Imagine, if only for a moment, that you decide that you want to modify your house. You've decided to give it an extra floor, so that it will increase in value, thereby increasing your personal wealth. You decide to get a contractor, and promise to pay him a bonus, regardless of whether he does a good job. In fact, you even decide to make it so you pay his bonus so long as he works for you on your house and other projects. Now imagine that the contractor has wrecked your house, and you have to spend even more money to put it back to something resembling sturdy. Would you still have to pay that bonus you promised?
As people are discovering much to their dismay, the answer is “yes.” AIG, that insurance behemoth that played such a large role in bringing about the current economic crisis, has recently been contractually obliged to pay out bonuses to their Financial Products Division. This part of the company can arguably be held responsible for all of the disasters that made a fundamentally strong company a beggar on the government dole. Losses of over $61 billion are nothing to sneeze at, especially when more losses are potentially present as the Financial Products Division struggles to unravel the complex toys they created.
Unfortunately, letting AIG fail is about as viable an option as expected. Part of the reason it cannot be allowed to go the way of extinction is because of how much the current financial system depended on AIG and its credit default swaps to protect themselves from their own investments. As a matter of policy, CDS were taken out as a sort of insurance policy should the securities created from pooling mortgages together fail. Obviously, with the same short-sightedness displayed by subprime lenders, AIG happily got into the swaps with the delusion that housing would never go through a business cycle again. Not only that, CDS are not regulated, so people who did not even own those securities could insure them: in essence credit default swaps are bets on whether or not something will fail, with the bet-maker paying an insurance premium while the house holds onto the bet. Should the bet not be paid off, the contract system falls apart, institutions have no reason to trust each other, and things become even worse than they are.
This is where the retention bonuses come in. After the market began to display the first stench of rot, the underwriters at FPG declined to stop their reckless insuring. AIG sensed that the end was near, as did many of its employees in the Financial Product Division. Aware that rats abandon sinking ships first, AIG realized it needed those same rats to unravel the mess they had created. It quickly offered them money; each one who stayed would get a bonus in 2009, and each one who stayed after that would get one in 2010. This internal deal was dutifully sealed in contracts, and the matter forgotten under the wave of defaults, trouble, and contraction that has been the economic upset.
Then, of course, the bonuses came due, right after a wave of government cash infusions that promptly went to pay off institutions such as Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and Californian municipalities that took out credit default swaps. The government, of course, knew they were coming, as AIG had quietly informed the government and told them they had no legal way out. Treasury lawyers reviewed the same contracts and were forced to agree. The bonuses would have to be paid as they were for this year, but immediate work was done to curtail them for 2010.
The worst part, of course, is that the government, in its earlier haste to bailout the financial system, failed to put in language to prevent circumstances such as these in the earlier wave of bailouts. Much to its good fortune, however, public opinion turned on AIG rather than Congress. People are furious that a company that has received billions of dollars is paying out millions in bonuses. Firstly, to put things into better context for those who cannot perceive the difference, a billion is one thousand million. AIG has received $170,000 million, and is paying out $165 million in retention bonuses.
Nor does it help that the populist rage is being stoked by politicians and public figures alike. Obama in particular has been keen to play two-face. Faced with slipping poll numbers and diminishing public support, he has been the loudest in a pack of dogs baying for blood. The fact that bonuses were coming due was a well-known fact that was only brought to the forefront through Obama's well-timed efforts, even as he attempts to keep the private investors from jumping ship, leaving the government holding the bag. It is also a convenient distraction for the $9 trillion (9 million million) deficit his economic plans and budgets will inflict.
Comedians like Steven Colbert have gotten into the act, as well. The day after Colbert called for the mobs to sharpen their pitchforks, AIG issued a corporate memo that sounded more like a college campus advisory against rape, including such classics as not to wear AIG branded items (provocative clothing) and to travel in groups. Nor does it help AIG's case that its paperwork is showing a gap of $53 million between what it said it would pay and what it actually seems to have paid, along with the niggling detail that people who had left AIG in the time since the bonuses were agreed to were actually receiving them.
The populist rage is sufficient that AIG executives have rallies on their literal doorsteps, as activists protest outside their lush homes. Armed guards and heightened security measures have AIG employees fearful for their lives, senior executive down to office staff who do no more than supply paper and clean bathrooms. It has reached the point where some AIG employees are paying heed to their government-appointed chairman's request that they return their bonuses.
