>This is not a problem that can be solved by computers. Ultimately, there is only one way to be sure what a particular bit of DNA does – you have to alter it in real, living cells to see what happens.<p>Ah, the old "comment out this line" style of understanding code.
For those who are in this field, I have a question, and will be grateful for an answer. How far-reaching is this technique can be for Cancer treatments? I understand Cancer is not a simple disease that can be delineated.
As a futurist, I love reading quotes like this:<p>"What used to take two years or more can now be done in six weeks, says Zhang. "That's a big difference." For those who have spent years trying to make just one or two specific changes to plants or animals, this is revolutionary.
I find it amusing that the underlying technology that made this study possible was patented (end of page 1), but that a royalty free alternative solution was found. In science people are often quick to patent each new breakthrough, which sometimes just prevents other scientist from building on that initial breakthrough. I think it is an important lesson to realize that not every new discovery is worth patenting. Perhaps only when a technology is truly ready to be brought to market in the foreseeable future should a patent be considered. Otherwise, the patent could become a distraction to the importance of the breakthrough itself.