Contemplate the next major revolution in science

[InfiniteNow]

It seems that creating life, as HydrogenBond describes it, is almost impossibly complex.

Yes, almost...

 

I would like to now direct the reader to one, of several, marvellously articulated responses by one of our members here on Hypography:

 

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/5257-show-me-i-ll-believe-5.html#post83706

Let's take a look at prebiogenesis (as I like to think of it), or as archeo-organic chemistry. Have you heard this reasoning before?

 

 

Check out the link provided to read the rest... :)

[hallenrm]

I think a possible approach would be to first try making something like a mitochondia from an aqueus suspension of its lipid components proteins and whatsoever. I am reminded of my research work, in which I studies liposomes of cardiolipin, a phospholipid largely found in mitochondrion. I also remember of having read about self organizing structures. What is really needed is a viable method that would lead to self organization of the constituents of a simplest biological organism from its constituent molecules.

 

I do think, it would be possible one day :)

[Michaelangelica]

Yes, almost...

 

I would like to now direct the reader to one, of several, marvellously articulated responses by one of our members here on Hypography:

 

 

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/5257-show-me-i-ll-believe-5.html#post83706

Thanks for the tip - a very articulate and interesting discussion.

[Qfwfq]

Actually, the boldest of the current aims is that of completely designing a genome that would actually be an organism. This is clearly a greater step than just modifying E. Coli or whatever species.

 

The idea is hat, as it would be ID rather than trial and error evolution, one could optimize the design far more than what Nature has achieved. Some have even re-concieved the fundamental code a bit, making better use of the three-base combinations and using a few more amino acids. Drew Endy and Tom Knights of MIT are pioneering the idea of "BioBricks". Dr. Craig Venter, the one who tried to map the human genome as a for-profit commercial venture, is even designing a minimal bacterium genome, the bare essential for survival and reproduction in the right environmental conditions. He reckons he should succeed within a couple of years.

[hallenrm]

Another revolution would be in the realm of chemistry, if it is proved that the laws of chemistry are different at very low concentrations, as is the claim of Homeopathy.

 

:)

[Michaelangelica]

Another revolution would be in the realm of chemistry, if it is proved that the laws of chemistry are different at very low concentrations, as is the claim of Homeopathy.

 

:)

OK I'll bite at the bait. (I tried to resist)

 

Long ago someone showed me a research paper about a carcinogenic chemical when I was visiting them briefly. I didn't have a good chance to really read it, but the researchers gave the chemical in high doses and dropped the dosage lower and lower to see what dose would NOT produce cancer. They found this, but then did a strange thing; they reduced the dose lower and lower and lower until suddenly they were getting the same number of cancer cases as with high doses.

Happy now?

I still think homeopathy needs some rigorous scientific testing and of course no drug company or government is going to do that.

 

My question to you is "If you are right - what happens to us and the environment with mega-tones of carcinogenic and tetrogenic ( tetragenic ?) chemicals (especially, but not only, chlorinated hydrocarbons and oregano-phosphates) being thrown about yearly? What are we doing to ourselves and to the planet?"

 

For example Google "phytoplankton,chlorinated hydrocarbon, DDE, DDT"

It is scary especially as phytoplankton is so important to world oxygen and world temperature and the sea food-chain.

 

So back-on-topic maybe the next major revolution will be that we respect each other and take care of ourselves and the planet we all live on.

[hallenrm]

I still think homeopathy needs some rigorous scientific testing and of course no drug company or government is going to do that.

 

And no government is going to accept any genuine finding, because most scientists depend on the funding of the drug companies. What is the way out then, keep believing them or rely a bit on self experimentatio? :cup:

[Michaelangelica]

And no government is going to accept any genuine finding, because most scientists depend on the funding of the drug companies.

What is the way out then, keep believing them or rely a bit on self experimentatio? :hihi:

OK

check mate

[Qfwfq]

And no government is going to accept any genuine finding, because most scientists depend on the funding of the drug companies.