Fear is a powerful motivator, but as usual, the government has gone one step too far. In the closing days of the week, the House of Representatives passed a measure that would tax those who chose to keep their bonuses by an extraordinary 90 percent. This measure is, at best, illegal as well as a threat. Longtime readers will recall that I once advocated that all executives at bailed out firms return their bonuses, retroactive to September 2008, and may be wondering as to my seeming turnabout. As I explained through my analysis of the FOCA bill, the devil is in the details.
The measure that passed the House is flawed for a number of reasons. Firstly, it would not be a 90% tax. On top of federal taxes, money is subject to state and local taxes. That alone would boost the actual money paid to 102 percent. In effect, the people receiving the bonuses would be paying for the privilege of being taxed, a measure that most of the mob would heartily endorse but which is counterproductive at best. By applying this measure now, in the midst of the clean up, it encourages companies to pay back the bailout money immediately, dipping into funds they lack, causing themselves and the financial system greater instability. Lest we forget, the entire purpose of the bailout was to promote financial stability and prevent a systemic collapse.
Secondly, the law itself is unconstitutional. Congress is prevented by the Constitution from making taxes retroactive and targeting a specific, named group for higher taxation. By pushing ahead with this measure, not only are fundamental laws being violated, but a dangerous precedent created. If the measure actually succeeds, what is to stop future governments from taxing everyone at 90 percent? The slippery slope begins with a first step, and this one is more dangerous than most. Thirdly, the money would not go back to the company that arguably needs it, but straight into the maw of the hungry government budget, where any returns would be minimal, at best. Again, by creating this precedent, it becomes easier to justify excessive taxes on everyone to pay for more items no one needs or wants.
In contrast to my own measure, I will point out that while retroactive, it did not tax anyone. It was a measure designed to target those most responsible for the mess to give back their huge and ill-gotten gains to the companies they helped mismanage and virtually destroy. The difference between the government tax and my return measure is that the money would go straight back into the coffers of the ailing company, helping give it a little more cash to attempt to survive the strain in the financial system, it would not force anyone to pay more than they actually made, and it survives the litmus test of legality, while the House's tax is illegal, would go straight into paying Obama's massive deficits, and would help no one.
The public is outraged over the AIG bonus debacle, and their feelings are justified. However, in the midst of this populist fury, others such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are also handing out bonuses, able to rest easier because the flak AIG is taking keeps the public from noticing them. Not only that but the outrage is being manipulated and used for political grandstanding in a non-constructive way, turned into the type of media circus that distracts people from more urgent, complex issues. Even as people protest and threaten AIG with death, metaphorical and literal, people continue to ignore the slow but definite recovery of the Dow before a dime of the government stimulus package is paid, as the government prints out $300 billion in cash, as inflation rises and what the common man makes becomes worth even less. The devil is in the boring, crucial details.
Sources
Gold futures rise more than 4% to above $920
Fannie Mae to Pay Bonuses of Up to $1M for Four Execs
The 102% Tax
How AIG Became Too Big to Fail
Obama budget could bring $9.3 trillion in deficits
AIG Offices patrolled by Armed Guards
Protesters visit AIG officials' lavish Conn. homes
Some Will Pay Back AIG Bonuses
Official: AIG bonus estimates grow $53 million
'Don't wear anything that says AIG on it': Under-fire insurer gives employees security tips as fury over bonuses grows
AIG’s Liddy Acknowledges ‘Distasteful’ Retention Pay
AIG names firms that got bailout cash
Obama Will Take "Every Legal Avenue" to Block AIG Bonuses
Congress played major role in AIG bonus mess
AIG has $61.7 billion loss, new U.S. aid may not be last
Jim Rogers: Let AIG Go Bankrupt, Not America
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Artificial Life
The meaning of life is often the most crippling question facing a sentient being. The many questions that we can apply toward the meaning of life have rarely prompted people to ask what life is. We know it when we see it; it is a programmed instinct of being able to tell between inanimate matter, living beings, and dead bodies. However, humans need more structure than simply ‘knowing it when we see it’. As such, the official definition of life has become a ‘self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution’. This generalized explanation is lacking in more detail, but the scientists of the world have begun efforts to provide those details, with the same boundless enthusiasm and thoughtlessness as their efforts in AI.
