At the Harvard Medical Schoool, "about 150 scientists, lawyers and entrepreneurs" gathered in a closed-door meeting to discuss an incipient initiative called "HGP-Write: Testing Large Synthetic Genomes in Cells." The proposed project was originally to be called "HGP2: The Human Genome Synthesis Project"; "HGP" is an abbreviation for the Human Genome Project. The synthesis of long DNA sequences, possibly but not necessarily of human origin, is the stated goal.
Coverage:
related story:
Scientists Create Independent Synthetic Cell With Smallest Known Genome
Further information:
biography of Dr. George M. Church
biography of Dr. Jef D. Boeke
Related Stories
Scientists from the J. Craig Venter Institute have created a new synthetic organism with the least amount of genes seemingly possible needed to live independently. Almost a third of the organism's genes are of unknown function:
In 2010 the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) shocked the scientific world by creating the first synthetic cell, Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0, which contained slightly over 1 million base pairs and 901 genes. This was a significant achievement in the field of synthetic biology and allowed scientists to ask questions about which genes and metabolic pathways were absolutely essential for sustaining organismal life processes. Yet, the researchers felt they could improve upon their original design and strip away even more genes without compromising the cell's overall health.
Now, the team of scientists from JCVI that were involved with version 1.0 teamed up with researchers from Synthetic Genomics (SGI) to assemble the first minimal synthetic bacterial cell, which they dubbed JCVI-syn3.0. Using JCVI-syn1.0 as a template, the investigators created an organism that has almost half the number of base pairs (531,560) of the original and a total of 473 genes, making it the smallest genome of any organism that can be grown in laboratory media. Astonishingly, of these genes, 149 are of unknown biological function.
Also at The Washington Post , The Atlantic , BBC News, and Scientific American .
Here's a story about the "artificial life" breakthrough from 2010.
Design and synthesis of a minimal bacterial genome (open, DOI: 10.1126/science.aad6253)
2010 article: Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome (open, DOI: 10.1126/science.1190719)
Researchers have a plan to link together chunks of synthetic DNA, making a researcher-created human genome that can control a cell in a lab dish. This, the 25 researchers advocating it in an open-access Science paper say, will be called Human Genome Project-Write. That's in contrast with the first HGP, completed in stages earlier in this century, which they call Human Genome Project-Read. Find a list of the "stepping stone" projects the researchers are proposing at GEN.
The paper is in a way an outcome of the "secret" meeting about synthesizing whole genomes held at Harvard a few weeks ago. The meeting got unsecret quickly, making a splash in the mainstream media. In The Conversation, Harvard grad student Jeff Bessen tried to explain why the meeting was secret. Essentially Science's fault, he implied. According to the very high-profile George Church, a host of the meeting and an author of the paper, the editors had asked for a revision that took account of the "ethical, social, and legal components of synthesizing genomes." That made it impossible for the paper to appear at the time of the meeting, and secrecy was required because of the journal's embargo policy.
The published paper spends exactly one sentence on ethical, social, and legal issues.
As the not-quite-secret meeting was taking place, Stanford synthetic biologist Drew Endy and Northwestern bioethicist Laura Zoloth blasted it in a post in COSMOS, saying, "When the first people at the table mostly have significant and direct material interests in proceeding, everyone, not just those in the room, risk out-of-control competition between public and private interests, ethical conflicts of interest, and temptations to manipulate human subject consent."
One of these confabs holds greater menace for mankind. Which?
Related:
Project to Synthesise Genes Mooted
Genome Project-Write To Attempt Synthesis of Human Genomes
New Natural Selection: How Scientists Are Altering DNA to Genetically Engineer New Forms of Life
Before human beings wrote books or did math or composed music, we made leather. There is evidence hunter-gatherers were wearing clothes crafted from animal skins hundreds of thousands of years ago, while in 2010 archaeologists digging in Armenia found what they believed to be the world's oldest leather shoe, dating back to 3,500 B.C. (It was about a women's size 7.) For a species sadly bereft of protective fur, being able to turn the skin of cows or sheep or pigs into clothing with the help of curing and tanning would have been a lifesaving advance, just like other vital discoveries Homo sapiens made over the course of history: the development of grain crops like wheat, the domestication of food animals like chickens, even the all-important art of fermentation. In each case, human beings took something raw from the natural world—a plant, an animal, a microbe—and with the ingenuity that has enabled us to dominate this planet, turned it into a product.
[...] Modern Meadow's microbes can produce collagen much faster than it would take to raise a cow or sheep from birth, and the company can work with brands to design entirely new materials from the cell level up. "It's biology meets engineering," says Andras Forgacs, the co-founder and CEO of Modern Meadow. "We diverge from what nature does, and we can design it and engineer it to be anything we want."\
That is the promise of synthetic biology, a technology that is poised to change how we feed ourselves, clothe ourselves, fuel ourselves—and possibly even change our very selves. While scientists have for decades been able to practice basic genetic engineering—knocking out a gene or moving one between species—and more recently have learned to rapidly read and sequence genes, now researchers can edit genomes and even write entirely original DNA. That gives scientists incredible control over the fundamental code that drives all life on Earth, from the most basic bacterium to, well, us. "Genetic engineering was like replacing a red light bulb with a green light bulb," says James Collins, a biological engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of synthetic biology's early pioneers. "Synthetic biology is introducing novel circuitry that can control how the bulbs turn off and on."
