Print
US scientists close to creating artificial life: study
by Physorg.com
Thanks to SPS for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.physorg.com/news120405972.html
US scientists have taken a major step toward creating the first ever artificial life form by synthetically reproducing the DNA of a bacteria, according to a study published Thursday.
The move, which comes after five years of research, is seen as the penultimate stage in the endeavor to create an artificial life form based entirely on a man-made DNA genome -- something which has tantalized scientists and sci-fi writers for years.
"Through dedicated teamwork we have shown that building large genomes is now feasible and scalable so that important applications such as biofuels can be developed," said Hamilton Smith, from the J.Craig Venter Institute, in the study published in Science.
The research has been carried out at the laboratories of the controversial celebrity US scientist Craig Venter, who has hailed artificial life forms as a potential remedy to illness and global warming.
However, the prospect of engineering artificial life forms is highly controversial and arouses heated debate over the ethics and its potential ramifications.
It is one of the Holy Grails of science, but also one that stirs deep fears as foreseen in Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel "Brave New World" in which natural human reproduction is eschewed in favor of babies grown artificially in laboratories.
Venter said in a statement: "This extraordinary accomplishment is a technological marvel that was only made possible because of the unique and accomplished ... team."
His researchers had "dedicated the last several years to designing and perfecting new methods and techniques that we believe will become widely used to advance the field of synthetic genomics," he added.
Lead author Dan Gibson said the team had completed the second step in a three-step process to create a synthetic organism.
In the final stage of their research which they are already working on, the Maryland-based team will attempt to create a bacteria based purely on the synthetic genome sequence of the Mycoplasma genitalium bacteria.
The bacteria, which causes certain sexually transmitted diseases, has one of the least complex DNA structures of any life form, composed of just 580 genes.
In contrast, the human genome has some 30,000.
The chromosome which Venter and his team has created is known as Mycoplasma laboratorium and, in the final step of the process, will be transplanted into a living cell where it should "take control," effectively becoming a new life form.
"When we started this work several years ago, we knew it was going to be difficult because we were treading into unknown territory," said Smith.
But other scientists remain cautious, saying Venter and his team are still a long way from being able to create artificial life.
And ETC, a Canadian watchdog group that uncovered Venter's patent application for M. laboratorium, worries about accountability.
"Venter is claiming bragging rights to the world's longest length of synthetic DNA, but size isn't everything. The important question is not 'how long?', but 'how wise?'" said Jim Thomas from ETC.
"While synthetic biology is speeding ahead in the lab and in the marketplace, societal debate and regulatory oversight is stalled, and there has been no meaningful or inclusive discussion on how to govern synthetic biology in a safe and just way."
Eckard Wimmer, professor of molecular biology at New York University, said it was clear from Venter's study that the team had not yet created artificial life.
He said he was left with "the unpleasant feeling whether or not the synthetic DNA was indeed proper and able for biological function."
His fears were echoed by Helen Wallace, a biologist and spokeswoman for GeneWatch UK, who said that while Venter's team has managed a technical feat, it is some way from being artificial life.
"Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life," she told AFP.
"It's a type of genetic engineering which would allow people to make much bigger genetic changes, which means that in the future you could create organisms with new gene sequences."
Venter: US scientist with ambitions to create life
Craig Venter is a maverick US scientist and pioneer of biotechnology with a single over-riding ambition -- to create the first form of artificial life to aid humanity battle 21st century problems.
Venter says his cutting-edge research could help resolve some of the world's most pressing ills, by creating man-made bacteria which could help tackle such issues as dwindling fuel resources and mounting garbage dumps.
But to his critics, the 61-year-old researcher is a megalomaniac determined to write his name into history, and along the way slap a patent on artificial life-forms.
In 2001, Venter almost beat a public-sector international consortium in being first to decode the human genome, and in early 2007 his institute unveiled the first fully-sequenced genome of an individual: himself.
His controversial approach and his thirst to be the first to crack one of science's Holy Grails has driven his research on.
In 2006, his laboratory, the J. Craig Venter Institute, filed for a US patent on a single-cell organism, claiming exclusive ownership of a set of essential genes and a synthetic "free-living organism that can grow and replicate."
The single cell organism, which the Canadian bioethics organization ETC Group has coined "Synthia," is piloted by a chromosome with just 381 genes, the limit necessary to sustain the life of the bacteria so it can feed and reproduce.
