cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) (12/05/89)
This may not belong strictly speaking in sci.nanotech, but I think it points out the potential danger of inventing before we think. I recently read a newspaper article about possible future-applications-of- science. One of these applications was creating a bacterium, derived from the one we have in our mouths, that doesn't produce acid. The author, at least, seriously believed that such a beast might prevent all tooth decay, claiming one application of the bacterium might fix us for life, and might even protect future generations. This sounds nice. Now think about it: We're talking about designing a new life form. No quibbles so far... A life form designed to compete successfully with one that secretes acid presumably to wipe out competitors. OK... A life form that will be able to compete with all others that try to move in on this acid-free environment. This widely-varying environment. This real-life environment. Sounds pretty potent... A life form that is designed to be transmissible from one human to another. Worse... And furthermore, a life form that, unlike what is claimed to be a safety feature of most laboratory bacteria, will be useless if it *can't* survive outside the lab! And worst of all, a life form that, unlike nanomachines, can and does mutate! Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but it looks to me like this life form, unless designed *very* carefully, will be potentially disastrous. There may be no way to make it safe. And yet, someone with at least enough scientific knowledge to write a science column was seriously proposing building it, and *letting it loose on purpose*! JoSH, you said a while back that it scared you when someone proposed building a uranium-destroying gray goo. I hope this makes all of you think about how easy it is to let our scientific imaginations run away with us. I don't intend this to be a polemic against scientific advance, but a warning to advance carefully, when you know what this toy you're building will actually do when it's built. -- Chris Phoenix | A harp is a nude piano. cphoenix@csli.Stanford.EDU | "More input! More input!" First we got the Bomb, and that was good, cause we love peace and motherhood. Disclaimer: I want a kinder, gentler net with a thousand pints of lite. [Science writers, especially science writers for popular publications, have pressures put on them to be as gee-whiz-the-wonderful-world-of- tomorrow as possible. I doubt that the writer in question considered the points you bring up when he wrote the article. I would imagine that the non-acidic mouth bacterium would be a very difficult project, for the very reason you mention--the specification is basically "push a species out of its niche using one whose only difference is that it lacks a potent weapon." When it came down to planning such a project seriously, I'm sure such second thoughts would be entertained very quickly. --JoSH]
ems%nanotech@princeton.edu (12/06/89)
>Chris Phoenix writes: >JoSH, you said a while back that it scared you when someone proposed building >a uranium-destroying gray goo. I hope this makes all of you think about >how easy it is to let our scientific imaginations run away with us. I don't >intend this to be a polemic against scientific advance, but a warning to >advance carefully, when you know what this toy you're building will actually >do when it's built. Yes, I did suggest an nuclear weapon eating goo. For good reasons, I think. I admit I didn't expect the extreme reaction from people who just didn't want those nice old bombs to go away! Later on I suggested the synthethic conscience, another, perhaps cleaner, means of avoiding technological self destruction as a species, especially when you realize that it only needs to be applied to those in positions of power. Gorbachev is doing a really great job these days, isn't he? :-) Ed Strong ems@princeton.edu [Are we to infer that you have perfected you A.C. and infected Gorby? --JoSH]
jwatts@hpihoah.hp.com (Jon Watts) (12/08/89)
The proposal of a genetically engineered bacteria which displaces the tooth decay causing bacteria in the mouth is amasingly similar to an experiment which has ALREADY been performed. The mouth contains many kinds of bacteria only a few of which secrete acid. Some researcher isolated a strain which does not excrete acid, applied (to themselves) a treatment which kills all the bacteria in the mouth, then deliberately re-infected themselves with the non-acid-producing bacteria. The experiment was apparently successful, after some period of time (several months as I recall) they tested themselves and found the non-acid-producing bacteria to be the predominent strain. Jon Watts