Slashdot Mirror


MIT Certifies Biological Engineering Major

chrisd writes "In same week that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney reitereates his opposition to stem cell research, MIT has certified its first new major in 29 years, Biological Engineering. The boston globe has a solid writeup about the biotech major."

305 comments

  1. They've already hired one professor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The name's Sinister. Mr. Sinister. Specializing in mutations.

  2. Rat-rights people just as bad. by Eunuch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is fascinating, but the writeup is pure flamebait. I know most geeks are atheists who don't grock all this "religion", but we'd do better to ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway. This stuff will just move to Singapore or the like as the backwards people oppose it. I'm studying neuroscience, and I have more problems with rat-rights or monkey-rights people (who may be in a different political party).

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
    1. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you actually believe most people who study civilizations and culture, the religious people will have a big say in the future. Societies tend to cycle between hardcore relgious and scientific thoughts, and we're heading back towards the religious side. Or you don't see it coming?

    2. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does this negate my degree in Phernology? The Dean did mention there might be a few bumps in the road...

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    3. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I can't really think of an past culture who had anything like the scientific method. The Greeks came closest, I suppose, and the Chinese were in the neighborhood, though they mixed a goodly amount of mysticism into it.

      The scientific method, as it has evolved since its chief origins in the Enlightenment, is a very new tool for exploring and understanding the natural world. As well, it isn't necessarily incompatible with religious beliefs, unless those beliefs are utterly absurd (like "the Earth is only 6000 years old" or "there was a global flood").

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by mboverload · · Score: 1
      Rat-rights? Who the hell are these people?

      Relgion needs a "hot topic" to stay relevent. It is a great PR idea created centuries ago to keep this man-made idea of relgion in the spotlight. It is to keep the people's minds off the absurdity of "god" creating light before he "made" stars.

    5. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      we'd do better to ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway

      nice plan, except that these 'religious types' are running our country and control much of the funding for research.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    6. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by mboverload · · Score: 1
      Well if Bush keeps it up we will have a "global flood"

      What god did not create the republicans will, hehe.

    7. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Science isn't in compatable with faith, it's almost always incompatable with religion. There is a *big* difference in those two aspects of spirituality.

    8. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by Reignking · · Score: 1

      Relgion needs a "hot topic" to stay relevent.

      I suppose that priests behaving badly is not the "hot topic" that you speak of...

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    9. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, most civiliations do not ocilate. The more developed ones tend towards more logical thinking and less fanatism. Witness, where Iran, Afghanastan, and the USA is at today vs. more developed countries such as most in the EU, Japan, etc.

    10. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by mboverload · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      But our country is being run into the ground. Currently we are entering a small "dark ages." However, history has shown humanity cycles from reason to religion so there is no reason to believe in a century or so we will be back at the top.

      Even better, thanks to the new-found storage abilities no knowledge we be lost. Just for the hell of it I am arching important papers and "inventions" I find on the internet. This was mostly just to keep cool stuff I found within easy reach but it has taken on a new meaning.

      However, a generation of bright-mind individuals with be wasted.

    11. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The study of pherns? Or maybe you meant phrenology.

    12. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I know most geeks are atheists who don't grock all this "religion", but we'd do better to ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway

      The fact that this got modded up as insightful is truly a sign of the unenlightened times we now live in.

    13. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by WaterBreath · · Score: 1

      Two things, from someone fairly "center":

      1) I'd be willing to bet a majority of the rat-rights people are peace-nick lefties, not right-wing nut-jobs.

      2) The general concensus, as far as I've read, is that at the beginning of the universe, before atoms had formed, there were subatomic particles, and a whole heckuva a lot of electromagnetic waves (a.k.a. light, for the physics-challenged). And that was hundreds of thousands of years before any stars formed.

    14. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm talking over the last 3000 years, not the last 300.

    15. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by Amiga+Trombone · · Score: 1

      I know most geeks are atheists who don't grock all this "religion", but we'd do better to ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway. This stuff will just move to Singapore or the like as the backwards people oppose it. I'm studying neuroscience, and I have more problems with rat-rights or monkey-rights people (who may be in a different political party).

      You're telling me! Between the rat-rights people on the political Left, and the religious cranks on the political Right, I'm surprised the human race ever made it out of the caves.

      I'd like to tie their tails together and throw them over a clothesline.

    16. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      The more developed ones tend towards more logical thinking and less fanatism. Witness, where Iran, Afghanastan, and the USA is at today vs. more developed countries such as most in the EU, Japan, etc.

      I think you need a better grasp of history. Look at the values nations you listed such as Japan, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc. at circa 1890, circa 1940, and circa 2000. You definitely see an oscillation between values that prize reason, adventure, and openness vs. values that prize moral rigidity, fanatical worship, and xenophobia.

      Left to right, secular to relgious, etc. swings happen even in Japan and the EU. The current secular dominance of thought in Europe post WW2 cannot fully be considered to be permanent sign of "development" in such a short time when considered against the backdrop of world history.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    17. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      just to mention, having a global flood is not really out of the question, if you look at it with some common sense.

      I large scale flood of populated areas 5 thousand years ago isn't very hard to imagine at all, everyone lived near water. If some large scale flooding occurred for one of many reasons, including postulated ideas like a meteor impact in the meditteranean sea, there could have very well been a global flood.

      Just remember, global could very well mean the area that these people knew about, not with the literal meaning of the entire planet. Two separate religions have this actually, the Jewish religions(including christianity and I believe Islam holds the same belief) and Hinduism.

      but of course, when people read these things out of context, of course they are going to sound absurd. thats why all these things fall under the regime of faith, if it had to be scientific we couldn't change our interpretation of these things as we our sensibilities demanded.

    18. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The reason, I suspect, that so many civilizations talk of floods is that most civilizations grew up along rivers. Whether it was the Sumerians, Egyptians, Indians or Chinese, these cultures flourished in major river basins known for some substantial flooding.

      The point is not that the Biblical flood myth (lifted from Mesopotomian sources much older) could have some basis in an actual event, but rather the modern Literalist belief that because the Bible says the world was covered in water above even the highest mountains, then that must have happened, even if there is no evidence at all for it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    19. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      Rat-rights? Who the hell are these people?

      Ever heard of PeTA?

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    20. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by Lew+Payne · · Score: 1

      Watch what you say... or I'll report you to my invisible friend, thus sealing your fate. Repent now, and my invisible friend will forgive you.

    21. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should actually read what the bible says instead of arbitrarily misquoting it. Here is what it actually says:

      First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

      Now one could theorize before "Let there be light" that the stars were masses that hadn't yet been jump started, and after that jump start there was light.

    22. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by jdog1016 · · Score: 1

      > This is fascinating, but the writeup is pure
      > flamebait.

      Your entire comment is flamebait. Or, I suppose you meant nothing offensive by the statement "we'd do better to ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway"?

      There is a huge difference between animal rights and religion.

    23. Re:Rat-rights people just as bad. by peamasii · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "these 'religious types' are running our country"

      Yeah, and the majority of people appears to support their bigoted, unscientific, regressive views.

  3. What Romney Said. by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Informative

    Romney said last week he favors allowing research on existing embryonic stem cells taken from embryos that would otherwise be discarded by fertility clinics , but he would seek to outlaw the creation of embryos specifically for research.

    ''Lofty goals do not justify the creation of life for experimentation and destruction," Romney wrote in a letter to Senate President Robert E. Travaglini.

    1. Re:What Romney Said. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's just moreau the same...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:What Romney Said. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. mod parent up. I love it how facts are blurred for political gain. Typical slashdot oversight.

      "I sometimes think that God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability." -- Oscar Wilde

    3. Re:What Romney Said. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's destructive about allowing a paralyzed woman to walk again?

      Romney's angling to become the next President of the Republican Party, he doesn't care one whit about anything else.

    4. Re:What Romney Said. by ChrisTower · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The President of the Senate is actually Vice President Dick Chaney. Robert Travaglini is currently the President of the Mass State Senate.

    5. Re:What Romney Said. by mboverload · · Score: 1

      I fully support making embryos for research. I would rather cure cancer than have another screaming baby in my favorite theater.

    6. Re:What Romney Said. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree; we should use embryos for research. It means much less work for me having to shove babies into my baby mulching machine.

    7. Re:What Romney Said. by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      Karma +1 - Completely tasteless.

    8. Re:What Romney Said. by WaterBreath · · Score: 1
      Well, if the embryo wasn't made in the first place, then there's no way it could become another screaming baby anywhere, let alone your favorite theator.

      I do think there's an inherent difference between making embryos explicitly with the intention of killing them and using them for research, compared to making embryos with the intention of allowing infertile couples to have children, and giving the ones that would otherwise die unused to the researchers.

      Although that brings to light the question of whether fertility clinics are "ethical" either.

    9. Re:What Romney Said. by Concern+Is+A+Faggot · · Score: 1

      Karma +1 - Completely tasteless. ...but very funny!

      --
      Help! Help! I've been moded down by a Jewish conspiracy!
    10. Re:What Romney Said. by sadler121 · · Score: 1

      Which is odd, his fellow Mormon's in the Senate are for embryonic steam cell research, to the dismay of fellow Republicans. Though it is not surprising, radical, fundamentalist Christianity says life starts at conception, but because of a Mormon belief in a pre mortal life, the jury is still out on when the should enters the body. This, therefore allows a greater latitude toward such things as stem cell research. A similar point of view also leads to a more liberal policy towards such things as abortion (main stream Christianity does not believe, for the most part, that there should be any allowances for abortion. With in Mormonism, abortion is except able in cases of rape, incest, or when the health of the mother is at risk.)

  4. Good idea by ReeprFlame · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Its about time a good college combined two technologies that will combine to provide great results. Biotech... We needed something like this for a while...

    1. Re:Good idea by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      Its about time a good college combined two technologies that will combine to provide great results. Biotech... We needed something like this for a while...

      Bio-engineering and Computer Technology?

      "nice prototype, what do you call it?"
      "T1000, it's capable lifting heavy weights, demolition and governing California"

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  5. Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Biological Engineering major does not necessarily have anything to do with the embryonic stem cell research that Gov. Romney proposes. But we will waive this point. We look over it.

  6. In other news by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Funny

    All MIT geeks rushed to change their major in the hopes that they could engineer the perfect female obje^H^H^H^H companion that would get them laid.

    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already know how. It's explained completely in the documentary "Weird Science."

    2. Re:In other news by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Pff who needs to engineer a perfect female when you have the fuck truck :-P

    3. Re:In other news by Reignking · · Score: 1

      These were the same students that majored in "Ecommerce"...

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    4. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Boy !! you got it all wrong ,if its an XX (two X chromosomes ) the chances that MIT guys get laid is remote :-)

    5. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they'd prolly be happier with an object.

    6. Re:In other news by tim256 · · Score: 1
      Maybe someday one of them will start a business and take orders for the perfect female. It will be kind of like the realistic life-sized dolls that are currently on the market, but much better.

      They just need to figure out how to make animals grow super fast or make them be born full grown like in Space: Above and Beyond. Only then will our dreams of having a stupid but beautiful woman to command come true.

  7. major step forward by kevinx · · Score: 2, Funny

    This would have been a degree that I would have been interested in. This is a field that has a whole lot of growth potential. Hopefully with students flocking to this profession we will see some major innovation.

    1. Re:major step forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whole lot of growth potential

      Of course it has "growth potential"- this is biological engineering. You want a 2-ton pig, you make a 2-ton pig...

    2. Re:major step forward by Stanistani · · Score: 1

      >a 2-ton pig...

      Which would count as "one serving?"

  8. Well well.. by PopeAlien · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one welcome our genetic engineering overlords.

    now lets get on that woodchuck problem

    1. Re:Well well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As much as I hate those /. redundant-jokes, I think this one's actually insightful. This field of bio-engineering is very likely to dominate technology over the next century or so and produce Gates-like overlords that will rule society in much the same way the railroad barrons did long ago.

      If you're back at the age of choosing a major; or considering re-educating yourselves now that software is no longer a "high tech" field, I'd strongly encourage people to consider this field. Great things will happen in bio-engineering in our lifetime.

    2. Re:Well well.. by Phidoux · · Score: 1

      It is kinda ironic that our anti-overload's name is Mitt?

  9. ummm.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article seems like it's just trying to egg on a flamewar. You could replace the first half with anything, really...

    "In same week that United States President George W. Bush reitereates his opposition to biological WMD, MIT has certified its first new major in 29 years, Biological Engineering. The boston globe has a solid writeup about the biotech major."

  10. Wahoo by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is one of the technologies that really do scare me. But I'm excited to see it moving forward

  11. Submitter majored in reading comprehension by cpeikert · · Score: 3, Informative

    It says (right in the headline!) that BME is a minor, and BE might become a major.

    1. Re:Submitter majored in reading comprehension by cpeikert · · Score: 1

      ...the Boston Globe article says that it comes up to a vote of the faculty today. So it hasn't been approved yet, but probably will ... (?)

      The real question is which course number it would take! My guess is XIII (formerly ocean engineering), which was dropped late last year. Yep, lucky Course 13.

    2. Re:Submitter majored in reading comprehension by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I have a feeling they might just call it BE, much like CMS. The Ivy-Leaguing of MIT continutes. *sigh*

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  12. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They already have those...they're called MDs or biochemists, depending on focus. But I guess at MIT the like to invent 'gnu' stuff.

    1. Re:Meh by randomiam · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Speaking as someone who has a degree in biochemistry and chemical engineering I take issue with this statement. Biochemists are 'usually' interested in single pieces, or small sections of the whole; while engineers are more focused on systems and applications. Over the next deacade, I think there will be need for both approaches.

      MIT's not alone in looking into biological engineering, either. SUNY at Buffalo's chemical engineering department changed its name to 'chemical and biological' engineering last year. While there haven't been any curriculum changes yet, I'm told that they'll start arriving once folks get a handle on what a biological engineering curriculum should look like.

    2. Re:Meh by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      They already have those...they're called MDs or biochemists, depending on focus. But I guess at MIT the like to invent 'gnu' stuff.

      Open Sores technology?

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  13. We need more medical schools. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We got enough techies.
    What we need is more M.D.s.
    When was the last time a new medical school was built in this country?

    More frontline troops is more important that more R&D drones.

    1. Re:We need more medical schools. by cosinezero · · Score: 0

      Kurzweil might disagree...

  14. Nice writeup. by helix400 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hmm...starting your article with a misleading flamewar rant against a politician? It's right on par with Slashdot's level of professionalism.

