Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science of man-made life can proceed: White House
Breitbart ^ | Dec 16, 2010 | Breitbart

Posted on 12/16/2010 8:11:42 PM PST by Abin Sur

The White House on Thursday said the controversial field of synthetic biology, or manipulating the DNA of organisms to forge new life forms, poses limited risks and should be allowed to proceed.

An expert panel convened by President Barack Obama advised vigilance and self-regulation as scientists seeks ways to create new organisms that could spark useful innovations in clean energy, pollution control and medicine.

The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues "concluded that synthetic biology is capable of significant but limited achievements posing limited risks," it said in its first report.

"Future developments may raise further objections, but the Commission found no reason to endorse additional federal regulations or a moratorium on work in this field at this time."

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: artificiallife; biology; dna; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last
It's nice to see that Obama can't get everything wrong, try as he might. Damn the torpedoes of antiscience, full speed ahead!
1 posted on 12/16/2010 8:11:49 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur
Just can't help yourself, eh? Gonna push the envelope to see how far you can stretch your disdain for Freerepublic conservatism.
2 posted on 12/16/2010 8:14:05 PM PST by MHGinTN (Some, believing they can't be deceived, it's nigh impossible to convince them when they're deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

What’s wrong with artificial life? It’s not like the National Socialist’s plans to breed a maser race.

It’s just engineers with little background in biology spinning new DNA strands and trying to get them to replicate.


3 posted on 12/16/2010 8:15:07 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur
Gee, it's great to be back home....
I'm back in the USSR
you don't know how lucky you are boys
Back..Back..Back in the USSR.

I'd been away so long I hardly knew the place.
Gee, It's Great To Be Back Home.

4 posted on 12/16/2010 8:15:43 PM PST by no-to-illegals (Please God, Bless and Protect Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

We’ve already established that scientists are unethical....hence...killing babies....manipulating climate data...


5 posted on 12/16/2010 8:16:41 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Just can't help yourself, eh? Gonna push the envelope to see how far you can stretch your disdain for Freerepublic conservatism.

And this has what, exactly, to do with conservatism?

6 posted on 12/16/2010 8:17:05 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

This is more genetic perversion than creating life. If it was truly artificial life, no existing organisms would be needed.


7 posted on 12/16/2010 8:17:48 PM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
This is more genetic perversion than creating life. If it was truly artificial life, no existing organisms would be needed.

As per the original article: "Of note, many scientists observe that this achievement is not tantamount to 'creating life' in a scientific sense because the research required a functioning, naturally occurring host cell to accept the synthesized genome."

Why would you consider making an artificial genome a "perversion"?

8 posted on 12/16/2010 8:22:36 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

So “self-regulation” is permissible in this area which could possibly destroy all life on earth, but they need to regulate all the other myriad and infinitesimal details of our lives. Makes sense to me.


9 posted on 12/16/2010 8:25:06 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Abin Sur likes this type of unregulated tampering with the laws of nature because it is the only way to realize his infantile vision of a comic book world.

The comic book character "Abin Sur" from The Green Lantern:


10 posted on 12/16/2010 8:26:41 PM PST by Lazlo in PA (Now living in a newly minted Red State.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

we are not GODS


11 posted on 12/16/2010 8:28:06 PM PST by Germanicus Cretorian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur
may inject a thought:

artificial verses natural...now could one of the first two be a perversion? If one is a perversion, which would be perverse? Maybe the artificial? For would any argue the natural would be a perversion?

12 posted on 12/16/2010 8:29:36 PM PST by no-to-illegals (Please God, Bless and Protect Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
So “self-regulation” is permissible in this area which could possibly destroy all life on earth,

Destroy all life on earth? What do you think they're going to make, Grey Goo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo

(to be fair, grey goo is kind of cool)

but they need to regulate all the other myriad and infinitesimal details of our lives. Makes sense to me.

An administration whose philosophy is to intervene in almost every aspect of our lives is calling government to (in this area, at least) get out of the way. A bit ironic, but we should give credit where it's due.

13 posted on 12/16/2010 8:29:40 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Germanicus Cretorian
we are not GODS

I agree, not that I recall anyone saying that we were.

In any case, the ability to manipulate the genetic code doesn't exactly make one a deity.

14 posted on 12/16/2010 8:33:55 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lazlo in PA
Abin Sur likes this type of unregulated tampering with the laws of nature

Genetic engineering doesn't "tamper" with the laws of nature. Insofar as they exist, we can't change them; we have to work within them.

They're not mutable.

15 posted on 12/16/2010 8:38:43 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

Didn’t know the government was blocking it. It’s not like the government has a law that says “Thou shalt not create life as we know it”, is there?


16 posted on 12/16/2010 8:39:19 PM PST by dr_who
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

were playing with the very fabric of life

is that something we should be risking?


17 posted on 12/16/2010 8:39:35 PM PST by Germanicus Cretorian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

“Why would you consider making an artificial genome a “perversion”? “

An artificial genome of itself is not problem. An artificial genome expressed in a viable cell may be a problem if it replicates.

We don’t understand enough yet to know if a genome, a DNA sequence that is expressed in a cell (say e coli or b subtilis) , may pose a threat if it is allowed to multiply.

“Perversion” may be the wrong term, biothreat may be more applicable.


18 posted on 12/16/2010 8:40:20 PM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Abin Sur

It is true that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Then there is the natural matter (created by God) and the artificial (created by man). Which do you think would be the greater threat?


19 posted on 12/16/2010 8:43:42 PM PST by no-to-illegals (Please God, Bless and Protect Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: no-to-illegals
artificial verses natural...now could one of the first two be a perversion? If one is a perversion, which would be perverse? Maybe the artificial? For would any argue the natural would be a perversion?

I don't think either one is perverse. Granted, an artificial genome could be put to a perverse use...but that could be said of any tool, from a rock to a nuclear weapon.

In other words, genetically engineered organisms don't cause the apocalypse, people cause the apocalypse!

20 posted on 12/16/2010 8:44:24 PM PST by Abin Sur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson