August 22, 2005

• Genetically modified insects from GM plants can't be good... I mean, look at those giant ants they had in the desert back when the world was black and white.
• Ah, I forgot about THEM!. But see, that's my point. People think about the GM food and their minds go to giant ants--science-fiction. Good science-fiction, classic, but still.
• Can we blame Science for stirrup pants? That wasn't a good thing.
• Don't forget Zubaz.
• It's not the scientists you can't trust, it's the corporations.
• The atomic bomb? I'd say that's pretty much science gone amok.
• Re: da Bomb Point taken...but if that's so, wouldn't you have to say the same about every weapon development, back to gunpowder, crossbows, and the Advent of the Pointed Stick?
• Cloning kittens. Just the start.
• Original editorial. Requires login, so don't bug me about it.
• I would say that the bigger culprit is often people using science who aren't trained for it, or falling victim to pseudo-science because they have a deep need for certain results to be 'scientifically proven.' Like in the 1900s-40s, when we hit the most extreme end of the eugenics movement. Secondarily, there's the corporationing* of science. It took me much longer in the store to find the two bottles of non-antibacterial liquid hand soap than it should. Science makes antibacterial soap available, but marketing says 'Use this! Or your children will die of dirt germs!' And the public falls for it. *not a word, but I couldn't think of one.
• I think that putting the responsibility for the misuse of technology on science may be missing the point. Science, and the innovations it creates, are just tools. With very few exceptions (like grey goo scenarios), it takes someone misusing a technology to make it bad; even an atomic bomb doesn't kill anybody sitting in storage. It seems to me that much more important than worrying about what those scientists are doing is working as a society to develop the ethical framework necessary for dealing with increasingly powerful technologies. Because, unless people across the world start actively slowling the progress of science (which seems to me rather counterproductive), technology is going to continue to advance, and we're going to have increasing numbers of ways to do terrible things, and what we need to do as a society is find a good way to deal with this capability, rather than simply worry about its existence (and, in the process, turn the scientists who might have some useful things to say about the use of such technologies into scapegoats). (And yes, Mr. Knickerbocker, trying to balance profit motives with scientific ethics is something that will take some work...)
• "meddling in matters man was not meant to meddle in" Man is a meddler. It's how we got to where we are today. Or at least that's what you think if you accept evolution. Which brings me to my point: Sci-Fi glorifies science as much as it villifies it. Religion is where it's at for stem cell science == meddling with God's plan == bad (or evil in some cases).
• Point taken...but if that's so, wouldn't you have to say the same about every weapon development, back to gunpowder, crossbows, and the Advent of the Pointed Stick? Perhaps so. Although saying that the pointed stick was invented by scientists might be quite a stretch. Also, I don't think that the gap between someone saying "Holy crap, look how much energy we can release by this method" and someone saying "Holy crap, look how many people we can reduce to a thin paste by this method" has been quite so quick.
• Well, while I really wouldn't call it amok... what about all the drug recalls? People getting strokes, heart attacks, cancer, etc. due to a prescription they were on...
• The assholes at the Arkansas Democrat Gazette only accept letters from in-state. I say we put all the Luddites in Arkansas, take away everything developed by science, and see how long they live. Sorry, techsmith - you'll have to move to someplace a little more scientifically advanced.
• I am not affiliated with Arkansas or the ADG in anyway. I simply looked for the editorial. :)
• Debaser - that's not science. That's the FDA and corporations colluding to prevent science. Companies hiding the negative results of drug trials has everything to do with the fact that they are money-making organizations, and nothing to do with science.
• Well, I would say that most purely elective plastic surgery is "science gone amok." I mean, look at this guy and tell me his doctor has any ethics at all... I also think that most fertility treatments are "science gone amok." My cousin and his wife have adopted two kids from China and they seem just as happy as if his wife had given birth to them... (also note that in both cases I said "most" because I realize there are exceptions for every case.)
• (Sorry - sore subject, as I am on the precipice of having to choose which scary mega-pharma I want to work for. I've started buying lotto tickets.)
• The only example I can think of is plastic surgery. Intended as a way to help the disfigured, it now produces faces like Joan Rivers, lips like Meg Ryan's, and boobs like [insert porn star here]. The problem isn't the scientists behind the technology, it's the commercialism behind it. And while it would be great if all scientists had fine-tuned ethical standards, they wouldn't get very far without some kind of popular support. And while there are often negative unexpected consequences of technology, there are also some pretty amazing ones too (take all the uses of plastic for example).
