Scientist Craig Venter Has Created Artificial Life

[nivek]

http://www.dailytech.com/Scientist+Craig+Venter+Has+Created+Artificial+Life/article16619.htm

Man can indeed create life, vitalism arguments laid to rest

Throughout the centuries vitalism remained the dominant philosophy. Many reasoned that there was something inherently unique to life, impossible to recreate. Modern science, however, has shown that the makeup of a living organism is nothing more than a complex mix of biochemicals.

Now a major scientific breakthrough has been made that may have profound impact on scientific research, and even how we view life itself. John Craig Venter, founder of the The Institute for Genomic Research and the J. Craig Venter Institute, has, at last, achieved what he has been trying to do for over a decade -- create artificial life.

The most basic definition of being alive, when it comes to bacteria is being able to sustain the biological process to survive and reproduce. Neither is possible without DNA, the genetic material of living organisms.

Professor Venter began by trying to clone DNA from a bacterial species, with the hopes of eventually transplanting it into a receptive bacterial membrane and creating a viable cell. He started with trying to use E. Coli bacteria to clone incorporated DNA from Mycoplasma mycoides subspecies capri, a tiny bacteria. The E. Coli proved to not have the perfect cloning machinery, only able to replicate stretches of DNA up to a quarter of M. mycoides' total genome.

So Professor Venter turned to the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae -- interestingly, a eukaryote (M. mycoides is a eubacteria) -- to carry out the cloning. Using the yeast, complete 1.1-Megabase M. mycoides genomes were cloned and harvested.

The next challenge was implanting the harvested genome into a receptive bacterial membrane. As bacteria lack organelles, in a traditional sense, this membrane primarily served as protection and to provide the appropriate biochemical environment. It also offered specialized membrane environments needed for certain reactions, like respiration.

Preparing receptor organelles -- from M. mycoides and a similar species, Mycoplasma
capricolum subspecies capricolum -- a new roadblock was encountered. Enzymes preexisting in the membrane would destroy the unmethylated DNA, cloned in the yeast. Fortunately, the solution to this problem was relatively simple, albeit intensive -- Venter's team used methylating enzymes from M. mycoides to protect the clone DNA harvested from the yeast.

Using this technique, or other methylation techniques, Craig Venter's team succeeded in creating viable organisms. In the case of the M. capricolum implant, the results were exceptionally notable, as it demonstrates that an artificially created organism can be generated using the shell (membrane bound cell) of an appropriate similar organism.

The groundbreaking success was reported in the September edition of the journal Science. Surprisingly, this almost certainly Nobel-worthy achievement has drawn relatively little press in the last month.

Thus, at long last, man has succeeded in a long standing dream -- the creation of artificial life. It has been done using the efficient molecular tools that nature has evolved (enzymes). Using these tools in vivo to create target vesicles and cloned DNA, a new era of bioengineered artificial organisms is launched.

Not content to rest on his laurels, Professor Venter continues to work on developing methods of in vivo and in vitro DNA replication and assembly. His team also continues to explore creating more artificial organisms and modified artificial organisms. Venter's organization holds, or has filed for, patents on many of the techniques he has used to create the artificial life.

With these tools incredible achievements may one day be possible. We may be able to take individual genes and tailor-make bacteria as a starting point for induced evolution to produce the perfect fermenter for biofuels, or the perfect cleaner to break down or isolate oil or other toxins from the environment. In short, it's a brave new world now that the ability to biochemically create new life is in the hands of man.

Venter.. South African?

 

[tco21]

As in the CEO of Altech?

 

[BCO]

http://www.dailytech.com/Scientist+Craig+Venter+Has+Created+Artificial+Life/article16619.htm


Venter.. South African?

He ain't a Saffer.

Huge achievement though.

 

[HapticSimian]

Born in Mormon-land, apparently - Salt Lake City, Utah. Interesting read...

 

[Ou grote]

Didn't Nando's do something similar with a Maleema puppet?
The puppet got better matric results than the original.

 

[Phronesis]

Interesting. Can this really be an example of artificial life though? All the raw materials for designing this organism were already present. Venter's group just reorganized the various machinery needed for life into a new membrane. He did not make any new enzymes, or make a new genetic code, or a new type of membrane.

But, is this an example of:
1) Design
2) Evolution
3) Intelligent design
4) Intelligent evolution
5) Intelligently designed evolution

I guess if you are a materialist you can say this is not design as it is an illusion and just an ongoing, impersonal competition among genes and memes. In other words, this is just crap that happens...

 

[Park@82]

Does this prove you need intelligence to create life?

 

[Phronesis]

Does this prove you need intelligence to create life?

Don't be silly, intelligently designed life is not even a theory, it is pseudoscience .

Look like Venter's group is dabbling in bit of induced/front-loaded evolution. You know, making use of natural selection to design optimal organisms...

