Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sirlynchmob wrote:the research on rats matter because the theory of evolution is true and their brains are a lot like ours. Anything learned about drug addiction can lead to new treatments and ways to help people.

Before I get upset over money spent on science, there's the matter of 40 billion tax dollars getting paid to the big oil companies from our tax dollars yearly, because they just don't make enough money. not to mention that trillion dollar gift to the banks.

Now that 40 billion yearly would go a long way to help fund disease research and make a down payment on a new space shuttle to get us to mars.

Whats this our gak. You've got a Canadian flag. Are you volunteering for a little M&A? I'll alert the Girl Scout paratroopers to heat em up. All your Tim Hortons are belong to us!

Reading it...

“The ultimate goal of this research is to find medications that can help diminish drug cravings in humans,” Jeffrey R. Gordon, spokesman for the medical school, told The Pulse.

... I'd like to know why people think research trying to cure drug addicts is a waste of money.

It may sound weird, but they've got to have baselines in their research, and if one of the baselines that differentiates the behaviour of normal rats and coked-up rats is their taste in music, then it's entirely sensible.

The article is misreporting and misunderstanding for the sake of sensationalism. It's quite possible to pose the story in a favourable light - for example:

Researchers searching for ways to help cure drug addiction have recently set the first of their control tests.

Bizarre though it sounds, the test involves the differing reactions of sober and cocaine-dosed laboratory rats to music.

"It was very important that we established a psychological or behavioural measurement for our testing", researchers told our reporter, "Merely testing for the presence of drugs in the bloodstream would have provided no useful data to how they were reacting to it. But with this result, we now have a very valuable baseline with which we can start to proceed towards our overall objective - finding medications that can help diminish drug cravings in humans."

And what was the music?

"We found that the sober rats preferred Beethoven's Fur Elise. But the rats that had been given doses of cocaine gravitated towards Miles Davis' Four."

Yeah, I had to make up some quotes, but I imagine there's lots of the interview the media completely ignored. Remember to take any news story you ever see with a pinch of salt, particularly from certain sources.

Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:the research on rats matter because the theory of evolution is true and their brains are a lot like ours. Anything learned about drug addiction can lead to new treatments and ways to help people.

Before I get upset over money spent on science, there's the matter of 40 billion tax dollars getting paid to the big oil companies from our tax dollars yearly, because they just don't make enough money. not to mention that trillion dollar gift to the banks.

Now that 40 billion yearly would go a long way to help fund disease research and make a down payment on a new space shuttle to get us to mars.

Whats this our gak. You've got a Canadian flag. Are you volunteering for a little M&A? I'll alert the Girl Scout paratroopers to heat em up. All your Tim Hortons are belong to us!

I fled to canada, but I'm still an american and if I feel like driving down to arizona I can even vote this november. I spent 15 years saying "If you don't like our country than leave" So one day I realized I no longer liked my country so I left

MarcoSkoll wrote:Reading it...

“The ultimate goal of this research is to find medications that can help diminish drug cravings in humans,” Jeffrey R. Gordon, spokesman for the medical school, told The Pulse.

... I'd like to know why people think research trying to cure drug addicts is a waste of money.

It may sound weird, but they've got to have baselines in their research, and if one of the baselines that differentiates the behaviour of normal rats and coked-up rats is their taste in music, then it's entirely sensible.

The article is misreporting and misunderstanding for the sake of sensationalism. It's quite possible to pose the story in a favourable light - for example:

Researchers searching for ways to help cure drug addiction have recently set the first of their control tests.

Bizarre though it sounds, the test involves the differing reactions of sober and cocaine-dosed laboratory rats to music.

"It was very important that we established a psychological or behavioural measurement for our testing", researchers told our reporter, "Merely testing for the presence of drugs in the bloodstream would have provided no useful data to how they were reacting to it. But with this result, we now have a very valuable baseline with which we can start to proceed towards our overall objective - finding medications that can help diminish drug cravings in humans."

And what was the music?

"We found that the sober rats preferred Beethoven's Fur Elise. But the rats that had been given doses of cocaine gravitated towards Miles Davis' Four."

Yeah, I had to make up some quotes, but I imagine there's lots of the interview the media completely ignored. Remember to take any news story you ever see with a pinch of salt, particularly from certain sources.

