Not to detract from the important point Myco makes about encouraging pure research, unfortunately this is also an example of how scientists (encouraged by media exposure) tend to hype their discoveries very prematurely. The binding of radioactivity is pretty cool because that can be done in vitro. For viral inactivation one must realize that most viruses bind to protein molecules (usually receptors) on the surface of living cells and use them as a mechanism of entry into those cells. These receptors have a "normal" and often important function in the body that has nothing to do with viral entry. It is easy to imaging scenarios where the same compound that inactivates the virus will also inactivate the normal in vivo functions of the body, or the molecule is just generally toxic when administered. It is very irresponsible to give false hope to a group such as those who are HIV positive, desperately in need of new treatments. To secure continued grant support scientists often feel the need to over-hype discoveries. Stronger support for pure research without an obvious direct application might help alleviate some of that pressure on scientists and we might see more responsible press releases.
A few problems with this comment. 1) recognizing a difference between two species (especially at the molecular level) doesn't mean that it is what causes observable differences in the species. The scientist's claims that the absence of the sugar allows the brain to develop larger is purely conjecture.
2) Inhibiting the gene activity (the author incorrectly suggests activating the gene) in apes in the absence of all the other evolutionary changes that have taken place (2% of 3 billion nucleotides is still A LOT of differences) would most likely just kill or severly harm the poor ape. Scientific regulations don't generally allow this kind of experimentation on primates...
3) As a general principle, supression of scientific information for the "good" of mankind is a bad idea. Ask Gallileo...
Slashdot Mirror
Not to detract from the important point Myco makes about encouraging pure research, unfortunately this is also an example of how scientists (encouraged by media exposure) tend to hype their discoveries very prematurely. The binding of radioactivity is pretty cool because that can be done in vitro. For viral inactivation one must realize that most viruses bind to protein molecules (usually receptors) on the surface of living cells and use them as a mechanism of entry into those cells. These receptors have a "normal" and often important function in the body that has nothing to do with viral entry. It is easy to imaging scenarios where the same compound that inactivates the virus will also inactivate the normal in vivo functions of the body, or the molecule is just generally toxic when administered. It is very irresponsible to give false hope to a group such as those who are HIV positive, desperately in need of new treatments. To secure continued grant support scientists often feel the need to over-hype discoveries. Stronger support for pure research without an obvious direct application might help alleviate some of that pressure on scientists and we might see more responsible press releases.
A few problems with this comment. 1) recognizing a difference between two species (especially at the molecular level) doesn't mean that it is what causes observable differences in the species. The scientist's claims that the absence of the sugar allows the brain to develop larger is purely conjecture. 2) Inhibiting the gene activity (the author incorrectly suggests activating the gene) in apes in the absence of all the other evolutionary changes that have taken place (2% of 3 billion nucleotides is still A LOT of differences) would most likely just kill or severly harm the poor ape. Scientific regulations don't generally allow this kind of experimentation on primates... 3) As a general principle, supression of scientific information for the "good" of mankind is a bad idea. Ask Gallileo...