<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_20_163200</id>
	<title>DIY Biologists To Open Source Research</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1245519180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.destinyland.org/" rel="nofollow">destinyland</a> writes <i>"Falling costs and garage tinkering are creating a grass roots movement of amateur biologists <a href="http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/darning-genes-biology-homebody">whose research is more transparent than that of academia</a>. They are building lab equipment using common household items and even synthesizing new organisms, and their transparency also allows the social pressure which creates more ethical research. <a href="http://diybio.org/">DIY Bio.org</a> fosters lab co-ops for large equipment and provokes important discussions. (Would it be ethical to release a homegrown symbiote that cures scurvy in hundreds of thousands of people?) This movement could someday lead to bottom-up remedies for disease, fuel-generating microbes, or even a social-networked disease-tracking epidemiology. 'In much the same way that homebrew computer science built the world we live in today, garage biology can affect the future we make for ourselves,' argues h+ magazine, which featured the article <a href="http://hplusmagazine.com/digitaledition/2009-summer/">in their summer issue</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>destinyland writes " Falling costs and garage tinkering are creating a grass roots movement of amateur biologists whose research is more transparent than that of academia .
They are building lab equipment using common household items and even synthesizing new organisms , and their transparency also allows the social pressure which creates more ethical research .
DIY Bio.org fosters lab co-ops for large equipment and provokes important discussions .
( Would it be ethical to release a homegrown symbiote that cures scurvy in hundreds of thousands of people ?
) This movement could someday lead to bottom-up remedies for disease , fuel-generating microbes , or even a social-networked disease-tracking epidemiology .
'In much the same way that homebrew computer science built the world we live in today , garage biology can affect the future we make for ourselves, ' argues h + magazine , which featured the article in their summer issue .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>destinyland writes "Falling costs and garage tinkering are creating a grass roots movement of amateur biologists whose research is more transparent than that of academia.
They are building lab equipment using common household items and even synthesizing new organisms, and their transparency also allows the social pressure which creates more ethical research.
DIY Bio.org fosters lab co-ops for large equipment and provokes important discussions.
(Would it be ethical to release a homegrown symbiote that cures scurvy in hundreds of thousands of people?
) This movement could someday lead to bottom-up remedies for disease, fuel-generating microbes, or even a social-networked disease-tracking epidemiology.
'In much the same way that homebrew computer science built the world we live in today, garage biology can affect the future we make for ourselves,' argues h+ magazine, which featured the article in their summer issue.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28404675</id>
	<title>Re:Holy CRAP</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1245495420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Three.  You forgot economics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Three .
You forgot economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Three.
You forgot economics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403369</id>
	<title>Re:Should we really increase the world population?</title>
	<author>buchner.johannes</author>
	<datestamp>1245526440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If less people die, parents don't have to give birth to 10 children so some survive and provide health care for them when they are old.<br>More health security correlates with a lower birth-rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If less people die , parents do n't have to give birth to 10 children so some survive and provide health care for them when they are old.More health security correlates with a lower birth-rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If less people die, parents don't have to give birth to 10 children so some survive and provide health care for them when they are old.More health security correlates with a lower birth-rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28410113</id>
	<title>Existing More Advanced DIY BIO</title>
	<author>Hartree</author>
	<datestamp>1245594180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd like to point out that there are large numbers of untrained people engaging in largely unsupervised <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_sexual\_intercourse#In\_humans" title="wikipedia.org">DIY Bio</a> [wikipedia.org] that is FAR more advanced than anything done in any professional laboratory.</p><p>Further, this activity has resulted in the release of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf\_hitler" title="wikipedia.org">extremely</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted\_bundy" title="wikipedia.org">dangerous</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol\_Pot" title="wikipedia.org">organisms</a> [wikipedia.org] being released into the wild.</p><p>Oh. Wait. This is Slashdot. No worries about anyone here doing that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to point out that there are large numbers of untrained people engaging in largely unsupervised DIY Bio [ wikipedia.org ] that is FAR more advanced than anything done in any professional laboratory.Further , this activity has resulted in the release of extremely [ wikipedia.org ] dangerous [ wikipedia.org ] organisms [ wikipedia.org ] being released into the wild.Oh .
Wait. This is Slashdot .
No worries about anyone here doing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to point out that there are large numbers of untrained people engaging in largely unsupervised DIY Bio [wikipedia.org] that is FAR more advanced than anything done in any professional laboratory.Further, this activity has resulted in the release of extremely [wikipedia.org] dangerous [wikipedia.org] organisms [wikipedia.org] being released into the wild.Oh.
Wait. This is Slashdot.
No worries about anyone here doing that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403345</id>
	<title>Re:Should we really increase the world population?</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1245526260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, when people have lower infant mortality and longer lifespans, they tend to have fewer children.  When death rates are high, there seems to be some desire to protect the existence of the next generation by having lots of children.  Lookup a map of infant mortality and birthrates.  Places like Africa, where mortality is high, is where the birthrates are also high.
<br> <br>
All of this leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion: decreasing death rates leads to lower population growth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , when people have lower infant mortality and longer lifespans , they tend to have fewer children .
When death rates are high , there seems to be some desire to protect the existence of the next generation by having lots of children .
Lookup a map of infant mortality and birthrates .
Places like Africa , where mortality is high , is where the birthrates are also high .
All of this leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion : decreasing death rates leads to lower population growth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, when people have lower infant mortality and longer lifespans, they tend to have fewer children.
When death rates are high, there seems to be some desire to protect the existence of the next generation by having lots of children.
Lookup a map of infant mortality and birthrates.
Places like Africa, where mortality is high, is where the birthrates are also high.
All of this leads to the counter-intuitive conclusion: decreasing death rates leads to lower population growth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403883</id>
	<title>Startling lack of respect for unanticpated dangers</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1245531300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I understand the DIY biologists argument about how wild varieties are inherently more robust than organisms created via engineering, I find it incredibly naive to assume that since something is generally true that it will always be true. With the dangers so potentially devastating, even an extremely low probably event must be accounted for. Advocating less regulation than ham radio is the height of stupidity. <br> <br> While it is true that encoding for new introduced proteins is probably going to be energy wasteful and therefore put the organism at a selective disadvantage, there is always some remote chance the new process could confer some sort of unintended selective advantage, allowing it to flourish. Adding to this danger is that many microorganisms swap genetic code via non-sexual methods as well, allowing for even more chance of unintended conference of advantage. All this ignores the possibility of malicious intent as well, and while it would be rare it isn't impossible. <br>This kind of danger needs to be approached much like how risk assessment is done on nuclear facilities. Biology is as or more powerful a tool than nuclear science is, and needs to be approached with similar standards of safety. I don't want to sound like jurassic park here, but having due respect for the power of nature should be pre-requisite to tinkering with it. <br> <br>*Car analogy* This is like giving a bunch of 20 somethings with a 300hp imports formula one racecars and then having them race around the city. Leave it to the racers on the racetracks please.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I understand the DIY biologists argument about how wild varieties are inherently more robust than organisms created via engineering , I find it incredibly naive to assume that since something is generally true that it will always be true .
With the dangers so potentially devastating , even an extremely low probably event must be accounted for .
Advocating less regulation than ham radio is the height of stupidity .
While it is true that encoding for new introduced proteins is probably going to be energy wasteful and therefore put the organism at a selective disadvantage , there is always some remote chance the new process could confer some sort of unintended selective advantage , allowing it to flourish .
Adding to this danger is that many microorganisms swap genetic code via non-sexual methods as well , allowing for even more chance of unintended conference of advantage .
All this ignores the possibility of malicious intent as well , and while it would be rare it is n't impossible .
This kind of danger needs to be approached much like how risk assessment is done on nuclear facilities .
Biology is as or more powerful a tool than nuclear science is , and needs to be approached with similar standards of safety .
I do n't want to sound like jurassic park here , but having due respect for the power of nature should be pre-requisite to tinkering with it .
* Car analogy * This is like giving a bunch of 20 somethings with a 300hp imports formula one racecars and then having them race around the city .
Leave it to the racers on the racetracks please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I understand the DIY biologists argument about how wild varieties are inherently more robust than organisms created via engineering, I find it incredibly naive to assume that since something is generally true that it will always be true.
With the dangers so potentially devastating, even an extremely low probably event must be accounted for.
Advocating less regulation than ham radio is the height of stupidity.
While it is true that encoding for new introduced proteins is probably going to be energy wasteful and therefore put the organism at a selective disadvantage, there is always some remote chance the new process could confer some sort of unintended selective advantage, allowing it to flourish.
Adding to this danger is that many microorganisms swap genetic code via non-sexual methods as well, allowing for even more chance of unintended conference of advantage.
All this ignores the possibility of malicious intent as well, and while it would be rare it isn't impossible.
This kind of danger needs to be approached much like how risk assessment is done on nuclear facilities.
Biology is as or more powerful a tool than nuclear science is, and needs to be approached with similar standards of safety.
I don't want to sound like jurassic park here, but having due respect for the power of nature should be pre-requisite to tinkering with it.
*Car analogy* This is like giving a bunch of 20 somethings with a 300hp imports formula one racecars and then having them race around the city.
Leave it to the racers on the racetracks please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403869</id>
	<title>Home brew, meets genomics</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1245531060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
  Probably the easiest and first, and maybe even the most useful
DIY biologist in the yeasts. Creating the best yeast capable of
breaking down as must plant matter into alcohol, for biofuels, is
a problem which if solved would lead to a multimillion dollar,
eco-friendly power source. It not an easy problem, one microbiologist
spent 15 years, just adding a gene for breaking down a single wood
sugar, xylose. Hopefully it will be easier with modern equipment and
genetic knowledge, building a microbe which can digest all the varied
sugars in plant pulp would be a big win.
<p>
----
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Bioethanol/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Bioethanol</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably the easiest and first , and maybe even the most useful DIY biologist in the yeasts .
Creating the best yeast capable of breaking down as must plant matter into alcohol , for biofuels , is a problem which if solved would lead to a multimillion dollar , eco-friendly power source .
