But researchers hope that eventually develop...

Science reporter BBC News

Scientists in the U.S. have developed the first living cell to be controlled entirely with synthetic DNA. Researchers built the bacteria genetic programs and transplant it into a host cell. As a result of microbe, it looked and behaved as dictated by the type of synthetic DNA. Advance, published in Science, was classified as a scientific landmark, but critics say that the danger posed by synthetic organisms. Some also suggest that the potential benefits of technology are more or said. But researchers hope that eventually develop bacterial cells that produce medicines and fuel, and even absorb greenhouse gases. The team led by Dr. Craig Venter of the J Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in Maryland and California. He and his colleagues have previously made a synthetic genome of bacteria and a bacteria peresadzhuvav genome to another. Now scientists have put both methods together to create what they call synthetic cells, but its genome is truly synthetic. Dr Venter likened the advance to make new software for the camera. Scientists have copied an existing bacterial genome. They consistently its genetic code, then use chemical synthesis machinery to build up. div # ss chromosome {float: right, margin-left: 10px;}

# AFFAIRS main content DIV # story body Affairs # ss chromosome h2 {margin: 0;} >> << # AFFAIRS main content Affairs # history of body Affairs # ss-chromosome for. dslideshow input IMG {margin: 0;}

Dr. Venter told BBC News: Weve now able to take advantage of our synthetic chromosome and transplant it into the recipient cell - a different organism. Once new software is in a cell, the cell looks like [it], and becomes kind referred to in the genetic code. New bacteria replicated over a billion times, producing copies that contained and under the control based synthetic strattera no prescritpion DNA. This is the first time that synthetic DNA had full control center, said Dr. Venter. Dr. Venter and his colleagues hope to eventually design and build new bacteria that will perform useful functions. I think Theyre going to potentially create a new industrial revolution, he said. If we can really get cells of this production, we want to, they could help save us from oil and reverse some of the damage to the environment by trapping carbon dioxide. Dr. Venter and his colleagues are working with pharmaceutical companies and engineering to design and develop chromosomes for bacteria that will produce useful fuels and new vaccines. But critics say the potential benefits of synthetic organisms have been overstated. Dr Helen Wallace of Genewatch UK organization that monitors the development of genetic technologies, told BBC News, that synthetic bacteria can be dangerous. If you release new organisms into the environment, you can do more harm than good, she said. Releasing them in areas of pollution [to clean it], you actually produce a new kind of pollution. We do not know how these organisms will behave in the environment. Dr. Wallace is accused Dr. Venter play down the potential drawbacks. He is not God, she said, GES really was very human, trying to get money invested in their technology and avoid regulation that limit its use. But Dr. Venter said he led a discussion about the rules of this new scientific field and the ethical implications of work. He said in 2003 when we made the first synthetic virus, it was a great ethical expertise that went all the way to level the White House. And there were great reviews including the National Academy of Sciences, who made a comprehensive report on this new field. We believe that these important issues and we urge continued discussion that we want to participate in. Dr Gos Micklem, a geneticist at Cambridge University, said the advance was undoubtedly a landmark trial. But, he said, already there are many simple, cheap, powerful and mature techniques of genetic engineering, a number of organisms. So, now this approach is unlikely to supplant existing methods of genetic engineering. Ethical debate around a man-made life continue. Professor Julian Savulescu of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford University, said the potential of this science was in the distant future, but a real and significant. But risk is also unprecedented, he continued. We need new standards of safety assessment for this kind of radical research and protection of military or terrorist abuse and violence. They can be used in future to make the most powerful biological weapon imaginable. The challenge is to eat fruit without worms. Advance is not dangerous in the form of bio-terrorism, Dr. Venter said. This was discussed extensively in the U.S. in its report of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Washington defense think tank, that there was very little new danger of this. Most people agree that there is a slight increase in potential damage. But Theres exponential growth of potential benefit to society, he said BBCS Newsnight. You will receive the flu vaccine next year may be developed these processes, he added. .