Hacker News Reader

Comment by ProfessorLayton | Hacker News Reader

Gene editing, particularly on living people. I'm looking forward to cancer treatments being no more involved than an antibiotics regimen.

I don't know if its around the corner, but considering the human genome was completed circa 2003, I'm pretty enthusiastic that it isn't too far away.

View on HN

It's a way's off, but I'm looking forward to the day genetic engineering lets people see colors they aren't able to see today. Those and other sensory enhancements could revolutionize art, culture, and society.

You may be excited about a technology from the sixties called "acid" that allows you to do just this. (Somebody had to say it)

I'm not sure if gene editing is really the quickest way to see more colors-- I would assume that a Brain Computer Interface solution would happen sooner.

I'm looking for a CRISPR (or equivalent gene tech) loading system to be implanted, so we can easily install upgrades to our genome as a species. Patches that fix common flaws that dramatically increase disease / shorten life expectancy, along with improvement patches that make us better in various ways. It's not coming anytime soon, but it's inevitable and will be more beneficial than the vaccination programs we've spread globally that work similarly in how they benefit the species as a whole as a sort of upgrade. I don't know whether it'll be more efficient/ideal to have it function as an implanted system that check & regulates constantly, or as something that is performed every so many years (you'd get your first patch in the womb).

It probably seems like sci-fi now, some early concepts in this space will be possible within 30 years.

I'm a little bit concerned about the improvement patches. We should get rid of devastating diseases, but we should also be really careful about how we decide to change the species. We'll be deciding that for future generations.

> We'll be deciding that for future generations.

I think this is only true for genetic modifications to germ cells or embryos, which is why the recent embryonic gene editing story [1] is so controversial.

As far as I know, gene editing in somatic cells only affects the individual and not their offspring, unless that change somehow propagated itself to the genetic material in the gametes.

(Disclaimer: this is in my field of interest but way outside of my field of expertise)

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/embryo-gene-editi...

> We'll be deciding that for future generations.

Isn't the premise that they can decide for themselves?

There is the possibility of editing the germline so that all future generations will have the improvement.

Now imagine parents deciding this for their future kids, grandkids, etc.

Every decision we make effects future generations, this one is only more direct.

Point is your kids can revert your changes.

I think "around the corner" is a little optimistic, but I totally get you and I think with more computer scientists joining the research in this area we will see tremendous advancement in the near future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com