Changing Views on Genes

[EasyEd]

Fabulous article on how the science of genes and DNA, etc. are undergoing challenge and change. Hope someone is qualified to comment on it. I'm not.

www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/

[HoyaSinceBirth]

Wow fascinating article. I think one of the most important things to realize is this quote: "This is how science goes forward, of course. Not in a smooth march to the future, but with stumbles, back-steps, and wrong turns. Think of soldiers scrabbling on a battlefield, not gleaming ranks in parade. Scientists, like combat infantry, operate in a fog of confusion and hunch."

The biology and other sciences from 10 years ago much less when my parents were in school is so radically different now. It's really amazing.

[Boz]

I don't feel qualified to comment on the science, but I did enjoy this bit in the article. . .

"This is how science goes forward, of course. Not in a smooth march to the future, but with stumbles, back-steps, and wrong turns. Think of soldiers scrabbling on a battlefield, not gleaming ranks in parade. Scientists, like combat infantry, operate in a fog of confusion and hunch."

You forgot twirling. Always twirling.

Seriously, where did that little editorial come from? It reminds me of Mr. L. Prosser, the construction foreman at the beginning of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a distant descendant of Ghengis Khan who can't figure out why he keeps getting thoughts in his head about pillaging the countryside.

EDIT: OK, now I'm a little scared, that we both picked out that same quote at the same time. Don't tell ME superstitions aren't real, Bando!

[StPetersburgHoya (Inactive)]

So everything I learned in Biology in highschool was wrong? I knew I shouldn't have been paying attention.

[EasyEd]

Not trying to hijack my own thread but this article puts me in awe of the complexity of living beings and the implications of that. It also makes me even more skeptical when scientists think they have the answer to things. Oftentimes they are flat-out wrong.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

I was afraid that's what you were going for easyed. Hence that's why i posted my quote. I think this is a great example of the flexability of science. It's shocking news and agaisnt what we thought, but with evidence of the contrary scientists are changing their tune. Science is willing to change it's position on subjects, but only with evidence of the contrary. To say automatically that all science is bunk, just because we've proven ourselves wrong is just dumb. Every theory has the potential to be proven wrong. But until a theory is proven wrong there is no reason not to believe them, not blindly of course, but with a good amount of certainty.

[Bando]

ed said:

Not trying to hijack my own thread but this article puts me in awe of the complexity of living beings and the implications of that. It also makes me even more skeptical when scientists think they have the answer to things. Oftentimes they are flat-out wrong.

...and there's the catch. Knew this thread was too good to be true.

[Boz]

I'm not sure that was ed's point, to say all science is bunk.

From my standpoint, of course, scientific advancement is evident in every benefit of our lives today, including what I am doing right now.

On the other hand, there are so many things that even the world's top professionals understand so very little of that skepticism is important.

Unfortunately, when this gets involved in political discussions, there seems to be no room for skepticism.

Take the recent stem cell debates, for example. If you are not for the expansion of federally funded embryonic stem cell research, you are pretty commonly called a religious nut who doesn't believe in science or, more sinisterly, someone who doesn't care about curing disease. When, in point of fact, there is comparativley little progress or even promise of progress in these research lines when put up against alternative forms of stem cell research which are making significant achievements. But science forbid you're a skeptic about pouring federal resources down what could be a 20+-year sinkhole...and, yes, a morally questionable one at that. [by the way, I'm not saying that was the position of many on the right, just mine]

Or, of course, there is the environmental debate, but I think we've done that one to death in another thread.

Just another example, IMO, of why Trey Parker & Matt Stone are geniuses. For the two-part episode in which they hypothesized a future (albeit a very silly one) in which blind adherence to the absolute "truth" of scientific advancement can be every bit as dangerous or destructive as blind faith in religious doctrine.

[Bando]

boz1 said:

I'm not sure that was ed's point, to say all science is bunk.

From my standpoint, of course, scientific advancement is evident in every benefit of our lives today, including what I am doing right now.

