What happened to the promise of Genetics?

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by McGirth, Mar 6, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    good job. you've identified sources may or may not have the information requested. I've quickly gone over them and I can't seem to find the information that supports your claims. In fact, the last link actually supports my claims. Now, since you've read those sources in detail, you should have no problem pasting in the key parts in this thread and relating them to your claims.
    test
  2. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    hey ill rich, thats very interesting.
    I agree with you that testing for drugs is strong enough. I'm more concerned about testing for genetic tests and medicines which are meant to be preventative. Methologically, there are problems in testing these sorts of results.

    About a company NOT investing in a placebo, i think you would be suprised of the value there is in creating the idea in the mind of the public (i.e. Goodwill) that a pill/test is linked can help with a disease.

    Think about it for a second... Imagine you recevie a patent for a placebo. What does this mean? It means no one else can manufacture the drug but you. Combine that with your trademark (which protects good will) and basically have a monopoly over said placebo, which if people beleive is actually doing something more than a placebo effect, can be incredibly valuable in the same way that a heavily advertised trademarked brand can be highly valuable. by analogy, Nike can be seen as a the sugar pill of sneakers.

    Jsut to clarify somethin, which i'm sure you know. Something being a placebo does not mean that it has no effect. It just means the effects are psychologically based. In fact, i remember reading an article recently about how more expensive placebos are more effective in curing disease :p. You can imagine how the problem is multiplied for preventative drugs/tests where testing poses methodological problems.

    Of course, maybe there is social value in giving property rights in placebos that the general public beleive to be true, but thats a whole other question.

    thanks for your input.
    test
  3. Again, McGirth, Korean venture capitalism on this very technology is extensively documented and known.

    An argument that supports why Western morality hinders the explosion of biotech:

    http://geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=92

    Companies and venture capitalists have also been reluctant to invest in the field, partly because of the ethics debate, but also because investors perceive it will take a long time for such therapies to reach the market and provide a return. Moreover, injecting cells, particularly if they are customized to each patient, is perceived as a less attractive business proposition than mass-producing a pill that everyone can take.

    Many companies pursuing cloning and cell replacement therapies, not all from embryonic stem cells, have gone out of business. PPL Therapeutics, the Scottish company that helped clone Dolly the sheep, is being dismantled. Infigen, a pioneering cloning company in Wisconsin, recently laid off all of its employees.


    Argument that biotech injects needed venture capitalism into South Korean economy:

    http://www.allbusiness.com/science-technology/technology-transfer/5835095-1.html

    Frost & Sullivan (http://www.biotech.frost.com), Competitive Positioning Strategies for South Korean Biotech Markets, reveals that revenues in this industry totaled $1.37 billion in 2002 and are projected to reach $6.59 billion by 2010.

    Additionally,

    In the 1950s, you would have been making the same statement about space race technology being a waste of money with no fruits to show for it. You would have been technically correct from the civilian's stand point, being that most people didn't have access to said technology since it was highly classified by military and corporate practices.

    It wasn't until the 1980s that GPS, cellphones, computer processing power, and the entire fucking Internet blew up, all thanks to space race technology.

    Venture capitalism takes time. And alot of broken eggs. Especially when Western economic engines flat out refuse to contribute with tremendous state-sponsored contracts like they did in the space race era. The only major nations that are really doing that are China and South Korea. Space Race technology was greatly aided by the advanced technology of a defeated nation whose scientists were smuggled to two industrial powerhouse nations and given all the resources they need bar none.

    And it still took them decades for their technologies to become a staple to the economy.

    There is no equivalent scenario for Biotechnology, so expect it to take longer to perform such a feat.
    test
  4. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    Its great that Korean venture capitalism is extensively known, however, that is not the statement you made before which was supposed to be established in your research. No wonder i couldn't find anything, neither could you.

