I'm curious to hear where/.ers think the ethlical line should be in medical research in general. Something like this would have been unthinkable decades ago. On one extreme, you have the fringe completely opposed to medical research on animals and humans. On the other you have Nazi-styled "expiriments" on mentally ill and "lesser races". I would imagine most of us fall somewhere in between.
Personally, my opposition to this is more in the destruction of a human embryo than the mixing aspect. If a way were developed to do this from adult cells, I'd be less alarmed. So, my line is at killing human life, though I recognize many don't agree on what constitutes "human life". Where is yours? How close do you get to the "anything goes" extreme before drawing the line?
Or is it step 1 in an "ownership society". There are, after all, other funding sources besides income taxes. Why do people assume that just because Big Government doesn't fund something it's doomed? I would have thought the X-Prize would have cured some of that...
I recently traveled to the UK and was suprised when the officer asked me who I'd be staying with there. When I said we'd just be backpacking and finding places, he pushed me to at least give him the name of some of the hostels we planned on staying at.
Here's another website by GSC's CEO Lou Hawthorne, called Hell's Buddhas. Another, more prominent- if not more skeptical- group is the Raelian Clonaid project. As Christians are often called to task for mixing religion and [job, politics, etc.], I find it interesting how the religious motivations of some of these groups make it under the radar.
Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said Friday that access to the Internets should be limited to people who eat beef, corn, and other farm products. "Freegans have no business using the internet." Veneman said, refering to the militant trash-eaters roaming the web.
Too often the focus of ethics is on the limits to science they establish. Episodes like this show that there can be benefits to working within ethical guidelines. Imagine a culture where embryonic stem cell research was fully funded and other forms weren't. It could be that these discoveries would never be made.
I don't expect everyone to jump on the pro-life bandwagon because of this, but I think it's reasonable to agree that we all have "lines in the sand." Pretty much anybody of reason would diplore the "science" of the Nazi regime. So really, the issue is where to draw the line. This shows that even when we draw the line furthur back, real, people-saving science can be accomplished.
According to most pro-abortioners I know, killing a baby five minutes before it is born is just fine, but killing it five minutes after is murder.
I understand it can seem arbitrary to support contraception, but object to abortion. There are those who also reject contraception on similar grounds. Personally, I would say that after the egg and sperm meet and a zygote forms, it is biologically something that neither the egg or sperm, nor mother or father are. That's pretty much indisputable- at that point it has it's own DNA. The moral weight you apply to that difference- the big "is it life" question- is the core issue.
Some people say life begins when the organism is concious of "self". This is problematic in that some adults arguably don't have this gift, and at best it's granted to children around 2 or 3. These people generally support infanticide.
Others say it's when the child exit the birth canal. This is the most common, and what US judicial precedence currently reflects. However, this ignores the advances in medicine that allow younger and younger embryos to survive outside the mother, as well as imaging and research that shows very human traits in the unborn child.
Still others say the point is when brain activity starts. However, this may be before the woman even knows she's pregnant. It also could place a sliding value on human life based on brain ability: are mentally ill people "less alive" than normal people? Are people with high IQs "more alive" than us regular folks? Would they be justified in killing us?
To me, the most logical point to define a new life is at the point when the organism becomes something unique from the parents. It can seem arbitrary, but it is really pretty logical- even if you happen to disagree.
As a conservative Christian, I think the objection on the grounds animals should "multiply according to their kind" is weak depending on the methods used to create these chimeras. Obviously combining human gametes with animals' would be beastiality, which most people would still object to. But using adult stem cells or transplantation to do this isn't objectionable in my opinion.
The only real problem I see is illustrated in the following quote:
If two such chimeras - say, mice - were to mate, a human embryo might form, trapped in a mouse.
Not everyone agrees that this would be a terrible result.
"What would be so dreadful?" asked Ann McLaren, a renowned developmental biologist at the University of Cambridge in England. After all, she said, no human embryo could develop successfully in a mouse womb. It would simply die, she told the academy.
Such a callous disregard for human life underscores the objection many people have to things such as embryonic stem cell research and abortion. This person obviously believes the unborn child is "alive"- otherwise it could not logically die. However, she does not care that it dies because of her irresponsible actions.