The ETC watchdog publicized the patent application, which would apply in the United States and 100 or so other countries, in June 2007.
Venter told the British daily The Guardian in October that the synthetic chromosome built using chemicals in a laboratory 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," Venter said.
He has sought to address some of the ethical and regulatory concerns by issuing a kind of white paper with recommendations for policymakers.
But specialists say that, outside the lab, the world is totally unprepared for the looming dawn of synbio, as synthetic biology is called.
And watchdog groups are not buying either. They want national government and international organizations to take the lead.
"We've seen a lot of hype from him. Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life," said Helen Wallace, a biologist and spokesperson for GeneWatch UK.
"It's a type of genetic engineering which would allow people to make much bigger genetic changes, which means that in the future you could create organisms with new gene sequences."
But she added that "the consequences can be unknown" for the environment.
Venter, named by Time magazine in 2007 as one of the world's 100 most influential people, is also a prolific author having published some 200 scientific articles.
He is also a member of the National American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Reposted from:
http://www.physorg.com/news120405972.html
US scientists have taken a major step toward creating the first ever artificial life form by synthetically reproducing the DNA of a bacteria, according to a study published Thursday.The move, which comes after five years of research, is seen as the penultimate stage in the endeavor to create an artificial life form based entirely on a man-made DNA genome -- something which has tantalized scientists and sci-fi writers for years.
"Through dedicated teamwork we have shown that building large genomes is now feasible and scalable so that important applications such as biofuels can be developed," said Hamilton Smith, from the J.Craig Venter Institute, in the study published in Science.
The research has been carried out at the laboratories of the controversial celebrity US scientist Craig Venter, who has hailed artificial life forms as a potential remedy to illness and global warming.
However, the prospect of engineering artificial life forms is highly controversial and arouses heated debate over the ethics and its potential ramifications.
It is one of the Holy Grails of science, but also one that stirs deep fears as foreseen in Aldous Huxley's 1932 novel "Brave New World" in which natural human reproduction is eschewed in favor of babies grown artificially in laboratories.
Venter said in a statement: "This extraordinary accomplishment is a technological marvel that was only made possible because of the unique and accomplished ... team."
His researchers had "dedicated the last several years to designing and perfecting new methods and techniques that we believe will become widely used to advance the field of synthetic genomics," he added.
Lead author Dan Gibson said the team had completed the second step in a three-step process to create a synthetic organism.
In the final stage of their research which they are already working on, the Maryland-based team will attempt to create a bacteria based purely on the synthetic genome sequence of the Mycoplasma genitalium bacteria.
The bacteria, which causes certain sexually transmitted diseases, has one of the least complex DNA structures of any life form, composed of just 580 genes.
In contrast, the human genome has some 30,000.
The chromosome which Venter and his team has created is known as Mycoplasma laboratorium and, in the final step of the process, will be transplanted into a living cell where it should "take control," effectively becoming a new life form.
"When we started this work several years ago, we knew it was going to be difficult because we were treading into unknown territory," said Smith.
But other scientists remain cautious, saying Venter and his team are still a long way from being able to create artificial life.
And ETC, a Canadian watchdog group that uncovered Venter's patent application for M. laboratorium, worries about accountability.
"Venter is claiming bragging rights to the world's longest length of synthetic DNA, but size isn't everything. The important question is not 'how long?', but 'how wise?'" said Jim Thomas from ETC.
"While synthetic biology is speeding ahead in the lab and in the marketplace, societal debate and regulatory oversight is stalled, and there has been no meaningful or inclusive discussion on how to govern synthetic biology in a safe and just way."
Eckard Wimmer, professor of molecular biology at New York University, said it was clear from Venter's study that the team had not yet created artificial life.
He said he was left with "the unpleasant feeling whether or not the synthetic DNA was indeed proper and able for biological function."
His fears were echoed by Helen Wallace, a biologist and spokeswoman for GeneWatch UK, who said that while Venter's team has managed a technical feat, it is some way from being artificial life.
"Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life," she told AFP.
"It's a type of genetic engineering which would allow people to make much bigger genetic changes, which means that in the future you could create organisms with new gene sequences."
Venter: US scientist with ambitions to create life
Craig Venter is a maverick US scientist and pioneer of biotechnology with a single over-riding ambition -- to create the first form of artificial life to aid humanity battle 21st century problems.