On the other hand, there are so many things that even the world's top professionals understand so very little of that skepticism is important.

Unfortunately, when this gets involved in political discussions, there seems to be no room for skepticism.

Take the recent stem cell debates, for example. If you are not for the expansion of federally funded embryonic stem cell research, you are pretty commonly called a religious nut who doesn't believe in science or, more sinisterly, someone who doesn't care about curing disease. When, in point of fact, there is comparativley little progress or even promise of progress in these research lines when put up against alternative forms of stem cell research which are making significant achievements. But science forbid you're a skeptic about pouring federal resources down what could be a 20+-year sinkhole...and, yes, a morally questionable one at that. [by the way, I'm not saying that was the position of many on the right, just mine]

Or, of course, there is the environmental debate, but I think we've done that one to death in another thread.

Just another example, IMO, of why Trey Parker & Matt Stone are geniuses. For the two-part episode in which they hypothesized a future (albeit a very silly one) in which blind adherence to the absolute "truth" of scientific advancement can be every bit as dangerous or destructive as blind faith in religious doctrine.

Well, clearly I can't let this go unchallenged. ;D

First off, I just want to say that you're misusing the definition of skepticism. A skeptic is wary of new claims, yes, but he can be persuaded with good evidence. A skeptic does not continue to disbelieve when he is presented with a preponderance of evidence supporting the new assertion; those people are called denialists.

Secondly, the entirety of the example you gave is irrelevant, because it's not a scientific question. A scientific question is one that can be falsified. The questions you address are political (should the government fund stem cell research?) and moral (should we use embryonic cells). I agree that you shouldn't be vilified as "anti-science" for the views you hold on this issue, because those questions are outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

That said, oftentimes people will try to manipulate science in an attempt to somehow make it "prove" their moral or political point. Those who call you "anti-science" for your stem cell position do this, as do you:

When, in point of fact, there is comparativley little progress or even promise of progress in these research lines when put up against alternative forms of stem cell research which are making significant achievements.

Care to source this statement? Are you referring to the few lines opened up to funding by the Bush administration or all embryonic stem lines in general? Even if true, is there perhaps another causal relationship at play? (say, lack of federal funding slowing research?) Why was it not enough to have a logically cohesive moral positions; why did you feel the need for your position to be proven by science?

Ed's objections are different from yours; rather than differing over the questions brought up by science, he simply rejects the science outright because it clashes with ideological and religious beliefs. For instance, he posts:

It also makes me even more skeptical when scientists think they have the answer to things. Oftentimes they are flat-out wrong.

He thinks he's scoring major points against science, but what he doesn't realize is that any scientist will tell you the exact same thing! Science doesn't know everything, but it doesn't claim to. It's simply our best explanation of the world based on the evidence at hand. Ed doesn't note that a) these challenges to gene science are being prompted by other scientists using, you guessed it, science, and b) scientists are open to changing their mind when presented with good evidence to the contrary. This is why science is different from, say, religion or philosophy. If your particular theory is proved wrong, it's still ok, because the total of human understanding has been increased. Conclusions flow from the evidence, not the other way around.

This is really why I must take issue with this statement:

blind adherence to the absolute "truth" of scientific advancement can be every bit as dangerous or destructive as blind faith in religious doctrine.

What you don't understand is that science doesn't require any faith. None, nada. You're only asked to make judgments based on the evidence provided. Faith has absolutely nothing to do with it.

By the way, I took Stone and Parker to be ripping on idiot's who say things like "If only religion was gone, there'd be, like, no more war and stuff".



Wow, I post much more lucidly when I'm sober. ;D

[HoyaSinceBirth]

i agree completely with bando. It was obvious from ed's post and all his past posts that he was indeed attackign science. and that's also the way i took that episode of South Park.

[Boz]

bando said:

Care to source this statement? Are you referring to the few lines opened up to funding by the Bush administration or all embryonic stem lines in general? Even if true, is there perhaps another causal relationship at play? (say, lack of federal funding slowing research?) Why was it not enough to have a logically cohesive moral positions; why did you feel the need for your position to be proven by science?

