<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Drew Endy &amp; Jim Thomas &#8220;Synthetic Biology Debate&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/</link>
	<description>The Official Weblog of The Long Now Foundation and Friends</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:43:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Drew Endy vs. Jim Thomas, &#8220;Synthetic Biology Debate&#8221; (MP3 audio), Longnow Foundation, 2008/11/17 &#171; Media Download Queue &#8211;&#62; Coevolving Innovations</title>
		<link>http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-7675</link>
		<dc:creator>Drew Endy vs. Jim Thomas, &#8220;Synthetic Biology Debate&#8221; (MP3 audio), Longnow Foundation, 2008/11/17 &#171; Media Download Queue &#8211;&#62; Coevolving Innovations</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:28:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/#comment-7675</guid>
		<description>[...] The Long Now Blog » Blog Archive » Drew Endy &amp; Jim Thomas “Synthetic Biology Debate” [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The Long Now Blog » Blog Archive » Drew Endy &amp; Jim Thomas “Synthetic Biology Debate” [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Coast to Coast Bio Podcast &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Episode 19: Karmic Chlamydial Koalas</title>
		<link>http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-6934</link>
		<dc:creator>Coast to Coast Bio Podcast &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Episode 19: Karmic Chlamydial Koalas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 18:09:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/#comment-6934</guid>
		<description>[...] Drew Endy and Jim Thomas and the synthetic biology debate  [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Drew Endy and Jim Thomas and the synthetic biology debate  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JayeRandom</title>
		<link>http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-6326</link>
		<dc:creator>JayeRandom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:12:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/#comment-6326</guid>
		<description>&quot;the central dogma of evolution requires that only the fittest survive.&quot;

That is incorrect.  Evolutionary pressure permits the survival of species which are *sufficiently adequate*, as opposed to only the &quot;fittest&quot; species.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;the central dogma of evolution requires that only the fittest survive.&#8221;</p>
<p>That is incorrect.  Evolutionary pressure permits the survival of species which are *sufficiently adequate*, as opposed to only the &#8220;fittest&#8221; species.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alexander Rose</title>
		<link>http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-6087</link>
		<dc:creator>Alexander Rose</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:10:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/#comment-6087</guid>
		<description>An article in Physorg about home genetic engineering sent in by Steve Kurtz:
http://www.physorg.com/news149485258.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An article in Physorg about home genetic engineering sent in by Steve Kurtz:<br />
<a href="http://www.physorg.com/news149485258.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.physorg.com/news149485258.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Coast to Coast Bio Podcast &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Episode 7: Scientists in the cabinet, useful chemistry and reference architectures</title>
		<link>http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-6040</link>
		<dc:creator>Coast to Coast Bio Podcast &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Episode 7: Scientists in the cabinet, useful chemistry and reference architectures</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:25:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/#comment-6040</guid>
		<description>[...] Synthetic Biology: Drew Endy debates Jim thomas at the longnow foundation seminars on longterm thinking (mp3) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Synthetic Biology: Drew Endy debates Jim thomas at the longnow foundation seminars on longterm thinking (mp3) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 2B1</title>
		<link>http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-6016</link>
		<dc:creator>2B1</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:27:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/#comment-6016</guid>
		<description>The tools for &quot;modifying biology&quot; that were mentioned during the seminar were never used to &quot;synthesize autonomous biological parts or tools&quot;.  The extrapolations drawn between past performance of molecular biology and the proposed rational design of life are a priori inconsistent because life cannot be defined by such linear thinking.

Also, to be consistent with reality, if one makes an argument in favor of access to the tools of molecular biology for teenagers, as was done by the speaker, one should not object to making the nuclear weapon components to be universally accessible.  Such argument is not accepted to any informed person.  Proponents of &quot;synthetic biology&quot; can make their arguments today because no biological weapons have yet been used to the same degree as nuclear weapons.

The concept of rebuilding nature with &quot;tools&quot; is self-inconsistent and dangerous to all life forms, including venture capitalists of financiers of this proposed non-sense.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The tools for &#8220;modifying biology&#8221; that were mentioned during the seminar were never used to &#8220;synthesize autonomous biological parts or tools&#8221;.  The extrapolations drawn between past performance of molecular biology and the proposed rational design of life are a priori inconsistent because life cannot be defined by such linear thinking.</p>
<p>Also, to be consistent with reality, if one makes an argument in favor of access to the tools of molecular biology for teenagers, as was done by the speaker, one should not object to making the nuclear weapon components to be universally accessible.  Such argument is not accepted to any informed person.  Proponents of &#8220;synthetic biology&#8221; can make their arguments today because no biological weapons have yet been used to the same degree as nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>The concept of rebuilding nature with &#8220;tools&#8221; is self-inconsistent and dangerous to all life forms, including venture capitalists of financiers of this proposed non-sense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Mahemoff</title>
		<link>http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-5959</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Mahemoff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/#comment-5959</guid>
		<description>The audio - http://fora.tv/media/rss/Long_Now_Podcasts/podcast-2008-11-17-synth-bio-debate.mp3</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The audio &#8211; <a href="http://fora.tv/media/rss/Long_Now_Podcasts/podcast-2008-11-17-synth-bio-debate.mp3" rel="nofollow">http://fora.tv/media/rss/Long_Now_Podcasts/podcast-2008-11-17-synth-bio-debate.mp3</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 2B1</title>
		<link>http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-5926</link>
		<dc:creator>2B1</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:29:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/#comment-5926</guid>
		<description>The future “products” of synthetic biology cannot be engineered to remain in co-existence with, or subservient to any current species on Earth (including humans) because the central dogma of evolution requires that only the fittest survive.  

