That strikes me as a very cogent observation. So, at a minimum -- even though creating such life is more than a decade off, technologically -- we should certainly at least pause long enough to have a principled discussion about benefit vs. risk. Let's listen in to the UK Guardian's deeply sourced article on it all:
. . .The fresh concerns over the technology are revealed in a 299-page report and a commentary in the journal Science. While enthusiastic about research on mirror molecules, the report sees substantial risks in mirror microbes and calls for a global debate on the work.
Beyond causing lethal infections, the researchers doubt the microbes could be safely contained or kept in check by natural competitors and predators. Existing antibiotics are unlikely to be effective, either.
“Unless compelling evidence emerges that mirror life would not pose extraordinary dangers, we believe that mirror bacteria and other mirror organisms, even those with engineered biocontainment measures, should not be created,” the authors write in Science.
“We therefore recommend that research with the goal of creating mirror bacteria not be permitted, and that funders make clear that they will not support such work.”
Dr Kate Adamala, a synthetic biologist at the University of Minnesota and co-author on the report, was working towards a mirror cell but changed tack last year after studying the risks in detail.
“We should not be making mirror life,” she said. “We have time for the conversation. And that’s what we were trying to do with this paper, to start a global conversation. . . .”
Onward then to a nice night out, with old friends -- of a city-dinner / dessert / hot coffee -- and several art shows, over on South Michigan, at Columbia. Smile.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment