This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
It's been given the go ahead under the auspices of improved fertility treatments.
The first step to designer babies say the critics.
Is science going too far?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35459054
Post edited at 18:06
2
8
In reply to Gone for good:
No it isn't. Knowledge is paramount. Ignorance and prejudice are going to rear their ugly heads here <gloom>
> Is science going too far?
No it isn't. Knowledge is paramount. Ignorance and prejudice are going to rear their ugly heads here <gloom>
9
In reply to jkarran:
I don't doubt the medical benefits this research will bring about. It's more the long term implications. No doubt this will evolve way beyond its original intentions.
I don't doubt the medical benefits this research will bring about. It's more the long term implications. No doubt this will evolve way beyond its original intentions.
2
1
In reply to Gone for good:
No.
What is being proposed is to alter the genes deliberately in order to understand the genetic mechanisms behind why early termination occurs. Most likely what they are looking for is if the remove genetic sequence x, the embryo terminates y days into development so that can elicit some of the causes behind auto-abortion. These types of experiments have been done to death in animal models but limited investigation has been able to go ahead in humans.
What they are not looking for is genes or ways to control personality, sexual orientation, eye colour, voting behaviour etc.
> Is science going too far?
No.
What is being proposed is to alter the genes deliberately in order to understand the genetic mechanisms behind why early termination occurs. Most likely what they are looking for is if the remove genetic sequence x, the embryo terminates y days into development so that can elicit some of the causes behind auto-abortion. These types of experiments have been done to death in animal models but limited investigation has been able to go ahead in humans.
What they are not looking for is genes or ways to control personality, sexual orientation, eye colour, voting behaviour etc.
5
In reply to Gone for good:
The problem with that type of mindset is that it would see us not using fire to cook food for the fear that it will burn the forest.
If controlled, managed and respected it could be a fantastic way to liberate people of some of the most hideous and crippling disorders we face. Who would not want those who need it most to have some form of quality of life that we could identify with.
The problem with that type of mindset is that it would see us not using fire to cook food for the fear that it will burn the forest.
If controlled, managed and respected it could be a fantastic way to liberate people of some of the most hideous and crippling disorders we face. Who would not want those who need it most to have some form of quality of life that we could identify with.
9
In reply to digby:
Knowledge can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
I'm sure the same argument was used when developing the atom bomb.
> No it isn't. Knowledge is paramount.
Knowledge can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
I'm sure the same argument was used when developing the atom bomb.
2
In reply to Gone for good:
Really? How about all the people harmed by stupidity in the hands of the proactive?
> Knowledge can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
Really? How about all the people harmed by stupidity in the hands of the proactive?
3
In reply to digby:
Not to worry we can engineer those out of the genome.
> Ignorance and prejudice are going to rear their ugly heads here
Not to worry we can engineer those out of the genome.
8
In reply to Gone for good:
First step on the road to eradicating the misery and suffering caused by Huntington's disease, Friedreich's Ataxia, muscular dystrophies, Tay-Sachs etc etc.
First step on the road to eradicating the misery and suffering caused by Huntington's disease, Friedreich's Ataxia, muscular dystrophies, Tay-Sachs etc etc.
5
In reply to Gone for good:
Surely the first step to designer babies was when someone chose a fit, healthy, strong and clever mate over a lesser option...
Not that these are "designer babies" in any standard sense.
As for science going to far, it has barely even begun. It's hard to imagine what the eventual limits to genetic engineering will be, or to anticipte what that means for us as a species.
People who claim science is about to go to far rarely step back and understand how much science their very existence hinges upon, nor do they appreciate that there is nothing special about now compared to some point in the past or in the future. Progress has been happening for a long time.
Perhaps our genetically engineered offspring will save us from our artificially intelligent robotic overlord offspring.
Surely the first step to designer babies was when someone chose a fit, healthy, strong and clever mate over a lesser option...
Not that these are "designer babies" in any standard sense.
As for science going to far, it has barely even begun. It's hard to imagine what the eventual limits to genetic engineering will be, or to anticipte what that means for us as a species.
People who claim science is about to go to far rarely step back and understand how much science their very existence hinges upon, nor do they appreciate that there is nothing special about now compared to some point in the past or in the future. Progress has been happening for a long time.
Perhaps our genetically engineered offspring will save us from our artificially intelligent robotic overlord offspring.
Post edited at 22:47
3
In reply to Gone for good:
I'm not a fan. Same as I don't like the idea of gm foods. I personally don't think we should be messing about with things at a genetic level. Tinkering..
Yes they can learn to cure every disease known to man, but on this heavily over populated planet.... Is that definitely a good thing?
I'm not a fan. Same as I don't like the idea of gm foods. I personally don't think we should be messing about with things at a genetic level. Tinkering..
Yes they can learn to cure every disease known to man, but on this heavily over populated planet.... Is that definitely a good thing?
2
5
In reply to ScottTalbot:
The losses from things like huntingtons are minimal on a global level.
Not that I think the world is overpopulated anyway, but you could use that argument against any medical intervention.
The losses from things like huntingtons are minimal on a global level.
Not that I think the world is overpopulated anyway, but you could use that argument against any medical intervention.
1
In reply to ScottTalbot:
I've always been pro gm crops, it's just unfortunate it's got a bad press. It's sciene doing what we've done for years in a different way. I'd rather someone modified wheat to be resistent to a disease than rely on the traditional use of pesticides. On the verge of a global food crisis and the lowest grain stocks in decades turning away from gm foods would be one of the many human actions that an impartial alian observer would look down upon and shake their heads in disbelief while we stoked up pesticide and fertiliser production and carried on like we always have, slowly destroying the planet and starving ourselves in the process.
I've always been pro gm crops, it's just unfortunate it's got a bad press. It's sciene doing what we've done for years in a different way. I'd rather someone modified wheat to be resistent to a disease than rely on the traditional use of pesticides. On the verge of a global food crisis and the lowest grain stocks in decades turning away from gm foods would be one of the many human actions that an impartial alian observer would look down upon and shake their heads in disbelief while we stoked up pesticide and fertiliser production and carried on like we always have, slowly destroying the planet and starving ourselves in the process.
5
In reply to ScottTalbot:
You're right. How about if they design babies limited to producing only two offspring and conveniently dying painlessly at 70 without inconveniencing anyone?
> Yes they can learn to cure every disease known to man, but on this heavily over populated planet.... Is that definitely a good thing?
You're right. How about if they design babies limited to producing only two offspring and conveniently dying painlessly at 70 without inconveniencing anyone?
1
1
In reply to Sharp:
There is no issue with the GM crops in themselves. However, they will definitely not help with the problems we have at the moment. Instead, widespread of patented GM seeds will lead to an industrialization of agriculture, where companies like Monsanto extract profit from every step, destroying local farming economies and destroying biodiversity through pesticide use on an industrial scale.
We should go the other way, and allow existing farmers, say in Africa, to export their goods to Europe and the US (and thus maker existing businesses viable), rather than hiding behind quality control regulations which currently make agricultural trade a one way street. Stopping TTIP in its current form is one essential step in this process.
CB
There is no issue with the GM crops in themselves. However, they will definitely not help with the problems we have at the moment. Instead, widespread of patented GM seeds will lead to an industrialization of agriculture, where companies like Monsanto extract profit from every step, destroying local farming economies and destroying biodiversity through pesticide use on an industrial scale.
We should go the other way, and allow existing farmers, say in Africa, to export their goods to Europe and the US (and thus maker existing businesses viable), rather than hiding behind quality control regulations which currently make agricultural trade a one way street. Stopping TTIP in its current form is one essential step in this process.
CB
10
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
40 or 50 might be kinder. No one really "lives" after their late 30s, just burdens on everyone else
40 or 50 might be kinder. No one really "lives" after their late 30s, just burdens on everyone else
4
In reply to Gone for good:
Not half as dangerous as stupidity and ignorance
> Knowledge can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
Not half as dangerous as stupidity and ignorance
2
In reply to cb294:
I find this a curious argument. Would you argue that variety rights have done the same? Do you think that seed breeders are 'extracting profit'. Do you think this constitutes a burden to the farmers, and if so, why do you think they are still using licenced seed?
