OpenPCR is totally different from "read/write cells" much less "read/write cells for under $1000". A truly useful "BioCAD" isn't an engineering problem yet: there's a very substantial amount of basic research required. Synthetic gene circuits evolve rapidly, for one: let's say you designed and "CAD-tested" your circuit, how will you keep it from mutating within a few days? Unsolved research problem.
> Build a database for biology.
Better than Entrez/NCBI? They have a ton of data. Yes, not particularly user-friendly in the way the web community might be used to, but it has all of the data and biologists know how to read it. What would you add? (Yes, there's a lot to add -- but it's not a matter of a prettier UI, and NCBI does have an API already that people find usable).
> Reading DNA in vitro
What does this mean? Sequencing DNA without extracting it from a cell? Why? Sequencing is largely a solved problem now. Costs are dropping faster than Moore's law, and there's literally a thousand vendors who will do it. Even synthesis is advancing so fast that people are beginning to talk about not doing subcloning anymore and just synthesizing the entire construct! (Note that just because we can synthesize kbp oligos now doesn't mean that they're biologically useful in much other than bacteria and yeast, though... pesky things like epigenetic modifications and nucleosomes/genomic DNA packing... among others.) Also, the extension of "writ[ing] DNA sequences into plasmids using the capacitance of the cell wall via [a] nano tube" seems a bit far from current technology.
That said, I think these are important problems and I'd love love love to see more people working on them versus more web and iphone apps! This was not the list I expected to see, which is awesome. But the biology-related ideas don't come across as being communicated with much sophistication.
I have a feeling he just has a bunch of ideas but doesn't know how they'd actually be implemented.
Though, I am using the new IDT geneblocks. I even got a discount on an order, so now ordering 500bp double stranded fragments is actually cheaper than assembling oligos. It's nuts.
I would also love to see more startups in this area. It would be amazing to open biology to every engineer on the planet. I'm thinking of a arduino like revolution but for biology. Achieving read/write cells for under $1000 on the desktop would open up biology to an entire new set of people. I'm not a biologist, but I'm intrigued by what we can unlock in this field.
OpenPCR is a good example of frugal engineering applied to the space. I hope to see more attempts at making this hardware cheaper and accessible.
Regarding the spec on the Database. User friendliness would be a start, can you throw in what you would want to improve - I'm interested in your ideas?
The company "ion torrent" caught my eye regarding the in vitro DNA sequencing. It disrupts Halcyon Molecular and could cut the cost down even quicker.
Why are you convinced you need to open biology up to engineers? Is that currently not the case?
The fact is you really can't do much with a PCR machine. Sure, you can identify your friends boogers. But it only reduces one tiny aspect of overall cost. Add a centrifuge, a flow cytometer, a gel box, some incubators, and then maybe you have a functional 'garage' lab.
But again, you don't achieve much by having immediate in vitro sequencing. Not sure what the point is.
The real barrier then is literally funding and the capacity to do the research. And that's exactly what my startup is doing.
Without revealing too much of what I am doing, this doesn't really solve any existing problems. Honestly, Intellectual Ventures is better than this in that they get straight to the point. They will just buy your IP for some ridiculous amount of money, whether it's from the university or your company.
If you ask a science researcher to be able to do the research outside of his lab, the size of your potential audience falls to fingers on one hand.
At least Bill and Melinda Gates foundation does better in pushing a goal with their own agendas. This seems like an unfocused attempt to throw money into the pit, though money always helps.
So, as a researcher, I've learned that researchers are the best ones who can dictate their own goals. That's freedom that hasn't been seen yet, and there's a very simple solution. Just execution is very difficult.
I think the most promising method is DNA nanopore tech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanopore_sequencing). It doesn't require labeling, amplification, and, I suppose, could be done in vitro. Maybe that's what the article is referring to?
I'm not 100% sure on this, but it also may be much more accurate than current methods since it doens't suffer from many of the biases present in current next-gen sequencers.
I'm working on my PhD in computational biophysics and this is truly an exciting time to be doing cutting edge bio-stuff like this. Sometimes I think people will look back on the 2010's and say this was like Silicon Valley in the 70s and 80s... the beginning of something big.
