³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

This news is exciting. I sure hope that Venter doesn't get all spooky and expect the common folk to call him a god or build temples to worship him.

I can't think of any ethical problems here that wouldn't apply to any other technology. It's just that bio-technology makes for better horror films.
And I'm not sure that I see any need to panic. We could already take a decent stab at wiping out the human race with the concerted use of existing Nuclear and Biological Weapons Technology. We'd need to start up a bigger arms race than the one that existed at the time of the Cold War. But from what I've read we could develop Nuclear Weapons with a yield greater than 50 MegaTonnes. We couldn't deliver these effectively with missiles, so they served no strategic purpose.
But if you wanted to wipe out survivors, or increase the odds of a prolonged Nuclear Winter, we have the tecnology now to create weapons of massive power. You release plague, and small pox or whatever afterwards. No need to create new bugs. You've a pretty good chance of killing off our species.
And in the long run, we're dead and our species is dead.

So no need to panic. Or no added reason.

Still, I'll bet a Mars Bar that Michael Crichtton will write a book about it.

GV

It is artificial life in the sense that someone who uses a pre-existing programming language to create a new program which prints "Hello World" on the pre-existing screen of a pre-existing computer could claim to have invented the computer. Or the programming language. Or the screen.

Even though it sounds completely unethical (Nature wise), it had to happen one day. Biotech is evolving at such a rapid rate that if it was not Craig Venter, it would have been someone else. I am also a Biotech graduate but I too feel that discoveries like these should be approached with great care. Nature has taken millions of years to make our planet and we intend to change this drastically with our decade worth of research.
- Student-

Graham wrote:
"Still, I'll bet a Mars Bar that Michael Crichtton will write a book about it."

As he's dead Graham his novel might have to be ghost written.

Are you 'aving that one! Eh!

Helio on holiday? Thought he would have something to say on this!!?? :-)

Lorney - Michael Crichton died???!!
Well. Ian Fleming kept 'em coming after his demise. And let's be honest, the alternative is Dan Brown!
He'll be finding the code in our DNA, and a secret Vatican plot to rewrite it, and someone will steal half an ounce of memes from the LHC, and it'll be up to Robert Langdon to track it down and put all the pieces together. But once he finds that the Buddha and Nebuchednezzar were actually the same person all the pieces will come together.

Add a completely superfluous attractive female character (smart but not as smart as Robert - can't have the "sacred feminine" attacking traditional gender roles in a blockbuster) whose sole role is to simper appreciatively. Car chase. Deformed, seemingly invincible assassin. Motorbike chase. Gun shots. Gentile, yet malignant academic. Treachery. Push bike chase. Roof top chase. Assassin outwitted, plunges to death, but crucial evidence of conspiracy lost. Vatican plot stopped. Human DNA safe, new Pope agrees to infect everyone with environmentally friendly memes.

There. I wrote a blockbuster.

#7

Why are the Gentiles always portrayed as malignant academics?

Talk about stereotypes.......

>8-D

"Why are the Gentiles always portrayed as malignant academics? "

Because not everyone welcomes our increasing knowledge of how things work. For them it is a threat to their world view. And for some it is even a threat to their livelihood. If you're making a living in the religion industry then you don't like to see those gaps in our knowledge for which you postulated god(s) as the answer to be filled with proper answers. So it breeds aversion to some areas of learning and those engaged in those areas. So swipe at those darn academics whenever the opportunity arises [sic].

Surely you've been on this blog long enough to have seen the anti-knowledge attitude among some of the believing regulars here?

Amendment to comment #8


#7

Why are the Gentiles always portrayed as malignant academics?

Talk about stereotypos.......

>8-D

There was quite a balanced piece in today's Observer. My own thoughts could pretty much be summed up by "It's life Capt'n, but pretty much as we know it".

I'd reply PK, but I'm too busy snake handling...

Scotch git

Yep - a genteel academic would be a better character than a Gentile academic!
At least someone reads my posts before commenting on them...

Still, I think I've the Dan Brown formula sorted. We should collaborate on a Script. Maybe we could amp it up a little? Add a roller skate chase? Pogo stick?

GV

Have a listen to Donald Bruce on today's Sunday Sequence. He is not impressed by the "hype" around this discovery/advance and says the claim that this is biology's "splitting of the atom" moment is bogus.

