Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Achieve Storage Density of 2.2 Petabytes Per Gram of DNA

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the nature-is-much-smarter-than-we-are dept.

Data Storage 136

SternisheFan sends news of researchers who encoded an MP3, a PDF, a JPG, and a TXT file into DNA, along with another file that explains the encoding. The researchers estimate the storage density of this technique at 2.2 petabytes per gram (abstract). "We knew we needed to make a code using only short strings of DNA, and to do it in such a way that creating a run of the same letter would be impossible. So we figured, let's break up the code into lots of overlapping fragments going in both directions, with indexing information showing where each fragment belongs in the overall code, and make a coding scheme that doesn't allow repeats. That way, you would have to have the same error on four different fragments for it to fail – and that would be very rare," said one of the study's authors. "We've created a code that's error tolerant using a molecular form we know will last in the right conditions for 10 000 years, or possibly longer," said another.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Please use a real unit of measure (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673405)

How many Libraries of Congress is that?

Re:Please use a real unit of measure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673441)

Over 9000 Volkswagens.

Re:Please use a real unit of measure (4, Interesting)

Krazy Kanuck (1612777) | about 2 years ago | (#42673637)

225.28 based on the highly inaccurate assumption [loc.gov] that the quantitative size of the library of congress is 10 terabytes.

Re:Please use a real unit of measure (0)

noh8rz9 (2716595) | about 2 years ago | (#42673891)

this story is falso. no thing as "dna", so how can we store info ther? also, no way you could fit pitabytes into a gram, otherwise computers would be really small.

Re:Please use a real unit of measure (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673961)

Please wait until you sober up before posting again.

Re:Please use a real unit of measure (1)

WhackAttack (2672021) | about 2 years ago | (#42674509)

Yea...Seriously.

Re:Please use a real unit of measure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673941)

i think he wanted to know by weight.

Re:Please use a real unit of measure (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about 2 years ago | (#42673989)

1/225.28 grams.

Re:Please use a real unit of measure (4, Funny)

shaitand (626655) | about 2 years ago | (#42674239)

We should redefine the gram to match the amount of DNA it takes to store a LOC. Then people would have an easier time switching to metric.

Re:Please use a real unit of measure (1)

miserere nobis (1332335) | about 2 years ago | (#42675513)

Likely enough LoC's to fill several Manhattans.

Kneau Reeves movie "Johnny Mnemonic" (0)

peter303 (12292) | about 2 years ago | (#42673457)

The download data into Kneau's head as a courier. However I think they spoke of "gigabytes" back in 1995.

Re:Kneau Reeves movie "Johnny Mnemonic" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673551)

Review I read of that movie: "Keanu Reeves is miscast as someone with too much information in his head."

Re:Kneau Reeves movie "Johnny Mnemonic" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673641)

Which was based on William Gibson's short story from 1981...

Re:Kneau Reeves movie "Johnny Mnemonic" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674303)

Which was also the last time Gibson wrote anything of significance :)

Re:Kneau Reeves movie "Johnny Mnemonic" (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#42674677)

I think the file he uploaded in the beginning was something like 200 megabytes. Or maybe 20. It's certainly chuckle inducing to watch these days.

Latency and bandwidth? (1, Insightful)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 years ago | (#42673463)

It's useless unless it's reasonably fast.

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673523)

Huge latency and low bandwidth. From the abstract:

DNA-based storage scheme could be scaled far beyond current global information volumes and offers a realistic technology for large-scale, long-term and infrequently accessed digital archiving

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (1)

Phrogman (80473) | about 2 years ago | (#42673555)

Until someone mistakes it for a snack and pops it into the microwave :P

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#42674711)

I think a hard drive would fare at least as bad in that scenario.

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (4, Interesting)

Alomex (148003) | about 2 years ago | (#42673529)

Not if it is for archival purposes, like Amazon storage.

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673653)

Yes, even for archival purposes. Oh, you mean you didn't intend to get at the data you archived? Why would you archive it, then? Do you have a collecting fetish?

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#42673845)

I have an infinite backup storage. I save all my compies in /dev/null

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (1)

Dekker3D (989692) | about 2 years ago | (#42675197)

The latency must be horrible though!

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673571)

It's not useless. One interesting part is how long it holds up in storage. There isn't any effective storage medium available today that lasts for 10k+ years. Another is how high the information density is.

