Synthetic Biology May Spawn Biohackers 320
nusratt writes "EE Times reports 'Design automation systems tailored to the task of genetic engineering . . . can lead to the accidental or deliberate creation of pathogenic biological components.' Design of molecular machines is analogous to doing system-on-chip work, and hackers 'will not need a detailed knowledge of biochemistry to effectively create complex biochemical machines.' A Harvard genetics professor says, 'Even if we don't have bioterrorists and teen-age biohackers, we will still create things that do not have the properties that we thought they would . . . Even if you are genetically resistant and recently immunized, you will have problems with artificial biological agents.' He also says that there are two big differences between this risk and nuclear weapons: (1) building weapons is harder; (2) synth-bio work is more accident-prone. Oh great, just great: script-kiddies with smallpox . . ."
Risk with any technology (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, are these systems going to be cheap enough that we have to worry about script kiddies? If computers still cost $5000+, I doubt script kiddies would be such a rampant problem on the net. -- Paul
Advance of Knowledge cannot be stopped (Score:1, Interesting)
Over a period of time, it is going to get progressively easier to develop synthetic biological agents. I would prefer that the good guys get their hand in before the baddies (terrorists, bio-script kiddies, bio-black hats...). And yeah, hope they also focus on how to contain fallouts from accidental mistakes, experiments gone wrong, bio-script kiddies etc.etc.
Re:Designed vs Evolved (Score:3, Interesting)
Antivirus software was particularly effective, though, as a whole new family of viruses had common components you could detect.
I bet the body's immune system will respond in the same way. If you re-use the same formula for the virus shell, the same antibodies will react to a variety of viruses.
Biohacking is not easy (Score:5, Interesting)
The point was that it was slow, laborious work with lots of hardware support (agar, incubators, restriction enzymes, etc) needed and a danger of getting various sorts of stuff on yourself. And we're still (sadly) profoundly ignorant of what really makes bugs tick...
So the first DNA-script-kiddie is still as far off as the nanotech grey-goo horror IMHO.
Damon
If it was so easy... (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree once you have a virus or some time of self spreading destructive agent, it is easier to spread than tradional bombs. Building tailored geneic machines will be like every other process. It won't be very profitable until some big break through makes it cheaper for certain apps. Then we'd carelessly use the tech for 5-10 years without any problems then one day we'd have an accident and the news folks would be all over it. There would be all sorts of safe guards so that nothing like that could happen again. Every six months or so their would be a new special report about how that tech could have been better managed and what not.
Prey (Score:5, Interesting)
Licensing is the answer? (Score:2, Interesting)
And this has worked soooo well in preventing virii in the computing world (can you say Microsoft?).
The article goes on to say Tom Knight, who directs MIT's BioBrick wet lab in the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. "There is an opportunity here because the oligonucleotides contain a lot of information which can be used to track and monitor what is being done with them."
Well, that assumes of course, that the development of potentially new and nasty little buggers is under your control
And finally
"Even if we don't have bioterrorists and teen-age biohackers, we will still create things that do not have the properties that we thought they would," Church said.
and will these "things" go on to further adapt and mutate on their own?....Hmmm, can you say Darwin?
Re:Designed vs Evolved (Score:2, Interesting)
Couldn't this be countered by a similar "shotgun" inoculation consisting of billions of dead viruses each with a different structure? If only 2% of them would activate the immune system against the infecting HIV, you'd still get a fighting chance.
Now I know it won't work because otherwise the pharma-giants would already be making money like crazy on it, but still I'd like to know why it won't work.
Re:Risk with any technology (Score:4, Interesting)
The question isn't will it be cheap enough for everyone to have the ability to do it. It's will it be cheap enough for the crazies to do it, as well as what are the implications of doing it (by crazies or by well thought out researchers).
You better believe that if the crazies could inflict this type of damage for $5000 they'd do it in a heartbeat.
Re:Prey (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a clever concept, but man does Crichton's execution suck. His earlier work is vastly superior, both from a technical standpoint, and from the standpoint of quality of writing. Jurassic Park had a few plot holes, but he's been getting sloppier ever since. He's also abandoned any concern for scientific credibility.
Prey demonstrates ignorance in roughly equal parts of the details of biology, physics, chemistry, and computer science.
He's just banging out books as fast as he can in hope that another one gets bought by a movie studio.
try:"The Changeling Plague" it's cool (Score:1, Interesting)