Print
I am creating artificial life, declares US gene pioneer
by Guardian
Thanks to Dianne I. Fleming for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange
· Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
· Breakthrough could combat global warming
Craig Venter, the controversial DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth.
The announcement, which is expected within weeks and could come as early as Monday at the annual meeting of his scientific institute in San Diego, California, will herald a giant leap forward in the development of designer genomes. It is certain to provoke heated debate about the ethics of creating new species and could unlock the door to new energy sources and techniques to combat global warming.
Mr Venter told the Guardian he thought this landmark would be "a very important philosophical step in the history of our species. We are going from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it. That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before".
The Guardian can reveal that a team of 20 top scientists assembled by Mr Venter, led by the Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith, has already constructed a synthetic chromosome, a feat of virtuoso bio-engineering never previously achieved. Using lab-made chemicals, they have painstakingly stitched together a chromosome that is 381 genes long and contains 580,000 base pairs of genetic code.
The DNA sequence is based on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium which the team pared down to the bare essentials needed to support life, removing a fifth of its genetic make-up. The wholly synthetically reconstructed chromosome, which the team have christened Mycoplasma laboratorium, has been watermarked with inks for easy recognition.
It is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage of the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect become a new life form. The team of scientists has already successfully transplanted the genome of one type of bacterium into the cell of another, effectively changing the cell's species. Mr Venter said he was "100% confident" the same technique would work for the artificially created chromosome.
The new life form will depend for its ability to replicate itself and metabolise on the molecular machinery of the cell into which it has been injected, and in that sense it will not be a wholly synthetic life form. However, its DNA will be artificial, and it is the DNA that controls the cell and is credited with being the building block of life.
Mr Venter said he had carried out an ethical review before completing the experiment. "We feel that this is good science," he said. He has further heightened the controversy surrounding his potential breakthrough by applying for a patent for the synthetic bacterium.
Pat Mooney, director of a Canadian bioethics organisation, ETC group, said the move was an enormous challenge to society to debate the risks involved. "Governments, and society in general, is way behind the ball. This is a wake-up call - what does it mean to create new life forms in a test-tube?"
He said Mr Venter was creating a "chassis on which you could build almost anything. It could be a contribution to humanity such as new drugs or a huge threat to humanity such as bio-weapons".
Mr Venter believes designer genomes have enormous positive potential if properly regulated. In the long-term, he hopes they could lead to alternative energy sources previously unthinkable. Bacteria could be created, he speculates, that could help mop up excessive carbon dioxide, thus contributing to the solution to global warming, or produce fuels such as butane or propane made entirely from sugar.
"We are not afraid to take on things that are important just because they stimulate thinking," he said. "We are dealing in big ideas. We are trying to create a new value system for life. When dealing at this scale, you can't expect everybody to be happy."
Reposted from:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange
· Scientist has made synthetic chromosome
· Breakthrough could combat global warming
Craig Venter, the controversial DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth.
The announcement, which is expected within weeks and could come as early as Monday at the annual meeting of his scientific institute in San Diego, California, will herald a giant leap forward in the development of designer genomes. It is certain to provoke heated debate about the ethics of creating new species and could unlock the door to new energy sources and techniques to combat global warming.
Mr Venter told the Guardian he thought this landmark would be "a very important philosophical step in the history of our species. We are going from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it. That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before".
The Guardian can reveal that a team of 20 top scientists assembled by Mr Venter, led by the Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith, has already constructed a synthetic chromosome, a feat of virtuoso bio-engineering never previously achieved. Using lab-made chemicals, they have painstakingly stitched together a chromosome that is 381 genes long and contains 580,000 base pairs of genetic code.
The DNA sequence is based on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium which the team pared down to the bare essentials needed to support life, removing a fifth of its genetic make-up. The wholly synthetically reconstructed chromosome, which the team have christened Mycoplasma laboratorium, has been watermarked with inks for easy recognition.
It is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage of the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect become a new life form. The team of scientists has already successfully transplanted the genome of one type of bacterium into the cell of another, effectively changing the cell's species. Mr Venter said he was "100% confident" the same technique would work for the artificially created chromosome.
