DNA-Level Encryption Developed by Researchers to Protect the Secrets of Bioengineered Cells (phys.org) 28
The biotech industry's engineered cells could become an $8 trillion market by 2035, notes Phys.org. But how do you keep them from being stolen? Their article notes "an uptick in the theft and smuggling of high-value biological materials, including specially engineered cells."
In Science Advances, a team of U.S. researchers present a new approach to genetically securing precious biological material. They created a genetic combination lock in which the locking or encryption process scrambled the DNA of a cell so that its important instructions were non-functional and couldn't be easily read or used. The unlocking, or decryption, process involves adding a series of chemicals in a precise order over time — like entering a password — to activate recombinases, which then unscramble the DNA to their original, functional form...
They created a biological keypad with nine distinct chemicals, each acting as a one-digit input. By using the same chemicals in pairs to form two-digit inputs, where two chemicals must be present simultaneously to activate a sensor, they expanded the keypad to 45 possible chemical inputs without introducing any new chemicals. They also added safety penalties — if someone tampers with the system, toxins are released — making it extremely unlikely for an unauthorized person to access the cells.
"The researchers conducted an ethical hacking exercise on the test lock and found that random guessing yielded a 0.2% success rate, remarkably close to the theoretical target of 0.1%."
They created a biological keypad with nine distinct chemicals, each acting as a one-digit input. By using the same chemicals in pairs to form two-digit inputs, where two chemicals must be present simultaneously to activate a sensor, they expanded the keypad to 45 possible chemical inputs without introducing any new chemicals. They also added safety penalties — if someone tampers with the system, toxins are released — making it extremely unlikely for an unauthorized person to access the cells.
"The researchers conducted an ethical hacking exercise on the test lock and found that random guessing yielded a 0.2% success rate, remarkably close to the theoretical target of 0.1%."
Monsanto (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
DId they try fluoroantimonic acid as a key?
Re: (Score:2)
Tools of abundance misused from scarcity fears (Score:4, Insightful)
Time to trot out my sig again, sigh: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."
Biotech if used well could make the Earth near a paradise of abundance for all. Or people could create and enforce artificial scarcity with biotech. People make choices every day about which future they are working towards.
As Bucky Fuller wrote: "Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment.... Humanity is in 'final exam' as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in Universe."
Who would guess randomly? (Score:3)
The unlocking, or decryption, process involves adding a series of chemicals in a precise order over time [...] The researchers conducted an ethical hacking exercise on the test lock and found that random guessing yielded a 0.2% success rate
It's really not decryption, is it? Unlocking remains a pretty good description. But more importantly, who would guess randomly? You should be able to model the interactions by now and determine which of them are likely to work. Your attackers are likely to be people with the ability to sequence your creation anyway.
Re:Who would guess randomly? (Score:5, Interesting)
You should be able to model the interactions by now and determine which of them are likely to work.
The decryption works like this:
1) You have a long strip of RNA.
2) The "password" is an enzyme that cuts a piece out of the RNA (and fuses the loose ends).
3) If you cut the RNA in the correct four places, then you end up with the correctly "unencrypted" RNA strip, which then goes on to create the desired structure in the cell.
It's not strong encryption, but it's probably as good as a four digit pin.
Re: (Score:2)
So not only is it ridiculously unethical, it's utterly pointless and a sad waste and inconvenience or worse for everyone involved? So, a typical DRM scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DRM has no valid purpose for the legitimate law-abiding customer. For them, they just get suck with an inferior product compared to the "free" version from the high seas. I.e. It's all about control, and profit. Which runs directly against the concept of "do no harm" in medicine.
We already know what the likes of Monsanto would do with this tech: Ban anyone from having kids without ord
Re: (Score:2)
Codebase7 pretty much covered it. To make an analogy for my position, if I were to build a house, the jurisdiction I am in and nearly every other one would require plans on file for a number of very good reasons and it would not be allowed for me to build the house instead to secret plans that no-one knows about. Similar logic applies to bioengineered cells, especially ones that will be used medically. I could also compare to right to repair. Or to being a computer repair technician who hacks systems that a
Re: (Score:1)
Makes patents obsolete (Score:5, Insightful)
This way, Big Pharma can retain a lock on new miracle drugs at high prices for as long as they want.
Re: Makes patents obsolete (Score:2)
Not even over 9000. (Score:4, Insightful)
only the exact passcode worked, showing that the odds of an unauthorized person guessing it had dropped to just two in 990, or 0.2%
If you have a real lab, is 1000 different attempts really that hard to do? By hand, it would be a pain but you can automate the process, right?
Also, what if you sequence the encrypted DNA, can you not simply simulate the application of the chemicals? Running about 1000 detailed simulations doesn't strike me as being too computationally intensive to pull off.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a real lab, is 1000 different attempts really that hard to do?
This is especially true if they add the self destruct sequence for failed transcription, because you will know immediately if the pin is incorrect. Pay an intern to watch over 1000 petri dishes, no problem.
Also, what if you sequence the encrypted DNA, can you not simply simulate the application of the chemicals?
It's easier to think of it as encrypted mRNA, because that is what is being processed. Eventually the correctly "decrypted" mRNA will be transcribed into a sequence of amino acids, and then folded. You can use alphafold to predict what the folded protein will look like, but often there is post-processing
\o/ (Score:1)
Cellular DRM. God bless Amerikkka.
Yeah, no (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You've been heard... and ignored.
Re: (Score:2)
Cells are fucking nature. Stop fucking with nature
That's what people say until they need an organ transplant or get cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just a wrapper. They will use it to lock down an actual life saving solution, so unless you pay the literal blood money, you can't access the cure - or even worse, poison yourself or your patient in the process.
No this is much worse than a non-solution to a non-problem, it's a distinct obstacle to sharing, distributing or using an actual solution to a real problem.
Not impressive (Score:2)
This sounds like typical amateur-level "cryptography", i.e. the kind that experts cannot even be bothered to attack because it is too easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, the codes are printed in dark red on light red in the manual. There's no way anyone could photocopy that.
Not encryption - more of a combination lock (Score:2)