If there is a best case for #opensource + no patent, etc, this might be it! 👍
Scientists accidentally create mutant enzyme that eats plastic bottles
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/16/scientists-accidentally-create-mutant-enzyme-that-eats-plastic-bottles
'Scientists have created a mutant enzyme that breaks down plastic drinks bottles – by accident. The breakthrough could help solve the global plastic pollution crisis by enabling for the first time the full recycling of bottles.
The new research was spurred by the discovery in 2016 of the first bacterium that had naturally evolved to eat plastic, at a waste dump in Japan. Scientists have now revealed the detailed structure of the crucial enzyme produced by the bug...'
#Capitalism #Earth
@Antanicus @jd A smaller-scale example: the modern car seat belt design was deliberately not patented. I guess there aren’t many other examples though, which is sad.
@jd
Tiny nitpick: the bacterium probably didn't "evolve" to eat plastic, at least at first. The depth of microbial diversity is staggering, there is probably an enzyme for almost anything just waiting to be repurposed. If a species just happens to be able to metabolise something unnatural like polyethylene, then if you build a dump in its habitat, it will thrive. But, it was probably already there. :)
Saying it probably didn't evolve to eat plastic is not so far from saying that humans didn't evolve to walk on two feet, because the first human-ancestor that walked mainly on two feet already did it sometimes.
@clacke @jd Indeed - but the way in which these stories are told hides this fact from the lay reader. The intent is sometimes to suggest that the world is adapting to humanity in ways that either raise expectations too high ("Earth can survive anything we throw it at") or suggest an anti-human narrative ("Earth will eat us if we're not careful"). Saying "Evolved to eat plastic" hides the origins of something that already probably _could_ eat plastic, and the imagination runs wild.
@clacke @cathal @jd Yes, but the discussion is about how it happened. The bacteria did not create a solution to a problem (antibiotics), like an engineer would do.
Some already had the solution somewhere in their genes (or appearing from random mutations), and the pressure created by antiobiotics made it it useful, and therefore it spread.
@bortzmeyer @clacke @jd Yes, and further mutations (perhaps accelerated by 'deliberate' mutations using error-prone polymerases under conditions of rapid growth or stress) might have further adapted the useful genes. Evolution is a process, not a goal. So nothing incorrect about "Evolved to be resistant to antibiotics / consume plastic", but how the story is (re)told can either inform readers, or suggest an intentional/magical process. That's all I meant to suggest. :)
There's a lot of directed evolution talk out there, in particular in sci-fi, where things evolve to become "more advanced" and "devolve" for various silly reasons, and I consider that a problem. I just don't think this was an instance of it. :-)
@cathal @jd @clacke @bortzmeyer
I answer just to give keywords:
That's just the difference between teleologic and teleonomic conception of «for».
The finality with or without intention.
I was considering using the word teleology, but decided against it. :-)
Thank you for bringing up teleonomy, didn't know that word!
@jd Remember kids: it's reduce, then reuse, and only *then* recycle.
Somehow, this became "consume, throw away, bin is full, panic, recycle, keep panicking, bioengineer a rapacious predator and set it loose upon the world".
I'm not 100% sure how this came about, but I have my suspicions.
@lupine @jd Their goal doesn't appear to be to release any kind of bioengineered organism, but to produce and use the enzyme itself, which may involve bacteria in captivity. The bacteria themselves evolved naturally, though that obviously doesn't mean they won't use genetic engineering to improve yield or transfer the ability to make the enzyme to some other organism that's better suited to large scale production of the enzyme.
@lupine @jd It came about because there is no real price discovery mechanism for extracted resources. Extraction is done largely on government-owned land for government-set royalties. Which means the extractors never had to pay a market price for the land itself, and they couldn't re-sell the land at a market price anyway so there's no opportunity cost. And government fell down on one of its main jobs: to internalize externalities.
@jd just like Salk, who refused to patent his polio vaccine, these researchers would do the greatest service to their fellow humans if they released this research to the public domain!