Scientists Develop Kill Switches In Case Bioengineered Microbes Go Rogue (upi.com) 66
schwit1 quotes UPI:
Scientists at Harvard have developed a pair of new kill switches that can be used to thwart bioengineered microbes that go rogue. Researchers have been testing the use of bioengineered microbes for a variety of purposes, from the diagnosis of disease in the human body to the neutering of mosquitoes. But there remain concerns about releasing manipulated microbes into nature. Could their augmented genes have unintended consequences? Could they morph and proliferate?
Kill-switches ensure the microbes effectively shutdown, or commit suicide, after they've executed their intended function. While kill switches have proven effective in the lab, researchers suggest kill-switch technologies needed to be improved to ensure safety in real-world environs... The researchers detailed their new kill switches in a new paper published this week in the journal Molecular Cell. "This study shows how our teams are leveraging synthetic biology not only to reprogram microbes to create living cellular devices that can carry out useful functions for medicine and environmental remediation, but to do this in a way that is safe for all," said Donald Ingber, founding director of the Wyss Institute.
Kill-switches ensure the microbes effectively shutdown, or commit suicide, after they've executed their intended function. While kill switches have proven effective in the lab, researchers suggest kill-switch technologies needed to be improved to ensure safety in real-world environs... The researchers detailed their new kill switches in a new paper published this week in the journal Molecular Cell. "This study shows how our teams are leveraging synthetic biology not only to reprogram microbes to create living cellular devices that can carry out useful functions for medicine and environmental remediation, but to do this in a way that is safe for all," said Donald Ingber, founding director of the Wyss Institute.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, has no one read Jurassic Park?
A handful of the elderly, perhaps. But even they know "it's only fiction".
Re:Fiction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is how they will spread the biological kill switch to us all. Telling us its for our own protection.
No, it's to protect the children. Besides, if it doesn't happen, the terrorists win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://warnewsupdates.blogspo... [blogspot.co.uk]
the hard part (Score:5, Insightful)
puttng a kill switch in a bug is trivial. really really trivial. I've done it so I know. Lots of people do it.
the problem is making the kill switch not get edited out in future generations. I see that some of my bacteria have mutated out there's in a few generations. there was no selective pressure to do this either. So they are rare in the population 1 in millions. But as soon as I apply selective pressure all the other ones dies and those are the ones left.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a similar error in Oryx and Crake. I shan't say anything more specific in case anyone is going to read it, which I would still recommend despite it.
Re: (Score:2)
you bred raptors?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, has no one read TFA? (I know, I know, this is /.)
This work addresses exactly that problem, they have installed two mechanisms in different parts of the genome both of which produce different toxins. The regular kill switch, which kills the organism with toxin A when an environmental trigger is detected, also continuously produces an anti-toxin for toxin B, which the other mechanism continuously produces. Losing the trigger part also edits out antitoxin B, killing the cell immediately. A two step
Re: (Score:2)
>
This work addresses exactly that problem, they have installed two mechanisms in different parts of the genome both of which produce different toxins.
... A two step process of losing the toxin B gene, followed by losing the trigger would be needed to eliminate the kill switch.
None of that seems out of the ordinary for evolution. We have toads that lay their eggs on their own backs. They need a special skin that protects the eggs and keeps them moist. But they also need a long egg depositor that can reach all the way up to their back. One change by itself it useless, so it needs both of them to work. And it the toxin A and B story, if it looses the Toxin B generator first, nothing happens to kill it. Then after that it can loose the toxin A gene and now it can live.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The technology in question isn't applied. Hopefully even government regulators will be intelligent enough to realize that a single kill switch is no match for evolution.
Re:Nature ... finds a way. (Score:4, Informative)
Monsanto tried that too with their engineered crops. They were supposed to be unable to reproduce. And yet they did! Because mutations.
I think you're confusing three separate issues and believing they're a reality that fits what you want to believe.
Two: there have been lawsuits that monsanto pollen contaminated fields (you mention this below). It appears more likely the farmer in question intentionally cultivated GMO seeds, using roundup, and at any rate, that's much different from what you're suggesting. [npr.org]
Three: terminator seeds, which Monsanto developed, are unable to reproduce. These seeds were never sold. [wikipedia.org] There's not much need: modern farmers aren't really interested in re-using seeds. First generation hybrids that are sold are superior, second generation seeds are a mix that aren't worth as much.
But hey, maybe you can react like they did, when they sued the farmers on whose fields the Monsanto crops had spread for copyright infringement and put them in prison for 10-20 years. Yes, that actually happened.
You're intentionally peddling lies here. [wikipedia.org] The farmer in question planted the GMO seeds he didn't buy or license. I don't think he should have had to license seeds he obtained from his own land, so that part is shit, but he did knowingly use the seeds without paying the fee. He had to pay a small fine, NOT the lawyers fees, and he didn't fucking get sent to prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Monsanto based many of their claims in lawsuits on the idea that resistance could not be bread in and could not jump. Both have since happened. In particular, South American cocoa growers bred resistance (making the DEA their unwitting weed control partners), many weeds evolved resistance, and wild plants related to canola now carry Monsanto's genes. Further, Monsanto's canola is now growing wild along some roads.
Re: (Score:2)
Resistance evolving in weeds was predicted, if Monsanto claimed that wouldn't happen, shame on whichever idiots believed it.
