Genetic Hijacking Termed "Creating Life"

I'd just like to add a question to think about - what's the real significance of this step for the science and engineering? The GMO bacterium is self-replicating. The DNA is physically made by man. Now this is the interesting part. How does this fit into the industry and other technical developments recently?

For example, the 3D printing process applied to tissues and organs (from news posted at CR4 home) is a life-changing technology, not only for persons in need but also for the human slaves of transnational criminal organizations in our day and age. This is a technology to change human society for the better, big time.

If Venter's technology is applicable to this aspect of industry then bring it on.

I would like to see a proper description of the possible applications of the technology.

The whole thing is just sensationalism. This is not synthetic life, but merely replacing the DNA of existing cells. I think your hijacking term is quite apt.

Given the extreme complexity of a cell, including the plethora of structures and chemical communication going on between them, I believe we will never get to the point of making cells from "scratch".

"Hijacking" is an appropriate term, and pretty much applies to the genetic engineering field as a whole (including the various successful cloning experiments- which still rely on viable egg cells and a real womb). I do not wish to create the impression that I consider Vintner's work unimportant- it is a tremendous step forward to understanding life mechanisms. But it is not "artificial life".

What are the near-term commercial potentials for this? The most likely outcome is a new rash of disaster movies based on "artificial life gone amok". That's where the real money will be...

If one reads the details of the Vintner work, one also discovers it would be more appropriate to label the actual DNA as "man assembled" rather than "man made". The DNA was assembled from various segments of DNA previously derived from living organisms and artificially copied. Not built from scratch...

Venter´s work is important, but it is not a new live being obtained from inert materials.

Nevertheless, I believe that man will "create" life, when he learns to manage the matter and the energy in the right way.

This is not against any religious belief.

Arturo

What it actually is, and this should not be underestimated, a method, or a biochemical mechanism, to serve as a kind of a "Cell-Printer".

It's basically a blank replication vehicle for pre-assembled DNA sequences.

Life it is not, but it is not something to be overlooked. It is a serious matter, with great promise and danger.

That is my thought more or less - on the up side, if the process can be used for eukaryotic cells then it could be applicable for tissue and organ regeneration and/or "printing" replacement organs. Also for "gene therapies" where a defective gene is causing illness. Although it does not seem necessary for these applications...

The work should have been billed as "synthetic genome" not "synthetic life" - changes to the DNA such as encoding your name (or patent number) do not really constitute genetic design either. However I suspect that is the real point of it - to make a life form patentable.

I would like to know whether the "synthetic" bacterium also has a normal rate of mutation. If not, then this would constitute a potential "danger" in loss of diversity. But I think it is more likely that the bacterium would mutate at an ordinary rate (at least), and if so, raises the question, whether the non-exact "replications" would also be subject to patent. I foresee a truckload of money going to lawyers on this one.

Of course it might be that the organism has an unusually high mutation rate - again, a potential danger in the natural environment (with the trivial compensation that an encoded "proper name" could be mutated to read "greedy ass". )

It would make sense that both synthetic and natural would be subject to about the same rates of mutation. In general, mutation appears to be the marginal "background-noise" associated with the natural system of replication and repair, which bio-engineering takes advantage of.

As to the patent registration of beneficial mutant strains, it is a kind of catch-22 type situation. Once you apply to register a mutant as your property, you must find a way to protect this mutant from further mutation, in future generations of your registered version... - where would it end ? You cannot predict where the next mutation appear, and you cannot register further, successive mutations of that given strain, having their unknown genotype and phenotype traits...

Besides, I personally think that the legislative status regarding genetics is prone to dissolve and become more like the "Open-Code" is in software, in the next coming years - mainly due to the factors stated above.

You cannot really patent the mere re-arrangement of naturally occurring bio-process. It's simply not stable and predictable enough to be practical.

Today we know, that even the definition of a "Gene" and it eventual phenotypes, are not very rigid. Is it defined at the basic "Cistron" stage, is it defined at the protein synthesis stage, at the control-gene stage, or is it defined at higher and more intricate hierarchies ?