• Of course, the flip side to Joan Rivers is plastic surgery for kids born with hare-lips and plenty of other treatable deformities.
• I'm the one that lives in the technologically fearful state, DMN. Me and middleclasstool. And since I'm a type-1 diabetic who is insulin-dependent, the answer to how long we'd last is, in my case anyway, not fucking long. Thank God science for recombinant DNA tinkerage!
• For something a little more pedestrian, I'd say the cybernetic juggernaut that is the MSM and it's attendant tentacles (ditto!) that allow G.W. Bush to be elected. . . . s a good example of science run amok.
• Monkeyfilter.
• I don't understand the original premise of using abortion as an example of "science run amok". Abortion wasn't a new scientific discovey or advancement, it had been around for hundreds of years (at least) in various forms. The method had become safer, yes, but that isn't quite the same as the development of a revolutionary new technology.
• There was that one chick who blinded me. You know, with science.
• Anti-abortionists believe that abortion is an area in which science has gone too far. Ditto stem cell research. If you exclude those as examples, you bias the question from the outset. You aren't going to get a lot of examples from this thread because the scientific advances we enjoy today are with us because most of us accept them. Your question asks which of our accepted practices are wrong, but if most people believed they were wrong, they wouldn't be accepted, as with eugenics. To quote Herodotus: For if anyone, no matter who, were given the opportunity of choosing from amongst all the nations of the world the set of beliefs which he thought best, he would inevitably, after careful consideration of their relative merits, choose that of his own country. Of course, a minority might oppose some practices, but that minority is less likely to be represented on MoFi because the people here tend to be pro-science and anti-religion (with respect to public policy), and these people are less likely to oppose scientific advances.
• Well... I think it will be clear how far science can go wrong, with the escape of The Flying Sharkctopus Wasp Queen and all the other warrior and worker sharkctopi from Area 51. (Latin name: Holy Fuckimus Deadicus AmI) Run for your lives... while you still can! Also... science (indirectly) has contributed to the demise of this world, via energy and resource consumption. While it is certainly plausible to direct the blame at pursuit of comfort and economics, the fact remains that we have used more of the earth's resources in the last 50 years, than have been used in the last 50,000 years. While the earth is like a liver, in the respect that it can replenish itself over time, we're basically in the midst of the biggest bender since the Big Bang, and some future generation's gonna have to pay the piper for that.
• They used Roe v. Wade as a jumping-off point, the slippery slope argument, and then segued into science gone amok. I'm not sure they were saying that abortion WAS science gone amok--just that in the author's view, the situation was similar. I believe one of the early quotes was "[after Roe v. Wade] one of the most hateful words in the English language--abortionist--became a profession, and even an industry." With the added implication that stem-cell farms were right around the corner. Little Baby Banting, soon you'll need decanting...that sort of thing. And just FYI, the author DID in fact call stem cell researchers "Young Frankensteins" in the article. So okay, we all love science, we can't do without it. How about this redirect--is science so careful BECAUSE of the Frankenstein factor--that people are so afraid of being seen as mad scientists that they keep themselves in check instead of creating, oh, I don't know, a twelve-legged chicken or a salamander that can do your taxes? A little fear might be a good thing...as long as it doesn't go amok.
• duh!...Television!
• Debaser--true enough, but it's hard for me to argue for going back to pre-industrial days, since if I'd been born at any time before the early 20th century, I would be dead now. Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a Sherlock Holmes story in which the villain confesses once he learns he has "sugar diabetes," since at that time it was a terminal disease.
• I mean, I would be dead well before I reached my current age. Obviously, most people born before the early part of the 20th century are probably dead now. *blush*
• *beats MCT with 'Greatest Hits of the 80's' CD*
• *that's what MCT gets, trying to show how funky and strong is his fight*
• I'm sick of science going amok. Where's my fucking flying car?
