The advent of synthetic organisms

[Monolithic0117]

During the past few years, the area of synthetic biology (we'll call it synbio), and with it, synthetic organisms; man-made organisms, has grown more prominent. The point of this topic isn't to discuss the process of creating these organisms, so I'll provide them in layman's terms - the process involves fabricating genetic sequences; genomes, then transplanting them into existing cells. These cells will transform, adhering to the created genetic code. The genome on its own is not alive, but insertion into a cell would produce artificial life.

 

Now, artificial life is a profound word, bearing with it a veritable plethora of controversial issues with it, but from that fount, that single micro-organism created by the insertion of a simple genome into a single cell, will spring a bounty of potent possibilities.

 

First of all, one of the major advantages of synbio is the control it allows. By creating the organism, you can modify the genome to any extent you wish, to minimize instable, unnecessary elements and maximize beneficial elements. Using this approach, organisms would be reduced to building blocks, basically. There would be no unnecessary genetic variation and the resulting organisms would not adapt to conditions that we would not wish them to. To eliminate the risk of the organism escaping confinement and causing unwanted changes, a reliance on a certain material administered by the users would be engineered, for example.

 

For example, the prominent dilemma of fuel production could be solved. In theory, it would be possible to manufacture biofuels on a large scale, replacing the current, expiring fuels. The already existing of harvesting algae in bioreactors to produce biodiesel fuel is very similar to this, although the former approach would eliminate the problem of amassing enough biomass energy.

 

Another application would be to detect and reduce pollutants in the environment. Micro-organisms would be engineered specifically for this purpose.

This would aid the increasingly industrial world we live in, with its many harmful pollutants.

 

Other applications would include producing more efficient, stable products such as therapeutic substances or biochemicals, or even spider silk as an industrial material. These products would produce minimal waste and maximum efficiency, due to the complete control allowed by synbio.

You could even produce nutritious, safe food very cheaply using synbio, providing developing countries such as Africa with food to feed the millions of hungry.

 

Now, you could go on and on with the applications, but synbio has its complications.

The risk of biosecurity and biosafety, for example. What's to stop a malicious actor to engineer a malign virus? What problems could terrorism present? What protocols, research guidelines, etc. would we attach to synbio work? How would we enforce these?

 

As well as the societal and ethical issues. How would you go about communicating the basics and ramifications of synbio to the public?

 

As I see it, synbio is an opportunity to gain comprehension and power over life - a large step closer to understanding life itself. Its massive potential and limitless applications - some that could avert crises. Ignoring this opportunity would be ludicrous and possibly dangerous - why turn down the chance to rectify some real problems in the world? The potential far outweighs the risk.

 

I'd like to hear your ideas and opinions about this.

[Balagor]

It is tempting to use a tool that in the right hands can solve all problems in the world. Problem is that mankind has shown through history that we simply do not have the right hands for such a tool. Again and again we have overlooked small details, either by mistake, or led by a stronger influence of capitalist interests.

 

I would worry for the safety, due to the fact that mankind allways has proven wrong, when playing whith the toys of nature.

 

I would worry for the safety, due to the fact that mankind allways has put greediness on top of prioreties.

 

I would worry for the safety, due to the fact that mankind allways has proven to not knowing the consequences of their acts, thus creating majore disasters.

[kungfubellydancer]

I think that there are many pros and cons to synthetically engineered creatures. My religion grants me the right to create these things (although it is yet disputable, but most people will agree it is right). But like any God-given trust, whether it be the ability to manufacture creatures, or have a sex drive, or being able to do whatever we want at all, there are laws and restrictions that apply. If the scientists decide to attempt to make a creature that could potentially cause immediate harm (ecology imbalance is NOT immediate harm) such as some kind of giant species of lizard or carnivore that could kill many people and breed quickly if accidentally released into the wild, then these scientists are abusing their right to create creatures. Also, one thing that we should NOT do is create or redesign humans, or beings created from humans (such as human/animal creatures). This is kind of manipulation of humans is simply against ethics. It is not a matter of whether we can or can't, but whether we should or shouldn't.

[Monolithic0117]

It is tempting to use a tool that in the right hands can solve all problems in the world. Problem is that mankind has shown through history that we simply do not have the right hands for such a tool. Again and again we have overlooked small details, either by mistake, or led by a stronger influence of capitalist interests.

 

I would worry for the safety, due to the fact that mankind allways has proven wrong, when playing whith the toys of nature.

 

I would worry for the safety, due to the fact that mankind allways has put greediness on top of prioreties.

 

I would worry for the safety, due to the fact that mankind allways has proven to not knowing the consequences of their acts, thus creating majore disasters.

 

That's a tired old argument you're presenting. It's very easy to look at something; some new technology, and pass it off by saying that mankind is too "irresponsible and immature" to use it competently. The difficult thing to do is to allow the furthering of ourselves - humankind will not advance in maturity and responsibility if we stick to the same routine we've kept for all time.

 

Let me put it this way - it's like an authority declaring that a man who has never used a gun before, but has the physical capacity to; cannot handle a gun, so he is prohibited to utilize one. Well, of course he can't employ a gun, he's never used one before! But if he is given the tools to learn - there is a good chance that he will eventually understand how to handle the firearm competently.

 

Synthetic biology represents a major, critical step forwards for us - a step towards understanding life and ourselves. Do you not think that the risks taken would be worth it?

 

&kungfubellydancer: The barrier presented by ethical issues is debatable, but I can assure you that the capability for construction of full-scale, highly complex creatures, such as animals, or even the cloning of humans, is far, far away.

[Balagor]

It is tempting to use a tool that in the right hands can solve all problems in the world. Problem is that mankind has shown through history that we simply do not have the right hands for such a tool. Again and again we have overlooked small details, either by mistake, or led by a stronger influence of capitalist interests.