Horizontal gene transfer to other species though, yeah. That's always been a concern, and monsanto steamrolled through it. If the NRA has a competitor for making sure a controversy will be inflamed in the future, it's Monsanto. GMO
Re: (Score:2)
True, their many sins don't (yet) include losing control of a kill switch. They do highlight why people are wary of a kill switch or anything that might need one. Subsequent events do call into question Monsanto's testimony in court and the decisions reached as a result. As you say, it also amps up suspicion for the whole industry.
Bass ackward (Score:3)
"Scientists at Harvard have developed a pair of new kill switches that can be used to thwart bioengineered microbes that go rogue".
Nearly right! But it's quite important to implement the kill switches BEFORE the microbes "go rogue" (whatever that may mean).
Re: (Score:2)
Definition of "microbes go rogue": The designer fucked up badly due to small skills, big ego and management pressure. I.e. the normal way things happen these days of pseudo-skills.
Re: (Score:2)
"Scientists at Harvard have developed a pair of new kill switches that can be used to thwart bioengineered microbes that go rogue".
Nearly right! But it's quite important to implement the kill switches BEFORE the microbes "go rogue" (whatever that may mean).
Henry Wu: Actually they can't breed in the wild. Population control is one of our security precautions. There's no unauthorized breeding in Jurassic Park.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: How do you know they can't breed?
Henry Wu: Well, because all the animals in Jurassic Park are female. We've engineered them that way.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: But again, how do you know they're all female? Does somebody go out into the park and pull up the dinosaurs' skirts?
Henry Wu: We control their chromosomes. It's really not that difficult
Dual redundancy (Score:2)
It seems to me that having two of the same type of technology does not do much to improve the overall safety factor. There are still systemic issues which lead to the possibility of both types of biological "kill switch" from operating.
What the researchers should be considering is a diversity of approaches to controlling rogue microbes: one biological and some other sort - physical, electrical, chemical, time-dependent. So if there was an "unknown unknown" that prevented successful killing, there was a fa
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit more complex than 'two switches using the same type of technology' - it relies on an active channel to ensure that the inserted killer virus (bacteriophage) genome still exists.
It is hardly perfect and in The Fine Article is really touted as a demonstration on how one can proceed with other, presumably interconnected pathways to make a more robust safety system. I still have doubts on how this will play out in the long run (long in this case being perhaps a decade for a rapidly growing bacterium
Re: (Score:2)
The AID virus is not "finding a way" to defeat three drug therapy. Three different protease inhibitors target the critical protease molecule in different ways such that it cannot mutate to defeat all three and still work.
This work is not the final stage, it is simply showing a two step mechanism that requires two gene segments be lost in a particular order for the kill switch to be deactivated. More complex schemes are easily imagined, two different two component kill switches; mutually lethal two component
monthly subscription (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is lateral gene transfer. (Score:5, Interesting)
Assuming we are talking about bacteria and viruses that multiple by binary cell devision the real threat is viruses. Viruses come in all shapes and sizes and you can not assume one will not recognize your cell and try to coopt it at which point it will absorb some of the DNA of that cell as well as deposit some of it's own DNA.
Often times lateral DNA transfers like this are innocuous but there is always the chance something unusual will happen.. Fortunately as mammels we won't have to worry about mutation and passing stuff onto our children for the most part as those cells are mostly protected in our bodies. The real threat is for cancers and new transferable diseases.
And then evolution kick in (Score:1)
And then evolution kick in...
But how effective is this? (Score:1)
We are dealing with counts in the millions. If these kill switches aren't effectively reproduced at very nearly 100% of the time, these aren't going to provide any real safety.
Notice (Score:2)
Management will decide "they are not needed" (Score:2)
And they are "too expensive" and after the technology has become somewhat widespread, it will be done without the safety mechanisms. And guess what? Nothing will be happening to the guilty, just as today.
Re: (Score:2)
the existence of "a guilty party" assumes two kinds of survivors of a bad bio accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, there will be survivors. One reason bio-weapons are not used in practice (other then chemical ones) is that they are really hard to deliver, i.e. you usually hit only a small number of people. The other is that many people will survive or even not get sick. But a few million dead if something like this goes bad in a larger city are a real possibility. Most will actually not die from the pathogen though, but from the panic.
Re: (Score:2)
if civilization comes apart the notion of "guilt" and venues for prosecution disappear along with law and borders. A bunch of savages in L.A. can know nothing and do nothing about the former biotech employees on the east coast.
Replicants r us (Score:2)
Um, so I'm guessing it would be bad to get infected by one of these virii. It could end up being a time delay a la bladerunner.
The real corporate title: (Score:1)
The new AIDS (Score:2)
Evolution (Score:3)
These guys haven't heard of evolution?
Only requires one failure ... cut funding now! (Score:2)
Unless the 'kill switch' is 100% effective 100% of the time, doesn't that mean that there will be (at some point) one successful survivor that will breed? ...
And like the parent, the offspring won't (all?) be responsive to the kill switch.
So until "kill switch" technology is 100% effective 100% of the time
Cut the funding to this now. It's a stupid idea.
Evolution invests in killing kill switch (Score:1)
Scientists invest in kill switch for rogue microbes ignoring basic known science.
What could possibly go wrong for these illiterate scientists?
Evolution invests in killing kill switch to help rogue microbes. News at 10!