Venter says his cutting-edge research could help resolve some of the world's most pressing ills, by creating man-made bacteria which could help tackle such issues as dwindling fuel resources and mounting garbage dumps.
But to his critics, the 61-year-old researcher is a megalomaniac determined to write his name into history, and along the way slap a patent on artificial life-forms.
In 2001, Venter almost beat a public-sector international consortium in being first to decode the human genome, and in early 2007 his institute unveiled the first fully-sequenced genome of an individual: himself.
His controversial approach and his thirst to be the first to crack one of science's Holy Grails has driven his research on.
In 2006, his laboratory, the J. Craig Venter Institute, filed for a US patent on a single-cell organism, claiming exclusive ownership of a set of essential genes and a synthetic "free-living organism that can grow and replicate."
The single cell organism, which the Canadian bioethics organization ETC Group has coined "Synthia," is piloted by a chromosome with just 381 genes, the limit necessary to sustain the life of the bacteria so it can feed and reproduce.
The ETC watchdog publicized the patent application, which would apply in the United States and 100 or so other countries, in June 2007.
Venter told the British daily The Guardian in October that the synthetic chromosome built using chemicals in a laboratory 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," Venter said.
He has sought to address some of the ethical and regulatory concerns by issuing a kind of white paper with recommendations for policymakers.
But specialists say that, outside the lab, the world is totally unprepared for the looming dawn of synbio, as synthetic biology is called.
And watchdog groups are not buying either. They want national government and international organizations to take the lead.
"We've seen a lot of hype from him. Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life," said Helen Wallace, a biologist and spokesperson for GeneWatch UK.
"It's a type of genetic engineering which would allow people to make much bigger genetic changes, which means that in the future you could create organisms with new gene sequences."
But she added that "the consequences can be unknown" for the environment.
Venter, named by Time magazine in 2007 as one of the world's 100 most influential people, is also a prolific author having published some 200 scientific articles.
He is also a member of the National American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, January 24, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 44 of 44 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #115777 by Zakie Chan on January 24, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Pretty freaking sweet! Other Comments by Zakie Chan
3. Comment #115779 by Rational_G on January 24, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Way cool. Other Comments by Rational_G
4. Comment #115781 by Diacanu on January 24, 2008 at 7:08 pm
*Poofy hair, labcoat, goggles, forearm length purple rubber gloves*POOOWWEERRRRRR!!!!!!!!
Other Comments by Diacanu
5. Comment #115788 by info_dump on January 24, 2008 at 7:37 pm
When I'm on this site reading a genuinely fascinating science article such as this, I sometimes play a game afterwards. I count the number of comments before someone says something along the lines of "another nail in the creationist coffin", bringing it back to the topic of religion.Wait for it...
Other Comments by info_dump
6. Comment #115789 by tybowen on January 24, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Bad Ass.And I think your comment info_dump was the one you were waiting for.
Other Comments by tybowen
7. Comment #115794 by info_dump on January 24, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Yes! Very good point: I opened the can of worms myself, even if it was more of a meta-comment. It happens in pretty much every science thread though, and while I completely understand - this is an athiest 'hub' of sorts - I still get a kick out of it.On a completely separate note, I think this article is really cool, and I love the fact that I've seen a handful of similar articles which give me the impression that we're on the verge of something huge (and controversial) in the field of genetics. I'm all for it.
Other Comments by info_dump
8. Comment #115795 by Tosser on January 24, 2008 at 7:55 pm
"The important question is not 'how long?', but 'how wise?'" said Jim Thomas from ETC.It's interesting that certain people always have this knee-jerk reaction to almost any scientific work, but then they never engage in a thoughtful discussion about it. Instead, they remain in a loop--always fearing the potential ethical implications but never moving forward to help actually develop ethics for the new technology.
P.S. To fulfill the prophesy given in Comment 5 above: the article calls this "artifical life." Do the intelligent design faithful ever use the term "artifical life" to refer to people?
Other Comments by Tosser
9. Comment #115801 by robotaholic on January 24, 2008 at 8:14 pm
this will be another nail in the creationist coffin... Other Comments by robotaholic
10. Comment #115804 by AshtonBlack on January 24, 2008 at 8:18 pm
and another coffin in the nail of crea... oh wait.*Poofy hair, labcoat, goggles, forearm length purple rubber gloves*
POOOWWEERRRRRR!!!!!!!!
