World-leading scientists have called for a halt on research to create “mirror life” microbes amid concerns that the synthetic organisms would present an “unprecedented risk” to life on Earth.
The international group of Nobel laureates and other experts warn that mirror bacteria, constructed from mirror images of molecules found in nature, could become established in the environment and slip past the immune defences of natural organisms, putting humans, animals and plants at risk of lethal infections.
Many molecules for life can exist in two distinct forms, each the mirror image of the other. The DNA of all living organisms is made from “right-handed” nucleotides, while proteins, the building blocks of cells, are made from “left-handed” amino acids. Why nature works this way is unclear: life could have chosen left-handed DNA and right-handed proteins instead.
The fresh concerns over the technology are revealed in a 299-page report and a commentary in the journal Science. While enthusiastic about research on mirror molecules, the report sees substantial risks in mirror microbes and calls for a global debate on the work.
And here I thought my late 2024 anxiety level was maxed out already.
It gets worse. They are also working on mirror physics, where they launch orbiting observatories made of antimatter. What could possibly go wrong.
Antimatter does not replicate the way microbes do to be fair. It’s dangerous to handle in large enough amounts obviously, be we don’t have the energy to produce enough to create a serious danger nor the technology to store that amount at once.
Ya the total amount of antimatter ever produced is something insaly small like 10 nanograms
Activate the omega-13… 48 times.
I love the movie Galaxy Quest.
It’s a ROCK! IT DOESN’T HAVE ANY VULNERABLE SPOTS!
Funny line, definitely untrue of most rocks though
Fight a rock monster barehanded then!
“GET OFF THE LINE GUY!”
Would you not fight it with a hammer and chisel? Or like a jack hammer?
Can you form some kind of rudimentary lathe?
If my learnings have taught me anything, you would fight rock with paper
Is this how we unwittingly start a new simulation within this simulation?
lol don’t worry about it, you’ll be long dead from global warming by the time it’s developed
Anyone feeling freaked out by this doesn’t have anything to worry about. There’s nothing you and I can do to stop the research. Go on and enjoy your life.
The thing about that is if all this is for is research then I could have some hope that they’d actually stop.
If someone thinks there’s profit to be made and that’s what is driving the research then it’s never going to stop unless they go bankrupt or it proves to be worthless… What happens to the world at large doesn’t matter one bit to people chasing profit :(
Right. That’s what i said.
So just enjoy what you have. Smile, chin up, tell your family and friends you love them. Don’t stress over something you can’t control.
Not with that attitude.
Good point.
Don’t enjoy your life. Fuck it.
Well that depends on much you want the media and the internet to analyse your favourite Pokémon or your opinion on the merits of the Lorax vis-a-vis the Unabomber Manifesto.
Ahh yes, man made horrors beyond our comprehension
Proteins and DNA and their mirrored counterparts behave like the Tetris L and ⅃ blocks, basically the same but you cannot rotate them to fit in a hole meant for the other. Fitting in holes is, somewhat literally, how most processes of life work on the sub-cellular level.
Processes like the immune system. And if an experimental microbe from mirrored DNA doesn’t fit in the holes your immune system uses to identify things, because all the proteins curve the wrong way, there’s no telling how it behaves, even if the unmirrored version is one of the most studied organisms. And it’s not just your immune system, it’s every living things’ one. And 1 microbe alone is a potential pandemic.
I am no expert, but I hope the horror is comprehensible now. If not, I imagine minuteEarth’s video on mirrored molecules is basically the same reasoning here, with the caveat that mirrored DNA tends to make more of itself.
The incomprehensible part was that we don’t know how bad things can get if this stuff got out into the wild. I got the chiral parts lol thanks for the further explanation
Well, at least I finally understand how Death Stranding began.
I get the fear but what about those of us that want a Symbiote-suit?
I can comprehend this one perfectly, actually.
It really is more of a fear of the unknowable than a horror beyond comprehension, isn’t it?
Sure. Why not. Add it to the pile.
