Dec 17 2007
Creating Artificial Life
“Life, life….I have created life!!!” – Dr. Frederik Frankenstein
We are on the brink of one of those watershed developments in science that changes the rules of the game, opens up new possibilities that at first we can only scarcely imagine, and has the potential for being truly transformational. We are rapidly developing the ability to make artificial life from scratch (well, more or less). More specifically I am talking about the ability to synthesize a completely artificial DNA.
Noted geneticist J. Craig Venter has already created an artificial chromosome – a long strand of DNA that exists as a discrete unit. He has also created living cells by inserting a naturally occurring chromosome into a cell whose own DNA was removed. All that remains to be done now is to insert an artificial chromosome into a cell to see if it survives and reproduces, making a viable cell line. And, voila – artificial life.
Of course, life is more than DNA. Eukaryotic cells also contain mitochondria, organelles that serve as the energy factories for the cells and that have their own DNA. There are other so-called epigenetic factors in cells also. Eventually we will likely be able to make every aspect of the cell itself, but for now it is easier to just take an existing cell and swap out the nuclear DNA programming for artificial DNA.
We already have the ability to genetically engineer cells – we can take bacteria, for example, and insert a gene to manufacture a specific protein. This new process, however, takes genetic engineering much further, creating the entire DNA strand.
From a basic science perspective this is an exciting avenue of research. There is no better way to understand how something works than to try to build it from scratch. We may hit some unforseen hurdles, but these will likely just teach us something new about how DNA works. If it does work that is also a great proof of principle – that our model of how DNA works is accurate.
From a practical point of view the sky is the limit. Venter is already talking about building a basic DNA platform, that accomplishes all the basics of creating a living cell line, and then plugging in genes for specific functions. For example, he has his eyes on engineering cells that can make ethanol, hydrogen, or other fuels. Engineered cells could also make medicines or any desired protein.
And this is only the beginning. Like any technology, once the basics are worked out innovation will allow for endless possibilities. Eventually we will be able to create plant and animal life, or a form of life so new that it defies existing classification. What this technology does is change the very nature of evolution. Biological evolution is constrained by history and can only act upon the products of random mutations and recombination. But artificial life is not constrained and we can engineer whatever changes we desire. Artificial life can therefore evolve millions of times faster than biological life.
And with any such technology a host of ethical questions are raised. Can someone own a life form? Can you patent a DNA sequence? What rights would such life have? Should we limit the intelligence of artificially created life? What would be the ethics involved in creating a completely artificial yet self-aware intelligent species? These ethical dilemmas are still a bit in the future, but embarking on this technological pathway means we should start thinking about them now.
It seems likely that Venter will succeed in creating an artificial cell line by the end of 2008, in which case that is likely to be the biggest news story of that year. This will definitely be one science story to follow.
10 Responses to “Creating Artificial Life”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Wow, so we’re that much closer to being able to make things like “perfect” viruses from scratch – that’s a little scary. On the other hand I suppose we could make vaccines as well.
Re: “ethical dilemmas are still a bit in the future, but embarking on this technological pathway means we should start thinking about them now.”
I think we do…
I.e., I find it very tongue-in-cheek that the apparently futuristic, reimagined Battlestar Galactica series on Sci-Fi concerns man-made, sentient, ‘mechanical life’ / ‘artificial life’ that evolves into genocidal — specifically homicidal — [mono]theists indiscernible from people!
Religion will pontificate, further weakened by mankind’s self-displacement from a primitive place of anthropocentric vanity (a cage last hugely rattled by Darwin):
‘you cannot play god,’ only a god imbues ‘the breath of life,’ that elan vital, that vital force ensoulment / en-spir-ment, that anima!
“… On the other hand I suppose we could make vaccines as well.”
The ultimate bio-weapon: make the virus and vaccine simultaneously, vaccinate your own population (or those you’ve chosen within your population) and then wipe out the rest of the planet. Very scary.
