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."
I, for one... (Score:5, Funny)
Let me guess (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let me guess (Score:4, Funny)
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: (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 yo
The Audience is a Harsh Mistress (Score:5, Interesting)
Plus, let's face it -- there are articles where the tag is wonderfully appropriate as ironic snark, but this one isn't it. I mean, it's great for articles like this one about mass production of micro fission reactors [slashdot.org] or this one about the proposed future of military robots. [slashdot.org] Sometimes, it's funny when the very proposition of something going wrong is itself funny like with an article on a robot controlled by a monkey's brain. [slashdot.org]
However, dangers and recklessness involved in this project are next to nil. There's no irony and clever cynicism here. There's just the mindless misapplication of an overdone meme in a manner that makes Slashdot look like a bunch of technology fearing idiots. So yeah. While I don't think it's worth getting so worked up about, it is a stupidly applied tag and a failed attempt at humor.
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!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (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 g
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is, scientists are people, and that description does describe most people. Science is easy to romanticize; heroically smart men and women using the powers of reason and rigorously-designed experimentation and detailed ma
Re: (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: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: (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 c
Re: (Score:2)
Mine was more "Cool!", followed by "Oh, shit, we're all going to die."
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:4, Informative)
"Scientists Create Artificial DNA Bases With Unknown Properties" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"Ultra-Durable Ceramic Invented" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"New Discovery Makes X-Rays Safer" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"Groundbreaking New Image Processing Algorithm Makes Next-Gen GPUs Much Faster" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"Scientist Discovers That Shakespeare Had Tourette's" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"US Science Funding To Increase By 20%" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"[FAMOUS SCIENTIST] Dead At 71" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"Where Have Computer Linguistics Come Since The Seventies?" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
"The Ten Greatest Discoveries Of Astrophysics" - whatcouldpossiblygowrong
If the software behind Slashdot automatically translated the tag "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" into "science" I'm pretty sure that the quality and applicability of the tag would not decrease in the slightest.
Re: (Score:2)
They invented new base pairs, not "new replicating genetic code." Also, even if they *did* invent a "new replicating genetic code" calling it cancer is preposterous
The description called it a new genetic code. TFA announced that it was successfully replicating - Apparently a real hurdle. And I didn't call it cancer, I just pointed out that new replicating genetic codes certainly sound like cancer and justifies the silly "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag. This sounds like exciting science, but is also a field not to be taken too lightly.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as other posters have noted, the tag is being used more for its humor value than anything else. However, western civilization has long had an ambivalent relationship with science. If you go back as far as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, you can see the general theme of scientists learning things that 'man was never meant to know', and
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought it highlighted the fact that we, as living organisms, are subject to the effects of these techniques and that we should exercise caution and discretion in applying them to human biology.
There's also an unprecedented level of malicious potential if such developments fall into the wrong hands.
Re: (Score:2)
> There's also an unprecedented level of malicious potential if such developments fall into the wrong hands.
such as...?
WHAT is it that could possibly go wrong?
To paraphrase Rumsfeld, there are known knowns, and known unknowns, then there are the unknown unknowns. The last are the most dangerous.
In the history of science, there are plenty of examples of unintended consequences, especially when mucking around with biological systems. Not saying that we should completely avoid mucking around, but the question "What could possibly go wrong?" is a question worth asking.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because here on
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot members tend to represent the more educated and successful members to begin with
Which ones have you been talking to? I'd like to know. It can't be the ones who seem to have scripts to mod everything as flamebait or troll...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's a great plan! What could possibly go wrong?
(Ow! Ow! Ow! I'm just kidding! Ow!)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My sister's a microbiologist and I like to say that, Yes, they are all madmen (and women) that want to do evil experiments. (please don't tell her I said that, puhleaze!)
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:5, Funny)
Cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
have caused some to feel that scientists rush into new discoveries and are not being completely honest when they proclaim them "Perfectly safe!" Plus the continuing trend to announce huge world-changing discoveries with the nonchalant expectation that it'll soon be packaged and sold real soon. It seems the rush for profit and fame have crippled the scientific QA department.
I think the tag is a bit over
Re: (Score:2)
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.
whatcouldpossiblygowrong is the PERFECT tag (Score:2)
Are you nuts? Do you get even a tenth of the ramifications of this? I'm all for progress and research and knowledge, but I just saw the headline, and immediately thought, "if there was EVER an article that deserved the 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong' tag, this is it."
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that every single article that references any scientific development in the fields of genetics or molecular biology gets the "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" tag on Slashdot? What does this say about our society, since Slashdot members tend to represent the more educated and successful members to begin with? Have we really become such fat lazy luddites that we will reject anything we do not understand, on the basis of an infinitesmally-small risk to our (relatively) decadent and luxurious life?
The th
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do we really only perceive biologists as madmen who want to do evil experients for the heck of it?
As someone working in the field, I say "no." They're weirdos and nutballs quite similar to the geeks that post on Slashdot, except that they frequently work with wet stuff and usually have more formal training.
My paranoia (and I own it as paranoia) is not that some mad scientist will do evil experiments. It's that perfectly "normal" and "rational" citizens running a large corporation will fsck up the planet by using this kind of technology in a stupid way on an industrial scale. By, say, monocropping
Re: (Score:2)
- Um, maybe that DNA that isn't seen in Nature isn't see for a reason? Like the last time it showed up, it killed everything else, and then went extinct to seal the deal?
