Article concerns biohacking particularly manipulating living organisms - could HN have some editorial system to ensure articles posted have a proper descriptive title or maybe a categorisation system.
But if you are insinuating that biohacking is not relevant: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Squishy suggested it may not be programming, but there's no reason why it couldn't be a neologism or brand name in that field.
Although I love the economist, I find they tend to touch upon computer technology less frequently as compared to the natural sciences
The Economist have a good editorial system but they don't choose the title simply to inform. I thought that part of the HN ethos was presenting useful information in a succinct way avoiding cruft and unnecessary marketing tactics. An uninformative title is a marketing tactic designed to get you to see adverts around an article that you wouldn't otherwise have perused - that presumably is why the Economist chose that title (yes also to be mildly entertaining and close enough to the subject to avoid alienating users).
My original point was that the HN title was poor as an indicator of the material in the article. You've just proved my point - if you had never read the Economist could you have guessed the field of the article?
"Hacking goes squishy"
I stand by my assertion that this is a poor title and that no-one could derive the subject matter of the article from the title itself - one might get "biology" from "squishy" but I don't think you could really go any further. It could equally well be use of a new cooling technique to make syrup-and-ice drinks have improved mouth feel.