Artificial Bases Added to DNA 362
holy_calamity writes "Researchers have successfully added two 'unnatural' DNA letters to the code of life. They created two artificial base pairs that are treated as normal by an enzyme that replicates and fixes DNA inside cells. This raises the prospect of engineering life forms with genetic code not possible within nature, allowing new kinds of genetic engineering."
On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:4, Insightful)
Do we really only perceive biologists as madmen who want to do evil experients for the heck of it? I've seen this trend spiral out of control, and frankly, I am ASHAMED.
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:1, Insightful)
Or, in other words--lighten up, man. Not everything's serious.
What could possibly go wrong, indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:3, Insightful)
The real question is when did the slashdot audience turn to such un-comical jackasses who feel the need to take everything so seriously? I get it, you're well off, you like science, you like to stay on slashdot because in your opinion it represents the more "successful" members of society. But then, maybe you're just an arrogant prick, and maybe we're just having fun.
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm seriously annoyed about the tags. I've been a frequent Slashdot contributer for 10 years and for some fucking reason not only can I not moderate, I cannot add tags. Why the fuck not? I'm good enough to continuously post comments that the other moderators feel are worth of +5 Foo but the "editors" don't feel I'm worthy of bestowing that or tags for others to see?
Personally, I find the majority of tags being used are pointless (like the one referenced above). They need to stop fucking around with the ability to moderate and tag content or do away with it all together -- especially for those that really deserve it.
I love optimism (Score:5, Insightful)
Nature? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty damned cool, but summary is misleading (Score:1, Insightful)
And those letter are... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:whatcouldpossiblygowrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes what could possibly go wrong? I'm really wracking my brains and I'm having a job
Since these Bases are not synthesized in the wild there is no chance of the altered DNA getting propagated in somethings genome and since there (presumably) not recognized by tRNA [wikipedia.org] they can't affect translation
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:2, Insightful)
And, unfortunately, probably read/watch a lot of science fiction. Am I the only person who has noticed that in most science fiction, scientists are often the cause of the disaster, and sometimes they are not the cure, but rather some random person?
More and more, I see SF as putting out the message "scientists as a group are stupid, shortsighted, and dangerous, only the lone researcher who disagrees with the group knows what is actually going on, and the pitchfork/torch wielding crowd have the right idea on how to fix things."
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:3, Insightful)
If it helps, you may want to consider doing what I do and regard the tags as you would the graffiti on the walls of a bathroom stall: similarly pointless, irrelevent, badly written, but occasionally informative or even entertaining if you have nothing better to do.
Come to think of it, you may want to extend that approach to the comments, as well.
In a word ... Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it in terms more slashdotters will understand: you don't add new code to a production system with out figuring out ahead of time what could possibly go wrong.
Re:Proteins that no one has ever seen before (Score:3, Insightful)
Rational FUD vs. irrational FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Take nanotechnology for example. There is no place for sky-is-falling panic over "new asbestosis" and other possibilities, but researchers seriously should look into things like this to put a real, hard, risk assessment on these possibilities. Let's suppose that by 2015 there will be X amount of this or that nanotech in use. What can we predict about the rate of lung disease and how much, if any, of this will be attributable to nanotech? Is this amount acceptable? If not, what if anything can or should be done to reduce the risk?
Likewise, people doing research in genetic engineering, particularly with totally novel life forms, need to ask themselves "what could possibly go wrong," "what is the likelihood of that happening," "how can the risk be reduced or mitigated," and "should we go to the effort to reduce or mitigate the risk." In many cases, the risk is low, the consequences are minor, and/or the cost of mitigation or prevention is high and the logical choice is to accept the new technology and live with the acceptable risks.
In other cases, the risk is high, the consequences are dire, and/or the cost of mitigation or prevention is low and it makes sense to prevent or mitigate the risks.
Re:engineer tougher DNA (Score:1, Insightful)
Your forgot your 'IANABiologist'.
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What could possibly go wrong, indeed. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:4, Insightful)
That's pretty much been the case with Hollywood SF since the 1950s. Conspiracy theorists might surmise that it really was due to communist infiltration and that it was all a Soviet plot to undermine US science, but more likely it was (and is) just a combination of the scientifically illiterates' response to something they don't understand (consider Clarke's Third Law plus equating magic to witchcraft), and the fact that the Frankenstein myth has always sold well.
