Wow, closest to a Godwin's Law response I've had on the sift... not that your example was inappropriate.

I tried in vain to avoid this response from you by noting that there are "usual methods employed to protect populations or otherwise limit research", and that making the proclamation from on-high that scientists can not produce new cell lines completely ignores the tradition of having groups of researchers, historians, lawmakers, etc. come together to determine where the lines should be drawn. If you're early in your research career I'm sure you had to sit through an ethics course (or at least some seminars) that described in detail who protected populations are, why they are protected and when and how these laws were adopted. The stem cell laws are the equivalent of suddenly declaring giving the middle finger to someone a misdemeanor... an effort to legislate morality independent of human impact.

Creating human life in order to destroy it? What are you even talking about? Because I'm talking about adding chemicals to a dish of donated cells that would otherwise be literally incinerated.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I don't really understand the belief that science should have no constrictions. If it should not, then the research done on the Jews in WWII would be acceptable which of course it is not. This is of course an extreme example, but symbolically applicable to our discussion nonetheless. There is a line to be drawn, I just draw it shorter than many scientists. Tools available to humanity are not always right to use. I don't like the idea of creating human life in order to destroy it. That disturbs me and I can't see the worth when we are inches from reversing the epigenetic changes that occur when cells differentiate. Just as high gas prices drive a demand for alternate energy sources, saying no to ESCs can drive the research of adult derived stem cell technology.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
MY understanding is that two things ruffle feathers:

1)no cell lines derived from extra sperm-plus-egg after in vitro fertilization ("no you may not use this for experiments, its precious... now off to the incinerator with it"),

and

2)arbitrary limits on what scientists can do based on a moral feeling, determined independent of the usual methods employed to protect populations or otherwise limit research, and which lead to a somewhat illogical end; telling scientists its not moral to add chemicals to human stem cells moments after they've added them to a dish of any other animal's stem cells can seem odd... they're both a couple of dishes with cells in them... neither is going to ever bark or say hi.

And slippery-sloping it, as some do, to saying things like "if we let them do this they'll have cyborgs modeled with Arnold's stem cells" is bogus, precisely because according to them scientists can do the same thing by reversing adult cells into pluripotency. Anyhow, placing restrictions on a tool like the use of a human cell line for moral reasons is strange to me,... and I'm more curious how far the pendulum will swing when it swings back the other direction.



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
You can probably guess by now that I am not an abortions supporter for most reasons, so naturally, I don't support production of new embryonic stem cell lines by that method. I think that the advances of adult-derived stem cells are FAR more valuable than any other research of its type. I have friends who study embryonic lines and those who study adult derived lines. I have to confess that that the adult derived lines seem to produce more results and more promising futures than the embryonic lines ironically.

I support a ban on embryonic stem cell line generation simply because there is a significant chance that it is wrong. We don't need them. We have shown that we don't need them. Let's work on something we know to be worth what is spent. I feel similarly about animals; use them only when absolutely needed, and though that is often, use them minimally.
And BTW, Net, 3.2 million is nothing. Talk to me in billions. My lab alone (of thousands) is budgeted a million a year, though lately we haven't been spending that much.

I don't really understand the belief that science should have no constrictions. If it should not, then the research done on the Jews in WWII would be acceptable which of course it is not. This is of course an extreme example, but symbolically applicable to our discussion nonetheless. There is a line to be drawn, I just draw it shorter than many scientists. Tools available to humanity are not always right to use. I don't like the idea of creating human life in order to destroy it. That disturbs me and I can't see the worth when we are inches from reversing the epigenetic changes that occur when cells differentiate. Just as high gas prices drive a demand for alternate energy sources, saying no to ESCs can drive the research of adult derived stem cell technology.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
MY understanding is that two things ruffle feathers:

1)no cell lines derived from extra sperm-plus-egg after in vitro fertilization ("no you may not use this for experiments, its precious... now off to the incinerator with it"),

and

2)arbitrary limits on what scientists can do based on a moral feeling, determined independent of the usual methods employed to protect populations or otherwise limit research, and which lead to a somewhat illogical end; telling scientists its not moral to add chemicals to human stem cells moments after they've added them to a dish of any other animal's stem cells can seem odd... they're both a couple of dishes with cells in them... neither is going to ever bark or say hi.

