Skip to comments.Engineered DNA counts it out - Man-made gene network can tally a series of three
Posted on 06/02/2009 11:27:16 PM PDT by neverdem
Graceful waltzers can count to three, and now stretches of man-made DNA can do it too. Researchers have built a series of genes and put them into bacterial cells, enabling the cells to tally events. The new counters may endow engineered cells with previously impossible functions, the team reports in the May 29 Science. The engineered counters may be used to monitor toxins in the environment or keep track of the number of times a cell divides. The system can even be programmed to destroy the cell that holds it after a certain number of events.
This is the first example of a synthetic counter in the field, says Christina Smolke, a bioengineer at Stanford University and the author of a commentary published in the same issue of Science. Although these new counters are simple, the first step is building the framework. The next step is, how do we start tailoring these to respond to something relevant? There are a lot of places to take this.
The new research adds a tool to the burgeoning field of synthetic biology, in which scientists engineer biological systems such as DNA to create new capabilities. DNA molecules are designed to direct certain activities in a cell, and so can respond to specific signals and start and terminate protein production. Since the field emerged in the late 1970s, scientists have been creating artificial cellular parts that could be used to modify a living organism or even build a synthetic simple one from scratch. Assembling the right parts in the right order could, for example, allow engineered bacteria to produce biofuels or eat toxins in polluted areas in the environment.
A strong motivator for developing a system that can count, says study coauthor James Collins, was worry over the presence of genetically modified organisms in...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencenews.org ...
I can see the good and bad sides of this, and right now the way the people in the world are...I’m leaning towards bad.
AAAS (the same folks who lobby furiously for the expurgation of the last vestiges of creation from public world views) wants a membership to read the thing. No thank you ladies and gentlemen.
This is good. They’re slowly developing the basis for a programming language using DNA.
I seriously doubt that. Removal from things scientific (like biology classes), yes, and rightly so. Creationism simply is outside of science, and has no business being taught there.
Would that the only places AAAS didn’t want God to be seen was in test tubes. It has an issue with God in philosophy. The branch has rebelled against the tree.
Proof?? Yes, the AAAS undoubtedly "has an issue with God in philosophy" as long as you're talking about the philosophy of science. In specific, the constant attempts to foist off "creation science" as science---which it is not. But as a general point of philosophy, I seriously doubt it.
Proof is in pudding. The “creation science” corner (a relatively new phenomenon in American Christianity) is a convenient straw man.
In other words, you have no proof. Put up or shut up.
"The creation science corner (a relatively new phenomenon in American Christianity) is a convenient straw man."
Nothing "straw man" about it. I got my "science creditials" long before the "creation science" movement got its start, watched that start, and the subsequent development. And you can see it right here, on a daily basis, with the crap that "GodGunsGuts" keeps spamming the News/Activism forum with.
The fish knows nothing about being wet, too.
Is making inane comments all you know how to do??
You certainly should know about ane comments (as in french for “ass”). GGG? Is that all you know of the spectrum of discussion on this matter? No wonder scientists are widely considered to be pinbrained, if you are a representative thereof.
Doesn't netiquette dictate that you ping someone when you mention them in a post?
(Unless you are on his "don't ping me" list, such things happen too.)
(And how do we make the floating-point representations adhere to IEEE 754; and will we represent "NaN" by apoptosis?)
I asked you to prove your comment about the AAAS being hostile to science. And the ONLY remarks you have made have been off-the-cuff idiocy. And "I'm" pinbrained??? Ha.
You made a bigoted remark about the topic. Why should I take you as anything further than asinine?
No, actually YOU made a bigoted remark about the topic. To quote:
"Would that the only places AAAS didnt want God to be seen was in test tubes. It has an issue with God in philosophy."
Which I asked you to provide proof for. To quote:
"Proof?? Yes, the AAAS undoubtedly "has an issue with God in philosophy" as long as you're talking about the philosophy of science. In specific, the constant attempts to foist off "creation science" as science---which it is not. But as a general point of philosophy, I seriously doubt it."
Please point out to me where anything in that comment is "bigoted".
And in fact, I see nothing in ANY of my responses that is "bigoted".
Do I object to spamming the forum with inappropriately posted religion?? To quote Sarah Palin----"you betcha". But bigoted?? I think not.