Religion is the quest to explain that which is not. Paths may be varied, but there is only one set of facts. When the two contradict, it's clear that falling back on religion is a failure. Those cultures which have most successfully embraced science have always been most successful, a trend which will only continue.
Yes the number of scientists who accept evolution is far higher than 9 in 10. There might be some issue about how "scientist" is defined. One could argue that the undergraduate in a research lab is a scientist because he/she is performing experiments, testing hypotheses, etc. But most people would not consider that person a scientist.
And there's probably a modest group of people that say that the way to tell if a person is a scientist is to see if they are wearing a white lab coat.:)
Re something else you mention, I think the exclusive opposites come up due to how many people define God, especially the anti-science folks out there. Many of the anti-science people define God to be an all powerful, benevolent being that created everything 6000 years ago. If that is what "God" means, then it is very black and white because it's difficult to reconcile the two points of view (their religious "reality" and scientific "reality"). If you define God less precisely (say as "whatever gave birth to the big bang", not all powerful, not benevolent, not answering prayers, etc.), then the definition is very far away from what many people would think of when they think of God. (So much so that they would prefer a different word.) Anyhow, a lot of people who do research (myself included) are befuddled by the anti-science discussions and try to stay the hell away.
I think it's also likely that the first attempts at using these stem cells will be for terminally ill patients in extreme circumstances that merit the use of potentially dangerous treatments. Cancer 5 or 10 years down the line might be a good alternative for someone in a condition that is more immediately lethal. It may still be a relatively risky procedure for many years to come...
Scientology is clearly in a different ballpark. It must be noted that you do not need to be religious to feed the poor, cloth the homeless, and support humanitarian aid. I'm an atheist (or humanist) who supports all of these ideals because I believe they are the right thing to do. I just simply don't believe in a higher being, god, etc. That is to say, the agenda is not necessary (nor is the Bible) to do good things.
I would say that there is at least one caveat: the viruses can potentially insert at the wrong spots leading to cancer (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5715/1544a). If the likelihood of this can be made very low, then I agree with the comparison to traditional immunization, which also has a low likelihood of side effects.
Hey I'm at a conference right now, and the last author of the paper presented this work to the audience. (It's the Cold Spring Harbor Retroviruses Meeting, and the presenter was Desrosiers.) The good news here is that there are relatively few antibodies to use for these SIV experiments, and they see beneficial effects. For humans, several broadly neutralizing antibodies have been found that could potentially do a much better job against HIV. So this is a step in the right direction!
i could not agree more. i think for a similar reason zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance is a good book for scientists, esp the part about gumption traps. here is one of my favorite koans from GEB:
The student Doko came to a Zen master, and said: "I am seeking the truth. In what state of mind should I train myself, so as to find it?"
Said the master, "There is no mind, so you cannot put it in any state. There is no truth, so you cannot train yourself for it."
"If there is no mind to train, and no truth to find, why do you have these monks gather before you every day to study Zen and train themselves for this study?"
"But I haven't an inch of room here," said the master, "so how could the monks gather? I have no tongue, so how could I call them together or teach them?"
"Oh, how can you lie like this?" asked Doko.
"But if I have no tongue to talk to others, how can I lie to you?" asked the master.
Then Doko said sadly, "I cannot follow you. I cannot understand you."
I see what you mean about the book. I have a math background (B.S.), play an instrument, and studied tessellations in high school. So the book definitely speaks to me. However, I cannot say that I've finished it yet. It's one of those casual unfinished books on my shelf--I pick up and read a chapter every now and then. Brothers Karamazov was a particularly difficult book for me to finish. I tried three times and failed, getting about 150 pages deeper each attempt but getting lost in the story and philosophical ramblings. The fourth attempt was a success though, and I enjoyed the book much more that time for some reason. So maybe GEB needs another go...
For a real piece written like a fugue, I would highly suggest the Sirens chapter from Ulysses...
The issue is not whether Conyers is kooky. The publishing companies will lose money (and jobs) if the NIH-funded articles are made free for the public. So you have to see it's in their interest to keep that from happening. It would be nice to give those companies some incentive so that they want to provide the articles free of charge. Otherwise, what reason would they have to stay in publishing? Ad revenues in these journals is not high because the only people reading them will be primarily those trained in the field (who likely already have access to them). Second is the group of people who don't have access right now but will have access (if they are made free) and will choose to actually look at these articles. The latter group is going to be small. Now, if the lack of income means that some journals go out of print, that may be acceptable, but if it means that larger journals have to cut back, then isn't this a net loss? Fewer published articles per year? Maybe I'm missing something, but I would rather have my journal articles at a cost than not have them at all. Of course, by providing an incentive to the journals to keep the articles for free, we would sidestep the whole issue (although this means the public is still paying for it in the end).
