Disturbing science? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Raechard -> Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 1:43:45 PM)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7074831.stm
http://www.itchmo.com/scientists-clone-red-fluorescent-cats-4210

I’ve seen a lot of these stories of late relating to research that I just can’t understand the purpose of.

Fair enough that it helps us understand diseases etc. but are our motives for such reasearch always so pure of heart?

More disturbing maybe is where the funding for the super mice research is coming from. What implications does this have for the future in terms of warfare?

I'm thinking in the future the T1 virus will be used to infect people making them glow in the dark so that super mice soldiers can kill them???



awmslave -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 2:00:21 PM)

There are certainly military applications but we can blow ouerselves into hell in few seconds already.
This kind of researh will certanly lead to future generations being stronger, disease resistant and living longer. I see nothing wrong with that.
 "Super mouse" funding is 100% civilian coning mostly from NIH and NSF.



Peridot -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 2:11:32 PM)

Wow. Uber Mice and Glow In The Dark Cats.
The potential of genetic engineering in the world  =  the power to heal and benefit or corrupt and destroy.    
Sci Fi +
[sm=hair.gif] 



Raechard -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 2:11:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave
This kind of researh will certanly lead to future generations being stronger, disease resistant and living longer. I see nothing wrong with that. 


Except over population is already a big problem in terms of global poverty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave
"Super mouse" funding is 100% civilian coning mostly from NIH and NSF.

 
I'm not so 100% certain military money doesn't find its way into these institutions, how can I be?



luckydog1 -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 2:24:32 PM)

The idea of infecting people so they glow and can be killed easier sounds a bit far fetched.  It would be simpler to infect them with a deadly disease that just kills them.  The potential nightmares coming from this research are indeed scary.  And if you don't think that millitaries all over the world are salivating for this stuff, you are out of your mind.

I dream of the day when I can have a 6 inch tall pet elephant stomping around the house bellowing at the cats, but I am not sure the downside of this research will be worth it.



sappatoti -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 2:44:48 PM)

The glow-in-the-dark aspect is simply a novelty; one step towards the darker goal of traceable DNA -- to be used in classifying, and if needed, easily segregating people. Imagine the possibilities of having a non-mechanical or electronic means of tracking people, whatever the reason. Nothing to implant, thus nothing that can be removed later or rendered inoperative; the means to track becomes completely intertwined with a person's very body.

Selective breeding isn't the only path of eugenics it would seem.

May seemed far-fetched now, but is it really?



FangsNfeet -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 2:55:19 PM)

Ready or not, here comes Blade Runner.

http://www.brmovie.com/Analysis/index.htm



samboct -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 3:39:32 PM)

All types of research can be used for either good or evil, depending on your perspective.  I suspect that someone with myasthenia gravis might be very interested in the "supermouse"- learning how to improve muscle function by increasing mitochondria into the muscle could be a great therapy.

The red fluorescent protein (RFP) is a standard lab marker used in biochemistry- what's neat is that somebody has shown that you can take a gene that encodes a standard marker and get it into a cat.  Now the trick is to take a gene that does something a bit more useful and get it to express, but the reason for using RFP, is that it's a no brainer to see that it's expressing.

Far as I'm concerned, this looks like nice research.


Sam (who also happens to be a Ph.D. in chemistry)



bipolarber -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 4:04:02 PM)

Imagine your body as a superhighway, and a virus as a drunk in a sports car... you can imagine the damage that virus could do... Now, suppose we took that same virus and put a different driver into the car... in this case a cop. Now think of how much good that virus could do, running around your body fixing things....

I mean, what could go wrong?  :)



HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 4:09:44 PM)

I can see where this is leading - Glow-in-the-dark super NFL players so we no longer need those expensive energy wasting stadium lights and the players can run faster and/or farther without tiring.



camille65 -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 4:11:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

All types of research can be used for either good or evil, depending on your perspective.  I suspect that someone with myasthenia gravis might be very interested in the "supermouse"- learning how to improve muscle function by increasing mitochondria into the muscle could be a great therapy.

The red fluorescent protein (RFP) is a standard lab marker used in biochemistry- what's neat is that somebody has shown that you can take a gene that encodes a standard marker and get it into a cat.  Now the trick is to take a gene that does something a bit more useful and get it to express, but the reason for using RFP, is that it's a no brainer to see that it's expressing.

Far as I'm concerned, this looks like nice research.


Sam (who also happens to be a Ph.D. in chemistry)
 Wholehearted agreement although I'm not a Ph.D, I have however slept at a Holiday Inn Express before.



luckydog1 -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 5:43:21 PM)

Samboct, I agree that there will be great cures.  But I forsee many grave mistakes and sinister applications to come as well.  And my reading of human history makes me think there will be far more problems than good, hopefully I am wrong.  Our desires to make things nice for ourselves have already screwed up the planets climate, we are on the way to ruining the oceans, and I am not sure extending our controll into our genome is such a good idea.  It is far easier to break something than repair it, and that law of averages plays out in everything we try to mess with.

But I realise on this I have no choice and society started on this path long ago, and there is no way off.  Our great great grandkids will probably be engineered cyborg creatures.   

Imagine a society of engineered people, to me it sounds like a nightmare.



TheHeretic -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 5:52:18 PM)

      Medical ethics is just a bit too heavy a discussion for my schedule this evening.  If any PETA people should liberate a bunch of those cats that glow red under blacklight, though, I will give one a good home (and completely freak out everybody at my next halloween party).



