Blizzard Bag D 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.

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 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 thoughts do you have regarding CRISPER technology and its use? 

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. 




32 comments:

  1. Q: Do you think the benefits of this technology are worth the risks?

    I believe the benefits of this technology are worth the risks. As Dr. Venter stated in the video, the world is now 100% reliant on science. So I personally believe this technology is necessary more than anything. President Obama did have some concerns about the technology himself, but Dr. Venter was as calm as anyone in believing that no one would ever use synthetic cell technology for "evil". I believe that as long as you only have the few, trusted scientists using this technology, it can take society to new heights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can we make sure that this technology does not fall into the wrong hands? Could we even prevent that from happening?

      Delete
  2. J. Craig Venter, seems to be a brilliant man when it comes to biology, though it seems his ideas tend to be rash, counterproductive if you are planning to apply for government funds. One of his most renown and more recent projects was synthesizing genomes to change the nature of a cell. This has to be one of the most incredible things done in mankind's history. Altering the DNA of cells allows anything from curing diseases with Crispr, (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) to creating gasoline products by modifying algae. The article on Crispr "Is Crispr the Next Antibiotic?," where it was shown that viruses are evolving at such a rate where some drugs became ineffective due to some newly evolved viral defense. Crispr can help change this by actively being modified by scientists to combat the change in the virus.
    Overall the moral here is,"playing God" really that wrong when it's for the better good. And from what it seems that the modification of genomes will better help humanity's struggle against the ever evolving diseases. We might as well be the ones pulling the strings of life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with the moral here. I believe that allowing the scientists to use Crispr is what saves certain parts of the world that have viruses rampant through their communities. Many people have fear about the "playing God" concept because they dislike the though of scientists having power over other people, when really that's not what is happening here. The scientists are doing this to help people, not to gain authority of others.

      Delete
    2. I agree with what you said. When scientists are allowed to use CRISPR technology they will be able to alter the genetic codes of people so that they are immune from certain diseases that tend to make people sick in their communities, allowing for a healthier and better functioning society across the globe. z also agree with what you said about scientists "playing god". If the technology is limited to only trained scientists then they will use their skills only to help the general population, not rule them.

      Delete
    3. I agree that it could cure diseases and could ultimately save a lot of people but like with all things there would be many unknown consequences. I agree though that altering algae for a better option for gasoline could really save our planet.

      Delete
  3. In my opinion the benefits of this technology outweigh the risks. If this technology is used correctly it could potentially cure diseases like cancer and HIV, and maybe fix genetic defects in order to create a more functional society. It could also fix problems like global warming through the use of CO2 absorbing microbes. If the technology is used only by professionals and is monitored then the issue of designer babies would not be a problem because people would be unable to have access to the technology.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you about using the technology to make cure diseases. If Venter is able to make microbes from scratch to make vaccines then maybe the medicine can be distributed to more people and help cure more people quicker. I also agree with you when you say that the microbes that absorb CO2 could help to fix global warming. This technology could be a huge step forward in the stop of global warming and preventing climate change.

      Delete
    2. I completely agree with this statement. The only problem is that nothing can ever be 100% safe so the technology will get out eventually. Once it is out many dangerous things can be done to bacteria by our enemies to create "superbugs" (some nice pessimism for this thread of comments)

      Delete
    3. I agree with what you said, the correct use of this technology could be monumental in the medical and environmental field, it could find faster more effective ways to solve problems scientists have been working on for years.

      Delete
    4. I agree with ever point shown, other than the fact that technology goes public at one point or another which makes it a tad scary. Though the possibility of curing diseases such as, HIV, cancer, and other diseases is very promising. Along with the possibility of reducing the rate of global warming is great. So in the end 100% agree with your points.

      Delete
    5. I agree with you. With this technology, there could be cures for many things whether it be medical or environmental. Such as cancer and global warming as you said.

      Delete
    6. I agree with all of these points because creating new vaccines to cure diseases like cancer and HIV would be truly life changing.I also agree that it would be incredible to create a cleaner and safer environment with global warming being such a huge problem. So with the possibility of this being obtainable, I believe that the benefits outweigh the risks.

