Following up: robot marriage, political (neuro)science and stem cell politics
Here are a few updates and extensions to earlier posts on blog.bioethics.net:
And you thought gay marriage was controversial
Back in October we posted an item about one researcher's speculation that human-robot marriage was at most 50 years away. Of course, this prompts the question that also sounds like a bad realty TV stunt: Who would want to marry a robot? Well, Wired's Regina Lynn says she might:
I don't plan to marry again, but if for some reason I must, I might consider tying that knot with a robot.
As Dave Barry says, I am not making this up. Artificial-intelligence expert David Levy's new book, Love + Sex With Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot Relationships, makes a compelling case for the development of real human-robot partnerships -- by 2050.
I'll be 80 by then, but who cares? With the help of aphrodisiac pharmaceuticals, I'll be as randy and functional as ever, with a wealth of experience I absolutely plan to gain between now and then.
Lynn goes on to list 10 reasons why'd she'd consider it. Among them, "If your spouse is a robot, your in-laws also have off switches."
Swing voters in the scanner
A few weeks ago we linked to Martha Farrah's skeptical take on a NYT piece detailing the results of fMRI scans of swing voters. In the time since, many other have joined Martha in her skepticism. Of the piece Daniel Engber wrote at Slate, "Don't believe a word of it. To liken these neurological pundits to snake-oil salesmen would be far too generous." At the Mind Hacks blog, Vaughn Bell called the piece "essentially PR for FKF Applied Research, a 'neuromarketing company' who will carry out bespoke brain scan marketing studies for a price." And writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, Megan Garber pointed out that the graphics accompanying the NYT piece portrayed the info incorrectly.
Politics and cell reprogramming
The news about induced pluripotent stem cells has prompted everyone's favorite game of punditry "Yes, it is! No, it's not!" Among the players this time are Charles Krauthammer and Michael Kinsley. In the Washington Post, Krauthammer writes that iPS cells are a vindication for President Bush. And in Time, Kinsley counters that the praise for Mr. Bush on this issue is just another form of hypocrisy.
contribute a comment
Your contributions to the conversation are very much appreciated. We do have a few simple guidelines, though. Be civil. Stay on topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that violate the aforementioned guidelines. One more thing: comments are moderated, so it may take a little while for your comment to be posted. Thanks.
comments
re: scanning swinger--"joined her"? That suggests a movement from one postion to another. Scientifically it was clearly bollocks from the get go.
- by emily on Nov 30, 2007 at 2:45 PM | link
No such suggestion intended -- it was just an acknowledgement that Martha was one of the first to post a skeptical take on it. Maybe "followed" would have been a better word to use.
- by Greg on Nov 30, 2007 at 3:01 PM | link
I thought Goldacre's take on it was fairly pithy too: http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/this-is-your-brain-this-is-your-brain-on-politics-any-questions/
- by emily on Nov 30, 2007 at 3:45 PM | link
I had hoped you would pick up the Kinsley article.
"If stem cells, or something like them, can be obtained without the use of embryos, that eliminates the supposed ethical problem that led President George W. Bush to ban almost all federal financing of embryonic-stem-cell research in 2001. The result has been a severe reduction in embryonic-stem-cell research."
First, if in Pres. Bush's ethos there is a problem with embryonic stem cell research, then it is not a "supposed" ethical problem. Kinsley does not have to share his view in order for it to be valid.
Second, was embryonic stem cell research federally funded at all before 2001? Somehow I got the impression that it was not. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I'm right, then any "severe reduction in embryonic-stem-cell research" can't be due to lack of federal funding.
"The embryos used in stem-cell research come from fertility clinics, which otherwise would discard them. This has been a powerful argument in favor of such research. Why let these embryos go to waste?"
We could drastically speed up clinical research to cure Kinsley's Parkinson's (which I am sorry he has) by performing experiments on death-row criminals, which would eliminate the need for all the FDA oversight, informed consent and so forth. They're going to be sacrificed anyway, why let them go to waste?
- by Laura(southernxyl) on Nov 30, 2007 at 7:12 PM | link
Some news stories (for example, in Time and Newsweek) have pointed out that iPS cell researchers themselves have stated that iPS cell research does not avert the need for human embryonic stem cell research. I think these reporters may be referring to an article I wrote with Shinya Yamanaka, Rudolf Jaenisch, and Konrad Hochedlinger, which appeared in Cell Stem Cell last October. This article was sent out in press release by the International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR) when news of the human iPS cell breakthrough was made public. Here is the link to that Cell Stem Cell commentary if any are interested. We wrote this commentary in reference to the mouse iPS cell advances last June. Most of the arguments still pertain to the human case. http://download.cellstemcell.com/pdfs/1934-5909/PIIS1934590907001762.pdf
Insoo Hyun
- by Insoo Hyun on Dec 1, 2007 at 9:08 AM | link
I wonder how often our friend from Kyoto is planning to publish and what tweaks we'll hear about next week?
I also wonder how many of the comments about "must fund all" come from - or actually are a type of - the application of the sort of pressure that Gearhart told his audience in DC that he and others applied to induce Atala to write Pelosi?
I'm trying to get used to the idea of scientists as reactionaries.
Politics aside, I don't think any of the research could have gone any faster even without the "pressure" from either side. The basic science had to be done, and was.
- by Beverly Nuckols on Dec 1, 2007 at 12:25 PM | link