Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Top Ten Scientific Discoveries of 2007

Posted by Zonk on Tue Dec 11, 2007 01:20 PM
from the flux-capacitor-is-what-makes-time-travel-possible dept.
Josh Fink writes "Time Magazine has a piece about the top 10 scientific discoveries of 2007. '#1. Stem Cell Breakthroughs - In November, Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University and molecular biologist James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin reported that they had reprogrammed regular skin cells to behave just like embryonic stem cells. The breakthrough may someday allow scientists to create stem cells without destroying embryos -- sidestepping the sticky ethical issues and opposition from the U.S. government that surround embryonic stem-cell research -- but that day is still a ways off. ' Also included in the top 10 editorial are pieces on the top 10 medical breakthroughs, the top 10 man made disasters and the top 10 green 'ideas'."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Science Magazine's Top Stories of 2007 36 comments
ahab_2001 writes "The journal Science has put up its annual Breakthrough of the Year list. They're looking at the top-ten scientific accomplishments for 2007. Leading the list are studies of human genetic variation, and a flood of new discoveries that point toward a future of genomic medicine and even "personal genomics" — with all of the potential issues of ethics and privacy that entails. Runners-up include advances in cellular and structural biology, astrophysics, physics, immunology, synthetic chemistry, neuroscience, and computer science. In addition to the articles from the journal, there's a video on human genetic variation and a podcast as well." Some similarities here to Time magazine's list on the same subject.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Facetious (710885) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:27PM (#21659331) Journal
    Top 10 most duped articles.
  • Strange (Score:3, Funny)

    by JKSN17 (956518) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:27PM (#21659337)
    Strange...Windows Vista didn't make the list...hmm
    • Even stranger, Ballmer's doctoral thesis on fluid-chair dynamics didn't make it either. I haven't read it, but I hear that his chair throwing machine almost achieves perpetual motion.
  • htmlslideshow (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hyram Graff (962405) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:31PM (#21659405)
    Warning: This article links to four top ten lists that only display one item at a time.

    I hope Time gets paid per impression because that's the only way they'll get ad revenue from me. (And viewing all of those forty pages seems like a good way to punish the advertizers who enable articles like these.)
    • Maybe next year they will discover that you can put more than one paragraph on a web page.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Warning: This article links to four top ten lists that only display one item at a time.

      I hope Time gets paid per impression because that's the only way they'll get ad revenue from me. (And viewing all of those forty pages seems like a good way to punish the advertizers who enable articles like these.)
      Unless someone else posts these top ten lists, I won't be reading them at all. I refuse to view Time's website at all for exactly this reason.
  • Dissapointing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by log1385 (1199377) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:32PM (#21659421)
    A couple of the "scientific discoveries" weren't really that important to science. Discovering the brightest supernova or the oldest living animal have their merit, but really they're just interesting things that people found. Something like this deserved to be on the list instead: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/22/photon-storage.html [www.cbc.ca]
    • Discovering the brightest supernova or the oldest living animal have their merit, but really they're just interesting things that people found.

      The oldest animal is important. There's a huge debate in medicine about whether ageing is a disease process or a biological inevitability for animals. Finding really old animals supports the 'disease' argument, since the evidence is increasing those clams at least don't seem to age.

      You could argue that this is a real scientific advance, whereas others like the photon storage you cite are just a technological advances of no real scientific merit.

      • the rock in question doesn't have any of the properties of kryptonite
        How do we know it doesn't have any of the properties of kryptonite? Do you have any of the properties of superman so you could test it for us?
  • Lost in the "Oh goody, non embrionic stem cells" congradulatory bit on the part of the zealots is they forget that this is also "big step towards human cloning".

    I want my clone damnit!
    • I want my clone damnit!
      But then, wouldn't you get modded redundant?
    • Calling someone a "zealot" for not wanting to kill babies for research is a bit much. I'm not religious whatsoever, but I'm still morally against it.
      This is also not a step towards human cloning. We've had access to stem cells before, and some scientists have been progressing towards this goal for awhile. This will not progress them much.
      This is a step towards mass producing these cells for the purpose of cloning individual organs for patients requiring transplants.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        They are not babies [wikipedia.org], they are embryos [wikipedia.org].
        • And that tends to change on how you define an embryo. According to some an embryo is a fertilized ovum, according to others it is a partically developed organism that stands a fair chance of being carried to term. The line is blurry and as with all of natures works it defies definition and can not be caught in a simple binary category. It's a continuum, just like 'tall' and 'hot'. Some collections of cells are more of an embryo than others, with a 'peak' of 'embryoness' somewhere in those magical 9 months. A born baby is not an embryo, a fertilized ovum probably also isn't one.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Calling someone a "zealot" for not wanting to kill babies for research is a bit much.

