Leading Scientists Urge Ban On Developing 'Mirror-Image' Bacteria (science.org) 140
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Science Magazine: It would be a nightmare lab leak: Synthetic bacteria escape the petri dish and unleash a global plague that life on Earth is incapable of defending itself against. That's the concern raised by a group of eminent researchers in a Policy Forum published online today in Science. The commentary's 38 authors, from a broad range of disciplines, argue that governments worldwide should prohibit research and funding aimed at creating so-called mirror-image bacteria whose chemical makeup differs in a fundamental way from that of naturally existing organisms.
All of life's primary biomolecules can exist in two mirror-image forms, like a left and right hand. But only one form is found in nature. Proteins are left-handed, for example, and DNA and RNA are right-handed. Synthetic biologists have previously synthesized mirror-image proteins and genetic molecules. And mirror-image amino acids and peptides -- the building blocks of proteins -- have been incorporated into several approved drugs. Because natural enzymes struggle to break down mirror-image biomolecules, these components help the drugs survive longer in the body. [...]
The concern, he and others say, is that taking this line of work many steps further could result in fully mirror-image bacteria that could reproduce. Such organisms would likely be able to infect and potentially harm a wide range of microbes, plants, and animals while resisting the molecules that enable predators to kill and digest existing microbes. "They are essentially unassailable to those enzymes," says John Glass, a co-author and synthetic biologist at the J. Craig Venter Institute. Animals' immune systems would also struggle to cope with mirror bacteria. They "would be invisible to the immune system until it was too late," says Timothy Hand, a co-author and immunologist at the University of Pittsburgh. The Policy Forum authors acknowledge it will be at least a decade before synthetic biologists will be capable of creating these life forms. Nevertheless, they recommend halting all research aimed at that goal and urge funding agencies not to support it. "It's hard to overstate how severe these risks could be," says Ruslan Medzhitov, an immunologist at Yale University and one of the authors. "If mirror bacteria were to spread through infected animals and plants, much of the planet's many environments could be contaminated. ... Any exposure to contaminated dust or soil could be fatal."
Jack Szostak, a co-author and a 2019 Nobel Prize-winning chemist at the University of Chicago, adds: "The result could be catastrophic irreversible damage, perhaps far worse than any challenge we've previously encountered."
All of life's primary biomolecules can exist in two mirror-image forms, like a left and right hand. But only one form is found in nature. Proteins are left-handed, for example, and DNA and RNA are right-handed. Synthetic biologists have previously synthesized mirror-image proteins and genetic molecules. And mirror-image amino acids and peptides -- the building blocks of proteins -- have been incorporated into several approved drugs. Because natural enzymes struggle to break down mirror-image biomolecules, these components help the drugs survive longer in the body. [...]
The concern, he and others say, is that taking this line of work many steps further could result in fully mirror-image bacteria that could reproduce. Such organisms would likely be able to infect and potentially harm a wide range of microbes, plants, and animals while resisting the molecules that enable predators to kill and digest existing microbes. "They are essentially unassailable to those enzymes," says John Glass, a co-author and synthetic biologist at the J. Craig Venter Institute. Animals' immune systems would also struggle to cope with mirror bacteria. They "would be invisible to the immune system until it was too late," says Timothy Hand, a co-author and immunologist at the University of Pittsburgh. The Policy Forum authors acknowledge it will be at least a decade before synthetic biologists will be capable of creating these life forms. Nevertheless, they recommend halting all research aimed at that goal and urge funding agencies not to support it. "It's hard to overstate how severe these risks could be," says Ruslan Medzhitov, an immunologist at Yale University and one of the authors. "If mirror bacteria were to spread through infected animals and plants, much of the planet's many environments could be contaminated. ... Any exposure to contaminated dust or soil could be fatal."
Jack Szostak, a co-author and a 2019 Nobel Prize-winning chemist at the University of Chicago, adds: "The result could be catastrophic irreversible damage, perhaps far worse than any challenge we've previously encountered."
It's an interesting experiment (Score:4, Interesting)
Chirality is uniform on Earth, as best we understand it, because one possible outcome just randomly got enough of a head start to out-compete the other.
If the lefties and the righties are incompatible, that should affect both sides... if our immune systems can't see them, they shouldn't be able to compromise us anyway. If we're competing for some fundamental resource, there's more of us than them and they won't get far before dying out.