    1. Re:Nice writeup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny you know, knock something as "unprofessional" which is never intended to be. I see another bridge must have collapsed and you're just looking for a new home.

    2. Re:Nice writeup. by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative
      In case anyone is confused because they didn't RTFA, here's the opening paragraphs (emphasis mine):

      WASHINGTON -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy yesterday blasted Governor Mitt Romney's proposal to ban the cloning of embryos for stem cell research, saying the governor's approach would rob Massachusetts of the benefits of one of the most promising areas of scientific research.

      Romney, meanwhile, indicated he is open to new research as a compromise on the thorny ethical issue. On Friday, he is scheduled to be briefed on a method of generating embryonic stem cells without creating embryos.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Nice writeup. by anonicon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Hmm...starting your article with a misleading flamewar rant against a politician? It's right on par with Slashdot's level of professionalism."

      Oh, lighten up Francis. Slashdot is a glorified blog. It is neither a newspaper nor a professional media outlet a la Time, Fox, CNN, etc. Why do you expect it to be?

    4. Re:Nice writeup. by cavemanf16 · · Score: 1

      Heh, you mentioned several "respectable" news media outlets as "professional." That reminds me of an article in my local newspaper about two weeks ago that was meant as a humorous stereotyping of our local cities neighborhoods. What's sad is that the "journalist" gave no credits to the more humorous and candid email that was getting forwarded around my office earlier that week that was in essence THE EXACT SAME ARTICLE. The "journalist" of our "respected" city newspaper (The Columbus Dispatch) changed some stuff, chopped out some stuff to get the article to fit on a front page of that newspaper section, and claimed that bit as his own.

      Slashdot is bad, it's true, but I've lost much faith in the "professional" publications too. At least on Slashdot you can see the general consensus of the readership either refuting or bolstering the info presented on /.

    5. Re:Nice writeup. by helix400 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why do you expect it to be?

      I expect people to not be misleading. I don't care who they work for.

    6. Re:Nice writeup. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox??

    7. Re:Nice writeup. by mdmarkus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slashdot is a glorified blog. It is neither a newspaper nor a professional media outlet a la Time, Fox, CNN, etc. Why do you expect it to be?

      Err, because they charge money?

  15. Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering by ap0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Georgia Tech has had Biomedical Engineering offered as a major for a few years now. It's a pretty popular new major.

    1. Re:Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not bad for a 2nd tier school.

    2. Re:Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering by Neil+Blender · · Score: 1

      The University of Washington (my alma) has had a Bio Engineering Department since 1967. They have undergrad and grad programs.

    3. Re:Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering by babokd · · Score: 1, Informative

      Sorry but Biomedical Engineering is different from what they are proposing. Biomedical Engineering deals mostly with biomedical instrumentation, which for the most part is like traditional engineering except it deals with tools used on living organisms.

    4. Re:Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Well, that concept is not exactly new.

    5. Re:Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, it still somehow remains on tier 1. Hopefully it will be bumped soon.

    6. Re:Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering by UWC · · Score: 1

      Vanderbilt, being closely tied to the research hospital of the same name, has offered Biomedical Engineering in the School of Engineering for a while now, and it's a pretty popular major among the more determined engineers there.

    7. Re:Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering by goldragon · · Score: 1

      Hey UWC, I'm an '02 graduate with my BE in BME. Did you graduate from Vandy?

    8. Re:Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering by UWC · · Score: 1

      Yup! '04 CompE here.

    9. Re:Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering by undergroundflip · · Score: 1

      Well after all MIT is the Georgia Tech of the North.

    10. Re:Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering by bjomo · · Score: 1

      Biomedical Engineering is NOT Biological Engineering

    11. Re:Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering by Synbiosis · · Score: 1

      Which I learned a year too late. I'm currently in my second semester as a BME major at Washington University In St. Louis.

      Bioengineering is what I was looking for.

    12. Re:Georgia Tech Biomedical Engineering by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty expensive mistake. Taking engineering at university, I swear that 75% of the students had no idea what they were getting into. Before you apply, you should really look into the courses you will be taking. I'm glad that I didn't accidentally take computer engineering and have to do all that electrical engineering stuff that was part of the curriculum.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  16. The motivation is religious. by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    And emotional. That's what's dangerous.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
    1. Re:The motivation is religious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You don't have to be religious to find the creation of embryos for research offensive.

    2. Re:The motivation is religious. by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Could you explain this, please? Without the concept of a soul being in the embryo, how can one feel pity/sadness for something that doesn't even have neurons yet, let alone the ability for cognition?

      --
      "Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh) ... "coccoon can do."
    3. Re:The motivation is religious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realise that you're admitting that being human requires a soul, right? Which is not what you are wanting to do, I think.

    4. Re:The motivation is religious. by mboverload · · Score: 1

      I think an embryo would rather help human kind than slowly rot in a garbage can.

    5. Re:The motivation is religious. by timster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Technically all he said was that you don't have to be religious to find it offensive. This is as obvious as it is meaningless -- I know people who find mushrooms offensive. The proper flamebait response is "you don't have to be religious, but you do have to be stupid."

      Before we start a flamewar we should be sure to use good kindling, right?

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    6. Re:The motivation is religious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And while we're on the subject of thinking embryos, how many do you think would like to be created just to be used for research?

    7. Re:The motivation is religious. by Altus · · Score: 1



      I believe you are misreading him... he said "without the concept of a soul being in the embryo"

      I took this to mean that if you dont believe that the embryo has some kind of soul that you would have a hard time feeling bad for something that doesnt have the ability to cognate or feel... or even live on its own... what are you feeling bad for... its the functional equivalent of a group of skin cells.

      now if you believe in a soul and that the embryo at that stage has a soul then you might feel bad about its destruction.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    8. Re:The motivation is religious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Without the concept of a soul being in the embryo, how can one feel pity/sadness for something that is only comprised of energy and matter, a conglomeration thrown together through the randomness of evolution and chance?

      Without the concept of a soul, how can one feel pity/sadness for any organisms, including humans, that are only comprised of energy and matter, a conglomeration thrown together through the randomness of evolution and chance? After all--no matter how they're perceived by the particular organism--pain, anguish, cognition and the like are merely electrochemical processes.

    9. Re:The motivation is religious. by operagost · · Score: 1

      He said "creation of embryos." Embryos that are not created to be used for our own selfish needs will not rot in a garbage can. Your reading comprehension is no better than the Slashdot staff's.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:The motivation is religious. by timster · · Score: 1

      Evolution is not a random process. Randomness is involved, but the foundation is natural selection. Natural selection is not a random process; the decision is made by the natural world. The natural world is an artifact of divinity almost by definition.

      The other part of the question is harder to answer, but I'll give it a shot. The electric pulse of lightning has little meaning other than "something happened". Inside a CPU, it means something higher; it might be the right or wrong answer to a question. That comes from the complexity of a CPU. Inside a developed human brain, an electrical pulse has an even higher meaning like pain or pleasure.

      That's a completely simplistic answer but there has been lots of thought about this. You will find relatively few atheists or agnostics who do not believe in right and wrong, though, so obviously people are able to come to terms with that.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    11. Re:The motivation is religious. by ajs · · Score: 1

      "Without the concept of a soul, how can one feel pity/sadness for any organisms"

      Let me answer your question with another quote from your post:

      "pain, anguish, cognition and the like are merely electrochemical processes"

      Pity would fall under "and the like".

      We can regard our capacity for empathy, remorse and compasion as noble if we like, but that does not change the fact that they are simply responses to a stimulus as evidenced by recent research which has begun to track down where exactly in the brain visual empathy takes place.

      One wonders if aliens were to come to earth if they would not say, "poor things. Their lack of a soul means they have no capacity to [insert cryptic emotion we can't comprehend here]."

    12. Re:The motivation is religious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a stem cell has a soul - being technically a single celled organism , do bacteria also have souls?

      Shall we go and outlaw antibiotics because they "kill innocent bacteria" which also "have a soul" ?

      I think not.

    13. Re:The motivation is religious. by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the embryo had any choice in the mater I'd bet it would opt to live. Sacrifice for the betterment of humanity isn't granted by virtue of being able to think or reason. Look how many people don't donate their organs to others once they die or donate their body to science. In these two cases they aren't even going to use them anymore. In the embryo's case the embryo could use them.

      Not that I have any moral objections to any of this, I'm just thinning aloud about humanity.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    14. Re:The motivation is religious. by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Without the concept of a soul, how can one feel pity/sadness for any organisms

      And yet, we do. Clearly, we feel sadness for adults and children when they die. Most of us would feel sadness for a dog or cat, but not all. Some of us would feel sadness for a mouse; others wouldn't. Few of us would feel sadness for an insect. And almost none of us would feel sadness for an arbitrary glob of cells, even human cells, unless they saw them as a "person".

      We feel sadness when something dies that we view as having (to some degree) the trait of "humanity". Without a "soul" in an embryo, it is hard if not impossible to apply that trait to what is otherwise a small cluster of minimally differentiated cells. It doesn't look like a human; it doesn't think like a human; etc.

      Certainly, there is no "absolute meaning", no "absolute reason" to apply sadness to the loss of something showing "humanity"; however, there is no "absolute meaning" to anything in the world unless you're religious. Everything is as one defines it, and it's hard to find a person who defines their worldview in such a way that the loss of things with "humanity" is no big deal. Even the most brutal of dictators generally thinks that they're saving more humanity by destroying some of it.

      --
      "Well, then fire it up and show me what this..." (sigh) ... "coccoon can do."
    15. Re:The motivation is religious. by mboverload · · Score: 2, Insightful
      These embryos do not have that option.

      I don't know what the fuss is about, an embryo is just a egg treated with another cell. Women kill eggs all the time, wats the difference?

    16. Re:The motivation is religious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people find killing animals for food offensive. That doesn't mean they're religious.

    17. Re:The motivation is religious. by Paladin165 · · Score: 1

      Empathy is a necessary human function, empathy makes us feel "pity/sadness" as you put it when we recognize facial or other expressions of pain or suffering on another object (Of course empathy can also make us feel happy/hungry/tired, all sorts of other things too). Hell I even felt a twinge of sadness recently when I had to reformat a corrupted drive, as if the drive had actually died. .

      Thus one does not need to invoke the concept of a "soul" to feel sadness for some organism. In fact if you ask me that kind of sadness is usually pretty fake, owing as it does to a rather vague and abstract idea.

      The empathy function will make certain types of bio research difficult to stomach.

      While the empathy function is present to a greater or lesser degree in different individuals (perhaps lesser in slashdotters?), it cannot be eliminated from the human psyche because it plays an integral role in reproduction.

      Also, evolution is hardly "randomness".

    18. Re:The motivation is religious. by sosegumu · · Score: 1
      Inside a developed human brain, an electrical pulse has an even higher meaning like pain or pleasure.

      Isn't what actually happens is that it is perceived as pain or pleasure. I know it sounds nitpicky, but there is a distinction and, in the end, it is in reality still only an electrochemical process.

      Atheistically, what is the function of pain? According to some, pain only serves as a biological warning system to prevent or minimize damage. My computer has AV software that performs the same function and I don't feel an emotional/empathetic response for my computer when it detects as a virus. I understand that this is an imperfect analogy, but I still think it is apropos. So, in the absence of the existence of a soul, I ask you to explain to me why should I care if an organism is experiencing/perceiving pain?

      You will find relatively few atheists or agnostics who do not believe in right and wrong, though, so obviously people are able to come to terms with that.

      You seem like a thoughtful person engaging in the discussion in an honest and genuine way, but I have a little trouble seeing how this the second part of the preceding sentence has much weight in terms of supporting the first part. After all, while you will also find relatively few theists who do not believe in some sort of God, that does not necessarily mean that they are able to come to terms with the 'if God created the universe, who created God?' conundrum.

      I hope you don't think that I'm being an ass, but I just cannot find any credible answer to a number of atheistic/agnostic positions and this is one of them. However, inconsistencies abound, and to be fair, there are quite a few theistic positions that I have trouble with as well.

      --
      It's easier to wear the spandex than to do the crunches. --David Lee Roth
    19. Re:The motivation is religious. by Saeger · · Score: 1

      They're not STUPID (if not religious), it's just that they have irrational empathy for a lump of cells that has "human potential". A lot of overlap with the anthropomorphizing animal rights crowd too. IMO.

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    20. Re:The motivation is religious. by sosegumu · · Score: 1

      We can regard our capacity for empathy, remorse and compasion as noble if we like, but that does not change the fact that they are simply responses to a stimulus as evidenced by recent research which has begun to track down where exactly in the brain visual empathy takes place.

      If I were coming from a naturalistic or atheistic/agnostic position, I would agree with that. And I could see how the perception of these emotions would be an evolutionary advantage for group survival etc. But if emotions are merely electrochemical pulses, what would that be wrong (in an ethical sense) with ignoring or even causing pain in others?

      And if it were not wrong, where does that lead us? I'm not claiming to have any answers--just questions.

      --
      It's easier to wear the spandex than to do the crunches. --David Lee Roth
    21. Re:The motivation is religious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but if they're never created, isn't that the same as death? Either way, they are denied life. It is our duty to avoid depriving them of life.

      The only way to do that is to create as many embryos as we possibly can. Just as the bible forbade spilling seed, we must see to it that no egg goes unfertilized. Of course, conception should only occur within the confines of marriage, so clearly we as a society must force all people to marry as soon as they become fertile, and require them to procreate at the maximum possible rate.

      The conclusion may sound strange, but the moral logic behind banning the creation of stem cells for research requires such a conclusion. Look on the bright side-if this was ever done, everybody on slashdot would actually get laid.

    22. Re:The motivation is religious. by ajs · · Score: 1

      "what would [...] be wrong (in an ethical sense) with ignoring or even causing pain in others?

      And if it were not wrong, where does that lead us? I'm not claiming to have any answers--just questions."


      You're getting into what objective right and wrong are. There are plenty of books on the topic, and I suggest you read them. Slashdot is not the right place to get into something so complex.

      The simple answer is that there is nothing about being a chemical soup that prevents you from structuring the kind of society in which you would want to live. The concept of fairness is very much a survival trait, in ensuring that unfairness to us is viewed with scorn.

      To put it in other terms: you don't need a god or a soul to make the world a better place to live.

