DARPA Aims for Synthetic Life With a Kill Switch 295
jkinney3 writes to mention that DARPA's mad scientists have undertaken a new program designed to create synthetic organisms, complete with a "kill switch." The project, dubbed BioDesign, is dumping $6 million into "removing the randomness of evolutionary advancement" by creating genetically engineered masterpieces. "Of course, Darpa's got to prevent the super-species from being swayed to do enemy work — so they'll encode loyalty right into DNA, by developing genetically programmed locks to create 'tamper proof' cells. Plus, the synthetic organism will be traceable, using some kind of DNA manipulation, 'similar to a serial number on a handgun.' And if that doesn't work, don't worry. In case Darpa's plan somehow goes horribly awry, they're also tossing in a last-resort, genetically-coded kill switch."
Luckily... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gamma or Alpha?
And then there's always the oddballs that refuse to stay addicted to the white.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
History has no evidence of any organism managing to evolve away from a lethal or maladaptive feature. The killswitch should persist in the population indefinitely.
As long as they don't use frog DNA, we should be fine. At least that's what Michael Crichton proved. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"You're implying that a group composed entirely of female animals will... breed?"
"No, I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way."
"If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, expands to new territory, and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously."
Great movie as well.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
History has no evidence of any organism managing to evolve away from a lethal or maladaptive feature.
Well, you're more right than you know. Baby seals haven't evolved to withstand harder clubs. Cows haven't managed to evolve into anything other than steak. Us humans haven't manage evolve away from war.
So yeah, I don't see why a killswitch would fail.
Re:Luckily... (Score:4, Insightful)
Modern cows are the result of HUMANS selecting for traits, not nature. Although even if that were not true, I'd argue that becoming tasty has been hugely beneficially for them. Why else would there be over a billion of them on the planet?
Re:Luckily... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Gary Larson, The Far Side, was way ahead of his time.
Re: (Score:2)
Modern cows are the result of HUMANS selecting for traits
Which is exactly what DARPA is aiming to do here, so whats the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is it sounds like they are going for something microscopic, some sort of engineered bacteria or something. Completely engineering an organism from the ground up on the macro scale is I'm going to assume rather implausible.
If this is in fact the case, then mutation becomes a much bigger issue because the population sizes are extrodinary, and generations are far far shorter. Cows take years to make new cows, but bacteria can go through dozens of generations a day.
Not to mention that if cows s
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a common misconception. Humans do not operate outside of nature. The law of natural selection includes the efforts of whalers hunting whales and conservationists trying to protect whales. The pigs that are reportedly wrecking havoc in parts of the southeast are not alien, simply new arrivals. The humans who make TV shows proclaiming the end of life as we know it due to the pig infestation are one little piece of the same natural
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider this: the way plants are arranged in virgin forest is natural, whereas the way plants are arranged in my backyard garden is not. But, my desire to order what seems chaotic is natural. Not just natural for a human, but a part of nature. When (American) football is played on artificial turf it seems unnatural, but my point is that the human ability to create artificial turf exists within the realm of nature, because there is no way for anything to exist outside of nature. This is in my opinin a funda
Re: (Score:2)
Cow is the host, man is the parasite (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The analogue for vegetarians would be maize, arguably the most successful species in the history of human civilization. To bring this conversation fork back on topic, it's interesting to note that modern corn is the result of several mutations that make the plant much less viable in the wild, and dependent upon humans for survival. Even with an engineered "kill switch" there's no guarantee that these artificial organisms won't encounter some other microorganism that f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Means they're below me on the food chain.
Re:Luckily... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cows haven't managed to evolve into anything other than steak.
There are approximately 1.5 billion cows in the world, which is orders of magnitude more than anything else in their weight class. In terms of biomass, they are one of the most successful land animals ever to exist on earth. Cow DNA will be replicating for a very long time.
The primary reason for the success of cows is the fact that the recipe for steak is encoded in their DNA. They also spend most of their usable energy towards making more steak.
Evolutionary success does not mean being on top of the food chain. High-level predators are usually, as a species, much more vulnerable to extinction.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cows are successful because of humans domesticating them. You seem to be confusing that with natural selection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...and darwin will select those without it...
