Ask a "Mad Scientist"

[aelf]

I approve of mad scientists.


Link to video.

What do you think of movies that seem to send the message that science is dangerous (e.g. the new Planet of the Apes movie)?

 

[Borachio]

Can't science be dangerous? Or do I mean scientists? I think the Manhattan project undoubtedly had dangerous consequences.

 

[peter grimes]

The Manhattan Project didn't have dangerous consequences at all... it achieved precisely what it was supposed to: Determine if an uncontrolled nuclear reaction can be weaponized, and if so, weaponize it.

That's not a consequence. It's the purpose.

However, I'd argue that there have been largely positive unintended consequences. It's not hard to imagine that, without the looming threat of complete annihilation, that the West would have provoked a war with the Soviets. Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan were certainly bad, but without the threat of nuclear weapons you can see that there would have been little restraint in escalation.

Also, the civilian nuclear industry has been, I argue, by and large a net benefit. The scale of environmental damage from Uranium mining and spent fuel storage (which is the biggest problem yet to be solved) is much less than the problems with fossil fuels.

EDIT:
It's not the science itself that's dangerous, nor the scientists; it's the political process that directs the results of science.

 

[G-Max]

How soon will I be able to pay for genetically augmented children?

 

[Mark1031]

I was reading an interview with Jaak Panksepp the other day. The last paragraph reads:

"We think that depression is an underactive seeking urge that has been made underactive by too much psycological pain. We know that all the neural systems are still there, so our goal is to invigorate the primitive seeking urge to provide a positive affect to fight the negative pain. That's what we are going to try. "

My question is are you familiar with this approach, and do you think you could explain with a little more detail (to someone with a very limited science background) if this seems to make sense in terms of where depression (or one of the places depression) comes from and ways to treat it?

I don't know what this is specifically. I mean to state that depression is a reduction in seeking urge due to emotional pain does not seem to advance much. Emotional pain is the key and has many consequences including in not getting out of bed. So I could say it is reduced motor activity and I would treat it by putting you on a treadmill to stimulate motor programs that are clearly still there. It doesn;t get at the heart of the problem which is the emotional pain.

Psychiatry is currently a mess. The drugs are not that effective--in depression this has become quite clear recently and the Pharma companies have nothing in the pipeline and are abandoning the whole area (other than tricks to extend patents on the marginally effective things already out there).

 

[Mark1031]

What do you think of movies that seem to send the message that science is dangerous (e.g. the new Planet of the Apes movie)?

I like Sci-Fi. You need to extrapolate out the science, usually in a negative way, to make it exciting. People have lots of misconceptions about science and what is possible but in general I like mad scientists. Science is also portrayed very positively in the media and is still highly regarded.

 

[Mark1031]

it's not the science itself that's dangerous, nor the scientists; it's the political process that directs the results of science.

qft qft

 

[Mark1031]

How soon will I be able to pay for genetically augmented children?

Now and never depending on what you mean. Currently you can screen and abort for many genetic diseases that is in one sense augmenting your genetic outcome. I do not envision making GM humans any time soon for both technical and ethical reasons. I suppose it is possible that in the future we could safely alter disease genes in embryos (a legit area of research) and this would inevitably be used by someone for less serious modifications.

 

[Borachio]

We were promised rocket packs for general public use back in the 60's.

Where are they? Have we been cheated?

Also, complete meals in handy pill form.

I feel my whole life is just one big disillusion and let-down.

 

[emzie]

Wow. I have nothing to add other than I didn't realize you worked at TSRI and to offer kudos on your research.

 

[Borachio]

The Scripps Research Institute? Art thou serious?

Shall I troll, or wilt thou?

 

[Cutlass]

Given that funding was not an issue, what would you most be interested in researching and who would you most like to be working with?

 

[Borachio]

Is this a serious question? If it is, it's a good one. Let me think for a day or two.

 

[El_Machinae]

Given that funding was not an issue, what would you most be interested in researching and who would you most like to be working with?

I certainly know the answer to this. Integration of transplanted neurons with functional neural tissue is what I'd work on. This is the goal of quite a few lines of research (namely, Parkinson's neural stem cell transplantation, Huntington's transplantation, retina transplantation, etc.) and I really (really!) think it will be the breakthrough medicine of the late 2020s.

And I find the idea to be awesome. Imagine having thoughts with the neurons you were born with, and then transplanting in new (young) neurons that then adapt to hold your previous memories and personality ... eventually, if done correctly, you'd be able to maintain a stream of consciousness continuous with your younger years, despite your old neurons dying off.

This isn't too outrageous. We already naturally do this with our olfactory bulb and our hippocampus. In fact, the 'childhood memories' you get when you smell certain things (cooking, the farm, etc.) are inspired by new olfactory neurons that have replaced the ones you used to form the memories!

IMO, donations to Parkinson's research is the best way of helping this type of research for those who don't work directly in the sciences.

 

[Borachio]

Whoa! Scary ideas. I'm going back to scary MOAR cats right away.

 

[G-Max]

Now and never depending on what you mean. Currently you can screen and abort for many genetic diseases that is in one sense augmenting your genetic outcome. I do not envision making GM humans any time soon for both technical and ethical reasons. I suppose it is possible that in the future we could safely alter disease genes in embryos (a legit area of research) and this would inevitably be used by someone for less serious modifications.

Screening is not augmentation.

Why would altering disease genes be ethical, but altering other genes be unethical? How do you decide what is a "disease gene" and what isn't? If we repaired the gulonolactone oxidase pseudogene, which has not functioned in our ancestors for the past 70 million years, would that be crossing the line? Can I get an over-expressed NR2B gene by claiming that current levels of expression are a public inborn "disease" similar to hypoascorbemia?

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, with a simple analysis, 'correcting' a gene would have a known outcome. Trying to augment someone (at the genotypic level) wouldn't have the same known outcome, and would be experimenting upon a sentient being.

I think using genetic augmentation of adult tissue is much more reasonable. Popping in specific genes into specific organs would firstly allow consent issues to be a non-issue. As well, we'd be able to experiment much more easily in vitro ahead of time.

That said, g-max, you should look at the research of Michael R. Hayden. He's really big into single-gene augmentations.

 

[Bartel]

Actually a neuroscience professor and I had an "ask a" thread in the old OT that may answer a lot of questions and is still readable. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=232069

I chose the new title because we had a paper recently that got some press and someone emailed me a blog where I was called a mad scientist-cool.



http://lemonsblack.com/rekall-false-memory-induction/

So am I mad? Does this research frighten you? Do scientists frighten you?

Or ask any questions about being a professional research scientist or University Professor or about the brain.

Hahaha,

well being the author of the blog post obviously my first question to you has to be:

Could you list your SciFi collection please?


- Bartel

 

[Borachio]

There's a Horselover Fat fan here on the forum isn't there? Who was it?

My real name by a like process comes out at DearFriend Breath.

 

[Mark1031]

Hahaha,

well being the author of the blog post obviously my first question to you has to be:

Could you list your SciFi collection please?


- Bartel

Ha how did you find this little corner of the internet? Well, My favorite is/was Star Trek TOS. I watched it as a kid and again in college. It is enjoyable from many angles from th4e campy special effects to the captains lame womanizing and overacting but really it presents a social and political commentary and extrapolation of humanity into the future that I found very appealing. I wouldn;t say I am a huge Sci-Fi fan for instance I havent even seen total recall. If I like them it is for the entertainment value rather than the science.