Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Medicine Science

UW Scientists, Biotech Firm May Have Cure For Colorblindness 137

An anonymous reader writes with news about a possible cure for colorblindness. "For the more than 10million Americans with colorblindness, there's never been a treatment, let alone a cure, for the condition that leaves them unable to distinguish certain hues. Now, for the first time, two University of Washington professors have teamed with a California biotech firm to develop what they say may be a solution: a single shot in the eye that reveals the world in full color. Jay and Maureen Neitz, husband-and-wife scientists who have studied the vision disorder for years, have arranged an exclusive license agreement between UW and Avalanche Biotechnologies of Menlo Park. Together, they've found a new way to deliver genes that can replace missing color-producing proteins in certain cells, called cones, in the eyes."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UW Scientists, Biotech Firm May Have Cure For Colorblindness

Comments Filter:
  • Why stop there? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12, 2015 @10:05PM (#49460637)

    Men have 2 genetic receptors for color, while women have 3. Women have a broader spectrum because of this. Eagles have 10. If you're going t inject my eyes to reverse my genetic anomaly, go for broke and give me UV to Infrared, don't piss around with just the limited spectrum of a human.

    • Turns out the biological lens of your eye blocks UV light, but if you get an artificial lens, your retinas can register UV light.

      http://www.theguardian.com/sci... [theguardian.com]

      --PM

      • by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Sunday April 12, 2015 @10:29PM (#49460727) Homepage Journal

        Turns out the biological lens of your eye blocks UV light, but if you get an artificial lens, your retinas can register UV light.

        There's some natural variation. I can see near-UV -- this caused some confusion in high school Chemistry class when I could see some spectrum lines that nobody else could.

        I've got the mild form of color deficiency that reduces my total hue resolution from about 10 million colors to about 2 million colors. Maybe my cones register UV better too as a side-effect.

        Oh, and I'll happily stick with two million colors if the alternative is a freaking needle in the eye. Eyedrops - let's talk.

        • by i.r.id10t ( 595143 ) on Sunday April 12, 2015 @11:17PM (#49460903)

          Jim 'Wash Out' Pfaffenbach: I just got kicked out of the unit. My flight status has been withdrawn. I'm through, Dead Meat!

          Pete 'Dead Meat' Thompson: What happened?

          Jim 'Wash Out' Pfaffenbach: It's my eyes. I've got walleye-vision.

          Pete 'Dead Meat' Thompson: Isn't there something that can be done?

          Jim 'Wash Out' Pfaffenbach: Well, there's a delicate corneal inversion procedure... a multi-opti-pupil-optomy. But, in order to keep from damaging the eye sockets, they've got to go in through the rectum. Ain't no man going to take that route with me!

          • by Anonymous Coward

            Don't we have to try to preserve the "color-blind culture"?

            Why are we messing with nature? /sarcasm

          • OK, hot shot, you wanna tell us what that's about?

        • I can see near-UV -- this caused some confusion in high school Chemistry class when I could see some spectrum lines that nobody else could.

          Interesting that you mention that - I've never really thought I could see UV, but I have noticed that black lights and UV LEDs have a weird intense brightness that makes me squint even though the visible light isn't that bright, and I can't really perceive a different color. Germicidal lamps don't cause the same effect for me.
          • UVA, UVB, UVC (Score:5, Interesting)

            by DrYak ( 748999 ) on Monday April 13, 2015 @05:23AM (#49461673) Homepage

            Interesting that you mention that - I've never really thought I could see UV, but I have noticed that black lights and UV LEDs have a weird intense brightness that makes me squint even though the visible light isn't that bright, and I can't really perceive a different color.

            such things were also reported by people who got caract surgery. Some type of replacement synthetic lens were more transparent in the UV and suddenly people started to see UV. (Some replacement were way too much transparent in the UV and could damage the eye by not protecting it enough).

            Germicidal lamps don't cause the same effect for me.

            Both are "UV" in the sense that they are above the violent band. But they're not the same wavelenght.
            Blacklight UVA: is just slightly above the the violet band, with wavelenght shorter than 400nm
            Germicidal Lamps UVC: is way above the violet band, with wavelenght around 280nm (e.g.: around wavelenghts most likely to be absorbed by DNA and other critical biological structures - thus damaging the germ cells).

            Cones can detect UVA (it's just usually blocked by the eye's len).
            Cones cannot detect UVC (and would probably just die if exposed to it).

          • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
            I hate black lights that are in line of sight. The entire bulb is a unfocusable blurry bright annoying thing. Even regular florescent light bulbs have an intense blue haze around them. I also hate it when there's overcast because many times the regular light is dim, so my pupils open more to let in the light so I can see, but the clouds are radiating a certain kind of "brightness" that makes my eyes hurt. Other people don't seem to notice it.
        • Well, it's certainly better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick!

        • by Megane ( 129182 )

          I can sort of see near-UV as well. When I look at a prismatic spectrum, there is a bit of gray after the deep violet. I wouldn't be surprised to find this normal but that most people just don't notice it, since UV reflectivity is what makes "whiter whites" in your laundry.

          I also happen to have partial color-blindness (not sure whether prot- or deuter- anomaly, but I can't distinguish some brownish colors), but that's clearly unrelated, since my UV vision is clearly from the rods, not the cones.

        • by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Monday April 13, 2015 @09:43AM (#49462895) Homepage Journal

          Turns out the biological lens of your eye blocks UV light, but if you get an artificial lens, your retinas can register UV light.

          There's some natural variation....

          This has been understood for some time. As others have mentioned, various military orgs have used teams with varied color vision as a way of "seeing through" camouflage. Biologists have suggested that the variety in human color vision is adaptive, giving our hunting ancestors' teams an improved chance of spotting spotting prey against various backgrounds, and the addition of dogs (with their very different color vision from ours) improved this teamwork. This is all hypothetical, though, since (as far as I know) it hasn't actually been tested scientifically.

          Back in high school (in the 60s), I had a science teacher who did a good illustration of it all. He made the usual demo of a spectrum using a prism, on a sheet of white paper. Then he had students come up and mark the visible ends of the spectrum, covering up each student's marks with another sheet of paper before the next student made their marks. The result was two columns of dots that didn't line up at all; their variants was around 10% of the width of the spectrum. I'd made marks that I could identify, and saw that my UV mark was right at the average point, while my IR mark was one of the farthest out. This explained some things I'd already noticed about the ways that different people saw colors.

          This has been known to the photography industry since color film was first produced. Different varieties of film (and now CCDs) have different sensitivities, and different photographers have different preferences for brands of film based on this.

          One of my funny personal anecdotes on the topic was once (in Jr High, as I recall), I asked some visitors why the front-left panel of their car was a different color than the rest of the car. They gave me a funny look, then said the car was all black, which everyone else present agreed with. I objected that only that one panel was black; the rest of the car was a deep red. This got me more funny looks, and the fellow who owned the car said that the car had been in a minor accident that damaged the front-left panel, so it was replaced. After that, my family thought I had something called "black-red color blindness" (which is odd, because I was actually the only one without that defect ;-). I was taken to an optometrist, who verified the "condition", but assured my parents that it wasn't a significant problem, and didn't need treating. Actually, there was a simple treatment: glasses that block near-IR light, and I've accidentally got several sunglasses that do just that, making for oddly muted reds.

          As I got more into photography, I eventually noticed that my eyes have slightly different color vision, with things looking slightly bluer in the left eye and slightly redder in the right eye. This seems to be extremely common, actually, though most people don't notice it until it's mentioned and they start trying to spot it in different lighting condition. (Hint: It's often easier to spot in lower-light conditions, and difficult in full sunlight.)

      • During WWII this was used to advantage by the British. They would use UV lights to flash signals then have somebody at each location who had their lens removed due to cataracts and who could see the UV, which was completely invisible to the healthy Germans that had passed the German medical. This way, they could invisibly pass messages ship to shore and vice versa.

        • by ChoGGi ( 522069 )

          where did you hear about this? any books you could recommend?

        • by Bearhouse ( 1034238 ) on Monday April 13, 2015 @04:06AM (#49461537)

          Saw something about this in a BBC documentary about the "Atlantic War" in WW2. Funny, I seem to remember them saying that it was the US navy that came up with the idea, (replacement retina operations being more common in the USA at that time)

          • by Anonymous Coward

            You don't mean "replacement retina operation" as that has yet to be done, even today. You mean replacement lens operation.

