It should be easier for me to give mice brain tumors.
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: It should be easier for me to give mice brain tumors.
#2It should be harder for you to post this on HN.
Re: It should be easier for me to give mice brain tumors.
#3If you think this is bad, try doing something involving humans. Want to have people go to a website and fill out a survey? If you're a university researcher, be prepared for 20 pages of paperwork and a 6 month delay while a research ethics committee considers your application.
Unless you find a way to hack the process, of course. In one case I know, the surveyees were signed on as co-investigators, in order to take advantage of a loophole allowing researchers to do research on themselves without ethics approval.
Re: It should be easier for me to give mice brain tumors.
#4It should be harder for you to post this on HN.
Why? Am I missing something?
Re: It should be easier for me to give mice brain tumors.
#5It should be harder for you to post this on HN.
Why? Am I missing something?
I believe this is not relevant to most hackers, except if they happen to be bio researchers. Worse yet, while being mostly irrelevant, it's also a barely disguised flamebait piece designed to incite a fruitless ethics debate. This should be posted somewhere else.
And I don't care how many downvotes I get either; the guys who where complaining about the increasing lack of focus on HN earlier today were right.
Re: It should be easier for me to give mice brain tumors.
#6I wonder if their are any BioHackers out there that actually try to do this type of work. (Anyone?) I'm not one of them, but I've always had the impression they play more with bacteria than complex organisms. I think cost and accessibility are probably prohibitive to the garage biohacker, but would a very motivated biohacker have the advantage of not answering to an IRB?
Re: It should be easier for me to give mice brain tumors.
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Am I missing something?
I believe this is not relevant to most hackers, except if they happen to be bio researchers. Worse yet, while being mostly irrelevant, it's also a barely disguised flamebait piece designed to incite a fruitless ethics debate. This should be posted somewhere else. And I don't care how many downvotes I get either; the guys who where complaining about the increasing lack of focus on HN earlier today were right.
They were also complaining about lack of civility, which is the reason your comment (which has a very snide tone) is getting downvoted.
Re: It should be easier for me to give mice brain tumors.
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Am I missing something?
I believe this is not relevant to most hackers, except if they happen to be bio researchers. Worse yet, while being mostly irrelevant, it's also a barely disguised flamebait piece designed to incite a fruitless ethics debate. This should be posted somewhere else. And I don't care how many downvotes I get either; the guys who where complaining about the increasing lack of focus on HN earlier today were right.
Really? I thought it was thought-provoking, even if I'm not entirely sure that I agree with the author. Certainly more intellectually stimulating than the usual "Company X did Thing Y" items.
But then, I've never really been clear on the topic of HN. Seems to me it's "stuff interesting to hackers", which this may well be, even if it isn't interesting to one individual hacker.
Re: It should be easier for me to give mice brain tumors.
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Am I missing something?
I believe this is not relevant to most hackers, except if they happen to be bio researchers. Worse yet, while being mostly irrelevant, it's also a barely disguised flamebait piece designed to incite a fruitless ethics debate. This should be posted somewhere else. And I don't care how many downvotes I get either; the guys who where complaining about the increasing lack of focus on HN earlier today were right.
Thanks for the answer. Personally, I don't see it so much as flamebait as an interesting issue. Even so, as long as people remain civil, I think discussions of conflicting viewpoints can be very valuable.
I had the impression that HN was for broad content, as long as it was intellectually stimulating. However, based on this recent post about the decline of HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2403696 I get the feeling that there are conflicting communities here.
Perhaps you are right. This is my second post. I am feeling conflicted, actually.
Re: It should be easier for me to give mice brain tumors.
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe this is not relevant to most hackers, except if they happen to be bio researchers. Worse yet, while being mostly irrelevant, it's also a barely disguised flamebait piece designed to incite a fruitless ethics debate. This should be posted somewhere else. And I don't care how many downvotes I get either; the guys who where complaining about the increasing lack of focus on HN earlier today were right.
Thanks for the answer. Personally, I don't see it so much as flamebait as an interesting issue. Even so, as long as people remain civil, I think discussions of conflicting viewpoints can be very valuable. I had the impression that HN was for broad content, as long as it was intellectually stimulating. However, based on this recent post about the decline of HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2403696 I get the fee…
I'm obviously mistaken, otherwise the thread wouldn't have received so many positive votes. In fact, I apologize, it's me who apparently lost the plot. I bow to the majority opinion.
> I get the feeling that there are conflicting communities here.
Maybe, though that matter seems to be resolving itself on its own currently.
> Personally, I don't see it so much as flamebait as an interesting issue
Science research should be held to a higher standard, it shouldn't be compared to household rat catching. This shouldn't be thought-provoking at all. It's a case of apples and oranges. It's also borderline politics.