• Anyone who's watched any of James Burke's shows (Connections, Connections2, etc.) knows that the very premise of there being a 'next step' is faulty. Developments in science lead to completely unintended consequences, some good, some bad. Certainly, one can work towards X in order to be able to develop Y, but X may also make Z possible. Or it could turn out that Y may be produced by C and K. But to say that we're not going to work towards X because that will lead to Y is a naive view, however valid the value judgements behind that reasoning may be. To think that Y is the 'next step' after X is linear thinking that shows a lack of appreciation for how science works, and has worked in the past. Also, assigning these sorts of value statements to science is in itself a problem. Science is, or at least good science is, objective. Or as objective as possible. It simply shows how things work in the world. The assignment of priorities and values is done outside of science proper, as science itself is just a methodical process of investigation. When 'science runs amok', it is when the results of scientific study are applied according to a value system later seen as incorrect. Development of the bomb, for instance, had as one foundation (among others) the creation of a weapon so terrible, that just the threat of its use would be enough to guarantee peace -- an aim also cited by Nobel in the development of dynamite. That the bomb was seen later as a terrible development has more to do with changing social values than in science running amok. Other things, such as the eugenics craze cited upthread, may not have been science at all, but a skewed value system misappropriating the tools of science for their own ends. In summation then (excuse me for taking so long to get here), it's not science running amok, it's a misevaluation or misapplication of value judgements behind using what science has revealed. IMHO, anyway. So there.
• True enough Capt... but did you know that if you mix K and Y you'll get Jelly?
• Is there anyone here in the field who can tell me just *how* promising adult stem cell and umbilical blood research are? I'd really like to know, and (audible gasp!) I don't trust a politician (on either side) to tell me.
• Tenacious... I do agree that if you had been born 100-150 years earlier your life would have been severely curtailed. Medicine is an important scientific field which definitely benefits from industry and technology. It just concerns me that no one's watching the house. I'm reminded of my first paycheck. You go out and blow it all in 3 or 4 days, and then have to starve till the next one. I learned from that, but since you're talking generations... there is the attitude (although I doubt people will admit it) of: "Well... it'll be fine for me, my children and my grandkids... what do I really care about some people I'm never going to meet." I'm certainly not going to give up my A/C and love of driving, nor would I expect anything short of a ELE (Deep Impact anyone?) to return us to the early 20th century, but more care needs to be taken as far as recycling and alternative energy. We may be on a bender, but that doesn't mean we can't hit AA once in awhile. Buy a hybrid... use bio diesel... it may not solve the problem, but it can't hurt.
• Agreed. I wouldn't mind science going a little amok in the whole renewable resource field.
• (Nice, Debaser -- well played!)
• In a world without toilet paper, the living would envy the dead !
• TOILET GREEN IS PEOPLE!!! IT'S PEOPLE!!!
• MonkeyFilter: Meddling in matters man was not meant to meddle in. Pah! What good is science if we can't make lie detectors that can tell us when politicians and car salesmen are lying? What was that? Did I hear you say whenever their lips are moving?
• I must say that I am grateful to science for not only building our future, but for preserving our past. Were it not for the efforts of chemists, architects, engineers, and a host of other applied scientists, the vast majority of the world's antiquities now on display would be lost to decay. The British Museum Reading Room, for example, contains one of the world's largest libraries: over six million volumes, most of them irreplaceable, and all of them extremely prone to vermin, decay, mould, and, most worrisome of all, fire. The legacy of Western society is protected by science in this setting, and I find that extremely comforting.
• My apologies, techsmith. I'll call off the relocation squad.
• MCT, I studied molecular, cellular and developmental biology at university so I might be able to help out. Stem cell biology research is very, very important. Every cell in your body contains all of the necessary code to completely replicate you and every single one of your organs(if it hasn't been damaged through recombination, mutagens, etc...). As you grow and your cells differentiate (forming organs and structures) they turn off parts of the code that they no longer need. For example, your liver probably doesn't need to create the air sacs in the lungs. This saves energy and keeps that code protected. Stem cells are unique in that none of the code is turned off. If they are put in contact with other cell structures communication between the cells will cause the stem cells to differentiate and turn into a cell like its neighbors. If you can produce a stem cell from its host organism (which just happened recently) you can reproduce an organ an not fear an immune response so you can have a successful transplant. So, for example, if TP had code for a 'good' pancreas we could make a new functioning one and transplant it (I don't know if they do pancreas transplants). If TP didn't have code for a 'good' pancreas you might be able to find the problem, do a little genetic recombination (good pancreas code) and grow a 'good' one that won't be rejected. There are plenty of specialized cells that don't grow their populations by division, what you have at the start is what you've got. Muscle and nerve cells are like this, they don't grow back if they die. Stem cells allow you to 'grow' these cell populations if they have been lost.