The new life form will depend for its ability to replicate itself and metabolise on the molecular machinery of the cell into which it has been injected, and in that sense it will not be a wholly synthetic life form. However, its DNA will be artificial, and it is the DNA that controls the cell and is credited with being the building block of life.
Mr Venter said he had carried out an ethical review before completing the experiment. "We feel that this is good science," he said. He has further heightened the controversy surrounding his potential breakthrough by applying for a patent for the synthetic bacterium.
Pat Mooney, director of a Canadian bioethics organisation, ETC group, said the move was an enormous challenge to society to debate the risks involved. "Governments, and society in general, is way behind the ball. This is a wake-up call - what does it mean to create new life forms in a test-tube?"
He said Mr Venter was creating a "chassis on which you could build almost anything. It could be a contribution to humanity such as new drugs or a huge threat to humanity such as bio-weapons".
Mr Venter believes designer genomes have enormous positive potential if properly regulated. In the long-term, he hopes they could lead to alternative energy sources previously unthinkable. Bacteria could be created, he speculates, that could help mop up excessive carbon dioxide, thus contributing to the solution to global warming, or produce fuels such as butane or propane made entirely from sugar.
"We are not afraid to take on things that are important just because they stimulate thinking," he said. "We are dealing in big ideas. We are trying to create a new value system for life. When dealing at this scale, you can't expect everybody to be happy."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, October 5, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 56 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #76449 by irate_atheist on October 5, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Most impressive. Other Comments by irate_atheist
3. Comment #76465 by BAEOZ on October 6, 2007 at 12:28 am
Will Mr. Venter receive a cease and desist letter from god's attorneys anytime soon for infringement of patents and IP? Other Comments by BAEOZ
4. Comment #76472 by smartypants on October 6, 2007 at 12:53 am
Wait and see how another goal-posts is going to be moved by the religious to accommodate this.Other Comments by smartypants
5. Comment #76480 by Shane McKee on October 6, 2007 at 1:22 am
Intelligent Design is the hard way; evolution is the easy way. This is not new science, but could prove useful some day. Other Comments by Shane McKee
6. Comment #76500 by MaxieZ on October 6, 2007 at 2:24 am
Is it wrong to be just a touch worried about this? It's not an ethical concern I have as much as a humanist concern. For example...let's say we create a bacteria that eats co2 or methane to prevent future global warming. What happens when the tilt goes the other way and plants that we need start dying? Do we create new living things that eat the things we created?There was an old lady who swallowed a fly?
Maybe I'm being paranoid...
Other Comments by MaxieZ
7. Comment #76501 by Jiten on October 6, 2007 at 2:24 am
Long into the future Craig Venter will be looked on as the Intelligent Designer by the future life-forms,descendents of his artificially designed organisms. Other Comments by Jiten
8. Comment #76504 by dvespertilio on October 6, 2007 at 2:41 am
Goodbye, Nature. Hello, brave new world. Are we not on the threshold of redefining both our humanity and the natural world in which we live?Other Comments by dvespertilio
9. Comment #76527 by rokort on October 6, 2007 at 5:01 am
We cross lifestock to get cows that produce more milk or meat. We radiate vegetables in a search for bigger and tastier ones. In other words: we introduce mutations to select for animals and greens that yield more profit. We don't know what we mutate, just as long we get more bang for our buck regarding the end-product. No problemo here (well, i don't see any large scale protesting).Now when somebody in a highly controled setting makes an organism or something alike suddenly there's worry? I think Craig Venter is truly at the cutting edge of what science can deliver: solutions to problems.
Other Comments by rokort
10. Comment #76550 by MaxieZ on October 6, 2007 at 7:52 am
I have no objection to the science here. I think it's amazing and I certainly think Craig Venter deserves a great deal of respect. I just fear it could be dangerous if not properly used. We still don't know a lot about all the varying dependencies in a given ecosystem. and I can't help but feel that introducing a new species into nature is on par with allowing one to go extinct. I could be wrong.Other Comments by MaxieZ
11. Comment #76553 by steve99 on October 6, 2007 at 8:27 am
Goodbye, Nature. Hello, brave new world. Are we not on the threshold of redefining both our humanity and the natural world in which we live?