        Completely avoiding the issue of whether an embryo is a "baby" or not, we do lots of medical research on cadavers. We don't go around killing people in order to obtain cadavers for that research, any more than people go around creating and destroying embryos solely to perform research on. I find it strange that learning about human biology is perfectly okay with the remains of a 90 year old man, but not with the remains of
  • by ByOhTek (1181381) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:33PM (#21659435) Journal

    they had reprogrammed regular skin cells to behave just like embryonic stem cells. The breakthrough may someday allow scientists to create stem cells without destroying embryos -- sidestepping the sticky ethical issues and opposition from the U.S. government that surround embryonic stem-cell research -- but that day is still a ways off.


    And more importantly, since these stem cells will have the exact genetic material (slightly shorter telomeres, but theres so much junk at the end it would take a total of about 500 no-telomerase activity years of life before that cause any genetic difference that would impact organsim traits) of an organizm that can be examined and studied, a lot more use experimentation can be performed with them, with a lot less effort.
  • 1. Changing to D2
    2. Coming up with a good critique of why there isn't really a top "10"
    3. extend that with how it belittles the rest of the work that has been done
    4. complain about not gettin /. anniversary t-shirt.
    5. Change sig
    6.
  • by InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:34PM (#21659459)
    Soon to come... the Top Ten Green Ideas Turned Man-Made Disasters, and the Top Ten Man-Made Disasters Turned Medical Breakthroughs.
  • by noidentity (188756) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:34PM (#21659479)
    ... 2007 hasn't ended yet!

    (I hate these "top X of this year" before the year has even ended, though at least this one is less than a month early)
    • by UbuntuDupe (970646) * on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:39PM (#21659591) Journal
      Then let's all make a pact:

      "If I make a significant scientific breakthrough, I will postpone its announcement, to the best of my ability, until December 20th of that year, so as to screw over moronic publishers who do 'year-in-review' specials before that year is over."
  • by coinreturn (617535) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:35PM (#21659499)
    In October, researchers from Bangor University in Wales were trawling an ocean shelf off the coast of north Iceland when they stumbled on what is believed to be the world's oldest living animal: a 405 year-old clam. Or it was living, until researchers had to kill it to determine the clam's age by studying rings on its shell.

    Aren't we just a great at discovering?
    • by aardvarkjoe (156801) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:44PM (#21659681)
      The real question is -- how did it taste?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Scientist 1: Look at this... the oldest known living creature on earth.

        Scientist 2: Let's kill it.

        I don't think that's quite the sequence of events -- the clam didn't come up with an "Oldest Known Living Creature On Earth!" sign on its back! They dredged up some samples, examined them and found this one to be remarkably old.

  • by techpawn (969834) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:35PM (#21659507) Journal
    Inventing Toilet paper HAS to be high on the discoveries list... Unless you still get the Sears catalog. I've yet to meet a scientist who hasn't used it.
  • This has to be the best....
    They discover a 405 year-old clam... until researchers had to kill it to determine the clam's age by studying rings on its shell.

    Then they killed it.
  • by petes_PoV (912422) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:40PM (#21659607)
    biggest, oldest, features of people/animals long dead, planets very far away, new species.

    All very nice in a "boys book of wonders" way, but very little in the way of actionable information. Maybe that's the way of pure science, but I was rather hoping that at least one of these discoveries would have a material effect on my life. (

    (and no, I don't think mapping Craig Venter's gemone counts).

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:41PM (#21659635)
    Without this press release, I would not have realized that Time Magazine was still publishing. Who knew?
  • by Bazar (778572) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:45PM (#21659701)
    Going through the list of disasters, I'm left wondering where the Indonesian mud volcano is.

    Considering its permanently displaced 11,000 people, over 10KM squared. I'd say thats a far larger disaster then for example, a bridge collapsing in the states, or a plane killing 300.

    It's killed 200 people, and was probably caused by the gas drilling company cutting corners on its drilling.

    http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11025-indonesian-mud-volcano-caused-by-gas-drilling.html [newscientist.com]

    I'd personally have that at #1 or #2, i also question having global warming as the #1 man made disaster, since i don't consider it being a disaster yet. The worst that comes to my mind is hurricane Katrina, and even then, there is no decisive link to the two.
  • by Shivetya (243324) <shivetya.archonon@com> on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:47PM (#21659741) Homepage
    Nobody doubts anymore that climate change is at least in part man-made.

    I love that line. Can be taken as a claim that we cause the majority of it or just .00001% of it.

    But it gets better. Basically Global Warming is at fault for all weather bad, specifically all weather events that costs us money. Regardless if the earth was warmer before, regarldess of the fact we don't know out own planet's ideal temperature, regardless of the fact we can't even forcast a year ahead, and finally - regardless of the fact that the people who win from all the Global Warming scare mongering are politicians and big business.

    Then we have a plane wreck as #2? Followed by a retinue of things that more accidental than "purposely caused" With mining accidents it amazes me we still ignore the thousands who die in China in these accidents. We lose six or seven in America and it makes the top 10???