As for written SF, I'm not sure that exists anymore -- I was just looking at a flyer for the upcoming MileHiCon (Denver in October, a few months after the WorldCon), and of the three author guests of honor, none of them write what I'd call science fiction. It's all magic, paranormal and shapeshifters. But that seems to be where the money is; look how "Buffy" and "Angel" did compared to "Firefly".
Now, all you kids get off my lawn!
Re:I love optimism (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you could just search for (Score:3, Insightful)
"dont fix what isnt broken" (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many subtleties to the natural world which we as humans don't understand. While we uncover more and more every day, we can never know enough to make me comfortable with the idea of significantly altering life on our planet (beyond basic low tech breeding of course).
For instance, long ago we considered exceedingly pure refined nutrients to be the best for us, but it turns out our bodies actually depend on certain "impurities" to properly absorb them.
While depression and pessimism are viewed by the majority to be counterproductive, eliminating them through genetic engineering in all likelihood would remove a necessary sobering influence on our society.
Overspecializing in physical strength, altering our neuro-structure, or adding new "features" may very well lead to overspecialization and extinction.
This is nothing to laugh about, and while the
Then again people rated your post funny. Maybe this post is the sound of a joke whooshing high above my head?
Not possible in nature? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You visit too often... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you make a lot of comments, you probably are very opinionated and would take one side in an argument.
If you don't make a lot of comments, you probably have not shot your mouth off about a given topic (remember the duplicates and the topics that are similar). If you have not already committed yourself in writing then you are more likely to moderate on the substance of the discussion rather than your own feelings.
*facepalm* (Score:1, Insightful)
This doesn't change much of anything. At least not in terms of the expression of these new nucleotides in any meaningful fashion.
Genes for the creation of a tRNA molecule that can interface with these new base pairs would have to be created. While you're at it, these "unnatural" tRNA carriers would have to also be able to interface with an amino acid of some kind. This could be any one of the AAs we already use in our bodies. So in essence...you've recreated what already exists, and done it the long way.
It CAN open the door to new and exciting things, but it's like saying "We invented two new letters in the alphabet". This is meaningless unless there are words in which you can put those letters, and even then, those words are useless unless you alter the entire grammatical structure of the language to accomdate them.
So get cracking.
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:5, Insightful)
No, in other words he's being a rational open minded person who isn't treating science like a holy can't-do-no-wrong religion. The second you stop questioning the possible ramifications of any given advance, is the second you become an unthinking true believer.
Wouldn't it have been nice if someone way back would have stopped and asked "what could possibly go wrong" when they began exploiting crude oil? Or we could go down the list of medications that have been pulled off the market by the FDA because "what could possibly go wrong" wasn't a question seriously considered early on.
Few people here who tag it are even being serious in the first place, but in humor there is terrible truth and the terrible truth is, we have to be very careful how we proceed with new developments and technologies and it needs to be done with the recognition that they can and often have had unintended consequences. That's not anti-science or irrational, that's being a realist.
Re:Or you could just search for (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:4, Insightful)
The choice/selection of the four "natural" (five if you count U) bases for RNA/DNA was made so incredibly long ago, it doesn't seem clear that the other possibilities are being or have been tried or selected in any sort of way. So your "um's" don't seem to be appropriate, at all. It's not clear that these base pairs ever "showed up" before at all once life got going using "natural" RNA/DNA.
These aren't new genes were discussing here as much as getting to play with a new library of functions. That is, they're not creating new words as much as expanding the alphabet. And it's not just life so much here that they're pursuing. There are other uses of DNA these days than creating new life. These other applications are discussed in the fine article.
Lastly, the only way to learn is to experiment. Science doesn't prove as much as it disproves. You can theorize all you want, but experiments are necessary to refute/refine these theories (by disproving/falsifying). This is why your request for proof of the unknown is bizarre. Carried to its final conclusion, your "do nothing because we know nothing" attitude would suffocate almost all progress and learning entirely.
