[DIYbio] Re: Biosecurity

That summary of the television segment is misleading and/or out of context.    First, there's no evidence that anything would have happened to Colbert if he had eaten the paper.  I'd eat it myself.  I'm sure that if an entire synbio conference of biologists were surveyed, all would agree that the DNA paper would have no effect on Colbert, or any other hungry mammal.  Second, the entire televised scene was a comedy skit.  Dr. Church didn't 'grab the paper away to prevent untold danger.'  Dr. Church's response may have been improvised, or it may have been planned out in advance by Colbert (and rehearsed before airing, like a lot of television).  From my perspective, the skit was a statement to project the priceless nature of a rare item precisely engineered:  Colbert shouldn't eat a valuable historical artifact.   It would be like eating a limited-edition, numbered copy of an award-winning painting.  It's obvious to me that Dr. Church's natural response should be to grab the DNA paper away from Colbert.   Don't use this televised scene featuring a prominent bioengineer to promote fear & uncertainty.

The larger issue in this thread is humankind's lack of ability to control it's own risky behavior.  In fact, humanity rewards risky behavior considerably.  Evolution seems to have optimized our species to leap into new technologies before the technology or it's ramifications are fully understood.  I view this in itself as a bug in the human genetic code.  Countless cases throughout history show this behavior.  Societies which valued sustainability have been crushed by colonialism, each case ultimately a simple test of risk:reward for the conquerers.  Humans have beat out every other species as the ultimate predator, even as recent research shows that Neanderthals were likely fully capable of nearly every skill or mental trait which we are capable of.  Except, perhaps, the critical gene of megalomania or egotism.  Every form of engineering (i.e., technological advancement) developed by humankind has had massive risks and, more often than not, have resulted in long-term ecological damage, some as mentioned in this thread already.  In recent years, misbehaving artificial intelligence has entered the list of new technologies which could destroy life as we know it, including humankind itself, and yet still humanity races to unleash the technology without sufficient understanding; even though, just decades ago, nuclear engineering gave humanity plenty of lessons to learn from (namely:  "stop and test fully, before proceeding!"), and chemical engineering of plastics is now finally proving it's dangers through unstoppable worldwide pollution.  This thread opens the discussion that synbio of DNA may be a danger.  The discussion hasn't yet mentioned xenobiology (XNA) or nanotechnology, both of which could operate on far greater multiples than natural DNA, undetectable and unstoppable, since both of those technologies have no natural competitors.   All of these technologies have a common source:  the bug in humankind which leads to biased risk:reward decision-making.   A sustainable society would keep technologies in a sealed beta-test environment for centuries until completely understood.  What is the response from humankind?  If investors see a profitable return, it is funded as a free market venture to form a high-growth opportunity.  We have operated on this level for thousands of years now, and evolved quite efficiently to promote this behavior.   No discussion here nor at large in the bio community will fix this bug in humankind.   It is a bug which is likely genetic, and evolved by nature itself, as we are the current sole winner of all earthly contests between predators.  Even though the bug may become our own undoing, it still drives us across all technological fronts, not only biology.