Gen1：1 起初神创造天地。
×××××××××
今天的头条是“人造生命”。我是昨晚知道消息的，马上查询了关于Craig Venter的介绍和这项研究的介绍。很多技术问题很复杂，不是普通人可以评价的。我简单的理解，是这个研究小组将一种细菌的DNA编码计算出来，并且存在计算机上面，然后增加了几个水印基因（无用的，但是可以标识这个基因是实验室合成的），然后用另一种细菌的活细胞体作为载体，用计算机控制特定的化学物质合成基因物质并植入细胞，控制了这种细胞，并具有生物活性可以分裂繁殖。
×××××××××
我们要思考的是三个问题：这个研究的技术，伦理和神学含义。如果我不思考，别人就会将其观点强加在我身上。门户网站是很蠢的，他们没有什么独立的思考能力，为了讨好公众也不惜说谎。我能够预见的中国媒体的反应就是等待奥巴马政府的听证会结果出来，然后一边流着口水嫉妒别人的科研能力，一边和其他科学家大唱反调而已。
×××××××××
赞美的证据很多，但是也有不少反对意见。这是顶尖的生物科学家提出的反对意见，认为这项研究没有增加任何新的科学知识和对于生命的了解，在技术上也没有看到什么应用前景，唯一的用处就是大大的败坏了科学研究的名声，让科学家们处于风口浪尖之下。
IRISH SCIENTISTS have given a cold response to research released by geneticist Craig Venter, describing it as anything from a minor advance to a complete scientific folly.
Dr Venter announced on Thursday he had created a “synthetic cell” after manufacturing a copy of a bacterium’s genetic blueprint and inserting it into another bacterium. The constructed cell then began to function, growing and dividing as normal, Dr Venter and colleagues wrote in the online journal*Science Express* .
Dr Venter said the technology could be used to modify organisms to make them produce useful medicines or provide a source of energy. He said his research group was already working on ways to speed up vaccine production, and his method could make new chemicals or food ingredients.
However, Trinity College Dublin professor of genetics Prof David McConnell was completely dismissive of this claim.
The potential to modify organisms was already available through conventional genetic engineering, he said yesterday. “I think it is of very minor significance. It is a scientific folly,” he said. “There are no new ethical issues.”
Dr Venter’s methods were extremely complex, but of low interest. “In scientific terms we have learned nothing new.”
It was of technological significance because of its complexity and the size of the genome copied by Dr Venter and his team, but it was not clear why someone would go to the trouble of using the technique.
Genetic engineering could already do what Dr Venter was proposing. “Genetic engineering has revolutionised medicine, revolutionised the pharmaceutical industry, revolutionised agriculture and revolutionised forensic science. It is based on extraordinarily good science,” Prof McConnell said.
His greatest concern regarding Dr Venter’s work was its possible impact on research. “Yes it is important because it threatens the reputation of science,” Prof McConnell said.
His Trinity colleague, Prof Ken Wolfe, was also dismissive. “I think it has been exaggerated. He has a reputation for showmanship,” Prof Wolfe, professor of genome evolution, said yesterday.
“He hasn’t created life, he has mimicked life. It is a technical achievement to synthesise a piece of DNA that size,” he added. “It was an achievement of scale.” （没有质的突破，贡献在DNA合成的规模上）。
Prof Wolfe likened it to replacing the operating system on a computer. He suggested that Dr Venter was stoking up the controversy surrounding the research. “He is very good at lining up ethicists and moralists to comment on what he has done.”
Prof Frank Barry, scientific director of NUI Galway’s Regenerative Medicine Institute who is deeply involved in genetic engineering in a medical context, said: “It was a small step not a big step.” 不过是一个微小的进步。
The most significant aspect of the research was the size of the genome constructed by Dr Venter, he said. “This is probably the biggest genome yet assembled. That is not the same as creating artificial life.” The ability to alter the genetic blueprint of organisms is already available, he said. “The insertion or deletion of genes already exists and is very efficient, even with human cells.” The research was “interesting but not profound”, he added. 这项技术早已存在。
“In some ways it does open up the door to new organisms,” he added but Dr Venter’s technique would most likely only be applied to very simple organisms. This was because of difficulties surrounding building of the synthetic genome. 最可能用于及其简单的组织，因为合成基因的困难太大。
×××××××
不管怎样，这项技术即使不在我们这一代人活着的时间产生实质性的作用，也会影响我们的后代。我很想知道是否有人愿意冒险将自己的基因替换为一个合成基因，带有某些优势的基因。
回顾一下巴别塔的故事也许是有益的：人类说着同一种语言，他们抗拒神的要求——生养众多，遍满地面。他们为了不分散在全地，决定造一个巴别塔，通向天际。神于是变乱人的语言，让他们不能造成这个塔，而是分散在全地。
我小时候不能够理解这个故事，觉得神的决定不可思议，或者至少带着某种程度的恶意。但是我一旦认识到神是全知全能全善的时候，我开始思考这个行为的含义。
前面是大洪水剩下了诺亚，神按照其善起誓不再毁灭人类。但是过了100年左右人又开始败坏，悖逆和犯罪。神采取了自我限制的方案，将人变乱语言，分散全地。这是对于能力的一种控制。
我们迟早也要面对一种控制的，有的事情你不能做，因为过分的危险。我不知道限度在哪里，人类是否有足够的智慧掌握一种绝对不能使用于作恶的技术。
但是我现在看到整个科学界的整体具有一种很强的伦理观，他们在不断的抵抗个别喜欢炫耀的科学家做出的某些吸引眼球的研究。这是需要最大的勇气来维护的，特别是公众不能很好的判断一项技术的实质的时候。
××××××××××
从神学上看，这个研究不能否定神的创造，那些试图推翻创造论的人还是面临着同样的难题，其中最大的是神将来的审判。