    23. Re:The motivation is religious. by timster · · Score: 1

      This is veering rapidly offtopic, and I didn't really mean to go into this much depth or assert a general principle. The main thrust of my post was to reject the assertion that evolution is a random process; the rest was mostly an afterthought. I'll try to address your questions a little though.

      Many religious people (not all) believe in some kind of dualism, where what we think of as the "physical world" is only part of reality, and supernatural entities exist. This creates a structure where events in the physical world have no moral relevance, but damage to these supernatural entities does.

      Atheists in general believe that there are no supernatural entities. It's harder to figure out what morality should be this way, since there is no clear distinction when everything is made up of the same stuff.

      As for the question of why you should care about an organism's pain if there is not a supernatural entity in pain, there are a large number of answers to that, so I'm not surprised you haven't found consistency. Some ignore the "should" aspect and tell you that you care because you evolved that way. Others will point out that it is generally profitable for you; society works better when people care.

      Personally I don't see what the difference is between a supernatural soul and a natural one. In other words, we can all agree on the experience of consciousness, and we can call that a "soul" even if it exists only in the physical world.

      Returning to the original discussion: we've barely started studying the brain in any serious way, but it seems clear that consciousness, if it is a physical phenomenon, is largely based there. We can be almost sure that it is not based in the DNA, and that consciousness, or a soul if you like, is not present in an embryo. From this perspective an embryo simply has no soul and can be treated as a mere physical object.

      But most importantly -- evolution is not a random process!

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    24. Re:The motivation is religious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's saying that one can't feel pity or believe it has the ability for cognition if it doesn't have a soul. Extend that to a born human. Clearly atheists believe Humans have the ability for cognition. And that they can be pitied. Therefore they have souls, according to what he said. (And apparently they only receive souls when the umbilical cord is cut - maybe it's like a little soul glowstick... break-n-shake!)

      It's clearly not what he meant to say, but he did say it.

    25. Re:The motivation is religious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know what you mean about finding mushrooms offensive... The stinkhorn can be easilly compared to a foul smelling penis. Now That is an image that is offensive to Most people.

    26. Re:The motivation is religious. by sosegumu · · Score: 1

      You're getting into what objective right and wrong are. There are plenty of books on the topic, and I suggest you read them. Slashdot is not the right place to get into something so complex.

      Perhaps you are right, but it seems to me that the original post, as well as the subsequent replies, invoked an ethical debate. As for the books, I have read books on ethics from the ancients to the post-moderns, and I have yet find a satisfactory answer. If you know of one that does answer the question, please tell which one.

      To put it in other terms: you don't need a god or a soul to make the world a better place to live.

      I couldn't agree with you more. But why you would want to and would it be wrong not to?

      --
      It's easier to wear the spandex than to do the crunches. --David Lee Roth
    27. Re:The motivation is religious. by Specter · · Score: 1

      "You will find relatively few atheists or agnostics who do not believe in right and wrong..."

      Likewise being religious doesn't exclude being scientific as well. Were you aware that the Catholic Church believes in the co-existence of creationism and evolution? Check out:

      Church needs better evolution education, says bishops' official

      A favorite quote from the article:

      "Denying that humans evolved seems by this point a waste of time"

      Jared
    28. Re:The motivation is religious. by disntrstd · · Score: 0

      Water has a potential to become a human. What's your point? Maybe these people need to stop drinking water.

    29. Re:The motivation is religious. by disntrstd · · Score: 0

      Cause they feel human neurons have something special about them that other neurons don't. Who knows? Seeing as how the universe is potentially filled with infiniteless information and rules we don't know about, anything is possible. What bothers me is when people disregard all immediate evidence that suggests we are not as unique and special in the world as we think we are. If we keep following faith and not evidence, who knows where this country will end up. It probably won't be any better than the past 2000 years.

    30. Re:The motivation is religious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The motivation is not religion: Romney is a Mormon, and Mormons do not have a problem with stem cell research.

      Mormon doctrine at present states that it's undetermined when the spirit enters the body of a preborn child. This allows some latitude when dealing with things like embryos. Example: the six republican senators who pushed stem-cell research were all Mormons.

  17. Way to lead the pack by Syncroswitch · · Score: 1

    I am suprised that MIT is so carefull with their
    majors...

    OK how long until I can download the rest of the course...

    http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Biological-Engineering -D ivision/index.htm

  18. Already in existence by bunburyist · · Score: 0

    I'm not certain about the US but here in canada, we already have this biotechnology engineering at least at Ottawa University, many of my co-workers are in this field. Apparently it takes 6 years to complete and you need to do a bio degree and an engineering degree, and its very difficult to get into. Here At Waterloo University you can already do BioInformatics, I think its like Bio Engineering. Is this something different?

  19. Not a biotech major by tOaOMiB · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The writeup calls this biological engineering major a biotech major. While there is some overlap between these two, there are also some fundamental differences.

    Biotech includes many fields from the bioinformatics domain (gene chips, protein folding, sequence analysis)--while this major focuses on the engineering aspects of biology. Read up on the definitions to learn the differences, which are going to be key to know in the 21st century!

  20. DNA Hack by TheSync · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For those who want to start early to get ready for this, check out DNAhack, the website for amateur genetic engineering.

    1. Re:DNA Hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      amateur genetic engineering

      for some reason, im terrified by that phrase.

    2. Re:DNA Hack by d474 · · Score: 1

      LOL, you too?! I got to the website, saw the "hairy cactus" project and was mortified. Human hair growing out of a cactus. Yikes. Is this crap illegal? I can see some day that it might be, especially when it becomes more sophisticated, serious harm could result...

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
  21. A transhuman future by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    Will leave both the religious and new-age types behind.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  22. Move along, nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when is Biology limited to humans? Universities have been giving degrees in Biochemical Engineering and Biomedical Engineering for some time now. Not everything has to do with human cloning of human embryonic stem cell research.

  23. Boston Globe by babokd · · Score: 0

    You missed the capitals.

  24. Ummm... by Combuchan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, MIT is essentially doing what Rice, SUNY Stony Brook, Lehigh, Rice, Syracuse, and even Mesa Community College have been doing for a very long time now?

    Yes, this is MIT, and they have a potential to become the leading institution in the field, but respected universites have already established programs. When MIT comes out with something revolutionary from their new program, then I'll be interested.

    --
    "[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
    1. Re:Ummm... by babokd · · Score: 0

      As for my understanding, the only engineering major that substantially deals with biology is Biomedical Engineering, which is more geared towards medical instruments used on living organisms. I believe the programs you have pointed out deals with this field. Biological Engineering sounds like more of a fusion of living organism with mechanical/electrical technologies.

    2. Re:Ummm... by amabbi · · Score: 2, Informative
      Yes, this is MIT, and they have a potential to become the leading institution in the field, but respected universites have already established programs. When MIT comes out with something revolutionary from their new program, then I'll be interested.

      RTFA, please. MIT is already a leader in what you call "bioengineering," particularly in interdisciplinary fields integrating biology and engineering. In addition, MIT already has a joint program with Harvard medical school (the Health Sciences and Technology program). The new "biological engineering" field is different in that the tradition view of BE/BME is "engineering applications of biology." MIT wants to rethink this view. From TFA:
      However, each established engineering discipline is naturally limited to addressing a certain range of problems within biology that fall within the scope of tools and approaches of that discipline. The fusion of engineering with modern biology, then, requires development of a new discipline of engineering, "Biological Engineering," which brings to bear on biology the appropriate tools and perspectives from chemical, civil, computer, electrical, materials, mechanical, and nuclear engineering in an integrated way. Biological Engineering is not envisioned as replacing the individual efforts, but rather enhancing them by pushing new frontiers.

    3. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that MIT has not opened a BE major until now does not imply that it is not a world leader on this area. Consider for example , Robert Langer , one of the fathers of Tissue Engineering and the only person alive to be member of the three major american academies (science, engineering, medicine), he has been leading this field for years..only that he has been associated with the chemical engineering department.In MIT are also Linda Griffith , an outstanding female bioengineer.. and Douglas Lauffenburger an authority in this area. Heck!, even the students are creating ways to effectively fight cancer.

    4. Re:Ummm... by museumpeace · · Score: 1

      The significance of this news is hardly that MIT is setting any standard and only those with MIT-envy would be prone to such a mis-reading. What I see this as signaling is a furtherance of the trend which brought Susan Hockfield, a distinguished neuroscientist, to the helm of the institution, not a physicist, EE or mathematician and only coincidentally, not a man. The trend away from being a hardware hackers haven has long been afoot. If you hit their home page today, you will probably see a headline about cancer research...that did not happen overnight.

      --
      SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
    5. Re:Ummm... by amabbi · · Score: 1
      The significance of this news is hardly that MIT is setting any standard and only those with MIT-envy would be prone to such a mis-reading. What I see this as signaling is a furtherance of the trend which brought Susan Hockfield, a distinguished neuroscientist, to the helm of the institution, not a physicist, EE or mathematician and only coincidentally, not a man. The trend away from being a hardware hackers haven has long been afoot.

      Not to be a killjoy, but back in 1990, when MIT was looking for a president to replace EE professor Paul Gray, they offered the position to bio professor/Nobel laureate in medicine Phil Sharp. Sharp initially accepted the offer, then backed down, and the Institute then chose a mech E prof from UMich, Chuck Vest. The fact that this time around, they chose a life scientist, when they had previously wanted one 15 years ago, is not particularly important.

    6. Re:Ummm... by vistic · · Score: 1

      MCC has it? Wow.

    7. Re:Ummm... by Combuchan · · Score: 1

      They've had one since 2002, an associate of applied sciences in biotechnology according to http://www.azbioindustry.org/education/mcc.html. They were the first community college in Arizona to offer such a program, altho enrollment is highly limited...only 24 students a year.

      --
      "[T]he single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom." -- Barry Goldwater
    8. Re:Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An associate's degree in biotechnology is nothing like a accredited bachelor's degree in bio(medical) engineering. The former qualifies you to pipette chemicals in a wet lab; the latter qualifies you to build an EKG or an artificial hip implant.

    9. Re:Ummm... by vistic · · Score: 1

      Well Bio is being pushed very hard here now... ASU is getting all these new Bioengineering buildings. And there's that Arizona Biodesign Institute thing.

    10. Re:Ummm... by pikayou · · Score: 1

      Right now, most university's aren't sure what 'Bioengineering' actually is. Is is device design? Genetic manipulation? Bioinformatics? Mathematical modeling? In truth, it's all those things...but what do they all have in common that warrants being under a single major? My degree is in Bioengineering (from Berkeley) and the program there is a mess. You basically take a hodge podge of courses from other departments, with no real theme to tie it together. The job market makes this approach even worse. Companies know the skillset of your basic, off the shelf chemical engineer. Same with EE/CS. But what skills can you assume a BioE has? MIT was probably just waiting until it had answers to some of these questions...something Berkeley would have been well served to do, rather than rush in and create a department with no real purpose.

  25. Tired: Student Loans by saddino · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wired: Student Clones

    1. Re:Tired: Student Loans by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      If I clone myself, is my clone considered my slave? Could I send him to work instead of me?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    2. Re:Tired: Student Loans by saddino · · Score: 1

      Careful, he'll just call the cops from work and say "My clone has broken into my house...please arrest him."

  26. Also the week stem cells from bone marrow by geoffrobinson · · Score: 1

    http://news.newkerala.com/health-news-india/?actio n=fullnews&id=67718

    showed usefulness. Creating absolutely no moral dilemmas. And it got oh so much press ink.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  27. Instead of creating a new major... by MisanthropicProgram · · Score: 1

    Why not have the Biology Majors take engineering classes as electives, or the engineering students take Biology as an elective. This new major just adds more the the bureaucracy.

    1. Re:Instead of creating a new major... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what Biological Engineering is?

    2. Re:Instead of creating a new major... by SmokeHalo · · Score: 0

      I can see it now, just like the old Reese's commercial...

      Person #1: You got your biology in my engineering!
      Person #2: You got your engineering in my biology!

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
    3. Re:Instead of creating a new major... by randomiam · · Score: 1
      Why not have the Biology Majors take engineering classes as electives, or the engineering students take Biology as an elective.

      Should an 18 or 19 year old university freshman be able to properly select the approprate courses?

    4. Re:Instead of creating a new major... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Because the subject matter is so different that even normal engineering math and compuetr skills are completely inadequate and inapplicable. I applaud MIT. Just too bad they are about 10 years behind European universities.

    5. Re:Instead of creating a new major... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did exactly that as a student there (double in bio and EE, class o 2000). I think this is exactly why MIT took so long to make the major - they were waiting till just taking one of the existing majors while taking classes of the other sort (ie majoring in EE, taking bio electives) could actually be improved upon by investing in a separate department and major.

  28. Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Concern · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a question, I am seriously, honestly just looking for more knowledge about this.

    Leaving aside your religious or personal beliefs about the rights of stem cells and embryos, about which reasonable people can disagree... and about whether federal funding should pay for something versus should it be allowed at all (another entirely lively discussion)... is it true that there is a double standard for fertility clinics?

    I have been reading about fertility clinic procedures that involve activities with embryos, on quite a large scale, that should seem objectionable to RtL advocates concerned with stem cell research. But I don't perceive the same kind of advocacy against IVF activities that result in the destruction of microscopic life, as I do against stem cell research.

    I am not a doctor. I know that IVF involves harvesting eggs and fertilizing them en masse, then transplanting a few back to the mother and discarding the rest.

    So:

    Assuming you consider microscopic human life sacred, is this morally distinguishable somehow from stem cell research?

    Is it actually the case that RtL advocates do oppose IVF as much as stem cell research?

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    1. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Avallach · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most people that I know of who are familiar with the process of IVF and stem cell research and consider a zygote to be a human being (A fairly narrow group, but one you seem to be asking about.) do regard IVF as unethical as stem cell research. The short version is that any time you're creating a human being with the knowledge that it will be destroyed, you're on shaky ethical ground. Whether that's the embryos lost in implantation, freezing, thawing, stem cell research, contraimplantational devices, or what have you, it's ethically the same.

      This is the heart of the stem cell debate for most people that I know. If an ethical method of harvesting stem cells that doesn't involve creating embryos to kill them can be found, then I'm all for it! There have been several promising stories on /. in that direction, and I sincerely hope that scientists manage to accomplish that goal. Stem cell research is a technology with incredible potential, but it must be pursued in line with ethical guidelines.

    2. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by operagost · · Score: 1

      Actually, many Christians do oppose this. The greatest example is the Catholic Church's opposition to in vitro fertilization.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Is it actually the case that RtL advocates do oppose IVF as much as stem cell research?

