- Topics
- Aerospace
- Animals
- Anthro and Archaeology
- Bio and Medicine
- Brain and Behavior
- Business and Economy
- Computers and Electronics
- Education and Outreach
- Energy and Environment
- Geoscience
- Humor
- Internet and Communication
- Media and Entertainment
- Nanotech, Chem and Materials
- Physics and Numbers
- Security and Defense
- Software
- Space
- Transportation
- Reader Blogs
- Commerce
- Register/Login
- RSS
Ha.
Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2008-03-06 08:19.
You who rally about names supporting a "theoretical nutrition" label! Awesome!
:) I kid of course.
I believe it would be possible to do what you suggest - and my fervent reading of scifi books from the 50's makes me hope it will be possible _soon_. I also fear the path to get there will be through failed products and an industry bent on exacting a fee, potentially outweighing any benefits.
In the end, when looking at the systems of animals (us included), there are so many existing unknowns that I have a hard time believing that our current understanding should allow us to even experiment with people in this area.
The generation before us accepted on faith the promise of science based food and we have grown up with them in our lives - I wonder that it was premature given that even now we publish studies contradicting the effects of wine...(or coffee, or fat, etc..) Not an alarmist, just a person who wonders aloud. :)
Eric

