Just implement a nice kill-switch, then everything'll be fine
Posted 02.08.2011 at 11:10 am
11 Comments
Space Invaders
Synthetic organisms like those proposed by Darpa's BioDesign project would be equipped with a self-destruct option, but there is no guarantee they wouldn't escape, mutate, and mate
Jamie Sneddon
Leave it to Darpa, the Pentagon’s advanced-research arm, to bring synthetic biology to a new level of creepiness. For 2011, Darpa has dedicated $6 million to a new program called BioDesign, which according to the agency’s budget is an attempt to eliminate “the randomness of natural evolutionary advancement” and create synthetic organisms for specific functions—for instance, microorganisms that clean up oil spills or skin cells that an army medic could use to repair injuries. The twist: Darpa wants organisms “that could ultimately be programmed to live indefinitely.” Just in case, they would be equipped with a “self-destruct” option.
But the self-destruct function, which should destroy the cells at a predetermined time or when they left their intended environment, has rarely been tested outside of a lab. There’s no way to limit a cell’s interaction with other cells or with its environment. There’s no guarantee that the cells won’t mutate or replicate incorrectly; synthetic skin cells, for example, could reproduce out of control, causing a cancer-like tumor.
Nor is there any way to ensure that these synthetic organisms won’t share genetic material with organisms in the environment, giving rise to who knows what kind of microbes. “Engineers hope that they can engineer organisms that are going to behave in a way they predict,” says David J.J. Gresham, an assistant professor of biology at New York University. “But as soon as they put it into some selective environment, evolution is going to take over.”
Immortal bacteria and unstoppable flu viruses may not be imminent, but the potential for Darpa’s synthetic DNA to work its way into other organisms is very real. “DNA transfers from one microorganism to another happen all the time,” says Roy Curtiss, the director of the Center for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology at Arizona State University. “Worst-case scenario?” says Todd Kuiken, a researcher from the Synthetic Biology Project, an independent study group. “The kill switch doesn’t work, and then these things start mutating and mating and splitting—the normal process of an organism.” Or the kill switch could work too well: Imagine if a kill-switch-equipped organism managed to form hybrids with microbes essential to the oceanic food chain, triggering a widespread die-off. The consequences could make an oil spill look good.
How We Can Do Better
There’s no stopping synthetic biology, but the research community needs checks and balances. As bioethicists Mildred K. Cho and David A. Relman have argued, designing “effective oversight mechanisms” will be challenging, but essential.
Also, What Could Possibly Go Wrong with
11 Comments
To comment, please Login.
Popular Tags
Science
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 2013: American Energy Independence
Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.
Popular on Popsci
Most Commented
Science
- Scientists Create First Cloned Human Embryo
- State Drops Charges Against High School Student Arrested For Science Experiment
- Dear Schools: Stop Treating Science-Curious Kids Like Criminals
- Mexican Cartels Control Pot Farms As Far North As Washington State
- Buzz Aldrin Wants To Send People On A One-Way Trip To Mars
- Giving White People The Illusion Of Darker Skin Makes Them Less Racist
- What Modern Humans Can Learn From The Neanderthals' Extinction
- Space Tourism's Black Carbon Problem
- Untouched For The Last Billion Years, Water In Canadian Mine Holds Ingredients For Life
- How Do You Make A Painkiller Addiction-Proof?
Most Emailed
Science
- Huge Tornado Flattens Towns Near Oklahoma City [Updated]
- Number Of Published Cancer Studies That Can't Be Reproduced Is Shockingly High
- IMDB's Greatest Movies Ever, Beautifully Organized By Genre [Infographic]
- Giant Carnivorous Plant Found In Silicon Valley
- Candy Totally Won't Make You Fat, Says Study Funded By Big Candy
- How Science Got The 'Crack Baby' Epidemic So Wrong
- FYI: Can A Bionic Eye See As Well As A Human Eye?
- Navy Dolphins Searching For Mines Uncover Sunken 19th Century Torpedo
- Spring 2012 Was The Earliest On Record
- FYI: Do Parasites Get Parasites?
Most Viewed
Science
- Huge Tornado Flattens Towns Near Oklahoma City [Updated]
- Number Of Published Cancer Studies That Can't Be Reproduced Is Shockingly High
- IMDB's Greatest Movies Ever, Beautifully Organized By Genre [Infographic]
- Giant Carnivorous Plant Found In Silicon Valley
- Candy Totally Won't Make You Fat, Says Study Funded By Big Candy
- How Science Got The 'Crack Baby' Epidemic So Wrong
- FYI: Can A Bionic Eye See As Well As A Human Eye?
- Navy Dolphins Searching For Mines Uncover Sunken 19th Century Torpedo
- Spring 2012 Was The Earliest On Record
- FYI: Do Parasites Get Parasites?
Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email
Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email
Today on PopSci.com
Copyright © 2012 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Not to nitpick.. but DARPA is an acronym for "Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency" (DARPA) and needs to be in all caps.
It would be like itsy bitsy robots.
Kind of makes one pine for more safe "Mad Scientists" science experiments like creating black holes in a particle accelerator. Now that's FUN!
Robot Betty9
http://www.robots-and-androids.com
Time to call in the Blade Runners! - “This isn't called execution. It's called retirement.”
Yet another great premise for another zombie movie. If DNA can swap easily with another animal's DNA, wouldn't people find this to be a great risk? Is it possible that some of this could mix with us? If DARPA's working on a better defense strategy I'd say they should probably stop messing with this one. Sounds to me like they'll create more problems then they can fix.
http://www.joesid.com - Where 3D meets Flash
Microbes are already immortal, and you can't prevent evolution. Sounds like they don't know what they're talking about.
Nature has proven time and again that immortality is a BAD thing (unless you're one of those tardigrade things...but they're too awesome to count). Immortal cells leave an organism vulnerable to being selected out by evolution--if you never die, you don't have to worry about competition, which cancels out all evolutionary effects (except slight mutations in offspring, which are very ineffective compared to "OMG, THIS KILLZ YOUZ" mutations :P ).
@Solace: You're right about "preventing evolution" being futile, but microbes are not immortal. What gave you that idea?
-IMP ;) :)
Well,let's see.
There is known fatalities in developing nanotech.
But, as for the human condition, there is inadequate thirst response, lack of ability to store Vit C, stress that depletes the adrenals leading to the now infamous inflammation that seems to be behind every illness. I suspect an 'effective' kill switch could not exist in as much as we are a product of catastrophic advance and live briefly but reproduce phenomenally well. Sex may be the catastrophic development that led to mixing genes as to produce a more varied choice of mutations in spite of the high cost.
They should have a chat with Ian Malcolm...
Looks like Raccoon City has been busy......
Don't take life too seriously! You'll never get out of it alive.
-Elbert Hubbard
The solution is fairly simple - "template rendering". Template nodes are constructed with the "DNA" of the organism, and only via the template can new organisms be produced. The template is hard-coded - the genetic code itself does not replicate, it is fixed, and the integrity can be guaranteed via checksum routines upon checksum routines if such is desired. The husk of the organism would "copy" the hard-coded genetic sequence from the template node only - it would not be capable of getting its genetic instruction from any other source, and could very easily be designed to become inert or even to decay into its component parts if the checksum routine fails to validate it.
So long as the organisms aren't fully self-replicating and are dependant upon the node & surviving a checksum, it's foolproof.
I like this series, "What could possibly go wrong." What a great idea. And fortunately, or unfortunately, you won't run out of things to talk about these days.