I think the medical profession above anybody has a responsibility to preserve life- even when it is just begining. In cases where there is a conflict between preserving two lives (as in embryonic stem cell research), the professional should look for alternatives- such as cord-harvested stem cells- that do not involve killing one human to preserve another.
That said, conservatives need to be open to those practices that, though unorthodox, have potential to preserve life without taking it.
I'm not a chemistry buff, but this lecture from a Perdue chemistry prof describes the discovery of sodium borohydride, the compound used to generate hydrogen for this thing.
Anyone else find the ideological mix interesting? The bill is co-sponsered by a mix of Democrats and Republicans. Many get money from Hollywood, which is traditionally Democrat and liberal. Yet this issue is considered by many as being pushed by "conservatives". Where are all the celebrity pundits now?
I'm the first to say Diebold needs to be shot and some good, old-fashioned design time needs to be dedicated to electronic voting. But one word of caution: alot of these theories are based on comparing tabulated data to exit polls. Now as bad as the machines may be, I hardly think CNN's interns represent a more secure system of determining the election outcome.
The core problem, at least in my area, is that 1)it is considered "racist" to identify a voter by anything other than a simple "state your name and address" and 2) it is "racist" to purge the rolls of dead voters, etc. It is typically the Democrats that make these arguments.
Dear rest of the world,
Thanks for writing. I'm sorry you think we're backing off on our promises, but I really think if you studied the issue, you'll see we don't want to put WMD in space and blow up you guys, just be able to handle those who may. I'm also sorry you disagree with who we elected to be our president, but I guess things just work a little differently over here. It really doesn't mean we're stupid or out to get you- even if your newspapers seem to think so. If you're genuinely upset and would like to discuss this furthur, feel free to do so rationally without the name-calling.
I was impressed to see all sides blamed for America's dependance on foreign oil. Most people here would probably consider me a far right-winger, and yes, I would much rather see private enterprise come up with a viable energy solution- nuclear or otherwise. But I think government has a roll in funding research into the more promising alternative energy sources. The trick is not to hang our hats on any one solution. Sure, nuclear seems great now, but I'd hate to see so much focus put on that, that some far better solution is ignored. That's where a little capitalism really shines: businesses will pick the one that is most efficient, because it will carry the largest profits. A socialized system, on the other hand, has little incentive to innovate. With regards to mid-east oil, I think we can all agree that it's best to get out of that as soon as possible. However, it's also a bad idea to get out of there, and potentially destabilize the region, before we have a viable alternative in place.
Can any one say true VR?
I'm sure they can and will, but until this thing gets green and blue lasers, or reality turns everything red, we'll still be waiting for it.
So, I'm no expert on optical fiber, but I know they used to be pretty fragile. I have spent enough time on vehicles' electrical systems to know that even thick copper stresses, cracks, and fails. Is there any concern that fiber may not be durable enough for a vehicle application?
Something's always bugged me about the RFID privacy issue, no pun intended. It's just a little piece of silicon, and all the cool benefits are enticing. I understand the privacy concerns, but it led me to think of an analogy:
Google Desktop:Computer Privacy:: RFID:Personal Privacy
So, the Google Desktop is typically defended on Slashdot as simply exposing existing security concerns. RFID is similar, in that it simply makes it easier and faster to do what is already done with barcodes and magstripes. Inventory tracking and market analysis can become instant, as well as identity theft and tracking.
I'd side with those who say this isn't Google's problem- it's the problem of apps that store private data unencrypted.
The only caveat is that, as best I can tell, there's no way to clear the index. Even if you clear your web cache, the items stay in Google's index. Meaning you can practice relatively safe surfing and still have private data exposed. It'd be better if Google had a 'Clear Index' available for each type of index.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious to hear where /.ers think the ethlical line should be in medical research in general. Something like this would have been unthinkable decades ago. On one extreme, you have the fringe completely opposed to medical research on animals and humans. On the other you have Nazi-styled "expiriments" on mentally ill and "lesser races". I would imagine most of us fall somewhere in between.
