September's issue of Scientific American is devoted to technology and privacy. Himself is cited in the Editor's note.
There is also an item that I found very interesting. It seems that in 2006 two Swiss primate researchers attempted to renew their research licenses through the local veterinary office, which is required every three years. Daniel Kiper wanted to look at how the brain changes when learning tasks, research that may help stroke victims. He planned to implant electrodes and regulate water intake. Kevan Martin wanted to study the macaque neocortex which carries out functions such as spatial reasoning and conscious thought. This researcher relied on injecting tracers in the primates and later euthanizing them. An advisory board, the Committee on Animal Experiments protested that the studies' expected benefits were not sufficient to justify the burden on the animals. They appealed to the Swiss Health Department who forced the researchers to halt their experiments. Hans Scherberger who uses techniques similar to Kiper, studies how the brain controls hand movements. His research was approved with *no* protest. The reasoning was that Scherberger's research had a very clear application for humans. Kiper and Martin's experiments "were not concrete and would take a long time to benefit society." I won't go on (read the article for yourselves), but I wonder what does this mean for basic research. Will we see the day when research involving animals will be permitted only when there is a direct and immediate application for humans? What about basic research in other fields? Securing funding for basic research is always chancy. Will funding be contingent on direct applications for humans? And if so, is serendipity doomed? inquiring minds maru john _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