Rule -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 5:56:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
I suspect that someone with myasthenia gravis might be very interested in the "supermouse"- learning how to improve muscle function by increasing mitochondria into the muscle could be a great therapy.
MG has nothing to do with mitichondria.



arkitain -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 6:10:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
Our great great grandkids will probably be engineered cyborg creatures.  


I'm just waiting for when I can get a jack implanted and learn to be a decker.  *Grin*  Shadowrun, here we come!



samboct -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 6:18:05 PM)

LuckyDog

I dunno- but I kinda doubt that there's been any real change in the ratio of good/evil from science over the centuries.  I could be wrong- especially given Microsoft's attempt at world hegemony (Insert the Brain's cackle-from Pinky and the Brain controlling the Bill Grates robot- the world's richest nerd), but overall, there really doesn't seem to be anything where most of our research is finding "evil" applications (insert appropriate Dr. Evil laugh here) compared to useful ones.  I doubt we're going to cyborgs anytime soon either.  One of the comments about genetic engineering- humans can't do anything that nature doesn't do- we just speed up the process.  Nature certainly has genes that jump species- we're just trying to do it too.  But have we come up with any device yet where the manmade version is preferable to the natural one?  Laser keratomy still doesn't beat natural good vision, people aren't lining up to get artificial heart valves or pacemakers implanted- and artificial hips don't beat natural ones.  OK, there is a runner with carbon fiber feet that seems pretty competitive, but I don't think folks are saying chop off their feet to gain a hundredth of a second.

Rule (although I'm not sure why I'm bothering)- I said treatment- not cure.  Improving the function of a wasted muscle would help- although you're correct that it wouldn't be a cure for the disease.

Sam



Rule -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 8:45:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct
Improving the function of a wasted muscle would help
No, it would not. MG is caused by antibodies attacking and disabling the acetylcholine receptors that transduce the signal from the nerve to the muscle. Adding mitochondria would not have any effect. One might as well pour dozens of engines into a car that does not drive because its accumulator is disconnected from the car. Whether there is one perfectly functional engine in the car or three dozen of such engines, for lack of a spark the car still will not drive.



luckydog1 -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 9:23:10 PM)

I don't know is the Carbon Dioxide buildup that is most likley part of Global warming "evil"?  I think it is an unintented consequense of trying to do good.  I saw a PBS special that said thousands of children died of choelra each year in NYC before the IC engine replaced the horses, now tens of thousands of kids there have nuerological problems from the Mercury and Lead from The IC engines.  I am not trying to say scienctists are "evil manical laughter types".  But they seem to be incredibly short sighted on the un intended consequences, which I guess is normal for unintended consequences.

A quote I recall from one of the Pioneers of Gene sequencing, I do not have the exact cite so I will paraphrase..."If you are not scared of the posibilities of this research, you haven't thought about it very deeply".

I do think that viruses designed to rewrite gene codes will mutate and have other than intended effects.
I do think that the genes that cause horrible diseases also have positive effects and play a necessary part in the gene pool.  Bi-poral disorder for example seems to be highly related to creativity, I am sure we will be able to wipe it out with gene screening, which is available in primitive form now, but who knows how it will affect the creativity of us as a species. 

I just think we are mucking around with very little knowledge of what the hell we are actually doing, in a very critical area of life, and we will likely pay a price for it.  I hope some people get helped along the way.

I think virtually every new technology has been heavily devloped and used by the millitary over the entire course of History



TMaster2 -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/16/2007 9:42:48 PM)

wow, I see a new caste system happening -- red glows, blue glows, and no-glows.  For awhile the no-glows will be the more popular, being the olde and original of the species, but soon, the reddies and blueys will become the avant people, with the no-glows becoming the no-goes and consigned to gutters.  Of course, new legislation will take care of that, right?

I don't know why I'm rambling about this. 



samboct -> RE: Disturbing science? (12/17/2007 5:55:57 AM)

LuckyDog

No major disagreement- except with your assumption that it was thousands dying from diseases in the time of horses.  According to Herbert Asbury (last "source" I read- and anything he writes should be taken with a boulder of salt- he's the 1928 author of "Gangs of NY") infant mortality in the 5 Points was running at somewhere around 2/3rds- i.e. 2/3rd of infants never made it to age 2 in the early 1800s.

Based on our increasing lifespan overall (wasn't the average time of life in the 1900s around 45?) technology has allowed most of us to lead longer, healthier lives- the idea that the good old days- people were healthier is just nonsense- although cancer rates were lower.

However, since humans still have wars, still have poverty and malnourishment, the likelihood that some genetic therapy will be misused to create football stars that live 30 years or hyper aggressive individuals that will either wind up in jail if there's no battlefield is pretty good.  So yeah- I'm sure the technology will be misused as well.  Not sure about viruses though- mother nature's pretty good at coming up with stuff- we're just on a different time scale.  One of the issues about global warming is that the diseases which are limited to relatively small regions of Africa may find warmer conditions more hospitable in other parts of the globe- it's one of the scarier parts of global warming.  There are lots more tropical diseases than diseases found only in cold regions.

Rule-let's say we manage to turn off the antibodies that cause MG.  Now what?  You've got wasted muscles that don't regenerate fully.  Adding mitochondria might improve this function- which is why it's a possible therapy.  If polio makes a resurgence, again, this might play a role in therapies.

Sam



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875