I don't see any links to the original publication, but this commentary from the article is interesting:
Frankly, he's describing it in a way that's drumming up controversy more than characterising it accurately. His claim that we've got the first self-replicating life form whose parent is a computer, that's just silly.
It misuses the word "parent". The advance here needs to be described in sane and accurate ways. What he's managed to do is synthesise a genome much larger than any genome that's been synthesised from scratch before.
Comments
I don't see any links to the original publication, but this commentary from the article is interesting:
Frankly, he's describing it in a way that's drumming up controversy more than characterising it accurately. His claim that we've got the first self-replicating life form whose parent is a computer, that's just silly.
It misuses the word "parent". The advance here needs to be described in sane and accurate ways. What he's managed to do is synthesise a genome much larger than any genome that's been synthesised from scratch before.