    To recapitulate, you need to establish that:

    1) Korea has made dramatic advances in genetics, in terms of fruits/technology (i.e. things which can be convertably to property rights, which have actual emperical benefits, and thus APPLY to their economy) COMPARED to the US's advances. So basically compare say US drug companies markets/developments to Koreas. Who is turning more profit based on sales?

    2)Since you claim that this tech can be applied to their economy, please show sales figures from said products which are more than negligible and NOT based on venture capital infusion (which tells us nothing of fruits produced).


    here are your claims again for reference:
    "Korea, Japan, and China have far outpaced us in terms of dramatic advances that they can already apply to their economy.

    The West shuns genetic manipulation, fueled by fear-laden Hollywood films, religious complaints, and environmental zealotry."

    Oh, i forgot, you totally ignored establishing the second part of your claims. Again, show evidence in your links that those on Ethics boards source of info.


    Secondly, your analogy to the space race is not only wrong, but i actually would have called for the opposite was the case in that scenario. i.e., the promise was to get to space, the scientists deliverred, thus I would have called for an increase in federal funding, leading to the perfecting of theories/techniques, ultimately leading to the said technology patents by the 1980s.
    By contrast, for genetics, we have a case of claims made of future cures, money infused, claims not met and retractions made as to the importance of gene isolation, and now... continued calls for more and more funding for a couple dozen more years till we see any results.


    The tremendous fruits derived from theories of physics/chemistry in the 1950s precisely supports my claim that we shoudl be funding these sorts of sciences, and not ones that rather than produce fruits, simply produce more theory and promises. (although private investment is fine!, so long as patent laws dont allow patenting of correlations)
    test
  5. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Mcgirth I like your showing interest in this. Infact, Dawkins has even discussed the market value of the placebo effect in pharmaceuticals. However, I've never heard anything about the placebo effect happening in the genetics field. I've heard about restraints in the genetics field though.

    I want clearification on something. Are you inferring eithnic morality has nothing to do with slowing down our biotechnological progression? You don't think that's the motive behind the reason for issuing less patent grants and research funding in the field of genetic engineering?

    Whether ghet's comparative claims are correct I really couldn't say.
    So don't lump our arguments.

    However, I did post a movie in this forum called Exodus earth. You should have watched it for the evidence that ethnic morality does infact get in the way of genetic engineering research.

    I seem to remember two bombs dropping in Japan which made us realize we better make sure science never creates something so dangerous again. People fear biotechology for the similar purposes. I call them neo-Luddite thinkers. It's
    all about the pecking order.

    "correlating DNA sequences to incidences of diseases failed."

    Where is your proof the research failed? Given the evidence I've witnessed in exodus earth "ethnical restraints" in proposition for "promised failed" is the more plausible reason for the continuum but not failure. Seeing how the answers to my questions have to be yes given your premise I find your conclusion very premature.
    test
  6. Tequila Jong-il

    Tequila Jong-il SALAD TOSSER

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,426
    No, I made a perfectly legitimate summation of your argument. You never bothered to detail any specific claims of future results that have failed to come to pass. You simply declared genetics to have failed to live up to its promise based upon an unspecified and arbitrary definition of what that promise was.

    Your post related to drugs, not genetic tests. Dont start getting evasive just because youve been exposed as someone who has big ideas about how the pharmaceutical industry should be regulated despite haveing next to know knowledge about the pharmaceutical industry.
    test
  7. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883

    Thanks for clarifying your position. Your points are fair, although overstated, and are criticisms that go the scope of discussion going on here.

    Your right my argument rests on the assumption that there was hype which was not met. I don't have time to do a big research, so I leave this as an assumption and I concede any point concerning lack of proof.
    I however, I also leave this point open to be refuted on substantive instead of methodology grounds if you can show that 1) there was no hype, or 2) there was hype, and claims were met with actual results in terms of actual fruits of science (technology, not more stuff in theory).

