<HTML>lone,
I apologise for the tone of my message but you were unclear in your own post.
> >You've decided to deride an entire area of science merely
> because you
> >appear to have misunderstood the claims that were made about
> it.
>
> I think you should read posts before replying on impulsively.
Is it my fault for taking your sentiments wrongly or yours for not conveying your message better? I got the point i just thought you were being unfairly critical.
> And since you seem to think I do not even think before
> posting, here is
> some material.
>
> "Eric Lander, professor of biology and director of the
> Whitehead Genome Center, and Lauren Linton, co-director of
> its sequencing center, as well as sequencing center team
> leaders were in the White House East Room as President
> Clinton and Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair made the
> historic announcement -- that the "book of life" had been
> decoded. The room was electric with anticipation as the band
> played "Hail to the Chief" and announced the President's
> entrance."
>
> "Having churned out a map of the human genome, Celera
> Genomics is now stepping into a new race, one already
> cluttered with competitors. Joined by two other divisions of
> its parent company, Applera Corporation, Celera plans to sort
> through the genome it decoded and pinpoint bits of genes
> crucial in designing new diagnostic tests and drugs"
If you had posted that in your original message I doubt if I would have responded to it.
> Now before you reply again on impulse (assuming you are still
> reading),
Still here and I appreciate being patronised too. :-)
let me say that I do understand a tiny little bit
> about genetics, and I do know the difference between
> sequencing a genome and what understanding it implies, after
> all that was the point of my post.
>
> I do not worry about people like you,
I worry about me tho'. LOL.
or most of the people
> here, but there are a lot of others whose only source of
> information on this is the newspaper. I do not like grand
> announces in the kind of what Clinton, Blair, Celera Genomics
> & al do, that lead my grandparents to think we are almost
> done understanding life.
Agreed. It amounts to manipulation of people and the propagation of ignorance.
> Yes, 'Naive' is probably a word that would apply to them in
> the field of genetics, and honnestly I do not think they
> care, what they care about is that they really felt misled
> once they got it explained.
>
> _I guess_ you _could_ argue that it's the media's fault, but
> that's just not my opinion.
I agree the problem lies with science itself - the interpretation of science by the media will always be flawed.
> You can still call me misleading and dishonnest if you will,
> it is only my opinion and I sometimes like to give it. Sorry.
Likewise.
Cheers,
Duncan</HTML>
