Do It Yourself DNA: Amateurs Trying Genetic Engineering At Home

[babylonsister]

Do It Yourself DNA: Amateurs Trying Genetic Engineering At Home


MARCUS WOHLSEN | December 25, 2008 09:38 PM EST | AP


Meredith L. Patterson, a computer programmer by day, conducts an experiment in the dining room of her San Francisco apartment on Thursday, Dec. 18, 2008. Patterson is among a new breed of techno rebels who want to put genetic engineering tools in the hands of anyone with a smart idea. Using homemade lab equipment and the wealth of scientific knowledge available online, these hobbyists are trying to create new life forms through genetic engineering - a field long dominated by Ph.D.s toiling in university and corporate laboratories. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)


SAN FRANCISCO — The Apple computer was invented in a garage. Same with the Google search engine. Now, tinkerers are working at home with the basic building blocks of life itself.

Using homemade lab equipment and the wealth of scientific knowledge available online, these hobbyists are trying to create new life forms through genetic engineering _ a field long dominated by Ph.D.s toiling in university and corporate laboratories.

In her San Francisco dining room lab, for example, 31-year-old computer programmer Meredith L. Patterson is trying to develop genetically altered yogurt bacteria that will glow green to signal the presence of melamine, the chemical that turned Chinese-made baby formula and pet food deadly.

"People can really work on projects for the good of humanity while learning about something they want to learn about in the process," she said.

So far, no major gene-splicing discoveries have come out anybody's kitchen or garage.

But critics of the movement worry that these amateurs could one day unleash an environmental or medical disaster. Defenders say the future Bill Gates of biotech could be developing a cure for cancer in the garage.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/25/do-it-yourself-dna-amateu_n_153489.html

[greenman3610]

1. holy christ.

better rethink this.

most likely application, e-coli engineered to shit
crystal meth.

[sharp_stick]

2. People would be licking petri dishes

instead of toads.

Would you like the LSD, THC or psilocybin variety of E.coli today? You could easily make each glow a different color to identify the psychoactive compound being secreted.

[The_Commonist]

3. This doesn't seem like a good idea.

The end of humanity because some nice lady was playing around with yogurt?

[Javaman]

4. Here's the key phrase...

"But critics of the movement worry that these amateurs could one day unleash an environmental or medical disaster."

or perhaps they are afraid some bright person will actually develop something of use without the need of millions of dollars in research.

[dysfunctional press]

6. i'm thinking that the disaster aspect is a more likely scenario.

or possibly a better, faster, high.

[Mist]

8. I agree, Javaman. If people can do stuff like this at home, the whole "we need

huge amounts of money for R & D!" kinda goes out the window.

[bushmeister0]

19. Oh God, you're right.

This will be the next right wing mantra:

We've got people at home working on a cure for AIDS, get the government out of the business of the people. Anything government can do, some Christian housewife can do better with a turkey baster and an internet connection.

[TZ]

16. Ever been in a bioengineering lab?

DIY is EXTEMELY dangerous. Do you know how much containment a lab needs just to deal with fucking YEAST?
This is a TERRIBLE idea. Amateurs with little experience.
Would you be comfortable with someone fooling around with Uranium or some other dangerous element or chemical with no containment?Or a pathogen like bubonic plague (something a guy in Ohio tried to order for personal use a few years back)
There is a very good reason why bioengineering needs lots of funding. SAFETY TRAINING CONTAINMENT.
At my work, you need a week of training before you are even ALLOWED in the lab.

[Occulus]

42. Question

How would they get their hands on these dangerous materials in the first place? Let's be honest, here- yeast? Yeast?

Could you describe precisely and exactly how yeast can get dangerous? I'm genuinely interested in this }(

"Would you be comfortable with someone fooling around with Uranium or some other dangerous element or chemical with no containment?"

You're never going to get your hands on a lump of uranium, apart from http://www.periodicvideos.com/videos/092.htm&feature=player_embedded">serious lab research (I think I should point out that, if you watch the video, not all forms of uranium require containment, just proper storage and handling). That uranium scenario won't happen in any case, because it is very strictly controlled and expensive to do any meaningful research with.

