What if we encrypt DNA to prevent diseases

>>57139152
b-but that's terrorism anon.

It is already corrupted

>>57139152
So you have to decode your tears, piss and shit, and encode all of your food?

Great fucking idea, OP. What next? Join ISIS to spread FOSS software?

t-that's not how DNA works OP

Don't you mean add redundancy? And DNA already has redundancy. It can also repair itself fairly well, and the reading/writing of it also has some error checking. It is just catastrophic when it does have an error that's not caught and propagates.

>>57139512
Even an error that is caught is usually dealt with. For example, sunburn is literally skin cancer. It hurts because the body is holocausting that cancer. And most often errors are dealt with. But once one error slips through all those countermeasures, then its end of the world.

>>57140650
What we need is a better debugger than the one provided by nature.

>>57139152
We'll have to use civilian grade encryption with asymmetric backdoors, it'll be terrorism otherwise.

>>57140650
>suburn is cancer
I'm going to need a citation for that.

>>57140650
>sunburn is literally skin cancer. It hurts because the body is holocausting that cancer.
cringe. never post on biological topics again.

>worrying about encrypting DNA
>before fixing the obsolete vitamin dependencies problem
Never leave human eugenics to a guy who worked on hamsters.

>>57139152
When it is replicating, the DNA is already "encrypted", in the sense that almost any proteins and other regulators cannot access the information (errors still can happen but congenital genetic diseases are so rare). Anyway, diseases happen for many reasons; those which happen due to DNA are either congenital or new mutations: in both cases, they happen while the DNA is being accessed for normal routine. You actually cannot prevent DNA from getting in troubles without also forbidding access to proteins and many other actors, or worse, without interfering with normal processes necessary to life.

>>57141200
It is not encrypted, but encoded. You don't need a key for transcoding from RNA sequence to protein.

Is it too wasteful to discard, rather than repair, the whole cell when it is damaged?

Why encrypt it?
The problems with it come from bad interpretation. If you are thinking about preventing ill cells from using DNA you could target interpreting.
Nobody is stealing your DNA data (yet).
If you're a criminal first don't. And second realise unlike fingerprints nobody has a database on DNA, it's only used to match people that are already suspects.

>>57141301
Yes it is, small repairable damages happen continously, so imagine if billions of cells were forced to apoptosis just for a trivial mismatch of bases. Much more resources (like, many much) would be needed to regenerate whole tissues.

>>57140650
>>57140650
Yfw god is a pretty shit programmer

File: tipsfedora.png (118KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 600x600px

>>57142383

>>57139152
I wonder when we'll be able transfer DNA and then reconstruct it at the destination without the living thing dying.

>>57142506
Uh, now.
CRISPR

>>57141301
You'd age faster because hayflick limit

>>57142510

I meant something like Star Trek's transporter.

But that's pretty remarkable, too! Can't wait for my genetically engineered super babies.

>>57142547
If you think the problem with a star-trek transporter is DNA, you have brain damage

>>57142566

Cannot refute dubs of truth.

*runs away crying*

>>57142547
>it's 2080
>hey /g/ how do I code my own baby I don't want one coded by pajeet
>here man download this
>twodicksrev1.dna
>thanks /g/

>>57140777
Heavenly trips of truth.

>>57139152
You'll turn into a big missingno wearing pants.
That doesn't look good...

>>57139152
Why can't we read the DNA and pick the best sperm cell to merge with the ovum?

>>57142951
We kinda can, having technic problems letting the embryo devellop but nothing more ressearch couldn't solve.
It's a part of eugenics most countries aren't okay with.

>>57142591
Can't wait to see this.