Evil microbes with little goatees…
This was immediately my thought haha
Mirror bacteria are just like the normal bacteria around us every day, except if you look at them under a microscope they all have evil looking goatees.
“We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita; Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and, to impress him, takes on his multi-armed form and says, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” I suppose we all thought that, one way or another.” ~ J. Robert Oppenheimer
I am NOT a religious man but I’m a strong believer that we are so eager to play God we are forgetting to ask the important questions around if we should.
Personally speaking I think we need to pause on things like this, or AI as another example. We have proven repeatedly we lack the maturity as a species for what we are learning.
That said, you can’t put everything back in Pandora’s box so for everyone reading this sharing my concern, YOLO and cover your head and wait for the worst.
Edit - the biggest threat to humanity is our unyielding curiosity.
It’s like that old saying … Just because we can doesn’t mean we should.
And again, like a child, we lack the maturity as a species to understand that.
It’s not that old, I remember when the film came out.
The saying is old, not the film.
AI is one of those things that’s stupidly overblown. The true downsides to AI are it’s uses in spreading misinformation and it’s enormous environmental impact. When companies are buying nuclear plants for enough electricity, the whole thing has gone off the rails. There are other downsides but those two are the largeat to me. In short though, we’ve nothing like true AI anyways so playing god is a stretch.
Edit: tbf I do understand your point and find it valid.
I think the only way to grow past our immaturity is to break out of our boundaries as human. I’d rather try than stagnate with all our flaws into extinction.
Or do it offworld at least, wired up to a dead man’s switch connected to like…a nuke. Nobody infected can leave, and any localized research or pathogens are crisped and blown apart.
Like, seriously, we only have this one green planet for potentially hundreds of light-years around us, which even at the speed of light would take us centuries to reach another earth-like world. We really cannot afford to damage this lifeboat in a vast sea of barren, rocky islands devoid of life, water, or food.
Even climate change is mind boggling to think about, when you realize there’s no alternatives anywhere even close. Even with incredibly optimistic technology breakthroughs, we are still centuries away from travelling outside this solar system and making it to the next closest star system (light-years away).
But is it not our curiosity that defines us? What separates us from machines, outside of needing to sleep, if we don’t have our curiosity, our passion for the unknown? It’s not like we can only have a little curiosity, curious enough to try a new meal but not to work towards breakthroughs that might unlock ways of bettering our lives.
How else would we have gotten all of our vaccines without people “playing god”? I think while the garbage AI is a bit scary, it’s not the AI part that terrifies me, it’s the coldness “the economy” has towards people’s livelihoods, otherwise AI is nothing special in pushing forward or downfall as a society, it’s just highlighting something that was always there, a class conflict
This seems like something that really is a minimal risk. Pathogens are pathogens because they are able to make use of our bodies as raw materials to reproduce. Unless they are able to make use of both enantiomers in their biology, there’s little benefit to dedicating resources to colonizing us.
Probably a bigger concern would be outcompeting and displacing organisms lower on the food chain.
If mirrored microbes require mirrored antibodies to be killed that is something no living thing on earth has the ability to create.
Absolutely. Conversely, if mirrored microbes aren’t able to make use of building materials in hosts that are mirrors to them, pathogenicity makes little biological sense (microbes don’t make us sick out of spite). Now, if they could, that would be a problem. Even if not, they could fatally disrupt the gut microbiome.
The scope of what I suspect to be the greater danger, I’ve, perhaps understated. Suppose mirror bacteria “escape” and are able to thrive in the surrounding environment. As you note, known life has not evolved to be able to defend against it. This introduces the possibility of the artificial bacteria displacing the natural ones. Since the biosphere involves more complex organisms feeding on the smaller ones, it is plausible that the entire food web could be disrupted, leading to extinction of extant complex life, unless adaptation occurs quick enough.
I don’t think that’s how it works. This would just double the amount of microbes that can possibly exist in the world. Your immune system would still be good, but it would double the number of fronts in the proverbial war.
What?
Fire, alcohol, bleach, etc. Would all still disinfect.
