Mar 6 2012: It's a tough call. Basically it comes down to a societal decision. I don't know much about epidemic rates and death rates pertaining to most diseases, so for comparison I looked up Influenza and HPV. About 4,000 women were estimated to have died during 2007 from cervical cancer that may (or may not) have been caused by HPV. In comparison, Influenza rates fluctuate broadly, with a rough average of 25,000 deaths per year, although it varied from about 3,000 to 49,000 deaths from the 1977-2007 flu seasons.
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
It is contagious through sexual contact only and is not-airborne, so should lowering the death rate then be the main criteria for forced vaccination? I don't know. What about a "vaccine" that prevents addictions? Or leaving vaccines, enforced ingestion of a medical prophylactic that prevents heart attacks (aspirin) or widespread fluoridation of water (dental cavities)? etc. etc.
The question I have is, where is the bar that delineates societal needs vs. individual.?
Also, we sometimes tend to find out biologically that there benefits to certain host-vector interactions that may have been missed (not that this is the case in HPV) for example, the initial realization the H.Pylori is the caustive agent behind stomach ulcers and gastric cancer, but may protect against asthma development.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185722.htm
Another question I have pertains to the economics of forced medication and private corporations and corporations in general. It's one thing to have a vaccine produced in a taxpayer funded facility and distributed cheaply to all, but is it prudent to essentially force individuals to purchase goods (in this case a vaccine) from a private entity (Merck)? For example, big pharma has been paying billions in fines due to fraud but there is not much that can be done since they essentially monopolize needed drugs.
The development of resistance by uncontrolled uses of antibiotics was certainly understood even during Fleming's time. He may have been one of the earliest guys to sound the alarm, but I have to check that. Fortunately, I think that there is a limit to how "super" a super bug can get. Over the eons,Mother nature has been a potent generator of all the possible permutations of polypetides and glycopetides, etc, that can be developed to circumvent our defenses, with and without antibiotics. Unfortunately, due to solely economic reasons, research into discovering new antibiotics, of which we have only just begun to scratch the surface of, has significantly tapered off. Maintaining that chemical "arms race" by bio-medical research should be a priority, but sadly isn't.
Didn't know that. But I figured an invention like that may have been somewhat contentious due to it's "simplicity" and other people in the lab developing it further to optimize it's potential. Still, I wasn't aware of the work going back to 1969!
Feb 10 2012: Hi Andrew,
For me, I think it's easier to answer what makes "good science" good rather than what make bad science bad, simply because there are too many things that can masquerade as science when in fact they are not. The best science would be a well thought out question regarding a natural phenomenon (or series of questions) that is answered unequivocally and, as a result, solves a vexing paradox that just will not be forced to fit within the constraints of an existing model or paradigm. A good example of this would be quantum theory explaining the black body problem in physics. Or even a series of questions and answers that describe a phenomenon that was previously unacknowledged, thereby starting entirely new fields of study, such as in cell theory, following the invention of microscopy and modern astronomy following the invention of telescopes. Good science is required to achieve all of this, which requires proper controls and unbiased reporting of all data coming in. As well as carefully set up experiments so that your answers are unequivocal,i.e. either yes or no, rather than maybe. Everyone especially hates to get a "maybe" type of answer! This usually means that something hasn't been set up correctly in some way.
As for my favorite Nobel Prize discovery? I particularly enjoy the story behind Dr. Kary Mullis and his invention of PCR. Not just because it is so useful to me and everyone else working in molecular biology, but because it is so simple that it made people say "why didn't I think of that!". Simple, yet powerful.
Feb 10 2012: And just to share a couple more stories about the need for a proper space to do science, it's not just limited to amateurs. I just finished reading a biography on the two time Nobel prize winner Dr. Marie Curie. Despite already being a published scientist, her later groundbreaking experiments almost didn't happen simply due to a lack of space. This even though only inexpensive and rudimentary equipment was required. From the bio written by her daughter Eve in 1937: " But at least could there not be found, in the numerous buildings attached to the Sorbonne, some kind of suitable workroom to lend to the Curie couple? Apparently not."
And also for Dr. Bruce Merrifield, the Rockefeller Institute chemist who had to build a lab in his basement in order to build his revolutionary and later Nobel prize winning solid state peptide synthesizer.
Ah, bureaucracy, just the sort of situations we set out to avoid at Genspace so we could all just get down to the science! Anyway, if you can tell, I'm pretty passionate about having as much open access to science and technology as possible! And, in my opinion, having the right environment is key to accomplishing this.
Feb 10 2012: I'm not sure if there are less "kitchen scientists" around than before. I think that a major hurdle to kitchen scientists, then and now,is that having an adequate space to carry out experiments and especially to collaborate in. There is a definite need in having more open biotech labs, where people can carry out their experiments in a non-traditional setting or having parents participating with their kids or students with teachers. As a result, myself and my colleagues decided to found Genspace, a "community biotech laboratory". The equipment can be shared among many members thereby offsetting a lot of the costs. There are a lot of novel experiments that can be carried out relatively inexpensively, if you just factor in the costs of the consumable reagents and materials. But having the space to do the work is a problem. That, coupled with the the costs for some of the few "major" items, like centrifuges, incubator/shakers, PCR machines are still a bit pricey for most people.This despite some occasional great deals on Ebay.
