Some interesting science news from the last couple days...

[f0xx]

Thats good. I fought your warriors and I must say death was about your only option.

Hahahah that was a good one.

If it wasn't Grim I would have actually felt some kind of sympathy

[Mali]

Craig Venter = Evil genius.

[J.Twendrist]

Every scientific advancement that has been around for awhile has found it's way into military use in some form or fashion, and for those that haven't yet, it's only a matter of time.

[J.Twendrist]

FYI the scientist said the doom quote in the article, so now I know we're screwed.

Be it robots or virus's, when this quote comes so does doom. I think we have found the beginning of the zombie plague ladies and gentlemen.

"We decided that [by] writing new biological software and creating new species, we could create new species to do what we want them to do, not what they evolved to do," says Venter

[Pali]

"We decided that [by] writing new biological software and creating new species' date=' we could create new species to do what we want them to do, not what they evolved to do," says Venter[/quote']

First off... yeah, that's the entire point of trying to figure out how to write DNA - so that we can build organisms from the ground up, rather than having to build off of what nature has thus-far provided us with (or deprived us of - imagine the awesomeness riding a Utah Raptor into battle). If you don't understand how what nature has provided us with might not be enough in some cases, let me put it to you this way... human back pain? Often life-threatening childbirths? Weak knees? Goosebumps? Those are leftovers from our evolutionary history, when our ancestors walked on all four limbs and had a significantly different posture. A naturally selected bacteria's main goal is to replicate... an artificially created bacteria could have any goal we assigned it, from augmenting the immune system by hunting down pathogens to helping broken bones heal by synthesizing calcium (these are random hypotheticals I'm pulling out of my arse rather than anything I've seen said by scientists, but you get the idea).

Second, you do realize we have already been modifying species through artificial selection for around ten thousand years, don't you? Nearly every domesticated crop and animal today is significantly different from its naturally-selected ancestor... and much of this work was done long before we had any real understanding of evolution or genetics. Yes, this is the first step towards being able to design things from the DNA up, which is a new technology - but we're hardly talking zombies here (if for no other reason than zombification would be an incredibly difficult thing to figure out how to do even theoretically... actually doing it would be even harder).

Again, I must ask, are you really saying that if a technology has a potential military application, in addition to the far more numerous universally beneficial applications, that research into it should not be done? I'm asking this because it is a theme I have encountered over and over, and not just here, but few will actually say that it is their position - they fall back to just saying "I'm just saying remember what the consequences might be", which if you ask me, is a worthless thing to point out. Is it really thought by people that the individuals working on these projects don't consider the potential consequences of misuse of the technology? I ask this seriously... these are highly educated, highly intelligent, and most importantly creative people. I do not doubt for a second that everyone working on Dr. Venter's team has at some point or another wondered if someone in the future might build a supervirus using their technology as a basis.

Also, as a side note... it is far, FAR easier and cheaper to modify an existing organism than to build one from scratch, and this technology has been around for decades. Despite this, we have yet to see an airborne strain of ebola engineered and released somewhere (the ebola Zaire strain has a 90% kill rate - make it airborne and that is billions of people dead in a matter of weeks). Fear of possibilities is not something that I think should stop inquiry.

[J.Twendrist]

It was a joke dude, chill.

[J.Twendrist]

In any case, it's all well and good to look at a new technology and think, yeah that's awesome. That isn't a bad thing at all, but you've got to look at everything in an equal light and take into account history. That's my major, and I can tell you that even little things sprung up during a war for it, or were used in it later. I'm not trying to criticize you, so I don't understand the hostility, but regardless, facts are facts. People are not perfect, and not everyone wants to make the world a better place.

[Pali]

I did not intend any hostility, so my apologies if I came off that way. I just don't understand the point of the "Oh no, someone might do something bad with this" reactions - if you ask me, it's just stating the obvious and doesn't have much benefit unless you actually want people to stop developing technologies that might be misused somehow (which, frankly, applies to damn near everything).

[The-Nameless]

Im not trying to stop anything, I just think that humanity will be a threat to itself forever. We have no sense of the species, and because of that the species suffers. Money? Money is a stupid creation, by a stupid creature, to accomplish stupid things. If we where on an island lost in the pacific, and I found 10 chests of gold, and a 12 pack of soda, guess which one Im gonna kill you for? Its not the gold.