Personally, my opposition to this is more in the destruction of a human embryo than the mixing aspect. If a way were developed to do this from adult cells, I'd be less alarmed. So, my line is at killing human life, though I recognize many don't agree on what constitutes "human life". Where is yours? How close do you get to the "anything goes" extreme before drawing the line?
Or is it step 1 in an "ownership society". There are, after all, other funding sources besides income taxes. Why do people assume that just because Big Government doesn't fund something it's doomed? I would have thought the X-Prize would have cured some of that...
I recently traveled to the UK and was suprised when the officer asked me who I'd be staying with there. When I said we'd just be backpacking and finding places, he pushed me to at least give him the name of some of the hostels we planned on staying at.
The Force
Here's another website by GSC's CEO Lou Hawthorne, called Hell's Buddhas. Another, more prominent- if not more skeptical- group is the Raelian Clonaid project. As Christians are often called to task for mixing religion and [job, politics, etc.], I find it interesting how the religious motivations of some of these groups make it under the radar.
If that's the answer that's right for you...
Johnny has 5 apples. Suzie has 3 apples. Bob gives one of Johnny's apples to Suzie. How do you think Johnny feels?
Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said Friday that access to the Internets should be limited to people who eat beef, corn, and other farm products. " Freegans have no business using the internet." Veneman said, refering to the militant trash-eaters roaming the web.
Too often the focus of ethics is on the limits to science they establish. Episodes like this show that there can be benefits to working within ethical guidelines. Imagine a culture where embryonic stem cell research was fully funded and other forms weren't. It could be that these discoveries would never be made.
I don't expect everyone to jump on the pro-life bandwagon because of this, but I think it's reasonable to agree that we all have "lines in the sand." Pretty much anybody of reason would diplore the "science" of the Nazi regime. So really, the issue is where to draw the line. This shows that even when we draw the line furthur back, real, people-saving science can be accomplished.
According to most pro-abortioners I know, killing a baby five minutes before it is born is just fine, but killing it five minutes after is murder.
I understand it can seem arbitrary to support contraception, but object to abortion. There are those who also reject contraception on similar grounds. Personally, I would say that after the egg and sperm meet and a zygote forms, it is biologically something that neither the egg or sperm, nor mother or father are. That's pretty much indisputable- at that point it has it's own DNA. The moral weight you apply to that difference- the big "is it life" question- is the core issue.
Some people say life begins when the organism is concious of "self". This is problematic in that some adults arguably don't have this gift, and at best it's granted to children around 2 or 3. These people generally support infanticide.
Others say it's when the child exit the birth canal. This is the most common, and what US judicial precedence currently reflects. However, this ignores the advances in medicine that allow younger and younger embryos to survive outside the mother, as well as imaging and research that shows very human traits in the unborn child.
Still others say the point is when brain activity starts. However, this may be before the woman even knows she's pregnant. It also could place a sliding value on human life based on brain ability: are mentally ill people "less alive" than normal people? Are people with high IQs "more alive" than us regular folks? Would they be justified in killing us?
To me, the most logical point to define a new life is at the point when the organism becomes something unique from the parents. It can seem arbitrary, but it is really pretty logical- even if you happen to disagree.
As a conservative Christian, I think the objection on the grounds animals should "multiply according to their kind" is weak depending on the methods used to create these chimeras. Obviously combining human gametes with animals' would be beastiality, which most people would still object to. But using adult stem cells or transplantation to do this isn't objectionable in my opinion.
The only real problem I see is illustrated in the following quote: If two such chimeras - say, mice - were to mate, a human embryo might form, trapped in a mouse.
Not everyone agrees that this would be a terrible result.
"What would be so dreadful?" asked Ann McLaren, a renowned developmental biologist at the University of Cambridge in England. After all, she said, no human embryo could develop successfully in a mouse womb. It would simply die, she told the academy.
Such a callous disregard for human life underscores the objection many people have to things such as embryonic stem cell research and abortion. This person obviously believes the unborn child is "alive"- otherwise it could not logically die. However, she does not care that it dies because of her irresponsible actions.