      Some do. This is completely logical, as is the position that IVF is ok, but creation of embryos for the purpose of experimentation is wrong.

      The mitigating factor is that "purpose" part. An important factor in determining whether something is moral or ethical is the intention of the actor. Doctors, for example, aren't guilty of murder when they try to save a life, but fail.

      So, creation of embryos for the purpose of creating life might be ethical (to me this seems like a gray area), whereas the creation of embryos with no intention of ever saving any of them might be unethical.

      Unfortunately, this is a huge ethical leap to make to say that we should be able to create life in order to do tests on it, and the issue is typically clouded by innaccurate statements like in the first sentence of the article summary. The issue is a lot more complex than that, and deserves a bit more respect, which coincidentally, Mr. Romney gives it. Obviously Senator Kennedy is trying to score cheap political points by putting words into the governor's mouth, and that's shameful, no matter what you think of stem cell research.

    4. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Concern · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I do appreciate moral issue and regardless of specifics I respect the seriousness with which many people take life in any form.

      But, if you don't mind, I'm trying to understand something specific. It could be just me, but I don't see the same level of concern about these three apparently equivalent things: stem cell research, abortion, and fertility clinics.

      I don't think it's quite what you said so far, but is it your belief that IVF does receive the same amount of protest as stem cell research?

      And, can I add another question: do you believe IVF is protested as heavily as abortion?

      --
      Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    5. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Concern · · Score: 1

      I know that's true.

      My question is, do they put the same amount of energy into opposing IVF as they do stem cell research, or abortion. In other words, is there a double-standard?

      I have no idea what people think about this. It might be a legitimate argument to say, because IVF allows us to create life where it wouldn't have been possible, we consider it acceptable after all. I just don't know.

      --
      Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    6. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Avallach · · Score: 1

      No on both counts, but not out of a difference in ethics. Instead, it's a difference in education. Most pro-life people know how abortion works. It's pretty straightforward, really. Stem cell research has been in the news, and even still I'd imagine that many simply believe it's another form of abortion and therefore wrong. IVF is far more arcane, and I should imagine that most people who haven't studied it or dealt with it have very little idea what's involved.

      Don't get me wrong, I think ethically they're correct, but I wish that people would learn a bit more about the tech involved and make informed opinions.

      On the other side of the IVF debate, let's pose a theoretical technology where you can create a single embryo, implant it, and have it grow to birth with very little risk to the embryo or parents. In that case the technology would be completely ethical, in my opinion.

    7. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Concern · · Score: 1

      I think the issue makes people emotional, and no side can claim to have stayed on the high ground.

      Your idea about purpose is really interesting - this is the kind of answer I was hoping to get, because I honestly hadn't heard it before.

      Do you mind if I ask a kind of tricky question? I assure you I'm doing it out of curiousity, and respectfully.

      What if every doctor who worked on stem cells took a kind of official, perhaps even legal, vow to use their work and knowledge towards creating and preserving life? Do you think that could overcome some objections to research on stem cells?

      --
      Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    8. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      Well, the fertility clinics can't destroy any of those embryos without permission from the parents. Apparently there's a huge problem with clinics being forced to store frozen embryos indefinitely b/c they've lost contact with the parents. Lemme see if I can find the article about the folks who found out they had leftover embryos years later, and decided to have them implanted b/c they didn't believe in destroying them... Well, okay, I couldn't find that, but here is a more recent article dealing with the same sort of thing.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    9. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      The short version is that any time you're creating a human being with the knowledge that it will be destroyed, you're on shaky ethical ground. Whether that's the embryos lost in implantation, freezing, thawing, stem cell research, contraimplantational devices, or what have you, it's ethically the same.

      The second sentence implies that you meant for the first sentence to say "any time you're creating a human being with the knowledge that it might be destroyed." In that case, is getting pregnant unethical? Estimates are that 25-30% of all pregnancies (fertilized eggs) result in miscarriages.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    10. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up, insightful

    11. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for all RtL advocates, but I do know that the Catholic Church is very opposed to IVF. I suppose that RtL advocates are just generally smart enough to know to pick their battles. They can tug at people's heartstrings and say "Abortion is killing babies," and get people to agree. It's a harder sell that IVF, which results in a couple with a happy healthy baby (or babies) is in fact also "killing babies."

    12. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by cybrthng · · Score: 1

      How would you be able to master IVF without the risk of scientific process violating your moral beliefs?

      Obviously the capacity of science involves many failures before the end result can be achieved. Why does your belief in the end result here differ than the process that leads to the end result in building stem cells that can heal people/save babies and whatnot?

    13. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Concern · · Score: 1

      I see what you're saying. I've thought about the education factor too, with respect to the apparent double-standard. But the problem is, that was why the objection to stem cell research stuck out to me in the first place.

      I could understand many people not realizing how IVF worked, so IVF would be under the radar in a way.

      But I am struggling with your perspective on the two technologies. Stem cell and IVF are both advances in medical science, it's just that IVF is now part of our everyday life while stem cell work is still in the lab, contemplating clinical trials. I saw stem cell research as far more obscure that IVF. Fertility clinics are a big industry, operating all across the country, doing marketing and advertising... and my perspective was that IVF got mountains of TV coverage, because, naturally, it was a medical breakthrough of science-fiction proportions.

      So it was only when the concern over stem cell research began to heat up that I began to wonder why IVF didn't seem to be held up along with it. A lot of the action is coordinated through organizations with well-educated, intelligent leaders, which is I think how stem cell research came into the spotlight to begin with. I couldn't - still can't, yet - figure it out.

      --
      Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    14. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Avallach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Deontology is a dangerous path. The ends rarely, if ever, justify the means. I don't know how we'd master IVF without failing lots of times, yet I cannot sanction the lives lost in said failure. My point was that it's destruction of life that's critical, not the idea of IVF itself. (There are those who feel that the very idea of IVF moves into playing God, but I would respectfully disagree.)

      Again, with stem cell research, I cannot sanction those forms that involved the destruction of human beings. Finding new ways to acquire stem cells that don't involve that is the way forward, and more research needs to be done here. Everyone wants to heal people and save babies, etc. It's just that we can't ethically do it at the expense of killing others.

      Honestly, I view the position of modern scientific ethics as somewhat confusing. We don't permit experimentation on infants, even prenatally, unless there's an absolutely essential reason to try the treatment, often as a last ditch effort. Yet somewhere before the two week mark after conception we seem to feel that the embryo/fetus ceases to be a human being and becomes fair game for experimenting. It is difficult to reconcile those two positions ethically or logically.

    15. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Avallach · · Score: 1

      Good point. That was poorly phrased on my part. I shy away from saying that it's only unethical if you KNOW it's going to be killed, because of the obviously vague nature of life. At what percentage is it ethical? That's a tougher question, and not one I have a neat answer to.

    16. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Avallach · · Score: 1

      "Stem cell and IVF are both advances in medical science, it's just that IVF is now part of our everyday life while stem cell work is still in the lab, contemplating clinical trials."

      I think you may have hit on a large part of it right there. IVF has gone on long enough that people tend to assume it's safe for all involved. Stem cell research is new and exciting and thus generates interest and controversy. I agree that the positions aren't consistent, and should be so. :(

    17. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by cybrthng · · Score: 1

      I'm not debating your beliefs, just asking how you defign them.

      As far as testing on people, it does happen. Many critically sick children the world over are taking medicines that can pose risk but often ofset such risk with the potential for great rewards.

      The shame of it all is its usually American investment and American money doing such in 3rd world countries and importing the technology back home.

      I Consider it a bigger crime when you take the rights of the family, parents, mothers and fathers and legislate them so they can't do what is best for THERE family based upon YOUR unique moral views.

      So with that All i support stem cell research, i support IVF as a means to start a family and i support the parents and families that choose leading edge medecine and the risk thereof for the commitment to life they have made in an effort to not just make life better for themselves but for all. The risk is certainly death but a moot risk if the end result is death without any action to begin with.

    18. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Concern · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're right. I can't figure it out, though. IVF was new and exciting once too, not so long ago.

      --
      Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    19. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Concern · · Score: 1

      I have thought about this question a lot since you asked it, and I decided that I want to try the best I can to give you some perspective on the other school of thought. I really don't want to persuade you of anything - I respect your difference of opinion. But I'd like to try to teach you about others' beliefs. And a good lesson is interactive, so let's start with a question.

      Does masturbation destroy life?

      All of those cells you're discarding around you are possible people that will never be.

      Am I right that you can even find some oblique biblical support for this view?

      --
      Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    20. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Avallach · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not at all. Separate the idea of human life (being quite specific there) from a human being. It is at time necessary to harm human life for the betterment of human beings. I know I'm using the terms slightly differently than they're used typically, so to clear up the vocabulary a bit:

      All human cells are human life. From sperm to egg to retina to skin to whatever you choose to stick in here.

      Not all human life comprises a person with a sense of being. In the case of zygotes and embryos, loss of even a single cell of that life can result in the death of a human being, but I personally lose thousands of cells on a daily basis. Other ethical concerns aside, the spilling of cells in masturbation is ethically no different than shedding skin.

      The ethical line that I see is where one crosses from something that has the possibility to create a human being (sperm/egg) to something which is a human being (embryo/zygote)

      Finally, it's of interest to me that you assume I hold my beliefs on a religious basis. I do, but have not indicated that previously to the best of my knowledge. Is it not possible to respect human beings in all their forms from a non-religious point of view?

    21. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Avallach · · Score: 1

      I don't deny that sometimes we must risk life to save that life. Those are terrible choices, and I hope they're as rare as possible. When faced with them, we make our best judgement and go on, because there's no good answer.

      But I see it as a different thing to risk or even certainly destroy life in order to create life, as with IVF. How is this ethically defensable?

      Relatedly, with stem cell research you have the destruction of some human beings with the hope that their death will benefit others. I have no problem with this if the person being destroyed is willingly doing so. It's no small thing to die for another. But that's not the situation we face with stem cell research. Instead we have human beings who have not, indeed cannot, give their consent for such a sacrifice being destroyed in the name of science. The only way this is ethical is if we somehow consider them to be less than human beings, and that's a difficult case for me to make.

      As to the idea of legistlation, I wonder who you're disagreeing with. Am I against abortion? Certainly. Do I think it should be legistlated out of existence? With the expection of the life of the mother and possibly rape/incest (where I struggle), probably. Is that the best way to deal with it? Not at all. The far better answer is to provide aid for those who would consider abortion their only option in the hopes that they will choose otherwise. Life is sacred and precious. Legistlating that won't make it so, and failing to do so won't make it less so.

      I do take issue with the idea of people giving up rights on the basis of MY unique moral views. It happens all the time. First, let's be honest. Is having a baby a right? Is it a right that can be pursued at any cost? I would maintain that having children is a priviledge, a responsibility, a lofty undertaking, but I have some difficulty calling it a right.

      Let's assume for a moment that it is, however. And let's number it among the myriad of other rights that we freely exercise in the US. (I presume from your website that you're in the US.) I have the right to say what I wish, up to the point that another person is harmed. I have the right to own and shoot firearms, up to the point that another person is harmed. I have the right to do what I wish with my body up until the point that it hurts someone else.

      We routinely in our society make laws that restrict freedoms and behaviors on the basis of moral beliefs. For a bit of a hyperbolic example, my freedom to go on a sixteen state killing spree is limited by our societal belief that murder is wrong. My personal moral beliefs have little, if anything, to do with what will happen to me. My ability to have more PC upgrades is limited by our societal beliefs that theft is wrong. Why is it so much of a stretch to believe that the freedom to kill embryos should be limited by a societal belief (that we may or may not have achieved, mind you...) that life is sacred and killing is wrong?

    22. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Concern+Is+A+Faggot · · Score: 1

      I really don't want to persuade you of anything - I respect your difference of opinion. But I'd like to try to teach you about others' beliefs. And a good lesson is interactive, so let's start with a question.

      Suuuure you do!

      Maybe that explains why all the entries on your "PoliticalTrollOptOut" are uniquely conservatives and libertarians?

      Does masturbation destroy life?

      Not at all. In fact, in your case, I suspect it's the only life you've got!

      All of those cells you're discarding around you are possible people that will never be.

      And in your case, we're very grateful for that!

      --
      Help! Help! I've been moded down by a Jewish conspiracy!
    23. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Concern · · Score: 2, Funny

      First, let me say that I don't want to make any assumptions about you. I respect you, I respect that you are discussing this hot topic so civilly, and more than that I would not think any less or more of your views regardless of whether they come from your religious authority or you come to them on your own.

      I mentioned the (by implication, Christian) bible just because most RtL proponets are Christians; no comment on you personally at all. Honestly.

      You say you consider the gametes in semen to be more like skin cells. These are human life, but they are not a human being. So, by your definition, masturbation is not murder. You claim that spilling seed does not destroy life. This is quite reasonable and logical. You are not out on a limb with this assertion either. Many, many people agree with you.

      But let's say that I don't.

      I say that each sperm is a life that could have been. That should have been.

      A skin cell will never become a human being. But this is a sperm. Becomnig a human being is what God made it to do.

      You can say that a sperm is not a human being because, unlike the fertilized ovum, it isn't going to mature into an adult all by itself. But I say that a fertilized ovum is not going to mature into an adult all by itself either. It, just like the sperm, depends on billions of other cells within the woman, without them it is every bit as doomed as the sperm.

      I can quote the bible to back me up. Of course, we differ over its interpretation, but this is what scholars have been doing for millenia - differing over how to interpret the bible. I also have science to back me up. And of course, we differ over the interpretation of scientific data and claim conflicting things are facts.

      In the meantime, I demand that you stop masturbating, on pain of prison or death. Prison or death is our punishment for murderers.

      --
      Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    24. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe....

      "inciteful" would be closer to the truth.

    25. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Concern · · Score: 1

      Hi.

      I think it's really funny that you blame that on me.

      Especially since you're so obviously a Troll.

      You're muted. I won't see anything else you write after this. If you come back with more users, I'll just mute new users as well. Goodbye.

      --
      Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    26. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Concern+Is+A+Faggot · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      First, let me say that I don't want to make any assumptions about you. I respect you, I respect that you are discussing this hot topic so civilly, and more than that I would not think any less or more of your views regardless of whether they come from your religious authority or you come to them on your own.

      Oh?