It not an easy problem , one microbiologist spent 15 years , just adding a gene for breaking down a single wood sugar , xylose .
Hopefully it will be easier with modern equipment and genetic knowledge , building a microbe which can digest all the varied sugars in plant pulp would be a big win .
---- Bioethanol [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  Probably the easiest and first, and maybe even the most useful
DIY biologist in the yeasts.
Creating the best yeast capable of
breaking down as must plant matter into alcohol, for biofuels, is
a problem which if solved would lead to a multimillion dollar,
eco-friendly power source.
It not an easy problem, one microbiologist
spent 15 years, just adding a gene for breaking down a single wood
sugar, xylose.
Hopefully it will be easier with modern equipment and
genetic knowledge, building a microbe which can digest all the varied
sugars in plant pulp would be a big win.
----

Bioethanol [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403173</id>
	<title>Re:No reason to be alarmed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245524940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That would be a valid analogy if they had cut off a hind leg off each rabbit. And from all of their offspring too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be a valid analogy if they had cut off a hind leg off each rabbit .
And from all of their offspring too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be a valid analogy if they had cut off a hind leg off each rabbit.
And from all of their offspring too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101</id>
	<title>No reason to be alarmed</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1245524220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA <a href="http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/darning-genes-biology-homebody" title="hplusmagazine.com">http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/darning-genes-biology-homebody</a> [hplusmagazine.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:<p><div class="quote"><p>h+: There has been a lot of discussion about the dangers of people doing this sort of research at home. Do you think this is over-exaggerated?
</p><p>
MP: I really do. The chances of someone accidentally creating a dangerous organism and the chances of it surviving in the environment outside a laboratory are vanishingly low.
</p><p>
Rudy Rucker has a great quote on that, "I have a mental image of germ-size MIT nerds putting on gangsta clothes and venturing into alleys to try some rough stuff. And then they meet up with the homies who've been keeping it real for a billion years or so." The bare facts of it are that there's nothing random about synthetic biology research. When we design a transgenic organism, we're deliberately adding one specific piece of new functionality, maybe a small pathway that leads to a new piece of functionality -- and the organism has to expend energy on producing the new proteins that those new genes code for. Because of this, the synthetic organism is necessarily less competitive than its wild-type relatives who are much better suited for the niche they already occupy in the environment.
</p><p>
So any accidental release is fated to die out within a few generations, because it&#226;(TM)s just not competitive enough.</p></div><p>That's right. When rabbits were introduced in Australia, they died off right away because they were less competitive than their wild-type relatives who were much better suited to the niche they already occupied.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA http : //hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/darning-genes-biology-homebody [ hplusmagazine.com ] : h + : There has been a lot of discussion about the dangers of people doing this sort of research at home .
Do you think this is over-exaggerated ?
MP : I really do .
The chances of someone accidentally creating a dangerous organism and the chances of it surviving in the environment outside a laboratory are vanishingly low .
Rudy Rucker has a great quote on that , " I have a mental image of germ-size MIT nerds putting on gangsta clothes and venturing into alleys to try some rough stuff .
And then they meet up with the homies who 've been keeping it real for a billion years or so .
" The bare facts of it are that there 's nothing random about synthetic biology research .
When we design a transgenic organism , we 're deliberately adding one specific piece of new functionality , maybe a small pathway that leads to a new piece of functionality -- and the organism has to expend energy on producing the new proteins that those new genes code for .
Because of this , the synthetic organism is necessarily less competitive than its wild-type relatives who are much better suited for the niche they already occupy in the environment .
So any accidental release is fated to die out within a few generations , because it   ( TM ) s just not competitive enough.That 's right .
When rabbits were introduced in Australia , they died off right away because they were less competitive than their wild-type relatives who were much better suited to the niche they already occupied .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA http://hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/darning-genes-biology-homebody [hplusmagazine.com] :h+: There has been a lot of discussion about the dangers of people doing this sort of research at home.
Do you think this is over-exaggerated?
MP: I really do.
The chances of someone accidentally creating a dangerous organism and the chances of it surviving in the environment outside a laboratory are vanishingly low.
Rudy Rucker has a great quote on that, "I have a mental image of germ-size MIT nerds putting on gangsta clothes and venturing into alleys to try some rough stuff.
And then they meet up with the homies who've been keeping it real for a billion years or so.
" The bare facts of it are that there's nothing random about synthetic biology research.
When we design a transgenic organism, we're deliberately adding one specific piece of new functionality, maybe a small pathway that leads to a new piece of functionality -- and the organism has to expend energy on producing the new proteins that those new genes code for.
Because of this, the synthetic organism is necessarily less competitive than its wild-type relatives who are much better suited for the niche they already occupy in the environment.
So any accidental release is fated to die out within a few generations, because itâ(TM)s just not competitive enough.That's right.
When rabbits were introduced in Australia, they died off right away because they were less competitive than their wild-type relatives who were much better suited to the niche they already occupied.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403373</id>
	<title>Rabbits *are* wild types.</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1245526500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is more like worrying about toy poodles going feral... in an area that's already got a coyote problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is more like worrying about toy poodles going feral... in an area that 's already got a coyote problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is more like worrying about toy poodles going feral... in an area that's already got a coyote problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403299</id>
	<title>Tony Hawk skateboards through White House</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245525840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, Iran is headed for Civil War and N. Korea is going to fire a missile towards Hawaii on July 4.  Russia has Europe by the balls in terms of oil and natural gas access, and our own Big Media is spitting out pro-Obama propaganda that makes Pravda blush.  It's good the see that the "adults" in the White House are taking things seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , Iran is headed for Civil War and N. Korea is going to fire a missile towards Hawaii on July 4 .
Russia has Europe by the balls in terms of oil and natural gas access , and our own Big Media is spitting out pro-Obama propaganda that makes Pravda blush .
It 's good the see that the " adults " in the White House are taking things seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, Iran is headed for Civil War and N. Korea is going to fire a missile towards Hawaii on July 4.
Russia has Europe by the balls in terms of oil and natural gas access, and our own Big Media is spitting out pro-Obama propaganda that makes Pravda blush.
It's good the see that the "adults" in the White House are taking things seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28404605</id>
	<title>do-it-yourself</title>
	<author>Goldsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1245494940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When it comes to research, I hate that phrase: do-it-yourself.  Who else is going to think your thoughts for you?</p><p>Frankly, just like with astronomy, if you can do the research, you're part of the club.  Period.  I don't think there needs to be any distinction between DIY hobbyist science, academic research and industrial science.  There's good research and there's not-so-good research.  If you can purify a protein in your garage that no one else has been able to, then the NIH should be happy to post your procedure and contact information somewhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When it comes to research , I hate that phrase : do-it-yourself .
Who else is going to think your thoughts for you ? Frankly , just like with astronomy , if you can do the research , you 're part of the club .
Period. I do n't think there needs to be any distinction between DIY hobbyist science , academic research and industrial science .
There 's good research and there 's not-so-good research .
If you can purify a protein in your garage that no one else has been able to , then the NIH should be happy to post your procedure and contact information somewhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When it comes to research, I hate that phrase: do-it-yourself.
Who else is going to think your thoughts for you?Frankly, just like with astronomy, if you can do the research, you're part of the club.
Period.  I don't think there needs to be any distinction between DIY hobbyist science, academic research and industrial science.
There's good research and there's not-so-good research.
If you can purify a protein in your garage that no one else has been able to, then the NIH should be happy to post your procedure and contact information somewhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403265</id>
	<title>Re:Should we really increase the world population?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1245525600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The global population growth rate isn't particularly subject to abstract conversations.</p><p>I guess focusing on economic security over those things might be worthwhile though, as that seems to actually decrease the rate of reproduction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The global population growth rate is n't particularly subject to abstract conversations.I guess focusing on economic security over those things might be worthwhile though , as that seems to actually decrease the rate of reproduction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The global population growth rate isn't particularly subject to abstract conversations.I guess focusing on economic security over those things might be worthwhile though, as that seems to actually decrease the rate of reproduction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403245</id>
	<title>Re:DIY, meet DEA</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1245525480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>at some point they will find their doors being broken down by armed men who are notorious for their lack of willingness to listen to reasonable explanations as to why there's all this glassware lying around.</p></div><p>Well, I would hope that cooking meth would not be the top illegal experiments. It's been a long time since true pure LSD unadulterated with strychnine and other "fillers" was widely available. A little top drawer Window Pane would be nice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>at some point they will find their doors being broken down by armed men who are notorious for their lack of willingness to listen to reasonable explanations as to why there 's all this glassware lying around.Well , I would hope that cooking meth would not be the top illegal experiments .
It 's been a long time since true pure LSD unadulterated with strychnine and other " fillers " was widely available .
A little top drawer Window Pane would be nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>at some point they will find their doors being broken down by armed men who are notorious for their lack of willingness to listen to reasonable explanations as to why there's all this glassware lying around.Well, I would hope that cooking meth would not be the top illegal experiments.
It's been a long time since true pure LSD unadulterated with strychnine and other "fillers" was widely available.
A little top drawer Window Pane would be nice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403195</id>
	<title>Should we really increase the world population?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1245525180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cure disease<br>Provide clean water<br>Provide better food</p><p>All increase the world population.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cure diseaseProvide clean waterProvide better foodAll increase the world population .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cure diseaseProvide clean waterProvide better foodAll increase the world population.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28406025</id>
	<title>Re:Academia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245504300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did pay $30 to read "some article", fortunately at the time I did it I was no longer working in the academia<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>scholar.google.com has a huge noise/signal ratio and mixes titles from books.google.com in the search results<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... better just to sneak in a well funded library and use their subscription to Proquest (or whatever article database you prefer).</p><p>"zippy interlibrary loan service"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... that service can be found only at the mythical "good nearby library", or at a library that can afford the expenses.</p><p>"It is not a place of suppressed ideas, incompetent people, publish or perish, and faked results to get more funding."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... like the animal "cloning" scam, for example ?</p><p>That being said, I expect the DIY labs will perform the same as those in the universities. Very few will do useful, reproducible work, and most will just publish "instructables" on how to grow algae in plastic bottles (or replace some of the genetic material in an ova claim it's "cloning") or rehash papers published in better journals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did pay $ 30 to read " some article " , fortunately at the time I did it I was no longer working in the academia ...scholar.google.com has a huge noise/signal ratio and mixes titles from books.google.com in the search results ... better just to sneak in a well funded library and use their subscription to Proquest ( or whatever article database you prefer ) .
