Is this a Pandora's box?

[thedoc]

Let's see, I think we've established that you don't have a sense of humor, right?

Wrong. You have a failure to communicate.

PhilX

Are you just now noticing that?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Let's see, I think we've established that you don't have a sense of humor, right?

Wrong. You have a failure to communicate.

PhilX

Are you just now noticing that?

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

Who really gives a crap with all these "breakthroughs"? It wouldn't apply to most even if perfected - who knows when - not being multi-millionaires or billionaires. It's only these that will get the service no matter how or by what questionable means they got rich. Both now and then you aren't worth more than the bottom line on your bank statement and any entitlement to advanced therapy will be measured accordingly.

How about all the breakthroughs that many are benefitting from already such as light bulbs or cars e.g.? How does one decide who benefits and who doesn't (a marketing question)?

PhilX

The usual purchase of hi-tech objects created on an assembly line which are marketed to benefit corporations and their shareholders are in an entirely different class than the kind of breakthroughs mentioned which require the vast expertise of extremely specialized individuals to service those who need it or, for example, as an optional enhancement limiting the consequences of aging. In any event, the money you spend for an upper class new car, won't even qualify as down payment for that kind of 'individual' attention. These advanced gene technicians aren't "asking or advertising for your business; it's you who's asking or begging for their "services" which you may have access to IF you can afford it. The future availability of these services mean nothing to those who can't being the vast majority.

You have to start somewhere and it can be expanded step by step as has already happened.

PhilX

[Hobbes' Choice]

There's been far too many articles of this nature to easily dismiss because it's suspected the scientists are motivated by funding. And how would you know which projects are getting legitimate government funding?

PhilX

All project which get funding from the government are "legitimate". Legitimacy is not relevant.
The excessive use of adjectives and hyperbole that projects may or may not deserve help the scientists lay the ground for further funding. The valueing of such project, this way, often results in disappointment.

[Philosophy Explorer]

There's been far too many articles of this nature to easily dismiss because it's suspected the scientists are motivated by funding. And how would you know which projects are getting legitimate government funding?

PhilX

All project which get funding from the government are "legitimate". Legitimacy is not relevant.
The excessive use of adjectives and hyperbole that projects may or may not deserve help the scientists lay the ground for further funding. The valueing of such project, this way, often results in disappointment.

And what is your system or criteria for valuing any project before funding? How would you be able to tell if a project is worth it? For example mice studies are often done before human trials take place? It doesn't matter how successful the mouse study is because the odds are over 10 to 1 for the human trial study to be successful. A better system should be found as a lot of time and money is being wasted with mouse studies. So how does the government tell which projects are a safe bet?

Saying that people are under pressure to get government funding is like saying nothing because the government scrutinizes the worthiness of any project it gets involved with and will punish the lawbreakers. Exactly what percentage of the population is greedy? And doesn't the government have the help of the scientific community? Do you think your knowledge is better than that of the government? Why should we trust you?

PhilX

[Philosophy Explorer]

This pertains to an issue raised in this thread:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... used-funds

PhilX