Interestingly, having access to adequate space to even do groundbreaking research, even for established scientists, has always been a major problem. You would think that someone with academic affiliations or working in a well funded biotech company wouldn't have these problems, but that isn't the case. Especially if you have a new direction or idea that you want to pursue.
TEDCred score: +75.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: When it comes to vaccine intervention for disease control, should personal liberty go before the benefit to society?
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
It is contagious through sexual contact only and is not-airborne, so should lowering the death rate then be the main criteria for forced vaccination? I don't know. What about a "vaccine" that prevents addictions? Or leaving vaccines, enforced ingestion of a medical prophylactic that prevents heart attacks (aspirin) or widespread fluoridation of water (dental cavities)? etc. etc.
The question I have is, where is the bar that delineates societal needs vs. individual.?
Also, we sometimes tend to find out biologically that there benefits to certain host-vector interactions that may have been missed (not that this is the case in HPV) for example, the initial realization the H.Pylori is the caustive agent behind stomach ulcers and gastric cancer, but may protect against asthma development.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185722.htm
Another question I have pertains to the economics of forced medication and private corporations and corporations in general. It's one thing to have a vaccine produced in a taxpayer funded facility and distributed cheaply to all, but is it prudent to essentially force individuals to purchase goods (in this case a vaccine) from a private entity (Merck)? For example, big pharma has been paying billions in fines due to fraud but there is not much that can be done since they essentially monopolize needed drugs.
A reply on Conversation: Whatâs your favorite (and/or least favorite) Nobel-Prize-winning science?
The development of resistance by uncontrolled uses of antibiotics was certainly understood even during Fleming's time. He may have been one of the earliest guys to sound the alarm, but I have to check that. Fortunately, I think that there is a limit to how "super" a super bug can get. Over the eons,Mother nature has been a potent generator of all the possible permutations of polypetides and glycopetides, etc, that can be developed to circumvent our defenses, with and without antibiotics. Unfortunately, due to solely economic reasons, research into discovering new antibiotics, of which we have only just begun to scratch the surface of, has significantly tapered off. Maintaining that chemical "arms race" by bio-medical research should be a priority, but sadly isn't.
A reply on Conversation: Whatâs your favorite (and/or least favorite) Nobel-Prize-winning science?
Didn't know that. But I figured an invention like that may have been somewhat contentious due to it's "simplicity" and other people in the lab developing it further to optimize it's potential. Still, I wasn't aware of the work going back to 1969!
A comment on Conversation: Whatâs your favorite (and/or least favorite) Nobel-Prize-winning science?
For me, I think it's easier to answer what makes "good science" good rather than what make bad science bad, simply because there are too many things that can masquerade as science when in fact they are not. The best science would be a well thought out question regarding a natural phenomenon (or series of questions) that is answered unequivocally and, as a result, solves a vexing paradox that just will not be forced to fit within the constraints of an existing model or paradigm. A good example of this would be quantum theory explaining the black body problem in physics. Or even a series of questions and answers that describe a phenomenon that was previously unacknowledged, thereby starting entirely new fields of study, such as in cell theory, following the invention of microscopy and modern astronomy following the invention of telescopes. Good science is required to achieve all of this, which requires proper controls and unbiased reporting of all data coming in. As well as carefully set up experiments so that your answers are unequivocal,i.e. either yes or no, rather than maybe. Everyone especially hates to get a "maybe" type of answer! This usually means that something hasn't been set up correctly in some way.
As for my favorite Nobel Prize discovery? I particularly enjoy the story behind Dr. Kary Mullis and his invention of PCR. Not just because it is so useful to me and everyone else working in molecular biology, but because it is so simple that it made people say "why didn't I think of that!". Simple, yet powerful.
A comment on Conversation: Why don't we have more "Kitchen" scientists?
And also for Dr. Bruce Merrifield, the Rockefeller Institute chemist who had to build a lab in his basement in order to build his revolutionary and later Nobel prize winning solid state peptide synthesizer.
Ah, bureaucracy, just the sort of situations we set out to avoid at Genspace so we could all just get down to the science! Anyway, if you can tell, I'm pretty passionate about having as much open access to science and technology as possible! And, in my opinion, having the right environment is key to accomplishing this.
A comment on Conversation: Why don't we have more "Kitchen" scientists?
Interestingly, having access to adequate space to even do groundbreaking research, even for established scientists, has always been a major problem. You would think that someone with academic affiliations or working in a well funded biotech company wouldn't have these problems, but that isn't the case. Especially if you have a new direction or idea that you want to pursue.