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (4, Insightful)

plover (150551) | about 2 years ago | (#42673667)

No, it's only useless for the specific application you're imagining, not "useless" in general. A jet airliner may be really, really fast in comparison to my car, but is useless if my task is to get to the grocery store for milk and eggs. That doesn't invalidate the usefulness of jet airliners.

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673703)

That doesn't invalidate the usefulness of jet airliners.

It does for me.

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674241)

Even for getting milk and eggs, a plane can sometimes be the fastest way. Just ask the scientists at Amundsen–Scott!

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 years ago | (#42674809)

If it takes 1 day per byte, then sorry, it's too slow for any use.

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42675989)

I'm sure 3d printers started out that way too but they are improving in speed and capability. Like all technology the development process takes time and will need to go through a POC before moving on. I think my question is, what lifeform will this create and why would it keep saying 42.

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (1)

suutar (1860506) | about 2 years ago | (#42674569)

true, but actual numbers describing "reasonably fast" are domain-dependent. I doubt it will ever be fast enough to use as RAM, much less cache, but I could see it being an alternative to tape at some point.

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 2 years ago | (#42675879)

Really? a very large storage medium that does not degrade (theoretically) for 10K years....I see no use here....you are right.

Re:Latency and bandwidth? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 years ago | (#42676151)

If it takes more than 10k years to actually write stuff to it, surely you can see the problem?

Memory upgrade of the future (2, Funny)

Doug Otto (2821601) | about 2 years ago | (#42673473)

Memory upgrade kits of the future could just be a razor blade and a plastic bag. Bleed your own upgrade!

Re:Memory upgrade of the future (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673613)

"Hold on, mum, the internet hasn't quite finished downloading into my hair yet"

Oh yeah, I can't wait :)

Re:Memory upgrade of the future (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673697)

So my "thumb drive" will really be my thumb?

Re:Memory upgrade of the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673783)

Or a inner cheek swab.

Where's the important information? (3, Funny)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | about 2 years ago | (#42673485)

How fast does it spin? Whats the iops on something like that? How fast will Windows 7 boot on it?

Re:Where's the important information? (1)

SternisheFan (2529412) | about 2 years ago | (#42673927)

"Soylent Green" hard drives...

Re:Where's the important information? (1)

idontgno (624372) | about 2 years ago | (#42674885)

"It's people. WD Green [wdc.com] is made out of people."

If anyone from Western Digital or MGM/UA is listening, it's PARODY. Thank you.

New error correction scheme? (5, Insightful)

JMZero (449047) | about 2 years ago | (#42673493)

That way, you would have to have the same error on four different fragments for it to fail

I understand they wanted the overall system to be fault tolerant, but it might be better to leave that part to established computer science. I understand DNA might be uniquely prone to certain types of errors or reading problems - but there's a lot of computer science theory (and practice) established here that would likely make the overall system more robust than what looks like a fairly simple redundancy scheme.

Or maybe not (1)

JMZero (449047) | about 2 years ago | (#42673533)

It could be they are already using a fancier scheme - it's hard to tell what's real details of their method, and what's pop-sci "summary". So I apologize if I'm not giving them deserved credit here.

Re:New error correction scheme? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673583)

there is a difference between data level error correcting codecs, and transport (or storage) level error correcting codecs. you can use both.

Re:New error correction scheme? (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#42673595)

same error on four different fragments for it to fail

swap usenet article for dna fragment and right there, they've done a crappy job of reinventing the PAR2 file.
There's probably some analogies from the tape sort/merge era although that's slightly before my time.

SSSS shamirs (aka the S in RSA) secret sharing system just tell it how many slices you want, and how many slices you need present and error free to decrypt, and you're done. Using it for redundancy in this case rather than security.

ECC is a pretty well worn path in CS.

A real hack would be writing DNA that expresses a protein which folds itself into a really little QR code. Those (can) have quite a bit of ECC Now that would be completely useless, yet impressive.

Re:New error correction scheme? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673747)

They have to be able to read the thing, which involves placing the things in correct sequence. Possibly they can't do that if there are too many errors, so it might be that correcting errors after reading is not sufficient.

Call me when they can encode video... (5, Funny)

ddxexex (1664191) | about 2 years ago | (#42673495)

I can't wait to see what happens when a video stored on DNA goes viral...

