›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Data storage through our own DNA.

DaikunDaikun
edited January 2013 in Science
It's official: We can use our own blood to store billions of hours of hi-def movies, TV shows, photographs... And play it all back on a computer.
Post edited by Daikun on

Comments

  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    I don't see anything there about blood or using "our own" DNA for anything. The story is interesting enough already, so why make up false claims?
  • AprecheApreche
    Ghost in the Shell is one step closer.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    I read a science fiction story maybe 20 years ago describing a Muslim faction where individuals had the Quran encoded in their junk DNA. The idea was to always to have the Quran with them, even if they couldn't read it. Also the idea that as long as and Muslim lived, the founding document of Islam would still live on.

    However, the story went on to tell of persecution of Muslims, and the government used their DNA to prove each person was a legitimate target. Ooops!
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Does this mean that somewhere out there is a monkey with the complete works of Shakespeare in his DNA?
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    Nope.
  • RuffasRuffas
    edited January 2013
    Not yet.
    Post edited by Ruffas on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Does this mean that somewhere out there is a monkey with the complete works of Shakespeare in his DNA?
    Not any more. He died a long time ago.

  • ChurbaChurba
    Well, if you think about it, don't we already store data in our DNA? Sure, it's not cat pictures and steam games, but it IS data.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    Which is why Daikun gets zero points for thread title and summary of his posted link. You'll have no issue with the new story itself, as it describes quite well what was achieved, what has been done before, and what makes this interesting. Human blood and human DNA have nothing to do with any of it.
  • Dragonmaster LouDragonmaster Lou
    edited January 2013
    Yep. It's just talking about DNA to store stuff... It says nothing about what species's or whatever's DNA would be used. In fact, it's pretty much a certainty that it's just a big ol' DNA molecule that doesn't code for any species.

    DNA is just a chemical that makes up our bodies, and technically it's not one chemical, but a class of infinitely variable chemicals as every individual life form's DNA is a unique molecule to itself. Claiming that this breakthrough means we can store data in our blood is akin to claiming we can build the Eiffel town with our blood since our blood contains iron in the form of hemoglobin.
    Post edited by Dragonmaster Lou on
  • BronzdragonBronzdragon
    Yep. It's just talking about DNA to store stuff... It says nothing about what species's or whatever's DNA would be used. In fact, it's pretty much a certainty that it's just a big ol' DNA molecule that doesn't code for any species.
    If we stored data in DNA, doesn't that mean that that species isn't human by definition? (Unless what we store is... human DNA).
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    edited January 2013
    No, it's entirely possible to store data in human DNA and have it still be human DNA. If it wasn't possible, all humans would be genetically identical.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    Wait, guys, let's get real for a minute. Data storage solutions of any sort are pretty fucking incredible. The fact that you can now store a movie on the same media that stores the entirety of earth-based life is pretty goddamned cool. I mean, I agree with Lou in a broader sense that this isn't really surprising, but it's still wild that we can do this. Imagine a future where your medical records are stored in your blood!

    Also, DNA being "just a chemical" for info storage is like saying aluminium is "just a metal." It still took us more-or-less all of human history to develop the 1TB SATA Hard Disc Drive.
  • lackofcheeselackofcheese
    That said, it also took us more-or-less all of human history to develop almost everything.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    That said, it also took us more-or-less all of human history to develop almost everything.
    More people could stand to appreciate how amazing this is.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    I think its amazing, and I think people should read the story. What I was objecting to is the very, very bad science reporting by Daikun. I think its terrible when real journalists misrepresent science press releases and research, inflating claims and missing the details. Normally there's not much I could do to change such bad reporting, but here on the forum I expect better, and will call out lousy thread titling and bad linking.
  • trogdor9trogdor9
    Science journalism seems like it's almost universally terrible. Please, someone, prove me wrong. Do you guys have any reputable science news sites that are well-written and don't sensationalize the hell out of every story?
  • AprecheApreche
    Science journalism seems like it's almost universally terrible. Please, someone, prove me wrong. Do you guys have any reputable science news sites that are well-written and don't sensationalize the hell out of every story?
    Nature?
  • trogdor9trogdor9
    Science journalism seems like it's almost universally terrible. Please, someone, prove me wrong. Do you guys have any reputable science news sites that are well-written and don't sensationalize the hell out of every story?
    Nature?
    Obviously, the journals themselves are solid, but does Nature suffice as an aggregator of what is happening in science around the world?
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    Science journalism seems like it's almost universally terrible. Please, someone, prove me wrong. Do you guys have any reputable science news sites that are well-written and don't sensationalize the hell out of every story?
    There's not much wrong with the article linked to above, only to the reporting of that story here on the forum. That's all I was flagging up.

  • AndrewAndrew
    image
  • trogdor9trogdor9
    Science journalism seems like it's almost universally terrible. Please, someone, prove me wrong. Do you guys have any reputable science news sites that are well-written and don't sensationalize the hell out of every story?
    There's not much wrong with the article linked to above, only to the reporting of that story here on the forum. That's all I was flagging up.
    I guess what I'm saying is irrelevant to this discussion in particular, but I think the point stands regardless.
  • CremlianCremlian
    Wait, there is Science Journalism at this point? I thought all the networks and newspapers fired all of those people.
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    I get a lot of my science news via podcasts and blogs that filter it for me, and point out what might be wrong with reporting elsewhere, and say why it is important. I've found that science reporting on its own could be good or bad, and I don't have the expertise to tell.
  • WindUpBirdWindUpBird
    edited January 2013
    I can't wait to discover a metabolic vulnerability in XDR-TB and be hailed as "THE SCIENTIST WHO CURED TUBERCULOSIS" by such scions of media as the Chicago Sun-Times and the New York Post.

    EDIT: Though, it doesn't really matter what I'm studying. The papers are usually pretty good about taking a journal that says, "Here's something that could help us with Problem X!" and reading that as, "Problem X Solved!!"
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • StarfoxStarfox
    Science journalism seems like it's almost universally terrible. Please, someone, prove me wrong. Do you guys have any reputable science news sites that are well-written and don't sensationalize the hell out of every story?
    There are a handful of professors with blogs I follow. Their purview is more specific than "general science news," but they know what they're talking about. MIT Technology Review is pretty good. Depending on specifically what you're looking for, there are sites like Astrobites for various fields that report on the latest goings-on in the field.
  • Not nineNot nine
    The good sir Günter and I have started writing a movie script incorporating the basic ideas behind this... several years ago now. Fuck you scientists and your stupid propensity to make awesome shit reality sooner!
  • DromaroDromaro
    edited January 2013
    Star Trek: TNG also explored this concept in a few episodes I can think of off the top of my head. "The Chase" involved an ancient race that inserted DNA fragments into various races across the galaxy that, when assembled in a tricorder, ran a computer program.

    There was another episode whose name eludes me right now, when a spy aboard the Enterprise had a device that would read digital data, encode it into DNA molecules and then, by injection, insert the material into his blood stream for later reading later.
    Post edited by Dromaro on
Sign In or Register to comment.