While some hailed the research as 'a defining moment in the history of biology, others attacked it as 'a shot in the dark, with ' unparalleled risks. The team involved have been accused of playing God and tampering'with the essence of life Dr Venter created the lifeform by synthesising a DNa code and injecting it into a single bacteria cell. The cell containing the man-made dNa then grew and divided, creating a hitherto unseen lifeform Kenneth Oye, a social scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the U.S,said Right now, we are shooting in the dark as to what the long-term benefits and long-term risks will This picture shows the colonies of the artificial lifeform nicknamed'Synthia Pat Mooney, of the ETC group, a technology watchdog with a special interest in synthetic biology, said: This is a Pandora's box moment-like the splitting of the atom or the cloning of Dolly the sheep, we will all have to deal with the fall-out from this alarming experiment Dr David King, of the Human Genetics Alert watchdog, said: What is really dangerous is these scientists'ambitions for total and unrestrained control over nature, which many people describe as playing God Scientists understanding of biology falls far short of their technical capabilities. We have learned to our cost the risks that gap brings, for the environment, animal welfare and human health Professor Julian Savulescu, an Oxford University ethicist, said: ' Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny He is not merely copying life artificially or modifying it by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of God creating artificial life that could never have existed He said the creation of the first designer bug was a step towards the creation of living beings with capacities and a nature that could never have naturally evolved. The risks were ' unparalleled, he dded And he warned: This could be used in the future to make the most powerful bioweapons imaginable. The challenge is to eat the fruit without the worm Dr Venter, who was instrumental in sequencing the human genome, had previously succeeded in transplanting one bugs genome- its entire cache of DNA- into another bacterium, effectively changing its species He has taken this one step further, transplanting not a natural genome but a man-made one. To do this, he read the DNA of Mycoplasma mycoides, a bug that infects goats, and recreated it piece by The fragments were then'stitched together and inserted into a bacterium from a different species There, it sprang to life, allowing the bug to grow and multiply, producing generations that were entirely artificial The transferred DNA contained around 850 genes -a fraction of the 20.000 or so contained in a human,s genetic blueprint In future, bacterial factories could be set up to manufacture artificial organisms designed for specific tasks such as medicines or producing clean biofuels The technology could also be harnessed to create environmentally friendly bugs capable of mopping up carbon dioxide or toxic waste3 While some hailed the research as 'a defining moment in the history of biology', others attacked it as 'a shot in the dark', with 'unparalleled risks'. The team involved have been accused of 'playing God' and tampering 'with the essence of life'. Dr Venter created the lifeform by synthesising a DNA code and injecting it into a single bacteria cell. The cell containing the man-made DNA then grew and divided, creating a hitherto unseen lifeform. Kenneth Oye, a social scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the U.S., said: 'Right now, we are shooting in the dark as to what the long-term benefits and long-term risks will be.' This picture shows the colonies of the artificial lifeform nicknamed 'Synthia' Pat Mooney, of the ETC group, a technology watchdog with a special interest in synthetic biology, said: 'This is a Pandora's box moment - like the splitting of the atom or the cloning of Dolly the sheep, we will all have to deal with the fall-out from this alarming experiment.' Dr David King, of the Human Genetics Alert watchdog, said: 'What is really dangerous is these scientists' ambitions for total and unrestrained control over nature, which many people describe as 'playing God'. 'Scientists' understanding of biology falls far short of their technical capabilities. We have learned to our cost the risks that gap brings, for the environment, animal welfare and human health.' Professor Julian Savulescu, an Oxford University ethicist, said: 'Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny. 'He is not merely copying life artificially or modifying it by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of God: Creating artificial life that could never have existed.' He said the creation of the first designer bug was a step towards 'the creation of living beings with capacities and a nature that could never have naturally evolved'. The risks were 'unparalleled',' he added. And he warned: 'This could be used in the future to make the most powerful bioweapons imaginable. The challenge is to eat the fruit without the worm.' Dr Venter, who was instrumental in sequencing the human genome, had previously succeeded in transplanting one bug's genome - its entire cache of DNA - into another bacterium, effectively changing its species. He has taken this one step further, transplanting not a natural genome but a man-made one. To do this, he read the DNA of Mycoplasma mycoides, a bug that infects goats, and recreated it piece by piece. The fragments were then 'stitched together' and inserted into a bacterium from a different species. There, it sprang to life, allowing the bug to grow and multiply, producing generations that were entirely artificial. The transferred DNA contained around 850 genes - a fraction of the 20,000 or so contained in a human's genetic blueprint. In future, bacterial 'factories' could be set up to manufacture artificial organisms designed for specific tasks such as medicines or producing clean biofuels. The technology could also be harnessed to create environmentally friendly bugs capable of mopping up carbon dioxide or toxic waste