[LINK] o/t: synthetic-biology

[stephen at melbpc.org.au]

Jim writes,

>> A new Black Death gene anyone .. with NO known natural genetic
>> defences?
> 
> Careful inspection of epidemiological evidence suggests that the Black
> Death was, in fact, a viral hemorrhagic fever, not the bacterial bubonic
> plague.  This group of viral diseases includes Ebola. See, eg,
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/may/16/health.books  


Yes, thanks Jim .. and, certainly, your biology is up-to-date :) Maybe
i should have referenced, for kiddie-created bacterial concerns, for eg,
wheat rust (we're only coming to terms with now) or maybe potato blight?

www.scidev.net/en/news/egypt-s-rust-resistant-wheat-ripe-for-testing.html
(6th Jan, 2010 ... [CAIRO] Egypt is ready to test new varieties of wheat 
resistant to a lethal rust, with a series of pilot projects set to launch 
countrywide..)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0210/1224264113217.html
(10th Feb 2010 [IRELAND] THE POTATO crop is under severe threat once 
again from blight with the emergence of a new strain of the fungus Blue 
13 which has arrived here from Britain where it was first detected in 
2005..)

But, the point is, and as even the quite effusive New York times report
notes, and you agree .. unregulated teenage-gene-kiddies are a BAD idea!


Btw and just taking advantage of the off-topic synthetic-biology subject
line .. one notes DR WHO has died (gasp!) and, is regenerating next week, 
Rose (Billie Piper Hanna/Belle) is back (rah!) also back is Davros & his
evil Daleks (boo!) Personally, I won't miss the current Doctor/Time-Lord,
he seems very light-weight to me, but, soo glad to see dear Rose and the 
original (four) Daleks again. (Exterminate, Exterminate! etc, apparently 
voiced through the original ring modulator). Now, just hope Jeremy & the
boys are up-to-speed, literally, in the new series of Top Gear tomorrow!

Cheers,
Stephen


> This is good news, perhaps.  There is a range of effective treatments
> for bacterial infections (despite some problems with antibiotic
> resistance arising from overuse) and significant scope for more as
> molecular biology develops.  More generally, bacteria are highly
> specific to their environment.  In doesn't matter what genes you add to
> a bacterium that attacks plants, you won't make something can infect and
> kill mammals.  The bacteria would require an enormous number of specific
> changes to attack such a different type of host.  It's like expecting a
> label printer to do GPS location because it's an electronic gadget. (In
> fact, this would be many orders of magnitude easier to arrange.) I think
> we can presume that these gene kiddies won't be working with anything
> remotely dangerous to humans.
> 
> Viruses are much tougher targets.  This is partly because their modus
> operandi is the clever co-option of the normal cellular activity of
> their host.  OTOH a virus is up against it's limited genome size, so
> mutations that improve one function, say a better transmission
> mechanism, will likely reduce other capabilities, like its ability to
> evade the host immune system.  That's why the bird flu mutation risk
> was/is considered overblown by many virologists.  Again, let's not get
> kids onto viruses that target mammal/human cells, but realistically it's
> unlikely that you will make a doomsday virus by accident.  It's like the
> threat that back holes created in a collider would suck in the earth: if
> it was possible, then statistically, it would have already happened.
> 
> Jim
> 


Message sent using MelbPC WebMail Server