        • This is curious, given that UV is so strongly scattered by the atmosphere that it would have almost no range. Even blue light has comparatively little range. They must have used hellaciously bright UV lights and/or just communicated over very short distances in clear air. One wouldn't expect even people with artificial lenses or corneas to have much sensitivity in the UV, as well.

          Rayleigh scattering of UV light of (say) 300 nm wavelength is over 16 times stronger than the scattering of red light. It's o

      • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

        If you look at the response curve of all the opsins, it really just means you parse it as a different kind of white (it triggers all of them). More importantly, however, the UV damages them.

        It's still cool, but it's of very limited use until we can either get another cone dedicated to UV or make the amount of UV very sparse, or in one eye. And that's if you're fully dedicated to risky mods that can cost you your vision.

    • That is being used right now on the super soldiers

    • Why settle for just electromagnetic spectrum; i want scintillating materials to see cosmic rays and alphas, betas, gammas and neutrons in different colors.
    • Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Informative)

      by crispytwo ( 1144275 ) on Sunday April 12, 2015 @11:11PM (#49460891)

      I think you are mistaken -- 3 is normal. 2 is color blindness, commonly red/green blindness. And by receptors, I presume you mean cones.

      Perhaps you are thinking of tetrachromat, where very few people have that 'condition', and Concetta Antico is one person who does... who also happens to be female... with the presumably prerequisite 2 X chromosomes. Eagles are also tetrachromat.

      • Many birds have four color receptors. Some have five.

        Mammal eyes suck. Primates have about the best color perception of all mammals, and even the best is still pretty poor by bird standards.

        • Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Informative)

          by umafuckit ( 2980809 ) on Monday April 13, 2015 @04:34AM (#49461589)

          Many birds have four color receptors. Some have five.

          Mammal eyes suck. Primates have about the best color perception of all mammals, and even the best is still pretty poor by bird standards.

          It's not so cut and dried, actually. A lot of colour vision requires processing in the cortex so there isn't necessarily a clear cut relationship between the number of cone classes and an animal's colour acuity. A great example is the mantis shrimp [theoatmeal.com] which has a large number of different cone classes yet has crap colour vision [popsci.com]. I don't know what bird colour acuity is or how it compares to our own, but don't assume it's necessarily better because they are tetrachromats. For instance, the wikipedia says that pigeons are pentachromats [wikipedia.org] but they may not have access to the fifth channel. Many birds also have colour oil droplets in front of some photoreceptors in order to further tune their range. In effect, this may give them more than 4 cone classes.

          • Re:Why stop there? (Score:4, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13, 2015 @06:24AM (#49461779)

            > It's not so cut and dried, actually. A lot of colour vision requires processing in the cortex

            I think you mis-spelled "retina" there. See if you can find a copy of http://www.scientificamerican.... [scientificamerican.com] from Jerry Lettvin, in 1986. I had the delight of attending several of teking Jerry's "General Physiology" course at MIT, which was filled with weird anecdotes and a profound scientific view of "how do things *really* work, and how did they get that way" with the evolutionary theory of ambulatory knishes avoiding predation by hungry students in Harvard Square.

            Jerry's experiments with electrodes on individual visual neurons and work with other colleagues made very clear that much of vision is edge detection in the retina itself, which explains why that silly dress color illusion works so well. The cortex does not get raw color: it gets pre-processed information about "this region is much redder than that region, and far less blue and green compared to other regions, so it's definitely red". And I'm afraid it's also why the very silly "let's put grids of electrodes in the back of the eye" is never going to to work well. The electrodes are immersed in salty fluid, and the current spreads *much* too far: it recruits far too many of the pre-processing cells, and even putting a brilliantly designed electrode grid on the retina itself would skip all the subtle pre-processing in the retina and require much more complex pre-processing than visual researches like to even think about.

            • Skipping the pre processing may give horrible vision quality, but if the retina has lost all light sensitivity than horrible vision is still a step up from no vision at all.

