Well yeah, that's why I thought the film was impressive. It didn't have the whole package (plot), but it was super fun to watch, and well worth my money - and it's hard to say that about many films these days (or any days, I don't know).
Being able to do the same thing with adult stem cells is not the issue. The issue is that we had to spend (are currently spending) a considerable amount of time figuring out how to reproduce pluripotent stem cells from adult tissue - and then figuring out what to do with them. Consider an alternate history of scientific advancement in which embryonic stem cells were used without as much restriction, treatments created to use them to combat major human illnesses, etc. At the same time (or even afterward, if you prefer), techniques were being developed to generate these same useful cells from adult tissues. The result is the ability to combat illnesses much sooner than the actual course of events, in which we were basically forbidden to develop useful stem cell techniques until we could first figure out how to create them from adult tissues.
Or, how about an analogy? Peanuts are really useful things; they make peanut butter, you can dry roast them, honey roast them, boil them, make peanut brittle, eat them lightly salted, use peanut oil for cooking, etc. But to develop all those useful applications for peanuts, you have to first have peanuts. Now, how about someone says you can not use pre-existing peanuts that are laying around, but must instead figure out how to optimally grow peanuts, and then use those? Which of these will lead more rapidly to the development of peanut butter? A flawed analogy, as most are, but I think communicates my point fairly well.
Embryonic SC restrictions necessitated adult stem cell research, they didn't interfere with it. However, SC research as a whole was slowed down because of these restrictions. I'm not making a moral argument, it is just the inescapable conclusion that restricting use of embryonic SCs so heavily resulted in a much slower rate of advancement of stem cell technologies and treatments. We no longer had the ability to work with those versatile cells that were already available (once again, moral concerns aside, they weren't being used and were in many cases destined for destruction anyway; nobody was getting women pregnant with the express purpose of destroying the resulting conceptus for research purposes) and so had to develop wholly new techniques to generate these cells. It set us back.
It seems from everything I've read that any teeth will do. Kids' baby teeth and wisdom teeth have been mentioned, but why not any other tooth? Wisdom teeth are anatomically similar to the rest of your teeth, so I don't think anyone willing to give up one of their permanent teeth will be excluded from any awesome stem cell therapy in the future.
Well, yes, of course they do. People should be able to think and say whatever they want. I think the real problem is that "hate" has a very specious definition, so trying legislate away "hateful" speech is difficult at best, oppressive at worst.
It was declared a pandemic (and it was a pandemic) when the danger of the virus was still largely unknown. As a new pandemic virus, it warranted the attention it received, even though we erred on the side of caution this time - as I hope we do with every new disease.
Why does the theory of evolution implicate the non-existence of God? Why does it do so any more than does the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of gravitation, atomic theory, or the theory of relativity? It's a set of explanations that predict certain things that are then subsequently observed in the real world - that's why it's a good theory. The fact that you do no know or intentionally misuse the word "theory" doesn't make you clever, it makes you uninformed or an imbecile.
Unfortunately for you, for every person with an aging mother or grandmother who likes the convenience of the iPad, there are 20 people who know Apple fanatics who wait slavering with their credit cards at the ready to purchase whatever slick new gizmo Jobs puts out. I don't own any Apple products, but there will always be people like that at the forefront of technology and - let's face it - that's where Apple currently is. Just because they are there doesn't mean that the products they buy aren't quality, even if they may be buying them for the "wrong" reasons.
There's a big difference though. Asserting that the Big Bang began everything does not end inquiry into the Big Bang itself. It's just that, with our current level of technology and understanding of the physical laws of the universe, that's the best explanation we've got. I assure you that the Big Bang will be looked at in better detail as soon as scientists are able to, because that's what scientists do. Why do you think we'll just sit around saying, "Oh Big Bang got it, let's talk about something else" when evolution, which already has mounds of evidence to back it up, is still an active area of research? No, the origin of the universe, like the origin of species (and the origin of life) is too much of a mystery, too tantalizing to let go.
Mod parent up, it seems that the only people wanting to push ID into classrooms are a small minority of religious (and in the US, let's face it - Christian) jerks. I don't know why they can't tolerate scientific evidence or reconcile it with their own beliefs, but they're sure making the rest of the (much more reasonable) religious folks look bad.
They're making the tripods from War of the Worlds. Large Hadron Collider is obviously to produce an energy source to power them. Look out for heat-ray research on the horizon.
Even assuming some sort of massive DNA damage, if he's alive and doesn't have cancer then he has (apparently) recovered just fine. This means that (a) his cells are overwhelmingly about the same as they were when he was born - the fidelity of one's genome is kind of a top priority for the body, after all - and more interestingly (b) his cells are extraordinarily resistant to DNA damage, likely through highly efficient repair mechanisms. That's the kind of thing they want to find out about, although it probably won't end up being DNA repair genes that are most interesting in Mr. Osbourne, but rather something more related with drug processing.
