Genetically modified mosquitoes could combat malaria, scientists say

Jun 19, 2008 Full story: hosted.ap.org 8

In a cramped, humid laboratory in London, mosquitoes swarming in stacked, net-covered cages are being scrutinized for keys to controlling malaria.

Full Story
Adrian in Tacoma

Auburn, WA

#1 Jun 19, 2008
Sounds like another killer bee experiment gone awry, combat one aspect that may create a mutation...

“Blood Type B - Attitude B +”

Since: Mar 08

Felton California

#2 Jun 19, 2008
This is what concerns me about some science, specifically genetic modification. The immediate result, if positive, seems to overshadow further testing or thought about long term effects on the rest of the cycle of life. It is an easy "sell" to a mass market of people that are not very educated and don't think much beyond wanting immediate answers to problems in life. These same people tend to assume that science always does it's homework and has thought out all of the potential problems. Not always the case. Sometimes science gets too wrapped up in the immediate potential and immediate results to think about the bigger picture. I love science , don't get me wrong. Not all science is good science. Interesting and fascinating almost always. Practical and sound, not always.
truthist

Houston, TX

#3 Jun 19, 2008
Science is not human. Humans are not science. Science is a tool in the hands of some of us.
Science is neither good nor bad.
Humans use science for good or for bad.
Who decides what is good or what is bad?

What do the humans want via science?

“Blood Type B - Attitude B +”

Since: Mar 08

Felton California

#5 Jun 20, 2008
truthist wrote:
Science is not human. Humans are not science. Science is a tool in the hands of some of us.
Science is neither good nor bad.
Humans use science for good or for bad.
Who decides what is good or what is bad?
What do the humans want via science?
Okay, gotcha. It's not the science that is good or bad, you are quite correct. The motivation behind those who are using the science would be a better way to say it. Who decides what is good or bad? Now that's a general question if I ever heard one. People decide what is everyday. That doesn't necessarily make something good or bad. Nonetheless this is the one decision that most influences how people behave. What they decide is good or bad. I'm not qualifying good or bad. I'm saying a scientific breakthrough should not be accepted on face value as a "good" thing, I suppose anymore than as a "bad" thing. But we need to question whether using some science for certain purposes is worth whatever ,say, side effects it may have. At least until we have considered all sides of the coin.

“Blood Type B - Attitude B +”

Since: Mar 08

Felton California

#6 Jun 20, 2008
truthist wrote:
Science is not human. Humans are not science. Science is a tool in the hands of some of us.
Science is neither good nor bad.
Humans use science for good or for bad.
Who decides what is good or what is bad?
What do the humans want via science?
Some humans may believe they are using science for good without having considered any of the other effects that may be produced beyond their single agenda.
truthist

Katy, TX

#7 Jun 21, 2008
been there9 wrote:
<quoted text>Some humans may believe they are using science for good without having considered any of the other effects that may be produced beyond their single agenda.
Why would they do that? Bad agenda, right?

That is why the french developed the cost-benefit analysis almost two centuries ago.

That's why we developed in USA the risk-based decision-making at all levels of the society.

That's why education, communication, and rule of law are necessary components of a healthy community.

Democratic process and accountability are the operational tools to apply at the individual level.

“Be jealous”

Since: Jun 08

Connersville

#8 Jun 30, 2008
sounds like I Am Legend!! i think i'll take my malaria

“Blood Type B - Attitude B +”

Since: Mar 08

Felton California

#9 Jun 30, 2008
truthist wrote:
<quoted text>Why would they do that? Bad agenda, right?
That is why the french developed the cost-benefit analysis almost two centuries ago.
That's why we developed in USA the risk-based decision-making at all levels of the society.
That's why education, communication, and rule of law are necessary components of a healthy community.
Democratic process and accountability are the operational tools to apply at the individual level.
And that is why Pharmaceuticals are recalled and taken off the market "after" the ill effects are discovered. Are you trying to say that big corperations that have their own agenda would never find a way to market a product of science without completely understanding its affects. And sometimes in spite of understanding them. Have you ever hear of the cigarette industry.They used chemicals and science to make their product more addictive. Or you really suggestion their is no room for concern.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Northeast Indiana Bancorp Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Most at forum for Harrison Square (Mar '07) Mar '07 john brown 1
•••

Northeast Indiana Bancorp People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••