There's an interview with Ken Thompson from about 2008 where he says that most of the work in CS has already been done, and he's advising his son to go into biology.
I feel like CRISPR is the transistor of the 21st century.
I feel like CRISPR is the transistor of the 21st century.
I work in biotech at a company that is one of the few golden geese that lays 2-3 successful drugs with no competitors every few years. I have 30+ years of experience (deep experience) in machine learning, biology, and computer science.
We are so far behind where we could be, in terms of turning biology into technology, that's almost shameful. Every day I see another system that says it can generate 10 times the data of the previous machine, but the actual amount of knowledge we are extracting for all that data collection is growing logarithmically. This is because for a long time biology has greatly underfunded computing and data.
The one great shining light is AlphaFold. AF2 finally demonstrated to a wide range of scientists across many domains that a really great team using techniques that are barely known outside of FAAMG can work with some long-term experts to move a metric (quality of predicted protein structures compared to golden data) substantially further and faster than even the most wildly optimistic predicted. Not only that, some of the techniques they used didn't even exist several years ago (transformers, jax, various graph learning systems), and the work was replicated externally once the leading academic team had a hint of the direction to go in.
To me, nothing about what I said is surprising to me; I predicted these outcomes a long time ago. Most of the reasons that it comes slower than it could are combinations of culture, incentive, morals/ethics, politics, innovator's dilemmas and a hundred different bottlenecks. Recently, the challenge has been that most of the really smart computational biologists disappear into FAAMG and don't contribute back the things they learn there to research.
We're all waiting for that next moment when the cross product of Genentech and Isomorphic Labs announces that they have a computational model that can do end to end prediction of drug, from initial disease target to FDA approval post-phase III trial. That's been the dream for some time but we're nowhere near it still, and it remains to be seen whether some group can conjure all the necessary bits to solve the remaining underlying problems associated with that "far beyond NP-hard problem"
The main difference is that CS attempts to generate and study complex systems built from well-understood components, whereas biology attempts to understand and manipulate systems that evolved naturally over eons.
Imagine dropping a fully functional internet-connected Google Home Hub into 1960-era humanity and asking them to figure out how it works so they modify it to sound like Walter Cronkite. There are thousands of problems on this order of complexity in biology. It's wild.
The path is pretty clear, but takes time. Essentially, you need to go back to school and learn biology.
Fortunately, many grad programs in the US are desperate for people that want to be trained as biologists but have relevant skills in other areas like CS. So skip going back to undergrad and just apply to grad programs.
Unfortunately, that means you have to join the Ivory Tower's horrible system for a while. A 'good' tactic is to get into a PhD program where you'll be paid, learn everything, get your MS, and then quit the program after ~3 years with a free MS. Fair warning, the learning will be absolutely horrible and you'll be on the bubble of being kicked out; it really is that much info you're trying to digest in such a short time period. But if you're not worried about scholarships and grades, then that's fine. Your PI will hate you, but then again they hate everyone, so it's a wash.
If you're serious about grad school then read this first: https://acoup.blog/2021/10/01/collections-so-you-want-to-go-...
One thing to be clear about though, jobs in biotech are much less well paid than in CS. You're looking at a 1/3rd to 1/4th salary decrease for pure bio jobs as compared to programmer jobs. Even leveraging your coding skills for biotech companies is going to be tough; you'll be pigeon holed into either a lab role or a coder role. The true blended roles are very rare. So much so as that you'll essentially have to start your own company, or be the heart of any company your join. So, good money there, but huge pressures.
You have to learn a whole new set of fields and new ways of thinking. That takes time. To be 'good' at genomics, you kinda need to know how the genes are implemented in the various model organisms. Which means you need to know the relevant biology, biochemistry, chemistry, and physics of the situations. That's, essentially, an entire undergrad education. Then, you get to do the actual work, which takes about 1.5 years of study, so most of a masters degree. Then you can start really doing the work.
For me, the first big realization coming from physics was that these little yeast cells and zebrafish aren't just little machines of quantum chemistry. They really are alive, even down to the cellular level, and they are studying you too. There were hundreds of such insights.
Did you mean unethical or are you talking about something else?