Apart from that, people are already fully capable of creating very dangerous substances at home, either from the chemicals under their sink, or by creating poisonous extracts of certain plants (which are completely legal to grow) by processing them properly.

I should think anyone with the smarts to perform genetic engineering on the kitchen table is also smart enough to make dangerous substances in other ways. In fact, anyone who has a working knowledge of chemistry is in possession of potentially lethal knowledge. Maybe that's why it isn't being taught in depth the way it used to be, and why you can't buy your kids a good chemistry set any more.

The potential for danger with this DIY research seems about the same as it ever was.

[Hanse]

78. Well, where I work...

most of the containment has to do with keeping contaminates out of the cell samples rather than the other way around.

Nothing's more annoying than spending a month growing a culture only to find out it's been contaminated with mold.

I suppose with corporate research there's a big emphasis on intellectual property. You wouldn't want a disgruntled employee walking away with some yeast samples you spent a few hundreds of thousands of dollars developing.

[LisaL]

84. Yea, and you also said work with human samples, like blood.

What is there to worry about? I mean, you admit you rarely even wear gloves.

:eyes:

[Hanse]

88. I still don't see your point.

I work with human blood and cell samples.

You, apparently, don't.

Jealous?

[LisaL]

90. Not at all. I would not be particularly eager to work with human blood, considering

it can carry HIV and hepatitis, and other blood-borne pathogens. But if I had to work with human blood, I certainly would wear gloves, lab coat and protective eye wear.

[caseymoz]

101. Mixing dangerous substances at home is not like amateur gene splicing.

Here's why: a chemical substance is limited in the damage it could do. After the initial explosion, fire or release, either the danger dissipates, the fire is put out, or the chemical is cleaned up and contained. In other words, the danger declines with time.

If you have a release of a malevolent, replicating organism, the damage and danger actually get worse over time. Now, just look at all the aggressive parasitic species that have been released, such as Africanized "killer" bees and fire ants. How many of those have we actually eradicated? Those are macroscopic organisms; how are we going to control micro organisms?

Moreover, you presume that all efforts into genetic engineering will be benevolent. If Internet viruses, worms and hacks are any indication, that shouldn't be the assumption.

What can be harmful about yeast? How about a fast-replicating infection on the skin? Or contamination of brewers' or bakers' yeasts with an strain that secretes toxins?

I am hardly against genetic engineering, no, quite the opposite, but we shouldn't go into it presuming that this isn't dangerous, especially having rank amateurs tinker with it, amateurs whose knowledge of what they're doing is going to vary greatly.

[girl gone mad]

95. Umm.. wow..

too many straw men in your post.

What we don't need is busybodies trying to keep people from doing home research. Amateurs make a huge contribution to the field of astronomy. I don't see why it should be any different for chemistry.

[Unvanguard]

27. Probably both.

But even if we get one hundred things of use for every catastrophic superpathogen....

[LisaL]

30. Do you have any clue as to what you are talking about?

People working in the laboratory are following biosafety protocols. WTF do you think someone working in his/her garage is following?

[northernlights]

34. they're far more likely to win powerball

several times over and without ever buying a ticket than they are to make or discover anything.

And they are also far more likely to poison,blow up or burn down themselves and possibly entire city blocks in their misguided efforts.

[Hanse]

35. What, exactly, do you base your predictions on?

What chemicals are they using which you would think would be so toxic?

[northernlights]

86. my predictions about the likelihood of success

are based on the complexity of genetic engineering and the equipment needed. Seriously, do these people have home autoclaves to sterilize their equipment and prevent contamination?

As far as chemical hazards, other than radioactive phosphates on nucleic acid probes to help you find the gene you want to clone, I don't know what other chemicals are involved.

I do know that my chemistry class was not allowed in the molecular biology lab due to the hazardous materials it contains. And that we do handle pretty hazardous materials in our own lab, including strong acids, strong bases, pretty poisonous stuff and pretty flammable stuff.

[Mind_your_head]

97. Bingo!

:thumbsup:

Innovation, competition, and free-thinking must be squashed like a bug according to the corps. Media is the best way squash it.