      It must be hard for older hardcore conservatives, knowing they lost on mysogyny and racism, that the Goldwater years are over now... I always pitied them that tough adjustment. They still know in their hearts that a Strom Thurmond presidency would have made our country better, but now all they get to beat on affirmative action and maybe some "straw women." Price of taking orders, I guess; when Karl Rove says shut up and pretend to hate racism, you shut up, don't you.

      --Concern


      I say that each sperm is a life that could have been. That should have been.

      If it upsets you that much, post your address and we'll be glad to mail you a hankie - a nice pink one to go with your politics!

      In the meantime, I demand that you stop masturbating, on pain of prison or death. Prison or death is our punishment for murderers.

      Damn! Talk about making a stick for your own back!

      --
      Help! Help! I've been moded down by a Jewish conspiracy!
    27. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to point this out to you, but we give a fuck about ethics in a life-death situation. SO what we kill millions of embryos in the next 50 yrs during reserch? The data gathered will be useful FOR THE REST OF FUCKEN TIME. At least you know that it has potential, but you are mistaken to think ethics should be considered when dealing with science this important. Plus, since you're willing to consider ethics, how about we consider mine? Yeah, I have none Ill kill anyone to furthur my self in life. Lets just continue on with my set of ethics, since the research will benefit me just as much as you I wouldn't want to hold it to any other standards.

    28. Re:Embryos and Life and Fertility Clinics by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      Especially since you're so obviously a Troll.

      The guy who posted a comment advocating the death penalty for masturbation calls somebody else a troll?

  29. Before someone starts about "the ban"... by djh101010 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'd like to mention at this point that the "ban on stem-cell research" that so many people get worked up about, doesn't exist. There is nothing saying "don't do that" (it's being done). There is nothing saying "don't start any new embryonic stem cell lines for research" (anyone who wants to, can). There is nothing saying "The federal government (US) won't pay for embrionic stem cell research" (they do). What the US government won't pay for is for any additional embrionic stem cell lines to be created for research.

    While it's all well and good to disagree with various politicians on a topic or two, people are pretending there's an outright ban on something, when it's really a "we won't pay you to do (thing) in (mode) with (condition)" situation.

    1. Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Soon enough it will be possible to obtain the necessary stem cells without the termination of a pregnancy and it will become a non issue, since this is mainly why certain groups oppose it.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... by Wardish · · Score: 1

      This argument had a lot more validity before it was reported that all the "approved" stem cell lines were contaminated.

      --
      Ward

      . Silence! Be thankful thy species is unpalatable! .
    3. Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      This argument had a lot more validity before it was reported that all the "approved" stem cell lines were contaminated.

      So, sloppy research methods (contaminating a sample? Come on, this is junior high stuff guys.) Why should someone get _more_ federal funding when they've shown they're not capable of not polluting their own research? Sorry, but if anything, the fact that they screwed that up says they deserve _less_ federal funding, not more.

    4. Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... by Gob+Blesh+It · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not only are existing lines contaminated, but there just plain aren't enough of them to keep research progressing smoothly. Also, it's not just "we won't pay you to do (thing)", it's "if you do (thing), we'll cut off your funding for all ongoing projects, whether they're related or not." For institutions like research universities and labs who derive significant funding from the federal government, this is tantamount to depriving them of oxygen. (It's the same tactic Congress used with transportation funding to get states to adopt a minimum drinking age of 21.)

      If I'm wrong about any of the above, I'd appreciate corrections.

    5. Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Interesting
      While it's all well and good to disagree with various politicians on a topic or two, people are pretending there's an outright ban on something, when it's really a "we won't pay you to do (thing) in (mode) with (condition)" situation.

      Technically, no, it is not an outright ban. You won't get thrown in prison for doing it; it's not in violation of the law. You could use only non-federal funds and perform this research with impugnity.

      When the federal government pays the lion's share of your lab's bills with a big grant, though, you can be damned sure that to do anything that might cost you that funding is, quite simply, professional suicide. The minute you use a single dollar of federal funds--say, some disposable plastic pipettor tips paid for by a federal grant, or five minutes' time of a lab tech whose salary is paid for by a government grant--the government can withdraw every penny of that grant. Goodbye, lab, livelihood, and years' worth of hard work.

      ...so, what do you do--carefully sequester your new stem-cell research and hope and pray that one of your postdocs doesn't accidentally grab a reagent from the wrong shelf, or that your first-year rotation student doesn't unknowingly save a dataset to a shared volume on a server paid for by federal funds? Hell, no. Not if you like having a lab, care about your research, and want your fifteen-odd researchers to stay productive and employed.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    6. Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... by Gob+Blesh+It · · Score: 1

      Oh man, are you serious? Come on. That's gonna be a pretty fruitless argument, unless you want to argue that false hypotheses, trial and error, etc. never contribute to scientific progress.

      Besides, this isn't evidence of sloppiness. It's actually evidence that we need more research:

      The cells' contamination has been caused by how scientists grow them in the lab.

      The cells cannot multiply by themselves in a petri dish, so researchers typically grow them on top of a "feeder" layer of embryonic cells taken from mice. The human cell cultures also are bathed in a serum derived from fetal calf tissue. The human cells absorb nutrients from the mice and calf cells. ...

      Scientists are trying to develop ways to grow stem cells in the lab without relying on animal feeder cells or serum that contains animal products. The job is a challenging one because scientists do not know exactly what chemicals are vital to human stem cells as they grow, Varki said.

      Two minutes with Google could have set you straight.

    7. Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So since a specific, small set of experiments have had problems, you've decided the set of "all potential current and future stem cell researchers" is filled with nothing but incompetents?

    8. Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      Two minutes with Google could have set you straight.

      I understand the techniques involved. You can't tell me that they can't differentiate between a polluted sample and a non-polluted one. Like I said, disagree with the government not wanting to pay to start new lines, that's fine, but don't pretend there's a ban on embrionic stem cell research, because there is no ban. I'm convinced that Kerry lost votes because people who know that didn't like him lying and talking about it as if it existed. I'm also a bit annoyed that Bush let him get away with it during the debates, but that's a different issue.

    9. Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      So since a specific, small set of experiments have had problems, you've decided the set of "all potential current and future stem cell researchers" is filled with nothing but incompetents?

      No, I'm saying that if someone has already shown they can't keep their sample clean, we shouldn't give them yet more money to screw up again. Give grant money to the people who are getting somewhere in their research, not screwing up the line they've been given to work on.

      Or, are you saying we should, you know, reward failure? (why am I bothering responding to an AC in the first place?)

    10. Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... by Gob+Blesh+It · · Score: 1

      Well, unless I'm fundamentally misunderstanding something, the reason all existing lines are contaminated is that the process commonly used to sustain them unavoidably leads to contamination. Further, no one knew this would happen until it had already been tried, and--more to the point--not until after the funding ban had taken effect. The contamination is NOT the result of sloppy science, so it's hard to argue that funding ought to be pulled to punish scientists "screwing up the line they've been given to work on."

      And while I agree there's no legal ban on embryonic stem cell research, the current state of federal funding policy makes it impossible for research to continue without risking funding for unrelated projects. Again, this situation parallels the federal government withholding highway dollars to states where it's legal to drink before age 21. If you're in a position to cut off someone's oxygen supply (whether highway dollars or research grants), you don't need legislation to implement a de facto ban.

    11. Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      And while I agree there's no legal ban on embryonic stem cell research, the current state of federal funding policy makes it impossible for research to continue without risking funding for unrelated projects.

      Yes, if you work on certain projects, you are expected to keep track of what gets used for it. Just like, oh, pretty much anything else in the business world. You don't work on Client A's stuff on Client B's dime, why should labwork be any different?

      By the way, can you show me something official showing that all 22 lines are contaminated? I just spent more than a little time at google trying to find a number one way or the other and found nothing other than 70 original lines and 22 active.

    12. Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... by Gob+Blesh+It · · Score: 1

      Sure, try this search, which turns up a bunch of things, including these articles: "All human embryonic stem cell lines approved for use in federally funded research are contaminated with a foreign molecule from mice that may make them risky for use in medical therapies, according to a study released Sunday."

      "Yes, if you work on certain projects, you are expected to keep track of what gets used for it. Just like, oh, pretty much anything else in the business world. You don't work on Client A's stuff on Client B's dime, why should labwork be any different?"

      I generally agree, but please consider that the consequences for a minor slipup would be completely disproportionate to the accounting error, given the political climate: millions of people are ready to pounce on any lab doing such "unethical" work. This is more than enough to scare off a lot of labs. Not everyone is lucky enough to receive state funding, like Stanford, or to have significant private resources to draw on, like Harvard.

      Of course, all this sort of obscures the greater issue: why should the federal government withhold funds for stem-cell research at all?

    13. Re:Before someone starts about "the ban"... by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      Of course, all this sort of obscures the greater issue: why should the federal government withhold funds for stem-cell research at all?

      And, that's a good and valid question. Strangely enough, I agree with them not funding it, but I disagree with the reason for doing so. Kind of like when a Senator votes against something you don't like, but for a different reason than you don't like it.

      The good news is, like any other research, if there's enough potential in it producing useful results, there are state and private monies available for it. If this research can't attract that money either, then maybe there's a reason for that, that doesn't involve politics. I don't know. California is (going to be?) paying for research, for instance. Maybe something will come of it, maybe not.

      My point never has been "we shouldn't pay for this", though, my point is "there's not a ban on stem cell research, and I resent lying politicians claiming there is". That's all.

  30. Phrenology? by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    That is?

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
    1. Re:Phrenology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The practice of fortune telling based on the bumps found on a person's skull.

      If you would like to see this in action, might I recommend the movie Men At Work.

  31. Biotech Scientists No Longer Have To Say... by kiwidefunkt · · Score: 2, Funny

    "I didn't go to college, and look at me...I'm kick-ass." - Jack Black, Orange County

    --
    www.kiwilyrics.com - a wiki for lyrics
  32. It's ALIVE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Natural selection circumvented by politics leads to extinction. The next logical step in mans evolution, if allowed, will be built by man. Whether biological, electronic. mechanical, atomic, subatomic, or a mix, it's the clear route of any organizm that has learned to manipulate life. Those in opposition will either become a dead branch on the tree of life, or through politics will doom mankind to this fate. The enemy of this evolutionary progress is the ignorance of literalism.

  33. Solve the Social Security Problem... by BrentRJones · · Score: 1

    by making it a cloning class project that each geek makes 100,000 TAX PAYING copies of himself. Of course these geek clones would need high paying tech jobs. So they would need to engineer a virus that would kill offshore engineers....OK let's forget this idea

    --
    Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
  34. Mass. has been exporting educated engineers by museumpeace · · Score: 1

    in increasing numbers...That is, we have had a net exodus of skilled workers, even though we have the schools that train them and a contingent of biotech powerhouses [Biogen, Genzyme, Millenium Pharm. etc] and start-ups that many states would be happy to host. Most people in high tech in MA. groaned when Mitt's misguided missive hit the news last night. I only see this accelerating the departure of companies and jobs for more hospitable climates. I wonder at what point these policies, whatever their actual impact on what reasearch is legal, will create a perception that Mass is yet another state in the hands of American Ayatollahs, a place for thinking people to shun.

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
    1. Re:Mass. has been exporting educated engineers by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 1

      I suspect it is the high cost of housing that is driving them away. In 2004, The average single family home sale price state wide was $431,500. In greater Boston it was $620,213. That was up 12% and 11% respectively over 2003. Meanwhile we have lost 191,000 jobs since 2001.

      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
  35. Only 20 slots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The division now has the equivalent of about 20 faculty slots...the number of undergraduates who can major in biological engineering will be limited to 20 to begin with

    According to my detailed calculations, maximum fill would result in approximately a 1:1 ratio.

    Anyway, it seems that the first 20 are either especially fortunate with the faculty attention, or especially unfortunate as curriculum beta testers.

  36. It starts with this. by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    But the same types will want to ban it for everyone. Government funding for abortion will be cut before the procedure is banned as well. My libertarian leanings say getting government out of it is good, but the banning comes later.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
    1. Re:It starts with this. by operagost · · Score: 1

      If you're truly a libertarian, you'd be happy to see this. Obviously, you're not, and your slippery-slope argument makes this obvious.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  37. OT, but needs to be said by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A line from TFA: At the same time, the government, which funds most scientific research in the country,
    Does anyone else see something fundamentally wrong with that? I agree that the government should play a LIMITED role in R&D ie financing the stuff that nobody else is willing to take the risk and finance, but there is somethin fundamentally wrong with this country when the government needs to finance most of the scientific research in this country.
    What ever happened to private R&D? Or is this just a symptom of the long term wrath of Carly Fiorna's, Sam Walton's, and Micheal Dell's actions: You don't need to make stuff, just market stuff. That is how you will get rich!
    Dangerous precedent IMO.

    1. Re:OT, but needs to be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look at the innovations Sam Walton and Michael Dell have made in the area of inventory and supply, you might realize that they do much more than just "market stuff."

      Take a look at the PBS documentary on Wal Mart and notice how there is no space between any box on their conveyor belts in their warehouses. This is done for the sake of efficiency. It's really incredible, and no less of an innovation because it's not new technology.

    2. Re:OT, but needs to be said by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Does anyone else see something fundamentally wrong with that? I agree that the government should play a LIMITED role in R&D ie financing the stuff that nobody else is willing to take the risk and finance, but there is somethin fundamentally wrong with this country when the government needs to finance most of the scientific research in this country.

      It depends, in part, on what you think government should do. If you think that government should play a minimal role in the advancement of society, then yes, this is wrong. If you think that government should play an active role in the advancement of society, then no, this is an excellent thing.

      That said, I'd personally much rather have the government fund pure scientific research than the private sector. The private sector simply can't afford to aggressively fund overarching scientific research; instead, they fund applied scientific research. They're interested in getting something they can sell, whereas the government is interested in making more generalized advances in scientific knowledge.

      These two types of science are separate, but they both rely heavily on the other. Without pure science, applied science would suffer for lack of new ideas and the breakthroughs that only come from decades and decades of careful, dedicated, uninterrupted, expensive research. Without applied science, pure science would suffer for lack of general interest in (and application of) the fruits of their labor.

      Not counting altruism, there's little reason for the private sector to engage in the kinds of large-scale, high-risk, long-term research projects that typefy pure research--simply put, the risk isn't worth the return. That research still needs to happen, though, or scientific progress will slow significantly.

