Joined: May 25 2006 Posts: 8893 Location: Garth's Darkplace.
McClennan wrote:It's a light entertainment TV programme and all he's doing is putting up an argument to get some ratings. However, there is a serious issue there up for debate and on genetics I don't think we've really had any sort of in-depth discussion as to where this should go. I can't see how we can just dive into genetic research without establishing guidelines, processes, ethical responsiblities etc., about the issue.
Perhaps there's somebody on here who is involved in this area who can give us an insight as to what the issues are. I'm not skeptical about the case for genetics but I'm not that aware of the risks/dangers that need to be considered especially when you start getting into patents and the like. It's not dissimilar to the work that Craig Venter does, in that is prompts question which require detailed discussion and resolution before it gets out of control.
There is constant debate regarding the course and ethics of genetic research. Scientists are acutely aware of the implications and many are uncomfortable progressing work like this without an ethical framework in place, which there usually is. The same can be said for stem cell research. There is a growing perception (in my opinion) that scientists are heartless and will simply perform any experiment they see fit if they believe it advances their research regardless of the feelings of anyone else or the use to mankind as a whole. This simply isn't true. There are always mavericks or publicity hunters in any walk of life who will try and make personal advantage by being "controversial" etc. That's just the way people work. They shouldn't be seen as representative of established science and their potential actions should not be used as an excuse to restrict the mainstream from doing extremely valuable work.
McClennan wrote:It's a light entertainment TV programme and all he's doing is putting up an argument to get some ratings. However, there is a serious issue there up for debate and on genetics I don't think we've really had any sort of in-depth discussion as to where this should go. I can't see how we can just dive into genetic research without establishing guidelines, processes, ethical responsiblities etc., about the issue.
Perhaps there's somebody on here who is involved in this area who can give us an insight as to what the issues are. I'm not skeptical about the case for genetics but I'm not that aware of the risks/dangers that need to be considered especially when you start getting into patents and the like. It's not dissimilar to the work that Craig Venter does, in that is prompts question which require detailed discussion and resolution before it gets out of control.
There is constant debate regarding the course and ethics of genetic research. Scientists are acutely aware of the implications and many are uncomfortable progressing work like this without an ethical framework in place, which there usually is. The same can be said for stem cell research. There is a growing perception (in my opinion) that scientists are heartless and will simply perform any experiment they see fit if they believe it advances their research regardless of the feelings of anyone else or the use to mankind as a whole. This simply isn't true. There are always mavericks or publicity hunters in any walk of life who will try and make personal advantage by being "controversial" etc. That's just the way people work. They shouldn't be seen as representative of established science and their potential actions should not be used as an excuse to restrict the mainstream from doing extremely valuable work.
"Well, I think in Rugby League if you head butt someone there's normally some repercusions"
Joined: May 25 2006 Posts: 8893 Location: Garth's Darkplace.
Rock God X wrote:For a more balanced view, you should have watched Horizon the other night. Perhaps you did.
Spider goat had me fascinated. Not disimilar to the process of producing therapeutic proteins on an industrial scale using genes implanted in bacteria and yeast.
I don't work in genomic applications though, proteomics and translational medicine is where I operate. Proteomics will be the new revolution once the tools are in place.
"Well, I think in Rugby League if you head butt someone there's normally some repercusions"
Dally wrote:Ultimately, as a species, we will at some point in the future realise it would have been better not to develop science as it will have sown the seeds of our destruction - we are hunter gatherers and in the long-run that's the only way we could have survived as a species.
You really are a fooking idiot.
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
Joined: Sep 22 2011 Posts: 833 Location: Waiting for a pint in West London
Anyway, moving up a level in thought, IMO science has achieved many short-term gains for humanity but I see it as a long-term tool for destruction. We seem to be entering a phase were we will increasngly rely on science to bail us out from the disasters caused by environmental degradation, which is itself the result of excessive population sustained by technological advance. Ultimately, as a species, we will at some point in the future realise it would have been better not to develop science as it will have sown the seeds of our destruction - we are hunter gatherers and in the long-run that's the only way we could have survived as a species.[/quote]
So Evolution from Hunter gatherer to Modern humans to whatever we become in the far future is all doomed because Our brains are too big??
This year I want to see Us going forward in the last 5 minutes even if we are 40 points up.
Like all humans you are programmed for short-term thinking - to survive daily. Part of the reason for many modern ills - including, obesity. However, one must extract oneself from that mindset from time to time to consider the broader, long term issues.
Dally wrote:Like all humans you are programmed for short-term thinking - to survive daily. Part of the reason for many modern ills - including, obesity. However, one must extract oneself from that mindset from time to time to consider the broader, long term issues.
I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
DHM wrote:Spider goat had me fascinated. Not disimilar to the process of producing therapeutic proteins on an industrial scale using genes implanted in bacteria and yeast.
I found the diesel thing quite interesting as well. Is it really possible that they could produce enough of this type of fuel to significantly reduce oil dependency? Obviously it's not a long term solution as it still produces carbon emissions, but it might be a useful stop gap given the situation in Iran and other oil-rich countries.
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 79 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
