PlasmidGate?
ASK IDO BACHELET
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-1000847295 DNA nanobots coming to your bloodstream
Billions of robots built from DNA can live inside a syringe, and can be injected into the body, where they carry out search and destroy missions as they interact with the body and with each other.
They locate tumors, release medications at the right place and in the right dosage, link up with each other to create a bridge on which tissue can grow, and with the press of an external button, they can disappear. This isn't science fiction, but applications of the nanobot technology developed by Dr. Ido Bachelet of Bar Ilan University.
"The pharmaceutical industry is constantly talking about better medicines, meaning medication which can be controlled.
It's a bit like talking about a better gun, which only kills bad people.
What would happen if we could give the rifle to a soldier who is trained to shoot exactly at the right time?"
Speaking at the TEDMED Israel conference, organized by Adv. Yaron Eliram and Dr. Eitam Eliram, in April, Bachelet held up a syringe, and said, "Here are 100 billion tiny robots, 50 nanometers in length. They were created in my joint work with Prof. Shawn Douglas, but at the Bar Ilan laboratory, we worked to make them more stable and safer."
How are nanometer robots produced? First, produce a DNA sequence of your choice, then replicate it using the origami DNA method. With this technique, a person can give orders to a computer to fold the DNA molecules as required. The result is, for example, a DNA sequence in the form of an oyster, whose pearl is medication, but the DNA includes a code that is activated when it comes into contact with particular materials in the body. For example, it is possible to ensure that the oyster receives a signal to change its shape and release the medication only when it encounters a tumor cell.
these robots can change their shape in response to signals from the body and link up with each other
It is possible to include with the nanometer-sized DNA molecule a miniature antenna. When the antenna receives a signal, it causes a tiny change in the molecule, telling it to open or close, self-destruct, or attach to another molecule. The signal is sent from a transmitter outside the body, and the process is remotely controlled via the Internet.
And they expose calcium channel blocker?????
https://www.uptodate.com/contents/major-side-effects-and-safety-of-calcium-channel-blockers
A review of the major side effects associated with these agents and the controversy concerning their effect on coronary events, mortality, gastrointestinal bleeding, and the development of cancer are presented here.
CCBs can cause worsening of heart problems, such as heart failure.
Swelling in your arms or legs from fluid buildup, is another common side effect of CCBs.
A low heart rate, or bradycardia, is another possible CCB side effect.
Dizziness, the feeling of being unsteady, lightheaded, or weak can happen when first starting a CCB or if your blood pressure has gone down too much. This feeling can also occur when you move from a lying down or sitting position to standing up.
Fatigue is another common CCB side effect.
Flushing, or when your skin gets red and warm to the touch, is another common side effect of CCBs.
CCBs also have the ability to worsen other types of heart problems, such as heart failure, especially systolic heart failure:
Systolic failure: The left ventricle loses its ability to contract normally. The heart can't pump with enough force to push enough blood into circulation. This is also known as heart failure with reduced ejection, or HFrEF. When this occurs, the heart is pumping less than or equal to 40% EF.
https://nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMc2109975?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed Myocarditis after Covid-19 mRNA Vaccination
A transthoracic echocardiogram showed severe global left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction, 15 to 20%) and normal left ventricular dimensions.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9132740/ COVID-19 Vaccination-Induced Cardiomyopathy Requiring Permanent Left Ventricular Assist Device - PMC
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8545905/ Case Report: Probable Myocarditis After Covid-19 mRNA Vaccine in a Patient With Arrhythmogenic Left Ventricular Cardiomyopathy - PMC
The echocardiographic assessment showed mild left ventricular enlargement (Figure 2) with moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction (Supplementary Videos 1,2)
https://www.oatext.com/pdf/JCCR-4-173.pdf Premature ventricular complexes and heart failure post COVID vaccination
https://www.oatext.com/premature-ventricular-complexes-and-heart-failure-post-covid-vaccination.php Premature ventricular complexes and heart failure post COVID vaccination
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9683470/ Acute myocardial infarction complicated by severe left ventricle systolic dysfunction in a young patient after Covid 19 vaccination: a case report - PMC
Abstract
We report the case of a 23 years old patient who developed an acute myocardial infarction one day after his second dose of COVID-19 BIBP vaccination, complicated by severe left ventricle systolic dysfunction with an ejection fraction measured at 32%, associated with left ventricular wall motion abnormalities well evolved under treatment of heart failure with reduced EF combining :angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, beta blocker, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.
