Man Has Created A Synthetic Cell

[L.K.Eder]

no argument there, mon. those are still going to be relatively shallow reviews compared to professional journals.

there will still be a whole lot more and deeper shit in the journals and symposia annals, not to mention the patent office.

i'm on the street at the moment and running low on battery. i need to get somewhere with an outlet soon and later this evening i'll have had a chance to at least skim the science story and run a deeper search on the principle players in the production, verification and ethics aspects.

ok, but venter, the scientist in this case, published his findings in Science. I linked to his paper. if it is shallow, you will have to judge yourself. but i doubt you will be able to get his lab book reports to judge them.

gimme a chance to look at this a little closer. from what i saw in the guardian article, there's been a running game for at least 15 years.


he just published his most recent findings in science, which is normally used more like a press release for the finished product which has to get a more critical in depth show than it can get in science.

no problemo, i did not read the whole thing myself. i just linked to it. and posted part of the discussion, which is the most interesting part of such papers. fuck the press release, they normally don't have a clue.

 

[tommywho70x]

i had a feeling that this was what i was going to run into. that's some of the references from the science article.

i get paid to read and report on this kind of shit.

i haven't even found the ethics arguments yet. this has been going on at least 15 years and apparently this guy's group has been at the center of the controversy for some time


1. F. Sanger et al., Nature 265, 687 (Feb 24, 1977).
2. R. D.

Fleischmann et al., Science 269, 496 (Jul 28, 1995).
3. J. C. Venter, Nature 464, 676 (Apr 1).
4. C. A. Hutchison et al., Science 286, 2165 (Dec 10, 1999).
5. J. I. Glass et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103, 425 (Jan
10, 2006).
6. H. O. Smith, J. I. Glass, C. A. Hutchison III, J. C. Venter,
in Accessing Uncultivated Microorganisms: From the
Environment to Organisms and Genomes and Back K.
Zengler, Ed. (ASM Press, Washington, 2008), pp. 320.
7. D. G. Gibson et al., Science 319, 1215 (Feb 29, 2008).
8. C. Lartigue et al., Science 325, 1693 (Sep 25, 2009).
9. G. A. Benders et al., Nucleic Acids Res, (Mar 7, 2010).
10. C. Lartigue et al., Science 317, 632 (Aug 3, 2007).
11. Supplementary information is available on Science
Online.
12. D. G. Gibson, Nucleic Acids Res 37, 6984 (Nov, 2009).
13. D. G. Gibson et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105, 20404
(Dec 23, 2008).
14. R. J. Devenish, C. S. Newlon, Gene 18, 277 (Jun, 1982).
15. W. W. Dean, B. M. Dancis, C. A. Thomas, Jr., Anal
Biochem 56, 417 (Dec, 1973).
16. S. H. Leem et al., Nucleic Acids Res 31, e29 (Mar 15,
2003).
17. V. N. Noskov, T. H. Segall-Shapiro, R. Y. Chuang,
Nucleic Acids Res 38, 2570 (May 1).
18. M. Itaya, K. Tsuge, M. Koizumi, K. Fujita, Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A 102, 15971 (Nov 1, 2005).
19. M. Itaya, FEBS Lett 362, 257 (Apr 10, 1995).
20. H. Mizoguchi, H. Mori, T. Fujio, Biotechnol Appl
Biochem 46, 157 (Mar, 2007).
21. J. Y. Chun et al., Nucleic Acids Res 35, e40 (2007).
22. H. H. Wang et al., Nature 460, 894 (Aug 13, 2009).
23. A. S. Khalil, J. J. Collins, Nat Rev Genet 11, 367 (May).
24. A mycoplasma cell, with a cell mass of about 10-13 g,
contains fewer than 106 molecules of protein. (If it
contains 20% protein this is 2 x 10-14 g protein per cell. At

there are 1,680,000 hits returned from Google on J. Craig Venter.

where would you like to take this from here.

