Glider

Speaking of which, there was a case of Dhengi fever round here recently (a nasty and untreatable haemorrhagic virus). That would do the trick I think.

I'm not sure of the aetiology of ADHD, however, I believe it is the result of a chemical imbalance. I know there has been research implicating dietary factors and certain foods are known to exacerbate the condition. This supports the contention of chemical imbalance as an aetiological factor. As you have previously acknowledged ADHD as , saying "you can overcome ADD with focus" makes about as much sense as saying you can overcome schitzophrenia with focus (another disorder with both physiological and psychological components). There is a significant difference between ADHD and a boring class. In a boring environment, we may reasonably expect most people to show signs of boredom. People with ADHD on the other hand, show signs of boredom even in relatively stimulating environments (within certain bounds). Where it becomes tricky is differentiating between those whose problems result from a poor environment/upbringing/socialisation/development of study skills and those who have a genuine clinical disorder.

What gives you the idea it would be up to the parents? Do you think the successful production of the first human clone would go unnoticed or unmentioned? Would I be able to tell a human clone from a normal human being? (you think the clone wouldn't be a 'normal' human being? A very telling use of language there). I guess I'd just look for the poor sod surrounded by the media circus. Think about the phrase "...we shouldn't use medical technology to give them life". Give who life? Who are you talking about? We are not talking about giving life to an existing individual. That would be more akin to resuscitating an RTA victim who would otherwise die. We are talking about creating an entirely new life through entirely artificial means. Cloning a human being is not like pulling somebody out of a smashed car and resuscitating them. In this instance, their life was their own to begin with and the decision to resuscitate them was driven by an ethical principle; to preserve life. If the victim suffers as a result of that decision, we can at least justify it as the only alternative was to stand by and let them die (the victim may prefer that alternative, but at least they are alive to make that decision). Human cloning on the other hand, is not about preserving life, it is about creating a life where, without technological intervention, there would not have been a life. In this case we are not acting out of an ethical imperitive. Where is the ethics? Quite simply if we create a human being through entirely artificial means (unlike invitro fertilisation), then we have to take full responsibility for the consequences of our actions. If our rationale for creating that human being is no better than "because we could", then we have absolutely no justification for any suffering that person undergoes as a result of their being a clone. The alternative to cloning (unlike resuscitating a badly smashed person) is not to allow somebody to die, or even to deny somebody life. The alternative to cloning is simply not cloning. Thus cloning cannot even be said to be the lesser of two evils. So, if creating a human clone is not the lesser of two evils, nor the result of an ethical imperative, nor the result of any significant need, why the hell do it? If we create a human clone without being able to provide a solid rationale for doing so, then we are responsible (and should be held accountable) should that person suffer in any way as a direct or indirect result of their being a clone. Would you be prepared to take that responsibility?

Most people know that invitro babies are the product of two biological parents. Feelings on genetics and cloning are running much higher than they are on invitro fertilization. You only have to view the threads on those topics here to see that. The idea of genetic modification and cloning scares many people (rightly or wrongly). Can you imagine the publicity surrounding the first human clone? Look at the international buzz those raelian dipwits caused, and that was in the absence of any evidence that they were even telling the truth! Can you imagine what this person would (for example) read about themselves in some of the tabloids? This wouldn't be a result of deliberate publicity seeking like some sad z-list celebrity, this would be inflicted on some poor sod simply as a result of his or her being. Attempts to protect the individual from this kind of thing would result in their being constantly surrounded by protective adults and closeted from reality. It might even be thought best if they weren't told that they were clones, and then they would have to live surrounded by people who knew more about them than they did, and who were constantly shielding them from the truth concerning their origins and censoring the information to which they had access. More likely, they wouldn't know peace. They would be followed and monitored and judged. They may be considered an abomination by some, they may be considered a triumph of human ingenuity by others, but I doubt they would be considerd a private individual with the same rights to privacy and free choice as everybody else. I think a key question is: Can we guarantee a human clone a normal life (for better or worse, but at least one that would be their own)? If we have any doubts that we can, I can't see how we can justify cloning a human.

I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean ADHD has turned into a farce because there is a psychological component? I am a bit vague on two points here: 1) In what way has ADHD turned into a farce? 2) how is this attributable to the existance of a psychological component?