IT'S ALIIIIIIVE!!!!! Muhahahahahahaha
Other Comments by AshtonBlack
11. Comment #115805 by Damien White on January 24, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Another nail in the creationist coffin, in accordance with the prophecy.Honestly, how annoying would it be for Jehovah's Witnesses to rock up to Venter's house and start telling him all about how God created life only to have him say "Oh, that? Yeah, i've done that too."
Other Comments by Damien White
12. Comment #115806 by AmericanGodless on January 24, 2008 at 8:26 pm
In post 5, info_dump is waiting to see how many posts before discussion is brought "back to the topic of religion." Sorry, but it was already present in the original article. Helen Wallace, biologist and spokeswoman for GeneWatch UK is quoted twice:"Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life," and
"We've seen a lot of hype from him. Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life..."
The article states that "[T]he prospect of engineering artificial life forms is highly controversial and arouses heated debate over the ethics and its potential ramifications." Very likely true. Too bad that was all it had to say about it -- that there is heated debate. No mention of the content of that debate. Fear of creating "The Blob?" Concern that the future of biological diversity may be tied up in patent law? Or, "Doctor, you are meddling with the affairs of God!"? "How wise," they ask. But in what sense?
The original article might contain some clues, but it's too bad it's a broken link: "SQL Error : database problem."
Other Comments by AmericanGodless
13. Comment #115811 by righton on January 24, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Venter is a great scientist. I Read his book, very inspiring, especially for a scientist.Other Comments by righton
14. Comment #115812 by JemyM on January 24, 2008 at 8:50 pm
I find the comment about being "God" or not interesting. A few cults have said themselves to be Gods for at least 5000 years and that's the whole point with the Holy Spirit. Having belief in the human capacity is a really bad thing within Christianity as it diminishes their status as the "saved" and "clean". Other Comments by JemyM
15. Comment #115814 by DasSquid on January 24, 2008 at 9:01 pm
"The important question is not 'how long?', but 'how wise?'" said Jim Thomas from ETC.
It's interesting that certain people always have this knee-jerk reaction to almost any scientific work, but then they never engage in a thoughtful discussion about it. Instead, they remain in a loop--always fearing the potential ethical implications but never moving forward to help actually develop ethics for the new technology.
Ah, haha, I didn't actually read it that way, I read it as 'how wise would the DNA be' not the ethical consideration.
I think it's slightly to massively retarding the progress of science when people consider something like this unethical.
What will we have next PETOBASCO, People for the Ethical Treatment Of Bacteria And Single Celled Organisms ... ... ...
Other Comments by DasSquid
16. Comment #115815 by dragonfirematrix on January 24, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I love this stuff. This creating life thing is fascinating.Sciences like embryonic stem-cell research, space travel, or discovering life on other planets are, I believe, an inevitable part of our human evolution. A politic (conservative), or a religion (Christians, Islamic), may try to stop humankind from learning things deemed (by these archaic) as immoral, but these adversaries to progress cannot stop the evolution of the truth. Somewhere, at sometime, at someone will carry on the treks of science, and science cannot be stopped. Humankind will "boldly go where no one has gone before." Thank you Galileo and others!
I noted some of the article, quoted below, with my opinion/facts.
1) "This extraordinary accomplishment is a technological marvel that was only made possible because of the unique and accomplished ... team."
FACT: With as much knowledge that is required today for so many things, "TEAM" is the best and only way to accomplish more in the future. TEAM is the keyword. TEAM is a requirement.
2) "Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life," she told AFP."
FACTS: "God is imaginary." Science is real. Venter is science. Science will someday create life.
3) "His controversial approach and his thirst to be the first to crack one of science's Holy Grails has driven his research on."
OPINION: Is it not the very nature of humankind to thirst for adventure, ("to crack") the secrets of some previously believed forbidden zone? Let us go "crack" more forbidden zones.
4) "But specialists say that, outside the lab, the world is totally unprepared for the looming dawn of synbio, as synthetic biology is called."
OPINION: Humankind has adapted for (what) millions of years (give or take a couple of hours). I think humankind will adapt to SYNBIO as it has to past discoveries.
5) "But she added that "the consequences can be unknown" for the environment."
OPINION: Well, here we are back to "boldly go where no one has gone before," and "I think humankind will adapt to SYNBIO, as it does to any other new discoveries." We will also figure out the environment.
