Scientists say crack HIV/AIDS puzzle for drugs

[demoleft]

Source: reuters

LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists say they have solved a crucial puzzle about the AIDS virus after 20 years of research and that their findings could lead to better treatments for HIV.
...
British and U.S. researchers said they had grown a crystal that enabled them to see the structure of an enzyme called integrase, which is found in retroviruses like HIV and is a target for some of the newest HIV medicines.

"Despite initially painstakingly slow progress and very many failed attempts, we did not give up and our effort was finally rewarded," said Peter Cherepanov of Imperial College London, who conducted the research with scientists from Harvard University.

The Imperial and Harvard scientists said that having the integrase structure means researchers can begin fully to understand how integrase inhibitor drugs work, how they might be improved, and how to stop HIV developing resistance to them.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6101AQ20100201

---

best news of the new year, really.

[Jefferson23]

1. Fantastic! K&R

[Wizard777]

2. Amazing! K&R

[sulphurdunn]

3. That is what "intelligent design" really means.

[Beetwasher]

5. What??? That's Fucking Stupid

It means whatever you want it to mean at any given point in time depending on the situation. In other words, it's a bullshit term that means absolutely fucking nothing.

Don't give god any credit for this discovery. These are some brilliant researchers and they deserve their accolades.

[sulphurdunn]

7. Wooah!

Back off buckaroo and take a moment to notice that the phrase "intelligent design" is in small caps and is, therefore, not a proper noun. Get it? :think:

[Beetwasher]

8. Apologies

That is a very small detail, but I can see what you meant now. As long as you aren't pushing that fundie crap here.

[sulphurdunn]

9. Actually, I consider the hypothesis for

Intelligent Design to be interesting theology, dangerous politics and bogus science. However, if I did support it, why shouldn't I be allowed to defend it in the context of a scientific article posted on this site?

[Beetwasher]

10. You Could Do Whatever You Want

But I'd slam you for it and tear you a new asshole.

Oh, BTW, welcome to DU!

[sulphurdunn]

13. Fair enough. Thank you.

[Confusious]

17. You gave him full introductions and a cheery bandwagon, huh?

Has anyone else applied for official greeter? You know, just asking.

I think you're a little rough around the edges, but we can work with that.

:)

Edit: Fing your you're

[Beetwasher]

21. I'm Good Like That

n/t

[D23MIURG23]

18. Interesting how? Its basically a ploy to deny the power of evolutionary theory

in order to tear a big gap in our understanding, so that they can pretend that the methodological naturalism of science fails in practice. It is an exhalation of the obviously false claims of Abrahamic religion over the dubiously useful ethical ideas (the part the "rational" religion crowd typically point to when defending it).

I fail to see how ID is interesting in any sense other than as a pathology to be dissected. The fact that you yourself describe it as "dangerous politics" and "bogus science" but "interesting theology" make me wonder whether you are secretly trying to steal my thunder in arguing that theology is essentially bullshit. If good theology can be both dangerous, and empirically false, what exactly is it good for?

[sulphurdunn]

20. Abstract reasoning

is a relatively recent evolutionary development for a primate brain that weighs about three pounds and devotes 95% of its energies to non-rational functions. All reasoning systems are human inventions. Numbers do not really exist; humans made them up, yet they are very useful. Empiricism is merely one of many possible methods we have invented for finding meaning in the Cosmos, as is theology (religion). Gods are also inventions of our minds, as are ethics and morality. All of our methods of thinking are dangerous (just look at the world we've made). Empiricism's value lies in a methodology that permits falsification, an absolutely necessary condition for the study of material reality. Yet, there may be much more to reality than our materially limited minds perceive or can perceive, even with the best science. That's where theology enters. It is useful to help ponder things that would otherwise be imponderable, but still trouble the mind. Theology's great shortcoming is that it is not falsifiable and can never reveal empirical truth. My position is simply that all facts are true, but not all truths are facts. I am as much concerned with the former as the latter and will not forswear any mode of inquiry regarding either. How about you?

[D23MIURG23]

22. My position is that truth has no meaning if falsification is not permitted.

An idea that can't be tested isn't a truth; its an assumption. Assumptions can be useful to a point, however if your entire discipline is founded on making them with no empirical tests or logical framework to guide them, I think it would be a stretch to call it a form of scholarship. In that case your "truths" become completely arbitrary.

I have no doubt that there are aspects of reality that are beyond our reach as humans, but that doesn't imply that any baseless speculations we invent about such things are elevated to the stature of truth.

In point of fact theology is not beyond empirical testing; its proponents merely assert that it is in order to avoid pointed questions. The catholic church insisted for hundreds of years that the universe must fit the Aristotelian geocentric model, and they were absolutely furious when Galileo blew it out of the water. All the stories in religious texts that involve God(s), miracles, global floods, people coming back from the dead etc. supposedly take place in the world of empirical reality. Its not so much that theology can't be tested, its that theologians insist that you aren't virtuous if you question their claims. This is because most of the claims about empirical reality made by theologians are ridiculous.

More to the point of what this discussion was originally about, Intellegent Design adherents are pretending to be scientists, and therefor make only statements about empirical reality. They won't even talk about "god", instead favoring a "designer" (which sounds more secular, I suppose, if you've been lobotomized with a blunt object). ID is all about arguing that eyeballs couldn't evolve, and using math to make particularly daunting looking "tornado in the junkyard" arguments. So even if you buy the non-overlapping magisteria argument, ID still fails as the trivial pseudoscience it is.

Speaking of ID failing, there was a NOVA special on the cDesign Proponentsists getting kicked out of the school system in Dover, PA that you really should watch. It will end any notion you have about intellegent design being valid on any level. Link at the bottom:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html">Intellegent Design on Trial

[sulphurdunn]

23. Contradicition

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Albert Einstein)

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” (F. Scott Fitzgerald)

I have enjoyed our discussion. I hope we can do it again sometime. Thanks.

[D23MIURG23]

24. I like your quotes, but I'm not sure they make they point that I think you are trying to make.

The kind of deistic reverence Einstein was expressing for the universe does not parallel theology, and particularly does not parallel intelligent design, so your usage is somewhat disingenuous. Its called quote mining, and it isn't particularly convincing. While we are on Einstein however here are a couple for you:


"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth."

Albert Einstein

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Albert Einstein

The final point here is that Einstein used science, not theology, in order to make his impact on humanity. Your intention here is to use his authority as a scientist in order to prop up a discipline (theology) to which he showed only the vaguest support at best. You are also using him as part of an argument to support ID, and this is unacceptable. Intelligent design was specifically designed to undermine science, and only a handful of scientists are willing to be in any way associated with it. I can pretty much guarantee that Einstein was never quoted in support of creationism of any type.

[D23MIURG23]

25. Here is a good quote for you; a theologian on the demise of theology.

“The Christian of the future will be a mystic or he will not exist at all.”
Karl Rahner

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Very confusing headline

Is crack the cure for HIV/AIDS?

[mainer]

6. It's what they call a "crash blossom"

A headline that can be read several ways -- and confuses readers. I just learned that journalistic term this weekend!

[WheelWalker]

12. When I first read the OP subject, I thought it said crack was a new drug treatment.

[AlienGirl]

15. I thought the scientists were asking to be paid in drugs for cracking the problem!

[dugaresa]

14. i am glad i am not the only one who read that headline that way

[boppers]

26. Crack use increases HIV prevalence, and they're just now realizing it?

I think some of the "lost in translation" comes from US/UK idioms.

[M155Y_A1CH]

11. Great news!

:kick:

[donheld]

16. k & R

[rayofreason]

19. More of this, please. n/t