A new field of science known as synthetic biology will be the most responsible for discovering the basic way to create life. A small beaker filled with liquid is the first step toward learning to manufacture life in the same way we now manufacture semiconductors and microchips. This beaker is the linchpin of an experiment known as AEGIS - Artificially Expanded Genetic Information System. While it is not self-sustaining as yet, it is evolving, fulfilling the basic requirement of this experiment. Not only that, but these scientists are already experimenting with existing life forms, producing bacteria that can produce anti-malaria medication, for example.
These experiments sometimes feel like the mere tip of the iceberg when it comes to the advancements being pursued. The gene that produces enamel, the irreplaceable hard substance that coats and protects teeth has been located. A way to safely create stem cells by delivering the necessary genes to reprogram cells has been discovered. The genome code of the multitudes of common cold virus variants have been processed, mapped, and turned into a sort of family tree that gives scientists a better idea of how to defeat the perennial nuisances. Altered immune cells have been produced that are able to shrink, and in some cases eradicate, large tumors in mice by targeting a specific kind of protein. Ribosomes have been identified as the ones responsible for translating the messages carried in the genetic code of all organisms into the workhorse molecules of the cell. AEGIS itself is filled with eight artificial nucleotides in addition to the original four that make up every DNA strand. Cloning is advancing from animal experimentation to theoretical application to humans.
These last three are probably the most disturbing. Ribosomes have been identified as the central processing unit of the cell, as important as mitochondria and the nucleus in the functional operation of life. In the last few days, ribosomes have been created artificially. One of the fundamental building blocks of life has been successfully created by human hands. AEGIS has eight artificial nucleotides on top of its four natural ones. It has been successfully proven that the genes activated in the development of a normal human activate inside of a cloned embryo. In one short month, the power of God has come within the grasp of mankind.
Certainly, such technology has useful applications. Or so we are told by the scientists who dabble in invention of these new tools, who claim that these new techniques will aid in the production of new drugs, chemicals, and bacterias. For all the positive talk, however, even the scientist who helped create the artificial ribosome will not deny that a huge step has been taken toward the production of synthetic lifeforms. Essentially, this means that a huge step has been taken toward the abuses that mankind is capable of when it crosses ethical lines it should have best left alone.
Unfortunately, this is not even a vaguely alarmist statement. Artificial nucleotides, the manipulation of genes, and the creation of synthetic ribosomes means that the ability to create life is limited only by human imagination. DNA is similar to computer code, so setting up lines of code inside a receptive empty cell, powered by ribosomes that can process DNA that has never been witnessed on this planet, is not even far-fetched, but the likely norm. On top of that, efforts to engineer life are already underway, although this example will be reverse engineering. Chickens, who have had their genome studied in exhausting detail, will be used as the baseline to recreate dinosaurs, creatures that have been extinct for over sixty-five million years. While the paleontologists that are assisting in the project claim that reverse engineering chickens into dinochickens would result in positive advancements for mankind, I am dubious as to their claim that dinochickens would never escape and become a distinct wild species. One has only to explore the Galapagos to witness evolution in action, where there are dozens of bird species that evolved from a single common ancestor. They also seem to reject the possibility of parthenogenesis, asexual reproduction, a process commonly observed in reptiles. Moving chickens back into their reptilian origins has the distinct possibility of bringing this trait about as well, and while dinochickens may not be such a great threat, it only takes a single scientist with a rich, misguided group of investors to create a real problem.
Moving away from the dubiousness of bringing back dinosaurs is an even more alarming possibility: bringing back the long dead Neanderthals. Before anyone can claim that it is impossible to bring back the Neanderthals, let it be known that more than than 63% of the Neanderthal genetic code has already been sequenced. As time goes on, more complex tools of genetic manipulation are being developed. While it is not possible to bring back Neanderthals at present, they are sufficiently similar to humans that hollowed out human egg cells can be as the original structure to code and for all intents and purposes clone a Neanderthal.
There cannot be any doubt that people would want to bring back Neanderthals; humankind is able to take up the strangest causes, and scientists have already taken up the cause of bringing back extinct creatures like the ibex, which was briefly cloned before lung defects caused it to fall once more into extinction. Scientists are convinced that Neanderthals hold one of the keys to working what makes us human, so it is only a matter of technology and time before they decide that the resurrection of a species that became extinct before humans had the power to casually inflict oblivion would benefit their analysis.