> Instead, widespread of patented GM seeds will lead to an industrialization of agriculture, where companies like Monsanto extract profit from every step...
I find this a curious argument. Would you argue that variety rights have done the same? Do you think that seed breeders are 'extracting profit'. Do you think this constitutes a burden to the farmers, and if so, why do you think they are still using licenced seed?
1
In reply to MarkJH:
I have no problem with extracting profit at different levels of the production cycle as long as different farmers, on farms rather than industrial scale operations, can use different seeds bought from a choice different breeders.
Giving multinational companies the option to integrate the whole chain, from owning the land (and they are buying up land on a massive scale all over Africa, South America, and Eastern Europe), renting it out to local agor-industrial companies to produce soybeans or oilseed rape for export (rather than farmers that would at least also produce food for local markets ), forcing these companies to use their seeds and theirs only and to buy the whole package including fertilizers and pesticides from the same company, then sell tehir produce only to processed food factories belonging to the same multinational, etc. is extremely damging to societies, local economies, and the environment.
The way our governments support the interests of multinational oligopols while claiming to support competition is staggering.
CB
PS: apologies for the thread hijack.
I have no problem with extracting profit at different levels of the production cycle as long as different farmers, on farms rather than industrial scale operations, can use different seeds bought from a choice different breeders.
Giving multinational companies the option to integrate the whole chain, from owning the land (and they are buying up land on a massive scale all over Africa, South America, and Eastern Europe), renting it out to local agor-industrial companies to produce soybeans or oilseed rape for export (rather than farmers that would at least also produce food for local markets ), forcing these companies to use their seeds and theirs only and to buy the whole package including fertilizers and pesticides from the same company, then sell tehir produce only to processed food factories belonging to the same multinational, etc. is extremely damging to societies, local economies, and the environment.
The way our governments support the interests of multinational oligopols while claiming to support competition is staggering.
CB
PS: apologies for the thread hijack.
Post edited at 10:19
2
In reply to wintertree:
I have to find a way to quote this today
Gene editing is a tool. Like fire is a tool or a knife is a tool. Used carefully and with thought, it can do a lot of good. In the wrong hands or used without care, it can do harm. This is the reason that ethical regulator bodies exist. It is not a reason to ban the tool outright.
I have no issue with gene-editing used as described in this particular context.
> Perhaps our genetically engineered offspring will save us from our artificially intelligent robotic overlord offspring.
I have to find a way to quote this today
Gene editing is a tool. Like fire is a tool or a knife is a tool. Used carefully and with thought, it can do a lot of good. In the wrong hands or used without care, it can do harm. This is the reason that ethical regulator bodies exist. It is not a reason to ban the tool outright.
I have no issue with gene-editing used as described in this particular context.
2
In reply to kathrync:
Exactly, and being 'against GM' makes about as much sense as being 'against chemistry'.
> Gene editing is a tool. Like fire is a tool or a knife is a tool. Used carefully and with thought, it can do a lot of good. In the wrong hands or used without care, it can do harm.
Exactly, and being 'against GM' makes about as much sense as being 'against chemistry'.
5
1
In reply to Sharp:
But you are missing a massive difference, hopefully, the crops produced by GM were patented so everyone that wanted to use them had to pay. If these plants then cross pollinated other plants the companies took people to court for using the seed from these cross plants. Also GM trials were in the wild, open to insect transportation of genetic material, most of which nobody know what effect this might have.
I doubt even big pharma would get away with patenting a person, or charge for the offspring of their GM human.
So you're talking about two very different thing here.
> I've always been pro gm crops, it's just unfortunate it's got a bad press. It's sciene doing what we've done for years in a different way. I'd rather someone modified wheat to be resistent to a disease than rely on the traditional use of pesticides. On the verge of a global food crisis and the lowest grain stocks in decades turning away from gm foods would be one of the many human actions that an impartial alian observer would look down upon and shake their heads in disbelief while we stoked up pesticide and fertiliser production and carried on like we always have, slowly destroying the planet and starving ourselves in the process.
But you are missing a massive difference, hopefully, the crops produced by GM were patented so everyone that wanted to use them had to pay. If these plants then cross pollinated other plants the companies took people to court for using the seed from these cross plants. Also GM trials were in the wild, open to insect transportation of genetic material, most of which nobody know what effect this might have.
I doubt even big pharma would get away with patenting a person, or charge for the offspring of their GM human.
So you're talking about two very different thing here.
In reply to krikoman:
No they didn't. There were one or two cases of blatant patent infringement which the companies took to court. Some of the interest groups tried to paint these as innocent farmers being victimised by big business, but to anyone who knows anything about the crops in question (outcrossin rates etc) , the defences that they offered were laughable.
Seed breeders are equally vociferous in enforcing variety rights in such cases. I agree that patents are very different, but the principles are similar.
> ...If these plants then cross pollinated other plants the companies took people to court for using the seed from these cross plants.
No they didn't. There were one or two cases of blatant patent infringement which the companies took to court. Some of the interest groups tried to paint these as innocent farmers being victimised by big business, but to anyone who knows anything about the crops in question (outcrossin rates etc) , the defences that they offered were laughable.
Seed breeders are equally vociferous in enforcing variety rights in such cases. I agree that patents are very different, but the principles are similar.
3
In reply to MarkJH:
Well I'll have to do some digging.
and what about choice, what if people DON'T want GM foods, what choice do they have?
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/12/zero-tolerance-policies-o...
Similar but very different, you COULD be prosecuted if they chose to and it would be very expensive to prove you hadn't done it on purpose.
Also, they are in danger of creating a monoculture which as we all know can be disastrous should a new disease evolve to attack the new plants.
the assertion above about not using pesticides and herbicides doesn't hold water though does it since part of the gene modification was to make them immune to "roundup" so it still gets used.
> No they didn't. There were one or two cases of blatant patent infringement which the companies took to court. Some of the interest groups tried to paint these as innocent farmers being victimised by big business, but to anyone who knows anything about the crops in question (outcrossin rates etc) , the defences that they offered were laughable.
Well I'll have to do some digging.
and what about choice, what if people DON'T want GM foods, what choice do they have?
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/02/12/zero-tolerance-policies-o...
> Seed breeders are equally vociferous in enforcing variety rights in such cases. I agree that patents are very different, but the principles are similar.
Similar but very different, you COULD be prosecuted if they chose to and it would be very expensive to prove you hadn't done it on purpose.
Also, they are in danger of creating a monoculture which as we all know can be disastrous should a new disease evolve to attack the new plants.
the assertion above about not using pesticides and herbicides doesn't hold water though does it since part of the gene modification was to make them immune to "roundup" so it still gets used.
1
In reply to Gone for good:
From what I've seen the majority of those actively protesting against this are the religious people who claim it'll interfere with gods plan or gods creation (or something along those lines).
Hopefully if the figures from the latest poll in Iceland are correct (http://icelandmag.visir.is/article/00-icelanders-25-years-or-younger-believ... - 0.0% of those under 25% believe god created the world) religion may hopefully be on the decline. Wishful thinking, I know.
From what I've seen the majority of those actively protesting against this are the religious people who claim it'll interfere with gods plan or gods creation (or something along those lines).
Hopefully if the figures from the latest poll in Iceland are correct (http://icelandmag.visir.is/article/00-icelanders-25-years-or-younger-believ... - 0.0% of those under 25% believe god created the world) religion may hopefully be on the decline. Wishful thinking, I know.
2
In reply to MarkJH:
Yes they did, two succesful cases in Canada alone that I am aware of, and one failed one in Germany.
CB
Yes they did, two succesful cases in Canada alone that I am aware of, and one failed one in Germany.
CB
In reply to krikoman:
Just as the conventional breeder could do in the case of PVR infringement.... I'm pretty sure that I know the cases that cb294 is referring to, and in each case the defences offered were ridiculous.
