Artificial Lifeform

November 21, 2002 1:34 AM

Paging Dr. Frankenstein A team of geneticists has announced that it is going to create an artificial lifeform. The project raises philosophical, ethical and practical questions. For instance, if a man-made organism proved able to survive and reproduce only under a narrow range of laboratory conditions, could it really be considered life? More broadly, do scientists have any moral right to create new organisms? (From the Washington Post. First-time users may be asked to provide demographic information.)
posted by Man-Thing (37 comments total)

Thank heavens that someone as selfless, as public-spirited and as well-liked as J. Craig Venter is in charge of this project.
posted by Bletch at 2:11 AM on November 21, 2002

  When you ask about the moral right to create new organisms? , my response is yes. Preventative stances against experimentation/research in 'creation' hurts more than helps.
 We shouldn't assume that if we don't study it, it won't happen elsewhere. If biological chemicals were developed, we should know as much as possible about the basics of life generation and cell developement.
  Then again, am i kind of saying "everyone else has a gun, so I should get one too" ?
...the thing that gets to me is the word 'moral' ... If i'm not imposing on anyone elses freedom by doing my research, where is the immoarrality?
posted by wuakeen at 2:15 AM on November 21, 2002

My sense is that this is a badly-mistimed announcement. In terms of pure science, it's a fascinating challenge, and it was probably inevitable that someone would turn their hand to it this half-decade.

But *now*? Hell, I'm losing enough sleep over the economy, the war, the erosion of the US Constitution, the disappearing magnetic field and the melting icecaps. (You think I'm being hyperbolic? I am *not* a sky-is-falling type, ordinarily. These are dark times, and bound to get darker.)_
Bill Joy was right.
posted by adamgreenfield at 3:18 AM on November 21, 2002

Aren't mules and bulldogs artificial lifeforms?
posted by Pretty_Generic at 3:30 AM on November 21, 2002

[...]if a man-made organism proved able to survive and reproduce only under a narrow range of laboratory conditions, could it really be considered life?

Duh. Of course an organism that can only thrive in a certain environment is still living, just as a brain dead individual connected to a respirator and feeding tubes is alive.

More broadly, do scientists have any moral right to create new organisms?

What are these 'moral rights' you speak of? I'd say that it is the rational duty of science to probe nature to its very core in order to improve the human condition. So the experiment may cause some to worry over the possibility that their essential nature might be more chemical than spirit? Good.

Describing a point of concern as ethical in nature is usually a polite way of saying that the inquisitor is a superstitious blowhard.
posted by bunnytricks at 3:57 AM on November 21, 2002

[Deckard]

Replicants are like any other machine. They're either a benefit or a hazard.
If they're a benefit, it's not my problem.

[/Deckard]
posted by Smart Dalek at 4:24 AM on November 21, 2002

Meanwhile, medieval diseases like malaria and dengue fever go on claiming millions of lives (in the case of malaria at least, mostly children).
posted by 111 at 4:58 AM on November 21, 2002

111 - I can't tell whether you're applauding the immense medical benefits that genetic research brings to the world or not.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:59 AM on November 21, 2002

Pretty_Generic, for the record I'm definetely not applauding this. I do not think this kind of "artificial lifeform" research has any immediate relevance. There are countless issues more deserving of attention and funding.
posted by 111 at 6:21 AM on November 21, 2002

I'm a big fan of things with no immediate relevance.
posted by rushmc at 6:40 AM on November 21, 2002

111: this, if (when) it works, will advance our understanding of the mechanics of biology vastly. not only can it provide better remedies in a shorter time frame than your short-sighted "throw money at the problem" approach, it will have the benefit of helping us develop better food sources to feed the teeming millions of children that will live thanks to this research.
posted by bunnytricks at 6:54 AM on November 21, 2002

Pretty_Generic: And the boysenberry.