Therefore, a cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed to confirm the latter, which showed an image consistent with a recent left ventricular subendocardial infarction, remarkably prominent in the left anterior descending artery territory and the absence of signs of myocarditis. The patient had no previous past medical history or other clinical features explaining this coronary event onset. Thus, the vaccine was potentially to be implicated in the pathophysiology of the event.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.121.009321 Biopsy-Proven Giant Cell Myocarditis Following the COVID-19 Vaccine | Circulation: Heart Failure
We describe a case of GCM in a patient without cardiac history or significant comorbid conditions who presented with severe heart failure a few weeks after the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech).
Stages of Dying in End-Stage Congestive Heart Failure
Stage A — At risk for heart failure, but without signs or symptoms of disease
Stage B — Pre-heart failure, without symptoms but with known heart abnormalities
Stage C — Symptomatic heart failure, either currently or in the past
Stage D — Advanced (or end-stage) heart failure, with symptoms that interfere with quality of life or cause multiple hospital stays
Severe shortness of breath
This is worsened by any kind of physical activity, to the point of being unable to tolerate activity. It can also cause discomfort at rest, and may feel worse when lying down to sleep, due to fluid buildup in the lungs.
Increased fatigue
Poor heart function and difficulty sleeping due to discomfort and shortness of breath can lead to extreme exhaustion for end-stage heart failure patients.
Worsening cough
Fluid buildup in the lungs can worsen chronic cough due to heart failure.
Swelling
Trouble with proper circulation and fluid buildup can lead to swollen legs, feet, ankles and belly. The swelling can be uncomfortable. If you press on a swollen body part, you might notice your finger leaves a dent. Along with fluid retention, rapid weight gain may occur.
Decreased appetite
Swelling in the abdomen can cause a feeling of pressure, fullness and nausea, and food intake may decrease.
Heart palpitations
Weakened heart muscle may cause arrhythmias, leading to a feeling of extra or skipped beats.
Increased urination
You may find yourself making extra bathroom trips due to fluid retention. This is especially true if you have been prescribed diuretics, a medication that helps flush excess fluid from the body.
Feelings of anxiety or “doom”
This is a common response to the combination of end-stage heart failure symptoms and their impact on well-being.
A person with end-stage heart failure who is beginning to experience the stages of dying will have symptoms such as:
Decreased responsiveness
Increased restlessness
Difficulty speaking or moving
Sleeping more
Not wanting to eat or drink
Increased confusion
Loss of control of bodily functions
Shallow, irregular breathing
Hallucinations
Cold and/or discolored feet and hands
Decreased body temperature and blood pressure
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.RES.0000145047.14691.db
What Causes Sudden Death in Heart Failure?
Patients with heart failure experience a number of changes in the electrical function of the heart that predispose to potentially lethal cardiac arrhythmias. Action potential prolongation, the result of functional downregulation of K currents, and aberrant Ca2+ handling is a recurrent theme. Significant alterations in conduction and activation of a number of initially adaptive but ultimately maladaptive signaling cascades contribute to the generation of a highly arrhythmogenic substrate. We review the changes in active and passive membrane properties, neurohumoral signaling, and genetic determinants that predispose to sudden arrhythmic death in patients with heart failure and highlight the critical unanswered questions that are ripe for future investigation.