" zippy interlibrary loan service " ... that service can be found only at the mythical " good nearby library " , or at a library that can afford the expenses .
" It is not a place of suppressed ideas , incompetent people , publish or perish , and faked results to get more funding .
" ... like the animal " cloning " scam , for example ? That being said , I expect the DIY labs will perform the same as those in the universities .
Very few will do useful , reproducible work , and most will just publish " instructables " on how to grow algae in plastic bottles ( or replace some of the genetic material in an ova claim it 's " cloning " ) or rehash papers published in better journals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did pay $30 to read "some article", fortunately at the time I did it I was no longer working in the academia ...scholar.google.com has a huge noise/signal ratio and mixes titles from books.google.com in the search results ... better just to sneak in a well funded library and use their subscription to Proquest (or whatever article database you prefer).
"zippy interlibrary loan service" ... that service can be found only at the mythical "good nearby library", or at a library that can afford the expenses.
"It is not a place of suppressed ideas, incompetent people, publish or perish, and faked results to get more funding.
" ... like the animal "cloning" scam, for example ?That being said, I expect the DIY labs will perform the same as those in the universities.
Very few will do useful, reproducible work, and most will just publish "instructables" on how to grow algae in plastic bottles (or replace some of the genetic material in an ova claim it's "cloning") or rehash papers published in better journals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403171</id>
	<title>Rabbits have been evolving for billions of years</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1245524940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That's right. When rabbits were introduced in Australia, they died off right away because they were less competitive than their wild-type relatives who were much better suited to the niche they already occupied.</p></div><p>The correct comparison would be more wild rabbits vs the same species which have had a gene introduced which makes them glow in the dark, or somesuch.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's right .
When rabbits were introduced in Australia , they died off right away because they were less competitive than their wild-type relatives who were much better suited to the niche they already occupied.The correct comparison would be more wild rabbits vs the same species which have had a gene introduced which makes them glow in the dark , or somesuch .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's right.
When rabbits were introduced in Australia, they died off right away because they were less competitive than their wild-type relatives who were much better suited to the niche they already occupied.The correct comparison would be more wild rabbits vs the same species which have had a gene introduced which makes them glow in the dark, or somesuch.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28405287</id>
	<title>Re:Academia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245499740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Many journals allow researchers to post PDFs on their personal webpages, and such documents come up in this search.</p></div><p>And most researchers (at least in computer science) just publish their papers on their web pages regardless of whether journals allow it or not.  The day a journal publisher comes after someone for posting an article on their web page will mark the beginning of the end for commercial academic journal publishers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many journals allow researchers to post PDFs on their personal webpages , and such documents come up in this search.And most researchers ( at least in computer science ) just publish their papers on their web pages regardless of whether journals allow it or not .
The day a journal publisher comes after someone for posting an article on their web page will mark the beginning of the end for commercial academic journal publishers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many journals allow researchers to post PDFs on their personal webpages, and such documents come up in this search.And most researchers (at least in computer science) just publish their papers on their web pages regardless of whether journals allow it or not.
The day a journal publisher comes after someone for posting an article on their web page will mark the beginning of the end for commercial academic journal publishers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28409811</id>
	<title>Re:Bottem up?</title>
	<author>nospam007</author>
	<datestamp>1245589620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More important, why does the article not have the whatcouldpossiblygowrong tag?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More important , why does the article not have the whatcouldpossiblygowrong tag ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More important, why does the article not have the whatcouldpossiblygowrong tag?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28421035</id>
	<title>Re:Science is already open source</title>
	<author>HasHPIT</author>
	<datestamp>1245681840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That said, there is certainly quite a bit of research that DIY biologists would be capable of performing, especially considering that they could have access to the same kind of resources that professionals do. For example, after amplifying a gene, no researcher will sequence it themselves: it's shipped of to a specialized lab that will do it, for a fee. That sequencing step requires equipment and expertise that's at a higher level than even the pros don't have. </p></div><p>While I still agree with you, I just want to point out that sequencing a gene is actually quite easy to do on your own simply using <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanger\_sequencing" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">chain termination methods </a> [wikipedia.org] such as Sangers method.
It requires standard PCR ingredients plus dideoxy nucleotides and a gel.<br>
It is true that many labs outsource or centralize sequencing task and that high tech equipment is available, but as is often the case, you can do with less.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , there is certainly quite a bit of research that DIY biologists would be capable of performing , especially considering that they could have access to the same kind of resources that professionals do .
For example , after amplifying a gene , no researcher will sequence it themselves : it 's shipped of to a specialized lab that will do it , for a fee .
That sequencing step requires equipment and expertise that 's at a higher level than even the pros do n't have .
While I still agree with you , I just want to point out that sequencing a gene is actually quite easy to do on your own simply using chain termination methods [ wikipedia.org ] such as Sangers method .
It requires standard PCR ingredients plus dideoxy nucleotides and a gel .
It is true that many labs outsource or centralize sequencing task and that high tech equipment is available , but as is often the case , you can do with less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, there is certainly quite a bit of research that DIY biologists would be capable of performing, especially considering that they could have access to the same kind of resources that professionals do.
For example, after amplifying a gene, no researcher will sequence it themselves: it's shipped of to a specialized lab that will do it, for a fee.
That sequencing step requires equipment and expertise that's at a higher level than even the pros don't have.
While I still agree with you, I just want to point out that sequencing a gene is actually quite easy to do on your own simply using chain termination methods  [wikipedia.org] such as Sangers method.
It requires standard PCR ingredients plus dideoxy nucleotides and a gel.
It is true that many labs outsource or centralize sequencing task and that high tech equipment is available, but as is often the case, you can do with less.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403351</id>
	<title>Not biochemists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245526320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think you may be drawing too direct a comparison. It used to be that cloning a gene responsibly for a known phenotype was enough for a significant publication. (That was before my time). Now to get prestige in academia you need to map out the surrounding regulatory networks or at least do a lot more work to characterize WHY gene X is creating phenotype Y. I assume the level of complexity required to publish has expanded similarly in biochemistry<br> <br>
I see the benefits of this DIY work as twofold. First, a huge fraction of genes (in my field, plant biology) are still annotated only as unknown function. Figuring out those functions may not be the path to a career of academic fame and fortune, but I'd really appreciate any group of people who start making a dent in them. But I doubt they'll do a lot of this, they sound a lot more like synthetic biologists. So secondly, in the field of synthetic biology right now a lot of the work being done is very conservative. For example reconstituting a photosystem from an algae in another microbe. If that works it'll be really cool, and tell us a lot about the genetic regulation involved in the process, but it's not as risky as a lot of things these garage biologists are doing. Not risky in a threat-to-human-life-as-we-know-it way obviously, but risky in a this-probably-won't-work way. You try telling a grad student "here's your thesis project, there's a 90\% chance it won't work and after four years in the lab you'll have nothing to show for it, you won't publish, you won't graduate, but good luck with that."<br> <br>People in garages can afford to fail, and that means they'll potential develop a few useful things that would have been easy to do in a professional lab, but appeared so improbable no one would want to gamble on them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you may be drawing too direct a comparison .
It used to be that cloning a gene responsibly for a known phenotype was enough for a significant publication .
( That was before my time ) .
Now to get prestige in academia you need to map out the surrounding regulatory networks or at least do a lot more work to characterize WHY gene X is creating phenotype Y. I assume the level of complexity required to publish has expanded similarly in biochemistry I see the benefits of this DIY work as twofold .
First , a huge fraction of genes ( in my field , plant biology ) are still annotated only as unknown function .
Figuring out those functions may not be the path to a career of academic fame and fortune , but I 'd really appreciate any group of people who start making a dent in them .
But I doubt they 'll do a lot of this , they sound a lot more like synthetic biologists .
So secondly , in the field of synthetic biology right now a lot of the work being done is very conservative .
For example reconstituting a photosystem from an algae in another microbe .
If that works it 'll be really cool , and tell us a lot about the genetic regulation involved in the process , but it 's not as risky as a lot of things these garage biologists are doing .
Not risky in a threat-to-human-life-as-we-know-it way obviously , but risky in a this-probably-wo n't-work way .
You try telling a grad student " here 's your thesis project , there 's a 90 \ % chance it wo n't work and after four years in the lab you 'll have nothing to show for it , you wo n't publish , you wo n't graduate , but good luck with that .
" People in garages can afford to fail , and that means they 'll potential develop a few useful things that would have been easy to do in a professional lab , but appeared so improbable no one would want to gamble on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you may be drawing too direct a comparison.
It used to be that cloning a gene responsibly for a known phenotype was enough for a significant publication.
(That was before my time).
Now to get prestige in academia you need to map out the surrounding regulatory networks or at least do a lot more work to characterize WHY gene X is creating phenotype Y. I assume the level of complexity required to publish has expanded similarly in biochemistry 
I see the benefits of this DIY work as twofold.
First, a huge fraction of genes (in my field, plant biology) are still annotated only as unknown function.
Figuring out those functions may not be the path to a career of academic fame and fortune, but I'd really appreciate any group of people who start making a dent in them.
But I doubt they'll do a lot of this, they sound a lot more like synthetic biologists.
So secondly, in the field of synthetic biology right now a lot of the work being done is very conservative.
For example reconstituting a photosystem from an algae in another microbe.
If that works it'll be really cool, and tell us a lot about the genetic regulation involved in the process, but it's not as risky as a lot of things these garage biologists are doing.
Not risky in a threat-to-human-life-as-we-know-it way obviously, but risky in a this-probably-won't-work way.
