Let's Get Encoded
Does this really make sense; or is it simply more mythical nonsense sold as science? Modern science relies on unquestioned assumptions and the authority of the model over real demonstrable evidence. Most are so drunk on indoctrinating propaganda that they cannot see this obvious fact. Interpreting data is an art form. Is this real science or is this something that is simply theoretical nonsense? Where is the actual evidence of the claim? It does make sense that since DNA is a code, that one could somehow manipulate it into a storage format. It makes theoretical sense, but are the claims really true or are they exaggerated and fudged for effect? Money matters and the dollar sign is what drives so-called science. The faithful all believe that science is about some kind of honest quest for truth, This is a lie. History shows that nothing could be further from the truth and that it is wise to be skeptical of scientific claims. Scientific fraud is a lot more common than most people realize. Modern science is more of a religion than most think. They tell us they were able to achieve quite a fantastic feat, I am curious where the actual evidence is. Where's the DNA book?
In any case if they can manipulate DNA to achieve what they claim, that might be a clue that DNA is a lot more of an interpretive art than real science.
DNA DATA STORAGE One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data source: pcmaniaful
"Erlich thought he could get closer to that limit. So he and Dina Zielinski, an associate scientist at the New York Genome Center, looked at the algorithms that were being used to encode and decode the data. They started with six files, including a full computer operating system, a computer virus, an 1895 French film called Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat, and a 1948 study by information theorist Claude Shannon. They first converted the files into binary strings of 1s and 0s, compressed them into one master file, and then split the data into short strings of binary code. They devised an algorithm called a DNA fountain, which randomly packaged the strings into so-called droplets, to which they added extra tags to help reassemble them in the proper order later. In all, the researchers generated a digital list of 72,000 DNA strands, each 200 bases long.
They sent these as text files to Twist Bioscience, a San Francisco, California–based startup, which then synthesized the DNA strands. Two weeks later, Erlich and Zielinski received in the mail a vial with a speck of DNA encoding their files. To decode them, the pair used modern DNA sequencing technology. The sequences were fed into a computer, which translated the genetic code back into binary and used the tags to reassemble the six original files. The approach worked so well that the new files contained no errors, they report today in Science. They were also able to make a virtually unlimited number of error-free copies of their files through polymerase chain reaction, a standard DNA copying technique. What’s more, Erlich says, they were able to encode 1.6 bits of data per nucleotide, 60% better than any group had done before and 85% the theoretical limit.
“I love the work,” says Kosuri, who is now a biochemist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “I think this is essentially the definitive study that shows you can [store data in DNA] at scale.”
However, Kosuri and Erlich note the new approach isn’t ready for large-scale use yet. It cost $7000 to synthesize the 2 megabytes of data in the files, and another $2000 to read it. The cost is likely to come down over time, but it still has a long ways to go, Erlich says. And compared with other forms of data storage, writing and reading to DNA is relatively slow. So the new approach isn’t likely to fly if data are needed instantly, but it would be better suited for archival applications. Then again, who knows? Perhaps those giant Facebook and Amazon data centers will one day be replaced by a couple of pickup trucks of DNA."
Nature Can't Lie & Does Not Make Mistakes, People Do Both
"In his 1974 commencement speech at the California Institute of Technology, Nobel laureate physicist Richard P. Feynman articulated the foundation of scientific integrity: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.... After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.”