3 ms·

Sorry for the delay, it has been a busy week and it will continue busy, so I'll reply before reading the 300 pages report. I'll try to read it another day, ...

Sorry for the delay, it has been a busy week and it will continue busy, so I'll reply before reading the 300 pages report. I'll try to read it another day, ... > You are making some definitive statements which cannot be accepted unless you have the necessary background and knowledge. Which one you think it's wrong? I can try to clarify it or acknowledged my mistake(s). > I linked to the Stanford technical report itself Note that it's a report hosted in a Stanford "preprint" server, not a report made or signed by Stanford. Nobody has reviewed it. It's more interesting to read https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158 that is peer review, but that does not guaranty correctness and it's published in the "policy forum" section. I'm not impressed about 100 pages of references. Going to a stupid extreme, a report about Flat Earth can cite papers that are about the density of rocks, or the strength, or whatever, hundred of them. It does not mean that the references support their conclusions. From the CNN article: > However, most experts agree that making a synthetic cell with natural chirality is safe, because if a bacterium made from a synthetic cell were to enter an environment, it would be subject to the normal controls of any ecosystem, making it easy prey to natural predators such as viruses that target bacteria. Thus, it wouldn’t be able to spread uncontrollably. Did you spot the mistake? Normal virus will definitively not target mirror bacterias. Anyway, I expect other bacterias to target them, to eat their tasty fats.

rramadass 1y ago
You clearly have not read anything. > Nobody has reviewed it. Page-2 titled "Report Authors" gives you the whole list of authors involved in compiling the report all of whom you can lookup on the web. Page-3 is titled "Review" and says Prior to release, feedback on scope, completeness, accuracy, and presentation of the analysis was solicited from scientific experts in each of the areas covered by the report. Experts were invited to comment on one or several chapters of the report... followed by a whole list of reviewers all of whom you can again lookup on the web. > It's more interesting to read https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158 that is peer review, but that does not guaranty correctness and it's published in the "policy forum" section. The "Technical Report" (which is where the meat lies) is attached as supplement-1 to the above paper and hence the reason i pointed to it. The Science article is just an overview and you are expected to read the reference materials for a more detailed understanding. > I'm not impressed about 100 pages of references. Your opinion is laughable and dismissed out-of-hand. For a Technical Report dealing in the frontiers of scientific research, references are key since there is a lot which must be brought together to build up the overall picture. That is the reason for the authors including such an extensive list of references showing how they arrived at the points/conclusions listed in the report. It is invaluable and a foundation of the scientific method.

rramadass 1y ago

You clearly have not read anything. > Nobody has reviewed it. Page-2 titled "Report Authors" gives you the whole list of authors involved in compiling the report all of whom you can lookup on the web. Page-3 is titled "Review" and says Prior to release, feedback on scope, completeness, accuracy, and presentation of the analysis was solicited from scientific experts in each of the areas covered by the report. Experts were invited to comment on one or several chapters of the report... followed by a whole list of reviewers all of whom you can again lookup on the web. > It's more interesting to read https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158 that is peer review, but that does not guaranty correctness and it's published in the "policy forum" section. The "Technical Report" (which is where the meat lies) is attached as supplement-1 to the above paper and hence the reason i pointed to it. The Science article is just an overview and you are expected to read the reference materials for a more detailed understanding. > I'm not impressed about 100 pages of references. Your opinion is laughable and dismissed out-of-hand. For a Technical Report dealing in the frontiers of scientific research, references are key since there is a lot which must be brought together to build up the overall picture. That is the reason for the authors including such an extensive list of references showing how they arrived at the points/conclusions listed in the report. It is invaluable and a foundation of the scientific method.