Like how Adam Smith's hand sets prices?
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK. As a safeguard, we'll give these things preset kill limits.
Re: Luckily... (Score:2, Insightful)
All it would take is a mutation in the 'kill switch' vital regions of the DNA to disable it. If it's not being actively used, disabling it will confer no advantage or disadvantage.
In other words: having a kill switch or not having one - either way - won't affect the organism on a daily basis. Mutations to that gene group won't be phenotypically visible until you try to activate it. Activating it applies an extreme selective pressure toward those who don't have it. Turn it on, and the mutated progeny remain.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well you know even discounting the Jurrasic Park effect.
The kill switch is there in case all their other genetically-programmed methods of making sure nothing can go wrong, go wrong. Anything sound fishy about that?
I mean this isn't like having redundant hard drives so the chance of both failing is a lot lower than the chance of just one failing.
If they fuck up the genetically programmed loyalty, then I personally am not going to feel confident that they didn't fuck up the genetically programmed kill switc
Re: (Score:2)
History has no evidence of any organism managing to evolve away from a lethal or maladaptive feature. The killswitch should persist in the population indefinitely.
That's exactly what came to my mind when I read it. We can make very sophisticated kill switches including ones that are coupled to positive selective pressure, so the evolution away from it is strongly inhibited. But even in this case my money would be on the "randomness of evolution', as they put it, taking care of it in the long term. Oh, and as we are talking about bacteria with 20 minutes generation time, long term is really not that long.
Re:Does your tax money go where you want? (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize that without DARPA you'd not be whining about defense spending on the Internet, right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
DARPA: if you will put a kill-switch inside politicians, I am ready to send you some money by PayPal.
Re: (Score:2)
Does your tax money go where you want?
Well my first choice of where my tax money should go is "in my pocket", but that is just my selfishness speaking.
My next choice (or my first realistic choice) is for my tax money to go to my government.
Woot, it is! So yes, it's going where I want it.
If my tax money went to something other than our government, I'd be a little ticked possibly.
And yes, I realize you feel you are somehow entitled to claim it is still your money after it is no longer your money, and that you also feel you have some say over how
Re:Does your tax money go where you want? (Score:5, Informative)
Before the government got involved, health care in the US was affordable to even the poor.
There were also some advances in medicine in the meanwhile that raised the price independent of government involvement. Chemotherapy back in the day may have been cheap enough to afford out of pocket, but that's because it was booze.
I guess you could still claim that since the government funded much of the research that led to these advances, they were still responsible though.
Re: (Score:2)
...that was an exaggeration about the chemotherapy being booze [wikipedia.org], BTW. Sorry for the confusion that may have caused.
Re:Does your tax money go where you want? (Score:5, Insightful)
[citation needed]
There's a reason Medicare and Medicaid exist, and it's precisely because the poor *could NOT* afford health care.
The idiots who look at the past through rose-colored glasses really piss me off -- there were no "good old days". The government programs we have today were largely the result of a problem needing to be addressed. What, you think that the magical budget fairy appeared and said, "Hey everybody! Let's give money for health care to people who can already afford it!"
And there is something fundamentally retarded about someone who believes that an unregulated system would result in a better outcome. Newsflash, retard -- when entities are allowed to act completely in their own self-interest, they do so, to the detriment of others. The insurance industry is a private tax on health care (a portion of everything lines someone's pockets). Why shouldn't the beneficiary be the general public (via a federal system) instead of a small group of extremely wealthy people?
Re:Does your tax money go where you want? (Score:5, Insightful)
Before the government got involved, health care in the US was affordable to even the poor.
Leeching out bad humors was less expensive than an MRI is.
Of course your statement is untrue. It was a lack of available healthcare that caused medicare and medicade to be enacted to fill the gap.
There is something supremely retarded about you kids. You see government fail miserably at almost everything it does, yet you somehow believe the solution is more government control.
