/sci/ - Science & Math

ethics

>>1931710
getting the right conditions and the right chemicals at the same time.

>>1931717
want to elaborate on that?

even if we had the perfect conditions and the perfect chemicals it may still take millions of years for the correct reaction to take place

>>1931735
playing god lead to bad things

Religion

>>1931771
This.

And I thought that people had already done this with a bacteria or something, but it was banned so they couldn't do anything with it.

This and I have two of them.

http://www.genome.jp/kegg/pathway.html

>>1931765
OR, playing god leads to THINGS. Are you talking BAD things for humans or bad as in EVIL?

Fucking ethics, what a wank.

>>1931861
bad as in people rioting in the streets in outrage that you would do such a thing

>>1931762
There's no reason it should take a long time. If a cell could somehow self-assemble from scratch, it certainly couldn't do it over a million years without being broken down in that time.

Absolutely nothing!

>>1931780
lolno

>>1931877
why do people insist on promoting lies about what science can do?

some people believe in a slippery slope argument that being able to create life at will will lead to a devaluing of life as a whole

>>1931884
Why do christfags insist on denying what science can do?
Answer: So they can hold onto their silly little god-of-the-gaps arguments.

>>1931889
The proper response should be 'Oh boo hoo. If you don't like it, then don't participate.'

>>1931896
Exaggerating what science is doing is not going to convince people to give up religion you moron. People will only be attracted to science if that see it as impartial, objective, and rational. Time to grow up.

>>1931901
MFW you think its an exaggeration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHIocNOHd7A

>>1931896
We shouldn't play God.

Playing is for children

>>1931896
>>1931916


it is ABSOLUTELY an exaggeration.
When this was news, I came on here and replies to about 35 different threads, trying to calm people the fuck down.


people STILL just dont get it.


craig Venter's company did the following:


they took existing sequenced DNA knowledge, then they used robots and chemicals to synthesize an EXACT COPY of that DNA...


then they extracted the DNA from a normal, living cell...

they then injected their SYNTHESIZED DNA back into that same celll.


they then observed that the cell continued functioning normally, as if nothing ever happened.
the "achievement" was this:


humans can effectively and successfully synthesize a REALLY FUCKING BIG molecule.


thats it. end of discussion. no knowledge. no science. no insights.


no design. nothing "new."


it was an INDUSTRIAL achievement:


look at this big gigantic thing we can make. and to prove that we made it correctly: here you go! it works just like the natural stuff!

>>1931927
Agreed
WE CREATING LIFE
WE GOD NOW

Religious faggot status:
[X] - FUCKING TOLD
[X] - FUCKING TOLD X 1000000000000000000
[X] - WATCH YOUR RELIGIONS DIE OUT

>>1931946
His team effectively made "syntheic life".
A feat that religious fags think only GOD can do.
It is a big feat in terms of chem and bio knowledge.

WE CREATE LIFE NOW!
WE GOD!
DONT HATE!

>>1931946
Linus Torvalds: Hey guys! I made up this system that works just like Unix! I studied and reverse engineered it into my own original creaton!

IMO it's only a matter of time before we learn to alter the inherent DNA in productive ways. Granted, we aren't making life from scratch, but we are creating our own versions of existing complex life

>>1932018

>His team effectively made "syntheic life". A feat that religious fags think only GOD can do.

...except that's not what they did at all.

Capcha: acuttes raged

>>1931946
>>1931946
Nope. In fact they wrote the DNA from scratch, not just copy it from an existing organism.

Venter at the first press conference: "This is the first organism on Earth who's father is a computer."

They even embedded their names and a secret Email address for people to find by sequencing the genome.

>>1932018


actually, its not a big feat in terms of chem and bio. it IS, however, "big feat" (sort of a "1/2 milestone") in the field of "industrial bioengineering." but that is key. it is an "industrial" feat. it is not truly significant, from the perspective of science alone, to any other area of interest.

Of course, it is a philosophical breakthrough.

Regardless of its true scientific merit however, the circumstances are such that it IS important, from an absolute point of view, because it has received so much attention.


whether or not scientists marvel, the general public does... and that is what will (ultimately) be the most important part about this event
with all of that being said:


the technology to do this has existed since 1980s. scientists and private startups or even big-pharma have been buying custom synthetic DNA for almost 2 decades.


every time you hear about "bioengineering" anywhere... in the news, in a research journal, or wherever....


it all begins when a scientists or researcher calls up his friendly neighborhood chemical company and says:


"I need THIS custom DNA sequence..."

they say: "OK it will be $500 for 10 mL of a 1 nanomolar solution"


you get it, amplify it (read: copy it) using PCR, then use it in your experiments.
Venter's company simply invested lots of time and money, wasting literally kilograms of expensive dangerous chemicals, to do EXACTLY THE SAME THING I JUST DESCRIBED ABOVE, but made a bigger molecule.


their goal being a complete piece of DNA, they had to test it to make sure it was correctly made....


they could spend lots of time and effort using analytical techniques...

but at the end of the day... the proof is in the pudding.. so they put it in that organism and tested the offspring (the cells that were reproduced) to see if the DNA matched what they put it, and what it should be.