3 ms·
asside from the ethical concerns, we're not actually as near to achieving this as the article seems to suggest, at least from my undergrad studies in chem/bio (
by jfaucett 14y ago
asside from the ethical concerns, we're not actually as near to achieving this as the article seems to suggest, at least from my undergrad studies in chem/bio (not an expert, I'd like to hear what a researcher in this field has to say). The problem with gene inhancement is the off switch, we can inject a virus and overwrite some DNA that tells muscles to grow more, but containing it or making it stop is the problem, also the massive array of side-effects and unforeseen outcomes of altering specific DNA sequences is still a concrete problem.
- lifeisstillgood 14y agoThis sounds like a plea for DARPA blue sky funding more than a near-term warning - and even the specific example (Blue-on-blue air attack) is common enough most of us know the terms and can think of examples. Sorry - we can certainly inject a few poor souls with various compounds but there is a world of difference between a coked-up weight lifter with weaponry and an effective soldier who can choose targets and not commit atrocities during withdrawal. Want to make super soldiers - train them constantly and expensively, have clear objectives and morally acceptable enemies (this is a big one IMO) and a support network of medical and friendships to help cushion the horrors. Its called special forces - and its expensive.