    The point about my lack of knwoledge about the biotech industry is not completely correct, but its true im no expert. But then again, this is an internet message board on a rapmusic site. Given the scope of the discussion, I don't think anyone, including you, needs to have a PHD in Biotech and a Phd in law to discuss things here. This isn't a symposium at oxford.
    test
  8. 1.) Neuropsychopharmaceuticals != genetics. Here's an example of a single South Korean company making more money with genetic cloning than EVERY American cloning company combined. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/biotech/2004186650_cloning17.html

    2.) Explain to me how and why venture capitalism does not apply to economic figures in a capitalist nation which is, essentially, utterly economically dependent on such techniques? You act as if any nation waving a sign saying "BIOTECH FRIENDLY" will have buckets of money thrown there way. Try that in Africa or Russia. In fact, try that in America.

    The promise was to get to space in 1930. That promise wasn't delivered until 1961. They didn't just deliver, they took 31 years to deliver! You can say "Oh, they delivered" in the ease of retrospect and in the ignorance of history, but is wasn't that simple. Leftists at the time were furious at the idea, whining that such money should to feed poor people instead. (They even whined that satellites weren't technologically possible and that Sputnik was a conspiracy to increas aggression against their precious Russia) Now those poor people are more connected than ever before in human history because of the byproducts of the space race.

    Your militant obsession with South Korea is an obvious attempt at distraction, being that I named THREE countries in my initial list. Outside of continuing to believe that venture capitalism is not an acceptable economic resource for a nation (which boggles me to no end, btw) let's take a look at Chinese labs, shall we?

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/pols-cbi010108.php

    The first commercialized gene therapy product approved anywhere in the world was Gendicine, an injection used in the treatment of head and neck cancers developed by Shenzhen SiBiono GeneTech Co., Ltd. More than 5,000 patients have been treated with Gendicine, about 400 of them from overseas. The drug is currently undergoing further clinical trials in China for several new indications, including liver, abdominal and pancreatic cancer.

    Care to guess how much more money the Chinese Gene Therapy Industry is making compared to the ENTIRE Gene Therapy Industry of the West? (Here's a hint: anything times 0 is still 0)

    And why is PubMed having such a hard time with this?

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/33983.php

    In the Chinese database, the researchers identified 161 Chinese studies on 12 of these gene-disease associations. Only 20 of these 161 studies were indexed in PubMed.

    lolwtf?
    test
  9. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    thanks for flagging that for me. I will have to check it out if I decide to pursue this further.


    I would say the issue of whether morality hinders or helps science is a different debate for another thread.
    This thread isn't about stem cells or any genetic drug creation which ethicists have a problem with (for instace, race based genetic stuff). Its about identifying genes associted with diseases, and its field that is/was actually very very well funded and where patent laws allow for patents to be had and have been very generous.

    One other unrelated matter I feel I shoudl point out, is that the reasons for others (i.e the mob) supporting a given position are not reasons to invalidate or validate the truth of said position. If most people support something, it dosne't mean its true. One woudl be a fool to think so. On the other hand, if the mob finds something is true, it dosen't mean its false either. One woudl be a fool to be such a contrarian. So, so called "neo-luddites", neocons, liberals, environmentalists, gas guzzlers, etc... or whatever supporting a position has no bearing on its truth either way. An argument that goes along the lines of "these people are idiots, they support this position, thus its wrong" is idiotic contrarian logic.
    test
  10. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    cloning goes beyond the scope of hte debate here. I apolagize if I led you astray through my use of terms.

    Venture capitalism precisely reflects hype for a theory. People invest in the hope that eventually products will actually be produced for which there is a market. So basically, venture capital does not reflect fruits of science, but theory & promises.

    Again, space race, different branch of science which was producing many fruits. Not really comparable to what we have going on here. Its more akin to the promises that we would have manned space flights to mars 30 years ago, or of colonies on the moon. Which ended up being sheer hype and did not occur.

    Also, My arguments here are limited to resource distribution in science. I never made any claim that genetics research public funding should go outside science, in fact, I advocated for more money to go to nanotechnology.

    Chinese example, good find, though still not completely concrete at this point (still in testing). Though its a good start.

