Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The latest WIRED magazine had some truly mind-boggling articles in this vein.

https://www.wired.com/story/synthetic-biology-vaccines-virus...

This guy (a renowned smallpox researcher) was able to synthesize a cousin of smallpox (horsepox) using commercially/publicly-accessible tools and resources. He did this to try and create a new/better smallpox vaccine, because he believes that motivated actors will be able to synthesize smallpox in the next 20 years, and that the world needs to be ready with better vaccines for the same. His team's resulting publication ("we made smallpox, this is the gist of how") was met with strongly negative responses.

The gist of these articles is that while synthesizing functioning viruses/microorganisms was possible in the past (TFA says the first "synthetic" organism was made in 2010), it's much easier/faster/cheaper to do so today, when crispr techniques/tools are more generally wielded and better-understood.

Cool/scary stuff!




"...because he believes that motivated actors will be able to synthesize smallpox in the next 20 years, and that the world needs to be ready..."

So the essence is "we are doing it first, becuase otherwise others will be doing it first"... So the race who will come first there continues... No (further) comment...


I'd be curious as to what the actual critics said. I would gather that it is (significantly) more nuanced than "you demonstrated that something dangerous can be created. You shouldn't be attempting to make dangerous things."


How is CRISPR used for genome synthesis? I thought it was all driven by synthesis, and overlapping homology of sticky ended fragments, and ligase, but maybe that's the old days.


It's not used for synthesis. It's very helpful for modifications of existing genomes, but it has no relevance in commercial DNA synthesis (which is a purely chemical process).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: