Right to the point and of great relevance. I hope many visitors to OLO read it.

let's hope that the coming 'superman' gets rid of the old prototype in a painless way.

since the prototype doesn't have the genes for survival in a compressed ecology, i suppose we should hope that superman gets here in time to sustain the technology that he will need.

this will keep the next few generations interested, and the ones after that, only hypothetical.

Let's be clear about what Venter has done. He has not assembled a new life form from individually designed pieces. He has simply mutated genes in an already existing microorganism to find the absolute minimum set of genes required for life (on a rich source of food). Even then he is not certain that this is the truly minimal set of genes. You can read about this yourself by reading the patent application:

http://tinyurl.com/34399e

You will not yet read about this in a scientific journal since it has not been subjected to peer-review.

Venter has created an interesting tool but most of the excitement over what he has done is hype (and the author of this Online Opinion article is also in the GM business where hype out means dollars in). We need to remember that any derivatives of the minimal-gene set organsims that Venter builds will probably be at such a severe selective disadvantage relative to "natural" organisms that they will only be able to survive and function in otherwise sterile environments. Don't hold your breath waiting to see artificial life forms roaming free on the planet. Besides, once the energy crisis hits (soon) all this complex high-tech playing around will become increasingly difficult to sustain.

michael_in_adelaide

A good comment. However, throughout the history of biology, those who have jumped in to point out the weaknesses in pioneering research, a later generation have witnessed those weaknesses being overcome. When I was at school 60 years ago there were many claims of what science could “never” do but which have since been proven to be bad guesses. There have been so many bad guesses from those worried about the advance of biology, it is now advisable not to pre-empt failure but just wait and see.

Hi Healthwatcher,

I am not preempting failure - just trying to scrape off the excess hype. I used to have high hopes for a bright technological future (I was a huge reader of science fiction etc. and I am a research scientist) but since learning of the energy crisis (now underway but we are yet to see the major effects of it in the developed world) and understanding the connection between energy and complexity/technology, I realise that the future is one of technological simplification rather than advance. Venter's antics can only be supported by a functioning high-tech economy. That time is ending. In 100 years we may not even remember who he was - and all that sequence data (including the human genome) will be lost as computer manufacturing (and hence maintenance) becomes impossible. If you do not understand this then read:

http://www.energybulletin.net/18978.html

See especially the section on microprocessors.

A very small storm in a very large tea-cup. Mankind's old enemies - hunger, disease, conflict and natural attrition will control things for many a long day yet.

Having captured the genomes, knowledge will have advanced to the same stage as that reached by the dog that chased a car and caught it.
What the hell is to be done with it next?

Natural biodiversity will have a few tricks up its sleeve no matter how much successful any gene sequencing is done.

The complexity of how aggregations of things work as a whole goes under the moniker of ecology. An "ecological pause" in the undue enthusiasm over successful identification of components might be in order.

The wonder of microbes is their awesome diversity and the brilliant ways they have adapted to extreme environmental challenges, usually in simple but effective ways over millions of years.

Some higher organisms have successfully dealt with problems like reconnecting severed spinal nerves. There's much that we can learn from them and hopefully apply our knowledge to agricultural productivity, bio-fuels, and the human genome.

Our genome has many flaws that can be corrected by ethically improving upon the template designed by natural selection. It is entirely possible over the next few decades to improve the health and well-being of people while at the same time dramatically reducing our rocketting health care costs.

Unfortunately we have barely scratched the surface in our understanding of the existence of many of Earth's fascinating lifeforms, let alone their special genes. Our human footprint has seen the alarmingly rapid disappearance of endangered species with weak government policies and enforcement unlikely to slow the trend of mass genocide.

Given the peak oil challenge to human living as we know it, it's surprising that politicians and their advisers have not woken up to the fact that our best natural resources are all around us and under our feet.

Can we hope to ever see a federal budget announced with massively boosted funding for the biological sciences? Let's see what science policies are announced in the up-coming election to assess whre their priorities lie.