And slippery-sloping it, as some do, to saying things like "if we let them do this they'll have cyborgs modeled with Arnold's stem cells" is bogus, precisely because according to them scientists can do the same thing by reversing adult cells into pluripotency. Anyhow, placing restrictions on a tool like the use of a human cell line for moral reasons is strange to me,... and I'm more curious how far the pendulum will swing when it swings back the other direction.



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
You can probably guess by now that I am not an abortions supporter for most reasons, so naturally, I don't support production of new embryonic stem cell lines by that method. I think that the advances of adult-derived stem cells are FAR more valuable than any other research of its type. I have friends who study embryonic lines and those who study adult derived lines. I have to confess that that the adult derived lines seem to produce more results and more promising futures than the embryonic lines ironically.

I support a ban on embryonic stem cell line generation simply because there is a significant chance that it is wrong. We don't need them. We have shown that we don't need them. Let's work on something we know to be worth what is spent. I feel similarly about animals; use them only when absolutely needed, and though that is often, use them minimally.
And BTW, Net, 3.2 million is nothing. Talk to me in billions. My lab alone (of thousands) is budgeted a million a year, though lately we haven't been spending that much.

Q: Why isn't homosexuality eliminated by natural selection?

A: Probabilistic gene expression and kin selection. Your gay uncle helps the tribe hunt for food, which helps his straight brother (who carries a similar set of genes, which through environmental factors might be deactivated epigenetically) reproduce.

Stuff like this post and comments is why I love the sift. I wouldn't have expected an edit of an old Friends episode would spark a high-minded discussion about evolution, science, and the odd conflict it has with some people's understanding of their faith.

To build on what dgandhi said, the right answer to Phoebe's "don't you have some doubt?" rant would be something along the lines of "I don't think we know everything about evolution, and there may be a lot more complexity to it than we know now, but what we've observed would make it unlikely that a wildly different theory could fit the facts."

As for why the show chose to make Russ ultimately wind up the loser, well, it was a comedy, and her victory was all the funnier for its unlikelihood.

I also think it's a sign of the difference between the 90's, and the 2000's. Back in the 90's, there weren't a lot of creationists pulling the strings in Washington.

Now those of us who like our science to be based on science, instead of religious dogma are a little more sensitive about the debate.

I know I sure am.

I watched the full program a few months back, and it's really fascinating. The teaser doesn't quite do it justice, epigenetics seems to be a huge breakthrough in understanding exactly how the genome works.

Shmawy, someone actually sifted the full program to videosift months ago, but it was pulled. If you want the full video do a torrent search for Nova "ghost in your genes".

In the mean time here's an interesting little sideshow about one epigenetic experiment. Featuring cute mice.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genes/mice.html

I instantly thought the same thing. I clearly remember doing that. And using a magnifying glass, and even better, Magnets on a CRT (sorry about that discororation, Mum).

This looks very interesting. Is the rest of it out there anywhere? Looks like we might be beginning to get some real answers on the age-old nature / nurture debate. Thanks Dr. Snooze, you pre-frontal cortex tease!

>> ^laura:
I'm pretty sure she spits on the monitor because then every little pixel is a rainbow (I think it only works on crts, though)...hasn't everyone done that?

I think its epigenetics. We'll get around to some really cool epigentics research in about, oh, 10 years, so just sit back, drink a mojito, don't worry about it.

"Sociobiology: The New Synthesis

Referred to by some as Darwin II, Wilson's application of evolutionary principles to the understanding of human behavior and human culture has been seminal, controversial, and extremely influencial. Sociobiology, as Wilson originally called his new synthesis work in 1975, was "the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior." Human animals, like other animals, were not entirely of a free will argued the pioneering author. Rather, humans and human culture evolve according to certain biologically based rules (i.e. epigenetic rules). Thus, sociobiology established a scientfic argument for rejecting the common doctrine of tabula rasa (i.e. "blank slate"), which held that human beings were born without any innate mental content and that culture functioned to increase human knowledge and aid in survival and success."
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_O._Wilson