I’m jealous.

I wrote that becuase it is true. I’ll say it again: the fact that research is being conducted, and the fact that previous research has made discoveries and advances our knowledge, in no way proves that “The accelerating pace of research means that we’ll have specific details of exactly what and why variations in genes cause health problems. We’ll also know why there was positive selection pressure for a particular variation-analogous to sickle cell anemia- so we’ll know the exact risks and benefits of changing a person’s gene variation. “ So maybe it is my fault for taking you at what you wrote, and I am glad that you believe this, because of your beliefs. My beliefs tell me that technology and science is always far more complicated than we imagine, and I really think you are kidding yourself to think that we will “have specific details” of “exactly what and why”, as well as knowing why there was “postive selection pressure” and so we can know “the exact risks and benefits”. Seriously, the human body is far too complicated and unique. not saying we can’t try, I am just saying that your assertions are too broad, too optomistic, and don’t provide a good foundation for a rational argument.

If your only point is that medical research is good, and we should be happy for medical advances, well then I just don’t really see any opposition to that here at SN, nor at why you feel the need to post about it. Have at it, of course. Most of my comments are irrelevant.

Why did you write originally write “there is literally nothing that proves or even indicates that these things will come true, much less that they are somehow *destined* to come true. This is why the optomisitic, hyperbolic, technology-will- create-utopia talk is lame”?

There are thousands of researchers who’ve already published plenty on these. People already can get tested for variants- not too many now, and too expensive now, but the price is dropping exponentially. How is this not indicative? I’d been writing about SNPs. My beliefs that we’ll know what variants are associated with disease – and why variants cause disease- is based on evidence that we already have been doing this.

My unspoken assumptions are that this research is like the human genome project. Right now we’re about, say 1% of the way to putting together a database of these. And in the early 1990′s we were about 1% of the way to completing the HGP.

If in 1990 I’d written about the HGP as “The accelerating pace of research means that we’ll have specific details of exactly what the human genome is,” would that have been a mockably predictive way of putting it?

And how does solving the problem of ‘human ignorance of genetic links to disease’ “solve humanity’s problems”? All it is is information, medical knowledge. People will have more certainty about the probabilities of health problems, that’s all. Won’t solve the problem of how neighbors who’ve lived next to each other for 40 years can suddenly try to kill each other.

Reminds me of a short story I read years ago:
A Rip Wan Winkle wakes up in 2050. Her doctor takes her around, showing her the low-pollution hydrogen-powered economy, the schools and gardens and national parks, the healthy and relaxed people from all areas of the world…
RVW asks “Where are the hospitals and the military bases?”
The doctor says “We don’t need them. We’ve solved disease, and hunger, poverty and war.”
“Wow, so this must be a paradise!”
“No. Now we have real problems.”

I prefer this version –
“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking up skirts”.

and this demonstrates my point again: Kathleen-Short answer: because the research is already being done. Finding gene variants’ links to disease isn’t new. RNAi clinical trials exist.
the fact that research is being done does not prove that anyone of the asserts you made *will* happen. I am in favor of research. I am in favor of medical advances. I am in favor of philosophical and ethical debates about technology and medicine, and their consequences. But the language you are using tells me that you are putting too much faith into technology and research to solve humanity’s problems. It won’t happen.

Actually, I’m already sorry I even thought of that.

Sadly, Yes! The computer was a Commodore 64.

Right, except Evolution has an edge over all transhumanists nerds:
You don’t see Evolution’s failures because they all died out before you had a chance to see them.
And as you noticed the overall performance is quite poor in spite of the huge number of trials.
Do we really want to bet on the success/failure ratio of the singularitarians?
No need of grey goo to make a disaster.
Just look at software, amazing nowadays, isn’t it?
Except from time to time you have to reboot and/or reinstall.
What does rebooting yourself would mean, huh?

BTW, I made a similar comment on the Biosingularity blog http://biosingularity.wordpress.com/2006/06/19/reprogramming-biology/
And it does not appear, it has been CENSORED.
Not even to speak of ethics, politics or scientific credentials, who really thinks we can trust this kind of people.
The whole Singularity bandwagon is very close to a cult, well known as “Rapture of the Nerds”

I believe that the Singularity will happen, but that afterwards, no two people will ever agree on exactly when it happened, or what it was.

Our pandimensional posthuman robot bodies may well ascend the brightest heaven of invention, but only so that they can try to peek down the front of Lindsay Lohan’s blouse from their lofty vantage point.

We will use the god-like powers bequeathed to us in this New World to imprint holographic Angelina Jolie fan pages and mildly pornographic Buffy vs. Battlestar Galactica crossover fanfic directly onto each others’ brains.

And the Chicago Cubs still won’t make it to the goddamned World Series.

ummm… “which is why they put the truly decent people on their list at the top of the publicity shelf,”

The list is in alphabetical order.

It looks like there’s a bit over 125 people on the list. If one could do a scatterplot for “left to right political spectrum” (at least for the Americans on the list) and “ranting blogger or not” (or “really ought not to be a public spokesperson”) there’s bound to be a few people in the far corners. What, exactly, should a group do about the far corners of their membership?

[If you could find out your variants on these for a reasonable price and medical privacy, would you turn the information down for BRCA1, Apo E, GSTM 1...? Know anyone with the wrong variant of BRCA or Apo E? I do. Is cutting your breasts out always going to be the best solution for the bad BRCA? I don't think so.]

Long answer:
Given the human genome project, given the work being done in Iceland, given that the National Institutes of Health (not usually given to wild speculations) assumes that the cost of sequencing 3 billion base pairs (i.e. 1 human) will be 1/100th the cost it is today in 10 years, how would we not have much better information on genetic links to disease?

A simple search on PubMed for “gene polymorphisms” gets 3,500 hits. The latest 5 as of 10:15pst:
“Vitamin D and estrogen receptor gene polymorphisms and the risk of colorectal cancer in Bulgaria.”
“Glutathione S-Transferase Gene Polymorphisms in Italian Patients with Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss.”
“Cyclin D1 and epidermal growth factor polymorphisms associated with survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with Cetuximab.”
“Non classical HLA genes and non-HLA genes in a population of infants at familial risk of atopy.”
“Polymorphism of beta-adrenergic receptors and susceptibility to open-angle glaucoma.”

A simple search on PubMed for Apo-E results in over 9,000 hits.
Some of the most recent:
“Apolipoprotein e genotypes: relationship to cognitive functioning, cognitive decline, and survival in nonagenarians.”
“APOE epsilon variation in multiple sclerosis susceptibility and disease severity: some answers.”
“Apolipoprotein B gene variants are involved in the determination of blood glucose and lipid levels in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus.”

RNA interference gets over 6,000 hits, the first from *1998*:
“RNA interference for antiviral therapy”
“Small Interfering RNA-Mediated Silencing of cytochrome P450 3A4 Gene.”
“Transgenic RNAi: Accelerating and Expanding Reverse Genetics in Mammals”

Would you be less mocking if instead I’d written:
“The accelerating pace of research means that we’ll have more details of exactly what and why variations in genes cause health problems. We’ll also know more about why there was positive selection pressure for a particular variation-analogous to sickle cell anemia- so we’ll know more about the exact risks and benefits of changing a person’s gene variation.” ?

there is literally nothing that proves or even indicates that these things will come true, much less that they are somehow *destined* to come true. This is why the optomisitic, hyperbolic, technology-will- create-utopia talk is lame.