On Thursday, March 08, 2001 5:12 PM Jim Fehlinger firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Very disappointing. Not too surprising for a first crack at
> this sort of thing, I guess (though tragic for some of the
> patients -- a sobering lesson for the folks on this list).
I did not find it all that disappointing. You're right about the first
crack (in humans) being a problem here, but that's to be expected. I think
it would've been disappointing if there was no effect at all. The fact that
the test seems to have gone to far means, to me, that it works. It just
needs to be fine tuned.
Now if it didn't work at all, it might have meant several things. Something
could've been wrong with the experiment. The theory might have been wrong.
The amount of cells used might have been too little. Etc.
To me, this is sort of the difference between launching a rocket and getting
the probe on the wrong trajectory but still able to collect data versus have
it blow up on the launch pad.
Also, in the interest of reducing redundancy here, with some of these news
stories that are widely publicized -- I heard this on the radio as well as
read it on the net -- perhaps we should not send the URL or the whole
article, but just mention the event. Less accessible stories are another
matter, but this one was plastered all over the place.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:39 MDT