News: A programming language for living cells [Cello]
1
gravatar for Sukhdeep Singh
2.9 years ago by
Sukhdeep Singh9.6k
Netherlands
Sukhdeep Singh9.6k wrote:

Interesting, Paper : Genetic circuit design automation

http://news.mit.edu/2016/programming-language-living-cells-bacteria-0331

Cello is a framework that describes what is essentially a programming language to design computational circuits in living cells.

Source Available : Github

dna research language sequence news • 1.8k views
ADD COMMENTlink modified 2.9 years ago • written 2.9 years ago by Sukhdeep Singh9.6k
1

Heh. I have read this on April 1st and I thought it was an elaborate April Fools joke.

Especially where it said "No experience needed" I stopped reading at that point.

I guess it is not a joke?

ADD REPLYlink modified 2.9 years ago • written 2.9 years ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 79k

Such a coincidence, but doesn't look likes one.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.9 years ago by Sukhdeep Singh9.6k
2

I'd like to add an extension to

Clarke's third law

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Extension:

Any sufficiently oversimplified presentation (aka. outreach) of a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a joke.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

ADD REPLYlink modified 2.9 years ago • written 2.9 years ago by Michael Dondrup45k
1

Quite intriguing and in no way looks like a April Fools joke to me. The lab seems to be working on these kind of project for a long time but yes , part of "No experience needed" seems to be far fetched to me. Did a bit of digging at the profiles and seems legit now have to dig the part of the platform. I love how things converge at science. Still gives me goosebumps when I read about these things and makes me ponder : superhuman existence might not be a distant reality. (just my opinion though)

ADD REPLYlink written 2.9 years ago by ivivek_ngs4.6k

Do we need superhumans!?

ADD REPLYlink written 2.9 years ago by Sukhdeep Singh9.6k
1

As I said it is only my opinion, am not voicing out a general opinion about the need of superhumans, but yes the idea of superhuman to me is not a war machine or a savior for human race amidst danger, it will be more research oriented need catering to personalized medicines, but having said that there are lot of ethical issues and it is far from reality. But there are always possibilities to not create but find such humans with some systemic imbalances at level of variation or even protein dis-regularity that might contribute to advances in research. Then again I do not want to go to the ethical concerns , I am well aware of the pros and mostly cons of it. It was just the science bug that brings out this part of me which might convey a lot of non-sense to the community. So better not to drag on that side.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.9 years ago by ivivek_ngs4.6k
1

Right agree, hopefully no ones in the near future is selling customized Cello codes on the Darknet :)

ADD REPLYlink written 2.9 years ago by Sukhdeep Singh9.6k
2
gravatar for ablanchetcohen
2.9 years ago by
ablanchetcohen1.2k
Canada
ablanchetcohen1.2k wrote:

Give me a break. Please close this thread. People are actually going to take it seriously !!!!!

[EDIT] I don't have access to the Science paper from home right now. I'll check it more carefully at work tomorrow. I really thought this was an April's fool joke initially. It appears I may have been wrong. I suppose I'm not imaginative enough. I've actually worked with researchers attempting to program artificial circuits in cells in the past, and although the concept was impressive, the actual attempts at implementations were not, hence my initial skepticism. The sparseness of the website and the GitHub repository further fueled my skepticism. Sorry if I was wrong.

ADD COMMENTlink modified 2.9 years ago • written 2.9 years ago by ablanchetcohen1.2k
1

Here's the article, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6281/aac7341.full read the 99 page supplementary and decide for yourself.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.9 years ago by Michael Dondrup45k
1

Massive work, hej! Just it was out on 1st of April, some people think its a joke

ADD REPLYlink written 2.9 years ago by Sukhdeep Singh9.6k
1

Science does not jokz, or maybe they should move any 1 of april issue to the 2.?

ADD REPLYlink written 2.9 years ago by Michael Dondrup45k

@sukhdeep Like Google's self driving bicycle

ADD REPLYlink modified 2.9 years ago • written 2.9 years ago by venu5.8k

@venu , seems pretty legit however forums are not yet sure as there has been no official confirmation , just a video is out still would like to believe at its real play.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.9 years ago by ivivek_ngs4.6k

@venu @vchris_ngs yes so many inventions went public on April1, and then were never seen again :D, but could revolutionise how we see things :)

ADD REPLYlink written 2.9 years ago by Sukhdeep Singh9.6k

@Sukhdeep Singh, indeed these are recurrent publishes that happen every year as a part of prank inventions on 1st April but at some part of the world they do create ideas that people work on to make them partly real and obviously reality seems far fetched but the idea definitely instills a revolutionary fervor of how one sees the world. That is the reason the field of science never ceases to amaze us.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.9 years ago by ivivek_ngs4.6k

Looks pretty real to me

ADD REPLYlink written 2.9 years ago by jotan1.2k

This exercise was quite eye opening for me - it showed how scientific bombast may sound if one starts reading it with a more skeptical and less forgiving mood.

On any other day I would have probably looked at it with interest - on April first it sounded all made up, fake and notably boring.

ADD REPLYlink written 2.9 years ago by Istvan Albert ♦♦ 79k
Please log in to add an answer.

Help
Access

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
Powered by Biostar version 2.3.0
Traffic: 1280 users visited in the last hour