OT science question

[Lew Hodgett]

Precisely why funding MUST be totally immaterial to the process.

Perhaps a better choice of words would be "divoriced".

[Puckdropper]

"sweet sawdust" wrote in news:7xtfk.2259$ [e-mail]:

Here's a few thoughts, from someone who had to take certain classes because of the word "Science" in his degree name.

First, math is rarely seperable from science. Science is generally easy to understand (if you punch a wall, it will hurt), but mathematics get hard. Most people deal with this by avoiding mathematics, but you can only do that for so long before the science you want to use requires it.

So why are people afraid of science/scientists? Mathematics. Since most scientists use it every day, they're not afraid to break out the slide rule to explain something.

Going off-task here... The trouble with scientific mathematics is that scientists don't realize that implicit multiplication is NOT worth the cost. Without implicit multiplication, variables could be multiple letters, rather than a letter and maybe subscripts. So instead of K, we could have SPRING_CONSTANT (or is it k?). Implicit multiplication makes things harder than they have to be.

Puckdropper

[Han]

dpb wrote in news:g5m786$7jh$ [e-mail]:

It isn't berestricted to scientists, but scientists are expected to be impartial, and to be led only by the facts. Unfortunately, they are only human, and big pharma, research funding, promotions etc, they all influence behavior.

I'm of course totally unbiased in my (our) research, but still hope that CD39 will fulfill its promises as an antithrombotic modality.

[Leon]

Agreed, that they should not be paid by the political machine and the politicians. Gore certainly has a few on board to back up his business plan of selling snake oil.

[dpb]

...

That's why (amongst other reasons) there's replication and peer review...

--

[dpb]

spaco wrote: ...

I have much trouble recollecting that having come from the scientific and epidemiologic communities.

I do remember, otoh, some very specific political figures that were totally ignorant of the science who prevented many actions that would have had a major impact in reducing the spread.

I'd offer a rebuttal to most of the other points as well but simply not worthy the time/effort...

--

[dpb]

Puckdropper wrote: ...

...

I don't know what "implicit multiplication" is by that name, but certainly writing SPRING_CONSTANT everywhere in an expression is _NOT_ an answer to any problem with "scientific mathematics" (again, whatever your definition of that phrase is). Concise notation is critical in boiling down an otherwise excessively "busy" expression.

That things are complicated in some places is mostly a reflection of reality.

--

[J. Clarke]

Using single letter variable names one gets expressions that fill two boards sometimes. Using "SPRING_CONSTANT" and the like would make them much much longer and add no real clarity.

If you're having trouble with implicit multiplication wait until you get to nonlinear differential equations.

[Limp Arbor]

Not afraid but very wary. Too many things are done "in the name of science" without regard to consequences.

Also the arrogance is unmatched:

Genetically engineered crop 'experiments' that get into the food supply Drugs put on the market without an understanding of how/why they work Plum Island

Scientists seem to think anything is OK to try because they are smart enough to keep it under control. That is why we have Frankenstein, I Robot, Terminator, WestWorld, Minority Report and countless other books/movies about the need to be carfeul.

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

[dpb]

Limp Arbor wrote: ...

This is almost entirely so patently a made up issue that to even begin in a usenet thread is pointless so...

So you would prefer we simply don't bother to try to market curative agents? How, precisely, would you go about gaining this perfect knowledge a priori?

And we're supposed to not do research on how to contain and control and prevent future outbreaks of animal diseases that can also in some cases be transmitted to humans? These are existing pathogens that have done tremendous damage elsewhere but are almost completely unknown in the US. That is _NOT_ by accident but by very diligent effort including such places as Plum Island.

That you think "we" shouldn't doesn't mean that you can prevent someone else (not a personal judgment, simply reality). It's probably better to have more responsible folks doing the research than trying to drive abolish it entirely and thereby drive it underground or into clandestine locations only.

[J. Clarke]

Which specific "experiments" were these?

So let's see, it treats a specific form of cancer but nobody knows why, so it should be withheld from dying patients until its mechanism is understood. Is that what you are saying?

What about "Plum Island"?

Or about irrational fear of science.

So when have "we"?

[Robatoy]

Sooo.. Monsanto are the good guys? Sterile seeds are a good idea? Patented seeds are cool?

Oh boy.... tear those blinders off your head, man.

[dpb]

In many ways, yes, Monsanto and the others developing more productive and cost-effective ways to produce food to feed the world's growing population are, indeed, "the good guys".

Patented seeds are a new concept, granted; I never said anything about "perfect world", did I? OTOH, drugs and other technology is patented and is at least part of the driving mechanism that continues to fund research so it's part of "pay the fiddler".

--

[J. Clarke]

This "sterile seeds" business is just plain ignorance. If they were "sterile" then they wouldn't sprout.

As for "patented seeds", patents are a legal issue, not a scientific one, scientists didn't write the patent laws, politicians did.

[Limp Arbor]

Made up? "Scientists are concerned that engineered organisms might harm people=92s health or the environment. For example, engineered crops might contaminate the food supply with drugs, kill beneficial insects, or jeopardize valuable natural resources like Bt toxins. Engineered fish may substantially alter native ecosystems, perhaps even driving wild populations to extinction." source:

> > Drugs put on the market without an understanding of how/why they work >

I would prefer that they understood how & why they work before they are released. Ex. Minoxodil was developed to treat blood pressure problems, a side effect is hair grwoth. Viola! Rogaine.