You think it would be "right" to lynch someone for being an offensive dick? That's horrifying.
Re:So, my only question regarding Lost is
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
This is sort of explained by the weird time behavior around the island. So they were dropped at some point, but they were delayed by the magic time field around the island, and so never hit until the survivors needed them. Another deus ex machina by the sentient-when-convenient island. Of course, it's still a mystery how they would have found the island by plane in order to drop the supplies, since there are only a few specific ways to get to the island in the first place.
Seriously, what does it matter? It's all semantics anyway; it all hinges on how you define "art." Mr. Ebert has apparently defined art in such a way as to exclude games. He may as well have posted "Games aren't art because you can win games and you can't win art. Ergo, games aren't art because they are games."
What are they going to sell? I don't understand, but maybe I have different internet habits than (apparently?) everyone else here. I don't give a damn about any of the information I type into my Chrome address box, and I don't see how any of it can be used to harm me later. Are they going to sell my search history to my mom, and show her all the times I looked at naked ladies? Honestly, in what scenario does it matter?
But you don't need to research the function of the gene to develop a patentable treatment, so long as you know the guy down the street is going to research the function and let everyone know.
For instance, Myriad made their money by sequencing BRCA genes - but they only sequence BRCA because they figured out the function of the genes in breast cancer risk. The first part (sequencing tests) is easy, I can quite literally design a sequencing test for that tomorrow (I am a molecular geneticist), but figuring out which genes to sequence and why is the hard part. All I have to do is sit around and wait for some sucker to put in all the R&D money into finding out - for instance - the big autism gene, and then once he's done that I can immediately begin making money off of his work by offering a test for it.
Once again, abolishing gene patents alone isn't the answer. Abolishing gene patents removes the incentive for private funding of genetic research - we need more public funding to fill in the gaps, or private funding will only continue on a condition of secrecy.
Knowing that a gene is there means nothing. Having sequenced the human genome, it's trivial to identify genes (discover them, if you will) with bioinformatics. However, without patents there is no monetary incentive for identifying the function of a gene, which is a much more laborious and expensive process. Now, I think that gene patents are foolish and restrictive, but like the GP you can't just say "well no more gene patents" and be done with it, because then who would fund the research?
The solution is for more public funding it would seem to me, since that would appear to suit the cooperative nature of science. Relying on private funding while abolishing gene patents sets the stage for a kind of secrecy that will be more hurtful than the patents were to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Time be cyclical, dawg.
Well yeah, that's why I thought the film was impressive. It didn't have the whole package (plot), but it was super fun to watch, and well worth my money - and it's hard to say that about many films these days (or any days, I don't know).
Docile compared to who?
Being able to do the same thing with adult stem cells is not the issue. The issue is that we had to spend (are currently spending) a considerable amount of time figuring out how to reproduce pluripotent stem cells from adult tissue - and then figuring out what to do with them. Consider an alternate history of scientific advancement in which embryonic stem cells were used without as much restriction, treatments created to use them to combat major human illnesses, etc. At the same time (or even afterward, if you prefer), techniques were being developed to generate these same useful cells from adult tissues. The result is the ability to combat illnesses much sooner than the actual course of events, in which we were basically forbidden to develop useful stem cell techniques until we could first figure out how to create them from adult tissues.
Or, how about an analogy? Peanuts are really useful things; they make peanut butter, you can dry roast them, honey roast them, boil them, make peanut brittle, eat them lightly salted, use peanut oil for cooking, etc. But to develop all those useful applications for peanuts, you have to first have peanuts. Now, how about someone says you can not use pre-existing peanuts that are laying around, but must instead figure out how to optimally grow peanuts, and then use those? Which of these will lead more rapidly to the development of peanut butter? A flawed analogy, as most are, but I think communicates my point fairly well.
Embryonic SC restrictions necessitated adult stem cell research, they didn't interfere with it. However, SC research as a whole was slowed down because of these restrictions. I'm not making a moral argument, it is just the inescapable conclusion that restricting use of embryonic SCs so heavily resulted in a much slower rate of advancement of stem cell technologies and treatments. We no longer had the ability to work with those versatile cells that were already available (once again, moral concerns aside, they weren't being used and were in many cases destined for destruction anyway; nobody was getting women pregnant with the express purpose of destroying the resulting conceptus for research purposes) and so had to develop wholly new techniques to generate these cells. It set us back.
It seems from everything I've read that any teeth will do. Kids' baby teeth and wisdom teeth have been mentioned, but why not any other tooth? Wisdom teeth are anatomically similar to the rest of your teeth, so I don't think anyone willing to give up one of their permanent teeth will be excluded from any awesome stem cell therapy in the future.
Well, yes, of course they do. People should be able to think and say whatever they want. I think the real problem is that "hate" has a very specious definition, so trying legislate away "hateful" speech is difficult at best, oppressive at worst.
Did the son that died play FPS games?
