Synthetic Biology
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-05-24/synthetic-biology
The creation of the world's first self-replicating, synthetic cell heralds a new era in biology. It also prompts moral, legal, and safety questions: Analysis of the potential benefits and ethical concerns.
Guests
Craig Venter
president, J. Craig Venter Institute
David Rejeski
director, Science and Technology Innovation Program,
director, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies
at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars
Sohi Rastegar
director, Office of Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation Engineering Directorate, National Science Foundation
David Baltimore
professor of Biology and President Emeritus, CalTech
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Wow! Think of it! Maybe we won't have to worry about the Gulf anymore. We can just replace the stuff our oil has killed with synthetic life. No need to feel weary and grief-stricken anymore.
Would it be possible to create human embryonic stem cells using this technology? What medical purposes or ethical considerations would this entail?
Thank you for consideration!
Linda
Would not "synthetic" actually be human authored life, not copies of existing natural life forms? Would not "synthetic" actually be a cell constructed by humans that self-replicates?
Thanks,
How much effort and/or funds does the Venter Institute spend on public outreach/education? Did they run focus groups so that scientific development could occur simultaneously with public education? Would working with public interest, religious, political, media groups have been a useful approach to help mitigate techo-backlash?
Ventner's analogy of cell "software" and "rebooting the cell" is at best inaccurate, more like car salesman talk, not science. This is marketing hype, not reality. It obscures billions of years of extraordinary evolution and reduces cellular life and the primacy of the whole organism to cheap 20th century computer rant. My scientist friends are speculating how deformed life in the future is likely to be if Venter boots Windows Vista to start his cell lines.
I think this program really exemplified the ignorance of the American public concerning biotechnology, considering the questions and comments that were made. Synthetic genes, promoters and all sorts of other pieces of DNA have been made and utilized for about 30 years now. The only thing that's really a big deal about this research is the SIZE of what was synthesized. Nothing really new was even created since it was essentially a copy of a pre-existing bacterium.
I also might like to point out its extremely difficult to actually create a genome from scratch like was done in this research. We have plenty of technologies already that change or add one or two genes already. And most of the suggestions callers made on the program have been dealt with or are being worked on with those sorts of technologies.
There are already biosafety committees, programs and standards for dealing with genetically modified organisms. This bacterium is no different. There's no more danger from this technology than what we've already been doing.
This is in reply to lpdodge:
You could I suppose, but there really wouldn't be any point because it would be extremely difficult with current technology and there would be no reason to synthesize an entire genome from scratch. It wouldn't help any of the current problems with stem cell technology.
What makes embryonic stem cells special is their physiological state, replacing the genome wouldn't help with that.
The best promise for stem cell technologies are induced pluripotent cells or iPS cells, which are stem cells that can be generated from your skin cells and match your own body. They don't use any actual embryos or embryo-derived cells. Stem cell researchers are still not sure they are identical to actual embryonic stem cells so this is an area of ongoing research.
This is very interesting and perhaps very useful to us. The problem is, what is interesting and useful to us as a species is not always in the best interest of the larger biosphere. I don't think the blithe confidence of many technologists is justified by net long-term effect of their inventions on the integrity and good functioning of the earth.
The yardsticks of economy, industry and contributions to human well-being over decades are insufficient; it is the yardstick of our planetary well-being that matters most. Whether or not these activities will improve things on this level seems to me to be very much open to question.