reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
ok, ok, i get it you just wanted to start your thread with a 'short history of computer software' but it doesn't matter if none of it's true
because it's only an example, great, well done with that.
Ok, so here it is - when a group of people work together they become a collective, an institution or a company - If Pande's work at Berkley because
its done with the help of a university doesn't fit you glove and we aren't aloud to talke about Stallman or any of that sort of stuff, oh and we're
ignoring the reprap because it isn't biology....
The future of user developed tech is less likely in the biological field because of the huge dangers involved in the work, i for one don't want some
random dude down my road playing arround with anthrax spores and cow livers in case a windy day wipes out half the village! Also that said i think
the decline in homebrew biological science happened shortly after the Curie family accident - people realized that mucking around with things you
don't understand can be really rather bad for you
Then consider that the natural sciences have been almost exclusively home done sciences for thousands of years, it wasn't until the need for large
sample double-bind studies was realized that large groups and institutions took over. One lone nut simply can't create science at the point its
progressed too at the moment, as i suggested though if projects like Folding@Home were to become more popular and CVS style collectives were to become
more common then the home enthusiast would once again have a great advantage over the corporate money hunter.
sadly, I really don't think though that while the majority of the population is unable to assess the rationality of fairly simple studys and detect
the serious flaws in research and evaluation procedure in some of the more common medical scams such as the Dore 'cure' for dyslexia, the 'link'
between MMR and autism, the 'link' between Cannabis and mental llness or any of the other terribly unscientific 'studies' and 'conclusions'
which are routinely drawn by the press and populace we're not going to see anything meaningful produced anytime soon.
to be honest i don't really know what you're expecting to happen, some lone guy in his basement to decode the gnome on his own? some potion mixer to
invent a magic bullet to cure all cancers? the mapping of protein interaction in a developing stem cell to come out of someones attic while his wife
nags him to come down for dinner? of course plenty of people do sit in their basements, attics and sheds working on this although as they're using
the internet and are part of some form of collective i suppose we can't talk about them, rite? because it won't be reported as 'Mr Vijay Pande
today discovered that the Villa Headpeice protein is small' but rather 'Berkeley Computer science depart and Pande Group released a paper in nature
i think that really what you're doing is separating anyone thats trying to do science, people who have done degrees and PHDs on the subject they
chose and involve themselves with groups and projects doing the things that interest them, you're calling all these people 'scientists' and then
asking why the other people aren't making high science.
If i was to come up with the idea for some science, toil away in my shed for a week then come up with something good which i go and show people to try
and raise some money to continue the project - then i'm a home brew scientist right? and if my mate from round the corner pops over and helps then
we're both home brew right? Yet if loads of people i know through friends of friends, internets and the like meet up to make a large hadron collider
then we're not homebrew anymore we're now some form of 'corporate scientists' or something are we?