Slashdot Log In
Amateurs Are Trying Genetic Engineering At Home
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Dec 25, 2008 03:08 PM
from the another-way-to-define-parenting dept.
from the another-way-to-define-parenting dept.
the_kanzure points out this AP story on amateur genetic engineering, excerpting: "The Apple computer was invented in a garage. Same with the Google search engine. Now, tinkerers are working at home with the basic building blocks of life itself. Using homemade lab equipment and the wealth of scientific knowledge available online, these hobbyists are trying to create new life forms through genetic engineering a field long dominated by Ph.D.s toiling in university and corporate laboratories." Reader resistant has a few ideas about how to use this sort of lab: "Personally, I'd like to whip up a reasonably long-lasting and durable paint made with dye based on squid genes that glows brightly enough to allow 'guide lines' to be daubed along hallway baseboards, powered by a very low trickle of electricity. Plus, a harmless glowing yogurt would make for a cool prank."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hmm. (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone should do something useful and recreate this [fleeb.com].
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Interesting)
You might just ask around on the internet to find out who received the seeds? Maybe some survived and you can get a piece of the juice. But, then again, you could try for yourself and make potatoes, salad and corn containing THC. Let them regulate the entire food chain.
Parent
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd be happy to try, I'm sure.
Parent
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Informative)
Don't laugh, my friend.
The USDA is already trying to force a livestock registry and ID program on private individuals: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/ [usda.gov]
And I heard that they were contemplating a seed registration program, though I can't seem to track that down right now.
With the invisible hand of the big agribusiness (Monsanto and the like), it may very well be illegal to propagate your own plants and animals in the future (or at least not without paying the fees to register your stock with The Man). From what I hear, Monsanto is actually buying up independent seed cleaners and shutting them down, so that farmers are forced to buy from the only large seed cleaner left: Monsanto with their illegal-to-save seeds. While the jury is still out on the safety of GMO foods, there is a thriving demand for non-GMO and hierloom varieties, and Monsanto is trying very hard to eliminate the suppliers of such.
Scary world.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
.anti-free market bullshit,
paranoid much? he didn't say anthing "anti-free market". He criticised USDA for one thing and Monsato for another. He actually specifically criticised Monsato for interfering with a free market by using their money in order to destroy it.
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Interesting)
A huge corporation buying legislation is anything but free market economics.
In absolutely free market, even the market and the freedom are commodities.
That fact is real and inevitable (although free market idealists consider it an intermittent and sporadic anomaly), it has nothing with human nature (and has everything with cybernetics) and it already provoked making of Marxism once.
However, as much as Marxists' criticism of free market is founded in facts, their proposed solution of removing of power from money only made power more violent and more unchecked, because ... power (oppression, violation of others' will) is primary, money is only secondary.
Money makes it possible and easy to conserve, store, save the power for later use. It facilitates and makes more economical the use (and brokerage) of power. Unlike rigid, static communist and feudal position-based distribution of power, money allows for almost effortless and instant changes in power landscapes.
Now, what we need to understand is that high accumulation of money is endangering the democracy. Money is like oil, weapons or food. It can subdue you. It wants to subdue you. The essence of money is the debt: if you have the money, someone anonymous owes you to do something for you in exchange for it. A hoard of money wants to become larger (to be invested and bring back interest): it means the debt tends to expand and business is all about accumulating others' debts in their possession. Back to Monsato, we can see that it is exactly their course of action: to fetch more serfs, more indebted, more tied farmers, and through consolidated control over agricultural production, wide social control through food control.
Unfortunately, I can't conclude this post with any firm recommendation for a solution to the problem.
I guess we all should make some sort of own battle chest savings for the purpose of getting together and influencing the politics and legislation to act in our aggregated interest, to counter the similar actions of businesses, their own way. Because, supposedly, there is only so much money in circulation and in hoards, and we all generate more debt cancellation every day: we do something and then we get payed for it. We should place enough of it on the counter side of the balance of power, to make system do as originally intended: for the people, not for itself, not for someone else.
Or, perhaps we should abolish the taxes completely and instead promote lobbying as voluntary tax: make it so that everyone votes with as much money as one pleases, with "vote" having attached a specific opinion that is being furthered. In present system, lobbying is used as "little force (donation money) steering the large force (tax-filled budget spendings)", it is just ... dorky!
Parent
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I also found it suspicious that the source was "Supposedly the SFC but can't seem to find it." And a google search for the prof turns up empty aside from those stories. And accomplishing this would lead to a publication in a respected plant journal, not a shady internet buisness.
Moreover, I seriously doubt that the 4 step plan could be accomplished by one guy as a side project in 14 years without either eating up all the funds for whatever it was he was supposed to be researching. Some of the steps sound
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Garage Credibility (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Garage Credibility (Score:5, Insightful)
However, it is still important to remember that some tiny garage startups do succeed, dramatically in certain cases. Obviously, being a garage startup isn't the golden road to riches; but garage startups, as a genre, are valuable. Particularly in our era of regulation, where concerns over liability, meth, terrorism, and whatever the fear of the moment happens to be, often lead to laws that assume that R&D only happens under the auspices of universities and corporations, and homes are just for consuming, this is important to keep in mind.
