First Blog

Should researchers ethically responsible for the misinterpretation or misuse of their research by others? Absolutely not.   If you charge ethical responsibility for the misinterpretation or misuse of their research by others, then you face the possible regression backward in time of similar charges. For example, consider the computer chip.   It has been misused by Huawei for spying, by the military for ordnance guidance systems, for AI, and other nefarious purposes. This in turn forces charges against inventors of Internet type transmissions ( Vinton Cerf  and  Bob Kahn), the integrated circuit (Jack Kilby), the transistor (John Bardeen), the electron tube (John Ambrose Flemming), to the discovery of electrons (J.J. Thompson), and ultimately to the discoverer of electricity (Benjamin Franklin).   You could even go back to the notion of the atom (Democritus in 400 BC).   Where should we stop? Who should decide? The only possible case possible is research that may only be u

With the arrest of a man for quadruple homicides in Washington DC this week, having been found first by his DNA signature leading to a name,and then tracking his cell phone traffic*, we are confronted with the issue of whether all citizens should have on file a DNA record.  One's DNA signature is absolutely unique. Of course, when there is an issue, there is a controversy.  Should we or shouldn't we have such records?  The one group claims individual rights while the other claims the greater good.  Samo, samo. In this note we argue in favor of DNA typing.  Here are some reasons. a. Clearly when a perp leaves DNA floating about, he/she becomes more easily identifiable.  Just as in the early days of finger printing.  Now no self-respecting perp leaves those about anymore.  b. Having a DNA signature will allow medical researchers in the decades ahead to make dramatic correlations between the DNA and various diseases and other medical conditions.  This could lead to remarkab

Lemmings.   Suppose we have an important subject whose practitioners are all relatively mediocre. Research from these people will correspondingly be mediocre.  However, some of it will catch on - as always happens.  Many will gravitate toward this line of thinking and propagate more research along these lines.  It will become the mainstream mode of thinking.  Then, after a long time, the ideas will not prove valid; they will be proved absolutely incorrect.  What happens is that a new equally invalid idea will replace it, and it will catch on.  The cycle repeats.  The net result is this important subject will never progress, but will leap from one incorrect paradigm to another. There is such a subject in this world.  You might justly think government - my preferred choice, but that is too obvious.