> This is a testable hypothesis and will be known in time.
Wait -- if resolution requires the simple passage of time, then it's not testable, indeed it's not really a test. A "testable hypothesis" means a notion that's subject to practical test in the present. Waiting for a future yea/nay outcome isn't, strictly speaking, a test. More of a waiting game.
> I believe that we will have a good enough understanding and control over genetics such that effective therapies even for adults will be possible in the stated time frame.
Gene therapies have a pretty terrible track record to date. Nevertheless, if your "time frame" is 100 years, then I would have to agree it's likely, based on Clarke's First Law:
Quote: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
> Also notice I used the word correct not cure, not a mere play in semantics but a subtle change that strongly alters meaning.
Yes, agreed, and if this era arrives, treatment recipients will have to be told that their improved condition by no means implies that their offspring won't be similarly afflicted.
Wait -- if resolution requires the simple passage of time, then it's not testable, indeed it's not really a test. A "testable hypothesis" means a notion that's subject to practical test in the present. Waiting for a future yea/nay outcome isn't, strictly speaking, a test. More of a waiting game.
> I believe that we will have a good enough understanding and control over genetics such that effective therapies even for adults will be possible in the stated time frame.
Gene therapies have a pretty terrible track record to date. Nevertheless, if your "time frame" is 100 years, then I would have to agree it's likely, based on Clarke's First Law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarkes_three_laws
Quote: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
> Also notice I used the word correct not cure, not a mere play in semantics but a subtle change that strongly alters meaning.
Yes, agreed, and if this era arrives, treatment recipients will have to be told that their improved condition by no means implies that their offspring won't be similarly afflicted.