HIV is an excellent subject for studying cellular processes. The virus is only 9 proteins, and yet look what it can accomplish. Many discoveries about cellular processes have come to researchers who were studying HIV to learn more about the virus.
They will halt the study if you are a placebo and the results overwhelmingly suggest you are being given the short end of the stick. Otherwise it would be unethical to continue.
I'd definitely agree with you regardless of what a judge might say. If that husband and wife were under 18, I think things would get more interesting. Or, forgot about the husband and wife labels, if two consenting persons were having sexual intercourse, what's obscene about that if they are videotaping it... it all depends on context. If the principal sees it, it's obscene. Perhaps the act of observation (judgment) makes it obscene.
They picked a DNA polymerase that is hardy enough to not have those sorts of sequence biases. Or so they note in the article that previous researchers had characterized the DNA polymerase well enough to know that there are not many sequence biases.
if you are interested in the proposed evolutionary reasons for the evolution of RNA & DNA, I would recommend The RNA World, 3rd ed. -- you can find it on Amazon. It's a fantastic book that discusses the hypothesis that self-replicating molecules appeared that could perform functions and simultaneously serve as the information for the creation of new copies of themselves. One of the difficulties in this hypothesis is the problem that an ancient RNA would have in self replicating, and that is separating the new strand from the old strand. Others note that PNA would likely have an even worse time at this because PNA-PNA interactions are stronger than RNA-RNA interactions (which interestingly, are stronger than DNA-DNA). RNA has a greater ability to form complex secondary structures than DNA, so it would be interesting to see if PNA has an even greater ability than RNA to do so.
This is partly incorrect. There are mechanisms for changing the RNA after RNA polymerase does its job, which is to simply copy. There are RNA-editing enzymes that edit your RNA after it has been transcribed, yielding mRNAs, tRNA, and other products that are not entirely from the data present in your DNA. In many cases, the editing can greatly affect the function of the RNA. In the case of one mitochondrial tRNA, editing the tRNA is essential for the RNA to correctly fold.
Slashdot Mirror
Religion is the quest to explain that which is not. Paths may be varied, but there is only one set of facts. When the two contradict, it's clear that falling back on religion is a failure. Those cultures which have most successfully embraced science have always been most successful, a trend which will only continue.
Hallowed are the Ori.
Yes the number of scientists who accept evolution is far higher than 9 in 10. There might be some issue about how "scientist" is defined. One could argue that the undergraduate in a research lab is a scientist because he/she is performing experiments, testing hypotheses, etc. But most people would not consider that person a scientist.
:)
And there's probably a modest group of people that say that the way to tell if a person is a scientist is to see if they are wearing a white lab coat.
Re something else you mention, I think the exclusive opposites come up due to how many people define God, especially the anti-science folks out there. Many of the anti-science people define God to be an all powerful, benevolent being that created everything 6000 years ago. If that is what "God" means, then it is very black and white because it's difficult to reconcile the two points of view (their religious "reality" and scientific "reality"). If you define God less precisely (say as "whatever gave birth to the big bang", not all powerful, not benevolent, not answering prayers, etc.), then the definition is very far away from what many people would think of when they think of God. (So much so that they would prefer a different word.) Anyhow, a lot of people who do research (myself included) are befuddled by the anti-science discussions and try to stay the hell away.
Do not drink from the water of life while pregnant.
if it's close enough, i would think you could observe it from two different places at least or many at best and figure it out that way.
To be fair, half of those comments were sarcastic.
I think it's also likely that the first attempts at using these stem cells will be for terminally ill patients in extreme circumstances that merit the use of potentially dangerous treatments. Cancer 5 or 10 years down the line might be a good alternative for someone in a condition that is more immediately lethal. It may still be a relatively risky procedure for many years to come ...
Scientology is clearly in a different ballpark. It must be noted that you do not need to be religious to feed the poor, cloth the homeless, and support humanitarian aid. I'm an atheist (or humanist) who supports all of these ideals because I believe they are the right thing to do. I just simply don't believe in a higher being, god, etc. That is to say, the agenda is not necessary (nor is the Bible) to do good things.
I would say that there is at least one caveat: the viruses can potentially insert at the wrong spots leading to cancer (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5715/1544a). If the likelihood of this can be made very low, then I agree with the comparison to traditional immunization, which also has a low likelihood of side effects.
Hey I'm at a conference right now, and the last author of the paper presented this work to the audience. (It's the Cold Spring Harbor Retroviruses Meeting, and the presenter was Desrosiers.) The good news here is that there are relatively few antibodies to use for these SIV experiments, and they see beneficial effects. For humans, several broadly neutralizing antibodies have been found that could potentially do a much better job against HIV. So this is a step in the right direction!
i could not agree more. i think for a similar reason zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance is a good book for scientists, esp the part about gumption traps. here is one of my favorite koans from GEB:
The student Doko came to a Zen master, and said: "I am seeking the truth. In what state of mind should I train myself, so as to find it?"