Of the deaths in patients with HF, up to 50% are sudden and unexpected; indeed, patients with HF have 6- to 9-times the rate of sudden cardiac death (SCD) of the general population.1
The presumption is that SCD is produced by a lethal cardiac arrhythmia, most often ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation. Bradyarrhythmias and pulseless electrical activity occur less frequently, and generally in hearts with more advanced structural disease. Some data suggest that bradyarrhythmias and pulseless electrical activity may account for an increasing percentage of SCDs, because the frequency of ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation (VT/VF) may be decreasing.2 The World Health Organization definition of sudden death certainly leaves open the possibility that death may result from a precipitous decline in mechanical function of the heart, such as pulseless electrical activity. Even sudden witnessed death may be produced by a sudden mechanical or vascular catastrophe (pulmonary embolus, cardiac, or vascular rupture) rather than a malignant cardiac rhythm abnormality.
A hallmark of slowed conduction and poor coupling of myocardium in patients at high risk for sudden death is the presence of fractionated electrograms54,55 and delayed-paced ventricular activation.56–58 Abnormalities of conduction, and therefore ventricular activation, produce an exaggerated dispersion of recovery in infarcted and failing ventricles,59,60 facilitating re-entrant excitation and ventricular tachyarrhythmias.
Fibrosis may alter a number of features of conduction through the myocardium, including a decreased safety factor for propagation,62 alteration of the path of conduction, and the introduction of impedance mismatches. The consequences of the effects of fibrosis include an enhanced predisposition to macroscopic discontinuities in conduction, unidirectional block, and re-entry. The pattern of fibrosis in the failing heart profoundly impacts on the electrophysiological consequences and presumably the risk of sudden death.58
…
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3552300/ Why patients with congestive heart failure die: arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death - PubMed
Abstract
Patients with congestive heart failure have a high incidence of sudden cardiac death that is attributed to ventricular arrhythmias. The mortality rate in a group of patients with class III and IV heart failure is about 40% per year, and half of the deaths are sudden.
Sudden cardiac death in athletes:
→ 2.4 per month (1966-2004) [1]
→ 46.4 per month (2021-2022) [2]
A clear warning signal!
_________
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17143117/ Sudden cardiac death in athletes: the Lausanne Recommendations - PubMed
[2] https://goodsciencing.com/covid/athletes-suffer-cardiac-arrest-die-after-covid-shot/
Interpreting the headline: Over the past three years, we have processed 2100+ reports, and of those, 1483 are dead.
The evaluation work of BIRAD and Pfizer brings together the pioneering work of university researchers in the field of DNA nanorobots with Pfizer’s expertise in the design and delivery of small molecule and biotherapeutics.
Nanorobots turn from science fiction to applied solutions
“Humanity has not succeeded yet in developing a machine that can communicate directly with biologic structures, biologic processes and affect it by doing so,” said Dr. Bachelet. “However, the development of such machines may have dramatic consequences on our lives and may enable us to help manage and control processes in our body just as they are forming. At our lab, we are developing nanorobots from the most basic biological building block, DNA, and we hope to someday use these nanorobots for medical and industrial purposes.”
About BIRAD
Bar-Ilan Research & Development Company Ltd. (BIRAD) was established in order to disseminate and to effectively commercialize intellectual property developed at BIU by transforming Bar Ilan University-based discoveries into applied initiatives that strengthen the economy, promote prosperity and improve lives.
Bar Ilan University is the fastest growing institution of higher education in Israel. In the last decade, an increased focus on natural sciences has resulted in the University’s growth from two science-based faculties to four, including a faculty of Engineering, School of Medicine and the establishment of Israel's largest Nanotechnology center.
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/pfizer-partnering-with-ido-bachelet-on.html
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-pfizer-to-collaborate-on-bar-ilan-dna-robots-1001036703
Pfizer is cooperating with the DNA robot laboratory managed by Prof. Ido Bachelet at Bar-Ilan University. Bachelet has developed a method of producing innovative DNA molecules with characteristics that can be used to "program" them to reach specific locations in the body and carry out pre-programmed operations there in response to stimulation from the body. This cooperation was revealed in a lecture by Pfizer president of worldwide research and development (WRD), portfolio strategy and investment committee chairman, and executive VP Mikael Dolstein at the IATI Biomed Conference in Tel Aviv being concluded today.
