Tony Hatfield's Retired Ramblings

more kate and william tat.

wonder if the duke and duchess have one of these in their kitchen?

Posted at 06:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

dr. rutherford unlocks the genetic code but ethical decisions surrounding genomics can't wait

last night dr.adam rutherford's two part 'the gene code' finished its run on bbc4. the first part is no longer on the i-player, but the second part, 'unlocking the code' is still there, rather here.

dr. rutherford, combines journalism-he is the editor of the science journal nature- with a degree in evolutionary biology and a phd in genetics, has an engaging manner of presentation. he makes his subject understandable to the interested layman prepared to put in some effort. the effort is worth while. after all, without a basic understanding of the science, it's becoming increasingly difficult to engage in the ethical debate over genetics and the politcal decisions which, as a society, we will have to make.

the graphs below are from the national human genome research institute.

cost of sequencing a single genome

cost of sequencing megabase (1,000,000 base pairs)

as you can see, with computerisation, the cost of sequencing the genome is falling so rapidly that these decisions will have to be made sooner rather than later.

*moore's law

Posted at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

another t.e.d. talk. this time from ray kurzweil. the incredible speed of technology

Posted at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

ms wade is still in trouble?

....and you should be no more taken in by the news of the world's offer 'apology' yesterday-than rebekah wade's letter to the house of commons dcms committee today.and she's taken EIGHT years to come up with it!

this is the extract from the transcript when chris bryant asks the simple, but killer, question.

467. (Chris Bryant MP) And on the element of whether you ever pay the police for information?

(Ms Wade) We have paid the police for information in the past.

468. (Chris Bryant MP) And will you do it in the future?

(Ms Wade) It depends –

'this is wade's reply recieved by the committee today.

Thank you for your letter dated 29 March 2011 and for giving me the opportunity to clarify comments I made towards the end of my appearance before the culture, media and sports select committee in March 2003.As can be seen from the transcript, I was responding to a specific line of questioning on how newspapers get information. My intention was simply to comment generally on the widely-held belief that payments had been made in the past to police officers.

If, in doing so, I gave the impression that I had knowledge of any specific cases, I can assure you that this was not my intention."

i'm not convinced, why did she say ''we' have paid the police'? who on earth could she have meant?

i suspect the committee may want to ask her a few more questions.

Posted at 05:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)