    Again, if my claims were incorrect you should be having no problem finding concrete examples of dozens products produced with mass profits. But instead you've been utterly limited, searching from country to country, and all you've found is stuff still in testing. I think that alone speaks volumes.

    for the PubMed thing, i think the west may use the different term.
    test
  11. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    This is alot different argument. Thanks for the clearification.
    http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/IE/Intro_The_Human_Genome.html
    http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/NIH/gene11.html
    http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/NIH/gene12.html
    http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/NIH/gene13.html
    http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=positional cloning
    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_61683.html
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12380-new-multiple-sclerosis-genes-identified.html
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070605055344.htm
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071104190626.htm
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080307123841.htm
    http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2006/10/26/crohns_disease_gene_identified.html

    "Benefiting from the increasingly detailed maps and sophisticated DNA sequencing techniques and tools, scientists are mapping and isolating new disease genes at the rate of several per month. By the year 2005, scientists hope to pinpoint the location of each of the 50,000 to 100,000 genes and to identify the exact sequence of their chemical bases."

    "The most detailed map will allow scientists to decipher the genetic instructions encoded in the estimated 3 billion base pairs of nucleotide bases that make up human DNA. Analysis of this information, likely to continue throughout much of the 21st century, will revolutionize our understanding of how genes control the functions of the human body. This knowledge will provide new strategies to diagnose, treat, and possibly prevent human diseases. It will help explain the mysteries of embryonic development and give us important insights into our evolutionary past. The development of gene-splicing techniques over the past 20 years has given scientists remarkable opportunities to understand the molecular basis of how a cell functions, not only in disease, but in everyday activities as well. Using these techniques, scientists have mapped out the genetic molecules, or genes, that control many life processes in common microorganisms. Continued improvement of these biotechniques has allowed researchers to begin to develop maps of human chromosomes, which contain many more times the amount of genetic information than those of microorganisms. Though still somewhat crude, these maps have led to the discovery of some important genes. "

    "Once a gene is located on a chromosome and its DNA sequence worked out, scientists can then determine which protein the gene is responsible for making and find out what it does in the body. This is the first step in understanding the mechanism of a genetic disease and eventually conquering it. One day, it may be possible to treat genetic diseases by correcting errors in the gene itself, replacing its abnormal protein with a normal one, or by switching the faulty gene off."

    how has it failed? Looks to be serving its purpose of identifying genes associted with diseases rather well. Yet you want to discontinue the program? Doesn't make sense to me. Your conclusion is still premature. Do you retract your statement?

    I go with the facts. No band wagon fallacy here.
    test
  12. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    Not at all Menaz, that's exactly the sort of hype I was talking about.

    i.e. There was hype, leading to talk of gene isolation discoveries that account for particular diseases after much money was spent. Yet, from the get-go, these were merely correlational (they correlate certain traits in a small population to a particular gene). Simultaniously there were calls that cures were on the way with simultanious calls for more mass funding. Much funding was given and many research chairs granted.

    Then, after the money was given, somehow the cures failed to come, leading to retractions of said discoveries and statements that genes are much more complex then expected, i.e. the idea that there is controlling gene for each disease is flawed or the gene was not actually identified in most cases. Basically, scientists (or rather nature itself through examination) have/has started to concede gene isolation idea itself is a flawed science. The theory on which it rests, that DNA/genes are the deciding factor in disease ended up being emperically incorrect, though it was certainly an elegant idea!

    Now, science has two options. Either it can continue funding these ultra-expensive gene isolation escapade correlation-hunts that don't really explain diseases or lead to cures, OR they pull funding from these money pits and invest more in trying to figure out how genes interact with other factors and put more money into upcoming unrelated science that seems promising.