Well, I don't have time this morning to respond to all of your post in detail -- and there are some points we're just going to disagree on, so I won't bother -- but as for the research, that is fairly well-known.

Here is just one listing of the progress of adult (or at least non-embryonic) stem cell research in actual treatments:

www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf

And before you go ahead and attack the source, yes, I know they have an agenda, but these are all referenced scientific and medical research studies. And this is just a small list. I doubt any embryonic research reports can point to similar results.

Whether or not that's a result of federal funding or lack thereof, that is open to debate, but there are any number of doctors and researchers who will tell you that the difficulties and challenges of embryonic stem cells outweigh - at least at the moment - their potential promise. Not negate it, just outweigh it right now.

But that's exactly my point. We were told for a long time that the promise of embryonic stem cell research was just too important not to fund it, promote it, endorse it, etc. It turns out, at least to my point of view, that this scientific assertion was wrong, or at least not entirely accurate. Not for political reasons, but for scientific ones. Advancements in this other types of stem cell research over the past several years may very well make embronic stem cell research unnecessary. (not will, just may)

And I did not use the word "faith" in reference to science. I used the word "adherence." That was for a reason.

Yes, even I am not so obtuse as to not see the underlying point of ed's original post, even before he made his second post. I was merely trying to point out that he's not wrong to point out the missteps, mistakes and retracings of scientific study. If he's a denialist, I see that as wrong. If he's a skeptic, I see that as very healthy. But just saying science can be wrong - or pointing out when it is - does not make one a denialist. But he's a big boy, he doesn't need me to come to his defense. I will speak merely for myself from now on.

[EasyEd]

This is my exact quote: "It also makes me even more skeptical when scientists think they have the answer to things. Oftentimes they are flat-out wrong."

And here's your reaction: "Ed's objections are different from yours; rather than differing over the questions brought up by science, he simply rejects the science outright because it clashes with ideological and religious beliefs."

That's a big jump when I merely said I'm skeptical (not rejection) because they are often (not always) wrong.

As to your comments on my religious beliefs, I challenge you to name one scientific finding I have rejected because of my religious beliefs. I object to areas of scientific inquiry based on religious beliefs (like embryonic stem cell research) but not scientific findings.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

Very interesting article. It'll be facinating to see where this research goes in coming years.

Now back to the developing tropical cyber-storm this thread promises to bring ...

[Boz]

tothebeach said:

Now back to the developing tropical cyber-storm this thread promises to bring ...

Nah, probably not. At least not from me. I've said my peace. Others have said and can continue to say theirs. I don't have any interest in getting into a digital slapfight over this.

I reserve that kind of outrage and attack for the really important issues. . . . .

To wit: Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. Worst superhero casting in history, or merely the second worst? (behind Clooney as Batman, of course). Discuss. ;D

(OK, fine, Downey might not be all that bad, but Sam Jackson as Nick Fury?? Hilary Swank?? Favreau directing??? Oh yes, I am WORRIED! I'm fairly sure they've ruined Iron Man, but they REALLY REALLY better not ruin The Avengers or I will go OFF! Don't F--- with Earth's mightiest heroes!).

[Coast2CoastHoya]

They already ruined The Avengers in 1998 ... that movie was hot garbage.

[Bando]

I think you're talking about different Avengers. Boz is talking about the Marvel Comics superhero team. C2C's talking about the 60's British spy show.

I'll have actual replies to Boz and Ed later today.

[EasyEd]

Back to the topic of this thread. I'm very interested in hearing anyone else's reactions to the article cited as I'm heavily into DNA and its use in genealogy. I'd be happy to PM anyone who asks a link to a journal paper I co-authored on the subject about a year ago. It's related to a famous Irish clan.

[hoyarooter]

Extremely interesting article. I've forwarded on to my wife, the neurologist.