            • Jerry's experiments with electrodes on individual visual neurons and work with other colleagues made very clear that much of vision is edge detection in the retina itself, which explains why that silly dress color illusion works so well. The cortex does not get raw color: it gets pre-processed information about "this region is much redder than that region,

              I have worked on the retina, as it happens. :) What the retina sends the cortex is information about the relative intensity of red/green or yellow/blue in light reflecting from surfaces. This light is heavily influenced by the illuminating light source. So much so that it's possible for, say, an apparently green surface to be reflecting mostly red light. Yet you see it as green. Up until visual area V4, neurons are reporting that the surface is not green but red. In V4 we first see "colour constant" cells,

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Not correct. Men and most women have three cones for color. Some of the genes for cones are on the X chromosome, so it can happen that a woman has a different gene for that cone on each of her two copies of the X chromosome. However, while many women therefore have four different cones (two of them almost identical), almost none who do demonstrate any heightened color sensitivity.

      • And any increase in range would result in a a decrease in resolution. You're not getting MORE cones, you're getting DIFFERENT cones.
        It's like going from 24-bit RGB to 24-bit RGBY.

        Conversely, color blindness was an asset in the military for certain tasks (such as analyzing aerial surveillance photos) because of the increased ability to detect camouflaged installations.

    • More than that, would this work for rod cells? I have Congenital Stationary Night Blindness due to the rod cells not functioning properly.

      • In theory, and under very specific conditions... yes. Under VERY dim light, rods can act kind of like hypothetical "blue-green" cones. If you found the right pigments (no combination of common "process-color" red/cyan/magenta/black pigments will work for this), you could theoretically mix two paint shades that looked absolutely identical to most people in bright light, but were distinctly different when viewed in dim light using only peripheral vision.

        There are some men (I don't think women have ever been i

    • by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )
      This is incorrect, women have up to 4 [wikipedia.org] as do some men. The X chromosome normally carries 2, and women have two. The Y chromosome, IIRC, generally carries 1. (yes, I'm aware that's wikipedia, but it had most of the details from numerous other links, so...) Color blindness occurs commonly in men if the Y chromosome carries a duplicate of the X chromosome's receptors (resulting in a 2 cone system). If all 4 are unique, you get a tetrachromat. But if you're going for sheer number, why not be like a mantis shrim [nature.com]
    • That was my second thought (first was "finally!")
      This is on my list of gene hacks, expanded visual range. Further, this seems to be a very good vehicle to refine the concept of genetic modification via viral administration. It could open up a whole host of other applications.. I for one would love to grow a new set of teeth every 15 years or so. Perhaps this will open the door for some of these ideas while allaying the fears of the masses wrt gene mods...
      Or perhaps we will simply open the way for the Eu [google.com]
    • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      This is wrong, of course.

      Humans have 3 unique cones. Less than 3 means some form of color blindness.

      Women, by virtue of having 2 X chromosomes, have two slightly different codings for one of the 3 cones. Most of the time one is switched off but occasionally a woman may have both versions of that cone resulting in a 4th unique receptor. The difference is very minor and there is no evidence that this leads to superior color sensitivity or that their brain even realizes it has some additional information.

      • Not quite. It's not that one of them is "switched off", it's more like the distribution of the two variants isn't necessarily gaussian... she could have large clumps predominantly of one or the other. Likewise, the two most common pairs of red & green peaks are within 2nm of each other, so even well-distributed combinations of both would be unlikely to make much of a difference.

        The one specific combo that seems to be discernible is a woman with two red variants... one that would cause her to be deuteran

        • by Gr8Apes ( 679165 )
          There are 5 cone receptor types, which is why we have the potential for tetrachromats, as there are only the possibility of 4 receptors.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    What would the person's experience be like to see a new color? Personally, I'd like to experience tetrachromatic vision

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Colorblindness is a form of diversity. You don't hate diversity, do you?

    • by pushing-robot ( 1037830 ) on Sunday April 12, 2015 @10:37PM (#49460761)

      Only when I'm writing CSS.

    • If diversity is the greatest thing, why don't we hack a random number of limbs off of every person for more diversity?

      Maybe it's time to give up your delusions of special-snowflakeness and admit that some variations are simply flaws. Flaws that can be fixed.

      • If diversity is the greatest thing, why don't we hack a random number of limbs off of every person for more diversity?

        Maybe it's time to give up your delusions of special-snowflakeness and admit that some variations are simply flaws. Flaws that can be fixed.

        But not all flaws can be fixed. And the point about diversity is that having some physical difference isn't a badge of moral depravity.

