Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Disturbing science?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Disturbing science? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 1:43:45 PM   
Raechard


Posts: 3513
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline 		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???


_____________________________

えへまにんへえや
Nobody wants to listen to the same song over and over again!
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 2:00:21 PM   
awmslave


Posts: 599
Joined: 3/31/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Raechard)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 2:11:32 PM   
Peridot


Posts: 78
Status: offline 		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 +
 

(in reply to Raechard)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 2:11:34 PM   
Raechard


Posts: 3513
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: S.E. London U.K.
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

えへまにんへえや
Nobody wants to listen to the same song over and over again!

(in reply to awmslave)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 2:24:32 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Raechard)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 2:44:48 PM   
sappatoti


Posts: 14844
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: the edge of darkness...
Status: offline 		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?

_____________________________

Never mind the man on the edge of the darkness... he means no harm...

"Community, Identity, Stability." ~ A Brave New World, Aldous Huxley, 1932

If you don't like my attitude, QUIT TALKING TO ME!

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 2:55:19 PM   
FangsNfeet


Posts: 3758
Joined: 12/3/2004
Status: offline 		Ready or not, here comes Blade Runner.

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


_____________________________

I'm Godzilla and you're Japan

(in reply to Raechard)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 3:39:32 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		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)

(in reply to FangsNfeet)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 4:04:02 PM   
bipolarber


Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline 		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?  :)

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 4:09:44 PM   
HaveRopeWillBind


Posts: 514
Joined: 7/15/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 4:11:59 PM   
camille65


Posts: 5746
Joined: 7/11/2007
From: Austin Texas
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


~Love your life! (It is the only one you'll get).




(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 5:43:21 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to camille65)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 5:52:18 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline 		      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).

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.


(in reply to Raechard)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 5:56:24 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 6:10:27 PM   
arkitain


Posts: 22
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline
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!

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 6:18:05 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 8:45:07 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 9:23:10 PM   
luckydog1


Posts: 2736
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/16/2007 9:42:48 PM   
TMaster2


Posts: 194
Joined: 2/25/2006
Status: offline 		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. 


_____________________________

Doms/Masters Who are also Gods, CLICK HERE!

(in reply to luckydog1)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Disturbing science? - 12/17/2007 5:55:57 AM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline 		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

(in reply to TMaster2)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Disturbing science? Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094