You try telling a grad student "here's your thesis project, there's a 90\% chance it won't work and after four years in the lab you'll have nothing to show for it, you won't publish, you won't graduate, but good luck with that.
" People in garages can afford to fail, and that means they'll potential develop a few useful things that would have been easy to do in a professional lab, but appeared so improbable no one would want to gamble on them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403365</id>
	<title>Re:Bottem up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245526380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Historically, universities ignore "research" done by any person w/o a Ph.D. To the extent that this is a useful bias, your question is well posed and these guys will never emerge from the shadow of University research. To the extent that the usefulness of such a bias is becoming antiquated, this is how reform begins and how those that cling to dying models become irrelevant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Historically , universities ignore " research " done by any person w/o a Ph.D. To the extent that this is a useful bias , your question is well posed and these guys will never emerge from the shadow of University research .
To the extent that the usefulness of such a bias is becoming antiquated , this is how reform begins and how those that cling to dying models become irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Historically, universities ignore "research" done by any person w/o a Ph.D. To the extent that this is a useful bias, your question is well posed and these guys will never emerge from the shadow of University research.
To the extent that the usefulness of such a bias is becoming antiquated, this is how reform begins and how those that cling to dying models become irrelevant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403121</id>
	<title>Re:Bottem up?</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1245524520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really, if they are THAT good at research, then why not at a university?</p></div><p>Because you shouldn't have to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , if they are THAT good at research , then why not at a university ? Because you should n't have to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, if they are THAT good at research, then why not at a university?Because you shouldn't have to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28406127</id>
	<title>Re:Science is already open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245505020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But there's no point in doing your own sequencing now. It's faster, cheaper and more reproducible to send it to a company, or sequencing lab in-house. And you have to admit that they use equipment which is a fair step up from the decades old stuff you were using (plus protocols and reagents etc. move on)</p><p>(I am also a professional research scientist. A slightly younger one (but I remember doing PCR by moving tubes between a couple of set point heating blocks)).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But there 's no point in doing your own sequencing now .
It 's faster , cheaper and more reproducible to send it to a company , or sequencing lab in-house .
And you have to admit that they use equipment which is a fair step up from the decades old stuff you were using ( plus protocols and reagents etc .
move on ) ( I am also a professional research scientist .
A slightly younger one ( but I remember doing PCR by moving tubes between a couple of set point heating blocks ) ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But there's no point in doing your own sequencing now.
It's faster, cheaper and more reproducible to send it to a company, or sequencing lab in-house.
And you have to admit that they use equipment which is a fair step up from the decades old stuff you were using (plus protocols and reagents etc.
move on)(I am also a professional research scientist.
A slightly younger one (but I remember doing PCR by moving tubes between a couple of set point heating blocks)).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403841</id>
	<title>Spit kiddies!</title>
	<author>tchdab1</author>
	<datestamp>1245530820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone can do it.<br>Spit into a beaker, find some keen organisms, move some DNA around (kits available online), and then flush it down the sink.<br>Or maybe insert some plasmids you got from your cat.</p><p>If it turns out interesting you can mail it to your congress critter!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone can do it.Spit into a beaker , find some keen organisms , move some DNA around ( kits available online ) , and then flush it down the sink.Or maybe insert some plasmids you got from your cat.If it turns out interesting you can mail it to your congress critter !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone can do it.Spit into a beaker, find some keen organisms, move some DNA around (kits available online), and then flush it down the sink.Or maybe insert some plasmids you got from your cat.If it turns out interesting you can mail it to your congress critter!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403427</id>
	<title>Allow me a little song</title>
	<author>omuls are tasty</author>
	<datestamp>1245527040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't know much about history
Don't know much of biology
But I do know
I'll infect you
With a new strain
Of homebrewed flu
What a wonderful world
This will be</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't know much about history Do n't know much of biology But I do know I 'll infect you With a new strain Of homebrewed flu What a wonderful world This will be</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't know much about history
Don't know much of biology
But I do know
I'll infect you
With a new strain
Of homebrewed flu
What a wonderful world
This will be</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403501</id>
	<title>Re:Should we really increase the world population?</title>
	<author>ChromeAeonium</author>
	<datestamp>1245527520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet, when <b>you're</b> sick, you take medicine.  When <b>you're</b> hungry, you get food.  When <b>you're</b> thirsty, you have clean water.  That's all preventing a decrease in the population.  So, claim we should keep the population down.  Prove it.  Walk the walk, or you're being hypocritical.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Didn't really think this one through too well, did you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet , when you 're sick , you take medicine .
When you 're hungry , you get food .
When you 're thirsty , you have clean water .
That 's all preventing a decrease in the population .
So , claim we should keep the population down .
Prove it .
Walk the walk , or you 're being hypocritical .
  Did n't really think this one through too well , did you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet, when you're sick, you take medicine.
When you're hungry, you get food.
When you're thirsty, you have clean water.
That's all preventing a decrease in the population.
So, claim we should keep the population down.
Prove it.
Walk the walk, or you're being hypocritical.
  Didn't really think this one through too well, did you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28406907</id>
	<title>Re:No reason to be alarmed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245511740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone hasn't seen Jurassic Park 2.<br>"Henry Wu: You're implying that a group composed entirely of female animals will... breed?<br>Dr. Ian Malcolm: No, I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way. "</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone has n't seen Jurassic Park 2 .
" Henry Wu : You 're implying that a group composed entirely of female animals will... breed ? Dr. Ian Malcolm : No , I 'm simply saying that life , uh... finds a way .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone hasn't seen Jurassic Park 2.
"Henry Wu: You're implying that a group composed entirely of female animals will... breed?Dr. Ian Malcolm: No, I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403583</id>
	<title>The myth of the machine</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1245528060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>'In much the same way that homebrew computer science built the world we live in today, garage biology can affect the future we make for ourselves</i> </p><p>The homebrew era of the PC lasted a little more than two years.</p><p> By 1977 Apple and Microsoft are in place -<br>and the PC is a clearly defined and easily recognizable commercial product no later than the mid-eighties.</p><p>I don't know where the notion of a homebrewed computer science comes from. The clearly dominant players here are the military, the big university and corporate research giants like Bell Labs and IBM.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'In much the same way that homebrew computer science built the world we live in today , garage biology can affect the future we make for ourselves The homebrew era of the PC lasted a little more than two years .
By 1977 Apple and Microsoft are in place -and the PC is a clearly defined and easily recognizable commercial product no later than the mid-eighties.I do n't know where the notion of a homebrewed computer science comes from .
The clearly dominant players here are the military , the big university and corporate research giants like Bell Labs and IBM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'In much the same way that homebrew computer science built the world we live in today, garage biology can affect the future we make for ourselves The homebrew era of the PC lasted a little more than two years.
By 1977 Apple and Microsoft are in place -and the PC is a clearly defined and easily recognizable commercial product no later than the mid-eighties.I don't know where the notion of a homebrewed computer science comes from.
The clearly dominant players here are the military, the big university and corporate research giants like Bell Labs and IBM.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28409197</id>
	<title>Re:Startling lack of respect for unanticpated dang</title>
	<author>RockDoctor</author>
	<datestamp>1245580320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Startling lack of respect for unanticipated dangers</p><blockquote><div><p>[spelling corrected - you didn't have your spelling checker enabled for the title field, did you?]<br>Which unanticipated danger - that of accidentally creating a Ripley-fancying Alien (extremely low probability), or that of being shot by the neighbours or the authorities when they come to smash down the gates to your garage and burn your house. I mean castle. I mean Schloss. And that should be "stab you with pitchforks" instead of "shot". Castles and pitchforks are so much more traditional for budding Igors.<br>Besides, who says they're unanticipated? Possibly their understanding of biology is somewhat more sophisticated than your own.</p><p>I read this story about 6 months ago, in a different publication ; I didn't find it disturbing, except from the safety-from-the-public issues I mention above.</p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Startling lack of respect for unanticipated dangers [ spelling corrected - you did n't have your spelling checker enabled for the title field , did you ?
] Which unanticipated danger - that of accidentally creating a Ripley-fancying Alien ( extremely low probability ) , or that of being shot by the neighbours or the authorities when they come to smash down the gates to your garage and burn your house .
I mean castle .
I mean Schloss .
And that should be " stab you with pitchforks " instead of " shot " .
Castles and pitchforks are so much more traditional for budding Igors.Besides , who says they 're unanticipated ?
Possibly their understanding of biology is somewhat more sophisticated than your own.I read this story about 6 months ago , in a different publication ; I did n't find it disturbing , except from the safety-from-the-public issues I mention above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Startling lack of respect for unanticipated dangers[spelling corrected - you didn't have your spelling checker enabled for the title field, did you?
]Which unanticipated danger - that of accidentally creating a Ripley-fancying Alien (extremely low probability), or that of being shot by the neighbours or the authorities when they come to smash down the gates to your garage and burn your house.
I mean castle.
I mean Schloss.
And that should be "stab you with pitchforks" instead of "shot".
Castles and pitchforks are so much more traditional for budding Igors.Besides, who says they're unanticipated?
Possibly their understanding of biology is somewhat more sophisticated than your own.I read this story about 6 months ago, in a different publication ; I didn't find it disturbing, except from the safety-from-the-public issues I mention above.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403883</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403481</id>
	<title>I'm not a big fan of niggers...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245527400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't get me wrong, I love black people and think that they have contributed much to Western culture.  It's niggers that I have a problem with.  See below for an explanation of the distinction:</p><p>Black Man:<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynton\_Marsalis" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynton\_Marsalis</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Niggers:<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKr0DeUuy-o" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKr0DeUuy-o</a> [youtube.com]<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pyW6w5B7Aw" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pyW6w5B7Aw</a> [youtube.com]<br><a href="http://shamesanatomy.com/yahoo\_site\_admin/assets/images/representing\_black\_males\_as\_thugs.278172509\_std.JPG" title="shamesanatomy.com" rel="nofollow">http://shamesanatomy.com/yahoo\_site\_admin/assets/images/representing\_black\_males\_as\_thugs.278172509\_std.JPG</a> [shamesanatomy.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't get me wrong , I love black people and think that they have contributed much to Western culture .
