t was a dream that began nearly 15 years ago, when Craig Venter, a Vietnam veteran turned geneticist, resolved one day to create a genome from scratch – and with it, make the first ever synthetic life form. Last night, in a dramatic announcement that led some to accuse him of playing God, Venter said the dream had come true, saying he had created an organism with manmade DNA.

The feat, hailed as an epochal scientific breakthrough by some but an alarming development by others, was achieved by scientists at the J Craig Venter Insititute in Rockville, Maryland using little more than a computer, some common microbes, a DNA synthesizer and four bottles of chemicals.

The result – after $40m (£28m) and more than a decade – is the first microbe that thrives and replicates with only a synthetic genome to guide it. Every "letter" of its genetic code was made in the laboratory and stitched together, forming an artificial chromosome 1m characters long.

Despite the scale of the achievement, the organism in question could scarcely be more lowly – it is based on a bacterium that causes mastitis in goats.

While scientists and philosophers have already begun to debate the potential consequences and moral implications of the work, the motivating force for Venter is commercial. His team has an even more ambitious dream: to create organisms that are not only new, but also lucrative. Venter has secured a deal with the oil giant ExxonMobil to create algae that can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it into fuel — an innovation he believes could be worth more than a trillion dollars.

The new bacterium, Venter said, is "the proof of the concept that we can make, in theory, changes across the entire genome of an organism, that we can add entirely new functions, eliminate those we don't want, and create a new range of industrial organisms that put all of their effort into doing what we want them to do. Until this experiment worked, the whole field was theoretical. Now it is real."

To create the organism, Venter's team began with a computer reconstruction of the genome of a common bacterium, Mycoplasma mycoides. The information was fed into a DNA synthesizer, which produced short strands of the bug's DNA. These strands were then stitched together by inserting them first into yeast and then into E coli bacteria. The bugs' natural repair mechanisms saw the strands as broken fragments and reassembled them.

After several rounds, the scientists had pieced together all 1m letters of the bacterium's genome. To mark the genome as synthetic, they spliced in fresh strands of DNA, each a biological "watermark" that would do nothing in the final organism except carry coded messages, including a line from James Joyce: "To live, to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life."

The crucial step came next. The scientists took the synthetic genome and transferred it into another kind of common bug. As this bug multiplied, some of its progeny ditched their own DNA and began using the synthetic genome. Then the transformation began.

"It's pretty stunning when you just replace the DNA software in the cell. The cell instantly starts reading that new software, starts making a whole different set of proteins, and in a short while, all the characteristics of the first species disappear and a new species emerges," Venter said.

Venter calls the organism a "synthetic cell" because it survives thanks to a manmade genome, but apart from the watermarking woven into its DNA, it behaves like any other M. mycoides. Some scientists argue it is not a new kind of life, but others say that does not detract from the feat. "This is a remarkable advance," said Paul Freemont, a synthetic biologist at Imperial College London. "The applications of this enabling technology are enormous."

But the work drew immediate criticism from others who fear it could trigger an environmental disaster or hand a gift to terrorists bent of developing weaponised microbes. "This is a step towards something much more controversial: creation of living beings with capacities and natures that could never have naturally evolved," said Julian Savulsescu, an ethicist at Oxford University. "The potential is in the far future, but real and significant: dealing with pollution, new energy sources, new forms of communication. But the risks are also unparalleled. These could be used in the future to make the most powerful bioweapons imaginable."

Pat Mooney, of the ETC group, which opposes synthetic biology, said: "This is a Pandora's box moment. Like the splitting of the atom or the cloning of Dolly, we will all have to deal with the fallout from this alarming experiment."

Venter agrees that stringent regulations are needed to ensure synthetic organisms do not escape and cause damage. "It's clearly a dual-use technology and that requires immense responsibility for whoever's using it," he said. "We are entering an exciting new era where we're limited mostly by our imaginations."

And if the microbe were, somehow, to escape the tight security of Venter's lab? "It will not grow outside the lab unless it is deliberately injected or sprayed into a goat. And we don't work with goats."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-genome

Man is one of millions or even billions of God's expressions in this reality. The creation thingy done in labs are no longer big deals.

the impossible task of replicating the DNA, has been accomplished with very simple tools. the Gaps in which God exists is shrinking tinnier day by day.

