quote:

---

E. coli is notorious for its ability to quickly reproduce, which could conjure images of mutant bacteria running wild. "We crippled the organism's ability to biosynthesize leucine [one of the 20 essential amino acids] to avoid any risk that the organism could propagate outside a controlled lab setting," Anderson says. "Our unnatural organism will always live in the lab. We have no intention of putting it out in the wild or in commercial products where it could 'get out.'"

---

That's so reassuring considering the next paragraph:

quote:

---

How this organism behaves in future experiments will determine, in part, where the research goes from here. "We are now focusing on more 'useful' unnatural amino acids such as ketone- and PEG-containing amino acids," Anderson says. PEG stands for polyethylene glycol, a polymer that can be connected to proteins used in medicines to enhance their therapeutic value. "I don't think it is at all unrealistic to imagine that in the not-too-distant future there will be a transgenic goat that can biosynthesize a PEG amino acid and incorporate it into therapeutic proteins secreted into the animal's milk," Anderson says. "We are just beginning to look at the applications, but we have many projects in the works."

---

I am the furthest thing from a Ludite but I see where this research could be quite dangerous. The researchers seem to recognize this, but are forging ahead because of the great potential for new fundamental knowledge.

The point of Creighton's book,(other than bofo box office) is that even if he couldn't explain it scientifically, (chaos theory simplified to Murphy's law was a bit much) life has a way of, well surviving against our controls.

No point in reading master works all the time; it's too intimidating. Pop fiction, on the other hand, is VERY inspiring: "Hey! I can write as bad as this!"

But you bring up a good point. On one hand, there seems to be a luddite faction opposing GE at every turn and shouting "FRANKENFOOD!" and I don't identify with them too well.

I think there's a lot of potential promise in this field of research that could positively impact the human condition from angles such as food production, environmental health and of course medicine.

But on the other hand, the profit motive behind this kind of research could-- will-- lead to errors and even willfull misconduct.

This particular experiment, however, tickled my spidey sense. Up till now all organisms on this planet have gotten by on those 20 amino acids. Altering this fundamental fact seems like taking a jump off a cliff into an unknowable future. While this might not be playing God, it sure is playing Gaea.

quote:

---

Tommy, you actually read a Creighton book all the way through?

---

*cough* the guy's name is printed on the front cover of the book. Please to be checking it.

As for genetic engineering, I used to be far more a fan of it than I am today, if only because of the overenthusiastic boosterism I see among prominent proponents of it. There's a huge difference between the discovery that one could split an atom, and the discovery that one can alter the way organic life works.

Splitting the atom, while destructive and so on, is something that is separate from us and only happens if we make it happen. Period. A human's decision is intimately linked to the explosion of a nuclear bomb or the "on" button on a nuclear reactor.

Altering the genetic code for organic life is a whole separate ball of wax. We are, essentially, altering genetic cousins of ourselves, since all organic life on Earth shares some kind of relationship with all other organic life, being as our million-year-old ancestors were wee prokaryotes floating in an ocean.

Thus, alterations to the genes of organic life act more like the effect one sees when pushing down on a flexible piece of rubber. The dimple isn't sharp; it's widespread and the curve is gentle, peaking at your fingertip. A nuclear bomb, by contrast, is like poking a needle into the rubber. The point of depression is miniscule, and the impact is not diffuse.

This difference arises because of the complex interrelationships that exist between various animals, plants and bacteria, known as the ecosystem. Introducing organic life to an ecosystem not previously adapted to the presence of that life will disrupt that ecosystem. How this will affect things "down the road" is not clear. In this case there is a very indirect relationship between the decision to, say, alter the genes of an animal to output a new amino acid, and the creation of completely new environmental niches for new animal species thousands or hundreds of thousands of years hence.

Whether this is for good or ill for humanity is not known because we have such short time horizons compared to the slow workings of natural selection.

But I have digressed, I believe.

I guess researchers are partial to E-coli because it reproduces so quickly, and is so omnipresent. But these qualities that make it such a handy research tool also makes it a dangerous one, I think.

I wonder if there's a bacterium that exists which reproduces quickly for research, but doesn't show much ability to reproduce in normal conditions.

I'm thinking of those wee beasties just discovered deep in the earth's crust. Maybe it would complicate lab work because they'd have to be kept and worked on in special conditions, but at least it would be safer.

[ 15 January 2003: Message edited by: TommyPaineatWork ]

quote:

---

Oh. Unnatural ORGANISM. Okay.

---