- Um, like maybe DNA that doesn't show up in Nature is un-natural, and doesn't really work?
- Um, like DNA that doesn't show up in Nature is so dysfunctional that it doesn't last.
I like door number three, where it will just fade away. But we won't get to choose the door. Reality will choose the door.
I'm not at all i
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: (Score:2)
All your base pairs are belong to us (Score:3, Funny)
The above statement deserves a +1 funny
"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 th
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or you could just search for (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Or you could just search for (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Tags are definitely the new Slashdot graffiti.
I used to think that maybe frequency of submission got a tag promoted to the front page. Given the very improbable tags that sometimes appear, there must be some mechanism which allows a tag to appear even if only one user types it. Maybe, as you suggest, the system gives a random subset of users "front page tagging power" periodically. If that's the case, then I would imagine that switching to a frequency-based display of tags would clean up the front page
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure what you're talking about. [slashdot.org] I didn't look through them all to see if any are more recent, but you tagged something as recently as Monday. Glancing through your tags, I have actually seen some of your tags up there; so it doesn't seem to be a matter of the tags not showing up. Is it that it just doesn't work sometimes? I've had that happen.
Right or wrong, with tags like "who cares", "thievingcunts", and "slownewsdaymeansdumbasfuck", it wouldn't surprise me if your 'tag karma' (or an arbitrary decision on the part of an editor) prevented you from tagging articles or from those tags showing up.
As for moderating, I'm with you. Excellent karma, frequent meta-moderation, and regular posting (in the past anyway) seemed to be a fast track to never having moderator points again for me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It never works, thus why I chose what I did -- to see if it would work. Yes, I tried to tag one on Monday (it didn't appear) and that's why this discussion was continued on by me.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a completely backwards and retarded way of handing out mod points. Why should those that are active not be able to moderate? An active contributer is more likely to keep up with the discussions and care about the outcome of the site not
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just click the triangle.
^BumP^ (Score:3, Informative)
Who knew!
Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT UP! (Score:5, Funny)
Well done, boy. Our secret is safe again. You will be rewarded by our leadership. B-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:On the topic of "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" (Score:4, 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.
New movie (Score:4, Funny)
Sagtacy.
What could possibly go wrong, indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
whatcouldpossiblygowrong (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Artificial bases would have what effect? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm curious as to whether this will result in new kinds of proteins, or whether new amino acids will be required to be built, or what other effects might crop up.
It's interesting, don't get me wrong--but how -practical- is it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Any Tool = Practical (Score:3, Interesting)
Things could even go as far as to impose government controls on engineered organisms, forcing such identification mechanisms for forensics purposes. This would be handy
I love optimism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they have to code for new amino acids? Wouldn't it be just as likely that they'd provide alternate codings for the amino acids already present? Or that they'd be just ignored? Or that they'd stop protein synthesis when encountered? If they reliably coded as errors, it might be convenient to stop expression of proteins that are detrimental, or to stop reproduction in viruses or the like.
Re:I love optimism (Score:5, Insightful)
A bigger story from ~10 years ago (Score:3, Informative)
The article can be found here [acs.org]. [PDF download requires a subscription]
A more interesting discovery (in my opinion) -- from the Scripps Institute -- was made about ~10-15 years ago (IIRC) by Pete Schultz's [scripps.edu] group. They modified tRN
Re: (Score:2)
Furries (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Furries (Score:5, Funny)
engineer tougher DNA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Generally speaking, viruses that insert their DNA into eukaryotic DNA don't have a particular place that they do so: they get their DNA into the cell, and it then inserts itself randomly in some bit of exposed DNA. See, eukaryotic DNA is very tightly bound to accessory proteins that protect/maintain it and hold it in some sort of to my knowledge poorly understood large-scale organizational scheme that constitutes a chromosome, s
Genetic engineering WILL get scary (Score:3, Interesting)
Nature? (Score:3, Insightful)
I for one... (Score:2)
And those letter are... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
building living (grey) goo (Score:2)
Ok whatever (Score:3, Informative)
Problem: it is now possible for people to take the DNA sequence for a nasty virus off the web and send it into a DNA synthesis company, pay the $20,000 and get vials and vials of the virus sent to them in under a month. And next year the price will drop to $10,000.. and the year after it will drop to $5,000.. and the year after it will drop to $2500.. and the year after it will drop to $1250, etc.
One Solution: tag each strand of DNA that is synthesized with an "batch number" by incorporating a pattern of artificial bases that will be replicated each time the DNA sequence is replicated. So if someone gets a nasty virus synthesized and puts it in the subway or something then you can read the batch number and trace who bought the DNA.
Previously covered... (Score:2)
DNA researchers get to "Second Base" pair (Score:5, Funny)
Powerpuff Ho! (Score:2)
In regards to "been done before" (Score:2, Informative)
Immunity from viruses (Score:2)
Article is a bit disappointing... (Score:2, Funny)
Scientists: "Yay! We finally crammed a new pair of DNA molecules!"
Journalist: "What do they do?"
Scientists: "We don't know, but we're gonna study it! It was really hard to cram that thing in there, it's like hammering a piece of a jigsaw puzzle where it didn't belong. Now we're going to study how it will react and how the surroundings react to it."
Journalist: "So what will this do for the future?"
Scientists: "More generally, Romesberg notes that DNA
God (Score:3, Funny)
It's GATTACA (Score:2)
Not possible in nature? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:that sounds like how my coworker debugs softwar (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Layne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)