No, we aren't. The true shock was hundreds of years ago when a chemist made the biological substance urea in the laboratory. This showed that life was chemistry. What Venter is doing now is an inevitable consequence of that event.
Other Comments by steve99
12. Comment #76560 by Enlightenme.. on October 6, 2007 at 9:07 am
I thought insulin manufacture had been using this technique for years already? Other Comments by Enlightenme..
13. Comment #76561 by GBG on October 6, 2007 at 9:13 am
No doubt we will get some bizarre rationalisation from the religious that allows them to carry on believing primitive myths in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Other Comments by GBG
14. Comment #76562 by ironwidget on October 6, 2007 at 9:14 am
insulin was made by transferring preexisting genetic information into bacteria. Craig Venter has gone one step further by actually constructing his own chromosome from its base materials, theoretically this technology will enable us to create genetic code for anything we want to.Other Comments by ironwidget
15. Comment #76597 by Enlightenme.. on October 6, 2007 at 11:56 am
It's all a bit scary really, this sort of power wouldn't mix too well with end-timer belief.The Andromeda strain was on telly last week (one of my favourites)
Perhaps this is the reason we can't hear any other civilisations out there - the last parameter of the Drake 'equation' is only around 200 years or so.
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
16. Comment #76619 by BAEOZ on October 6, 2007 at 12:58 pm
smartypants:Wait and see how another goal-posts is going to be moved by the religious to accommodate this.
GBG:
No doubt we will get some bizarre rationalisation from the religious that allows them to carry on believing primitive myths in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.
Found this:
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/10/06/ciencia/1191695534.html?a=c403d05e1c6dd3cf6cfc9ea3c16ab680&t=1191699915
CIUDAD DEL VATICANO.- "Lo que ha logrado -John Craig Venter- es un organismo genéticamente modificado de algo que ya existía, no la creación de un nuevo organismo", ha explicado el genetista católico Angelo Vescovia a Radio Vaticano, preguntado sobre el polémico anuncio de la creación del primer cromosoma sintético del científico estadounidense.
"No ha descubierto absolutamente nada de nuevo", señaló Vescovia, del 'Istituto San Raffaele' de Milán. Según el genetista italiano, este avance no se trata de un descubrimiento "que abra nuevas perspectivas para hacer cosas actualmente impensables".
Oh you want a translation? Only if you pay me.....
Vatican City. - "What he's achieved - John Craig Venter - is a genetically modified organism of something that already existed, not the creation of a new organism", the catholic geneticist Angelo Vescovia explained to Vatican Radio, when asked about the polemic announcement of the creation of the first synthetic chromosome by the American scientist.
"He absolutely hasn't discovered anything new", signaled Vescovia, from the 'Institute of San Raffaele' in Milan. According to the Italian geneticist, this advance is not a discovery "that opens new perspectives to create unthinkable things right now."
So there you have from the Vatican: Steady as she goes. Could someone please rearrange the deck chairs? They seem to be transubstantiating into water.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
17. Comment #76622 by BaronOchs on October 6, 2007 at 1:05 pm
BAEOZ that's interesting, does catholic teaching actually insist the creation of a new organism must be impossible? Other Comments by BaronOchs
18. Comment #76627 by steve99 on October 6, 2007 at 1:13 pm
It's all a bit scary really, this sort of power wouldn't mix too well with end-timer belief.
It is worth considering that there is probably not much that Venter could invent in the lab that has not been tried by evolution over billions of years.
The Andromeda strain was on telly last week (one of my favourites)
And I am afraid to say that like most work by Michael Chrichton it is very poor science.
Other Comments by steve99
19. Comment #76628 by BAEOZ on October 6, 2007 at 1:15 pm
BaronOchs:does catholic teaching actually insist the creation of a new organism must be impossible?
I honestly have no idea. Catholics are good at accommodating science whilst maintaining that god somehow did it (I was raised a catholic, so I have some idea but an not an expert.)
I could easily imagine them saying that god "inspired the hand" of a scientist who created a new organism. Problem solved.
