World-leading scientists have called for a halt on research to create “mirror life” microbes amid concerns that the synthetic organisms would present an “unprecedented risk” to life on Earth.
The international group of Nobel laureates and other experts warn that mirror bacteria, constructed from mirror images of molecules found in nature, could become established in the environment and slip past the immune defences of natural organisms, putting humans, animals and plants at risk of lethal infections.
Many molecules for life can exist in two distinct forms, each the mirror image of the other. The DNA of all living organisms is made from “right-handed” nucleotides, while proteins, the building blocks of cells, are made from “left-handed” amino acids. Why nature works this way is unclear: life could have chosen left-handed DNA and right-handed proteins instead.
The fresh concerns over the technology are revealed in a 299-page report and a commentary in the journal Science. While enthusiastic about research on mirror molecules, the report sees substantial risks in mirror microbes and calls for a global debate on the work.
In fairness, i completely agree that the experts mentioned in the article are more than likely a reliable source of information here and their opinion is almost certainly the one i would side with, not being a biologist by any stretch of the imagination myself.
However, that’s not really my point. My point is that this person immediately, condescendingly and patronisingly disputed the claim of aomeone who at the very least sounded like they knew what they were talking about, without showing any evidence that they themselves are a reputable source of doubt and without knowing anything about the person they were disputing.
I dont think that’s a healthy way to discuss things.
In all fairness, I also agree with them likely being a solid source of information. There’s been a huge trend of leveraging academic credentials to boost sensationalism in recent years, so, until I read their reasoning, I am skeptical, specifically of whether or not it is blown out of proportion by the authors or the science communicator.