Bar-Ilan Research & Development Co. CEO Orli Tori said, "This is Pfizer's first cooperative venture with someone in Israeli higher education. The technology is fairly new for a drug company, but Pfizer has agreed to take up the challenge and support this technology, in the hope that it will make a contribution to the company at the proper time.
"As in all of our research agreements, the company coming from the industry has the right to negotiate the acquisition of the technology at the end of the process." The financial volume of the deal was not disclosed, but most such agreements amount to several hundred thousand dollars at most. The medical sector in which cooperation will take place was also not disclosed, but it appears that research will focus on the possibility that
the robots will deliver the medical proteins to designated tissue.
"In order to make a nanometric robot, we first of all create a selected DNA sequence, and then fold it using a process called DNA origami. With this method, a person can give a command to a computer, which folds the DNA molecule as needed.
"The result is that a DNA sequence can be made in the form of a clam, for example, and containing a drug. The DNA molecule, however, contains a code activated upon encountering certain materials in the body.
In the future, it will be possible to combine each such molecule with a miniature antenna. When the antenna receives an external signal, it will make a small change in the molecule that will make it open or close, and dissipate or connect itself to another molecule."
https://www.bioethicsproject.org/synthetic-biology/
Ido Bachelet engineered synthetic DNA Nanorobots used for targeted drug delivery.
The DNA Nanorobots raise a question of whether the synthesizing of DNA, is the creation of life? If so, the implications on the definition of life and the way we perceive life would be altered. The Designer Organism raises questions on the rights of artificial life and leads to evaluating the next steps of synthetic biology. This is a significant subject to discuss due to the narrowing gap between natural and artificial and the potential for this technology
to change life as we know it.
In this way, a discussion about the complicated definition of life, the values of justice and safety, and the theory of consequentialism is necessary.
With the development of synthetic biology, this borderline between living and non-living entities becomes blurred.
With the second goal of redesigning biological components in mind, Ido Bachelet, an independent scientist and the great mind behind the creation of DNA nanorobots has stated, “No, no it’s not science fiction… It’s already happening.” Ido Bachelet engineered synthetic DNA nanorobots used for targeted drug delivery. The DNA nanorobots raise a question of whether the synthesizing of DNA is the creation of life? If so, many implications of the definition of life and the way we perceive life would be altered. Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 raises questions on the rights of artificial life and leads to evaluating the next steps of synthetic biology. This is a significant subject to discuss due to the narrowing gap between natural and artificial and the potential for this technology to change life as we know it. In this way, a discussion about the following questions is necessary, how will the definition of life be affected or further complicated due to the creation of artificial life? Should these innovations have rights if they are considered alive? Under what circumstances is it ethical to create life? Is artificial life or innovations made through synthetic biology safe to use for medical treatment?
Ido Bachelet DNA nanorobots are 35 nanometers thick and made up of a single strand of synthetic DNA. “The robots we work with are smaller than the flu virus,” says Professor Gal Kaminka, a scientist involved in the making of the DNA nanorobots. “To illustrate this, if the nanorobot was the size of an average person, let’s say 1.65 meters, then the body in which it works would have to be over four times the diameter of the Earth.” To create their nanorobots, the DNA is folded into a clam shape in order to hold a carrier for existing drugs. The nanorobots are injected with saline into the patient’s bloodstream. There, they are programmed to bypass healthy cells and to deliver drugs to cancer cells. The nanorobot reacts with proteins on the surface of cells to determine if they are cancerous. Once the nanorobot detects a cancer cell, the two halves unhinge and release the drugs. The picture below shows the nanorobot in its off state, or when it is traveling through the bloodstream, and its on state, or when it detects a cancer cell.
One example of a drug that would be found in the nanorobots would be molecules that force cancer cells to undergo apoptosis or self destruction. Currently, the nanorobots in the clinical research phase have been programmed to recognize and to deliver drugs to 12 types of cancer cells. These include cells from solid tumors to white blood cells associated with Leukemia. There have been successful clinical trials with the nanorobots. In a culture, the DNA nanorobots have been able to kill of cancer cells without harming healthy ones. Another trial with cockroaches to monitor the movement of the nanorobots has also been successful. In 2015, the first human trial took place with a terminally ill leukemia patient given a few months to live. Unfortunately, the results of this trial have not been published.