Make the people AFRAID of innovators! Corporate media says, "Look at all of the scary things individuals could unleash/discover" (without corporate patent rights! - THAT's what "they" are really afraid of! Corporations don't give a D*MN about people)

[caseymoz]

99. I can't imagine too many 'theys' who would be afraid of that.

No, but I could imagine a few who think it's pretty high-risk.

[dysfunctional press]

5. that does it- 28 days later, i'm starting the army of the 12 monkeys...

nt

[lonestarnot]

9. I would like a cure for cancer that sweeps the street please. Get those monkeys on it!

[MadHound]

7. There's a reason why we don't allow people to make a bomb in their own basement either

Lack of proper safety measures, and the potential for a huge disaster.

Sure, the vast majority of these hobbyists are simply going to crank out various kinds of harmless glop, but all it takes is one person to crank out some GE bug that promptly gets away from them due to lack of containment and safety measures.

Sorry, but working with biological hazards is just as dangerous, if not more so, than working with nuclear hazards. People who are doing this are risking all of our lives for their own fun and profit.

If somebody wants to get into this field, then they need to get into the colleges and research institutions that have the proper equipment. This isn't like building a computer in your mom's basement, what you produce could turn out to have deadly consequences for the rest of us.

[conspirator]

15. I defend the right for people to develop whatever they want in their homes

If it's a nuclear device, so be it.
Technology is there for everyone, not just for the military or the elite.
What do you suggest, an inquisition style book burning or internet censorship?

[TZ]

18. So environmental destruction

By an previously unknown pathogen is okay with you? Or a mutant bug no one has immunity too?
Technology needs to be handled responsibly.
These individuals are playing with fire. Untrained people should NEVER be allowed to play with things they don't understand.
Why don't you give your kid a bottle of HCl acid to play with while they are at it. They might severely burn themselves or set the house on fire, but who knows what new thing they MIGHT find....

[conspirator]

20. So Thomas Edison and Benjamim Franklin should have been afraid of playing with electricity,

it could have burned their houses.
As a planet we are doomed anyway. Think of the new countries and organizations that will acquire nuclear technology in the next 50 years, the coming nanotechnology weapons, and terminator style unmanned killing machines.
We have to quickly colonize other solar systems.

[Dreamer Tatum]

23. Those guys weren't fucking around with DNA

so your comparison rings hollow.

Tell you what...let's let them jimmy around with "lifeforms" on YOUR street.

[Dreamer Tatum]

25. Great - genetically engineered crops are now A-OK, so long as Joe Public breeds them

Are you sensing the weakness of your argument yet?

[conspirator]

delete

[conspirator]

83. As long as it is open source and nobody has to pay royalties to use them, then they are OK nt

[northernlights]

33. no. Tight controls over the very hazardous materials needed

to play with dna.

my guess is, considering the complexity to do it, these people won't turn out crap. But in the process of trying, they could poison or burn down their entire neighborhoods.

[AngryAmish]

43. I'm no biologist, but I don't think the materiel to manipulated DNA is that toxic

But I am amenable to proof. Hell, most of us have gallons of gas laying around.

[acmavm]

10. Wow! This is soo Stephen King. And these people have no right to be

doing this stuff. That computer programmer is no more compentent to be doing genetic experimentation that Chimpy McSmirkster was competent to be president. And the fucking results will be the same.

[jmowreader]

11. Well, this sounds pretty cool...

I'll get started on making nature's most perfect creature today. And six months from now, my wife will ask me, "do you make anything besides animals with four asses?"

[Posteritatis]

12. It's so much better to keep this in the hands of responsible organizations like Monsanto! (nt)

[TZ]

17. Some of us in the field ARE responsible

Do you really like the idea of potentially infectious pathogens in someone's house without any kind of containment?
Does no one remember the anthrax guy?
Jeezus.
No hood, no training, no biocontainment --leads to likely environmental disaster.

[Trillo]

21. In the bigger picture, it doesn't matter if you, yourself, are responsible.

Can you make such a statement about the worker next to you? How about the MBA in the office looking at accounting's numbers and writing glowing reports for the shareholder's consumption, and which your salary is in part dependent upon?

Let's say some bioengineering company, or companies, had been unable to contain their product, and it's now in the wild, blowing in the wind....

Perhaps a good CYA tactic for some future catastrophe that may already be in process (due to already "blowing in the wind" or similar) is to create a story in the public's mind that what amateurs are doing in their garages is too dangerous.

