The Guardian reports today that J. Craig Venter, runner-up in the race to map the genome, has “built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth.”

According to the article, Venter and his team have built from scratch a chromosome of 381 genes for a new bacterium they’re calling Mycoplasma laboratorium. With techniques invented by Venter’s team, they’re able to insert the chromosome into living bacteria and encourage it to take over for the host’s DNA. In this way, a bacterium based entirely on Venter’s synthetic genome may be born. He has already filed a patent for the new organism.

With characteristic immodesty Venter calls the step “a very important philosophical step in the history of our species.” “We are dealing in big ideas,” he said, “We are trying to create a new value system for life.”

Venter’s rhetoric is pitched to land him back in the only place he’s ever really happy: center stage in the media spotlight. And if the Guardian article is any indication—the subhead for the article reads “Breakthrough could combat global warming”—the world’s media stands ready to help. In the coming weeks we can expect a spate of hand-wringing editorials and waxings both optimistic and dismal that will pronounce on the new science. Brave New Jurassic Park, here we come.

I don’t mean to deny that the news is significant. Like him or not, Venter is one of the most important scientists of the day. His project has invented and developed several extremely important new techniques. But it’s a mistake to consider this a discovery of epochal philosophical significance. In fact, the philosophical and ethical issues raised by Venter’s project aren’t much different than those created by Paul Berg’s discovery of recombinant DNA in the mid 1970s.

Humans have been creating new life forms for centuries—as the corn on your plate and the dog on your street attest—but using recombinant DNA freed scientists from a dependence on natural processes for that creation. Berg’s discovery made it possible to create new genetic material by combining smaller strands of DNA. With Berg’s process, however, scientists still had to depend on extant genomes for their source material. Venter’s technology allows scientists to skip that step: now they can build new DNA from the bases up.

Mention of Paul Berg gives us an opportunity to recall just how different these two men are. When Berg discovered recombinant DNA he wrote in a famous letter, “There is serious concern that some of these artificial recombinant DNA molecules could prove biologically hazardous.” He called for a voluntary moratorium on all research until a panel of scientists, physicians, and lawyers could work out the implications. The Asilomar Conference developed a series of guidelines and procedures to make sure that their creations would cause no immediate harm to human beings. When Craig Venter makes a discovery, on the other hand, he files a patent and calls a press conference.

Science aside, the most charitable thing one can say about Venter’s general orientation is that it reminds us that the myth of the humble scientist usually is just that: a myth. At worst, one can predict that the “new value system for life” that Venter wants to push is one we already know all too well, the same system that rules every other corner of our dollar-denominated lives.