Friday, December 19, 2008

Name That Research Scientist

 
I'd love to know the name of this "research scientist" and the name of the pharmaceutical company he works for.

From DonaldM at Uncommon Desent:
Today, I had the privilege to have lunch with a research scientist who works in the area of bio-pharmaceuticals for a pharmaceutical company. He told me about their research with proteins and genes that enable them to develop products that alleviate or cure a wide range of diseases at the cellular level. Of great value to the research they do was the Human Genome Project because it made available the entire database to whoever needed it. That information enabled them to move several projects forward.

He knew from our conversation that I had been involved in the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate, so I asked him what role evolution played in all thier research. Now, this is a research facility that is carrying on a huge number of projects across a number of areas in cellular biology, bio-chemistry, hemotology, oncology and other related areas. He said that evolution plays no role whatsoever in their research and that evolutionary theory doesn’t make one whit of difference to the outcome of any of their research projects and never has. To clarify, I said, "so the heuristic value of evolutionary theory to your biological research is…." and he answered "Nil!".


18 comments :

  1. The only thing worse than Argument From Authority has to be Argument From Anonymous Authority.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe it was a marketing guy...
    And seriously, I don't think The Bottom Line cares about evolution.
    On the other hand, HIV does.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is a continuation of a proud creationist tradition - the "I was speaking to this top expert who said that science is a crock of shit" story.

    http://www.kent-hovind.com/professor.htm

    ReplyDelete
  4. Do I, perchance, detect the distinctly pungent aroma of Big Brown Livestock Droppings?

    ReplyDelete
  5. And seriously, I don't think The Bottom Line cares about evolution.
    On the other hand, HIV does.


    Ah, but does the Bottom Line care about HIV?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Was the "pharmaceutical company" one that manufactures homeopathic remedies?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am certain you are correct Mark. After all, those miracle homeopathic "scientific" cure-everything "medicines" are every bit as good as all those varieties of "scientific" creationism!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm sure that this 'research scientist' is like a 3 times Nobel Prize 'nominee' as well...

    ReplyDelete
  9. I believe the scientist in question is the eminent Dr. Amadou Schbagg.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The only thing worse than Argument From Authority has to be Argument From Anonymous Authority.

    Which makes it all the more impressive when you can actually pull it off, as I managed to do recently over at Matt McCormick's blog Atheism: Proving the Negative. The secret is being able to actually walk the walk. Since DonaldM's secret source isn't putting in a personal appearance, there's no way of knowing if he can walk the walk.

    ReplyDelete
  11. HIV-1 evolution under pressure of protease inhibitors: Climbing the stairs of viral fitness
    Ben Berkhout, (review) Journal of Biomedical Science, Volume 6, Number 5 / September, 1999, pp. 298-305, DOI 10.1007/BF02253518

    ReplyDelete
  12. I wonder if Donald asked him how much of a role Intelligent Design Creationism plays in their research...

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I wonder if Donald asked him how much of a role Intelligent Design Creationism plays in their research..."
    If the story is not completely fictional I'd guess the answer to that from this individual would be "an enormous role". Pharmaceutical use of genomic data is generally in the use of structural analysis to aid identification of drug-able target sites. It's essentially reverse engineering an inhibitory binding molecule from knowledge of a catalytic site. IDiots generally call such approaches 'Intelligent Design' even though it obviously has nothing to do with the creationist theory of Intelligent Design.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It is possible to be involved in the development of biologic pharmaceuticals and not use evolution.

    It might be that this person is simply testing compounds agains a bank of targets and monitoring results.

    I note the question wasn't "Does evolution play a role in dsrug discovery and development?" The answer to that is clearly yes. For example ask why pre-clinical trials of any prospective drug includes testing on two mammal species and not birds or reptiles.

    However, using this tactic the IDiots are about to revolutionise the car industry:

    He knew from our conversation that I had been involved in the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate, so I asked him what role car wheels played in his work installing car engines. Now, this is a car plant that is building a huge number of cars across a number of models. He said that car wheels play no role whatsoever in his work and that car wheels don’t make one whit of difference to the outcome of any of their work installing engins on any model and never has. To clarify, I said, "so the heuristic value of car wheels to your work is…." and he answered "Nil!".

    Clearly car wheels are of no use in building cars


    Yes IDiots are that stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Name That Research Scientist"

    OK. I dub him Deservedly Anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "IDiots generally call such approaches 'Intelligent Design' even though it obviously has nothing to do with the creationist theory of Intelligent Design."

    In much the same way some of them claim the Miller-Urey experiments are evidence of Design ('why, the apparatus was designed! the lab the expertiments took place in were designed!")...

    Which is why most of them are rightly called IDiots.

    ReplyDelete
  17. That research scientist is obviously Dr. Laurence Moran

    ReplyDelete