Facts
(If you do not understand a damn in this section go directly to The Rumor (and try not to get more this blog))
In an article published in the journal Science entitled " Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome," a group of scientists led by Craig Venter recently reported design, synthesis and assembly (with the help of a computer) genomic sequence information (DNA) of a bacterium Mycoplasma mycoides and its implementation in a bacterial cell-type container Mycoplasma capricolum, which from that time was controlled only by the synthetic chromosome implanted in it. The constructed DNA carries genetic lines also serve as "watermarks" or genetic signatures placed by scientists. The resulting new cell phenotypic properties expected in M. Mycoides and is also able to self-replicate autonomously and continuously like a normal mycoides.
The Rumor
Buzz about the facts is simple: these guys seem to have created artificial life, or at least it seems that what they did is a big step in that direction. Some say that Venter plays at being God.
The other rumor is about the benefits of "discovery." And is thought to produce biodiesel algae, in bacteria that fix carbon dioxide better that produce ozone to clean the air of pollution, producing construction materials, etc, etc.
addition, the work of Venter and his team is proof, they say, the principle that DNA was designed by a computer can produce living cells, " The sequencing genome of a cell allows the storage of genetic instructions for life as digital life. "
The context, the reality and consequences
All very nice but probably need, again and again, remember that things sometimes hidden worms beautiful rusty, especially when blend knowledge and ambition. These new creations to produce biodiesel potential, better fixing carbon, what other impacts will have on the biosphere? Can we control life?, And if we are to maintain in the laboratory, who assures us that there remain and no human error, a leak secret that release? Called artificial organisms that reproduce the same natural, mutate, become unpredictable as all living beings. This obviously holds true for organisms in the natural environment, but precisely these organisms are part of a ecositema, ie are part of a self-regulatory balance that takes millions of years running. The species has mutated, but have mutated together. The tiger sharpening his claws in the same manner and at the same time as the gazelle stretches his legs and strength to escape the clutches of the tiger. The tiger's claws and legs of a gazelle that way are interconnected, are part of a large whole water particles that form, along with millions more, the global vortex in which we live. Add to that great an unknown variable system can have disastrous consequences. It will say that they can be controlled, as they added watermarks may be genetically determined death in certain conditions. Here it is worth recalling the thoughts of a fictional character wiser (I'm not surprised) that many real scientists: Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park: "I'm Simply Saying That life, uh ... Finds a Way. " In short, we are attempting to control the uncontrollable.
Now, I am against this research? No. Do I seem immoral, contrary to the natural order? No. I just look dangerous. We played with a toy that we manage, but it is not a toy, but something more terrible. The worst thing is that we are masters of it. Again, Malcolm, in Jurassic Park, insists: "The Lack of humility Before Being Displayed nature that's here, uh ... staggers me (...) 'll tell you the problem with the scientific power That You're using here: Did it require discipline to Attain it and Stock. Read What Others Had you done and you Took the next step. You did not earn the Knowledge for Yourselves, So You Do not Take Any Responsibility for it. You Stood on the shoulders of geniuses to ACCOMPLISH Something You Could as fast as events and Before You Knew What you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you want to sell it! " Grande Malcolm ... Hopefully there, miss you in this reality so spoiled.
The words and concepts
"Synthetic or Artificial?
The words used to describe the discovery of sales have been "artificial life." To be just the expression does not appear in the original article Venter, but is said to have been used by Venter in some interviews. Instead, there are two expressions that do appear in the article by Venter. One of them is Synthetic Life (Synthetic Life).
However, there is a difference between synthetic and artificial, although similar concepts. According SAR, "artificial is 1. Made by hand or art of man. 2. Not natural, false. 3. Produced by human ingenuity. But "synthetic" is 1. Of or pertaining to synthesis. 2. That should be writing, or moving from part to whole. 3. Such a product: Obtained by industrial processes, usually a synthetic chemical that mimics the composition and properties of some natural bodies.
From this it actually say that these gentlemen have prepared a synthetic DNA the sense that they have taken DNA fragments of a natural and controlled procedures have been joined by to give rise to a "new" DNA. The DNA used is still natural in two ways. First, what they did was simply to replicate the DNA of an existing cell and put it in another. Ie new DNA differs in no sense the original cell's DNA (except for the watermarks). The other sense in which the DNA is still natural is simple: in both components (building blocks) are.
However, one might think that this is a major step, as well as they could recreate a ready DNA in nature, missing little to create a genetic code from scratch, a new organization never seen before. But even in this case scientists would only have created a new genotype information: anyway they do not own the code, did not create the complex relationships that can translate stereochemical molecular triplets into amino acids radicals which are then transformed into proteins. That is, if life is that complex system of DNA codes that call, and the deep and tangled translation of this DNA into organisms, then these scientists have created "artificial life" have only taken what is already there, life same, and have been used to synthesize something that only a very precise meaning is something "done by the hand of man."
