Casgevy: UK approves gene-editing drug for sickle cell

[Nearly Sane]

This would appear to be good news


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-67435266

[SteveH]

Why do popular articles about genetics always call DNA a blueprint, which is a metaphor, and in some ways a misleading one? If they called it a code, it'd be just as understandable by lay people, and wouldn't be metaphorical: it is literally a code!
Otherwise, great news: presumably, the same technique will become available for other genetic diseases.

[Nearly Sane]

Why do popular articles about genetics always call DNA a blueprint, which is a metaphor, and in some ways a misleading one? If they called it a code, it'd be just as understandable by lay people, and wouldn't be metaphorical: it is literally a code!
Otherwise, great news: presumably, the same technique will become available for other genetic diseases.

I'd argue here that since you are changing something to 'improve' it, the blueprint metaphor works better.


As to the 'literally a code', I'd suggest that a code is generally seen as an intentional attempt to communicate which doesn't apply to DNA. The consistent use of the word code for it then leads to the uninteresting but persistent mantra that a code needs a 'codemaker'.

[jeremyp]

Why do popular articles about genetics always call DNA a blueprint, which is a metaphor, and in some ways a misleading one? If they called it a code, it'd be just as understandable by lay people, and wouldn't be metaphorical: it is literally a code!
Otherwise, great news: presumably, the same technique will become available for other genetic diseases.

A recipe would be a far better metaphor.

[SteveH]

A recipe would be a far better metaphor.

"Code" is better still, because, as I said, it isn't a metaphor  it's the plain truth. DNA is a code!

[Nearly Sane]

"Code" is better still, because, as I said, it isn't a metaphor  it's the plain truth. DNA is a code!

By what definition?

[SteveH]

By what definition?

By the definition of the word "code"!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genetic-Code

[Nearly Sane]

By the definition of the word "code"!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

That's still using a metaphor, rather like natural selection. Both get into the issue that the terms used more generally have intention baked in.

[SteveH]

That's still using a metaphor, rather like natural selection. Both get into the issue that the terms used more generally have intention baked in.

Bullshit. It is an evolved code, but still a code.

[Nearly Sane]

Bullshit. It is an evolved code, but still a code.

A code is in the generalised meaning an attempt to communicate. Within that, there is an intent to communicate. DNA has neither the intent, nor is it an attempt at communication.

There was a rather brilliant story written about Dawkins that as a child his parents invited all the good fairies to his 'christening'. They arrive and give him gifts of intelligence, good looks, and communication skills.

Just then the bad fairy who was not invited, turns up in a fabulous dress and considerable umbrage. She looks down at Clinton cooing in his cot and curses him with the gift of metaphor.

[SteveH]

[quote author=Nearly Sane link=topic=20681.msg874139#msg874139 date=1700164226

There was a rather brilliant story written about Dawkins that as a child his parents invited all the good fairies to his 'christening'. They arrive and give him gifts of intelligence, good looks, and communication skills.

Just then the bad fairy who was not invited, turns up in a fabulous dress and considerable umbrage. She looks down at Clinton cooing in his cot and curses him with the gift of metaphor.
[/quote]Who is "Clinton"? Assuming you meant "Richard", he is on record as saying that he deplores the use of dodgy metaphors by religious people!

[Nearly Sane]

Who is "Clinton"? Assuming you meant "Richard", he is on record as saying that he deplores the use of dodgy metaphors by religious people!

Clinton is Dawkins first name  I like the alliteration it offered.

The point of the story is that Dawkins as part of his excellent communication skills is adept at the use of metaphor but that it has its drawbacks as a tool since it's often not clear where the likeness ends, which allows for both mistake and the sort of deliberate choice that any other likeness might be highlighted e.g. that a code needs a codemaker.

[SteveH]

Clinton is Dawkins first name  I like the alliteration it offered.

The point of the story is that Dawkins as part of his excellent communication skills is adept at the use of metaphor but that it has its drawbacks as a tool since it's often not clear where the likeness ends, which allows for both mistake and the sort of deliberate choice that any other likeness might be highlighted e.g. that a code needs a codemaker.

Who says a code always needs a codemaker? Every other code that we know of was intelligently designed, but then so was every blueprint we know of. DNA is the one code we know of that has evolved by natural selection.

[Stranger]

The point of the story is that Dawkins as part of his excellent communication skills is adept at the use of metaphor but that it has its drawbacks as a tool since it's often not clear where the likeness ends, which allows for both mistake and the sort of deliberate choice that any other likeness might be highlighted e.g. that a code needs a codemaker.

Unfortunately, it's pretty much impossible to avoid metaphor when explaining science to laypeople. None of the terms suggested here really capture fully what DNA is, without some possibility of misunderstanding.

