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"?
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?
“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.