"Look, over there! It's that guy, not us"

[Dreamer Tatum]

24. Monsanto is regulated. Joe's Garage isn't.

Huge difference.

Go ahead, claim that DuPont, Monsanto, and the pharms aren't regulated. I can provide enough links for you
to click until you expire.

[conspirator]

82. Sure, the CIA labs are regulated too. And so was the financial industry.

If by regulated you mean in the hands of a few rich families.
This kind of experiments are being done already in secret labs.
And guess were it's going to be used, in wars, and in me and you if they need too.

[Dreamer Tatum]

85. Keep watching the skies nt

[girl gone mad]

96. The "Anthrax guy" worked for the government, in a lab. n/t

[aikoaiko]

13. I like to do my genetic engineering the old fashioned way -- by bumping uglies.

:toast:

[Robb]

36. Hear, hear!

:toast:

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Hey sis! Check this out! Doesn't it look just like an Ebola virus? n/t

[mattfromnossa]

22. Sorry but this is not a good hobby.

This is something that needs to be closely monitored by the government and bioethics groups and performed only by skilled professionals.

[Hanse]

26. I'm reminded of a daytime talk show I saw in the early nineties.

I think it was Donohue. It could have been Geraldo.

They were discussing the new and frightening technology called "the internet" and how it might lead to nerdy teenagers having virtual sex in basements. The general consensus of the audience was that the whole thing should be banned before it got out of hand.

[LisaL]

31. Oh what a brilliant analogy.

:eyes:

[Hanse]

32. Check in again in twenty years.

If at-home genetic engineering hasn't caused the black death, a plague of velociraptors, or the second coming of Jesus by then, I win the argument.

[Robb]

37. Can I claim a win with a contaminated water table?

Most people don't have it together enough to work with high explosives safely. That's why the parts are hard to come by and the knowledge arcane -- to say nothing of laws that say you can't make it legally in your basement without passing a few tests.

This is no different. Both are public health issues.

[Hanse]

38. Can you link a contaminated water table to somebody's home lab?

I'm willing to bet the content of an average american garage- antifreeze, paint, pool cleaners, etc. is more toxic then the stuff we're talking about in these labs.

[LisaL]

39. Oh for crying out loud. Take a look at the photo.

The woman is shown apparently working in "her lab space", with no gloves on, no lab coat, and I see what appears to be a cup on a filing cabinet in the corner. Doesn't exactly inspire me to think she is going to be following safety procedures. Even E. Coli bacteria can make someone sick. You arguments about "internet" hold no water.

[Hanse]

40. And?

If she's not working with anything toxic, that's not inappropriate. I don't wear a lab coat and rarely wear gloves in my own lab, and I'm willing to bet I work with stuff much worse than she does.

"You arguments about "internet" hold no water."

I think my argument about unfounded fears based on ignorance do hold water.

[LisaL]

41. And? If you are not doing all this, then you aren't even following

biosafety level 1 ("BSL-1 is appropriate for working with microorganisms that are not known to cause disease in healthy human humans (slide 8). This is the type of laboratory found in municipal water-testing laboratories, in high schools, and in some community colleges teaching introductory microbiology classes, where the agents are not considered hazardous (slide 9).)" http://www.cdc.gov/OD/ohs/symp5/jyrtext.htm
procedures. What lab do you work at?

"At BSL-1, standard microbiological practices include the use of mechanical pipetting devices (slide 14), having a prohibition on eating, drinking and smoking in the lab, and requiring hand washing by all persons when they finish their work or when exiting the laboratory (slide 15, 16). Persons working in the lab should wear a lab coat (slide 17) to protect their street clothes. It is a recommended practice to wear gloves while manipulating the agents. Additional protective equipment may include working behind a splatter shield or wearing eye or face protection (slide 18). At BSL-1, no special precautions are needed (slide 19)."


http://www.cdc.gov/OD/ohs/symp5/jyrtext.htm

[Hanse]

45. Well, I don't work at home if that's what you're asking.

"At BSL-1, standard microbiological practices include the use of mechanical pipetting devices (slide 14), having a prohibition on eating, drinking and smoking in the lab, and requiring hand washing by all persons when they finish their work or when exiting the laboratory (slide 15, 16). Persons working in the lab should wear a lab coat (slide 17) to protect their street clothes. It is a recommended practice to wear gloves while manipulating the agents. Additional protective equipment may include working behind a splatter shield or wearing eye or face protection (slide 18). At BSL-1, no special precautions are needed (slide 19)."

