Why not rewrite large parts of our DNA from scratch leaving only certain parts to evolve?

anamax · on March 9, 2009

> Why not figure out what various genes do

Do you really think that no one else has thought of that?

We're several Nobel prizes away from being able to do that in general.

I find that I'm generally better off when I assume that folks in a given field are not stupid. Yes, sometimes they are. Sometimes they're missing something obvious (to me). However, that's a low probability bet.

amichail · on March 9, 2009

My point is about rewriting our DNA from scratch. I don't think many scientists are thinking of doing that.

menloparkbum · on March 9, 2009

Google: synthetic biology. There are plenty of people working in this area, it's just really hard and they've only got around to synthesizing bacteria.

amichail · on March 9, 2009

Do they plan on rewriting our DNA from scratch to make it easier to change things in humans?

menloparkbum · on March 9, 2009

I don't know but that would be cool.

taraharris · on March 9, 2009

> Why not figure out what various genes do and rewrite their implementations from scratch?

Figuring out what various genes do is a major function of research, and will be for quite some time.

> Moreover, we could also try to use redundancy and/or error correcting codes to stop evolution of reimplemented genes.

Have you thought about taking some courses in cellular or molecular biology, genetics or biochemistry? These are not impossible classes, and they would give you a real appreciation for how existing biological mechanisms work, and in some cases why they must work the way they do. And you'll get to take organic chemistry, which is an incredible experience!

amichail · on March 9, 2009

Are you saying it is impossible to essentially stop evolution for most genes? If so, why?

The goal is to have a human race where everyone has the same DNA sequence except in a few sections pertaining to intelligence, personality, and facial features.

taraharris · on March 10, 2009

No, I'm not saying that.

But we don't know quite how, and to do that, you need to go to school (or a textbook, if that works for you) to learn about this stuff. Otherwise, you end up asking questions that don't quite make sense to scientists, or lack relevance for contemporary research.

That is not a put-down - I had some of these same questions/thoughts/ideas before I took any classes.

amichail · on March 10, 2009

Please elaborate on how my questions don't make sense to scientists or lack relevance for contemporary research.

So what if what I propose is not feasible anytime soon? Thinking about the distant future could make for interesting discussion.

taraharris · on March 14, 2009

Stopping all changes in genes isn't possible, at least currently. If you could figure out a way of doing this without killing yourself, you'd have a surefire way to prevent cancer and diseases caused by retroviruses (such as Hep C and HIV, among others.)

> So what if what I propose is not feasible anytime soon?

When uninformed people write about the future, they usually end up being either dead wrong if they make specific predictions, or they say things that are so vague that they're useless.

How would anyone be able to predict RNA interference in 1985? You could predict all sorts of (useless, wrong) things, but you almost certainly would not have been able to predict something fundamental and useful like RNAi. Smart people focus on the details, and stick to what's within reach.

If you're not up to that, you can always be a science fiction writer - but not a great one like Isaac Asimov, who had a PhD in biochemistry before he became famous.

maxawaytoolong · on March 9, 2009

And you'll get to take organic chemistry, which is an incredible experience!

That's a bit of a cruel prank you're pulling!

taraharris · on March 10, 2009

Not true. We have an incredible chemistry department at Wisconsin! [This is not a plug - many of the undergraduate physics courses here are awful.]

This was my 2nd semester organic professor: http://www.chem.wisc.edu/users/tyoon

He's amazing, and if you learned organic chemistry from him, you'd say the same thing.

At any rate, how can anyone be interested in deep questions like the orginal poster's question without also being interested in at least a basic understanding of the chemistry of life?

jibiki · on March 8, 2009

Can you give an example of a gene you think is poorly implemented? Because I think God did a pretty good job when he designed us 6000 years ago. Sure, maybe the code would have been a little better if he had spent more than a day on it, and it's possible that massive inbreeding (due to the fact that we are all descended from 2 people) has messed things up a bit, but on the whole, I'm happy with our existing genetic code base. And really, if you want to change it, you're second guessing god, and He's been around a long time. So that doesn't seem like such a good idea.

ErrantX · on March 8, 2009

6000 years ago our DNA was almost certainly incredibly different to what it is today (whether you believe God created it or not). A drastic change like that would basically be akin to evolving 6000 years in the space of just a few :) (Ive lost my link to the research done into our genetics that shows we did not all come from 2 common ancestors but I know some was done somewhere)

Mastering the genome has long been my marker for true mastery of our race. But (and this is directed at the OP) I wouldnt like to seeanyone overly mess with it. We'd have to be damned certain we knew it inside out before tampering with it that heavily.

On the other hand they are tampering with genes in mice etc. to try and cure diseases (and Folding@Home is investing a LOT of time modelling protein creation to help move things along :)).

russell · on March 8, 2009

We arent even close to understanding the genome. Genes encode proteins. There is pretty good evidence that the "junk dna" is functional in some way, just not directly encoding proteins. I dont junk dna has been decoded at all. Also we have very limited understanding of traits that are encoded by multiple genes.

I am in favor of curing diseases by genetic modification, but I am reluctant about further tampering, especially at this state of our knowledge.

amichail · on March 8, 2009

Is it possible to understand what a gene/junk dna does by observation? If so, perhaps it can be rewritten from scratch without understanding its implementation.

Understanding implementation that is a product of evolution is extremely hard. It's a real mess.

russell · on March 9, 2009

Someday maybe. There are something on the order of 25,000 genes. Lots, maybe even most, have variants, which increase the chance of disease, particularly with certain variants of other genes. Many genes are triggered only at certain times in the embryo's development and in an adult may have an entirely different purpose. So here you have a massive super computer with 25,000 objects and variants whose function varies over time. I don't think we are even close to figuring it out. For example, simulating the folding of a single protein takes a super computer.