Microsoft Boots Up the First 'DNA Drive' For Storing Data (technologyreview.com) 57
Since 2016, Microsoft has been working with the University of Washington to develop the first device to automatically encode digital information into DNA and back to bits again. "So far, DNA storage has been carried out by hand in the lab," reports MIT Technology Review. But now Microsoft and researchers at the University of Washington "say they created a machine that converts electronic bits to DNA and back without a person involved." From the report: The gadget, made from about $10,000 in parts, uses glass bottles of chemicals to build DNA strands, and a tiny sequencing machine from Oxford Nanopore to read them out again. According to a publication on March 21 in the journal Nature Scientific Reports, the team was able to store and retrieve just a single word -- "hello" -- or five bytes of data. What's more, the process took 21 hours, mostly because of the slow chemical reactions involved in writing DNA. While the team considered that a success for their prototype, a commercially useful DNA storage system would have to store data millions of times faster.
Yep (Score:1)
I say, I store data in my pee pee. It's a b*tch to keep it from coming out in the bathroom. People say lots of things.
Re: Yep (Score:1)
People say lots of things but usually only to one person at a time. People are verrrry boring and not the least bit complicated or exciting.
Incredible Potential (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft has been working toward a photocopier-size device that would replace data centers by storing files, movies, and documents in DNA strands, which can pack in information at mind-boggling density.
Sometimes, we are led to believe that advancements in technology do not stem from advancements in private industry, and that too large corporations are always working to the detriment of humankind.
Not always, certainly, but occasionally, the needs of civilization and corporate well being collide.
This could make possible a new type of virus (Score:2)
Re: This could make possible a new type of virus (Score:4, Funny)
You could speed up the process immensely by storing a smaller word like SOL instead of HELLO
Hang on. I see where you're going. [xkcd.com] You fiend!
DNA viruses do exist (Score:1)
Um, no. Viruses use RNA, not DNA.
Uhm, no, smallpox, herpes, and chickenpox are all DNA viruses.
Re: (Score:3)
Then your computer becomes autistic.
DNA or memes, it is inevitable.
Re:This could make possible a new type of virus (Score:4, Informative)
Um, no. Viruses use RNA, not DNA.
Retroviruses use RNA. Most viruses use DNA.
Since RNA is less stable, retroviruses have a higher mutation rate. Influenza is a retrovirus.
Virus classification [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
influenza viruses are RNA viruses that make up four of the seven genera of the family Orthomyxoviridae [wikipedia.org]
Might need to update that thinking of yours, then
Re: (Score:2)
Reality of viruses and cellular fights against them is way deeper and more vicious than realized. Go listen to the Radiolab episode on CRISPR.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean retroviruses do that. Normal viruses use dna.
Your data could get eaten too (Score:1)
Another worrisome aspect is sanitizing your data: Bacteria have genes for "eating" DNA when other sources of energy aren't around.
This means an errant E. coli could find its way in, eat most of the data and replicate, and now there's also host-machinery for your RNA-virus to infect.
Re: (Score:1)
A virus needs DNA (or RNA) and a protective shell that helps protect and deliver it's payload. Here there's no shell.
Also, any commercial hardware and all research hardware i know of would encrypt the data before writing to prevent this from happening intentionally. No implemented encryption scheme is perfect but it would be far easier to just order your "virus" DNA with a credit card then it would be to hack a DNA hard drive that only makes DNA a 100-200 bases long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda like the ending of Beetlejuice?
As with ghosts, billions of entertainment dollars waiting to be picked up.
Re: (Score:2)
it takes all kinds, in NY city
Re: (Score:2)
This is an excellent question! In principle any (hetero)polymer would work.
For context, in the short term we're targeting archival storage and not high speed storage (it'll probably never be low latency in the same way an SRAM is). The amazing thing about DNA is that it's not only long lived under reasonable storage conditions but also eternally relevant. Try reading a 30 year old 8" floppy today. The data may still be okay but you'll have trouble finding the hardware. Since DNA is so important to humans in
Imagine a RAID array of... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Redundant Array of Independent DNA ?
Re: (Score:1)
Actually I think that millions of times faster statement in the summary came from a misquote or misunderstanding. For archival storage(write once read VERY seldom). It should have been millions (or trillions really) more bytes. 20 hours to write an archive and 1 hour to read it isn't bad. I believe amazon glacier has a similar read latency.
Wierd (Score:1)
If the device itself is reasonably inexpensive, this, plus CRISPR/CAS9 and some yeast would make drug enforcement completely impossible, and would make designer lifeforms a new garage hobby.
This is very dangerous tech.
Yes Slashdot, so overrated (Score:2)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]
Because contrary to the science that has already been done (cited above), and that this hardware and a little extra labware would enable, making your own "Very VERY special micro brew" is totally impossible!
YES, IMPOSSIBLE! /s
Overrated my ass.
Why? (Score:2)
Why would we want to do this? What makes dna data storage worthwhile?
Data Evolution (Score:3)
So, after a few centuries, instead of degrading, the data itself will evolve. "hello" will become "hi".
The zombie apocolypse (Score:2)
Some error is going to happen, the coping will go out of control, teh tech that come to take a look will get infected and spread that all around.
I'm going to have to buy the White Album again. (Score:1)