Science and Cycling
May. 21st, 2010 02:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redfiona99One of which is filled with shady practises and stimulant addicts and the other is a sport with issues with performance-enhancing drugs.
Craig Ventner and "artificial life"
Now while I disagree with Ventner's definition of artificial life (if you're piggy-backing on a pre-existing micro-organism, it's not artificial life) but it's still an amazing break-through. What really disappoints me is how most of the coverage is focusing on the whole 'playing god' thing, which this really isn't. While I may have huge disagreements with Ventner's views of ethics and business practises, his science is solid, and he's unlikely to have produced a doomsday device, because there's no profit in that.
Of course, this "new" science could have all kinds of unexpected consequnces, but if we're not going to do things because bad things might happen, we'd never do anything ever again.
Cycling
Despite Vino's continuing attempts to lose the Giro (10 minutes on one stage, why must your wobbly stage always be 1) on a mountain and 2) stages where other people don't wobble), the cycling news have been overshadowed by Floyd Landis coming clean.
I am deeply amused by fans of the ex-US Postal team going 'but none of the rest of our golden boys was on anything, it's just this one bad man', given that everyone they were beating at the time was on something, for them not to have been would be unlikely, not impossible mind, but deeply unlikely.
I'm also amused by Pat McQuaid going 'why is he doing it [full confessional] now, there must be an ulterior motive'. Yeah, Pat, it probably has nothing to do with the sports news media in the US only having an interest twice a year, once for the Tour de France and once for the Tour of California. Also, and this is the part I don't blame Landis for in the slightest, if I'd been hung out to dry by the establishment, I'd want to bring down as many of them as I could too.
Craig Ventner and "artificial life"
Now while I disagree with Ventner's definition of artificial life (if you're piggy-backing on a pre-existing micro-organism, it's not artificial life) but it's still an amazing break-through. What really disappoints me is how most of the coverage is focusing on the whole 'playing god' thing, which this really isn't. While I may have huge disagreements with Ventner's views of ethics and business practises, his science is solid, and he's unlikely to have produced a doomsday device, because there's no profit in that.
Of course, this "new" science could have all kinds of unexpected consequnces, but if we're not going to do things because bad things might happen, we'd never do anything ever again.
Cycling
Despite Vino's continuing attempts to lose the Giro (10 minutes on one stage, why must your wobbly stage always be 1) on a mountain and 2) stages where other people don't wobble), the cycling news have been overshadowed by Floyd Landis coming clean.
I am deeply amused by fans of the ex-US Postal team going 'but none of the rest of our golden boys was on anything, it's just this one bad man', given that everyone they were beating at the time was on something, for them not to have been would be unlikely, not impossible mind, but deeply unlikely.
I'm also amused by Pat McQuaid going 'why is he doing it [full confessional] now, there must be an ulterior motive'. Yeah, Pat, it probably has nothing to do with the sports news media in the US only having an interest twice a year, once for the Tour de France and once for the Tour of California. Also, and this is the part I don't blame Landis for in the slightest, if I'd been hung out to dry by the establishment, I'd want to bring down as many of them as I could too.