    • > Colorblindness is a form of diversity. You don't hate diversity, do you?

      This is only slightly funny. I've some colleagues with deaf children who came under enormous social pressure for getting cochlear implants for their children. It's described well at:

      http://www.theatlantic.com/hea... [theatlantic.com]

      • This is only slightly funny. I've some colleagues with deaf children who came under enormous social pressure for getting cochlear implants for their children.

        People develop subcultures over various real or imaginary similarities or differences, and once created identity with these subcultures. A deaf person who's part of "deaf subculture" would lose the part of themselves they've invested in it if they had their hearing fixed. The same happens if the subculture disappears for any other reason, for example

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday April 12, 2015 @10:23PM (#49460703)

    This is publicly funded research. It bothers me that faculty and universities - as well as their corporate partners - end up reaping millions (or even billions) of dollars in windfalls based on research paid for on the taxpayers' dime.

    At a minimum, these deals should have a clause requiring the amount of public money spent on such research should get paid back from these corporate proceeds before the schools and companies start collecting.

    • This is publicly funded research

      That is actually a pretty big assumption you are making, there. The Neitzes do each have one R01 (research) grant through the NIH (you can look them up here if you'd like [nih.gov]) however research on this scale can't be done with only that large of a budget. While each of those grants are six-figure totals, those are multi-year grants and they pay salaries (faculty, postdocs, grad students, and technicians), they buy supplies, and they pay the university to keep the lights on. There was certainly additional fun

      • by Anonymous Coward

        First sentence: being critical of a statement by calling it a big assumption
        Second sentence: citing a source verifying the statement as being a fact

      • This is publicly funded research

        That is actually a pretty big assumption you are making, there.

        If you go to their lab's publications page [neitzvision.com], you can read through the acknowledgements for each paper - that tells you where the funding for each particular bit of research came from.

        Looking at their first few papers it appears to me that they are mainly running on various public funds (e.g. research grants, other university monies) along with some money from not-for-profit foundations.

      • Surely when they spin off a company, that will happen automatically through corporation tax?

        • The first action the company will take once it starts making a profit will be to open a subsidiary in some other country through which they can launder their cash flow and avoid corporate taxes.

          • It would seem the fix for that is to address the flaws in tax law, rather than screw up research for the benefit of humanity.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Public funds are used for the research yes, but its not going to be public money that is among the millions spent in commercializing the technology beyond the stage it is currently at (additional research that might be needed, scaling, patent costs, clinical trials, etc). When (and if) the technology makes it as a commercial product, the basic research funding is just one of many pieces of money that went into making it, and its usually not the largest.

      Besides, I think the idea of having to return money to

    • Most Uni researchers remember where they came from if their profit-making venture is successful. That's how engineering colleges get named. The University tends to receive much, much more than face value in such a deal.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I'm at a visual disadvantage to your average, everyday person with normal tetrachromatic vision [wikipedia.org].

    Along the same lines, can they cure my color-blindness in the infrared and longer wavelengths and ultraviolet and shorter ones?

    • by mark-t ( 151149 )
      Tetrachromatic vision doesn't quite fit the bill for "normal". It's common, sure... but still quite far from typical. As a trichromat, you are visually disadvantaged to, at the most, perhaps as much as 30% of the human race.
    • I'm at a visual disadvantage to your average, everyday person with normal tetrachromatic vision

      Actually, if you were a tetrachromatic woman, you'd have likely grown up thinking YOU had a weird color vision defect of some kind that caused you to "confuse" hues of orange with yellow and red. In reality, there would be a whole bunch of distinct hues that everyone else insisted were "orange", "yellow", or even red or green, but to you would be like trying to approximate green by mixing cyan & pink-orange light.

      Let that sink in for a moment. In a world where literally everything -- including non-incan

  • ... does this mean that tetrachromacy might soon be possible in males?

    • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

      If it works as expected, it will be as possible in males as females, which is to say, thinly.

      While the "anomaly" type of colorblindness (specifically, the green anomaly one) do feature a different spectral point that can be used to discern colors, it's pretty subtle. In a trichromat, all your reds are, say, 6, all your greens are 5, and all your blues are 4. In a green anomaly, all your reds are 6, all your greens are 5.8, and all your blues are 4. This makes it hard to distinguish colors.

