What could be really exciting, is that we could develop a way to see other colors. Butterflies see many more colors than Humans and there are rare cases of humans with an extra cone receptor.

That might be really fun for you but for me I'd really be much more excited about being able to see colours well enough to achieve my life long aim of being a pilot. As well as avoiding 1000 tiny annoyances that come with not being colour normalative.

Maybe I'm just being sensitive but it's almost like someone was discussing a way to regrow a missing limb and you've come along to tell us you've always fancied a third hand.

In fairness, "always fancied a third hand" is a comment you'll find on prosthetic limb HN threads, including today.

I don't think one negates the other.

This makes about as much sense as complaining about cosmetic dentistry because you've lost a tooth.

>That might be really fun for you but for me I'd really be much more excited about being able to see colours well enough to achieve my life long aim of being a pilot.

Are you sure that colour blindness would still present an issue? I've heard that in recent years the requirements had been relaxed around this.

I'm sure.

I didn't think we had any confirmed examples of human tetrachromats?

This Wikipedia article has something about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy Women can, in principle, develop something approaching tetrachromacy because the genes for two cone cell pigments are located on the X chromosone, and women have two of those. If the two copies of the genes are both active, and behave a bit differently, then it's conceivable that you could get some cones that react to a slightly different frequency. The article says some men could also develop this - not sure how, though. On the other hand the article also mentions just a single really verified case of a woman who had true tetrachromacy. After 20 years of study..

I'd imagine any combination of {duplication and mutation on the blue cone gene which isn't on X, mosaicism or Klinefelter syndrome, transposition from X or replication on X with mutation} would work for you. Maybe not Klinefelter because of X-inactivation, I don't know how those two things interact offhand.

I _think_ the key point is, as you said, that the different gene copies need to have different response ranges, or you end up functionally trichromatic even though the pigments are from different places.

Her name is Concetta Antico. This is her website: https://concettaantico.com

I have the standard red/brown color blindness. I have brown eyes and can see well in strong sunlight without squinting. I can navigate unfamiliar landscapes in pure starlight.

If I have to give up these traits for better color vision - no thanks. I'm uncertain there is a correlation, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Yup, same here.

Apparently I'm a moderate deutan according to one of the online tests, but the only time I have any trouble with anything is with the colour blindness tests, in real life, never - completely fine with electrical wiring, photographic re-touching, display reading etc etc.

I've never mixed odd socks, worn the wrong colour by mistake or anything else apparently colour-blind people have trouble with.

Quite happy to keep better night vision and ability to wander around in bright sunshine without squinting vs a completely non-impacting deficiency. :)

You have not played enough games then...

To me "genetically modified" means germline alterations present in the whole organism. Here I'd suggest "somatically modified", denoting only changes in some somatic cells.

Eh you're being too technical which would only serve to confuse the masses. Why not 'gametically' or 'zygotically' modified as per your lingo? Is delivery of mRNA to cells not genetic modification as well, I believe so