Agreed that they have good intentions but accidents happen, that is why some people fear science.

> > Scientists seem to think anything is OK to try because they are smart

Not all scientists are responsible, 31,000+ 'scientists' disagree with Al Gore.

one side or the other (probably both) is being irresponsible and they're all scientists. No doubt some believe they are right, some do it for pilitical or grant$ reasons, and some are just plain stupid. Point is they're all scientists and they disagree so some of them are basing their opinions on faulty 'science'.

I'm not against science I just want them to be more careful.

[dpb]

Limp Arbor wrote: ...

No, not all of them are scientists despite news reports that may make them out to be. OTOH, of the ones who are, they're people, too, and people make mistakes and are occasionally driven by other motives than the ones they publicly profess and are, sometimes, simply wrong. Or, given the type of scientific questions being addressed by the global warming question, there's certainly no lack of uncertainty in models and so there's no surprise whatsoever that there can be conflicting conclusions drawn from competing models of the same phenomena--that's science.

Well, your wanting isn't going to change the actions of either the majority who are quite careful imo and nor the very small minority who are exceedingly reckless or the ones in between. Again, people are people the world 'round. For the most part, things are in reasonable situations of checks and balances. Like all other areas of human endeavor, things could undoubtedly be better in some areas; one can be thankful they're not worse in others.

[Woodie]

What's NOT to be afraid of? I mean - just think of the lab coats! They have those big pockets in which all manner of things might be hidden. Anal probes for one - it's not "aliens" - it's scientists drugging and probing innocent citizens on lonely roads at night. Why?! Because you can't get the average guy to sit still for that kind of treatment - and so how else can these scientists get their "DATA"? They're not really doing it for the data you know, more for their own sick science-y pleasure.

UFOs are no more extraterrestrial than than your average Chevrolet. Scientists just have these ultra cool advanced vehicles in which they zip around doing their mischief. The selfish, evil science hogs don't want to share with us average Joes.

Even their lowly lab assistants get to fly around in spiffy black helicopters.

Flitting about and rectally violating the unsuspecting is merely a fun distraction for the science community. Their true evil intent is apparent in their "creation of new life forms" thing... First it's cloning individual cells. Next came plants. Then sheep and all manner of livestock. And now politicians!

Just look at W. He's obviously an early attempt. The limited intellect and the perpetually blank expression. The very definition of Zombie-like! And the ears. The all telling deformed ears. They just haven't been able to get those right in their creations.

Obama is obviously one of their experiments. (remember the ears) If you look closely you can even see the bolts in his neck. And that blank stare - as if he sees nothing but the objective of his programming.

Sciences earliest attempts at creating human-like beings were aimed at creating social leaders and philosophers. They wanted to change the way people think - to create a society in which science and scientists were revered. But their created life forms lack the mental capacity for philosophy and social engineering, so they settled for the next best thing. Politicians.

American scientists are now creating political leaders in order to further their evil agendas. To create strife and war to mask their horrible experiments, and to create need for new weapons and chemicals. The eras of greatest scientific advance have all been during wars. They got tired of waiting for new ones.

And it's hard to afford new deeper pocketed lab coats and ultra cool vehicles if the proletariat isn't taxed stiffly enough to fund them.

Zombie v.1 was to create strife, zombie v.2 is programmed to raise taxation to the 80% level as proscribed by the science elite.

Heaven help us when the yet to be revealed zombie v.3 is unleashed with its as of now secret mission.

Who's afraid of scientists? All those who would see beyond the veil of secrecy into the inner circle of science elite who would rule the world.

[Woodie]

janitorial staff that engineers new organisms.

[Robatoy]

The 'Good Guys' would like nothing more than being the ONLY supplier of seeds to the planet. The muscle they build into their contracts, certainly overseas, is nothing short of extortion. That 'wanting to feed the world' is driven purely by the kind-hearted members of the Monsanto BoD?

Yea right.

Monsanto's business model is 'control' of the planet's food. And they care as much as the oil companies caring about the fact that Rob can fill his car and go for a Sunday drive to smell some flowers. It is THOSE kind of behemoth companies that give the conservatives a bad name. Shareholders first, screw the people.

[dpb]

J. Clarke wrote: ...

Well, no it isn't. It's the ability to introduce a gene modification that makes the seeds of the plants that are grown from a specific seed be sterile when _they_ mature. Afaik, they've not yet been released commercially but the technology does exist. It was developed as a means to enforce the ban against using seed from patented hybrids as seed for next year's crop--rather than requiring detective work and legal action to enforce the patent holders rights, this eliminates the possibility the end user could use the seed for planting, hence no enforcement expense.

As a farmer, it's a problematic area--I don't much cotton to the practice of patenting seed that prevents the hold-back of crop for the next year's crop as a a personal matter. OTOH, many hybrids don't come back "true", so one has always bought much seed annually anyway, even before it was actually patented.

Where one could envision problems here would be if this particular trait could be one that can be transmitted in the wild by cross-pollination--there are certainly areas in which there are concerns; nothing I've written before is to meant to say no concerns only that imo much is overblown on the edible food end; much more is at stake in some of the possible interactions in the wild, agreed.

It would be good if there were sufficient resources available that all of this research could be at the land grant universities w/ their own research budgets and therefore could be released as public domain, but that simply isn't a viable economic model. So, if there is private investment, those who have made the investment and taken the risk need some manner in which to recoup that or it will cease to happen.