It 's niggers that I have a problem with .
See below for an explanation of the distinction : Black Man : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynton \ _Marsalis [ wikipedia.org ] Niggers : http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = cKr0DeUuy-o [ youtube.com ] http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = 8pyW6w5B7Aw [ youtube.com ] http : //shamesanatomy.com/yahoo \ _site \ _admin/assets/images/representing \ _black \ _males \ _as \ _thugs.278172509 \ _std.JPG [ shamesanatomy.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't get me wrong, I love black people and think that they have contributed much to Western culture.
It's niggers that I have a problem with.
See below for an explanation of the distinction:Black Man:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynton\_Marsalis [wikipedia.org]Niggers:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKr0DeUuy-o [youtube.com]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pyW6w5B7Aw [youtube.com]http://shamesanatomy.com/yahoo\_site\_admin/assets/images/representing\_black\_males\_as\_thugs.278172509\_std.JPG [shamesanatomy.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402937</id>
	<title>DIY first post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245522840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>belongs to anonymous coward.</htmltext>
<tokenext>belongs to anonymous coward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>belongs to anonymous coward.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403075</id>
	<title>"social pressure .. more ethical research"</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1245524040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
OMG! Genetically modified organisms! KILL STABBITY STAB STAB DIE DIE DIE DIE! burnthewitch
</p><p>
really, um, exactly what sort of "social pressures" do they propose exist which will lead to more "ethical research"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OMG !
Genetically modified organisms !
KILL STABBITY STAB STAB DIE DIE DIE DIE !
burnthewitch really , um , exactly what sort of " social pressures " do they propose exist which will lead to more " ethical research " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
OMG!
Genetically modified organisms!
KILL STABBITY STAB STAB DIE DIE DIE DIE!
burnthewitch

really, um, exactly what sort of "social pressures" do they propose exist which will lead to more "ethical research"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403961</id>
	<title>Not so Punny</title>
	<author>thoughtlover</author>
	<datestamp>1245488940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's more like, "What could possibly \_grow\_ wrong..."

DIY Biology/Chemistry isn't like it was when I was a kid, that's for sure.  And, it is kinda scary to think about someone making a mistake, or even cognitively do on purpose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's more like , " What could possibly \ _grow \ _ wrong... " DIY Biology/Chemistry is n't like it was when I was a kid , that 's for sure .
And , it is kinda scary to think about someone making a mistake , or even cognitively do on purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's more like, "What could possibly \_grow\_ wrong..."

DIY Biology/Chemistry isn't like it was when I was a kid, that's for sure.
And, it is kinda scary to think about someone making a mistake, or even cognitively do on purpose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403241</id>
	<title>Re:DIY, meet DEA</title>
	<author>TibbonZero</author>
	<datestamp>1245525420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope that's not the case. I'm living in the house (soon) with one of the guys running the Boston group<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
But the workshop in the basement is mainly just for woodworking and electronics- at least so far.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope that 's not the case .
I 'm living in the house ( soon ) with one of the guys running the Boston group : ) But the workshop in the basement is mainly just for woodworking and electronics- at least so far .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope that's not the case.
I'm living in the house (soon) with one of the guys running the Boston group :)
But the workshop in the basement is mainly just for woodworking and electronics- at least so far.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403191</id>
	<title>Bad things only happen by accident...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245525120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course organisms wouldn't be created with malicious intent.  Just like computer viruses are just mistakes, right?</p><p>Oh well, I'm sure the first plague created by these lonesome nerds will be a highly contagious but harmless disease that makes chicks really horny...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course organisms would n't be created with malicious intent .
Just like computer viruses are just mistakes , right ? Oh well , I 'm sure the first plague created by these lonesome nerds will be a highly contagious but harmless disease that makes chicks really horny.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course organisms wouldn't be created with malicious intent.
Just like computer viruses are just mistakes, right?Oh well, I'm sure the first plague created by these lonesome nerds will be a highly contagious but harmless disease that makes chicks really horny...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28412743</id>
	<title>Socialnetwork based disease-tracking</title>
	<author>fccoelho</author>
	<datestamp>1245615600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I run  one of such social-network based disease tracking system. It' the only such site in the southern hemisphere. and will be fundamental in understanding the global dynamic of the swine-flu pandemic.

For the Brazilian readers out there, check it out: <a href="http://www.gripenet.com.br/" title="gripenet.com.br" rel="nofollow">http://www.gripenet.com.br/</a> [gripenet.com.br]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I run one of such social-network based disease tracking system .
It ' the only such site in the southern hemisphere .
and will be fundamental in understanding the global dynamic of the swine-flu pandemic .
For the Brazilian readers out there , check it out : http : //www.gripenet.com.br/ [ gripenet.com.br ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I run  one of such social-network based disease tracking system.
It' the only such site in the southern hemisphere.
and will be fundamental in understanding the global dynamic of the swine-flu pandemic.
For the Brazilian readers out there, check it out: http://www.gripenet.com.br/ [gripenet.com.br]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403219</id>
	<title>Holy CRAP</title>
	<author>Archfeld</author>
	<datestamp>1245525300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Am I the only one having visions of Frank Herbert's the White Plague?<br>
&nbsp; There is nothing wrong with researching at home, but how does one ensure the integrity of a bio filter system at home? The concept of someone 'releasing' a 'cure' for ANYTHING from their basement no matter how well intended simply scares the feces out of me. Can you seriously see a point at which somthing would NOT need WIDE peer review and independent recreation before be 'released into the wild' ?<br>
&nbsp; As for why someone would not be at a college/univiersity or government level, I can think of 2 good reasons - bureaucracy and politics.</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_White\_Plague" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_White\_Plague</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one having visions of Frank Herbert 's the White Plague ?
  There is nothing wrong with researching at home , but how does one ensure the integrity of a bio filter system at home ?
The concept of someone 'releasing ' a 'cure ' for ANYTHING from their basement no matter how well intended simply scares the feces out of me .
Can you seriously see a point at which somthing would NOT need WIDE peer review and independent recreation before be 'released into the wild ' ?
  As for why someone would not be at a college/univiersity or government level , I can think of 2 good reasons - bureaucracy and politics.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The \ _White \ _Plague [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Am I the only one having visions of Frank Herbert's the White Plague?
  There is nothing wrong with researching at home, but how does one ensure the integrity of a bio filter system at home?
The concept of someone 'releasing' a 'cure' for ANYTHING from their basement no matter how well intended simply scares the feces out of me.
Can you seriously see a point at which somthing would NOT need WIDE peer review and independent recreation before be 'released into the wild' ?
  As for why someone would not be at a college/univiersity or government level, I can think of 2 good reasons - bureaucracy and politics.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_White\_Plague [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403659</id>
	<title>Academia</title>
	<author>RockoTDF</author>
	<datestamp>1245528840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So just from reading the summary I want to say that I have grown somewhat tired of the attitude towards academia on here.  It is not a place of suppressed ideas, incompetent people, publish or perish, and faked results to get more funding.  While publish or perish can be very true at the most elite universities, it ain't true everywhere.  There are plenty of profs doing good research at upper tier liberal arts schools, teaching only a bit more than they would at UC San whereever.  Hell, you can even go to a decent sized research school and not feel like you are in hell.  As an UNDERGRAD I worked 60-80 hours a week on classes, grad school applications/related stuff (like the GREs) and working in a lab.  It sucked, but I worked longer hours than the majority of professors.  I think anyone that earned a decent Ph.D. to get tenure shouldn't complain when they are working less than their students.

<br> <br>Lack of transparency?  The biomedical research industry is far worse on this issue.  "Getting scooped" (idea stealing) is only a problem when you are working on a project.  Once it is done and sent off for publication or discussed at a conference (or brown bag seminar in your own department) everything is way more open than it would ever be in the corporate world.<br> <br>

Can't get access to an article?  Try scholar.google.com.  Many journals allow researchers to post PDFs on their personal webpages, and such documents come up in this search.  I went to a liberal arts college with a shit library, and google scholar was how I got work done (That and a zippy interlibrary loan service).  No one actually pays $30 to read some article, and if you think that is how the system works then you have been completely duped.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So just from reading the summary I want to say that I have grown somewhat tired of the attitude towards academia on here .
It is not a place of suppressed ideas , incompetent people , publish or perish , and faked results to get more funding .
While publish or perish can be very true at the most elite universities , it ai n't true everywhere .
There are plenty of profs doing good research at upper tier liberal arts schools , teaching only a bit more than they would at UC San whereever .
Hell , you can even go to a decent sized research school and not feel like you are in hell .
As an UNDERGRAD I worked 60-80 hours a week on classes , grad school applications/related stuff ( like the GREs ) and working in a lab .
It sucked , but I worked longer hours than the majority of professors .
I think anyone that earned a decent Ph.D. to get tenure should n't complain when they are working less than their students .
Lack of transparency ?
The biomedical research industry is far worse on this issue .
" Getting scooped " ( idea stealing ) is only a problem when you are working on a project .
Once it is done and sent off for publication or discussed at a conference ( or brown bag seminar in your own department ) everything is way more open than it would ever be in the corporate world .
Ca n't get access to an article ?
Try scholar.google.com .
Many journals allow researchers to post PDFs on their personal webpages , and such documents come up in this search .
I went to a liberal arts college with a shit library , and google scholar was how I got work done ( That and a zippy interlibrary loan service ) .
No one actually pays $ 30 to read some article , and if you think that is how the system works then you have been completely duped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So just from reading the summary I want to say that I have grown somewhat tired of the attitude towards academia on here.
It is not a place of suppressed ideas, incompetent people, publish or perish, and faked results to get more funding.
While publish or perish can be very true at the most elite universities, it ain't true everywhere.
There are plenty of profs doing good research at upper tier liberal arts schools, teaching only a bit more than they would at UC San whereever.
Hell, you can even go to a decent sized research school and not feel like you are in hell.
As an UNDERGRAD I worked 60-80 hours a week on classes, grad school applications/related stuff (like the GREs) and working in a lab.
It sucked, but I worked longer hours than the majority of professors.
I think anyone that earned a decent Ph.D. to get tenure shouldn't complain when they are working less than their students.
Lack of transparency?
The biomedical research industry is far worse on this issue.
"Getting scooped" (idea stealing) is only a problem when you are working on a project.
Once it is done and sent off for publication or discussed at a conference (or brown bag seminar in your own department) everything is way more open than it would ever be in the corporate world.
Can't get access to an article?
Try scholar.google.com.
Many journals allow researchers to post PDFs on their personal webpages, and such documents come up in this search.
I went to a liberal arts college with a shit library, and google scholar was how I got work done (That and a zippy interlibrary loan service).
No one actually pays $30 to read some article, and if you think that is how the system works then you have been completely duped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403621</id>
	<title>Re:No reason to be alarmed</title>
	<author>drissel</author>
	<datestamp>1245528480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The history of humans releasing even natural organisms into new environments is not very encouraging.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The history of humans releasing even natural organisms into new environments is not very encouraging .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The history of humans releasing even natural organisms into new environments is not very encouraging.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403933</id>
	<title>Re:Should we really increase the world population?</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1245488700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>suddenly imposing economic sanctions on families with &gt;1 child doesn't seam so harsh (in china anyway), it should also be noted that population growth is much less of an issue inn developed countries and curing diseases would help lots of developing countries out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>suddenly imposing economic sanctions on families with &gt; 1 child does n't seam so harsh ( in china anyway ) , it should also be noted that population growth is much less of an issue inn developed countries and curing diseases would help lots of developing countries out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>suddenly imposing economic sanctions on families with &gt;1 child doesn't seam so harsh (in china anyway), it should also be noted that population growth is much less of an issue inn developed countries and curing diseases would help lots of developing countries out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28509983</id>
	<title>Re:Science is already open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246211760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, acrylamide is potent neurotoxin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , acrylamide is potent neurotoxin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, acrylamide is potent neurotoxin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403303</id>
	<title>This could be bad</title>
	<author>brit74</author>
	<datestamp>1245525900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I foresee a whole army of self-deluded crackpots peddling "cures" that they discovered in their basements.  No doubt, the establishment will ignore them and their ingenious remedies which are sure to shake-up the entire medical industry.  Or, at least, that's how they will interpret things.
<br> <br>
&gt; "This movement could someday lead to bottom-up remedies for disease"<br>
Let's hope they aren't doing any actual testing on humans or animals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I foresee a whole army of self-deluded crackpots peddling " cures " that they discovered in their basements .
No doubt , the establishment will ignore them and their ingenious remedies which are sure to shake-up the entire medical industry .
Or , at least , that 's how they will interpret things .
&gt; " This movement could someday lead to bottom-up remedies for disease " Let 's hope they are n't doing any actual testing on humans or animals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I foresee a whole army of self-deluded crackpots peddling "cures" that they discovered in their basements.
No doubt, the establishment will ignore them and their ingenious remedies which are sure to shake-up the entire medical industry.
Or, at least, that's how they will interpret things.
&gt; "This movement could someday lead to bottom-up remedies for disease"
Let's hope they aren't doing any actual testing on humans or animals.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403311</id>
	<title>why the fuck?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245525960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>why is it that anyone who does anything that the public can see gets tagged open source around here? do you fucking idiots even know what the word source means? have you fuckers ever heard of public domain?</htmltext>
<tokenext>why is it that anyone who does anything that the public can see gets tagged open source around here ?
do you fucking idiots even know what the word source means ?
have you fuckers ever heard of public domain ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why is it that anyone who does anything that the public can see gets tagged open source around here?
do you fucking idiots even know what the word source means?
have you fuckers ever heard of public domain?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28409827</id>
	<title>Re:"social pressure .. more ethical research"</title>
	<author>nospam007</author>
	<datestamp>1245589860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>really, um, exactly what sort of "social pressures" do they propose exist which will lead to more "ethical research"?</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>Killing thousands of people is frowned upon.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>really , um , exactly what sort of " social pressures " do they propose exist which will lead to more " ethical research " ?
Killing thousands of people is frowned upon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> really, um, exactly what sort of "social pressures" do they propose exist which will lead to more "ethical research"?
Killing thousands of people is frowned upon.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403105</id>
	<title>*BSD is Dying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245524280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>It is now  official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying</b>  <p>
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that <b>*BSD has lost more market share</b>,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by <a href="http://www.samag.com/documents/s=1148/sam0107a/0107a.htm" title="samag.com" rel="nofollow">failing
dead last</a> [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.  </p><p> You don't need to be a <a href="http://www.amazingkreskin.com/" title="amazingkreskin.com" rel="nofollow">Kreskin</a> [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
<b>*BSD is dying</b>. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows
like a river of blood.  </p><p> FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be
any doubt: <b>FreeBSD is dying</b>.  </p><p> Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.  </p><p> OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
</p><p> Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
<b>FreeBSD went out of business</b> and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.  <b>Now BSDI is also dead</b>, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.  </p><p> All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing
short of a <a href="http://198.62.75.1/www1/apparitions/jesus.gif" title="198.62.75.1" rel="nofollow">miracle</a> [198.62.75.1]
 could reanimate the corpse at this point in time. For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.  </p><p> <b>Fact: *BSD is dying</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is now official .
Netcraft confirms : * BSD is dying One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered * BSD community when IDC confirmed that * BSD market share has dropped yet again , now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers .
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that * BSD has lost more market share , this news serves to reinforce what we 've known all along .
* BSD is collapsing in complete disarray , as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [ samag.com ] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test .
You do n't need to be a Kreskin [ amazingkreskin.com ] to predict * BSD 's future .
The hand writing is on the wall : * BSD faces a bleak future .
In fact there wo n't be any future at all for * BSD because * BSD is dying .
Things are looking very bad for * BSD .
As many of us are already aware , * BSD continues to lose market share .
Red ink flows like a river of blood .
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all , having lost 93 \ % of its core developers .
The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly .
There can no longer be any doubt : FreeBSD is dying .
Let 's keep to the facts and look at the numbers .
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD .
How many users of NetBSD are there ?
Let 's see .
The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1 .
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users .
BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts .
Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS .
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the * BSD market .
Therefore there are ( 7000 + 1400 + 700 ) * 4 = 36400 FreeBSD users .
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts .
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek , abysmal sales and so on , FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS .
Now BSDI is also dead , its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house .
All major surveys show that * BSD has steadily declined in market share .
* BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim .
If * BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers .
* BSD continues to decay .
Nothing short of a miracle [ 198.62.75.1 ] could reanimate the corpse at this point in time .
For all practical purposes , * BSD is dead .
Fact : * BSD is dying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is now  official.
Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying  
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD
community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped
yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all
servers.
Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which
plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share,
this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along.
*BSD
is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing
dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive
networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to
predict *BSD's future.
The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a
bleak future.
In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because
*BSD is dying.
Things are looking very bad for *BSD.
As many of
us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share.
Red ink flows
like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them
all, having lost 93\% of its core developers.
The sudden and unpleasant
departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith
only serve to underscore the point more clearly.
There can no longer be
any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and
look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are
7000 users of OpenBSD.
How many users of NetBSD are there?
Let's see.
The
number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5
to 1.
Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users.
BSD/OS posts
on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts.
Therefore there
are about 700 users of BSD/OS.
A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80
percent of the *BSD market.
Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400
FreeBSD users.
This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on,
FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell
another troubled OS.
Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned
over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that
*BSD has steadily declined in market share.
*BSD is very sick and its
long term survival prospects are very dim.
If *BSD is to survive at all
it will be among OS dilettante dabblers.
*BSD continues to decay.
Nothing
short of a miracle [198.62.75.1]
 could reanimate the corpse at this point in time.
For all practical
purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403203</id>
	<title>Re:No reason to be alarmed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245525240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you completely missed the point. She's not talking about just moving a species from one area to another. She's talking about creating a new species based off an existing one, and letting them compete with the base species. To make your analogy more accurate, it would be like making glow-in-the-dark kangaroos and letting them compete with normal kangaroos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you completely missed the point .
She 's not talking about just moving a species from one area to another .
She 's talking about creating a new species based off an existing one , and letting them compete with the base species .
To make your analogy more accurate , it would be like making glow-in-the-dark kangaroos and letting them compete with normal kangaroos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you completely missed the point.
She's not talking about just moving a species from one area to another.
She's talking about creating a new species based off an existing one, and letting them compete with the base species.
To make your analogy more accurate, it would be like making glow-in-the-dark kangaroos and letting them compete with normal kangaroos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28409953</id>
	<title>Open Source == Guuuuudd!</title>
	<author>msormune</author>
	<datestamp>1245592020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they were ordinary biologists researching at home people here would scorn them for potential dangerous experimenting at home environment
</p><p>
I bet if Hitler had open sourced nazism, people here would accept it with cheers.
</p><p>Hitler mentioned, thread end</p><p>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were ordinary biologists researching at home people here would scorn them for potential dangerous experimenting at home environment I bet if Hitler had open sourced nazism , people here would accept it with cheers .
Hitler mentioned , thread end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they were ordinary biologists researching at home people here would scorn them for potential dangerous experimenting at home environment

I bet if Hitler had open sourced nazism, people here would accept it with cheers.
Hitler mentioned, thread end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28409053</id>
	<title>Re:Academia</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245578580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an (bio)undergrad I worked 20 hours a week in a (MEMS)lab and didn't study at all; and did fine. You must be dense. Nobody works at college, that's why people try get advanced degrees. DUH</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an ( bio ) undergrad I worked 20 hours a week in a ( MEMS ) lab and did n't study at all ; and did fine .
You must be dense .
Nobody works at college , that 's why people try get advanced degrees .
DUH</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an (bio)undergrad I worked 20 hours a week in a (MEMS)lab and didn't study at all; and did fine.
You must be dense.
Nobody works at college, that's why people try get advanced degrees.
