DNA So Dangerous It Doesn't Exist 454
Panaqqa writes "A group of researchers at Boise State University is investigating the theory that there are genome sequences so dangerous they are incompatible with life. Greg Hampikian, a professor of genetics, and his team are comparing all possible short sequences of nucleotides to databases of gene sequences to determine which ones don't exist in nature. The New Scientist reports that the US Department of Defense is interested enough in their work to have awarded them a $1 million grant. I for one am not sure I like the possible directions this research could take."
Suicide genes? (Score:2, Interesting)
I - am - not - a - machi --*Boom*
Re:Hmmm... paradox? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon (Score:1, Interesting)
A million dollars?? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the worst use of $1M!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Run for the hills (Score:5, Interesting)
This article reminds me of a doomsday hypothesis I once read. Daniel Pouzzner [mega.nu] posted this some time ago on his website:
It is quite likely that the Endangered Species Act and similar policies will continue to be enforced, setting large areas of land (and associated natural resources) out of the reach of interested industries. Corporations in these industries will create a demand for black market genetic bullet engineering, by which obstacle species can be purged, freeing the land for industrial exploitation. The profit motive is overwhelming; the resources at issue are worth trillions of today's dollars annually. An engineer who can target species on demand can obviously target humans, or even subsets of humans, if he wants to. Black markets by definition are not subject to regulatory scrutiny, and of course tend to be populated by unsavory and low characters. The environmentalist extremists (many of whom are well-financed or independently wealthy) will retain the services of some of these black market operators, to "fight back" (as they see it) on behalf of the species being targeted for/by the corporations. This will probably culminate in a doomsday bug.
Re:Last night I had a premonition of racial weapon (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, I'd hate for them to pick up this idea, but they've probably thought about it already:
If they are willing to sacrifice the majority of their population as well, they could create a biological weapon that targets everyone except the Ashkenazi jews. That particular group is probably one of the most studied groups out there because they almost never breed with outsiders, so tons of interesting stuff can be found from their DNA. (Note that I'm using the word "breed" as a technical, not derogatory, term here)
Afraid? (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean that it could be used to manufacture new weapons? I don't know if having n+1 ways to kill is really much worse than having n ways, given that n is already as large as it is.
Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World (Score:2, Interesting)
> to get propagated far without a lot of effort!
It reminds me of the book "A Higher Form of Killing" (by Jeremy Paxman (yeah, *that* Paxman) and Robert Harris) which has this quote from a House Appropriations hearing in 1969:
"Within the next five to ten years it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important respects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease."
Sounds like AIDS, doesn't it, and the first reported cases of AIDS were discovered in 1982.
Cancer treatment (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm... paradox? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Might as well imagine shrink rays. (Score:2, Interesting)
Can you back that up?
A peer poster mentioned this but didn't really put much force into it: if you remove the restriction of looking at a single gene only, then it becomes much easier to commit bio-genocide.
You need to sort them out based on a rather non-existent grouping... that is something only racists can do, not viruses. [...] There are certain genes which exist in varied frequency but none that are that isolated.
Imagine 80% of the population of a particular "non-existent grouping" has a particular gene, while 20% of the population outside of that population has the gene (I think that's being generous -- much more effectively discriminating genes could likely be found). Now imagine there are 10 of those. It would not be hard to believe that 1 in 3 of that "non-existent grouping" has at least 3 of the genes (assuming the "non-existent grouping" is not based purely on appearance, but also evidence of ancestry that ties the group together), while less than 1% of people outside the group has 3 or more of the genes. This is assuming the genes have independent distributions when considered either within the group or outside it; this would almost positively not be the case, but I'll assume that it probably doesn't hurt my case too much (though it may in the Jews/Arabs example, I admit).
So, can 10 genes like that be found, and can the virus be made to kill someone with several particular genes? If you could make a virus that targets the combination of 3 particular genes (again, assuming the genes have independent distribution within the group), then one virus like that could kill off a third of your group, while killing less than 1% of people outside the group. Make a second virus with a different 3, you kill off ~1% of the remaining outside population while killing of a third of what remains of the group. Do that with 2 more viruses and you've cut the group down to less than 20% of its original size, at the cost of 4% of the outside population.
Does anything in that scenario sound so implausible? Do those sound like numbers a hard-core racist would go for?
Re:In the future... (Score:3, Interesting)
They should still keep educating them on the dangers of smoking and make it illegal for kids to start or be sold cigs to.
But other than that, if you know the dangers and you still like to smoke a few packs a day: "Thank you citizen for your contribution and sacrifice!"
If you die soon after your productive years or retirement, you are no longer a drag to healthcare - while there's your last 3 or so years where you'd be taking some money out, but your 30-50 years of tobacco tax should have paid for that and a lot more.
If you don't die soon after retirement but keep smoking, hey thanks for continuing to pay extra taxes after retirement!
I'm not a smoker, but I find it strange that so many Governments worry about aging populations on one hand but keep trying to stop smokers from smoking. No need to spend so much money preventing them from smoking. Heck, we'd be able to afford to give the long time smokers a special "Patriot" carton every year as a sign of appreciation.
I'm sure there are plenty of other similar ways to prop up the healthcare/social security system.
Re:Sounds Like the Funniest Joke in the World (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm... paradox? (Score:2, Interesting)
Indiana Jones and the Lost:
-Breasts
-Wii
-Coyboy Neal
Re:Hmmm... paradox? (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, behavior of young males being aggressive, reckless, and willing to charge ahead to a fight, vs mature adults that tend to be conservative and stay with the group has a purpose. Young males are tougher and heal better and faster, and are also somewhat expendable.
Take the same concept and apply it to the oldsters. Eyesight problems keeps them close to home, rabid love for the grandchildren to the point of spoiling, erratic sleep patterns of waking up super early and sleeping when the youngsters are out running about... the exact opposite of them almost as if they were designed to sit around the fire doing small stuff and watching for hyenas when others sleep.
Stuff like that.