ADHD is controllable using drug intervention. Counter intuitively, amphetamine (speed) based drugs are quite effective. It works this way: ADHD is thought to lead to a heightened threshold of stimulation, it takes much more intense stimuli to reach the individual, so sufferers therefore remain understimulated and the behavioural problems are a result of severe boredom, similar to the boredom induced neuroses displayed by understimulated animals in small cages...perseverance behaviours such as weaving, pacing and headbutting the walls, and self mutilation, destruction of objects in the immediate vicinity and heightened aggression. Amphetamine based drugs reduce the stimulus threshold so more external stimuli get through. This helps the sufferer focus and things can hold their attention for longer which, significantly, has a direct positive impact on subsequent academic performance. The changes can be quite startling; from a screaming, uncontrollable brat, to a calm, even studious indidual who (importantly) is a lot happier. The technical psychological term for 'stupid' is...er...well, 'stupid'.

Exactly. And I believe the answer to that particular question is at least suggested by the title of this forum "What use will cloned humans serve?" and of this particular poll "Are cloned humans going to be of any practical use?". Are cloned humans to be considered commodities? Are they to be thought of as resources? Is the only rationale for cloning humans that they must be of some practical use to non-clones? What the hell are we talking about here?...pit ponies? For a principle or standard to be ethical, it must be applicable to all, equally. Therefore the questions above should apply equally to all of us: What use do we serve? Are we of any practical use? If any one of us feels that nobody has the right to ask us to justify our own existance by being of some practical use to somebody, then we cannot expect the right to use these criteria to rationalise the existence of clones. Human clones would be human and when it comes to existance, to apply different criteria to them (i.e. that they must be of some practical use) than we do to non-clones would be completely unethical unless we could demonstrate that every non-clone is of some practical use. So, like Sayonara says, we need a damned good reason why we should clone humans. "Because we can" is not a reason. The ability to do something does not mean we should. The criteron "they would be of some practical use" is completely unethical because it would mean applying double standards as we don't apply it to non-clones. Thus, an argument for cloning humans based on their being of some practical use is as reasonable as an argument for gassing all those who are of no practical use (shaddap Fafalone! ).

This suggests that 59% didn't know when their owner was coming home. In any event, irrespective of other variables, (the sound of footsteps, or the car pulling up, and so-on), dogs and cats are known to have a sense of time, insofar as they recognise certain significant (to them) points in their day such as when to expect food (dogs and cats will begin to signal that time if the owner forgets). This occurs as a result of repeated laying down of the association between regular events (of which feeding and the arrival of the owner are examples) and regular periods in the day of the animal. This is an example of Pavlovian stimulus-response conditioning, where certain zeitgeibers significant to the animal act as the conditioned stimuli. If the owner comes home at a more or less regular time each day, the dog will begin to show signs of expectancy around that time each day. I find it more interesting that 59% of dogs didn't learn that association. It is possible that their owners had a less regular timetable. Others attribute it to the perception-behaviour link. Briefly, this proposes a direct link between perception of the behaviour of others, and one's own behaviour. In things such as schooling fish, this has been shown to be a function of central mechanisms; neural circuits that link the detected motion of other fish to motor centres of the brain, and directly influence the behaviour of the perciever, keeping it 'in phase' (Dijksterhuis, Bargh & Miedema. 2000). This is entirely automatic. The argument goes that as these mechanisms still exist in higher animals (in the brain stem and limbic brain), there is no reason to suppose they do not exert the same effect. There is a large body of empirical evidence showing that even in humans, the behaviour of an individual can be directly influence by the behaviour of those around him (see e.g. Chartrand & Bargh. 1999). This effect is entirely automatic and occurs outside of conscious awareness. With respect to the monkeys washing the potatoes, if we were to place two people in two separate rooms each containing a wash basin, and gave each person an apple covered in some distasteful substance, it is reasonable to suppose that both individuals would wash their apple, and that this would occur in the absence of line of sight, or any other contact between them. I see no reason to suppose the principle would be any different for macaques. Many higher primates have been observed washing food spontaniously. I see no argument for telepathy. References Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (6), 893-910. Dijksterhuis, A., Bargh, J. A., & Miedema, J. (2000). Of men and mackerels: Attention, subjective experience, and automatic social behavior. In H. Bless & J. P. Forgas (Eds.), The message within: The role of subjective experience in social cognition and behavior (pp. 37-51). Philadelphia: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

