Building a better bug Scientists. They've got all the answers, don't they? Too bad they're usually not the RIGHT answers. All too often,
the pointy-heads in white lab coats point us in a direction that
doesn't make much sense. As much as I'd love to be able to be
hopeful about science and technology as engines for solving most
of today's health problems, I cannot turn myself over to such
blind optimism. Why? Because science is in many cases little more than the
handmaiden of government, big business, and special interests.
And while the march of science would grind to a halt if it
weren't for these entities footing the bill, they nevertheless
represent corrupting influences that often end up skewing the
purity of science toward some ridiculous end of policy (or
profit). Case in point: Mosquito-borne illnesses. We already know how to stop it: DDT and other pesticides. In
other words, slaughter those diseased little buzz bombs. But is
this economical, beneficial, and perfectly viable solution good
enough for the environmentalist nut-jobs? NO! They'd rather let
human beings die of horrible diseases than kill anything living,
or expose the precious Earth to anything chemical, no matter how
harmless (yes, I mean DDT - it doesn't thin eggshells or cause
disease at all. Look it up). So what's THEIR pet solution to the problem of insect-vectored
pestilence? BIO-ENGINEERED MOSQUITOS! I'm not making this up, I swear. According to several sources,
there has been a coordinated movement within the scientific
community over the last decade or so (who's paying for it, I
haven't a clue) to develop a genetically altered strain of
mosquito that is unable to transmit diseases to humans. The
first such "franken-skeeter" reportedly breathed life in May of
2000. Who knows how long it'll be before they are released into
the wild by the billion. Maybe tomorrow… What's wrong with a "designer" bug that can't infect humans? In
theory, nothing. For the record, I have no fundamental objection
to genetic engineering as long as it's aimed toward a good end.
As you'll remember, not long ago I told you about the Omega Egg,
a bio-engineered egg that's far richer in beneficial Omega-3
fatty acids than the already-healthy "regular" egg. The problem is that when it comes to developing whole new
SPECIES, things get a little harder to control and predict. Both
mosquitoes and the diseases they spread have shown themselves to
be remarkably adaptable and resistant to control, and in
relatively short time spans. What if these "kinder, gentler
pests" spur the natural development of some new super-virus they
CAN spread - one that CAN'T be stopped by any known form of
medicine? Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't explore these kinds of
solutions, I'm just saying this: Life (especially disease)
always finds a way to improvise, adapt, and overcome. If we
proceed with the large-scale development and deployment of these
bio-engineered biters, it should be with extreme caution and
lots of foresight. But if you ask me, it would be safer and cheaper to just break
out the DDT and wipe those little buggers out. *********************************************** Science proves men are "hard-wired" to pick up the tab Once again, anthropologists have proven something that
advertising executives already know about the dynamics of
male/female interaction… Specifically, that a pretty face compels men to spend their
money! A recent Canadian study reveals that after seeing pictures of
attractive women (as determined by a popular Website that rates
people's attractiveness), male subjects were more likely to want
an immediate monetary payoff - rather than wait for a 31%
greater payday just one week later. Pictures of fancy cars and
other enticements did NOT spur men to want to cash in
immediately - only the pretty girls. The reason, according to
the study's authors, is that money in the hand signifies the
ability to impress and woo women in the here and now, tomorrow
be damned. Even though the prospect of getting nearly a third MORE money
just 7 days later makes eminently more sense from a financial
standpoint, it obviously equates on some subconscious level to
being too late to "get the girl." Apparently, the bulk of men
must perceive that by next week, someone else with a full wallet
will have snatched her up already. Regrettably, this research
doesn't prove what women want in a man (could any study pin this
down?), only what men THINK women are looking for in a mate… And as usual when it comes to the fairer sex, we're probably
wrong. Interestingly enough, none of the study's female subjects
registered an increase in desire for immediate cash after
viewing pictures of male eye candy. Some might read this as
evidence that men are naturally SUPPOSED to pay for things
during a courtship, even in this age of the "liberated" woman. I just think it means women are smarter with their money. Keeping "tabs" on the truth - and the consequences, William Campbell Douglass II, MD | 
