DNA re-written!

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

micky022

xeonman9000

ZOMG, it's Bioshock IRL. :woo:

That game scares me, even though I'm playing it now. Damned good too!

Reply 21

*Sparkle*

This article may have just gotten me a first in one of my essays I'm writing atm lol thanks!!!!

Reply 22

Kinkerz

cpj1987

I wish scientists would stop messing around needlessly.

Oh dear.

Reply 23

burningnun

As Good Apollo said, this is unlikely to "make organisms stronger or more adaptable." The implications WRT using modified cells to make these substances will probably be quite interesting though.

Reply 24

Aphotic Cosmos

cpj1987

I wish scientists would stop messing around needlessly.

You realise the incredible potential benefits of genetic manipulation, right? Please tell me you do. This isn't just some scientists pissing about - all science is done in the pursuit of knowledge. It may not pay off immediately, but knowledge is power. Power to shape our future as a species, and to develop incredible new technologies.

I think that this is amazing! I wonder what my old biology teacher is making of this right now. He was always ranting on about the limitations of triplets. Next time he teaches DNA structure to anyone, I bet he'll bring it up :smile:

Reply 25

cpj1987

Aphotic Cosmos

As said above, I probably don't understand any real reason/benefits, no. As I see it, scientists are looking to mess with DNA to create 'better' humans...

Reply 26

Aphotic Cosmos

cpj1987

As said above, I probably don't understand any real reason/benefits, no. As I see it, scientists are looking to mess with DNA to create 'better' humans...

And I see nothing wrong with that.

There's an unbelievable amount of garbage DNA that has become attached to the genome over time that needs to be cut out, not to mention the innumerable diseases, physiological conditions, mental disorders and so forth that can either be directly attributed to human genetics, or can be more pronounced or more likely to occur in individuals based on genetic predispositions. The human genome needs some spring cleaning. Who are we to deny future generations the opportunity to have a world free of biological impairments like dis/abilities?

Anyway, this advance isn't inherently related to human genetic engineering.

Reply 27

cpj1987

Aphotic Cosmos

And I see nothing wrong with that.

There's an unbelievable amount of garbage DNA that has become attached to the genome over time that needs to be cut out, not to mention the innumerable diseases, physiological conditions, mental disorders and so forth that can either be directly attributed to human genetics, or can be more pronounced or more likely to occur in individuals based on genetic predispositions. The human genome needs some spring cleaning.

Anyway, this advance isn't inherently related to human genetic engineering.

I don't think we should be influencing things like that, personally.

Reply 28

Aphotic Cosmos

cpj1987

I don't think we should be influencing things like that, personally.

Fair dos, I probably can't change the way you feel about something like this :smile:

I still think that negative genetic engineering, i.e. removing genetic traits that are detrimental to the human species as a whole, could be a serious force for good in the world, though.

Reply 29

Kaph

cpj1987

I don't think we should be influencing things like that, personally.

Why? We influence everything else.

Reply 30

i.am.lost

I hate how every genetic discussion becomes a moral/ethical debate.

Reply 31

Good Apollo

Aphotic Cosmos

Fair dos, I probably can't change the way you feel about something like this :smile:

I still think that negative genetic engineering, i.e. removing genetic traits that are detrimental to the human species as a whole, could be a serious force for good in the world, though.

Heh, you're the last person I expected to be a eugenicist.

I agree, though. At some point in the future eugenics like this will be our only option, because the human genome is steadily deteriorating due to the lack of selection pressures. It's an undesirable reality - but the removal of diseased genes will ultimately lead to less human suffering.

Reply 32

Aphotic Cosmos

Good Apollo

Heh, you're the last person I expected to be a eugenicist.

I agree, though. At some point in the future eugenics like this will be our only option, because the human genome is steading deteriorating due to the lack of selection pressures. It's an undesirable reality - but the removal of diseased genes will ultimately lead to less human suffering.

I know - I find it hard to believe myself, sometimes :p:

And thanks for agreeing with me. I think that positive eugenics - i.e. bringing everyone's genetics up to a similar, normalised level through removal of "junk" and "toxic" DNA that causes serious social and economic problems through biological and mental impairment - is the way forward for humanity, whether we like it or not. I don't want to raise the standard of living for a few members of the global elite, which is the warped concept that classical eugenics proposes, I want to raise the standard of living for everyone by giving everyone the chance to undergo the same therapy.

Reply 33

SomeStudent

Wow, that's really good news :biggrin:

Incredible.

cpj1987

I don't think we should be influencing things like that, personally.

Riiight... you'd probably be saying different if you had a pathogenic genetic mutation yourself. Who knows, maybe you do and it'll kick in when you're 40. Should we with hold treatment from you? Surely you dont want anything to do with the products of scientists "messing around".

Reply 36

atheistwithfaith

i.am.lost

Ok for the non-scientists, here's a simplified explanation.

Most of what goes on in our bodies involves proteins. Proteins are long chains of amino acids. Each amino acid is coded for by three letters in our DNA sequence. These scientists modified the way cells make proteins so each amino acid is coded for by 4 letters rather than 3. This means there are 256 more possible combinations (simple nCr stats for the mathematicians!) so 256 amino acids that previously didn't exist now can be made. Some of these may have really good/cool properties we can use to make new proteins.

Hope that helps :smile:

The scientists have not invented any new amino acids. It is not the case that 256 amino acids that previously didn't exist can now be made. Previously there were 64 ways to combine ATCG which coded for 20 different amino acids. But obviously some combinations code for the same amino acid and some combinations code for a stop message. Reading in sets of 4 instead of 3 leads to the possibility that you could introduce another few amino acids to the 20 that nature already uses, but not 256.

I don't see this making any difference, we don't even fully understand protein folding and function now - there is no way we can do anything useful if you add an even further level of complexity. Not for a very long time.

And also...

Good Apollo

the chances are there are some very good reasons why Earth's conditions favour the triplet codon format.

Reply 37

Sprockette

They're not talking about genetic engineering so you can have the "perfect-figured, blonde blue-eyed" baby, DNA affects everything in the body. Ridding it of 'junk' obviously needs to be tested first to make sure it doesn't have a hidden function or link but it should lead to cures and treatments being made available for different diseases.

I don't see why people see it immoral to 'mess with' genetics, maybe because of religious views or not understanding/afraid of unknown results, but I'm in the scientific camp!

Reply 38

username156343

cpj1987

I wish scientists would stop messing around needlessly.

= generic non-scientifically educated/public response

Reply 39

username210636

i.am.lost

Check out this New Scientist article.

How cool is this?! I would never have thought this would he possible in the short-term future. The possible applications are endless. Definitely the coolest realised concept i've come across in a long while.