Posted 14 February 2005 - 02:45 PM
I was thinking about what sorts of sub-fora we might have, and whether that might justify splitting or not.
Genetics (as Laz suggested)
SENS
Theories of Aging
General Biotech (a better name would be adviseable, but the content is what I was trying to convey).
Any others? Would proteomics (e.g. the recent post on the Protein Grid) fall under genetics, as the two are interrelated, or is there sufficient reason to split those two?
Also, where would issues like parthogenesis, cloning (reproductive and therapeutic), and stem cell culturing (adult, embryonic, etc.) go? The Stem Cell news topic is VERY long and too dense to be useful to someone who doesn't follow it on a regular basis.
My reasons for suggesting a SENS sub-forum:
-I don't want to drag de Grey or Michael Rae in here to constantly defend his work, so we'd encourage discussion (not just debate, but cordial discussion and brainstorming) about SENS by the membership here, including non-biologists like myself, and biologists like John Schloendorn (I assume he's a biologist, anyway).
-I figure the "Prometheus vs. SENS" topic could be a pinned topic in a SENS sub-forum (should probably be renamed though, as the name is inherently a little antagonistic, and it's not just Prometheus that has questions about SENS). This would give a good start point for people entering the topic. We'd need another pinned topic on brainstorming the political and sociological effectiveness of how SENS is presented. Another on brainstorming how its effectiveness in the scientific circles.
- ImmInst is a huge resource for Dr. de Grey. We have many avid supporters, some of whom have biology backgrounds, are perhaps graduate students or research students at the moment. This proposed sub-forum would give de Grey an organized way to reach out to that resource. If John Schloendorn would like to moderate the forum, that would be great. If not, then maybe someone else with a biology background. I guess the forum doesn't have to have a moderator, but I'm just throwing that suggestion out there.
- Covering our bases. de Grey's presentation of SENS has different audiences, with different goals he must pursue. In pursuing the public, politicians, and biologists of related fields (i.e. without specific knowledge applicable to the finer points of SENS), he must convey that wow factor. This is a necessary "evil". This meme needs more support. However, in dealing with the experts within the relevant fields, he must convey the most scientifically accurate, complete, practical picture possible. I'm not a scientist in one of those relevant scientific fields, but I can do basic economic and actuarial math, and I remain a sceptic. However, rather than attack de Grey's ideas, I have tried (with limited success) to encourage positive debate instead. The issues are small in technical terms, but very large in practical, social, economic terms. Hence my resolve, despite my biological ignorance, to pursue these debates.
We are nearing the point where enough information has been provided by de Grey, that would allow us as a community to debate these issues ourselves, thus freeing de Grey's time while addressing what I see as huge concerns. There are a broad range of topics, and a sub-forum seems more suitable than one huge thread with dozens of very long, multi-topical posts (yes, I realize multi-topical probably isn't a real word).
We owe it to the world to make sure that SENS isn't just a good, possible way to achieve escape velocity. It must be the best possible, most practical way to achieve escape velocity. If after these debates, we decide that nothing needs to be changed, we will at least have a solid set of well-debated evidence, sufficient to stand peer review, to back that claim. Not just on the scientific details, but on the socioeconomic practicalities as well.