*ducks*

Re:Call me when they can encode video... (3, Informative)

tragedy (27079) | about 2 years ago | (#42673631)

Well, this smbc comic [smbc-comics.com] addresses that, except that it's stored in bacterial DNA.

Re:Call me when they can encode video... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673733)

I can't wait to see what happens when they dump viagra into the water used by migratory water fowl...

*ducks*

Re:Call me when they can encode video... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674717)

*ducks*

*geese*

another flap (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 2 years ago | (#42674859)

ok, those were both really fowl.

Re:Call me when they can encode video... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673993)

Snow Crash?

So that is how the Goa'uld... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673505)

So that is how the Goa'uld stored everything in their 'genetic memory'. And here, I always thought StarGate SG-1 was a crock of lies!

0.0005% of potential storage (4, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 years ago | (#42673513)

Each DNA nucleotide has a molecular weight of about 150. So a gram of DNA should contain about about 6e23/150 = 4e21 bases. At two bits per base, that is 1e21 bytes. These guys are getting 2e15. So, in theory, they are getting about a half millionth of the potential storage, or 0.0005%.

Re:0.0005% of potential storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673913)

Each DNA nucleotide has a molecular weight of about 150. So a gram of DNA should contain about about 6e23/150 = 4e21 bases. At two bits per base, that is 1e21 bytes. These guys are getting 2e15. So, in theory, they are getting about a half millionth of the potential storage, or 0.0005%.

Not sure your 150 is accounting for methylation, acetylation, ubiquitination, and all the myriad of other histone modifications.

Re:0.0005% of potential storage (3, Informative)

reverseengineer (580922) | about 2 years ago | (#42674745)

These are artificial DNA oligos, so there shouldn't be any of those sorts of modifications. However, a figure of MW 150 per base leaves out the sugar-phosphate backbone, and doesn't account for this being double-stranded DNA. Molecular weight per base pair should be around 700 g/mol..

Of course, that's really nitpicking, What really accounts for the low ratio of achieved versus theoretical is that they made "~1.2x10^7 copies of each DNA string."

They go on to explain in the supplementary materials that "With the latest platform, up to 244,000 unique sequences are synthesized in parallel and delivered as ~1-10 pmol pools of oligos... In our experiment, three runs were used to synthesize 153,335 designs, leading to the higher figure of ~12-120x10^6 (= 3-30 x 10^-12 x6.02x10^23/153,335)." A more accurate assessment of their coding scheme is that they used 153335 strings of 117 nucleotides ( 17940195 total) to encode 5165800 bits of Shannon information, or about 0.29 bits per nucleotide.

The fact they made ten million copies of each string is more of a current technical limitation of DNA oligo synthesis and automated DNA sequencing than an limit on the efficiency of the encoding itself. With the appropriate technology, you could make a few thousand copies (for appropriate error correction) instead of ten million, and your mass of DNA would be in the femtograms instead of hundreds of picograms.

Re:0.0005% of potential storage (2)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | about 2 years ago | (#42673987)

Doesn't DNA have to be tightly packed for storage/transport? It is in eucarya most of the time. Only parts of it get untangled when needed. [wikipedia.org] When packed, much of its weight are "pegs" and "clips" that hold it compact.

Re:0.0005% of potential storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674107)

DNA requires complementary base pairs, so you can only realistically code 1 bit of data for each set of two. It's really 0.001%.

Where does it all end? (1)

Dan Hayes (212400) | about 2 years ago | (#42673515)

This seems like an amazing development, but just today we've had a story about Monsanto and how well their error correction is going despite haivng the best in Western thinking availalble to them. Why should we trust that IBM's procedures are any better?

Re:Where does it all end? (5, Insightful)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about 2 years ago | (#42673693)

Hard to say whether we should or shouldn't. But it's worth noting that there are at least two possible important differences between IBM's experiments and Monsanto's:

1) Monsanto's experiments are often self replicating.

2) IBM isn't trying to sell us MP3 files as food.

Re:Where does it all end? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674123)

IBM isn't trying to sell us MP3 files as food.

I can't help but imagine my IBM-encoded hamburger screaming "Eat more chicken!" as I bite into it. (though that would require a reader and speaker... hmmm... can the buns be speakers and the condiments create a chemical reaction to cause the sound to play?)

Re:Where does it all end? (1)

SkimTony (245337) | about 2 years ago | (#42674605)

Okay, but imagine if they did encode MP3 files as food. And then people started sharing that (self replicating?) data as food.