Kay 17:

the impossible task of replicating the DNA, has been accomplished with very simple tools. the Gaps in which God exists is shrinking tinnier day by day.

Actually it is not. This "breakthrough" is just a confirmation of man being an expression of the Creator God. The separation, the dichotomy between man and his creator is an illusion. We are in God and God is in us.

@Kay 17,

Don't get so excited as to create unnecessary arguments - more so, if you have no clue what you want to argue. Point is, the work by Craig Venter does not prove anything about man being God, nor was it constructed to further atheistic arguments. Please take time to make some sense when you propose a thread.

Kay 17:

the impossible task of replicating the DNA, has been accomplished with very simple tools. the Gaps in which God exists is shrinking tinnier day by day.

DNA replication is NOT new! Nor has it been "impossible". Your statement simply shows that you just are not aware what you are talking about. If it is all about "replicating DNA", researchers are not strangers to such things. See:

Wikipedia: Researchers commonly replicate DNA in vitro using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR uses a pair of primers to span a target region in template DNA, and then polymerizes partner strands in each direction from these primers using a thermostable DNA polymerase. Repeating this process through multiple cycles produces amplification of the targeted DNA region. At the start of each cycle, the mixture of template and primers is heated, separating the newly synthesized molecule and template. Then, as the mixture cools, both of these become templates for annealing of new primers, and the polymerase extends from these. As a result, the number of copies of the target region doubles each round, increasing exponentially.<sup>[20]

20</sup> Saiki, RK; Gelfand DH, Stoffel S, Scharf SJ, Higuchi R, Horn GT, Mullis KB, Erlich HA (1988). "Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase". Science 239 (4839): 487–91.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication#Polymerase_chain_reaction

I hope the above helps to clarify the issues you tend to think is new in terms of replicating DNA. You can see this also highlighted from the Associated Press excerpt below ["Scientists for years have moved single genes and even large chunks of DNA from one species to another"].

Besides, even if you want to argue your case from what was reported in the Guardian excerpt you made in the OP, it still does not lead to the idea that "life" was created entirely out of non-life. The difference is huge, and you only have to look carefully and read between the lines. Even though I'm not a scientist, at least there are certain highlights that we ought to take care to see that we don't push them for arguments that they don't make. Here are a few:

Kay 17 from Guardian:

The feat, hailed as an epochal scientific breakthrough by some but an alarming development by others, was achieved by scientists at the J Craig Venter Insititute in Rockville, Maryland using little more than a computer, some common microbes, a DNA synthesizer and four bottles of chemicals.

I don't claim to know much; but what are microbes if not some form of life? That says a lot in all this, as it would simply mean that Craig Venter took one "life form" and made it into another life form ("synthetic life form", if you may). If you leave out the sensationalism and misleading headlines, this does not argue at all that Venter created LIFE completely from non-life, does it? And if that is so, what is all the talk about "Man is God"?

In fact, what was Venter's pivotal point in his research? I don't know; but if we go by what you excerpted from the Guardian, he said:

Kay 17 from Guardian:
The new bacterium, Venter said, is "the proof of the concept that we can make, in theory, changes across the entire genome of an organism, that we can add entirely new functions, eliminate those we don't want, and create a new range of industrial organisms that put all of their effort into doing what we want them to do. Until this experiment worked, the whole field was theoretical. Now it is real."

There. The work is truly remarkable; but it is more about making changes in already existing life forms. It may help us all to try to keep things in their proper perspectives rather than snatching up reports here and there to make them into what they are not.

I don't have the time to shout (as they say), but others who are more knowledgeable have said it better than I'm trying to say. Here is one such, from Associated Press:

Associated Press:

Is it really an artificial life form?

The inventors call it the world's first synthetic cell, although this initial step is more a re-creation of existing life — changing one simple type of bacterium into another — than a built-from-scratch kind.

<snips> . . . .

