Letters to the Editor
Arryma
Published Letters: 37 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Agree and Disagree
[Read the article: Craig Venter is the future]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In response to a couple of the posts here:
1. Lisi's framework is compelling and the claims that his surfer-dude image is the only reason that his model is getting attention are wrong. While there are deficiencies, some of the "problems" with his framework exist only from the string perspective. The model is revolutionary and makes some potentially testable predictions - very refreshing.
2. The development of PCR is a good example of what I would classify as an important discovery in the field of biology that came from outside of academia. While more of a tool, it was a very important development.
Having said that, I agree with those prior posts insofar as the article greatly exaggerates Venter's contribution and the importance of the private sector in biological research. If any paradigm-shift is indicated, the shift is from elegant experimental design to more of a brute-force approach. The latter requires big bucks and produces reams of relatively raw data that is often of questionable value.
Ok, maybe that's not entirely fair - some of the appraches have proven to be valuable. However, the emphasis on sheer numbers (a million new genes!, whole genome microarrays!) is misplaced.
I feel that the more interesting issue that emerges, and one that needs to be seriously discussed, is the private ownership of scientific information, new techniques and biological organisms/systems that is granted willy-nilly by the U.S. patent system and backed by some dubious decisions of the Federal Circuit.
-
vrakjj.....
[Read the article: Craig Venter is the future]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]OK, you're right, invoking PCR was a little unfair but I could not resist your challenge to list extra-academic breakthroughs. However, I am in agreement with your objection to the claims made by this article. The private sector continues to cherry-pick the gems uncovered by public research and, despite gigantic R&D budgets, often fails to significantly improve upon the original discovery. The private sector typically only makes those marginal developments required to gain ownership of the intellectual property that was pioneered, in large part, through public funding.
-
Efficiency and RNAi
[Read the article: Craig Venter is the future]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]sclatter -
I agree with you criticism that the article is wildly wrong in painting academic research as bloated and inefficient. I think the public would be amazed if they learned how much bang they get for their research buck - at least in biological/biochem research. Contrast academia, with its modest wages, wealth of highly-trained experts and its (generally) cooperative atmosphere, to the private sector with its gigantic exec salaries, parasitic bureaucracy, secrecy and lobbying and advertising costs.
In keeping with the arguments being set forth that the achievments in privately-funded scientific progress rely heavily upon the groundwork established by years of work in academia, I feel that I must remind everyone that the extensive groundwork for the discovery of the final mechanisms underlying the RNAi phenomenon was laid down by plant science researchers that were unfortunately not recognized by the Nobel committee.
-
Heck, I'm a defense attorney....
[Read the article: Media hostility toward anti-establishment candidates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and I still support Edwards. This is from a guy that fights with plaintiffs' attorneys every day.
Edwards is right on the money when he speaks of our corporate-controlled legislative process. Because I strongly feel that the corruption that he rails against is the biggest problem facing the nation, he gets my support, even if I disagree with him on other issues.
I appreciate the article, Glenn. I wonder what would happen if Edward opened up a huge lead in the primaries. How long could the press ignore it? If he got the nom, what would they do?
-
I can see how the strip could be regarded as condescending...
[Read the article: Tom the Dancing Bug]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But, in my opinion, those posters that refer to the "proof" of the inherent differences in intelligence of various races are wrong. I have looked hard at the vaious studies - the hypotheses, methods, results and conclusions and it is my opinion that the sum total of the evidence strongly suggests that there is no scientifically significant difference in the "inherent" intelligence of the races.
The positions set forth by various social scientists on the issue invariably ignore the most fundamental aspects of biological intelligence research including the input-output question and the plasticity of neural development. Anyone familiar with the history of neural development research finds the position of nature over nurture highly doubtful. The effects of diet and environmental stimuli on the development of neural pathways and gross brain morphology are huge (and well-documented). Unless there is a suggestion that brain function is unrelated to neural development and brain morphology, I can't see how the debate can go much further.
I must admit my confusion with the hypothesis of "inherent" intelligence. The thing that sets humans apart so distinctly is our capacity for radical adaptation. Take a person with X intellectual capabilities in environment X and then transfer them to environment Y and their capabilities change. Of course, those changes are accompanied by marked changes in neural function and morphology.
With only anecdotal evidence to go on, I attribute the differences that we see between various groups' performance on IQ tests to cultural differences. A culture that places value on scholarship is going to produce individuals that are more knowledgeable and have developed intellectual strategies that permit them to do better on the tests that measure those attributes. Again, I'm basing this on anecdotal evidence and therefore it is only a hypothesis, but one that seems reasonable to me.
-
@barrister89
[Read the article: Who owns the moon?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Totally agree. Folks, the moon is 250 K miles away. The idea that any rights claimed by anybody on the Earth will have any sway over actual lunar inhabitants is laughable.
And don't count on anybody "nuking" lunar inhabitants from the Earth either. ICBMs don't have the juice, so you would have to put your warheads on an extremely expensive Saturn V and even then the lunar inhabitants would have a couple of days to evac to a safe distance......