 

I would worry for the safety, due to the fact that mankind allways has proven wrong, when playing whith the toys of nature.

 

I would worry for the safety, due to the fact that mankind allways has put greediness on top of prioreties.

 

I would worry for the safety, due to the fact that mankind allways has proven to not knowing the consequences of their acts, thus creating majore disasters.

 

That's a tired old argument you're presenting. It's very easy to look at something; some new technology, and pass it off by saying that mankind is too "irresponsible and immature" to use it competently. The difficult thing to do is to allow the furthering of ourselves - humankind will not advance in maturity and responsibility if we stick to the same routine we've kept for all time.

 

Let me put it this way - it's like an authority declaring that a man who has never used a gun before, but has the physical capacity to; cannot handle a gun, so he is prohibited to utilize one. Well, of course he can't employ a gun, he's never used one before! But if he is given the tools to learn - there is a good chance that he will eventually understand how to handle the firearm competently.

 

Synthetic biology represents a major, critical step forwards for us - a step towards understanding life and ourselves. Do you not think that the risks taken would be worth it?

 

&kungfubellydancer: The barrier presented by ethical issues is debatable, but I can assure you that the capability for construction of full-scale, highly complex creatures, such as animals, or even the cloning of humans, is far, far away.

 

Killerbees, created in the -50´s, released to the wild by mistake. Hormones, causing fish and even alligators to changes sex, created in the -80´ led to nature by simple polution, capital interests in the end. That is to mention just a few. There are many more since our probably biggest mistake, the knowledge about the A-bomb. And we just couldn´t help try it out.

To refer to your "gunexample". Yes, the gun is a tool. Yes we could put those not capable in an unutilize zone. But do we? How many murders do we have per hour in the "unutilize zone"

I don´t belive that mankind will ever be able to se through danger, greed, unforseen problems, violent use of synthetic organisms.

[milogrim]

If it seems that the world is getting worse morally Id disagree. I think we are slowly maturing out of our barbaric tendencies, and to see this all you must do is look back not too far. Pre WWII ideas of antisemitism, racism, and imperialism weren't consider socially unacceptable, even the chancellor of Germany ideas where pretty much normal and accepted pre-war. Today they are considered obscene and ignorant to say the least. Going back further hero's such as King David and Julius Cesar would be judged as savage tyrants by today's standards. Even Genghis Khan was considered the average warlord back in the day. So as technology progresses so do morals, but unfortunately not nearly fast enough. Mostly these adjustments in morals are reactions to horrible human atrocities, hopefully with compassion and reason we may skip this step in the future.

 

If we have have any purpose or design obviously it is potentially grander than banging stones together lets move forward then, and continue to reach for the stars and wonder in amazement at this precious world we all must share. Technology will always shine threw the dark and scare the demons away. What if we said? "Awe forget about about germ theory people might use it to make biological weapons." We would still believe a sneeze was a potential demon possession, and think nothing of drinking the same water that our livestock defecate into, then using leaches to cure the subsequent ailments. This synthetic technology most likely will lead us to reflect on our current present with dumbfounded abhorrence. "They used to do what to treat cancer?...expose the body to near lethal amount of radiation?...What a bunch of neanderthals, lol!"

[Balagor]

With the huge summit COP15 envolving 180 leaders from all over the world, just ended here in Copenhagen today, with NO WILL AND OR ABILLITY to agree to do just a little, or to even face that we do have a major climate problem, i must ask this:

How on earth should we ever agree on rules about synthetic organism, even less to controle them.

All you who speaks for this issue, speaks about how it can save a lot of people. Well, we do not even have the will to save our selfes when disaster comes knocking on our doors.

Don´t you get it. Humans do have a six´th sense: Greed. And a seven´th: Shortsight

[milogrim]

Well ready or not we don't have the luxury to sit idly by while the world explores new technologies. Should we wait for Iran or North Korea to develop this technology? Its kinda of situation where we might be damned if we do but mostly will be damned if we don't. If you look at societies historically ones that shun technology aren't doing so well if they are even still existing at all.

[Balagor]

Well ready or not we don't have the luxury to sit idly by while the world explores new technologies. Should we wait for Iran or North Korea to develop this technology? Its kinda of situation where we might be damned if we do but mostly will be damned if we don't. If you look at societies historically ones that shun technology aren't doing so well if they are even still existing at all.

 

You truely got a point there.

That banditstates are trying to develop A-bombs, doesn´t nesecerely mean that WE need an A-bomb to control them.

There are other kinds of modern warfare, like economy, and welfare. The population living in these contries, would probably also prefere

a more peacefull leadership, if asked.

And i think it is with all kind of technoligies, that they will be missused by the minority of bad leaders.

Yes, the technoligies exits, and we do have an obligation to make sure that these do not fall in the wrong hands.

 

Don´t fear a goverment with many nuclear warheads. Fear the one guy with one nuclear warhead. (Morgan Freeman)

[evilkoal]

With the huge summit COP16 envolving 180 leaders from all over the world, just ended here in Copenhagen today, with NO WILL AND OR ABILLITY to agree to do just a little, or to even face that we do have a major climate problem, i must ask this:

How on earth should we ever agree on rules about synthetic organism, even less to controle them.

All you who speaks for this issue, speaks about how it can save a lot of people. Well, we do not even have the will to save our selfes when disaster comes knocking on our doors.

Don´t you get it. Humans do have a six´th sense: Greed. And a seven´th: Shortsight

 

you do realize that the whole "global warming" thing is a complete farce do you not? the world is actually getting colder, not warmer. i have even noticed it over the last four years. where i live, the average temperatures over the last four years has dropped by about 3 degrees. it is getting really hot up here.