[Billthedrill]

Owens' case is that science fact is moving faster than science fiction can keep up with, a complaint quite a few of us who try that genre have been making for some years now. In this particular case, genome "hacking". There's nothing new about altering an organism's genome, viruses do it all the time. To achieve a stated outcome, however, that's quite a different thing. Fascinating field, but we're a long way yet from designer genes. But not that long. If you're going to write a novel about it, better expect it to have a short shelf life.

There is a wonderfully creepy scene in William Gibson's iconic and astonishingly predictive Neuromancer where the AI attempting to force contact with the protagonist finds him in an airport and rings each pay phone successively as the protagonist walks by. Pay phone. Younger FReepers may have to look that up. And that was published in 1984.

[BushCountry]

Not just science fiction authors have a short shelve life. I dabbled in writing for years, with the dream of writing a thriller novel (actually a promise to my mother on her death bed). Last year I dusted off my old manuscript to keep the promise. It was several years old and the technology describe in the book was laughable. It was forward thinking at the time.

The novel made to the selves, not the best, but decent reviews. I learned to be as generic as possible when describing any technology. When introducing new technology to be vague as possible on how it functions. There is nothing new under the sun, that won’t age.