Not that I'd risk an ecosystem on that, but in a nice BSL-4 lab? There's enough to learn to risk that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Makes sense. Let's go ahead and make cool shit, it won't Andromeda Strain us at all, nope.
I guess some people still have faith in our systems and government that biosafety levels and other standards will still mean something before the end of the next administration.
Image if biolabs were all managed like Tesla? And as unlikely and stupid as that may seem. All it might take is for someone like Tesla's CEO to be put in a position where he can define government policy. I know, just me being silly and paranoid
Re: (Score:2)
Image if biolabs were all managed like Tesla? And as unlikely and stupid as that may seem.
It would be like your comment. NOBDY would do that. Even the guy who takes big risks with rockets (who needs baffles?) is very worried over existential threats to mankind. One reason for the Mars colony is threats like this. Not just him, the culture among that group in Silicon valley many not care so much about individual people right now, because they prioritise the longterm survival of the species.
AI is the biggest threat he talked about, followed by global warming, though he has been de-emphasising th
Re: (Score:2)
And despite him seeing AI as the biggest threat, he's spending absolute stupid money on building it.
Now while I personally think the AI danger is a bit overblown (at least the type we are using in LLMs) , it signals something rather worrying about the guy that he seems to go from "This shit could kill us all" to "... so lets do it!"
Re:It's an interesting experiment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He's not really worried about any existential threats to mankind, those concerns are really about drumming up support for other issues he has a personal or usually vested interested in. Global warming was Telsa-driven self-interest, AI was the same for OpenAI, the light of consciousness in the universe being snuffed out and the need to become an interplanetary species was the same for SpaceX, worries about population decline were a sanitized version of Great Replacement theory before he was ready to come ou
Re: (Score:2)
And despite him seeing AI as the biggest threat, he's spending absolute stupid money on building it.
Now while I personally think the AI danger is a bit overblown (at least the type we are using in LLMs) , it signals something rather worrying about the guy that he seems to go from "This shit could kill us all" to "... so lets do it!"
He's just egotistical enough to actually believe that only he is capable of making a "safe" AI. And arrogant enough to believe that he should be in charge of computer god.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
.. with apologies to Warren Buffet, one of the nice guys :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AI is the biggest threat he talked about, followed by global warming, though he has been de-emphasising the latter recently. It sound like mirror bacteria would make the list.
As sg_oneil[^1] noted, Musk is spending gobs of money on AI. He justifies it, at least in part, by saying it's such a threat that he has to make sure someone smart, like him, is managing it. I hope no one tells him about mirror bacteria, cause I'm pretty sure he'd want to be the forerunner in creating it out of fear that someone dumber than him would do it first.
[^1] OMG is this the real MacGyver???
Re: (Score:2)
Then the entire subject is moot anyway. If the problem is incompetence at the highest levels, the highest levels won't legislate a solution.
Besides, billionaires already have a plan for this, AI. They don't need the vast majority of the population to survive anyway. It only matters if it threatens them.
Re:It's an interesting experiment (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure why they'd expect these to be dangerous. Any mirror bacteria are going to find themselves in a world where L-glucose doesn't exist, except for the small lab quantites that are synthesized and presumably used to feed them, and D-amino acids are very few and far between, except the occasional one that is already made and used by... bacteria.
Re:It's an interesting experiment (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah. If I recall correctly, the immune system attacks anything it doesn't recognize with molecules like H2O2, which doesn't care about the chirality of the thing being attacked.
Also bacteria has figured out how to eat plastic after it became prevalent in the environment. If mirror bacteria becomes common, it's only a matter of time before something figures out how to eat it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, infect them with mirror-image bacteriophage viruses.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a biologist but I would not make any assumptions, for the sake of betting. For the sake of avoiding calamities I'd assume if we experiment with this stuff only under the most tightly controlled conditions, to avoid environmental contamination; but that also applies to lots of other bio research.
Just the run thru it though. Lack of L-glucose isn't a problem if the bacterium can produce its own via some other metabolic path and their are a lot of paths that lead to production of simple sugars.
I don
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why people or other organisms for that matter would have an immunity problem
How does an immune system detect a foreign organism that doesn't look like an organism?
a lot of how bacteria are attacked should still work chemically. They do things like cause cell membranes to break down
My understanding is the cell membranes having the opposite protein chirality can potentially mean the cell membranes are not detected as membranes.
