Using the three-year-old technique, researchers have already reversed mutations that cause blindness, stopped cancer cells from multiplying, and made cells impervious to the virus that causes AIDS. Agronomists have rendered wheat invulnerable to killer fungi like powdery mildew, hinting at engineered staple crops that can feed a population of 9 billion on an ever-warmer planet. Bioengineers have used Crispr to alter the DNA of yeast so that it consumes plant matter and excretes ethanol, promising an end to reliance on petrochemicals. Startups devoted to Crispr have launched. International pharmaceutical and agricultural companies have spun up Crispr R&D. Two of the most powerful universities in the US are engaged in a vicious war over the basic patent. Depending on what kind of person you are, Crispr makes you see a gleaming world of the future, a Nobel medallion, or dollar signs.
The technique is revolutionary, and like all revolutions, it’s perilous. Crispr goes well beyond anything the Asilomar conference discussed. It could at last allow genetics researchers to conjure everything anyone has ever worried they would—designer babies, invasive mutants, species-specific bioweapons, and a dozen other apocalyptic sci-fi tropes. It brings with it all-new rules for the practice of research in the life sciences. But no one knows what the rules are—or who will be the first to break them.
For some reason, this next post really interested me. I used to think that we would all need hacker friends to get by in the inevitable dystopian uber-Panopticon future, just get a little wiggle room for private activity. Now I’m thinking that we’ll all need hacker friends to protect us from the inevitable dystopian competing-Panopticons future.
Who is your IT outsourcing firm working for?
In other cyber thefts there were indications of pending problems weeks beforehand. New code was running on systems, large amounts of data was being copied and moved, etc. When an IT department works for your company, they usually take their jobs and responsibilities seriously. They look at the system reports. They may notice something that’s not right. They take the initiative to investigate. When your IT department does not work for you, they may be content with just issuing a report. Or they may not have the skill or experience with your applications to even spot problems. They may not have the time or permissions to investigate. They only do what they are told.
I don’t entirely agree with Cringely about how loyal in-house IT would be in a case like this… but at least that would make for a pretty good twist on a story – the poor, downtrodden IT department (cue The IT Crowd) is actually competent and loyal!