25

Evil Bible quotes a 2002 Science paper detailing the artificial synthesis of a virus from its DNA.

When I was in school, I heard that the most humans can do is to create a bunch of amino acid.

Which one is right?

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
  • 7
    Even after my edits, this contains a lot of implicit assumptions: (a) that the synthesized virus is much more than a "bunch of amino acids" - can't both be right? (b) That viruses are alive. Controversial, at best. (c) That duplicating an existing organism counts as creating novel life. – Oddthinking Nov 13 '11 at 15:37
  • 3
    @Oddthinking good edit. Considering that the answer I provided has new data, it may serve as a good segue question to the correct information. – Larian LeQuella Nov 13 '11 at 16:43
  • another one: does cloning (which has been done) count? Or cross breeding (which has also been done)? Or selective breeding, DNA synthesis (injecting genes into an organism's DNA)? All have been done and are widely published and available for use. – jwenting Nov 14 '11 at 07:13
  • I think what count should be creating living object from inorganic molecule. Can we do that yet? I mean I know one day we can. Can we do that yet? –  Nov 14 '11 at 08:01
  • 1
    Jim - I think @LarianLeQuella's answer gives a definite yes. – Rory Alsop Nov 14 '11 at 09:15
  • @RoryAlsop - Actually the answer from her answer is no not yet. We can create living life from previously dead living cells but we can not start with molecular component parts and build a new living cell. – Chad Nov 14 '11 at 13:53
  • I'm seeing a lot of comments (on the question and answer) getting bogged down not because there is disagreement about what has been achieved, but merely what we should call it. Doesn't seem very constructive to me. – Oddthinking Nov 17 '11 at 12:53
  • 1
    I got this interactive flash show helpful regarding artificial creation of life- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/make-microbe.html – Gulshan Nov 19 '11 at 00:25
  • Hmn. Good luck defining what 'life' is (I work in a related field and have never met two scientists who agreed). If you go by a somewhat "layman" perception, where viruses are alive, then such level of "life" is routinely created by companies that will assemble a string of DNA/RNA/polynucleotide for a fee. – Dave Apr 23 '12 at 03:11
  • http://www.quora.com/Science/Has-any-laboratory-ever-created-the-simplest-life-form – smUsamaShah Dec 28 '12 at 05:46

1 Answers1

41

Well, your data (and the website you quote) is a bit out of date, we can do much more now. In 2010, Dr. Craig Venter actually used a bacterial shell and wrote DNA for it. Thus we have gone beyond the viruses mentioned in the 2002 paper.

Scientists have created the world's first synthetic life form in a landmark experiment that paves the way for designer organisms that are built rather than evolved.

(Snip)

The new organism is based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.

Keep in mind, this is only a synthetic genome, not a truly unique organism created from scratch. Although I am confident that the technology will become available in the future. As has been pointed out, the entire genome wasn't built de novo, but rather most of it was copied from a baseline which was built up from the base chemicals with no biological processes, and then the watermarks were added (still damn impressive since they took inorganic matter and made a living cell function with it). But they are working at building a totally unique genome from scratch (PDF).

This is actually quite an emerging field, so much so that the MIT press has set up an entire series of journals for this. As far as to the purpose of these artificial organisms, most research funded by companies are meant to be for specific purposes that biology hasn't solved yet (such as a bacteria that eats a toxic waste or something). Although, a lot of people are concerned about scientists venturing into the domain of theology.

In terms of abiogenesis, there are many resources to learn more about this. Here is a list of 88 papers that discuss the natural mechanisms of abiogenesis (this list is a little old, so I am sure that there are many, many more papers at this time).

I also found this list of links and resources for artificial life. I cannot verify the usefulness of this since the field is a bit outside my area of expertise. However, it does seem quite extensive.

EDIT TO ADD: Now we have "XNA" (a totally synthetic genome) on the way.

