I'll admit now I am a very big believer in what we are going to be capable of doing if we do not kill ourselves off. If there isn't life in the cosmos sooner or later we will take care of that ourselves.
My favorite science research currently is the use of technology to put implants in the brain allowing people to control things "mentally". Some really eye widening research and development going on there. Technology based "telepathy" anyone. Verizon's Can You Hear Me Now? on acid and steroids.
But this caught my eye
Video: Bionic Eye DevelopedVery cool. The irritating thing is the best stuff that allows longer lifespans will probably occur just as I reach the end of mine...dang kids.
At the same time of course we have biological and nanotech R&D which of course carry the possibility of Stephen King/Michael Crichton "Ooops" moments.
Asking a Judge to Save the World, and Maybe a Whole Lot MoreQUOTE
More fighting in Iraq. Somalia in chaos. People in this country can't afford their mortgages and in some places now they can't even afford rice.
None of this nor the rest of the grimness on the front page today will matter a bit, though, if two men pursuing a lawsuit in federal court in Hawaii turn out to be right. They think a giant particle accelerator that will begin smashing protons together outside Geneva this summer might produce a black hole or something else that will spell the end of the Earth - and maybe the universe.
Scientists say that is very unlikely - though they have done some checking just to make sure.
Yup key the spooky Dun DUN Daaah! muzak.
Me No worry on that one But it does merit consideration.
Even if the free market is screaming for certain research and products are there some things so dangerous they should be strictly controlled?
Should there be restrictions on certain types of research and how and where it is performed? Such as all biological and chemical on infectious disease be moon based--yes yes a far fetched extreme but you get my point here.
What are valid benchmarks to make such restrictions? More to the point who should make that call? Is such an idea viable? for instance I am a firm believer in biotech and find some of the arguments against modified foods to be akin to believing in Voodoo or Vegetarianism. How could logical and reasonable criteria be set to evaluate the potential benefits vs danger for research? Arrogance of Science vs. primitive monkey brain fears or superstitions? Genetics vs religion for example.
What is your favorite area of research?