And while the priesthood stews about ethics, we probably should remember who got us started down the road to genetics in the first place.
posted by rusty at 6:59 AM on November 21, 2002

111: To add to what bunnytricks said, there not doing this just because it can be done. The goal is to build what you might call a "minimal lifeform," by eliminating all genes from the bacterium which are not absolutely necessary to life. Understanding what is necessary for survival and what is not will give us a much better grasp on just how it all fits together. And yes, it might even help cure disease: if you're trying to fight a bacterial infection, it will be better to attack the product of one of the critical genes rather than one of the unnecessary ones.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:04 AM on November 21, 2002

s/there/they're
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:04 AM on November 21, 2002

This latest project has received $3m form the US Department of Energy which will allow it run initially for three years.

Why is the Department of Energy funding this project?

posted by blakewest at 8:43 AM on November 21, 2002

Should not mans reach exceed his grasp? Else what are we here for. Scientific advances today bring un-planned solutions to tomorrows problems. How else are we going to get flying cars?
posted by blue_beetle at 8:52 AM on November 21, 2002

Ironically, Man-Thing himself was created when some chemicals were spilled in a swamp..........or something. I for one, welcome our new bio-engineered overlords!
posted by reidfleming at 10:30 AM on November 21, 2002

bunny, Advocate, you're both giving variants of the classic excuse applied to Ig Nobel projects*: oh, it may become highly useful in the future etc etc. That's not scientific.

There are real challenges out there which call for immediate action; these issues, including, for instance, finding the cure for tuberculosis and alleviating the burden of the poor are, in my opinion, a lot more worthy of attention and funding than a "pure scientific endeavor".

I do think the project can become relevant, but for very different reasons from the ones you both mention. The conclusion then would be: don't restrict scientific research to a money-making machine or to the problems of the rich (both of which are legitimate motivations, btw); something must be done about the issues afflicting poor as well.

*this year's winners: a paper on bellybutton lint, "scrotal asymmetry in art" (don't ask), the physics of beer and so on.
posted by 111 at 10:48 AM on November 21, 2002

111, don't be deliberately obtuse. Research into the fundamentals of life offers a lot more potential benefit than research on bellybutton lint, obviously -- more to the point, without open-ended "pure science" research, much of the "useful" nuts-and-bolts research you describe wouldn't exist.

As for your "science for rich people" bugaboo... I'm not sure which hat you pulled that rabbit from, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with this discussion; potential applications described in this article include using the designed organism to

break down the carbon dioxide from power plant emissions or to produce hydrogen for fuel.

I think global warming and energy production are issues that affect the poor, don't you?
posted by ook at 12:03 PM on November 21, 2002

By 111's logic, we shouldn't study how tuberculosis grows, because that's not studying the real problem, which is how to kill tuberculosis. Studying how tuberculosis grows is just a "pure scientific endeavor," and the argument that it may indirectly lead us to understand how to kill tuberculosis in the future is "not scientific."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:15 PM on November 21, 2002

111 -- even if the research had no practical benefits, I think that trying to answer the question "What is life?" is worthy of support. There are fundamental scientific questions (such as how was the universe born? How did life arise? What are the laws that govern nature?) that are important just because humans want to know things. Lots of research falls into this category.

Your argument about feeding the hungry and curing tuberculosis is hollow. Human beings don't spend 100% of their time and resources on directly helping their fellow man, nor should they. I doubt you would seriously suggest that Einstein would have served humanity better by ladling out soup in a soup kitchen.
posted by ptermit at 12:19 PM on November 21, 2002

Oh yeah. There is a cure for tuberculosis. It was found out by accident in a petri dish full of bacteria in the late 1920s. Can the scientists go out and play now?
posted by ptermit at 12:46 PM on November 21, 2002

ook,
"without open-ended "pure science" research, much of the "useful" nuts-and-bolts research you describe wouldn't exist."

Ok, then give us some current examples, please. We're not on the 18th century any longer, you know? Contemporary research has an immense database to draw from, computer simulation is excruciatingly precise and the whole nature of scientific inquiry and trial and error has assumed an altogether different aspect since what, Marie Curie early in this century?
Your link between pure research and practical results is logically flawed; it's the critical mass of research (as much as sheer hazard) that brings about practical discoveries. Dozens of papers and lab tests turn out to be useless.