I think probably 'code' is the most technically accurate but it's as wide open to misunderstanding as the other suggestions.

[Nearly Sane]

Who says a code always needs a codemaker? Every other code that we know of was intelligently designed, but then so was every blueprint we know of. DNA is the one code we know of that has evolved by natural selection.

It's part of the generalised definition of what a code is. Codes do not exist in some Platonic realm to be discovered by people or nature. The reason that we use the metaphor for DNA is to help people understand it by some similarities.

[Nearly Sane]

Unfortunately, it's pretty much impossible to avoid metaphor when explaining science to laypeople. None of the terms suggested hear really capture fully what DNA is, without some possibility of misunderstanding.

I think probably 'code' is the most technically accurate but it's as wide open to misunderstanding as the other suggestions.

And it is incorrect to state that factually DNA is code.

[SteveH]

And it is incorrect to state that factually DNA is code.

No, it bloody well isn't! Have you ever in your life admitted that you were wrong, however conclusive the arguments brought against you?

[Nearly Sane]

No, it bloody well isn't! Have you ever in your life admitted that you were wrong, however conclusive the arguments brought against you?

Let's try again. What is the definition of 'code' that you are using?

[SteveH]

This, more or less. DNA is a chemical version of this.

[Nearly Sane]

This, more or less. DNA is a chemical version of this.

And communication presupposes some form of deliberate intent between entities.

[SteveH]

And communication presupposes some form of deliberate intent between entities.

No, it doesn't. There are all sorts of chemical communications going on in the bodies of organisms. Many plants have various ways of warning other, nearby plants of danger, or deceiving predatory insects. Some fruits, notably bananas, emit ethylene when ripe, which speeds up the ripening of still-unripe fruit in the bunch. All of these are examples of communication, but there is no deliberate intent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_communication

[Stranger]

And it is incorrect to state that factually DNA is code.

Hummm...



From: Genetic code

Also:
The genetic code
DNA structure and making proteins

It has also been pointed out that the code (relationship between codons and proteins) is basically arbitrary, in the sense there is no biochemical reason that it had to be that way. It seems to be all but universal on Earth, so must have arisen very early, but if we find alien life that uses DNA, there is no reason to expect the same code.

I will also repeat that science has to communicate with the general public somehow and it can never be entirely accurate because to explain it all exactly, especially in a reasonably succinct way that can be used in news articles, is impossible because modern science is complicated.

It's even worse in subjects like physics, which you cannot really understand without knowing a lot of difficult mathematics. Some of the standard terms and 'explanations' that are used are often just bollocks.

[Nearly Sane]

Hummm...



From: Genetic code

Also:
The genetic code
DNA structure and making proteins

It has also been pointed out that the code (relationship between codons and proteins) is basically arbitrary, in the sense there is no biochemical reason that it had to be that way. It seems to be all but universal on Earth, so must have arisen very early, but if we find alien life that uses DNA, there is no reason to expect the same code.

I will also repeat that science has to communicate with the general public somehow and it can never be entirely accurate because to explain it all exactly, especially in a reasonably succinct way that can be used in news articles, is impossible because modern science is complicated.

It's even worse in subjects like physics, which you cannot really understand without knowing a lot of difficult mathematics. Some of the standard terms and 'explanations' that are used are often just bollocks.

This isn't about science, it's about language. The use of metaphor to explsin things is fine, though as highlighted in this and countless other discussions on here fraught with the issue that when people use metaphor to explain things, people have a tendency to think it is not like in a certain way but in all ways. Hence the 'a code must have a writer' stuff.

It's similar to the problems when people use analigy, and either people then highlight differences to say the analogy doesn't work because of some difference, mistaking that the analogy is not an argument. Or they use analogy as argumeng making the reverse mistake.

Code in generalised use is a deliberate method of communication. DNA is not that.

[Nearly Sane]

No, it doesn't. There are all sorts of chemical communications going on in the bodies of organisms. To give an example at random - when certain plants are attacked by herbivores, they emit a gas which, when detected by other plants of the same variety nearby, causes their foliage to become bitter and unpleasant-tasting, too protect them from the predator. Some fruits, notably bananas, emit ethylene when ripe, which speeds up the ripening of still-unripe fruit in the bunch' Both of these are examples of chemical communication, but there is no deliberate intent.

And they are not codes because they aren't communication in the deliberate sense. You're simply reapplying the metaphor.

[SteveH]

And they are not codes because they aren't communication in the deliberate sense. You're simply reapplying the metaphor.

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said "...And communication presupposes some form of deliberate intent between entities." I was answering that specific point, about communication, not about code specifically, as I made clear.