 

[L.K.Eder]

i had a feeling that this was what i was going to run into. that's some of the references from the science article.

i get paid to read and report on this kind of shit.

i haven't even found the ethics arguments yet. this has been going on at least 15 years and apparently this guy's group has been at the center of the controversy for some time


1. F. Sanger et al., Nature 265, 687 (Feb 24, 1977).
2. R. D.

Fleischmann et al., Science 269, 496 (Jul 28, 1995).
3. J. C. Venter, Nature 464, 676 (Apr 1).
4. C. A. Hutchison et al., Science 286, 2165 (Dec 10, 1999).
5. J. I. Glass et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103, 425 (Jan
10, 2006).
6. H. O. Smith, J. I. Glass, C. A. Hutchison III, J. C. Venter,
in Accessing Uncultivated Microorganisms: From the
Environment to Organisms and Genomes and Back K.
Zengler, Ed. (ASM Press, Washington, 2008), pp. 320.
7. D. G. Gibson et al., Science 319, 1215 (Feb 29, 2008).
8. C. Lartigue et al., Science 325, 1693 (Sep 25, 2009).
9. G. A. Benders et al., Nucleic Acids Res, (Mar 7, 2010).
10. C. Lartigue et al., Science 317, 632 (Aug 3, 2007).
11. Supplementary information is available on Science
Online.
12. D. G. Gibson, Nucleic Acids Res 37, 6984 (Nov, 2009).
13. D. G. Gibson et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105, 20404
(Dec 23, 2008).
14. R. J. Devenish, C. S. Newlon, Gene 18, 277 (Jun, 1982).
15. W. W. Dean, B. M. Dancis, C. A. Thomas, Jr., Anal
Biochem 56, 417 (Dec, 1973).
16. S. H. Leem et al., Nucleic Acids Res 31, e29 (Mar 15,
2003).
17. V. N. Noskov, T. H. Segall-Shapiro, R. Y. Chuang,
Nucleic Acids Res 38, 2570 (May 1).
18. M. Itaya, K. Tsuge, M. Koizumi, K. Fujita, Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A 102, 15971 (Nov 1, 2005).
19. M. Itaya, FEBS Lett 362, 257 (Apr 10, 1995).
20. H. Mizoguchi, H. Mori, T. Fujio, Biotechnol Appl
Biochem 46, 157 (Mar, 2007).
21. J. Y. Chun et al., Nucleic Acids Res 35, e40 (2007).
22. H. H. Wang et al., Nature 460, 894 (Aug 13, 2009).
23. A. S. Khalil, J. J. Collins, Nat Rev Genet 11, 367 (May).
24. A mycoplasma cell, with a cell mass of about 10-13 g,
contains fewer than 106 molecules of protein. (If it
contains 20% protein this is 2 x 10-14 g protein per cell. At

what would you say are professional journals, if science and nature don't qualify.

and what actually is your beef, i know that is unfair of me to ask you, as i did not state anything yet. but you seem to be quite determined, so spit it out.

 

[tommywho70x]

i had a feeling that this was what i was going to run into. that's some of the references from the science article.

i get paid to read and report on this kind of shit.

i haven't even found the ethics arguments yet. this has been going on at least 15 years and apparently this guy's group has been at the center of the controversy for some time


1. F. Sanger et al., Nature 265, 687 (Feb 24, 1977).
2. R. D.

Fleischmann et al., Science 269, 496 (Jul 28, 1995).
3. J. C. Venter, Nature 464, 676 (Apr 1).
4. C. A. Hutchison et al., Science 286, 2165 (Dec 10, 1999).
5. J. I. Glass et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103, 425 (Jan
10, 2006).
6. H. O. Smith, J. I. Glass, C. A. Hutchison III, J. C. Venter,
in Accessing Uncultivated Microorganisms: From the
Environment to Organisms and Genomes and Back K.
Zengler, Ed. (ASM Press, Washington, 2008), pp. 320.
7. D. G. Gibson et al., Science 319, 1215 (Feb 29, 2008).
8. C. Lartigue et al., Science 325, 1693 (Sep 25, 2009).
9. G. A. Benders et al., Nucleic Acids Res, (Mar 7, 2010).
10. C. Lartigue et al., Science 317, 632 (Aug 3, 2007).
11. Supplementary information is available on Science
Online.
12. D. G. Gibson, Nucleic Acids Res 37, 6984 (Nov, 2009).
13. D. G. Gibson et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105, 20404
(Dec 23, 2008).
14. R. J. Devenish, C. S. Newlon, Gene 18, 277 (Jun, 1982).
15. W. W. Dean, B. M. Dancis, C. A. Thomas, Jr., Anal
Biochem 56, 417 (Dec, 1973).
16. S. H. Leem et al., Nucleic Acids Res 31, e29 (Mar 15,
2003).
17. V. N. Noskov, T. H. Segall-Shapiro, R. Y. Chuang,
Nucleic Acids Res 38, 2570 (May 1).
18. M. Itaya, K. Tsuge, M. Koizumi, K. Fujita, Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A 102, 15971 (Nov 1, 2005).
19. M. Itaya, FEBS Lett 362, 257 (Apr 10, 1995).
20. H. Mizoguchi, H. Mori, T. Fujio, Biotechnol Appl
Biochem 46, 157 (Mar, 2007).
21. J. Y. Chun et al., Nucleic Acids Res 35, e40 (2007).
22. H. H. Wang et al., Nature 460, 894 (Aug 13, 2009).
23. A. S. Khalil, J. J. Collins, Nat Rev Genet 11, 367 (May).
24. A mycoplasma cell, with a cell mass of about 10-13 g,
contains fewer than 106 molecules of protein. (If it
contains 20% protein this is 2 x 10-14 g protein per cell. At

