New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Science in the News
What do you think about the stories in this week's Science news?
(330 previous messages)
rshowalter - 06:16pm Dec 16, 1999 EDT (#331 of 1140)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.eduTHE NEW YORK TIMES, and its reporters, GINA KOLATA and KURT EICHENWALD, have guided and catalyzed as close to a miracle as is likely to happen in human affairs. http://www.nytimes.com/library/financial/121699insurance-cancer.html .
"A number of insurance companies have decided in recent weeks to pay for experimental treatments for cancer, but only for policyholders who participate in clinical trials sanctioned by federal health agencies. .......... with these recent decisions, the insurance industry has begun to signal a willingness to finance medical research, a change that would have seemed improbable just a few years ago."The more I think about this, the more impressive it seems. A large group of actors, each subject to separate institutional complications and interests, came together and agreed to an important, carefully crafted mutual cooperation, expensive to many involved, because it was the right thing to do.
They did so under circumstances that were complicated in many ways, on an issue that was important, but not easily grasped or explained. They did so in clear violation of many ordinary expectations. Many different people must have worked, and worked hard, against their direct, material self interest. Many people who might have blocked progress, did not do so, though blocking the change would have been in their direct, material interest. People did what they felt was the right thing to do. By and large, these people agreed on what the right thing was. And they acted, and the action was workable.
The right thing had been clear to an insurer, to some physicians, and to some others, for a long time - clear, in some cases, for more than a decade. Then, when the TIMES laid the facts and context out, so that many could judge it, and a community of common opinion could come into being, action became possible. The newspapers have a major input into the collective consciousness and conscience of their communities, and THE NEW YORK TIMES is the first among newspapers. When people ask (and not only in Washington)
"What would this look like, written up, in detail, in THE NEW YORK TIMES?"they aren't usually thinking of actual coverage, though they sometimes are. They are thinking of the standards of their common culture, and what it would mean to them to be public actors. When people think of this, they may act more in the interest of the commonweal than they might at other times.
And so, when NYT reporters start asking questions, working through the possibility of a story, they set the people they contact thinking about public spirited action. And when a NYT story prints, they set a big, influential community to thinking. Sometimes good things get done that might never occur without this catalyst.
Under the leadership of the TIMES, a leadership that must have been difficult for the institution of the TIMES, and for the reporters involved, a human change has occurred that must be expected, over time, to significantly extend the lives of many millions of people in America, and all over the world. It is likely to extend the lives of more people than Kolata or Eichenwald are ever going to pass close to in their physical lives.
Good show!
markk46b - 09:29pm Dec 18, 1999 EDT (#332 of 1140)
"Biologists cannot yet synthesize a living cell from the appropriate chemicals. But in the light of recent research findings, the project has become at least conceivable. And the possibility raises two broad sets of questions."
In the light of recent . . . findings. Give me a break. They ain't no where near creating life from raw chemicals. Last night on the Gore Bradley debate Gore spoke of the likelihood of landing a person on Mars, verses Kennedy's prediction of landing one on the Moon. He said it ain't gonna happen . . . creating life, while anything can be written or said, ain't gonna happen any time in the forseeable future either.
kalter.rauch - 04:20am Dec 20, 1999 EDT (#333 of 1140)
Earth vs The <^> <^> <^>If that's what Gore said (vis the unliklihood of landing on Mars), then this is the best proof yet for DE-volution! I suppose he and Tipper would rather concentrate on record labeling schemes for concerned parents. Maybe if he'd listen to the music he'd ban, he'd get some backbone.
markk46b - 02:09am Dec 21, 1999 EDT (#334 of 1140)
Given the speediest any space craft appears apt to go, including whipping around the planet as a speed boost, Mars is just to far. The moon is hours away, with a much smaller gravitational pull to get away from. Like Gore said, Kennedy's projection was based on plausible expectations.
kalter.rauch - 02:52am Dec 21, 1999 EDT (#335 of 1140)
Earth vs The <^> <^> <^>Yes, I see now, markk46b......you want to spare the wussy space heroes of tomorrow the rigors of Hi-G forces that German-trained Mercury-7 astronauts took as desert on top of steak-and-potato dinners......
judderoo - 06:26am Dec 21, 1999 EDT (#336 of 1140)
There was an article in this month's Scientific American regarding mag-lev. One of the possibilities the author suggests is a space shuttle catapult of sorts(rocket gun?) that would enable the shuttle to reach orbit without first stage booster rockets. The article failed to address the question of whether this is a cheap way to send ICBM's or other weapons into suborbital trajectories? Does anyone have information on that possibility?
volchin - 08:04am Dec 21, 1999 EDT (#337 of 1140)
judderoo 12/21/99 6:26am I'm sorry I hadn't read that. But it sounds wierd. To make up for the long steady burn of the boosters, a catapult would have to impart a much greater initial speed, which could be ... uncomfortable. I guess John Glenn wouldn't want to ride one.
I've read stories about mass drivers tossing stuff around the solar system, for instance, as a quick and cheap launch vehicle for building materials from the Moon into Earth orbit. And rail guns as heavy artillery could get a great bang by lofting even inert materials instead of complex bombs. Like dropping hundreds of pounds of concrete.
(803 following messages)
Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Marketplace
Quick News | Page One Plus | International | National/N.Y. | Business | Technology | Science | Sports | Weather | Editorial | Op-Ed | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Diversions |Job Market | Real Estate | Travel
Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company
