May 20, 2010, it is the day that would be remembered forever as scientists announced that they have successfully created first artificial life in the history of human being on this day. It is the production of a living cell powered by man-made DNA. The inventors (Dr. Venter and team) call it the world's first synthetic cell, although this initial step is more a re-creation of existing life which is changing one simple type of bacterium into another — than a built-from-scratch kind.
The breakthrough could be a step toward creating artificial microorganisms that observers say might be used for such purposes as absorbing greenhouse gases or developing vaccines and fuel.
They, however, have also expressed concerns that the research could result in the production of hazardous life forms or biological weapons and many more to come which would be a big threat to humanity.
"It's the first self-replicating cell on the planet that's parent is a computer," says Venter, referring to the fact that his team converted a cell's genome that existed as data on a computer into a living organism. Dr. Venter has a reputation as a maverick, having raced the federal government to map the human genome and finishing in a tie in 2000.
How was it formed?
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 had 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 project was delayed for three months till they found that a typo in the genetic code, in one of the synthetic genome's million chemical base pairs, was rendering the man-made DNA inactive and restore that bit.
“It shows you how accurate it has to be, one letter out of a million,” Dr. Venter said
Finally that fixed 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.
Scientists for years have moved single genes and even large chunks of DNA from one species to another. Dr. 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.
The cost of creating life was about $40 million. Hmmm.. Cheap for a deity, but very expensive for a lab scientist looking to create own synthetic bacterium. "This does not look like the sort of thing that's going to be doable by your average lab in the near future," Ellington says.
Expected Applications of The Synthetic Cell:
"If we can really get cells to do the production that we want, they could help wean us off oil and reverse some of the damage to the environment by capturing carbon dioxide." Dr. Venter and his colleagues are already collaborating with pharmaceutical and fuel companies to design and develop chromosomes for bacteria that would produce useful fuels and new vaccines.
For every discovery and invention, with its blessing to the human being, bears the threat.
Some experts think artificial life is a threat to humanity and the environment, recalling genetically modified plants and synthetic chemicals. These discoveries can be used by military men and terrorists, they say.
Certainly such experiments should be treated with caution but not with panic, believes a bioethics researcher Irina Siluyanova.
On his weblog, bioethics specialist Wesley Smith described it as "a remarkable achievement, and one that needs to be very carefully controlled because of the potential havoc it could cause.... [F]or now, it seems to me the primary concern is safety and the need to protect the environment. But we had better start thinking about how to regulate the technology. The last thing we need is a synthetic life wild, wild west."
"If it is used toward the good, to treat pathologies, we can only be positive" in evaluating its effect, Rino Fisichella told Italy's government-run television, according to the Associated Press. "If it turns out not to be ... useful to respect the dignity of the person, then our judgment would change.
"We look at science with great interest," he said. "But we think above all about the meaning that must be given to life. We can only reach the conclusion that we need God, the origin of life”.
Dr Helen Wallace from Genewatch UK, an organisation that monitors developments in genetic technologies, told BBC News that synthetic bacteria could be dangerous. "By releasing them into areas of pollution, (even though with the aim of cleaning it up), you're actually releasing a new kind of pollution.” She adds.
It’s just because we don’t know how these organisms will behave in new environment.
The risks are unparalleled; we need safety evaluation for this kind of radical research and protections from military or terrorist misuse .
Discoveries aimed at improving organisms, modeling features of the human body and mind, are dangerous, and may have negative aftermaths. Their further implementation should be controlled by society and laws and such experiments shouldn’t violate ethical norms.
Any good discovery can be abused, like nuclear energy. Who knew the result of nuclear energy during its invention, till it was tested in World War II? Venter’s discovery can lead to creation of smart microorganisms and who knows their effect. I would say we need to learn from the history. Formula to any wrong person could even cost this world and all lives.
New and unknown discoveries are still perceived with caution and their implementation will depend on how people will use it. So, yes creation of synthetic cell has actually marked an epoch in the human history but the question is where would be the world after this? Where the world would be leading in this period? Everything depends how it is used and of course who uses this and for what purpose it is used.
