Recently in Current Affairs Category

A couple of weeks ago I made a whirlwind trip to San Francisco that turned out to be all about garage biology.  I started off with a talk to the California Assembly Select Committee on Biotechnology.  Here are my slides (Carlson_CA_Assembly_February_2010.pdf), which focus on the role of small business and garage hackers in creating innovation in the Bioeconomy, and here is the agenda (PDF).  See my recent post on "Micro-Brewing the Bioeconomy" for the details of craft brewing as an example of distributed biological manufacturing.  I also did an event at the GBN for the book, and I'll post a link to the recording when it goes live.

I spent most of one Saturday hanging out at a garage biology lab in Silicon Valley.  When I walked in the door, I was impressed by the sophistication of the set-up.  The main project is screening for anti-cancer compounds (though it wasn't clear to me whether this meant small molecules or biologics), and the people involved have skillzzz and an accumulation of used/surplus equipment to accomplish whatever they want; two clean/cell-culture hoods, two biorobots (one of which is being reverse engineered), incubators, plate readers, and all the other doodads you might need.  They aren't messing around.  I didn't get into the details of the project, but the combination of equipment, pedigree, and short conversations with the participants told me all I needed to know.  That doesn't mean they will be successful, of course, just that I believe they are yet another example of what can be attempted in a garage.  This sort of effort is where new jobs, new economic growth, and, most importantly, desperately needed new technologies come from.  Garage innovation is at the heart of the way Silicon Valley works, and it is envied around the world.


I continue to get push back from people who assert that "it is really too hard" to hack biology in a garage, or too expensive, or that garage labs just can't be up to snuff.  This sort of dissent usually comes out of National Labs, Ivy League professors, or denizens of the beltway.  All I can say to this is -- Doodz, you need to get out more.

So why am I not telling you the who and the where for the photos above?  Because, like many garage biology hackers, they are a little skittish given the way the Uncle Sam has been off his rocker for the last few years when it comes to mis-perceived biothreats (Shoot first, Google later).  The people who built the lab pictured above are pursuing a project that is technically well beyond anything discussed on the DIYBio list, and while they may be watching the DIYBio conversation they don't advertise what they are up to.  It would be better for all of us if we could rest assured that conversations about this sort of work could proceed in the open without guys showing up in biohazard suits with weapons drawn -- Youtube, at the 00:00:48 mark.  Words fail to describe this video.  Or, rather, I have plenty of choice words to describe the quality of the investigation and planning that went into an armed assault on the residence of an art professor whose many previous public shows and events included biological technologies including hacked bacteria -- and indeed I have shared those words with the appropriate individuals in DC, and will do so again -- but it won't do my blood pressure any good to go further down that road here.

While the innocuous art professor may be back at work, and while some may view this as water under the bridge, it is not my impression that Federal law enforcement officials truly understand the impact of their behavior.  (Here, I will try again: Dear Feds, You are making us less safe.)  The response to errant "enforcement"efforts (or "career enhancement", depending on your perspective) is exactly what you would expect -- people stop talking about what they are doing, making the job of sorting out potential threats all that much harder.  I recall giving a talk in DC in 2003 or so wherein I made this point to a room full of intelligence types (domestic and foreign), and only about half of them -- predominantly the younger ones -- understood that information was their only tool in this game.  The notion that you could effectively produce safety through prohibiting garage biology and related efforts is the height of folly.  See, for example, "And the Innovation Continues...Starting with Shake and Bake Meth!" for the latest on the effectiveness of domestic prohibition of methamphetamine production.  The effect is -- surprise!!! -- more innovation.  Just like it always is.  However much garage biology we wind up with, we will be much safer if practitioners are willing to discuss what they are up to without worrying about misdirected badges, search warrants, and guns. 

To be sure, I don't have reason to suspect anything but good intentions and productive work originating from the garage lab shown above.  Nor is a drug screening project likely to result in something scary.  But I certainly can't know they won't make a mistake.  I would feel more comfortable if they, in turn, didn't feel like they had to keep a low profile so that there could be open discussion of potential missteps.  This applies to individuals and governments alike: "Above all else, let us insist that this work happens in the light, subject to the scrutiny of all who choose to examine it." (PDF)  And I am waaay more concerned about what the government might get up to behind closed doors than I am about activities of individuals.  

