pull down to refresh

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
[...]
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.
Scientists have already manufactured large, functional mirror molecules to study them more closely. Some have even taken baby steps towards building mirror microbes, though constructing a whole organism from mirror molecules is beyond today’s know-how.
The work is driven by fascination and potential applications. Mirror molecules could be turned into therapies for chronic and hard-to-treat diseases, while mirror microbes could make bioproduction facilities, which use bugs to churn out chemicals, more resistant to contamination.
Any biologist or chemist around to explain as to why mirror molecules could be useful and/or lethal? I understand the concept of chirality, i think, but not sure as to why they would behave differently from the ones occurring naturally.
Definitely risky! I'm not an expert though. Mirror molecules don’t interact with natural enzymes or proteins the same way, so they could be super useful in medicine or industry. But if they escaped, they can disrupt ecosystems or cause infections we can’t treat. But I doubt they will stop this. Or they might introduce new precautions to take?
reply
Bad faith comment: guess it'll depend on whether Fauci gets some NSF funds to perform American research in Wuhan~~
Ok i get your point about how they would not interact with natural molecules with opposite chirality. As a scientist, i can imagine how such research must sound very enticing and interesting. But we know what similarly controversial gain-of-function research has led to...
reply
I think there’s value in balancing curiosity driven science with precautions. Maybe stronger global guidelines and more transparency could help reduce risks and still allowing research to move forward carefully. I just don’t want to see another infectious strain that could destroy any kind of life, so I felt the need to comment on it.
reply
We're on the same page here...
And given the document in Science has been signed by a lot of scientists, it likely means the danger is real as they are going against their innate scientific curiosity with such stance.
reply
Absolutely, if so many scientists are raising concerns it tells how serious the risks are. It’s not good to pause exciting research, but it is necessary to understand the dangers first. Thank you
reply