And who make most of the money from homeopathy? Somebody is certainly making a lot of it.

[hallenrm]

Well I do not know about the price of homeopathis remedies in the west, but here in India they are often very inexpensive, often one hundredth of the cost of the alternate medicine that an allopath would recommend. :)

[CraigD]

Another revolution would be in the realm of chemistry, if it is proved that the laws of chemistry are different at very low concentrations, as is the claim of Homeopathy.

Although the fundamental hypotheses of homeopathy, which were proposed in the late 18th century, appear incompatible with current biological theory, the more recent ideas that Rupert Sheldrake proposes with his morphogenetic field hypothesis appear to me to have much in common with them

 

Though interesting, since becoming widely known in the early 1990s, Sheldrake’s ideas, particularly his Seven Experiments That Could Change the World, have failed to produce reproducible results when adequately controlled. Since 7ETCCTW encourages amateurs to conduct the experiments and report results, there are many unreproducible, positive results. We discussed this at some length in ”Diseases and cures”.

 

In short, neither homeopathy nor the theory of morphogenic fields has yet been supported by empirical evidence, while attempts to support basic theoretical explanations have yet to be successful. Given that substantial resources are needed for such research to proceed, and the absence of much hope that it will produce useful therapies, securing these resources will likely be difficult.

 

I still think homeopathy needs some rigorous scientific testing and of course no drug company or government is going to do that.

And no government is going to accept any genuine finding, because most scientists depend on the funding of the drug companies. What is the way out then, keep believing them or rely a bit on self experimentation? :shrug:

Drug companies and governments may have no incentive to experiment with alternative therapies - although, responding to popular demand, the US federal government funded in 1998 a large research institution under the NIH, the NCCAM, despite scientific criticism of diverting funding from more mainstream research.

 

In the US, health care is very expensive, making insurance a near necessity for all but the healthy and the wealthy. Here, and in many smaller countries whose governments are not “health insurers of last resort”, there is great interest in inexpensive alternative therapies, because of their proven ability to reduce the operating cost of health care insurers. Also, health insurers compete in their market, so, in order to remain financially solvent, must offer popular therapies to attract healthy, “low utilizer” customers, even if such therapies lack proven medical value.

 

I work for a private, not-for-profit US-only healthcare organization with a large research foundation. Although we offer, if patients request it, alternative treatments such as chiropracty and acupuncture, we determined in the early 1990s that, although chemically harmless, homeopathic medicine posed too great a health risk for our clinicians to promote it. The reason for this is a history of incidents in which patients treating themselves or their friends or family members at home refrained from using mainstream medicines in favor of homeopathic medicines. A typical scenario:

• The mother calls a medical advice nurse, reporting that her 2-year-old has a 39° C (102° F) fever, and asking if she should treat it with a homeopathic remedy
  
• Because fevers of this temperature are usually non-dangerous, the AN advises her to go ahead, but to contact her if the fever increases
  
• Mom administers the homeopathic medicine (nearly pure water)
  
• Fever increases
  
• Mom does not contact the AN, but continues to give the homeopathic medicine
  
• Fever increases to 42° +. Child can’t be woken up, begins having sezures.
  
• Mom contacts AN, goes to clinic or emergency room.
  
• Due to untreated high fever, child suffers organ damage or death.
  

So, while the homeopathic medicine in this scenario could not have caused harm, it’s use, and poor communication, did. Had either of 2 more conventional treatments: acetaminophen (Tylenol) or cool baths, been used, no injury would have resulted.

 

In practical, medical professional terms, medical care is about preventing injury and death, not about promoting revolutionary alternative ideas. As a result, IMHO, medical professionals are very cautious about promoting such ideas, regardless of how interesting they may be.

