Blizzard Bag C Block Honors Bio Day 1

Blizzard Bag Lesson Plan 1:
The First Synthetic Cell

     This year in Biology we have covered the characteristics of what make a living organism. Our definition of what it means to be living might start to change. Recently Craig Venter and his team of researchers have created the first synthetic cell.  This bacterium uses the membrane, cytoplasm, and organelles of naturally occurring bacteria but its genome has been completely replaced with an artificial chromosome designed by the scientists. Why do this? Several papers and magazines have looked into this research and that question. Today I would like you to investigate this discovery and discuss its potential and possible consequences.

Step1: Watch this video 60 minutes produced about Craig Venter and his research


If the link doesn’t work, Google “Craig Venter 60 Minutes” and you should be able to easily find it.


Step 2: Read ONE of the following articles on the first synthetic cell.

A New York Times article on the first synthetic cell:

The original scientific article in Science :


Here is an article from last year on the first genetically modified humans.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/11/26/670752865/chinese-scientist-says-hes-first-to-genetically-edit-babies


One of the most powerful DNA editing technologies is CRISPR. We will be talking much more about it this year. You are encouraged to read this recent article about using CRISPR to fight bacterial diseases.

Step 3: Post a short one or two paragraph reflection on the video and the article in the comment section below this blog post. You might want to discuss or try to answer one of the following questions in your post.
  • Do you think the benefits of this technology are worth the risks?
  • Who, if anyone, should decide if this research and technology should continue?
  • What rules or regulations would you put into place to protect the environment?  Should there be any?
  • What other “bugs” (bacteria) can you imagine creating to solve a modern day problem?
  • Are there any other potential problems with this technology you can think of not mentioned in the video or articles?
  • Do you think this bacterium should truly be called synthetic? Why or why not?
  • Would you as a consumer use products made from or using these organisms?  Why or why not?
  • What initial feelings do you have regarding CRISPER technology?

Step 4: Respond to at least one of the posts by your classmates. You can ask a question or make a follow-up statement. Be polite in your discussion and respect everyone’s opinions even if you are in disagreement.

Grading: This lesson will be graded as a classwork assignment. 50 points will be awarded for your original reflection, and another 50 points for your response to your classmates post. 



40 comments:

  1. Creating synthetic bacteria and altering the human genome are important strides in technology and in the advancement of humanity as a whole. But these endeavors are a double edged sword, and the use of synthetic bacteria for things such as reducing our carbon footprint with algae-based fuel, and creating vaccines could also be used for malicious purposes, such as creating powerful diseases capable of genocide, ushering in a new era of gruesome warfare. CRISPR, a gene modification tool, is also a very important step in the advancement of our species. Chinese scientist, He Jiankui, for example used CRISPR to genetically alter the genome of two twin girls in order to make them immune to HIV. In the future however, CRISPR could also be used to alter a child's intelligence, physical performance, and even their appearance, creating a permanent class divide, and making it so individuals without these modifications are less likely to receive high paying, white collar jobs. This could lead to a new wave of discrimination to the likes of which our nation has never seen before. Research and discovery are amazing things, and without them, our species would not be where it is today. However, discovery can be used for both creation and destruction, and has been throughout human history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although I do agree with your ideas of how the bacteria could be dangerous, I do not believe that they would impact the way of how somebody would look at a "modified" person's looks and habits. Destruction is a bit of a stretch, I believe there would be bitter feuds between the different types every now and then, but I don't believe they would cause wars.

      Delete
    2. I believe you have misunderstood my thinking, as bacteria could be responsible for deadly bioweapons, and CRISPR could be responsible for a class divide. They are two different risks for two different technologies.

      Delete
    3. It can get a little confusing. Synthetic bacteria and CRISPER are different, but related technologies in that they can involve modification of DNA.

      Delete
    4. Jackson I completely agree with you, I just don’t think synthetic bacteria will lead too genocide. I do believe it is a powerful tool that could be used in the future for bad and good, I don’t know. Time will tell. I also could not agree more about the CRISPR it will create a divide and create a new evolution of people that are smarter, have a better appearance, and have a high athletically ability rate. This technology in this day is age is unethical and dangerous.

