even all of one *type*
--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk