Science - enemy or friend? : Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:42 am  

Happened to flick onto the "Wright Stuff" today for 5 minutes and was absolutely staggered by what I heard. Matthew Wright tends to have a rather high opinion of himself generally, and as far as I can make out he has no real reason to do so, but the monologue he had obviously thought through and presented today on the topic of genetic research was pretty special. Responding to a story in the press (I have a link to the Guardian's version below) concerning what is pretty groundbreaking research into prevention of serious genetic birth disorders he threw in the term "Frankenscientists", brought up the eugenics programme of the Nazi's (even manageing to have a picture of Hitler flash up on the screen) and generally riled - almost foaming at the mouth - at all the contributions of science in general - you know the atomic bomb etc. Apparantly "only" 1 in 200 children could potentially benefit from this treatment (so in the UK that would be around 4000 per year - hardly worth bothering with). In the space of the 10 minutes I watched, open mouthed, as he suggested that sick kids should just die because that was natural, and that if we didn't stop this then the next thing would be super soldiers and everyone would be ordering genetically modified designer babies, because let's face it that's what always happens when science makes any progress. Have I lost touch with "the public"? This programme and Wright himself, sets itself up as a sounding board for "ordinary" people (he even managed, with help from the Terry Christian, to have a pop at the "genetic inbreds" who were currently being humiliated on ITV at the same time by Jeremy Kyle ). Is this really the case? Help me here, is it really that case that general public opinion comes anywhere near what this guy is spouting? Even the Guardian's article - while balanced and factual - has the extremely misleading "three parents" in the title. I guess even the Guardian has to sell print. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... ee-parents

Happened to flick onto the "Wright Stuff" today for 5 minutes and was absolutely staggered by what I heard. Matthew Wright tends to have a rather high opinion of himself generally, and as far as I can make out he has no real reason to do so, but the monologue he had obviously thought through and presented today on the topic of genetic research was pretty special. Responding to a story in the press (I have a link to the Guardian's version below) concerning what is pretty groundbreaking research into prevention of serious genetic birth disorders he threw in the term "Frankenscientists", brought up the eugenics programme of the Nazi's (even manageing to have a picture of Hitler flash up on the screen) and generally riled - almost foaming at the mouth - at all the contributions of science in general - you know the atomic bomb etc. Apparantly "only" 1 in 200 children could potentially benefit from this treatment (so in the UK that would be around 4000 per year - hardly worth bothering with). In the space of the 10 minutes I watched, open mouthed, as he suggested that sick kids should just die because that was natural, and that if we didn't stop this then the next thing would be super soldiers and everyone would be ordering genetically modified designer babies, because let's face it that's what always happens when science makes any progress. Have I lost touch with "the public"? This programme and Wright himself, sets itself up as a sounding board for "ordinary" people (he even managed, with help from the Terry Christian, to have a pop at the "genetic inbreds" who were currently being humiliated on ITV at the same time by Jeremy Kyle ). Is this really the case? Help me here, is it really that case that general public opinion comes anywhere near what this guy is spouting? Even the Guardian's article - while balanced and factual - has the extremely misleading "three parents" in the title. I guess even the Guardian has to sell print. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... ee-parents

Re: Science - enemy or friend? : Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:46 am  

Wright like the sound of his own voice and has been watching far too much US talks show TV.

Re: Science - enemy or friend? : Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:54 am  

For a more balanced view, you should have watched Horizon the other night. Perhaps you did.

Re: Science - enemy or friend? : Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:33 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

For a more balanced view, you should have watched Horizon the other night. Perhaps you did.

Excellent programme, and probably the best counter argument to such sensationalist hype.

I used to enjoy The Wright Stuff years ago, but found his increasingly condescending attitude and ego masturbation a turn-off.