Just think: Coming soon to a courthouse in East Texas: Monsanto vs. the RIAA...

Redundancy (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#42673521)

It's 2.2 petabytes per gram, but only if you don't mind that it contains a billion copies of the same 2.2 megabytes. Making lots of copies of a short DNA sequence is easy. Making a whole gram of unique DNA sequences is much, much harder. What's the non-redundant storage density of this process?

Re:Redundancy (1)

butalearner (1235200) | about 2 years ago | (#42674021)

Phew! Until you pointed this out, I was worried that we were all walking around with over a hundred petabytes of random data in our bodies (assuming approximately 50 grams of DNA per person). If that were the case there would be a pretty solid chance that, with the right decoder, we're all infringing on somebody's copyright. Thank evolution we're running RAID 1000000000 instead.

Re:Redundancy (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#42674949)

Something tells me you dont understand how RAID levels are designated.

Hint: Noone in their right mind would run something named "RAID 1000000000", unless they didnt care in the least whether their data was retrievable.

Hint 2: It has an array failure rate of ~14% over 3 years, assuming standard drive failure rate of 5% over 3 years. ( 1 - ( 0.95 ) ^ 9 ) ^ 2

Re:Redundancy (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#42674969)

Correction: Was assuming a 9-disk RAID 0. I think the actual failure rate for 9-levels of nested RAID0, RAID1'd, would be
99.99999999921383102043346279157%.

Re:Redundancy (1)

Pawnn (1708484) | about 2 years ago | (#42675049)

Whoa, I just got a cease and desist order from Adam and Eve saying they're being represented by a Mr. Serpent...

Re:Redundancy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674169)

Nice. I thought nobody else noticed this "simple detail". Ewan explained what they did when he visited, and I told him this work wasn't publishable until they didn't store copies of the same data over and over.

Also, their encoding scheme is dumb. Reed solomon is the right approach here.

Re:Redundancy (1)

Hatta (162192) | about 2 years ago | (#42674593)

It's perfectly acceptable to store multiple copies of the same data. You just have to divide your quoted storage density by the number of copies. You don't say a RAID1 array made of 2 3TB drives is a 6TB array, and you shouldn't say this is 2.2PB/gram either.

How do you... (0)

Brad1138 (590148) | about 2 years ago | (#42673531)

Keep a strand of DNA "alive" in your computer?

Re:How do you... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673611)

DNA isn't "alive," it's a really big molecule.

like a big core memory (1)

oldwarrior (463580) | about 2 years ago | (#42673665)

retains RAM data without power and cannot be erased by a magnet/EMF. Maybe gamma rays.

Re:How do you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673791)

Cells are really big conglomerations of molecules. Lyse some cells. Point to the part that makes them "alive".

Re:How do you... (1)

tragedy (27079) | about 2 years ago | (#42673873)

Synergy?

Virus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673537)

Kinda makes me wonder...
When we hit a point where we can easily manipulate DNA as data, what will the implications of that be biologically?
Will people be able to write biological weapons as they currently do with computer viruses?

"very rare"? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673545)

How rare is "very rare"? If they have that 2.2 petabyte gram of sotrage, and "rare" means 0.0001% of the time, that's still 9 billion failures in your archived data.

Re:"very rare"? (1)

wed128 (722152) | about 2 years ago | (#42673807)

So uhhh....parity?

Human data carriers? (1)

futhermocker (2667575) | about 2 years ago | (#42673549)

Think about it, saving your stuff in a dna tattoo... very cool and very creepy at the same time.

Re:Human data carriers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673721)

Or the old carrier pidgeon...

cretinous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673621)

Computer memory is about reading and writing data efficiently, NEVER the obvious observation that stable arrangements of something can 'encode' information. Why would Slashdot promote such self-serving garbage?

A more intelligent question would be why we have failed to create organic memory, based on very long carbon-based molecules. In theory, we could march electron states up and down such a molecule, in a way analogous to early CCD devices or 'bubble' memory, and use these states to encode information at an atomic density.

Building unique molecule chains to encode information would be the worst idea ever. It would be impossible to think of a slower, more expensive, and less reliable method of data storage. If density and endurance is desired over cost and speed, you simply create a very thin layer of some stable material, and burn or impress extremely small holes or indentations into the material. This way, you store one bit for every handful of atoms, essentially for ever.

