Until we get more than halfway finished with Proteinspace, nothing really cool is going to happen on the human constructed multicellular organism front. It's too difficult to set up a complex organism that doesn't just immediately enter apoptosis and there's very little desire to do so at the moment, frankly.
Still, advanced gene-splicing techniques are getting more efficient for making organic molecules, as you'll know if you've ever eaten a soft centre chocolate.
i am not knowledgeable in scientific matters. i just want scientists to please for the love of god be careful.
Okay.
(The ethics and practicality review for Venters' experiment has been going on for fifteen years, back even before he finished shotgun-sequencing the human genome. Despite a lot of shit-talking, we're being very careful.)
Until we get more than halfway finished with Proteinspace, nothing really cool is going to happen on the human constructed multicellular organism front. It's too difficult to set up a complex organism that doesn't just immediately enter apoptosis and there's very little desire to do so at the moment, frankly.
Still, advanced gene-splicing techniques are getting more efficient for making organic molecules, as you'll know if you've ever eaten a soft centre chocolate.
i am not knowledgeable in scientific matters. i just want scientists to please for the love of god be careful.
Okay.
(The ethics and practicality review for Venters' experiment has been going on for fifteen years, back even before he finished shotgun-sequencing the human genome. Despite a lot of shit-talking, we're being very careful.)
basically this is like what I said- very similar in concept to nuclear transfer (the method used to clone dolly the sheep) and it has about the same success rate and only applies to prokaryotes
of course, since bacteria reproduce exponentially, they can more than cover for a 1 in 150,000 chance of transplantation
so this is cool, but nothing really THAT groundbreaking and CERTAINLY not something to get into a panic about
Explain why it isn't ground breaking wrt the synthesized DNA being stitched, please.
basically this is like what I said- very similar in concept to nuclear transfer (the method used to clone dolly the sheep) and it has about the same success rate and only applies to prokaryotes
of course, since bacteria reproduce exponentially, they can more than cover for a 1 in 150,000 chance of transplantation
so this is cool, but nothing really THAT groundbreaking and CERTAINLY not something to get into a panic about
Explain why it isn't ground breaking wrt the synthesized DNA being stitched, please.
i meant the transplantation, not the synthesizing of the DNA
my only worry about this kind of thing is the potential damage that an engineered organism could do to an ecosystem
not in terms of it being magically better or evil or something
just in the sense that what seems to be a fairly innocuous change to an ecosystem (rabbits) can sometimes do a lot of damage (rabbits now rule australia send in the troops)
this is literally one of the two reasons I don't support GMO crops currently
the other one has to do with gene patents and the holders of those patents
what
why are you doing this to me, Arch?
NotASenator on
0
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
I have made truffles, and I can assure no gene splicing transpired
my only worry about this kind of thing is the potential damage that an engineered organism could do to an ecosystem
not in terms of it being magically better or evil or something
just in the sense that what seems to be a fairly innocuous change to an ecosystem (rabbits) can sometimes do a lot of damage (rabbits now rule australia send in the troops)
this is literally one of the two reasons I don't support GMO crops currently
the other one has to do with gene patents and the holders of those patents
my only worry about this kind of thing is the potential damage that an engineered organism could do to an ecosystem
not in terms of it being magically better or evil or something
just in the sense that what seems to be a fairly innocuous change to an ecosystem (rabbits) can sometimes do a lot of damage (rabbits now rule australia send in the troops)
this is literally one of the two reasons I don't support GMO crops currently
the other one has to do with gene patents and the holders of those patents
my only worry about this kind of thing is the potential damage that an engineered organism could do to an ecosystem
not in terms of it being magically better or evil or something
just in the sense that what seems to be a fairly innocuous change to an ecosystem (rabbits) can sometimes do a lot of damage (rabbits now rule australia send in the troops)
this is literally one of the two reasons I don't support GMO crops currently
the other one has to do with gene patents and the holders of those patents
what
why are you doing this to me, Arch?
dude we have been over this
You and me have been over this? I don't recall.
maybe it was someone else then; i could have sworn at one time i was all "dude i hate GMOs not because OMFG scary science! but more because the people running and supplying these things are dirtbags"
Until we get more than halfway finished with Proteinspace, nothing really cool is going to happen on the human constructed multicellular organism front. It's too difficult to set up a complex organism that doesn't just immediately enter apoptosis and there's very little desire to do so at the moment, frankly.