      How do you convince a private corporation to embark on a scientific experiment that'll take four decades, cost tens of millions of dollars, and will quite likely result in inconclusive or useless results? It just doesn't make sense--and yet these types of projects are central to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

      Add to all this the fact that private enterprise tends to jealously guard their discoveries--after all, how do you make money off your discoveries if you give the recipe for your secret sauce to the world for free? Top it off with a sprinkling of companies who actively supress or distort scientific research that could be detrimental to the health of their business (but invaluable to, say, the health of the public,) and you've got another reason why the government should take a keen interest in advancing scientific knowledge.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    3. Re:OT, but needs to be said by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      Hmmm.... Would I rather have my research funded by the government or by a corporation whose main goal is profit (not necessarily accurate research)... That's a toughie, honestly.

      You'll really shit your pants when you find out that MIT's largest source of research money is the Dept of Defense...

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    4. Re:OT, but needs to be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dangerous precedent IMO.

      The precedent has been set a while ago... The USA has been transfering to a service-based economy for decades. However, providing services doesn't really create wealth, it just transfer wealth. Ergo a service-based economy can not generate as much wealth as one based on making goods and products. This is just the intial harvest of what was sown.

    5. Re:OT, but needs to be said by RobertFisher · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else see something fundamentally wrong with that?

      No, not in the least. Your question itself suggests a profound misunderstanding of what it means to conduct research.

      The private sector has one objective, and that is to make a profit. Some will conduct limited research, but only because they view it as a means to an end. The problem is, of course, that basic research which would be overlooked by companies with a short-term view often pay off tremendously more in the long run.

      Take a classic example. In the mid-19th century, industry was busy at work at improving intercontinental communications. How? By running cables underneath the Atlantic ocean. At the same time, James Clerk Maxwell scribbled and bibbled a few equations which suggested a completely different answer -- using long wavelength light waves, which hithertofore no one had even conceived of. The result? Radio, television, and (with the work of a few more scribblers doing quantum mechanics in the 1920s) the modern electronics industry.

      The point is that no company would have ever invested in the basic research which gave rise to those industries. Only governments can devote the level of resources to basic research that are really needed to advance our knowledge.

      Note that is not to say that private foundations (RIM's new Perimter institute, Keck, etc.) cannot have an impact. But they are only a drop in the bucket.

      == bob

      --
      Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
    6. Re:OT, but needs to be said by menace3society · · Score: 1

      Private R&D is generally a bad thing. If all research were privately conducted, then the companies paying for it would keep the results from getting published. Now, even if companies were to start giving grants to university researchers instead of hiring everyone away, they'd still make them sign some kind of NDA, and possibly a non-compete contract, that prevents them from doing anything useful that directly benefits everyone else.

      Ultimately, the problem is that private research is done for the sake of making money, rather than out of some sense of responsibilty for human progress, and consequently anything that threatens the profitability of the investment needs to be shut down. Not to mention that there'd be even more incentive for scientists to lie or fudge results, since instead of mere social pressure, vast sums of money can be used as incentives.

      I'll trust an enormous, untrustworthy government over an equally enormous and untrustworthy corporation any day. At least governments needs someone to vote for them.

    7. Re:OT, but needs to be said by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Private and for-profit research are not one and the same. Whenever these conversations come up, everyone always forgets about non-profit organizations which fund research. I know in my field the Howard Hughes Medical Institute funds a great deal of work.

    8. Re:OT, but needs to be said by justins · · Score: 1
      What ever happened to private R&D?

      It hasn't really disappeared. It is less conspicuous.

      Even so, the statement you're responding to, "At the same time, the government, which funds most scientific research in the country", has always been true. There is not any former golden age of private research funding or something.

      In America the burden might have switched from the states (while building the land-grant schools) to the federal government (during the cold war), but the government has always been the biggest player in research. I imagine that's true all over the world and has been for all of recorded history. Think tanks and corporations are a new phenomenon, and who else might have had the money to fund research beyond a very small scale?
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    9. Re:OT, but needs to be said by omb · · Score: 1

      From your post, one thing is clear, you have ABSOLUTELY no experience of what happens when government involves itself in scientific research
      it politicises and beaurocrtises it, forms grant committees and peer-pannels on which senior academics, who would rather politic than research sit.

      They then decide on what lines of research to fund based on 40 year old prejudices.

      Does anyone else wonder why, for example, the last serious advances in physics took place in the early part of the previous centuary, just before this magnificant boondogle took hold worlwide.

      I really hate to speculate, but, original research is very hard, eg PhDs are these days excused, so it is __much__ easier to politic, pontificat and teach.

    10. Re:OT, but needs to be said by nanoakron · · Score: 1

      Eh?

      On one hand, you seem to disapprove of the attitude 'You don't need to make stuff, just market stuff', which I read as 'You don't need to do research for the sake of it, just research things that can be sold' - the EXACT function of private R&D labs.

      Then in the next breath you ask why the government needs to fund R&D? Because this is precisely the R&D that needs to be done - research for research sake, not for profit.

      That is why governments fund R&D labs - broader focus, less interested in financial returns, just doing science for the sake of doing science.

      Or do you find something inherantly wrong with that attitude? Your post is a confused as I am.

      -Nano.

  38. Still not engineers by James+McP · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Call it what you want but until they develop a reliable, reproducible, and generally accepted set of practices they still aren't engineers.

    Skillfull and amazing, yes. Artisans maybe.

    Engineers no.

    It's the same reason ABET doesn't certify software engineering; it's still more art than science. Good engineering is science, great engineering is scientific artistry.

    --
    I've been on slashdot so long I'm starting to get out of touch with the cool stuff if it ain't on slashdot.
    1. Re:Still not engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ABET DOES certify biomedical engineering and has done so for many years.

      You can get an EIT (engineer in training) certificate (I have one) and a PE (professional engineer) license with an ABET certified biomedical engineering degree.

      Biomedical engineering is engineering applied to medicine. The definition of engineering is applying science to solve practical problems. BMEs use the same tools to solve problems that other engineers use -- transducers, finite element analysis, metallurgy, circuit design, polymer science, etc. etc. etc. The only difference is that living organisms are where the engineering is done. So to say that it's more art than science is ridiculous.

      I think the difference that MIT is making between traditional (hey, it's been around for 40 years) biomedical engineering and biological engineering is that the former uses traditional engineering tools to solve medical problems, whereas the latter trys to apply the tools that biological organisms have evolved to solve more traditional (and maybe non-medical) technical problems. But the latter has been around for some time too, and it's often called bionics (not to be confused with the Bionic Man).

    2. Re:Still not engineers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ABET does certifiy sofware engineering. In fact the first program was certified in 2003 at RIT

      Long live the wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineer

    3. Re:Still not engineers by fname · · Score: 1

      Damn, some of my best friends are got Ph.D.s in Bioengineering, and let me tell you, they are real engineers. When you're taking continuum mechanics classes, elasticity classes, conducting tensile testing on cartilage and doing that sort of thing, you're an engineer.

      Software engineers? Do they even take calculus?

  39. it's frankenSTEEN by cosinezero · · Score: 1, Funny

    Great, like we need -more- god complexes running around MIT...

  40. Historically misleading by gkuz · · Score: 2, Informative

    While the Globe's writeup may be "solid", it implies that a new major ("course") was created 29 years ago, and that's misleading. Yeah, like anybody here cares. But "Linguistics and Philosophy" was just a merger of the pre-existing "Linguistics" and "Philosophy" departments, each with their own major ("course"). Philosophy was 24, I don't remember what Linguistics was. The last completely new major was, I think, well before then.

    1. Re:Historically misleading by jenns · · Score: 1
      Course 24 is both linguistics AND philosophy.

      And this just seems to be called "BE" for now, which just hurts my poor course 7 head...

      --
      Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily this is not difficult. -Whitton
  41. OPPOSITION 2 HUMAN EMBRYO STEM CELL RESEARCH MORON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He opposes research"... DUH... Yeah!

    No, actually he opposes research that destroys human embryos...

    Jesus Christ, WTF kind of democrat operatives are feeding you these stories.

  42. Check out VaNTH.org by goldragon · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's a collaboration between Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Texas, and Harvard/MIT, using a $10mill NIH grant, to establish a curriculum for Biomedical/Biological Engineering. Vanderbilt is leading the group, mostly because of the fine Peabody School of Education that is part of the university, and I interned over one summer with the group ('02 graduate with a BE in BME). vanth.org]

  43. Not the first school to have this program by MacGod · · Score: 2, Informative

    MIT is obviously one of the biggest engineering schools in North America, but it should be noted that my school has had a Biological Engineering Program for quite some time.

    Don't get me wrong, good on MIT for adding this new major, but it should be noted that others have already done so.

    --
    "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one " -Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Not the first school to have this program by cephyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that it's pretty much assumed that MIT isn't the first to think of this major. They're just a notable school in related fields and for them, a Respected Institution, to create the major not only lends credence to the field but also to schools (such as yours) who have already created the major. That's why it's news. If Podunk School of Mooing adds it, so what? Even if it's a great program, that's only minor news. But when MIT adds it, well it not only makes a splash in the industry but it also lends some credibility to the PSM program.

      In other words, don't be offended that your school wasn't mentioned previously. Don't be offended that no one really cares (broadly speaking) that your school was "firster". Be glad that your school isn't insane for having the major, and now has academic respectability for the major.

      --
      Moo.
    2. Re:Not the first school to have this program by Hal-9001 · · Score: 1

      Define "quite some time." I can't find any information about the history of the Biological Engineering program at Guelph, but the University of California, San Diego has had a Bioengineering program since 1966. Furthermore, research and teaching in fields that would currently be classified as bio/biological/biomedical engineering have been going on at MIT in various departments for "quite some time," they just never bothered to formalize it as its own department or degree program. Personally, I think it is better to specialize in some biological or engineering field first, then work out the applications to bio/biological/biomedical engineering, but recently a grant-giving organization called the Whitaker Foundation has been handing out money left and right to anyone placing the strings "bio" and "engineering" in close proximity to each other, so I can hardly blame MIT for formalizing their biological engineering activity now.

      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
    3. Re:Not the first school to have this program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an alum of MIT. I see this announcement more as an endorsement for the Biological Engineering Discipline. At MIT, they always have all those new academic programs popped up every years. Many of them are just combination and permutation of different disciplines (inter-discipline programs). It is very rare that any one of those programs got promoted to a department or degree program. That does not mean that students/faculty do not get education/teach/research in those area. At MIT, it is relative easy to put together a special education program/plan of your own, and MIT will find a way to award you with a degree/title of some sort. So, getting a degree for whatever subject you want to study is not a major problem. What is so special about this announcement is that MIT actually promotes it as a "certified" program.
      It is especially true in light of the fact that MIT do not have a Computer degree program/department dispite all the progress/researches in the computer field over the years.

  44. I'm going to attend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once they clone me.. and then make me smarter

  45. Forget that, bioengineer me a deactive sex drive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget that, bioengineer me a deactive sex drive. This would allow me more time for more important things.

  46. Course Number? by pgreeley · · Score: 0, Troll

    The real question is what course number will it be?

    1. Re:Course Number? by abelenky17 · · Score: 1
      Agreed. Looking at some of the offered classes, it seems to overlap with 2, 3, 6 and even 10.

      Personally, I'd like to see course 19 continue as the "Lost Major", and see this one given number 25. (Thats what they're up to now, right?)

      -Aaron, Course 6.

    2. Re:Course Number? by Qwerty0 · · Score: 1

      I thought 19 was Applied Mechanical Engineering? You know, with the header classes taught by professors Florey and Tetazoo?

    3. Re:Course Number? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Course 20, which disappeared a few years ago, was "Applied Biological Sciences". It was part of the School of Science. The new department would probably be in the School of Engineering, but it would make sense to reuse 20 for its number.

  47. My Simon? by ackthpt · · Score: 0
    Re:They've already hired one professor -- The name's Sinister. Mr. Sinister. Specializing in mutations.

    Simon Bar Sinister? Perhaps Mitt Romney will dash into a nearby alley and turn into Underdog to, uh, preserve the Polly Purebreads of the world.

    or is that pollyanna

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  48. Just like the Internet crawls with perverts. by Phidoux · · Score: 1

    Stem cell research is bad!

    Now what did I do with my rubber gloves?

  49. And I though CIS was the last recognized major! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess not.

  50. I THUNK THAT HE JUST OPPOSED RESEARCH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article synopsis, it just says that the gov is anti-research...

    Wow, when you actually mention the very narrow thing that the man opposes (creating human embryos for destruction), it makes sense.

    BUT OF COURSE!!! Slashdot liberalism *has* to mischaracterize the man as "anti-science" and "opposing all stem cells". To allow an actual debate would be anti-slashdot. This is board is purely for flamage and trollage.

  51. LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    slashdot TOLD ME that stem cellz are BANNED. THEY ARE BANNED BY EVIL RETHUGLICANS!

    You come in here with your gibberish and try to actually speak?! This is not a place to speak, this is a place to TELL. I TELL YOU IT IS BANNED!!!

    1. Re:LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE by Coulson · · Score: 1

      THEY ARE BANNED BY EVIL RETHUGLICANS!

      Why is it that only conservatives use made-up insults (e.g. 'DemocRATS') to describe their opponents, even when they're pretending to attack themselves? Maybe I should read more DU and less FR.

    2. Re:LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading more DU... heh... just look at the toiletpaper before you flush next time. Same effect.

    3. Re:LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiiiight, because it's only right-wing people who do that, lefties never resort to that tactic.

      There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

  52. BU by tommyth · · Score: 1

    Boston U, which is right next door to MIT, has had a BioEng program for some time. Why no article for them?

    1. Re:BU by tommyth · · Score: 1

      Nm, the article wasn't about BME.

  53. Hold them responsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the next adminstration allows stem cell research and then they find a cure for a deadly cancer in 4 years but I have a loved one die of the cancer can I hold this administration responsible legally? They may be knowingly depriveing my loved ones of our most basic right to life.

  54. Rat-rights. "Animal rights". by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    They tend to be the same one hugging trees. Just one example of many: http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?web cat=features&enewsid=4839 .

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
    1. Re:Rat-rights. "Animal rights". by mboverload · · Score: 1

      I love animals and all, I wouldn't beat a dog, I don't kick the shit out of my cat, but I see how stupid allot of these animal rights people are. Making sure horses are not being abused is a good and noble cause but protesting the killing of animals for food is ludicrous. Combines (they are farm machines, harvest food) kill MILLIONS of small animals every year in their huge, sharp blades, but I do not see them protesting that. They continue eating that wheat from that machine of small-mammal-death.

