When science goes wrong, redux

This isn’t the first time I’ve ranted about this.

It just amazes me when people think there’s value in looking at things we know to be dangerous. In a recent posting on NewScientist.com, scientists report that they think there’s value in finding genome sequences that are so dangerous that they don’t even exist in nature.

Could someone please tell me what possible value this would have? Yes, I support science for the sake of science — some things would not simply be discovered if it weren’t for the need to research. But let’s think about practical application here, please?

Millions of years of genetics have bred DNA to the point where there are redundancies (to compensate for errors), instructions to create some of the most elaborate and amazing pieces of biology (if you don’t think that the eye is significant or that the human brain isn’t worth considering, take while to think — how would you build it?), and yet still allow for evolution.

All the bad stuff, things that could bring about instant death or a disease more virulent and disasterous than any science fiction could think of, is (for now) absent. And yet science wishes to “discover” them.


Why subject the human race — let alone the rest of the planet — to sequences that were naturally bred out due to incompatibilities. You don’t design a part for a car that will never fit (or worse, permanently break the car), so why would you intentionally create a sequence that could bring about the end of humanity?

I’d really like to have conversations with these people and ask what in their egos feels the need to play God.

Ignorance isn’t just bliss, it’s freaking safer.

Tagged with: