All of this is your own opinion, not fact, and everyone is entitled to their own. But spend enough time in the field and you will begin to see what I mean.
I work at UT-Southwestern here in Dallas and see stem cells every day without the hype filters you speak of. And in my opinion, and those of many many others, there is no new field of research more valuable to the understanding of growth, development, and evolutionary relationships than stem cell research.
Also, if you are a scientist it is surprising to me, and it is not in the field of biology, or you would not have asked the corporate research question. Any scientist knows the difference between "basic" and "applied" research. Basic research is important when researching a relatively new field such as stem cell research. Basic research is research for the sake of knowledge. Once enough basic research has been done, then applied research can done, built on the foundation of basic research. Applied research is where the corporations step in, to take what data was collected during basic research and aim to alleviate a problem or create a product based on the initial research. We are just beginning the basic research stages of stem cell research.
These are elementary concepts and I don't feel like teaching a science seminar right now.
My point was we really have no way of knowing how these issues will affect us until the time arrives. You seemed so certain of your assumptions that they were stated as if being factual when they were actually just your average musings.
Concerning cosmology and string theory, we have no way of knowing how our lives will be affected by these. In your original post you even stated that anything to do with cosmology and string theory will have no impact on our daily lives. So not only did you make the statement about cosmology and string theory in general, but also anything to do with them. You just can't accurately predict this for a hundred years from now.
And concerning stem cells, I think your knowledge of them may be a little limited if you have only focused on the political controversy as being their claim to fame. From our current early stages of stem cell research, the future looks very bright indeed, and the possibilities of using stem cells for everything from cloning to gene therapy far out weighs the majority of the "thousands" of other technologies out there.
I agree that it is more of a cultural anti-intellectual movement, and I agree with what another poster said about the anti-intellectual movement coming to the forefront because it is the loudest voices (those that disturb the grain the most) that are heard. But these voices seem to be in the minority, despite their influence.
From my experience, what we usually hear from the media does not affect scientific research, because researchers know better and cast aside comments concerning intelligent design and other BS as trivial.
But where it can hurt research is when it comes time to pay the bills and previously reliable monetary sources are no longer there (i.e. federal funding cuts for stem cell research). So even though you may relegate issues such as stem cell research to being an inconsequential hot button, these "hot buttons" are of tremendous importance to our future and the ignorance of the government (I don't mean to use ignorance in a derogatory manner, but just as a term describing limited knowledge of a subject) prevents scientific research from being fulfilled.
As for intelligent design, it won't impact our current generation of scientists and researchers, but there is a lot more to accomplish in the field of biology ahead of us, and these kids that are currently being taught ID, the ones that will be carrying on our research in the future, will be missing the core structure of biology, the theory of evolution, biology's unified field theory that ties everything together, and that's a damn shame.
So, the government does have at least some part in this movement.
Anything to do with cosmology and string theory will have no impact on our daily lives by 2100. Stem cells, while interesting, have been blown way out of proportion relative to their actual importance
I'm curious as to how you know this? I mean, I assume you know this, because your statement was not preceded by "in my opinion" or "i think". Especially your statement concerning stem cells. Do you have a crystal ball giving you information as to the importance of stem cells in the future? Even if you were a molecular/cell biologist who's main objective was conducting research on stem cells every day it still puzzles me as to how you are able to see into the future and assess their value. Could you please explain this?
I agree. I don't have a lot of interest in politics although they affect my job quite a bit as far as requesting funds go. But I did read the article and noticed no attention paid to one of the most important research areas directly affecting our future health and well-being today. Stem cell research. Many crucial advances were made during the past year regarding embryonic stem cell research, and the horizon continues to grow brighter and more exciting as the data flows in. I know this may be a hot political button, but the idea of cutting federal funding for this area of research greatly depresses me when I think of all the benefits that can be gained.
Slashdot Mirror
All of this is your own opinion, not fact, and everyone is entitled to their own. But spend enough time in the field and you will begin to see what I mean.
I work at UT-Southwestern here in Dallas and see stem cells every day without the hype filters you speak of. And in my opinion, and those of many many others, there is no new field of research more valuable to the understanding of growth, development, and evolutionary relationships than stem cell research.
Also, if you are a scientist it is surprising to me, and it is not in the field of biology, or you would not have asked the corporate research question. Any scientist knows the difference between "basic" and "applied" research. Basic research is important when researching a relatively new field such as stem cell research. Basic research is research for the sake of knowledge. Once enough basic research has been done, then applied research can done, built on the foundation of basic research. Applied research is where the corporations step in, to take what data was collected during basic research and aim to alleviate a problem or create a product based on the initial research. We are just beginning the basic research stages of stem cell research.
These are elementary concepts and I don't feel like teaching a science seminar right now.
My point was we really have no way of knowing how these issues will affect us until the time arrives. You seemed so certain of your assumptions that they were stated as if being factual when they were actually just your average musings.
Concerning cosmology and string theory, we have no way of knowing how our lives will be affected by these. In your original post you even stated that anything to do with cosmology and string theory will have no impact on our daily lives. So not only did you make the statement about cosmology and string theory in general, but also anything to do with them. You just can't accurately predict this for a hundred years from now.
And concerning stem cells, I think your knowledge of them may be a little limited if you have only focused on the political controversy as being their claim to fame. From our current early stages of stem cell research, the future looks very bright indeed, and the possibilities of using stem cells for everything from cloning to gene therapy far out weighs the majority of the "thousands" of other technologies out there.
I agree that it is more of a cultural anti-intellectual movement, and I agree with what another poster said about the anti-intellectual movement coming to the forefront because it is the loudest voices (those that disturb the grain the most) that are heard. But these voices seem to be in the minority, despite their influence. From my experience, what we usually hear from the media does not affect scientific research, because researchers know better and cast aside comments concerning intelligent design and other BS as trivial. But where it can hurt research is when it comes time to pay the bills and previously reliable monetary sources are no longer there (i.e. federal funding cuts for stem cell research). So even though you may relegate issues such as stem cell research to being an inconsequential hot button, these "hot buttons" are of tremendous importance to our future and the ignorance of the government (I don't mean to use ignorance in a derogatory manner, but just as a term describing limited knowledge of a subject) prevents scientific research from being fulfilled. As for intelligent design, it won't impact our current generation of scientists and researchers, but there is a lot more to accomplish in the field of biology ahead of us, and these kids that are currently being taught ID, the ones that will be carrying on our research in the future, will be missing the core structure of biology, the theory of evolution, biology's unified field theory that ties everything together, and that's a damn shame. So, the government does have at least some part in this movement.
I agree. I don't have a lot of interest in politics although they affect my job quite a bit as far as requesting funds go. But I did read the article and noticed no attention paid to one of the most important research areas directly affecting our future health and well-being today. Stem cell research. Many crucial advances were made during the past year regarding embryonic stem cell research, and the horizon continues to grow brighter and more exciting as the data flows in. I know this may be a hot political button, but the idea of cutting federal funding for this area of research greatly depresses me when I think of all the benefits that can be gained.