Immune systems would still work. They detect anything “foreign”. Immune system reacts to a metal splinter just like it would for wood or a parasite.
Do you have credentials in this field, or are you just kind of guessing? Because, no offense, but I’m skeptical of random people on internet forums contradicting literal scientists.
Good point, though I find the part of the commentary relevant:
Although we were initially skeptical that mirror bacteria could pose major risks, we have become deeply concerned. We were uncertain about the feasibility of synthesizing mirror bacteria but have concluded that technological progress will likely make this possible. We were uncertain about the consequences of mirror bacterial infection in humans and animals, but a close examination of existing studies led us to conclude that infections could be severe. Unlike previous discussions of mirror life, we also realized that generalist heterotroph mirror bacteria might find a range of nutrients in animal hosts and the environment and thus would not be intrinsically biocontained
Unlike previous discussions of mirror life, we also realized that generalist heterotroph mirror bacteria might find a range of nutrients in animal hosts and the environment and thus would not be intrinsically biocontained
That is basically my suspicion, from my knowledge at this time. Pathogenicity as a danger seems questionable based upon how incompatible known life is with the opposite enantiomers of its basic building blocks (though, if artificial “mirror” bacteria were able to develop enzymes to change the chirality of the proteins, etc, it would probably be bad).
Going on that energy-intensive chemistry being tricky to accomplish, it is far more likely that generalists could displace extant microorganisms that may be unable to use their evolved defenses effectively. This could result in cascading food web disruptions until either extant life adapts, or complex organisms go extinct through starvation.
I have a question with my very limited knowledge of biology:
Currently, pathogens “use” certain resources in a host, and then the host’s immune system creates antibodies that eventually kill the pathogens (or the pathogen kills the host).
The arguments are: mirror pathogens would require mirror antibodies, which is not possible for natural bodies to produce. However, this is not really a problem because our physical selves as resources would be incompatible with the needs of a mirror pathogen.
My question is: mirror or otherwise, could a pathogen “hijack” something other than usual as a resource?
Let’s say, I don’t know, Prime Pathogen A normally uses Prime Protein A, Mirror Pathogen A would require Mirror Pathogen A. Is it possible for a host to have a Prime Protein B that meets Mirror Pathogen A’s requirement–perhaps not perfectly, but “good enough” to sustain Mirror Pathogen A?
Currently, pathogens “use” certain resources in a host, and then the host’s immune system creates antibodies that eventually kill the pathogens (or the pathogen kills the host).
This is a pretty good understanding. However, antibodies are only one tool in the immune systems of complex animals. There are also a number of specialized immune cells that perform jobs like patrolling the body to try to detect foreign cells and objects to “label” as invaders, or phagocytes that try to envelope and digest foreign cells and objects. Additionally, there are strategies like making the body a less hospitable environment by increasing the temperature (fever). Antimicrobial chemical production is also very common in single-celled organisms but identified in fewer complex animals.
My question is: mirror or otherwise, could a pathogen “hijack” something other than usual as a resource?
Let’s say, I don’t know, Prime Pathogen A normally uses Prime Protein A, Mirror Pathogen A would require Mirror Pathogen A. Is it possible for a host to have a Prime Protein B that meets Mirror Pathogen A’s requirement–perhaps not perfectly, but “good enough” to sustain Mirror Pathogen A?
Possible but, when looking specifically at the hypothetical “mirror” biology, less likely and probably would require specialized adaptations. The main problem that they would need to overcome, which is rather uncommon in known life is the mirrored shape of important biological molecules. Specifically, amino acids and sugars.
Both of these types molecules have a property known as “chirality”, where the atoms in the molecule can be oriented in two ways, while still all being bonded to the same neighbors. These are known as enantiomers and designated with the prefixes “levo” (“l-”), meaning left, and “dextro” (“d-”), meaning right. Biology as we know it is very specialized to make use of l-amino acids and d-sugars. There are some exceptions but they tend to be rather specialized and less energetically favorable.