Re:Nature? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:3, Insightful)
a) I *guarantee* you somebody thought of the consequences. Some but not all of which were foreseeable.
b) If we had decided entirely against it way back when, I'm not at all convinced the world wouldn't be a far shittier place today. We need to wean ourselves from the addiction now, but it gave us a jumpstart. We wouldn't have used it otherwise.
> Or we could go down the list of medications that have been pulled off the market by the FDA because "what could possibly go wrong" wasn't a question seriously considered early on.
The FDA *is* the question "what could possibly go wrong?". They aren't perfect, and the process isn't perfect, and mistakes are made for various reasons. The reason is certainly not any pretense that nothing could go wrong.
>
I agree that the GP was overly optimistic, but you seem to be overly pessimistic. The precautionary principle is neither more nor less irrational than blind faith in scientific progress. I actually doubt you have a single scenario for things that could possibly go wrong with *just this* that hasn't been considered. We could sit here and imagine a virus which the immune system cannot fight because you cannot possibly match some protein only available through a new codon, which would not have been possible for evil scientists to do without the efforts of the good but misguided ones who didn't ask your question. We can also imagine a greater insight into the genetic process being proven through the use of these unnatural codons leading to new theories of why genetic disorders come to be and how to stop them. And right now, I don't think *anyone* really can see the full breadth of possible consequences (though those skilled in the art could narrow down some of the impossible ones, like genes leading to snakes capable of teleporting onto planes).
I think your problem isn't really with people failing to ask what could go wrong, but with people being *incorrect* about what could go wrong. And that's a much, much harder problem. All we can really do is move back the bar of what level of comprehension is necessary to try something, but then you start failing the "what could possibly go right" test (possible example: stem cell research), and you stunt our ability to learn from trying. There's a balance here, and it's just not clear where it is and nobody will ever really agree exactly.
Aside from all that, I think it's really pithy when people just naturally assume that <derision>Mr. Scientist</derision> hasn't thought through the consequences and prepared for them, with fire and brimstone. Or perhaps flooding the petri dish. Maybe making the organism kill its own offspring. <derision>Mr. Scientist</derision> loves his microbial children but hates their sins, the sins of their forebears, and of their descendants. If they would only follow the rules he laid down before them in the book of life, they could live in peace & prosperity & happiness. *ahem*. That's enough mixed allusions for now.
I'm not assuming that <derision>Mr. Scientist<derision> *has* the right answer, but the man needs to be fired if he doesn't have the question.
Re:The Audience is a Harsh Mistress (Score:5, Insightful)
So there is absolutely zero danger of such artifical DNA escaping the lab and getting into the environment cause goodness knows what damage? I can accept that this danger will be minimal but you would have to do some convincing to suggest that it is zero. For a start the new base pair were generated by trying many different random combinations until they found one that replicated. Clearly this suggests that they do not know exactly what this random combination will do when added to a cell, particularly since this is there next research project!
The usual best defence against "what could possibly go wrong" is to say that this already happens in nature so it can't be dangerous. This is the main argument we use against the nay-sayers of the LHC creating a black hole which will swallow the Earth. Cosmic rays striking the upper atmosphere are far more energetic and so if that were a danger we would not be here to discuss it! However the whole point of this experiment is to create something which nature has not done before (to our knowledge).
So the only argument I can see which is left is that the safe guards in effect to prevent this getting into the environment are so good that the risk is minimal and/or the chance that this new DNA pair creating a dangerous organism are zero. Since nobody knows what this pair will do yet I can't see how you can be certain of the latter (although I accept the risk may be incredibly small) and no containment procedure is fool proof since it involves humans (e.g. foot and mouth virus escape last year from a UK lab).
So the question we have to ask is whether the value of the research is worth the risk? As a scientist, though not a biologist, I would be inclined to say yes since it seems that this will help you guys understand some of the fundamentals of DNA plus it sounds really cool. Of course I'm a physicist so there may well be some very valid reason I know nothing about as to why there is no danger at all. So the best way to educate me is to explain why there is zero risk. Telling me that I'm stupid for even questioning that something could possibly go wrong, without telling me why I'm stupid, does not inspire confidence!