      Delete
  2. I don't think making a synthetic bacteria is worth all of the money and time. Dr Venter spent years of his life identifying different bacteria, and he made a single bacteria in all of those years. In my personal opinion, I believe it is too early to make bacteria with the kind of technology we have right now, and the amount of money spent on it. The risks are just too great right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Connor, taking risks is an important part of conducting scientific procedures, and how as a species are we supposed to develop the technology necessary without first seeing what kind of technology is necessary? Every breakthrough is worth time and money, especially one such as synthetic bacteria, which has the capability to reduce our carbon footprint, and help to vaccinate our population.

      Delete
    2. I'm wondering if we as a society should decide if we are going to allow the use of this technology before we get into the experimental phase or show that we can do it and then decide if we should. What do you guys think?

      Delete
    3. I agree with your worries, Conner. I feel like we should put the said synthetic bacteria in different environments, and see how they react to it. These bacteria may malfunction just like enzymes: they need just the right environment.

      Delete
  3. Many people, as said in the video, say that this is a step too far in technological advancement. I personally have mixed feelings about all of this synthetic cells. Yes, there can be many benefits to man-made organisms, but they can also cause big consequences. It's amazing that we can probably use this for vaccines and or help medical conditions, but something can always go wrong, and it may result badly. What if the bacteria mutates in it's new environment? I think that if we become too dependent on this new technology, we might take for granted the consequences that may be in store.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is Eliza, by the way. :)

      Delete
    2. While I do agree that there is always some possibility that technology like this may be misused or spiral out of control, I do think that the good this sort of technology can do far outweighs the mere possibility that something may go wrong. There is so much we can gain and learn from this, we should not be afraid of a possible, unproven consequence while ignoring the real, proven benefits.

      Delete
    3. I agree with your opinion, Eliza. I feel that in order to truly decide if genetic modification is a good thing for our society, the pros and cons need to be weighed and experiments need to be conducted to see if things like mutation happen when the bacteria is in new environments.

      Delete
  4. Synthetic creation and manipulation of bacteria and cells is a very exciting and promising development within the scientific community. So much good can be done with this technology, such as more effective and accessible vaccines, greater production of food and recoursouces, and a decrease of man made pollutants that damage our environment. These sorts of discoveries do open the door to some frightening possibilities, such as super viruses and killer bacteria, however I believe that if properly regulated and tested then no such events shall occur. In my opinion the pros far outweigh the cons on this sort of research, however I do believe that we should not cross the bridge over into the manipulation of human cells. That sort of manipulation seems like a breach too far at this point in time, and I don’t see it benefiting anyone other than the select few who have their cellular makeup changed. I think in the future this technology could be used to make a sort of plastic eating bacteria, although I have no idea how one would do this or the possible repercussions on the environment, so I suppose I’ll leave it to the scientists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree, other than I think (relating to the first half of your comment) that to some point it could go too far, even before cell manipulation. And I do agree that cell manipulation shouldn't be done, unless they're doing something small like cutting the dna and letting it heal itself. Kind of like giving nature a small push, but overall letting it do it's thing. (This is Bella)

      Delete
  5. Synthetic bacteria is a great discovery. It’s going to open doors for many problems we have in the world today. Dr. Vented stated it could help pollution and helping the production of food, as well as more effective vaccines. There are risks in fact like bacteria’s and virus’s we don’t know how to control and get rid of. Those are always serious factors to consider. I believe though that as long as experiments are approved and are some what safe there is nothing wrong with it. You have to test and experiment to get results. Although on the other hand with the CRISPR, the humane genome tool. I completely disagree with what the they are doing. I understand the Chinese doctor was making the twin embryos HIV prone, but I believe that’s just opening up doors that shouldn’t be opened. I believe genetically mortifying humans is unethical and will create a class divide. A new wave of discrimination will hit and things will get dark very fast.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that the benefits of this technology are worth its risks, if used in a safe and ethical manner. In the video, Craig Venter said that even though he may be experimenting with genetic modification safely, he can't guarantee that other scientist will do the same, and I think that if rules and regulations were put into place to monitor what experiments occur, it could be very beneficial to our society. I do not think it is ethical to experiment on human cells because of the lack of knowledge there is on it's effects, and I think that the CRISPR technology is too new to conduct such life changing experiments. -Ana

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even if laws are put in place to prevent unethical gene editing, I feel like people would still use it to hurt others, just illegally. I agree with you that this technology definitely shouldn't be used on humans because we don't know enough about it.