Quite the reverse: Selection is the major process by which you remove genetic diversity and that isn't required for GM. If you look through the elite lines of the average conventionally bred crop, you will be able to trace the ancestry back to only a very few progenitor lines. That is precisely because selection amongst those line is so intense. This isn't a huge problem, because diversity collections are carefully guarded by breeders (their future work depends on it).
Nevertheless, GM offers an opportunity for genetic progress without selection. It makes the preservation of diversity (potentially) much more achievable.
> Similar but very different, you COULD be prosecuted if they chose to and it would be very expensive to prove you hadn't done it on purpose.
Just as the conventional breeder could do in the case of PVR infringement.... I'm pretty sure that I know the cases that cb294 is referring to, and in each case the defences offered were ridiculous.
> Also, they are in danger of creating a monoculture which as we all know can be disastrous should a new disease evolve to attack the new plants.
Quite the reverse: Selection is the major process by which you remove genetic diversity and that isn't required for GM. If you look through the elite lines of the average conventionally bred crop, you will be able to trace the ancestry back to only a very few progenitor lines. That is precisely because selection amongst those line is so intense. This isn't a huge problem, because diversity collections are carefully guarded by breeders (their future work depends on it).
Nevertheless, GM offers an opportunity for genetic progress without selection. It makes the preservation of diversity (potentially) much more achievable.
2
In reply to Removed User:
History shows us that science is used for evil. To raise the ethical discussion around gene modification is a rational response to this news.
Science generally concerns itself only with what it considers scientific issues. All the time that scientists ignore the moral and social impact of their work, others are required to step in. I don't find that troubling, others may be better placed, but to criticise people who do so is wrong. At the moment, religion seems the only place prepared to raise the issues.
I personally think we need a resurgence of philosophy as an academic topic of rigour and reputation. It should exist side by side with science to examine and critique. That way the debate can be had properly, away from less appropriate places like parliament, churches and internet chat rooms.
Or at least it could be done in those places with rigour and an appropriate awareness of history and society.
History shows us that science is used for evil. To raise the ethical discussion around gene modification is a rational response to this news.
Science generally concerns itself only with what it considers scientific issues. All the time that scientists ignore the moral and social impact of their work, others are required to step in. I don't find that troubling, others may be better placed, but to criticise people who do so is wrong. At the moment, religion seems the only place prepared to raise the issues.
I personally think we need a resurgence of philosophy as an academic topic of rigour and reputation. It should exist side by side with science to examine and critique. That way the debate can be had properly, away from less appropriate places like parliament, churches and internet chat rooms.
Or at least it could be done in those places with rigour and an appropriate awareness of history and society.
In reply to XXXX:
Moral and ethical concerns are considered at many levels throughout the scientific establishment in the UK. Whole boards exists at various levels to consider some ethical aspects. Much of this relates to morals as apply to individuals but there is also structured consideration of morals at larger scales.
There are even examples of the funding bodies behind some science in the UK delaying research to give sufficient time for detailed discussion about the eventual ethical and moral implications of early stage research - for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15132989
My arse are religions the only "places" to raise concerns. They're the only people to create a large media attention around an interpretation of research that one may perhaps describe as "utterly naive" or "deliberately misinterpreted in a self-serving manner". You don't have to look very far to see all sorts of non-religious people pre-emptively raising the moral, ethical and societal issues around genetic engineering or the push towards machine consciousness / AI.
> Science generally concerns itself only with what it considers scientific issues. All the time that scientists ignore the moral and social impact of their work, others are required to step in. I don't find that troubling, others may be better placed, but to criticise people who do so is wrong. At the moment, religion seems the only place prepared to raise the issues.
Moral and ethical concerns are considered at many levels throughout the scientific establishment in the UK. Whole boards exists at various levels to consider some ethical aspects. Much of this relates to morals as apply to individuals but there is also structured consideration of morals at larger scales.
There are even examples of the funding bodies behind some science in the UK delaying research to give sufficient time for detailed discussion about the eventual ethical and moral implications of early stage research - for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15132989
My arse are religions the only "places" to raise concerns. They're the only people to create a large media attention around an interpretation of research that one may perhaps describe as "utterly naive" or "deliberately misinterpreted in a self-serving manner". You don't have to look very far to see all sorts of non-religious people pre-emptively raising the moral, ethical and societal issues around genetic engineering or the push towards machine consciousness / AI.
2
In reply to wintertree:
I don't disagree with any of that. But for many people, religion is the only one sticking up for them.
The arrogance just on this thread is symptomatic of wider science. Knowledge is truth, science knows best, only ignorant people and god botherers would doubt us.
The point is there must be a debate about this, but the public never see scientists doing this. There is no public philosophical debate which ever shows a scientist admitting the dangers, holding back or even stopping to ask.
That there are examples of this happening should make it easy.
I don't disagree with any of that. But for many people, religion is the only one sticking up for them.
The arrogance just on this thread is symptomatic of wider science. Knowledge is truth, science knows best, only ignorant people and god botherers would doubt us.
The point is there must be a debate about this, but the public never see scientists doing this. There is no public philosophical debate which ever shows a scientist admitting the dangers, holding back or even stopping to ask.
That there are examples of this happening should make it easy.
In reply to alx:
Whilst I generally agree with your position, we need to keep the debate open and scrutinise each and every step the scientists take. Its very evident that many genes do not perform a single function and have been re-purposed by nature many times. What today we see as a troublesome gene allele, may transmute in the future to be a godsend defence against some as yet undiscovered ill. We should be therefore very careful about procedures that delete an alleles from the genome of the general populace as opposed to those that just fix the problem in a specific individual.
Whilst I generally agree with your position, we need to keep the debate open and scrutinise each and every step the scientists take. Its very evident that many genes do not perform a single function and have been re-purposed by nature many times. What today we see as a troublesome gene allele, may transmute in the future to be a godsend defence against some as yet undiscovered ill. We should be therefore very careful about procedures that delete an alleles from the genome of the general populace as opposed to those that just fix the problem in a specific individual.
In reply to XXXX:
Evil is a religious concept.
I don't agree with any of this. Religion uses the ethical side of the argument to further their own insidious ends. It's like the 'protect the children' when it comes to extra surveillance in the UK or our bombing around the world in the name of 'defense'.
I very much agree with that, but to suggest that there's no ethical or moral considerations taken into account in a topic like this is simply wrong.
> Evil
Evil is a religious concept.
> Science generally concerns itself only with what it considers scientific issues. All the time that scientists ignore the moral and social impact of their work, others are required to step in. I don't find that troubling, others may be better placed, but to criticise people who do so is wrong. At the moment, religion seems the only place prepared to raise the issues.
I don't agree with any of this. Religion uses the ethical side of the argument to further their own insidious ends. It's like the 'protect the children' when it comes to extra surveillance in the UK or our bombing around the world in the name of 'defense'.
> I personally think we need a resurgence of philosophy as an academic topic of rigour and reputation. It should exist side by side with science to examine and critique.
I very much agree with that, but to suggest that there's no ethical or moral considerations taken into account in a topic like this is simply wrong.
1
In reply to XXXX:
I would contest however that this is close to a lose-lose situation for a scientist. If you enter public debate you are faced with some subject specific mix of personality cults, non-evidence based dogmatic beliefs and well funded lobby groups. None of the combatants other than the scientists even try to base their debate on an attempt at an unbiassed appraisal of the evidence base.
Don't enter public debate (or the poor simulacrum that we have and that is warped and presented to the public by the media) and you're accused of being a part of the problem.
Enter public debate and find yourself in a world where what counts is personality, belief, cult-like attributes and not evidence. Any attempt to ground the debate in rational evidence is at best ignored and at worst turned against the scientist.
Or take the third way and point out that public debate is largely pointless as whilst the evidence base speaks for itself the other parties are not listening but are pushing their own agendas.
Perhaps I exaggerate here, perhaps not, but I would be very, very careful before I laid the blame for your perceived lack of public debate at the door of the scientists.
> The point is there must be a debate about this, but the public never see scientists doing this. There is no public philosophical debate which ever shows a scientist admitting the dangers, holding back or even stopping to ask.