Perhaps because we see that non-government-controlled healthcare in the US is unaffordable, and we notice that it is private healthcare charging the government those high prices. We likely also notice that things like that law that makes it illegal for medicare to bargain for cheaper drugs was written by private healthcare companies.
More likely though, we just notice that everyone else has cheaper (often by half), more effective, universal healthcare than we do.
Please feel encouraged to mod me off-topic, right after you do the same to the parent. This isn't an article on healthcare or right-wing ranting about a time that never existed.
Hey, old man (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen. Your anecdotal claims backed up by zero statistics are surely fascinating. And I'm so excited that here in the "science" section of slashdot, hearsay is apparently super awesome.
If you want to go back to 50s medicine, you're welcome to it. People who have heart problems can die twenty years earlier. Severe forms of diabetes can go back to being lethal. Patients with mental illnesses can be lobotomized and put in a walled garden somewhere. Let's just throw out the massive advances in medical technology just so you can make some cheap, baseless, and most importantly, false political points.
Medical care is now highly specialized, with many, many fields, staffed by many different doctors, and I can guarantee you that that leading oncologists, heart surgeons, and neurosurgeons will not visit your house for an extra fifty cents. Sorry, but your childhood fantasy is just a childhood fantasy.
Out in the rest of civilization, the best way to cope with the increase of medical technology is to socialize it to reduce overhead. This is because it is very difficult to incentivize keeping someone healthy in a pure market. Without regulations, companies have no reason not to charge you outrageously for everything, since the cost you're willing to pay to live his virtually no limit.
Last meal for the troll (Score:3, Insightful)
I don’t think monopolies are nearly as much of a problem in a free market as opposed to one that’s been heavily regulated.
Look around the world to see the results. Strong regulatory states dominate GDP per capita. [wikipedia.org] This is because a powerful regulatory body steadies the market as it inevitably moves through it's cycles.
these arguments come down to a moral one: is it okay to forcibly take from one person in order to provide a basic level of care for another? I don’t think that’s morally sound, in fact, I think it’s horribly unjust
Ah. So, building roads is okay. Rail, airports, municipal buildings, all fine. Fighter jets, tanks, helicopter gunships, and we're still on the moral high ground. And the second an orphaned child receives state funded care, you think it's "horribly unjust." You're really just full of shit, aren't you?
You will always be forced to make unconscionable choices: who deserves to bear the burden of supporting the others? Why shouldn’t we take equal amounts from everyone, why should some bear a higher burden than others from a moral perspective? What do you define as the bare minimum that everyone deserves?
So, the more
Hmmmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
I can see this as a movie entitled "Kill Switch" with Arnold Schwarzenegger.......
Re: (Score:2)
You cahn tell which wuns ahh tha clonnes by tha dot in theyah eyehlids. Oh Fahk I already did that movie!
Re:Hmmmmm (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the movie you're looking for starred Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer.
artificial life, with serial numbers on DNA, and a pre-programmed lifespan... where did DARPA replicate that idea from, and when can I get a basic pleasure model?
Re: (Score:2)
I want more life, fucker!
Re:Hmmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the movie you're looking for starred Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer.
Just because it's been done before doesn't mean it can't be remade with more special effects, a higher budget and worse actors.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe the movie you're looking for starred Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer.
Just because it's been done before doesn't mean it can't be remade with more special effects, a higher budget and worse actors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_at_a_Funeral_(2007_film) [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_at_a_Funeral_(2010_film) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the movie you're looking for starred Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer.
Just because it's been done before doesn't mean it can't be remade with more special effects, a higher budget and worse actors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_at_a_Funeral_(2007_film) [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_at_a_Funeral_(2010_film) [wikipedia.org]
Wow.... just wow.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the movie you're looking for starred Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer.
artificial life, with serial numbers on DNA, and a pre-programmed lifespan... where did DARPA replicate that idea from, and when can I get a basic pleasure model?
Screw basic, send me an advanced model!
Re: (Score:2)
... when can I get a basic pleasure model?
We'll take your order now! Do you want it to look like Harrison Ford or Rutger Hauer?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the movie you're looking for starred Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer.
artificial life, with serial numbers on DNA, and a pre-programmed lifespan... where did DARPA replicate that idea from, and when can I get a basic pleasure model?