Other Christians might say Satan "inspired the hand" and new life would be the devils work. In any case, I'm pretty sure it can be accommodated into a theistic world view.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
20. Comment #76634 by BaronOchs on October 6, 2007 at 2:05 pm
BAEOZ perhaps Angelo Vescovia deliberately played down the result for the Vatican Radio audience? Other Comments by BaronOchs
21. Comment #76636 by a-teapot-ist on October 6, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I hope Dr. Venter's lab has some strong security measures, because if there are maniacs willing to kill abortion doctors, there certainly will be similarly "passionate objectors" to this latest development. In truth, if the agricultural revolution wasn't already a leap into god's domain, I'd like to know what is. So long as they've prepared for whatever possible consequences lie ahead, I say run with it as far as they can.Other Comments by a-teapot-ist
22. Comment #76698 by BAEOZ on October 6, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Richard, you mammal. Man, haven't seen a pair of mammaries like that, in well, in a long time. I see you've also had work done on other parts of you physiology. A name change may be in order. Other Comments by BAEOZ
23. Comment #76699 by max_29 on October 6, 2007 at 7:06 pm
You know how far this will go with creationists. Its a great achievement. But I see it spiraling down to "Who created subatomic particles"Dam! I always gave up in the face mad religious types.
Other Comments by max_29
24. Comment #76708 by max_29 on October 6, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Thanks. I stole it. Yours has greater appeal somehow.Other Comments by max_29
25. Comment #76710 by max_29 on October 6, 2007 at 8:58 pm
My guess is it will be difficult to produce an original organism that would be resilient to our hostile environment.Other Comments by max_29
26. Comment #76713 by DNAtheist on October 6, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Indeed you did steal it, Max29. You stole it from me. That is very annoying since I spent a considerable amount of time designing it. Please find your own avatar, not one of my old ones. Other Comments by DNAtheist
27. Comment #76716 by Goldy on October 6, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Richard Morgan, you da man! Yes, England beat Oz (teach that coach to say how much Australians hate the English!...was it the coach?) and here in NZ I shall wear my England shirt with pride and answer all those emails I have been sentOther Comments by Goldy
28. Comment #76717 by Goldy on October 6, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Oooops, sent too soon - emails how the ABs will win the cup this year!Other Comments by Goldy
29. Comment #76718 by max_29 on October 6, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Sorry for offending you DNAtheist.Other Comments by max_29
30. Comment #76719 by Robert Maynard on October 6, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Aw man, I missed it! What did your old avatar look like? Other Comments by Robert Maynard
31. Comment #76721 by max_29 on October 6, 2007 at 11:10 pm
The same as DNAs with atheist across the middle.Other Comments by max_29
32. Comment #76723 by max_29 on October 6, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Dam! I always gave up in the face mad religious types.And cosmologists.
Other Comments by max_29
33. Comment #76849 by DNAtheist on October 7, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, Max29. I'm flattered, not offended. It's just annoying having two versions of my avatar on the same board. I have some other ideas for avatars if you are interested. Other Comments by DNAtheist
34. Comment #76904 by Tagred on October 7, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Comment #76699 by max_29 on October 6, 2007 at 7:06 pmand
You know how far this will go with creationists. Its a great achievement. But I see it spiraling down to "Who created subatomic particles"
Dam! I always gave up in the face mad religious types.
No doubt we will get some bizarre rationalisation from the religious that allows them to carry on believing primitive myths in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary.I don't think the creationists or any other religion based group would have a problem with the goalposts. Indeed I could see them actually using it as a case for creationism.
I.e., if humans can invent lifeforms from lab chemicals, then it must mean there was a creator of life on earth etc.
Unfortunately I don't think it will help destroy their delusions.
Other Comments by Tagred
35. Comment #76909 by max_29 on October 7, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Thanks DNA. I think I'll follow your idea and design one.Thanks.
Other Comments by max_29
36. Comment #76913 by max_29 on October 7, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Yeah. The claim is fantastic but I have no idea if the science is sound.Did he build the chromosome base by base?