Are you absolutely certain? Isn't it at least possible that with a higher metabolism, you may have developed along different lines with different interests and priorities, and ultimately, into a completely different person? If so, can you be that certain you would be any better off? Saying eugenics is not evil is the same as saying guns are not evil. It's true in the most absolute sense, i.e. placed in a locked steel cabinet and left alone, neither will do any harm. However, history shows that these things in the hands of people do tend to do quite a lot of damage. So you're right, eugenics per seis not evil, but I'm still not keen to give small groups of people the power to implement it. Looking around, we can see what some people are prepared to do to their own bodies in their attempts to achieve 'perfection'. Whilst I think they are idiots (or at least people with problems that can't be solved through surgery), I do think that they can do what they like with their own bodies (as long as everybody else is not expected to pay for it, or to pay for long-term treatment if it all goes pants). However, I don't think they have the same right to impose their own values on other people, either surgically or genetically.

Me too

First of all, if you are receiving poor grades, your teacher should be telling you exactly why, and how to improve them. If they don't, then they are not really teaching you anything. Nonetheless, here's a brief outline of report writing. All scientific reports take the same format. These can be tailored to the needs of the individual report, but section by section, here's how they are generally done. Title This should provide the reader with some indication as to the nature of the study, but be as short and concise as possible. E.g. "The effects of pre-conscious processing on the perception of pain in healthy adults". This tells the reader what the study investigates, but avoids unnecesary words such as "An experiment to show...". That it is an experiment will be apparent to any qualified reader. Abstract This is usually written last. It is a precis of the entire report and should include the rationale, very brief methodology, main results and conclusions. Many journals limit the abstract to 150-200 words, so be very concise. Introduction The function of an introduction is to provide a theoretical framework, a context and a rationale for the study. These are closely related and overlap in many ways. The theoretical framework involves reviewing previous (relevant) work in the area in order to provide a background (context) for your study. Based on that previous work, you need to construct an argument showing how you think your study refutes/extends or in any way adds to knowledge in the area of interest. Done well this will provide the rationale (why the study was done). The introduction should lead the reader along a logical and linear series of arguments to a logical conclusion, which will be your hypothesis(es). If this is done well, the reader should have some idea of your hypothesis before they reach the end of the intoduction. Nonetheless, your hypothesis(es) should be stated clearly at the end of the introduction. Methods The function of the methods section is to allow a reader (should they wish to) to accurately reproduce your experiment. The methods section usually contains a series of sub-sections according to the nature of the study. For example, Experimental Design, Participants, Materials, Procedure are common sub-sections. Essentially, the methods section should provide all relevant information required to reproduce your experiment exactly, whilst avoiding unnecessary or irrelevant information. Results The function of the results section is to present your findings in a way that is clear and easy to understand. There are three general stages: First, you need to outline the form of the data (what the data are, e.g. reaction times in milliseconds, and how many samples, e.g. two from independent groups, or two from the same group measured twice and so-on) and any treatment you applied to them. Second you need to present descriptive statistics. These can be tables or appropriate charts. Their function is to present the data in a way that is congruent with your hypothesis(es). E.g. say your experiment tested the effect of alcohol on reaction times, and your design was independent groups, where groups A was given a placebo, and group B was given alcohol, then you measured the reaction times of groups A & B. You have two sample of reaction times measured in millisecond from two independent groups. Your hypothesis may be that "Alcohol will increase reaction times". This suggests that you are comparing the mean reaction times of groups A & B. So, appropriate descriptives aould be a table of means and standard deviations, or a bar chart showing the mean reaction times (& SDs) of each group. third, you need to present the results of any inferential tests you performed (if any). Where the table or bar chart may show the means to be different, you cannot infer anything from descritive statistics. These differences may be due to nois in the data (everybody has slightly different reaction times anyway). To test whether or not the difference is statistically significant, you perform an inferential test (which would be an independent t-test in this case). The results