6/21/2023 0 Comments Bibdesk acsThey suggest understanding photosynthesis as one of those Questions. Harry Gray and Jay Labringer have a recent editorial in Science stating that the Big Questions in chemistry are harder to see. I hope I offended everyone who works on OOL. Let’s harness that power instead of trying to be as “cool” and big-question oriented as physics. Chemistry is a practical science that answers questions about our everyday life. But I don’t think chemistry as a whole should devote a major portion of its efforts to the “big questions” like OOL and what the universe was before the Big Bang. Just like some physicists should work on counting the number of alternate universes. Of course, some chemists should work on OOL. And even if we could find out, who really cares? Will that change our day-to-day life? OOL seems like more of a religious question than one of science. That makes OOL research speculative and uninteresting to me. We might be able to test theories of the OOL, but we won’t be able to observe the true origins of life on this planet. I don’t think we should guide our research on what religious nuts want, but why kick the beehive? Studying OOL is the perfect way to offend a bunch of folks and make the field of chemistry a target of religious nuts. The last thing we need is idiots trying to cut chemistry funding because their faith says something different than the science.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |