Top Ten Scientific Discoveries of 2007 179
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'."
htmlslideshow (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
Dissapointing (Score:5, Interesting)
heh, and they missed the most important part (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
more curiosities than discoveries (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Obligatory Global Warming nod (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Dissapointing (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Obligatory Global Warming nod (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't believe you Global-Warming-Deniers even bother with such an assinine arguement. Unless everybody on the entire planet has infinite mobility, it is quite apparent that ANY deviation from the established norm spells disaster. Populations shift with climate change and have established themselves according to the CURRENT climate. When change comes too abruptly (whether or not toward some idiotic "ideal temperature" idea), there will be floods, droughts, starvation, war, and a lot of death.
Re:Top 10 Destroyed Discoveries (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Lost in the "oh goody non embrionic stem cells. (Score:4, Interesting)
What, no Influenza Study? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Obligatory Global Warming nod (Score:3, Interesting)
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, it is the RATE of change that makes it a problem. This is the first time in the history of the Earth that a species actions affect the climate so markedly. It's an impulse function and we don't know what the system's response will be until it's too late. Second, of course some other environment might be better, but changing it to even an ideal environment too quickly is devastating. The Earth is not your living room, where you can just crank up the furnace when you get cold!
Re:Further correction.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I am living proof of this as my meds cost around 80k a month.