"I think global warming and energy production are issues that affect the poor, don't you?"

Not as much as life-threatening diseases or famine. The poor couldn't care less about pollution, SUVs and global warning, as they're busy trying to make ends meet on a daily basis. Moreover, it's admittedly a long way from artificially-modified genital bacteria to fuel cells.

"As for your "science for rich people" bugaboo... (...) it doesn't seem to have much to do with this discussion;"

If it doesn't you shouldn't bother replying at all. Publicly-funded research is a social concern; in this case, apart from the higher ethical implications, it touches upon the issue of allocation of limited resources, not to mention accountability.
There are huge projects on genetic research already being carried on by private organizations, because it will possibly mean money in the bank. Now most communicable diseases are often neglected, because only the destitute are ever affected by them. Go ahead and say "I don't care" if that's how you feel about it, but please spare us from the noble ivory-tower scientist talk.

2-Advocate, studying TB has an immediate function and a clear goal. The objective is defined as investigating how the TB agents multiply; since controlling this helps fight the disease, the conclusion is trivial.

3-ptermit, concerning the resources, see the final paragraph addressed to ook. There's no cure for tuberculosis; there's control, but even this has been affected by stronger forms of the disease.
It would be indeed a very bad idea to have Einstein serving soup, as his unkempt hair+moustache could have unsanitary implications. BTW, how has the theory of relativity helped you lead a healthier life or get more chicks?

This turned out much longer than I expected, so excuse me everybody.
posted by 111 at 1:09 PM on November 21, 2002

Ok, then give us some current examples, please.
Come on... you can think of some yourself. How about MRI imaging, out of studying the way atoms spin in a magnetic field or HIV protease inhibitors, out of understanding the way proteins fold.

Your link between pure research and practical results is logically flawed; it's the critical mass of research (as much as sheer hazard) that brings about practical discoveries.
Without that pure research, the practical results wouldn't have happened. Without the discovery of x-rays, we wouldn't be able to take x-ray images. Without the understanding of positrons, there would be no positron emission tomography. And no amount of funding in medical research would lead to the discovery of positrons for use as a medical tool. That seems like a no-brainer to me.

Dozens of papers and lab tests turn out to be useless.
Yes. So what?

Are you saying that you're only in favor of funding scientific studies that are guaranteed to be useful? Good luck figuring out which those are.

There's no cure for tuberculosis; there's control, but even this has been affected by stronger forms of the disease.
Nonsense. There are drugs that cure people of tuberculosis, just as there are drugs that cure people of the plague. Drug-resistant strains have emerged, but that will happen with any bacterium. There's a big difference between finding a cure for a disease and eradicating it. You seem to be confusing the two.

BTW, how has the theory of relativity helped you lead a healthier life or get more chicks?
It hasn't, but it's still worthwhile. That's the whole point, which you seem to have ignored.
posted by ptermit at 2:19 PM on November 21, 2002

Contemporary research has an immense database to draw from, computer simulation is excruciatingly precise... it's the critical mass of research (as much as sheer hazard) that brings about practical discoveries.

Now that's just plain silly. What, you think we've already amassed all the data there is to gather, and the rest of science is just a matter of sorting through it?

Now most communicable diseases are often neglected, because only the destitute are ever affected by them.

While there's a nugget of truth here -- AIDS research, for example, was shamefully neglected for years because it was considered to affect only gays and drug abusers -- the reality is that effective treatments for tuberculosis, malaria, dysentery, and even to a limited extent AIDS itself, already exist. Those treatments often don't reach the people who need them, and that's terrible, I agree. But that's not a failure of science; it's a failure of economic and social policy.

I'd find your position less ridiculous if you were railing against (for example) contruction of a new particle accelerator, or a radio telescope -- some massively expensive project with little prospect of short-term benefit for the average Joe. (I wouldn't agree with that position either, but I'd understand it better.) But you're arguing against a tiny ($3 million is tiny, as these things go) project which could easily lead to direct benefits in exactly the area you're concerned about. What better way to learn more about how bacterial diseases spread and could be prevented, than by studying the basis of life itself?

Oh, and the theory of relativity actually has gotten me chicks. But that's a story for another time.
posted by ook at 3:07 PM on November 21, 2002

111 - Perhaps I'm obtuse, and of course you're being much more wordy about it, but you seem to actually be claiming that an experiment to determine the minimum chemistry needed to maintain life, and then using that knowledge to create life from inert matter is on the same practical level as studying bellybutton lint.

Is that right? Are you really going to press that point? Research into fundamentals is wrong?

If so, I certainly hope you aren't in charge of any important research policy. Again, maybe I'm just dense, but it seems to me that perfecting techniques to create customized functioning organisms could have immeasurable application in feeding the poor, curing disease and combating pollution.

I guess I'm just trying to find a polite way of saying that you are full of crap and you might want to walk away from this one.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:09 PM on November 21, 2002

BTW, how has the theory of relativity helped you lead a healthier life or get more chicks?

People with this sort of belief/value system are totally alien to me. And a little scary.
posted by rushmc at 6:31 PM on November 21, 2002

Oh boy, let me see whether I can "walk away" from this one. First of all, while I'm not Paul Feyerabend and feel unqualified to lecture people on the limits of science and the whole nature of knowledge, consider these observations:

-the overall nature of scientific research can no longer be hit-and-miss; science is not fishing;

-ook:"you think we've already amassed all the data there is to gather, and the rest of science is just a matter of sorting through it?"-- no, I think a rational, ethical approach should be used, taking into account current needs, as opposed to haphazard, costly, vague attempts;

-this "artificial lifeform" research is loose, undefined and, imho, a little bit too flashy. From the scientific pov, it has the same problems as, for instance, Dean Kamen chatting with Dan Rather on national television about his new gadget; in fact, Kamen deserves much more respect, since it's private money he's spending and he's aiming at specific issues, such as water and energy;

-y6: "you seem to actually be claiming that an experiment to determine the minimum chemistry needed to maintain life, and then using that knowledge to create life from inert matter is on the same practical level as studying bellybutton lint." Please get this: this particular research (at least from what can be gathered from the WP article) is *not* about the fundamentals of life. It's an experiment in genetic engineering, not unlike those about genetically-modified organisms, for example; this is about developing a lifeform that *could* one day be used as a template;

-ptermit, MRI could be one of the exceptions that justifies the rule; they remain just that, exceptions, just as relevant as serendipity (penicillin etc);

-about tuberculosis (currently claiming two million lives yearly), please read www.who.int/gtb/policyrd/DOTSplus.htm
("Essentially, drug-resistance arises in areas with poor TB control programmes")
or else (especially the items on MDR TB)
www.cdc.gov/nchstp/tb/faqs/qa.htm#Infection2
("BCG vaccine does not always protect people from TB"; "TB disease can almost always be cured with medicine").
TB can be "cured", inasmuch as a cold can be cured; the difference is that people who are tb-latent or have had active forms of the disease are likely to develop worse forms of it if they don't watch out. Drugs like isoniazid, for example, seem effective *for latent TB*, as long as you keep taking it for 6-9 months. Concerning eradication, TB is a social disease, so it goes beyond the purely medical aspect; it's not about cure or eradication at this point, but simply control;

-ptermit: "Drug-resistant strains have emerged, but that will happen with any bacterium."-- you don't get measles or smallpox twice. Once-lethal syphilis is now under control. TB isn't. I hope you're not using evolution as an excuse to let people die.
posted by 111 at 5:14 AM on November 22, 2002

111 -- You challenged people for some current examples. I gave you a few. You sweep them under the rug and ignore them: "MRI could be one of the exceptions that justifies the rule." That's a cliche and a smokescreen.

TB can be "cured", inasmuch as a cold can be cured.
Um, no. Colds tend to be viruses, are self-limited, and drugs are pretty much ineffective, and the effective ones have a very small effect. TB is a mycobacterium, isn't self-limited, and drugs are pretty much effective. (Smallpox and measles are viruses, too, BTW.) Your confusion doesn't speak well of your science knowledge.

...people who are tb-latent or have had active forms of the disease are likely to develop worse forms of it if they don't watch out.
Well, duh. People who don't stick to the regimen develop drug-resistant forms. That's true with any bacterium. Would a proper "cure" require that it automatically force itself down a patient's throat? Again, you're confusing eradication and public incidence of a disease with the existence of a cure for TB.

I hope you're not using evolution as an excuse to let people die.
Jesus. When science comes up with a cure for evolution, I'll let you know.

y6y6y6 put it more eloquently than I can, so I'll just say I agree with his statement.
posted by ptermit at 6:46 AM on November 22, 2002

ptermit, my knowledge of science (and everything else) is indeed very limited, but not to the point of obliterating facts as an attempt to validate my points: "Colds", you say, "tend to be viruses, are self-limited, and drugs are *pretty much* [but not always, right?] ineffective, and the effective ones *have a very small effect* [but they are effective, right?]. TB is a mycobacterium, isn't self-limited, and drugs are *pretty much* [but, not always, right?] effective."

I wonder if you did read the CDC faq at all.

From the point of view of the patient, TB is similar (although much more serious) to a cold, namely, you can suppress the symptoms of both, but there's a real possibility they'll come back to haunt you.

"People who don't stick to the regimen develop drug-resistant forms. That's true with any bacterium."-- there are different levels to this; again no, I'm not talking about eradication at all, I'm talking about controlling the rate of ocurrence and the virulence (so to speak) of this and other communicable diseases; talking about "cure" as an abstract write-off is questionable from both the moral and medical angles;

About sweeping pure science conquests under the rug: this is 2002. Science advances on another level. The age of unexpected discoveries is a victorian/middlebrow illusion. Now, if you prefer, simply give an infinite number of Nobel-winnning monkeys an infinite number of labcoats and taxpayer's money for an inifinite amount of time and perhaps someday etc etc

"y6y6y6 put it more eloquently than I can, so I'll just say I agree with his statement."

Why on earth do you keep replying then? My motivation is impersonal and simple: denounce what I think is a vulgarization of science's higher goals. I do not object to pure science when it is 1)well-defined 2)cutting-edge and 3)original (i.e., not being a well-trodden path or something others are working on).

To put it simply, here's a real challenge: if you were to write the terms of reference for this specific project under discussion and present it to the board of a farmaceutical/genetic industry, how would you justify the 3 million bucks and the 3 year's work?
posted by 111 at 8:05 AM on November 22, 2002

Why on earth do you keep replying then?
Good question. My mistake.
posted by ptermit at 11:18 AM on November 22, 2002

I'm... unqualified to lecture people on the limits of science and the whole nature of knowledge

That's the first correct statement you've made in this whole thread.
posted by ook at 1:34 PM on November 22, 2002

111:

a) You're seriously questioning the importance of basic research?

b) You think 1 M$ / year is a lot of money for a research project?
posted by signal at 1:55 PM on November 22, 2002

Signal, my friend, I believe he actually does.

111, you do realize that DoE has a $21B/year budget, right?
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 5:30 PM on November 22, 2002

111: This is 2002. Science advances on another level. The age of unexpected discoveries is a Victorian/middlebrow illusion.

*** What? ***

This is so weird I don't even know how to ask for a clarification. Summoning all the self-control I can muster, I'm just quietly walking away from this initially promising thread.
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 6:32 PM on November 22, 2002

My, my.
Heresy, innit, to question the value of basic research.
Lordy, please forgive him - he knows not what he duhs.
What am I building?
I dunno - but it'll be grand.
Hand me that sprocket.
I can fit it in right here.
I've got thumbs.
posted by Opus Dark at 12:26 AM on November 23, 2002

computer simulation is excruciatingly precise

garbage in = garbage out
posted by normy at 6:17 AM on November 23, 2002