Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> ... until now

Nope, it's still not evidence. The fears may well be justified, but simply appealing to the fear itself is not a good-faith argument. If you think Jurassic Park was based on solid science, fine. It shouldn't be hard to marshal it to make your case.



Maybe we are not discussing the same hypothesis.

null hypothesis: "We can put genetic alterations in the environment and expect them not to propagate" or if you prefer:

"Modified mosquitoes will never, ever escape and reproduce, because we are scientists, really smart, we know what we do, etc"

(Modified mosquitoes escape and reproduce)

Null Hypothesis is false, and Crichton is still a rich man. Next question.


I was discussing the comment I replied to - "Did no one watch Jurassic Park?" It's a good movie, but things that happen to imaginary scientists should not guide our decisions about real-world experiments.

I think the hypothesis of the experiment was something like "these genetic modifications will prevent mosquitos from reproducing". We know that the mosquitos did reproduce because the scientists deliberately included other modifications that would be easy to detect, and monitored the mosquito population to see if those genes showed up.

Contrary to your "we're so smart, we know what we're doing," caricature of the arrogant scientist, they made a hypothesis, carefully designed an experiment to disprove it, carefully gathered the data, and published a paper showing that their hypothesis was disproven. This is how science works. It doesn't mean that what they're trying to do is impossible, only that this approach didn't succeed.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: