221–230 of 243 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're constrained by the subset of physics that can be implemented by proteins. Plus, the genetic code can't be too big, or it won't fit, but I doubt we'll ever hit that limit (provided we don't go the software route and build a giant tower of massive abstractions that gets copied everywhere).
Proteins and things built by proteins. Teeth aren't very protein-y.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A new world is beaconing upon us. Much like computers in 70s. We are in the real early phases of this technology and this would most probably make the world completely different from what it is now. Mind you, this is just the beginning. First we would have all kinds of diseases being cured using this, 1. It would change the whole medical diagnostics industry to correctly diagnose the pathogen, 2. Then destroy the pat…
Blowing the other horn, as an engineer I can imagine sorts of mistakes that can be made while editing DNA. We don’t fully understand life yet, but already cutting it in pieces, for a good purpose as it may be
But like all decisions, you weigh the good vs the bad and you make a decision. In many cases it will be the best choice by far. Additionally, the more we use it the more we will understand the down side and we can plan for it.
Yup, it has a down side but we'll be able to balance the good and bad parts. Techies love to focus on the good of technology but I think it's good to point out the bad as loud as possible so we can plan for it. The fact is that the genie is out of the bottle and it won't go back in. So CRISP is part of our future.
>Doctors infused billions of microscopic structures known as nanoparticles carrying genetic instructions for the CRISPR gene-editor into four patients in London and two in New Zealand. The nanoparticles were absorbed by their livers, where they unleashed armies of CRISPR gene-editors. The CRISPR editor honed in on the target gene in the liver and sliced it, disabling production of the destructive protein. this is one…
Is this a one-time treatment? Does it remove all of the offending genetic material, and then when those cells divide they are cured? Or does it require ongoing treatment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A new world is beaconing upon us. Much like computers in 70s. We are in the real early phases of this technology and this would most probably make the world completely different from what it is now. Mind you, this is just the beginning. First we would have all kinds of diseases being cured using this, 1. It would change the whole medical diagnostics industry to correctly diagnose the pathogen, 2. Then destroy the pat…
I am bullish on the tech, but don't forget about how swords have two edges...there are going to be some crazy new exploits in our biology this technology will be able to take advantage of. Slipping genetic information past immune sentinels is going to have some crazy downstream risks we are just beginning to fathom.
It seems like the scientists interviewed (some of them leaders in CRISPR) were of the opinion that we should stay the hell away from editing the human germ line (not sure if I used the right term, but basically stuff that would be passed to offspring).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's my controversial opinion - the best individual solution is to do less stuff. To me, it doesn't make sense that a problem caused by over-zealous production will be solved by over-zealous production. We can't really expect making more stuff to solve our problems caused by making too much stuff. The new stuff we make should be targeted at increasing the efficiency of production, but, while helpful, I can't help b…
By doing less stuff you're ultimately decreasing your evolutionary fitness, benefiting those who don't have such qualms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A new world is beaconing upon us. Much like computers in 70s. We are in the real early phases of this technology and this would most probably make the world completely different from what it is now. Mind you, this is just the beginning. First we would have all kinds of diseases being cured using this, 1. It would change the whole medical diagnostics industry to correctly diagnose the pathogen, 2. Then destroy the pat…
I am bullish on the tech, but don't forget about how swords have two edges...there are going to be some crazy new exploits in our biology this technology will be able to take advantage of. Slipping genetic information past immune sentinels is going to have some crazy downstream risks we are just beginning to fathom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blowing the other horn, as an engineer I can imagine sorts of mistakes that can be made while editing DNA. We don’t fully understand life yet, but already cutting it in pieces, for a good purpose as it may be
True, I've read stories where researchers have done analysis of the DNA after the use of CRISPR and found that parts other than the target had been affected. But like all decisions, you weigh the good vs the bad and you make a decision. In many cases it will be the best choice by far. Additionally, the more we use it the more we will understand the down side and we can plan for it. Yup, it has a down side but we'll b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are populated areas whose livability is threatened by climate change. These are in very poor, low-latitude regions like Northern India. Sorry to burst your bubble, but PNWers will have the privilege of surviving and thriving with relatively minimal issue. As always, the consequences of the environmental sins of the global wealthy, like you and me and most HNers, will be borne by the global poor in other places.…
I don't know if you've noticed, but the political process is completely fucking broken. Good fucking luck getting any of that passed in any meaningful form.
Once rich people are inconvenienced, the problem will be taken seriously.
Case in point, there was no "opioid crisis" in America until some rich Senator's daughter overdosed on heroin. Then all of a sudden it's a crisis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All crops are GMO. The only difference is how fast they were modified.
> All crops are GMO. The only difference is how fast they were modified. This is often said in defense of GMO, but surely cross-breeding and hybridization - a farmer or gardener attempting to combine the entire genetic entity of one plant with another one (which must therefore be naturally compatible), to increase the potential utility of the result - is totally different to inserting a single gene from a totally arb…
This is just mind blowing. What are some good investment opportunities if you think this is going to revolutionize the world in the next 30-50 years?
Any more suggestions?