The article discusses a number of topics, including microbe-grown collagen for leather, Genome Project-write, synthetic cells, a company using yeast to make perfumes and other products, and the falling (but still high) cost of DNA synthesis.
Related: Project to Synthesise Genes Mooted
Scientists Engineer First Semisynthetic Organism With Three-base-pair DNA
Scientists Create Independent Synthetic Cell With Smallest Known Genome
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:41PM
Couldn't figure out the title. Sold the site to a dude in Japan who owns a competitor? Made irrelevant by passage of time?
Then I pulled up the linked article.
Scientists Talk Privately ...
I see the problem. The word you're looking for is "muted" as in silenced. Not Mooted as in banned people on 4chan or sold your lifes work website or whatever.
So the point is the dudes didn't see much point in publicity or letting the rabble interrupt. Frankly they're probably correct. The opinion of a religious leader, a conspiracy theorist, or a vote grubbing politician is pretty irrelevant to the topic but "playing god with DNA" would be like a moth to flame for some who add no content or clarity but lots of heat and noise.
Its good that they're keeping out the rabble, as long as they release the results and maybe meeting minutes.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Nerdfest on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:46PM
No, mooted is the proper word, and actually used correctly in this case if I remember correctly, which is rare. "Moot" seems to be used incorrectly most of the time, much like "literally" has been.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:55PM
Moot is a term that seems to be nearly exclusive to headline writers. I can't remember the last time I heard a non-media person even utter it.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday May 15 2016, @06:16PM
I rarely hear "mooted" these days, but hear "moot point" fairly often, generally to describe a point that it not worth arguing over, where the real meaning is pretty much the opposite.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 16 2016, @12:34AM
You mean... moo point? Like in cow's opinion [youtu.be]?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Sunday May 15 2016, @03:58PM
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mooted [merriam-webster.com]
Simple Definition of moot
: to introduce (an idea, subject, etc.) for discussion
If you're going to be a pedant, try to be correct. We have a variety of fine dictionaries available online to assist your exploration of vocabulary. Don't be like that one user.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday May 15 2016, @08:01PM
Thank you. That's the meaning I intended.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @04:33PM
Entmoot?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by captain normal on Sunday May 15 2016, @05:04PM
Mute or moot is irrelevant. As for keeping the rabble out, There are plenty of scientists who question the apparent direction of this conference.
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_29890402/critics-attack-harvards-secret-meeting-human-genome-synthesis [mercurynews.com]
Among the comments in that article:
"Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, said: "If these reports are accurate, the meeting looks like a move to privatize the current conversation about heritable genetic modification."
"Endy and Northwestern University bioethicist Laurie Zoloth said human genome synthesis is a scientific development with enormous moral implications, so discussions "should not occur in closed rooms."
"Endy, an associate professor of bioengineering at Stanford, is one of the leaders in the field of synthetic biology. His work has shaped and propelled the development of the field. He co-founded the MIT Synthetic Biology working group, organized the first International Conference on Synthetic Biology and is president of the BioBricks Foundation, a nonprofit organization founded to ensure that the emerging field would serve the public interest."
"If you need secrecy to discuss your proposed research ... you are doing something wrong."
"(Drew) Endy, an associate professor of bioengineering at Stanford, is one of the leaders in the field of synthetic biology. His work has shaped and propelled the development of the field. He co-founded the MIT Synthetic Biology working group, organized the first International Conference on Synthetic Biology and is president of the BioBricks Foundation, a nonprofit organization founded to ensure that the emerging field would serve the public interest."
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Sunday May 15 2016, @08:32PM
Never read Tolkein? The Ent Moot was most certainly not about a bunch of sentient beings deciding to sit quietly and take no action due to their muted response. Far from it.
I wouldn't have considered the past tense to be Mooted, but it works. I wouldn't have considered to have used the word moot in the past tense, either, but that'd be what the Ents had done, were they to have had a moot previously. If they decided to just enjoy the company of one another silently, or just chose to go ahead and get things over with without much in the way of discussion, then it'd have been a muted moot, despite the attenuating circumstances...
Or you could say that their murmuring method of melodious messaging meant more meliflous means of middle-earth middle-of-the-book tower-topography toppling. It was not a mute moot; and the hobbits joined them on the commute!
Others may have stated it already, but even if the scientist responses were subdued, they were not mute. The gathering of them was indeed a moot, although I would have to think that most people are unfamiliar with the term. Most of the definitions of Moot on dictionary.com would apply in any of the contexts that I could apply to the gathering of scientists; I don't see any problem with the headline aside from it being more difficult for some of the readers to understand due to a lack of familiarity with the terminology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15 2016, @06:48PM
So it was irrelevant? Did they babble on about significant p-values and how replication studies are a waste of money? To be fair though, making money off some health related idea is a much lower bar than actually having something that works. So if the former is their goal, they may succeed.