Re: Science - enemy or friend? : Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:41 pm  

It's a light entertainment TV programme and all he's doing is putting up an argument to get some ratings. However, there is a serious issue there up for debate and on genetics I don't think we've really had any sort of in-depth discussion as to where this should go. I can't see how we can just dive into genetic research without establishing guidelines, processes, ethical responsiblities etc., about the issue. Perhaps there's somebody on here who is involved in this area who can give us an insight as to what the issues are. I'm not skeptical about the case for genetics but I'm not that aware of the risks/dangers that need to be considered especially when you start getting into patents and the like. It's not dissimilar to the work that Craig Venter does, in that is prompts question which require detailed discussion and resolution before it gets out of control.

It's a light entertainment TV programme and all he's doing is putting up an argument to get some ratings. However, there is a serious issue there up for debate and on genetics I don't think we've really had any sort of in-depth discussion as to where this should go. I can't see how we can just dive into genetic research without establishing guidelines, processes, ethical responsiblities etc., about the issue. Perhaps there's somebody on here who is involved in this area who can give us an insight as to what the issues are. I'm not skeptical about the case for genetics but I'm not that aware of the risks/dangers that need to be considered especially when you start getting into patents and the like. It's not dissimilar to the work that Craig Venter does, in that is prompts question which require detailed discussion and resolution before it gets out of control.

Re: Science - enemy or friend? : Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:42 pm  

I didn't know Matthew Wright, never heard of him, so I have just googled him.
Now I know that he was a columnist at the Sun, then a gossip columnist at the Mirror, then moved on to Channel 5.

And we are asking if he should be taken seriously?

I shall now revert to not knowing who he is.
Thank you.

Re: Science - enemy or friend? : Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:45 pm  

Cronus wrote:

:thumb: Excellent programme, and probably the best counter argument to such sensationalist hype.

Yeah, I thought they got the tone just right: on one hand lauding the sheer brilliance of the men and women who have made such remarkable advances, on the other highlighting the need for checks and balances to ensure that certain techniques aren't used inappropriately.

Cronus wrote:

I used to enjoy The Wright Stuff years ago, but found his increasingly condescending attitude and ego masturbation a turn-off.

I've only ever watched him once, and that was more than enough.

Re: Science - enemy or friend? : Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:52 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

I didn't know Matthew Wright, never heard of him, so I have just googled him...

Ditto.

El Barbudo wrote:

Now I know that he was a columnist at the Sun, then a gossip columnist at the Mirror, then moved on to Channel 5.

And we are asking if he should be taken seriously?

I shall now revert to not knowing who he is.
Thank you.

And ditto that too.

Re: Science - enemy or friend? : Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:38 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

I didn't know Matthew Wright, never heard of him, so I have just googled him.
Now I know that he was a columnist at the Sun, then a gossip columnist at the Mirror, then moved on to Channel 5.

And we are asking if he should be taken seriously?

I shall now revert to not knowing who he is.
Thank you.

I agree, but the show seems to be pitched at a more serious audience than Loose Women or Jeremy Kyle's pantomime. The guest list often includes serious medical people and commentators (although todays offering didn't). My question is really that if this is pitched at the brighter side of average Joe public, then have I really lost touch with what average Joe public believes?
In this case I was so wound up that I didn't wait to hear what the phone in view was (which I suspect is tightly controlled anyway) as I didn't want to have to buy a new tv without my foot in it.

Re: Science - enemy or friend? : Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:39 pm  

Splitting the atom was a great scientific breakthrough but was used for evil purposes.

Scientists generally are egocentric obsessives who do not consider the greater good. They do their research and then someone else comes along and misuses it.

As to genetic research - someone, somewhere, sometime will create and ethnic "bomb" that will target a particular race by virtue of their specific genotype. Instant holocaust. Given that China will surge ahead of us technology soon and they are distinctly different to us, we ought to worry.

Anyway, moving up a level in thought, IMO science has achieved many short-term gains for humanity but I see it as a long-term tool for destruction. We seem to be entering a phase were we will increasngly rely on science to bail us out from the disasters caused by environmental degradation, which is itself the result of excessive population sustained by technological advance. Ultimately, as a species, we will at some point in the future realise it would have been better not to develop science as it will have sown the seeds of our destruction - we are hunter gatherers and in the long-run that's the only way we could have survived as a species.