Synthetic Life created (yes, for real)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form

Scientists have created the world's first synthetic life form in a landmark experiment that paves the way for designer organisms that are built rather than evolved.

The controversial feat, which has occupied 20 scientists for more than 10 years at an estimated cost of $40m, was described by one researcher as "a defining moment in biology".

[youtube]47rUrlzdK3k[/youtube]

[youtube]QHIocNOHd7A[/youtube]

 

[Angelmax]

You beat me to it, I was going to post this tonight.

It is important to note that Venter's team did not create life from scratch, or not in the way that most people would imagine.

This article is a fairly easy to understand explanation of what was actually done.

 

[Rampage-Penetrate]

For the past few years, people have used the phrase "We truly have become god". Now, their is no doubt anymore, we have become God. What has he supposedly done that we havent now. We can make organisms, we can reshape metals, we can clone things, we can do anything. Honestly, name something we CANT do that he can.

 

[MiP2]

Now, that is interesting.
Of course, it's only at cell stage now, but imagine what we are able to do after few hundred years. We can visit planets that are far away by sending syntetic humans etc. there.
But then comes the question, can we create life ONLY to worship us and to do dangerous job for us.

 

[aznguy94]

Now, that is interesting.
Of course, it's only at cell stage now, but imagine what we are able to do after few hundred years. We can visit planets that are far away by sending syntetic humans etc. there.
But then comes the question, can we create life ONLY to worship us and to do dangerous job for us.

Synthetic humans? It seems that this isn't a good ideas as such synthetic humans would have the same emotions and humans and it'd be no different than us sending "real" humans out as test dummies.

Anyways, from what I understood from the article, they created their own DNA and inserted it into already existing cells.

These cells can reproduce, right?



Anyways, it'll be interesting to see what they can do with this in a few years and how it can benefit (and maybe even hurt) society.

 

[Deacon Frost]

I don't like this guy. He's not a real scientist.

While the advancement seems promising, he's just going to set humanity back by patenting his discovery and preventing further investigation.

 

I don't like this guy. He's not a real scientist.

He is a real scientist. A scientist is someone who applies the scientific method consistently. This is what he has done to produce his results. Therefore he is a scientist.

While the advancement seems promising, he's just going to set humanity back by patenting his discovery and preventing further investigation.

I agree that patents and copyrights are not valid property (in the same way slave ownership isn't valid). The arguments for this are somewhat complex, and can be made from all three common ethical positions: natural rights, behavioural standards, and even utilitarianism (of which I am no fan.)

I would like to interpose here however to point out that he's not a philosopher. If someone makes a mistake out of ignorance, then this is generally not a form of corruption; unless it is deliberate ignorance. Also keep in mind that he did not choose the system he works in. It may be the case that the only way to get any research done in the system is to take the patent route. So I have some limited sympathy with his position here.

 

[Deacon Frost]

I could understand if the patent was necessary to avoid certain hoops in the legal system, so as to advance in his development. (And I wasn't saying he's not a real scientist by definition, but by accepted behaviors expected of these types of scientists.)

Did James Watson, or Francis Crick, try to patent the double helix model? No, they gave their discovery to the world, and let them learn from it.

 

[Angelmax]

He is a real scientist. A scientist is someone who applies the scientific method consistently. This is what he has done to produce his results. Therefore he is a scientist.

I agree that patents and copyrights are not valid property (in the same way slave ownership isn't valid). The arguments for this are somewhat complex, and can be made from all three common ethical positions: natural rights, behavioural standards, and even utilitarianism (of which I am no fan.)

I would like to interpose here however to point out that he's not a philosopher. If someone makes a mistake out of ignorance, then this is generally not a form of corruption; unless it is deliberate ignorance. Also keep in mind that he did not choose the system he works in. It may be the case that the only way to get any research done in the system is to take the patent route. So I have some limited sympathy with his position here.

I too feel some sympathy for him, but he is in the position of essentially holding the future of genetics in his hands and refusing to let it be utilised. While what he is doing is not necessarily wrong, it is selfish.

 

I too feel some sympathy for him, but he is in the position of essentially holding the future of genetics in his hands and refusing to let it be utilised. While what he is doing is not necessarily wrong, it is selfish.

Lol you damn altruist. Notice I didn't put altruism in there as an ethical stream, because I consider it not to be a class of ethics. Lol. That's a debate for another time. (Read Atlas Shrugged, for god's nonexistent sake.)

 

[Viz]

Umm.

Does this mean they can make bigger and stronger life forms for war and such? Not forgetting they will never be real humans.

 

Umm.

Does this mean they can make bigger and stronger life forms for war and such? Not forgetting they will never be real humans.

There's no reason they can't make real humans. They have the full genome sequenced of a number of individuals. They could print those genomes using their DNA printers in the future and put that DNA into an appropriate cell. That cell would then become a fetus, and eventually a human being (assuming growth conditions.)

 

[Viz]

There's no reason they can't make real humans. They have the full genome sequenced of a number of individuals. They could print those genomes using their DNA printers in the future and put that DNA into an appropriate cell. That cell would then become a fetus, and eventually a human being (assuming growth conditions.)

I still think there should be a line and making "FAKE" people is crossing that line.

assuming growth conditions

I don't think they shouldn't even attempt it, the poor thing could turn out worng!

That cell would then become a fetus, and eventually a human being

And you can't kill Humans!

Science what will they do next?

 

I still think there should be a line and making "FAKE" people is crossing that line. I don't think they shouldn't even attempt it, the poor thing could turn out worng!
And you can't kill Humans!

You're already exhibiting prejudice against test-tube people before they've even been created.

Science what will they do next?

Maybe figure out how to cure you of your prejudices.

 

[MiP2]

There's no reason they can't make real humans. They have the full genome sequenced of a number of individuals. They could print those genomes using their DNA printers in the future and put that DNA into an appropriate cell. That cell would then become a fetus, and eventually a human being (assuming growth conditions.)

Creating syntetic life in other than cell state, is wrong in my view.
What if there is something wrong with the cells? I wouldn't want to die a painful death just because some mad scientists created me for some test.

It's kind of numbing to think that your only here to be a test animal.
I think that a line should be drawn between unintelligent and intelligent life.

 

[Viz]

Maybe figure out how to cure you of your prejudices.

Im Not "Prejudices".

I Just think they need a line that stops things like this.

what I say isnt going to stop them, there going to do it any way. (Just my thoughts!)

chimpanzees have 98% same DNA as humans, but law and goverment have stoped all scientest attepting to try and "Mix" Humans with them so I thouht maybe there would be a line with this aswell.

 

Im Not "Prejudices".

I Just think they need a line that stops things like this.

what I say isnt going to stop them, there going to do it any way. (Just my thoughts!)

I think you mean to protest: "I'm not prejudiced!"

But then you go on to say you believe X, and have no reason to believe X, it's just your opinion: which happens to be the definition of prejudice. So yes, you are prejudiced.

 

[Viz]

I think you mean to protest: "I'm not prejudiced!"

But then you go on to say you believe X, and have no reason to believe X, it's just your opinion: which happens to be the definition of prejudice. So yes, you are prejudiced.

=]

Tbh, I liked "Debating" with you was fun.

Still, I would like to see were this goes in the furture.

 

Added a second video to the OP.

 

[olweasel]

Maybe this is a step towards realizing the dream of creating the "perfect" people.