3 ms·

My statements were not "it's for professionals only." It was: I believe the kit creators have done a piss-poor job of talking about the deeper questions, or eve

by beambot 13y ago

My statements were not "it's for professionals only." It was: I believe the kit creators have done a piss-poor job of talking about the deeper questions, or even acknowledging them. I'd want my scientifically-minded children to really think about these when performing experiments. (I actually thought the kit sounded mad-cool when I first learned of it. I think you could make a good case for it being analogous to an ant farm -- but that's not what you're saying.) Minor nit... I'm a roboticist and RF engineer (EECS). Currently I'm (basically) a web programmer. I'm not a biologist. EDIT: Per your edits... you are wrong. "Facts" and "cruelty" may be orthogonal, but "responsible scientific exploration" and "cruelty" are not.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
Look back at the question you asked me. Look for the word "responsible". Sorry to have misunderstood your profession; I'm not going to edit previous post(s) because my false belief significantly informed my arguments and rhetoric. Obviously, not being a biologist, this doesn't make you protectionist, but I still deeply disagree with what you've said, and though some of what I said doesn't apply to you particularly, I feel it has some general validity.