• 1813 Days Ago
• 02/28/2007

The Biopragmatist as Blogger

It is true that we have put a gaint leap in biotechnology. But we can only understand what is being there in the universe so far. We can analyze the existing matter. But Still we need to go far to be able to create any kind of living cell even. Which has not happened. We are not able to develope a tissue which grows itself, with synthetic protines are whatever required....!


www.browsetoknow.blogspot.com

• 1812 Days Ago
• 03/01/2007

Irrational exuberance

I think we should cut the bio-hype for two reasons:
1) Biology is a lot more complex, than so many people want to admit. We are going to hit a wall of complexity, and 'popping a pill' as a cure will simply not work anymore. So the projected great advances will come about a lot slower than the popular media lets people believe.

If you want to take a cold shower, just look at the '50&'60s, when it was widely predicted that controlled fusion was just about to happen, and we would soon have clean and bountiful energy...The rest is history.

2) It will be very expensive. Building or re-building organs for a person requires a personalized approach, and that precludes mass production methods, and mass production benefits. This won't be like chip-building, where Intel/AMD can produce millions of identical chips for a few hundred bucks each.

The huge bio-production costs will strain relations between social classes as well. Rich people may afford to plunk down a few million bucks to rejuvenate themselves, but the rest of us won't be able to do that. Then the rich may achieve life spans disproportionally longer than the average populace.  This is not new of course - in some African countries life expectancy is 40 years, half the life expectancy of people in developed countries.

• 1811 Days Ago
• 03/02/2007

The human factor

I am always amazed at utopian predictions hoisted on the back of new - and potentially new - technology, and the horrifically illogical jump that is made by those (and there are many) who say all our individual and collective woes are very near ending, that the cure for whatever it is that rankles and ails us is within our grasp.

The problem is not, nor has it ever been, the progress of technology and the remedies that are the welcome product of new creative ventures. The problem is humanity itself. Sure, we will likely have the potential soon to allow humans a healthy 150-year lifespan. But you will never convince me that such a virile life will be available to anything other than an elite few.

Just look at the current state of affairs - not just in impoverished nations, but also in places like the US, where economic disparity is extremely acute, with the rich throwing money around to do such things as straightening their noses, while the poor (well, even the middle-class now) cannot even afford basic, life-sustaining healthcare. There are enough technological boons available now to end hunger, poverty and many illnesses. But only those with the cash get to play.

And this is the case not because of any failure in science or technology, but because of the failure of humanity. We are a violent, greedy, power driven species, and there is no indication anywhere that our baser defects are going to improve any time soon. All the new, and potentially new, technology many people are becoming so giddy about will be distributed by people still motivated my animal instincts.

So the question is: when and how will humanity catch up  to the sublime purity it's creation, if ever?

To start with, we will have to shake off the antiquated economic system called capitalism. As long as such a disparate structure - which is based on hierarchy, power, fear and punishment - of distributing the "good" things in the world is in place, we will never cure anything.

• 1811 Days Ago
• 03/02/2007

Creative Disruptions in Dealing with New Tech

Thanks for the comments here -- I like to use the term "creative disruptions" to describe the process that I think needs to happen to deal with new discoveries. By creative disruptions, I mean a process whereby our society better shapes the disruptions of new technologies and scientific discoveries by being creative in how we respond. That is, to have as part of the process of transferring from discovery to application a focus on issues and policy and implementation. This means first being realistic about the technology, and mitigating the hype -- and also being realistic about the dangers and about people's fears about the dangers. I'll write more about this in future blogs.
-- David Ewing Duncan

• 1805 Days Ago
• 03/08/2007

Biotech Promise vs. Hype

Biotechnology has produced practical applications that help poor and rich alike.  In some ways, the industry has already made good on its promise. Production of insulin using recombinant vectors, for example, has lowered costs and increased supply.  The human genome and other sequenced genome maps offer researchers and doctors resources for diagnostics and study.  One example that comes to mind that is in clinical practice is an improved diagnostic tool for certain leukemias based on gene expression which has significantly improved diagnostic accuracy and therefore reduced patient fatality.  There are numerous other therapies and diagnostics on the market.  Arguably, such products will benefit wealthy and insured customers first, until costs are reduced by market forces.  Some may also argue that personalized medicine could reduce health care costs by making diagnosis and treatment more efficient.

But it is not economic disparity that concerns me most.  I worked in molecular biology research for seven years (FSU, Harvard Medical School, and the Whitehead Institute).  Amidst a conflicting brew of hope and fear over biotechnology, I remain optimistic in the face of threats of bioterrorism, accidental viral emergence, and environmental catastrophe.  However, the industry hypes way more than it alarms.  Perhaps the recombinant DNA debates of the 1970's taught scientists to remain silent regarding negative unknowns.  I've certainly had a hard time getting biologists to broach the subject of new methods of recombinant DNA containment.  Perhaps suggesting lunar facilities for containment is just too far out there to receive serious comment.

And who in the lay public is going to feel secure enough in their biological understanding to support the idea full-heartedly? 

Then again, maybe the space community has already responded.

And so I've been typing since 2002, seeking consensus between a rock and a hard place.  Yet, through practice and faith, I remain optimistic.  If interested, visit http://LunarTransformations.org for more info.