However, DNA 'manipulation' is trendy, no matter how pointless the enterprise, and Slashdot seems to take pride in being the 'tabloid' of tech forums.

Re:cretinous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42676175)

DNA 'manipulation' is trendy

Never really thought I'd hear someone say that.

Abstergo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673655)

would like to buy your tech for our animus project.

Maybe it already exists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673669)

If this is an optimal encoding, we should start looking for encoded messages from ancient alien civilizations.

Ok.. digital data on DNA.... (1)

wierd_w (1375923) | about 2 years ago | (#42673677)

So, while I realize that the intet here is not to put it inside a living organism.... some part of me wants to know what would happen if the data for various windows malware packages was encoded, and injected into bacterial hosts.

Think of all the new diseases that could come about from pure happenstance, coinicidence, and murphy's law!

Kind of a "throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks" silliness side effect of using DNA for data storage.

Re:Ok.. digital data on DNA.... (1)

plover (150551) | about 2 years ago | (#42673735)

You mean like Snow Crash [amazon.com] ?

Highly unlikely, but I can't help but to wonder: (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 2 years ago | (#42673731)

DNA is the machine language of biological life. What happens if it starts perpetuating itself?

I hate it when my .DOC mutates into a .PSD (0)

scorp1us (235526) | about 2 years ago | (#42673745)

Where's the de-mutation program for that?

First practical use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673795)

will somehow involve porn, no doubt.

Re:First practical use... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674105)

Interestingly porn is antithetical to the only known practical application of DNA.

Re:First practical use... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42675087)

Porn is already encoded in DNA. Sometimes a bit of silicone is added.

2.2 petabytes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42673825)

and still just 4 calories per gram!

Major challenge: Retrieval and storage (3, Interesting)

robbyjo (315601) | about 2 years ago | (#42673887)

Okay, storing is "solved". How about retrieval? Especially random access retrieval that are simple and fast (relatively speaking) that allow such storage medium to be practical? Certainly not DNA sequencing that can take weeks to complete?

The second problem: DNA denature and fragment at room temperature. Certainly a -80C lab freezer for storage wouldn't be practical.

Third problem: DNA secondary and tertiary structure. The coding scheme must also solves the problem of DNA tendency to make secondary structure (like hairpin) or tertiary structure (like super-coil) that can hamper reading / access to the information. I think this is the reason why the storage uses short sequences. But short DNA sequences like the one proposed (~100 bp, from the figure) could still make such structures.

Re:Major challenge: Retrieval and storage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674583)

1) We're talking about something that has the potential to be stored for 1000's of years. If it takes a week to recover, that's not a problem.

2) You put the DNA in a living organism. Living organisms work very hard to make sure there are no changes to their DNA for obvious reasons.

3) Basically all short sequences are present in some living organism, so as long as you don't accidentally put a 5'UTR followed by AUG/ATG, you should be ok.

Transfers (1)

RNLockwood (224353) | about 2 years ago | (#42674099)

"That was the best sex ever and BTW, I just gave you copies all my videos".

Uh oh. (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#42674137)

You copied an MP3? Expect to be sued by the RIAA and their European buddies.

prior art (1)

boldi (100534) | about 2 years ago | (#42674175)

The question is: What if other already used similar method to send messages to us? How would you find that out? Anybody tried to find it out? Considering the possibility we are not alone...

SHUCKS! Original copyright owners are aliens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42675517)

we're in trouble now - they aren't coming for our water, bodies or women. And we're broadcasting their material unidirectionally. Humanity is so screwed. - AC21874812

How long until...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674429)

How long until the crypto guys start using this to pass messages in live animals?

Slower than an Atari disk drive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42674445)

Good grief, this has to be the one storage medium slower than a Commodore 1541 disk drive. Slower than an ASR-33 paper tape reader.

At what cost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42675357)

Using the numbers provided above:
1g DNA =~ 4x10^21 bases (but there is also the phospate backbone) so lets lowball at 2x10^15 bases in the story and since the going rate for DNA synthesis is ~ $0.28 per base. [http://www.genscript.com/gene_synthesis.html] and the company can generate 6.5*10^6 bases in a month...
then 1g of synthsized DNA would cost ~$5.6x10^14 and take ~25,600,000 years to generate.

Converting Computer Virus to run on Wet Ware! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42675575)

Great! now we need to install AV software in all our brains to protect us from Computer virus that leap into the WetWare (/SARC)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?