Still, advanced gene-splicing techniques are getting more efficient for making organic molecules, as you'll know if you've ever eaten a soft centre chocolate.
i am not knowledgeable in scientific matters. i just want scientists to please for the love of god be careful.
Okay.
(The ethics and practicality review for Venters' experiment has been going on for fifteen years, back even before he finished shotgun-sequencing the human genome. Despite a lot of shit-talking, we're being very careful.)
wat
The chocolate thing is one solitary, shitty example of industrial biotech in food. Basically, in some chocolates (like those caramel-filled things) the soft centre starts off solid, mixed with an enzyme that denatures it into a soft centre after a little while. You coat the solid centre in chocolate, and let it harden and leave it.
The enzyme is acquired through various means. A couple of decades ago it was a pain in the arse. Now, the gene for the enzyme is pushed into a simple bacteria that produces it for use extracellularly.
Taskman on
0
Kevin CristI make the devil hit his kneesand say the 'our father'Registered Userregular
edited May 2010
Hey, if I want to inject temporary dolphin traits into my DNA so I can take an ocean swim for the weekend, I should have that right.
Until we get more than halfway finished with Proteinspace, nothing really cool is going to happen on the human constructed multicellular organism front. It's too difficult to set up a complex organism that doesn't just immediately enter apoptosis and there's very little desire to do so at the moment, frankly.
Still, advanced gene-splicing techniques are getting more efficient for making organic molecules, as you'll know if you've ever eaten a soft centre chocolate.
i am not knowledgeable in scientific matters. i just want scientists to please for the love of god be careful.
Okay.
(The ethics and practicality review for Venters' experiment has been going on for fifteen years, back even before he finished shotgun-sequencing the human genome. Despite a lot of shit-talking, we're being very careful.)
wat
The chocolate thing is one solitary, shitty example of industrial biotech in food. Basically, in some chocolates (like those caramel-filled things) the soft centre starts off solid, mixed with an enzyme that denatures it into a soft centre after a little while. You coat the solid centre in chocolate, and let it harden and leave it.
The enzyme is acquired through various means. A couple of decades ago it was a pain in the arse. Now, the gene for the enzyme is pushed into a simple bacteria that produces it for use extracellularly.
Plus omega-3, rennet, insulin and an ass ton of other stuff. [edit] Woops, the omega-3 is algea...
There is a big difference between just patenting some genes you found (Myriad) and patenting a gene that only exists because of the conditions you created (Monsanto).
Also I want to work on corn for Monsanto so bad, they make you go to Hawaii and it just looks awesome.
my only worry about this kind of thing is the potential damage that an engineered organism could do to an ecosystem
not in terms of it being magically better or evil or something
just in the sense that what seems to be a fairly innocuous change to an ecosystem (rabbits) can sometimes do a lot of damage (rabbits now rule australia send in the troops)
this is literally one of the two reasons I don't support GMO crops currently
the other one has to do with gene patents and the holders of those patents
what
why are you doing this to me, Arch?
dude we have been over this
You and me have been over this? I don't recall.
maybe it was someone else then; i could have sworn at one time i was all "dude i hate GMOs not because OMFG scary science! but more because the people running and supplying these things are dirtbags"
Odds are the public will never really interact with man made bacteria anytime soon. They will probably just stick around in the laboratory setting for the next 30 years at least. The issue we have right now is with horizontal gene transfer, and if they put some strange metabolism gene out there in the wild things might go poorly.
Odds are the public will never really interact with man made bacteria anytime soon. They will probably just stick around in the laboratory setting for the next 30 years at least. The issue we have right now is with horizontal gene transfer, and if they put some strange metabolism gene out there in the wild things might go poorly.
i appreciate this post because it made me realize "horizontal gene transfer" is a fantastic euphemism for sex
There is a big difference between just patenting some genes you found (Myriad) and patenting a gene that only exists because of the conditions you created (Monsanto).
