Knocking on heaven’s door

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 22/05/2010 (5614 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

It is not exactly true, as the authors of the experiment claim, that scientists have created artificial life in a laboratory in Maryland.

It is, however, true enough to be both scary and exciting and it has opened a new door in scientific research and human potential, for good or ill. On Thursday, Dr. J. Craig Venter announced he and his researchers had successfully created the world’s first synthetic cell. “This is the first self-replicating species we’ve had on the planet whose parent is a computer,” an exuberant Dr. Venter told a news conference. Synthetic DNA of one bacterium was mixed with another and injected into a living cell, where, after one or two failed attempts, it thrived. It may not be, as many scientists claim, the actual creation of artificial life because it involves using things that are already living — “poems are made by fools like me, but only God can make a tree,” as Joyce Kilmer put it — but it is definitely knocking on heaven’s door.

As Dr. Venter said, as the technology improves, it will mean “transforming life totally from one species into another by changing the software.” And once we start thinking of our DNA as “software” rather than the unalterable essence of our physical being, it may also transform the way we think about ourselves.

Whether this will be a good thing or a bad thing will be the subject of fierce debate in the months and years to come. Dr. Venter thinks it is unequivocally good, but he has a tendency to look at these things from a commercial point of view (having mapped the human genome, he would patent it for his exclusive use if he could) and the commercial opportunities artificial life represent are immeasurable.

Critics, both scientists and environmentalists, are already calling for strict regulations, even a moratorium on future research until we have a chance to figure out what it all means, or might mean, for the future of mankind.

That’s not surprising coming from environmentalists who call even genetically modified crops such as wheat and canola “Frankenfoods.” But when even reputable scientists working in the same field suggest “this kind of biology makes it possible, in the wrong hands, to create deadly pathogens and in the future… will call for strong regulations,” governments should pay attention.

That comment comes from David Magnus, director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, and is echoed by many other scientists. Even more scientists, however, are eager to get in on the ground floor of this extraordinary new discovery.

There is, for better or worse, no shortage of real-life Dr. Frankensteins around, aching to create artificial life forms that will be better than what nature created for us. And in that context, it is worth remembering while Dr. Frankenstein himself was not a villain, the results of his experiments, intended to benefit mankind, were disastrous, both for himself and his monster.

Yet the benefits that might stem from Dr. Venter’s research are almost incalculable. The scientist says the results of his work have “changed my views of the definitions of life and how life works.” It may do that for all of us. Almost certainly, it could lead ultimately to synthetic biofuels — your car might one day be powered by algae — almost instant vaccines for new strains of deadly illnesses such H1N1 flu and treatments for other diseases that we can only imagine today.

It is a scientific dilemma, but as experience has taught us, the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. The Vatican may have summed it up best in its surprisingly open reception of the news, which it welcomed: “If it is used toward the good, to treat pathologies, we can only be positive… . If it turns out not to be…useful to respect the dignity of the person, then our judgment would change.” In other words, it is an opportunity for humanity “to better understand and order creation,” if we can control it.