Said the master, "There is no mind, so you cannot put it in any state. There is no truth, so you cannot train yourself for it."
"If there is no mind to train, and no truth to find, why do you have these monks gather before you every day to study Zen and train themselves for this study?"
"But I haven't an inch of room here," said the master, "so how could the monks gather? I have no tongue, so how could I call them together or teach them?"
"Oh, how can you lie like this?" asked Doko.
"But if I have no tongue to talk to others, how can I lie to you?" asked the master.
Then Doko said sadly, "I cannot follow you. I cannot understand you."
"I cannot understand myself," said the master.
I see what you mean about the book. I have a math background (B.S.), play an instrument, and studied tessellations in high school. So the book definitely speaks to me. However, I cannot say that I've finished it yet. It's one of those casual unfinished books on my shelf--I pick up and read a chapter every now and then. Brothers Karamazov was a particularly difficult book for me to finish. I tried three times and failed, getting about 150 pages deeper each attempt but getting lost in the story and philosophical ramblings. The fourth attempt was a success though, and I enjoyed the book much more that time for some reason. So maybe GEB needs another go ...
...
For a real piece written like a fugue, I would highly suggest the Sirens chapter from Ulysses
I would add to this a some modern classics that are not physics books:
- Watson: The Double Helix
- Hofstadter: Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid
- Gesteland, Cech, and Atkins: The RNA World
- Stephen J. Gould: The Mismeasure of Man (or Punctuated Equilibrium or another one of his books)
In the RIAA offices? Everybody knows that bacteria thrive in feces.
The issue is not whether Conyers is kooky. The publishing companies will lose money (and jobs) if the NIH-funded articles are made free for the public. So you have to see it's in their interest to keep that from happening. It would be nice to give those companies some incentive so that they want to provide the articles free of charge. Otherwise, what reason would they have to stay in publishing? Ad revenues in these journals is not high because the only people reading them will be primarily those trained in the field (who likely already have access to them). Second is the group of people who don't have access right now but will have access (if they are made free) and will choose to actually look at these articles. The latter group is going to be small. Now, if the lack of income means that some journals go out of print, that may be acceptable, but if it means that larger journals have to cut back, then isn't this a net loss? Fewer published articles per year? Maybe I'm missing something, but I would rather have my journal articles at a cost than not have them at all. Of course, by providing an incentive to the journals to keep the articles for free, we would sidestep the whole issue (although this means the public is still paying for it in the end).
HIV is an excellent subject for studying cellular processes. The virus is only 9 proteins, and yet look what it can accomplish. Many discoveries about cellular processes have come to researchers who were studying HIV to learn more about the virus.
They will halt the study if you are a placebo and the results overwhelmingly suggest you are being given the short end of the stick. Otherwise it would be unethical to continue.
I'd definitely agree with you regardless of what a judge might say. If that husband and wife were under 18, I think things would get more interesting. Or, forgot about the husband and wife labels, if two consenting persons were having sexual intercourse, what's obscene about that if they are videotaping it ... it all depends on context. If the principal sees it, it's obscene. Perhaps the act of observation (judgment) makes it obscene.
Remember that pornography is legally defined on a "I know it when I see it" basis, i.e. if it arouses sexual interest. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pornography
From what I hear, duplications are also bad..
From what I hear, duplications are also bad.
They picked a DNA polymerase that is hardy enough to not have those sorts of sequence biases. Or so they note in the article that previous researchers had characterized the DNA polymerase well enough to know that there are not many sequence biases.
It's a series of tubes!
if you are interested in the proposed evolutionary reasons for the evolution of RNA & DNA, I would recommend The RNA World, 3rd ed. -- you can find it on Amazon. It's a fantastic book that discusses the hypothesis that self-replicating molecules appeared that could perform functions and simultaneously serve as the information for the creation of new copies of themselves. One of the difficulties in this hypothesis is the problem that an ancient RNA would have in self replicating, and that is separating the new strand from the old strand. Others note that PNA would likely have an even worse time at this because PNA-PNA interactions are stronger than RNA-RNA interactions (which interestingly, are stronger than DNA-DNA). RNA has a greater ability to form complex secondary structures than DNA, so it would be interesting to see if PNA has an even greater ability than RNA to do so.
WhiteCastle is also an efficient catalyst for dark matter creation. And dare I say more cost efficient?
This is partly incorrect. There are mechanisms for changing the RNA after RNA polymerase does its job, which is to simply copy. There are RNA-editing enzymes that edit your RNA after it has been transcribed, yielding mRNAs, tRNA, and other products that are not entirely from the data present in your DNA. In many cases, the editing can greatly affect the function of the RNA. In the case of one mitochondrial tRNA, editing the tRNA is essential for the RNA to correctly fold.