Also I want to work on corn for Monsanto so bad, they make you go to Hawaii and it just looks awesome.
gene patenting of any kind is completely fucked and serves no purpose other than enriching a very few people at the expense of a great many
Odds are the public will never really interact with man made bacteria anytime soon. They will probably just stick around in the laboratory setting for the next 30 years at least. The issue we have right now is with horizontal gene transfer, and if they put some strange metabolism gene out there in the wild things might go poorly.
i appreciate this post because it made me realize "horizontal gene transfer" is a fantastic euphemism for sex
yes it is, but not really accurate? horizontal gene transfer refers to gene transfer between different tree branches in a clade- i.e. not between an organism and its descendants
Odds are the public will never really interact with man made bacteria anytime soon. They will probably just stick around in the laboratory setting for the next 30 years at least. The issue we have right now is with horizontal gene transfer, and if they put some strange metabolism gene out there in the wild things might go poorly.
i appreciate this post because it made me realize "horizontal gene transfer" is a fantastic euphemism for sex
yes it is, but not really accurate? horizontal gene transfer refers to gene transfer between different tree branches in a clade- i.e. not between an organism and its descendants
There is a big difference between just patenting some genes you found (Myriad) and patenting a gene that only exists because of the conditions you created (Monsanto).
Also I want to work on corn for Monsanto so bad, they make you go to Hawaii and it just looks awesome.
gene patenting of any kind is completely fucked and serves no purpose other than enriching a very few people at the expense of a great many
Yes let's forget about the fact that a lot of significant advances have come from private industry and just go ahead and remove their monetary incentive to continue making these advances.
The fact that corporations of all kinds are run in a totally fucked way from the top down is a different discussion.
e let's also completely forget about the labor theory of value while we are at it and not make any distinctions between genes that were discovered and genes that were produced.
There is a big difference between just patenting some genes you found (Myriad) and patenting a gene that only exists because of the conditions you created (Monsanto).
Also I want to work on corn for Monsanto so bad, they make you go to Hawaii and it just looks awesome.
gene patenting of any kind is completely fucked and serves no purpose other than enriching a very few people at the expense of a great many
Yes let's forget about the fact that a lot of significant advances have come from private industry and just go ahead and remove their monetary incentive to continue making these advances.
The fact that corporations of all kinds are run in a totally fucked way from the top down is a different discussion.
except that there would still be an enormous incentive to engage in this kind of research if you could not patent the genes you created
like how you could patent the method you used to create them, or if they are actually in any way useful, you could directly profit by their creation
it's an exceptionally gray area of patent law with no real corollaries in other industries, and the reasoning you just gave for protecting gene patents is exactly the lie the people who are engaged in this fuckery give when they are trying to protect their giant fucking mountains of cash
patenting genes themselves slows research rather than encouraging it
There is a big difference between just patenting some genes you found (Myriad) and patenting a gene that only exists because of the conditions you created (Monsanto).
Also I want to work on corn for Monsanto so bad, they make you go to Hawaii and it just looks awesome.
gene patenting of any kind is completely fucked and serves no purpose other than enriching a very few people at the expense of a great many
Yes let's forget about the fact that a lot of significant advances have come from private industry and just go ahead and remove their monetary incentive to continue making these advances.
The fact that corporations of all kinds are run in a totally fucked way from the top down is a different discussion.
except that there would still be an enormous incentive to engage in this kind of research if you could not patent the genes you created
like how you could patent the method you used to create them, or if they are actually in any way useful, you could directly profit by their creation
it's an exceptionally gray area of patent law with no real corollaries in other industries, and the reasoning you just gave for protecting gene patents is exactly the lie the people who are engaged in this fuckery give when they are trying to protect their giant fucking mountains of cash
patenting genes themselves slows research rather than encouraging it
You have as little basis for that argument as you imply I have for mine. What evidence do you have that the ability to patent something you create slows scientific progress? For example legal battles over the patents associated with PCR and Taq continue to this day, but that doesn't mean nobody is using it. It is not a lie that patents help encourage companies to innovate. Arguments about whether or not patents slow down the pace of scientific progress are much more nebulous.
Would it be nice if everything was open source and nobody had to pay for it? Sure. The preference for that sort of thing is one of the things I like best about the science community. But no patents would mean there would be no biotech companies either. I can tell you from experience that those companies innovate at a much faster rate than government-funded projects (look at the HGP vs Craig Venter for an additional example).
A good compromise for now, given that you are right that this is an exceptionally gray area, might be to enable patents as usual but have them expire much sooner.
YoSoyTheWalrus on
0
Viscount Islands[INSERT SoKo HERE]...it was the summer of my lifeRegistered Userregular
edited May 2010
The thing where farmers have their crops contaminated by patented genes, which would naturally happen, and then end up having to pay corporations for it is so messed up.
Viscount Islands on
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
Posts
Still, advanced gene-splicing techniques are getting more efficient for making organic molecules, as you'll know if you've ever eaten a soft centre chocolate.