Digital Life "? Or rather ask: What is Life ?
The other term that appears in the article by Venter es Vida Digital (Digital Life). This expression refers to the fact that they have found, or think you may find (I have not of course) a way to store the genetic information of an organism in a computer program, and then through certain techniques of construction and assembly, use that information to create a living organism. Is it because of this that Venter says the following? "This is an important step, both scientifically and philosophically." He adds, "It has certainly changed my view of the definition of what is life and how life works."
Again I think the words are used in an almost mean-spirited. One thing is that we can save the information assembly of DNA on a computer, and one that we call it digital life. Are we dipuestos called life only an information packet idle? No one can speak of a form of "artificial life" because life is not just DNA.'s Life, a life, a single cell, not just the genetic information from DNA, but an entire complex of mechanical and chemical devices that make preservation and reproduction possible. These gentlemen have recreated an existing DNA, but has been placed in a container and I live in a cell already configured and ready to receive the information. Full of organelles in operation: ribosomes, vacuoles, the wonderful mitochondria the extremely amazing machine complex cell wall. No, gentlemen, my dear coven of mad scientists, my loving postdocs stupid game, you have not created artificial life, you just have manipulated molecules to simulate certain information that has established itself well to a body which had life before. That says much about the plasticity of cells and DNA, but says nothing about the concept of life.
This makes me also think about the excessive role that we give to the DNA in our understanding of biological phenomena. I remember in this context the words of a famous scientist EO Wilson: "People are DNA's way of making more DNA . " Words not only sad, but profoundly wrong. True, we can say that the whole body, my body is the epigenetic expression of a genetic code, but my life, human life is not reduced to being mere expression of a code. We are not simply survival machines for genes.
River, Network and the Miracle
On the other hand, what we call life?, Are we willing to turn his life an operational concept, one whose definition might be simply in terms function? This seems at first sight it is appropriate has told us that living organisms are born, grow, feed, reproduce and die. Thus it seems possible to recreate in the laboratory these functions somewhat mysterious in a way to make "artificial life" would be conceptually feasible, a more technological challenge. But we forget that when we use the word "life" not only refer to these operational elements. We speak also of a river, a network and a miracle.
* Life is an endless river that takes millions of years of travel, no middle and no mouth this river has become almost from the beginning in a large delta whose magnitude is overwhelming. Each arm of the delta is what it is from the continuous flow that pushes and gives life and shapes. So it seems strange to call something alive that is not part of that mysterious power. Stagnant water droplets in the basins of the stones are not part of that stream of life.
* Life is a filigree network so complex that subtlety is not visible to the naked eye. Each strand tangled with the other in an order as chaotic as necessary. "By what we call conceptual simplification life could find a loose thread on the floor or a piece of fiber isolated refine with your fingers?
* Life is a miracle, not because it is an insurmountable and secret religious good, but because she is not a fact. Not a single state things that are in the world. The life we \u200b\u200bset ourselves and our animal brothers, life is us. Life, scientific gentlemen, it is one thing, but a value. Life is blood, body fluids, womanly hips, semen and sweat, muscles, strength and transformation, life's meaning, value, destination, and I wonder at what point we let stupid scientists concerned about very specific problems, refining a concept so important to everyone on the planet.
Sale? Venter is not a mad scientist who plays God, "Frankenstein as the very useless object? No. Only one geneticist more air of grandeur, playing with something that really understand but apparently has not lived. Its creation does not charge any moral problem, no philosophical paradox, no revolutionary redefinition is only making it, period. We must thank him for indirectly demonstrate that science is far from meeting the Cartesian dream. Again for the short-witted reader: life is a value .
According to the Vatican caution must be taken, we must "learn more" before talking about "artificial life." Cassocks starting geese must have the hips open stitching on both legs to science. I do not need to know more on this topic because this is not is a problem that is resolved with more information, more tests or a new discovery. This is a problem of concepts, ie what human beings are willing to call "life." We must not fall into Bergson's vitalist thesis to defend, just think about what it means to us and to understand why this miracle, that network and that river can not be recreated in a laboratory ex nihilo: Omne vivum Ex Ovo gentlemen, once again the wisdom expressed in Latin. I say that, in principle, to speak of "artificial life" is a conceptual impossibility, very pedantic nonsense, or at least should be. The Life is a curious genetic fucking sexually transmitted disease, gentlemen. What the hell that is the god that Venter ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment