DNA Computer.

A great sociologist once said "it is only at the cost of others that society progresses." The truth to this Seventeenth Century saying still resounds, as the thousands of so-called innovations that dot the technological map of the world, have been made at the high cost of people who do not benefit from these advances. Whether it is the latest drug for treating HIV being tested on an unknowing population in Africa, or CDMA cellphones that increase the chances of brain cancer, these "innovations" are increasing the human cost every second. The computing industry is no different. Whether it is the laying off of millions of workers as a result of the invention of a silicon-based processor or the closing down of thousands of libraries as a result of a network called the internet, morality seems to take a back seat in favour of  efficiency in the computing industry. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has only recently unveiled its latest monstrosity, the Type A processor, which promises to advance computing power by leaps and bounds but at a high moral cost.

Named after the Nobel laureate, Albert Einstein, the Type A processor is the result of a 10-year long research project by the Biodome Research Team (BRT) at MIT. Headed by Dr Kumar Roshan and Dr Harold Ruth, the Type A processor claims to be the world's first DNA powered central processing core. By using organic carbon chains consisting of Adenine, Guanine, Thymine and Cytosine, it uses the power of permutations and combinations to systematically create the necessary dynamics required to compute algorithms. Unlike semiconductor-based processors that work with only 1s and Os, the Type A core uses four units that allow up to 64 combinations of bits per loci (unit segment of a DNA strand). Now imagine millions of such units in a single strand that result in a processor that can compute information at the speed of a planet-sized supercomputer. Using breakthrough nanotechnology, the DNA units are literally "coaxed" into changing form and swapping positions on a single strand.

But this is only the beginning as this is pure data input. The recipient DNA actively starts blueprinting the resulting combination of the surrounding amino acids into a protein molecule, which in turn holds the computational response to the combination entered. Given the right electrical and chemical stimuli, this entire process takes merely a fraction of a nanosecond. The power to drive the entire process is created by the cell's mitochondria, which in turn needs to be surrounded by sugars with the right osmotic pressure. The mitochondria need to be stimulated constantly with negatively charged ions in order to work at maximum efficiency.

Reading the protein based computational response is the trickiest part. Using nanotechnology-based sensors that measure changes in the pH levels as well as the protein types being generated, previously unsolvable problems - such as the absolute value of pi - are now trivial. According to Dr Kumar Roshan, the team has been able to compute up to 600 quadrillion decimal places for the absolute value of pi in a matter of nanoseconds. Given the early nature of the technology, this number could possibly be indicative of only a fraction of the actual potential of these DNA-based cores. Considering this entire process was done on a single stem cell, imagine what an entire tissue would be capable of. The Type A processor appears to be the solution to the world's computational problems. Practical solutions include finding out the meaning of a variety of chemical processes in the human body, simulating nuclear tests with pinpoint precision and running complex models to understand universal dynamics. The list is endless and the benefits will keep on piling. But all of this comes at a cost that is almost beyond comprehension. The DNA computer  can only compute if it is hosted in a living, sentient being. The first five years of BRT were spent in using synthetically engineered DNA, which failed miserably for a very sound reason. The DNA needs to "feed" in or to reproduce (or compute in Type A's case) protein elements in the mother cell. If the surrounding environment is not alive, or is unable to multiply upon each computation, the DNA stops responding. This is because the DNA's primary function is to act as the blueprint of the building blocks for the host. The researchers discovered that making the Type A compute using artificially created blueprints resulting in zero growth led to an exhaustion of the delicate internal processes.

In simpler words, if the DNA computation does not result in growth, it loses the impetus to compute. Hence, a single cell cannot sustain computing operations unless and until it is allowed to grow. Another factor that was widely shielded from public knowledge during the initial development of the Type A was the role played by the brain in controlling DNA processes. An active brain provides the regulatory chemicals required to control the random growth of cells. Without this supervisory activity, the cells lose their ability to grow into healthy computable units. Thus, in order to make a sustainable computing framework, a conscious mind with healthy growing cells is required. And what better mind to choose than a human one, with almost infinite computational capacity as well as proven evolutionary prowess. For the world's first successful DNA computer, the Type A was not merely named after Albert Einstein, it was made from him. When Albert Einstein donated his brain for research, it was still usable, which allowed the Biodome team to extract living DNA and use it in Type A. Currently, the Type A is in the form of a zygote, which is the pre-fetal stage of human development. Given its growth rate, Dr Ruth feels that a fully functional fetus could be developed by the end of 2006. . But there are hazards to the Type A fetus in the form of cancerous growth. The number of computations created using the DNA, though unnatural, is consequence free as far as the results are concerned. But given the unstable protein molecules created, cancerous growth could easily occur every second. Such problems might be controlled to a certain degree in a single cell, but in a tissue with billions of cells this is near impossible.

The real moral dilemma will arise when the Type A gains consciousness, as the brain will develop to an extent that it can understand its surroundings. How long would suppressive neurotoxins be used to control it? Would it be a humane thing to do? Even if the Type A is just a clone, would it not have feelings and problems similar to regular human beings? Is it even right to create a clone of Albert Einstein to compute answers to the world's problems? Would it be a monster or a human? Does it even matter?

This might come as a surprise, but there are already massive computing programs running beta tests on the Type A core. Skype is one of the main contenders, allowing over 40 million users to simultaneously make phone calls every day, using Type A to compute the voice over IP (VoIP) packets in real time. Google Talk, which recently made its debut on Gmail, is powered by Type A in all its glory. Many a user was shocked at the responsiveness of this little value addition to Gmail without realizing that it was Albert Einstein's DNA powering each keystroke. Ebay, parent company to Skype, is discarding its entire silicon farm in favour of these cost-effective DNA processors. Pakistan's favourite community site, Orkut is going to switch over to the Type A as the final step to its beta roll-out. Imagine millions of Orkut fans enjoying hyper-fast high-definition video conferencing, backed up by the Type A core. Given the rivalry between Google and established monopolies such as Microsoft and Intel, the Type A'is most likely to stay on the Google side of things. In fact, Google's recently announced operating system (Code named GooOS) will run entirely off the Type A architecture.

All of these applications barely touch Type A's computational power, as the consistent organic growth multiplies its clout in geometric leaps.
The Type A core poses a very difficult question for humanity: are the world's computational problems worth the destruction of the very fabric of morality that holds our societies together? The answers to this question (and there would be many) would most probably be a mixed bag. Some may look to humanity serving a higher purpose while others may be entirely callous and uncaring towards the needs of anyone but themselves. Rest assured, whatever your opinion may be, the "gurus" at MIT will finish this project whether we like it or not. And once Type A is ready, we will enter a new era of computational perfection and simultaneously slip into moral depravity.

_{source Spider Mag.}