[TheOtherHobbes]

It's jarring because it's wrong. Hacking DNA is nothing like hacking code.

Genes are not code. Genes are visible elements in a much larger system that is horribly complicated, and which no one fully understands.

So by hacking embryos you're guaranteeing there will be unexpected results and outright defects.

Does anyone have the right to create embryos that are defective? I don't think they do, and I don't think the ethical issues are particularly fuzzy.

[scarmig]

I agree with your last sentence, but:

Any particular bit of code is a visible element in a much larger system that is horribly complicated, and which no one fully understands.

The issue with hacking human embryos is that it's like working on a four billion year old legacy code base, written by toddlers smashing keys on a keyboard, in a language with no abstraction and where all variables are globally scoped. And the only testing you can do is to watch embryos die quickly or develop into people to die new and uniquely grisly deaths.

[xkcd-sucks]

>unexpected results and outright defects.

This seems pretty close to the original meaning of "hacking," before "hacker" became a synonym for "Dilbert with VC funding"