Life artifically created in a lab

[mixmax]

http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/science?type=scienceNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B80EKKDZW7XjzuNGrifTUKY&src=blogBurst_scienceNews&bbPostId=B4Hj78ZQkrFHCz48ED92G5hvRBABS3ODDbJWYB3Y76CKpfMQk&bbParentWidgetId=B80EKKDZW7XjzuNGrifTUKY

[paulsb]

It's not a cell and it definitely isn't life; it's just DNA and few enzymes trapped in a lipid vesicle. People have been doing this for years.

[run4yourlives]

I suppose that depends on your definition of life.

Not to downplay the results, as they are impressive, but replicating existing DNA does not qualify as "creating life" in my books.

[flipbrad]

Potentially an important contribution to synthetic biology but quite frankly the article/blog post is appallingly written and very unclear on the scientific detail, so it's hard to assess the findings. I'm surprised Reuteurs published this, even if they do accompany it with a disclaimer distancing themselves from it. Very poor.

[cousin_it]

If it's true - good! Next up, artificial consciousness. But we need to learn to detect it first.

[ComputerGuru]

God, news agencies are so gullible these days! First it was BBC swallowing the story about the magically-regrown finger via "pixie dust" hook, line, and sinker and now we have Reuters equating DNA to life........

[streety → ComputerGuru]

"The following blog post is from an independent writer and is not connected with Reuters News. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not endorsed by Reuters.com."

[streety]

Is it just me or do the 'references' bear little relevance to the post? I think I'll wait for more details to be released in a peer reviewed journal before I get excited.

[TrevorJ]

To sat the title to this submission is a stretch is kind. Interesting article, nevertheless.