With these tools incredible achievements may one day be possible. We may be able to take individual genes and tailor-make bacteria as a starting point for induced evolution to produce the perfect fermenter for biofuels, or the perfect cleaner to break down or isolate oil or other toxins from the environment. In short, it's a brave new world now that the ability to biochemically create new life is in the hands of man.

Also, from the update:

Update: Monday Oct. 26, 2009 2:40 p.m.:
There has been some question over what exactly comprises "artificial life". In this case the researchers have created an organism with new genes inserted, and are claiming the organism to be a new artificial species (which notably they are trying to patent). The grounds for calling the organism synthetic or artificial is that it was produced from non-living material, in this case a cloned genome which was non-living when removed from the yeast cell that produced it (i.e. it would be nonviable if not carefully prepped and implanted by the researchers). This genome was created in vivo with enzymes that could, in theory, also be used in vitro. Some, however, define synthetic/artificial life as being artificial intelligence, non-carbon based life, or life resulting from non-enzymatic production reactions. This discovery does not meet these criteria. Thus while the discovery can be billed as "artificial or "synthetic" life, it is important not to take it out of context.

 

[Geriatrix]

Sounds to me like they made a Frankensteins monster.
So maybe its more like Lego building not the creation of actual artificial life. Incredibly impressive, groundbreaking, future changing Lego building though. Hopefully they'll make their own blocks next time. I'm sure Dr.Venter will get there.

 

[rurapente]

awesome, when can we have them shipped into parliament?

 

[Arthur]

"Creating artifical life" is overstating it to the point of untruth. The writer has really shot himself in the foot with an unscientific and sensationalist piece with a clear non-science agenda. Just see how many PhD biologists pooh-pooh the article in the follow-on comments. Most of the piece is a little diatribe against vitalism, and his most quoted source is the unimpeachable oracle Weakipedia! What science! If it were really true this would be global headlines, which it is not. Taking components out of an existing cell and putting them into another is not "creating artifical life" but using existing living matter and substituting bits and pieces, sort of like an advanced cloning variation. In any case, for Aristotelian-Thomists, synthesised life is hardly a philosphical problem let alone a theological one. Twenty five centuries ago Aristotle was quite clear that the lower life forms are mechanical (De Anima). The word 'soul' simply means 'life principle' and for Aristotle, Thomas and the Scholastics, plants and animals (incl bacteria and a single cell creatures) definitionally have a soul, albeit a material one.

 

[Phronesis]

In any case, for Aristotelian-Thomists, synthesised life is hardly a philosphical problem let alone a theological one.

Exactly . It becomes more of a problem for philosophical materialists who take mechanism, causal closure, supervenience and the problem of induction as their view. No room for teleology, design, reason, intentionality, realism etc.

 

[Phronesis]

You old prophet you ... how is the climate going to be in 2 years?

 

[Phronesis]

What is he going to do with the propane and butane? Burn it to make more CO2? That has go to irritate some... The CO2 "mopping up" bacteria sounds better.

 

[Lightscribe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

 

[Phronesis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment

A manual for how not to make life ?

 

[wily me]

So a time later we have some progress?

On May 20, 2010, Venter announced the creation of first self-replicating semi-synthetic bacterial cell.[45]

Craig Venter creates synthetic life form. Interesting to watch the video.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form

In May 2010, a team of scientists led by Venter became the first to successfully create what was described as "synthetic life".[52][53] This was done by synthesizing a very long DNA molecule containing an entire bacterium genome, and introducing this into another cell, analogous to the accomplishment of Eckard Wimmer's group, who synthesized and ligated an RNA virus genome and "booted" it in cell lysate.[54] The single-celled organism contains four "watermarks"[55] written into its DNA to identify it as synthetic and to help trace its descendants. The watermarks include
Code table for entire alphabet with punctuations
Names of 46 contributing scientists
Three quotations
The web address for the cell.[56]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter

Julian Savulescu, professor of practical ethics at Oxford University, said: "Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny. He is not merely copying life artificially ... or modifying it radically by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally.

 

[h0ll0w]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yGYptLzjpa0/S_3Y_zzZdjI/AAAAAAAAAKM/W6n4zPaCTdA/s400/create_life1.jpg

 

[porchrat]

In response to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter):

Genetic engineering IS creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally.

I mean does Professor Julian Savulescu think viral vectors carrying artificially created Insulin analogue encoding genes that cannot self replicate could have existed naturally?

/facepalm

 

[wily me]

In response to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter):

Genetic engineering IS creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally.

I mean does Professor Julian Savulescu think viral vectors carrying artificially created Insulin analogue encoding genes that cannot self replicate could have existed naturally?

/facepalm

"This is the first self-replicating cell we've had on the planet whose parent is a computer," team leader Craig Venter of the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Md., told USA TODAY's Dan Vergano. V