Sperm

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You should really be using condoms you know.

Wise words.

 

I'm guessing that you've now given up using the spit technique then.

 

There's a technique?

[Terse]

The experiment was only partly successful. Students said that it didn't pass the taste test.

[Stavros]

There's a technique?

Are you saying you have natural talent?

[Chinahand]

PZ Myers at Pharyngula takes aim at those dreaming up Frankenstein as a reason to stop basic, sensible research into bio-chemistry.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

There's a technique?

Are you saying you have natural talent?

 

I have no idea. It all just sounds frightfully rude, it is a disgusting habit.

[VinnieK]

"manimal", "rethuglicans", and "dimocrats"? Is PZ Meyers in fact a ten year old?

 

He makes some good points, but this is the kind of the thing I was talking about in the previous post. I'm broadly in favour of the research, but now the idea of a petulant Meyers seething away in his office until he goes mad and is carted away screaming "Dimotwats, you're all Dimotwats!" and soiling himself all the way to the insane asylum adds some considerable weight to the argument for banning it.

 

First rule of public relations: Don't call the people you're trying to turn around to your way of thinking a bunch of asshats for not agreeing with you in the first place. Especially if said people have some say in allocating scientific funding.

[Chinahand]

PZ Myers fully admits he's a jester - this gives a pretty good idea of his philosophy - which isn't totally beyond the pale.

 

I don't think his role is diplomat for science - and I don't think he'd see it as that either - and are you really saying he's adding to the argument for banning such research?

[VinnieK]

I don't think his role is diplomat for science - and I don't think he'd see it as that either - and are you really saying he's adding to the argument for banning such research?

 

No, I'm suggesting that his combative approach only serves to preach to the choir, alienate others and polarize such debates, reducing the public discussion of science to a grandstanding, adversarial tit for tat, and that this only harms the case scientists want to make. It wouldn't be so bad if he was witty and erudite, but, c'mon: "rethuglican"? That's akin to the truly dreadful "new liebour". As for his role, well he may not have intended to act as a spokesman for science, but through taking part in public debates, documentaries, and what have you, that's what he's become in practical terms.

 

Personally, I find it vaguely embarassing, if not outright depressing that some who aspire to speak on behalf of science have adopted the very same crowing, bombastic attitude that often characterises those who speak against it, it's just partisan nonsense carried out by people old enough to know better.

[Chinahand]

I do think properly understanding the issues around bioethics is one of the big challenges in medicine etc at the moment.

 

I typed bioethics into google, pressed videos and found

.

 

Its long, but I watched it last night and think it is a good rational response, much of which I can agree with.

 

Spend a while thinking about her quiz questions and have the patience to wait to listen to the answers, or skip to the end!

 

The answer for this one, is interesting!

 

You can make an organism in your lab, one you think could be turned to wide environmental applications.

It is also useful for treating a widespread human condition, a motor disorder: this condition interferes with their ability to work and to increased risk of social isolation.

The current treatment for their condition is expensive and has signficant social effects and toxicities.

But your synthetic bio-device will have side effects too - you will be manipulating DNA in complex ways. You will be surely creating an "enhanced" form of a naturally occurring organism, far more powerful and unpredictable.

You will engender new opportunistic bacteria that might spread disease.

The ecological effects may be troubling, and many say that the waste products that the organism will create have no safe method of disposal - the water supply may be contaminated.

There will be a chance of human animal relationships that do not exist with unknown consequences.

 

Do you carry on?

When the prof applies this logic to an existing "bio-device" it is likely that your answer will change!

[VinnieK]

Interesting question. I'd have to issue a preliminary "no" to the first scenario, and hence the same answer to the second.

 

The difficulty I have with the scenario is not the origin of the organism, but this:

 

1. The environmental applications are unspecified,

 

2. "It is also useful for treating a widespread human condition, a motor disorder: this condition interferes with their ability to work and to increased risk of social isolation".

 

In short, the stakes are too low and the risks too high: contaminated water supplies and unpredictable new bacteria versus more people able to dance and vague environmental benefits.