Comments on: Comments on 18389

Post number 18389

dash_slot- — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:23:50 -0800

a) A virus is a form of life.
b) Scientists 'assemble' a virus in vitro
c) Man has power to create life.

Discuss.

By: atom128

atom128 — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:27:12 -0800

You left out the best part... "To construct the virus, the researchers say they followed a recipe they downloaded from the internet and used gene sequences from a mail-order supplier. "

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:28:09 -0800

Wow. Scientists followed a recipe they downloaded from the internet and used gene sequences from a mail-order supplier.
I don't know whether to sit down and cross my fingers, or shout "STOP! Where are we going with this!??!"
Anyone have anything further on this?

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:29:19 -0800

[You're just faster on the draw, Atom128! :)]

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:32:02 -0800

soo... who wrote the recipe? There just happened to be vaible instructions for something that had never been done online?

By: willnot

willnot — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:33:17 -0800

So what is this scientist the little brother from Better Off Dead who sent away and built a working laser gun or something? I feel like such a wuss. All I've bought through the mail lately is a digital camera.

By: Danelope

Danelope — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:38:28 -0800

Viruses are not alive. They don't fall under traditional taxonomic description because they are acellular, and are thus inert without the presence of other animal or plant cells. Beyond that, however, this is worrying.

By: Su

Su — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:38:49 -0800

Neat. I remember reading ages ago that scientists hadn't decided whether viruses were alive, because they didn't quite meet the standard criteria and had been wondering about it recently. Wouldd have thought they'd figure it out by now. As to the topic at hand, it's kind of creepy. Somewhat related, The Atlantic Monthly this month has an article on Designer Bugs(just a summary, but it can be purchased) about some researchers who came up with a way to make diseases more virulent. The research was actually for pest control, but they figured it could be used on say...plague, botulism, etc.

By: Slithy_Tove

Slithy_Tove — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:41:31 -0800

A virus is not a form of life. To construct the virus, the researchers say they followed a recipe they downloaded from the internet and used gene sequences form a mail-order supplier. That naughty internet! There oughta be a law. Maybe we could fight back like the RIAA, and flood the information space with lots of copies of fake viral genomes. sort of like releasing millions of sterile screwworm flies.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:46:28 -0800

What concerns me is that this seems to have come in right under the radar screen - who knows what folks in the private sector are up to?
Who regulates this, and what are the safeguards?
Why are we doing it?
What will the commercial applications be?
Do any of you Brits remember the TV show The Survivors, from the 70's?
...The basic idea is that a deadly virus wipes out the vast majority of the world's population. The story follows the lives of three survivors, how they come to terms with their situation and how they begin to rebuild society...
Sound familiar?

By: holloway

holloway — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:58:03 -0800

That naughty internet! There oughta be a law.

Please please, it's called the interweb.

By: Danelope

Danelope — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 20:59:27 -0800

Sound familiar? Uhh...no? See, that was "a TV show". And this is "reality". And a deadly virus has not wiped out the vast majority of the world's population. Scientists have been successfully synthesizing complex proteins using the same equipment for years. This is just the next logical step in technological progression.

By: geoff.

geoff. — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:03:00 -0800

I'm more worried about evil scientists changing AIDs to become airborne. Luckily, even though that possibly is quite easy to do, it would still require massive amounts of labor, money and modern equipment. The good part of this is that if they create a virus weak enough, or at least figure out how to, this could usher in a whole new age of innoculations. Just Xerox the virus till it fades too much to be a problem and pop it in a human. No more having to search for someone who has natural immunity to a virus. Not to mention making a virus that instead of damaging us, would destroy only cancer cells or a host of other things.

By: Dagobert

Dagobert — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:16:07 -0800

Isn't fire also alive. It moves, procreates, requires oxygen to survive, and has enough of a mind to actively hate me. Stupid Boi Scouts!!!

By: zia

zia — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:16:59 -0800

They did it to prove that it could be done by anyone - constituting a significant terroist threat (and I quote): Dr. Eckard Wimmer, professor of molecular genetics and microbiology at Stony Brook and leader of the project, said they made the virus to send a warning that terrorists might be able to make biological weapons without obtaining a natural virus. per NY times

By: internal

internal — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:19:05 -0800

Responding to criticisms that such research could lead to bioterrorists engineering new lethal viruses, the scientists behind the experiment said that only a few people had the knowledge to make it happen. Yeah, uh-huh, sure.

