Generative Optogenetics
Key topics
The DARPA GO: Generative Optogenetics project has sparked a lively discussion, with some commenters drawing parallels to dystopian sci-fi, while others dug into the technology's potential risks and limitations. One commenter jokingly wondered if they'd "missed a Black Mirror episode," while others explored the project's goals and potential applications, including the possibility of covert biological manipulation. As one commenter pointed out, light can't penetrate the skull, suggesting that the technology might be more about advancing gene editing techniques like CRISPR. The conversation was marked by a mix of curiosity and caution, with some commenters seeking out additional information and sources to better understand the project's implications.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
2h
Peak period
17
Day 1
Avg / period
6.7
Based on 20 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 14, 2025 at 6:13 PM EST
19 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 14, 2025 at 8:33 PM EST
2h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
17 comments in Day 1
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 27, 2025 at 10:57 AM EST
6d ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
> someone July 13, 2017 at 9:59 pm: if the bacteria can be made sensitive to different frequencies of light (like with rods and cones), and if the cell can be programmed to consider one wavelength a clock signal, another wavelength a data signal, perhaps it can become a cheap synthesizer for DNA fragments, optical UART to DNA bacterium
https://hackaday.com/2017/07/13/movie-encoded-in-dna-is-the-...
I myself was bitten by a radioactive grad student in 2008 that was obsessed with this idea at the time, and have since learned that almost every major household name lab PI has thought about this in one form or another.
So let's say 2008 is the new infimum date, why do you think or suspect it is that DARPA is only interested in the idea 15 years later?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=optogenetics
Perhaps they noticed a development (breakthrough?) in an adjacent field that makes this now more interesting and/or practical/feasible.
Covert biological manipulation: If cells in specific organisms (including people) are engineered to respond to particular light patterns, then light could be used as a trigger to turn on harmful genes or disrupt normal biology in targeted groups, raising concerns about new classes of biological or “neuro” weapons.
Military and control applications: In combination with existing neurotechnology and optogenetics work (e.g., brain interfaces and neural stimulation), there are concerns about using light‑controlled genetic tools for enhancement, interrogation, or behavior influence in military or intelligence settings.
Ethical and societal risks:
Autonomy, consent, and “mind control” worries: Optogenetics already raises concerns about manipulating brain activity, permanence of genetic changes, informed consent, and vulnerability of specific populations once their cells are engineered to respond to light. GO intensifies this by linking genetic programming directly to external optical signals, which magnifies fears of remote influence or coercive use.
Safety, equity, and regulation: There are unresolved questions about long‑term safety, off‑target effects, error rates in in‑cell DNA/RNA synthesis, and who gets access to beneficial applications versus who is exposed to risk, all in a regulatory landscape that is still catching up with advanced gene and neurotechnologies.
Unless it’s your personal summary, in which case curious what sources you used, or if it’s from an LLM in which case I’ll just ask it myself.
this sounds more like some kind of crispr-light^2 where some subset of crispr like manipulations can be triggered with light control.
the cool thing about light is that it can be precisely targeted from a spatial perspective.
Greetings from a ti with special interrests.
Mike Koeris Director, DARPA BTO YC W22
Really cool of you to be willing to engage with people on this stuff, thanks. I would ask if there would be pathways or initiatives for smaller biotech research teams or med startups to collaborate with DARPA GO for their various goals? Seems like the possibilities are endless. In your mind, could GO one day be used to change traits in an organism that aren’t fixed at birth, but can be influenced by genes? Where do you see the impact or practical use cases for GO in 10-15 years?
Thanks again and looking forward to learning about whatever other crazy things you guys are working on!
Not to mention that the requirements in the solicitation for speed, accuracy, and length of product are each at least an order of magnitude above what is possible in current in vitro oligo synthesis. And that's just for the intermediate, 19-month goal, much less the later ones.
Certainly, DNA synthesis has been a limiting factor in bio R&D and both the cost and turnaround time have remained fairly stagnant, especially for gene-length products and given the near-term explosion in demand from AI-designed proteins.
I can appreciate that DARPA is a fan of moonshots but would it be advisable to break this into sub-projects such as generally improving DNA+gene synthesis, developing new methods for cell transfection, error correction, in vivo assembly, etc? Focusing on in vivo and light-directed only (and together) might not be the best path forward, though it certainly sounds sci-fi.