Scientists for years have moved single genes and even large chunks of DNA from one species to another. Venter aimed to go further. A few years ago, his team transplanted an entire natural genome, all of an organism's genes, one bacterium into another and watched it take over — turning a goat germ into a cattle germ.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jUy0CkhjIEOS2ZY_SP3gWg8ELgewD9FQO1GO1

Perhaps for our readers' benefit, I shall try and repost the Associated Press article below.

viaro:

Perhaps for our readers' benefit, I shall try and repost the Associated Press article below.

Here it is:

Associated Press:

[size=14pt]A step to artificial life: Manmade DNA powers cell[/size]
By LAURAN NEERGAARD (AP) – 23 hours ago

WASHINGTON — Scientists announced a bold step Friday in the enduring quest to create artificial life. They've produced a living cell powered by manmade DNA.

While such work can invoke images of Frankenstein-like scientific tinkering, it also is exciting hopes that it could eventually lead to new fuels, better ways to clean polluted water, faster vaccine production and more.

Is it really an artificial life form?

The inventors call it the world's first synthetic cell, although this initial step is more a re-creation of existing life — changing one simple type of bacterium into another — than a built-from-scratch kind.

Maryland genome-mapping pioneer J. Craig Venter said his team's project paves the way for the ultimate, much harder goal: designing organisms that work differently from the way nature intended for a wide range of uses. Already he's working with ExxonMobil in hopes of turning algae into fuel.

And the report, being published Friday in the journal Science, is triggering excitement in this growing field of synthetic biology.

"It's been a long time coming, and it was worth the wait," said Dr. George Church, a Harvard Medical School genetics professor. "It's a milestone that has potential practical applications."

The project has overcome some hurdles in engineering larger genomes that will help push forward the field, said biological engineer Dr. Ron Weiss, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology leader in synthetic biology.

"It's an important step," said Weiss. Even though the manmade DNA needed an already living cell to start working, eventually it reproduced and "all elements in the cells after some amount of time can be traced to this initial artificial DNA. That's a great accomplishment."

Scientists for years have moved single genes and even large chunks of DNA from one species to another. Venter aimed to go further. A few years ago, his team transplanted an entire natural genome, all of an organism's genes, one bacterium into another and watched it take over — turning a goat germ into a cattle germ.

Next, the researchers built from scratch another, smaller bacterium's genome, using off-the-shelf laboratory-made DNA fragments.

Friday's report combines those two achievements to test a big question: Could synthetic DNA really take over and drive a living cell? Somehow, it did.

"This is transforming life totally from one+ species into another by changing the software," said Venter, using a computer analogy to explain the DNA's role.

The researchers picked two species of Mycoplasma, simple germs that contain a single chromosome and lack the cell walls that form barriers in other bacteria. First, they chemically synthesized the genome of M. mycoides, that goat germ, twice as large as the germ genome they'd previously built.

Then they transplanted it into a living cell from a different Mycoplasma species, albeit a fairly close cousin.

At first, nothing happened. The team scrambled to find out why, creating a genetic version of a computer proofreading program to spell-check the DNA fragments they'd pieced together. The result: They found that a typo in the genetic code, in one of the synthetic genome's million chemical base pairs, was rendering the manmade DNA inactive, delaying the project three months to find and restore that bit.

"It shows you how accurate it has to be, one letter out of a million," Venter said.

That fixed, the transplant worked. The recipient cell started out with synthetic DNA and its original cytoplasm, but the new genome "booted up" that cell to start producing only proteins that normally would be found in the copied goat germ. It reproduced into a small colony of germs in a lab dish. The researchers had tagged the synthetic DNA to be able to tell it apart, and confirmed that those new ones really looked and behaved like M. mycoides, not the recipient cell

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jUy0CkhjIEOS2ZY_SP3gWg8ELgewD9FQO1GO1

Since viaro is here,im here also.
A little twist. We know from reading the bible how God 'manufactured man'. Lets assumed its true. Man inturn manufactures cars, electronics etc from assemblying different parts to form a whole. Im asking cus i dont know if man can manufacture another man by assemblying different parts to form a full man with life like man did with cars,plane&other material things?

