Confronting risks of mirror life

that does not guaranty correctness and it's published in the "policy forum" section. The "Technical Report" (which is where the meat lies) is attached as supplement-1 to the above paper and hence the reason i pointed to it. The Science article is just an overview and you are expected to read the reference materials for a more detailed understanding. > I'm not impressed about 100 pages of references. Your opinion is laughable and dismissed out-of-hand. For a Technical Report dealing in the frontiers of scientific research, references are key since there is a lot which must be brought together to build up the overall picture. That is the reason for the authors including such an extensive list of references showing how they arrived at the points/conclusions listed in the report. It is invaluable and a foundation of the scientific method.

guaranty correctness and it's published in the "policy forum" section. I'm not impressed about 100 pages of references. Going to a stupid extreme, a report about Flat Earth can cite papers that are about the density of rocks, or the strength, or whatever, hundred of them. It does not mean that the references support their conclusions. From the CNN article: > However, most experts agree that making a synthetic cell with natural chirality is safe, because if a bacterium made from a synthetic cell were to enter an environment, it would be subject to the normal controls of any ecosystem, making it easy prey to natural predators such as viruses that target bacteria. Thus, it wouldn’t be able to spread uncontrollably. Did you spot the mistake? Normal virus will definitively not target mirror bacterias. Anyway, I expect other bacterias to target them, to eat their tasty fats.