[CraigD]

Well I do not know about the price of homeopathis remedies in the west, but here in India they are often very inexpensive, often one hundredth of the cost of the alternate medicine that an allopath would recommend. :shrug:

The first relevant find of a websearch for “homeopathic price” found “Allergies hayfever pollen homeopathic medicine (1 fl oz)” with a “regular price” of $US 16.20, and a discount price of $11.80. At its recommended dosage of 10-15 drops/day (a “standard” drop is 1/288 fl oz), its cost is $1.18 - $1.97 /day. (no link provided per hypography’s spam policy)

The first relevant find of a websearch for “allergy medicine price” was for “Clarinex (90 tabs)” with a discount price of $300. At its recommended dosage of 1 tab/day, its cost is $3.33 /day

A search for a more common medicine “Tylenol”, found a price of $14.99 for 250 caplets. At their recommended maximum dosage of 8/day, its cost is $0.48 /day.

 

Browsing homeopathic retailer’s websites suggests that the price of homeopathic medicines tend to be about $15/bottle, with bottles varying from 1 to 4 fl oz volume, usually about a 10 day supply. Conventional medicines vary more in price, with the low of Tylenol and the high for Clarinex being reasonably representative.

 

That the prices of both conventional and homeopathic medicine in the US are similar is unsurprising. In both cases, the research and production cost of these medicines is much lower than the cost to the consumer, which is driven not by the supplier’s cost, but by “what the market will bear”. US consumers appear to be able to bear a cost of roughly $10-20 for a container holding roughly a 10 day supply of medicine.

[hallenrm]

Well, I tend to agree with you almost absolutely, no therapy is perfect more so when experience by misinformed an unexperienced. One of the gravest shortcoming of homeopathy is that very often its practitioners do not have adequate knowledge of its limitations. But that is equally true of the allopathic medicines, especially in the uneconomically less developed regions of the developing nations, like India. Cases where patients die because of the inadequate knowledge of the doctor are at least as common. However, in response to your statements

 

In short, neither homeopathy nor the theory of morphogenic fields has yet been supported by empirical evidence, while attempts to support basic theoretical explanations have yet to be successful. Given that substantial resources are needed for such research to proceed, and the absence of much hope that it will produce

 

I would only cite umpteen such instances, where the truth is concealed or not allowed to be publicized by the wealthy and more influential. Nobody can deny the influence that wealthy drug companies can exert on any researcher who could challenge their monopoly.

 

Only time can be the real judge, and let us wait till the final judgment is pronounced and try not to pronounce judgments we are ill equipped for!

 

:shrug:

[hallenrm]

In response to the statement by CraigD

In short, neither homeopathy nor the theory of morphogenic fields has yet been supported by empirical evidence, while attempts to support basic theoretical explanations have yet to be successful. Given that substantial resources are needed for such research to proceed, and the absence of much hope that it will produce useful therapies, securing these resources will likely be difficult.

 

Here is a section of the page from wikipedia you have referred above

 

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, states that:

The results of individual, controlled clinical trials of homeopathy have been contradictory. In some trials, homeopathy appeared to be no more helpful than a placebo; in other studies, some benefits were seen that the researchers believed were greater than one would expect from a placebo.

A common theme in the reviews of homeopathy trials is that because of these problems and others, it is difficult or impossible to draw firm conclusions about whether homeopathy is effective for any single clinical condition.

There is a point of view that homeopathy does work, but that modern scientific methods have not yet explained why. The failure of science to provide full explanations for all treatments is not unique to homeopathy.

Some people feel that if homeopathy appears to be helpful and safe, then scientifically valid explanations or proofs of this alternative system of medicine are not necessary.

The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine continues to fund research into homeopathy.

[IDMclean]

I suspect the next revolution in science will be one regarding the nature of social sciences. As of yet the social sciences with the exception of Psychology, have the tendecy towards subjective material.

 

The trend I see becoming apparent within the next generation or two would be one of the science of Governance, Education, Ethics, and Resource Collection and Allocation. At current these things are of little or no concearn to the scientific community in terms of real research, theory, and law.