Scientists create a living organism

Financial Times ^ | 5/20/10 | Clive Cookson

[mgstarr]

Scientists have turned inanimate chemicals into a living organism in an experiment that raises profound questions about the essence of life.

Craig Venter, the US genomics pioneer, announced on Thursday that scientists at his laboratories in Maryland and California had succeeded in their 15-year project to make the world’s first “synthetic cells” – bacteria called Mycoplasma mycoides.

“We have passed through a critical psychological barrier,” Dr Venter told the FT. “It has changed my own thinking, both scientifically and philosophically, about life and how it works.”

The bacteria’s genes were all constructed in the laboratory “from four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information on a computer,” he said.

The research – published online by the journal Science – was hailed as a landmark by many independent scientists and philosophers.

“Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity’s history, potentially peeking into its destiny,” said Julian Savulescu, ethics professor at Oxford University. “This is a step towards ... creation of living beings with capacities and natures that could never have naturally evolved.”

The synthetic bacteria have 14 “watermark sequences” attached to their genome – inert stretches of DNA added to distinguish them from their natural counterparts. They behaved and divided in lab dishes like natural bacteria.

[mainsail that]

“This is a step towards ... creation of living beings with capacities and natures that could never have naturally evolved.”

We will regret this one day

[The Sons of Liberty]

What happens if these “bacteria” escape. I doubt that we have any natural resistance to them.

[VRWCmember]

Did they create it, or did they fabricate it?

[mgstarr]

Indeed we will.

And so it begins.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Sorry, but this is not creation. Taking parts and reassembling them isn’t exactly anything new.

[VRWCmember]

“This is a step towards ... creation of living beings with capacities and natures that could never have naturally evolved.”

We will regret this one day

[DocRock]

Bookmark

[jessduntno]

Does it have a Hawaiian birth certificate?

[Safrguns]

Total bunk.... at some point they had to introduce the real thing.

Are they claiming to have created a DNA strand? or just that they animated some inert DNA?

[DallasDeb]

They are liars! They did not create a living organism from 4 bottles of chemicals. They added DNA to it. That’s cheating. Who invented the DNA?

[OldDeckHand]

They did not create a living organism. They inserted artificially created genetic material into a living cell - big, HUGE difference.

When scientist take some chemicals, swish it around in a beaker and pour it into a petri dish, where it then begins to grow, call me. Until then, no one has yet to create life.

[Snickering Hound]

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

File this under “What can possibly go wrong?”.

[qam1]

A

Quick!!!! We have to move the goalpost

BUMP

[wbarmy]

The researchers built up the synthetic genome of M mycoides, with its million chemical letters, by stitching together shorter stretches of DNA, each about 1,000 letters long. They then transferred the completed genome into the shell of another bacterium M capricolum whose own DNA had been removed.

They used 4 different strands of pre-existing DNA to do this. They did not create the "life" from scratch. What a huge misrepresentation.

[Joe Brower]

Here is another article on this.

If this is indeed true, then the long-range implications could shake our basic worldview. It is easy to see life as magic of a sort. This finding, if correct, means that Steven Weinberg's quip about life being "just a disease of matter" is correct. And that makes life, all life, us included, just "meat machines".

[reaganairport]

Eh. There are exactly two reasons to watch that movie, and they’re only on full display for a short time.

[Joe Brower]

"They used 4 different strands of pre-existing DNA to do this. They did not create the "life" from scratch. What a huge misrepresentation."

I didn't see this bit. Yes, that makes their "synthesis" a lot less than pure.

[throwback]

Good question. I don't know enough biology, but it sounds like a cut and paste and not “creation”. Of course it's not ex nihilo, but the head line makes it sound like we are now G_d.