what would you say are professional journals, if science and nature don't qualify.

and what actually is your beef, i know that is unfair of me to ask you, as i did not state anything yet. but you seem to be quite determined, so spit it out.

i have no beef here. i am a blacklisted scientist who just happened to have been in on the foundation work back in the 80's for what is being reported here. i was in the porter-macdonald group at utexas/dallas in the 80's

i have an intellectual interest in what the applications are for this discovery and the ethical questions. i'm feeling a possibility that there is some wierd ego play by this dude and a serious lineup of professional opposition to his work.

there were some hits in the google search that had some hints of wierdo in them. but there were almost 2,000,000 of those and i don't really want to go diving into such a deep pool without at least a buddy and preferably a team.

to be honest, i have been out of the professional loop for over 25 years and it was a surprise to see an article like that in science. my recollection of it and nature was they were like scientific american and not usually a source of primary publications.

i highlighted some of the entries in answer to your question

 

[L.K.Eder]

i had a feeling that this was what i was going to run into. that's some of the references from the science article.

i get paid to read and report on this kind of shit.

i haven't even found the ethics arguments yet. this has been going on at least 15 years and apparently this guy's group has been at the center of the controversy for some time


1. F. Sanger et al., Nature 265, 687 (Feb 24, 1977).
2. R. D.

Fleischmann et al., Science 269, 496 (Jul 28, 1995).
3. J. C. Venter, Nature 464, 676 (Apr 1).
4. C. A. Hutchison et al., Science 286, 2165 (Dec 10, 1999).
5. J. I. Glass et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103, 425 (Jan
10, 2006).
6. H. O. Smith, J. I. Glass, C. A. Hutchison III, J. C. Venter,
in Accessing Uncultivated Microorganisms: From the
Environment to Organisms and Genomes and Back K.
Zengler, Ed. (ASM Press, Washington, 2008), pp. 320.
7. D. G. Gibson et al., Science 319, 1215 (Feb 29, 2008).
8. C. Lartigue et al., Science 325, 1693 (Sep 25, 2009).
9. G. A. Benders et al., Nucleic Acids Res, (Mar 7, 2010).
10. C. Lartigue et al., Science 317, 632 (Aug 3, 2007).
11. Supplementary information is available on Science
Online.
12. D. G. Gibson, Nucleic Acids Res 37, 6984 (Nov, 2009).
13. D. G. Gibson et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105, 20404
(Dec 23, 2008).
14. R. J. Devenish, C. S. Newlon, Gene 18, 277 (Jun, 1982).
15. W. W. Dean, B. M. Dancis, C. A. Thomas, Jr., Anal
Biochem 56, 417 (Dec, 1973).
16. S. H. Leem et al., Nucleic Acids Res 31, e29 (Mar 15,
2003).
17. V. N. Noskov, T. H. Segall-Shapiro, R. Y. Chuang,
Nucleic Acids Res 38, 2570 (May 1).
18. M. Itaya, K. Tsuge, M. Koizumi, K. Fujita, Proc Natl
Acad Sci U S A 102, 15971 (Nov 1, 2005).
19. M. Itaya, FEBS Lett 362, 257 (Apr 10, 1995).
20. H. Mizoguchi, H. Mori, T. Fujio, Biotechnol Appl
Biochem 46, 157 (Mar, 2007).
21. J. Y. Chun et al., Nucleic Acids Res 35, e40 (2007).
22. H. H. Wang et al., Nature 460, 894 (Aug 13, 2009).
23. A. S. Khalil, J. J. Collins, Nat Rev Genet 11, 367 (May).
24. A mycoplasma cell, with a cell mass of about 10-13 g,
contains fewer than 106 molecules of protein. (If it
contains 20% protein this is 2 x 10-14 g protein per cell. At

what would you say are professional journals, if science and nature don't qualify.