OMG. Is anyone watching CNN presently as at the last 15mins? Woo this is lovely. Becky anderson is granting a live interview with craig venter and another Oxford prof,who flawed craig completely.He described craig as a crafty business man in his presence,claiming the potential risk of what he did could wipe out more life than hes trying to create. Obama gave an order for investigation into what craig has done. Lets watch as things unfold. What craig did is a manipulation of an existing DNA. Hes yet to create human life from the scratch. Toba i also need anwsers to your question.

jesus.:

OMG. Is anyone watching CNN presently as at the last 15mins? Woo this is lovely. Becky anderson is granting a live interview with craig venter&another Oxford prof,who flawed craig completely.He described craig as a crafty business man in his presence,claiming the potential risk of what he did could wipe out more life than hes trying to create. Obama gave an order for investigation into what craig has done. Lets watch as things unfold. What craig did is a manipulation of an existing DNA. Hes yet to create human life from the scratch. Toba i also need anwsers to your question.

^^ Ouch! I missed - someone sms me a moment ago!

toba:

Since viaro is here,im here also.
A little twist. We know from reading the bible how God 'manufactured man'. Lets assumed its true. Man inturn manufactures cars, electronics etc from assemblying different parts to form a whole. Im asking cus i dont know if man can manufacture another man by assemblying different parts to form a full man with life like man did with cars,plane&other material things?

As far as it's a question of "assemblying different parts", it is not impossible to achieve, humanly speaking. In time to come, anything would be possible with researches in such endeavours as Synthetic Biology (here you can plough through the fields of genetic engineering and genetic recombination). Of course, this is not saying that "life" is thereby created from scratch entirely on its own. Just my two cents.

viaro:

As far as it's a question of "assemblying different parts", it is not impossible to achieve, humanly speaking. In time to come, anything would be possible with researches in such endeavours as Synthetic Biology (here you can plough through the fields of genetic engineering and genetic recombination). Of course, this is not saying that "life" is thereby created from scratch entirely on its own. Just my two cents.

Well since its no been done yet,we can only presume it. I also think that if scientist would assemble a human body,they should give the body a life from the scratch.Then will they be able to achieve the status of the one intelligent designer.Craig said i never created life from the scratch but worked with nature.Anyone that wants to play God should do better than Dr craig

Interesting read, Saw a report about it on the BBC new network during the day and read about it on the BBC new website. . . .The report says that it is only the genome the DNA in the cell that is entirely synthetic. They did use an existing cell as a template and as a recipient for their home-made DNA. So they did not create life, They actually did something spectacular and ground breaking. . . .

What Craig Venter and his team accomplished is remarkable. But the euphoria and crass sensationalism surrounding it are misplaced. Often in science, once a discovery leaves the laboratory or a scientific journal, it is exaggerated especially by the press to mean something the study is not. The public should rightly be suspicious of scientists who always rush to the press or dine and wine with the journalists. The discovery of Polymerase chain reaction and DNA sequencing made the discovery of Venter possible. What Venter team did is a scientific milestone but is not the creation of life. The team simply exploited the natural processes of DNA replication and transformation. Many biologists have been synthesizing small or large segments of the genome and use it for transformation, transfection, cloning or transgenenesis. What Venter team have done for the first time is that they managed to synthesize a whole genome and transformed a rebooted bacterium with it. If it is difficult to assemble and entire genome, it is even more difficult to assemble an entire rebooted bacterium from the scratch. By rebooted bacterium, I mean a bacteria cell that the DNA has been removed. The achieved the former but not the later and thus they have to use a naturally rebooted bacterium as a host for their synthetic genome. Maybe, this forum is not the place to point the benefits as well as the great dangers that arise from this sort of research. One thing however is certain, no responsible government or people should allow this type of research without very stringent regulation. Or else, the very technology will destroy us. The sequences of entire genomes  of  deadly pathogens are available on public databases and it takes just a little persistence by an evil minded scientist, a government interested in bio-weapons or a terrorist organization to replicate what Venter has done but not with a harmless bacterium but deadly pathogens. Craig Venter talks of the benefits, creating designer organisms to mob up pollution, clean blocked arteries or produce bio-fuels better than crude oil and solve the world energy problem etc. Yet he and his supporters should also inform people that the same technology can be used to genetically engineer more deadly smallpox virus, HIV, EBOLA or even a synthetic pathogen that has the virulence factors of all the deadly viruses combined.  The power locked in the DNA is actually more potent than that in the atom and thus genetic engineering need even more stringent regulation than atomic or nuclear research. Best Wishes.