See, I just proved my own point. I did not think of species level survival (splitting the six pack) the first thing I did was "MINE!". It is hardwired into us so to speak. You develop a bacteria that eliminates peoples self serving nature (generally we are, though there are exceptions of course) then I can support furthering genetic manipulation/fabrication. But the way I see it if they can engineer a cure, I wonder how long til someone engineers a new cause?

[Pali]

In that instance, you're actually hampering your own survival, as the soda will just dehydrate you. The gold you could at least forge weapons and other tools out of.

EDIT: Again, however, I have to point out... you're not making any real recommendation here for how scientific research should proceed. You're just saying, in essence, "People sometimes do bad things, and they might do bad things with this too, and we should worry about that" - but that doesn't get us anywhere. It's nothing more than stating the obvious - you're not even voicing an opinion on whether the research should have been done in the first place or not.

P.S. I actually disagree with your notion that money is a stupid creation as well.

[Mali]

This is a less than impressive debate.

Pali: Good job sticking to your guns, but try to stay away from the implications of this bio-tech that are not evidence based. You are the winner so far.

Valek: Try to look a little on the bright side of things... All this "doom and gloom" and quoting revelations is fit for a bible-thumpin' illiterate WASP. Then again, maybe that description hits the nail right on the head.

Over all, this technology will bring good AND bad. Just like genetic engineering (which, by the way, is still very new and has much good and much bad still left to give). However, I just can't bring myself to trust Craig Venter. That guy has an L Ron Hubbard creepiness wrapped thick around him.

[Imoutgoodbye]

Ever read The Giver, Pali? I'd actually push a little further past communism and right into a dystopian society JUST over the fact of "what someone could do" because what can be done is usually done at least once.

Let's put the kind of scientific research and knowledge ONLY into a very select few hands. Hands that could be trusted. And only let the best cultivated among the future generations have it. Disperse its grand gifts without the knowledge to the masses.

For the world would be a far better place not knowing what its true power is.

I know, I know. I'm incredibly negative and want to suck all joy out of life.

EDIT: Hmmmm...I'm white. I'll give you that much, Mali. And honestly, calling me illiterate?

[Pali]

Pali: Good job sticking to your guns, but try to stay away from the implications of this bio-tech that are not evidence based. You are the winner so far.

Over all, this technology will bring good AND bad. Just like genetic engineering (which, by the way, is still very new and has much good and much bad still left to give). However, I just can't bring myself to trust Craig Venter. That guy has an L Ron Hubbard creepiness wrapped thick around him.

A) I've been very, very clear that the potential beneficial uses of this technology that I've stated are hypothetical (however, they are also very much within the realm of possibilities - far moreso than zombies ).

What about Venter bothers you? I must admit, I've only seen him talk a few times, but the creepiness you're describing I'm just not seeing.

Let's put the kind of scientific research and knowledge ONLY into a very select few hands. Hands that could be trusted.

And who is to decide who is trustworthy? You? Me? Sarah Palin? Barack Obama? It's not like we all agree on whose judgment can be trusted, after all.

Limiting the spread of knowledge does not work. It is viral, it will spread, and it will be developed anew even if the details of how one person did it aren't known to another.

Something I find interesting about this whole conversation though... while people have focused on their favored disaster scenarios, I don't think anyone has picked up on some of the larger philosophical implications of this - we have now created life. This bacteria of Venter's is, to our knowledge anyhow, the first organism on the planet that does not share common ancestry with the rest of us. We have created life out of pure chemistry.

[Mali]

Alright Valek, I take it back

Pali, what ISN'T creepy about this guy?

Comeon... the guy writes his own INITIALS into life-forms.

[Pali]

First off, it's not just his own initials - it's the entire team's. Second, it's not just initials... they also included a few relevant quotations. Third, the purpose of this was not hubris, but to make any artificially designed genomes (and those of their descendants) easily distinguishable from naturally evolved ones - partly as just a way to prove that they actually were artificially designed from the ground up, rather than already existing life altered into something new.