worldwide dubstep community
https://www.dubstepforum.com/forum/
already did ittravis baker wrote:does this mean u can save files in dna?
Pity about the pointless derailments, could've been an interesting discussion. The field is still very much in its infancy. There is also work being done on the synthesis of non-naturally-occuring amino acid building blocks as well.test recordings wrote:Original article: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature ... ry_of_LifeAlexandra Witze wrote: Factory of Life
Synthetic biologists reinvent nature with parts, circuits
Synthetic biology was born a little more than a decade ago, an offshoot of traditional genetic engineering but distinct in its ambitions, precision and mind-set. Instead of randomly tweaking the genetic blueprints of living organisms and then working backward to identify a cell with a desirable trait, the new field offered the power of designing and building cells with novel functions. Its pioneers dreamed of making armies of organisms that could produce alternative fuels, churn out drugs to battle disease or fill every stomach on the planet by squeezing more food out of each crop acre.
Now, synthetic biologists have laid the groundwork for that radical new future, by building biology’s version of Silicon Valley. One research team has created a new and more complex set of biological building blocks that snap together like Legos, bringing large-scale production of engineered organisms closer to reality. Other scientists have hooked those parts up in a complex living analog of an electrical circuit and programmed it, much like programming a computer. Researchers are now writing code to make cells do things never before thought possible, like hunt down and kill cancer cells.
“This is not just — oh, we’re going to go build something that’s able to make pieces of DNA better,” says Knight, one of the field’s top visionaries. “This is — we’re going to go create a technology infrastructure in the same way that the semiconductor infrastructure was developed.”
We`all be dead by are own hand in the next 100 years, I reckon.
You really think so? Not just inflict pain, but full scale extinction? NY, LA, Chitown, SF, Seattle could get glassed out and we'd all still be fine... Lez hear it.kay wrote:There are other more likely ways we'll kill ourselves in the 100 years though.
Re-parse the context it was written in. I was simply suggesting in response to test recording's assertion that we would kill ourselves in the next 100 years that there would be other more likely ways than through synthetic biology. Poor management of genetic engineering (which we can already achieve) where we accidentally excise a portion of the genome that eventually turns out to be useful. Some idiot could decide to kick off nuclear armageddon. Runaway nanotech grey goo. Bioengineered bacterial/viral weapons. Release of an aerosolised toxin that works very slowly to sterilise people. Self-aware killer robots (probably unlikely). Global mass hysteria in relation to something or other. Creation of a black hole. Geoengineering goes horribly wrong. Extermination of key foodchain fish stocks.nowaysj wrote:You really think so? Not just inflict pain, but full scale extinction? NY, LA, Chitown, SF, Seattle could get glassed out and we'd all still be fine... Lez hear it.kay wrote:There are other more likely ways we'll kill ourselves in the 100 years though.
but not necessarily exponentially bad... imo it's far more important to keep corporations in check than science.kay wrote: Scientific progress will be exponential.
Oh yeah, I didn't mean exponentially bad. Science is non-moralistic - it's up to us whether we want to use it for good or for bad.knell wrote:but not necessarily exponentially bad... imo it's far more important to keep corporations in check than science.kay wrote: Scientific progress will be exponential.
Is it though? I personally doubt if we have that choice.kay wrote:it's up to us whether we want to use it for good or for bad.
sounds like you dont know just how rigorously genetic studies are regulated and controlled.nowaysj wrote:Is it though? I personally doubt if we have that choice.kay wrote:it's up to us whether we want to use it for good or for bad.
Man, the US is not strict... the GM lobby has it`s fingers well around many Senator`s balls! They were trying to do the same in the UK and Europe but people really, really do not want it.knell wrote:sounds like you dont know just how rigorously genetic studies are regulated and controlled.nowaysj wrote:Is it though? I personally doubt if we have that choice.kay wrote:it's up to us whether we want to use it for good or for bad.
this year, peanuts go into their twentieth year of study to even be considered for genetic modification and introduction into the food supply. why? because the risks involved are still not fully understood, although the first line of GM peanuts would be to counteract allergies and give increases resistance to fungal infections.
if it weren't for GMOs, everyone you know who is type 1 diabetic would be dead or worse off, type 2 wouldnt be that far behind.
i dont even want to open the door for this debate, but the point is, is that unless financial greed intermingles with the trials, genetic studies are safer and more cautious than you could ever even begin to imagine. here's how it goes down in South Africa (US is even more strict), and keep in mind that's just the red tape, the field trials are where most of the churning comes into play (the twenty year peanut delay i mentioned above, for instance)
