10-06-2016, 07:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-06-2016, 07:23 PM by stevebowers.)
My daughter (currently doing a PhD in genetics) is finding it very hard to get the expected results from her (very minor) tweaks. I can understand why many people think that advances in genetics will be slow to come, and difficult. However I find it quite plausible that the biological sciences will progress significantly in the next two or three centuries, more significantly perhaps than propulsion technology or particle physics for instance, simply because the phase space of biological possibilities is quite large, and experiments in this field have a relatively low cost.
The danger is that low cost, unregulated experiments could lead to artificial plagues, or organisms that are less-than-optimised for independent survival but which are still economically important. Already many cultivated species need a very specific environment in order to thrive. Another very real problem is social resistance to genetically engineered organisms, something we touch on in the timeline but will probably slow down development considerably. Over-regulation could be just as bad as under-regulation.
The danger is that low cost, unregulated experiments could lead to artificial plagues, or organisms that are less-than-optimised for independent survival but which are still economically important. Already many cultivated species need a very specific environment in order to thrive. Another very real problem is social resistance to genetically engineered organisms, something we touch on in the timeline but will probably slow down development considerably. Over-regulation could be just as bad as under-regulation.