Roxy highlights her choice for the perfect guys to look for this summer.
Roxy looks at whether the "other woman" is always in the wrong.
Taking advantage of their position of power, scientists build up unrealistic hope in where their research can lead. Rather than expressing caution, they prefer to ride the wave of false expectations given to the public. The detrimental consequences this has on those in desperate situations are ignored.
A year ago Britain granted permission for research into Hybrid-Embryos. These embryos are created using eggs taken from cow ovaries. The cow DNA is then extracted and replaced with human DNA. Simply the idea of these part-cow, part-human embryos created public outcry. In response to this opposition, claims emerged from scientists as to the role of these embryos in the cure for neurodegenerative disease. Professor Chris Shaw from King's College argued, "This technique has the potential for very important outcomes for patients. To shut this research down at the moment would be an affront to those patients."
Defensive scientists exploited the lack of public knowledge into the technique
Gordon Brown was convinced that, “Scientists are close to the breakthroughs that will allow embryonic stem cells to be used to treat a much wider range of conditions, especially those affecting the brain and nervous system … I also see the profound opportunity we have to save and transform millions of lives through this strand of medicine.”
Defensive scientists exploited the lack of public knowledge into the technique. Simple diagrams in newspaper articles failed to reveal the fundamental problems within the development of the embryos, never mind complications in their therapeutic uses.
A paper published at the start of February 2009 unearthed the deception. Robert Lanza et al., of Advanced Cell Technology, Los Angeles, show that these hybrid embryos fail to grow beyond a 16 cell stage. On top of this, the cells showed inability to develop into the multiple cell types required.
This failure can be put down to a simple issue with the primary process that was predicted by many scientists from the start. In fact, any scientist studying even at undergraduate level would be fully aware of the limited chances of success. The problem lies in the differential communication processes in humans and cows, resulting in the inability of human DNA to relate to the cow machinery that remains in the egg.
So why did scientists such as Professor Chris Shaw continue on this venture? Especially when one considers the high potential in already extensively researched human adult and embryonic stem cells, the project seems futile. It appears to be simply a matter of ego, with scientists competing in attempts to “lead the way” in new areas of science, fooling the public into a sense of false optimism.
I don't think that it is usualy the "Scientists" (with a capital S?) that are purposely misleading the public, but rather sensationalist journalism. The media likes to pick up on research that will make good headlines, but do not explain the full picture - the complax nature of scientific and medical research and the timescales invovled. I don't think you can blaim scientists for this.
In my experience the standard of main stream scientific journalism is very poor and often misleading.
Thank you #1.
Let us please try not to disrespect 'Scientists' like that.
The significance of stem cell research is undeniable, even if some aspects of it have been hyped up by a few individuals and the media.
I completely agree with #1, scientists (note lower case!) do not over exaggerate their results, journalists do.
You refer to the Lanza et al. paper, this is a scientific paper, in a scientific journal; if you read scientific journals they do not at all talk about how their research will cure every known disease to man and how they are the best. They report their results, good or bad, and state the implications.
You ask why scientists continue on ventures which have failed in the past? this is called "research", we look at things which have failed, and look to make them work; we don't give up on the first hurdle.
This is probably the worst science blog article written on here and as #2 points out, it disrespects scientists; and it clearly points out what #1 has said about the poor standard of scientific journalism; this article is a prime example!
These are people who spend their whole lives trying to solve a problem which may not be solved in their lifetime. But without these scientists our lives would be very different today.
I am wholeheartedly proud to be a scientist and will be to the day I day. It is people like the author of this article which give us a bad name. I spend my days in a lab researching and regularly have things not work, thats what happens when dealing with the unknown.
Maybe the author should actually speak to some scientists before accusing us of "manipulating peoples emotions"?
Well, to an extent I agree with the above. On the other hand, scientists will always try to make it look like they can achieve more than they can to get more funding. The LHC in Switzerland is unlikely to find much and that which it may or may not find is unlikely to shape the world as much as, say, the possibility of fusion power.
Likewise the article only refers to biologists, so "scientists" is a bit of an exaggerated blanket term. And things like "these part-cow, part-human embryos" is probably, I'd say, a little bit of media exaggeration?
But yes, everyone blows everything out of proportion. And yet there are some major events in science that go unnoticed because of crazy cow stories and animal testing riots... Perspective is needed on all fronts and the public should stop being so gullible and do proper research on what they read (and the media too)! 
"The LHC in Switzerland is unlikely to find much and that which it may or may not find is unlikely to shape the world as much as, say, the possibility of fusion power."
Jason, the LHC may not directly 'change the world', but it is arguably one of the most important experiments in the history of science, as it will enhance our ability to answer key questions such as:
a) Is the Higgs mechanism for generating elementary particle masses in the Standard Model indeed realised in nature? If so, how many Higgs bosons are there, and what are their masses?
b) Are electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force just different manifestations of a single unified force, as predicted by various Grand Unification Theories?
c) Why is gravity so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three fundamental forces?
d) Is Supersymmetry realised in nature, implying that the known Standard Model particles have supersymmetric partners?
e) Are there additional sources of quark flavour violation beyond those already predicted within the Standard Model?
f) Why are there apparent violations of the symmetry between matter and antimatter?
g) What is the nature of dark matter and dark energy?
h) Are there extra dimensions, as predicted by various models inspired by string theory, and can we detect them?
#2 I did not see anywhere in the article in which the significance of stem cell research was denied, only the specific example of hybrid embryos. However it is true that the media plays a much larger role in over-exaggeration than individual scientists.
Also #3 yes science is about solving problems, but why begin to undertake a task such as hybrid embryos when research into embryonic stem cells is gaining so much ground. It seems to me that the failure of hybrid embryos to develop was a forgone conclusion, so time and funding would have been better spent on furthering research already being undertaken into embryonic and adult stem cells.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report