
Life artifically created in a lab - mixmax
http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/science?type=scienceNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B80EKKDZW7XjzuNGrifTUKY&src=blogBurst_scienceNews&bbPostId=B4Hj78ZQkrFHCz48ED92G5hvRBABS3ODDbJWYB3Y76CKpfMQk&bbParentWidgetId=B80EKKDZW7XjzuNGrifTUKY
======
paulsb
It's not a cell and it definitely isn't life; it's just DNA and few enzymes
trapped in a lipid vesicle. People have been doing this for years.

------
run4yourlives
I suppose that depends on your definition of life.

Not to downplay the results, as they are impressive, but replicating existing
DNA does not qualify as "creating life" in my books.

------
flipbrad
Potentially an important contribution to synthetic biology but quite frankly
the article/blog post is appallingly written and very unclear on the
scientific detail, so it's hard to assess the findings. I'm surprised Reuteurs
published this, even if they do accompany it with a disclaimer distancing
themselves from it. Very poor.

------
cousin_it
If it's true - good! Next up, artificial consciousness. But we need to learn
to detect it first.

------
ComputerGuru
God, news agencies are so gullible these days! First it was BBC swallowing the
story about the magically-regrown finger via "pixie dust" hook, line, and
sinker and now we have Reuters equating DNA to life........

~~~
streety
"The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not connected
with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the
author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com."

------
streety
Is it just me or do the 'references' bear little relevance to the post? I
think I'll wait for more details to be released in a peer reviewed journal
before I get excited.

------
TrevorJ
To sat the title to this submission is a stretch is kind. Interesting article,
nevertheless.