    I'm simply calling for the next logical step since the science is flawed and its been 10+ years, lower funding, put the money elsewhere in science until/of they produce more fruits, and stop granting patents for correlations (which should not have been given to begin with).
    test
  13. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    Rizworth whats good w/ you.

    whta you been up to nikka w/ um college? and all that.
    test
  14. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    McGirth is in here taking souls. He ran through like 6 people already.
    test
  15. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/8116/8116notw6.html

    "The genome sequencing effort was completed ahead of schedule and under budget, Collins said. When officially started in 1990, the project was expected to take 15 years with a U.S. contribution of $3 billion. Instead, it has taken less than 13 years and cost $2.6 billion. The U.S. portion was led by NHGRI and the Department of Energy."

    "The three levels of the house correspond to broad areas of the plan labeled "genomics to biology," "genomics to health," and "genomics to society." Within the broad topics, the plan lays out 15 grand challenges. Crosscutting elements--such as technology development, education, and computational biology--that are common to all of the broad themes are also included. Unlike the plans for the Human Genome Project, the plan for the future of NHGRI doesn't include proposed timelines."

    Learn to accept the fact your conclusion was based on ignorance and is also premature.

    "Analysis of this information, likely to continue throughout much of the 21st century,"

    We are still in the 21st century. We are also entering into branched phases of the genome project. http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech/wtr_16169,259,p1.html

    You are also moving the goalpost. And you also said it was "failed" now you switch to the position of "flawed." It's been clearly demostrated not be flawed nor failed.

    And congradulations you keep making the same fallacious arguement only this time you ignored the vast amount of evidence I provided to you on how the genome project is not flawed nor failed but instead as of 2007-2008 has lead to identifying and diagnosing various genetic diseases.

    You've choosen to argue for the sake of arguing, though evidence says you should retract your conclusion of it being failed or flawed. Once again the project is not flawed nor failed. The evidence I provided to you clearly demostrated scientists identified the diseases in the genes be it cancer, aging disorder, Crohn's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, Schizophrenia, Charcot Marie tooth disease, or sickle cell.

    You were provided with evidence that disproved your conclusion. end of story.
    If you need futher confirmation on how incorrect your conclusion was watch "the body" 2056.
    And be on the look out for microbubbles being utilized to oxygenate blood.
    test
  16. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    ^
    there is no new substance to your arguments. So I assume you rest your case.

    The first source is outside the scope of arguments made.

    It does not point to funding for correlational research of genes to disease. It points to maping the genome in the first place (i..e based discovery), which IMHO was worth the 2.6 billion, and would have been worth it even if it took 20 years and 5 billion to complete.
    My point was never about uncovering the Genome itself, which is pure science, it was about correlating disease to genes and subsequent claims of "discovery."


    Second quote does not go against any claim I made. Also, I checked your source and oddly that quote is not present, so your point is refuted on methodological and outside the scope of the argument grounds.

    Third, failed v. flawed. Amazing, you make the distinction then judge them the same for the purposes of your discussion. lol If i'm moving the goalpost, by your logic, you miss either way!

    Fourth, again, i never claimed that scientists havent claimed to have identified genes. My point is simply that this has failed to lead to the slew of new products promised. The ultimate test of the truth of a theory is in teh fruits that stem from its branches (as ghet aptly showed by his physics/chem theory and space tech example). The lack of fruit produced by correlational genetics theory is telling.

    Fifth, sickle cell was already identified before sequencing. It was obvious in inter-generational distribution patterns of disease (and possible others your mentioned as well).


    So... basically, you provided with evidence that went beyond the scope of the argument. If you really want to see how accurate my point is, look how fruitful ghet's search for on the market genetic tech has proven that isn't venture capital based (reflecting hype). Despite his claim of "great advances" for the chinesse, etc... what has he found? One drug that is still in testing.

    We both know how zealous ghet is towards genetic stuff, so his failure to find much material is particularly telling.
    test
  17. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    Not really a debate, i'm just trying to explore a topic. You and Ill Rich raised interesting objections/clarifications.

