That's media for you, shockingly bad and dangerous in it's faulty reporting. But biologists have know for a long time that the relationship between genotype and phenotype is hugely complex. Hence why all the omics have been formed, genes just aren't what scientists of old and the laymen of today think they are. A genome isn't a blueprint and a phenotype is as much a product of the environment as it is the genome (I don't just mean whether or not the organism lives in a forest or Ocean but the microenvironments within and outside of each cell).
If we had a lot of data on individuals genotypes and phenotype and got computers to search for patterns (which is what we do now) we can find interesting corelations but the hard part is finding what the causal links are if they are true corelations at all. I don't see where automated science can come in with that until software can understand biology as well as humans in which case we will already understand enough for this task.
Machine scientists would obviously have to work within the constraints of the models given to them and have the ability to test those models and develop on but model building is a lot more complicated and fuzzy in biology than other disciplines purely because the shear amount of variables to handle.[/quote]
If we had a lot of data on individuals genotypes and phenotype and got computers to search for patterns (which is what we do now) we can find interesting corelations but the hard part is finding what the causal links are if they are true corelations at all. I don't see where automated science can come in with that until software can understand biology as well as humans in which case we will already understand enough for this task.
Machine scientists would obviously have to work within the constraints of the models given to them and have the ability to test those models and develop on but model building is a lot more complicated and fuzzy in biology than other disciplines purely because the shear amount of variables to handle.[/quote]