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.
Why do you give so much credit to the legitimacy of the random poster on internet?
I dont think i have given them any credit. I would argue i simply didn’t dispute them out of hand. Especially as you did without backing myself up with evidence of my own credentials.
I also thought i expressed that we should all be sceptical of anything we read on the internet. My issue was how you weighted your sceptisism. You seem to have automatically given all credibility to a reporter, under the assumption that they held no bias that affected the story they wrote.
For all you know, the random poster on the internet may be a legitimate scientist and expert who disagrees with them. Their opinion may be just as valid as the opinion in the report.
As a recent example, google released a quantum computer chip, and lemmy immediately ripped apart the reports and media buzz around what it was actually capable of. I believe that this is a great example of healthy sceptisism.
I believe that what you did is an example of unhealthy or misplaced sceptisism.
Granted, if it turned out that this random poster was absolutely unqualified to make the assertions that they did then absolutely you would be in the right.
I just dont think its helpful to dispute them out of hand with nothing to back you up.
This is actually a fair and good question to ask. Being too credulous of things read on the Internet has shown rather problematic in recent years. Taking everything written in academic journals, especially opinion pieces not based upon peer-reviewed evidence, without skepticism has shown to be problematic since before the Internet, however.
I’m kind of surprised by the reaction you’re getting here as I had the same exact question (you can see that I posted it before seeing yours).
Knowing that the person has some background in biology helps, but that was not clear in the initial comment. And even still, I lean toward believing the actual professionals who have studied this exact thing for years over some random person on an internet forum.
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.