At this juncture,i 2nd m_nwankwo that this thread isnt fit for the religion section. The theists&an atheist(mazaje) agrees to venter not creating a life from the scratch. Its pointless bothering ourselves more on it.

m_nwankwo:

What Craig Venter and his team accomplished is remarkable. But the euphoria and crass sensationalism surrounding it are misplaced.

It happens a lot these days - and, not only are the crass sensationalism and hype misplaced, they also tend to becloud the gist all the more so that serious issues are given far less consideration than they deserve.

m_nwankwo:
What Venter team did is a scientific milestone but is not the creation of life.

But who can blame this on Venter (not saying that you are blaming it on him)? I've been trying to see where he (and/or any member of his team) claimed directly or indirectly that he created "life". I think the media blew the whole thing out of proportion by trying to sell us their own hype.

m_nwankwo:
Maybe, this forum is not the place to point the benefits as well as the great dangers that arise from this sort of research.

Well, since the 'news', I've had very serious concerns (some of which have been encapsulated by more educated minds). A few of these concerns are reproduced below as harvested from ScienceNOW:

ScienceNow: from: pietro ramellini
Dear colleagues, here is a little bunch of questions. 

First, a biological question: what about the taxonomic position of your cells? Which species do they belong to? 

Then, a biophilosophical question. There are many definitions of life: according to which do you claim that your cells are alive? Take for instance Bedau's 1996 concept of supple adaptation: which is then the bearer of life, the single cell, the whole population, or both? And have you assessed whether your cells not only possess supple adaptability, but do actually exercise this capacity? 

Finally, a philosophical question. You consistently speak of the creation of a cell. Is the word 'creation' merely a rhetorical device to gain public attention, or do you really feel to have created a new entity (be it material like a cell or non-material like - as you write - DNA software), in the traditional reading of a 'creatio ex nihilo sui et subiecti'? 

References 
Bedau, M. A. 1996. The Nature of Life, 332-357. In: Boden, M. A. (ed.). The Philosophy of Artificial Life. Oxford, Oxford UP. 
Ramellini, P. 2006. Life and Organisms. Vatican City, LEV. 

Pietro Ramellini 
Pontifical University 'Regina Apostolorum' - Roma (Italia)

ScienceNow: from: Kevin

Also, what thought has been given to the possibility that this could evolve into something we can't control? The effect on ecosystems are unpredictable and possibly negative. What thought has been given to this?

You see, while there is a greater need than ever before to regulate these kinds of researches in the face of growing concerns about bioterrorism, etc., I think there are other deeper concerns besides - and these are exemplified by the bolded in the quotes above. Although not a scientist myself, I've always had this thought that messing with nature has huge adverse consequences, even though we quite often jubilate over man's seeming 'scientistic' triumphalism. The payoff maybe positive and beneficial on the one hand; yet, the 'payback' is not often within our control to contain.

m_nwankwo:
One thing however is certain, no responsible government or people should allow this type of research without very stringent regulation. Or else, the very technology will destroy us.

Precisely what everyone has been saying, touché.

m_nwankwo:
Craig Venter talks of the benefits, creating designer organisms to mob up pollution, clean blocked arteries or produce bio-fuels better than crude oil and solve the world energy problem etc. Yet he and his supporters should also inform people that the same technology can be used to genetically engineer more deadly smallpox virus, HIV, EBOLA or even a synthetic pathogen that has the virulence factors of all the deadly viruses combined.