    The rest I'm dissapointed with. I thought there would be people with alot of knowledge on this board on this topic, given its reccurance. You would think the anti-moralists, given the zealousness of their advocacy, would know what they are for better and not just what they are against.
    test
  18. ...uhh....except everything I find is in Asia and the profits from their genetic manipulation industry profit -infinitely- (that is the proper mathematic term to describe the relationship, btw. According to economics, nothing beats infinite growth when comparing markets) more money than their Western counterparts, which apparently ignore contributions from Asia on this field en masse. (Which answers your question about the impact of this technology on economies) I particularly liked the part where you tried to wiggle out of saying that venture capitalism didn't qualify as having any effect on economy whatsoever and now readjusting your question to be less economical and now more "Well, what does venture capitalism mean in the metaphilosophically anthropomoprhically intrinstically spiritual sense". That was really cute. You should try that again. I address this per nation simply because the issue itself -IS- fragmented per nation. You're not only moving the goal post, you are outright replacing the Olympics with a bake sale.

    It sounds to me that maybe you redefine your question to be exclusively Western. I won't deny that every major attempt at kick starting the genetic manipulation industry in the West bombs horribly:

    In 1998, the United States exported $63 million worth of maize to the EU, but the exports decreased to $12.5 million in 2002.

    For a nation that produces 63% of all transgenic crops in 2003, a drop in trade like that would be enough to signal a planetary depression had it been the housing industry. If you would like to see evidence of why GM anything fails miserably in impacting the economy of the West, you can see it all broken down here.

    Now before you go and try to spin this Western failure on the fact that it's all hype, let's see what Pew has to say:

    A 2003 survey by the Pew Research Center found that a majority of people in all countries surveyed felt that GM foods were "bad". The lowest scores were in the US and Canada, where 55% and 63% (respectively) were against it, while the highest were in Germany and France with 81% and 89% disapproving. The survey also showed a strong tendency for women to be more opposed to GM foods than men.

    Oh look, the Pope declares genetic manipulation a sin. Fantastic. Go go Western morality!

    smh

    I'm embarrassed to be white sometimes.

    Space Race technology -DID- -NOT- produce anything immediately. What the hell is so hard to understand about this? It took -DECADES- of two of the most economically wealthy nations pouring everything they had into it and innovation barely trickled out of it.
    test
  19. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    No substance? I gave you a whole entire lundery list of correlation resreach of genes to disease. In which you totally ignored as if the evidence didn't exist. Like I said you're arguing just to argue. My case was made your conclusion is invaild. Stop with the Texas sharpshooter fallacies.

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_26/b3789090.htm
    http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/diseaseindex.shtml#general

    "Fraser has focused TIGR's efforts on microbes, mostly those that cause disease. Such research is critically important in the quest to develop new drugs. Most current drug research is based on discoveries made in the last century, says Richard A. Young, professor of biology at the Whitehead Institute and Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass. "With complete genome sequences in hand, you can take entirely new approaches to most every problem that can be studied in biology today. The work that TIGR and others are doing is creating the foundation for these future studies. TIGR's research has had few practical applications yet--it's early in the game--but one example suggests where it could lead. Scientists at the biotechnology company Chiron Corp. (CHIR ) contracted with TIGR--in one of the institute's rare non-public ventures--to decode the genome for Neisseria meningitidis, a cause of meningitis. Analysis of that genome led the company to new meningitis vaccines, which are now in development."

    Money went to these correlations as well.

    Now you're contradicting yourself. You can't have it both ways. You are demostrating you think the genome project was worth the money yet here you nolonger want to go any further with it....
    It's a straw man argument actually, because that process was done in the genome project. What you refused to do was look at the evidence I posted showcasing the correlational research of genes to diseases. Your bad for moving the goalposts not mine.

    You: You made a claim: Why has the process that basically involves correlating DNA sequences to incidences of diseases failed in determining and curing the cause of diseases.

    Me: To which I posted the evidence of: correlating DNA sequences of genes to diseases. What I basically said about the biotech cure factor was this... you're not being patient enough to allow a biotech CURE, This process has no time-table and will be going on throughout the 21st century.