Other Comments by max_29
37. Comment #76934 by lbq on October 7, 2007 at 9:49 pm
My objection is not to what Mr Venter did, but to his language. Chromosome? Bacteria don't have chromosomes. Only eukaryotes do, in the nucleus that prokaryotes don't have. They have their genes strung in a loop swimming in the cell plasm. If that is what Mr Venter created, he should say so. What he has created is in fact a new genome (if this is all the genes that the new bacrerium has) and this to me sounds just as impressive.Other Comments by lbq
38. Comment #76937 by GSP on October 7, 2007 at 10:12 pm
The ethics here is what interests me. Creating a life-form to do our bidding. It's a concept we have never dealt with on this level. And if science has proven anything it has shown that it can be tremendously ignorant and brutal, from dissecting animals with no pain killers in Descartes day, to doing the same thing today in laboratories. It is a very human-centered approach which generally has little to no regard for other life forms.So this question of creating an organism to do our bidding; where do we get the right? Going further, which scientists undoubtedly will, we will eventually create living beings which can evolve consciousness. Will these beings, simply because of our ability to create them, be our servants? I don't see where we would get the right to do that. But then looking back, is consciousness the mechanism at which we determine whether we can control one type of life over another? Surely not, for many animals, including those we eat and experiment on, have consciousness and awareness which causes them more than mere physical pain. So consciousness can't be the mechanism. So what is?
Do we just keep going and doing what we want simply because we can? Does 'might make right?'
Other Comments by GSP
39. Comment #76943 by Downunder on October 7, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Re lbq's post 39; very observant and one wonders why poster DNAtheist did not pick that up; may be he is not involved in DNA?Re GSP's post 40; I agree, ethics must be safeguarded but they can be dealt with as science progresses. Science will inherently precede ethics.
IMHO, Venter did not create new life but diverted existing life into a different direction. Re the Guardian's quote at the top of this page; "DNA is credited with being the building block of life" DNA is NOT the building block but the building's assembly instruction. Please lbq correct me, and if I should withdraw that statement.
Other Comments by Downunder
40. Comment #77034 by The Wee Flea on October 8, 2007 at 8:57 am
"He has further heightened the controversy surrounding his potential breakthrough by applying for a patent for the synthetic bacterium."Why doesn't this come as a surprise? This is the same guy who tried to patent the human genome and who stated that one of his aims in life is to buy a yacht. The linkage of science and capitalism (aka Monsanto) is profoundly disturbing - and all true lovers of science and knowledge should be on their guard.
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
41. Comment #77039 by BillySands on October 8, 2007 at 9:19 am
The linkage of science and capitalism (aka Monsanto) is profoundly disturbing - and all true lovers of science and knowledge should be on their guard.
Cough - Catholic church, cough Benny Hinn etc ... And your point is?
Other Comments by BillySands
42. Comment #77846 by The Wee Flea on October 10, 2007 at 10:24 pm
The Guardian printed a critique of Venters work by a cell biologist from Cambridge. (Guardian 10th October). It pointed out that new life was not being created - that there was no benefit in what is being done, that the claims being made (ie. you could know the date of your death etc) were all false. In other words the whole thing was spin about something that is not that exciting after all.My point (for Billy - who always seems to have difficulty getting the point) was simply that the linkage of science and capitalism is as dangerous as the linkage of science and the military. Still not sure what the Catholic Church and Benny Hinn have to do with either!
And my questions are also simple -
1) Why did this site post the original spin in the first place and not the refutation?
2) What does RD think? It is after all his field of expertise. Why did he not warn us about the false claims being made?
Other Comments by The Wee Flea
43. Comment #77850 by the_assayer on October 10, 2007 at 11:10 pm
http://www.stockhouse.com/mediascan/news.asp?newsid=9319664Here's the article I think the Flea is refering to. Anyway, I see nothing in there that amounts to a "refutation". Its mostly saying that venters is claiming more that what has been demonstrated in the labs. This a serious problem though and it would be nice if Josh could post the article I give above, so that readers may get a better picture.
Flea you say -
"""
1) Why did this site post the original spin in the first place and not the refutation?
2) What does RD think? It is after all his field of expertise. Why did he not warn us about the false claims being made?
"""
You seem a bit paranoid here. Don't be so judgemental; not so soon atleast.
Also, does being an evolutionary biologist make you an expert in artificial life synthesis? Anyone?