I would contest however that this is close to a lose-lose situation for a scientist. If you enter public debate you are faced with some subject specific mix of personality cults, non-evidence based dogmatic beliefs and well funded lobby groups. None of the combatants other than the scientists even try to base their debate on an attempt at an unbiassed appraisal of the evidence base.
Don't enter public debate (or the poor simulacrum that we have and that is warped and presented to the public by the media) and you're accused of being a part of the problem.
Enter public debate and find yourself in a world where what counts is personality, belief, cult-like attributes and not evidence. Any attempt to ground the debate in rational evidence is at best ignored and at worst turned against the scientist.
Or take the third way and point out that public debate is largely pointless as whilst the evidence base speaks for itself the other parties are not listening but are pushing their own agendas.
Perhaps I exaggerate here, perhaps not, but I would be very, very careful before I laid the blame for your perceived lack of public debate at the door of the scientists.
Post edited at 13:24
2
In reply to ScottTalbot:
Presumably though you do advocate the use of vaccination, antibiotics, pain relief, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, blood testing, surgery and all other millions of benefits of modern medicine? Everything from a paracetamol to a heart bypass is medicine increasing our life span, it seems arbitrary to draw a line at genetics and say; "no more".
Presumably though you do advocate the use of vaccination, antibiotics, pain relief, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, blood testing, surgery and all other millions of benefits of modern medicine? Everything from a paracetamol to a heart bypass is medicine increasing our life span, it seems arbitrary to draw a line at genetics and say; "no more".
3
In reply to ScottTalbot:
Well, breeding rates tend to decrease significantly with increasing health and lifespan, so perhaps it's not so relevant one way or the other to the long term size of the population. Or do you think that choosing to have unimaginable numbers of people suffer debilitating diseases and long, slow, agonising deaths that cost other people a vast fortune to prolong is making the world a better place?
Do you think we should have stayed in the trees? Or in mud huts? What is so special about right now that this is where we should draw the line?
The main reason to draw a line and stop is because the consequences could be so severe that there is no stepping back from them. Nuclear weapons approached that point, and are still to close for comfort. Perfectly horrifying biological weapons were possible without genetic engineering and if anything, mastery of genetic engineering may render biological weapons far less dangerous in the future.
> Yes they can learn to cure every disease known to man, but on this heavily over populated planet.... Is that definitely a good thing?
Well, breeding rates tend to decrease significantly with increasing health and lifespan, so perhaps it's not so relevant one way or the other to the long term size of the population. Or do you think that choosing to have unimaginable numbers of people suffer debilitating diseases and long, slow, agonising deaths that cost other people a vast fortune to prolong is making the world a better place?
Do you think we should have stayed in the trees? Or in mud huts? What is so special about right now that this is where we should draw the line?
The main reason to draw a line and stop is because the consequences could be so severe that there is no stepping back from them. Nuclear weapons approached that point, and are still to close for comfort. Perfectly horrifying biological weapons were possible without genetic engineering and if anything, mastery of genetic engineering may render biological weapons far less dangerous in the future.
1
In reply to cb294:
I don't have an issue with gm but a lot of people do and my point was raised in response to Scott Talbot who doesnt like it as it's tinkering on a genetic level. I think you'll find that a lot of people have a problem with gm just because it's gm and the people who have an issue with it due to it's unsavoury impletmentation are in the minority of non-gm supporters. Most people will keep buying their round-up and have no idea who monsanto are.
With a century of drought and challenging climactic conditions ahead of us I think it's premature to discount gm as a potential solution. Hopefully as a species in 100 years time we'll be enjoying the benefits of technological advancement instead of destroying each other with it but who knows...
Sounds like a good plan to me, in the short term especially but I'd rather see the same farmers using drought resistent crops because in 50 years time they may not be growing anything at all without them.
> There is no issue with the GM crops in themselves. However, they will definitely not help with the problems we have at the moment.
I don't have an issue with gm but a lot of people do and my point was raised in response to Scott Talbot who doesnt like it as it's tinkering on a genetic level. I think you'll find that a lot of people have a problem with gm just because it's gm and the people who have an issue with it due to it's unsavoury impletmentation are in the minority of non-gm supporters. Most people will keep buying their round-up and have no idea who monsanto are.
With a century of drought and challenging climactic conditions ahead of us I think it's premature to discount gm as a potential solution. Hopefully as a species in 100 years time we'll be enjoying the benefits of technological advancement instead of destroying each other with it but who knows...
> We should go the other way, and allow existing farmers, say in Africa, to export their goods to Europe and the US...
Sounds like a good plan to me, in the short term especially but I'd rather see the same farmers using drought resistent crops because in 50 years time they may not be growing anything at all without them.
Post edited at 19:36
1
In reply to Sharp:
I think GM could be a real savior, it could allow us to produce crops in areas where we'd struggle.
But also genetically manipulate insects like Mosquitos to not reproduce.
Yes there are risks but look at the recent outbreak with this mosquito-borne virus. Horrible.
It's a really exciting time. It'd be so good to stop cancers of the young, we could almost remove some of these genetic diseases. I don't think this means designer babies per se. Of course it will happen. But plastic surgery is Often owed to change appearance, often for very valid reasons, sometimes for very shallow reasons.. But that doesn't negate it as a worthwhile field.
I think GM could be a real savior, it could allow us to produce crops in areas where we'd struggle.
But also genetically manipulate insects like Mosquitos to not reproduce.
Yes there are risks but look at the recent outbreak with this mosquito-borne virus. Horrible.
It's a really exciting time. It'd be so good to stop cancers of the young, we could almost remove some of these genetic diseases. I don't think this means designer babies per se. Of course it will happen. But plastic surgery is Often owed to change appearance, often for very valid reasons, sometimes for very shallow reasons.. But that doesn't negate it as a worthwhile field.
1
In reply to XXXX:
Leaving aside the problem of defining "evil" - can you think of a field of human endeavour that hasn't been used to do harm at some point or other?
History also shows us that science is used for: the eradication of smallpox and rinderpest (and getting very close now with polio, although certain religious groups in Nigeria delayed that a while, and the Syrian civil war isn't helping); a vast reduction in child mortality over the last 100 years; a vast reduction in childbirth mortality over the last 100 years; the creation of a global computer network and the services that run over it (one of which you are using right now to read this text); cures for several cancers; vaccination against most cervical cancer; the identification of human-induced global climate change and development of strategies and technologies to mitigate it (over to the politicians on this one now, sadly); the creation of non-polluting forms of energy generation; etc, etc, etc for several million words.
You've not heard of Scientists for Global Responsibility; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs; the role of the Chief Scientific Officer to the UK government; or of any research ethics committees ever?
> History shows us that science is used for evil.
Leaving aside the problem of defining "evil" - can you think of a field of human endeavour that hasn't been used to do harm at some point or other?
History also shows us that science is used for: the eradication of smallpox and rinderpest (and getting very close now with polio, although certain religious groups in Nigeria delayed that a while, and the Syrian civil war isn't helping); a vast reduction in child mortality over the last 100 years; a vast reduction in childbirth mortality over the last 100 years; the creation of a global computer network and the services that run over it (one of which you are using right now to read this text); cures for several cancers; vaccination against most cervical cancer; the identification of human-induced global climate change and development of strategies and technologies to mitigate it (over to the politicians on this one now, sadly); the creation of non-polluting forms of energy generation; etc, etc, etc for several million words.
> Science generally concerns itself only with what it considers scientific issues.
You've not heard of Scientists for Global Responsibility; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; the Advisory Committee on the Misuse of Drugs; the role of the Chief Scientific Officer to the UK government; or of any research ethics committees ever?
2
In reply to jfmchivall:
Couldn't the eradication of ginetically passed on diseases also mean there'd be no people like Steven Hawkins with his rare amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Francesca Matinez with her cerabal palsy?
I can't imagine what it's like to be Steven Hawkins in his wheelchair, but he talks about getting satisfaction from what he does in life, and when he was more able bodied he was able to father children and have a family, and I'd describe Francesca Martinez as being outwardly cheery.
Where do we draw the line at what we 'edit out' as undesirable things which can be passed on?
