Jonah Thomas wrote:
> Also we're looking at a _long_ feedback loop. Come up with a better
> gene product that should aid old people, and it may be 80 years before
> you find out how well it works really. Try too many different things at
> once and they may interact strangely.
Well, yes, but you *could* try them in mice first.
> These are "yes-buts", not "gotchas". New techniques might slip right by
> them. But it isn't predictable that they will, or how they will.
Indeed. When you look at a *finished* technology,
it all looks very straightforward: but *making* the future
is backbreaking work. It was always thus, I suspect.