Even if you have the means to break them down; you need a way to see th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
but in a nice BSL-4 lab? There's enough to learn to risk that.
Throw in poorly isolated ventiliation and high probability of exposing the local neighborhood and I would happily send you all my monies!
Re: (Score:3)
greed will be our undoing, these are corrupt, irresponsible and unethical people running the show
what could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly. But consider, a bacterium that your immune system can't even see but it sees you as a big sack of sugar water and multiplies rampantly in the food enriched environment.
Then what?
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't necessarily even be able to metabolize glucose. At least not the glucose that we commonly consume.
Re:It's an interesting experiment (Score:5, Informative)
But also, most molecules above a small size have several biochemically interesting structures. If one is chiral, that doesn't mean all the others are too, and they are going to be as vulnerable to digestion as in any other molecule. Once you start splitting bits off a molecule like this, the odds of the remaining part getting racemised during the reaction rise rapidly.
Ever wondered how white blood cells destroy "invaders" (molecules, entire bacteria or viruses, if they've received a surface tag from the host immune system)? They use strongly oxidising free radicles to chop up such molecules or whole organisms into small, inactive metabolisable components, regardless of chirality.
Yes, chirality would be a barrier to growth for such an organism, but not an impregnable one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While it's nice and scary, I doubt that this is a realistic problem.
Far more likely is something that can reproduce in seawater and produces a waste product that turns out to be highly toxic to some critical life and is also stable - in human terms think toxicity of botulinum without the degradation in the presence of oxygen.
Imagine, for example, something that wipes out all phytoplankton in a decade.
The scary part about mirror molecules is that they're sufficiently similar to have a significant chance of i
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine, for example, something that wipes out all phytoplankton in a decade.
Over long enough time frames, I fully expect this to happen. Probably in less than a thousand years unless we wipe out all of civilization first. :(
Re:It's an interesting experiment (Score:5, Informative)
That is not how it works.
A bacteria infects you, it just eats stuff it wants to eat, inside of your body.
Then it shits out the stuff that is its waste.
You do not die to a bacteria like bubonic plague or salmonella because the bacteria is killing you. You die to the poisons they produce either as defense or as byproduct of their "shit".
if our immune systems can't see them, they shouldn't be able to compromise us anyway.
It does see them. But the antibody cocktail of the first response, does not bind to any of the surface structures of the target.
So: as long as you have anything in your body a mirror image bacteria can eat, e.g. sugar, starch, and so on: it will shit you full with poison that kills you ... quick or slow.
Re: (Score:2)
Some bacteria will actually consume your cells. Pretty sure staph and strep can do that.
Re:It's an interesting experiment (Score:5, Interesting)
Most bacteria that "destroy" [eukaryote] cells do so by attaching to the membrane ; breaching that, then engulfing some of what falls out. Kind of like a kitten eating her beloved, now dead, "granny" owner - they go in through the weakest point, then eat what falls out.
Membrane molecules as a whole may be chiral or not - but since they are mostly long chains of (-CH2-) units (not chiral ; can't be chiral) with a complex group on either end (may or may not be chiral), those and the bonds to the complex groups at either end are susceptible to attack. That gives a way in to get at the goodies.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't the adoptive immune see them? It sees almost everything except what's been winnowed out of the fleet as "self." Autoimmune diseases come from errors in that.
There's also the primitive innate immune system which doesn't do that sort of recognition.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't they say those Martian fossils seemed to be mirror-image?
But yeah, I was going to make the same point, that if Earth life can't consume mirror chemicals then neither can they consume ours.. A few really basic chemicals would be without chirality, but only a few.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody I saw did, but I didn't trawl the depths of the Internet, just read the Science and Nature articles. I had personal subscriptions to one or the other for several years on either side of the relevant time.
Molecular chirality does not necessarily reflect in macroscopic structure. If you have a few billion chiral molecules, selected for one chirality, and arranged into a crystal, then you can get macroscopically chiral crystals. This also
Re: (Score:2)
> if our immune systems can't see them, they shouldn't be able to compromise us anyway.