• Developments in science lead to completely unintended consequences, some good, some bad A very important point and one esoteric enough to often be lost in these discussions. The history of science is the history of unintended discoveries. Trying to control science to a way to garantee poor science and cripple human progress, as it is impossible to predict what knowledge will prove useful and which will lead to dead ends. The history of science is a history of major studies that were complete failures or dis-proved what they were supposed to prove, while 'maverick' scientists applied previous knowledge in new, unintended ways to create new discoveries. Scientists concerned with the larger view of scientific progress, with all the enormous benefits we have derived from it, are thus extremely wary of any talk to limit scientific research. There is nothing wrong, however, with society discussing how new scientific knowledge should be utilized once it is discovered, as is going on right now with stem cells and genetic modification. There is even a movement within the scientific community worried that our already huge body of knowledge is starting to limit our scientific progess. In short, we already know so much that it is difficult for scientists in many fields to simply familiarize themselves with what has already been learned, so that they can apply themselves to the vast amount still left to discover. We don't need further impediments.
• Is there anyone here in the field who can tell me just *how* promising adult stem cell To continue kookywon's excellent explanation... From my understanding, stem cell research is extremely promising. There have been quite a number of human and animal experiments and trials at this point that have yielded astonishing results. This differentiates stem cell research from genetic modification, which has a much more troubled history. Despite the excitement over manipulating genetics ten years ago, therapeutic human trials have had very mixed and unpredictable results and genetic research has really shown us how much more we need to learn before it will actually be practical in any broad way. On top of stem cell researchers excellent progess so far, stem cell therapy also offers similar benefits to those envisioned for gene therapy, with less risk involved to the patient.
• Science is God's way of making sure we grow up....or die trying.
• Right, I understand the basics of stem cells. What I'm specifically looking for is the study of adult stem cells and umbilical blood, as opposed to fetal or embryonic stem cell research. Repubs are swearing up and down that the former branches show just as much, if not more, promise than either of the latter. Perspicacious and sagacious man that I am, I suspect that there may be some degree of bullshit to this statement, but I know precisely dick about cellular biology, excepting of course what bit of freshman bio wasn't scrubbed out by all the pot I smoked in college. So I guess my question is: how much bullshit is in that statement, if any? Are *adult* stem cell lines and umbilical blood research showing any promise? And if so, how do they compare to embryonic/fetal stem cell research, if such a comparison can be made?
• What I'm specifically looking for is the study of adult stem cells and umbilical blood My understanding is that although scientists have been pleasently surprised with the gains they have made with adult derived stem cells, they have profound misgivings about their limitations. The current scientific consensus seems to be that adult stem cells are expected to have limited application (they will never be nearly as versatile as embryonic stem cells) and not everyones body will be a good candidate for providing viable adult-derived stem cells, limiting transplant candidates. Furthermore, adult stem cells are believed to be inherently limited due to the DNA damage already present due to aging and environmental damage. These beliefs about adult stem cells may change as more is learned. It all boils down to the simple question of whether you consider a non-viable embryo of less than a few hundred cells the same as a human life. If you do, and that is the audience the GOP currently plays to, no form of embryonic stem cell research will be acceptable. Period. No matter how beneficial. Which makes sense if you believe that, since it is generally never worth taking an innocent life to save another single life.
• MCT: Very wise of you. As far as I can tell (BS in biology, currently in grad school), there is certainly a degree of bullshit here. To the best of my knowledge the overall potential of embryonic and adult stem cell lines is identical (and the promise is strong enough that we certainly should be pursuing research here), BUT: There are a couple of additional hurdles that need to be passed before adult stem cells become as useful as embryonic stem cells: Returning those cells to a fully undifferentiated state (we've taken a baby step on this but there's still a long long way to go) and dealing with the additional wear and tear present in adult cells. So, to answer your question, we can get the same thing out of either of these cell classes, but the adult stem cells will take more work to get to the same place. Note that adult stem cell technology would have the sole advantage of allowing perfect tissue matches to people born before we find a good way to save stem cells from people as they're born, but it's unclear how much of an issue this will be once we have the technology to actually use stem cells; this seems like more of a derivative problem to me. (Any additions or corrections to this or welcome; like I said, BS in bio and I try to keep up with interesting research, but this isn't near my specialty)
• Small addition to the excellent comments above - where mahoukenshi mentioned that adult stem cells have the advantage of being a perfect tissue match to the host: with cloned embryos, the embryonic stem cells will allow perfect matches as well. They are currently trying to do enucleation (removal of host egg nucleus) and nuclear transfer, before stimulating division to get cloned embryos. This isn't much more technically difficult or time-consuming then current IVF techniques, so if this source of stem cells is found to be more effective for future treatments, it shouldn't be a problem to scale up. You may still have a problem with choosing the best type of adult donor cell for nuclear transfer (for the least amount of damage, imprinting etc. possible), but it offers a further variation on possible research. (My disclaimer: stem cell research isn't near my field either.)
