Experts warn that mirror bacteria, constructed from mirror images of molecules found in nature, could put humans, animals and plants at risk of lethal infections

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.

    • malo@lemmy.world
      82·
      10 days ago

      i do not disagree, but probability of who is right is not on the side of random lemmy poster in this case.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        102·
        10 days ago

        Let’s refresh your memory on what the original poster you criticized said since you think this is about who is right:

        This seems like something that really is a minimal risk. Pathogens are pathogens because they are able to make use of our bodies as raw materials to reproduce. Unless they are able to make use of both enantiomers in their biology, there’s little benefit to dedicating resources to colonizing us.

        Probably a bigger concern would be outcompeting and displacing organisms lower on the food chain.

        This is someone forming an opinion based on what they know so far. They are clearly a good scientist because they are not making any factual claims here. They are, in fact, doing what any good scientist does and bringing up issues they see with the claims of other scientists.

        They are not even saying it wouldn’t be an overall problem and I would not be at all surprised if they modify their opinion, which was neither a claim nor a prediction, if they read the 299-page report, but you seem to want a formal rebuttal. A formal rebuttal and a peer review process do not require someone to have a degree and people without degrees have had papers published in scientific journals.

        And if they came up with a formal rebuttal and allowed it to be peer-reviewed, would you even read it?