On May 22 last, the world woke up to the profound – and some would say provocative – scientific breakthrough as a team of scientists in the United States succeeded in creating life in the laboratory – a microscopic bacteria cell in a Petri dish in the lab, using DNA material generated by a computer, and four bottles of chemicals. The 24-member team at the J. Craig Venter Institute created bacterial cells that are completely controlled by genes manufactured in the lab. The cells can multiply.
For the first time, scientists have assembled a full genetic code from laboratory chemicals and used it to create a living organism. They did it by transplanting their synthetic DNA into the empty husk of a microbe and watching it come into life. The process of creation of life in the lab: Craig Venter’s team maps entire genome of a common bacterium, Mycoplasma mycoides. This information is fed into a DNA synthesizes, which produces short strands of a bacteria’s DNA from four bottles of chemicals. The DNA strands are inserted into yeast and Escherichia coli bacteria, a natural response, this bacteria stitches the strands together into longer DNAs. The process is repeated till all one million ‘letters’ of the Mycoplasma bacterium’s genome are pieced together. Scientists insert biological ‘watermarks’ at various places to distinguish. These are junk genes but carry messages which make sense to humans once decoded. Finally the synthetic genome is transferred into other bacteria. The bacteria multiples and come of its offspring carry only the lab-made genome.
These bacteria are not clones or genetically modified organisms. They are ‘synthetic’ bugs which survive and reproduce entirely due to genome made by humans. “This is proof of concept that we can make changes across entire genome of an organism, we can add entirely new functions, eliminate those we don’t want and create a range of organism that put all their effort into doing what we want them to do,” say Craig Venter.
The successful construction of first self-replicating bacterial cells opens the way for making and manipulating life on a previously unattainable scale, calling into question the very basis of ‘creator’. Previously scientists have altered and manipulated DNA piecemeal to produce a variety of genetically engineered plants and animals. But the ability to artificially design an entire genome – the ‘book of life’, that controls an organism’s functions – puts a different spin on the meaning of terms such as creation, evolution and life.
The successful construction of first self-replicating bacterial cells opens the way for making and manipulating life on a previously unattainable scale, calling into question the very basis of ‘creator’. Previously scientists have altered and manipulated DNA piecemeal to produce a variety of genetically engineered plants and animals. But the ability to artificially design an entire genome – the ‘book of life’, that controls an organism’s functions – puts a different spin on the meaning of terms such as creation, evolution and life.
The California-based genomic research organization did not say when exactly its team synthesized the 1.08 million base pair chromosomes of a modified Mycoplasma mycoides, a parasite bacteria that lives in cattle and goats. But it is said the synthetic cell called Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 “is the proof of principle that genomes can be designed in the computer, chemically made in the laboratory and transplanted into a recipient cell to produce a new self-replicating cell controlled only by the synthetic genome.” The most remarkable thing about the synthetic cell is that its ‘genome was brought into life through chemical synthesis, without using any pieces of natural DNA.”
The scientific world seemed agog about the merits and demerits of Craig’s work. Arthur Caplan, Professor of Bioethics from the University of Pennsylvania said that “Venter and his team’s achievement undermines a fundamental belief about the nature of life that is likely to prove as momentous to ourselves and our place in the universe as the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin and Einstein.” The US Government’s reaction was more guarded. US President Barack Obama announced that the White House Bioethics Committee would submit a report within six months about the ‘genuine concerns’ raised by this development.
Whenever men of science involved, invented or discovered something new, skeptics and cynics of the world have called foul, accusing them of tampering with nature, dangerously. Ditto with Dr. Venter’s synthetic cell, as many among the scientific community across the globe have not taken kindly to the awesome achievement and raising whole lot of issues, including the question of ethics. It is unfortunate that the scientific community do not reflect scientific temperament while commenting on the works of their fellow-scientists and voice skepticism just as scholars and experts in other fields. There may be pitfalls and shortcomings in any work and positive approach is required to rectify and fine-tune the already accomplished work. Venter himself made a humble statement, in vexation of course, that “That’s a term (against the law of nature) that comes every time there is a new medical or scientific breakthrough associated with biology…….. It is a baby step in our understanding of how life fundamentally works.” Development of every branch of science and technology stems from simple but significant inventions. The origins of the science and technology of dynamics and automobile engineering originate from the invention of wheel by mankind.
Whenever men of science involved, invented or discovered something new, skeptics and cynics of the world have called foul, accusing them of tampering with nature, dangerously. Ditto with Dr. Venter’s synthetic cell, as many among the scientific community across the globe have not taken kindly to the awesome achievement and raising whole lot of issues, including the question of ethics. It is unfortunate that the scientific community do not reflect scientific temperament while commenting on the works of their fellow-scientists and voice skepticism just as scholars and experts in other fields. There may be pitfalls and shortcomings in any work and positive approach is required to rectify and fine-tune the already accomplished work. Venter himself made a humble statement, in vexation of course, that “That’s a term (against the law of nature) that comes every time there is a new medical or scientific breakthrough associated with biology…….. It is a baby step in our understanding of how life fundamentally works.” Development of every branch of science and technology stems from simple but significant inventions. The origins of the science and technology of dynamics and automobile engineering originate from the invention of wheel by mankind.
The reaction of religious and spiritual bodies and heads, moralists and ethicists and of late eco-fundamentalists, to this invention is on expected lines. But unlike in the past (of persecutions) the Catholic Church was guarded in its reaction and stated that the synthetic cell could be positive development if correctly used, but warned scientists that only God can create life. But apologists of all religions have outrightly condemned the work. Kanchi Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswathi has denounced, saying it violates the divine law of recreation and that creating life in a laboratory is an act in defiance against god as man is created based on his deeds in his previous birth. “Venter’s work violates karma, which alone decides the nature of life for all humans and, besides, creating life in lab could cause cultural degradation”, “If a man is synthetically created, he would not be guided by past karma and would behave just like a machine” he said adding, “God first created the entire world and made man and animals. He ensured man benefited through his creations. The synthetic cell will affect all creations and should be stopped”. The report added that pointing to a newspaper advertisement on astrological predictions, the seer said, “Even this would be affected!”
This is how the new phenomenon made by Venter, like all other discoveries and inventions of the past, has rudely shaken the philosophical edifice of religion and the concept of spiritualism. The struggle and conflict between materialism and spiritualism is the history of philosophy, the former being the creed of progressive and humanist forces and the latter of the conservatives, fundamentalists and exploiting vested interests, scientific and materialist philosophers were ruthlessly persecuted. The history of any religion and school of theology is soaked in blood, of those who questioned or challenged existing beliefs by their inventions and discoveries.
History has produced many great persons in Science and Philosophy. Their discoveries amid religious protests have seen religion and god pushed further into the background. But they paid price and were subjected to cruel and crude forms of inquisitions and persecutions. In his book ‘Religion and Science’, the great philosopher Bertrand Russell says, “Those to whom intellectual freedom is personally important may be a minority in the community, but among them are men of most importance to the future. We have seen the importance of Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin in the history of mankind, and it is not to be supposed that the future will produce no more such men. If they are prevented from doing their work and having their due effect, the human race will stagnate, and a new Dark Age will succeed, New truth is often uncomfortable, especially to the holders of power, nevertheless, amid the long record of cruelty and bigotry, is the most important achievement of our intelligent but wayward species.”
In documented Indian philosophy (in which philosophical streams down of Vindhya in the south have not been codified) also we find evidences for the existence of struggle and conflict between materialism (Lokayata) and idealism (Vedanta) and persecution of materialist philosophers and proscription of their works, Charvaka is a system of Indian philosophy that assumes various forms of philosophical skepticism and religious indifference. It is also known as Lokayata. It is named after its founder Charvaka, author of Brahaspatya–sutras. In overviews of Indian philosophy, Charvaka is classified as a ‘heterodox’ (nastika) system. It is characterized as a materialistic and atheistic school of thought. It is noteworthy as evidence of materialist movement within “Hinduism” and is traced back to 6th century BC, Charvaka school “regard” only that which is an object of perception, and cast behind your back whatever is beyond the reach of your sense.”
Our understanding of Charvaka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of ideas by other schools. In their book ‘An Introduction to Indian Philosophy’ Satischandra Chatterjee and Dhirendramohan Datta explain, “Though materialism in some form or the other has always been present in India, and references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhist literature, the epics, as well as in later philosophical works, we do not have any systematic work on materialism, nor any organized school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for refutation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these.” It implies that materialists were persecuted and their works forbidden, proscribed and destroyed by the powers that be.
Countering arguments that the Charvakas opposed all that was good in the Vedic tradition, Dale Riepe says, “It may be said from the available material that Charvakas hold truth, integrity, consistency and freedom of thought in the highest esteem”. The Charvakas hold the view that religion was invented and made up by men, having no divine authority. They ridiculed Vedas and rejected the concept of rebirth, sout etc., whereas most systems of Astika philosophy advocated a caste system, the Charvakas denounced the caste system, calling it artificial, immoral and unacceptable. “What is this senseless humbug about the castes, and the high and low among them when the organs like the mouth etc., in the human body are the same?”, asks Charvaka.
In the philosophy of South India (Dravidian) we can find existence of streams of materialism. The latter day Siddhars are agnostics and dealt with only worldly life. Tirukkural is a moral code for man’s life and not a religious-ethical code. The fundamental question of philosophy is what is primary? Matter or being (soul, spirit). Tiruvalluvar in his couplet 340 says,
புக்கில் அமைந்தின்று கொல்லோ உடம்பினுள்
துச்சில் இருந்த உயிர்க்கு
துச்சில் இருந்த உயிர்க்கு
meaning, “Life control centred in a corner of the brain activates the body, but has no existence outside it”, categorically established the primacy and pre-existence of matter. Venter’s synthetic cell – life created from matter – is an unassailable concrete proof for establishing the truth of materialism and undermines the very edifice of spiritualism, and therefore his team’s work is not only a scientific breakthrough but also
philosophical!
philosophical!
(06-06-10)
No comments:
Post a Comment