Don't worry, they spliced the replicant DNA with amphibian DNA so they can't breed.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the amphibian DNA was used to fill in holes in the target DNA.(Jurassic Park)
I always found it strange that these artificial beings that cannot reproduce are somehow able to get past a physical. (Blade Runner)
Doctor "Why I see that you have a model 545G uterus, you know those are only used in replicants?"
They were reading "freefall" (Score:3, Funny)
artificial life, with serial numbers on DNA, and a pre-programmed lifespan... where did DARPA replicate that idea from, and when can I get a basic pleasure model?
Looks like they were reading Mark Stanley's excellent webcomic "Freefall [purrsia.com]".
It examines these issues in detail, with considerable humor.
Re: (Score:2)
Already made, Universal soldier but with Van damme (sp?).
Re:Hmmmmm: Video Game Assassin's Creed (Score:2)
There already is a book called Killswitch (Score:2)
See http://www.amazon.com/Killswitch-Cassandra-Kresnov-Joel-Shepherd/dp/1591027438 [amazon.com]
It just happens to be a novel about an attempt to engineer loyalty into a synthetic organism. Oh, and it's totally awesome.
Life always finds a way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Even then they'd be fine as long as they don't also plant beans all over the island.
Excuse me? (Score:2, Insightful)
jkinney3 writes to mention that DARPA's mad scientists have undertaken a new program designed to create synthetic organisms
Ok, this stupid meme that everyone who works with applied biology is some sort a crazed wild eyed 'mad scientist' arrogantly playing God really needs to die. If you can't say something without that sort of emotional language, don't say anything at all.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't say that all of DARPA's scientists were mad scientists. But really, if someone's working on this, how can they not be a mad scientist?
It is the responsible thing to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting aside the sarcasm, any self-replicating technology, or technology that could be self-replicating, needs to have multiple safeguards in place to prevent over-replication. Unless you are willing to declare any such research absolutely off limits and enforce it somehow, then I think they should be credited with doing the right thing here.
implants instead of robots? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
resistance is futile
you will be assimilated
Anybody remember a movie called Bladerunner? (Score:2, Insightful)
Laws of robotics? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems as though the "kill switch" option is an attempt to hard-wire an equivalent to Asimov's laws of robotics (obey all orders / don't harm humans / protect self).
However, Asimov's "I, Robot" stories were written to highlight how even something hard wired could have its pitfalls - and that was someone who wrote the stories and also the 'rules' behind the stories.
Be interesting to see how this one pans out.
Too late... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, I think I've seen this before (Score:4, Insightful)
How could it possibly go right?
Are we mature enough as a species for this ? (Score:2, Insightful)
When I start seeing developments like this, I wonder if we as a species are developing faster technologically than we are maturing as a civilisation.
Are we wise enough to use such a technology, if it were developed to it's full potential ?
Re:Are we mature enough as a species for this ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least our top priority isn't killing everybody AND watching "Jersey Shore". Humans ain't so bad as long as they're living fairly comfortably and have TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for ya.
There is a lot wrong with humanity, but sometimes I think people are a tad to harsh on it...
Re: (Score:2)
"We already have enough weapons to kill everybody on the planet 100 times ov"
And yet we haven't. How is more 'enlightened' the person that doesn't build them, or the person who builds them, but does not use them. It takes a hell of a lot of will power not to use something you have.
"and our top priority is watching "Jersey Shore"."
no it's not, but we have managed to conquer most our basic needs:
Sex, Food, Kids, Shelter. That leaves plenty of leisure time. A few people choose to watch incredible insipid TV.
So
Re: (Score:2)
But hasn't that always been the way things worked.
Frankly I feel doing this on planet is about as stupid as above ground nuclear testing.
This is why we need a space program. Doing this kind of research on say the moon seems like a much better plan than anywhere on earth.
If not there maybe one of the dry valley's in the Antarctic.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, for as long as we have a documented history.
However, over the last few decades, we have developed the ability to destroy all life on this planet. 100 years ago we couldn't do that.