However, what would be the point? Neanderthals became extinct because our ancestors out-adapted them. Our ancestors had slightly larger brains and enjoyed some secret advantage that we have no cognizance of. What would be the point of bringing back Neanderthals, who would always live in our shadow? Even if we succeeded in bringing them back, remember the physical differences between man and Neanderthal. Humans are programmed to reject that which is different to them, and Neanderthals fall within that area known as the uncanny valley, looking similar to humans, but not similar enough to avoid rejection. With sloped foreheads and chinless skulls that prevent any misidentification as humans, no amount of pithy tolerance speeches would overcome instinct. Neanderthals were much stronger than our ancestors, with the typical male equipped with arms that could shame a weightlifter. Not only that, humans are competitive enough with each other; how do you suppose we would react to a stronger, less intelligent rival going for the same jobs, living in the same space, and attempting to get the same food we do? Genocide would be the least of their new worries.
What of clones? The same genes that turn on in a naturally gestated baby are turned on in a clone. Cloned human embryos demonstrate many of the hallmarks of healthy genetic development. This breakthrough would mean that people can produce healthy cloned stem cells to replace damaged tissue and failed organs. People would be able to recover from fatal conditions, accidents and diseases in a fraction of the time and expense that it currently takes to keep them alive long enough to repair them or await an organ transplant. However, the same procedure that can clone organs can clone a human being.
It is almost a certainty that many governments will ban human cloning. It is also virtually a certainty that people will break those laws. Imagine how much a narcissist would be willing to pay to have a clone of himself take his place when he finally leaves this world. Imagine how much people would be willing to pay to clone a lost loved, to clone a genius so their legacies would continue, to clone a beauty to satisfy insatiable lust. As cloning techniques are practiced, they become less expensive as innovation improves production and cuts cost. In the same way that computers were once the purlieu of the government before becoming cheap enough to be purchased by the average household.In effect, a new market for human flesh will arise.
Production of clones would actually cheapen human life. After all, there is no need to be concerned about being careful, avoiding war, or any other of a thousand actions that we weigh against our continued existence when it would become so easy, so inexpensive to produce a fresh body to take its place. Who would care about going to war when it takes a mere eighteen years to raise a battalion of clones for battle? Who would care about sexual slavery when clones are easy enough to "put to work?" Who would care about industrial conditions when clones can be replaced? Sure, they might think like us, look like us, act like us, and think like us, but if humans are still willing to enslave each other in our 'enlightened' times, why would any logical thinker believe that we would treat clones any better? Especially when they would 'merely' be copies of homo sapiens?
The last implication involves not reverse evolution, nor present day DNA, but genetic engineering. Recently, the owner of a fertility clinic was obliged to withdraw an offering for designer babies, where couples would be allowed to determine the future offspring’s hair, eye and skin color by testing the embryos. While the measure was deemed distasteful and condemned as impossible by current science. However, as in all things, how long will it take before this becomes a reality? One that is frequently practiced and meddled with by morally indifferent genetic engineers? Already China has a gaping sex ratio because its families already prefer men to women, and use prenatal screening to discard girls. How long would it take before people paid to produce an oversupply of geniuses? What relevance would genius have when everyone would be equally as brilliant?
In the words of one of the practitioners of this new and arcane science, the underlying goal of synthetic biology is to make biology easy to engineer. By the estimation of other scientists, synthetic life is only ten years away, beating AI by a decade. As usual, they say nothing about whether they should engineer biology, and by extension, life. The ethics are left on the side as they continue to experiment. The future cannot be stopped. Whether we survive a future of synthetic life is another matter entirely.
Sources
Research Breakthrough: Human Clones May Be Genetically Viable
'Dinochicken' scheme puts evolution in reverse
Scientists expect to create life in next 10 years
Origin of Life On Earth: Scientists Unlock Mystery Of Molecular Machine
Synthetic life form grows in Florida lab
Saving the World, One Molecule at a Time
Researchers make stem cell breakthrough
Researchers crack the code of the common cold
Neanderthals could walk again after discovery of genetic code
New Artificial DNA Points to Alien Life
Targeted Immune Cells Shrink Tumors In Mice
Designer baby plan nixed for now by fertility clinic
BBC - Science & Nature - Wildfacts - Neanderthal
Harvard Scientists’ Discovery Opens Door to Synthetic Life
Toward Synthetic Life: Scientists Create Ribosomes -- Cell Protein Machinery
Making Every Baby Girl Count
A new field of science known as synthetic biology will be the most responsible for discovering the basic way to create life. A small beaker filled with liquid is the first step toward learning to manufacture life in the same way we now manufacture semiconductors and microchips. This beaker is the linchpin of an experiment known as AEGIS - Artificially Expanded Genetic Information System. While it is not self-sustaining as yet, it is evolving, fulfilling the basic requirement of this experiment. Not only that, but these scientists are already experimenting with existing life forms, producing bacteria that can produce anti-malaria medication, for example.