Next week I am headed to DC for another biosecurity/bioterrorism discussion, which will be interesting in light of the recent "F" grade given to US biopreparedness by the President's Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.  See also my earlier analysis of the report.  I mention this here because the US Government still doesn't get the role of garage biology in much needed innovation (see the slides above from the talk to the CA Assembly Committee for a list of important technical advances from small businesses and individuals -- this discussion is also in the book).  Nor has the US Government clued into the PR job they have ahead of them with students who are gaining skills and who want to practice them in the garage.  Both the FBI and the Biological Weapons Commission Convention (sorry, Piers!) had a presence at iGEM in 2009 -- as liasons to students the FBI sent Agents whose cards read "Weapons of Mass Destruction Coordinator".  !!!Calling Chiat\Day!!!

There continues to be a prominent thread of conversation in Washington DC that "biohacking" is somehow aberrant and strange.  But apparently DIYBio, you'll be happy to hear, is a group composed of the Good Guys.  Everyone should feel happy and safe, I guess.  Or maybe not so much, but not for the reasons you might think.

The creation of a false dichotomy between "DIY Biotech" (good guys) and "Biohacking" (bad guys) lends unfortunate credence to the notion that there is an easily identifiable group of well-meaning souls who embrace openness and who are eager to work with the government.  On the contrary, in my experience there are a number of people who are actively hacking biology in their garages who intentionally keep a low profile (I am not certain how many and know of no existing measure, but see discussion above).  This tally included me until a little over a year ago, though now my garage houses a boat under restoration.  These people often consider themselves "hackers", in the same vein as people who hack computers, boats (!), cars, and their own houses.  Yes, it is all hacking, or Making, or whatever you want to call it, and not only is it generally innocuous but it is also the core of technological innovation that drives our economy.  And without direct interaction, I do not believe it is practical to ascribe motivation or intent to an individual - including and especially an incorporated individual - operating in a garage.  Thus, I strongly object to the establishment of a conversation related to biosecurity in which the term "biohacker" has any pejorative connotations precisely because it perpetuates the misconception that i) this group is quantifiable; ii) that the group has any unified motivations or identifiable ethical norms (or anti-norms); iii) that it can realistically be currently addressed (or assessed) as a "group".

Not everyone is happy in Europe today.  Evil Genetically Modified (GM) crops are on the march.  After 12 years of deliberations, the EC approved the cultivation of BASF's Amflora potato for industrial uses or animal feed.  Amflora is only the second GM crop approved for cultivation in Europe.  Before getting into this too far, I want to make clear that such decisions should be based on science, and if the science says there are safety or health concerns then we should be cautious.  But the science, all the science I am aware of, says GM crops are safe, at least from a health perspective.  Non-peer reviewed yelping doesn't count.  (Leakage of transgenes is another matter, which I get to below, lest the reader think I am wholly uncritical of GM crops.)

According to the NYT, the EC's Health Commissioner John Dalli described the decision this way:

Responsible innovation will be my guiding principle when dealing with innovative technologies. After an extensive and thorough review ... it became clear to me that there were no new scientific issues that merited further assessment. ...All scientific issues, particularly those concerning safety, had been fully addressed. Any delay would have simply been unjustified.

Digging into this a bit, I found on the European Commission's site quite a long list of GM crops that are approved for various uses in Europe.  Not cultivation, mind you, but use.  Six member states presently "prohibit the use and/or sale of the GM product on its territory". 

The primary complaint by critics appears to be that Amflora contains antibiotic resistance genes, which is not the change that makes them useful in the field, but rather an old technology used to produce the plants in the first place.  That this very old technology is now being deployed in the field is the result of the slow approval process in Europe.  No new GM crop in the US would contain antibiotic resistance genes.  Why is this important?  Because those genes may leak out of the crop into other organisms.

