How to Know If It’s Time to Let Someone Go | Ep 289

Ja tämä on kauden. Pohjoittaisi, että nyt on kukaan kukaan. Kukaan jäsenyden tarjoitaan kuukausi lisämaksulla. Edut vaihtelevat jäsenyden mukaan. Voit peruuttaa milloin tahansa klanasovelluksessa. Veru taas ja syystä palvelun tarjoaa klana. Ei käs ole vakutus. Vakuutus ja turva edut tarjoa X-cover Coverage Injust Europe BV. Tarjous on voimassa vain uusille preenium ja makskäyttäjille. Ja vanhenee kolmas kymmenen ensimmäinen 7-12-26. Ehtoja sovelle taan. Phome politics report to Jane Kostin. It's now hosting "Cricket Media's Daily News Podcast" Käs on tullut videon suurin jäsenyden videon. Käs on tullut videon saada, että saadaan käs on tullut videon. Käs on tullut videon, Jane ja Waterday Team, Skaua on tullut videon ja seuraavaksi käs on tullut videon, että saadaan käs on tullut videon, joten on tullut videon 20 minuut videon. Nyt on tullut videon, joten on tullut videon, joten on tullut videon, Sainteisellinen käs on tullut videon, sainteisellinen käs on tullut videon, sainteisellinen käs on tullut videon, sainteisellinen käs on tullut videon, joten on tullut videon, joten on tullut videon, joten on tullut videon, labs looking at exactly this kind of approach where you go from the bottom up and I think they will be the labs that will be joining in this effort and seeing, well, look, if we start with the sort of spud cell idea, can we all start just agreeing approaches, say, look, I'm going to work on how to get these cells to build their own ribosomes and these are little cellular machines that your cells have to produce their own proteins. How can I get it to clear its waste, things like that? But, you know, there's other groups going to top down. So they will start with a living organism and they will just trim away, trim away, trim away, try to get rid of genes that are on the genome that are useful for that species, but aren't necessary for life. So the interest there is to say, okay, what is the bare minimum that biology says an organism needs to survive, but also to survive, you know, for a decent time in its environment. And I have to ask, obviously, invoking Sputnik, there's an element to this of, we're doing it to see if we can do it, but beyond the fundamental science, why are labs trying to do this? Well, I think that fundamental question of what is it about particular assemblies of chemicals, of inanimate matter suddenly crosses the threshold to life, but if we're looking applications, what are these cells for? Well, they will say we want to use them to study models of life, because we know everything going into it, we can generate digital models of life and we can start playing around with simulations of life, which is pretty cool, but more practically, you can program them, you can build them from the ground up so that they're producing drugs, fuels, foods, new materials, and so you can just have vats of these things churning out whatever substance you want, because you built the whole thing from scratch, and that is its dedicated role in life, if it is life. Coming up, what do we mean when we say something's alive? 33 days, 33 episodes, no off switch, from the goals and the glories, the politics, and the problems of the World Cup. If you want football analysis from a podcast that's been overanalyzing the game for more than 20 years, this is it. Join me, Max Rushden and our expert team of football journalists every day of the tournament, can England end 60 years of hurt? Probably not, or will this be another year of falling just short? Probably. World Cup daily, listen wherever you get your podcasts, or watch the full episodes on YouTube. [Music] Ian, that takes us to a question, a really fundamental philosophical question that this work raises, which is, what is life? This is ridiculously one of the hardest questions in biology. There is no agreed upon definition of what is life. I mean, NASA has this definition that they use in their astrobiology work, and they have it defined as a self-sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution. This is about life as we know it, so it's self-sustained. It can keep going and going and going in its environment. It can adapt to its environment and so on. But other scientists will point to other things and they will say, well look, metabolism is really key. So taking in nutrients, being able to process those, things like homeostasis, that is a really important part of life as I see it. So there's more of a checklist really that you go through and say, well look, if it can do this, and it can do what, you know, x, y and z, it's life. But you have things that are sort of sitting this sort of weird space like viruses. I think most biologists don't consider viruses alive, but obviously they replicate, they mutate, they have a genome, and they basically hijack cells to do what they want to do in life. It's such an interesting question that this raises. Now we've got some time to think about it because obviously, as you've said, we're still very far away from creating synthetic life, but it feels to me like there's an element of risk in all of this. Is this something that Kate and scientists like her are thinking about? They absolutely are and they really want all of this work to be done in the open and they want to have just a sort of agreement on what we're going to do with these cells and what we're not going to do with these cells. If you wanted to cause mayhem, there are far easier ways of doing it than starting with a small blob of fat with water in it. You know, you could take an existing pathogen and boost it using genetics, you can make it more transmissible and all the rest of it. Don't give people too many ideas. No, but that is dangerous science. I think if you're starting with something like this, it's quite hard to see how you're going to cause any damage, but it's a good time to start thinking about it. And I put this to Kate because I was really keen to know what she was thinking about that. Anytime you're learning to engineer life on this most fundamental level, you're also creating an ability to misuse that technology and that's been a big discussion in the field ever since the data biology started. And the same with Spadsel, we have to keep it contained. We're engineering into it, safeguards so that if it ever gets good enough to live on its own and gets released into the environment, it's not going to spread and do harm. And we're also engineering the kind of limitations so that it only can live in the lab. There is no way for it to a kind of escape and live on its own. In all of this work, it's really putting trust in scientists to do the right thing. And there is a question here about, you know, scientists playing God, is this something that we should be worried about? That phrase playing God is inherently considered a bad thing to do, isn't it? And so what do we mean by playing God? I mean, if we're going to talk about should we be trying to build life? Well, why not? Why wouldn't we want to know how chemicals assemble and become living? That's a really, really interesting question. These groups are a million miles away from creating even a living ball of gel basically. We're a long way away from that. But even if they did have a living synthetic cell, we don't give rights to E. coli. We don't give rights to bacteria. We are killing them all the time whenever we put anything in the dishwasher or wash it. You know, we are killing bacteria left, right, and centre. And so I don't think we need to worry about sort of rights at that sort of point. I think the concern, if any, is around, can you make these things dangerous? But again, let's go back to that point. Just start with something that's dangerous already. There's plenty of pathogens out there that are horrendously dangerous, you know, that's your starting point, not something that is basically a tiny water-filled football. Well, Ian, I've loved discussing this with you and hearing about this research. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thanks again to Ian and Professor Kate Adamala. You can read Ian's piece about Spudcells on the Guardian.com. And before you go, I want to recommend a brilliant video from our explainer series It's Complicated. It's all about how marketing can trick us into mistaking ultra-process foods for health foods. It's definitely worth a watch and we put a link on today's episode page or just search It's Complicated from the Guardian on YouTube. And that's it for today. This episode was produced by me Madeline Finley. It was sound designed by Josh and Chana and the executive producer is Ellie Beary. We'll be back on Tuesday. See you then. This is The Guardian. We found out about this in our first boards have returned! Clark テ theta He should go, theors should go. Clark Pennsylvania The state can't use the SEC 50. The state can't use the SEC 50. [BLANK_AUDIO] se olisi mielestäni itse polkupyörä. Sillä asiat hoidetaan ja meidän liiketoimintamme hoituu Shopify'sa. Aloita Irmainen kokeilu Shopify-piste-com-sivustolla.