These experiments sometimes feel like the mere tip of the iceberg when it comes to the advancements being pursued. The gene that produces enamel, the irreplaceable hard substance that coats and protects teeth has been located. A way to safely create stem cells by delivering the necessary genes to reprogram cells has been discovered. The genome code of the multitudes of common cold virus variants have been processed, mapped, and turned into a sort of family tree that gives scientists a better idea of how to defeat the perennial nuisances. Altered immune cells have been produced that are able to shrink, and in some cases eradicate, large tumors in mice by targeting a specific kind of protein. Ribosomes have been identified as the ones responsible for translating the messages carried in the genetic code of all organisms into the workhorse molecules of the cell. AEGIS itself is filled with eight artificial nucleotides in addition to the original four that make up every DNA strand. Cloning is advancing from animal experimentation to theoretical application to humans.
These last three are probably the most disturbing. Ribosomes have been identified as the central processing unit of the cell, as important as mitochondria and the nucleus in the functional operation of life. In the last few days, ribosomes have been created artificially. One of the fundamental building blocks of life has been successfully created by human hands. AEGIS has eight artificial nucleotides on top of its four natural ones. It has been successfully proven that the genes activated in the development of a normal human activate inside of a cloned embryo. In one short month, the power of God has come within the grasp of mankind.
Certainly, such technology has useful applications. Or so we are told by the scientists who dabble in invention of these new tools, who claim that these new techniques will aid in the production of new drugs, chemicals, and bacterias. For all the positive talk, however, even the scientist who helped create the artificial ribosome will not deny that a huge step has been taken toward the production of synthetic lifeforms. Essentially, this means that a huge step has been taken toward the abuses that mankind is capable of when it crosses ethical lines it should have best left alone.
Unfortunately, this is not even a vaguely alarmist statement. Artificial nucleotides, the manipulation of genes, and the creation of synthetic ribosomes means that the ability to create life is limited only by human imagination. DNA is similar to computer code, so setting up lines of code inside a receptive empty cell, powered by ribosomes that can process DNA that has never been witnessed on this planet, is not even far-fetched, but the likely norm. On top of that, efforts to engineer life are already underway, although this example will be reverse engineering. Chickens, who have had their genome studied in exhausting detail, will be used as the baseline to recreate dinosaurs, creatures that have been extinct for over sixty-five million years. While the paleontologists that are assisting in the project claim that reverse engineering chickens into dinochickens would result in positive advancements for mankind, I am dubious as to their claim that dinochickens would never escape and become a distinct wild species. One has only to explore the Galapagos to witness evolution in action, where there are dozens of bird species that evolved from a single common ancestor. They also seem to reject the possibility of parthenogenesis, asexual reproduction, a process commonly observed in reptiles. Moving chickens back into their reptilian origins has the distinct possibility of bringing this trait about as well, and while dinochickens may not be such a great threat, it only takes a single scientist with a rich, misguided group of investors to create a real problem.
Moving away from the dubiousness of bringing back dinosaurs is an even more alarming possibility: bringing back the long dead Neanderthals. Before anyone can claim that it is impossible to bring back the Neanderthals, let it be known that more than than 63% of the Neanderthal genetic code has already been sequenced. As time goes on, more complex tools of genetic manipulation are being developed. While it is not possible to bring back Neanderthals at present, they are sufficiently similar to humans that hollowed out human egg cells can be as the original structure to code and for all intents and purposes clone a Neanderthal.
There cannot be any doubt that people would want to bring back Neanderthals; humankind is able to take up the strangest causes, and scientists have already taken up the cause of bringing back extinct creatures like the ibex, which was briefly cloned before lung defects caused it to fall once more into extinction. Scientists are convinced that Neanderthals hold one of the keys to working what makes us human, so it is only a matter of technology and time before they decide that the resurrection of a species that became extinct before humans had the power to casually inflict oblivion would benefit their analysis.