According to the NYT, this risk was evaluated as being very low for the Amflora potato.  Fine.  But it is a real risk in general, one that has been observed in other GM crops.  Here is the relevant passage from of my book, in the context of using GM crops as industrial feedstocks (p165 -- refs are at bottom of this post):

Leakage of genes from GM crops into their unmodified cousins is potentially a threat if herbicide-resistance genes are transferred into weeds. Gene flow into close relatives has been observed in tests plot of Kentucky bluegrass and creeping bentgrass, which provided "the first evidence for escape of transgenes into wild plant populations within the USA."[47]  A similar result has now been demonstrated for a stable and persistent transfer of an herbicide-resistance gene from the widely cultivated Brassica napus, commonly known as rape or rapeseed, to its wild relative Brassica rapa.[48]  Within the confines of a laboratory, herbicide-resistance genes can be transferred with relative ease via pollen exchange between common weed species.[49]  These demonstrations may give pause to both policy makers and commercial interests. Any gene transfer in open cultivation that results in unintentional propagation of a new herbicide-resistant weed strain has the potential to cause substantial economic and physical damage.

The resulting potential threat to agricultural systems raises significant questions about the wisdom of relying on genetically modified crops for feedstock production.

If gene leakage can be minimized, then GM crops hold sufficient promise that they should be used.  The EC appears to believe that this is the case for Amflora potatoes.  Critics in Europe aren't satisfied.  But here is the truly nutty bit about criticism from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth -- it is through their efforts that technological progress in Europe is so damn slow.  Why would any company want to go through the pain and expense of trying to get new technology (i.e., a GM crop that doesn't contain antibiotic resistance genes) into Europe when the only test case took 12 years to make it into the field?

At any rate, the Amflora decision may indicate the mood has changed at the EC level.  Not that the floodgates are likely to open, but perhaps GM crops will now be seen in a different light in Europe.


Refs from Biology is Technology excerpt:

47.  P. G. Johnson et al., Pollen-mediated gene flow from Kentucky bluegrass under cultivated field conditions,Crop Science 46, no. 5(2006): 1990; L. S. Watrud et al., From the cover: Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4EPSPS as a marker, PNAS 101, no. 40(2004): 14533; J. R. Reichman et al., Establishment of transgenic herbicide-resistant creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) in nonagronomic habitats, Molecular Ecology 15, no. 13(2006): 4243.

48.  S. I. Warwick et al., Do escaped transgenes persist in nature? The case of an herbicide resistance transgene in a weedy Brassica rapa population, Molecular Ecology 17, no. 5(2007): 1387-1395.

49.  I. A. Zelaya, M. D. K. Owen, and M. J. VanGessel, Transfer of glyphosate resistance: Evidence of hybridization in Conyza (Asteraceae), American Journal of Botany 94, no. 4(2007): 660.

The Guardian UK reported today that 2009 USDA figures show 25% of grains grown in the US were used to produce liquid biofuels.  The typical food vs fuel story follows.  And it is mostly on point, if tinted by The Guardian's usual populist tone.  Yes, all the grain could in principle be used to feed people.  No, it isn't clear that grain-based ethanol is in fact better than burning petroleum when it comes to total greenhouse gas emissions or energy content.

The story ends with a nod toward "continued innovation in ethanol product" that supposedly is increasing yields and reducing costs.  Huh.  No mention, though, of the fact that any starch crop used to make fuel starts at a major disadvantage with respect to sugar crops, nor that there is an ethanol glut in the US due to construction of too many ethanol production plants.  Neither does the story get into why ethanol isn't a very good fuel to begin with (wrong solvent properties, low energy content, water soluble).

I go into detail about this in my forthcoming book, but the upshot of the argument is that the US is investing quite a lot of money in ethanol production technology and infrastructure that will never be competitive with sugar derived fuels.  And then relatively soon we will get butanol, longer chain alcohols, and true drop-in petroleum replacements made using modified organisms.  In the meantime, I suppose we will just have to suffer through the impact of decisions made more for political reasons than for competitive or national security reasons.  But grain to ethanol isn't really good for anybody except US Senators from farm states.

The Economist has posted video from the World in 2010 Festival, held in Washington DC in early December.  The Innovation panel is below, with me (Biodesic), Dean Kamen (DEKA Research), Dwayne Spradlin (Innocentive), and Kai Huang (Guitar Hero), moderated by Mathew Bishop (The Economist).  (Here is a link to video selections from the rest of the event.)  I was chatting with a reporter a few days ago who observed that everyone else on the panel is quite wealthy -- hopefully that bodes well for me in 2010.  But maybe I am destined always to be the odd man out.  C-Span is re-running the video periodically on cable if you want to watch it on a bigger screen, but I can't seem to find an actual schedule.  (Here is their web version: Innovation in 2010.)