    2. Re:Rat-rights. "Animal rights". by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't beat a dog, I don't kick the shit out of my cat,

      Making sure horses are not being abused is a good and noble cause

      You might be interested to know that these are Animal Welfare issues, not necessarily Animal Rights. They're two separate movements, and many AW people think AR people are nuts too. For comparison; PeTA is AR, the SPCA is AW. An AW person wants cows to be treated humanely until they are killed (as painlessly as possible), an AR person wants to free them.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    3. Re:Rat-rights. "Animal rights". by computechnica · · Score: 1

      The smart field mice hear the combines coming and run for the woods. Then the owls eat the slow mice. The mice that survive are the smart-fast mice.

      I for one would like to welcome our new Smart-Fast Mice Overlords

    4. Re:Rat-rights. "Animal rights". by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      As another poster mentioned, this is animal rights vs. animal welfare.

      I, for one, am quite willing to pay extra to buy meat that has been treated humanely.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  55. What's so amazing about this? by vectorian798 · · Score: 1

    BioE is a common major among colleges today - at my college, Cal, we have had it for a while now.

    And actually, the major has nothing to do with crossing humans with birds and horses to produce a flying centaur (at the UG level anyways haha).

    It is more of a 'process' major, whereby they learn a little of everything - most of my BioE friends tell me they feel like they aren't learning too much actually (and we rank pretty high in it too!) because there are few opportunities for depth. In fact, many EECS classes are crosslisted as BioE classes so that BioE ppl can get some sort of priority in getting into those classes - mainly because otherwise they wouldn't know shit.

    Anyways, the courses involved are actually rather random - there is one called topics in genomics, one called intro to bioastronautics, then a bunch of those EECS-crosslisted classes, and so on.

    I imagine that graduate students in BioE will HAVE to have major experience in a different field or else they wouldn't be able to do that much.

    1. Re:What's so amazing about this? by jsdfh20 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Biosystems Engineering Majors are incredibly common. Almost all land grant universities have had them for over 10 years. When biotech started getting popular, all the land grant universities changed their agriculture engineering departments to biological engineering departments. They changed the courses to reflect more environmental and biological topics. The professional society for biological engineering is ASAE(American Society of Agricultural Engineers). Biological engineering is well defined and is considered engineering systems that relate to the creation of food products, handling of plants and animals, and processing of these biological materials. This is different than biomedical engineering which is directed just at the human body and generally involves creating replacement parts(heart valves). It doesn't look like MIT's major will be following the standard biological engineering program, so they should probably call it something else to avoid confusion (maybe celluar engineering). A few of the schools with well-established biological or biosystems engineering degrees: Kansas State University (Biological & Agricultural Engineering) Texas A&M University (Biological & Agricultural Engineering) Iowa State University (Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering) Nebraska University (Biological Systems and Agricultural Engineering) Oklahoma State University (Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering) I am a student in the BAE department at Oklahoma State University. Just to let everyone know that biological engineering has been around for a long time.

    2. Re:What's so amazing about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BME at Case Western http://bme.case.edu/ sidesteps the problem by having multiple sequences. BME covers such a broad range of topics that if it isn't specialized it does end up as a major that lacks depth. At Case we have Bioelectric Engineering, Biomechanics, Imaging & Computing, Instrumentation, Orthopedic Biomaterials, Polymeric Biomaterials, Systems and Control, and Tissue Engineering as sequences. We all start out taking the same core engineering classes as every other engineer then we take a few core BME classes - biomaterials, bioinsturmentation, biophysics, blah blah. Then we take the proper classes for the sequence. It's very specific and in depth at the end - that's why Case is ranked 4th in the country for BME.

  56. My Experience by Omega037 · · Score: 1

    I am a Bioengineering Major at Binghamton University, class of 2006(the first class to be offered). I chose it over Computer Engineering, and I don't regret it. I have gotten to learn a lot of really new stuff; many of our classes have no textbooks because the material is so new. THe only real difficulty is finding a job...employers aren't looking for bioengineers directly. I can easily get into research, but I kinda want to spread my wings and fly first.

  57. Wow, W must be conflicted by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    On one hand, Bush must be anxious to let companies bring in foreign biological engineers to keep any American from being employed as such. But on the other hand, as a radical right wing Christian, he doesn't believe in biology, so he must also want to keep them out of the country.

    But then again, both of these scenarios assume that Bush actually keeps abreast of the news, which is a pretty ridiculous proposition in itself.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  58. think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wonder how long it will be before children are born with Monsanto trademarks/birthmarks on thier bottoms...

  59. Is Slashdot just a political blog now... by glenrm · · Score: 1

    Err I didn't realize Biology was only stem cell research, learn something new everyday...

    1. Re:Is Slashdot just a political blog now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technology stuff, not just Linux, not just computers, besides Slashdot can chat about whatever they want...

  60. Sadly the result was dissapointing when... by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    they discovered that even artificial chicks prefer Foodball player to band geeks!

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  61. MIT tuition fees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The students first project will be to put bamboo genes into marijuana plants. Once they succeed, their their tuition fees will be paid for the rest of their time at MIT.

  62. Who shaves the Bio Engineer? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    Who certified the faculty of Biological Engineering so that they can hand out degrees in Biological Engineering? (Do they have pass the academic frown test of their peers or do they just order their own degree from a PO box in New Mexico?)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  63. I POOP ON MIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    poop

    1. Re:I POOP ON MIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      scottsch, is that you?

  64. Animals...humans. by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    Humans are animals. Language affects thought, and if we keep implying humans aren't animals, we'll get nowhere.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
    1. Re:Animals...humans. by mboverload · · Score: 1
      I know humans are animals.

      I agree that anyone who denys we are anything but just another animal failed biology or is really relgious.

  65. not related by dAzED1 · · Score: 1
    In the same week that I got sick, I got junkmail from homedepot trying to get me to sign up for a credit card.

    So what?

    Did the poster bother to read the link he supplied? That degree has nothing to do with stem cell research.

    From the link: Biomedical Engineering is the application of all types of engineering to all types of problems in clinical medicine. Biomedical Engineers develop new robotic surgery procedures, non-invasive imaging modalities, diagnostic procedures analyzing heart signals, telemedicine programs, and a range of other technologies that help diagnose and treat disease better. Biomedical Engineering includes many application areas and approaches that do not require a foundation in modern biology, and thus there are many educational and research opportunities in the various School of Engineering Departments for students who have a strong interest in clinical medicine and in engineering but only a modest interest in biology.

    Also note a snippit from further in the article that the poster gave the link to: "Biological Engineering as a Discipline, Distinct from the Applied Field of Biomedical Engineering." Important distinction? naaahhhhh....

    There's no inconsistency here. He's against certain types of harvesting, and MIT is making robots. Wow, definately news, stuff that matters.

  66. How many of the folks commenting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    have a clue as to the differences between engineering and science. An engineer knows recipes and applies them to solving problems, be it bridge construction or rat brain cell based ocntrollers. Applied sciences are a transition area between science and engineering. The applied scientist takes the models science has devised to explain the how and why of the observed world and turn it into recipes for the engineers. Ga Tech and Univ. of Alabama have both had applied biophysics programs since at least the early 70's and have been offering combined study in EE and biology since the early 80's. Are there now enough recipes for an engineering program? IMO, yes. One need not know the how of brain cells to build a rat brain cell based controller or clone rat brain cells. Yes, it's time to start 'engineering' with these bio-technologies. Engineering ways to make the brain cells live long enough to build a 'useful device'. I use the rat brain as an example as itoften arises in /. threads relating biology and engineering.

  67. Ways around it. by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    "Non-human animal" works but is cumbersome. Maybe "creature" will catch on.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  68. Just nit-picking... by PaulBu · · Score: 1

    It is to keep the people's minds off the absurdity of "god" creating light before he "made" stars.

    And you seriously think that in the Big Bang heavy protons and neutrons to build He to build stars were created BEFORE photons/radiation/light?

    Paul B.

    P.S. But I agree with your "PR plot" idea...

    1. Re:Just nit-picking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woah. I misread "He" as in the capitalized male pronoun "He." Capitalizing it would make it a sort of proper pronoun, which I have only used seen to refer to god. So...

      And you seriously think that in the Big Bang heavy protons and neutrons to build God to build stars... is basically the concept I came off with initially. Maybe I should have gotten sleep last night rather than reading The Invisibles. Yeah... messes with your mind for a bit. Maybe I need to go deprogram or something.

  69. Romney is an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to put it plainly, the dude is a ass. it has nothing to do with him being republican or whatever. it has everything to do with the assinine statements he has made in office. Like supporting bulger's brother when he got kicked out. Or not revoking bolger's pension, which resulted in quite a few people being fired to pay for it. frankly at the next election, I hope he gets his ass beaten and someone else put in office. while we're at it, lets I hope MA voters kick out kennedy too.

  70. Sort of an ... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    All MIT geeks rushed to change their major in the hopes that they could engineer the perfect female obje^H^H^H^H companion that would get them laid.

    Sort of an Uma Thurmanator.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  71. Flamebait by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    I want to see them go after the organic-everything new-age crowd. Maybe if they object to wireless internet.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  72. The University of Virginia - BME MAJOR! by Pavan_Gupta · · Score: 1

    Actually, as a Biomedical Engineering at UVa right this moment, I can tell you that the field is still extremly new, and thus quite revolutionary by the very definition of the word. Just pick up the Journal of Biomedical Engineering, it's worth the read, if only just to see how phenomenal the research seems. Imagine the day when your Biomedical Engineering friend can sit down with your torn muscle and inject a polymer that repairs the damage. That's tomorrow, in today's research labs at UVa.

    The pushes into this field of engineering are helping to consolidate biological advances in chemical engineering, tissue engineering, mechanical engineering (believe it or not), computer science, etc. To better enhance your view of the situation, UVa started their major officially last year, and the field quickly became one of the most competitive majors in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences out here, but for good reason.

    We're ranked well, even being a pretty liberal arts related school, but this in large part due to the fact that our Medical School is extremly active in research. One of the critical distinctions our school is making is the fact that BME is regarded as a Major, and not a minor in the way MIT seems to want to do it. This is because we have no "Biological Engineering" major, mainly because Biomedical Engineering encompasses those things MIT designated as Biological Engineering, and more. Moreover, BME is regarded as a major at quite a few prestigious University's including Northwestern, UMass, UCLA, etc, so clearly MIT must be reading a different set of notes than the rest of the academic community.

    Regardless, Biomedical Engineering is something that is very much important, and it's very good to see a peer institution in the market to develop smart Biomedical/Biological Engineers. Hopefully this won't be our generation's Aerospace Engineering or Nuclear Engineering. I do believe jobs will last in this field, and the potential for branching into other fields from an Undergrad Degree in BME is phenomenal (just look at the fact that BME majors have the highest acceptance rate out of any major into Medical School).

    There's my .. err .. 50-60 cents ;)

    1. Re:The University of Virginia - BME MAJOR! by Hal-9001 · · Score: 1

      I would argue that Biological Engineering, as outlined at MIT, is a superset of Biomedical Engineering (BME). BME, as implemented in most BME programs, primarily concerns the application of engineering technology to medical problems. As described, Biological Engineering is both interested in the application of engineering technology to biological (including medical) problems, AND the application of biological knowledge to engineering problems (e.g. biomemetics). The latter is usually considered a specialization with a traditional engineering program (e.g. biomemetic materials as a specialization in materials science and engineering, or biomemetic robots as a specialization in electrical engineering)

      Personally, I think MIT has a more rational approach to BME than most other universities. Many problems in BME can be solved with specialized knowledge of a single engineering discipline supplemented with some basic biological information (usually just physical properties of biological tissue). For example, medical imaging is primarily physics or electrical engineering supplemented by knowledge of the radiological properties of tissue. Your tissue repair example is primarily chemistry or material science supplemented by some knowledge of immune compatibility. This is consistent with making BME a minor to supplement a traditional engineering degreee. The recent craze of establishing degree programs in "biomedical engineering" is a gold rush capitalizing on a grant-giving organization called the Whitaker Foundation, which recently began handing out money left and right to anything containing the words "biomedical engineering".

      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
    2. Re:The University of Virginia - BME MAJOR! by Mr.+Frilly · · Score: 1

      As somebody who was at MIT, and knows many of the people involved in the biological engineering department, I'm surprised that MIT is considering adding BE as an undergrad major.

      I'm currently doing graduate school in a BE department, and I'm very glad that my undergrad major was not in BE. I was an EE major (6-1 for you MIT folks) in undergrad with a interest in BE, which as the previous poster mentioned, is the right way to do things.

      Most of the BE majors I've seen in my graduate school life are simply not adequately prepared when they get to graduate school. Obviously, there's exceptions, but for the most part somebody with a BE undergrad major has only had a superficial survey of the different fields of engineering and is essentially a glorified biologist.

      The very reason MIT didn't try to create a BE undergrad major back in 1998 when the department was formed, is that they were concerned that their graduates would not have a solid foundation in any of the branches of engineering, and would therefore suffer after graduation.

      To any undergrads considering BE as a major, I would suggest that you instead pick the branch of engineering that most interests you (e.g. EE, ME, ChemE) and then add a BE minor. Biology is a lot easier to learn yourself after graduation than is engineering, and particularly math.

  73. Left right left right left right by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    Yes, the rat-rights people will lean to the "other party" as I said. Libertarians offer a way out, at least on this issue.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  74. NOT a religious monologue.. by A+Soul · · Score: 1

    Religion can do as much to damage any debate as zealotry - of any kind. I proffer the following for discourse: An naturaly (or otherwise produced) human embryo as per this discussion (oft' described as a mass of skin cells etc etc) is nothing if not a replication of dna sequences in an, as yet, indescipherable scattered adjoined pattern of parent genomes. Do we feign to know anything more than this vague assertion about what IS or IS NOT human life? Especially since in this day and age, we are no less capable of extinguishing it en-masse by proxy of techie drones and long-range missiles etc. We humans DO have a problem with learning about LIFE. We seem to have less touble in executing DEATH. Experiment? Sure, if law says okay. But is the law moral? No. Is moral argument therfore restricted to religion? Of course not. So is it Ethics that decides? (if you don't know the diff don't bother trolling) Far from dictating any 'one decision' ethics are often overlooked in this and many debates facing us all in the west, and therefore humankind by extention. Everything 'UP FOR DEBATE' is either "good" or "bad" - "black" or "white" - "with us" or "against us" etc. We can have ALL the zygotes we want to make into facile, white-bread, bird-dog morons we can devise as some kind of excuse for producing a veritable "super-mankind" but ANY world-class scientist would attest that we are simultaneously hosing our humanity down the drain if we imagine that we NOW know what we are doing. Caution in all things. This is not a religious monologue.

