Science

[Nautipus]

I'm writing a 12 page report on stem cells, and when I saw that article in the news, I decided to use it. Now maybe the contraversy will be over, but I'm sure someone will bring something else up.

[The Gaffer]

There's a lot of ifs right there in your post Earniel. I see no reason to suppose that stem cells which are harvested thusly would be the same as stem cells from an embryo.

No doubt this will "strengthen" the argument of those who oppose embryonic stem cell research. However, since science currently proceeds by rational inquiry, I expect both branches of the research to continue.

[inked]

You mean like this: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071120/D8T14OD80.html

When the science is done incorrectly to advance an agenda? or, when the science corrects itself because of errors because of an agenda? or, other wcientists correct the errors incorporated in previous studies to more accurate estimates of the reality? (like approximating the diameter of the earth or the speed of light of the number of patients with HIV/AIDS)?

Who would ever have thought the UN would botch this sort of thing after the marvelous success of Food for Oil ?

Do not forget that there may be agendas other than science per se at work.

[inked]

Here are the methodologies involved:

Revised HIV estimates
Overview
As published in the 2007 AIDS epidemic update, WHO and UNAIDS have revised the
estimated number of people living with HIV downwards from 39.5 million [34.1-47.1 million]
in 2006 to 33.2 million [30.6–36.1 million], in 2007. The revisions are due mainly to
improved methodology, better surveillance by countries and changes in the key
epidemiological assumptions used to calculate the estimates.
Approximately 70% of the difference is explained by reductions in prevalence in India (which
alone accounts for approximately half of the revisions) and several sub-Saharan African
countries, including Nigeria, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Angola.
Most of the estimates in the 2007 AIDS epidemic update are lower than those published in
previous reports, not just for 2007 but also for past years.

Revisions to methodology
In 2007 UNAIDS and WHO undertook the most comprehensive review of HIV and AIDS
estimation methodology since 2001. This step was taken as part of the continuing process of
refining HIV estimates based on the latest scientific developments. As recommended by the
UNAIDS Reference Group on Estimates, Modelling and Projections.1
In addition, from 14-15 November 2007, UNAIDS and WHO convened an international
consultation on HIV estimates, bringing together more than 30 global experts to review the
processes methodologies and tools used by UNAIDS and WHO to produce HIV estimates.
The consultation recognised that UNAIDS and WHO’s 2007 estimates are based on the best
available data and methodologies and made a number of recommendations. The
recommendations are available on the UNAIDS Web site (see International consultation on
AIDS estimates: Recommendations).

Improvements in surveillance
Over the past few years a number of countries, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia,
have expanded and improved their HIV surveillance systems, conducting new, more
accurate studies. These new data have been used to help produce a better understanding of
the global AIDS epidemic.
In some countries, improvements have been through an increase of sentinel
surveillance sites both in number and in geographical coverage.
In addition, 30 countries, mostly in Africa, have conducted national representative
population-based household surveys.

[The Gaffer]

Well that would be an example of rational enquiry, as methods of gathering data and extrapolating to a larger population improve.

I'm not sure why you use AIDS as an example here. As one of the Millennium Development Goals, there is an (explicit) agenda, for sure.

But anyway, science would have to establish equivalence between the two types of stem cell in order to abandon one.

[inked]

Gaffer, It was an immediately available news story that illustrated the application of scientific principles to a particular subject which has had enormous political ramifications. The story documents the changing numbers related to techniques of study AND the differing understandings of why those errors ocurred. Science is thus not "pure" or devoid of intentionalities that are less than pure (funding, anyone?).

The embryonic stem cell imbroglio is similarly filled with inaccurate evaluations of possibilities and requirements and applicabilities. IT is highly politicized around the world, and, like AIDS/HIV, it involves human lives. Thus there could be profitable comparisons and parallels between the two areas of "science" involved.

[The Gaffer]

OK, I can agree with that.

Though I think the uncertainties around stem cell research are greater, as we cannot predict with any confidence what specific benefits will arise. It's basic research, after all.

I agree that, in this sphere of research, scientists are often guilty of being carried away by the requirement for hyperbolae amongst the media.

However, it may be argued (by a rational, non-hyperbolic scientist type person) that it's thus impossible to prove equivalence between harvested and embryonic stem cells at this stage in the game.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Mari

One of my teachers once said he was against transplants of hearts etc. because that disrupts the natural balance. In nature the weakest die and the strongest survive [snip] but I'm not so sure if it's the right thing to do.

Humans have, for a long time now, been hugely influential on the environment. Where do you draw the line with regards to what is 'natural'? Agriculture could be considered unnatural - we have been manipulating the genetic make-up of plants through selection processes for a long time now. Would you suggest that we go back to being hunter-gatherers and give up our frozen peas? Flying could be considered unnatural - should we go back to using our legs to move around? Forego cars, ships, computers, other technology? Simply because humans were never intended to [insert technology here]?