of the test determines your statement of results. An example of this may be: Analysis using an independent t-test showed that the reaction times for group B were significantly longer than reaction times for group A (t= -2.44, df = 38, p = 0.019).. That is all you need to say. The results section is usually the shortest, and most concise; you simply state the results here, you do not discuss them. Discussion the discussion is where you discuss your results in the context provided by your introduction. The first snentance/paragraph should be a straightforward restatement of your results in plain English (no statistics). You would then go on to discuss what the results mean in terms of the theoretical framework you created in your introduction. Also included in this section would be discussion of the implications of your results; what is the effect of you results on previous research in the area? Do they refute previous findings or extend them? If so, in what way? What has your experiment added to the field of study? and so-on. You would also add some reference to future directions in this research, i.e. in light of your experimental results, what would you consider a reasonable next step? References These are important. You will have cited previous work in your introduction, and probably again in your discussion. Wherever you cite previous work, you should create a reference section where you include the full references for all the articles you cited in the main body. The format of your reference section will depend on whether you use the Harvard method (Author - date) or the numeric method of citation. Appendices Any additional material not appropriate for inclusion in the man body is usually placed in the appendices. The appendices are not a bin for junking all your raw data, but should be used to include things of relevance that cannot be included in the main body. These might be things like the questionnaire you used to collect the data, or the original computer output of EEG scans or whatever; things the reader might like to examine that don't fit in any other part of the paper. This (broadly) is what a research report is about. There are a few stylistic things to know also. By convention, lab reports and research papers are written in scientific prose (i.e. in third-party past-perfect tense), avoiding the use of personal pronouns (I, we, me and so-on). This means that the following example: I gave 20ml alcohol in solution to each of the participants. After 20 minutes, we asked them to take the reaction time test, and I measured their reaction times in milliseconds should read: Participants were given 20ml alcohol in solution. After 20 minutes, participants performed the reaction time test, and their reaction times were recorded in milliseconds). Whereaver you refer to other work, you must cite the source. For example, the statement: It has been shown that the medial (affective-motivational) division of the pain matrix has retained a degree of fuctional independence from the lateral (sensory-discriminative) division of the pain matrix. immediately begs the question; shown by whom? To avoid generating such questions (and also accusations of plagiarism), the above should read: It has been shown that the medial (affective-motivational) division of the pain matrix has retained a degree of fuctional independence from the lateral (sensory-discriminative) division of the pain matrix (Ploner, Freund & Schnitzler. 1999). Finally, you should consider your target readers when writing a report, to help you get the right level. In general, you should assume that you are writing for people who are at least as qualified as you, but not necessarily in your particular field of expertise. This means avoiding jargon specific to your field, but taking as a given a basic understanding of the discipline (be it chemistry, physics, psychology or whatever) and scientific methodology, and writing at a level that a qualified individual would understand. I have attached a research report in *.pdf format. It is a simple enough paper, but it might help to give you an idea of the general 'feel' of a lab report. The best way to learn how they are done, is to read them. You don't have to understand the subject, or even have an interest in it, you can still get a feel for the layout, the use of language and the general style. I hope this is of some use to you. References Ploner, M. Freund, H. J. and Schnitzler, A., (1999). Pain affect without pain sensation in a patient with a postcentral lesion. Pain. 81: 211-214.

I think you're looking at it backwards, a bit like saying "isn't it amazing that I have evolved arms just long enough to reach the handlebars on my bike?" The human came first, the drawing second. The drawing works because humans evolved that way (and in reality, it wouldn't always work as people don't all have those proportions). Humans could have evolved with arms like gibbons (if that provided a significant evolutionary advantage), in which case the drawing would not exist in that form.

Relentless is an excellent word to describe violence by women. A person stabbed to death, they'll look for a male suspect. A person stabbed several times, they'll look for a frenzied male suspect. A person stabbed 30 odd times, they'll start looking for a female.

Me too. It's starting to look a bit dodgy though.