      Delete
  7. The scientist Craig Venter made a scientific breakthrough. Venter and his team created a synthetic bacteria. This shows that DNA can be altered safely. This new technology can be used for curing and preventing illnesses and in some cases, could possibly used to restore hearing.
    CRISPR is a genetic editing tool that can used to prevent genetic hearing loss caused by mutation. CRISPR has been successfully tested mice. CRISPR works by making a cut in the cell's DNA sequence forcing it to make repairs. This removes the mutation from the cell restoring the ability to hear.
    Although the process of altering DNA may be risky, it is worth all of benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think that modifying tiny organisms to make natural materials like in the video definitely sounds like a good alternative for when we start running out of materials. But there's so many ethical questions that go along with editing the genes of anything larger than that, like (for example) is a rat created from a single cell the same as a rat born naturally? Is it ok to use the "engineered" rat as a test subject? If you created a rat that doesn't feel pain to use in an experiment, is it ok to put it in situations where a normal rat would feel pain? And there's also the question of human gene editing. In the article about the twins supposedly made using CRISPR, they were made to be protected against HIV. Editing DNA to prevent disease sounds like it would be a great idea, but it's easy to think how it could go too far. Expecting parents could say "I want a daughter with green eyes who never gets sick" and that daughter could be made in a lab in a month. You're choosing things that normally can't be controlled, and you're choosing it for another person who may not want that. What if you engineered your son to be a professional swimmer and then he says he wants to be a poet or something? Plus there's the fact that you'd need a majority of people to agree with you if you want to do any of this legally. If you go anything above a single-celled organism or maybe a plant there's gonna be a riot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (This is Lou) Although I do agree with you on how people should not have the ability to customize their babies, I beleive that scientists should continue to experiment and see if they can find a way to prevent genetic diseases in humans that vaccines can't. This way the parent's won't be choosing the baby's life for them, but simply trying to keep them as healthy as possible.If laws and regulations are put into place regarding the genetic modification, going too far can be easily prevented.

      Delete
    2. I agree that there are many ethical questions raised with this kind of genetic modification, as there's been with many technological advances in the past. As scientists research more about this it could be a very good thing for preventing diseases and possibly eradicating some altogether. Laws could be put in place preventing parents from deciding their child's appearance and abilities.

      Delete
  9. (This is Bella) I feel like this should only be used in specific situations. It reminds me of a fecal transplant, which is extremely helpful to those who need it. So building off of this, I feel as though using synthetic dna is a bad idea overall, mainly because of all the potential risks, and the fact that we're mixing things in our bodies that aren't made/supposed to go together. But for specific situations it may be helpful. On the article I read, it explained how scientists are cutting the dna in mice's ears, and letting it heal itself, which restores their hearing. That, would be a great thing that I'd support for people with hearing loss, especially since there isn't much "playing god" or mixing things that aren't originally meant to be mixed. They're just letting nature fix itself and giving it a little push.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I honestly agree with you Bella because a new synthetic DNA to help people regain hearing or sight would be helping increase their quality of life. You were also right with it being dangerous and I think there needs to be more research put into this. It might actually be a normal medical tool in the future if further research is put in.

      Delete
  10. The ability to genetically modify organisms, or to create completley new ones is still a very new concept in science, that I beleive can be used to solve lots of global issues that we have today. A synthetic bacteria that I can imagine being created to solve a problem we have environmentally, is a microorganism that rapidly breaks down plastic waste and consumes it to reduce global pollution on and off land. Although this may not be possible, there are still endless possiblilties for scientists to bioengineer organisms and solve many different issues that the world faces.
    Despite there being several positive sides to this new technology, there are also negative outcomes that scientists need to careful to avoid when creating synthetic organsims. Some people are apprehensive about synthetic organisms. This is because of the possibility of a new problem being created in the process of trying to solve one, such as creating a new disease instead of a cure. Overall, I beleive that the positives outwiegh the negatives with this technology, and that as long as scientists are careful, the world can be changed for better and not worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that there are many problems that scientists must avoid when genetically modifying organisms. I also agree that the good outcomes outway the bad outcomes. If used responsibly, this technology can change the world.