These kinds of decisions are huge, ethically speaking.
> First step on the road to eradicating the misery and suffering caused by Huntington's disease, Friedreich's Ataxia, muscular dystrophies, Tay-Sachs etc etc.
Couldn't the eradication of ginetically passed on diseases also mean there'd be no people like Steven Hawkins with his rare amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Francesca Matinez with her cerabal palsy?
I can't imagine what it's like to be Steven Hawkins in his wheelchair, but he talks about getting satisfaction from what he does in life, and when he was more able bodied he was able to father children and have a family, and I'd describe Francesca Martinez as being outwardly cheery.
Where do we draw the line at what we 'edit out' as undesirable things which can be passed on?
These kinds of decisions are huge, ethically speaking.
Post edited at 23:49
In reply to Sharp:
I would not mind GM projects such as the golden rice aimed at alleviating vitamin A deficiency in Asia, but look where that project ended up. In all real life examples GM crops equal industrialization, with multinationals destroying both local economies and the environment.
CB
I would not mind GM projects such as the golden rice aimed at alleviating vitamin A deficiency in Asia, but look where that project ended up. In all real life examples GM crops equal industrialization, with multinationals destroying both local economies and the environment.
CB
In reply to Timmd:
Of course, people crippled by genetic disease make the best of it but I've never read anywhere that Stephen Hawking is glad he has ALS. And he was already clearly extremely smart before he developed the signs, so it wasn't as if he only became interested in physics because he had more time to think.
> Couldn't the eradication of ginetically passed on diseases also mean there'd be no people like Steven Hawkins with his rare amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Francesca Matinez with her cerabal palsy?
Of course, people crippled by genetic disease make the best of it but I've never read anywhere that Stephen Hawking is glad he has ALS. And he was already clearly extremely smart before he developed the signs, so it wasn't as if he only became interested in physics because he had more time to think.
1
In reply to jfmchivall:
The defensive tone of your reply is exactly what I'm talking about. Science does not exist outside of the society it is in. It is no good to say it's humans that do those evil things, science is just about truth and knowledge. They are intertwined. If scientists are responsible for identifying anthropogenic climate change, are they not also responsible for causing it?
An ethical debate about what science we do is vital. Scientists need to take part in that and shouldn't shout it down. There are many organisations that do it, but we need to get science off a pedestal in the eyes of the public. We need to feel empowered to criticise and say no if we are uncomfortable.
The defensive tone of your reply is exactly what I'm talking about. Science does not exist outside of the society it is in. It is no good to say it's humans that do those evil things, science is just about truth and knowledge. They are intertwined. If scientists are responsible for identifying anthropogenic climate change, are they not also responsible for causing it?
An ethical debate about what science we do is vital. Scientists need to take part in that and shouldn't shout it down. There are many organisations that do it, but we need to get science off a pedestal in the eyes of the public. We need to feel empowered to criticise and say no if we are uncomfortable.
I have left this on a thread before, but I feel it is pertinent here too!!
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Huh? I didn't say either that he's glad he has ASL, or that he's got as far as he has in his field because he has more time to think.
> Of course, people crippled by genetic disease make the best of it but I've never read anywhere that Stephen Hawking is glad he has ALS. And he was already clearly extremely smart before he developed the signs, so it wasn't as if he only became interested in physics because he had more time to think.
Huh? I didn't say either that he's glad he has ASL, or that he's got as far as he has in his field because he has more time to think.
Post edited at 15:07
In reply to GregCHF:
Pertinent. But does it reflect reality? Or is it scientists laughing at the dumb public again?
Pertinent. But does it reflect reality? Or is it scientists laughing at the dumb public again?
Post edited at 15:07
In reply to XXXX:
Both.
CB
edit: Science has done a good job figuring stuff out over the last few hundred years. Almost by necessity, many questions addressed in the lab today are complex and are often based on a large canon of previous work that one needs to know to even realize why a given question is relevant.
If you can find a question that is pertinent to a phenomenon everyone knows and that you can explain in five minutes to your gran, congratulations!
Most scientists work on stuff that is much harder to sell, and (in my field) inevitably becomes simplified /dumbed down to curing AIDS, obesity, cancer, or Alzheimer´s. This is extremely frustrating from a scientific point of view, because it should be the other way round, in that one tries to understand a system of interest, with applications arising from the increase in knowledge.
Historically, this approach has worked rather well, despite being ridiculed as sending spacecraft to the moon to develop the non-stick fying pan. Today, society demands instant application, and this comic makes this point rather well.
CB
Both.
CB
edit: Science has done a good job figuring stuff out over the last few hundred years. Almost by necessity, many questions addressed in the lab today are complex and are often based on a large canon of previous work that one needs to know to even realize why a given question is relevant.
If you can find a question that is pertinent to a phenomenon everyone knows and that you can explain in five minutes to your gran, congratulations!
Most scientists work on stuff that is much harder to sell, and (in my field) inevitably becomes simplified /dumbed down to curing AIDS, obesity, cancer, or Alzheimer´s. This is extremely frustrating from a scientific point of view, because it should be the other way round, in that one tries to understand a system of interest, with applications arising from the increase in knowledge.
Historically, this approach has worked rather well, despite being ridiculed as sending spacecraft to the moon to develop the non-stick fying pan. Today, society demands instant application, and this comic makes this point rather well.
CB
Post edited at 15:45
1
In reply to XXXX:
I think that comic is a pretty good reflection of reality. In my experience, this is not scientists "laughing at the dumb public" - it is more about scientists getting incredibly frustrated by the media mis-representing and over-sensationalising research outputs, especially when it leads to misunderstanding and/or needless panic by the public.
I think that comic is a pretty good reflection of reality. In my experience, this is not scientists "laughing at the dumb public" - it is more about scientists getting incredibly frustrated by the media mis-representing and over-sensationalising research outputs, especially when it leads to misunderstanding and/or needless panic by the public.
1
In reply to kathrync:
Do you have examples? I think the media does rather a good job on science. The biggest issue is the idea that impartiality is achieved through opposing views, giving unrepresentative airtime to minority groups.
Do you think the media are solely to blame? Surely scientists are just as bad at sensationalising their results to get more funding, for example. Or to emphasise their impact for the university?
Do you have examples? I think the media does rather a good job on science. The biggest issue is the idea that impartiality is achieved through opposing views, giving unrepresentative airtime to minority groups.
Do you think the media are solely to blame? Surely scientists are just as bad at sensationalising their results to get more funding, for example. Or to emphasise their impact for the university?
In reply to cb294:
In science, you can be the only expert. As a biochemist, you may not have the first idea what a physicist is talking about. So, depending on your field, your public audience could be cleverer, more educated and even be a better scientist than you. Nowadays, the media outlet your work is reported in may well be using freelance science writers with PhDs. If you make the effort to explain it, people will get it.
It is incredibly old fashioned to assume that your work is so difficult that only you could POSSIBLY understand it.
In science, you can be the only expert. As a biochemist, you may not have the first idea what a physicist is talking about. So, depending on your field, your public audience could be cleverer, more educated and even be a better scientist than you. Nowadays, the media outlet your work is reported in may well be using freelance science writers with PhDs. If you make the effort to explain it, people will get it.
It is incredibly old fashioned to assume that your work is so difficult that only you could POSSIBLY understand it.
1
In reply to XXXX:
Well this was one example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21682779
This was far better than the reports by most other media outlets, and cited the paper which is always good. However it annoyed me for several reasons:
First the headline: "Processed meat 'early death'" link is definitely sensationalist compared with the conclusion as described in the abstract of the paper "The results of our analysis support a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality, in particular due to cardiovascular diseases, but also to cancer."
The article on the BBC also does things like quote the number of people in the study who died from cancer and cardiac problems, but fails to mention how many people were included in the study to start with (448,568 from the paper). It also fails to mention how old the study participants were (the upper age limit for joining the study 35 - 69 and the study ran for an average of 13 years). These things important to get an overall picture of the study and without this information the other numbers quoted in the BBC article are without context.
