Re: Medtch 2180

On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay wrote:

> They're talking about the next 50 years (on CBC this am) holding
> *workable* regeneration and disease treatment by some form of genetic
> approach both based off the complete mapping of the human genome
(which
> I imagine the first phase to be done in the next couple or four years,
> and the follow on phase to be completed over the next decades).

weeell, that all depends on how you define 'mapping the human genome'
(i'm
treading carefully here, as i seem to remember that there are *proper*
geneticists on the list :) ). technically, mapping a piece of DNA means
identifying various 'landmarks', which is very useful, but doesn't get
you
an actual sequence (all that CACATCACGCGCTATG stuff). then there's
sequencing DNA, which does get you actual sequence. then there's
annotating the sequence, which means figuring out what's a coding
sequence, what's a regulatory sequence, what's 'junk', what the
structure
of the various regions is, assigning proteins to genes, etc.

as far as timescales are concerned, things are a bit up in the air at
the
moment. it started out with public scientists (universities, institutes,
govenment labs, that sort of thing) doing it. the plan was to map the
whole genome, and then to sequence it; if you have a map, sequencing is
easier, as you have a rough idea of where you're going. this was all
going
very well, with a first draft sequence scheduled for 2005 or something.
then, along comes Mad Insane Killa Craig Venter and his Celera Genomics
posse and announces that they, a private company, are going to sequence
the entire genome by tuesday week (well, maybe not that quick, but
*fast*), using a different approach, which involved a combination of
some
very clever software and a lot of cash put into sequencing gear. the
public lot respond by upping the tempo and getting it done quicker, with
the end result that we'll have a complete (if gappy and inaccurate)
sequence in a couple of years. probably sooner.

> They
> said they'd be able to regrow or develop organic organ replacements.

you don't need a genome map (or sequence) to do this sort of thing; this
is cloning and tissue culture, which is a separate area. now, we will
need
to know a *lot* more cell and molecular biology before we can grow
organs
in jamjars, and gaining that knowledge may require genome sequence data,
but it probably won't require the entire genome.

> Just think of what this means for your troopie in 2180.

if he drinks too much, we can replace his liver. if he eats too many
kebabs, we can replace his heart. if he smokes too much, we can replace
his lungs. if he gets in a fight in a bar, we can give him a new eye. if
he gets shot in the head, we can, er, give him some aspirin. otoh,
squaddies are free to continue in their favourite past-times :).

no offence to soldiers, btw, i'm playing up a british stereotype here.

> Assume regeneration takes till 2050 to make doable. Then imagine that
as
> the equivalent of medicine in the 1850's. Then project forward to
2185,
> which would be equivalent to the change from 1850 to 1985...

this is the crunch: what they can do in 2160 is only vaguely related to
what we can do, or even think of doing, in 1999.

> 2) If a weapon kills you dead so you can't be brought back, your
> memories may be able to be mapped to a clone.

this needs memory backup and restore, which is an entirely different
problem. the mind is the single biggest mystery facing science today -
we
don't really even know where to start. it does seem likely, however,
that
a mind is specified completely by a list of its cells and the
connections
between them, and if you could record these, you would have a 'copy' of
a
mind.

Hans Moravec (an old AI warhorse) writes about a (frankly terrifying)
way
to do this in his book 'mind children', which involves going through the
brain layer by layer, scanning the cells, creating a computer model of
them, and then destroying the cells and replacing them with the
simulation. you start with a thinking head and an empty computer, and
end
with an empty head and a thinking computer, without any loss of
consciousness or identity in between. he's talking about mankind
transcending to computers, so he doesn't address regenerating a mind
from
a computer record, but if you have cell culture and some sort of magic
micromanipulation and biochemistry technology, you should be able to do
it. Greg Egan talks about this sort of thing a lot too.

> This makes me wonder about the SG2 rules. Seems to me if I recall, you
> have a 1 in six chance of being okay, a 3 in six of being wounded, and
a
> 2 in 6 of being dead. That's okay, I guess.

after all, having your head forcibly broken into small parts is probably
still fatal, as is severe unattended bleeding, multiply punctured lungs
or
any one of a very large number of battlefield injuries.

> But you should recover (in a
> fairly accelerated manner) nearly 100% of the 3 in 6 who were wounded
> for campagn purposes. Recovery will not only be complete, but it will
be
> darn quick I'd think by this point.

that's one way of looking at it. otoh, who's to say that weaponry hasn't
advanced, so that the damage done by a rifle is more severe, and thus
negates the effect of whizzy spare-part surgery.

otgh, historically (not sure about the last couple of decades), there
have
always been more casualties from disease than from combat, so maybe the
real effect of advancing medicine is to cut down on rear-echelon losses,
and to reduce the effect of non-hospitalising issues such as cuts,
sprains
and colds.

tom a