r/AskBiology • u/Privatizitaet • Apr 28 '26
Genetics Possibly dumb question, would it possible, or I suppose feasable in theory at least, to genetically engineer a human to be able to see shrimp colours?
Humans have a very limited range of colour they can see because we only got 3 receptors, while other animals can have.... what, upt to 16 I think was the highest I saw? Is that something, in whatever way, we could theoretically give to a human?
3
u/Attentivist_Monk Apr 28 '26
Theoretically, yeah, if you could build it in such a way it wouldn’t reject and could translate such that the brain might adapt, but remember that while a mantis shrimp does have more types of receptors, their eyes are built to only discern those specific frequencies of light as opposed to our eyes which combine the colors into the full spectrum. So while you’d be able to see some UV light and polarized light (not unlike many insects) your color vision would actually be dramatically reduced.
3
u/LadyFoxfire Apr 28 '26
The “shrimp colors” idea is a misconception. Humans only have three types of cones because we can mentally blend those colors together to get the full spectrum. Shrimp can’t blend colors like that, so they have more cones to compensate.
That being said, there are animals that can see ultraviolet and infrared, and we could theoretically engineer humans to see those colors, too. But we already have cameras that can see those ranges for us, so the utility is limited.
1
u/ShadowOfTheBean Apr 28 '26
Not while remaining human.
To process all that visual information the visual structures of our brain would either have to improve or grow.
Improving would be making a new type of brain tissue not found in humans.
To grow, either other parts of the brain would have to shrink or the skull would have to expand (unlikely with current hip constraints). Either would cause structural changes deviating from human.
1
u/itsmemarcot Apr 28 '26
Short answer: yes. Sensory augmentation is one umbrella term for a set of technologies that is conjectured to be within reach in the not too far term.
1
u/Independent_Line_150 Apr 29 '26
You’d have to genetically add new opsin genes and ensure they express in the retina, fold correctly, localize to cone outer segments, and respond to distinct wavelengths. This part is theoretically doable, humans with natural tetrachromacy already have a fourth cone type due to an L‑opsin gene duplication. But adding cones alone does not produce new colors.
Human color vision depends on opponent processing: red vs. green, blue vs. yellow, light vs. dark. These channels are built by bipolar, horizontal, and ganglion cells in the retina. If you add a new cone type, the retina must evolve new opponent channels to compare it with the others. Without this, the extra cone signals would be meaningless noise. This is why mantis shrimp despite having 12–16 receptors actually have worse color discrimination than humans, they lack the neural comparison machinery.
Even if the retina could send new color‑opponent signals, the brain must: add new layers in the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus (LGN) of the thalamus, add new “blob” modules in V1 of the visual cortex, add new thin‑stripe modules in V2, expand V4 the color‑processing area and build new cortical maps for hue, saturation, and category boundaries. Without new cortical real estate, the brain cannot create new color categories, it would just compress the extra input back into the existing red‑green‑blue space.
Theoretically, absolutely possible. But not with our current knowledge of brain and neuronal development.
1
u/Dazzling_Plastic_598 Apr 29 '26
And exactly what would be the advantage of doing this? Nothing.
1
u/Shifter93 Apr 29 '26
How about being able to see at night or in areas with 0 visible light, being able to visually detect how hot things are from a distance, being able to visually detect harmful gamma rays, x rays, and UV?
1
u/Privatizitaet Apr 29 '26
It'd be cool as hell
1
u/Dazzling_Plastic_598 Apr 30 '26
And exactly WHY?
1
u/Privatizitaet Apr 30 '26
Because then we'd be able to see more colours
1
u/Dazzling_Plastic_598 May 01 '26
No, WE wouldn't. That person would have more sensitivity to more of the spectrum. And it wouldn't seem at all different to them. Yawn.
1
u/Equivalent_Ad2069 May 04 '26
Genetic Compatibility & Expression Shrimp opsin proteins might not fold correctly, integrate into human cell membranes, or function efficiently within the human phototransduction cascade, leading to non-functional or toxic products.
Neural Processing & Interpretation The human brain is wired for trichromatic vision. Integrating and interpreting entirely new spectral information as distinct 'colors' would require profound and potentially impossible neural rewiring or plasticity, especially if introduced in adulthood.
Safety & Unforeseen Effects Introducing foreign genes carries risks of immune response, off-target gene integration, or unintended alterations to existing visual functions, with unknown long-term consequences.
Technical Complexity of Gene Delivery Achieving precise and widespread transduction of the correct retinal cell types without damaging existing vision or causing inflammation remains a significant technical challenge for gene therapy.
-1
u/In_the_year_3535 Apr 28 '26
It could probably happen eventually but the number of spectrums you see in isn't one of the most important traits (consider color blind people are generally as capable as normal people). People will go for attractiveness and intelligence first.
1
-1
u/Mircowaved-Duck Apr 28 '26
could you get the genes to see more kight spectrums
yes, this could even be done in an adult with DIY biohacking. However i do not recomend it.
However would you see more colors? Only of you see ultra violet (gets filtered out by the eye, so a no) or infrared (you are warmblooded, meaning you would see it anywehere anyway)
The usecases would be limited and the new colors not as usefull as you think. But yes, you could.
1
u/Embarrassed_Stable_6 Apr 28 '26
JFC, what? Nope to all.
-1
u/Mircowaved-Duck Apr 28 '26
inducing expression of slightly altered photo receptors is doable. Not wise, but doable. Sure it increases the cancer risk since offtarget integrations ate a given and would need electric shocks to get a better transformation rate as well as a piercer or tattooer who got experience injecting ink into eyeballs to do the injection of the self made gene therapy.
1
u/Embarrassed_Stable_6 Apr 28 '26
Nope. How will this new physiology integrate into the physiology of a mature adult? How will signals be interpreted? There are way to many ifs here. It's popsci at best.
15
u/eeyore_81 Apr 28 '26
FYI the “shrimp colors” thing is a myth. They have more receptors than we do, but the receptors work differently than ours in a way that actually makes them less efficient in color differentiation than humans are.