Scientists Create Artificial "Living" Bacterium: Reproduces as the Original Does

Self-Replicating Artificial Life Created by Replacing Real DNA with Artificial DNA Strand

JC Torpey
If the world does not fire up the torches on this one then maybe there is no hope for them. Scientists have succeeded in creating an artificial life form in a laboratory, as reported and published by Gibson et al. in Science Express, May 20 2010. Even worse, what they did was to build an artificial genetic code and use it to create a bacteria.

Do we really trust paid scientists working for the benefit of companies like British Petroleum? In all fairness, the development was announced at the J. Craig Venter Institute located in Maryland and California and is titled: "First Self-Replicating Synthetic Bacterial Cell" but this is no impartial University research department, but instead is a privately funded Genomic research institute.

Here Comes the Whirlwind

The possible nightmare scenarios inherent in this development are terrifying and no one is addressing them. The atom bomb was a noble science project until it was perfected and then it resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and over half a century of terror in the skies. Try to imagine what a robot bacteria, a self-replicating, artificial life form, could do; It nearly impossible to predict.

We do not know what might happen because we do not understand genetics. In spite of the vast gains in our knowledge of DNA, we have very little understanding of how it works. While there is a growing number of genes that have been identified as cancer causing or controlling blood chemistry, this should not be interpreted as an assurance of our full understanding of Genetics. Ignorance notwithstanding, one can only imagine the market for oil eating bacteria just now. Knowing the market potential for something is a strong driver for ambition. Our ambition may just reap the whirlwind if we fail to pay attention.

What the Scientists Did

The actual event was the result of several years of research and development. In short form, they took a bacterium and removed its DNA. They then constructed a copy of the genome and implanted the new, artificial DNA into another identical bacterium. That organism then behaved and reproduced as expected. This effort goes back to 2003 when the same team of researchers announced that they had synthesized a virus, but where unable to activate the genome in a host cell. In short, that announcement meant that it did not work, but this time it did.

In Science Magazine Dr. Daniel Gibson team researchers outlined how to synthesize a 1.08 million base pair Mycoplasma mycoides genome. While this is a long way from ordering your new puppy's eye color on a website, it is terrifyingly close. I remember the movie "Andromeda Strain," in which a rouge bacterium from outer space dissolves plastic and turns blood into crystal.

Even money says that a waste oil-eating bacterium is on top of their agenda at the J. Craig Venter Institute, in light of the BP oil spill situation. If it were and it escaped into the wild, it would have to be possible that it would eat all oil. That would include the oil in your car. Oopps! Talk about liability. Nevertheless, this artificial life form is real, it is here and it is here now; much like the cloning situation was...

Gibson et al., "Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome," Science Express
Victoria Gill, "Artificial Life Breakthrough Announced by Scientists," BBC America

Published by JC Torpey - Featured Contributor in Technology

JC Torpey started writing at a young age and is affiliated with many online publishing websites. JC's expertise includes network security, PC health and the Internet. Her specialized writing areas include we...  View profile

  • Scientists replaced live DNA with artificial DNA and created a living life form.
  • This bacterium self replicates as any other would.
  • These same Scientists produced an artificial virus in 2003.

7 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Thomas Taylor5/25/2010

    ...trail an error. Expecting scientists to learn about genetics or anything for that matter without experimentation is irrational and hinges on a gross musunderstanding of how we as humans expand our knowledge. Lastly, to say only negative things will come from this or anything is a nihilistic position and is neither practical, sustainable, nor supported by historical evidence. In short, science fiction is fiction. Sorry for the fragmentation, I didn't realize AC would cut off the comment. Thank you for your time and opinion. Take care.

  • Thomas Taylor5/25/2010

    Hello, Ms. Torpey. I fail to see what's so scary about this scientific break through. You ask if we should trust paid scientist, like getting paid by a company for a skill is a bad thing, then offer that they aren't an "impartial University research departemnt." How would a government funded university be impartial exactly? If you are claiming the private sector scientists are untrustworthy because they respond to incentives (a foundational economic law of human action) then what is the difference between money from a business and a government? It certainly doesn't ensure care or oversight. You're fears of "nightmare scenarios" are just that, nightmare fantasies. What exactly is more dangerous about a bacteria with DNA that has been synthesized, identical to the naturally occurring form? Also, I don't see its life any less valid than a naturally occuring bacterium. We don't understand genetics? There's always more to learn about anything and the natural method of discovery is

  • Mike Powers5/21/2010

    Chilling report... I am reminded of Stephen King's "The Stand..."

  • JC Torpey5/21/2010

    That's a good point you got there, Walton. you never know what is going on behind the scenes until they tell us, but by them it is usually too late and it's been done already... I agree with you, Jaipi; I do not see anything good coming out of this at all. Thanks guys! ~JC

  • leroy coffie5/21/2010

    this is spooky

  • Jaipi Sixbear5/21/2010

    Interesting, could be used for good or get out of hand. Normally, I'm a positive person, knowing human nature of late, probably the latter.

  • Walton S. Tissot5/21/2010

    ya'know if they are openly telling you this now then theve been able for quite sometime... If you look at modern history & compare then it would seem that teq known and used is about 25 (at least) yrs ahead of what the Public is allowed to know.

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.