BBC News - Newsnight - Venter: Artificial living cell will benefit humanity

I am very interested in this new science and engineering feat. How would new microbial systems be unethical or bad for our ecosystem?

Dr. Venter says that there is no harm that could come if the technology were to fall into the wrong hands. Does this mean that there would be no harm for anyone with the right equipment to experiment with this technology in the comfort and privacy of their own home? I would love to be able to synthesis my own one celled organisms and watch them through a microsope, that would just be amazing.

They have modified it and what does this modification do exactly? Does it look that very diferent to the original ? Does it act in manner that gives us a clue to its purpose? Im bewildered.

Dr. Venter says that there is no harm that could come if the technology were to fall into the wrong hands. Does this mean that there would be no harm for anyone with the right equipment to experiment with this technology in the comfort and privacy of their own home?

One thing I could see this being used for is reconstructing human forms using DNA of celebrities like Albert Einstein. Of course the religious fanatics will raise a ruckus saying that he has no soul. That it is just a vessel with no inhabitant. Maybe it would give Albert's soul a place to return, who knows.

BBC News - Newsnight - Venter: Artificial living cell will benefit humanity

I am very interested in this new science and engineering feat. How would new microbial systems be unethical or bad for our ecosystem?

Dr. Venter says that there is no harm that could come if the technology were to fall into the wrong hands. Does this mean that there would be no harm for anyone with the right equipment to experiment with this technology in the comfort and privacy of their own home? I would love to be able to synthesis my own one celled organisms and watch them through a microsope, that would just be amazing.

I am not a fanatic, not even slightly but I believe in the possibility of a soul. Why bring a man back from the dead, when his term has been served. It begs the question , would he choose to do so and can you give him his life experiences. We are all more than flesh and blood. God for me is an irritation ,of mans invention but im sure my soul has no intention of returning to a copy of my physical identity.

Well first of all, not everyone holds your point of view, so you can't understand a persons motivation because of the point of view you hold. For others it would be a whole different outlook.

Secondly, these experiments have absolutely nothing to do with copying a person. So I think it is bad to speculate on these grounds, and it gives these experiments a bad reputation even though they are not conducted so that we can copy humans.

The whole point in these experiments is to be able to create organisms that will replace our sources of resources and also help create methods to clean up the environment. Anything from bacteria that will consume carbon dioxide or produce forms of alcohol that can be converted into fuels. The only thing they are limited by is their imagination at this point. However; when people speculate on stuff that they have no intentions with it puts a bad outlook on the project. These experiments have a chance at saving the planet, they shouldn't be shadowed by ignorant speculation.

"like you have in your cell phone, but they will be built by cellular organisms. Block by block piece by piece the little cells will build it like little slaves"
-Lazymon

Isn't that statement itself unethical? Just making a little funny here because this discussion has taken an interesting turn. I do agree though, how cool would it be to have our electronics powered by life itself.

I also read up on this after seeing the news. A lot of scientists are worried that this breakthrough will be leaked some how and will lead to bio-terrorism. I'm sure it's ethical to synthesize life but what they did was barely that. They took a bacteria cell and a disease cell or something like it from a goat and combined it. They created a "new" organism.

Are you sure of that? You'd rather have someone pervert a bacteria that eats your flesh until you die?

So you're saying it is the human that has the problem with killing and hatred not science. But science has proven endlessly in the past that it gives us an efficient, effective and quicker way to kill. Science in a way is tool that is always changing that aids us in killing. You can't take the motivation to kill out of the human, why not take the advancements out instead?

You can't solve either of them anyways so what is the point? You do realize almost every advancement in science falls under the "the worst things are done with good intentions". Sure, we may save 100 million lives a year but do you want to be worried that someone is going to plague you? Is saving 100 million lives worth sacrificing maybe 300 million lives? I think logic says it's not.

You can cure hatred, but very few people want to because they simply refuse to accept others beliefs. You would rather keep hatred a live because you hate science, but to admit that you hate it, would reveal that it is you who is causing the killing not science.