Hacker News Reader

Comment by joe_the_user | Hacker News Reader

I don't think this really takes away from gp's argument, which is that editing genes is complicated and could wind-up with unforeseen consequences.

"Genetic engineering" is more like "cut-and-past-programming" on a stream of data that is not-really-code. Fully understanding the implications of even "simple" changes may wind-up impossible.

View on HN

The "cut-and-paste" analogy is perfect here. Imagine you discover super-complex code for which you have only a rudimentary understanding. Now imagine replacing sections of code from one program with sections from another program and calling it an improvement before even testing the code!

Older versions of genetic engineering are like pasting code into a random section of a program. CRISPER-CAS9 is more like replacing one section of code with another. Better? Sure. But we still dont really understand the system.

Exactly. It seems like we may want to develop more accurate models of how changing DNA and its environment affects its expression through (t)RNA, proteins, and reflexively itself, before making massive "production" changes in one go. In other words, perhaps we should be more methodical and patient in our approach? Curious what the experts have to say about this.

All true, but it's progress compared to some current GMOs (I'm not anti-GMO). Quite literally developed by exposing fields of fruit to massive amounts of radiation until you ended up with a generation that was better than the last.

It's funny that you can sell the irradiated fruit offspring as organic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com