Other Comments by dragonfirematrix
17. Comment #115816 by drcancerman on January 24, 2008 at 9:09 pm
In case this transform people in zombies(Predicted by every ..of the dead movies around), everyone should stock one of these in their home!http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/pictures-emergency-zombie-defense-station
http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/in-case-of-zombies-break-glass
ps: Finally another nail in the coffin of crazy christian fanatics calling humans useless and that only god is capable of anything...
Other Comments by drcancerman
18. Comment #115823 by MelM on January 24, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Hey, this is real "Intelligent Design". Something tells me that the nutters arn't going to be happy though.Other Comments by MelM
19. Comment #115824 by thelivingbrian on January 24, 2008 at 9:43 pm
With so many religious people here in the U.S., I'm surprised at how many scientific breakthroughs are achieved here. Other Comments by thelivingbrian
20. Comment #115827 by tybowen on January 24, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Honestly, how annoying would it be for Jehovah's Witnesses to rock up to Venter's house and start telling him all about how God created life only to have him say "Oh, that? Yeah, i've done that too."
Another reason I wish I could work on this project (damn you undergraduate school) would be so I could say precisely that. I don't remember the last time I laughed so hard at a comment.
Other Comments by tybowen
21. Comment #115828 by MelM on January 24, 2008 at 10:05 pm
It wouldn't take long for the JWs to decide that Venter WAS Jesus.Other Comments by MelM
22. Comment #115873 by GrandsonOfMonkey on January 25, 2008 at 12:58 am
So if it escapes from the lab we can call it Venterial Disease. Other Comments by GrandsonOfMonkey
23. Comment #115889 by Scott McMeekin on January 25, 2008 at 1:55 am
"We've seen a lot of hype from him. Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life," said Helen Wallace, a biologist and spokesperson for GeneWatch UK.
What is this incessant insistence of scientists, or spokespersons for scientific institutions, to invoke "God" any time a new biological breakthrough is made? Surely people like this should know better, especially someone with the qualifications of Helen Wallace.
From http://www.genewatch.org/sub-396416
Dr Helen Wallace - Executive Director
Helen specialises in the ethics, risks and social implications of human genetics. She has a degree in physics from Bristol University and a PhD in applied mathematics from Exeter University. Helen has worked as an environmental scientist in academia and industry and as Senior Scientist at Greenpeace UK, where she was responsible for science and policy work on a range of issues.
Scott.
Other Comments by Scott McMeekin
24. Comment #115905 by rod-the-farmer on January 25, 2008 at 2:43 am
Petobasco....I thought that was a holiday resort in northern Spain. Oh well. Yes, the idea of the JW's comming to Craig Venters door is amusing....."Been there, done that, got the T-shirt" he says. I hereby predict a thriving business in (1) T-shirts saying something like "I created life in my own image too". Wait, anyone who has children can say that. Ok, think of a better slogan....Maybe with a picture of the Monty Python cartoon god as the background. "Stop grovelling !".
(2) the sale of Craig Venter chemistry kits so that EVERY atheist can create life at home, so we can ALL be gods.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
25. Comment #115907 by ianmkz on January 25, 2008 at 2:56 am
Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life
What is she saying? He's not trying hard enough?
Other Comments by ianmkz
26. Comment #115919 by AdrianB on January 25, 2008 at 3:29 am
I can highly recommend watching the Richard Dimbleby Lecture from last year, which was given by Dr. J. Craig Venter and titled "A DNA-Driven World."Part 1 of 5 is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLMYPlH8V2Y
.
Other Comments by AdrianB
27. Comment #115945 by Synchronium on January 25, 2008 at 5:29 am
I shall celebrate this news with a gramme of Soma!Other Comments by Synchronium
28. Comment #115982 by JFHalsey on January 25, 2008 at 7:44 am
What will we have next PETOBASCO
Petobasco....I thought that was a holiday resort in northern Spain.
Aww, and here I thought someone had finally combined the deliciousness of Texas Pete Hot Sauce with the spiceiness of Tobasco...