This is insanely wrong. They could very easily produce deadly toxins, like many bacteria do. Those toxins don't necessarily require any particular chirality to be extremely deadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'd risk an ecosystem on that, but in a nice BSL-4 lab? There's enough to learn to risk that.
Agreed. Especially since their opposite chirality only protects from attack by biological methods, all the chemical methods of killing bacteria will work just fine. E.g. antiseptics that destroy bacterial cell membranes by denaturing proteins will work equally well on these mirror-bacteria as they do on normal bacteria. Also the hydrochloric acid in your stomach.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a space lab with zero chance of escaping. I suppose any time we bring back rocks or soil samples from a foreign planet we risk the remote chance of a similar exposure. We cannot assume that a microbe evolved the same way they did on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
if our immune systems can't see them, they shouldn't be able to compromise us anyway.
Citation required.
Re: (Score:2)
If the lefties and the righties are incompatible, that should affect both sides... if our immune systems can't see them, they shouldn't be able to compromise us anyway. If we're competing for some fundamental resource, there's more of us than them and they won't get far before dying out.
What you are describing is akin to a world full of chocolate chip cookie people after cookie monster lands on it and starts eating and fucking.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just completely false. Many innocuous or beneficial compounds have isomers with the opposite chirality which are toxic. A bacteria that produces a totally harmless waste product when in the D- isomer, could be deadly as an L- isomer. Worse, having all of its marker proteins reversed could render it invisible to the immune system or reduce the effectiveness of all the various chemical weapons the immune system employs. An organism with mirror chirality might not even be trying to attack us, but c
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I'd risk an ecosystem on that, but in a nice BSL-4 lab? There's enough to learn to risk that.
Didn't you hear how returned asteroid rocks kept in the maximum containment already have bacterial contamination?
Re: (Score:2)
Chirality is uniform on Earth, as best we understand it, because one possible outcome just randomly got enough of a head start to out-compete the other.
If the lefties and the righties are incompatible, that should affect both sides... if our immune systems can't see them, they shouldn't be able to compromise us anyway. If we're competing for some fundamental resource, there's more of us than them and they won't get far before dying out.
Not that I'd risk an ecosystem on that, but in a nice BSL-4 lab? There's enough to learn to risk that.
Remember the Great Oxidation Event [wikipedia.org]? It basically happened because an unstable ecosystem changed the planet's environment to the extent that it wiped out a big fraction of living organisms. It took billions of years for the microbial ecosystem to stabilize enough to make multicellular life possible. I think that's the worry with mirror image life, not that it will infect us or even compete with us, but that it's a single organism, or handful or organisms with zero predators.
If it gets out it could seriously
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure what type of lab this happened.
https://www.newsweek.com/deadl... [newsweek.com]
If it wasnt BSL-4, should that lab even be having dangerous virus in the first place? If it was BSL-4, I guess not all BSL-4 labs are the same.
Re:It's an interesting experiment (Score:5, Interesting)
What is there to learn? Mirror image molecules behave exactly the same, just with left and right reversed.
If you are thinking of elemental molecules, then you might be correct, but if you get into the more complex biological molecules, then things get, well, more complex. One of the most common types of mirror image molecules we interact with is Carvone. It is an essential oil that used for either its spicy or minty smell, depending on its handedness. Here is an abstract from the publication Science Direct:
Carvone is a monoterpene present in high amounts in caraway, dill, and spearmint essential oils. Two optical isomers can be found that can produce different biological responses, especially toward olfactory receptors. Thus, S-(+)-carvone (or d-carvone) has a mentholated, spicy aroma with rye notes and medium strength, whereas R-()-carvone (or l-carvone) has a minty and sweetish medium-strength odor. Caraway, dill, and spearmint are among the oldest herbs known and used by herbalists. Nowadays, they have both pharmaceutical and cosmetic uses. Carvone and plants rich in this monoterpene are extensively used in traditional and new foods, including the chewing gum industry. Moreover, carvone has some important applications in agriculture. https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
In the 1970s, Dr. Gilbert V. Levin included both left and right handed lactose on the Mars Viking lander to see if microbes in Mars might metabolize one or the other, thus proving microbial life on Mars existed. He claims there was identifiable proof but never convinced mainstream scientists.