    IPCC as the #1 green idea? That bunch of bad science and fraud? Using names without permission to bolster their claims and using the power of government to intimidate others? The second entry was not much better. All that GW and the green push accomplish at the government level is to give politicians new ways to spend money, new titles, and even more travel to exotic locations. Carbon Capping? Basically new embedded tax passed onto consumers so big dirty corporations can still pollute. Oh I know there is that part about "refund" to consumers from the government - but we know better don't we. It will come as targetted benefits to buy votes. Most of these green ideas reek of deperateness to find something to make a top ten list. I can think of ten better stories - top ten green developments - like improvements in solar cell manufacturing, CFLs, how many companies recycle their waste for fuel (McDs in England) and such.

    Now the medical section was much better. At least here we had some real good entries. The difference here is that this is real science, where the green section isn't science half the time. The diabetes news from last year was great. We are well on our way to getting people off of needles.

    Sorry but Time's top ten lists are more politically motivated and to curry favor with certain groups than to provide any real knowledge or laud accomplishmen. Notice how their top ten disasters are not in countries that might react badly towards their reporters in the future? Stick to areas like the medical advances, put in another for technological advances, and ditch the political spin crap ideas and we might have lists worth a damn, lists that tell people what really means something.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      But it gets better. Basically Global Warming is at fault for all weather bad

      Now where does it say that?

      Regardless if the earth was warmer before,

      Thank you, this is known to everyone and accounted for. It is the rate of change that is scary.

      regarldess of the fact we don't know out own planet's ideal temperature

      There is no such thing as an ideal temperature, and no one has claimed that there is.

      regardless of the fact we can't even forcast a year ahead

      Climate is not the same thing as weather.

      regardless of the
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          First, we have established ourselves according to past climate, the climate was not always what it currently is, we inherit evolution and establishment from previous period, so our current climate may not be optimal. Second, even if we adapt to a specific environment, it does not imply we cannot be more fitted to another environment.

          Your lack of intelligence is shining very brightly. Yes, of course climate has changed in the past and people have migrated. The problem is not climate change in itself, i
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Ever heard of green algae? Those nasty little critters started releasing this toxic waste called Oxygen into the atmosphere poisoning practically the entire biosystem. The effects of their actions persist even to today.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              Oh yes. This is sometimes referred to the "Oxygen Holocaust" because, although it was a boon to life using energy and moving out of the oceans, the oxygen was toxic to many existing lifeforms and wiped them out. If Global Warming ever caused a change anywhere near as severe us humans would be royally and truly fucked. But you can be sure that life on earth would eventually thrive afterwards.
  • Top 20 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tokul (682258) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @01:49PM (#21659783)
    Make top20. Then you can have 20 pages full of ads instead of just 10.
  • In October, researchers from Bangor University in Wales were trawling an ocean shelf off the coast of north Iceland when they stumbled on what is believed to be the world's oldest living animal: a 405 year-old clam. Or it was living, until researchers had to kill it to determine the clam's age by studying rings on its shell.

    Amazing. Absolutely amazing. :P
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      In October, researchers from Bangor University in Wales were trawling an ocean shelf off the coast of north Iceland when they stumbled on what is believed to be the world's oldest living animal: a 405 year-old clam. Or it was living, until researchers had to kill it to determine the clam's age by studying rings on its shell.

      The shell in question "ming" was brought up during dredging for Global warming research. By the time they got to the specimen, it had died. Researchers didn't physically kill it to fin
  • by C. Alan (623148) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @02:46PM (#21660815)

    IMO, the discover that may end up having the most impact will end up being the guys who discovered what atmospheric conditions are most condusive to the transmission of Influenza. [iht.com]

    Don't want to get sick?, crank up the heat, and plug in that humidifier.

    • > "opposition from the Bush Administration"
      maybe Bush is worried that all the scientific research will discover he's the missing link in the fossil records?
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Huh? If stem cells really have the potential their proselytizers would have us believe, the pharmcos would have their alleged puppet allow them to kill newborns for stem cells, if need be.
    • Re:'Discoveries' (Score:4, Informative)

      by ResidntGeek (772730) on Tuesday December 11 2007, @02:38PM (#21660683) Journal
      Well, I'm sure about clams, and I can tell you they have no preference either way.

      And they didn't kill it to prove it was the oldest living animal. They brought up a bunch of clams, started measuring ages, and found one of the dead ones had been 405 years old.
    • What a lot of people apparently don't realize is that those people opposed to embryonic stem cell research are also opposed to the creation of embryos for fertility purposes. Claiming that they would be discarded anyway and thus should be used for scientific purposes begs the real and insufficiently addressed ethical question of whether or not they should have even been created in the first place.
    • "#10. Real-Life Kryptonite
      A mineralologist discovered a white, powdery mineral that has the same properties - sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide -- as the fictional kryptonite."

      Who did they test it on? Christopher Reeve is dead alreadymmm