I think the medical profession above anybody has a responsibility to preserve life- even when it is just begining. In cases where there is a conflict between preserving two lives (as in embryonic stem cell research), the professional should look for alternatives- such as cord-harvested stem cells- that do not involve killing one human to preserve another.
That said, conservatives need to be open to those practices that, though unorthodox, have potential to preserve life without taking it.
I'm not a chemistry buff, but this lecture from a Perdue chemistry prof describes the discovery of sodium borohydride, the compound used to generate hydrogen for this thing.
So, at Mach 10, can anyone hear you scream?
Anyone else find the ideological mix interesting? The bill is co-sponsered by a mix of Democrats and Republicans. Many get money from Hollywood, which is traditionally Democrat and liberal. Yet this issue is considered by many as being pushed by "conservatives". Where are all the celebrity pundits now?
Sure, maybe the 4th largest by quantity, but the US has the largest programmer population by volume.
I'm the first to say Diebold needs to be shot and some good, old-fashioned design time needs to be dedicated to electronic voting. But one word of caution: alot of these theories are based on comparing tabulated data to exit polls. Now as bad as the machines may be, I hardly think CNN's interns represent a more secure system of determining the election outcome.
The core problem, at least in my area, is that 1)it is considered "racist" to identify a voter by anything other than a simple "state your name and address" and 2) it is "racist" to purge the rolls of dead voters, etc. It is typically the Democrats that make these arguments.
Dear rest of the world,
Thanks for writing. I'm sorry you think we're backing off on our promises, but I really think if you studied the issue, you'll see we don't want to put WMD in space and blow up you guys, just be able to handle those who may. I'm also sorry you disagree with who we elected to be our president, but I guess things just work a little differently over here. It really doesn't mean we're stupid or out to get you- even if your newspapers seem to think so. If you're genuinely upset and would like to discuss this furthur, feel free to do so rationally without the name-calling.
Sincerely,
America
P.S. Tell our relatives over there 'Hi'
I was impressed to see all sides blamed for America's dependance on foreign oil. Most people here would probably consider me a far right-winger, and yes, I would much rather see private enterprise come up with a viable energy solution- nuclear or otherwise. But I think government has a roll in funding research into the more promising alternative energy sources. The trick is not to hang our hats on any one solution. Sure, nuclear seems great now, but I'd hate to see so much focus put on that, that some far better solution is ignored. That's where a little capitalism really shines: businesses will pick the one that is most efficient, because it will carry the largest profits. A socialized system, on the other hand, has little incentive to innovate. With regards to mid-east oil, I think we can all agree that it's best to get out of that as soon as possible. However, it's also a bad idea to get out of there, and potentially destabilize the region, before we have a viable alternative in place.
Can any one say true VR?
I'm sure they can and will, but until this thing gets green and blue lasers, or reality turns everything red, we'll still be waiting for it.
These patterns will freak you out. Here is my attempt at one of them. I used a cordless drill, but didn't think of wrecking my dremel.
So, I'm no expert on optical fiber, but I know they used to be pretty fragile. I have spent enough time on vehicles' electrical systems to know that even thick copper stresses, cracks, and fails. Is there any concern that fiber may not be durable enough for a vehicle application?
Something's always bugged me about the RFID privacy issue, no pun intended. It's just a little piece of silicon, and all the cool benefits are enticing. I understand the privacy concerns, but it led me to think of an analogy: :: RFID:Personal Privacy
Google Desktop:Computer Privacy
So, the Google Desktop is typically defended on Slashdot as simply exposing existing security concerns. RFID is similar, in that it simply makes it easier and faster to do what is already done with barcodes and magstripes. Inventory tracking and market analysis can become instant, as well as identity theft and tracking.
I'd side with those who say this isn't Google's problem- it's the problem of apps that store private data unencrypted. The only caveat is that, as best I can tell, there's no way to clear the index. Even if you clear your web cache, the items stay in Google's index. Meaning you can practice relatively safe surfing and still have private data exposed. It'd be better if Google had a 'Clear Index' available for each type of index.
I guess John Titor was right. Here comes the beginning of WWIII. See you guys in 2036!
All your bass are belong to us.