[Hacksaw]

Did a search - did not see this posted.

[MegaSilver]

I believe the underlying problem is that government funding, which increasingly dominates medical research, demands that a "political" consensus be substituted for the exploration of rival theories by the normal trial and error of scientific method. Government agencies won't fund rival theories.

For goodness' sakes, government is the PROBLEM, not the answer! How long does it take people to figure this out??

[HassanBenSobar]

Complete and utter rubbish.

[TexasRepublic]

But far greater stretches of the same DNA are "non coding regions," and for many years they were called "junk." That was the word scientists used. Junk DNA had no function and could be ignored. These enormous sequences, amounting to 98.5 percent of the whole genome, were dismissed as the accumulated rubbish and detritus left behind by the constant trial and error of evolution.

That sounds like the Windows Registry.

[NJ_gent]

I almost get the sense he wants us to totally abandon science altogether because it's not infallible, is sometimes done or controlled by people with non-scientific agendas, is occassionally overhyped by overzealous individuals, does not always live up to its potential immediately, is difficult, doesn't yield instant results, and is sometimes used by people to push whatever it is they're selling.

Wow, welcome to reality.

Peer review and independent confirmation is always very important to the scientific process. Theories are formed, modified, refined, and destroyed all the time. What's important is that we continue striving towards a goal of ultimate truth, whatever that means. Keeping the work and the goals ethically sound, and keeping the process pure are what benefit us as a race and allow us to yield good results as a society. To be afraid of the unknown is natural - to stifle research because we don't wish to hear the truth is criminal.

[garbanzo]

What exactly happened to the American Spectator? What used to be a decent political magazine has become a hotbed of crackpotism.

[Quix]

THANKS.

Bureaucracy strikes with idiocy,

AGAIN!

About the best it can do, usually.

[lainde]

Excellent article! Thanks for posting.

[GulliverSwift]

The real problem with scientific research is that it's too tied to the government and the university. Problem is, though, that the govmint has so much cash it can direct research instead of letting the free market decide which scientific frontiers need to be explored. Those who criticize this article damn well ought to concede this fact. AIDS kills nowhere near the amount of people proportionate to the amount of money we spend on it.

[grassroot]

Ahem, small (g) in the title would be more appropriate.

[exDemMom]

I believe the underlying problem is that government funding, which increasingly dominates medical research, demands that a "political" consensus be substituted for the exploration of rival theories by the normal trial and error of scientific method.

I would have to disagree with that. Government funding (mostly) paid for my PhD, but it didn't direct my research. Even within the parameters of the boss's grant (i.e. government funding), I had considerable leeway to research the stuff I wanted to research. There was no pressure on us to produce only "politically correct" results.

What I see here as the major problem is the hype surrounding the scientific discoveries. All of these claims made about sequencing the human genome, and none of them based in fact. No one who knows anything about the subject ever expected that once the genome was decoded, cures for everything would be right around the corner. Yet, that was in the media, day after day. Where does such hype come from? I would blame the media, except that most media types understand less about science than they do politics, and, therefore, don't even know enough to promote such a scam. That leaves only other scientists--they should be ashamed of themselves for engaging in such hype.

[Elsie]

Let the GAMES begin!

[Physicist]

Dateline 1755: "Another God Fails: Electricity All Hype, Franklin in Disgrace, All Hope of Phenomenon's Utility Finally Debunked"

[jennyp]

Phillip Johnson, the U.C. Berkeley law professor who began a new career some 15 years ago as an articulate critic of evolutionism, thinks that "DNA is vastly less important than we have been led to believe."

He's not a scientist - but he did sleep at a Holiday Inn one night. Plus he's the father of modern fabian creationsm, and in Tom Bethell's mind, this makes him an expert on genomics.