https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/12/02/scie...
Science might be a global cooperative effort, but this paper comes from China.
Maybe it is a sign of a society still focused on building stuff rather than redistributing and administrating what is already there.
I also wonder how the Google result was reported in China. I wouldn't be surprised if it was reported as "Americans have done X".
Because China(chinese people) funded the science? It may also hint that the governance system is productive.
See: every significant accomplishment by SpaceX or NASA for a repeating case.
If you really want to see objectors get triggered, check out the past threads that tangent off about SpaceX employees chanting USA USA USA on video, that's always quite amusing.
Haha... that's not at all the case; academics are petty people with fragile egos who are often under the thumb of lab directors with even worse egos and often come into that role with an ax to grind. Racism, be it veiled or otherwise, is also no stranger to the realms of Science. Much less the dregs called the peer-reviewed system. Consider the plight of Dr. He Jiankui who many researchers in the West lauded in private, but scorned in public when the 'evil Chinese Scientist' revealed his results to the Public because grant money and political standing were at risk.
Collaborations are limited in so far as their personal utility for more grants or prestige, lets not elevate researchers and their horrible practices to places they do not belong.
I think you would find the process entirely sad and depressing, as most of us did in our undergrad, when you see it for what it really is.
I've only heard universal condemnation from scientists, where can I learn more about this private support for him? Or am I going to take your word for it?
Not necessary, but I'm just going to assume you aren't a biologist nor do you follow the Bio-hacker culture, right?
Start with Josiah Zayner's talks from the time of that event. I think it was in the conference ahead of the trailer release of 'Code of the Wild' that stands out. But he's on record talking about it as well, I think Dr. Church also touched on it as well. The Bio Hack the Planet conference talks might also have more details, as I recall him talking about the events leading up to Dr. Doudna's misplaced/misunderstood role in CRISPR that eventually got her a Nobel Prize and it segued into that discussion, too.
Back on PC Edit: This piece [0] is also worth a read, here is an excerpt from Science:
> Yet opposition was not unanimous. A few months before He met the couples, a committee convened by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) concluded in a well-publicized report that human trials of germline editing "might be permitted" if strict criteria were met. The group of scientists, lawyers, bioethicists, and patient advocates spelled out a regulatory framework but cautioned that "these criteria are necessarily vague" because various societies, caregivers, and patients would view them differently. The committee notably did not call for an international ban, arguing instead for governmental regulation as each country deemed appropriate and "voluntary self-regulation pursuant to professional guidelines."
>> That circle included leading scientists—among them a Nobel laureate—in China and the United States, business executives, an entrepreneur connected to venture capitalists, authors of the NASEM report, a controversial U.S. IVF specialist who discussed opening a gene-editing clinic with He, and at least one Chinese politician. "He had an awful lot of company to be called a ‘rogue,’" says geneticist George Church, a CRISPR pioneer at Harvard University who was not in the circle of trust and is one of the few scientists to defend at least some aspects of He's experiment.
The questionable stance, and reluctance comes when academic researchers know that their grants and good standing with a chosen University (and the prestige and clout they garner) comes under threat. Maybe its because I've seen this kind of thing play out in real time when I was in School and then entered the Industry that I'm not all surprised by it... but it's also a sense of remorse mixed with dread and despair as a person who was on track to be a lab Clinical Lab Scientist but what disgusted at what 'really happens' internally that shaped my view(s) and made me leave the Industry entirely.
0: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/08/untold-story-circle-...
Easy, the original title of TFA, "Quantum supremacy, now with BosonSampling".
Editorializing breaks site guidelines.
Any time, any one who brings up their nation as being the best - I've got no room for you in my life. I despise nationalism and national pride in all forms. It only breeds hatred and unproductive relationships, and creates echo chambers. This goes for all countries.
We're tiny blobs of muttering meat in the universe. Temporarily here.
You are suggesting you know better than a system that millions of years of evolution have created. You are also assuming that you know all the risks of NOT organising in tribes, that somehow if all humans were some untribal lonely individual entities, the world would work better. Many many billions of people and animals seem to disagree.
All of these thing you mention are simply attempts to attenuate evolution, not conquer it. Moreover, all of the things you mention are a new feature set developed from evidence given to us by evolution.
About the only area where biological evolution is relevant now is pathogens, because these evolve on timescales comparable to technological development of humans.
Humans managed to create a means to communicate with each other. End of evolution right there. We figured out germ theory and then vaccines. The DEATH of human evolution. We have the Internet now so that must mean human evolution just stops, because integrated circuits or something.
We look back on proto-humans, who had many tools, with the same arrogance. There’s no reason our species won’t evolve further to look back on the “internet” and laugh.
Timescales, huh.
Evolution for humans just doesn't matter, because at this point, we're doing meaningful changes to ourselves and our environment at a rate faster than it takes for a human to reach reproductive age. We didn't wait for evolution to adapt us to colder climate, fix our eyesight or change melanin levels; we just developed clothes, glasses and sunscreen - which also made these features not influenceable by natural selection pressures. And whatever mutation happens that doesn't kill a person, we work around it socially or technologically - which means its impact on reproductive fitness is usually close to zero. Biological evolution is no longer the force driving the shape of our species.
There is an evolution of humans happening, but it's social and technological, not biological.
You simply can't just say these don't matter any more, because it's ignoring reality. Every time you're turned on by someone attractive, its evolution thats doing that. And good luck thinking rationally when you are truly in love. (or to take a different example, when your body has a temperature in reaction to a disease. Good luck overriding your absolutely terrible mental state with rational human thought).
I think what you're missing is that... nobody in this thread is saying that.
In any case, I think we have managed the counter the forces of natural selection that affect our physical health, but not those that affect our mental health.
I'm suggesting that it might be wise to try to keep our baser instincts at bay -- as well as we can, at least. Sure, we'll fail from time to time (or often even), but that doesn't mean we should give up that struggle.
The internet has created other strongly bonded echo-chambers. Elon Musk lovers/haters for example.
can not agree more on this