Indeed William

I heard a spokesperson from the Royal Society playing the whole thing down on an interview on the Today programme on Friday morning. I can't remember who it was (he is due to become the next president of the society)

I was quite surpised at the answers he was giving as they were meminiscent of the response that Answers in Genesis has put out on their website about the whole affier. Even the implications for new bio-technology were pooh-poohed.

Was your meminiscent scientist a Gentile too, Pete?
I think the blogs responsible for our typos

Oh dear Graham, I must get my keybord cleaned !.

Was meant to be reminiscent of course, but he was basically saying similar things to AiG and playing down all the hype i.e. that artificial life had not in fact been created. Only the DNA coding was artificial. Creating an actual synthetic cell is apparently a long way off.

Someone rub my lamp? I'm pretty much with Donald Bruce on this, apart from
the theocabbage at the end. It's not that big a deal. Venter is not playing God - to do that he'd have to not exist.

helio,
wonderful comment 18. i laughed and laughed.

I guess my point is that this is a technical feat, not new science. We have known for decades that this is doable. So, while it is impressive in some ways, it is not a "breakthrough". I am not really a fan of Venter; I subscribe to the John Sulston view, and would strongly recommend that our happy band read "The Common Thread" for an inside view of the shenanigans that very easily could have led to our genomes being the private intellectual property of some rather unscrupulous companies.

Can you get the time to expand on that H? (...Wilma has placed a ban on Amazon at the mo.)

GV

We seem agreed that there is no need for a moral panic, though.

Given that North Korea has just given orders to mobilise 1.2 million men, and said that it will attack South Korea if the UN security council imposes more sanctions on NK (for sinking a South Korean warship, which is an act of war(complicated by the fact that the two nations have been at war for 50 years)) ---

and that Seoul cannot be protected by North Korean WMD/mass artillery without the use of US nukes ----

I'd say that we have more immediate concerns.

GV

By the way - the Beebs coverage of this crisis is -- nowhere to be found! Must not be happening then. I mean, they've always pushed crises like this right to the top of the headlines.

I mean it was the Beeb that told us that Clinton was listening to military options against North Korea, June 15th 1994. And again the Beeb gave the Kargil War a lot of coverage in 1999. But why should it? Two commonwealth nations not only at war, but attaching nuclear warheads to missiles, and moving them to the conflict zone? Why worry the viewers?

Nah. Let's worry about the World Cup preparations instead!

GV

Both incidents are widely regarded as times when the Western Media let its public down

The comments that I've seen remind me so much of the responses that were given to the Altair 8800.

Why have a computer that you have to build yourself, and then the best idea around for a use is to store cookery receipes on it ?

Hasn't anyone heard of mainframes, or cookbooks ?

And how right they all were.

Graham (and everyone), I feel a bit better now about sharing what my REAL concerns are now, because Sir John Sulston has come right out and said it, so it's now public domain, and open for discussion on informal fora like these.

The REAL problem here is not ninnying about "playing god" or "creating life" or "meddling with forces we cannot comprehend" or similar dipsy cabbage that philosophers and professional pearl-clutchers and self-titled "ethicists" like to harp on about. All that is just fluff, and I couldn't care less.

The REAL problem is MONEY.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the J Craig Venter Institute has drafted a truckload of wide-ranging patent claims that will be lodged with the relevant patent authorities worldwide (or, rather, have already been). These patents will cover pretty much everything that has been going on in the field of genetic engineering for the past 5 decades, and the JCVI lawyers will (I am quite sure) be prepared to aggressively pursue any infringement, and the defence of prior art in the cases of procedures that we have been carrying out for years will be attacked in the courts in a way that will make the Simon Singh case look like peanuts.

Venter failed in his previous bid to take control over the human genome, and it's a jolly good thing that he did fail. The man responsible for that failure was Professor Sir John Sulston. It is critically important that Venter fails in this venture too. Science by press-release is a very very dangerous thing. Patent legislation by spin and hype is also very dangerous. In brutal contrast to the claims of some biotech speculators, restrictive patents do not stimulate research - they cut off its lifeblood.

The very future of biotechnology is at stake here.

I am NOT saying that Craig Venter is Dr Evil, but he is not the fairy godmother either. He is a businessman first and foremost.

