h a l f b a k e r ycarpe demi
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Mantis Shrimp (Order: Stomatopoda) see light differently
to almost any other creature on Earth. Their
photoreceptors can perceive 12 different pigment ranges
and 4 separate filter ranges, including ultraviolet and
polarised light.
It would take a fair bit of tinkering but it should be
possible
with gene technology to splice the relevant gene
segments into human stem cells and apply those stem cells
to existing human retinal surfaces, giving us the ability to
see wavelengths and light effects we can currently only
imagine.
Yes, vision is not mechanical so much as it is neurological.
The brain's vision centre can readily adapt to tinkering, as
has been found in experimentation in the past.
This could open up new worlds of sight and colour for those
willing to try it.
Colour_20hearing
My take on this - map wavelength onto hearing, which already has fine spectral discrimination. [spidermother, Apr 12 2012]
3D Colour Wheel
http://en.wikipedia...ectrum_locus_12.png
Why do red and violet look so similar? [Wrongfellow, Apr 12 2012]
//In vivo human genetic modification//
http://onlinelibrar...sCustomisedMessage=
[mouseposture, Apr 13 2012]
In vivo human retinal genetic modification
http://www.nejm.org....1056/NEJMoa0802268
[mouseposture, Apr 13 2012]
In vivo primate retinal genetic modification \\giving them the ability to see wavelengths they formerly could only imagine\\
http://www.nature.c...bs/nature08401.html
[mouseposture, Apr 13 2012]
Vacuum Dirigible Service Tech in the Library incident
Wanted_3a_20Vacuum_...le_20Service_20Tech
[sqeaketh the wheel, Apr 14 2012]
[link]
|
| |
[marked-for-deletion] Pretty much the textbook (i.e.
help page) definition of "magic" (make any organic
matter do anything—just add genetics!) |
|
| |
No, not quite magic. [ubie] is suggesting a definite
genetic modification (insert new pigment genes into
stem cells) rather than a simple "by GM, make us all
see more colours". |
|
| |
So the difference is that rather than saying we should come up with some
technique to implement the medically implausible idea, he specified which
medically implausible technique we should (probably) be able to use? Even
in the tagline [Uba.] admits this technique "may be a stretch". Seems to me
that if you're not fairly sure this sort of thing is possible, it might as well be
magic. Just throwing a few scientific buzzwords into your idea doesn't make
it any more realistic. |
|
| |
If the idea were to set up a video camera with a series of filters that capture
light in ways the human eye cannot, and take that signal and feed it directly
into the brain, that would at least be a technique supported by existing research; I might even bun that. But until there's substantially more
research into what is and isn't possible with genetic modification and stem
cells in human beings, the idea as stated treads well beyond the boundaries
of plausibility. |
|
| |
// if you're not fairly sure this sort of thing is
possible, it might as well be magic.// Well, on
that basis, most HB ideas are out... |
|
| |
It's not completely implausible. Human
tetrachromats have four colour pigment genes,
not three, and allegedly see four distinct
"primary" colours. (There is some debate over
this, but it's considered at least possible.) This
suggests that the retina's
and brain's wirings adapt to the additional
receptor type. |
|
| |
Hence, adding additional pigment genes is not
completely far fetched. |
|
| |
What would be possible would be a sort of "false colour" range compression. |
|
| |
The human eye perceives wavelengths from 400 to 700 nm. |
|
| |
If you take that signal and "compress" it via digital processing to 500-600nm, you can then use IR and UV sensetive cameras to "see" the regions above and below your species normal visible spectrum. IR would appear as red, UV as purple/violet. Most "normal" colours would display as shades of yellow/green. |
|
| |
No GM involved; just some digital cameras, VR goggles, and a few DSPs. |
|
| |
I've always wondered exactly why, visually, red and violet are so near eachother in hue, but so distant from eachother in wavelength. |
|
| |
Because they both stimulate the cone cells to a similar degree, that is, "not very much, because they're miles from the peak". |
|
| |
I've added a link which shows the familiar "colour wheel" plotted as a line in 3D space, where the co-ordinates correspond to the degree of activation of the 3 different types of cone. Notice how red and violet meet each other near the origin of the graph? |