      Delete
  11. I think that the benefits of this technology are too risky to use right now. Maybe 20 years from now, when we have more reliable technology to check procedures more extensively, it won't be as risky. I feel like with so many people debating this experiment and so many uncertainties' about what will happen it's probably a safe bet to wait it out and see what new technology brings in store. Additionally, the goat bacteria cells they're turning into DNA requires further research and more depth. Just one scientist saying this new form of DNA is safe is not plausible. I feel like other research institutes need to research his claims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we wait 20 years to try and use this technology then how are we going to allow it to advance. I think this technology needs to begin to be used to help people as soon as possible and it needs to be shown that it can be used in the bustling economy of today in order to make money so it gains inversters and popularity

      Delete
  12. The knowledge related to ides of synthetic cells is impressive, being able to genetically modify a DNA strand is incredible. Although I do believe that there are some dangers but also benefits to manipulating DNA. Helping with food production, hearing, and more effective vaccines is a great use of synthesizing DNA. As risk and expensive it can be it would definitly contribute to the help of many people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (It's Rach) I agree with you. I believe that these synthetic genomes could solve many world issues such as hunger and disease. I also agree that this could be risky due to the possibility of extreme changes in DNA as well as inevitabile population growth due to stronger vaccines.

      Delete
  13. Crisper is an amazing advance in virus-fighting technology. It targets specific viruses and bacteria to prevent infection, unlike antibiotics we use today. The antibiotics we use are just general bacteria fighters and cause issues in people with weak immune systems. An issue raised with crisper is that bacteria and viruses are known to adapt and evolve so medications don't work, but crisper can be easily altered based on those adaptations. Crisper has been used to fight influenza A virus, lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus, and vesicular stomatitis virus. It's also been used to fight a species of salmonella. Crisper could be used to fight more serious viral infections such as measles or HIV/AIDS. This technological advancement will be very good for the future of medicine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although I agree, I believe that the risks of this are high, especially with the more serious infections. Do you think we know enough to be able to safely create a way to fight those infections without too many side effects? (Hailey)

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think that the technology could be worth the risks, but I also think that we should develop many more ways to make this type of technology safer and much more controlled.The benefits of this research and technology are amazing, don't get me wrong, benefits such as vaccines, be able to fight infections, those are amazing, but you would also have to put things into your body that 1. aren't natural and 2. your body might reject it because it knows you didn't create it. I feel as though this kind of technology might be too dangerous to use with what we know as of now. Maybe later we would be able to use it safely, but as of now it is too dangerous. (Hailey)

    ReplyDelete
  16. This technology has capabilities beyond any of our wildest dreams or nightmares. One day this could create a world where there is no disease or famin, people could become genetically conditioned to whatever environment they live in and they could survive with much less than is nessisary now. However with all of these perks there are drawbacks and dangers, if this technology becomes common place then peopple could easially replicate it illigally and create freaks of nature and complete and utter monsters. People could also create weapons of mass distruction, specifically a new class of bioweapons that could be as ruthless or as targetted as its maker wants it to be.

    ReplyDelete
  17. (It' Rach) I believe the alteration and building of synthetic genomes is a fantastic breakthrough in the scientific community. This technology can solve many of today's problems such as global warming, stripping the rest of the world of fossil fuels and every hunger. Without scientific breakthroughs such as this one these issues will only increase as other parts of the world become more technologically advanced and populated. The US had highways in the 60s, china is just now developing such roadways. This means countries like china will continue to advance until they are in as high demand of food and energy as the US. Synthetic bacteria's are already being patented into fuels. Personally i believe these genomes can do great things in saving and preserving our planet. Although some are worried that this cellular engineering can get out of hand, as it could, it's not an issue right now. As Dr. Vented stated, the cellular developments have only been tested on algae and bacteria.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you rachael this could shape our future for better or worse, and with others demanding these produces it could become a greater issue, but we don't know the outcome till these produces are released.

      Delete
  18. If we choose to do this research and having the risk everyone should have a say in this process to get everyone's opinions. One statement that J. Craig Venter said really stood out to me, he said "DNA is the software of life", he is programming a cell, a human just like he would program software. But you have to make sure that program is correct and safe. This research is a big step in our evolution. Some technology that has been brought out has both helped and not helped our world, but with CRISPR these could put children at bigger differences than if we had not modified our children. Children that will not have these modifications will have a harder time learning, performing in sports, and even have self doubt in themselves. All though it may help some this discovery won't help all around society, therefor this discovery will danger our species.

    ReplyDelete