Will, you could do a whole lot worse than get an interview with John Sulston for Sunday Sequence, but frankly I think the whole UK and the whole world need to sit up and take notice, because apart from this speech by Sir John, no-one is taking the real dangers here seriously.

And this is Helio talking here - it takes a lot to get me concerned over a scientific advance.

Here's the link: [mods, please don't delete the link!]

-Helio

#18 - Heliopolitan -

"Venter is not playing God - to do that he'd have to not exist."

And I'm sure that Dr Venter would not have been playing 'intelligent design' either. Being a 'true scientist' I am sure he must have completely suspended the use of his intelligence while he conducted his work of 'synthesising' life. Perish the thought that he could have done such a vile and obnoxious thing as applying intelligence to the formation of life, thus providing empirical evidence to support the theory of those weird 'anti-knowledge' people who shamelessly delude themselves into thinking that the non-intelligent formation of life is a load of old baloney. We wouldn't want that now, would we - in our brave new world?!

Isn't it such a delight to know that 'science' has debunked the idea that intelligence is needed in such matters! Just bung a few chemicals together, take a trip to Vegas, say a prayer (whoops - don't do that!!) and hey presto, let the fairy magic work its work, and then we have life! Oh joy!

Isn't science such a wonderful thing?

(Sorry, error in the last sentence. It should read: "Isn't science fiction such a wonderful thing?")

LSV, for someone with your moniker, it is incredible to see a post laced with so much vanitas and so little logica. It might help for you to actually do a bit of reading so that you understand exactly what Venter has done and exactly what he has *not* done, and also to understand the reasoning behind his pronouncements. I would then (as above) suggest that you and everyone on this blog read "The Common Thread" by John Sulston - at the very least it will give you an insight into the background to this and Venter's role in the Human Genome Project. While armchair cod-philosophers lob cabbages languidly at each other, back here in the real world, there are bigger fish to fry.

H

I wish you'd stop judging philosophers by their lowest denominator (-: They did manage to come up with the scientific method, so I imagine that "armchair thinking" (and I don't really know what you mean by that) must accomplish something now and then!(-;

But good call on Sulston. I shall add said book to Amazon list. Father's day is on the way!!!

I suppose the problem is that there are so many disciplines that go under the label "philosophy" (some philosophers of Maths, Physics and Biology have "gone native" - this is certainly the case in Cognitive Science.)
But the first witness for the defence would be Elliott Sober. You can add Tim Crane, Ned Block and John Searle.
There are weird phenomologists and scholastics and such. But unless we can get by without logic and clarity, we may want to run some ideas past philosophy departments now and then.

GV

Graham, I was not tarring all philosophers with the one brush - just armchair cod-philosophers who have not bothered sullying their prodigious minds with anything so base as science or critical thinking. But there are many of those.

It's a good book - you'll enjoy it :-)

Oh - you mean guys who invent a definition of Natural Selection, criticise it, and collect the book receipts?

No need to listen to it - just watch Sober's face, especially in the last 15 minutes.

GV

Graham, I'll be honest; things have moved on. Nowadays philosophers don't have a lot to add. Sure, they can help us join the dots, but they're not a lot of use in finding the dots themselves. Best leave that to us scientists, ok? ;-)

H me old Mushroom

What *are* you talking about? a bad argument is a bad argument.
And for fear of my own safety I'm not giving scientists a veto over political philosophy or ethics. Ugh!

Still, the best response to Scientific Delusions of Cultural Authority is "The God Delusion". A perfect example of what happens when expertise in one area leads to the delusion that you are an expert in every area.

Let me repeat the 10 Commandments/suggestions that can be gleaned from Dawkins masterpiece!

1) Only believe what directly follows from observable evidence
2) Do not accept circular arguments
3) Do not hurt your head finding the evidence for 1 without breaking 2
4) Only believe the deliverances of physical science
5) Do not apply 1 and 2 to 4
6) Believe 4 will turn up in a physical science sooner or later
7) Question everything including this statement and the fact that you question it, but never 1-5
8) Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you, always be ready to forgive, live with a sense of wonder and strive to do no harm
9) Do not apply 1, 2, 4 or 7 to 8
10) Always respect the right of others to disagree with you – unless the others are child abusing superstitious woos whose belief in a Deity is no better than a superstitious belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster

GV

But finding the dots? Yep - I'll leave that to scientists. And I'll leave fixing my car to mechanics. And making a creme brulee to a chef. Not sure what follows...

