Excerpt:
"But the risks are also unparalleled," he continued. "We need new standards
of safety evaluation for this kind of radical research and protections
from military or terrorist misuse and abuse.
"These could be used in the future to make the most powerful bioweapons
imaginable.
===========================================================================
===
_http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm_
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm)
Page last updated at 16:52 GMT, Thursday, 20 May 2010 17:52 UK
'Artificial life' breakthrough announced by scientists
By Victoria Gill
Science reporter, BBC News
The synthetic cell looks identical to the "wild type" Scientists in the US
have succeeded in developing the first synthetic living cell.
The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and
transplanted it into a host cell.
The resulting microbe then looked and behaved like the species "dictated"
by the synthetic DNA.
The advance, published in Science, has been hailed as a scientific
landmark, but critics say there are dangers posed by synthetic organisms.
The researchers hope eventually to design bacterial cells that will
produce medicines and fuels and even absorb greenhouse gases.
The team was led by Dr Craig Venter of the J Craig Venter Institute in
Maryland and California.
He and his colleagues had previously made a synthetic bacterial genome,
and transplanted the genome of one bacterium into another.
Now, the scientists have put both methods together, to create what they
call a "synthetic cell", although only its genome is truly synthetic.
Dr Venter likened the advance to making new software for the cell.
The researchers copied an existing bacterial genome. They sequenced its
genetic code and then used "synthesis machines" to chemically construct a
copy.
Dr Venter told BBC News: "We've now been able to take our synthetic
chromosome and transplant it into a recipient cell - a different organism.
"As soon as this new software goes into the cell, the cell reads [it] and
converts into the species specified in that genetic code."
The new bacteria replicated over a billion times, producing copies that
contained and were controlled by the constructed, synthetic DNA.
"This is the first time any synthetic DNA has been in complete control of
a cell," said Dr Venter.
Dr Venter and his colleagues hope eventually to design and build new
bacteria that will perform useful functions.
"I think they're going to potentially create a new industrial revolution,"
he said.
"If we can really get cells to do the production that we want, they could
help wean us off oil and reverse some of the damage to the environment by
capturing carbon dioxide."
Dr Venter and his colleagues are already collaborating with pharmaceutical
and fuel companies to design and develop chromosomes for bacteria that
would produce useful fuels and new vaccines.
But critics say that the potential benefits of synthetic organisms have
been overstated.
Dr Helen Wallace from Genewatch UK, an organisation that monitors
developments in genetic technologies, told BBC News that synthetic bacteria could
be dangerous.
"If you release new organisms into the environment, you can do more harm
than good," she said.
"By releasing them into areas of pollution, [with the aim of cleaning it
up], you're actually releasing a new kind of pollution.
"We don't know how these organisms will behave in the environment."
Dr Wallace accused Dr Venter of playing down the potential drawbacks.
"He isn't God," she said, "he's actually being very human; trying to get
money invested in his technology and avoid regulation that would restrict
its use."
But Dr Venter said that he was "driving the discussions" about the
regulations governing this relatively new scientific field and about the ethical
implications of the work.
He said: "In 2003, when we made the first synthetic virus, it underwent an
extensive ethical review that went all the way up to the level of the
White House.
"And there have been extensive reviews including from the National Academy
of Sciences, which has done a comprehensive report on this new field.
"We think these are important issues and we urge continued discussion that
we want to take part in."
Genetic breakthrough
Dr Gos Micklem, a geneticist from the University of Cambridge, said that
the advance was "undoubtedly a landmark" study.
But, he said, "there is already a wealth of simple, cheap, powerful and
mature techniques for genetically engineering a range of organisms.
Therefore, for the time being, this approach is unlikely to supplant existing
methods for genetic engineering".
The ethical discussions surrounding the creation of synthetic or
artificial life are set to continue.
Professor Julian Savulescu, from the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical
Ethics at the University of Oxford, said the potential of this science was
"in the far future, but real and significant".
"But the risks are also unparalleled," he continued. "We need new
standards of safety evaluation for this kind of radical research and protections
from military or terrorist misuse and abuse.
"These could be used in the future to make the most powerful bioweapons
imaginable. The challenge is to eat the fruit without the worm."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To
unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-BIOTECH-FORUM list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv
Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp
|