I'd be ok with that. However, the effect of cocaine on music listening habits is just mind numbingly stupid in comparison to other studies or actual efforts that could be taken. Thats the problem. Some scientist got a grant from Joe the Taxpayer to live high on the hog and do nothing which takes away from real research.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:the research on rats matter because the theory of evolution is true and their brains are a lot like ours. Anything learned about drug addiction can lead to new treatments and ways to help people.

Before I get upset over money spent on science, there's the matter of 40 billion tax dollars getting paid to the big oil companies from our tax dollars yearly, because they just don't make enough money. not to mention that trillion dollar gift to the banks.

Now that 40 billion yearly would go a long way to help fund disease research and make a down payment on a new space shuttle to get us to mars.

Whats this our gak. You've got a Canadian flag. Are you volunteering for a little M&A? I'll alert the Girl Scout paratroopers to heat em up. All your Tim Hortons are belong to us!

I fled to canada, but I'm still an american and if I feel like driving down to arizona I can even vote this november. I spent 15 years saying "If you don't like our country than leave" So one day I realized I no longer liked my country so I left

TRAITOR! SWEEPS TERMINATE HIM!

Frazzled wrote:

Vitruvian XVII wrote:Yeah im doing pharmacology at the moment, pretty interesting tbh. But creating one successful drug that gets to the market is in the order of many millions iirc. (cant remember if it got to billions, meh, its a lot of money either way)

Its a crime really that everything is driven by profit, especially when we're talking about human lives.

Why? Whats more important, a cure for cancer or a cure for something that impacts 20 people worldwide.
If you don't like it don't whine, elect people who will spend more on important projects like....rats snorting cocaine and jamming to the mellow vibes of Pachelbel.

EDIT: For the record Frazzled is down in a big way with pure medical and science research. Its projects like those noted above that give this a bad name.

A cure for cancer is impossible, because cancer isn't just one simple lil' disease we can figure out.

We cant cure it atm, i hope that in a couple of decades we'll have a decent treatment for it (ie one that doesnt involve debilitating radiation).

Theres some pretty interesting routes being explored through viruses atm.

LoneLictor wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Vitruvian XVII wrote:Yeah im doing pharmacology at the moment, pretty interesting tbh. But creating one successful drug that gets to the market is in the order of many millions iirc. (cant remember if it got to billions, meh, its a lot of money either way)

Its a crime really that everything is driven by profit, especially when we're talking about human lives.

Why? Whats more important, a cure for cancer or a cure for something that impacts 20 people worldwide.
If you don't like it don't whine, elect people who will spend more on important projects like....rats snorting cocaine and jamming to the mellow vibes of Pachelbel.

EDIT: For the record Frazzled is down in a big way with pure medical and science research. Its projects like those noted above that give this a bad name.

A cure for cancer is impossible, because cancer isn't just one simple lil' disease we can figure out.

yes we can.

there's a vaccine for some forms, and their is high hopes for nano bots, they're even working out the gentic code for cancer. Cancer is a genetic disease, it can be cured.

MarcoSkoll wrote:The article is misreporting and misunderstanding for the sake of sensationalism.

Well, these sorts of stories are a staple. For example, I remember there was a huge ruckus some years back about research that was being done on cow farts. After the organization doing the study became a laughingstock, they quietly pointed out that cows reduce an enormous amount of methane via flatulence, and megacorp farming has led to an artificially high number of cows - millions more cows then would "normally" exist if we didn't do large scale agriculture; which has a significant impact on greenhouse gases; more than CO2. So it was actually a really legitimate study. But, you know, explaining things doesn't get as many page views.

I'm much more upset about all the countless billions we squander on defense programs; while any wasted tax dollars are undesirable, the scope blown by the pentagon immensely dwarfs that we spend on civilian research of any kind.

Ouze wrote:

MarcoSkoll wrote:The article is misreporting and misunderstanding for the sake of sensationalism.

Well, these sorts of stories are a staple. For example, I remember there was a huge ruckus some years back about research that was being done on cow farts. After the organization doing the study became a laughingstock, they quietly pointed out that cows reduce an enormous amount of methane via flatulence, and megacorp farming has led to an artificially high number of cows - millions more cows then would "normally" exist if we didn't do large scale agriculture; which has a significant impact on greenhouse gases; more than CO2. So it was actually a really legitimate study. But, you know, explaining things doesn't get as many page views.