Okay.
(The ethics and practicality review for Venters' experiment has been going on for fifteen years, back even before he finished shotgun-sequencing the human genome. Despite a lot of shit-talking, we're being very careful.)
i was gonna say "its me. i am the scientist"
but pip said it
damnit pip
this is just what has worked thus far to get people walking around long enough to breed a little before dying
there are still a ton of genetic defects that cause people incredible amounts pain and humiliation for no reason for their entire lives
you can still bust a nut with half a liver but that doesn't mean that's the way it "should" be
wat
Explain why it isn't ground breaking wrt the synthesized DNA being stitched, please.
i meant the transplantation, not the synthesizing of the DNA
sorry if that wasn't clear
what
why are you doing this to me, Arch?
dude we have been over this
What spring does with the cherry trees.
i just want everyone to be able to play god without gettin' sued
You and me have been over this? I don't recall.
there can be only one
maybe it was someone else then; i could have sworn at one time i was all "dude i hate GMOs not because OMFG scary science! but more because the people running and supplying these things are dirtbags"
and that person was all "no you are dumb"
also don't buy a lottery ticket unless it has the winning numbers on it
and don't teach your children to walk unless they're going somewhere important
actually that last one has a nice ring to it- it would make a good motivational quote or something
The chocolate thing is one solitary, shitty example of industrial biotech in food. Basically, in some chocolates (like those caramel-filled things) the soft centre starts off solid, mixed with an enzyme that denatures it into a soft centre after a little while. You coat the solid centre in chocolate, and let it harden and leave it.
The enzyme is acquired through various means. A couple of decades ago it was a pain in the arse. Now, the gene for the enzyme is pushed into a simple bacteria that produces it for use extracellularly.
Don't take this away from me.
Steam: YOU FACE JARAXXUS| Twitch.tv: CainLoveless
except i dont know that i agree with what led him to his decision, i agree with the decision
Plus omega-3, rennet, insulin and an ass ton of other stuff. [edit] Woops, the omega-3 is algea...
Also I want to work on corn for Monsanto so bad, they make you go to Hawaii and it just looks awesome.
That wasn't me.
but basically i think most of the big agricultural biotech companies are kinda shady
i love the idea of gmo crops...but i want them open sourced! if that analogy makes sense?
it probably doesnt
i appreciate this post because it made me realize "horizontal gene transfer" is a fantastic euphemism for sex
gene patenting of any kind is completely fucked and serves no purpose other than enriching a very few people at the expense of a great many
yes it is, but not really accurate? horizontal gene transfer refers to gene transfer between different tree branches in a clade- i.e. not between an organism and its descendants
THIS ISNT TO KILL THE JOKE
it is still really funny
:x
a paper that i am fourth author on just went up for review in Gene Therapy
i figure this is an appropriate place for this
basically i made figures 4 through 6
Yes let's forget about the fact that a lot of significant advances have come from private industry and just go ahead and remove their monetary incentive to continue making these advances.
The fact that corporations of all kinds are run in a totally fucked way from the top down is a different discussion.
e let's also completely forget about the labor theory of value while we are at it and not make any distinctions between genes that were discovered and genes that were produced.
That is awesome congratulations.
except that there would still be an enormous incentive to engage in this kind of research if you could not patent the genes you created
like how you could patent the method you used to create them, or if they are actually in any way useful, you could directly profit by their creation
it's an exceptionally gray area of patent law with no real corollaries in other industries, and the reasoning you just gave for protecting gene patents is exactly the lie the people who are engaged in this fuckery give when they are trying to protect their giant fucking mountains of cash
patenting genes themselves slows research rather than encouraging it
You have as little basis for that argument as you imply I have for mine. What evidence do you have that the ability to patent something you create slows scientific progress? For example legal battles over the patents associated with PCR and Taq continue to this day, but that doesn't mean nobody is using it. It is not a lie that patents help encourage companies to innovate. Arguments about whether or not patents slow down the pace of scientific progress are much more nebulous.
Would it be nice if everything was open source and nobody had to pay for it? Sure. The preference for that sort of thing is one of the things I like best about the science community. But no patents would mean there would be no biotech companies either. I can tell you from experience that those companies innovate at a much faster rate than government-funded projects (look at the HGP vs Craig Venter for an additional example).
A good compromise for now, given that you are right that this is an exceptionally gray area, might be to enable patents as usual but have them expire much sooner.
What spring does with the cherry trees.