Well Chris, whilst I appreciate your sentiments concerning what America is about, it would appear that America is not unanimous in that view. I got a spam e-mail this morning. Let me quote some of it for you: It then directs you to a website offering small bottles of potassium iodide for $49.95 each. http://www.software-is-fun.com/affiliate16/ What does this suggest America is about? Is it the expression of mawkish sentiment to attract a quick buck? Could it be to assist terrorists by spreading alarm through the implication that the next terrorist attack is likely to be nuclear? Is it to incite fear in order to sell a product? Or is it simply to prey on the existing fears of people for financial gain? So, Chris, do you think it would be reasonable for people to draw inferences concerning your whole country on the basis of this kind trash? For that matter, would you consider it reasonable for the British to draw inferences concerning your whole country on the basis of your post? In my opinion, you do your country a disservice. I would like to think America as a whole is better than that, so why are you spending your time reinforcing the worst stereotypes of Americans and not encouraging the best?

All other thing being equal. the active partner in male female couple has the higher probability as the vaginal secretions of an HIV infected female do contain the virus, whereas there are no anal secretions to speak of. However, the probability is still very low. Having said that, all other things are very rarely equal, and unprotected anal sex is more likely to result in lesioning of both the rectum and penis which increases the risk of transmission considerably. So in reality I would have to say the active partner in male-male couples is at greater risk. Yes. The vagina has a number of defensive strategies against infection. The secretions are acidic and the environment is quite hostile, even to sperm. The buccal membranes of the mouth, whilst lined by the same kind of tissue, do not have such defences. Whilst saliva has certain antibiotic properties, HIV being a virus, is unaffected by it. Both buccal and vaginal secretions contain the secretory immunoglobulin Ig-A but, as the spread of the disease would suggest, this is not a particularly robust defence against the HIV virus.

Yep, there is always going to be a problem when the attempt to determine aetiologal factors of an epidemic is dependent to any degree on self-report, as nobody wants to 'take the blame'. However, in answer to your question, we need to be clear on the difference between what is possible and what is probable. It is most certainly possible for males to become infected through vaginal intercourse. However a male becoming infected during vaginal intercourse with an infected female is much less probable than a female becoming infected through vaginal intercourse with an infected male. This has to do with a number of factors, e.g. the difference in the types of skin cells involved. The penis is quite well protected with more or less normal skin, whilst the delicate (flattened epithelial) cells of the vaginal lining, rectal lining and buccal membranes are more prone to lesioning and HIV invasion. Another factor is viral count. Semen from an infected male contains a much higher viral count than vaginal secretions of an infected female. Whilst it may be argued that it only takes one virus to infect a body, this is misleading. Hepatitis-B for example, is around 300 times more contractable than HIV. It takes exposure to significantly fewer viral particles to become infected with Hep-B than HIV. In short, an infected male having vaginal or anal sex will innoculate his partner with large numbers of virus directly into regions lined with more susceptible and more easily damaged cells (anal sex frequently results in lesions to the anal lining, and these lesions - however small - significantly increase the risk of infection as they allow the virus direct access to the bloodstream. An infected female having vaginal sex will expose her partner to lower numbers of viral particles, and the male penis is better protected overall. Thus, the probability of a male contracting HIV from an infected female is much lower than a female (or 'passive' male partner) of an infected male becoming infected, but it is by no means impossible. All it takes is one little lesion; abrasion of a few cells and the virus has a way in.

Way too many words there mate. I'm surprised people are surprised.

...er...it seems to be a factor?....um...

First of all, this is not extrapolation. The synthesis of vitamin D3 in the skin (or more precisely, the observation that dark skins require around four times the amount of UV to synthesise the same amount of vitamin D3 as light skins) is one piece of evidence in support of the hypothesis that skin colour is a function of adaptation to climate. This is not my hypothesis, but it is one that makes sense to me in light of the evidence. These contain dietary vitamin D (D2). Sunlight is our only source of D3. True, they did. However, your 'hypothesis' that 'cavemen' wore clothes as a protection against sunburn runs contrary to observations. People tend to wear more clothes the further north you go, effectively cutting down skin exposure to sunlight in climates where the risk of sunburn is lower. On the other hand, people in hotter (more sunny) climates where the risk of sunburn is higher, tend to wear fewer clothes (e.g. the aboriginal people of Australia and indigenous African peoples). Even in cooler, more northerly climes, we can observe the relationship between weather and clothing. Whilst people are now more aware of the dangers of UV radiation, people still have a tendency to wear fewer clothes providing less overall cover in hotter, more sunny weather. In light of this, we may assume that the primary function of clothes was warmth as opposed to protection against sunburn. Thus it would seem that your hypothesis is not supported by the evidence. I am aware of that. I don't recall ever presenting it as fact (there are surprisingly few facts in science, particularly those dealing with non-observable phenomena). That is the function of research: Theorise, hypothesize, test, readjust the theory, hypothesize, test and so-on. Ideas concerning the origins of human beings; the development of race traits, language, intelligence, culture and so-on are all hypotheses. They have to be by definition as there was nobody there to observe and record these developments. Nonetheless, many of these hypotheses are supported by evidence. If you disagree with this particular hypothesis (skin colour is a function of adaptation to climate), then you are free to present evidence to the contrary.

