[rquoter] Scientists expect to create life in next 10 years First cell of synthetic life can only be seen under a microscope WASHINGTON - Around the world, a handful of scientists are trying to create life from scratch and they’re getting closer. Experts expect an announcement within three to 10 years from someone in the now little-known field of “wet artificial life.” “It’s going to be a big deal and everybody’s going to know about it,” said Mark Bedau, chief operating officer of ProtoLife of Venice, Italy, one of those in the race. “We’re talking about a technology that could change our world in pretty fundamental ways — in fact, in ways that are impossible to predict.” That first cell of synthetic life — made from the basic chemicals in DNA — may not seem like much to non-scientists. For one thing, you’ll have to look in a microscope to see it. “Creating protocells has the potential to shed new life on our place in the universe,” Bedau said. “This will remove one of the few fundamental mysteries about creation in the universe and our role.” And several scientists believe man-made life forms will one day offer the potential for solving a variety of problems, from fighting diseases to locking up greenhouse gases to eating toxic waste. Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life: A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply. A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes. A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy. One of the leaders in the field, Jack Szostak at Harvard Medical School, predicts that within the next six months, scientists will report evidence that the first step — creating a cell membrane — is “not a big problem.” Scientists are using fatty acids in that effort. Szostak is also optimistic about the next step — getting nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA, to form a working genetic system. His idea is that once the container is made, if scientists add nucleotides in the right proportions, then Darwinian evolution could simply take over. “We aren’t smart enough to design things, we just let evolution do the hard work and then we figure out what happened,” Szostak said. In Gainesville, Fla., Steve Benner, a biological chemist at the Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution is attacking that problem by going outside of natural genetics. Normal DNA consists of four bases — adenine, cytosine, guanine and thymine (known as A,C,G,T) — molecules that spell out the genetic code in pairs. Benner is trying to add eight new bases to the genetic alphabet. Bedau said there are legitimate worries about creating life that could “run amok,” but there are ways of addressing it, and it will be a very long time before that is a problem. “When these things are created, they’re going to be so weak, it’ll be a huge achievement if you can keep them alive for an hour in the lab,” he said. “But them getting out and taking over, never in our imagination could this happen.” [/rquoter] Pat Robertson/700 Club meltdown in: 3... 2... 1... source
If scientist are indeed able to manufacture life from basic raw ingredients - then the implication on the abortion debate is huge.
Cool. I'd like to order me a Jessica Alba one day. These scientist better watch out for those religious weirdos.
It would also throw into question the very notion of human rights. Scary stuff. LOL. I bet somebody is pitching this as a plot for a sci-fi disaster movie right now. Organic grey goo scenario, or an update of The Blob. Bad ass.
By the time my average lifespan ends, there will probably be a Moore's law well into maturity for biotech that involves the limitations of our creations.
I know he has a vested interest in sensationalizing his work (which shouldn't be too hard to do), but this seems like a stretch. What "fundamental mystery" does this remove?
My guess is that he is referring to the idea of some sort of divine spark being necessary for life - that life is fundamentally more than a series of biomechanical and biochemical processes. See Frankenstein, etc.
If everything was like semi conductors we would have peace on earth no poverty as well. We would have cars that run 1000 miles per gallon Nothing moves like it. Cell phones now are a 1000 times more powerful then what put the first man on the moon. If biotech was like semiconductors we would have cloned humans already. However this is a huge breakthrough in science. Screw ethics we need to go full speed ahead.
That's what I thought, too, but I just don't think this really addresses that issue. It doesn't even begin to approach solving the mystery of consiousness, which I think is what makes life "more than a series of biomechanical and biochemical processes". I think this may be another case of a scientist stretching to annex into his field philosophical issues that still lie outside of the bounds of science. Not to say that it wouldn't be a remarkable achievement, just that I think he's overreaching a bit with regards to the implications.
Damn it! I'm so confused. First, it's the robots. Now it's the clones/replicants/tubers. Let's kill 'em all before it's too late.
Cell phone processors are still more powerful than some of the hardware in space. Mostly because of reliability... Anyways, there's a gradual synthesis in emerging fields that will create this perfect storm of better natural and created life. We're riding the wave of what could be exponential progress. It's been said before in the past, but the proof is right in front of you. Nanotech, biotech, IT, and materials science all have made leaps and bounds in the last 10 years. Those discoveries have fueled growth in the world economy and in turn new countries will add their research into the pool of information. The idea of a biological Moore's law is a very conservative prediction.
Considering he is talking about the possibility of creating microscopic single cellular life I don't think consciousness is even on the horizon here. The mystery though is how did organic chemicals end up forming into patterns and structures that could self-replicate and metabolize. That may not seem like much but that is huge. I don't think he is overreaching with the implications as I don't think he is talking about creating artificial higher life forms but the possibility that we could engineer designer microbes does is huge. One very large philosophical implication it would have is regarding the question of how life on Earth came about. While I am very doubtful regarding the idea that aliens created life on Earth this would show that it would be possible to create artificial life and theoretically us humans could create artificial life on another planet.
It might give us insights into origin theories, but we're still far away from proving our own origin. Even if we can reverse engineer a method for creating life, it doesn't mean it was that path from which we came to be. We might even have to go into space to discover our beginnings.
Here we go. When these experiments encounter difficulties or fall behind schedule, cue up the "another defeat for evolution!" statements from the ID crowd. LOL. Or more like sob-out-loud.