And there's nothing in the photo to suggest she's not following these standard procedures. If she's not worried about her own clothes, there's no reason to wear a lab coat. She's wearing eye protection. Whatever she's doing with her hands, there's no apparent reason she needs gloves. Having had media in my lab before, I'm quite sure she's simply holding up some random container for dramatic effect to the camera. There's no telling what's in a cup, I don't even see a cup.

[LisaL]

46. Oh give me a break.

She is not wearing gloves or a lab coat. She is wearing glasses (I guess you can call that "eye protection.") By the way did you miss a part where the lab should be constructed in such a manner that it should be easily cleaned and decontaminated? Are you missing what appears to be a pile of storage material in the corner of her "lab space"?
Is there a door that can be closed?

[Hanse]

47. That picture could have been taken at any college lab in the country.

...minus the hardwood floor and light fixture in the background.

The woman's doing nothing wrong in the photo. It's crampt, and a bit cluttered. But not inappropriate.

Real science doesn't look like it does in the movies, you know.

[LisaL]

48. Oh you are too funny.

Please don't lecture me on what real science looks like. And good of you to notice the hardwood floors. Not an appropriate material in biosafety level 1 laboratory, by the way.
http://www.unm.edu/~sheaweb/sheamanual/biosfty/biosaf_f.htm

By the way do you think her "lab" would pass inspection if it was a real lab?

[Hanse]

49. It passes my inspection.

And you've failed to point out anything improper.

[LisaL]

50. Then maybe you need to go for some more biosafety training.

[Hanse]

51. I've had plenty, thanks.

You?

[LisaL]

52. If you had plenty, it doesn't appear to have sinked in.

Even after reading the bio safety level 1 info, you can't point out anything that is not appropriate for the lab?

[Hanse]

53. Oh, it's sunk in. I bet the scientist in the photo has had plenty of training as well.

Have you had any? Because you're still unable to explain what's wrong with the photo. It looks like you're all talk and no substance.

[LisaL]

54. I've already listed the things in my posts.

Here I go again.
The woman is not wearing gloves or lab coat. The floor in the "lab" appears to be made out or wood, which is not appropriate material for the lab. What is her "benchtop" is made out of? Do you see even a door that can be closed? Now read the biosafety 1 manual and get a clue.
http://www.unm.edu/~sheaweb/sheamanual/biosfty/biosaf_f.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/OD/ohs/symp5/jyrtext.htm
People working in their garage or home aren't required to follow safety procedures, and I don't think that's a good thing.

[Hanse]

55. None of those things apply.

She doesn't need labcoat, it's optional.

Whatever she's holding likely doesn't require gloves.

If she were designed the lab from the start, I'm sure she'd go with vinyl floors. Since wood is what she has, that's what she's got to work with. It'll be harder to clean, but that's her choice.

And since it's her own house I think we can presume it's got doors. With locks even.

You ain't got shit.

[LisaL]

57. She isn't required to follow any procedures because she is

not working in the lab, but in her home. You are obviously missing the whole point. Had she been working in the lab she would be asked to follow safety procedures, and the lab would be inspected and regulated. Someone's home is neither inspected nor regulated.
Frankly I doubt you work in the lab, despite your claims.

[Hanse]

59. She's following standard biosafety procedures.

"Frankly I doubt you work in the lab, despite your claims."

You're telling people who actually know what they're doing how to do their own jobs. You've dodged the question concerning your own biosafety training. You're being purposefully obtuse. Your arguments come from cutting and pasting material it appears you haven't read. I don't think you know the first thing about how real science works.

[LisaL]

60. LOL.

I think it's you who doesn't have a clue as to how real science works.
By the way what if some of the home scientists decide to do experiments on animals? Would you approve of that?

[Hanse]

61. Assuming they go through the proper channels, sure.

Working with animals would be much more involved than commercial kits, of course.