I think Aman is right...140km, not miles. I'm not sure how a guidance system could extend range. That would take more fuel. On the other hand if the fuel load was miscalculated even a little bit, in the absence of a guidence system to bring it down before it ran out, the missile would overfly the target (same principle as the V1 rockets).

With regard to the Jurassic park scenario, we may just get away with it using mammoth. There have been a relatively large number of mammoth remains discovered, and scientists have managed to glean a lot of interesting information from them. For example, working from a number of anatomical clues, the prevailing theory is that mammoth were vegetarian. Based upon this evidence, most experts agree that mammoth were less prone to eating people than certain other animals existing at that time, such as the cave lion for instance. Similar anatomical clues suggest that mammoth were also quite large, which, it is supposed, would make it difficult for them to hide behind trees or small bushes, and would also present certain problems when attempting to stalk things through long grass. Moreover, investigations which reveal that mammoth had legs and knees in a similar conformation to the modern elephant suggest that they were a lot slower than say, velociraptors, or even a cave lion with a badly twisted ankle. Elephant are not famed for their ability to jump, and given the similarity between modern elephant and mammoth in leg and knee conformation, it is widely held that there are no real grounds to suppose that mammoth would be particularly good at it either. Thus (it is reasoned), even if they were found to be particularly 'stalky' in nature, they are unlikely to be much good at pouncing. The upshot of this is that most experts believe that should we manage to successfully clone mammoth, people going for a walk through the bush or long grass are unlikely to be at significant risk of being stalked and pounced on by them. However, it has been suggested in certain, more cynical quarters that a significant risk to the public would be posed by the aggressive marketing of novelty t-shirts and small plastic mammoth in amusing poses. As to the actual act of cloning mammoth, I agree with the guy on Jurassic park when he said that these people are so busy working out whether they could, they forgot to ask whether they should.

This thing with the missiles cracks me up. Apparently, Iraq are allowed to have missiles, as long as they don't exceed about 140 miles in range. The problem was that somebody noticed one that flew about 180 miles. When asked about this, the Iraqis said that this was due to the fact that they didn't actually have a guidence system for the missiles, and so they really had no real control over where they land. So now they're gonna get pounded because the missliles they're allowed to have get good milage. Maybe it's just me, but this is starting to seem a bit surreal, in a tragic kind of way.

Surely the ultimate proof will be your grades?

Very true, as do chimps. However, these animals have in common a fairly comprehensive covering of hair, which homo sapiens lack (or at least most of them). They also have different skin structure and chemistry to humans, which means they are not strictly comparable. Other animals (e.g. dogs, cats, horses and so-on) also show differences in skin pigmentation. The patterns of melanin production in these animals occurs for different reasons than in humans. They also have different skin structures and chemistry to humans. For example, horses have sweat glands and sweat through their skin, dogs don't. As I mentioned earlier, one of the functions of human skin is the synthesis of vitamin D. In the skin, the precursor substance, 7-dehydrocholesterol, is converted to cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) in the presence of UV radiation. In the liver, cholecalciferol is converted to 25-hydroxycholecalciferol. Then, in the kidneys, this substance is changed into 1,25-dihydroxycalciferol (calcitriol), the most active form of vitamin D that stimulates the absorption of calcium and phosphorous from dietary foods. Whilst we need a degree of UV exposure to produce sufficient vitamin D, too much results in burning and can lead to skin cancer. Tanning (the production of melanin) is a defence against this, and provides protection against UV radiation, thus in darker skins, more UV exposure is required to produce the same amount of vitamin D than in lighter skins.