Ask MIT's tech transfer office how many of their scientists working on commercial projects are posting their data on the OpenWetWare. I'll give you a hint it starts with a zero.
You will never reverse the trend of commercialising University research. I'll tell you why. Research projects that are new and innovative, and have an immediate/significant effect on mankind always will have a commercial partner and become a commercial project. Commercial projects are funded by people who want a return on their investment, and therefore will not be prepared to disclose their data for peer review before they have filed their provisional patents. Universities want to be compensated for the provision of their facilities to conduct basic research. You want to take away their chance to make a dollar or two back for the millions they have spent on research that ends up providing no return? Based on the amount that I paid to go to college, I think that universities are doing a considerable amount of philanthropy.
To all you scientists out there riding a white horse and slaying all of humanity's dragons, dont forget that you live in a capitalist system, the one that gives you enough free time to sit and blog and eat cheetos. MIT will be laughing when their new site gets enough hits from useless research projects to start making them a couple of bucks.
"Studies show", and "evidence suggests" are scientists way of saying "this is fact". Not irrefutable, but scientific fact to the best of our knowledge. Making quality scientific work out to be a personal opinion is an overpracticed political skill. Making crap scientific work out to be fact is an exercise in marketing. Media publications need someone who can evaluate scientific publications to translate, and sift quality from crap if they are going to attempt to report on it.
as exemplified in TFA
"As he put it, policy is acting despite residual scientific uncertainties, and the most reasonable action can't be determined scientifically, so it needs to be made clear when someone drifts into personal opinion."
Is there room on here for a non-rhetorical question? Not that one, that was rhetorical, here goes...Does anyone have a link explaining where they expect the pieces to come down and when? Im going stargazing and souvenier hunting.
The bacterial DNA had direct exposure to the fruitfly's nucleus, which of course makes dna transfer and incorporation much easier. DNA transfer between plants is not likely, more likely is the overuse of glyphosate (round-up) on genetically modified "round up ready" crops which creates an opportunity for resistant weeds to flourish. Not the same thing. The research is interesting, but I'm sure that the researchers understand the power of the publicity created by this kind of study. Fly people and wraiths abound.
"Giant Black Hole Rips Apart Unlucky Star In Cosmic Reality Show"
Why does everything have to be like american idol?, although it would be better if losing contestants were ripped apart. Maybe american idol should start trying to be more like a black hole for stupid wouldbe teen popstars.
Harvesting a couple of specimens for characterization will not disrupt the antarctic food chain, particularly with the bacterial species. It will just be a matter of creating the appropriate "extreme" habitat/culture conditions, and these organisms can be studied anywhere. There's no way that pfizer or someone else is going to go set up shop down there. Researchers will take a handful of antarctic specimens and study their function elsewhere.
Cloning won't create enough population diversity to help the species. Numerous individuals with the same genetic code will just effectively create more siblings and promote inbreeding. These labs are wasting time and money for recognition with a fake practical wrapper.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask MIT's tech transfer office how many of their scientists working on commercial projects are posting their data on the OpenWetWare. I'll give you a hint it starts with a zero. You will never reverse the trend of commercialising University research. I'll tell you why. Research projects that are new and innovative, and have an immediate/significant effect on mankind always will have a commercial partner and become a commercial project. Commercial projects are funded by people who want a return on their investment, and therefore will not be prepared to disclose their data for peer review before they have filed their provisional patents. Universities want to be compensated for the provision of their facilities to conduct basic research. You want to take away their chance to make a dollar or two back for the millions they have spent on research that ends up providing no return? Based on the amount that I paid to go to college, I think that universities are doing a considerable amount of philanthropy. To all you scientists out there riding a white horse and slaying all of humanity's dragons, dont forget that you live in a capitalist system, the one that gives you enough free time to sit and blog and eat cheetos. MIT will be laughing when their new site gets enough hits from useless research projects to start making them a couple of bucks.
as exemplified in TFA "As he put it, policy is acting despite residual scientific uncertainties, and the most reasonable action can't be determined scientifically, so it needs to be made clear when someone drifts into personal opinion."
Is there room on here for a non-rhetorical question? Not that one, that was rhetorical, here goes...Does anyone have a link explaining where they expect the pieces to come down and when? Im going stargazing and souvenier hunting.
The bacterial DNA had direct exposure to the fruitfly's nucleus, which of course makes dna transfer and incorporation much easier. DNA transfer between plants is not likely, more likely is the overuse of glyphosate (round-up) on genetically modified "round up ready" crops which creates an opportunity for resistant weeds to flourish. Not the same thing. The research is interesting, but I'm sure that the researchers understand the power of the publicity created by this kind of study. Fly people and wraiths abound.
"Giant Black Hole Rips Apart Unlucky Star In Cosmic Reality Show" Why does everything have to be like american idol?, although it would be better if losing contestants were ripped apart. Maybe american idol should start trying to be more like a black hole for stupid wouldbe teen popstars.
Harvesting a couple of specimens for characterization will not disrupt the antarctic food chain, particularly with the bacterial species. It will just be a matter of creating the appropriate "extreme" habitat/culture conditions, and these organisms can be studied anywhere. There's no way that pfizer or someone else is going to go set up shop down there. Researchers will take a handful of antarctic specimens and study their function elsewhere.
Cloning won't create enough population diversity to help the species. Numerous individuals with the same genetic code will just effectively create more siblings and promote inbreeding. These labs are wasting time and money for recognition with a fake practical wrapper.