Some organisms can break down d-amino acids and use their atoms as nitrogen sources to build new l-amino acids. It is much, much more common, however, to use l-amino acids from either the host cells or their proteins. This takes the pathogen far less energy to accomplish as well as not requiring evolving specialized enzymes that most organisms don’t have.
So, in the case of the mirror pathogen, it would have to have the ability and dedicate the energy to breakdown l-amino acids to build its d-amino acids. This would, indeed, likely result in slower growth rate. That, in itself, has a lot of potential to limit pathogenicity as high growth rate is generally required to be problematic. Phagocytes will still try to envelope and remove foreign objects that they don’t “think” are alive, so, the mirror pathogen could face risk of excretion if it is not able to reproduce quickly enough to maintain a population.
So, overall, yes, hypothetically possible and even plausible (if the mirror organisms are able to metabolize d-sugars and l-amino acids) but less likely. Pathogenicity requires the ability to grow a population fast enough or otherwise evade the immune system which is also able act on “invaders” that it does not recognize as biological (maybe being really good at building a bioplaque that makes it difficult to move or use of toxins). Simply having mirrored chemistry alone is probably insufficient to evade the immune system enough to be pathogenic.
Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to answer my question and helping me understand this (or at least understand it better). The world is fascinating!
You’re very welcome! The world is absolutely incredible and there is so much to learn about everything. I love it :D
And your background in biology is…?
Undergrad in biochemistry with a year research internship. Also, a long, AuADHD-fueled interest with chemistry, industrial microbiology, and reading research papers. Yourself?
Obviously this individual wouldn’t be asking unless they had a PhD in molecular nutology
Ok, on one side we have undergrad and on other international group of Nobel laureates and other experts. Who is probably right…
Nobel Laureates have never made ridiculous statements that didn’t mesh well with scientific evidence. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, credited with discovering PCR would never be quoted as refuting the evidence of HIV as causative in AIDS, cited in a journal article questioning the evidence, and then the journal article retracted due to it being inaccurately labeled as “Hypothesis and Theory” instead of opinion, factually inaccurate, and dangerous - oh. Oh no:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6830318/
Next thing, you’ll tell me that scientists are humans that are fallible and some of them sometimes engage in ethically-questionable activities and sensationalism for profit.
There exists cases where scientists are wrong therefore my arrogance is correct. Got it :/
I’m not sure how I have come off as arrogant. But, I’m fallible just like every other human, including Nobel Laureates. I’m curious to see whether they are actually citing plausible pathogenicity or food web disruption, or if it is just sensationalism from the authors or the science communicator.
i do not disagree, but probability of who is right is not on the side of random lemmy poster in this case.
Let’s refresh your memory on what the original poster you criticized said since you think this is about who is right:
This seems like something that really is a minimal risk. Pathogens are pathogens because they are able to make use of our bodies as raw materials to reproduce. Unless they are able to make use of both enantiomers in their biology, there’s little benefit to dedicating resources to colonizing us.
Probably a bigger concern would be outcompeting and displacing organisms lower on the food chain.
This is someone forming an opinion based on what they know so far. They are clearly a good scientist because they are not making any factual claims here. They are, in fact, doing what any good scientist does and bringing up issues they see with the claims of other scientists.
They are not even saying it wouldn’t be an overall problem and I would not be at all surprised if they modify their opinion, which was neither a claim nor a prediction, if they read the 299-page report, but you seem to want a formal rebuttal. A formal rebuttal and a peer review process do not require someone to have a degree and people without degrees have had papers published in scientific journals.
And if they came up with a formal rebuttal and allowed it to be peer-reviewed, would you even read it?
ifwhen they read the 299-page reportYup. Planning to crack that open this weekend :).
who is right is not on the side of random lemmy poster in this case.
Looking at you, kid.
We all know who calls others kids…
You read what they wrote and became sceptical of their credentials? I mean, it’s healthy to be cautiously sceptical of anything you read/hear to an extent. But to immediately and without any further discussion, call them out in a patronising and condescending way is wild.