He then went on to try to economically produce left-handed sugar to help diabetics. Left-handed sugar tastes the same to our taste buds, but the body cannot process it and it just passes through the digestive tract. Unfortunately producing left-handed sugar is extremely difficult and expensive - by weight it costs more that the equivalent in gold. https://www.diabetes.co.uk/blo... [diabetes.co.uk]
These are just two relatively well known examples of left- and right-handed organic molecules having different properties. I would also be worried about the consequences of an off-hand bacteria attacking my system.
Re:It's an interesting experiment (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are thinking of elemental molecules, then you might be correct, but if you get into the more complex biological molecules, then things get, well, more complex.
The most famous and telling example of this is Thalidomide [wikipedia.org] where one chirality is an excellent medical sedative and the other causes terrible birth deformities. It's almost not used any more due to the bad reputation, however I believe that it is so useful there is some level of production for cancer. The molecules do inter-convert in the body so you can't ever give it to people who might potentially become mothers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the James Blish one! A transporter malfunction creates a "mirror" Spock (who turns out to be mirrored down to the molecular level, and can't eat normal food). The wonky part was that the mirror Spock also turned out to be evil. (Why would a perfect mirror image of Spock's brain be evil?) But that's James Blish for ya.
My first reaction to this news item was "how could a mirror bacterium reproduce in the wild? There aren't any mirror amino acids for it to eat". Then I Googled it and found out that
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read this part, Bill?
"If the lefties and the righties are incompatible, that should affect both sides... if our immune systems can't see them, they shouldn't be able to compromise us anyway. If we're competing for some fundamental resource, there's more of us than them and they won't get far before dying out."
He literally said what there was to learn. Or perhaps what you meant was can you learn what profit is in it for you?
Re: (Score:3)
Double check this; Chirality is a bitch.
E.g. An unintentional switch from R- to S- in manufacturing thalidomide in the 60s caused a rash of birth defects.
E.g. Levmetamfetamine is the active ingredient in over the counter nasal decongestant inhalers. It is the non-dopamine interacting L-Isomer of meth.
Re: (Score:2)
Because he's a business executive and that's what they do. Entitlement is the primary force that governs his life.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
it already one of your words
And apparently, infectious. OH NO!
Re: (Score:2)
But what would this hypothetical organism metabolize? If we can't eat them, they probably can't eat us.
As the other comment said, metabolizing should be easy. I'm not entirely sure why they shouldn't just be food. I'm thinking about this. I'm not sure what it means that there's only one chirality existing. Either it means that one chirality becomes dominant and kills off the other or it means that starting life is very rare and only one chirality has ever come to life.
My guess is that life is very rare. if one leaked out it would have to be already ready to survive in the environment so would have to be read
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so life has to be rare enough to not happen again before one chirality has affected most of the environment, but the new life just needs to be spreading rapidly due to lack of competition and almost inevitably poisoning the environment for anything else and that can be less than, say, 100 years, so it doesn't have to be very rare. Makes sense. Thanks.
Mad Cow Disease (Score:3)
Isn't Mad Cow Disease related to this? As I recall, it's a prion disease, where. a protein is folded the "wrong" way, but when that protein encounters the version folded the normal way, the other one swaps to the "wrong" way, too. And then the protein doesn't do what it normally does.
It's a folding issue, which may be different from what is discussed here, but it's certainly along the same lines.
Re:Mad Cow Disease (Score:5, Informative)
Chirality isn't about proteins that are folded the wrong way. The actual molecule is different. You can metabolize D-glucose just fine, for example, but not L-glucose, the mirror image.
The key thing about prions is that they're "infectious." When the prion comes in contact with a normally folded version it tends to make it misfold into the prion type. Stereoisomers don't do that at all.
Re: (Score:3)
But a solution of D-glucose will spontaneously (don't ask me the reaction rate ; I'm a geologist, not a chemist!) flip some molecules from D- to L- . I think the rate is strongly affected by solution pH - which means (really stretching my chemistry here!) an electrophilic attack on a double-bond?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a chemist:
This feels "surprising". Are you sure you're not confusing the transition between \alpha and \beta forms in aqueous solution? I believe that the three forms are (approximately) stable as solids bu
Re:Mad Cow Disease (Score:4, Informative)
I think you must be thinking of something else. L-glucose costs more than gold because it has to be lab synthesized. There are a couple of stereoisomers of D-glucose that are in equilibrium in solution, but these are not the enantiomers D and L. The only difference is the location of a hydroxyl, which is why they can swap in solution.