I'm much more upset about all the countless billions we squander on defense programs; while any wasted tax dollars are undesirable, the scope blown by the pentagon immensely dwarfs that we spend on civilian research of any kind.

Your justification still sounds stupid.

Its the latter. Shistosomes and some other tropical diseases affect much more than Malaria does, yet get pretty low funding. Of course, you need to have money to be worth saving.

I always look at these diseases as population control. People in these countries have broods of children, if they all survived to adulthood to have broods of their own then overpopulation and starvation would be at catastrophic levels. You know how it works, once you save someones life, you are responsible for it. The more you save the more you have to feed. Shistosomes itself is rarely fatal by the way.

Troy wrote:Your justification still sounds stupid.

Do you intend to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way with your own ideas, or are personal insults all that will be forthcoming?

Ouze wrote:

Troy wrote:Your justification still sounds stupid.

Do you intend to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way with your own ideas, or are personal insults all that will be forthcoming?

Nope I'm good thanks.

So your just going to stick to personal insults then? Theres plenty of youtube comments that need your style of posting rather then DAKKA

wait wait wait, I think we all missed one of the most important parts of the original articles.

These scientists are alllowed to get and have cocaine!

The rats are allowed to do cocaine.

There is no mention of any police raids, arrests or convictions.

Are the laws different for these people and animals?

Could you not make youself a "lab rat" and get some government monies and immunity from the law to get and use the drugs you want, as long as there is some pretense of scientific medical research being done?

The Feds dont care about cocaine buddy. Its on a safer drugs list then pot is. No joke.

...is it me, or does that copied article have the words MOST AMAZING CHIMPS! in the middle? It seems a touch incongruous.

Its a link in the actual article, obviously theres no hyperlink in the copied text so it looks out of place.

That's disappointing. I was hoping they were just spicing up the article.

Im sure the chimps rather enjoy it though
"Oh yea.....sprinkle that lemon juice on ma junk......yea.....naaaaaaughty"

Ouze wrote:Well, these sorts of stories are a staple.

And a very disappointing one at that. It's the media derailing legitimate research for a few more advertising dollars.

This kind of stuff is a great indicator that they think that not enough interesting stuff happened that day. "Today's been too dull. Put out that biased article where we totally misrepresent the hard work of scientists to get the public's attention again."

Shadowseer_Ki wrote:wait wait wait, I think we all missed one of the most important parts of the original articles. Are the laws different for these people and animals?

There's an exception to almost any law if the reasons are "right". Laboratories can work on all sorts of unpleasant diseases, chemicals and weapons that would be illegal for most.

But the controls on such things are pretty strict. So no, the "I'm experimenting on myself" excuse wouldn't get you anywhere. Well, except gaol.

Lots of love for all the armchair scientists in this thread. "That's dumb, they should go research something USEFUL!" Love it.

No stopping to think that maybe specialists in the field know what they're doing and don't make entirely spurious decisions on what to research? Much more fun to assume you know more about it and disparage the researchers as fools.

As to the cow farts issue, methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, cattle contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect. Small changes in feed can drastically reduce the amount emitted. This sort of research is really a very sensible way to spend time, as it's an easy fix to simply alter the feed and therefore reduce emissions. But like a lot of sensible agricultural science it gets slagged off because it's "not important".

Da Boss wrote:Lots of love for all the armchair scientists in this thread. "That's dumb, they should go research something USEFUL!" Love it.

No stopping to think that maybe specialists in the field know what they're doing and don't make entirely spurious decisions on what to research? Much more fun to assume you know more about it and disparage the researchers as fools.

As to the cow farts issue, methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, cattle contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect. Small changes in feed can drastically reduce the amount emitted. This sort of research is really a very sensible way to spend time, as it's an easy fix to simply alter the feed and therefore reduce emissions. But like a lot of sensible agricultural science it gets slagged off because it's "not important".

While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I really don't see how this experiment (rats on coke love Mile Davis) is really useful in anyway.

sirlynchmob wrote:the research on rats matter because the theory of evolution isn't true and their brains are a lot like ours. Anything learned about drug addiction can lead to new treatments and ways to help people.

Before I get upset over money spent on science, there's the matter of 40 billion tax dollars getting paid to the big oil companies from our tax dollars yearly, because they just don't make enough money. not to mention that trillion dollar gift to the banks.

Now that 40 billion yearly would go a long way to help fund disease research and make a down payment on a new space shuttle to get us to mars.

