The difference being, of course, that the Wright Brothers early work got off
the ground. But if youre eagerly awaiting the imminent arrival of Jurassic
Park, be my guest--but make sure you stay in at night!
Sean McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've
got a
[Behavioral genetics is very mainstream these days -- unless you consider the
American Psychological Association to be on the fringe.]
http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/genes.html
APA Monitor on Psychology
Volume 33, No. 8 September 2002
APA forms working group on genetics research issues
Actually, I very much consider the American Psychological Association to be on
the fringe, at least scientifically speaking. I'm not a science worshipper, and
find plenty problematic with Big Science, but no one in the scientific
community would consider the APA terribly relevant to scientific
Ok -- what's wrong with this particular article?
tigerbengalis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I very much consider the American Psychological Association to be on
the fringe, at least scientifically speaking. I'm not a science worshipper, and
find plenty
There's nothing wrong with the article, any more than there is nothing wrong
with an article with an article from 2002 promoting a new rock group that's
being touted as the next supergroup, but which winds out disappearing from
public view within a few years.
Same with the attempts by Hamer
Behavioral genetics is yesterday's flash in the pan rock star? I doubt it.
There is a huge momentum in this field that will carry it forward for decades
and centuries to come. It is possible that we will learn how to program life
forms with the same skill that we now create computer
