46 pointsby Metacelsus3 hours ago6 comments
  • AnotherGoodName32 minutes ago
    I'm curious if this is related to some things the top AI models are uncovering.

    We know we don't get to see the bio side of the top models. They're out there solving hard maths problems etc but a query with the word 'microbes' in it often kicks you back to a smaller model automatically.

    Are the bleeding edge models finding something scary enough that can be done with synthetic DNA that it needs to be restricted asap?

    • epistasis16 minutes ago
      No not at all. The top models are not uncovering anything novel with DNA.

      This is old stuff, being implemented and getting lots of news.

  • gr-mkan hour ago
    This might impact me and a small handful of other people who have messing around with microbes in their apartment as a hobby. We'll see what happens.
    • p0w3n3d8 minutes ago
      Yeah me too. Using Clorox on my toilet seat kills always 99.99% germs. The fun is with the 0.01% that's left
    • ButlerianJihadan hour ago
      I was messing around with microbes in my apartment, as would a hobbit, until yesterday when I re-read the label where it says “If Symptoms Persist After Seven Days, Stop And Consult A Physician” which definitely impacted me! So I went back to my morning bowl of yogurt to think about new strategies!
  • __MatrixMan__2 hours ago
    The device used to make oligonucleotides is pretty much an inkjet printer, from there it's cleverly applied enzymes to assemble the full strand. If you've got the skills and determination to get the synthetic DNA into a functioning cell, I don't think limiting access to synthetic DNA in the first place is going to stop you.
    • car2 hours ago
      The device used to make oligonucleotides is pretty much an inkjet printer, from there it's cleverly applied enzymes to assemble the full strand.

      Usually the synthesis of oligonuclotides is done with phosphoramidite chemistry [0]. So tell us more about those enzymes to make DNA molecules from scratch.

      [0] https://www.twistbioscience.com/blog/science/simple-guide-ph...

      • amirhirsch23 minutes ago
        Ansa Bio uses an engineered terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT) enzyme to synthesize the oligos themselves, rather than using phosphoramidite chemistry. Each enzyme is tethered to a single nucleotide, allowing it to extend the DNA strand by exactly one base. The tether is then cleaved and the cycle repeats.

        This works in aqueous solution under mild conditions and enables synthesis of much longer oligos (~1,000 bases), which can subsequently be assembled into 50 kbp constructs.

        Not sure about that inkjet printer analogy.

      • mbreesean hour ago
        I’m pretty sure they were talking about how you can combine synthesized oligos into longer fragments when you are starting with smaller oligos. I’m guessing that they were referring to using different restriction enzymes from that point on.

        Unless we are talking about really long oligos (which is harder and $$$), you’ll need some post-synthesis enzymatic work to get your full strand.

        • fc417fc80240 minutes ago
          Yes I also read the comment that way. The inkjet printer remark presumably refers to benchtop DNA synthesis machines which have been commercially available for a while now. (The linked article mentions the possibility of buy-back programs for old machines that don't enforce any restrictions.)

          I guess it's not a bad idea to put basic hurdles in place but it would be a serious mistake to see this as any sort of comprehensive preventative. DNA just isn't difficult to manipulate.

          • XorNot19 minutes ago
            The thing is DNA just also isn't dangerous. It's fragile and everything in the environment destroys it - as noted it's literally a everything else which is the hard part.

            This reeks of the Longtermists getting their influence into government. They were doing an entire round on YouTube about a year ago.

    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
  • King-Aaron2 hours ago
    > U.S. government–funded scientists who make and manipulate DNA sequences will face tougher regulations

    Seems like this has little to do with deterring terrorism then, considering the assumption that a terrorist may not be a US government funded scientist.

    • Glyptodonan hour ago
      My guess is that the assumption is that US gov funded labs are enough of many suppliers revenue that it'll be effective, but I'm 100% speculating and it may be total garbage speculation given that I have no idea how much hobbyist level DNA projects are a thing or how much they're a thing for non-medicinal business purposes.
    • CamperBob22 hours ago
      Trouble is, that assumption hasn't always worked out in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Edwards_Ivins

      But yes, this is stupid. No one who is inclined to build a biological WMD is going to be more than mildly inconvenienced by supply restrictions. DNA isn't plutonium.

    • mapontoseventhsan hour ago
      When DNA is outlawed only outlaws will have DNA.
      • DANmode42 minutes ago
        Considering what we know about crowding-out in human microbiomes, this is probably way more relevant than the meme you were likely swinging for!
  • janalsncm2 hours ago
    > It’s great, because it does something instead of nothing

    I am detecting a bit of frustration here.

    • InsideOutSantaan hour ago
      Yeah, I'm assuming that was intended to be sarcasm.

      (Also, my comment is great, because I wrote something instead of nothing.)

      • unpleasurablean hour ago
        [ This comment left intentionally blank ]
  • senor_digimonan hour ago
    This sounds unbelievable, but hey, we have AI. Let's just keep pretending this is the regular rate of tech advancement ...

    Carry on, everything is apparently fine.