SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Genome writing project aims to rally scientists around virus-proofing cells
Launched in 2016 with the sprawling ambition to build large genomes, the synthetic biology initiative known as Genome Project–write (GP-write) is now, slowly, getting down to specifics. Ahead of a meeting today in Boston, GP-write's leadership announced a plan to organize its international group of collaborators around a "community-wide project": engineering cells to resist viral infection.
GP-write's original proposal to design and assemble an entire human genome from scratch seems to have receded from view since the project's rocky launch, when a private meeting of its founders sparked accusations of secrecy and speculations about labmade humans. A proposal published weeks later in Science described GP-write as a decadelong effort to reduce by more than 1000-fold the cost of engineering and testing large genomes consisting of hundreds of millions of DNA letters.
The narrower project announced today—redesigning the genomes of cells from humans and other species to make them "ultrasafe"—represents "a theme that could run through all of GP-write," says geneticist Jef Boeke of New York University Langone Medical Center in New York City, who leads the project along with Harvard University geneticist George Church, lawyer Nancy Kelley of Nancy J Kelley + Associates in New York City, and biotechnology catalyst Andrew Hessel of the San Francisco, California–based software company Autodesk Research.
Previously: Genome Project-Write To Attempt Synthesis of Human Genomes
Genome Project-write Still Looking for Funding
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Hartree on Monday May 14 2018, @05:56PM (10 children)
This idea's been around since at least the mid 1980s that I know about. You encrypt your DNA (or at least change the coding) and then use modified ribosomes to read it. All existing virii then cease working. If you make the encoding individual, you both keep new ones from springing up (as they can't spread) and put a certain amount of security on your genome from being rewritten without your consent. Of course if someone gets your particular coding they can engineer a bug specifically for you, but if they wanted you that bad, it'd be easier just to hunt you down and shoot you. ;)
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Monday May 14 2018, @06:06PM (2 children)
That sounds like something that would kill you during the transition from natural to modified.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday May 14 2018, @11:06PM (1 child)
It was conceptual rather than planned out in detail when it was talked about. There was a lot of noodling arund with the idea of: If you can control matter very accurately on small scales, what could you do with it? Usually it was in the vein of Drexlerian nanotech or similar.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday May 15 2018, @12:13AM
If you can control matter on that level, you can use nanobots to cure diseases, destroy bacteria and viruses, and treat aging. No need to "encrypt the genome".
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nobu_the_bard on Monday May 14 2018, @07:02PM (1 child)
That sounds really cool, but only just on this side of possible compared to faster-than-light engines, teleportation, and telepathy.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday May 14 2018, @11:03PM
It was in the technically possible but questionable if it could ever be feasible category. Many of the ideas the current crop of silicon valley transhumanists talk about actually date back to the 80s.
Much of this was along the lines of assuming you have control of matter at very small scales and then imagining what you could do with it. The archives of the Extropians, >H, and transhuman tech mailing lists are full of a lot of such ideas. Often from the people who originated them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Monday May 14 2018, @07:11PM (4 children)
Seems risky.
There's a lot of beneficial viruses as well. Google them.
Plus, encrypted DNA pretty much assures you no offspring. Sorry honey, I just couldn't break through your encryption. I'm leaving you.
These guys seem to confuse computer drag-and-drop skills with actual living entities.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 14 2018, @08:19PM (2 children)
You procreate before doing that, obviously. Maybe store some of your biodata for emergency "need more babies" button. Assuming the idea ever gets close to anything resembling reality.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday May 14 2018, @08:31PM (1 child)
So don't forget to generate your Revocation Certificates. And store them in the proverbial safe place. Got it.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday May 14 2018, @11:16PM
Believe me, CALEA (cryptographic access for law enforcement agencies) was an anathema to the people thinking about this. ;)
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Monday May 14 2018, @11:13PM
It was at the idea level rather than planned out to the clinical trial stage. ;)
But, it's not hard to figure out how to get around that. If the encryption is reversible, you both decrypt the DNA you're providing, combine them and then re-encrypt with a new cypher for the offspring. Obviously, it's more involved than the drunken one night stand that's resulted in so many unintended love children. These were largely thought experiments along the lines of: What could we do if we had Drexlerian nanotech.
There were similar ideas of genetic and morphological freedom where you could have much greater control over your own genes and physical form. And then we can get into the ideas of instead of AI, IA or intelligence amplification. Just imagine what you could do with the exact numerical capability of several high end graphics cards wired into your noggin. ;)