This is patently false. There is a whole swath of biological research under the banner of "basic science" which, while it may purport to address a far-off disease application (for the sake of grant $$$), is only aimed at understanding how life functions at the most fundamental levels. Thousands upon thousands of researchers in this country are funded by the NSF and NIH (among others) precisely to figure out things we know that we don't understand.
For an anecdote, I did this kind of research for a few years. My lab was trying to understand what the function of a motor protein was because we could see it, we could see processes it was involved in, but had no idea how or why it was behaving the way it did. There was no disease focus. Part of research is cataloging the natural world so that, maybe, we will one day use that knowledge for our benefit (not necessarily for disease).
Disease is one of many applications of basic research. The amount that goes into producing chemicals through engineering bacteria and producing food through engineering plants is staggering. These applications are currently enabled by CRISPRs. I'll be interested to see how eugenics develops in the next few decades.
Judging by how awful the job prospects are in STEM relative to the amount of effort being put in, I'm going to hate the world in 10-20 years if the job market becomes even more flooded.
Also, I find it incredibly hard to believe that a kid is a competitive engineer at that age, at least based on individual merit. I've seen a lot of smart kids, and then I've seen smart kids who are pushed/enabled by ambitious parents to take more credit than they're due.
If I took a shot every time some fifteen year old "scientist" made a significant discovery, I wouldn't be writing frustrated posts on/.
I think there is some truth to this. I seldom see drop-dead gorgeous female engineers or scientists. On the other hand, female cheerleaders make me cringe and despair. You don't think there is a strong correlation between attractiveness and personal qualities/careers/etc.?
Some people would rather be single than date someone who is considered an even match, which is a perfectly fair decision.
Also, consider hypergamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy), which is already quite common.
Another way to put this, and an observation I constantly make as a biologist, is that there are many people who claim to "believe in" or "follow" evolution, but if pressed to define what it is, are completely off the mark.
Evolution, like so many things, has gained a following (or not) largely due to inertia and cultural fads, not because the scientific principles behind it have impressed everyone.
It's not really possible to live an entire (average, full-length) life without discrimination, but it is sometimes possible to overcome discrimination.
If it remains upright for more than 4 hours, we'd better call Kim Jong Un's doctor. Hopefully he didn't disconnect -all- of the phone lines to the U.S./allies.
Except that in the case of the atomic bomb, the materials for the bomb itself are scarce and require refinement.
The materials for a weaponized virus or pathogen are ubiquitous, require no sophisticated means of delivery, and will evade all types of detection currently used to screen against threats.
You have to remember that -all- of cell biology and biochemistry is rapidly advancing, not just synthetic biology. Even though we are rapidly approaching the point at which anyone can develop a flu-like weapon with relatively basic tools, we are also rapidly developing the knowledge base and tools that will enable us to neutralize threats at will.
Keep in mind this is a venom. What makes you think that constitutively expressing a venom in a foreign species will not kill it immediately, even if you can put the correct machinery in place?
The article points to: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7294117
It's a 30 year old study that showed the composition of "emotional" tears differs from the composition of tears produced in response to an irritant.
Slashdot Mirror
This is patently false. There is a whole swath of biological research under the banner of "basic science" which, while it may purport to address a far-off disease application (for the sake of grant $$$), is only aimed at understanding how life functions at the most fundamental levels. Thousands upon thousands of researchers in this country are funded by the NSF and NIH (among others) precisely to figure out things we know that we don't understand.
For an anecdote, I did this kind of research for a few years. My lab was trying to understand what the function of a motor protein was because we could see it, we could see processes it was involved in, but had no idea how or why it was behaving the way it did. There was no disease focus. Part of research is cataloging the natural world so that, maybe, we will one day use that knowledge for our benefit (not necessarily for disease).
Disease is one of many applications of basic research. The amount that goes into producing chemicals through engineering bacteria and producing food through engineering plants is staggering. These applications are currently enabled by CRISPRs. I'll be interested to see how eugenics develops in the next few decades.
Judging by how awful the job prospects are in STEM relative to the amount of effort being put in, I'm going to hate the world in 10-20 years if the job market becomes even more flooded. Also, I find it incredibly hard to believe that a kid is a competitive engineer at that age, at least based on individual merit. I've seen a lot of smart kids, and then I've seen smart kids who are pushed/enabled by ambitious parents to take more credit than they're due. If I took a shot every time some fifteen year old "scientist" made a significant discovery, I wouldn't be writing frustrated posts on /.
If a nearby car abruptly changes lanes... the car would be alerted...
... often by physics
Ah, so this is why they call it the brown-eye/stink-eye. Visionary a$$hole indeed!
Shouldn't it be microtechnology for the micromen? Or is this some kind of confidence booster?
The ability to disable advertisements?
I think there is some truth to this. I seldom see drop-dead gorgeous female engineers or scientists. On the other hand, female cheerleaders make me cringe and despair. You don't think there is a strong correlation between attractiveness and personal qualities/careers/etc.?
Some people would rather be single than date someone who is considered an even match, which is a perfectly fair decision. Also, consider hypergamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy), which is already quite common.
Another way to put this, and an observation I constantly make as a biologist, is that there are many people who claim to "believe in" or "follow" evolution, but if pressed to define what it is, are completely off the mark. Evolution, like so many things, has gained a following (or not) largely due to inertia and cultural fads, not because the scientific principles behind it have impressed everyone.
It's not really possible to live an entire (average, full-length) life without discrimination, but it is sometimes possible to overcome discrimination.
If it remains upright for more than 4 hours, we'd better call Kim Jong Un's doctor. Hopefully he didn't disconnect -all- of the phone lines to the U.S./allies.
"If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team."
Except that in the case of the atomic bomb, the materials for the bomb itself are scarce and require refinement. The materials for a weaponized virus or pathogen are ubiquitous, require no sophisticated means of delivery, and will evade all types of detection currently used to screen against threats.
You have to remember that -all- of cell biology and biochemistry is rapidly advancing, not just synthetic biology. Even though we are rapidly approaching the point at which anyone can develop a flu-like weapon with relatively basic tools, we are also rapidly developing the knowledge base and tools that will enable us to neutralize threats at will.
HR drones not having the slightest clue
Government-sponsored programs like Stuxnet and Flame are all the craze these days
Keep in mind this is a venom. What makes you think that constitutively expressing a venom in a foreign species will not kill it immediately, even if you can put the correct machinery in place?
The article points to: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7294117 It's a 30 year old study that showed the composition of "emotional" tears differs from the composition of tears produced in response to an irritant.