I got news for you bub, natural selection ain't the only tool in the evolution-arsenal. Gene manipulation, sexual selection, extended life-spans through 'interfering' - it's all part of the same process.

[Rían]

random thought - isn't it odd how the word "science" has been personified? It's always "science" that proves things, never "scientists".

[Earniel]

I suppose that depends on your speech patterns. If I talk to my dad about science-stuff and new discoveries I nearly always use scientists.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

random thought - isn't it odd how the word "science" has been personified? It's always "science" that proves things, never "scientists".

It's because because science derives it's conclusions in a communal way. No single scientist, paper of theory is "science". It's a result of years of the evolution of human thought, which continues on into the future.

[Mari]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Humans have, for a long time now, been hugely influential on the environment. Where do you draw the line with regards to what is 'natural'? Agriculture could be considered unnatural - we have been manipulating the genetic make-up of plants through selection processes for a long time now. Would you suggest that we go back to being hunter-gatherers and give up our frozen peas? Flying could be considered unnatural - should we go back to using our legs to move around? Forego cars, ships, computers, other technology? Simply because humans were never intended to [insert technology here]?

I'm not that radical Just unsure about how far we're supposed to go. If you keep pushing someday you'll push over the edge. I read too many science fiction books where things went wrong

[inked]

Science .. stem cells ...

Here ya are: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1123/p01s01-uspo.htm

Altering the environment for sure.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Mari

One of my teachers once said he was against transplants of hearts etc. because that disrupts the natural balance. In nature the weakest die and the strongest survive. In our society we try to bend nature to our wills and that's why we have overpopulation of the planet pending.

You raise a good point. Assuming that science is a long way from curing everything, and yet is getting very good at keeping people with genetic defects alive that would have died in the past, we will end up with a society with much more genetic weaknesses than we see today.

And overpopulation is an even bigger concern that simply dwarfs arguments like global warming. But the idea of controlling population, no matter how good for the species, is so repugnant to most people that we won't address it until we must.

Of course, nature does have a way for dealing with overpopulation as well... new diseases!

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Mostly, of course, we practice economic eugenics. If your insurance is all that, anything will be done to further your goals. If not...well, as Jesus said, "The poor will always be with us."

Not much of a system, as "justice" goes. Since justice is an arbitrary social construct, however, I guess it's okay.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You raise a good point. Assuming that science is a long way from curing everything, and yet is getting very good at keeping people with genetic defects alive that would have died in the past, we will end up with a society with much more genetic weaknesses than we see today.

Actually I believe that could be a myth.

I'm not sure there were actually less disease-causing genes in the population back in the middle-ages or even the stone age, even though there was probably more of a selective pressure and natural selection back then. I'd think most genetic diseases would persist quite well (or at least for a very long time) in a contemporary social darwinistic socety were the sick were left to die off.

Any thoughts?

(I'm using the term genetic disease in it's broadest sence in this post).

[Earniel]

Survival while having genetic weaknesses is one thing, but the weaknesses also have to be passed on to stay in the population.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Actually I believe that could be a myth.

I'm not sure there were actually less disease-causing genes in the population back in the middle-ages or even the stone age, even though there was probably more of a selective pressure and natural selection back then. I'd think most genetic diseases would persist quite well (or at least for a very long time) in a contemporary social darwinistic socety were the sick were left to die off.

Any thoughts?

(I'm using the term genetic disease in it's broadest sence in this post).

The issue is "genetic disease" or 'genetic weakness' isn't value neutral. Sickle cell disease is a great example of that. Mutations are handy under some conditions and problematic under others, and a certain percentage of a population WON'T live to 120, no matter what.

It may be that some day we know so much about genetics that we'll be able to trace every freckle back to its genetic source. But that won't give us the wisdom to anticipate new conditions where a mutation might be useful, or even essential.

If we all needed to bring down the Mammoth, maybe there would be less contact lens solution sold. But I'm not ready to discard people with corrected vision from the population, kwim?

They might come in handy.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The issue is "genetic disease" or 'genetic weakness' isn't value neutral. Sickle cell disease is a great example of that. Mutations are handy under some conditions and problematic under others, and a certain percentage of a population WON'T live to 120, no matter what.

It may be that some day we know so much about genetics that we'll be able to trace every freckle back to its genetic source. But that won't give us the wisdom to anticipate new conditions where a mutation might be useful, or even essential.

good point.

If we all needed to bring down the Mammoth, maybe there would be less contact lens solution sold. But I'm not ready to discard people with corrected vision from the population, kwim?

They might come in handy.

Like me!

[Mari]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

But I'm not ready to discard people with corrected vision from the population, kwim?

They might come in handy.

I'm glad you don't... I would be one of the discarded then