I have a couple of general thoughts about the event, colored by another meeting full of economists, bankers, and traders that I attended in the last week of December.  I met a number of fantastically accomplished and interesting people in just a few hours, many of whom I hope will remain lifelong friends. 

First, I have to extend my thanks to The Economist -- they have been very good to me over the last 10 years, beginning in 2000 by co-sponsoring (with Shell) the inaugural World in 2050 writing competition.  (Here is my essay from the competition (PDF).  It seems to be holding up pretty well, these 10 years later, save the part about building a heart.  But at least I wasn't the only one who got that wrong.)

Here is a paraphrased conversation over drinks between myself and Daniel Franklin, the Executive Editor of the newspaper.

Me:  I wanted to thank you for including me.  The Economist has been very kind to me over the past decade.
Franklin: Well, keep doing interesting things.
Me:  Umm, right.  (And then to myself: Shit, I have a lot of work to do.)

On to the World in 2010 Festival.  The professional economists and journalists present all seem to agree that we have seen the worst of the downturn, that the stimulus package clipped the bottom off of whatever we were falling into, and that employment gains going forward could be a long time in coming.  Unsurprisingly, the Democratic politicians and operatives who turned up crowed about the effects of the stimulus, while the Republicans who spoke poo-pooed any potential bright spots in, well, just about everything.

At the other meeting I attended, last week in Charleston, SC, one panel of 10 people, composed Federal reserve and private bankers, traders, and journalists couldn't agree on anything.  The recovery would be V shaped.  No, no, W shaped.  No, no, no, reverse square root shaped (which was the consensus at The World in 2010 Festival).  No, no, no, no, L shaped.  But even those who agreed on the shape did not agree on anything else, such as the availability of credit, employment, etc.

Basically, as far as I can tell, nobody has the slightest idea what the future of the US economy looks like.  And I certainly don't have anything to add to that.  Except, of course, that the future is biology.

Here is John Oliver's opening monologue from the Festival.  He was absolutely hilarious.  Unfortunately you can't hear the audience cracking up continuously.  I nearly pissed myself.  Several times.  (Maybe the cocktails earlier in the evening contributed to both reactions.)



Back to Innovation in 2010.  Dean Kamen had this nice bit in response to a question about whether the imperative to invent and innovate has increased in recent years (see 36:20 in the C-Span video): "7 billion people can't be recipients, they have to be part of the solution.  And that is going to require advanced technologies to be properly developed and properly deployed more rapidly than ever before."

To this I can only add that we are now seeing more power to innovate put into the hands of individuals than has ever occurred in the history of humanity.  Let's hope we don't screw up.

I just accepted an invitation to speak at The Economist's World in 2010 Festival in Washington DC on 6 December.  See you there.

Also, I finally got the Biology is Technology site sorted out as a blog.  (Does anybody out there know how to use ActionEvents to stream entries from one blog into another?)  The book is scheduled to come out on 15 February, 2010.  At least that is what Amazon thinks.

A fortnight ago the World Wildlife Fund released a report pushing industrial biotech as a way to increase efficiency and reduce carbon emissions.  Interesting.  Of course, industrial biotech doesn't necessarily require direct genetic modification, but the WWF must know that is an inevitable consequence of heading down this road.  More on this after I get a chance to read the report.

Here is Michael Specter's article on synthetic biology "A Life of Its Own".  

My first published effort at tracking the pace and proliferation of biological technologies (PDF) was published in 2003.  In that paper, I started following the efforts of the DEA and the DOJ to restrict production and use of methamphetamine, and also started following the response to those efforts as an example of proliferation and innovation driven by proscription.

The story started circa 2002 with 95% of meth production in Mom and Pop operations that made less than 5 kg per year.  Then the US Government decided to restrict access to the precursor chemicals and also to crack down on domestic production.  As I described in 2008, these enforcement actions did sharply reduce the number of "clandestine laboratory incidents" in the US, but those actions also resulted in a proliferation of production across the US border, and a consequently greater flow of drugs across the border.  Domestic consumption continued to increase.  The DEA acknowledged that its efforts contributed to the development of a drug production and distribution infrastructure that is, "[M]ore difficult for local law enforcement agencies to identify, investigate, and dismantle because [it is] typically much more organized and experienced than local independent producers and distributors."  The meth market thus became both bigger and blacker.

