Same Old, Same Old

(From Salon). It takes a certain type of doublethink to write a mainstream article on the future of nanomedicine, it seems. How else to explain a piece that lists the tremendous benefits to come, and then tries to convince us - with an array of hoary old straw men and disproved arguments - how terrible it will be to live in such a world? "It's the not-too-distant future, say 2016. You have been diagnosed with Stage III melanoma. Cancer has metastasized throughout your body. Just ten years ago, in 2006, the choice of treatment would have been based on the type of primary cancer, the size and location of the metastasis, your age, general health, and your treatment history. Your prognosis would have been gloomy. But that was back in 2006, before we entered the era of nanomedicine."



Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. New comments can be edited for a few minutes following submission. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.