That said, though, the economic argument is not the only, or even the most important, argument in favor of garage based tinkering. The onus is not on garage based tinkerers to prove that they are valuable. Tinkering is their right, unless it can be demonstrated to be an infringement on somebody else's rights.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey now, some of the best zombie apocalypses started out as garage or backyard projects!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, I love the idea behind it. But isn't there regulation on doing this type of research?
Do you think that DIY genetic engineering will be more harmful than that which is conducted for profit by companies that care only for making money?
Parent
Re:Is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think that DIY genetic engineering will be more harmful than that which is conducted for profit by companies that care only for making money?
Not necessarily, but you are 100% assured that the safety controls involved will be vastly inferior.
The only true genetically engineered mess to spread in the recent past, as far as I can recall, is GM vegetables. And that isn't at all what I mean by "safety controls".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ideally, yes, but not all GM crops are sterile. I've grown several varieties of GM tomatoes and bird peppers, and while their seeds have terrible germination rates, they do produce plants that produce fruit. It's similar to what you see with hybridized crops.
Re:Is this legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would there be? It's not like they're creating super warriors in their garages.
All the hysteria over genetic engineering is ridiculous. Quit trying to regulate everything.
Parent
Re:Is this legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
That "super plant" is still subject to natural selection and would have to be selected for. Regardless, genetic engineering is not easy and doing so in your garage will only get you so far. Bacteria etc is doable, any multi-cell organisms will be quite difficult.
Doing what these people are doing in their garages is no different from what nature does itself every day. If pollen went astray, it would still need to be selected for in some way. Even the genetically engineered crops we use today are "forced" to grow under special circumstances, most wouldn't survive without a crapload of human intervention.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Humans have been doing genetic engineering as long as we've been civilized. Plants, animals, etc. Both were bred for certain traits. Before garages were even invented.
Laugh now, but (Score:5, Funny)
1) Create perfect woman in petri dish
2) First
3) Patent troll
4) ?
5) Profit
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Create perfect woman in petri dish /.'er to lose virginity ...
2) First
5) Profit
Sounds you just discovered the worlds second oldest profession.
Re:Laugh now, but (Score:5, Funny)
You can't patent trolls, there's too much prior art.
Also, I'm fairly sure 'trying genetic engineering at home' is a euphemism for something...
Parent
Minature pandas (Score:5, Funny)
In one fell swoop, I will have saved a species from extinction AND become a billionaire!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why not a panda with 6 asses?
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm reminded of the breeders who purportedly tried to create a more sweet natured camel by incorporating lama genes in the camel genotype. The story is that they ended up with a vile tempered lama.
Thank you for that short biography on Osama bin Laden.
Looks like Stephen King got it wrong... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Viruses aren't easy to engineer, most (like 99.999%) would never survive the process. The viruses we see today evolved over thousands and millions of years to survive our environment. If you think any old scientist can create something better than mother nature did in their garage then you need to take some science classes.
Garages changed our life (Score:3, Interesting)
Been doing it for years (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Been doing it for years (Score:4, Funny)
You are aware that at least one of you has to be female, right?
Parent
What does Bart have to say about this? (Score:3, Funny)
Bart: "How would I go about creating a half-man, half-monkey-type creature?"
Mrs. Krabappel: "I'm sorry, that would be playing God."
Bart: "God-schmod, I want my monkey man."
My clandestine genetic engineering dream (Score:2, Insightful)
The home genetic engineering project I would work on, if I were rich enough and smart enough, would be to take some MMORPG, such as WOW, and reify as many creatures from it as I could, and secretly release them into the wild, in enough numbers to establish breeding populations.
Google started in a garage? (Score:2)
Google started in a garage?
According to Wikipedia, Google incorporated at a friend's garage, but that's really stretching a startup in a garage thing. It was Stanford Ph.D. work we're talking about here.
Let's not cheapen real garage startups with that allusion.
rd
Lecture at the 24C3 (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer: IAAMB (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Disclaimer: IAAMB (Score:5, Interesting)
And do you think it will always be that way? I recall a lot of professional computer people saying these sorts of things about computers 35 and 40 years ago. I also remember a musician friend of mine from 20 years ago hating CDs and preferring vinyl because it was cheaper for him and his band to get vinyl presses than CD presses. How's that math working now?
Sure, they're not doing much today. Next year it probably won't be much different. Let's talk about 2038, though. Sure, a small garage lab still won't be able to make what a big lab can then, either. But 30 years ago, PCR didn't even exist and you couldn't do the work you do routinely today at a lab of any size. Do you really think that trend will stop now? It has been the nature of all technology to become cheaper and doable by a smaller groups as time marches on (computer systems being one of the most radical examples). Absent a very strong regulatory regime that curbs garage molecular biology and relegates it to a black market, I can only agree with you for now, but disagree in the long term. :-)
Parent
Re:Disclaimer: IAAMB (Score:5, Insightful)
I recall a lot of professional computer people saying these sorts of things about computers 35 and 40 years ago
Yeah, whereas these days, anyone can have a processor manufacturing plant in their garage!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Although I think you left off the sarcasm tag, I do agree with you:
The people working on the RepRap [google.com] project are currently working on the second generation 3D printer. The first generation prints in silicone. The second generation will print that as well as a conducting material, which has a melting point lower than the silicone; that way the silicone can be formed with grooves and channels, then the conducting mater
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
It will soon be banned, much as anything else remotely scientific at home is in the process of becoming.