      The tetrachroma

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12, 2015 @11:23PM (#49460931)

    Problems include screaming fits of madness,complaints about seeing a skinny fellow who speaks in all capitals and occasionally getting next week's mail last Tuesday.

  • The future is finally coming. Damn.

    Here's a thought: would it work on dogs? We could test it by color coding the box with food in it, figuratively or literally.

  • - Sorry officer, I saw the traffic light as being "green"...
    • by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Monday April 13, 2015 @12:52AM (#49461119)

      Sort of off-topic, but your post reminded me of a little factoid. In Japan, they call the green traffic light "blue" [japantimes.co.jp]. It has to do with the fact that the older term "ao" refers to both green and blue. They have a distinct word for green "midori", but it's understood as a specific shade of blue, and the color boundaries are not the same as what most others would call green. Thus, they have "blue" traffic lights in Japan. They're often the same green as found in other countries, but sometimes they're pushed a bit more towards the blue spectrum.

      • Also off topic, I'm reminded of the fact that some people don't approve of green traffic lights [independent.co.uk] and their local council requires a significant budget to replace them. Maybe they should try bluer shades of green since blue would be an acceptable colour to the local populace.

      • by Idou ( 572394 )
        As someone who has been dumbfounded by this since he first went to Japan as an exchange student over 20 years ago, I have a theory why this may have happened. It is hypothesized that the color Blue was one of the last colors for people to discover/appreciate enough to assign it a name (Radiolab has a great show on this [radiolab.org]). Accordingly, "Ao" was assigned "green" first but as the concept of "Blue" started to materialize, "Midori" became the new "Green" so that "Ao" could start covering things that were "Blue."
    • If you saw a red light as green, then the speed you must have been approaching it at to induce an effective doppler shift from what was about 680 nm wavelength photons which are normally seen as red, to about 540 nm, or the green portion of the visible spectrum would suggest that you were speeding by no small margin.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13, 2015 @02:28AM (#49461337)

    > For the more than 10million Americans with colorblindness, there's never been a treatment, let alone a cure, for the condition that leaves them unable to distinguish certain hues.

    Not ture. For at least 12 years, there have been special eyeglass lenses on the market, which cover at least 2/3rd of all color blindness cases and correct the symptoms well enough to allow the patients work with CAD or Photoshop or drive a car without any risk of misreading the traffic lights and signs.

    The problem is, it uses a complicated thin-film technology, which cannot yet be applied to contact lenses, only lens-and-frame eyeglasses, which it presents a vanity problem for wearers, especially since the film gives the lenses a weird hue.

    • by Yaotzin ( 827566 )

      Well, I am red-green colour-blind with otherwise near perfect vision. I do not want to wear glasses, I'm mostly only affected when taking the Ishihara tests. A quick corneal shot to increase vibrancy is very interesting though. The only question is how much this will cost me.

      • by tbuskey ( 135499 )

        I'm red-green colorblind too & wear glasses all the time. The only time it's a big factor for me is with light hues. Dark red/green I can tell the difference. Traffic lights have position (& they do look different to me anyway). Heck, I didn't find out about it until I was out of college & saw the Ishihara tests.

          The dual color LEDs in the network closet? Not so much. I wouldn't mind having an inexpensive magnifying glass to make one or the other pop.

  • In before 'Curing colorblindness is a crime against colorblind culture." argument starts.
  • Just don't take more than the stated dose, the side effects [wikipedia.org] can be disturbing.
  • Speaking as a colorblind man, both red-green and, to a lesser extent, blue-yellow, even with a shot to the eyeball (presumably there'd be anesthesia involved) I'd be interested. I've always wondered what the world looked like to others, when I can only really see three colors in a rainbow.
  • With all the bad diseases out there, we're worried about color-blindness?

    Besides, it would be kinda cool to be colorblind. Good conversation piece with the honeys, bro?

  • I remember reading that people who have been blind from birth, who then receive corrective surgery as adults so they can see for the first time, often have real trouble making sense of the new visual sensory data they suddenly have access to. Their brains just aren't able to make use of the data, never having been trained to do so. IIRC some of these people never really learn to see the world the way sighted people do, even though their eyes are now fully functional. I would imagine that similar problems mi

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.

Working...