that's cool! also, i love the fact that anyone with the equipment and knowledge AND MONEY can purchase these gene sequences and mess around with them
*. but i guess at the end of the day it's a bit of a double edged sword (bio-weapons etc.). one thing that confuses me is why they decided to use TOBACCO. i kind of skimmed thru the report (even tho lanugage like this tends to make my brain bleed) and didn't find any actual reason for it. maybe i missed it? is tobacco easier to fudge around with in the laboratory than other plants/animals? anyway, i would think that this could have been accomplished better in a plant species closer to the actual cannabis plant but at the end of the day i guess it doesn't realy matter what plant you're using (or animal for that matter) being that you're "injecting" DNA sequences. Also am i correct in thinking that GenBankTM owns the copyright for this sequence?
*interesting links
(fluff)
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.0 ... html?pg=18
(meat and potatoes)
http://www.dnahack.com/index.html
(disturbing but fascinating scare-clusion which in hindsight has nothing to do with the OP's linked article but is a good read anyway

)
http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/stories ... eader$1439
I wonder how many amateur geneticists are out there doing this stuff (the non-lethal variety) at home. [tangent]Techinacly speaking, IMO, biochem reactions could become antiquated once the lab is turned into vats of genome enhanced bacteria churning out pure-as-can-be endproducts. [/tangent]