Comments on: Freeman Dyson’s biotech future http://www.starchamber.com/2007/07/our-biotech-future-the-new-york-review-of-books.html Ned Gulley's Blog. Resident buzzwords: synthetic biology, ambient displays, swarm robotics, wise crowds. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:57:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Juan Ignacio http://www.starchamber.com/2007/07/our-biotech-future-the-new-york-review-of-books.html#comment-26413 Juan Ignacio Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:13:13 +0000 http://www.starchamber.com/2007/07/our-biotech-future-the-new-york-review-of-books.html#comment-26413 Dyson worked in the company of John von Neumann in the distant past - after all, John von left our midst in the 1950s - and he saddles the long-departed Neumann with blinkers [‘Blinkered vision”] - with the “vision of computers as large centralized facilities.” [Does von Neumann’s late innings’ interest in cellular automata count for anything?] You might think that this infers that Freeman in the 1950s could see what was coming in computers and biology, or at least that von Neumann didn’t see it. Doesn’t this seem a bit unfair? <a href="http://juanignacio.wordpress.com/2007/08/27/freeman-dyson-biology-on-nyrbcom-woese-for-the-wear/" rel="nofollow">Is a score being settled?</a> Dyson worked in the company of John von Neumann in the distant past - after all, John von left our midst in the 1950s - and he saddles the long-departed Neumann with blinkers [‘Blinkered vision”] - with the “vision of computers as large centralized facilities.” [Does von Neumann’s late innings’ interest in cellular automata count for anything?] You might think that this infers that Freeman in the 1950s could see what was coming in computers and biology, or at least that von Neumann didn’t see it. Doesn’t this seem a bit unfair? Is a score being settled?

]]> By: Mike http://www.starchamber.com/2007/07/our-biotech-future-the-new-york-review-of-books.html#comment-21094 Mike Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:51:42 +0000 http://www.starchamber.com/2007/07/our-biotech-future-the-new-york-review-of-books.html#comment-21094 `)pop(' As a certified science wonk, I'm sorry to have to take the other side on Dyson's fun. On the one hand, his almost flat-earth understanding of genetics shows through in the passage: "The winner could be the kid whose seed grows the prickliest cactus, or the kid whose egg hatches the cutest dinosaur." This is an exact description of every state fair I've ever been to, down to the "cutest dinosaur" -- everyone knows that birds are dinosaurs, in as much as the taxon "Dinosauria" must include "Aves" to remain <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophyly" rel="nofollow">monophyletic</a>. The reason being that genetic manipulation of plants and animals has been the source of every domesticated organism we know, from basmati rice to prize-winning pullets. On the other hand, he seems lost in jetpacks and autogyros. Doing the kind of genetic manipulations he envisions requires millions of dollars worth of equipment and quite a bit of training. While this is not unlike the early 70's of the computer age, there's no "Hunt the Wumpus". Microinjection is gruelling and has a high rate of failure; keeping large colonies of animals in your home violates most local health regulations; it takes weeks to months to see if your transfer even worked; it's rewarding, but it's not fun. And to top it off, the current market is pushing hard against GM foods and GM crops -- I don't remember the public backlash against Pong, but by analogy, it must have been HUGE. Mike :-p `)pop(’

As a certified science wonk, I’m sorry to have to take the other side on Dyson’s fun. On the one hand, his almost flat-earth understanding of genetics shows through in the passage:

“The winner could be the kid whose seed grows the prickliest cactus, or the kid whose egg hatches the cutest dinosaur.”

This is an exact description of every state fair I’ve ever been to, down to the “cutest dinosaur” — everyone knows that birds are dinosaurs, in as much as the taxon “Dinosauria” must include “Aves” to remain monophyletic. The reason being that genetic manipulation of plants and animals has been the source of every domesticated organism we know, from basmati rice to prize-winning pullets.

On the other hand, he seems lost in jetpacks and autogyros. Doing the kind of genetic manipulations he envisions requires millions of dollars worth of equipment and quite a bit of training. While this is not unlike the early 70’s of the computer age, there’s no “Hunt the Wumpus”. Microinjection is gruelling and has a high rate of failure; keeping large colonies of animals in your home violates most local health regulations; it takes weeks to months to see if your transfer even worked; it’s rewarding, but it’s not fun. And to top it off, the current market is pushing hard against GM foods and GM crops — I don’t remember the public backlash against Pong, but by analogy, it must have been HUGE.

Mike :-p

]]> By: JMike http://www.starchamber.com/2007/07/our-biotech-future-the-new-york-review-of-books.html#comment-21046 JMike Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:51:49 +0000 http://www.starchamber.com/2007/07/our-biotech-future-the-new-york-review-of-books.html#comment-21046 I was in a magnet math program when in high school in the Minneapolis area. Dyson visited our class at the U of M in about 1982 and talked to us about the economic feasibility of launching small payloads (one to ten kilograms) into Earth orbit using a laser propulsion system. I'm a little vague on the details, but the laser zaps the back end of the rocket, which vaporizes some propellant, which pushes the rocket. His energy budget computations showed that it was feasible, provided that you could work out how to prevent too much power loss in the atmosphere ("thermal blooming"). That was reasonably far-out back then. I don't think it was quite as far-out then as this bio-hacking example is now. But at least it's a supporting argument that Dyson isn't getting all weird now relative to his younger self. --JMike I was in a magnet math program when in high school in the Minneapolis area. Dyson visited our class at the U of M in about 1982 and talked to us about the economic feasibility of launching small payloads (one to ten kilograms) into Earth orbit using a laser propulsion system. I’m a little vague on the details, but the laser zaps the back end of the rocket, which vaporizes some propellant, which pushes the rocket. His energy budget computations showed that it was feasible, provided that you could work out how to prevent too much power loss in the atmosphere (”thermal blooming”).

That was reasonably far-out back then. I don’t think it was quite as far-out then as this bio-hacking example is now. But at least it’s a supporting argument that Dyson isn’t getting all weird now relative to his younger self.

–JMike

]]>