← Back to context

Comment by Q6T46nT668w6i3m

9 hours ago

It’s strange they are all engineering problems.

What would be your idea of a biology problem that isn't an "engineering" one?

It seems that understanding biology could be characterized as trying to figure out "how did nature engineer this".

For that matter isn't all of science this way?

  • There are certainly non engineering problems out there... For one example, in biomedicine it's known cancer in different organs can have preference of having immune hot (in skin and lung cancer, e.g.) and cold tumors (in pancreatic and prostate cancer, e.g.), and current immunotherapy work much less well on the latter. Why this pattern exists is still an open question very important for treating patients and it's not a how did nature engineer question as it's a unintended byproduct from several tiers of complex biology involving understanding mutational burden in tumor cells, immune surveillance surrounding the tumors, and mechanical structure of the tissue, etc. The engineering payoff comes later, i.e., immunotherapy works better on a particular subset of patients, after explaining and understanding the biological phenomenon first.

In a sense all experimental science has an element of engineering. For instance the first problem, "the origins of life" is framed to require an experiment to show that any proposed mechanism actually works.

Right? Where's the substrates of consciousness, or the actual solutions for protein/rna folding, or the requirements for evolution?