Alessandro Rosa

Student - B.S Medical Laboratory Sciences, CUNY Hunter College
Brooklyn, NY, United States

About Alessandro

Areas of Expertise

Financial Product Control, Photography

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

Noface
Alessandro Rosa
Posted 3 days ago
Kary Mullis: Play! Experiment! Discover!
I am actually studying Biology and Biotechnology. As I get further along in my studies and become more sophisticated in my subject knowledge, I realize that it takes years of training and practice to properly be able to work with and interpret the data related to your own field correctly. While I think that scientifically literate people can and should have a working understanding of many areas of science and technology, I do not believe that one has the expertise to draw a truly informed conclusion on the data of a different field, unless they are focused on that particular field. That doesn't mean they can't follow along, have insights, and even conduct informed discussions about a field outside their expertise, it is just that their opinions need to be evaluated based on their level of expertise. Just because a scientist wins a Nobel Prize does not automatically make them an expert in all things science. I think that is often a misconception in the general public, but in this day and age and the level of knowledge needed to be truly expert in any given field, there are very few polymaths out there. And that is where I think Mullis exploits the notoriety of his prize to push an agenda that he believes but is not backed up by the data or opinions of true experts in the field.
Noface
Alessandro Rosa
Posted 6 months ago
Kary Mullis: Play! Experiment! Discover!
I looked at one of the papers he was referring to a the end of this talk ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5552/113.full ). It was the published results of computer simulations based on a constrained model of the climate which looked at three variable parameters. Even before the mounting evidence we now have and the expanded complexity of the climate models climatologists are able to run today, I would say that was pretty unstable ground with which to build a thesis of denial of the anthropogenic source of global climate change, even if it was only used as an example of that thesis. It was sad to see that a brilliant experimentalist could allow his vision to be so clouded by is own personal bias and beliefs, especially when he is attacking a field not his own. It is also interesting how a biochemist has the audacity to speak out against a field of science in which he lacks the necessary expertise. If a climatologist (even if they were a Nobel Laureate) were to question the validity of PCR, would a) anyone give any credence to the opinion, b) would Mullis not call them an uninformed crackpot? Maybe this is just a case of his ego being too big for his own good. As a person who respects science and the idea that as a human endeavor it is prone to error, I can accept that maybe there is a possibility that the conclusions that we are drawing from the mounting evidence could be wrong, but based on our most informed judgements on what the evidence shows, it is almost irrefutable that anthropogenic climate change is a reality and a threat to the survival of many forms of life on this planet. Given that this talk occurred only months after September 11th, I wonder how much of that weighed into his thinking and polarized his point of view.