    You: gene isolation idea itself is a flawed science. The theory on which it rests, that DNA/genes are the deciding factor in disease ended up being emperically incorrect, though it was certainly an elegant idea! Now, science has two options. Either it can continue funding these ultra-expensive gene isolation escapade correlation-hunts that don't really explain diseases or lead to cures.

    The genome project is finished the sequencing is complete not failed nor flawed. The next branch in this experiment will be to uitilize the genome sequencing in such away as to provide a cure for these genetic diseases which have been identified and diagnosed by this science. As I basically implied before there are evolving branches in this Genome project. Be patient. Good things come to those who wait.

    http://www.nwrage.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1786
    The next Human Genome Project: Our microbes. This process will lead to better infromation and more possibally to the eventual cures you keep complaining won't ever come from this type of infromation.

    http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech/wtr_16169,259,p1.html
    The Personal Genome Project.

    http://www.stanford.edu/group/morrinst/hgdp.html
    They're even working on a another branch called: The Human Genome Diversity Project

    You made the claim it has failed then switched to flawed.
    I showcased how it wasn't failed nor flawed. And how they are working on the next branch of personal care in the genome project. Which makes both your arguments of either failed or flawed invailed. You missed either way and are now commiting a sharp-shooter fallacy. And once again you are arguing just to argue. You flip-flopped your position and were still found invailed.

    What products were promised? What is the time frame for these said products? The reading I've done and posted up suggest no time-table. Again this process will be going on throughout the 21st century. What is so hard to understand about this?

    The genome projects job isn't to label the disease sickle cell, sickle cell.lol! The genomes projects job was to map the sickle cells DNA code - A, T, C and G. Then put it in the correct order. Inorder to understand these letters and hence to understand the functions specified by different regions of the DNA code. It doesn't give diseases it's name. Thus, The sequencing of sickle cell has been identified. That could not of be done before the genome project. Sure we had knowledge about sickle cell but not a indepth knowledge of the specific HBB nucleotide. etc... etc... http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/hbb.shtml

    You're putting up a red herring argument here. Ghet's argument has nothing to do with our discourse. the arguments aren't even similar. Didn't I say not to lump us? Yes I did. I told you to watch THE BODY 2056 for this very reason. Stop trying to prove a negative here. I'm not trying to disprove a negative. What I am doing is telling you the genome project was finished, was accomplished under budget, and it didn't fail nor is it flawed thus making your conclusion invalid. However, there are more branches to be explored. And if you watched 2056you'd understand how all this work of mapping and sequencing the Human Genome and microbes are in route to produce alot of these eventual biotech cures.
    test
  20. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883

    On Proof of Fruits/Economic Stuff:
    1)So basically, your argument to support:
    "Korea, Japan, and China have far outpaced us in terms of dramatic advances that they can already apply to their economy."
    is that the US made 0$ and Korea made more than zero, and therefore these are "dramatic advances that htey can already apply to their economy" X>0.

    Bravo sir. you win.
    lol.

    2)On venture capital v. Fruits in profits from science. This is actually a legal distinction from patent law/business, which I am tying to technology development.

    I will try to break it down for you.

    Venture capital, when invested, is not invested in the good itself, but in a corporation for a share in it, in the hopes that the corporation will receive patents for products, which will then enter the market, and turn profit. Actual sales from property rights accrued in patents are the fruits of science (technology) in terms of them being sold in a market (for things to be in a market, they have to be first 'property', to be property they have to have a 'patent', to have a patent, they cannot be an abstract theory but MUST be an actual invention. Basically, when you refered to the benefits of space age stuff, velcro and whatnot. THAT STUFF. not the venture capital that but the actual patents in products sold, which have a market, and have been sold.

    lol i feel like I should be charging for this.

    Second part - about gmod crops. wow. outside scope of argument. We are talking about medicine/potential medicine here.

    third part - the pope declaring genetic modification immoral. again another shift. you really want to discuss the topic of: morality and genetics. I'd be happy to just not in this thread.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)