By: Espoo2

Espoo2 — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:25:23 -0800

Actually, Atom 28, YOU left out the best part, the preceding line... "Now people have to take it seriously. Progress in biomedical research has its benefits and it has its down side. There is a danger inherent to progress in sciences. This is a new reality, a new consideration." 'Very easy to do' According to researcher Jeronimo Cello, the polio virus assembled in the laboratory is one of the simplest known viruses. "It was very easy to do," he said.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:27:08 -0800

"God creates dinosaurs God destroys dinosaurs God creates man Man destroys God Man creates dinosaurs Dinosaurs eat man Woman inherits the Earth."

By: Espoo2

Espoo2 — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:28:36 -0800

Ack... Gotta watch my cut and paste.... Here's what I meant.... "Responding to criticisms that such research could lead to bioterrorists engineering new lethal viruses, the scientists behind the experiment said that only a few people had the knowledge to make it happen. 'New reality' To construct the virus, the researchers say they followed a recipe they downloaded from the internet and used gene sequences from a mail-order supplier. "

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:36:35 -0800

I looked and I couldn't find the recipe in the world's greatest recipe collection.

By: Slithy_Tove

Slithy_Tove — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:04:38 -0800

[OT] Thanks for the link, srboisvert, I hadn't stumbled across that site yet. I especially enjoyed their recipe for salted water and the user comments.

By: sennoma

sennoma — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:34:02 -0800

I think the majority view is that viruses are not living things (and I happen to agree). IMO, the key point is that in order to match any of the typical criteria used to discriminate between living and non-living things, viruses must be inside a host cell. While this is also true of such obligate intracellular parasites as Chlamydia, those organisms are discrete structural units in and of themselves: they are self-bounded. Viruses rely on the host cell not only for function but also for form: they break down within the host cell and are not capable of both maintaining their own discrete structure and replicating.

By: precocious

precocious — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:41:59 -0800

A . . . recipe. From the internet. For a second there, I thought maybe it was April 1st - for those of us more gullible--hello? I was with that article all the way until the bit about the internet. This is a joke, isn't it.

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:50:31 -0800

precocious, I think I understand. I, too, am far too stoned to deal with these implications, and will book my cruise down Da River Da Nial forthwith. Before I do, though, can someone whip me up a batch of Dell Boy? I need arm candy.

By: edlundart

edlundart — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:51:13 -0800

(off-topic:) Espoo? as in Espen "Shampoo" Knutsen?

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 22:52:48 -0800

"...can someone whip me up a batch of Dell Boy? I need arm candy." What, my supple yet sinewy glutes aren't enough for you any more?

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:24:39 -0800

Viruses rely on the host cell not only for function but also for form: they break down within the host cell and are not capable of both maintaining their own discrete structure and replicating. So, to your way of thinking, any symbiote that has co-evolved to the point that it is not self-sustaining outside its host is non-living?

By: skallas

skallas — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:38:36 -0800

A . . . recipe. From the internet. I fail to see the big deal here unless I want to engage in hyperbole or faked surprise. Many academics publish their papers openly on the net and there's a webpage for everything. Finding something potentially dangerous on the web sounds fairly normal to me. Before the internet it was the Anarchist's Cookbook. The genie is simply out the bottle. The AC censorship attempts failed for many reasons, one of which was that you can get better bomb building information from a High School level chemistry book or from word of mouth. Getting the equipment and resources is a whole different story not to mention perfecting the technical aspects of sequencing genes. There are many simple chemicals that cannot be bought in bulk without a couple forms of ID. I can't buy a resistor from Radio Shack without giving them my papers. I'm not saying these methods will stop anyone bent on hurting others, but there are checks in place and lets face it - you can rarely keep a determined person from trying something, but you can stop them in the act.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:41:36 -0800

Sennoma:Viruses rely on the host cell not only for function but also for form: they break down within the host cell and are not capable of both maintaining their own discrete structure and replicating...that's useful. Is that the explanation for why A*DS doesn't live o/s the body (on seats, glass rims, skin, etc.)?
precocious: no, none of the original post was a joke - someone in the research team found out 'the recipe' on the net. For real.
Wolfdaddy:I need arm candy. Lost me coffee to that!!
rushmc: Is there an exception?

By: Danelope

Danelope — Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:56:37 -0800

rushmc: So, to your way of thinking, any symbiote that has co-evolved to the point that it is not self-sustaining outside its host is non-living? If said symbiote is acellular, has no internal cellular membranes, and no means of reproduction without relying on the cells of living creatures, then yes, it is non-living.

