# 'Artificial Life' Breakthrough Announced by Scientists



## Ursa major (May 21, 2010)

> Scientists in the US have succeeded in developing the first living cell to be controlled entirely by synthetic DNA.
> 
> The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell.
> 
> ...


From BBC News - 'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists.​ 

The Grauniad has a short article by Ken MacLeod, the SF writer, on the subject:
Humanity will thank heaven that this creator of synthetic life is playing God | Ken MacLeod​


----------



## mosaix (May 21, 2010)

It had to happen, it was just a question of when.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (May 21, 2010)

See this is why I am generally against most types of genetic engineering.....


They can spout off all this "beneficial" garbage they want. I'm not buying it. Mankind plays god enough as it is.


----------



## mosaix (May 21, 2010)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> See this is why I am generally against most types of genetic engineering.....
> 
> 
> They can spout off all this "beneficial" garbage they want. I'm not buying it. Mankind plays god enough as it is.



There'll be just as much "unbeneficial" garbage spouted as well.


----------



## Pyan (May 22, 2010)

What a lot of the popular press reports seem to have left out, is that the genome series (over a million code sequences long) was copied from the original bacterium, then replicated sequence for sequence before being re-inserted into a "blank" cell. 
It also took many hundreds of attempts, and cost over $40m to do.

So basically, we've developed an insanely expensive way of duplicating an existing bacterium,  - hardly comparable to Dr Frankenstein, as one red-top dubbed Dr Craig Venter. It's worth noting as well, that a lot of other distinguished scientists working in the same field have, shall I say, a certain lack of enthusiasm and regard for his work...


----------



## Ursa major (May 22, 2010)

But they have done something crucial in one respect, Py: up until now Venter and associates have (I believe) been patenting sections of DNA: now they're putting what may very well turn out to be ownership tags on them.


----------



## Pyan (May 22, 2010)

Yes, I saw that they were tagging them - as well as adding quotations from authors, for some reason (James Joyce? Why not Mary Shelley? ). At least they'll be identifiable as artificial constructs, which may be useful in the future ( see *Asimov*'s _R. Daneel Olivaw_ stories...)


----------



## J-WO (May 22, 2010)

How about a computer that uses designed bacteria in its code?


----------



## Nik (May 22, 2010)

Like the landmark synthesis of urea by Wohler, it shows there's nothing 'magic' about Life or 'Organic' materials.
Wöhler synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MarCn (May 22, 2010)

It had to happen


----------



## dask (May 22, 2010)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> See this is why I am generally against most types of genetic engineering.....
> 
> 
> They can spout off all this "beneficial" garbage they want. I'm not buying it. Mankind plays god enough as it is.


 


mosaix said:


> There'll be just as much "unbeneficial" garbage spouted as well.


 
One lie can sway a thousand minds, a thousand lies cannot negate a single truth. (I hope.)


----------



## J-WO (May 23, 2010)

Nik said:


> Like the landmark synthesis of urea by Wohler, it shows there's nothing 'magic' about Life or 'Organic' materials.
> Wöhler synthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So... we've invented synthipiss? And back in 1928?


Then its true--humanity's only limit is its imagination!


----------



## Ursa major (May 23, 2010)

I understand that there's an organic method of brewing what J-WO calls synthipiss.


I believe it's based on the processing of bladderwort.


----------

