Posted: Sep 19, 2018 9:16 pm
"Scientists have long been able to make specific changes in the DNA code. Now, they're taking the more radical step of starting over, and building redesigned life forms from scratch. Boeke, a researcher at New York University, directs an international team of 11 labs on four continents working to "rewrite" the yeast genome, following a detailed plan they published in March.
Their work is part of a bold and controversial pursuit aimed at creating custom-made DNA codes to be inserted into living cells to change how they function, or even provide a treatment for diseases. It could also someday help give scientists the profound and unsettling ability to create entirely new organisms."
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-scientist ... t.html#jCp
When I first read the title, I thought "WHOA".
But then I read that:
1) They are still using living material (yeast) as opposed to purely from "scratch", which would be nonliving material, not living.
2) They are "rewriting" the yeast genome, i.e. modifying it, not building an entire genome from "scratch".
3) Their "custom made" DNA codes are undoubtedly sourced from the DNA of living organisms.
Firstly, "scratch" may mean different things to different people. However, IMHO, "scratch" means just that, from material/molecules that are not DNA nor from the products of DNA. No methane, no ammonia, no nucleic acids, no organic chemical compounds, etc..
This reminds me of my disappointed reaction to the Miller-Urey experiment which also started by introducing products of DNA (methane, ammonia) which, IMHO, is almost equivalent to "stacking the deck" or "planting evidence" into the experiment. Yes, I understand they were trying to mimic the prehistoric environment of methane from volcanoes, for example, but studies show that about 95% of methane on earth is due to life forms, i.e. products of DNA, so methane itself can, and is, largely considered to be a product of DNA.
It pees me off when article titles seem to be purposely worded to get our attention but are deceiving too. Are they that desperate to get our attention? What do you think?
Their work is part of a bold and controversial pursuit aimed at creating custom-made DNA codes to be inserted into living cells to change how they function, or even provide a treatment for diseases. It could also someday help give scientists the profound and unsettling ability to create entirely new organisms."
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-scientist ... t.html#jCp
When I first read the title, I thought "WHOA".
But then I read that:
1) They are still using living material (yeast) as opposed to purely from "scratch", which would be nonliving material, not living.
2) They are "rewriting" the yeast genome, i.e. modifying it, not building an entire genome from "scratch".
3) Their "custom made" DNA codes are undoubtedly sourced from the DNA of living organisms.
Firstly, "scratch" may mean different things to different people. However, IMHO, "scratch" means just that, from material/molecules that are not DNA nor from the products of DNA. No methane, no ammonia, no nucleic acids, no organic chemical compounds, etc..
This reminds me of my disappointed reaction to the Miller-Urey experiment which also started by introducing products of DNA (methane, ammonia) which, IMHO, is almost equivalent to "stacking the deck" or "planting evidence" into the experiment. Yes, I understand they were trying to mimic the prehistoric environment of methane from volcanoes, for example, but studies show that about 95% of methane on earth is due to life forms, i.e. products of DNA, so methane itself can, and is, largely considered to be a product of DNA.
It pees me off when article titles seem to be purposely worded to get our attention but are deceiving too. Are they that desperate to get our attention? What do you think?