To be fair, I think the Venter institute has shown such concerns as well:

JCVI.org:
Synthetic Genomics | Options for Governance

Overview

Synthetic genomics combines methods for the chemical synthesis of DNA with computational techniques to design it. These methods allow scientists and engineers to construct genetic material that would be impossible or impractical to produce using more conventional biotechnological approaches. For example, using synthetic genomics it is possible to design and assemble chromosomes, genes and gene pathways, and even whole genomes.

Scientists foresee many potential positive applications including new pharmaceuticals, biologically produced (“green”) fuels, and the possibility of rapidly generating vaccines against emerging microbial diseases.

However, as with many technologies, there is the potential for misuse and accidents. Finding ways to mitigate possible nefarious uses and to prevent accidents in the laboratories of legitimate users so that positive uses are not undercut is an important concern of scientists, governments, and a large variety of stakeholders.

This report is the result of a 20-month examination of the safety and security concerns posed by this new technology. Including the authors, a core group of 18 individuals with a wide range of expertise undertook three tasks: assess the current state of the technology, identify potential risks and benefits to society, and formulate options for its governance. The report discusses options that would help to enhance biosecurity, foster laboratory safety, and protect the communities and environment outside of laboratories. Three sets of options apply respectively to commercial firms that supply DNA; the oversight or regulation of DNA synthesizers and reagent used in synthesis; and the legitimate users of the technologies, such as university researchers.

http://www.jcvi.org/cms/research/projects/syngen-options/overview/

viaro:

@Kay 17,

Don't get so excited as to create unnecessary arguments - more so, if you have no clue what you want to argue. Point is, the work by Craig Venter does not prove anything about man being God, nor was it constructed to further atheistic arguments. Please take time to make some sense when you propose a thread.

DNA replication is NOT new! Nor has it been "impossible". Your statement simply shows that you just are not aware what you are talking about. If it is all about "replicating DNA", researchers are not strangers to such things. See:

I hope the above helps to clarify the issues you tend to think is new in terms of replicating DNA. You can see this also highlighted from the Associated Press excerpt below ["Scientists for years have moved single genes and even large chunks of DNA from one species to another"].

Besides, even if you want to argue your case from what was reported in the Guardian excerpt you made in the OP, it still does not lead to the idea that "life" was created entirely out of non-life. The difference is huge, and you only have to look carefully and read between the lines. Even though I'm not a scientist, at least there are certain highlights that we ought to take care to see that we don't push them for arguments that they don't make. Here are a few:

I don't claim to know much; but what are microbes if not some form of life? That says a lot in all this, as it would simply mean that Craig Venter took one "life form" and made it into another life form ("synthetic life form", if you may). If you leave out the sensationalism and misleading headlines, this does not argue at all that Venter created LIFE completely from non-life, does it? And if that is so, what is all the talk about "Man is God"?

In fact, what was Venter's pivotal point in his research? I don't know; but if we go by what you excerpted from the Guardian, he said:

There. The work is truly remarkable; but it is more about making changes in already existing life forms. It may help us all to try to keep things in their proper perspectives rather than snatching up reports here and there to make them into what they are not.

I don't have the time to shout (as they say), but others who are more knowledgeable have said it better than I'm trying to say. Here is one such, from Associated Press:

Perhaps for our readers' benefit, I shall try and repost the Associated Press article below.

With reference from my OP, i obviously meant "recreation", should have known better. nevertheless, it is criminal to downplay the importance and potential to our survival. Its a great breakthrough to man. Aso man has created in essence life. The actual beings would come later., the preserve of God to create life has being lost. and he himself is close to extinction.

Kay 17:

With reference from my OP, i obviously meant "recreation", should have known better. nevertheless, it is criminal to downplay the importance and potential to our survival. Its a great breakthrough to man. Aso man has created in essence life. The actual beings would come later., the preserve of God to create life has being lost. and he himself is close to extinction.

Just listen to ur self. U are one of those that believes in the non existence of God. how then can u compare man with something thats non existent? Also venter didnt create life from the scratch,but manipulated existing nature forms to bring out a new thing.

[size=13pt]<sup>Man is God. . . . .

well , that is no doubt--- MAN IS GOD but it look as if most people don't know this truth . Men Created Religion in the first day and also create the Imaginary deity to be the head of the world .</sup> [/size]