There are chiral compounds that are commonly found with their enantiomers mixed together but they're rare in nature, which makes me suspect none or very few spontaneously convert. Probably the most infamous is thalidomide, but it's enantiomers are converted into each other metabolically.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you. Moo. Oom?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, nostalgia. Can we get appy apps guy in here too?
Finally (Score:3)
Technology may finally permit History to have an end.
Re: Finally (Score:2)
Re: Finally (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So essentially a policy of "No FAFO" (Score:2)
they recommend halting all research aimed at that goal and urge funding agencies not to support it
So essentially, the need to create a bill named "No FAFO Biology Policy" and approve it.
A better weapon, that's why! (Score:2)
So what if we do develop this ... we'd be even a stronger Nation than now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Futility (Score:3)
If it can be technically done, it will be done by someone, bans or not. If humanity goes extinct, it will be it's fault for its inability to cooperate at this level of technology development.
Re: (Score:2)
Bio-weapons, mad AI, Trumps, we are focking dooomed!
Re: (Score:2)
If it can be technically done, it will be done by someone, bans or not.
Counterexample: if you're old enough, you might recall the hole in the ozone, layer caused by CFCs... then in 1998 world governments, led by the US, agreed on the Montreal Protocol which banned the production of CFCs. Since then, CFC levels in the atmosphere have decreased, and the ozone layer is expected to fully recover by the middle of this century.
Technically, CFC production can be done today -- it isn't rocket science -- but nevertheless, it isn't being done (at least, not at any significant scale).
Re: Futility (Score:2)
Your example with the ozone layer isn't a counter-example. At best, it's an example that people can still cooperate when it iare sn't too inconvenient to do so (it's worse with the global warming). But weapons of mass destruction, killer AIs etc. are a different thing. When they're viable, someone creates them, be it a mad dictator, Dr. Evil, ISIS etc.
Re: (Score:3)
About that:
https://news.mit.edu/2019/scie... [mit.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the most wonderful argument, but not for @vbdasc's reasons.
The Montreal protocol did not ban the production of CFCs, it strongly restricted their production in the "first world", and discouraged it's production in the "third world", but permitted it, because volumes were low, and the production plants for alternatives were not available.
Unfortunately, since then China (in particular ; India may be on the same trajectory) has moved from (arguably) "thir
Re: (Score:2)
Most(all?) industries have switched from CFCs to other stuff.
If you don't have a customer for CFCs, you going to burn money making them. If you are making them for "fun", I guess there is a bigger problem.
Re: Futility (Score:4, Funny)
Step 1. Write a book named "please do not create the torment nexus"
Step 2. Write a blog / article explaining that no, we really should not build a Torment nexus did you not get the point?"
Step 3. Corporation inevitably builds the Torment Nexus
Step 4. Realize we live in the darkest timeline - wtf?
Step 4. Apologize to the world for inspiring the Torment Nexus
Re: (Score:3)
"Some humans would do anything to see if it was possible to do it. If you put a large switch in some cave somewhere, with a sign on it saying 'End-of-the-World Switch. PLEASE DO NOT TOUCH', the paint wouldn't even have time to dry."
Re: (Score:2)
Some Problems (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a biochemist? I'm not, but google tells me that bacteria only need nitrogen etc, not proteins or even specific amino acids like we do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If google is telling you that, then either it's misleading, or you're reading it wrong.
Some bacteria can make this amino acid, or that "vitamin", which humans (or bananas, or mosquitos, or some particular eukaryote) can't make. So? Eukaryotes have essentially one biochemistry ; bacteria have an uncertain, but large, number of biochemistries, with different capabilities for each one (or several).
You mention "fixing" nitrogen ("di-nitrogen", N2, from t
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're the first person to make this point - which I agree with.
So, a "mirror image" bacterium would have amino acids in it's coat proteins that have different shapes to those of the immune system attacking it. The random-shape-generator in the immune system will (eventually) find a shape that does match the target "mirror-bacterium" (and coincidentally does not match any "self" antigens ; immune syste
That's a diversion (Score:2)
The main risk right now is from the gain of function research.
You don't have to be convinced of the covid-lab leak thesis in order to come to that conclusion , even before covid.
