|
|
Presentation on In Vitro Molecular
Biology 3/5/03
Creating "Life" in a Test
Tube
Kimberley, Michael, LeRoy, Naomi, Greg
Using available sequence data a polio virus was created from
scratch. What does this mean in terms of other viruses or
organisms being created in the same way? Craig Venter has
also proposed using a similar idea to create new bacteria
which could be used to generate hydrogen fuel.
Articles of interest:
Dangerous Virus made from mail-order kits. Should this
have been done? Cell News, October, 2002. http://www.geocities.com/giantfideli/cellnews_dangerous_virus_made_from_mail-order_kits.html
Genome man to create new life. BBC News, November,
2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/2499119.stm
1. Key issues and ethical problems:
- Creating life can be done by the piecing together of
the correct genetic sequences in an appropriate
environment. This is difficult and seems to only be a
viable method for creating organisms with very small
genomes i.e.: viruses or bacteria.
- There are ethical problems such as if the information
of sequences is available can our enemies use such
technology to create viruses to use for bioterrorism?
Should then this sequence data be restricted in terms of
public access? If so, who would monitor what is safe,
and how would research be hindered? Furthermore, if it
can be, done does information restriction really help us
at this point or do we need to keep things available to
help ensure we can find ways to respond to bioterrorist
threats?
- There is also the ethical issue for many that man has
no right to be creating "new" life, that it is God's
work.
- Lastly, we need to consider what benefits may be
gained by this technological capability.
2. Background inforomation:
- How difficult is this process molecularly and just
what kind of viruses or "life" could be created? Only
things with small genomes such as bacteria and viruses,
although perhaps bacteria would largely just be a
considerable genetic modification rather than created
completely de novo as the polio virus was.
- Where should the line be drawn between the right to
information exchange and the need to protect the public
from such information? All sequence inforomation isn't
"evil" so where can the line be drawn?
- What benefits are potentially gained? If in fact we
could create bacteria that pose no risk to humans or the
environment, but they could help to generate fuel or be
used for cleaning up the environment is it really bad?
There are lots of ways in which bacteria are utilized for
industrial and bioremediation purposes and they have
worked quite well. We already try to use viruses without
the virulence genes to create vaccines, so is being able
to create one de novo all that different from
where we have been in terms of being able to modify
what's already there?
- Is there any way to really prevent viruses from being
created? For example, even if we went to the extreme and
abolished all sequence information on the web for public
access it doesn't mean that the information cannot be
gathered from other resources or privately funded
research. Limiting sequence data for extremely dangerous
pathogens such as small pox is comforting, but people can
do their own sequencing as well.
- We can make stock houses report what they sell if the
sequence may be suspicious, or not sell particular oligos
with a potential connection to very dangerous pathogens,
but not only is this a slippery slope, but we cannot
police other countries and we might not be able to
enforce local restrictions either.
3. Experts:
a. Someone who can represent the
benefits of such work.
b. Someone who can represent the risks of such
work, especially in terms of what kinds of bioweapons or
health threats could be created.
c. Someone to look at the laws and see if we
need to place stricter regulations or it its even
possible with the current infrastructure and budget.
4. Values:
- Is it okay to create life? We have already been
engineering vectors and such for some time, so what is
the distinction here?
- Is the value of scientific advancement high enough to
accept the inherent risks that may accompany it?
- Is there a tendency for the public to overreact
because they don't understand all the details? Opinions
on some post-your-thoughts sites seem to regard sequence
data on the web as being analogous to posting
instructions on how to build a pipe bomb.
5. Possible Solutions:
- Try to find a way to set up watch dogs with regard to
data or supplies for potentially dangerous purposes.
This means making sure that something virulent like the
data for small pox remains protected.
- Make sure that if bacteria are created for
technological solutions that they are in fact incapable
of surviving outside of their narrowly controlled
environment, they do not have any virulence, and that
they will indeed serve a legitimate purpose before being
made.
- Try to educate the public about anything made, and
all aspects of it, to prevent panic where it is not
necessary and address concerns when necessary.
6. Organization of decision making process:
- Government agencies and organizations such as WHO,
CDC, USAMRIID need to be capable of safeguarding info and
deciding what access to it is permissible.
- Perhaps a panel of appropriately knowledgeable
individuals can decide on policy for sales of oligos and
tools to help safeguard, if this is really even
feasible.
- As a society we need to know what the dangers are and
have people working to find solutions to bioterrorism
before it happens. We've probably already past the point
of no return and we should realize this and try to seek
solutions.
..
|
|