It's a light entertainment TV programme and all he's doing is putting up an argument to get some ratings. However, there is a serious issue there up for debate and on genetics I don't think we've really had any sort of in-depth discussion as to where this should go. I can't see how we can just dive into genetic research without establishing guidelines, processes, ethical responsiblities etc., about the issue.

Perhaps there's somebody on here who is involved in this area who can give us an insight as to what the issues are. I'm not skeptical about the case for genetics but I'm not that aware of the risks/dangers that need to be considered especially when you start getting into patents and the like. It's not dissimilar to the work that [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_VenterCraig Venter[/url does, in that is prompts question which require detailed discussion and resolution before it gets out of control.

I didn't know Matthew Wright, never heard of him, so I have just googled him.
Now I know that he was a columnist at the [iSun[/i, then a gossip columnist at the [iMirror[/i, then moved on to Channel 5.

And we are asking if he should be taken seriously?

I shall now revert to not knowing who he is.
Thank you.

Yeah, I thought they got the tone just right: on one hand lauding the sheer brilliance of the men and women who have made such remarkable advances, on the other highlighting the need for checks and balances to ensure that certain techniques aren't used inappropriately.



I've only ever watched him once, and that was more than enough.

Ditto.





And ditto that too.

I agree, but the show seems to be pitched at a more serious audience than Loose Women or Jeremy Kyle's pantomime. The guest list often includes serious medical people and commentators (although todays offering didn't). My question is really that if this is pitched at the brighter side of average Joe public, then have I really lost touch with what average Joe public believes?
In this case I was so wound up that I didn't wait to hear what the phone in view was (which I suspect is tightly controlled anyway) as I didn't want to have to buy a new tv without my foot in it.

Splitting the atom was a great scientific breakthrough but was used for evil purposes.

Scientists generally are egocentric obsessives who do not consider the greater good. They do their research and then someone else comes along and misuses it.

As to genetic research - someone, somewhere, sometime will create and ethnic "bomb" that will target a particular race by virtue of their specific genotype. Instant holocaust. Given that China will surge ahead of us technology soon and they are distinctly different to us, we ought to worry.

Anyway, moving up a level in thought, IMO science has achieved many short-term gains for humanity but I see it as a long-term tool for destruction. We seem to be entering a phase were we will increasngly rely on science to bail us out from the disasters caused by environmental degradation, which is itself the result of excessive population sustained by technological advance. Ultimately, as a species, we will at some point in the future realise it would have been better not to develop science as it will have sown the seeds of our destruction - we are hunter gatherers and in the long-run that's the only way we could have survived as a species.

There is constant debate regarding the course and ethics of genetic research. Scientists are acutely aware of the implications and many are uncomfortable progressing work like this without an ethical framework in place, which there usually is. The same can be said for stem cell research. There is a growing perception (in my opinion) that scientists are heartless and will simply perform any experiment they see fit if they believe it advances their research regardless of the feelings of anyone else or the use to mankind as a whole. This simply isn't true.
There are always mavericks or publicity hunters in any walk of life who will try and make personal advantage by being "controversial" etc. That's just the way people work. They shouldn't be seen as representative of established science and their potential actions should not be used as an excuse to restrict the mainstream from doing extremely valuable work.

Well, a couple of days ago it was ...

... and now it's ...


You should get a nice British heterosexual white christian tory doctor to look at that jerking knee of yours.
(Without touching, of course).

Spider goat had me fascinated. Not disimilar to the process of producing therapeutic proteins on an industrial scale using genes implanted in bacteria and yeast.

I don't work in genomic applications though, proteomics and translational medicine is where I operate. Proteomics will be the new revolution once the tools are in place.

You really are a fooking idiot.

Having recently had a refresher on statistical probability, I can say that unfortunately Dally is innevitable.

Anyway, moving up a level in thought, IMO science has achieved many short-term gains for humanity but I see it as a long-term tool for destruction. We seem to be entering a phase were we will increasngly rely on science to bail us out from the disasters caused by environmental degradation, which is itself the result of excessive population sustained by technological advance. Ultimately, as a species, we will at some point in the future realise it would have been better not to develop science as it will have sown the seeds of our destruction - we are hunter gatherers and in the long-run that's the only way we could have survived as a species.'"

Like all humans you are programmed for short-term thinking - to survive daily. Part of the reason for many modern ills - including, obesity. However, one must extract oneself from that mindset from time to time to consider the broader, long term issues.

I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago.

I found the diesel thing quite interesting as well. Is it really possible that they could produce enough of this type of fuel to significantly reduce oil dependency? Obviously it's not a long term solution as it still produces carbon emissions, but it might be a useful stop gap given the situation in Iran and other oil-rich countries.

"All humans" is probably stretching it, but it's no easy task

The sky is still falling then Dally?

How come it hasn't landed yet?

<Monty Python stylee>
What has Science ever done for us......?

What i hate is when a technological advance is patented then bought by a company who shelve it so that it doesn't effect profits.

Apparently someone invented a wheel on the landing equipment on a plane that turns at the exact same speed as the plane is travelling so when you hit the tarmac you don't get a flatspot and the tyres last a hell of a lot longer.

Someone(A big tyre company) paid the guy that invented it and shelved it and stopped other people making it.

Stories like that get on my nerves, i'm sure somewhere the cure for the common cold and cancer are in some database.

