Simple, Elegant Science.

Great story from the Singularity Hub (always worth a read to see what's coming in the future) about 'flu' viruses and a possible one-shot treatment.

Normally, we vaccinate against flu by using attenuated or killed viruses. This means that a damaged, non-infectious version of the flu virus is injected into the patient, triggering an antibody response. This is like being intoduced to a deadly enemy by photograph. Once you recognise the enemy, you are fore-warned. If the enemy invades, the immune system has a picture and destroys the threat. as the saying goes, 'fore-warned is fore-armed'.

The Singularity Hub story shows lateral thinking in action. The problem with viruses is that they mutate, as does everything, it's called evolution. So how do we protect against something that is constantly mutating?

Here comes the elegant bit:

Don't try to protect against the part of the virus that mutates, protect against the part that stays the same!

Of course, this may not be a case of lateral thinking, it's more likely (reading from the article) that it was an accident. But now that we have a tool to use, how far can we take it?

Is it possible that this approach can be used against HIV? I hope so. Flu is the beginning, and the article makes it clear that the vaccine is still in its infant stages, with trials in time for the 2011-12 flu season at the earliest.

After the good news that stem-cell research has indeed provided a cure for Chrohn's Disease, I feel optimistic. Research for the sake of research provides answers, sometimes it provides cures, sometimes more questions. We keep on searching.

(thanks to Singularity Hub)

Freedom of Speech vs Religion II

I was going to attempt a dissection of what is actually going on at the UN and how it related to western democracy, but it looks like the Hitch has beaten me to it.

There are a few comments at the Slate, below the article, which seem to make sense, like 'there's no way the US will go for it', or 'it's a non-binding agreement, who cares?' type of thing. Unfortunately, the non-binding agreement has already been passed (Sept '08) and adopted. This is the next stage, in the General Assembly. No power of veto. If you're not there to vote, you don't count, and it becomes a resolution.

Who cares? Well, maybe the hundreds, maybe thousands or more, young women who are ritually subjected to genital mutilation, which, incidentally isn't against the Declaration of Human Rights anymore, because we can't discuss it in the UN due to the non-binding resolution mentioned earlier. The workings of Islam cannot be discussed due to perceived 'offence'.

Then again, maybe it's the gay men and women born in Muslim countries.

Or the children who are raped by family members (but usually only if they have reached puberty, and it's their fault anyway according to the law, the little teasers!)

Or the young married women who are raped and then (because they are women, therefore unreliable and temptresses anyway) stoned to death for adultery. Of course the rapists are punished. sometimes.

Don't be smug, regardless of where you live in the world, this barbarity still happens in your country, even within your community. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening.

Religion has to have its fangs pulled. I'm open to ideas on practical ways to achieve this, but don't look to the UN with its horse-trading for oil and natural resources.

Personally, I'll be doing my best to eradicate the feeling amongst my friends and colleagues that religion doesn't really do any harm.

A lesson in humanity

As this is my blog, I usually make a point of commenting upon a story and linking to other blogs or news items. You can always look at the blogs I read at the bottom right. But sometimes I come across something by accident that deserves a big shout.

Here is Michael Kleinman's blog. Read it, please. (I don't normally do polite requests)

(via Twitter)

Still getting to grips with even newer shiny-tech, but glad it's happening.

Freedom of speech vs religion

It has come to my attention that the United Nation will soon be voting, in General Assembly, to make it a criminal offence to criticise religion. The wording is vague to the point of being unreadable but here is the actual text. There are several sections where mention is made of 'defamation of religion' and 'incitement to religious hatred' in the same sentence. This basically means that voting in favour of this declaration criminalises 'incitement to religious hatred' (in my opinion a good thing) and also 'defamation of religions' (not so good. Bad, actually).

So, to get this straight, some Islamic nations have decided that their faith and their god is so weak that he (and it most certainly is a he) has to be protected by the UN. OK, seems like a small price to pay, it won't really affect us in the west, just the people who are already oppresed in those countries anyway. But read a little further, you'll notice that the Declaration has a little surprise:

14. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred,discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs and the understanding of their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance



What does this mean? It means laws. In your country. No cartoons featuring the Prophet, no discussion of human rights violations in Muslim countries, no discussion of anything related to religion at all. Period.

For a more in-depth analysis, here's a pdf with annotations. The document keeps being changed at the UN, so I'll keep you updated.


This will be a General Assembly vote. That means that there is no power of veto. Hope you counted the voters at the end.

Those in favour : 85
Against : 50
Abstain: 42

Which brings me to Freedom of Speech, while we have it. Oh wait. I heard from the government last week that we have freedom of speech 'up to a point'.

This was during a discussion about refusing entry into the UK of a Dutch film maker who made a film called Fitna. The film quotes passages from the Koran and uses images of the devastation done in the name of Islam. No narration, just straight-forward propaganda. Of course freedom of speech is ok for this guy. I'm not saying both should be banned, just that we have a little balance. Or at least some consistency.

Also, I was going to point you in the direction of a great article by the writer Philip Pullman. Unfortunately, being on the subject of free speech, the Times (UK) seem to have pulled it, but it is available here. (Thanks Neal)

the weekend....

Freedom of speech and religious stupidity. Don't say you weren't warned.

Friday Unicorn Chaser

To mitigate the heaviness of the week's posts, here's the 21st Century FAQ by Charlie Stross.
Great reading though it undoubtedly is, comments 2 and 3 provide the best front and back for a geek t-shirt ever:

2:
The most frequently asked question of the 21st is going to be "WTF?"
Posted by: JDC February 27, 2009 3:54 PM
3:
@2 Answer: RTFM
Posted by: ben February 27, 2009 3:57 PM



for non-geeks: WTF? is What the Fuck?
RTFM is Read The Fucking Manual.

Genetics/Eugenics/Choice

Read a great article on Singularity Hub regarding genetic screening and choice. Should you be able to choose the sex of your baby? Or the skin/eye colour? Maybe IQ?

The phrase is designer babies, but if you've ever watched any TV programs on the pushy parents who turn their children into hothouse geniuses (or not) you'll quickly realize that this has nothing to do with genetics, it's to do with choice. Humanity has been managing its own genetics for a long time. Now it can be done before conception. Good or bad thing?

To choose to have a healthy child, free of disease, intelligent, possibly attractive, is desirable.

Then the arguments begin, Hitler is mentioned, cosmetic babies, only for the rich etc...........

My comments are logged as 'lackofgravitas' of course.