The previous few weeks within the worlds of synthetic intelligence and biology have been an simple whirlwind of headlines.
With many involved concerning the seemingly unchecked energy of synthetic intelligence and the rise of knowledge facilities, a brand new discovering in artificial biology has caught many abruptly — maybe even the researchers themselves.
Newly “created” cells developed on the University of Minnesota had been described by lead researcher and artificial biologist Kate Adamala as something that’s not absolutely alive, but has all of the hallmarks of life, within the New York Times. Adamala and fellow Associate Professor Aaron Engelhart and their groups on the College of Biological Sciences introduced the event of the “world”s first artificial cell with a whole life cycle,” which they describe in a new paper that’s beneath peer overview for publication.
The cell was built entirely from non-living chemical components. In partnership with the University, Adamala is launching Biotic, which is a public-benefit research and engineering institution that will build shared technical infrastructure for synthetic cell engineering and allow other researchers around the world to use it.
But what is the purpose behind such a creation? According to the team, it allows these cells to be used to “remodel” molecular medicine by building therapeutic molecules such as drugs using amino acids evolution has never used. Materials would be grown, they say, rather than synthesized using natural cells. This could lead to manufacturing approaches that operate at biological temperatures instead of industrial ones.
According to Adamala and her team, the future looks bright for further research. At the same time, other medical researchers have pointed to the power of artificial intelligence to help in the development of new drugs and therapies. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, AI has been used in over 500 drug application submissions since 2016. Government officials continue to stress health and safety with these applications.
AI assistance will likely be transformational in the medical research field as well as in other areas, but the question remains: if something is artificial and “man-made” and yet can proliferate on its own at some point in the future, has humanity just bridged a new divide within creation? And will we be able to tell the difference between ourselves, artificial intelligences and God?
It is a set of questions well worth thinking about. What is it about human consciousness and innovation that is “impressed” by God and how much of this inspiration could be passed along to creations of our own? Humanity seems to be in that familiar uncharted territory akin to our landing on the Moon, seeing the universe through a telescope or even seeing our world at the molecular level for the very first time.
We are at a point where we need ethicists to keep pace with technology and scientific developments that could accelerate as quantum computing comes into wider use, raising questions of innovation, creation and accountability.
Even the scientists and technologists themselves are hard-pressed to say what comes next. It could just be that we discover “the laborious drawback of consciousness” as portrayed by philosopher David Chalmers is a moving goal post that will need a shared approach between faith and science to ascertain where creation begins, humanity ends and the wisdom to want to tell the difference can thrive.
Susan Barreto
Susan is an creator with a long-time curiosity in faith and science. She at present edits Covalence, the Lutheran Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology’s on-line journal. She has written articles in The Lutheran and the Zygon Center for Religion and Science e-newsletter. Susan is a board member for the Center for Advanced Study of Religion and Science, the supporting group for the Zygon Center and the Zygon Journal. She additionally co-wrote Our Bodies Are Selves with Dr. Philip Hefner and Dr. Ann Pederson.