Fixed that for ya.

Cheesecat wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Lots of love for all the armchair scientists in this thread. "That's dumb, they should go research something USEFUL!" Love it.

No stopping to think that maybe specialists in the field know what they're doing and don't make entirely spurious decisions on what to research? Much more fun to assume you know more about it and disparage the researchers as fools.

As to the cow farts issue, methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, cattle contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect. Small changes in feed can drastically reduce the amount emitted. This sort of research is really a very sensible way to spend time, as it's an easy fix to simply alter the feed and therefore reduce emissions. But like a lot of sensible agricultural science it gets slagged off because it's "not important".

While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I really don't see how this experiment (rats on coke love Mile Davis) is really useful in anyway.

I bet the music starts getting played in every rehab clinic to help keep the addicts calm and more at ease.

Cheesecat wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Lots of love for all the armchair scientists in this thread. "That's dumb, they should go research something USEFUL!" Love it.

No stopping to think that maybe specialists in the field know what they're doing and don't make entirely spurious decisions on what to research? Much more fun to assume you know more about it and disparage the researchers as fools.

As to the cow farts issue, methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, cattle contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect. Small changes in feed can drastically reduce the amount emitted. This sort of research is really a very sensible way to spend time, as it's an easy fix to simply alter the feed and therefore reduce emissions. But like a lot of sensible agricultural science it gets slagged off because it's "not important".

While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I really don't see how this experiment (rats on coke love Mile Davis) is really useful in anyway.

Maybe they're seeing whether the coked rats react differently to the doped rats when exposed to the smooth, wonderful tones of Miles Davis?

sirlynchmob wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Lots of love for all the armchair scientists in this thread. "That's dumb, they should go research something USEFUL!" Love it.

No stopping to think that maybe specialists in the field know what they're doing and don't make entirely spurious decisions on what to research? Much more fun to assume you know more about it and disparage the researchers as fools.

As to the cow farts issue, methane is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, cattle contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect. Small changes in feed can drastically reduce the amount emitted. This sort of research is really a very sensible way to spend time, as it's an easy fix to simply alter the feed and therefore reduce emissions. But like a lot of sensible agricultural science it gets slagged off because it's "not important".

While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I really don't see how this experiment (rats on coke love Mile Davis) is really useful in anyway.

I bet the music starts getting played in every rehab clinic to help keep the addicts calm and more at ease.

I suppose, but for some reason I can see coked-up humans having a much larger variety in music taste than coked-up rats, nevermind that

they both have significantly different brain structure as well.

Da Boss wrote:Lots of love for all the armchair scientists in this thread. "That's dumb, they should go research something USEFUL!" Love it.

That was my first thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:
While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I really don't see how this experiment (rats on coke love Mile Davis) is really useful in anyway.

Its a study of the neurological effect of cocaine in terms of practical stimuli.

dogma wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Lots of love for all the armchair scientists in this thread. "That's dumb, they should go research something USEFUL!" Love it.

That was my first thought.

Word.

I saw the thread title, thought of several potentially useful applications for the research, assumed that this was going to be a stupid thread, read it, felt vindicated, and now here we are.

dogma wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Lots of love for all the armchair scientists in this thread. "That's dumb, they should go research something USEFUL!" Love it.

That was my first thought.

It reminds me of when I saw Sarah Palin a couple of years ago saying "I kid you not, our government is spending tons money on "Science experiments" involving testing on fruit flies in France! LOL!"

When even an uneducated pug like me recalls reading a BBC article about how that same research has made a huge contribution to understanding autism? I found it particularly amusing considering SP has a handicapped kid of her own.

Basically, thick gakkers shouldn't open their mouths. If your car breaks down you get a mechanic to fix it. If your toilet explodes you phone a plumber, but if you read something about "Science" en-masse it seems like any dumb feth thinks they have to a right to express an opinion like they know what they are talking about.

I dont know much about animal research so ill keep my mouth shut, I know enough to know that a great many posters are even more clueless than me however.

dogma wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Lots of love for all the armchair scientists in this thread. "That's dumb, they should go research something USEFUL!" Love it.

That was my first thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:
While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I really don't see how this experiment (rats on coke love Mile Davis) is really useful in anyway.

Its a study of the neurological effect of cocaine in terms of practical stimuli.

I'll take your word on it, considering I know very little about cocaine, rats and Miles Davis.