The awful thing is that once people manage to slap the 'conspiracy thinking ' label on is everybody's thinking just shuts down. Not only about this instance but about the general risk.
Seriously, not only are there a lot of conspiracies going on at any time, how is a lab leak even a conspiracy? Conspiracy to cover it up , sure. But
Gee thanks (Score:2)
This is ALREADY happening (Score:2)
Thus we must do it (Score:2)
To find countermeasures we must first create these pathogens and find out how to make them as virulent as possible.
Then when they escape, blame raccoon dogs.
Cat is out of the f*ing bag (Score:2)
The announcement now has told every enemy of modern civilization what to study to end the world. Or something like that. Curious have they found these mirror drugs in effluent water? And what mechanisms exist for such microorganisms to naturally die out? It sounds like if they are very low-level organisms they might just be out-competed but if they are human-attacking organisms there is no time for that to happen? Not sure (and not sure I want to know) why a virus like Covid isn't a lot worse than that. The
Re: (Score:2)
Too different (Score:2)
We have two elementary ways to perceive our interactions with 'alien chemicals'
- the War of the Worlds way: When the Spanish landed in South America they brought diseases the people in South America had no defense against and they all died.
- The separate worlds way: two specialized mechanisms exist next to each other , they have not adapted to each other and therefore they can barely interact and they mostly act as if the other does not exist.
with mirror chemistry we know a lot of stuff won't fit so the sep
Re: (Score:2)
For the "War of the Words way", the difference here is that the plagues that affected the South Americans are very well adapted to infecting humans, immunized or not. It is absolutely not the case for mirror-image bacteria, who would need mirror-image humans to infect.
So yeah, I would go with the "separate worlds" too, or more likely, the "aliens stand no chance and die world".
Isn't it a "gray goo" scenario? (Score:2)
"gray goo" is a catastrophic scenario where we build self-replicating machines, nanomachines in particular, and we lose control.
Scary in theory, but most knowledgeable people object that making self-replicating machines is hard enough as it is, even in a perfectly controlled environment, that there is essentially no chance that such a machine would be viable out of the lab, especially going against life that had billions of years to evolve.
I guess that viable mirror-image bacteria are easier to make than na
Did someone read "Blood Music" (Score:2)
Re: Of course the simple counter is... (Score:2)
For sure! Mirror-image cyanobacteria: all the carbon-fixing benefits of regular cyanobacteria, but with none of that pesky food web cycling of the carbon!
Re: Of course the simple counter is... (Score:5, Informative)
For sure! Mirror-image cyanobacteria: all the carbon-fixing benefits of regular cyanobacteria, but with none of that pesky food web cycling of the carbon!
The wikipedia [wikipedia.org] article explains this in more detail:
Mirror life presents potential dangers. For example, a chiral-mirror version of cyanobacteria, which only needs achiral nutrients and light for photosynthesis, could take over Earth's ecosystem due to lack of natural enemies, disturbing the bottom of the food chain by producing mirror versions of the required sugars.[13] Some bacteria can digest L-Glucose; exceptions like this would give some rare lifeforms an unanticipated advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats just what we need, L-fentanyl that can be treated with naloxone. Just curious, as Im no phd level chemist, does that have anything to do with why L-meth is so much more potent than the D-meth I read about?
Re: (Score:2)
If normal enzymes/etc can't deal with the chirality of the new organism then likely the new organism can't deal with the chirality of the natural species.
Doesn't have to be true. The new chirality organism lives in an environment where all it meets are normal chirality organisms, so it has to deal with them. The old chirality organisms continue to meet mostly old chirality organisms, so they stay evolved to deal with what they meet most. This continues until new chirality organisms are more than 50% of the organisms in the environment at which point the evolutionary pressure on the old chirality organisms will strongly push them to evolve to deal with the ne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: oh, goody, no more lefties. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is he going to ban LL Bean or LLCoolJ?
Re: bacteria do not spread disease. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A null concept.
If bacteria had a role - IF - it is to make little bacteria which are nearly perfect copies of the original. They do this because they're the descendents of billions (trillions? maybe, by a modest factor) of generations of bacteria that did the same (note the " nearly perfect " copying).
That some bacteria today digest the waste and necrotic tissue of larger organisms certainly does not mean that is what they evolved "for", it's just them finding a convenient source of