  75. Over in Canada... by UlfGabe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At Guelph University, we have had biological engineering for quite some time.

    It is focuses on two streams, bioreactions, and biomedical.

    The Bio-reactions would deal with:

    membranes
    bio reactors(beer creation!)
    remediation techniques (this is a mix with enviro eng)
    food creation / processing

    Bio Medical:
    Custom Prosethetics
    Imaging technologies
    Different therapies (gene, radiation, chemical, natural)
    Cyborg creation 101
    Android Manipulation (must be taken with AI*4503)

    ect.

    Guelph is largly a non traditional Engineering school, there is no Civil/mechanical/other standard engineering programs, very cool.

    --
    Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
    1. Re:Over in Canada... by brihas · · Score: 1

      Also at the University of British Columbia (which has a very traditional Engineering program) there is the Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering: http://www.chml.ubc.ca/

  76. Heh, I'm already in a BioEngineer program.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a canadian student, my major at the moment is Biological Engineering with the University of Guelph (one of the only, if not THE only uni. here in Canada which offers such a program).

    It's teh sw33t.

  77. Ethics by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is fascinating, but the writeup is pure flamebait. I know most geeks are atheists who don't grock all this "religion", but we'd do better to ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway. This stuff will just move to Singapore or the like as the backwards people oppose it. I'm studying neuroscience, and I have more problems with rat-rights or monkey-rights people (who may be in a different political party).

    Speaking of flamebait... sheesh!

    Have you ever taken an ethics class? Saying that other people will commit evil to get ahead is never a justification for doing it yourself. Should we torture prisoners to get information about terrorists? Why not? Many people would object on moral grounds, but would you agree that we should "ignore the religious types who won't have any part in the future anyway?" After all, "this stuff will just move to [Syria] or the like as the backwards people oppose it."

    Why don't we experiment on the homeless (or whoever else we decide not to care about currently)? What basis do your ethics have for supporting or rejecting this idea? Are humans special in your philosophy compared to animals? What makes your moral and ethical decision (which is not based on religion) any more valid than that of someone else?

    (My stance on these issues is irrelevant to this; I just can't stand a blowhard whether they're a rabid fundamentalist Christian or a rabid fundamentalist Atheist who is convinced that they're views are inherently morally, ethically, and logically superior to everyone else's.)

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why don't we experiment on the homeless

      In some ways of looking at this, it could be more ethical. Give the homeless a choice: We'll put you up for a while in a clean warm place, giving you food and medical care in exchange for the ability to test on you. Nobody ever gave the current lab animals a choice.

      I could see this going a long way to help solve many mental health/drug addiction problems that currently afflict mankind.

      Note: I am not saying that this is ethical, but in some ways is no less ethical than testing on animals. As long as that element of choice is there. This also assumes that the "choice" isn't forced on the sunjects through intentional social pressures.

      Note 2: I'm not really against limited animal testing either, as long as adequate care is taken to ensure that there is no needless suffering endured.

    2. Re:Ethics by omb · · Score: 1

      I sometimes dispair

      Nature, be it Physics or Biology exists, and will be discovered, as the parent posts, in the US or elsewhere, essentially prohibiting research, for political reasons, is vacuous.

      Once discovered, the result leaks

      Soft headed or soft hearted liberals should not confuse what is ethical with their politically correct agenda

      If one of mine was threatened by a terrorist I would personnaly have no compuntion extracting the information I needed,
      and as anyone who has been there knows, that cannot involve torture, and when I had the information, ensure that
      they died, painfully, embarrassingly and very very slowly.

    3. Re:Ethics by gregorsamsa11 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can make any respectable logical argument about the rights of animals. When people think of a particular organism being subjected to research, their moral judgement about the situatuion is likely to be based on how close a resemblence that organism bears to humans. As belief in the importance of the research varies (due both to individual differences and differences in the research itself), so will the threshold of how human-like a subject is acceptable.

      Of course, some set their threshold at absolute minimum, saying that anything that we perceive as alive has rights that we infringe by subjecting it to research. When I meet one of these, I 1)immediately mention my lab works on yeast, and 2) ask if they like yogurt.

    4. Re:Ethics by peamasii · · Score: 1

      Since when is morality grounds for ANYTHING? In modern society, pragmatism should ALWAYS dominate over moralistic views. Morality is doing nothing but criticizing those who are doing SOMETHING. It's basically the negation of life and there are always other considerations for what gets done, whether in science, politics, philosophy or anything else that matters. This means that scientists alone are to devise what is moral for them to research and how to proceed. Not atheists, christians, activists or any other -ists that promote their opinions gratuitously. Those concerned and involved with the work are solely responsible what they do, without ignorant ideologies breathing down their neck.

    5. Re:Ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I posit that as long as we remain a thriving species in this gigantic and uncontrollable universe, morality will continue to dominate most aspects of our decision making. It is the (fairly loose) code by which we understand ourselves to be held by the universe, God, Jesus, Allah, black-hole-of-nothingness, Karma, or whatever you believe or don't believe in. It doesn't really matter what you call it, but we do somehow have a drive to believe there is a naturally ideal way to interact with the world around us. People go through their lives proving this for themselves all the time. Whether you are a Catholic or a Muslim or a "New-Age Spiritialist", you probably have come to a similar understanding about a higher power all around us. There is a very sound basis for using morality in our judgements, and this morality doesn't come from a simple fabrication by the human mind. It comes from the wisdom of ages of observation. Think of it as a long-term, adaptive science lab. You do something, the universe reacts, you judge the "correctness" of your action and adjust your moral understanding of the world. Rinse and repeat.

      We are out of control.

      On the other hand, many scientists I have met, though all very intelligent, seem to lack a basic understanding of humanistic principles and human spirit. What they cannot understand through diagrams or mathematical expressions, what cannot be illustrated by a sound logical argument following from concrete axioms, or what cannot be observed directly by one of the senses, must not be accepted as Truth. This seems like a less interesting and extremely limiting way to live life, especially considering how easy it is to not let morality get in the way of scientific progress (at least on a personal level - this says nothing about how HARD it is to wrest the right to progress from a Fascist Dictator and his hundreds of millions of ignorant cronies).

      Not surprisingly it is this group of aspiritual scientists that seem to lead the less exciting and less meaningful lives. That is, of course, until they find a kind of spiritual understanding that suits them.

      That is all.

  78. The truth about opposition to stem cells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's not the religious nuts that are slowing Embroynic stem cell research, rather read past the headlines and you will see that the major pharmacutical companies who are largest lobbyist group in washington is pulling the strings on bush's back to stop all cures related to stem cells from becoming a market. Treatments not cures is were the money is. Bilking americans with long drawn out treatments is much more profitable then cures so the real motive that the bush adminastation is really trying to protect is the asses of the pharmacuticals. it's sad sad sad.!!!!! Someone should expose the real truth on ESC'S!

  79. Sunflowers compared to plants? by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    Humans are animals. That is all.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  80. Libertarian then? by Eunuch · · Score: 1

    Given your sig. I have libertarian leanings, but I think of it as something for the transhuman future. When my mind is encased in electric armor, I won't mind guns too much. But for now, I'd like them off the streets.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  81. Course number! Course number! WHAT COURSE NUMBER? by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    Of course, question that all of want to know is, what Roman numeral did they give to the new course?

    I think the highest existing number is Course XXIV, Linguistics and Philosophy, so presumably Biological Engineering is Course XXV... or is it?

    This web page,alas, is not up-to-date.

  82. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In same week that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney reitereates...

    You know, it's pretty bad form to link to an article that contradicts your own statement.

  83. Course "BE." I yam stoopid... sorry... by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    Actually, that web page was up to date... I skipped right over it.

    It is "Course BE."

    How could they depart from hallowed tradition? O tempora. O mores. O mens. O manes.

    1. Re:Course "BE." I yam stoopid... sorry... by porcupine8 · · Score: 1

      The last new major added was CMS (a lot less than 29 years ago...) - welcome to the New MIT with extra Harvard!

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  84. I try to go the other way by Eunuch · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Whatever thoughts I may have I try to put somewhere on the internet. Alt.alt or alt.geek on usenet is what I've been doing. A personal archive may get destroyed but google may save the alt.geek group for a long time.

    --
    Transcend Humanity. Please.
  85. Re:Forget that, bioengineer me a deactive sex driv by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just masturbate less, it helps.

  86. not at all new at MIT by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Several of the engineering majors at MIT already had bio-engineering options for several decades. The most well known was option VI-2 in Electrical Engineering, but mechanical and materials science had these too. This latest development formalizes it.

    1. Re:not at all new at MIT by IdntUnknwn · · Score: 1

      Are they really the same thing though? I believe the point of the Biological Engineering major is that you focus specifically on biology with the addition of engineering principles, while its the other way around in the other options. For example, course 6 with a BME minor would mean you focus on EE, but with a biological bent, rather than a biological focus with an EE bent. The difference in the end might be insignificantly subtle, but MIT seems to think its important enough.

  87. At Caltech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My friend Paul Studenski created his own biological-engineering major back around 1970 and got his degree in it in 1971-1973 IIRC.

  88. Bringing Down the House by geekpolitico · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Once the cutting-edge materials of engineering were steel girders, then transistors. And next, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is gambling ....

    When I first read this sentence I thought they had started a gambling major due to the success of MIT Gamblers.

  89. um ... what is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, what are these biological engineers going to do? Are they going to genetically engineer new organisms? Are they going to lift methods from biology and apply them to existing engineering problems? Are they going to produce better devices for interacting with existing organisms? Are they going to supervise breeding programs to achieve some goal? Are they going to design ecosystems by choosing novel uses of existing organisms?

    And if it's all these things, what, if anything, is the common denominator that undergraduates need to be taught?

  90. long overdue by Efreet · · Score: 1

    I was glad to hear that we'd finally gotten a Biomedical engineering major. I have one good friend who chose to go to Harvard rather than MIT because they have a BioMedEng major and we don't.

    --
    This sig wasn't worth reading, was it.
  91. Darl used the wrong department at MIT by SCO+STINKS · · Score: 1

    Forget the rocket scientists, A Biological Engineer would be much more suited to find mutated Unix code in Linux.

    --
    Reason #32767 not to use VB6: Integers are 2 bytes... Think about it!
  92. Many schools have BME; This stands out because it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is BE (biological engineering). RTFA

    Every self-respecting, decent engineering school in the country has BME.

  93. Difference between basic and applied research by ajdecon · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, a lot of companies see very little value in any sort of basic research; any R&D being done is with the specific goal of creating a new product. Which is fine for them, I suppose... except a lot of their applied research has to build on previous research done just for the hell of it. "Useless" research has a tendancy to become essential in ways not expected before.

    AFAIK, the government is the only very large organization willing to spend money on research which has no immediate economic value. I'd be thrilled to see private organizations step up to the plate, and throw money at things which won't help their profits next quarter... but I wouldn't bet on it happening any time soon.

    --
    "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself." -Richard Feynman
  94. For the BioEng people out there by biounlogical · · Score: 1

    This post is coming pretty late in the game, but worth a shot.
    For all of the biological engineers out there, how many times have you been asked what a biological engineer is? What kind of reaction do you get after telling them? I'm a bioengineer (UofG) and I've been asked by a number of people just what exactly a biological engineer is.

  95. I don't understand the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From all I've read from the articles that I've come across on the web regarding opposition to stem cell research by cloning human embryos, I really don't understand what the issue is.

    I know that in America, there has been long term political issues regarding people being avidly against abortion and others simply against the government inhibiting their rights to choose whether they can have an abortion.

    If I understand correctly, it's because at least one group believes that from the time that an egg is fertilized, it is a baby within the womb. I guess I can understand this since I consider my 2 year old son to be a person, why not believe that the equivilent of a single cell is a person as well if it will eventually grow into one anyway.

    I do know that during the period of the abortion laws blocking abortions, it didn't seem to stop anyone from getting one. It seems that it only made it harder to get a proper doctor to do it. From what I have heard from people old enough to remember it, it seemed that when a politician's daughter got pregnant through "illegitimate" means, either voluntary intercourse or otherwise, she was able to get proper medical care and have the abortion performed. When someone with lesser means available faced the same problem, they would be forced to use a less than reputible doctor or worse to perform the proceedure and put their lives at risk in the process.

    Now, I can't imagine that any law that gets passed regarding abortion would actually impact whether people get abortions or not. I can only imagine that it will degrade the quality of health and life in general for the population by prohibiting it.

    As to stem cell research and the cloning of human embryos for stem cell harvesting, I can't imagine that any law would possibly stop it from occuring. I can only imagine that instead of the harvesting occuring in labs staffed by reputible researchers, it would be more likely to cause a somewhat "Mad Doctor" effect where some lunatic would clone the embryos in his/her basement laboratory. It could be even worse that instead of simply getting the embyros from a laboratory environment, these lunatics could pay girls to get pregnant and allow them to perform abortions shortly afterwards in order to harvest the embryos. And maybe worse yet, in countries that still have forced labor and even forced medical research participation, young girls can be forced to become pregnant in an almost hen house type environment in order to harvest the embyos.

    So to continue on that thread, can people against the concept of laboratory based embryonic harvesting from clones based on religous or fundemental reasoning believe that stopping it would improve the situation at all? Morally correct or not, I can not possibly see the benefit of stopping this type of activity in controlled environments when the alternative is far worse and unavoidable.

  96. Who Concern calls a troll by sammeal · · Score: 1

    Please see this. It is a sock-puppet account of Concern where he attempts to denigrate as a "political troll" anyone who looks at him funny. He added me to his "political troll" list when I pointed out that he (Concern) was violating his own troll rules.

  97. Carnegie Mellon's BME program by Ladygunsen · · Score: 1

    Carnegie Mellon University has a bio-medical engineering program, with one caveat. A student can only major in it as long as they have an additional major, like mechanical, chemical or electrical engineering. I think that's a good idea, because as some people have been saying, Bio-medical is still a relatively new program and doesn't have much structure yet. http://www.cmu.edu/bme/

    --
    When uncertain, when in doubt, Run in circles, scream and shout.