Yes, the “perfect virus” would make a lovely Tom Clancy novel. Now what about something more interesting? This sort of genetically-commandeered-cell paradigm seems to be a far more achievable goal than any of the far-fetched speculation on mechanical nanotechnology that some think is on the horizon, and it could potentially accomplish a lot of the same things. We have seen cells living in a huge variety of environments, producing all kinds of chemical products, so the possibilities are theoretically endless. What about engineered symbiotic bacteria to live in our intestinal wall and produce vitamins from more common substances to prevent deficiency, or even being able to supply a steady stream of medication without having to take pills every day. It would be the ultimate extended-release capsule.
psamathos, your suggestion comes very close to what my research has already found, that there are bacteria which live on the body which deliver nitric oxide and nitrite which the body needs when it needs it. Of course these are not synthetic bacteria, and the reason they work is because physiology has evolved to require their presence.
I think that is the only way that NO/NOx phsyiology can be regulated. There are far too many pathways which are all coupled and non-linear for them to be regulated via open-loop control. The regulation of NO/NOx delivery has to be regulated via closed-loop control, which the body does via sweating.
Need more NO/NOx, the body sweats (adrenergic sweating for example), delivers ammonia to the normally resident biofilm, the bacteria turn it into NO and nitrite, some is absorbed, NO/NOx levels go up.
I don’t see much in the way of concerns here regarding the use of such substances as bio-weapons. First, because at least two governments have already produced some extremely nasty bio-weapons without resorting to custom-built DNA. Some of the material from the USA’s own bio-warfare program is pretty scary stuff. Any country that attacked with bio-weapons would have to face a nuclear reprisal, which would tend to stop such weapons being used. It will cause some problems for ethicists, but mainly when it comes to less-harmful human interactions. Of course, I could be wrong… anyone here read Frank Herbert’s “The White Plague” ?
Great post Steve! However you missed the punch line:
This is creating new life forms not via evolution but rather through.
Intelligent Design!
As an inventor (though not in the field of DNA stuff), I know a fair amount about patent law, and one can only patent things that are “non-obvious” to someone of ordinary skill in the art.
All a patent does is allow you to prevent others from making, using or selling the thing that you have patented for a certain period, and you have to disclose exactly how to do what it it that you are patenting. There are only business reasons for obtaining patents. All a patent can do is prevent business competitors from making and selling your invention.
Patent law isn’t supposed to stop people from building your patented device and tinkering with it to improve it.
There were a lot of (I think) overly broad and also some bogus patents on sequences of DNA and on transgenic organisms. These have set the field back (I think illegitimately) because the patent office allowed these overly broad claims. I think the first patent on a specific transgenic soy plant claimed all possible transgenic soy plants.
An overly broad patent isn’t actually enforcable. A patent that is issued on something that is actually obvious isn’t “valid”, but it takes a lawsuit to prove that, and a company with an invalid patent isn’t going to try and enforce it in ways that will cause it to be declared invalid. They may send nasty letters and bluster, but an invalid patent still “in force” is more valuable than an invalid patent declared to be invalid in court.
Once a technique has been discribed sufficiently well that someone of ordinary skill in the art can do it, it becomes “obvious”. Obvious combinations of obvious things are obvious too.
If synthetic organisms can simply be made by mixing together obvious components, there is no “invention” and can be no patent on the product. Once Venter shows that a large variety of synthetic organisms can be made, that becomes “obvious” and the bar is raised higher.
Once a patent expires, everyone is free to make use and sell it as much as they want to.
Patents are only issued by countries, and are only valid in that country. Most times there is no reason to patent something in a non-industrial country where it won’t be manufactured, used or sold. I would be surprised if the patent for knock-out mice was obtained in Egypt for example. If not, then someone in Egypt would be free to make, use and sell (in Egypt) all the knock-out mice he/she wanted to. I can’t think of a business model that would work to make a profit by selling knock-out mice in Egypt.