Other Comments by JFHalsey
29. Comment #116005 by babrock on January 25, 2008 at 9:03 am
Absolutely just a judgment call on my part but to my mind the 3 most grave threats humanity faces at present are 1. Environmental degredation 2. The threat from fanatical Islamofacists w/ some weapon of mass destruction and 3 Running out of energy that the world runs on. This guy, Rubin maybe, has a book "Energy Victoty" where he puts forth an idea that seams to deal w/ all 3 that involves transition to biofuels. The bigest problem I could see w/ it all was some arising from growing all this biofuel. Lack of enuf water was what ocered to me as t most likely. It ocered to me that it would not be at all imposible to develope somethig that could grow on salt water. Thank goodness for scienceOther Comments by babrock
30. Comment #116022 by aquilacane on January 25, 2008 at 10:10 am
Awesome, truly wonderful news. Other Comments by aquilacane
31. Comment #116028 by Jack Rawlinson on January 25, 2008 at 10:18 am
Cue a rash of hysterical, "Evil Frankenstein Scientists!" features from the usual suspects.... Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
32. Comment #116038 by ImagineAll on January 25, 2008 at 10:59 am
Does anyone else sort of hope they're *not* successful in creating life? I mean, don't get me wrong- it would be incredibly cool and the medical repercussions would be astounding, but how long would it take the apologists to switch from "you're playing God!" to "See? If a person can create life, than God clearly can! That life didn't occur spontaneously, it was *created*!"Them be tricksy fundamentalists.
Other Comments by ImagineAll
33. Comment #116043 by Deepthought on January 25, 2008 at 11:34 am
Does anyone else sort of hope they're *not* successful in creating life? I mean, don't get me wrong- it would be incredibly cool and the medical repercussions would be astounding, but how long would it take the apologists to switch from "you're playing God!" to "See? If a person can create life, than God clearly can! That life didn't occur spontaneously, it was *created*!"
Them be tricksy fundamentalists.
I think that the benefits would outweigh the cost of changing a debate point. Now that I think of it, it would take a while for the fundamentalists to accept and approve of artificial life enough to use it in debate. If we were to use acceptance of evolution as a base line it might take over two hundred years.
Other Comments by Deepthought
34. Comment #116047 by righton on January 25, 2008 at 11:44 am
"Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life,"I disagree with, He's a long way from creating life. He is actually pretty close. Its good that people are doubting him, he thrives on that.
Other Comments by righton
35. Comment #116051 by kev_s on January 25, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Venter is not God ... He's a long way from creating life
This comment may be just to try to make it sound a remote possibility in order to keep the suicide bombers or the Xtian lawyers away long enough to allow him to finish the job.
Other Comments by kev_s
36. Comment #116055 by Tosser on January 25, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Does anyone else sort of hope they're *not* successful in creating life?...how long would it take the apologists to switch from "you're playing God!" to "See? If a person can create life, than God clearly can!
Once humans create life, the process will be considerably demystified. In particular, what if we create something like a flagellum that works better than the current one? That would mean that a supreme being couldn't do better than a bunch of lowly naked apes still in the early stages of their technological development...but you're right, creationists will still find a way to cling to their faith.
Other Comments by Tosser
37. Comment #116100 by chauvinj on January 25, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Personally, I think the "creating life" description is a bit over the top. Sure, if they pull it off, it is a new life form, but it looks like jumped up genetic engineering to me since they are putting new DNA into an existing cell. Impressive, but note that the cell is existing already. When I think of creating life, I think of generating the conditions where self-reprelicating protein molecules and the other requirements for cells emerge in the controlled environment. I.e. create the conditions where an entire cell can emerge. That would be really impressive...Other Comments by chauvinj
38. Comment #116103 by Phaeonix on January 25, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Epic moment in history:"Standing on Clinton's left was Francis Collins; on the president's right was Craig Venter. Collins, director of the government's National Human Genome Research Institute, had been looking forward to this day since 1993, when he had assumed leadership of the publicly funded international Human Genome Project. But he surely did not anticipate sharing the moment with Craig Venter, head of a private company called Celera Genomics. Two years before, Venter, one of Collins's grantees, had calmly informed the HGP leader that he was forming a private company to decode the human genome himself, and in just three years. At the time, the HGP, an often-querulous consortium of academic laboratories, had managed to assemble only a fraction of the code. Venter assured Collins that he was not trying to put him out of business--there were other mammals to do. While his company decoded the human genome, Venter told Collins, "you can do mouse.""
Francis Collins, Pseudo-Christian, pwned by Dr. Venter.
Other Comments by Phaeonix
39. Comment #116105 by Deepthought on January 25, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Now that I think of it chauvinj is right. Maybe that's what I will try to do after college:). I read an article in Discover magazine about a theory that life really started in ice. If this theory is old news or if it is under serious fire then I would be happy if someone were to correct me, but I think it seems plausible.
