5 ms·

> I get the feeling much of academia shuts down such attempts to preserve their grip on knowledge and thus their authority There might be fields like that, but

by jryb 5y ago

> I get the feeling much of academia shuts down such attempts to preserve their grip on knowledge and thus their authority There might be fields like that, but in biology, it really just is that we've accumulated so much knowledge over the past 150 years that I genuinely can't explain modern CRISPR research to a layperson until they've taken courses in molecular biology, microbiology, chemistry, genetics and biochemistry (or the equivalent amount of self-study). The field is genuinely vast and complex, and there's no way to hide that complexity behind an abstraction without being misleading.

netizen-936824 5y ago
This is a point echoed by professors I've met as well. The complexity of biological systems is quite hard to understate. There's such an immense amount of detail and almost none of it can be written off an unimportant.
- epgui 5y ago
  > and almost none of it can be written off an unimportant. I just wanted to say that this is immensely under-appreciated, even by most people in the field. The more you learn, the more you realize that everything matters and every little bit of knowledge connects to a bunch of other knowledge. Most people in undergraduate classes ask "what part of the textbook is important" or "what part of this is on the exam", or even "what part of this will I need to know for my job", but they have the wrong attitude altogether.
naasking 5y ago
> I genuinely can't explain modern CRISPR research to a layperson I think this really depends on what you mean by "explain". If you mean explain the precise mechanisms and systems involved in minute detail then sure, but that was never possible in a y subject. Arguably you wouldn't be able to explain with precision how modern CPUs work at the gate level and their manufacture, or how network congestion control works, or this topology to the same level of detail either. Per Feynman, you should still be able to give pretty accessible abstract descriptions or analogies that are faithful enough, or arguably you don't understand the subject well enough yourself.
- jryb 5y ago
  I specifically mean: give them enough understanding that they'll make reasonable predictions of what it might be used for in the near term. If they're worried about supersoldiers or immortality then I've failed - if they think that maybe a few simple diseases will be cured and basic research will accelerate, then I've succeeded. If I only use analogies I can essentially never accomplish the latter.
  - naasking 5y ago
    > If I only use analogies I can essentially never accomplish the latter. I disagree. You can easily liken CRISPR to a new innovative tool, like an auto service pit. That innovation lets you make changes and fixes to your car much more easily and more quickly than you could with the tools that came before it, but it obviously won't let you turn your Ford Pinto into an F1 racer, or get your Tesla to fly. Of course, I agree all analogies have their limits, but I think you can almost always come up with an analogy that stays within the limits you're trying to describe so people don't get too fanciful an idea.

by jryb 5y ago

netizen-936824 5y ago

This is a point echoed by professors I've met as well. The complexity of biological systems is quite hard to understate. There's such an immense amount of detail and almost none of it can be written off an unimportant.

epgui 5y ago
> and almost none of it can be written off an unimportant. I just wanted to say that this is immensely under-appreciated, even by most people in the field. The more you learn, the more you realize that everything matters and every little bit of knowledge connects to a bunch of other knowledge. Most people in undergraduate classes ask "what part of the textbook is important" or "what part of this is on the exam", or even "what part of this will I need to know for my job", but they have the wrong attitude altogether.

naasking 5y ago

> I genuinely can't explain modern CRISPR research to a layperson I think this really depends on what you mean by "explain". If you mean explain the precise mechanisms and systems involved in minute detail then sure, but that was never possible in a y subject. Arguably you wouldn't be able to explain with precision how modern CPUs work at the gate level and their manufacture, or how network congestion control works, or this topology to the same level of detail either. Per Feynman, you should still be able to give pretty accessible abstract descriptions or analogies that are faithful enough, or arguably you don't understand the subject well enough yourself.

jryb 5y ago
I specifically mean: give them enough understanding that they'll make reasonable predictions of what it might be used for in the near term. If they're worried about supersoldiers or immortality then I've failed - if they think that maybe a few simple diseases will be cured and basic research will accelerate, then I've succeeded. If I only use analogies I can essentially never accomplish the latter.
- naasking 5y ago
  > If I only use analogies I can essentially never accomplish the latter. I disagree. You can easily liken CRISPR to a new innovative tool, like an auto service pit. That innovation lets you make changes and fixes to your car much more easily and more quickly than you could with the tools that came before it, but it obviously won't let you turn your Ford Pinto into an F1 racer, or get your Tesla to fly. Of course, I agree all analogies have their limits, but I think you can almost always come up with an analogy that stays within the limits you're trying to describe so people don't get too fanciful an idea.