Here’s a news item that caught my eye on 17 December 2010.
Quote1
WASHINGTON (AFP) -- A White House panel said on Thursday the controversial field of synthetic biology, or manipulating the DNA of organisms to forge new life forms, poses limited risks and should be allowed to proceed. … The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues “concluded that synthetic biology is capable of significant but limited achievements posing limited risks. … Future developments may raise further objections, but the commission found no reason to endorse additional federal regulations or a moratorium on work in this field at this time.” …
Comment1
This is a standard utilitarian approach to ethics: to consider the nett of pleasures and pains (in modern terms benefits and costs) when deciding if an act is moral. What is lacking here is anticipation – looking ahead to foresee that pleasures and pains could emerge from this new science, and then deciding which to permit or forbid. By the time the deed is done, it would be too late to forbid its doing. Ethics must stay ahead of technology, not bring up the rear when the genie is out of the bottle.
Quote2
The 13-member panel of scientists, ethicists and public policy experts was created by [US President Barack] Obama last year. Its first order of business was to consider the issue of synthetic biology after the J. Craig Venter Institute announced in May it had developed the first self-replicating bacteria cell controlled by a synthetic genome. Those opposed to Venter's techniques said the discovery was tantamount to “playing God.” … Announcing the creation of the “first synthetic cell,” lead researcher Craig Venter said at the time it “certainly changed my views of the definitions of life and how life works.” But the commission said Venter’s team had not actually created life, since the work mainly involved altering an already existing life form. …
Comment2
What is life? That is one question. The commission discounts “altering an existing life form” as creating life. Venter does not say what his new view of life is. Nor are we told what are the implications of "life".
Comment3
A second question arising from this quote is: What is the meaning of the phrase “playing God?” Life is created by God. So goes the Judaeo-Christian belief. Thus, if man can create life, then man has done something that thus far has been done only by God. Is there also a claim that only God can create life? Or can the status “God” be claimed by any entity that can create life?
Quote3
“We are disappointed that ‘business as usual’ has won out over precaution in the commission’s report,” said Eric Hoffman, biotechnology policy campaigner for Friends of the Earth and of the signatories. “Self-regulation equates to no regulation.”
Comment4
Generally, we trust individuals to regulate their own moral behaviour. We do not consider this to be “no regulation”. Thus, the claim that “self-regulation equates to no regulation” is simply not true. The question here is: Can scientists self-regulate? Or do they believe science is an amoral activity, and therefore exempt from regulation of any kind?
END
Friday, 17 December 2010
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
A new insight for philosophy cafe
I recently completed my best work to date: the formulation of an instrument to address any question whatsoever. Here's the basic concept. All questions fall into one or more of seven generic question forms, each of which can be addressed with an algorithm. The set of seven question forms and their associated algorithms enable us to address any question whatsoever.
Eager to test my creation, I asked several of my philosophy cafe regulars to try it out. They were nice enough to agree, and we gathered in a food court to do the needful. After some chit-chat, we began the experiment.
The two questions they tossed at my newly created instrument were: "Is a red apple a green apple?" and "Can a thing be also not a thing?" They said these were intended to stress test the instrument. When it produced the answers "no" and "no", the testers' reaction was less than enthusiastic. They seemed dismayed that the answers were what they were, and that the answers were so quickly arrived at.
I have long known that people like to jump to conclusions, with little or no concern for sound arguments supporting those conclusions. The work that needs to be done here is to slow their thinking down and to make them give due regard to supporting arguments.
This experience awakened in me a new insight. People interested in philosophy are reluctant to reach conclusions, regardless the supporting arguments. Certainly this is what I find in published philosophy -- endless hairs being split, and endless complications being introduced, with no end in sight. The work that needs to be done here is to persuade philosophers that answering one question does not entail the demise of all questions. There will be other philosophically interesting questions for us to examine.
The experience also makes me wonder about whether or not to resume my philosophy cafe sessions. Is there now no point in resuming it, or is there now an additional point in resuming it? What would Don Quixote say?
END
Eager to test my creation, I asked several of my philosophy cafe regulars to try it out. They were nice enough to agree, and we gathered in a food court to do the needful. After some chit-chat, we began the experiment.
The two questions they tossed at my newly created instrument were: "Is a red apple a green apple?" and "Can a thing be also not a thing?" They said these were intended to stress test the instrument. When it produced the answers "no" and "no", the testers' reaction was less than enthusiastic. They seemed dismayed that the answers were what they were, and that the answers were so quickly arrived at.