And while we have matured in some ways (we have not destroyed ourselves yet in a nuclear war) I don't think we have developed far enough to wisely use some of the military technology, like this one, which we are now developing.
The effects of a nuclear war are immediate for everyone. OTOH, this technology has the potential to
What OS would 'it' run? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They named it wrong. (Score:2)
Uh, can you say.. Blade Runner? (Score:2, Insightful)
Life always finds a way (Score:2)
Reading about that kill switch, I'm reminded about the quote from Jurassic Park about how Life always finds a way. I'm not sure that say 20-30 years post development when we may need a kill switch that it'll still work. Because things probably won't go haywire to the point of needing a kill switch right away. And even if they do, if the problems get worked out and these things become more common, I don't know if the kill switch tech will be updated with each iteration to account for possible evolutionary
Re: (Score:2)
It won't matter. After "those with the disabled kill switch" kill off our ancestors, the history books will be written to proclaim the uprising of the chosen as a pivotal point for the betterment of humanity.
We will be remembered as a plague upon the Earth that created its own demise.
Junk DNA (Score:3, Insightful)
The killswitch needs to be incorporated into critical sections of the organisms DNA to give it even a chance of working. The deadly gene needs to have a beneficial purpose, or (even without selective pressure) the section that codes for the killswitch will randomly mutate with no adverse effect on the organism.
To put it another way, a car alarm built into your rear bumper is not nearly as useful as one built into the ignition.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Stop it with that old “junk DNA” hat!
That DNA is long proven not to be junk! Your information is deprecated.
No, those who parrot it anyway, over and over again, are not right.
Monsanto (Score:2)
So DARPA's just licensing stuff from Monsanto these days?
The first thing that comes to my mind... (Score:3)
is...
Nexus 6 Roy Batty... "I want more life f....er"
Kill switch... sooner or later that life form will want to extend its life... the same as we humans do.
Another Typical Over Kill for A Simple Solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except you are still dead.
If I made an exact copy of you, and then shot you. You would still be dead.
Yes, other people might not know the difference, but you are still dead. Your copy isn't.
Another example:
If Jamie Summers was replaced b a fembot that was identical in all way. Then Jamie summers was stuffed through a wood chipper (industrial, natch), she would still be dead.
Google is one of the contractors (Score:2)
You don't think the "Droid Nexus One" was a simple naming mistake, do you? How long will it take them to get to a model 6?
Can you say "I want more life, fucker"? I knew you could!
commercial intent? (Score:2)
I suppose this has nothing to do with commercial considerations, such as ensuring customers have to re-stock, or enforcing the payment of licensing fees?
But... (Score:2)
Will they dream of electric sheep?
But...but.. (Score:2)
Haven't they seen ANY film at all?
Are you sure you want encoded loyalty? (Score:2, Informative)
Some Muslim sects are full of people who are very loyal.
Oh good (Score:2)
JC Denton (Score:2)
Serenity? (Score:3, Funny)
Dr. Simon Tam: A phrase that's encoded in her brain, that makes her fall asleep. If I speak the words, "Eta...
Jayne Cobb: Well don't say it!
Zoë: It only works on her, Jayne.
Jayne Cobb: Oh... Well, now I know that.
Re:Do androids dream of electric sheep? (Score:4, Funny)
Only if they're Scottish androids.
Systemic Shock: kill switch for agents (Score:4, Informative)
Deus Ex (Score:3, Funny)
- Take your best shot, flatlander woman.
Cortex Bomb (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really sure if it is a good thing that I got the Stargate Atlantis reference here.
Re: (Score:2)
There biological, Your safety switch will be known as a 'gun'
Re: (Score:2)
Monsanto already has that covered. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to genetically engineer both DRM and pesticides into our food supply?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It won't, because Tracer Tong will disable it.
Re:Kay, i'm out of here (Score:4, Insightful)
SARS is claimed as being a case where things in the lab screwed up and someone become infected.
Swine Flu was also apparently mishandled, the virus being recreated from a previous similar outbreak decades ago.
You got any evidence for either of those?