Using genes from the synthetic species Mycoplasma Mycoides JCVI-syn1.0, the researchers successfully created life with the smallest genome, JCVI-syn3.0, in 2016. A researcher on the team states, “Our long-term vision is to have the ability to design and build synthetic organisms on demand that perform specific functions that are programmed into the cellular genome” (Weintraub, Karen). With this goal in mind, J.Craig Venter has spoken about using this technology to make synthetic antibiotics and to possibly grow transplanted organs into pigs.
One could use the scientific definition of life to argue that DNA is both living and not living, so the scientific definition alone may not be dispositive. Those who want to use the definition would argue that DNA is living because it is in all animal and plants. In addition, DNA is not an inorganic material as it contains a five carbon sugar, deoxyribose. It replicates, has genes which command functional activity like the creation of proteins, and changes slightly as one ages.
On the other hand, focusing on other sections of the definition would prove the opposite, that the DNA is non living. For instance, it can be claimed that DNA does not reproduce as it only duplicates. To refute, bacteria is considered alive and reproduces through binary fusion. Binary fission is a process in which the parent cell produces duplicate offspring. Also, DNA does not grow or die as it never stops functioning. DNA also cannot maintain homeostasis, DNA is a chemical compound, and DNA is made up of dead material i.e. nucleotides. Therefore, parts of the scientific definition can be used to prove that the creation of DNA is the creation of life, while others prove the opposite.
I believe that the DNA nanorobots can be considered to be living because as referenced before, not all living things fit all criteria for the definition of life. For instance, a bacteria does not reproduce, but it is considered alive. Also, a human is still considering living even when they cannot maintain homeostasis naturally and need extraordinary medical intervention. Especially with a topic as complex as life, I think the title of living and non living can be stretched to describe more abstract things.
Using the philosophical definition, the lines between living and non living are very blurred. One could argue it is clear that DNA is not alive since it does not have a “brain” or a conscience. As a result, the philosophical definition proves that the DNA nanorobots cannot be considered alive. To refute, the product of synthesizing DNA, the nanorobot, could be considered to have a conscience since it is autonomous and makes decisions on whether it should deliver a drug to certain cells. It is autonomous; however, this does not mean it has a conscience. This is because the DNA nanorobots autonomy stems from being programmed in a computer. In my opinion, a conscience is based on moral decision making and the DNA nanorobots do not have this capacity to feel emotions or be bias. According to my interpretation of normative ethics, the DNA nanorobots are not alive.
Overall, there are many different claims when determining whether DNA is alive and as a result the DNA nanorobots are living things. If it was too be considered alive, then a discussion about the justice of synthetic life and the safety of the patient when using them as a treatment is necessary.
This illustrates that the creation of synthetic life will encourage finding answers to the rhetorical questions about life asked for so many years. The theory behind this conclusion is that as a community we will learn more about life, when we create it ourselves. However, this leads to significant ethical implications of even though it is for the greater good of the scientific community and society as a whole, is it ethical to create life?
One side could claim that it is unethical to create life. There are a few ways to framework this argument. The first is through a theological standpoint. “Some people believe that the genetic modification or de novo creation of living organisms encroaches into such a forbidden realm, and hence they believe that there is something intrinsically wrong with these activities” (Buchanan, Allen). Another argument against the creation of artificial life is based on moral character and distinguishes that scientists like J. Craig Venter express a desire for excessive dominance as they are “playing God” with their discoveries. In addition, it can be determined that the creation of life is overstepping the capacity of human knowledge, is radical, and full of uncertainty. A concern is that synthetic biology scientists may not know the limit to their knowledge; this could lead to harmful innovations that question the motive and purpose of the scientists.