But why am I uncomfortable leaving politics to politicians?

Stirring the pot aside, I really do need to read the Sulston book. How much did Venter stand to make from the Genome Project?

GV

Sorry, Graham, you have lost either *me* or *it*! What has that got to do with anything??? :-)

Venter stood to make billions. Yes, billions.

Basically anyone accessing the Human Genome Project's research would have to pay him a fee?

GV

Re: 37

I was just stirring the pot.

You started it!

GV

#34 - Helio - "...things have moved on. Nowadays philosophers don't have a lot to add."

It's truly fascinating reading some of the views expressed here - a regurgitation, of course, of the sort of self-reinforcing waffle and desperate autosuggestion we have been subjected to so many times before.

It goes something like this: "if I can't refute a philosophical argument, then I decide that philosophy is an irrelevant subject." Classic!

Can we do the same with science I wonder?

Except, of course, I would never want to do this with science, since science is on my side. Those who adhere to my world-view have nothing to fear from science, and can only suffer minor irritation from those dogmatic reductionists, who seem incapable of distinguishing between the scientific method, on the one hand, and the presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, on the other (although I think this deficiency is something more to do with the orientation of the will rather than with any lack of ability - not that such people would ever be honest enough to admit that). To such people I say: you are philosophers, and really lousy ones, at that!

We can never move on from philosophical and epistemological questions, unless, of course, we wish to abolish "knowledge" and "mind". And then, where does that leave "science"?

Talking about epistemology... even though empiricism is self-refuting, I think I'm becoming a bit of a fan of this method. Empiricism shows us that design and the input of ordered and meaningful information (i.e. intelligence) are inextricably linked. Design and complexity does not have much of a relationship with non-intelligence, empirically speaking. So, yes, let's all believe in "seeing is believing". If we're true to that, then logically we deduce the reality of an intelligent creator. Hmmm, perhaps empiricism isn't so bad after all...

With a chocolate spoon, Graham! :-) what, I started it ??

Re big Craig, essentially yes - you'd have to pay every time you looked up a gene sequence, or have an institutional subscription. It would have netted him a fortune and killed research. People still don't realise what an astonishingly bad idea this was.

Graham, as you can see, compared to LSV, you are a mere amateur. He has *real* cabbages; all you have are wee sprouts...

Yeah my wind up didn't really work, did it? Out of practice, I guess.
(-:

#34 wasn't produced by an industrial wooden spoon? You disappoint me.

GV

Oh Helio : * Nowadays philosophers don't have a lot to add. Sure, they can help us join the dots, but they're not a lot of use in finding the dots themselves. Best leave that to us scientists,*

You are funny. You criticise philosophers or armchair philosophers and and yet seem to fail to realise that you have a philosophy that informs your life, your choices, your behaviour -even if you don't call it philosophy. If I recall correctly it was something along the lines of .....life happens, circumstances get thrown at us and we just have to deal with them as best we can - which is more of a high-chair philosophy never mind arm-chair! :-). Delve a little deeper (or get out of your high chair :-)) and you will find that you create/co-create all the circumstances of your life - whether you like them or not! Things don't 'just happen' by accident, stuff doesn't just get thrown at you, it's not just life or the will of God (though you would agree with that one!) ..... your life is all down to YOU! :-)

Eunice, dearie, I have no problem with PhilosophY; the problem lies with some who pretend to be philosophERS. Take LSV as an example. No clue. He has never had to get his hands dirty and TEST his wee ideas. Some people are just too chicken.

#45 - Eunice - (and with reference to #46 - Helio) -

"Oh Helio : ... You are funny. You criticise philosophers or armchair philosophers and and yet seem to fail to realise that you have a philosophy that informs your life, your choices, your behaviour -even if you don't call it philosophy."

Well said, Eunice. I couldn't have put it better myself.

Apparently, according to our resident visitor from ancient Egypt, if someone decides to analyse why we think, how we think, the validity of our thinking - in other words, someone who truly embraces and celebrates "reason" and accurate critical and free thinking - that person becomes a "chicken" (if his conclusions do not accord to the dogmas of the secular humanist "Inquisition").

At least I have progressed up the food chain from being a cabbage! (Maybe that's evolution!?!)