Community
  • 1
Larian LeQuella
  • 44,977
  • 18
  • 187
  • 208
  • 10
    I had heard of the baterial shell but that is more akin to reprogramming an existing computer than creating a new one. I think the desire is to know about life created from completely sterile origin. Mostly it appears this is taking an existing lifeform and changing it. Still interesting though. – Chad Nov 14 '11 at 02:01
  • 5
    @Chad, you are correct, and I note that caveat in my answer. Although, keep in mind that one ought to walk before one runs. First it was a virus reconstructed in 2002, then writing new DNA for a bacteria in 2010. What can be done in the lab will obviously become more elaborate as time and techniques advance. And learning about the natural process that this happens through is why I included the link to the 88 papers. And don't discount the "reprogramming" as an easy feat. This is writing DNA, not compiling a new C+ program... – Larian LeQuella Nov 14 '11 at 02:07
  • 4
    One day, atheists will claim that life is created while christians will yell that all life evolves :) –  Nov 14 '11 at 08:03
  • @LarianLeQuella - I am not discounting the feat as easy. But the difference in difficulty is pretty much on par at least for comparison. – Chad Nov 14 '11 at 13:59
  • @LarianLeQuella, you say this is a synthetic genome. Is that different than just a copy? I thought they had just sequenced the bacterial genome and then recreated it in a lab using the information from the sequenced genome. Did they do any engineering and change things or would the resulting bacteria be indistinguishable from the natural bacteria? If it is the same then I would say they copied life, not created or synthesized life. – FrankH Nov 16 '11 at 21:49
  • 1
    @FrankH, the article states that they wrote new DNA code that made this life form totally different from any that previously existed on the earth. – Larian LeQuella Nov 17 '11 at 00:43
  • @LarianLeQuella, I looked at the links and the only thing I found was "The single-celled organism has four "watermarks" written into its DNA to identify it as synthetic and help trace its descendants back to their creator, should they go astray." If all they did was add watermarks, I still would not call this new life. That would mean that they still copied from exiting life the complex network of genes that turn on and off other genes and all the enzymes that the cell uses to live. They say they will try to find the minimum set of genes for life which would be significant. – FrankH Nov 17 '11 at 01:34
  • 1
    @FrankH, you are correct, when they say `at its core is an entirely synthetic genome that was constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.` they did a lot of copying of an existing genome. The watermarks helps "highlight" the organism should it become mixed in with other organisms. Not to say they aren't working at it: http://www.bu.edu/abl/files/nature_synthetic_genome.pdf And, they still took non-living matter in test tubes (or whatever) and turned it into instructions that caused a cell to "become" living matter. – Larian LeQuella Nov 17 '11 at 02:46
  • "Although, a lot of people are concerned about scientists venturing into the domain of theology." Well that's all peachy keen and everything, but personally, I'm more concerned about the creation of completely synthetic bacteria due to the fact that we have no resistance to said bacteria. The likelihood that it will kill us all if (or when) it escapes the lab is actually quite high. – Ernie May 09 '13 at 18:12
  • 1
    @Ernie How high is "quite high?" Non-zero? >50%? 99.999999%? In order to be highly lethal, it has to actually be, well, lethal. There are, in fact, bacteria that are benign, helpful, and, in some cases, necessary for good health. And you've got an assumption that there won't be any safeguards, such as intentionally or coincidentally built in vulnerabilities to the human immune system, or a dependency on an extremely limited environment. Weaponizing bacteria is a worry, but personally, I'd be more worried about nature evolving a lethal super bacteria against which we have no resistance. – 8bittree Sep 20 '16 at 17:49
  • @LarianLeQuella, From https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Did-Venter-create-life-Not-really-say-experts/articleshow/5966474.cms, Nobel-winning British biologist Paul Nurse elaborates the point. In an conversation with BBC, he says, "Venter's work is a major advance. But it's not a creation of synthetic life...Creation of synthetic life would be to make an entire bacterial cell through chemicals." But your answer says :' Scientists have created the world's first synthetic life form '. The dispute is not depicted there, right ? – Istiaque Ahmed Nov 05 '18 at 16:07
  • @Ernie That's _incredibly_ unlikely. For a bacterium to be virulent and pathogenic, it needs to have explicit genetic features that allow it to, for example, hide from the immune system. A "bare" bacterium will not be able to do much harm to us, even if it does adopt some plasmids from efficient pathogens. – forest Dec 30 '18 at 05:48