“A man-made genome, Mycoplasma liberaloides, is transplanted into a related bacterium, Mycoplasma conservacolum. This ‘reboots’ the cell, transforming it into another, coalesced, species. Ethically troubling and frighteningly risky.”
Lovely cartoon by Peter Brookes.
Cue Randy Newman. For those of us d’un certain age, this is a poignant moment.
This week marks the end of an era for one of the earliest pieces of Internet history, which got its start at Duke more than 30 years ago.
On May 20, Duke will shut down its Usenet server, which provides access to a worldwide electronic discussion network of newsgroups started in 1979 by two Duke graduate students, Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis.
Working with a graduate student at UNC-Chapel Hill, they came up with a simple program to exchange messages and files between computers at Duke and UNC using telephone modems.
The “Users Network,” Usenet for short, grew into an international electronic discussion forum with more than 120,000 newsgroups dedicated to various topics, from local dining to computer programming languages. Each group had a distinctive name such as soc.history or sci.math.
Usenet also played an integral role in the growth of the popularity of the Internet, said Dietolf Ramm, professor emeritus of computer science. At the time, a connection to the Internet was not only expensive but required a research contract with the federal Advanced Research Projects Agency.
“ARPA had funded a few schools to begin the early stages of Internet, but most schools didn’t have that,” said Ramm, who worked with the students who developed Usenet. “Usenet was a pioneering effort because it allowed anybody to connect and participate in communications.”
When I was writing A Brief History…, Usenet archives provided a wonderful treasure-trove. They also provided a picture of the Net as it was before the arrival of AOL’s redneck hordes. When the groups alt.sex and alt.drugs were started (after a hoohah) on April 3, 1988, for example, it was immediately felt necessary to start alt.rock-n-roll. One has to be consistent in these matters. Those were the days.
Thanks to Rex Hughes for spotting the announcement.
From this week’s Economist.
Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith, the two American biologists who unravelled the first DNA sequence of a living organism (a bacterium) in 1995, have made a bacterium that has an artificial genome—creating a living creature with no ancestor. Pedants may quibble that only the DNA of the new beast was actually manufactured in a laboratory; the researchers had to use the shell of an existing bug to get that DNA to do its stuff. Nevertheless, a Rubicon has been crossed. It is now possible to conceive of a world in which new bacteria (and eventually, new animals and plants) are designed on a computer and then grown to order.
That ability would prove mankind’s mastery over nature in a way more profound than even the detonation of the first atomic bomb. The bomb, however justified in the context of the second world war, was purely destructive. Biology is about nurturing and growth. Synthetic biology, as the technology that this and myriad less eye-catching advances are ushering in has been dubbed, promises much. In the short term it promises better drugs, less thirsty crops, greener fuels and even a rejuvenated chemical industry. In the longer term who knows what marvels could be designed and grown?
The abstract of the article in Science reads:
We report the design, synthesis, and assembly of the 1.08-Mbp Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 genome starting from digitized genome sequence information and its transplantation into a Mycoplasma capricolum recipient cell to create new Mycoplasma mycoides cells that are controlled only by the synthetic chromosome. The only DNA in the cells is the designed synthetic DNA sequence, including “watermark” sequences and other designed gene deletions and polymorphisms, and mutations acquired during the building process. The new cells have expected phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication.
The Economist has a rather good article on it (which is probably behind a paywall). It includes this elegant paragraph:
If it is a stunt, it is a well conceived one. It demonstrates more forcefully than anything else to date that life’s essence is information. Heretofore that information has been passed from one living thing to another. Now it does not have to be. Non-living matter can be brought to life with no need for lightning, a vital essence or a god. And this new power will allow the large-scale manipulation of living organisms. Hitherto, genetic modification has been the work of apprentices and journeymen. This new step is, in the true and original sense of the word, a masterpiece. It is the demonstration that the practitioner has mastered his art.
Sigh. Just when I was hoping for a quiet life. Still, it’s better than cloning Jeffrey Archer.
Why can’t the New York Times call a spade a spade? This is how it reports Connecticut Attorney-General Richard Blumenthal’s claim — in a speech to military veterans — that he had served in Vietnam:
“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”
There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.
The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post’s publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House.
In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. He joined a unit in Washington that conducted drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.
And the headline over this story?
This seems a bit of an understatement, to put it mildly. A British tabloid would doubtless scream “Attorney-General Lied About Serving in Vietnam”. The Guardian might have “Memory Loss Afflicts Top Lawyer”.
With apologies to Dante.
I bought a frivolous book yesterday. It came in this bag.
Wonder if he broke into a sweat?
The film critic of ye olde Financial Times is in Cannes, don’t you know, for the filmfest, and reports as follows:
A casting notice for Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean 4, shooting now, said actresses “must have real breasts. Do not submit if you have implants.” Auditionees will reportedly be subjected to a “jiggling test”, as brutally decisive, no doubt, as the ducking stool in witch-hunting days.
So now you know.
How different from the good ol’ days. One of my fondest memories of Cannes is a report by the incomparable Barry Norman in which he told of a publicity stunt involving two topless starlets playing ping-pong on the beach,”watched by 200 male journalists, none of whom could have said with any certainty where the ball was at any given moment”.
… is what will replace the communiques from the Supreme Leader in Private Eye?
My guess: A weekly bulletin from Dave and Nick, a nice professional gay couple living in a civil partnership.
Time to renew my subscription, methinks. Rich pickings for satirists lie ahead.
I went to see my GP on Monday. Upon arrival, I noticed that there was a touchscreen monitor on the reception desk. “Touch here to arrive for your appointment” it said. “Arrive???” Resisting the temptation to point out the grammatical absurdity of the invitation to the receptionist, I duly ‘touched’ the screen and was invited to enter my date of birth, after which a welcome message flashed up.
Sitting in the waiting room, I fell to reflecting on this. During the swine-flu panic, we were constantly exhorted to avoid touching strange doorknobs etc. And yet here we are in a GP’s surgery merrily placing our various germs on a common screen. Hmmm…
Later, in one of those lovely serendipitous coincidences, this message from a long-term correspondent popped into my inbox:
My local surgery is very progressive. On the information side, their mail/email handling of repeat prescriptions is first class.
Recently however they have introduced, as an alternative, a touch screen check in system…. (an NHS standard ?).
You may check in for a scheduled appointment by using by the touch screen. First, however you need to wipe your hands with antiseptic gel. There is a large notice telling you do so. Standing next door to this facility whilest collecting my repeat prescription, I noted that out of 7 users, 3 omitted to clean their hands…
I still use the ‘person to person confrontational’ check in. As a regular, the receptionists know me and greet me and we exchange pleasantries in a friendly fashion. As far as I know we don’t infect each other. She often gives me additional information unknown to the automated system. e.g. which end of the reception area to sit for my blood test call.