Here's another link that was sent to me on the topic of genetic engineering. In this case, a breakthrough discovery is said to turn 50 years of genetic research on its head.
If this finding holds true, (it's only a single research paper so far) it'll be a great leap forward for genetic sciences, providing even more precise tools for genetic manipulation. As the article points out, that manipulation will likely be used for detecting and treating genetic diseases, but also in re-engineering entire organisms.
But once again, the headline uses sensationalism to grab attention, and I suspect that it was this sensationalism that caused the article to be sent my way. Yes, this illustrates that human understanding of the genetic "code" is incomplete, that we have much left to learn, but that has always been - and will always be - true of any science. It's not a flaw, it's a feature; the more you learn, the more you realize there is to learn. The current state of scientific knowledge in any given field at any given time is always in a state of evolution, but that doesn't mean that the information we have can't be used for great things. Amplitude Modulation technology was an excellent communications tool, then Frequency Modulation came along and revolutionized the industry... but we still use AM radio. While Copper and Gold wire are excellent media for transmitting data, they're being replaced more and more by Optical Fibre - but that still doesn't mean metal wires were a bad idea.
Scientific consensus only happens when observational and experimental evidence is used to formulate an explanation, which then allows the results of further experiments to be predicted. As long as that predictive power keeps working, scientists will agree that it's a good explanation - accepting the theory. When new evidence is observed that contradicts it, the theory has to be adjusted, and if they can't be reconciled, it's thrown out altogether.
So far, our knowledge of genetics has reliably predicted experimental outcomes, and been applied to practical use - it treats disease, reinvents crops and pets, and has even allowed us to turn back the clock and see how birds' beaks evolved. If this new "programming language" can be decoded the way the first has been, our ability to do these things will become much better, but I highly doubt the products of the old ways will ever be considered mistakes by the people who study the science.
No comments:
Post a Comment