However, what would be the point? Neanderthals became extinct because our ancestors out-adapted them. Our ancestors had slightly larger brains and enjoyed some secret advantage that we have no cognizance of. What would be the point of bringing back Neanderthals, who would always live in our shadow? Even if we succeeded in bringing them back, remember the physical differences between man and Neanderthal. Humans are programmed to reject that which is different to them, and Neanderthals fall within that area known as the uncanny valley, looking similar to humans, but not similar enough to avoid rejection. With sloped foreheads and chinless skulls that prevent any misidentification as humans, no amount of pithy tolerance speeches would overcome instinct. Neanderthals were much stronger than our ancestors, with the typical male equipped with arms that could shame a weightlifter. Not only that, humans are competitive enough with each other; how do you suppose we would react to a stronger, less intelligent rival going for the same jobs, living in the same space, and attempting to get the same food we do? Genocide would be the least of their new worries.
What of clones? The same genes that turn on in a naturally gestated baby are turned on in a clone. Cloned human embryos demonstrate many of the hallmarks of healthy genetic development. This breakthrough would mean that people can produce healthy cloned stem cells to replace damaged tissue and failed organs. People would be able to recover from fatal conditions, accidents and diseases in a fraction of the time and expense that it currently takes to keep them alive long enough to repair them or await an organ transplant. However, the same procedure that can clone organs can clone a human being.
It is almost a certainty that many governments will ban human cloning. It is also virtually a certainty that people will break those laws. Imagine how much a narcissist would be willing to pay to have a clone of himself take his place when he finally leaves this world. Imagine how much people would be willing to pay to clone a lost loved, to clone a genius so their legacies would continue, to clone a beauty to satisfy insatiable lust. As cloning techniques are practiced, they become less expensive as innovation improves production and cuts cost. In the same way that computers were once the purlieu of the government before becoming cheap enough to be purchased by the average household.In effect, a new market for human flesh will arise.
Production of clones would actually cheapen human life. After all, there is no need to be concerned about being careful, avoiding war, or any other of a thousand actions that we weigh against our continued existence when it would become so easy, so inexpensive to produce a fresh body to take its place. Who would care about going to war when it takes a mere eighteen years to raise a battalion of clones for battle? Who would care about sexual slavery when clones are easy enough to "put to work?" Who would care about industrial conditions when clones can be replaced? Sure, they might think like us, look like us, act like us, and think like us, but if humans are still willing to enslave each other in our 'enlightened' times, why would any logical thinker believe that we would treat clones any better? Especially when they would 'merely' be copies of homo sapiens?
The last implication involves not reverse evolution, nor present day DNA, but genetic engineering. Recently, the owner of a fertility clinic was obliged to withdraw an offering for designer babies, where couples would be allowed to determine the future offspring’s hair, eye and skin color by testing the embryos. While the measure was deemed distasteful and condemned as impossible by current science. However, as in all things, how long will it take before this becomes a reality? One that is frequently practiced and meddled with by morally indifferent genetic engineers? Already China has a gaping sex ratio because its families already prefer men to women, and use prenatal screening to discard girls. How long would it take before people paid to produce an oversupply of geniuses? What relevance would genius have when everyone would be equally as brilliant?
In the words of one of the practitioners of this new and arcane science, the underlying goal of synthetic biology is to make biology easy to engineer. By the estimation of other scientists, synthetic life is only ten years away, beating AI by a decade. As usual, they say nothing about whether they should engineer biology, and by extension, life. The ethics are left on the side as they continue to experiment. The future cannot be stopped. Whether we survive a future of synthetic life is another matter entirely.
Sources
Research Breakthrough: Human Clones May Be Genetically Viable
'Dinochicken' scheme puts evolution in reverse
Scientists expect to create life in next 10 years
Origin of Life On Earth: Scientists Unlock Mystery Of Molecular Machine
Synthetic life form grows in Florida lab
Saving the World, One Molecule at a Time
Researchers make stem cell breakthrough
Researchers crack the code of the common cold
Neanderthals could walk again after discovery of genetic code
New Artificial DNA Points to Alien Life
Targeted Immune Cells Shrink Tumors In Mice
Designer baby plan nixed for now by fertility clinic
BBC - Science & Nature - Wildfacts - Neanderthal
Harvard Scientists’ Discovery Opens Door to Synthetic Life
Toward Synthetic Life: Scientists Create Ribosomes -- Cell Protein Machinery
Making Every Baby Girl Count
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