It was declared a pandemic (and it was a pandemic) when the danger of the virus was still largely unknown. As a new pandemic virus, it warranted the attention it received, even though we erred on the side of caution this time - as I hope we do with every new disease.
Why does the theory of evolution implicate the non-existence of God? Why does it do so any more than does the theory of plate tectonics, the theory of gravitation, atomic theory, or the theory of relativity? It's a set of explanations that predict certain things that are then subsequently observed in the real world - that's why it's a good theory. The fact that you do no know or intentionally misuse the word "theory" doesn't make you clever, it makes you uninformed or an imbecile.
Unfortunately for you, for every person with an aging mother or grandmother who likes the convenience of the iPad, there are 20 people who know Apple fanatics who wait slavering with their credit cards at the ready to purchase whatever slick new gizmo Jobs puts out. I don't own any Apple products, but there will always be people like that at the forefront of technology and - let's face it - that's where Apple currently is. Just because they are there doesn't mean that the products they buy aren't quality, even if they may be buying them for the "wrong" reasons.
There's a big difference though. Asserting that the Big Bang began everything does not end inquiry into the Big Bang itself. It's just that, with our current level of technology and understanding of the physical laws of the universe, that's the best explanation we've got. I assure you that the Big Bang will be looked at in better detail as soon as scientists are able to, because that's what scientists do. Why do you think we'll just sit around saying, "Oh Big Bang got it, let's talk about something else" when evolution, which already has mounds of evidence to back it up, is still an active area of research? No, the origin of the universe, like the origin of species (and the origin of life) is too much of a mystery, too tantalizing to let go.
Mod parent up, it seems that the only people wanting to push ID into classrooms are a small minority of religious (and in the US, let's face it - Christian) jerks. I don't know why they can't tolerate scientific evidence or reconcile it with their own beliefs, but they're sure making the rest of the (much more reasonable) religious folks look bad.
They're making the tripods from War of the Worlds. Large Hadron Collider is obviously to produce an energy source to power them. Look out for heat-ray research on the horizon.
Even assuming some sort of massive DNA damage, if he's alive and doesn't have cancer then he has (apparently) recovered just fine. This means that (a) his cells are overwhelmingly about the same as they were when he was born - the fidelity of one's genome is kind of a top priority for the body, after all - and more interestingly (b) his cells are extraordinarily resistant to DNA damage, likely through highly efficient repair mechanisms. That's the kind of thing they want to find out about, although it probably won't end up being DNA repair genes that are most interesting in Mr. Osbourne, but rather something more related with drug processing.
You think it would be "right" to lynch someone for being an offensive dick? That's horrifying.
This is sort of explained by the weird time behavior around the island. So they were dropped at some point, but they were delayed by the magic time field around the island, and so never hit until the survivors needed them. Another deus ex machina by the sentient-when-convenient island. Of course, it's still a mystery how they would have found the island by plane in order to drop the supplies, since there are only a few specific ways to get to the island in the first place.
Seriously, what does it matter? It's all semantics anyway; it all hinges on how you define "art." Mr. Ebert has apparently defined art in such a way as to exclude games. He may as well have posted "Games aren't art because you can win games and you can't win art. Ergo, games aren't art because they are games."
http://xkcd.com/718/
What are they going to sell? I don't understand, but maybe I have different internet habits than (apparently?) everyone else here. I don't give a damn about any of the information I type into my Chrome address box, and I don't see how any of it can be used to harm me later. Are they going to sell my search history to my mom, and show her all the times I looked at naked ladies? Honestly, in what scenario does it matter?
But you don't need to research the function of the gene to develop a patentable treatment, so long as you know the guy down the street is going to research the function and let everyone know.
For instance, Myriad made their money by sequencing BRCA genes - but they only sequence BRCA because they figured out the function of the genes in breast cancer risk. The first part (sequencing tests) is easy, I can quite literally design a sequencing test for that tomorrow (I am a molecular geneticist), but figuring out which genes to sequence and why is the hard part. All I have to do is sit around and wait for some sucker to put in all the R&D money into finding out - for instance - the big autism gene, and then once he's done that I can immediately begin making money off of his work by offering a test for it.
Once again, abolishing gene patents alone isn't the answer. Abolishing gene patents removes the incentive for private funding of genetic research - we need more public funding to fill in the gaps, or private funding will only continue on a condition of secrecy.
Knowing that a gene is there means nothing. Having sequenced the human genome, it's trivial to identify genes (discover them, if you will) with bioinformatics. However, without patents there is no monetary incentive for identifying the function of a gene, which is a much more laborious and expensive process. Now, I think that gene patents are foolish and restrictive, but like the GP you can't just say "well no more gene patents" and be done with it, because then who would fund the research? The solution is for more public funding it would seem to me, since that would appear to suit the cooperative nature of science. Relying on private funding while abolishing gene patents sets the stage for a kind of secrecy that will be more hurtful than the patents were to begin with.