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."
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.
This is one of the technologies that really do scare me. But I'm excited to see it moving forward
Pretty Pictures!
Hmm...starting your article with a misleading flamewar rant against a politician? It's right on par with Slashdot's level of professionalism.
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!
You don't have to be religious to find the creation of embryos for research offensive.
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)
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.
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?
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
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.
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").