|
| |
I suspected it was something like that. |
|
| |
So which end does burgundy belong to? |
|
| |
[ytk], a key piece of NON-magic, in this Idea, is that the genes actually do exist, which direct biological machinery to make the types of photoreceptors that [UnaBubba] is talking about. And gene-splicing is also an existing technology (Monsanto is routinely moving genes from one species to another, for example). |
|
| |
So where is the "magic" that you complained about? In the hoped-for results? Well, this IS the HalfBakery, remember! |
|
| |
In vivo human genetic modification is not currently possible, for a variety of reasons. You can't just apply stem
cells to human tissue like spackle and expect the body to just magically integrate the new genetic material. Most
likely, the modified stem cells would simply be rejected, and destroy healthy tissue in the process. |
|
| |
Never mind the fact that mantis shrimp, being arthropods, have compound eyes, and their ability to broadly
perceive light is due to the specialization of thousands of individual ommatidia within the eye, each of which only
has the ability to perceive a narrow range of color, partly through the use of selective filtering. So unless you
intend to spackle on a few dozen extra eyeballs while you're at it, you're going to have to find some way of filtering
light before it reaches each individual photoreceptor cell, without filtering it out from other photoreceptor cells in
the same retina. I don't see any way to do that—barring, well, magic. |
|
| |
This idea is nothing more than "Whoa, check out those mantis shrimp. Wouldn't it be cool if we could do that too?"
You might as well use stem cells to justify grafting on gills so we could breathe underwater, or wings so we could
fly. |
|
| |
Did [Ubie] mention stem cells? It's reasonable to
imagine that we could genetically modify humans
with the same success rate (low but finite) that we
can modify other species. |
|
| |
Whether this would..hang on... I can't believe I'm
defending [Ubie]. |
|
| |
Anyway, it's no more magic than graphene
spaceships or inflatable orreries. |
|
| |
(interesting - the spillchecker highlights "graphene".
I wonder how long it takes to update?) |
|
| |
//Did [Ubie] mention stem cells?// |
|
| |
//It would take a fair bit of tinkering but it should be
possible with gene technology to splice the relevant
gene segments into human ***stem cells*** and apply
those ***stem cells*** to existing human retinal
surfaces// |
|
| |
Even if you grant this as a possibility—which it's
currently not—it doesn't address the fact that mantis
shrimp and human eyes are so fundamentally
different in their function that there's no way this
could conceivably work. |
|
| |
Ah - so he did. Point prenée. |
|
| |
Geez guys... I'm not a genetic engineer, I'm an
accountant or something similar. I leave all the
Frakenstein shit to people like [Max] to sort out. |
|
| |
It wasn't so much a "wouldn't it be cool" as it was
"I wonder whether adding a salmon gene to
tomatoes, to stop them freezing, is more or less
difficult than doing something similar with genes
to correct colour blindness, as suffered by my son's
best friend? Wait! Why stop at colour blindness if
you could transfer genes from a species that sees
in different regions of the EM spectrum?" moment. |
|
| |
Alternatively, ingesting certain (albeit illegal) pharmaceuticals can cause you to see all the colours there are, plus a few extra ones ... |
|
| |
Adding this or that protein to a genetic line is doable.
In such a
case, you'd actually modify the seeds before planting
them, such
that the plant would grow with the desired gene.
Modifying
genetic material in vivo (that is, replacing the genes
already present in a living body) is a much dicier
prospect. Doing it as you describe using stem cells is
impossible.
And thank God for that—think of the horrifying
biological
weapons you could produce if you could modify
people's genes
by simply exposing them to genetically engineered
stem cells. |
|
| |
//I know enough about how this place works to
(probably) write
a book on the subject. Eleven years ago, when I first
joined the
HB, this was in the realm of "magic". Now, it is
probably feasible,
though unlikely to attract any significant funding or
interest.// |
|
| |
Don't sell yourself short. I bet you could sell at least
a dozen
copies of "UnaBubba: A Life On (and Off) the
Halfbakery".