An IRB, proper handling, etc. Not that I think any amateur scientist would bother jumping through all those hoops. You're comparing apples and oranges, but in the hypothetical situation I wouldn't have the knee-jerk reaction against it.

"I think it's you who doesn't have a clue as to how real science works."

The fact that I really am a scientist just means you digging yourself futher into a hole just makes this conversation funnier and funnier.

[LisaL]

62. Are you sure you are a scientist?

IRB is a committee that approves work with human subjects, not animals. Do you think at home scientists should be working on human subjects?

[Hanse]

63. Well, I'd be a hypcrite if I said no.

"IRB is a committee that approves work with human subjects, not animals."

What, then, is the acronym for the indepent board that reviews animal testing? I'm a scientist, not a secretary.

[LisaL]

64. IACUC.

And what does it have to be with being a secretary? Secretary isn't in charge of safety protocols in the lab.

[Hanse]

65. Oh, yeah, that's it. And there's the accreditation body, AAAA is it?

What's your point?

[LisaL]

67. Well, you claim to be a scientist.

What is the biosafety level of the lab you work in?

[Hanse]

68. It's probably not higher than 1.

I handle human blood, plasma, and urine. And human cell cultures.

Our vet keeps the animals in another building, although we'll sacrifice them in our lab.

What I don't handle is the paperwork.

Again, why do you ask?

What do you do?

[LisaL]

69. Are you kidding me?

I fail to see how it can be biosafety level 1 (which is the lowest, there is no biosafety level 0) if you are working with human products. It seems to me the lab should be at biosafety level 2 at the lowest. And you say you rarely wear gloves? Working with human blood?

[Hanse]

70. We work with healthy human subjects, not diseases.

I've developed an anti-malarial which naturally needed testing for efficacy against malaria, but that was sent off to another lab.

The blood, plasma and urine samples I work with are all from healthy adults. We assume the samples might contain harmful microbes, so we're careful of any sharps, and carefully handle any spills. But there's no more to it than then when the red cross sets up blood donation drives in your nearby cafeteria. If that's biosafety level 2 rather than 1, I stand corrected.

[LisaL]

71. Well, if you had biosafety training, you should know that all the

human materials have to be treated as if they were infected. You can't assume that because the blood is collected from a healthy adult it is not infected with HIV or hepatitis. Thus you should follow safety procedures as if the blood were infected.

[Hanse]

72. And if you'd read my post, you'd have seen I said as much.

Again, what is your own expertise?

[LisaL]

74. How do you not know what biosafety level the lab you work in is?

Doesn't the lab have signs posted? You've claimed you don't wear lab coat and rarely wear gloves? That is working with human materials? You also said you sacrifice animals in your lab, but you were not aware what committee approves animal work?
Is your lab in US?

[Hanse]

75. Because I've never really cared.

"Doesn't the lab have signs posted?"

There are the biological, carcinogenic, and radiological symbols on the doors. If it states what biosafey level it is, I haven't noticed. Either for my own lab or any other lab.

"You've claimed you don't wear lab coat and rarely wear gloves? That is working with human materials? "

I wear gloves. Except in a few instances when it was my own biological samples I was working with.

"You also said you sacrifice animals in your lab, but you were not aware what committee approves animal work?"

The vet sacrifices the animals, I assist. I've never served on either an IACUC or an IRB, and I think the differences between the two are superficial. At least for my purposes.

"Is your lab in US?"

Yes. Is yours? Why am I answering all your questions and you're not answering mine?

[LisaL]

76. How exactly do you get your safety and animal protocols approved?

[Hanse]

77. Like I said, I don't handle the paperwork.

Human protocols go through an IRB. Animal protocols through IACUC. And the fire marshal comes around every so often to check fire extinguishers and so forth.

How about where you work?

[northernlights]

87. doesn't look anything like the labs at my university

and since she's working with yohgurt bacteria dna, she's probably using a bacterial vector, which probably is e. coli, which is potentially pathogenic.

And although I don't know which chemicals are specifically used in molecular biology, I know from my biochem department coordinator that some of them are very hazardous. I wonder what sort of safeguards she has for cleanup should she have a spill.