The anticipation, or perhaps the misguided hope that envisions humans (or scientists) to be able to control “synthesized life” is based on the misconception about what it takes to create life.

The proponents of synthetic biology believe that there is a utility function to be derived by “engineering life”.  Perhaps, but they fail to disclose that this could only be efficiently and economically accomplished by means of selection, rather than by screening for such a function.  While screening for a new utility function poses little risk, selecting for a new utility function from a library of “synthetic” individual genetic variations is dangerous. The intrinsic difference between the processes of selection and screening would result in only two possible outcomes.

Should the screening method be used, one cannot expect to derive any sufficiently justifiable new utility function because we do not yet have sufficient information to design life rationally.

In contrast, the termination of many current species, including possibly humans is virtually predictable should the selection method be used to circumvent human inability to design life rationally.  Once a library of engineered organisms, rather than an individual “new” species would be introduced into an ecosystem in an assisted attempt to select for a new utility function, the unfair survival advantage of the “new creation” is virtually guaranteed.  Hence, only the fittest survive.

One needs to re-think that value proposition of “synthetic biology”.  People of means, with all thy getting get understanding.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The future “products” of synthetic biology cannot be engineered to remain in co-existence with, or subservient to any current species on Earth (including humans) because the central dogma of evolution requires that only the fittest survive.  </p>
<p>The anticipation, or perhaps the misguided hope that envisions humans (or scientists) to be able to control “synthesized life” is based on the misconception about what it takes to create life.</p>
<p>The proponents of synthetic biology believe that there is a utility function to be derived by “engineering life”.  Perhaps, but they fail to disclose that this could only be efficiently and economically accomplished by means of selection, rather than by screening for such a function.  While screening for a new utility function poses little risk, selecting for a new utility function from a library of “synthetic” individual genetic variations is dangerous. The intrinsic difference between the processes of selection and screening would result in only two possible outcomes.</p>
<p>Should the screening method be used, one cannot expect to derive any sufficiently justifiable new utility function because we do not yet have sufficient information to design life rationally.</p>
<p>In contrast, the termination of many current species, including possibly humans is virtually predictable should the selection method be used to circumvent human inability to design life rationally.  Once a library of engineered organisms, rather than an individual “new” species would be introduced into an ecosystem in an assisted attempt to select for a new utility function, the unfair survival advantage of the “new creation” is virtually guaranteed.  Hence, only the fittest survive.</p>
<p>One needs to re-think that value proposition of “synthetic biology”.  People of means, with all thy getting get understanding.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Next Nucleus &#187; Synthetic Biology Debate</title>
		<link>http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-5922</link>
		<dc:creator>Next Nucleus &#187; Synthetic Biology Debate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:55:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/#comment-5922</guid>
		<description>[...] responsibilities that comes with the work.  I had such an opportunity a few nights ago at the Synthetic Biology Debate hosted by The Long Now. I witnessed an engaging dialog on the open and active development of [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] responsibilities that comes with the work.  I had such an opportunity a few nights ago at the Synthetic Biology Debate hosted by The Long Now. I witnessed an engaging dialog on the open and active development of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Hybrid Vigor Institute &#124; hybridvigor.net</title>
		<link>http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-5898</link>
		<dc:creator>The Hybrid Vigor Institute &#124; hybridvigor.net</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:56:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/#comment-5898</guid>
		<description>[...] You can read Stewart Brand&#8217;s succinct blog post on the event here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] You can read Stewart Brand&#8217;s succinct blog post on the event here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LEGENDmag</title>
		<link>http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-5868</link>
		<dc:creator>LEGENDmag</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:49:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.longnow.org/2008/11/18/drew-endy-jim-thomas-synthetic-biology-debate/#comment-5868</guid>
		<description>[...] attended the Synthetic Biology Debate put on by The Long Now Foundation, and walked out scratching our heads&#8230; (in a good [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] attended the Synthetic Biology Debate put on by The Long Now Foundation, and walked out scratching our heads&#8230; (in a good [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

