Comment by akira2501 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by akira2501 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> From my laymans POV

It's just so much more complicated than that.

There is an additional huge array of variables like introns[1] and exons[2].

There's also the fact that not all base pairs encode even for genes, there's things like tRNA[3] and ribosomes[4] and the super amazing ribozymes[5].

Even after all that you have specific DNA binding factors[6] that along with the insane machinery[7] of our DNA regulate which base pairs are even exposed or copied into proteins or other cellular products.

Our genetic code is far more complex than just being "genetic codes." And we're still uncovering more layers of complexity and self-reference[8] the closer we are capable of looking.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intron

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exon

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_RNA

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome

[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozyme

[6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA-binding_protein

[7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_gene_expression

[8]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

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.

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.

C may let you shoot yourself in the foot, C++ may let you blow your whole leg off, but only CRISPR will let you turn it back into a tentacle.

So maybe The Thing was an alien CRISPR experiment gone wrong.

You just described the plot of Prometheus too.

How wide is the set of potential tentacles?

Sounds like it's time to refactor that system into something less crazy. Or better yet, rewrite it in Rust.

That system is incredibly efficient and dynamically stable.

Too expensive, outsource it to rewrite in JavaScript

Someone should definitely disrupt that inefficient proteins assembly line.

In keeping with the analogy, what you're saying is that the build system and deployment system are extremely complex and have a lot of parameters.

That actually makes cronix' point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com