      Delete
    7. I agree with this too! I think within a few years this will be what most scientists will be focusing on just because of how beneficial it can be for the whole world honestly. If this is handled correctly which I believe it will be it could really help progress society in many different ways.

      Delete
  4. I think that the benefits out weight the the risks. I think that using the technology to make a clean source of energy that also helps to prevent global warming is absolutely incredible. I feel like the interviewer was asking a lot about if it was safe or the risks involved, there are always going to be risks involved in an experiment. I think that if goes as planned, then any risks would be worth it in the end. I also think that if vaccines could be made in significantly less time, that it could change the medical field and how medicine is made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with your point here. To a trained eye, it is quite clear where the risks lay, and pushing past them and finding success far outweighs those risks. However, the general public may not see it that way and take away their support when they hear what could go wrong. Technology like this could change the medical field for the good, but it can't do that without people to affect. It could take a lot of convincing and trust to get the public, along with people of higher power, to implement their support into something like this.

      Delete
    2. I agree with your idea due to the fact that global warming is a huge issue and if not stopped or slowed could easily be the down fall of earth. If we used the algae that absorbs co2 and produces fuel that could be mixed into gas it would be a win, win. And a huge step to cut down on global warming.

      Delete
    3. It is very easy to say that the risks are worth taking if it means that we can have an incredible outcome. but we don't know the outcome of doing so. by doing this we are creating something unnatural that isn't meant to be, that could be causing a problem worse than the problem we are trying to fix.

      Delete
  5. I believe that the benefits of the synthetic cell truly do outweigh the risks. Success in this area of study could lead to life changing discoveries and create a whole new way of doing things. With the synthetic cells there is a chance of creating new vaccines and modifying cells to cure diseases that we have not been able to find cures for. This would be a monumental step for humankind. Another thing that could be possibly achieved by synthetic cells is a cleaner source of energy that uses less carbon dioxide, what is believed to cause global warming. This could be a huge factor in helping our environment. So even though there are many big risks involved in this experiment, the amount of benefits are even bigger.
    But considering that there are risks I do believe there should be a team of people who evaluate this experiment, the question is who? In my opinion I feel that the synthetic cell effects so many different aspects of human life that not just one person should be able to decide whether it's right or wrong. I think that a team of people from different areas of life should come together and weigh all the possible benefits and risks. A team of people like scientists, doctors, environmentalists and government officials.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Over all I think the technology is brilliant and can be used to defeat many diseases that we are plagued from for now. I say for now because it will force bacteria and other diseases to rapidly evolve to be immune to the new artificial vaccines. We are already seeing bacteria begin to evolve to become immune against vaccines. We are in an arms race with bacteria who ever is behind will eventually take the lead, right now we are in the lead but not for long.The artificial vaccines may hold off bacteria taking the lead for a few more years but we will need to constantly update the vaccines if this technology becomes common place. ( Yay more pessimism from Hunter)

