3 ms·
I think most negative comments here are a bit harsh. Of course the analogy has its weak points (every analogy has), but what I took away from it is the followin
by rob74 7y ago
I think most negative comments here are a bit harsh. Of course the analogy has its weak points (every analogy has), but what I took away from it is the following:
- the DNA is not the Internet, but rather the Code (capital C) that governs everything in the "city": the buildings, the football fans, the FIFA, everything - including not only how they behave, but also how they are created.
- CRISPR is not malware, but it's (as the article mentions in passing) a search & replace function that allows you to change the Code, but with the described limitations - the biggest of which is that every "edit" can have any number of unintended consequences.
- el_cujo 7y agoI agree that every analogy has its weak points, but Crispr's actual function in cells is the exact opposite of malware, so it just seems like a very odd analogy to pick. It also creates a sense of fear and distrust that is bad to associate with a tool that the public really doesn't understand as-is.
- rob74 7y agoOf course "malware" is maybe a bad word for it, because it contains "mal" (i.e. "bad"), which is contrary to the (hopefully) beneficial effects of CRISPR. But the fact remains that CRISPR is using an exploit to hack the "Code" I mentioned above, with potentially dangerous results, and if you think about it in these terms, "malware" doesn't seem so far-fetched anymore...