Other Comments by the_assayer
44. Comment #77864 by Philip1978 on October 11, 2007 at 12:50 am
Gosh, this all looks a bit exciting, I doubt Ventor's research will beat Billy's Gay Fruit Fly army, but kudos to him anyway!I know this is all in early stages but reduction in carbon dioxide by creating the right bacteria, isnt that a tad dangerous? I suppose there are bacteria lurking around me already that are more than able to do all sorts, shades and sizes of weirdness but man made bacteria?? - have I been watching too many horror films again...
More tea, that should do the trick!
Philip
Other Comments by Philip1978
45. Comment #77884 by BillySands on October 11, 2007 at 2:28 am
David,My point (for Billy - who always seems to have difficulty getting the point) was simply that the linkage of science and capitalism is as dangerous as the linkage of science and the military. Still not sure what the Catholic Church and Benny Hinn have to do with either!
Christian money making machines that exploit people - DID i REALLY HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT?
Now as bad a mix as christianity and politics or the millitary though.
Where do you think most the funding comes from to produce the medicines that you take for granted? From the Church? The government? It is a sad fact of lfe, but market forces drive research - there is not enough money from other sources. It does annoy me when Africans cant afford AIDS treatments - almost as much as the ract the religious have helped propagate its spread with their stupid teachings. It would be nice if you religious lot got rid of some ofyour posh palaces and jewlery and paid for some medicince to sort out the mess you lot have helped to make.
In other words the whole thing was spin about something that is not that exciting after all.
No David - naughty boy - Try reading about designing pathways to optimise flux through various metabolic / synthetic pathways for example. Let me as a biochemist tell you that there are potential benefits - whether they are realised is a different matter - what is you point?
1) Why did this site post the original spin in the first place and not the refutation?
Now David, this article went up on the 5th, the guardian published on the 10th - I know you have a Dawkins obsession, but do you really think he can see into the future? The article is here for both the sane and insane to comment on. You are not censored, so what is your point? It's not like your site where you wield absolute control.
Why dont you warn us the pope is the antichrist on your site?
If as you claim (which I dont believe) that the pope is not the antichrist, do you not speak out against the Westminister confession of faith? Dont you realise it fuel hate, and by doing nothing, you are maintaining that hatred?
Of course you realise it. You are an evil little priest
Other Comments by BillySands
46. Comment #77889 by BillySands on October 11, 2007 at 3:00 am
This is the article Flea refers to http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2187274,00.html#article_continue(why did he not put it up?)
It makes none of the claims David is making, and predicting the date of your death is not something claimed in the article above - it may be possible though. We can tell at what age someone will develop huntington's disease at by looking at the gene. I do think it will not be too accurate, but that is not what is claimed in the article. If david knew anything about chromosomes or the requirements for life, he would realise this is no mean feat. Also the article isn't claiming the creation of a new organism de novo, nor is venter claiming as Fleas article suggests that he is using techniques developed by himself. PCR, ligation, oligonucleotide synthesis, transformation etc have all been around for a while, where does it claim venter invented them.
Interestingly, the assayers link says Venter has actually set up a non profit organisation.
Boy David, when you talk rubbish, you do it in big style - Dont lie, its not big or clever!
Other Comments by BillySands
47. Comment #77903 by irate_atheist on October 11, 2007 at 4:28 am
No, I don't see what Benny Hill has to do with the Catholic Church, either.Oh, Benny Hinn. Sorry.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
48. Comment #77907 by BillySands on October 11, 2007 at 4:53 am
IRATE_ATHEIST.Is Benny hill not considered anachronistic and sexist? A bit like churches in general
Other Comments by BillySands
49. Comment #77909 by irate_atheist on October 11, 2007 at 4:58 am
Billy -Perhaps, perhaps. But it would be difficult to describe him as sexually repressive.
I can, however, see the resemblance with respect to pointless antics.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
50. Comment #77910 by BillySands on October 11, 2007 at 5:00 am
Irate_atheist,I now have a wonderful image of Benny Hill polishing wee flea's head
Other Comments by BillySands
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #76440 by chauvinj on October 5, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Wow....Other Comments by chauvinj