Though I'm not sure what would have been so magical
about it 11
years ago, but I guess I didn't know you then. |
|
| |
//In vivo human genetic modification is not
currently possible// <link1>, <link2> |
|
| |
//You can't just apply stem cells to human tissue
like spackle// It isn't necessarily stem cells that
are
applied, in gene therapy, but applying stem cells
like spackle isn't all that far fetched. It's
been done with fetal tissue, in the brain -- stem
cells should be easier really: the problem there is
obtaining the cells. But that difficulty now
appears to be
solved. |
|
| |
right the two of you: choose something appropriate from the "weapons" or "sex toys" categories (*not* one of [8/7]'s), go to opposite corners of the Klein bottle and wait for the bell. |
|
| |
That doesn't constitute in vivo genetic modification.
The genes to specific lymphocytes are modified in
vitro, and then reintroduced into the body. New
lymphocytes produced by the body will still have the
original genetic code, and once the introduced
lymphocytes die off there will be no trace left of the
genetic modification. |
|
| |
Nobody is saying that genetic modification doesn't
play a role in medicine. I'm just saying that using
"genetic modification" to grant superpowers is the
stuff of comic books, not science. |
|
| |
Dick Tracy's two-way wrist radio was the stuff of
comic books once, too <link3>. |
|
| |
I'm curious about the potential for stem cell therapy
and how apoptosis affects the results down the
track. Has anyone in this discussion got knowledge
of that? |
|
| |
Dammit, you're both right. The poster of an idea is entirely entitled to delete comments. But doing so can offend people. If you're sufficiently offended, stop commenting, and vent elsewhere. I've never deleted someone else's comment, but I respect the right to do so. It's all just etiquette and opinion (IMHO). It's really not worth making such a fuss about it. (Feel free to delete this, now orphaned, comment, UB) |
|
| |
//right the two of you: choose something appropriate from the "weapons" or "sex toys" categories (*not* one of [8/7]'s), go to opposite corners of the Klein bottle and wait for the bell.// ..
[FlyingToaster] you are my HB spiritual teacher, ever since the Vacuum Dirigible Service Tech in the Library incident. |
|
| |
Thankyou but I can't take credit for serendipity: the juxtaposition was totally coincidental. |
|
| |
(and in case anybody reads that who knows me, I *was* actually job-hunting, despite taking a break over here) |
|
| |
hmm... after browing the "product:weapon" categories, there's a few more names to add to the "too much collateral damage" list. |
|
| |
Weird... I posted this on Thursday and on Saturday
night I see Jay Neitz on TV, showing red-green
colourblind squirrel monkeys being given gene
therapy treatment using a genetically modified virus
as the vector by which it is carried out. Then I check
[mousepostire]'s link and find it's about Jay Neitz's
work. |
|
| |
Now I'm feeling just a little freaked. |
|
| |
Similar to the Vacuum Dirigible Service Tech in the Library incident. <link> |
|
| |
//Now I'm feeling just a little freaked.// |
|
| |
If you get any inklings about asteroids or
supervolcanoes, you will mention it? |
|
| |
This actually does fall enough into good science that it
stops being genetic magic. As far as I know, retinal
pigments actually are a single-gene sort of thing; in
fact, I recall a success a while back in curing red-green
colorblindness in rats by inserting a gene for a red eye
pigment, allowing them to distinguish between red and
green colors. (Sadly, I cannot recall the study name,
although I believe I read it in Science News.) |
|
| |
If this is true and eye-receptor colors really are a
single-gene thing, it is not at all implausible to
propose implanting new colors into human retinas.
After all, that level of genetic manipulation actually is
within our ability. |
|
| |
It would be interesting to see whether the human
brain can cope with the extra colours and filters.
Vision is a brain/neurological function, rather than an
eye/mechanical function, after all. |
|
| |
Also, the chitinous toe growths would be good stub protection. |
|
| |