Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: cphoenix@csli.stanford.edu (Chris Phoenix) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Biological grey goo Message-ID: Date: 4 Dec 89 23:39:50 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U. Lines: 49 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu 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] Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com