Last week we brought you our first edition of LORCs (Links Of Required Clicking). Now we’re back with a new quartet of links that you simply must click.
Regulators around the world are currently grappling with how to manage the possible risks associated with first generation nanotechnologies. But increasingly sophisticated nanotechnology-based products are coming—will the old regulations still cover these emerging nanotechnologies, or is a re-think in how substances are regulated in order?
In Rob Reiner’s classic The Princess Bride, we learned about ROUSs (Rodents Of Unusual Size). Now we present a new feature from the IEET: LORCs (Links Of Required Clicking).
Intellectual property, like biopolitics, is not a simple left-right issue. There are arguments for and against patents on human genes, and patents in general, from both progressives and libertarians. Stephan Kinsella, for instance, is a libertarian critic of intellectual property.
George Dvorsky’s July IEET article “The End of Science My Ass” counters the idea put forth in several publications that breakthroughs in basic science are hitting the wall. I would like to elaborate on two major points that George made. First, based on only a partial snapshot of the most important breakthroughs included in Dvorsky’s list, he concludes the rate of scientific breakthroughs is slowing down. This needs to be understood in the context of cycles in Kuhnian revolutions. Second, the main argument both Horgan and Masood were setting out to support is that ultimately revolutions in science, not scientific breakthroughs are reaching their limits.
Before I left for an Alpine vacation of high altitude hiking, fresh air, and peace, I was pondering my response to Randall Mayes puzzlingly entitled: “In Defense of Patenting DNA: A Pragmatic Libertarian Perspective” published in Ethical Technology on July 26. In the meantime, a much more scathing and less meaty attack on my book Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes was published as a “book review” (more on this in a moment) which stoops to the same level as numerous recent bloggers who, so moved by the danger of my arguments to their cause, have attempted to attack me, and thus misses the point of most of my argument. I am glad I waited to respond to Mr. Mayes, who at least raises his own policy arguments and responds to a number of my policy arguments.
The relevance of nearly all biogerontology research to combating aging is restricted to the potential for slowing down the accumulation of molecular and cellular damage that eventually leads to age-related ill-health. Meanwhile, regenerative medicine has been progressing rapidly and is nearing clinical applicability to a wide range of specific conditions. My view is that we are approaching the point where regenerative medicine can be used against aging. This would entail not retarding but actually reversing the accumulation of damage. If successful, this would obviously be a far more valuable technology than mere slowing of aging. However, in order to be successful it must be comprehensive, and some aspects of aging may seem impossible to address in this way. In fact, however, it seems that all types of molecular and cellular damage which contribute to age-related ill-health are realistic targets of regenerative interventions.
Neanderthals are the closest evolutionary cousins to modern humans. We shared the planet with them until about 30,000 years ago when we probably killed them off. Now, as genetic and cloning technologies continue to advance rapidly, we are gaining the ability to actually bring back the Neanderthals—to resurrect them as it were. Should we?
It’s long been assumed in transhumanist circles that eventually a computer program, a robot, a cyborg, or a genetically engineered human will achieve a far greater level of intelligence than the smartest human.
Continuing our effort to flesh out the parameters of technoprogressive policy ideas by building our “Technoprogressive Policy Wiki”, we turn now to the problems created by the push to patent everything, including human genes, and shut down all fair use and copying of music, texts and film. IEET intern Ed Miller has been engaged with open source and intellectual property issues for some time, and has taken a crack at a general policy statement on this issue. We welcome feedback. - J. Hughes
Although biotechnology patents existed prior to the 1980s as the biotechnology era officially began, they soon became a divisive public policy issue. Perhaps a culture war issue is more appropriate as the free market approach of using DNA patents in biomedical research is under fire from strange bedfellows, a bioconservative-technoprogressive axis. The bioconservative criticisms are on moral grounds and the technoprogressive criticisms for economic reasons based on values.
Dr. Massimo Pigliucci critiqued my arguments against aging on his blog, Rationally Speaking. Pigliucci is a trained philosopher, so I’m going to go into hyper-academic mode for a while on this post. If you’re into long-winded, nuanced logical deconstructions of arguments and overly dry chest-beating, please read on. If not, check out these awesome warning signs of the future from Anders Sandberg. Make your choice now.
A tiny telescope, already approved for use in Europe, can be implanted in one eye to help people with an advanced form of macular degeneration. The device takes the place of the natural lens.
Athena Andreadis, Associate Professor of Cell Biology at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, author of To Seek Out New Life: The Biology of Star Trek, and IEET Fellow, talks about human-hybrids, werewolves, settling on other planets, and human evolution both past and future in this interview posted at Crossed Genres.
About a week ago, the Internet went wild with the announcement that a “fountain of youth” drug had been found that extends life by about 10%. I picked a site at random and read the report, knowing full well what I would find buried somewhere in the story. Sure enough, there it was, tucked at the end of a paragraph halfway down: the study was done on mice.
Although the fruits of genomics have yet to materialize for curing diseases, the science community does have a better understanding of how complex diseases and evolution work. In addition, genomics has a useful by-product, a tool used by forensic detectives. Using PCR, a fast and inexpensive technology for making copies of DNA, extremely small samples from blood stains, semen, hair follicles, saliva, and skin are used for DNA evidence.
Treatments for some of the world’s biggest killers, such as malaria, can’t earn enough profits for pharmaceutical companies to attract research investments. The people they kill are just too poor to be worth the investment. Fortunately scientist-activists are attempting to find ways to support vital research through the non-profit sector.
Our growing ability to decode and re-encode genomes has enabled rapid responses to emerging diseases, but also potentially empowers would-be bio-terrorists. It is urgent that we develop national and international policies to regulate this dual use technology to ensure its benefits and minimize its risks.
Over the next two or three decades, our world will change dramatically and in many different ways: we should expect political, economic, social, technological, and environmental uplifts and quite possibly revolutions. Understanding where we’ve come from, where we might go—and what our choices could be—is a first step toward taking active control over our lives and the world in which we live.
IEET Blog |
email list |
newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.
Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376
There’s Nothing Natural About Dying
IEET Blog