• I want to know how they got the crap about abortion being the most common birth control method among the poor. My hunch that "withdrawal" is the most used (albeit the least effective", even when coupled with walking around or a coca-cola douche), followed by norplant or the pill (I'm not sure which is most used now), followed by condoms. From the looks of things around here abortion is less common than having Mom help you raise your little suprise bundle. As for stem cell research, I'm all for it. We should be glad we don't have to pay people to have abortions to get them, yet.
• So, for example, if TP had code for a 'good' pancreas we could make a new functioning one and transplant it (I don't know if they do pancreas transplants). If TP didn't have code for a 'good' pancreas you might be able to find the problem, do a little genetic recombination (good pancreas code) and grow a 'good' one that won't be rejected. kookywon: A lot of people think this, but it's not exactly true. The root cause of type-1 diabetes is not the failure of the pancreas, but an auto-immune disorder that causes the white blood cells to attack the pancreas and kill the insulin producing cells. This is why pancreas transplants don't generally work--even if the new pancreas is not rejected, the white cells are likely to kill it again, because the underlying autoimmune problem still exists. Also, it's generally less stressful on the body to manage diabetes with insulin than to take immunosuppressant drugs necessitated by transplant. Cost/benefit analysis favors just "dealing with it." (Despite the added risk of amputation, blindness, shortened life span, kidney disease, etc.) The only time they do pancreas transplants for diabetes is when the diabetes has impaired kidney function to the point that the kidney must be replaced. Since you can't live without a kidney, cost/benefit flip-flops, and they figure, "While we're in here, we might as well replace the pancreas." Immunosuppressant drugs limit white cell attacks, but also leave you open to a variety of other ailments. Can't win for losing. That said, I support stem cell research for all the other promise, even if the one for diabetes is dodgy. HOWEVER, there is a line of research being supported by the Iacocca Foundation that looks promising to cure the autoimmune disorder with already available drugs. The lead researcher, Dr. Faustman (great name, eh?) did it in mice, and discovered somethign amazing--once the autoimmune disorder was gone, the insulin-producing cells started regenerating. REGENERATING. Who knew? This is huge, and a potential long term real-life cure without immunosuppressant drugs--so of course the government and the ADA and the JDRF won't fund it...yet. Lee Iacocca, whose wife died of diabetes complications, is leading a massive private fund-raising operation to get the thing into human trials. You can find more info and donate, if you want, at JoinLeeNow.org. Forgive the diabetic derail.
• Big Davey - agreed. I worked in a sliding scale clinic at one point, computerizing all the patient charts. Abortions are not the #1 form of birth control, at least, from what I've seen. The docs discourage it as a 'form of birth control' because it's surgery, albeit minor at early stages. Norplant was withdrawn from the US market sometime around the millennium; there was a lot of problems with it being inserted incorrectly, and it's a bitch to get out. I would say that outside of withdrawl and condoms, Depo-Provera is very widely used, especially in the lower income bracket. No one wants to take a pill daily (and there's a lot of 'But I was on the pill!' 'Did you take it every day?' 'Well, no...' in my charts.) Depo is an injection given every 3 months, so it's considered more convenient. Pills are seen, but a lot more fallible; almost no one uses diaphragms or IUDs. A lot of our high risk patients sign sterilization papers after their third+ kid, but not all of them follow through. But yeah, more people are just having them and raising them in extended families.
• MonkeyFilter: We don't need further impediments. MonkeyFilter: While we're in here, we might as well replace the pancreas.
• MonkeyFilter: Can we blame Science for stirrup pants? How did I ever miss that one??