I have long known that people like to jump to conclusions, with little or no concern for sound arguments supporting those conclusions. The work that needs to be done here is to slow their thinking down and to make them give due regard to supporting arguments.
This experience awakened in me a new insight. People interested in philosophy are reluctant to reach conclusions, regardless the supporting arguments. Certainly this is what I find in published philosophy -- endless hairs being split, and endless complications being introduced, with no end in sight. The work that needs to be done here is to persuade philosophers that answering one question does not entail the demise of all questions. There will be other philosophically interesting questions for us to examine.
The experience also makes me wonder about whether or not to resume my philosophy cafe sessions. Is there now no point in resuming it, or is there now an additional point in resuming it? What would Don Quixote say?
END
A new life form found
Source: The Straits Times, 4 December 2010, p.A18
Headline: Bacterium in US lake unlike any other known life form
Quote1
WASHINGTON: All life on Earth ... requires the element phosphorus as one of its six essential components. But now researchers have uncovered a bacterium that ... has replaced phosphorus with its toxic cousin, arsenic. "What we've found is a microbe doing something new," said scientist Felisa Wolfe-Simon, ... who made the ground-breaking discovery at California's Mono Lake. ... "We've cracked open the door to what's possible for life elsewhere in the universe. And that's profound," [said Dr Wolfe-Simon]. ...
Comment1
A single incident of X is sufficient to prove that X is possible -- because it has happened. A single incident on earth implies nothing for the rest of the universe. It is not profound.
Quote2
Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies [said]: "It defies logic to think she [Dr Wolfe-Simon] found the only example of this kind of unusual life. Quite clearly, this is the tip of a huge iceberg." ...
Comment2
Someone enters a darkened room 1,000 times and each time emerges with a white ball. These experiences lead him to declare that all balls are white. On the 1,001st expedition into the darkened room, he emerges with a black ball. It is logical to then declare: "A ball is possibly black." It is not logical therefrom to declare: "There is here a roomful of black balls." Doing that would commit the Fallacy of Hasty Generalisation.
Quote3
The discovery could also have a major impact on space missions to Mars and elsewhere looking for life. The experiments on such missions are designed to ferret out the handful of chemical elements and reactions that have been known to characterise life on earth. Scientists are now asking if the searches should be widened. -- Washington Post, AFP, NYT.
Comment3
Up until this discovery, all life on earth has had six essential components, including phosphorus. From this observation, we concluded that these six components are necessary for life, even equivalent to life -- which is why the hunt for extra-terrestrial life involved searching for these "elements and reactions". This new discovery presents one instance of one element (phosphorus) being not necessary. The necessity of the other five components is still intact. Hence, any widening should go only as far as to include arsenic as a seventh essential component. No further.
END
Headline: Bacterium in US lake unlike any other known life form
Quote1
WASHINGTON: All life on Earth ... requires the element phosphorus as one of its six essential components. But now researchers have uncovered a bacterium that ... has replaced phosphorus with its toxic cousin, arsenic. "What we've found is a microbe doing something new," said scientist Felisa Wolfe-Simon, ... who made the ground-breaking discovery at California's Mono Lake. ... "We've cracked open the door to what's possible for life elsewhere in the universe. And that's profound," [said Dr Wolfe-Simon]. ...
Comment1
A single incident of X is sufficient to prove that X is possible -- because it has happened. A single incident on earth implies nothing for the rest of the universe. It is not profound.
Quote2
Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies [said]: "It defies logic to think she [Dr Wolfe-Simon] found the only example of this kind of unusual life. Quite clearly, this is the tip of a huge iceberg." ...
Comment2
Someone enters a darkened room 1,000 times and each time emerges with a white ball. These experiences lead him to declare that all balls are white. On the 1,001st expedition into the darkened room, he emerges with a black ball. It is logical to then declare: "A ball is possibly black." It is not logical therefrom to declare: "There is here a roomful of black balls." Doing that would commit the Fallacy of Hasty Generalisation.
Quote3
The discovery could also have a major impact on space missions to Mars and elsewhere looking for life. The experiments on such missions are designed to ferret out the handful of chemical elements and reactions that have been known to characterise life on earth. Scientists are now asking if the searches should be widened. -- Washington Post, AFP, NYT.
Comment3
Up until this discovery, all life on earth has had six essential components, including phosphorus. From this observation, we concluded that these six components are necessary for life, even equivalent to life -- which is why the hunt for extra-terrestrial life involved searching for these "elements and reactions". This new discovery presents one instance of one element (phosphorus) being not necessary. The necessity of the other five components is still intact. Hence, any widening should go only as far as to include arsenic as a seventh essential component. No further.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)