Sure, I know that almost everyone who goes to school hears this. But this is purely complex. Let's discuss about it.

Did I miss something? What do people hear? Is there anything in particular to discuss?

I think the use of antisense oligonucleotides in gene therapy is an interesting idea. More needs to be understood about the splicing mechanisms, however.

What a sorroful OP for such an important topic :(

Anyone care if I make a better one?

What a sorroful OP for such an important topic :(

Anyone care if I make a better one?No, go ahead. My post was mainly to emphasise the complexity of the topic and that it's unrealistic to expect a conversation/debate without any proper direction.

K.K, How about, what public-funded projects should be the immediate focus of genetics research (say over the next 10 to 20 years)?


I'd say it's a toss-up between seeing how genetics can best help with the energy crunch, and continuing with advancing knowledge of inborn diseases.

K.K, How about, what public-funded projects should be the immediate focus of genetics research (say over the next 10 to 20 years)?


I'd say it's a toss-up between seeing how genetics can best help with the energy crunch, and continuing with advancing knowledge of inborn diseases.Even that's too wide. There are probably hundreds of thousands of projects going on each year, each in a slightly different area, each researching something different in order to come to discover something different. For example, trying to determine the functions of different genes, or trying to find out how a particular bacterial gene causes pathology. There are so many different paths to take.

Yeah, but how about the gene responsible for the overgrowth of hair in the skin?

Our focus should be on developing precise, efficient and useful gene tranfer vectors.
There's no practical benefit to knowing that a particular gene is aberrant in a disease if we can't cure that can use the knowledge. We need the tools to fiddle with genetic inputs into diseases before we can use knowledge of what those inputs are.

Our focus should be on developing precise, efficient and useful gene tranfer vectors.
There's no practical benefit to knowing that a particular gene is aberrant in a disease if we can't cure that can use the knowledge. We need the tools to fiddle with genetic inputs into diseases before we can use knowledge of what those inputs are.It works both ways. You can't cure a disease with just the vector: You need to research what needs to be put into the vector. Both are necessary.

But once we have a vector we can examine many different diseases, knowing that we have a means to cure it. A vector makes possible every cure, but research into one specific disease makes possible only one cure.

So I think that, as far as there can be focus, we should focus on the vector first.

But once we have a vector we can examine many different diseases, knowing that we have a means to cure it. A vector makes possible every cure, but research into one specific disease makes possible only one cure.

So I think that, as far as there can be focus, we should focus on the vector first.Fair point.

I think it's unlikely though that it will be one vector to fit all. Viruses can only hold a certain amount of DNA, and if the gene of interest is too big, then you need to look for a vector with a larger capacity, or shorten the gene.

I know that's it's far more complex than I've educated for. I am however, for the advancement of this field.