
Call for 'artificial life' DNA ban - mattmaroon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10140442.stm
======
nostromo
Well, on a positive note, if they ban the research in the UK, it'll mean more
biotech jobs for everyone else. :)

------
younata
While this could potentially lead to very bad things, it could just as likely
lead to a betterment of humanity. I think that, in a few years or so, the
kidney-growth pill McCoy gave to the old lady in The Voyage Home could be
possible.

~~~
nostromo
I can imagine an organism that eats oil and poops something enviro-neutral
would come in quite handy right now.

~~~
Scriptor
The problem is that those organisms will grow very quickly and are prone to
mutations. You'd end up with a huge population of rapidly evolving critters,
something you can never predict.

~~~
jrockway
We have this problem without any DNA manipulation. Ever heard of MRSA?

~~~
Scriptor
They're not really equivalent. MRSA evolved in hospitals from whatever strains
were resistant to drugs. Otherwise it's been in the environment for a while
and there's not really an ecological risk. On the other hand, we have no idea
how a completely synthetic life-form will end up in the environment. They
could be just like other organisms, or we might unwittingly give them a huge
advantage in some way that causes them to outcompete others.

------
RevRal
Whenever I see something like this, I ask myself: "should we have banned the
use of fossil fuel when it was first being harnessed?"

The answer to myself is always: no.

~~~
ericd
I think the more apt question is: "should we have banned the use of nuclear
tech when it was first being harnessed". Also no, at least for me, since I
think it's one of the few viable alternative energy sources, but we wouldn't
have needed a doomsday clock if we hadn't.

~~~
jrockway
I'm pretty sure that we could kill off the human race with plenty of other
weapons. Conventional explosives are not too nice to the human body. Neither
are swords or pointy sticks, for that matter.

(The problem is not nuclear weapons, the problem is people that want to kill
other people.)

~~~
electromagnetic
Nuclear weapons are simply a shortcut, genocide and scorched earth tactics
have always been prevalent in warfare - you just couldn't do both at once on
such a grand scale.

The game changer that was nuclear weapons likely saved the planet. Instead of
dropping real bombs, causing real fires, spreading real land mines and
chemical agents, etc, that we had been building for a half-century . . .
suddenly we stopped. There weren't any grand wars and there hasn't been since
the end of WW2, the planet is truly quiet.

Nuclear weapons was almost like someone pulling a knife in a brawl and
everyone backing away. We saw what the end result was and we didn't want it.

I love all the doomsday stuff, but really nuclear weapons are the greatest
invention because by and large they ended warfare on the global scale.

~~~
jrockway
For rational actors, nuclear weapons are great. The problem is, the irrational
actors are starting to get them, and then mutually assured destruction doesn't
buy us anything. There is no enemy to destroy.

~~~
barrkel
I guess I'll believe that when we have evidence of irrational actors.

~~~
ericd
Do religious fanatics/suicide attackers not fall under that definition?
(Serious question, I'm not sure how they're classified in that whole
discussion)

~~~
barrkel
Seems to me that fanatics usually serve their organization's rational
purposes. Anger and rage are also rational, even when they result in self-
harm; their perceived "irrationality" is the reason why it's not good to
provoke someone. Such emotions are like a kind of mutually assured
destruction, on a small scale.

Terrorist organizations etc. use such actors rationally, in order to generate
fear, reaction, power by radicalizing their host societies, etc. They are
rational actors, and are susceptible to MAD logic.

When we are at risk of colossal attack by insane _individuals_ , we'll be in a
much worse place.

~~~
electromagnetic
Agreed, no Al Qaeda leader is going to deploy a single nuclear weapon on the
US or other nuclear power without full and implicit knowledge that our nations
opposition to this war will flip 100%.

I'm sorry, the reaction after 9/11 lead to a full blown invasion of two
countries (regardless of any other motives behind the actions, it was the
public opinion that allowed it to happen) and that was just a couple of
buildings disappearing. If a nuke had been deployed in New York, the populace
would only have been happy to let the government turn Afghanistan or Iraq into
a few million square miles of radioactive desert glass.

The terrorist organizations themselves are acting logically by using illogical
agents. The men who killed themselves on 9/11 weren't logical, but their
actions were considering the masterminds behind the scheme. Right now if Al
Qaeda got a nuclear weapon, they're still at a losing ratio of >1000:1. I'm
sorry, but the reason the USSR went nuts building nukes was because the US
already had hundreds developed by the time the USSR only had a dozen and it
wasn't MAD logic it was suicide logic. Any deployment of nukes in the early
stages of the cold war would have wiped them out. Similarly, a terrorist
organization is only ever going to get its hands on a handful of nukes, it'll
never have the 1000's required to destroy western civilization, so the
deployment of a nuke only guarantees the destruction of their own.

I'm sorry, but Islamic Terrorism really doesn't instill fear if every Muslim
just bit the atomic dust. I'd hate to see a world where we wiped out countless
countries mainly because of religious association, but I really don't see
anything else happening if a terrorist organization detonated a nuke in NYC or
any other city.

~~~
barrkel
I'm not sure why you're saying sorry. The point of Al Qaeda attacking NY _was_
to provoke an over-reaction. It radicalizes the Muslim world, and strengthens
their hand politically. And the same is why they would be very unlikely to use
a nuke.

------
sown
Banning it in one country simply guarantees that another country achieves
supremacy first, leaving the UK behind.

~~~
jrockway
At least the UK will always be ahead of the world in TV Detector Van
innovation.

~~~
electromagnetic
Yeah, except all those hippies who can't afford their TV license fee also
happen to have lava and fiberoptic lamps making that whole 'looking through
your window to watch the reflected colour patterns' creepy shit kind of
pointless.

~~~
nitrogen
I'm not in the UK, but I think they just scan for the intermediate frequency
used by TV receivers. The receiver combines the TV signal with another signal
that's something like 10 or 16 MHz away from the broadcast frequency, in a way
that results in the TV signal being shifted down to ~10-16MHz, where it is
easier to decode. Some of that additional signal leaks back through the
antenna, or is otherwise emitted by the equipment. For example, to see if
you're watching a station at 87MHz, they'd scan for emissions at 77 or 97MHz.
No window spying necessary.

Corrections by those better versed than I in RF electronics and antenna theory
are welcome.

------
edj
The more we know the better. Research should not be banned.

That said, caution should be present with the _application_ of radical new
technologies. The nuclear test ban treaty seems like a net-win, for example.