Next, just having the knowledge will get you on a watched list.
Re: (Score:3)
How is the parent a troll? All it takes is for one politician or insufficiently otherwise occupied celebrity to figure out they can get attention by bringing this "disturbing trend" to light, and you've got the makings of a ban.
Maybe it won't be labeled as terrorism, but it can be used to make people afraid, and that's bleeping golden for the kind of public figures that want attention.
thoughts from someone in the community (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the amount of ignorance regarding genetic engineering and it's facets (such as GMO food) is astounding. Anecdotally, I've heard that a significant fraction of British folks polled said they would prefer DNA-free food. (Think about it until you realize the ridiculousness). People typically imagine we are trying to create hybrid organisms or bizarre clone armies or something, when it reality, it's just mixing DNA that encodes for a series of proteins you would find useful in combination. To make glow in the dark yogurt that responds to melamine would be fairly simple if you had the right set of genes: a melamine sensor that, when bound to melamine, binds to a specific DNA sequence (a promoter) that drives expression of a fluorescent protein such as green fluorescent protein ("GFP", a widely used fluorescent marker derived from a jellyfish). It's not difficult, and it's not unsafe. The vast majority of DNA and proteins are degraded rapidly in your stomache, so they are safe to eat (toxins, parasites, and infectious agents excluded).
Second, people underestimate how difficult it is to accomplish something genetically. Yes, the circuit logic above is fairly simple. Unlike electrical circuits, though, where you can control electron flow with wires there is no such spatial regulation of biological parts. It's very stochastic. One has to tune the concentrations such that the melamine sensor will strongly bind to DNA at the concentrations of melamine likely to be in food, without prematurely activating and freaking people out, while also avoiding being sued because it didn't activate when it should have and someone died. Once you get the sensor right, you have to then tune the promoter so that you get expression of GFP the same way-- no leaky expression causing permanently green yogurt, but enough expression when activated such that you can see it. I can build a simple circuit to drive GFP in the presence of melamine, but getting it commercially relevant is extremely difficult.
Finally, and most importantly, the regulations of these types of technologies are, well, 2 steps from insane. There are no regulations on the transport of DNA encoding some severe toxin, to list one example. Take botulism toxin: the DNA encoding it is well known, and short enough that one could order it directly from a DNA synthesis company. From there you can use PCR to make as many copies of it as you need. Then, put it in your bacterium of choice, produce a whole bunch, and purify it out. That entire process could be done with someone with basic college level biology and about $5k. Anybody can find the botulism toxin DNA on, say, NBCI (run by the NIH) and get to work. And there are NO regulations on any of the steps required to produce it. A person with practical experience could do it much faster. I could produce enough to kill my entire university, starting from scratch, in about 2 weeks, give or take, maybe faster
A second example is the definition of 'natural' when it comes to food. Any chemical produced in a flask, chemically, is considered artificial, even if it's molecularly identical to the natural flavor molecule. On the other hand, any synthetic flavor produced by bacteria in a vat is considered natural, as long as the sugar used to feed the bacteria is also natural. The food industry is spending billions trying to engineer bacteria to produce flavors in large quantities, because the average person will think 'all natural' means healthier or better for me.
A third example involves regulation of the types of bacteria used to produce flavors: if I randomly mutagenize bacteria with UV light until I find one I like, that's considered safe, even though I probably have no idea what mutations I've actually made. On the other hand, if I go in and, with ultra-precision, make a single, target
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What, you think it's a good thing that UV-radiated wildly-mutated bacteria are being used to produce "natural" flavors, while carefully-engineered processes to produce only known chemicals are shunned as artificial?
Because if you do, I don't know what to say to you, and if you don't, then you might want to go read his post again.
Also, you should read the post again anyway - the first chunk of "insane regulations" he mentions are actually the [i]lack of regulations[/i]. So being glad that someone could, with
Obligatory quote... (Score:5, Interesting)
Pris: Must get lonely here J. F.
Sebastian: Mmm... Not really. I make friends. They're toys. My friends are toys. I make them. It's a hobby. I'm a genetic designer. Do you know what that is?
Pris: No.
Sebastian: Yoo-hoo, home again.
Toys: Home again, home again, jiggity jig. Good evening J. F.
Stoners do Genetic Engineering all the Time... (Score:3, Interesting)
I've created a few new strains of plants. I have a near-blue catnip that took four generations to produce reliably. I've got thai peppers smaller than your pinky fingernail that'll bite your ass off, took ten generations to get that down. Haven't tried pot, yet, but since I have my medical script and card for it I just might try making my own strain of cannabis. Will probably take twenty generations for that, though.
Amateurs have been doing GE for a long time,e specially the stoners.
The Future Doesn't Need Us (Score:4, Interesting)