Now it turns out that the production infrastructure for meth has been reduced to a 2-liter soda bottle.  As reported by the AP in the last few days, "The do-it-yourself method creates just enough meth for a few hits, allowing users to make their own doses instead of buying mass-produced drugs from a dealer."  The AP reporters found that meth-related busts are on the increase in 2/3 of the states examined.  So we are back to distributed meth production -- using methods that are even harder to track and crack than bathtub labs -- thanks to innovation driven by attempts to restrict/regulate/proscribe access to a technology.

And in Other News...3D Printers for All

Priya Ganapati recently covered the latest in 3D printing for Wired.  The Makerbot looks to cost about a grand, depending on what you order, and how much of it you build yourself.  It prints all sorts of interesting plastics.  According to the wiki, the "plastruder" print head accepts 3mm plastic filament, so presumably the smallest voxel is 3mm on a side.  Alas this is quite macroscopic, but even if I can't yet print microfluidic components I can imagine all sorts of other interesting applications.  The Makerbot is related to the Reprap, which can now (mostly) print itself.  Combine the two, and you can print a pretty impressive -- and always growing -- list of plastic and metal objects (see the Thingiverse and the Reprap Object Library).

How does 3D printing tie into drug proscription?  Oh, just tangentially, I suppose.  I make more of this in the book.  More power to create in more creative people's hands.  Good luck trying to ban anything in the future.

(18 June 2009: Lightly edited for clarity.)

The June 5 issue of Cell Stem Cells has a brief report describing the use of four proteins to reprogram human fibroblasts into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs).  I think this is a pretty important paper, as it dispenses with any sort of genetic manipulation of the target cells or any use of plasmids to insert new "control circuitry", or any chemical manipulation whatsoever.

As expected, it is getting easier to produce iPSCs, and the authors of the paper ("Generation of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells by Direct Delivery of Reprogramming Proteins") note that their work demonstrates the elimination of "the potential risks associated with the use of viruses, DNA transfection, and potentially harmful chemicals and in the future could potentially provide a safe source of patient-specific cells for regenerative medicine".

Kim et al used four recombinant human proteins to turn human newborn fibroblast cells (purchased from ATCC -- see the Supplemental Data) into iPSCs, where each of the proteins was fused to a nine amino acid long "cell-penetrating peptide" (CPP) that facilitated the importation of the proteins across the cell membrane.  The procedure was not particularly efficient, but after multiple treatments the authors produced cells that could differentiate into many different kinds of human tissues.

Here are a couple of thoughts about the paper.  Note that in what follows I have only had a few sips of my first cup of coffee today, and my brain is still quite fuzzy, but I think I am mostly coherent.  You can be the judge.

First, the authors did not use mature cells from adults, so don't expect this paper to lead to replacement organs and tissues tomorrow.  The use of cells from newborns makes a great deal of sense for a first go at getting protein-based reprogramming to work, as those cells have already been demonstrated to be relatively easy to reprogram.  The published procedure required many weeks of effort to produce iPSCs, and authors note that they have quite a ways to go before they can produce stem cells at the same efficiency as other techniques.

Nonetheless, it works.

Second, the paper describes PCR-based cloning of human genes to add the CPP sequences, along with a fair amount of bench manipulation to generate cells that made each of the four reprogramming proteins.  All the sequences for those proteins are online, as are the sequences for the CPPs, so generating the corresponding genes by synthesis rather than cloning would now cost less than $10K, with delivery in 2-4 weeks.  In another year, it will probably cost no more than $5K.  (How long will it be before these proteins show up in the Registry of Standard Biology Parts?)

Third, the authors did not use purified reprogramming proteins to generate iPSCs, but rather used whole cell extracts from cells that produced those proteins.  Thus the concentrations of the reprogramming proteins were limited to whatever was in the cell extract.  This might critically affect the efficiency of the reprogramming.  Presumably, the authors are already working on generating cultured cell lines to produced the reprogramming proteins in larger quantities.  But if you wanted to do it yourself, it looks like you might "simply" have to order the appropriate sequences from Blue Heron already cloned into the human expression plasmid pCDNA3.1/myc-His A, which is available from Invitrogen.  This would add a couple of hundred dollars to the cost because Blue Heron would have to play around with a proprietary plasmid instead of the public domain plasmids they usually use to ship genes.  You would then follow the recipe from the Supplementary Data to transform a protein production cell line to make those proteins.  Or perhaps you have a favorite recipe of your own.  Here is something I don't get -- it looks like that particular expression plasmid adds a His tag to the end of the gene, so I don't understand why Kim et al didn't try a purification step, but maybe that is underway.

