Pentagon Looks to Breed Immortal ‘Synthetic Organisms'
technologiclee
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/pentagon-looks-to-breed-immortal-synthetic-organisms-molecular-kill-switch-included/
"Darpa is investing $6 million into a project called BioDesign, with
the goal of eliminating “the randomness of natural evolutionary
advancement.” The plan would assemble the latest bio-tech knowledge to
come up with living, breathing creatures that are genetically
engineered to “produce the intended biological effect.” Darpa wants
the organisms to be fortified with molecules that bolster cell
resistance to death, so that the lab-monsters can “ultimately be
programmed to live indefinitely.”
Daniel C.
> "Darpa is investing $6 million into a project called BioDesign, with
> the goal of eliminating “the randomness of natural evolutionary
> advancement.” The plan would assemble the latest bio-tech knowledge to
> come up with living, breathing creatures that are genetically
> engineered to “produce the intended biological effect.” Darpa wants
> the organisms to be fortified with molecules that bolster cell
> resistance to death, so that the lab-monsters can “ultimately be
> programmed to live indefinitely.”
Then they can give them trigger fingers and just enough brainpower to
take orders from the good men, shoot the bad men, and we can call them
"ubersoldats".
On a more serious note - DARPA comes up with a lot of crazy stuff that
they never follow through with. This just happens to be one of the
creepier things they've imagined recently.
-Dan
markus_1
Here is the description of the Biodesign project, supported with a
sweet 6 Mio grant
DARPA BioDesign
(U) BioDesign is a new intellectual approach to biological
functionality. The intrinsic concept is that by using gained knowledge
of biological processes in combination with biotechnology and
synthetic chemical technology, humans can employ system engineering
methods to originate novel beneficial processes. BioDesign eliminates
the randomness of natural evolutionary advancement primarily by
advanced genetic engineering and molecular biology technologies to
produce the intended biological effect. This thrust area includes
designed molecular responses that increase resistance to cellular
death signals and improved computational methods for prediction of
function based solely on sequence and structure of proteins produced
by synthetic biological systems. Development of technologies to
genetically tag and/or lock synthesized molecules would provide
methods for identifying the origin and source of synthetic biologicals
(e.g., genes or proteins) allowing for traceability and prevention of
manipulation (“tamper proof” synthetic biological).
FY 2011 Base Plans:
- Demonstrate computation protein conformation algorithms that model
one residue per minute with 99.5% accuracy for every one kilodalton of
mass regardless of protein class.
- Develop conformation prediction algorithms for biomimetic polymers
and biological-nonbiological hybrids involving unnatural amino acids
or inorganic materials.
- Demonstrate a robust understanding of the collective mechanisms that
contribute to cell death.
- Identify and initiate strategies that would enable a new generation
of regenerative cells that could ultimately be programmed to live
indefinitely until needed for an injury repair or therapeutic
application.
- Develop genetically encoded locks to create "tamper proof" DNA and
protect commercial
applications.
- Develop strategies to create a synthetic organism "self-destruct"
option to be implemented upon nefarious removal of organism.
- Permanently append a synthetic organism’s genome and prevent foul
play by tracking organism use and history, similar to a traceable
serial number on a handgun.
Aaron Hicks
Here is the description of the Biodesign project, supported with a
sweet 6 Mio grant
$6 million isn't even all that much; accounting for overhead, your average technician with a BS or MS runs $100,000 a year. Not accounting for equipment or PI salaries, that works out to 60 man-years, which for something like this is pretty much squat.
Heck, I've worked on $1-2-3 million projects where we barely supported 4-5 people for a year.
Assuming it flies- a lot of DARPA stuff doesn't- it may be a gateway grant, and once proof-of-concept is established, that's when the money really starts flowing. Otherwise, it's an ambitious project proposal with a shoestring budget.
-AJ
Daniel C.
> $6 million isn't even all that much; accounting for overhead, your average
> technician with a BS or MS runs $100,000 a year. Not accounting for
> equipment or PI salaries, that works out to 60 man-years, which for
> something like this is pretty much squat.
Accounting for the 50% or more wasteage factor that one should assume
for all govt. projects, you've got even less than that.
-Dan
Aaron Hicks
To be fair, it'll likely get farmed out to research or academia. From there, it's a bloodbath from overhead; the best I've worked at was low 30%-ish, while I've also worked at 62%, meaning of a $1M grant, $620,000 were spent just to keep the lights on. That didn't even account for salaries, equipment, etc.
Every now and again I see an announcement that some school got some big wad of money for research, and after doing the math, it works out to a lot less. Supposedly some institutions go into the 90% range, and then dictate what the research group what they can and cannot purchase.
Add to this one more factor: academic imbecility. Group X wants to purchase, say, a gas chromatograph, so they budget for an instrument by ABC Corporation. Purchasing gets it, finds out there is more than one manufacturer of gas chromatographs, and the value exceeds some magic number (say, $5,000), so it has to be put out for bid, bounces it back to the researchers.
So, the researchers have to find two other manufacturers of gas chromatographs, and accept bids from vendors. The instrument they want is the most expensive. Purchasing decides all gas chromatographs are same (they have the same name and do the same thing, right?) and insist the group purchase the least expensive one.
This is how groups that need a high-spec instrument end up with a piece of junk that breaks if you look at it the wrong way.
-AJ
shagbark
> On a more serious note - DARPA comes up with a lot of crazy stuff that
> they never follow through with. This just happens to be one of the
> creepier things they've imagined recently.
>
> -Dan
I love DARPA. They are the /major source of research money in the
world today/. (The NIH and NASA have bigger budgets, and I suppose
you could argue that NASA is true research; it's just so egregiously
wasteful that I don't count it.)
And the press ALWAYS tries to write up everything DARPA does to make
it sound as creepy as possible. Because they are afraid of the future.
shagbark
> for all govt. projects, you've got even less than that.
>
> -Dan
DARPA has no in-house staff. They only come up with crazy ideas, then
supervise their execution.
Agreed, the budget is too low - IMHO roughly 1/1000th what it would
need to be for the stated goals.
Daniel C.
> And the press ALWAYS tries to write up everything DARPA does to make
> it sound as creepy as possible. Because they are afraid of the future.
And they've all seen 28 Days Later. And Outbreak. And... every other
"humanity suffers as direct result of scientists' hubris" movie ever
made.
Can anyone think of a single instance where a GMO has gotten loose and
caused problems? I don't work in the field any more so I wouldn't
have heard about it if it'd happened.
In the meantime, enjoy this humorous rendition of modern fear of
progress applied to ancient man:
http://dresdencodak.com/2009/09/22/caveman-science-fiction/
-Dan
Lee Nelson
so this means it's ok for us to pursue "immortal synthetic organisms" right?
Daniel C.
> so this means it's ok for us to pursue "immortal synthetic organisms" right?
Was it ever not okay?