Feb 2 2013: As a psychology major wanting to become a neuroscientist, my favourite scientists are neuroscientists. VS Ramachandran might be called a minor celebrity (my neuropsych prof said that if there were Ramachandran action figures, he would buy one), and Oliver Sachs might be called a retired science celebrity. Then there's Antonio Damasio, who I wouldn't call a celebrity at all and, of course, Sam Harris, who we've probably all heard of.
I think science "celebrities" are important in the sense that they keep those of us without access to peer-reviewed scientific journals (or the educational background to decipher them) up to date on the latest ideas and findings in their fields, as well as for their popularization of science in general. Their celebrity, however, is usually due in large part to the popularity of the particular specialization of their field or their "extracurricular" activities. Dawkins, for example, is mostly famous for his criticisms of religion and his book, "The Selfish Gene", which was actually primarily a popularization of someone else's idea. Not to take anything away from him, but if he happened to have been born in an era when religious controversies were few and far between and evolution held less intrigue, he may not be quite the household name he is today.
There are soooooo many brilliant scientists out there doing fascinating work that no one has ever heard of, not because their work is less important or interesting, but because they just happen to be working in fields that people care very little about today. The only thing holding them back from notoriety is a lack of major modern social or political issues that their work has anything to say about, or, perhaps, a simple unwillingness to speak up about them.
Feb 2 2013: I'm certainly in favor of hearing perspectives that aren't mine, but I want to hear them from people who are neither ignorant nor intellectually dishonest. I'm not sure whether Behe is a fool or a liar (or both), but he doesn't belong on a website like TED.
Nov 3 2011: It was an interesting and thought-provoking talk, but it didn't address what I feel is at the heart of this issue. Yes, as Fineberg said, we will one day be able to select the traits of our children and eventually even our own - but do we need to? In concordance with the is/ought fallacy, just because something could be, that doesn't mean it ought to be; Simply because we will be able to make ourselves live longer and be more intelligent, beautiful, creative, etc., that doesn't mean we should. And the only reason really offered by Fineberg as to why we should is that it would make us "better".
Why "better"? Why not "healthier" or "happier" (or both)? The latter two ideals I can stand behind, but the former seems vain and, in evolutionary terms, semantically meaningless. Even if we focus solely on health and happiness, however, I don't see why it's necessary to invoke eugenics to achieve those things. Fineberg himself drew attention to the fact that we have evolved to a point where we can now change our environment to suit us rather than adapt to it. Why do we need to extend that manipulation to ourselves? If we have the knowledge and the resources to alter our genetic code to reduce both physical and mental illness and anguish, then surely we have the capacity to improve our quality of life without manipulating our genes.
Why eliminate cancer-susceptibility genes when we can learn to come up with far-improved cancer treatment (or eliminate cancer-causing agents)? Why make ourselves more beautiful when we can instead learn to be happy the way we are? Why make ourselves more intelligent when we could simply improve the education system? Maybe the problem isn't our genes, maybe it's our perspective.
Remember when he said earlier that we didn't know very much about the initial state of the universe - until now? Well all he's saying is that now that we do know enough about the initial conditions of the universe, we can use our knowledge of physics to deduce and understand how the universe was created and have thus learned that the laws of physics alone could very well have formed the universe we see today from the initial conditions of the universe.
Bear in mind, though, that he's only saying that the universe has evolved from it's initial state to where it is now; he's not talking about the time "before" the universe began. He says it's pointless to speculate what might've happened then because it's pointless to speculate whether there was a time before the universe. This explains why he uses the word "create" too, rather than evolved because, to him, the evolution of the universe from the sigularity was the creation of the universe.
TEDCred score: +0.40 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Celebrity scientists
I think science "celebrities" are important in the sense that they keep those of us without access to peer-reviewed scientific journals (or the educational background to decipher them) up to date on the latest ideas and findings in their fields, as well as for their popularization of science in general. Their celebrity, however, is usually due in large part to the popularity of the particular specialization of their field or their "extracurricular" activities. Dawkins, for example, is mostly famous for his criticisms of religion and his book, "The Selfish Gene", which was actually primarily a popularization of someone else's idea. Not to take anything away from him, but if he happened to have been born in an era when religious controversies were few and far between and evolution held less intrigue, he may not be quite the household name he is today.
There are soooooo many brilliant scientists out there doing fascinating work that no one has ever heard of, not because their work is less important or interesting, but because they just happen to be working in fields that people care very little about today. The only thing holding them back from notoriety is a lack of major modern social or political issues that their work has anything to say about, or, perhaps, a simple unwillingness to speak up about them.
A reply on Conversation: Celebrity scientists
A comment on Talk: Harvey Fineberg: Are we ready for neo-evolution?
Why "better"? Why not "healthier" or "happier" (or both)? The latter two ideals I can stand behind, but the former seems vain and, in evolutionary terms, semantically meaningless. Even if we focus solely on health and happiness, however, I don't see why it's necessary to invoke eugenics to achieve those things. Fineberg himself drew attention to the fact that we have evolved to a point where we can now change our environment to suit us rather than adapt to it. Why do we need to extend that manipulation to ourselves? If we have the knowledge and the resources to alter our genetic code to reduce both physical and mental illness and anguish, then surely we have the capacity to improve our quality of life without manipulating our genes.
Why eliminate cancer-susceptibility genes when we can learn to come up with far-improved cancer treatment (or eliminate cancer-causing agents)? Why make ourselves more beautiful when we can instead learn to be happy the way we are? Why make ourselves more intelligent when we could simply improve the education system? Maybe the problem isn't our genes, maybe it's our perspective.
A comment on Talk: Stephen Hawking: Questioning the universe
Remember when he said earlier that we didn't know very much about the initial state of the universe - until now? Well all he's saying is that now that we do know enough about the initial conditions of the universe, we can use our knowledge of physics to deduce and understand how the universe was created and have thus learned that the laws of physics alone could very well have formed the universe we see today from the initial conditions of the universe.
Bear in mind, though, that he's only saying that the universe has evolved from it's initial state to where it is now; he's not talking about the time "before" the universe began. He says it's pointless to speculate what might've happened then because it's pointless to speculate whether there was a time before the universe. This explains why he uses the word "create" too, rather than evolved because, to him, the evolution of the universe from the sigularity was the creation of the universe.