It makes me want to know if you have a background in biology. Since you so readily dispute someone else’s. Someone who, at least on the surface, seems to know what they are talking about.
In fact, why do you give so much credit to the legitimacy of the article and its writer, there might be a “38 strong group” of nobel laureates and experts warning about this, but the writer of the article adds the spin. The writer decides how to portray the warnings and their urgency. They might be overselling this. And since there is little to no citation in the article, i am more inclined to question the articles’ legitimacy before i query this poster…
Why do you give so much credit to the legitimacy of the random poster on internet?
I dont think i have given them any credit. I would argue i simply didn’t dispute them out of hand. Especially as you did without backing myself up with evidence of my own credentials.
I also thought i expressed that we should all be sceptical of anything we read on the internet. My issue was how you weighted your sceptisism. You seem to have automatically given all credibility to a reporter, under the assumption that they held no bias that affected the story they wrote.
For all you know, the random poster on the internet may be a legitimate scientist and expert who disagrees with them. Their opinion may be just as valid as the opinion in the report.
As a recent example, google released a quantum computer chip, and lemmy immediately ripped apart the reports and media buzz around what it was actually capable of. I believe that this is a great example of health sceptisism.
I believe that what you did is an example of unhealthy or misplaced sceptisism.
Granted, if it turned out that this random poster was absolutely unqualified to make the assertions that they did then absolutely you would be in the right.
I just dont think its helpful to dispute them out of hand with nothing to back you up.
This is actually a fair and good question to ask. Being too credulous of things read on the Internet has shown rather problematic in recent years. Taking everything written in academic journals, especially opinion pieces not based upon peer-reviewed evidence, without skepticism has shown to be problematic since before the Internet, however.
I’m kind of surprised by the reaction you’re getting here as I had the same exact question (you can see that I posted it before seeing yours).
Knowing that the person has some background in biology helps, but that was not clear in the initial comment. And even still, I lean toward believing the actual professionals who have studied this exact thing for years over some random person on an internet forum.
In fairness, i completely agree that the experts mentioned in the article are more than likely a reliable source of information here and their opinion is almost certainly the one i would side with, not being a biologist by any stretch of the imagination myself.
However, that’s not really my point. My point is that this person immediately, condescendingly and patronisingly disputed the claim of aomeone who at the very least sounded like they knew what they were talking about, without showing any evidence that they themselves are a reputable source of doubt and without knowing anything about the person they were disputing.
I dont think that’s a healthy way to discuss things.
In fairness, i completely agree that the experts mentioned in the article are more than likely a reliable source of information here and their opinion is almost certainly the one i would side with
In all fairness, I also agree with them likely being a solid source of information. There’s been a huge trend of leveraging academic credentials to boost sensationalism in recent years, so, until I read their reasoning, I am skeptical, specifically of whether or not it is blown out of proportion by the authors or the science communicator.
Unless they are able to make use of both enantiomers in their biology
I wouldn’t expect that sentence from someone without a background in biology for many, many reasons.
After browsing facebook for one hour I also got to the conclusion that all those people publishing in Science are lying. /s
It’s cool, America has RFK Jr. So…
…it’s not cool, actually
Maybe someone should build 50 underground silos.
Make sure you bring along a spare water chip.
Oh, great… Certainly no laboratory in some Les amicable country will continue this research to try to take a stab at fame…
Did they create some organism yet?
I believe creating life from non living parts available in nature has a great importance in proving that life could definitely have been originated like that. This would have several consequences to how we view the world.
As for the risks, they could agree on destroying all the created life after recording and documenting the results
What if they miss one and it multiplies out of sight. Now it’s out, forever. Impossible to undo. Because Ricky was a little hungover and spilled a drop without noticing.
Would prions fall under this category?
no
the point of prions is that there’s a naturally occurring protein in metastable state, and when contacted by a protein in more stable state it can transition to that more stable state. this way it’s infective without being alive. there’s nothing like this in nature, let alone commonly occurring
Oh, new Rimworld
war crimemod idea!
