If we can eliminate these concerns, then the decision seems rather simple in cases like CF.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
My 5 year old boy and 7 year old girl freakin love Star Wars.They have watched and rewatched all six movies.
Most of their little friends love Star Wars, too. Take a look at toy stores, and you fill find sections of Star Wars junk, indicating the continued interest among youngsters..
Star Wars.has already been "passed down" to the next generation.
Good thing you're not a mouse.
I don't think this is as big of a problem as you do.
Regardless of the instrument's origin (bought for big $ from company or open source built), scientists are going to run positive controls. It's a common practice for GOOD experiments. In this case, apply treatment X to a mouse, and you should see response Y as measured by the instrument. If you don't see response Y in the positive control, you cannot trust experimental results. If the positive control give expected results, then reviewers have little choice but to accept the experimental result.
You need to do the same thing for fancypants commercial instruments to make certain they are working properly, operated properly, and the rest of the experimental variables (the mice, the treatment) are as expected.
Bottom line is that if the homebrew instruments work reliably for the positive controls, they will be easily accepted.
I think this is the explanation. The lead author convinced herself that the procedure worked. Apparently, she was rather easily convinced by her own ideas. In order to convince other scientists, she had to fabricate some results. Those fabricated results enabled publication of the papers through peer review.
The whole thing stinks. Let's say there is some merit to making pluripotent cells by stressing them with acid. Well, by lying about some of her results, the lead author essentially poisoned the whole area of research. She has made it difficult to now work on this topic because it will be overly scrutinized by any reviewer. Let say the whole idea is bogus. The lead author wasted time and energy of researchers around the world who are interested in this process.
Although this may be obvious. The lesson is just never make up data. It is so myopic to think that you will benefit in any REAL way.
Not really. Osteopathy works for neck, back and other musculo-skeletal problems. For someone who wants to medically help people, it makes sense to seek this knowledge in addition to the allopathic MD curriculum.
Now, there are some other aspects of the training, like cranial therapy, which have not been proven to be effective. You can call practitioners of these types of therapies quacks. Fine with me. But, most DOs never draw from that part of their training when they actually go to the clinic. To condemn someone as a quack because they sought useful training that included some non-useful aspects - that doesn't make much sense.
Didn't mean to call you a name. The AC was the twit, as his example was given for homeopathy, which is complete bullshit witchcraft.
That said, I respectfully disagree with your point of view.
I know dozens of MDs and DOs. I teach at a medical school and know curriculum at Osteopathy schools. Many DOs take the American Medical Association tests for their board exams. As far as I can tell, they are essentially the same with the exception that DOs get an osteopathic manipulation training.
Now, I am not going to argue that the osteopathic manipulations work for non-musculoskeletal problems.
But, I will argue that the person is not some quack just because they got training in osteopathy.
Actually, editing the genome is not that far off. We do it in mice and other animals with ease. A recent discovery of CRISPR/Cas9 RNA Guided Nucleases make it a remarkably trivial procedure.
In GATTACA, embryos were screened for beneficial alleles, and the one deemed to be "best" were implanted. This is different than actually editing an embryo's genome.
OK, I get that it is currently a bad idea to try to clone humans or modify an embryo's DNA. We essentially do not yet know how do it with an acceptable safety. So, the process is likely to cause harm to humans, and is wrong.
But eventually, it will be safe and probably fairly easy.
At that point, what is wrong with eliminating a mutation in an embryo to prevent a disease during subsequent adulthood. And if there is nothing wrong with that, then what is wrong with making a change to make the eventual adult a smarter person?