The BBC article implies that all confounding factors were accounted for: "But after adjusting for smoking, obesity and other confounders we think there is a risk of eating processed meat." The paper discusses confounding factors in depth and in the summary says "We cannot exclude residual confounding, in particular due to incomplete adjustment for active and passive smoking".
There are other issues, and I have some issues with the BBC article quoted by the OP too, but I would like to go home so I am going to stop there.
As for your second point, some scientists are undeniably bad for sensationalising their results - but most are actually very reluctant to over-report things. They are so focussed on how protein A interacts with protein B or whatever, that for the most part they don't even consider the wider implications until a funding body asks why they should have their grant renewed. Then, the response is usually along the lines of "Oh, er, well, I guess, in 10 years time, if this actually works out and transfers out of this model system and the wind is blowing the right way, I guess we could think about using it as a drug target for disease x". I don't think the media are solely to blame, but I think they are one of the major sources of misconceptions in the public.
Well this was one example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21682779
This was far better than the reports by most other media outlets, and cited the paper which is always good. However it annoyed me for several reasons:
First the headline: "Processed meat 'early death'" link is definitely sensationalist compared with the conclusion as described in the abstract of the paper "The results of our analysis support a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality, in particular due to cardiovascular diseases, but also to cancer."
The article on the BBC also does things like quote the number of people in the study who died from cancer and cardiac problems, but fails to mention how many people were included in the study to start with (448,568 from the paper). It also fails to mention how old the study participants were (the upper age limit for joining the study 35 - 69 and the study ran for an average of 13 years). These things important to get an overall picture of the study and without this information the other numbers quoted in the BBC article are without context.
The BBC article implies that all confounding factors were accounted for: "But after adjusting for smoking, obesity and other confounders we think there is a risk of eating processed meat." The paper discusses confounding factors in depth and in the summary says "We cannot exclude residual confounding, in particular due to incomplete adjustment for active and passive smoking".
There are other issues, and I have some issues with the BBC article quoted by the OP too, but I would like to go home so I am going to stop there.
As for your second point, some scientists are undeniably bad for sensationalising their results - but most are actually very reluctant to over-report things. They are so focussed on how protein A interacts with protein B or whatever, that for the most part they don't even consider the wider implications until a funding body asks why they should have their grant renewed. Then, the response is usually along the lines of "Oh, er, well, I guess, in 10 years time, if this actually works out and transfers out of this model system and the wind is blowing the right way, I guess we could think about using it as a drug target for disease x". I don't think the media are solely to blame, but I think they are one of the major sources of misconceptions in the public.
Post edited at 18:00
1
In reply to Timmd:
Well, you did say:
"Couldn't the eradication of ginetically passed on diseases also mean there'd be no people like Steven Hawkins with his rare amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Francesca Matinez with her cerabal palsy?"
Kind of sounds as if you are weighing up the risk that if they had been born healthy they might not have been so interesting.
> Huh? I didn't say either that he's glad he has ASL, or that he's got as far as he has in his field because he has more time to think.
Well, you did say:
"Couldn't the eradication of ginetically passed on diseases also mean there'd be no people like Steven Hawkins with his rare amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Francesca Matinez with her cerabal palsy?"
Kind of sounds as if you are weighing up the risk that if they had been born healthy they might not have been so interesting.
1
In reply to XXXX:
Absolutely
Generally, research is explained in depth in peer-reviewed scientific publications. Freelance science writers with PhDs will read these, and yes, mostly understand them. And then quote them out of context and miss out information when they write their article because they have to write something that their editor will accept.
Yes, for sure - unless you are Stephen Hawking it is highly unlikely that no-one else will understand your work. But too many people take what the popular media prints about science at face value without bothering to try to understand the history or do any further reading for themselves.
> In science, you can be the only expert. As a biochemist, you may not have the first idea what a physicist is talking about. So, depending on your field, your public audience could be cleverer, more educated and even be a better scientist than you.
Absolutely
> Nowadays, the media outlet your work is reported in may well be using freelance science writers with PhDs. If you make the effort to explain it, people will get it.
Generally, research is explained in depth in peer-reviewed scientific publications. Freelance science writers with PhDs will read these, and yes, mostly understand them. And then quote them out of context and miss out information when they write their article because they have to write something that their editor will accept.
> It is incredibly old fashioned to assume that your work is so difficult that only you could POSSIBLY understand it.
Yes, for sure - unless you are Stephen Hawking it is highly unlikely that no-one else will understand your work. But too many people take what the popular media prints about science at face value without bothering to try to understand the history or do any further reading for themselves.
2
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I'm wondering if such people would still exist?
> Well, you did say:
> "Couldn't the eradication of ginetically passed on diseases also mean there'd be no people like Steven Hawkins with his rare amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or Francesca Matinez with her cerabal palsy?"
> Kind of sounds as if you are weighing up the risk that if they had been born healthy they might not have been so interesting.
I'm wondering if such people would still exist?
1
In reply to kathrync:
I just looked at the article, nearly all of it is quotes. So who is to blame if it's misleading.
How would you have written the article?
I just looked at the article, nearly all of it is quotes. So who is to blame if it's misleading.
How would you have written the article?
In reply to Timmd:
What's to say they wouldn't have been much the same except without ALS or cerebral palsy? (Actually I'm not sure there's much of a genetic component to cerebral palsy so it's probably not a very good example.) It's all a bit imponderable isn't it? What about all the alternative children who would have been born had a different IVF embryo been selected for implantation? Ultimately you end up in the 'every sperm is sacred' Catholic dilemma if you go down that road.
Or do you mean that society would be less diverse if we didn't have some people with ALS or cerebral palsy? It's arguably less diverse for no longer having quite a lot of people wearing leg braces as a result of having contracted polio but that's generally thought to be a good thing.
Every action and choice has unforeseeable consequences, but I don't see that failing to intervene to ensure that a baby is born without a preventable genetic disease is morally defensible.
> I'm wondering if such people would still exist?
What's to say they wouldn't have been much the same except without ALS or cerebral palsy? (Actually I'm not sure there's much of a genetic component to cerebral palsy so it's probably not a very good example.) It's all a bit imponderable isn't it? What about all the alternative children who would have been born had a different IVF embryo been selected for implantation? Ultimately you end up in the 'every sperm is sacred' Catholic dilemma if you go down that road.
Or do you mean that society would be less diverse if we didn't have some people with ALS or cerebral palsy? It's arguably less diverse for no longer having quite a lot of people wearing leg braces as a result of having contracted polio but that's generally thought to be a good thing.
Every action and choice has unforeseeable consequences, but I don't see that failing to intervene to ensure that a baby is born without a preventable genetic disease is morally defensible.
2
In reply to XXXX:
I think you missed the point of the comic.
> I just looked at the article, nearly all of it is quotes. So who is to blame if it's misleading.
I think you missed the point of the comic.
1
In reply to XXXX:
I think that statement is a bit of an exaggeration!
Also, my experience of having journalists visiting various labs that I have worked in is that they interview you for three hours, then quote one sentence of what you have said without discussing any of the context or caveats that you also talked about at length, so even taking quotes in articles like this at face value can give the wrong impression
Well for a start I would tone down the headline. In the article, I would quote the missing statistics that I discussed in my last post and make it clearer that some confounding factors could not be adequately accounted for. I would also include some kind of information box or sub-article explaining what a cohort study is and some of the inherent problems in analysing data from them.
> I just looked at the article, nearly all of it is quotes. So who is to blame if it's misleading.
I think that statement is a bit of an exaggeration!
Also, my experience of having journalists visiting various labs that I have worked in is that they interview you for three hours, then quote one sentence of what you have said without discussing any of the context or caveats that you also talked about at length, so even taking quotes in articles like this at face value can give the wrong impression
> How would you have written the article?
Well for a start I would tone down the headline. In the article, I would quote the missing statistics that I discussed in my last post and make it clearer that some confounding factors could not be adequately accounted for. I would also include some kind of information box or sub-article explaining what a cohort study is and some of the inherent problems in analysing data from them.
1
In reply to XXXX:
kathrync replied to your post in better words than I could, just to add one more thing: It is incredibly frustrating to explain science to a public that does not undertake even minimal attempts to acquire the tools reauired to understand the results.
A typical example would be studies of heritability, where results are often phrased as a genetic state being able to account for a certain percentage of the observed variation in a trait (obesity, cancer, intelligence, you name it).
Most of the time this ends up as gene X causing Y percent of all cancers, showing that the public can´t be arsed to understand even the most basic concepts of statistics (or, at least, that science writers believe this to be the case), even though these concepts are pertinent to many aspects of our everyday life.
Part of the problem that you still get away with claiming in public to "always have been bad at maths", as if this was a badge of honour. Announce that you can´t read books, or don´t get music or art, and the same audience will consider you an idiot.
CB
kathrync replied to your post in better words than I could, just to add one more thing: It is incredibly frustrating to explain science to a public that does not undertake even minimal attempts to acquire the tools reauired to understand the results.
A typical example would be studies of heritability, where results are often phrased as a genetic state being able to account for a certain percentage of the observed variation in a trait (obesity, cancer, intelligence, you name it).
Most of the time this ends up as gene X causing Y percent of all cancers, showing that the public can´t be arsed to understand even the most basic concepts of statistics (or, at least, that science writers believe this to be the case), even though these concepts are pertinent to many aspects of our everyday life.
Part of the problem that you still get away with claiming in public to "always have been bad at maths", as if this was a badge of honour. Announce that you can´t read books, or don´t get music or art, and the same audience will consider you an idiot.
CB
3
1
In reply to kathrync:
So you spent three hours with someone and still didn't get your point across? How do you expect them to do it?
If a reputable scientist tells the journalist there is a link, they let people know. This is news after all.
Should science not be in the news?
So you spent three hours with someone and still didn't get your point across? How do you expect them to do it?
If a reputable scientist tells the journalist there is a link, they let people know. This is news after all.
Should science not be in the news?
1
1
In reply to cb294:
Your attitude aligns with something called the deficit model. It has been widely discredited and this has been accepted by scientific bodies almost everywhere.
Yet it is seemingly dominant amongst bench top scientists, who cling on to it. Maybe that's why we still have such a problem.
Your attitude aligns with something called the deficit model. It has been widely discredited and this has been accepted by scientific bodies almost everywhere.
Yet it is seemingly dominant amongst bench top scientists, who cling on to it. Maybe that's why we still have such a problem.
1
In reply to XXXX:
No, I spent three hours with someone who I know had previously worked in my field and understood the data well, to the point of making sensible suggestions for further experiments to me. The article that appeared was still not representative of what we had discussed - primarily due to pressure from their editor.
Yes, but saying "x causes y", which is what often appears in the news is absolutely not the same as saying "x correlates with y" or even "x contributes to y".
Yes, it should. But it should be accurate - for the most part at the moment it is not.
> So you spent three hours with someone and still didn't get your point across? How do you expect them to do it?
No, I spent three hours with someone who I know had previously worked in my field and understood the data well, to the point of making sensible suggestions for further experiments to me. The article that appeared was still not representative of what we had discussed - primarily due to pressure from their editor.
> If a reputable scientist tells the journalist there is a link, they let people know. This is news after all.
Yes, but saying "x causes y", which is what often appears in the news is absolutely not the same as saying "x correlates with y" or even "x contributes to y".
> Should science not be in the news?
Yes, it should. But it should be accurate - for the most part at the moment it is not.
1
In reply to XXXX:
The deficit model tried to explain why the general public was sceptical towards scientific/technological proposal, and suggested that better scientific education would make the general public more sympathetic towards science. As you say, this has since be disproven, but has nothing to say about the issue raised in the cartoon (or by me in this thread).
It is incredibly tedious to explain stuff to people who don´t want to understand, or ignore it anyway ("you can prove anything with facts...."). In contrast, engaging with the interested segments of the public is great fun, and we have several big outreach activities every year.
CB
The deficit model tried to explain why the general public was sceptical towards scientific/technological proposal, and suggested that better scientific education would make the general public more sympathetic towards science. As you say, this has since be disproven, but has nothing to say about the issue raised in the cartoon (or by me in this thread).
It is incredibly tedious to explain stuff to people who don´t want to understand, or ignore it anyway ("you can prove anything with facts...."). In contrast, engaging with the interested segments of the public is great fun, and we have several big outreach activities every year.
CB
1
In reply to cb294:
You have failed to move away from the deficit model in your thinking. That's clear from your posts.
The failure of science to engage properly with the public is science's to deal with. Shutting down debate on ethical issues, as discussed on this thread, is symptomatic of the arrogance and superior attitudes that prevail.
You have failed to move away from the deficit model in your thinking. That's clear from your posts.
The failure of science to engage properly with the public is science's to deal with. Shutting down debate on ethical issues, as discussed on this thread, is symptomatic of the arrogance and superior attitudes that prevail.
1
In reply to XXXX:
We are not arrogant, just superior.....
I clearly do not buy into the information deficit model, setting my hope in science education being able to enlighten the public, so they eventually agree with our glorious plans. This would be way too optimistic, in a very 1960s to 1980s style.
The best counterexample is the measles immunization disaster, where no amount of facts and education could (and still can) compete with the new age, esoteric pseudoscience garbage people feel more comfortable with, as if we did not live in the 21st century.
Also, as you may have seen, I have consistently argued AGAINST the commercial use of GM crops in this and previous threads. Painting me as some cartoon scientist worshipping at the altar of progress, praying that the backward public may one day become enlightened, is therefore quite ironic. Maybe I should practise my Dr. Evil laugh more.
More seriously, the point of the cartoon was that the nonscientists employed to propagate scientific results (to make money for the university, the newspaper, or at whatever level) believe that the message has to be dumbed down to the point of becoming a lie in order to be palatable to the public. In contrast to your claim, I don´t believe that they are correct, and that they are doing science a great disservice, as a big section of society is indeed engaged and interested.
However, science is complex and requires a certain level of engagement before you can really enjoy it, but the same is true for, say, classical music.
Mwuahahaharrr,
CB
> Shutting down debate on ethical issues, as discussed on this thread, is symptomatic of the arrogance and superior attitudes that prevail.
We are not arrogant, just superior.....
I clearly do not buy into the information deficit model, setting my hope in science education being able to enlighten the public, so they eventually agree with our glorious plans. This would be way too optimistic, in a very 1960s to 1980s style.
The best counterexample is the measles immunization disaster, where no amount of facts and education could (and still can) compete with the new age, esoteric pseudoscience garbage people feel more comfortable with, as if we did not live in the 21st century.
Also, as you may have seen, I have consistently argued AGAINST the commercial use of GM crops in this and previous threads. Painting me as some cartoon scientist worshipping at the altar of progress, praying that the backward public may one day become enlightened, is therefore quite ironic. Maybe I should practise my Dr. Evil laugh more.
More seriously, the point of the cartoon was that the nonscientists employed to propagate scientific results (to make money for the university, the newspaper, or at whatever level) believe that the message has to be dumbed down to the point of becoming a lie in order to be palatable to the public. In contrast to your claim, I don´t believe that they are correct, and that they are doing science a great disservice, as a big section of society is indeed engaged and interested.
However, science is complex and requires a certain level of engagement before you can really enjoy it, but the same is true for, say, classical music.
Mwuahahaharrr,
CB
In reply to cb294:
I disagree with the whole idea that science in the media is incorrect and many, many studies have failed to find this.
Do you not think that the anti-vac movement is a great example of the failure of science to engage in a meaningful way?
I disagree with the whole idea that science in the media is incorrect and many, many studies have failed to find this.
Do you not think that the anti-vac movement is a great example of the failure of science to engage in a meaningful way?
2
In reply to XXXX:
Do you have examples of these studies?
No, I think the anti-vaccination movement is a perfect example of the fact that a small but vocal minority will refuse to be engaged no matter how much hard the scientific community tries. I also think that the fact that the vast majority of people DO vaccinate themselves/their children is a triumph of scientific engagement.
> I disagree with the whole idea that science in the media is incorrect and many, many studies have failed to find this.
Do you have examples of these studies?
