yep i didn't want to blurt it out like that in case people thought i was criticising just because of my religous beliefs (something i have been accused of on here before
). but yeah, people make 'synthetic DNA' every day and insert them into cells - even I do this from time to time in my own research (the difference in this study is that a complete genome took
complete control of the cell). the thing that really annoyed me though, as a scientist, was their title for the paper:
''Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a
Chemically Synthesized Genome''
I mean wtf? how did the editors let him get away with that title - the editors deserve a spanking more than anyone in my opinion (although Venter and
Science editors to appear to be best friends). Let's forget the context in which they used the word 'creation' for a second but the fact they are saying it's a 'chemically' synthesized genome is even misleading for the non-scientist. The fact is they used yeast cells as hosts to help them generate the genome and of course they also use polymerases etc. that they extract and purify from cells to help them make bits of DNA outside of cells - the construction of the genome was anything but 'chemical' but instead completely dependant on functioning living biological systems or purified biological tools.
On the other hand, it is true that the techniques decribed might potentialy have great technological benefits - for example engineering genomes that make production of biofuels more effecient etc.
It's good science - i just wish they wouldn't pass it off as something it so blatantly isn't.