DUH</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403659</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403069</id>
	<title>Punk Biology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245524040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Takes me back to the early eighties when you could form your band before you learned how to play your instruments, only with punk biology you can learn to play on somebody else's liver.</p><p>Love it.</p><p>I think if the technology becomes cheap, garage biology will be something to deal with whether we like it or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Takes me back to the early eighties when you could form your band before you learned how to play your instruments , only with punk biology you can learn to play on somebody else 's liver.Love it.I think if the technology becomes cheap , garage biology will be something to deal with whether we like it or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Takes me back to the early eighties when you could form your band before you learned how to play your instruments, only with punk biology you can learn to play on somebody else's liver.Love it.I think if the technology becomes cheap, garage biology will be something to deal with whether we like it or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28410085</id>
	<title>Re:Not biochemists</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1245593760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Astronomy is like that too, lots of "grunt" for serious amateurs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Astronomy is like that too , lots of " grunt " for serious amateurs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Astronomy is like that too, lots of "grunt" for serious amateurs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403351</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403127</id>
	<title>DIY, meet DEA</title>
	<author>Daniel Dvorkin</author>
	<datestamp>1245524580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't worry about "DIY biologists" cooking up some terrible superbug that wipes us all out.  I would, however, worry about these biologists' personal safety.  If they want to crunch data at home, no problem, but if they're trying to set up actual home labs, then there is a pretty good chance that at some point they will find their doors being broken down by armed men who are notorious for their lack of willingness to listen to reasonable explanations as to why there's all this glassware lying around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't worry about " DIY biologists " cooking up some terrible superbug that wipes us all out .
I would , however , worry about these biologists ' personal safety .
If they want to crunch data at home , no problem , but if they 're trying to set up actual home labs , then there is a pretty good chance that at some point they will find their doors being broken down by armed men who are notorious for their lack of willingness to listen to reasonable explanations as to why there 's all this glassware lying around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't worry about "DIY biologists" cooking up some terrible superbug that wipes us all out.
I would, however, worry about these biologists' personal safety.
If they want to crunch data at home, no problem, but if they're trying to set up actual home labs, then there is a pretty good chance that at some point they will find their doors being broken down by armed men who are notorious for their lack of willingness to listen to reasonable explanations as to why there's all this glassware lying around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403459</id>
	<title>Re:Science is already open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245527220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I am a professional research scientist, one of the younger ones.</i></p><p>I can tell you are one of the younger ones.</p><p><i>For example, after amplifying a gene, no researcher will sequence it themselves: it's shipped of to a specialized lab that will do it, for a fee. That sequencing step requires equipment and expertise that's at a higher level than even the pros don't have.</i></p><p>This is complete BS.  You simply were never taught the protocols to do it the old fashioned way. I was sequencing my own amplified genes a couple decades ago with pretty standard lab equipment.</p><p>Disclosure: I am a professional research scientist.  Not one of the younger ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a professional research scientist , one of the younger ones.I can tell you are one of the younger ones.For example , after amplifying a gene , no researcher will sequence it themselves : it 's shipped of to a specialized lab that will do it , for a fee .
That sequencing step requires equipment and expertise that 's at a higher level than even the pros do n't have.This is complete BS .
You simply were never taught the protocols to do it the old fashioned way .
I was sequencing my own amplified genes a couple decades ago with pretty standard lab equipment.Disclosure : I am a professional research scientist .
Not one of the younger ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a professional research scientist, one of the younger ones.I can tell you are one of the younger ones.For example, after amplifying a gene, no researcher will sequence it themselves: it's shipped of to a specialized lab that will do it, for a fee.
That sequencing step requires equipment and expertise that's at a higher level than even the pros don't have.This is complete BS.
You simply were never taught the protocols to do it the old fashioned way.
I was sequencing my own amplified genes a couple decades ago with pretty standard lab equipment.Disclosure: I am a professional research scientist.
Not one of the younger ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403225</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403225</id>
	<title>Science is already open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245525360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's true that it's possible to accomplish a great deal of biology/biochemistry research using just basic tools: I would say that the single greatest analytical tool in biochemistry is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDS-PAGE" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">polyacrylamide gel</a> [wikipedia.org], which can be produced and used with no real specialized training or tools.
<p>
However, we're moving away from such "crude" techniques towards more sophisticated analytical tools, since in many ways biochemistry is now technology-limited.  Single-molecule work, such as that pioneered by <a href="http://alice.berkeley.edu/" title="berkeley.edu" rel="nofollow">Carlos Bustamante</a> [berkeley.edu] provide insights that would never be possible with classical methods, and on the other end of the spectrum, we're now working on characterizing the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolomics" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">entire network</a> [wikipedia.org] of small metabolite molecules <a href="http://masspec.scripps.edu/metabo\_science/recommended\_readings.php" title="scripps.edu" rel="nofollow">simultaneously and quantitatively</a> [scripps.edu].  This kind of work just isn't easily carried out by amateur enthusiasts.
</p><p>
That said, there is certainly quite a bit of research that DIY biologists would be capable of performing, especially considering that they could have access to the same kind of resources that professionals do.  For example, after amplifying a gene, no researcher will sequence it themselves: it's shipped of to a specialized lab that will do it, for a fee.  That sequencing step requires equipment and expertise that's at a higher level than even the pros don't have.
</p><p>
But regardless of theoretical ability, the professionals retain the advantage that it is <i>their job</i> to work on these projects.  The time they can dedicate to their work will be far greater than someone who does it as a hobby.
</p><p>
Back to the subject of "openness", the professional scientific world isn't nearly as closed-off as the article would have you believe.  It is true that there is a persistent fear of being "scooped", but the standards are changing for staking your claim on a particular piece of research.
</p><p>
It used to be that a full manuscript in a scientific journal was the only thing sufficient to get credit for something.  Now, people are gradually embracing online resources are a valid way to communicate, and by extension, to prove that they were the source of any particular bit of publicized material.  Even non-finalized material is now more common to make public: Nature has a <a href="http://precedings.nature.com/" title="nature.com" rel="nofollow">pre-publication</a> [nature.com] online source for publishing findings, and there are journals devoted entirely to negative results, which was previously unheard-of.
</p><p>
The walls are coming down, it's just a question of finalizing the transition, and winning over the old guard.
</p><p>
Disclosure: I am a professional research scientist, one of the younger ones.  I have a substantial hardware/software project in the works, which will likely be simultaneously published via classic journal, online website, and software via SourceForge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true that it 's possible to accomplish a great deal of biology/biochemistry research using just basic tools : I would say that the single greatest analytical tool in biochemistry is the polyacrylamide gel [ wikipedia.org ] , which can be produced and used with no real specialized training or tools .
However , we 're moving away from such " crude " techniques towards more sophisticated analytical tools , since in many ways biochemistry is now technology-limited .
Single-molecule work , such as that pioneered by Carlos Bustamante [ berkeley.edu ] provide insights that would never be possible with classical methods , and on the other end of the spectrum , we 're now working on characterizing the entire network [ wikipedia.org ] of small metabolite molecules simultaneously and quantitatively [ scripps.edu ] .
This kind of work just is n't easily carried out by amateur enthusiasts .
That said , there is certainly quite a bit of research that DIY biologists would be capable of performing , especially considering that they could have access to the same kind of resources that professionals do .
For example , after amplifying a gene , no researcher will sequence it themselves : it 's shipped of to a specialized lab that will do it , for a fee .
That sequencing step requires equipment and expertise that 's at a higher level than even the pros do n't have .
But regardless of theoretical ability , the professionals retain the advantage that it is their job to work on these projects .
The time they can dedicate to their work will be far greater than someone who does it as a hobby .
Back to the subject of " openness " , the professional scientific world is n't nearly as closed-off as the article would have you believe .
It is true that there is a persistent fear of being " scooped " , but the standards are changing for staking your claim on a particular piece of research .
It used to be that a full manuscript in a scientific journal was the only thing sufficient to get credit for something .
Now , people are gradually embracing online resources are a valid way to communicate , and by extension , to prove that they were the source of any particular bit of publicized material .
Even non-finalized material is now more common to make public : Nature has a pre-publication [ nature.com ] online source for publishing findings , and there are journals devoted entirely to negative results , which was previously unheard-of .
The walls are coming down , it 's just a question of finalizing the transition , and winning over the old guard .
Disclosure : I am a professional research scientist , one of the younger ones .
I have a substantial hardware/software project in the works , which will likely be simultaneously published via classic journal , online website , and software via SourceForge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true that it's possible to accomplish a great deal of biology/biochemistry research using just basic tools: I would say that the single greatest analytical tool in biochemistry is the polyacrylamide gel [wikipedia.org], which can be produced and used with no real specialized training or tools.
However, we're moving away from such "crude" techniques towards more sophisticated analytical tools, since in many ways biochemistry is now technology-limited.
Single-molecule work, such as that pioneered by Carlos Bustamante [berkeley.edu] provide insights that would never be possible with classical methods, and on the other end of the spectrum, we're now working on characterizing the entire network [wikipedia.org] of small metabolite molecules simultaneously and quantitatively [scripps.edu].
This kind of work just isn't easily carried out by amateur enthusiasts.
That said, there is certainly quite a bit of research that DIY biologists would be capable of performing, especially considering that they could have access to the same kind of resources that professionals do.
For example, after amplifying a gene, no researcher will sequence it themselves: it's shipped of to a specialized lab that will do it, for a fee.
That sequencing step requires equipment and expertise that's at a higher level than even the pros don't have.
But regardless of theoretical ability, the professionals retain the advantage that it is their job to work on these projects.
The time they can dedicate to their work will be far greater than someone who does it as a hobby.
Back to the subject of "openness", the professional scientific world isn't nearly as closed-off as the article would have you believe.
It is true that there is a persistent fear of being "scooped", but the standards are changing for staking your claim on a particular piece of research.
It used to be that a full manuscript in a scientific journal was the only thing sufficient to get credit for something.
Now, people are gradually embracing online resources are a valid way to communicate, and by extension, to prove that they were the source of any particular bit of publicized material.