They get on my nerves too. Especially when the stories are just conspiracy theories. uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 607AAfumUB

They get on my nerves too. Especially when the stories are just conspiracy theories. uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 607AAfumUB

Quote ="Scooter Nik"They get on my nerves too. Especially when the stories are just conspiracy theories. uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 607AAfumUB'" There's also the water running car, pays to investigate stories i guess

Quote ="Scooter Nik"They get on my nerves too. Especially when the stories are just conspiracy theories. uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/in ... 607AAfumUB'" There's also the water running car, pays to investigate stories i guess

That's a classic Yed, anyone with even a basic understanding of science can see the flaw in the reasoning, but it doesn't stop people believing that either Shell or Ford own the copyright, despite searches of various copyright agencies showing that there are no such designs in existance.

That said, I used to work in the knitting industy for a gentleman called Frank Paling who invented a new and simpler type of yarn tensioner for rotary knitting machines. The patent was bought by the company that makes yarn tensioners, and that pretty much has a monopoly. Guess what... Franks design was never manufactured, but was buried in the companies pile of patents.
So it definately does happen.

Using the term 'science' is a bit misleading. Should mass vaccinations, water treatment and sewage systems etc be lumped together with the hydrogen bomb? What do you consider 'science' anyway - the wheel was a massive technological breakthough, as was the ability to use bronze and later iron. Given our utter dependence on technology of some sort for our very survival (who here could be self-sufficient in food?) let alone our social lives, its a bit of a nonsense to generalise.

The debate about the value (and boundaries) around genetic research in paricular tends to be easily hijackaed and sensationalised. In the case of human research it has the potential to help develop cures for diseases that other methods simply cannot address, but too often the headlines focus on 'designer babies' and the like.

One of the most interesting ethical debates about science I saw asked whether discoveries that had been made horrendous ways (e.g. Nazi 'research' in concentration camps in WW2) should be used, due to the way the information was found. That's a hard question, although on balance I'd argue that if information is public, and can be used to help people in need, it should be, despite the way it was developed.

It's worth making the point that where fifty years ago the overwhelming majority of major American investment in science went to the computing industries (which gave rise to Silicon Valley and the obvious spin-off benefits) - today the big bucks are largely being hurled at the bio-tech companies.

The big difference between computing back then (and up to the beginning of the millennium) and bio-tech today is the issue of investor rights, patents etc. Whilst the likes of IBM, Honeywell etc. still produced plenty of proprietary hardware & software they also had the good sense to give away all manner of "open" architecture because it would be good for business in the long run (this is back when corporations operated long-term business plans as opposed to the "profit now or be damned" ethos of today). Bio-tech, on the other hand, is wrapped tighter than a ball of string with patents.

Numerous unsettling stories have emerged in places such as Mexico where uncooperative indigenous tribes have even been evicted from their lands in order for wholesale genetic harvesting to take place. And it's not just the major bio-tech corporations who are to blame. UN-affiliated NGOs ostensibly operating under the rubric of wildlife conservation have recently emerged with very dirty hands. Indeed, there was a very ugly news item that emerged a few years back out of the Lacandon Jungle (Mexico again, I think) where two major conservation groups (who stand to make a good deal of money from tie-ups with gene-tech companies) were accused of deliberately setting a forest fire in order to force people off their ancestral territories.

Much of the blame must be levelled at the Reagan administration. Under its "Great Giveaway" of state assets, money and legislature we saw General Electric brazenly claim that its newly developed "Chakrabaty microbe" (designed to devour oil despite having several less appealing appetites) should be protected under patenting laws. This opened the door to thousands of weird and wonderful new patents of everything including a human being (specifically a woman - purely for her breast milk).

Things are far worse in places such as Asia where so-called "Terminator Tech" - seed stocks which are tailored to auto-sterilise after one year have indirectly resulted in the deaths of thousands of farmers. When the WTO got its hooks into India it (along with the US government) pretty much forced the country to create legislature preventing Indian farmers storing domestic grain seed. The big Western companies then dumped an overwhelming quantity of seed stock into the market forcing the remaining Indian grain sellers out of business. Unfortunately, pretty much all of the grain was GM programmed to auto-sterilise. Once farmers adopted the grain (after intense protest) prices were - predictably - jacked up. What followed for many was a tragic debt spiral. When grain sales reached the point where they couldn't cover the costs of next year's seeds many landowners got involved with loan sharks and so forth and within one or two years it was all over. The final chilling irony is that many farmers chose to commit suicide by drinking the very same pesticides which they were forced to buy for their crops (standard pesticides were either ineffective or killed the plant - co-incidence?) Over the past few years there have been huge protests in India over the antics of the WTO, biotech companies and the government. In one year it is estimated that there were 140,000 suicides attributed in some way to this problem. Indeed, rising seed prices are one of the main reasons for the mass exodus of people from the country to the city and the swelling of India's appalling slums.

Now, let's recall that India was pretty much wheat-sufficient prior to its engagement in so-called "economic liberalisation". Technology, it seems, isn't everything.

I mean, it's bad enough when pharma companies patent some process the vast majority of which is based on freely available scientific knowledge and paid for by the taxpayer. But when the constituents of life itself are parcelled up, stamped "intellectual property" and a big, fat price tag attached things have clearly gone too far. That said, if people continue to turn a blind eye to such activities, only rising off their backsides whenever some issue over, say, NHS treatment directly affects THEM, they shouldn't complain when, at some future point, they discover every single cell in their bodies is now the property of someone else.