On the other hand one could claim that is ethical to create life. Synthetic biology can be a tool to improve life and according to utilitarianism, benefit the greater good. For example, the designer organism can be useful in creating vaccines and antibiotics. In particular, the scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute are currently working to develop a vaccine for Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP). This disease greatly affects Africa’s economy and people as it harms the livestock and availability of food. This demonstrates how the creation of life has potential to be extremely beneficial for a great number of people, and should not be considered unethical due to its radicality. Additionally, it can be claimed that the creation of artificial life is the next step of progress. We already have the power to edit genes of living things, so creating new genes is the next big breakthrough.
The power that one possess when they have the ability to synthesize and design life is extremely significant. The theory of consequentialism states that the effects of an action determine whether it is ethical or not. If life is created for the benefit of the greater good, then it can be deemed ethical. If this power is abused and this technology is used to impose harm, than it can be determined that creating life is unethical.
Justice of Synthetic Life
In discussing the rights of synthetic life, it is crucial to first analyze what distinguishes artificial life from natural life. In this section, it is important to note that the terms artificial life and synthetic life are used as synonyms. Currently, the forms of synthesized life and natural life are very different. This is because the only form of synthetic life is the bacteria, Mycoplasma Mycoides JCVI-syn1.0. However, brewing in the science community is the synthesizing of an artificial human genome. That is, in the future the creation of artificial human cells and possibly, the creation of an artificial human. Therefore, this discussion of justice of synthetic life is very different now, then it will be in the future.
The factor that makes synthetic life different from natural life is that artificial life is programmed using a computer.
In this way, the organism has a purpose that it must achieve since it is written in its genetics code. With regards to justice, the fact that humans have complete control over the organisms produced in terms of its chemical makeup gives synthetic life less rights. Even though humans naturally create other humans, many believe a higher power forms them. Many believe that people are of God and that each person is made by this entity. Moreover, it can be argued that humans who create artificial life have direct power over these synthetic life forms. As a result, this allows the creators of these artificial life forms to restrict the rights of them.
Autonomy and Justice
As I think about justice in terms of synthetic life, I think about the relationship between a child and their parents. As a child ages and becomes more autonomous, the parents will usually give the child more freedom and as a society, we give them more rights. This leads to a discussion on the role of autonomy when considering the rights of a synthetic organism. If a synthetic organism is autonomous, how does it affect the types of rights, if any, it deserves? To answer this question, we must analyze to what degree synthetic life is autonomous. I conclude that synthetic life has less autonomy than a natural organism due to the fact it’s decision making ability is programmed. This proves how the intersection of autonomy and rights is different from what we see with a typical parent to child relationship as gaining autonomy does not mean more rights, if any, are granted.
Overall, I believe that as synthetic life is created to mimic qualities close to a human, the rights, if any, given should change. As synthetic biology progresses and a greater variety of synthetic life is created, this discussion will become more complex on how being not only synthetic, but autonomous, will affect the rights an organism deserves.
Safety of Synthetic Biology
When considering the value of safety in terms of synthetic biology as whole, it is crucial to examine the stakeholders in the future of this technology. These are, the government, companies such us JCVI, and private entities. The government and JCVI have made efforts to solve safety problems; however, they are outdated and ineffective. This ineffectiveness can be proven by examining how people in modern day are conducting unregulated “DIY” or do it yourself synthetic biology experiments.
After Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 was synthesized, President Barack Obama sent a letter to the Commision for the Study of BioEthical Issues demanding a meeting be held. He stated, “It is vital that we as a society consider, in a thoughtful manner, the significance of this kind of scientific development. With the Commission’s collective expertise in the areas of science, policy, and ethical and religious values, I am confident it will carry out this responsibility with the care and attention it deserves” (Presidential Commission). As a result of this letter, the commision met and released five fundamental ethical values that should govern the progression of synthetic biology. These include public beneficence, responsible stewardship, intellectual freedom and responsibility, democratic deliberation, and justice and fairness. The government was trying to ensure that these innovations would inherently increase safety. However, this meeting and report proves ineffective as it has not led to any concrete regulations being created. For instance, in 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services released the, “Screening Framework Guidance for Providers of Synthetic Double-Stranded DNA.” In this document, the balance of encouraging curiosity and progression for innovators while keeping beneficence in mind is attempted. Though, it failed to ensure safety as following these guidelines is voluntary. Itt states, “that no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital offense involving certain violations.” This proves that efforts were made to ensure safety but are ineffective due to its lack of assertiveness. In addition, a similar problem arises with the National Institute of Health:
This shows that when dealing with private companies or groups, the government cannot impose guidelines that were made for the greater good and everyone’s benefit.