Even non-finalized material is now more common to make public: Nature has a pre-publication [nature.com] online source for publishing findings, and there are journals devoted entirely to negative results, which was previously unheard-of.
The walls are coming down, it's just a question of finalizing the transition, and winning over the old guard.
Disclosure: I am a professional research scientist, one of the younger ones.
I have a substantial hardware/software project in the works, which will likely be simultaneously published via classic journal, online website, and software via SourceForge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28404583</id>
	<title>Re:"social pressure .. more ethical research"</title>
	<author>jd</author>
	<datestamp>1245494700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ummm, they're being pressured into biologically re-engineering Hollywood movies, and the corresponding reduction in brain torture will lead to an improvement in ethics?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm , they 're being pressured into biologically re-engineering Hollywood movies , and the corresponding reduction in brain torture will lead to an improvement in ethics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm, they're being pressured into biologically re-engineering Hollywood movies, and the corresponding reduction in brain torture will lead to an improvement in ethics?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403075</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961</id>
	<title>Bottem up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245523020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really, if they are THAT good at research, then why not at a university?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , if they are THAT good at research , then why not at a university ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, if they are THAT good at research, then why not at a university?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28406353</id>
	<title>Re:Bottem up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245506580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because they don't want to deal with promotion and tenure requirements such as getting the big grant, getting a certain number of papers published in high-impact journals, serving on committees (pointless or otherwise), and generally have to deal with cutthroat, big-ego, power-hungry jerks?</p><p>Just a guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because they do n't want to deal with promotion and tenure requirements such as getting the big grant , getting a certain number of papers published in high-impact journals , serving on committees ( pointless or otherwise ) , and generally have to deal with cutthroat , big-ego , power-hungry jerks ? Just a guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because they don't want to deal with promotion and tenure requirements such as getting the big grant, getting a certain number of papers published in high-impact journals, serving on committees (pointless or otherwise), and generally have to deal with cutthroat, big-ego, power-hungry jerks?Just a guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28407277</id>
	<title>Re:Science is already open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245515460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I did it uphill, both ways, and in the snow!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I did it uphill , both ways , and in the snow !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I did it uphill, both ways, and in the snow!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403287</id>
	<title>Varley</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1245525840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Knowing that was sci-fi and everything, still amazed me how people (even childs) in his future vision were able to "self repair" themselves, at the point that medics were treated like car repairmen.<br><br>This DIY Bio looks like going in that direction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Knowing that was sci-fi and everything , still amazed me how people ( even childs ) in his future vision were able to " self repair " themselves , at the point that medics were treated like car repairmen.This DIY Bio looks like going in that direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knowing that was sci-fi and everything, still amazed me how people (even childs) in his future vision were able to "self repair" themselves, at the point that medics were treated like car repairmen.This DIY Bio looks like going in that direction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403641</id>
	<title>ethical questions?? how about potential mayhem...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245528660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quite cute the whole thing, interesting and not unexpected in the long run.<br>But then,<br>this guy is talking about generating modified bacteria producing "vitamin c" and releasing them into the guts of people. And ethical discussions don't start to cover the problems there!</p><p>For starters,</p><p>1) Some newer studies indicate that high intake of vitamin C have/could have a negative effect on health in the long run (maybe kills you afer 20-30 years, just speculation, but what do we know, that's statistics and really hard to check). So, releasing a bug into the wild (meaning us humans) that is constantly producing vitamin C could be a little, hmmm, unhealthy when your old and your retirement is up. That's a real-life-experiment<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>2) Introducing genes is fun (I agree), but did you get rid of all the antibiotic-resistence markers (yep, that's how it normally works). Who checks that? Your bugs will meet the bad guys in the gut (no way around) and then they have a little sharing-your-mine-DNA-party!</p><p>3) Considering the loads of experiments and clinical trials you have to do before you let people eat modified bacteria (and they make sense, what do we know about what it will do in us humans, I mean we never developed a vitamin C production ourselves, maybe there is a reason for that) any hobby-biologist needs quite a lot of stuff and money! Consider selling your new Ferrarri, you will need that money for the tests and the first clinical trial (a handful of people) alone. The 2nd+3rd clinical trials, maybe best to sell your mansion<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</p><p>In my opinion playing biologist at home is fun, on certain levels. But there are good reasons for lab-safety protocols and releasing stuff into the wild. And that's expensive. And releasing stuff into the human population is a gamble with potential dangerous results.</p><p>Oh, and the idea that biological science is not open, is laughable. Yes all scientists do it up to publication. And you do that as fast as possible. Then its practically open source (except the industry). Any supermarket manager hides his internal data better<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>Have fun, let's play:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite cute the whole thing , interesting and not unexpected in the long run.But then,this guy is talking about generating modified bacteria producing " vitamin c " and releasing them into the guts of people .
And ethical discussions do n't start to cover the problems there ! For starters,1 ) Some newer studies indicate that high intake of vitamin C have/could have a negative effect on health in the long run ( maybe kills you afer 20-30 years , just speculation , but what do we know , that 's statistics and really hard to check ) .
So , releasing a bug into the wild ( meaning us humans ) that is constantly producing vitamin C could be a little , hmmm , unhealthy when your old and your retirement is up .
That 's a real-life-experiment : - ) 2 ) Introducing genes is fun ( I agree ) , but did you get rid of all the antibiotic-resistence markers ( yep , that 's how it normally works ) .
Who checks that ?
Your bugs will meet the bad guys in the gut ( no way around ) and then they have a little sharing-your-mine-DNA-party ! 3 ) Considering the loads of experiments and clinical trials you have to do before you let people eat modified bacteria ( and they make sense , what do we know about what it will do in us humans , I mean we never developed a vitamin C production ourselves , maybe there is a reason for that ) any hobby-biologist needs quite a lot of stuff and money !
Consider selling your new Ferrarri , you will need that money for the tests and the first clinical trial ( a handful of people ) alone .
The 2nd + 3rd clinical trials , maybe best to sell your mansion : - ( In my opinion playing biologist at home is fun , on certain levels .
But there are good reasons for lab-safety protocols and releasing stuff into the wild .
And that 's expensive .
And releasing stuff into the human population is a gamble with potential dangerous results.Oh , and the idea that biological science is not open , is laughable .
Yes all scientists do it up to publication .
And you do that as fast as possible .
Then its practically open source ( except the industry ) .
Any supermarket manager hides his internal data better : - ) Have fun , let 's play : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite cute the whole thing, interesting and not unexpected in the long run.But then,this guy is talking about generating modified bacteria producing "vitamin c" and releasing them into the guts of people.
And ethical discussions don't start to cover the problems there!For starters,1) Some newer studies indicate that high intake of vitamin C have/could have a negative effect on health in the long run (maybe kills you afer 20-30 years, just speculation, but what do we know, that's statistics and really hard to check).
So, releasing a bug into the wild (meaning us humans) that is constantly producing vitamin C could be a little, hmmm, unhealthy when your old and your retirement is up.
That's a real-life-experiment :-)2) Introducing genes is fun (I agree), but did you get rid of all the antibiotic-resistence markers (yep, that's how it normally works).
Who checks that?
Your bugs will meet the bad guys in the gut (no way around) and then they have a little sharing-your-mine-DNA-party!3) Considering the loads of experiments and clinical trials you have to do before you let people eat modified bacteria (and they make sense, what do we know about what it will do in us humans, I mean we never developed a vitamin C production ourselves, maybe there is a reason for that) any hobby-biologist needs quite a lot of stuff and money!
Consider selling your new Ferrarri, you will need that money for the tests and the first clinical trial (a handful of people) alone.
The 2nd+3rd clinical trials, maybe best to sell your mansion :-(In my opinion playing biologist at home is fun, on certain levels.
But there are good reasons for lab-safety protocols and releasing stuff into the wild.
And that's expensive.
And releasing stuff into the human population is a gamble with potential dangerous results.Oh, and the idea that biological science is not open, is laughable.
Yes all scientists do it up to publication.
And you do that as fast as possible.
Then its practically open source (except the industry).
Any supermarket manager hides his internal data better :-)Have fun, let's play:-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403131</id>
	<title>Read this yesterday</title>
	<author>Daemonax</author>
	<datestamp>1245524580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I read this yesterday. The 5 minute DNA extraction guide mentioned is awesome. It's incredibly simple. I think I might give it a try sometime this week.
<br>http://www.instructables.com/id/5\_minute\_DNA\_Extraction\_in\_a\_Shot\_Glass/
<br> <br>
Hopefully we're on the cusp of big breakthroughs in biology that will eventually (and soon) give us the science to stay healthy for much longer than we have been able to in the past.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I read this yesterday .
The 5 minute DNA extraction guide mentioned is awesome .
It 's incredibly simple .
I think I might give it a try sometime this week .
http : //www.instructables.com/id/5 \ _minute \ _DNA \ _Extraction \ _in \ _a \ _Shot \ _Glass/ Hopefully we 're on the cusp of big breakthroughs in biology that will eventually ( and soon ) give us the science to stay healthy for much longer than we have been able to in the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read this yesterday.
The 5 minute DNA extraction guide mentioned is awesome.
It's incredibly simple.
I think I might give it a try sometime this week.
http://www.instructables.com/id/5\_minute\_DNA\_Extraction\_in\_a\_Shot\_Glass/
 
Hopefully we're on the cusp of big breakthroughs in biology that will eventually (and soon) give us the science to stay healthy for much longer than we have been able to in the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403299
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28509983
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28406025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28421035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403241
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403173
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28404583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28410085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403351
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28406353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403265
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28407277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28409197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403883
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28404675
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28409811
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28409827
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403075
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28406907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28406127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28405287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28409053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_20_163200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403203
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403933
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28404675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403241
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403245
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403961
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403311
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28410085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28509983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403459
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28406127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28407277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28421035
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28404605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28402961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28406353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28409811
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403883
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28409197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28406025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28409053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28405287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28406907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403203
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_20_163200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28403075
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28409827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_20_163200.28404583
</commentlist>
</conversation>