I seriously doubt the DIYers will actually succeed in splicing any genes into anything. I'd be more worried about someone mishandling a flammable chemical in all the clutter and setting the apartment building on fire. Or sneezing into a culture and growing some vancomycin-resistant s. aureus, then tossing it out in the trash. Or cross-contaminating an e. coli culture with something out of the fridge, and tossing that out in the trash or flushing. Seriously, do they have home-built autoclaves? And if they are using radioactive probes to isolate the genes they wish to clone, how are they handling disposal?

[Hanse]

89. I'm talking about research labs. Not teaching labs.

"and since she's working with yohgurt bacteria dna, she's probably using a bacterial vector, which probably is e. coli, which is potentially pathogenic."

And there's no reason you can't have an at home lab where you do this safely. Just consider all of the places around your home contaminated with e. coli right now.

"And although I don't know which chemicals are specifically used in molecular biology, I know from my biochem department coordinator that some of them are very hazardous. I wonder what sort of safeguards she has for cleanup should she have a spill."

I seriously doubt she's working with anything more toxic than typical household chemicals.

"I seriously doubt the DIYers will actually succeed in splicing any genes into anything."

Could you explain why?

"I'd be more worried about someone mishandling a flammable chemical in all the clutter and setting the apartment building on fire."

Well unless they're setting up stills, which I can't recommend for amateurs, I'm not going to have a problem with the proper use and storage of highly flammable solvents and chemicals. I've got a can of gas out in my garage.

"Or sneezing into a culture and growing some vancomycin-resistant s. aureus, then tossing it out in the trash."

I think that's a pretty big stretch.

"Seriously, do they have home-built autoclaves?"

I don't know any of these people, but they sound to me like they're highly trained scientists who have their own ideas and are after patents that they don't want to share with their university. If they're working with bacteria, sure they should have an autoclave, that's a given. I'd imagine that if they're investing in several thousand dollar kits, they're probably going to invest in a used autoclave for a few hundred bucks.

"And if they are using radioactive probes to isolate the genes they wish to clone, how are they handling disposal?"

Well I'd assume that anything radioactive is as tightly controlled as ever.

[LisaL]

91. Did you even read the OP?

These are not people who don't want to share their findings with their university. The woman in the photo is a computer programmer. Whatever made you think they are highly trained scientists?

[Hanse]

93. Computer programming pays the bills, apparently.

If she worked for a university or private company, she would have to share, or sign over any patents to your employer. The great benefit of DIY is that you get 100% intellectual property rights.

"Whatever made you think they are highly trained scientists?"

What position are you in to judge whether or not anybody else is a highly trained science? You're still dodging that simple question.

[LisaL]

94. Well, for one, I could tell you anything about myself.

How would you know if it's true?

[Hanse]

100. The honor system.

[pipi_k]

79. I dunno about that, but

they could probably link contaminated water table to my refrigerator.


There's some seriously scary critters crawling on the old lettuce and chicken salad in there


:scared:

[Odin2005]

28. Thos Boitech major approves!!!

Too bad the luddiites will moan and bitch, though.

For better or worse, the Genetic Age is upon us.

[Shiver]

29. I, for one, welcome the coming mutant overlords...

[Buns_of_Fire]

44. I think I have a few mutant strains of something growing in my refrigerator. Does that count?

And if so, where do I apply for my Nobel Prize?

[WillieW]

56. Instead of messing with DNA, they should help this man and focus on a cancer cure

http://www.wpbf.com/health/11125485/detail.html

[Hanse]

58. lol

:rofl:

[w4rma]

80. Wow, that guy may just find a cure to cancer. (nt)

[LisaL]

81. He invented a machine which is being tested in the cancer

center. So the biological work is being done by trained professionals.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. "Mom! Look what I made! A Puppygeraniumosaurus!!

[AtomicKitten]

73. Well, that explains a lot about SF.

[live love laugh]

92. New life forms from Ziploc bags and toilet paper? Yikes!

:scared:

[caseymoz]

98. What happened in computer science was the invention of viruses and worms.

Not to mention spyware, and malware of many sorts. At first these were just pranks, but now they are done by organized criminals.

What makes these people think that every amateur effort into genetic is going benevolent, never mind competent? This is also analogous to what has happened in a de-regulated economy.