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think this information and research could really help people stay out of the hospital if say you had CF or cancer all by genetically modifying bactria and DNA. It might also be able to cure the common cold. You get get treated for all of these things now but it can't be cured. It's possible that in the future we can prevent illnesses from happening before hand. If you know something that's in your family history then you could prevent it. Like preventing heart attacks. But if this were to happen there would e many problems. One of them being that we would have a weak immune system and could easily be taken down if there were to be a new disease. This new disease could come from genetically modified food or an alternative to gas. If this were the right path then lots of shots would be necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Research and breakthroughs like this are monumental for how we handle and treat illness. As a consumer, I would be totally open to trying something new if it would better modern medicine. Unfortunately, the reality is that getting these projects up and running to become a standard of treatment has some serious obstacles to get around. Funding is a substantial blockage- investors may not put their money into something with great controversy, or something with extreme risks. Politics, unfortunately, is another factor keeping these projects from continuing. There is countless research that has come to a halt due to political interference. But these should not be deciding factors in the continuation of Crispr and genetic modifying. Scientists, some of which devote their entire careers to one innovation, should be in control of their projects. They know what is best for society and what the people need. The scientist running the project, his/her team and other scientists and innovators who give second opinions should be the people to decide whether or not the technology continues.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I believe that the benefits are worth the risks, considering that this project could lead to an amazing discovery in medicine and science. This could lead to the cure of incurable diseases and better our treatment for illnesses. Unfortunately, this could take many years before being approved safe for use.
    Also in the video Venter was saying how these synthetic cells could be used to create a more clean and safe environment, which would also be an incredible step in the movement to stop using greenhouse gases, which are said to be causing global warming.
    But both of these synthetic treatments would need lots of funding and approval before they could really make a difference. I do believe it is possible though.
    If anyone was to continue this research I think that the scientists and doctors who have already taken a step and are working on the project are the best options.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Do the benefits outweigh the risks of genetic tampering. I would say yes because could be the end of death. All parasitic dieses could be completely eradicated through means of gene transfer. This could make it so they cannot divide and go extinct. Likewise we might be able to make other species immortal. This technology should be owned and controlled by the people for the people like all otherthings.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Looking at the overall picture I do not believe that tampering with synthetic cells are worth the risk. Yes, when we are influenced to believe that doing so can have amazing outcomes for example like curing cancer, we also need to consider the risks. In the moment finding a cure for cancer sounds great, but when people start messing around with genetics you never know what doors you are opening. what you might think is curing cancer might just be causing other forms of cancer or different types of diseases, and if it does cure cancer what is the outcome of putting tampered cells into our body that don't belong. We also need to consider the fact that doing this can effect society later on in life. we don't know the outcome of what is being done even if we think we do, anything can happen.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I believe that the benefits of synthetic cells outweigh the risks because of the life changing medical discoveries that they could lead to. There are so many benefits that could potentially be life altering and extremely beneficial. Although this is a very expensive technology, I do think that the cost is worth all that this technology will have to offer. These synthetic cells will be used not only to fight against illnesses but can also be used to benefit our environment and restore it to what it once was. This technology does come at some great costs, but I do think that many can see that there are far more benefits than there are risks. It will take some time for this to be approved for use and it will also take a great deal of time to become federally funded. This does not mean that it is not something that can be achieved.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Though there are risks for advancing this new technology about synthetics cells such as creating new diseases or letting this get in the wrong hands, but I think modern society would want to take these risks. Today scientists are looking for new ways to cure diseases and sickness such as Cancer and HIV. With these new synthetic cells I think it will a much quicker and more effective way than what we are trying right now. The benefits of advancing this technology is remarkable. I believe that is this project is funded by the government Venter could have this figured out in a matter of years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with that the benefits of advancing this technology is remarkable because it could change our world for the better and prolong the lives of people due to diseases

      Delete
  14. I think the risks are definitely worth it. With the possibility to cure diseases such as HIV/AIDS and different forms of cancer, it should be looked into by the government. Another problem that could possibly be solved is climate change because synthetic cells could take in the carbon dioxide and other gases the aren't environment friendly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that with the power of synthetic cells it could lead to many benefits in our community and planet, but how would we be able to insure that this new technology would be used the way we want it to be. For me to see this as more of a benefit then a risk I would have to be possessive that the government would use it to change the world for the better. It would also have to be highly secure data and have no chance of being stolen or used by someone who shouldn't.

      Delete
  15. Q: Who, if anyone, should decide if this research and technology should continue?
    A: I feel as though the people who the research is being conducted by should be able to chose if this technology should continue because they are the ones who can see the harmful risks and the problems that could occur, so they would be fully responsible for what happens.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It is hard to determine whether or not the benefits are greater then the risks without knowing how the government will handle these synthetic cells. With the development of this new "technology" there are a lot of benefits that become available like cancer or HIV. This would also be able to help with global warming and other national crises. Along with these amazing benefits comes very bad and scary consequences just like any other advance in technology. Some consequences that come with this "technology" are if it gets out to the public it could mean that anyone would have the power to genetically change anything with DNA. To fully understand whether or not this would be a good advancement or not we would need to make sure that this research is fully secure and have no chance of being stolen. It would also have to have a 100% success ratio for me to be able to trust in this new "technology." If they can manage to do this then I could see the benefits as being greater then the risks of this new experiments.

    ReplyDelete