[zxcvbnm]

when you program a computer usually there are instant feedback tools like graphic output, debugger, beeps... what I really miss with genetic hacking is this immediate feedback. Did I shake that liquid enough? How degraded was that agent? What is going on in that flask? It would be nice to have a super microscope ad observe, instead of guessing high level what's going on. Well my tomato doesn't glow, how can I debug what went wrong.

[scajanus]

This seems to be the case for most science: You poke around in the dark, illuminated by past discoveries, you might need to wait for new tools for observation to be developed, you come up with some theories that are partly correct but only the next generations will be able to prove/disprove them.

I've been enjoying listening to The Song of the Cell by Siddhartha Mukherjee, which details a lot how the discoveries of cellular biology only came when e.g. suitably high quality lenses, microscopes or microneedles could be manufactured. As such, many of the early cellular biologists were at least part craftsmen as well.

Similarly for genetics, there the speed of discovery has been limited by tools: For sequencing (esp. cheap enough and accurate enough to start from limited genetic material) as well as editing the genome.