Other Comments by Deepthought
40. Comment #116108 by HarryHUK on January 25, 2008 at 1:52 pm
What could be more natural than humans creating "artificial" life?Other Comments by HarryHUK
41. Comment #116211 by the izz on January 25, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Personally, I think the "creating life" description is a bit over the top. Sure, if they pull it off, it is a new life form, but it looks like jumped up genetic engineering to me since they are putting new DNA into an existing cell. Impressive, but note that the cell is existing already. When I think of creating life, I think of generating the conditions where self-reprelicating protein molecules and the other requirements for cells emerge in the controlled environment. I.e. create the conditions where an entire cell can emerge. That would be really impressive...
I totally agree chauvinj
Other Comments by the izz
42. Comment #117802 by Goldy on January 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Liked this letter in the IndependentScientist's failings
Sir: I read with dismay of the fatuous actions of Craig Venter ("Playing God: the man who would create artificial life," 25 January). I wish that Dr Venter would focus his attention on more pressing human biological conundrums rather than esoteric synthetic life forms. I cannot understand why there is still no solution to the common follicular state whereby the hair in one's ears and nostrils grows at an inversely proportional rate to that on one's head.
Hubert Hinklehoffer
Westhumble, Surrey
Other Comments by Goldy
43. Comment #118073 by the_ultimate_samurai on January 30, 2008 at 9:41 am
Personally, I think the "creating life" description is a bit over the top. Sure, if they pull it off, it is a new life form, but it looks like jumped up genetic engineering to me since they are putting new DNA into an existing cell. Impressive, but note that the cell is existing already. When I think of creating life, I think of generating the conditions where self-reprelicating protein molecules and the other requirements for cells emerge in the controlled environment. I.e. create the conditions where an entire cell can emerge. That would be really impressive...
i disagree, this isnt an experiment in abiogenesis, this isnt about proving the origins of life, its about making an artificial genome and making it run, when a bacteria has its nucleus replaced with another nucleus...it becomes its own lifeform. like those one bacteria that make insuline. except this would be a totaly artificial genome, thus and artificial lifeform. you neednt totaly re-invent the wheel, there is no reason to even MAKE the rest of the cell, because all they want is the function of the cell, make it do what they program it to do, building the cell from scratch is a lot of work and does nothing for the purpose of the research. just like i dont need to make a totaly new OS to make a program.
this thing of "he is not god" i think goes to the mistaken impression of the arrogance of science. that science thinks it can make life, that it can tred into god's domain. and there are few strongholds theists hold onto. life, death, and emotion. they hold that life is the unique provence of the almighty, that he decides when you die, and that emotion comes from the soul. and when science says "no, emotion comes from this section of the brain" or "we can make life" or "we can extend life and drive off death for many more years" this is seen as trying to be like gods, and thus seen as arrogant. "how can you know that emotions are from that area of the brain, get over yourself" or "how can you think you can do such amazing things as create life, you arent god" or "you do not have mastery over death, only god can decide that"
i think it is possible we may overcome death...whether thats a good thing or not remains to be seen. we may be able to not only create life, but living machines, cells to help our body, complex organism for travel or even shelter. given time and less objections from religious nuts, anything is possible.
Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai
44. Comment #120638 by Mbee on February 2, 2008 at 7:28 am
If God created life in the first place doesn't that make us all artificial life forms ... Other Comments by Mbee
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"The world and the universe is an extremely beautiful place, and the more we understand about it the more beautiful does it appear."
Richard Dawkins
"It is the inevitable effect of religion on public policy that makes it a matter of public concern. Advocates of religiosity extol the virtues or moral habits that religion is supposed to instill in us. But we should be equally concerned with the intellectual habits it discourages.
"
Wendy Kaminer
"No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth."
Richard Dawkins
"...the likelihood is that, in 100,000 years time, we shall either have reverted to wild barbarism, or else civilisation will have advanced beyond all recognition--into colonies in outer space..."
Richard Dawkins
"The inspiration of the bible depends on the ignorance of the person who reads it."
Robert G. Ingersoll
Other Recommended Reading
Against All Gods
A C Grayling
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
God Is Not Great
Christopher Hitchens
Read the 1st Chapter!
Infidel
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #115775 by Matt7895 on January 24, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Other Comments by Matt7895