and what actually is your beef, i know that is unfair of me to ask you, as i did not state anything yet. but you seem to be quite determined, so spit it out.

i have no beef here. i am a blacklisted scientist who just happened to have been in on the foundation work back in the 80's for what is being reported here. i was in the porter-macdonald group at utexas/dallas in the 80's

i have an intellectual interest in what the applications are for this discovery and the ethical questions. i'm feeling a possibility that there is some wierd ego play by this dude and a serious lineup of professional opposition to his work.

there were some hits in the google search that had some hints of wierdo in them. but there were almost 2,000,000 of those and i don't really want to go diving into such a deep pool without at least a buddy and preferably a team.

to be honest, i have been out of the professional loop for over 25 years and it was a surprise to see an article like that in science. my recollection of it and nature was they were like scientific american and not usually a source of primary publications.

i highlighted some of the entries in answer to your question

no offense, but you are really out of the loop. at least what science, nature et al. concerns. venter is also very famous. there is most definitely a weird ego in play.

but if you read the science paper you will have a picture closer to the actual findings than when only reading the sensationalist shit in the news.

captain obvious signs off.

 

[Old Rocks]

If you read the aticle, you'll see that other scientists question the ethics of the guy who has done this, and also maintain that although it's interesting it really has no applications and in fact could be dangerous.

Kind of like fire and nuclear energy. Knowledge is dangerous.

 

[THE LIGHT]

If you read the aticle, you'll see that other scientists question the ethics of the guy who has done this, and also maintain that although it's interesting it really has no applications and in fact could be dangerous.

No one is stopping you from believing.

 

[tommywho70x]

what would you say are professional journals, if science and nature don't qualify.

and what actually is your beef, i know that is unfair of me to ask you, as i did not state anything yet. but you seem to be quite determined, so spit it out.

i have no beef here. i am a blacklisted scientist who just happened to have been in on the foundation work back in the 80's for what is being reported here. i was in the porter-macdonald group at utexas/dallas in the 80's

i have an intellectual interest in what the applications are for this discovery and the ethical questions. i'm feeling a possibility that there is some wierd ego play by this dude and a serious lineup of professional opposition to his work.

there were some hits in the google search that had some hints of wierdo in them. but there were almost 2,000,000 of those and i don't really want to go diving into such a deep pool without at least a buddy and preferably a team.

to be honest, i have been out of the professional loop for over 25 years and it was a surprise to see an article like that in science. my recollection of it and nature was they were like scientific american and not usually a source of primary publications.

i highlighted some of the entries in answer to your question

no offense, but you are really out of the loop. at least what science, nature et al. concerns. venter is also very famous. there is most definitely a weird ego in play.

but if you read the science paper you will have a picture closer to the actual findings than when only reading the sensationalist shit in the news.

captain obvious signs off.

ronny raygun and poppy bush tossed me out of academia in 1985 (reduced funding + dissident political attitude = no jobs) i've been in the arts since then and only keeping a marginal eye on things.

i would like to know more about the ethical questions because that had a lot to do with why i walked out on the porter-macdonald group in 1982. the animal and aborted fetus procedures were just too unsettling for me to be around.

 

[THE LIGHT]

ha!

In pictures: Scientists create first synthetic cell | Science | guardian.co.uk

washingtonpost.com

ha -- ha -- ha! http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...on-of-life-vs-creation-of-the-universe-2.html

Read the title of your thread a couple of times... I'm sure it will dawn on you...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

ha!

In pictures: Scientists create first synthetic cell | Science | guardian.co.uk

washingtonpost.com

ha -- ha -- ha! http://www.usmessageboard.com/scien...on-of-life-vs-creation-of-the-universe-2.html

Read the title of your thread a couple of times... I'm sure it will dawn on you...

I bet you're one of those people who thinks Headlines, and Teasers, and Thread Titles are...


...never mind.