In addition, the J. Craig Venter Institute has conducted many of their own studies to ensure safe innovation. In a 20 month study, experts in synthetic biology discussed, “options that would help to enhance biosecurity, foster laboratory safety, and protect the communities and environment outside of laboratories” (Garfinkel, Michele S). However, this study took place in 2007, about 3 years before Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 was even created. This study almost seems incredible as it occurred before one of the biggest controversies and breakthroughs in synthetic biology took place.
As a result of this ineffective regulation, a new trend of “DIY” synthetic biology has spread. With synthetic DNA being accessible and inexpensive, anyone with a credit card and knowledge can conduct synthetic biology.
“If nefarious biohackers were to create a biological weapon from scratch– a killer that would bounce from host to host, capable of reaching millions of people, unrestrained by time or distance– they would probably begin with some online shopping”
(Baumgaertner, Emily). This depicts that the lack of regulation has led to the ability for safety concerns to grow.
The main concern is that someone will use this technology to create a bioweapon.
At the University of Alberta, scientists have created an extinct relative of smallpox using mail-order DNA. This project took only 6 month and occurred “without a glance from law enforcement officials” (Baumgaertner, Emily). This is extremely alarming and suggests that effective legal action should be imposed by the government to eliminate this possibility of bioterrorism or bioweaponry.
Another concern about synthetic life is that once it is released into society, it will release deadly pathogens and harm the environment.
Although a study done by J. Craig Venter Institute, “conclude[d] that the U.S. regulatory agencies have adequate legal authority to address most, but not all, potential environmental, health and safety concerns posed by these organisms (Carter, Sarah R).
This proves that more focus needs to be placed towards synthetic biology as products of this field pose serious safety threats to society.
Ultimately, the field of synthetic biology has led to the creation of drug delivering DNA nanorobots and a designer organism. These innovations have great potential for the treatment of cancer and for vaccines; nevertheless, they raise ethical concerns about the definition of life, the rights of synthetic organisms, and the safety and regulation of their uses. Through groundbreaking, I believe the main issue with synthetic biology is the scientific fiction aspect and the fact that this technology is extremely complex and mind boggling. To alter this initial response to synthetic biology into being more positive, I think there needs to be better public awareness and more concrete legal action by both the government and the J. Craig Venter Institute. For example, “The laws that cover biotechnology have not been significantly updated in decades, forcing regulators to rely on outdated frameworks to govern new technologies” (Baumgaertner, Emily). One suggestion is to require that synthetic biologists have licenses or that supervision is necessary to conduct a synthetic biology experiment. This way, they are required to follow certain laws, instead of a list of voluntary guidelines. Currently, the government, the J. Craig Venter institute, and other private innovators are working separately; however, I think it is crucial that they congregate and work together to ensure that this technology stays under high regulation with a common goal in mind. The guiding question for past technologies in synthetic biology was, “If a cell is a micro robot created by nature through evolution, why can’t we too make microscopic machines that we program and control?” (Human Paragon). Moreover, in looking at the bigger picture, how will this technology interfere with fate and the process of natural selection?
Is the creation of life a violation of human evolution?
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/09/scientists-shocked-and-alarmed-at-whats-in-the-mrna-shots/
https://julesonthebeach.substack.com/p/dna-contamination-can-canberra-keep
I'm sick to death of these Frankenstein freaks trying to control and kill us. I say we make an example of them all starting with Gates.
"Nanobots … for treating cancer"
Of course, they always only want to help…
That's why we have free organic food, crystal clear water, a deep blue sky, no radiation, no vaccine poison…