On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, Stewart Brand wrote:
> Kevin Kelly has been pushing his idea of what we've been calling a
> Global Biocensus---set about identifying ALL of the species on Earth.
> The process itself and the results and side effects could outweigh
> (and incidentally build on) the Human Genome Project. Kevin can
> spell out the emerging details. It's a billion dollar project---a
> bargain for the value it would generate.
Stewart, IMO, merely identifying all of the species would be
relatively worthless. For the amount of money mentioned you
would like to see demonstrable results. So, perhaps, you may be
mis-describing the project or else it may be mis-conceived.
Each species has a unique genome. *Most* of that genome
is pretty much similar to other species. However there may
be unique pieces of each genome that may code for a unique
nanomachine or a unique regulatory path or a unique combination
of genes that allow functioning in a specific ecological niche.
It is the *difference(s)*, i.e. the unique *INFORMATION CONTENT*
between one genome and another that is potentially of value.
The only way to get that information is to have preserved samples.
I believe that it was pointed out in Science a year or two
ago, that efforts to catalogue and preserve endangered
species was wrong-headed. Why? Because the investment
of time and money for each "endangered" species was so
large and the extinction rate so rapid, that while you
were saving one species you were aware of you would be
losing hundreds you were unaware of.
The solution proposed was "no-knowledge" preservation.
Go grab chunks of dirt, water, air, etc. from various
shrinking environments and simply freeze them. Don't
worry about the census of what is in the samples, let
the future generations of scientists figure that out.
Since we are in the middle of a global extinction event
(see "Rare Earth") brought on by the ubiquity of humanity,
if we have any moral sense, i.e. any consideration of the
value of the investment nature has made in constructing
various species, then we should be preserving environmental
samplings as fast as possible.
The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) and Celeara have shown
the feasibility of reassembly of genomes from collections
of partial information. That implies that the normal
"protocols" (which may be relatively expensive) that biologists
would like to follow may be entirely unnecessary.
Catologing is *unimportant*. What is important is getting
samples on ice. Given a genome, at some point in the not
too distant future, one will be able to predict with relatively
high accuracy, the environmental niche that genome occupied.
The observational or inventory information of the species
is of relatively low value compared with the data encoded
in the genome itself.
You should be building a deep freeze, not a long clock.
Robert Bradbury
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:10 MDT