By: WolfDaddy

WolfDaddy — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:02:53 -0800

What, my supple yet sinewy glutes aren't enough for you any more? I have two arms, you know. And, hell, if I wait twenty years, I could conceivably--perhaps even inevitably--have more than that. All the better to affectionately pat your so wonderfully defined glutes, crash.

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:33:25 -0800

Danelope, this is intriguing to me. The dead virus replicates, disrupts and overwhelms other living cells; some (all?) forms manipulate hosts to spread and expel; they can and do cause serious damage to other living bodies.
I know I sounded alarmist up there ^ but thank god it's dead!!

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 00:53:22 -0800

New Scientist: balanced & informative News on the topic
apologies for yet another comment - it's developing in front of my eyes...

By: sennoma

sennoma — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:21:46 -0800

Is that the explanation for why A*DS doesn't live o/s the body (on seats, glass rims, skin, etc) Not really. HIV-1 can survive outside the host environment (on seats, etc), but not for very long. It is rather a labile virus, the outer surface of which is not particularly stable and is susceptible to damage by oxidation and drying (e.g. bleach, ethanol, air exposure). The primary reason for rapid loss of infectivity outside the host environment (blood, seminal fluid) is damage to the outer surface which renders the virion incapable of entering a host cell. Even in the blood of an infected person, individual virions do not "live" very long. So, to your way of thinking, any symbiote that has co-evolved to the point that it is not self-sustaining outside its host is non-living? No, because symbionts are self-bounded and maintain their own structure throughout their replicative cycles. A virus particle breaks down inside the cell, and is no longer a discrete "thing" but a scattered collection of molecules.

By: kliuless

kliuless — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 07:15:48 -0800

i, for one, welcome our new 'germ'-anic overlords :) all hail the vector!

By: ook

ook — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:08:15 -0800

Paul and her colleagues used chemical techniques to produce large segments of DNA corresponding to portions of the polio virus. They made one segment themselves, then ordered the rest from a company that routinely machine-generates DNA Sounds like the "recipe on the internet" is just the DNA sequence itself, not some creepy Loompanics factsheet. And the fact that there's a whole market for companies that "routinely machine-generate DNA" -- implies that the surprising part of this is not so much that they "created life" as that they were able to reconstruct a simple organism from pure data. Which is excellent news, in a way: it means that theoretically, we don't even need a viable sample of DNA to resurrect an extinct species; all we'd need is an accurate map of the genome.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:41:19 -0800

If said symbiote is acellular, has no internal cellular membranes, and no means of reproduction without relying on the cells of living creatures, then yes, it is non-living. Perhaps, but that sounds awfully (though perhaps necessarily) arbitrary to me.

By: rhyax

rhyax — Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:57:04 -0800

this really isn't as revolutionary as people are making it seem i think. a similar activity would be downloading a protein structure, making the DNA, inserting it into a cell line and producing the protein. it's pretty neat, because it's a virus, but it's not hard i wouldn't think. and i say viruses are alive, because they replicate and evolve. but that's just me, other people disagree

By: sennoma

sennoma — Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:26:35 -0800

rushmc: that sounds awfully (though perhaps necessarily) arbitrary to me I agree that the "self-bounded" rule is somewhat arbitrary. Without that rule, however, you run into the problem of trying to treat ecosystems as living things rather than systems of living things, and it is difficult if not impossible to define the bounds of an ecosystem. If you expand your system view far enough to find definite boundaries (say, to the biosphere of Earth), the definition you have built becomes rather unwieldy and useless. This, I guess, is the difference between formulating a definition (taxonomy, if you will: a virus "does not match the definition of a living thing") and elucidating the nature of something ("what is life, and from that knowledge, is a virus alive?").

By: sennoma

sennoma — Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:32:52 -0800

rhyax: i say viruses are alive, because they replicate and evolve You could build a machine to replicate itself, so replication is not a sufficient defining characteristic of living things. Neither is it a necessary characteristic, mules and so-called "suicide seed" crops being instances of living things which cannot reproduce. Evolution requires a population, so unless you want to disqualify unique things from being living this is also not sufficient as a defining characteristic (besides which, mules cannot evolve either since they can't reproduce).

By: Freakho

Freakho — Sun, 14 Jul 2002 06:33:02 -0800

This does not prove “Man['s] power to create life,” even if viruses were a form of life. Given that the researchers “followed a recipe they downloaded from the internet” to assemble the virus from its constituent proteins, they at best proved Man's ability to act as a compiler. When a human writes a whole new life form from scratch, then I'll be impressed.