> Do you not think that the anti-vac movement is a great example of the failure of science to engage in a meaningful way?
No, I think the anti-vaccination movement is a perfect example of the fact that a small but vocal minority will refuse to be engaged no matter how much hard the scientific community tries. I also think that the fact that the vast majority of people DO vaccinate themselves/their children is a triumph of scientific engagement.
3
In reply to XXXX:
Then you are simply wrong, even what I teach to undergrads is - by necessity - often simplified to within an inch of being incorrect (which I of course state explicitly in my lectures).
Simplifying the science even further for the broader public, and more importantly, PR departments or editors embellishing findings or leaving out qualifiers (as described in the cartoon) to make the news more marketable, often pushes it across that boundary (at least where many scientists perceive this boundary to lie). Again, responsible public outreach can work, simplifying without distorting the message, but it requires some engagement by the audience.
The anti-vac story shows that science communication can indeed reach most of the interested people, as most people are motivated to find out what is good for their children and hence listened to scientists recommending vaccination. This was not argued from a position of authority, but the arguments linking autism and measles were painstakingly dissected in an open discussion. Also note that the side effects of cheaper adjuvants in some flu vaccine stocks are real, and are openly discussed as such!
However, you are banging your head against wall with people who don´t even want to engage with the underlying science. In the vaccine case this is/was due to new age / esoteric ideas, while in the case of climate change it may be more personal lazyness/convenience and an apres moi le deluge mindset, sticking the fingers in their ears and going lalala....
CB
PS: Nota bene, not arguing from a position of authority is not the same as claiming that all opinions on a subject are equally valid!
Then you are simply wrong, even what I teach to undergrads is - by necessity - often simplified to within an inch of being incorrect (which I of course state explicitly in my lectures).
Simplifying the science even further for the broader public, and more importantly, PR departments or editors embellishing findings or leaving out qualifiers (as described in the cartoon) to make the news more marketable, often pushes it across that boundary (at least where many scientists perceive this boundary to lie). Again, responsible public outreach can work, simplifying without distorting the message, but it requires some engagement by the audience.
The anti-vac story shows that science communication can indeed reach most of the interested people, as most people are motivated to find out what is good for their children and hence listened to scientists recommending vaccination. This was not argued from a position of authority, but the arguments linking autism and measles were painstakingly dissected in an open discussion. Also note that the side effects of cheaper adjuvants in some flu vaccine stocks are real, and are openly discussed as such!
However, you are banging your head against wall with people who don´t even want to engage with the underlying science. In the vaccine case this is/was due to new age / esoteric ideas, while in the case of climate change it may be more personal lazyness/convenience and an apres moi le deluge mindset, sticking the fingers in their ears and going lalala....
CB
PS: Nota bene, not arguing from a position of authority is not the same as claiming that all opinions on a subject are equally valid!
2
In reply to XXXX:
I was going to write a detailed rebuttal to this, but as with anti-vaxers I suspect you'll continue believing what you want, which rather nicely closes out my point.
> Do you not think that the anti-vac movement is a great example of the failure of science to engage in a meaningful way?
I was going to write a detailed rebuttal to this, but as with anti-vaxers I suspect you'll continue believing what you want, which rather nicely closes out my point.
1
In reply to cb294:
Why do you think people don't engage with science? Do you think they are born anti science or turned by a failure to engage with people and an attitude of superiority? Or by successive incidents such as bse where the public were told something was safe, but it wasn't.
By an attitude that says, we're right you're wrong, you don't get it because you're too lazy to engage with us. Your words.
Why do you think people don't engage with science? Do you think they are born anti science or turned by a failure to engage with people and an attitude of superiority? Or by successive incidents such as bse where the public were told something was safe, but it wasn't.
By an attitude that says, we're right you're wrong, you don't get it because you're too lazy to engage with us. Your words.
In reply to XXXX:
You're welcome.
I thought it was on a par with your rediculous claim that the inability of rational evidence based debate to change the views of a very small, very vocal and non-evidence based part of society was somehow indicative that science fails to engage in a meaningful way.
To spell it out - science engages, almost everyone does engage back, and of the very few that don't, even fewer vocally disagree.
The only things it illustrates to me are that people have free well, society embraces science but also embraces the free will of its individual members, and that your "argument" is about as strong as that of the anti-vaxers and as impossible to address with rational evidence.
Edit: I'm pretty sure some of the anti-vac instigators knowingly take a line that - by the definition of science - means scientists can't engage with them meaningfully. Are you doing the same?
> Thanks for a valuable contribution to the debate
You're welcome.
I thought it was on a par with your rediculous claim that the inability of rational evidence based debate to change the views of a very small, very vocal and non-evidence based part of society was somehow indicative that science fails to engage in a meaningful way.
To spell it out - science engages, almost everyone does engage back, and of the very few that don't, even fewer vocally disagree.
The only things it illustrates to me are that people have free well, society embraces science but also embraces the free will of its individual members, and that your "argument" is about as strong as that of the anti-vaxers and as impossible to address with rational evidence.
Edit: I'm pretty sure some of the anti-vac instigators knowingly take a line that - by the definition of science - means scientists can't engage with them meaningfully. Are you doing the same?
Post edited at 19:16
In reply to XXXX:
This thread confounds two different issues that should be kept separate for clarity:
As I said, I do take part in several science outreach activities of my institute every year, where I explain my research in a way that I am comfortable with. However, as with classical music, it also takes some willingness to engage with the topic (which in this case is a given, as we don´t drag people in from the street).
The fact that there are thousands of people coming to our institute at the "long night of sciences" also means that there is a large interest in science, at least in some sectors of society. The city is packed for this event, the program is a hundred page booklet that contains several hundred events all across the university, and people ask for the booklet at our door weeks before the actual event.
I can´t see any elitism or arrogance in this.
Clearly, there are also many people who don´t care about science, which is of course their right (of course, they should then also not be taken seriously on any questions relating to science or technology, which are becoming more and more important in this age).
However, I disagree that science should undertake even more effort to reach these sectors of society than we already do. Dumbing down our message even further, or trying to awake interest by selling results as more sensational than they really are is counterproductive, as it will mislead those who are interested (never mind raising unwarranted hopes in patients suffering from diseases related to the phenomena studied).
This is where the second contentious point of this thread comes in, namely whether this dumbing down and sensationalized reporting is actually happening. Here I can only speak for the medically relevant aspect of my research subject (stem cell biology), and clearly have to say that the excited press coverage after each novel observation does not normally correctly reflect the state of the art.
I don´t have the time to provide specific examples, and if you disagree on this as a matter of fact I am afraid we simply have to disagree.
Signing off for the night,
CB
This thread confounds two different issues that should be kept separate for clarity:
As I said, I do take part in several science outreach activities of my institute every year, where I explain my research in a way that I am comfortable with. However, as with classical music, it also takes some willingness to engage with the topic (which in this case is a given, as we don´t drag people in from the street).
The fact that there are thousands of people coming to our institute at the "long night of sciences" also means that there is a large interest in science, at least in some sectors of society. The city is packed for this event, the program is a hundred page booklet that contains several hundred events all across the university, and people ask for the booklet at our door weeks before the actual event.
I can´t see any elitism or arrogance in this.
Clearly, there are also many people who don´t care about science, which is of course their right (of course, they should then also not be taken seriously on any questions relating to science or technology, which are becoming more and more important in this age).
However, I disagree that science should undertake even more effort to reach these sectors of society than we already do. Dumbing down our message even further, or trying to awake interest by selling results as more sensational than they really are is counterproductive, as it will mislead those who are interested (never mind raising unwarranted hopes in patients suffering from diseases related to the phenomena studied).
This is where the second contentious point of this thread comes in, namely whether this dumbing down and sensationalized reporting is actually happening. Here I can only speak for the medically relevant aspect of my research subject (stem cell biology), and clearly have to say that the excited press coverage after each novel observation does not normally correctly reflect the state of the art.
I don´t have the time to provide specific examples, and if you disagree on this as a matter of fact I am afraid we simply have to disagree.
Signing off for the night,
CB
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...