Fourth, if you wanted to do this at home, you could.  You should expect to fail many times.  And then you should expect to fail some more.  And then, assuming your human cell culture technique is up to snuff, you should expect to eventually succeed.  You might want to wait until the inevitable paper showing how to do this with adult differentiated skin cells is published.

And then what?

You will have an autologous stem cell line that you can use to produce tissues that are, immunologically speaking, identical to those in your body.  What should you do with them?  I would suggest you show them off at cocktail parties, brag about them on Facebook, and then destroy them with bleach and an autoclave.  In lieu of an autoclave a microwave would probably do just fine.

But I expect that at least some of you will try to follow a recipe to generate some sort of human tissue, or even to simply inject those cells in your own bodies, which will result in all kinds of crazy teratomas and other tumors.  To quote Harold Ramus, "that would be bad".  So don't do that.  Just because DIYStemCells are cool doesn't mean you should actually use them yourself.  But I know some of you will anyway.  That is the future of biological technologies, for better or worse.

Last week The Economist ran an online debate considering the motion "Biofuels, not electricity, will power the car of the future".  I was privileged to be invited as a guest contributor along with Tim Searchinger of Princeton University.  The two primary "speakers" were Alan Shaw of Codexis and Sidney Goodman of Automotive Alliances.  Here is my contribution to the debate, in which I basically rejected the false dichotomy of the motion (the first two 'graphs follow):

The future of transportation power sources will not be restricted to "either/or". Rather, over the coming decades, the nature of transportation fuel will be characterised by a growing diversity. The power sources for the cars of the future will be determined by the needs those cars address.

Those needs will be set for the market by a wide range of factors. Political and economic pressures are likely to require reducing greenhouse gas emissions and overall energy use per trip. Individuals behind the wheel will seek to minimise costs. But there is no single fuel that simultaneously satisfies the requirements of carbon neutrality, rapid refuelling, high-energy density for medium- to long-range driving and low cost.

I find it interesting that the voting came down so heavily in favor of electricity as the "fuel" of the future.  I suppose the feasibility of widespread electric cars depends on what you mean by "future".  Two substantial technology shifts will have to occur before electric cars displace those running on liquid fuels, both of which will require decades and trillions.

First, for the next several decades, no country, including the US, is likely to have sufficient electricity generating resources and power distribution infrustructure to convert large numbers of automobiles to electric power.  We need to install all kinds of new transmission lines around the country to pull this off.  And if we want the electricity to be carbon neutral, we need to install vast amounts of wind and solar generating capacity.  I know Stewart Brand is now arguing for nuclear power as "clean energy", but that still doesn't make sense to me for basic economic reasons. (Aside: at a party a few months ago, I got Lowell Wood to admit that nuclear power can't be economically viable unless the original funders go bankrupt and you can buy the physical plant on the cheap after all the initial investment has been wiped out.  Sweet business model.)

Second, the energy density of batteries is far below that of liquid hydrocarbons.  (See the Ragone chart included in my contribution to The Economist debate.)  Batteries are likely to close the gap over the coming years, but long distance driving will be the domain of liquid fuels for many years to come.  Yes, battery changing stations are an interesting option (as demonstrated by Better Place), but it will take vast investment to build a network of such stations sufficient to replace (or even compete with) liquid fuels.  Plugging in to the existing grid will require many hours to charge the batteries, if only because running sufficient current through most existing wires (and the cars themselves) to recharge car batteries rapidly would melt those wires.  Yes, yes -- nanothis and nanothat promise to enable rapid recharging of batteries.  Someday.  'Til then, don't bother me with science fiction.  And even if those batteries do show up in the proverbial "3 to 5 year" time frame, charging them rapidly would still melt most household power systems.

In the long run, I expect that electric cars will eventually replace those powered by liquid fuels.  But in the mean time, liquid fuels will continue to dominate our economy.